Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-el
- - - , 20- - September 10, 2003
| From: | kolb-list(at)matronics.com |
| Subject: | Cage welding ??? Help |
If a repair is needed to a small tube in the cage what is the preferred
method of welding ? MIG (flux core or inert gas?)/ acetylene (what rod ??)
thanks
! Dave
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cage welding ??? Help |
The EAA site has a page on that subject.
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/authors/davisson/Aircraft%20Welding
%20and%20Steel%20Tube%20Fabrication%20-%20Part%203.html
Just in case this doesn't paste right, they say that for acetylene welding,
use mild steel rod. And they don't mention MIG welding.
I have done a bunch of mods on my MKIII cage with this setup, and also
welded a J-6 fuselage from scratch with oxy-acetylene and mild steel rod.
Works fine.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420p (420ldPoops)
>
>If a repair is needed to a small tube in the cage what is the preferred
>method of welding ? MIG (flux core or inert gas?)/ acetylene (what rod
>??) thanks
>! Dave
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cage welding ??? Help |
Looked a bit more at the EAA site, here is the index.
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/authors/davisson/index.html
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>If a repair is needed to a small tube in the cage what is the preferred
>method of welding ? MIG (flux core or inert gas?)/ acetylene (what rod
>??) thanks
>! Dave
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>
>Gentlemen, I am in need of some sort of air powered rivet gun to put my
>Firestar back together. Does anyone have any experience using one of these
>things? Any advice on pros and cons would be appreciated, and if anyone has
>a preference on a brand name that would be helpful too. How many yards of
>fabric are needed to recover a Firestar?
>
>G. Murphy 85 Firestar Alabama
I don't know George? For what you have to do, unless you are completely
building new wings, I might use the hand pulled guns. I have one of the
"air-powered" rivet guns, but you can't tell if they pull up all the way
before the stem breaks off on the alum rivets. You can "feel" the rivets
seat with the hand pulled gun. You can use my "air powered gun" if you
want, but most of the fabric and alum rivets are pretty easy to pull.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
I have a 582 twin rads mounted near the gear box. Never had a problem with
them.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Cowan" <tcowan1917(at)direcway.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: 582
>
> would like to know if there are any really successfull installations of
the
> 582 with the twin radiators in back or is it better to remount them to the
> front of the engine or is it better to get an aftermarket radiator and rig
> it in front of the engine? Seems the threads I kept hearing were of
> failures and how difficult it is to keep them cool. Are they worth the
> extra horsepower to have to mess with this? I have just aquired a
slingshot
> and have a 582 with an E box and need to mount the water system in a
couple
> of weeks or month. You can email me separate with pics if you would
> respond. I suppose there are applications where they work and not work
> depending on the situation. I think a slingshot would be easier for the
> motor to push through the air compared to a MkIII but what do I know. I
> have checked the archives and there doesnt seem to be a lot out there. I
> need input!! thanks. (I would rather have a BMW 1100 with a C on it but
> what the heck. I dont want to be an engineer or a test pilot in any case.
> Thanks for the response. By the way, mine is number 30, last one the
> factory produced. Got a classic! Ted Cowan, Alabama
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noseover Tendancy - Kolb |
> A few years ago at Sun and Fun I put the factory
> Fire Fly on its nose. Was a matter of high hp or
> two folks up front.
Must have been a real close and personal friend to get the two of you in
a firefly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> I have a 582 twin rads mounted near the gear box. Never had a problem with
> them. Woody
Woody/All:
Don't guess it is that cool Canadian air that
makes it work because I had the same set up on my
582. Worked as intended.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Hauck" <jimh474(at)earthlink.net> |
Folks;
TIG, MIG and Gas Welding is an acceptable means for welding 4130 steel.
TIG and MIG are preferable over gas. Gas welders with little experience either
over heat the weld and burn all the carbon out of the steel or don't use enough
heat to penetrate the steel. The same can be true with TIG or MIG if the individual
doesn't have the experience in welding.
Tig keeps the molten steel trapped in a bubble of Argon that doesn't allow hydrogen
to enter the molten steel and create brittleness.
Mig welding should be done with insert gas, 75% CO2 and 25% argon. Straight CO2,
allows for a lot of splatter that the mix doesn't. I would never use Flux Core
as a means to weld 4130 as it is easy to get flux inclusion in the weld. Also
too much smoke and it is hard to see the molten puddle of steel and see what
it is doing.
On cages I use MIG and on small pieces and controls I use TIG. Just my preference.
NEVER braze 4130 in any structure that your Butt is depending on.
I rebuilt a pranged Twin Star cage a few years ago after it had been repaired by
an EXPERT. The Expert brazed the repair tubes in.
Jim Hauck
Been learning to weld for 55 years, still learning.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: adrenaline time |
> Guess I can die happy now........once around the pattern, nothing bent.
> Must have had an air bubble in the coolant because the temp went too
> high to spend any time fiddlin around getting "familiarized".
-anonymous
-anonymous/All:
How come it didn't get hot on the ground when you
did your runup?
Glad you survived the bubble and the airplane flies.
Congrats!
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax lighting coil |
>
>Jack,
>The Key West is a shunt regulator according to the manufacturer I spoke
>directly with, a branch of the Titan operation. It's a simples design that
>works but I feel a switcher would be required for a high current output
>alternative due to the changing voltage level and frequency as RPM
>changes. Did you fly it while doing your temperature test or just a burst
>of high power? Did you vary the power loading?
>jerb
>
>>
Jerb,
I had, at most, a four ampere load, the radio, gps, and strobes. I stuck a the
thermister to an in/out door temperature gage to the back of the regulator and
covered it with kids clay. To keep it in place I wrapped it with a rag and
used some wire ties to keep the whole thing together. I flew with the indicator
held to my leg with masking tape.
The indicator was easy to see, and I watched it on and off during the flight.
Did not see a dramatic change in the surface temperature. I did not expect much
because the unit is not made with cooling fins, so I assumed they were not
needed. I mounted the regulator up under the engine mount support tube, so that
the leads to the alternator are very short.
The strobes had no switch so they would be on any time the engine was running.
The radio and the gps can be turned off, but I leave them on most of the time.
Helps to detect who is coming to my home airport, and this helps me to keep
out of their way.
I am glad to hear that some one communicated directly with Key West about what
type of regulator it is. I have tried off and on to find a number to call, but
I was not successful.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Harrison" <firestarii(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Drag strut brace / Quality of parts |
If I may ask Ed, what does a complete set of 7-rib wings cost? I may be
doing the same thing in the future.
>From: "Ed Bonsell" <ebonsell(at)earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Kolb-List: Drag strut brace / Quality of parts
>Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:32:47 -0700
>
>
>Hi All,
>
>I'm building a set of 7 rib wings for my 86 Firestar. About a month ago I
>posted a message saying I had a problem with the quality of parts supplied
>by TNK. Why don't I start at the beginning. I bought all the steel parts
>from TNK. When they arrived I finished off the rough edges and painted them
>with epoxy paint. First the H sections were so far out of square they
>couldn't be used. They had to be sent back.
>
>The inboard wing ribs were next. They too were not square and had to be
>sent back. When the replacements arrived one was ok, the other one had the
>drag strut brace tube welded in at the wrong angle. That went back. The
>replacement had the same problem. The drag strut tube was welded off to the
>side and down from the correct angle but is barely acceptable.
>
>So a month ago I go to install the drag strut and find the legs on the
>short drag strut brace are too long to fit properly and they were welded a
>few degrees off from the correct angle. I mentioned this on the list and a
>member suggested I send them back because they probably go to the firefly
>wing.
>
>Well, I got the same ones back with a note saying if the legs are too long
>they should be cut to the correct length by the builder. How would I know
>if they were too long until I arrived at this stage of assembly?
>Does this mean I can't paint all the pieces at one time? I have to adjust
>and paint each piece one at a time as I go? Cutting the legs is not a
>problem, but shouldn't they be the same length on every wing?
>
>The only way I can install this brace is to bend it so it doesn't hit the
>rib next to and bend it out of shape.
>
>The Quality of parts I've gotten from TNK is crap compared to what I got
>when I first built it,
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Ed Bonsell / 86 Firestar.
>
>
>.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Pierzina" <planecrazzzy(at)lycos.com> |
Hey...,
Mig is the easiest ( hard wire & CO2 ) But make sure you PRE-HEAT ....TIG
is good but your suppose to aneal it with a torch afterwards....and then theres
Oxycetelene...
Kolb uses MIG but they don't preheat and the weld starts out as a COLD LAP ....
Gotta Fly...
Mike in MN Fabracating Oil Tank
---
Sometimes you just have to take the leap
and build your wings on the way down...
Gotta Fly...
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gherkins Tim-rp3420 <rp3420(at)motorola.com> |
Mike,
What is the best way to preheat and for how long or hot? Will the weld flow easier
when pre heated.
Rookie welder Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Pierzina [mailto:planecrazzzy(at)lycos.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Welding Cage
Hey...,
Mig is the easiest ( hard wire & CO2 ) But make sure you PRE-HEAT ....TIG
is good but your suppose to aneal it with a torch afterwards....and then theres
Oxycetelene...
Kolb uses MIG but they don't preheat and the weld starts out as a COLD LAP ....
Gotta Fly...
Mike in MN Fabracating Oil Tank
---
Sometimes you just have to take the leap
and build your wings on the way down...
Gotta Fly...
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax lighting coil |
<< jerb wrote: Has anybody seen a fuse block that mounts similar to a
terminal strip that
can hold say 1-5 automotive style fuses. jerb >>
Jerb, and Others -
I wired my electrical system using an automotive fuse block that holds 6
blade-type automotive fuses. It's compact (2x3 inches), simple, and easy to
mount. Checker Auto supply, approx 6 dollars. The trick is finding 3-amp
blade fuses. Most places carry 5, 10, 15, (etc.) -amp fuses. You'll have
to shop around for a 3-amp blade fuse.
Dennis Kirby
Mark-3, Verner-1400
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Hauck" <jimh474(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MIG vs TIG message of Sun, 17 Aug 2003 23:56:19 |
Y'all;
Weld the way you desire, if it works for you that is what counts.
Bye the way, Have you ever heard of an air-cooled TIG torch? I've been using
one for years, I've used water cooled also.
Jim Hauck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
Roger, My son made me two copies of the blue prints before I started the
project in 99. I could get one of them to you if you have no alternative.G.Aman
FS2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken W Korenek <kenkorenek(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Drag strut brace / Quality of parts |
>
>
>If I may ask Ed, what does a complete set of 7-rib wings cost? I may be
>doing the same thing in the future.
>
>
I bought the first "wings only" kit from Kolb last May and the kit, some
extras like a triple strobe, a few tools like a pneumatic rivet puller,
Poly-fiber coverings (and tools to apply- irons, pinking shears,
inspection covers) and PolyTone paint cost me right at $5500 complete.
I borrowed an airless sprayer to do the painting. I guess I spent
around $200 on wood for fixtures, a really flat building table, and a
rack to hold the stock materials before I used them.
There are things I'd recommend to a new wing builder: Put a hand hold
in the wing tips. Invaluable tool when folding the wings and just
plain ground handling, wingtip strobes, inspection holes (paint the
covers now and use them when you finally cut open the inspection holes)
in about 6 places and "x" hinges with fabric gap seals. Use the round
tube lift struts and install the vinyl aerodynamic covers on them with
enough support to allow you to push/pull on the lift struts for ground
handling. Use an allternative method to attach the aileron ribs to the
trailing edge to get rid of the "Homer Hump." You'll be glad you did.
Took me 335 hours from first hole to last coat of paint and attachment
of the finished wing to the fuselage and the really detailed preflight
before I jumped in and roared off into the wild blue. Have to give
John Williamson a big thanks for helping me during that process. He was
a big help.
I've got some more lessons learned if anyone wants to call me about
them. Way too much to type. I'd also send a CD of the several
hundred photos that I took of the jigs and building process to anyone
who really needs them....
Ken Korenek
N104KK
314-837-3265 Home (after 6 PM)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Schieck <rschieck(at)mers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List 2 strokes |
>
> 1. The pilot is descending in a shallow descent at a relatively high airspeed
and
> throttle partially open (about half way or so). This is very dangerous setting,
Giant Snip
I already slayed this dragon, So here are some numbers:
582 with a GSC 3 Bladed 67 " prop
Static RPM on the Ground 5600 - 5700
Climb RPM (55 MPH) 5800 - 5900
WOT (88 MPH) 6400 - 6500
You can descend any way you want and the EGTs will not hit 1200 degrees.
The EGTs run between 1000 degrees and 1125 - 1150 degrees depending
upon what you are doing. I am contemplating reducing the size of the
main get to raise the EGTs.
keep smiling
Rob from Ontario
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax lighting coil |
In a message dated 8/17/03 10:49:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ulflyer(at)verizon.net writes:
> Has anybody seen a fuse block that mounts similar to a terminal strip that
> can hold say 1-5 automotive style fuses.
> jerb
>
Allen Bradley and other industrial control suppliers make them sold at
Electrical Industrial equipment distributors, usually only locals although Graybar
may have them also.
george Randolph
Firestar driver from Akron, home of Lebron James, soon to be Ocala Fla
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Russell" <jr(at)rometool.com> |
Rotax 912S Engine Package, less than 150 hours.
1-912S Engine
1-Titan stainless exhaust
1-Rotax coolant radiator
1-Rotax oil cooler radiator
1-3-Blade Warp prop/72"
1-Custom machined 4" prop extention
1-EIS
1-Throttle cable assembly
1-Enrichment cables
1-Engine mount for Kolb
All for $10500.00
Currently mounted on a Slingshot
John Russell cell 706-506-3108
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Tail Weel Springs |
I have the optional full swivel tail wheel with the supplied tail wheel
springs. On my flight to Oshkosh I landed one time where the winds were
blowing 15-20mph on a black top runway. When I tried to turn cross wind the
tail wheel wouldn't turn. I had to stand on a wheel brake fairly hard. I
then had to taxi cross wind for almost a mile strait and I had to fully
deflect the rudder AND drag a wheel brake to taxi strait. I made a mental
note that when I got back I would order heaver compression springs for the
tail wheel.
When I was a Oshkosh I attended a forum where the speaker was saying that
their tail wheels are direct connected for better control. He said that tail
wheels controlled by springs are always lagging behind user input.
My question is should I just direct connect the tail wheel to the rudder or
use heaver springs?
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Weel Springs |
There must be a good reason why most all factory built tailwheels use spring
in their linkage and are not direct. It is probably lighter, and more
forgiving to landing with the tail wheel cocked. This gives to time to
recover so you don't shoot into the weeds.
Remember opinions are like noses... every one has their own and they always
pick theirs.
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
Actively supporting Aeroncas every day
Quarterly newsletters on time
Reasonable document reprints
1-518-731-6800
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Tail Weel Springs
>
> I have the optional full swivel tail wheel with the supplied tail wheel
> springs. On my flight to Oshkosh I landed one time where the winds were
> blowing 15-20mph on a black top runway. When I tried to turn cross wind
the
> tail wheel wouldn't turn. I had to stand on a wheel brake fairly hard. I
> then had to taxi cross wind for almost a mile strait and I had to fully
> deflect the rudder AND drag a wheel brake to taxi strait. I made a mental
> note that when I got back I would order heaver compression springs for the
> tail wheel.
>
> When I was a Oshkosh I attended a forum where the speaker was saying that
> their tail wheels are direct connected for better control. He said that
tail
> wheels controlled by springs are always lagging behind user input.
>
> My question is should I just direct connect the tail wheel to the rudder
or
> use heaver springs?
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Weel Springs |
> I have the optional full swivel tail wheel with the supplied tail wheel
> springs. On my flight to Oshkosh I landed one time where the winds were
> blowing 15-20mph on a black top runway.
> My question is should I just direct connect the tail wheel to the rudder or
> use heaver springs?
>
> Rick Neilsen
Rick/Gang:
That's a lot of cross wind for any aircraft, most
especially a light plane like a MK III.
I personally would not use a direct link, on my
aircraft, from rudder horn to tail wheel horn. I
can envision a short life for rudder and possibly
the tail wheel.
I use compression springs supplied by Maule
Aircraft for their tail wheels, which I have also
used for many years on my MK III. However, I use
two of the smaller compression springs, rather
than one large and one small as supplied in their kit.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Weel Springs |
Rick, I experienced the same thing with that tailwheel and I don't have
differential braking to compensate. For my taxi tests and initial flight
I didn't screw with it and put on the old skinny direct-acting wheel.
Here's what I found, there's a little pop-in/out cam inside that makes
it break away at 45 deg. .....too early. I got out the dremel tool and
hand machined the action cavity to the point where the break occurs
closer to 90deg. -haven't tried it yet but I know it will be better than it
was. If you take it apart be cautious, the little springy thing inside will
pop out and disappear in the rubble of your workshop. -BB, MkIII,
dormant as a result of having to repaint the guest bedroom.
Richard & Martha Neilsen wrote:
>
>I have the optional full swivel tail wheel with the supplied tail wheel
>springs. On my flight to Oshkosh I landed one time where the winds were
>blowing 15-20mph on a black top runway. When I tried to turn cross wind the
>tail wheel wouldn't turn. I had to stand on a wheel brake fairly hard. I
>then had to taxi cross wind for almost a mile strait and I had to fully
>deflect the rudder AND drag a wheel brake to taxi strait. I made a mental
>note that when I got back I would order heaver compression springs for the
>tail wheel.
>
>When I was a Oshkosh I attended a forum where the speaker was saying that
>their tail wheels are direct connected for better control. He said that tail
>wheels controlled by springs are always lagging behind user input.
>
>My question is should I just direct connect the tail wheel to the rudder or
>use heaver springs?
>
>Rick Neilsen
>Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 sixtees or one 72 |
Kirk, the question you ask takes a few assumptions to caculate...but..here
goes...
assumption #1...both props have the exact same effieciency along the entire
length of the blade., (which is very unlikely) and will move the same amount
of air per inch of blade length
assumption #2...they can be pitched exactly the same...likely
#3..they are turning the exact same rpm level by horsepower avail...possible
ok...Thrust is figured in weight ...and it is the weight of the medium being
moved..which in this is air...
so ..how much air will they move?...it is a simple area caculation...
Area of a circle is Pi x R squared
on the 60 it is 3.1416x30x30=2827.44x2.....for 2 props....5654.88
on the 72 it is 3.1416x36x36=4071.5.............for 1 prop....4071.5
so the single 72 has 71% of the area of the 2 60's
Now we know that the area of the 2 60's is larger by 29%...ok...will the a
pair of 40 horse be enough here.?..likely they each will not carry the same
pitch as the 80, because there is 1/2 the hp avail and more than 1/2 the
area in each prop. if we had an effieciency rating on the props..we could
continue this caculation and come up with an answer..but ..as prop
effieciency changes at rpms..airspeed and pitch settings...and you cant get
an reliable number from a manufacturer. we are stuck at this point in the
equation...we need a test Cell to find out the answer at the rpm level...the
pitch level and the airspeed that fits our aircraft envelope.
Don Gherardini
Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
800-626-7326
Don Gherardini
Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
800-626-7326
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Pierzina" <planecrazzzy(at)lycos.com> |
Hey Tim,
SNIP>>>>
What is the best way to preheat and for how long or hot? Will the weld flow easier
when pre heated. Rookie welder Tim
For Small stuff I use my Push button instant light propane torch ..... all you
need to do is "SWEAT" the material. You'll see the moistier disapear....it's
around 220 degrees....
And yes the weld will purr right from the start.
If your welding thicker material with a small mig , like 1/4 in or so, give it
a little more heat....sometimes if the steel your welding is thicker , it can
acually "ROB" the heat from your weld....making it crack.
Gotta Fly...
Mike in MN
I'm a Fitter/ Welder at Lejeune Steel...What a HOT , MUGGY DAY today !!!! and
then button up your shirt, put heavy leather gloves on and get close to that
nice HOT weld !
---
Sometimes you just have to take the leap
and build your wings on the way down...
Gotta Fly...
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski(at)rocketjet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 sixtees or one 72 |
Don,
Your logic is correct to a point, but I believe your made a wrong turn
in your conclusion. Area is the key factor. A 72" disk has 44% more area
than a 60" disk. The same engine proped for max. thrust, will move much
more air with a 72" prop than with a 60" prop. Up to this point we are in
agreement I assume.
But, the conclusion I would draw is that the the 80hp is far more
effectively utilized using one 72" prop than by splitting it up & driving
two inferior 60" props. The most work will be accomplised by most
efficiently using the total HP. This is how I would approach the idea.
...Richard Swiderski
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 2 sixtees or one 72
>
> Kirk, the question you ask takes a few assumptions to caculate...but..here
> goes...
>
> assumption #1...both props have the exact same effieciency along the
entire
> length of the blade., (which is very unlikely) and will move the same
amount
> of air per inch of blade length
> assumption #2...they can be pitched exactly the same...likely
> #3..they are turning the exact same rpm level by horsepower
avail...possible
>
> ok...Thrust is figured in weight ...and it is the weight of the medium
being
> moved..which in this is air...
>
> so ..how much air will they move?...it is a simple area caculation...
>
> Area of a circle is Pi x R squared
>
> on the 60 it is 3.1416x30x30=2827.44x2.....for 2 props....5654.88
> on the 72 it is 3.1416x36x36=4071.5.............for 1 prop....4071.5
>
> so the single 72 has 71% of the area of the 2 60's
>
> Now we know that the area of the 2 60's is larger by 29%...ok...will the
a
> pair of 40 horse be enough here.?..likely they each will not carry the
same
> pitch as the 80, because there is 1/2 the hp avail and more than 1/2 the
> area in each prop. if we had an effieciency rating on the props..we could
> continue this caculation and come up with an answer..but ..as prop
> effieciency changes at rpms..airspeed and pitch settings...and you cant
get
> an reliable number from a manufacturer. we are stuck at this point in the
> equation...we need a test Cell to find out the answer at the rpm
level...the
> pitch level and the airspeed that fits our aircraft envelope.
>
> Don Gherardini
> Sales / Engineering dept.
> American Honda Engines
> Power Equipment Company
> 800-626-7326
>
>
> Don Gherardini
> Sales / Engineering dept.
> American Honda Engines
> Power Equipment Company
> 800-626-7326
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <Cavuontop(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Your application |
Please see the attached file for details.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <3Culpilot(at)cavtel.net> |
See the attached file for details
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 sixtees or one 72 |
Richard & Don,
For what it is worth analysis. I have run some numbers to try and figure out how
to get better propeller performance on the FireFly. One of the tricks, I have
learned is that if a prop is too large, the forward advance speed of the propeller
at 100 percent efficiency becomes too low for good cruise. One is moving
a lot of air but with little forward velocity. If one reduces the propeller
diameter and increases the pitch, the engine can still move the same amount
of air as a larger propeller and, at the same time, increase the forward advance
speed and there by give a better cruise speed.
If one assumes equal propeller efficiencies between the 60" and 72" props, then
the thrust delivered will be directly proportional to the mass or volume of air
passing through the propellers. Further assuming all engines have the same
gear ratio and develop their max hp at the same speeds and have similar shaped/sloped
torque curves, one can calculate the differences in propeller advance
speeds to see which situation will give the best performance.
Assuming the 72 inch prop has a pitch of 20 degrees and 100 percent efficiency,
the propeller tip will advance 77.4 inches in one revolution [(d x pi) x sin(20)]
and during one revolution the propeller will displace 182.3 cubic feet of
air (d x d x pi x 77.4)/(4 x 1728). If the gear ratio is 2.7 and the engine
develops its power at 5,000 rpm, the 100 percent efficient propeller will advance
forward at the rate of 137.5 miles per hour (77.4/12)x(5,000/2.7)x(60/5280).
To absorb the same amount of hp, the two 60 inch propellers must move the same
amount of air or 182.3 cubic feet of air between them or 91.2 cubic feet for each
turn. The 60 inch (5 foot) propeller advance in one turn will be 55.7 inches
[(91.2/(pi x 5 x 5)] x 4 x 12. Using the same rpm and gear ratio the propeller
advance speed will be 99 miles per hour.
Given both engine/prop and aircraft combinations show the same overall drag, the
72 inch propeller will give a higher cruise speed, and the 60 inch double propeller
will give better climb.
The other way to look at this condition is as if the two 60 inch propellers were
one propeller that swept the same area. If this is done, one would have a new
single propeller of 84.8 inches in diameter. If one goes through the math
again, this propeller calculates out the same as the two 60 inch propellers above.
Fun on a slow day.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>
>Don,
>
> Your logic is correct to a point, but I believe your made a wrong turn
>in your conclusion. Area is the key factor. A 72" disk has 44% more area
>than a 60" disk. The same engine proped for max. thrust, will move much
>more air with a 72" prop than with a 60" prop. Up to this point we are in
>agreement I assume.
> But, the conclusion I would draw is that the the 80hp is far more
>effectively utilized using one 72" prop than by splitting it up & driving
>two inferior 60" props. The most work will be accomplised by most
>efficiently using the total HP. This is how I would approach the idea.
>...Richard Swiderski
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 2 sixtees or one 72
>
>
>>
>> Kirk, the question you ask takes a few assumptions to caculate...but..here
>> goes...
>>
>> assumption #1...both props have the exact same effieciency along the
>entire
>> length of the blade., (which is very unlikely) and will move the same
>amount
>> of air per inch of blade length
>> assumption #2...they can be pitched exactly the same...likely
>> #3..they are turning the exact same rpm level by horsepower
>avail...possible
>>
>> ok...Thrust is figured in weight ...and it is the weight of the medium
>being
>> moved..which in this is air...
>>
>> so ..how much air will they move?...it is a simple area caculation...
>>
>> Area of a circle is Pi x R squared
>>
>> on the 60 it is 3.1416x30x30=2827.44x2.....for 2 props....5654.88
>> on the 72 it is 3.1416x36x36=4071.5.............for 1 prop....4071.5
>>
>> so the single 72 has 71% of the area of the 2 60's
>>
>> Now we know that the area of the 2 60's is larger by 29%...ok...will the
>a
>> pair of 40 horse be enough here.?..likely they each will not carry the
>same
>> pitch as the 80, because there is 1/2 the hp avail and more than 1/2 the
>> area in each prop. if we had an effieciency rating on the props..we could
>> continue this caculation and come up with an answer..but ..as prop
>> effieciency changes at rpms..airspeed and pitch settings...and you cant
>get
>> an reliable number from a manufacturer. we are stuck at this point in the
>> equation...we need a test Cell to find out the answer at the rpm
>level...the
>> pitch level and the airspeed that fits our aircraft envelope.
>>
>> Don Gherardini
>> Sales / Engineering dept.
>> American Honda Engines
>> Power Equipment Company
>> 800-626-7326
>>
>>
>> Don Gherardini
>> Sales / Engineering dept.
>> American Honda Engines
>> Power Equipment Company
>> 800-626-7326
>>
>>
>
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 sixtees or one 72 |
Richard & Don,
For what it is worth analysis. I have run some numbers to try and figure out how
to get better propeller performance on the FireFly. One of the tricks, I have
learned is that if a prop is too large, the forward advance speed of the propeller
at 100 percent efficiency becomes too low for good cruise. One is moving
a lot of air but with little forward velocity. If one reduces the propeller
diameter and increases the pitch, the engine can still move the same amount
of air as a larger propeller and, at the same time, increase the forward advance
speed and there by give a better cruise speed.
If one assumes equal propeller efficiencies between the 60" and 72" props, then
the thrust delivered will be directly proportional to the mass or volume of air
passing through the propellers. Further assuming all engines have the same
gear ratio and develop their max hp at the same speeds and have similar shaped/sloped
torque curves, one can calculate the differences in propeller advance
speeds to see which situation will give the best performance.
Assuming the 72 inch prop has a pitch of 20 degrees and 100 percent efficiency,
the propeller tip will advance 77.4 inches in one revolution [(d x pi) x sin(20)]
and during one revolution the propeller will displace 182.3 cubic feet of
air (d x d x pi x 77.4)/(4 x 1728). If the gear ratio is 2.7 and the engine
develops its power at 5,000 rpm, the 100 percent efficient propeller will advance
forward at the rate of 137.5 miles per hour (77.4/12)x(5,000/2.7)x(60/5280).
To absorb the same amount of hp, the two 60 inch propellers must move the same
amount of air or 182.3 cubic feet of air between them or 91.2 cubic feet for each
turn. The 60 inch (5 foot) propeller advance in one turn will be 55.7 inches
[(91.2/(pi x 5 x 5)] x 4 x 12. Using the same rpm and gear ratio the propeller
advance speed will be 99 miles per hour.
Given both engine/prop and aircraft combinations show the same overall drag, the
72 inch propeller will give a higher cruise speed, and the 60 inch double propeller
will give better climb.
The other way to look at this condition is as if the two 60 inch propellers were
one propeller that swept the same area. If this is done, one would have a new
single propeller of 84.8 inches in diameter. If one goes through the math
again, this propeller calculates out the same as the two 60 inch propellers above.
Fun on a slow day.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>
>Don,
>
> Your logic is correct to a point, but I believe your made a wrong turn
>in your conclusion. Area is the key factor. A 72" disk has 44% more area
>than a 60" disk. The same engine proped for max. thrust, will move much
>more air with a 72" prop than with a 60" prop. Up to this point we are in
>agreement I assume.
> But, the conclusion I would draw is that the the 80hp is far more
>effectively utilized using one 72" prop than by splitting it up & driving
>two inferior 60" props. The most work will be accomplised by most
>efficiently using the total HP. This is how I would approach the idea.
>...Richard Swiderski
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 2 sixtees or one 72
>
>
>>
>> Kirk, the question you ask takes a few assumptions to caculate...but..here
>> goes...
>>
>> assumption #1...both props have the exact same effieciency along the
>entire
>> length of the blade., (which is very unlikely) and will move the same
>amount
>> of air per inch of blade length
>> assumption #2...they can be pitched exactly the same...likely
>> #3..they are turning the exact same rpm level by horsepower
>avail...possible
>>
>> ok...Thrust is figured in weight ...and it is the weight of the medium
>being
>> moved..which in this is air...
>>
>> so ..how much air will they move?...it is a simple area caculation...
>>
>> Area of a circle is Pi x R squared
>>
>> on the 60 it is 3.1416x30x30=2827.44x2.....for 2 props....5654.88
>> on the 72 it is 3.1416x36x36=4071.5.............for 1 prop....4071.5
>>
>> so the single 72 has 71% of the area of the 2 60's
>>
>> Now we know that the area of the 2 60's is larger by 29%...ok...will the
>a
>> pair of 40 horse be enough here.?..likely they each will not carry the
>same
>> pitch as the 80, because there is 1/2 the hp avail and more than 1/2 the
>> area in each prop. if we had an effieciency rating on the props..we could
>> continue this caculation and come up with an answer..but ..as prop
>> effieciency changes at rpms..airspeed and pitch settings...and you cant
>get
>> an reliable number from a manufacturer. we are stuck at this point in the
>> equation...we need a test Cell to find out the answer at the rpm
>level...the
>> pitch level and the airspeed that fits our aircraft envelope.
>>
>> Don Gherardini
>> Sales / Engineering dept.
>> American Honda Engines
>> Power Equipment Company
>> 800-626-7326
>>
>>
>> Don Gherardini
>> Sales / Engineering dept.
>> American Honda Engines
>> Power Equipment Company
>> 800-626-7326
>>
>>
>
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 2 sixtees or one 72 |
I have been watching this thread with interest ...
My theory which is based on nothing but opinion ...
I would bet on the two 40 horse engines with the 60's
I guess it depends on where the power is made , if there is 80 horsepower
properly matched to the 72 , and the 40's are properly matched to the 60's ....
Then again I have heard a 2 blade prop IS more efficient than a 3 blade ... (
turn on the Flames ) ...Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Landing Gear Camber ??? |
OK I need to know ... My firestar has a LOT of positive camber ...is this
good or bad ... Thanks !!! ...Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 sixtees or one 72 |
Jack...this is Fun!....Kinda reminds me of school back at Spartan! (oh so
long ago!)
well put BTW...
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Don Gherardini-
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher J Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | 2 sixties or one 72 |
Jack wrote:
Assuming the 72 inch prop has a pitch of 20 degrees and 100 percent
efficiency, the propeller tip will advance 77.4 inches in one revolution
[(d x pi) x sin(20)] and during one revolution the propeller will
displace 182.3 cubic feet of air (d x d x pi x 77.4)/(4 x 1728). If the
gear ratio is 2.7 and the engine develops its power at 5,000 rpm, the
100 percent efficient propeller will advance forward at the rate of
137.5 miles per hour (77.4/12)x(5,000/2.7)x(60/5280).
To absorb the same amount of hp, the two 60 inch propellers must move
the same amount of air or 182.3 cubic feet of air between them or 91.2
cubic feet for each turn. The 60 inch (5 foot) propeller advance in one
turn will be 55.7 inches [(91.2/(pi x 5 x 5)] x 4 x 12. Using the same
rpm and gear ratio the propeller advance speed will be 99 miles per
hour.
Given both engine/prop and aircraft combinations show the same overall
drag, the 72 inch propeller will give a higher cruise speed, and the 60
inch double propeller will give better climb.
The assumption of same gear ratio kinda flaws the analysis. Who would
run a 60 incher at the same gear ratio of a 72" for a given aircraft?
Bigger props are better cause they have more area not cause they have
more diameter, So two small props which total more area are better then
one prop with less area ( minus the fact that they have more blades
which is a small negative). Gear ratio and prop pitch must be set for
each prop to give you the best performance compromise between climb and
cruise for a given plane. That is the key to prop selection. If you
make the diameter too large for a given hp and prop rpm then the prop
will have to be pitched so flat that it will have no speed capability.
Make it too small and the prop won't be able to absorb the power even
when pitched to its stall aoa. Reduction ratio can be used to
dramatically alter the diameter that is the best for a given prop/plane
combination. The slower you turn the prop the bigger you can (and will)
make it for a given hp. Your final comment about an 84.8 incher is the
key. you wouldn't try to turn that monster at the same rpm as a 72
incher would you? Nope.
For the 60" prop using some smaller reduction ratios gives
(55.7/12)x(5,000/2.2)x(60/5280)= gives you 119 mph and a tip speed of
(55.7/12)x(5,000/2.0)x(60/5280)= gives you 130 mph
(55.7/12)x(5,000/1.8)x(60/5280)= gives you 145 mph
(55.7/12)x(5,000/1.6)x(60/5280)= gives you 164 mph
So pick your speed range boys, but watch out for sonic prop tips,
The 60 inch prop can spin
pi*d*proprpm*60/5280< ~600mph -> 3361 prop rpm before the tips go
sonic, that's only a min reduction ratio of 1.48.
for the 72 inch prop its 3034rpm 1.78 min ratio
you came to the conclusion that the big prop ( smaller area) will be
better at speed and the small props (larger area) better at climb. But
if you change the reduction ratio for a given speed range then the two
props are better for every case, if they have more area. More area is
more efficient cause you don't have to move the air as fast to absorb a
given hp. That's why the two small props ( more area) only need to
advance 55.7 inches per rotation, and the one big ( less area ) prop has
to advance 77.4 inches. It has to move the air faster to absorb the
power, and therefore is less efficient.
Somebody point out the errors I made, probably did this too fast to get
any of it right.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
| Subject: | First cross country for N616DR |
Kolbers,
My friend and Hurricane driver Mike Newman and I took an 18 mile jaunt over to
Butler County airport and other points of interest last night. Between two GPSs
and comparison to his Hurricanes calibrated ASI we figured out that my ASI is
right on.
It sure was fun flying the past two nights with another UL with a radio.
Anyway, I thought I would throw out some of the numbers I have on the 690Ls performance
for those who are interested.
Empty weight: 482 lbs (since adding big tires)
Pilot weight: 185 lbs
Passenger : 100 lbs
Climb 50mph @ 5800 rpm : 800 + fpm
WOT level flight @ 6150 rpm : 85 mph
4800 rpm : 55 mph
We put 1.7 hrs on her and did four take offs and landings and burned 6.8 gallons
of gas.
The fun factor was through the roof.
Sincerely,
Denny Rowe, MK-3 N616DR, 2SI 690L-70, 68" Powerfin at 2.65 to 1 ratio.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 sixtees or one 72 |
>
> For what it is worth analysis. I have run some numbers to try and figure
out how to get better propeller performance on the FireFly. One of the
tricks, I have learned is that if a prop is too large, the forward advance
speed of the propeller at 100 percent efficiency becomes too low for good
cruise. One is moving a lot of air but with little forward velocity. If
one reduces the propeller diameter and increases the pitch, the engine can
still move the same amount of air as a larger propeller and, at the same
time, increase the forward advance speed and there by give a better cruise
speed.
>
> If one assumes equal propeller efficiencies between the 60" and 72" props,
then the thrust delivered will be directly proportional to the mass or
volume of air passing through the propellers. Further assuming all engines
have the same gear ratio and develop their max hp at the same speeds and
have similar shaped/sloped torque curves, one can calculate the differences
in propeller advance speeds to see which situation will give the best
performance.
>
> Assuming the 72 inch prop has a pitch of 20 degrees and 100 percent
efficiency, the propeller tip will advance 77.4 inches in one revolution [(d
x pi) x sin(20)] and during one revolution the propeller will displace 182.3
cubic feet of air (d x d x pi x 77.4)/(4 x 1728). If the gear ratio is 2.7
and the engine develops its power at 5,000 rpm, the 100 percent efficient
propeller will advance forward at the rate of 137.5 miles per hour
(77.4/12)x(5,000/2.7)x(60/5280).
>
> To absorb the same amount of hp, the two 60 inch propellers must move the
same amount of air or 182.3 cubic feet of air between them or 91.2 cubic
feet for each turn. The 60 inch (5 foot) propeller advance in one turn will
be 55.7 inches [(91.2/(pi x 5 x 5)] x 4 x 12. Using the same rpm and gear
ratio the propeller advance speed will be 99 miles per hour.
>
> Given both engine/prop and aircraft combinations show the same overall
drag, the 72 inch propeller will give a higher cruise speed, and the 60 inch
double propeller will give better climb.
>
> Fun on a slow day.
So, a 51 inch prop times 2 props= 4085 sq/in area. About the same as 1 72
inch prop. The 2 could be pitched higher and spun faster producing a faster
column of air of the same volume as the 72 inch prop. Assuming 100%
efficiency. So it seems that two 40 hp engines will do the same work as one
80? Think I'll tie my Minimax to a scale and see what it will pull. Then
double it. Then I need to find a Mark 3 with a 912 and 3 blade 72. Wonder
if a Mark 3 will stay afloat on 40 hp? Slow day again.......:o) Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | 2 sixties or one 72 |
>
>
>you came to the conclusion that the big prop ( smaller area) will be
>better at speed and the small props (larger area) better at climb. But
>if you change the reduction ratio for a given speed range then the two
>props are better for every case, if they have more area. More area is
>more efficient cause you don't have to move the air as fast to absorb a
>given hp. That's why the two small props ( more area) only need to
>advance 55.7 inches per rotation, and the one big ( less area ) prop has
>to advance 77.4 inches. It has to move the air faster to absorb the
>power, and therefore is less efficient.
>
>Somebody point out the errors I made, probably did this too fast to get
>any of it right.
>
Topher,
I agree with everything you have written, but the problem was proposed as a comparison
between a 80 hp engine swinging a 72 inch prop, and two 40 hp engines
swinging 60 inch props. The only way I could see to compare them was to be sure
that both set ups used 80 hp was that they both move the same volume of air
at the same rate. Since the air volume flow rate was fixed by assumption and
the propeller diameters were fixed in the problem, the 60 inch propeller is going
to absorb 40 hp at the same propeller rpm no matter what the gear ratio is
for a defined pitch of 55.7 inches.
My assumption was that (55.7/12)x(5,000/2.7)x(60/5280) = 99 mph at 40 hp, but if
you reduce the gear ratio and keep engine rpm the same, the hp required goes
up too.
>For the 60" prop using some smaller reduction ratios gives
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/2.2)x(60/5280)= gives you 119 mph and a tip speed of
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/2.0)x(60/5280)= gives you 130 mph
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/1.8)x(60/5280)= gives you 145 mph
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/1.6)x(60/5280)= gives you 164 mph
If hp is a linear relationship to speed, then:
99 mph => 40 hp
119 mph => 48 hp
130 mph => 53 hp
145 mph => 59 hp
164 mph => 65 hp
Again, this has been fun.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Camber ??? |
I am not so much concerned with tire wear ( they will dry rot before they
wear out ) I am concerned about handling ... In my VW racing Days I ran about 2
degrees of negative camber ... Dave
In a message dated 8/20/03 12:16:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
chieppa47(at)comcast.net writes:
<<
Dave,
When you say too much are you talking 5 or 6 degrees? Too much is not
good for the tires, check out the link.
http://www.yokohamatire.com/utmeasures.asp
Charles
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
Kolbers,
Does anybody have a two place intercom for sale that they had good results with?
I use two standard aviation headsets and will probably be buying ANR kits for them,
any recomendations would be appreciated.
Denny Rowe Mk-3. Leechburg PA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher J Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | 2 sixties or one 72 |
Well yah, if ya go faster it is gonna take more power! I just wanted to
point out that the more area the better but you have to get each prop
set up for the situation or your comparison is a bit unfair. I would
guess the best way to do this would be to not require the same airflow
but see what the performance is for each prop set up the best it can be
for the airplane. I would bet the greater area prop would win every
time. ( thats what theory would suggest anyway.
Topher
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack & Louise
Hart
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 2 sixties or one 72
>
>
>you came to the conclusion that the big prop ( smaller area) will be
>better at speed and the small props (larger area) better at climb. But
>if you change the reduction ratio for a given speed range then the two
>props are better for every case, if they have more area. More area is
>more efficient cause you don't have to move the air as fast to absorb a
>given hp. That's why the two small props ( more area) only need to
>advance 55.7 inches per rotation, and the one big ( less area ) prop
has
>to advance 77.4 inches. It has to move the air faster to absorb the
>power, and therefore is less efficient.
>
>Somebody point out the errors I made, probably did this too fast to get
>any of it right.
>
Topher,
I agree with everything you have written, but the problem was proposed
as a comparison between a 80 hp engine swinging a 72 inch prop, and two
40 hp engines swinging 60 inch props. The only way I could see to
compare them was to be sure that both set ups used 80 hp was that they
both move the same volume of air at the same rate. Since the air volume
flow rate was fixed by assumption and the propeller diameters were fixed
in the problem, the 60 inch propeller is going to absorb 40 hp at the
same propeller rpm no matter what the gear ratio is for a defined pitch
of 55.7 inches.
My assumption was that (55.7/12)x(5,000/2.7)x(60/5280) = 99 mph at 40
hp, but if you reduce the gear ratio and keep engine rpm the same, the
hp required goes up too.
>For the 60" prop using some smaller reduction ratios gives
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/2.2)x(60/5280)= gives you 119 mph and a tip speed of
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/2.0)x(60/5280)= gives you 130 mph
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/1.8)x(60/5280)= gives you 145 mph
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/1.6)x(60/5280)= gives you 164 mph
If hp is a linear relationship to speed, then:
99 mph => 40 hp
119 mph => 48 hp
130 mph => 53 hp
145 mph => 59 hp
164 mph => 65 hp
Again, this has been fun.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Camber ??? |
> I am not so much concerned with tire wear ( they will dry rot before they
> wear out ) I am concerned about handling ... In my VW racing Days I ran about
2
> degrees of negative camber ... Dave
> Dave,
> When you say too much are you talking 5 or 6 degrees? Too much is not
> good for the tires, check out the link.
> http://www.yokohamatire.com/utmeasures.asp
>
> Charles
Dave/Charles/All:
The book says no camber/no toe in/toe out, when
aircraft is at max gross weight.
I like positive camber in my airplane. I think it
looks much better than negative camber. I also
like a touch of toe in. Toe out on Kolb style
main gear will cause the mains to spread apart
when taxiing.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sabean <sabean(at)ns.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Propeller Diameter |
Just finished going through the archives trying to determine the best
prop for a 912 on a Mark111 Xtra. I think I will go with a 3-blade IVO
but I noticed different diameters being used, anywhere from 68 to 72
inch.
Which is the best diameter to use?
Thanks,
Tom Sabean
Mark111 Xtra
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 sixties or one 72 |
> Mine will stay afloat (solo) at 4500 rpm, which (best I can read this tiny
> graph in the Lockwood catalog) equals about 37 hp.
Interesting, sure give a good glide anyway. :o) Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Diameter |
> Which is the best diameter to use?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom Sabean
Tom/All:
I don't know which is best for your MK III Extra.
I have used a 72" Warp Drive which worked good for
me, but seemed to be a little noisier than the 70".
I now use a 70" 3 blade Warp Drive, which also
works great for me.
I highly recommend Warp Drive Props with nickel
steel leading edges, unless you are guaranteed to
fly in cool, clean, dry air, without the
possibility of anything falling off your airplane
or engine and going through the prop.
The Warp Drive takes a licking and keeps on
ticking. I have been flying in front of them for
10 years and over 1,600 hours, for all my flights
that have covered CONUS, Canada, and Alaska. I am
a believer.
If you check with my buddy John Williamson, he
will probably agree with me. He covers a lot of
territory pushed by a Warp Drive.
The choice is yours,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Williamson" <KolbraPilot(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Prospective Kolbra Owners |
The Kolbra is a great little airplane.
But there is plenty of room for improvement.
- I am changing out the Tracey O'Brien brakes for Matco dual caliper brakes.
- Changing wheels from 8:00-6 Azusa to Matco 8:00-6.
- Changing turff tires for McCreary Air Trac.
- Will build new ailerons and a set of flaps to replace the flaperons.
As you can see from the upcoming changes, the stopping ability and approach
speed and angle are trying to be improved.
I will have an update on the new Verner 133M engine, the new brakes and
wheels within the next two weeks.
The flaps and new ailerons won't happen until after TNK Fly-In.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
* * * * * * * * * *
Kolb Kolbra, Jabiru 2200, 441 hours
(Soon to be Verner 133M, Warp Drive 68", 3 blade prop)
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Weel Springs |
Since the Kolb doesn't have all that much of a side profile, I would think
taxi in a cross wide would affect it all that much. Our Citabria we often
had to stab the brake repetitively while taxiing due to it wanting to
wether vane in a strong cross wind. You may be right and need a little
stronger spring but keep the springs.
I wouldn't think you should need or want to connect the rudder cables
direct to the tail wheel. You might find that when you are using a lot of
rudder upon landing, being directly connected it will likely send you
searching for runway lights. We had one builder tell another builder of a
CH601 to do that. After a couple flights he commented to me that it was
difficult to control upon landing. After looking at it I asked him a
simple question, how did the kit manufacturer say to do it. He changed it
back, no problem since. You need to be able to over ride the tail wheel
position with rudder. Example if the tail wheel was straight and you
needed to make a sharp tight turn, without the rudder it would difficult to
rotate the tail quick enough to get the wheel to swivel pass the detent
positions.
Jerb
>
>
>I have the optional full swivel tail wheel with the supplied tail wheel
>springs. On my flight to Oshkosh I landed one time where the winds were
>blowing 15-20mph on a black top runway. When I tried to turn cross wind the
>tail wheel wouldn't turn. I had to stand on a wheel brake fairly hard. I
>then had to taxi cross wind for almost a mile strait and I had to fully
>deflect the rudder AND drag a wheel brake to taxi strait. I made a mental
>note that when I got back I would order heaver compression springs for the
>tail wheel.
>
>When I was a Oshkosh I attended a forum where the speaker was saying that
>their tail wheels are direct connected for better control. He said that tail
>wheels controlled by springs are always lagging behind user input.
>
>My question is should I just direct connect the tail wheel to the rudder or
>use heaver springs?
>
>Rick Neilsen
>Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prospective Kolbra Owners |
> - I am changing out the Tracey O'Brien brakes for Matco dual caliper brakes.
> - Changing wheels from 8:00-6 Azusa to Matco 8:00-6.
> - Changing turff tires for McCreary Air Trac.
> - Will build new ailerons and a set of flaps to replace the flaperons.
> John Williamson
John W/All:
Which brake is the dual caliper and what is the
axle and bearing size for the wheel?
Looks like Miss P'fer is going to have some
competition in the landing and stopping
department, but I believe it was needed for
certain Yooper airfields.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> Was allready planning on Matco Brakes. Big Lar has arrived and we are going to
rev up the beast this evening!
>
> pp
pp/All:
I don't have time to give you the model number of
the MATCO's, but mine have 3/4" axles and 3/4"
tapered roller bearings. Brakes are a tremendous
increase over the old MATCO gold wheels w/5.8"
bearings and UL brakes. I am happy with mine.
Take care,
john h
PS: Miracles will never cease to happen. Big Lar
made it to Mississippi in one piece. :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Weel Springs |
> Since the Kolb doesn't have all that much of a side profile, I would think
> taxi in a cross wide would affect it all that much.
> Jerb
Jerb/All:
Don't let the skinny little tail boom fool you.
On the end of that skinny sucker is a big "A"
vertical stabilizer and rudder. Cross wind in 15
to 30 MPH winds will make a believer out of you.
I think I shared with you all an attempted
approach into a grass strip in Oklahoma last May
on the way to Monument Valley. 30 to 35 MPH 90
degree cross wind. No way to straighten the
airplane to align with the strip. Had to land on
the other side of the fence in the cow lot, with
the cows. But Miss P'fer and I have been flying
with the cows for 19 years and we are right at
home with them.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | MATCO Wheels/Brakes for Mark III/Extra/Kolbra |
Hi Gang:
Here's the wheel and brake combo I highly
recommend, based on some serious use the last
couple years:
http://www.matcomfg.com/specs/w62.htm
There is a one inch spacer to widen the wheels
available from MATCO that makes a nice fit with
the McCreary Air Trac 800X6 tires.
This is the wheel/brake combo with the 1" spacer:
http://www.matcomfg.com/Wheel/IM29a.jpg
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski(at)rocketjet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 sixties or one 72 |
Propellor Prognosticators,
My 1st Kolb, an UltraStar had a 50" prop that put out 225lbs static
thrust. I wanted more & was about embark on a duct fan conversion. I did a
lot of research and came to realize that thrust increases logrithmiclly
because area is the biggest factor in thrust & area increases in a squared
relationship. Therefore the significant advantage of duct fan was
overwhelmingly beat out by a larger diameter prop. I dropped the engine &
raised the gear legs & managed to get a 60" prop which has 44% increase in
area. I was hoping to get that much improvement in thrust also, I didn't,
(a diferent redrive with different ratio & different prop are major
variables) but I still got 30% more thrust which translated into a 30%
increase in climb rate. The top end speed increased but not nearly 30%,
don't remember exactly.
Now back to the original question, Would 2 60" props on 2 40hp engines
be better than one 72" prop on an 80hp engine (this is a Kolb list so I'm
assuming a Kolb in the real world.) the 72" prop also has 44% more area
than a 60" prop. Lets assume we will also get only a 30% increase in
thrust. Now a 72" prop clearly delivers more (30+%) thrust per hp than a
60". So how would you want to divy up your 80hp? I will put it behind the
30% more effecient setup. This is not just theory, but proven practice as
well. Take a 40hp, 60" prop setup, double its thrust & a 80hp/72" prop will
beat it hands down. Then there is the extra weight, drag, complexity, fuel
burn, & harmonic resonance to deal with & the single engine is even a better
deal.
...Richard Swiderski
(Still detoured from finishing the Turbo Suzuki 3 Cyl. It looks like even
Big Lar is going to get up before me!)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher J Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 2 sixties or one 72
>
> Well yah, if ya go faster it is gonna take more power! I just wanted to
> point out that the more area the better but you have to get each prop
> set up for the situation or your comparison is a bit unfair. I would
> guess the best way to do this would be to not require the same airflow
> but see what the performance is for each prop set up the best it can be
> for the airplane. I would bet the greater area prop would win every
> time. ( thats what theory would suggest anyway.
>
> Topher
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack & Louise
> Hart
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 2 sixties or one 72
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >you came to the conclusion that the big prop ( smaller area) will be
> >better at speed and the small props (larger area) better at climb. But
> >if you change the reduction ratio for a given speed range then the two
> >props are better for every case, if they have more area. More area is
> >more efficient cause you don't have to move the air as fast to absorb a
> >given hp. That's why the two small props ( more area) only need to
> >advance 55.7 inches per rotation, and the one big ( less area ) prop
> has
> >to advance 77.4 inches. It has to move the air faster to absorb the
> >power, and therefore is less efficient.
> >
> >Somebody point out the errors I made, probably did this too fast to get
> >any of it right.
> >
>
> Topher,
>
> I agree with everything you have written, but the problem was proposed
> as a comparison between a 80 hp engine swinging a 72 inch prop, and two
> 40 hp engines swinging 60 inch props. The only way I could see to
> compare them was to be sure that both set ups used 80 hp was that they
> both move the same volume of air at the same rate. Since the air volume
> flow rate was fixed by assumption and the propeller diameters were fixed
> in the problem, the 60 inch propeller is going to absorb 40 hp at the
> same propeller rpm no matter what the gear ratio is for a defined pitch
> of 55.7 inches.
>
> My assumption was that (55.7/12)x(5,000/2.7)x(60/5280) = 99 mph at 40
> hp, but if you reduce the gear ratio and keep engine rpm the same, the
> hp required goes up too.
>
> >For the 60" prop using some smaller reduction ratios gives
> >(55.7/12)x(5,000/2.2)x(60/5280)= gives you 119 mph and a tip speed of
> >(55.7/12)x(5,000/2.0)x(60/5280)= gives you 130 mph
> >(55.7/12)x(5,000/1.8)x(60/5280)= gives you 145 mph
> >(55.7/12)x(5,000/1.6)x(60/5280)= gives you 164 mph
>
> If hp is a linear relationship to speed, then:
>
> 99 mph => 40 hp
> 119 mph => 48 hp
> 130 mph => 53 hp
> 145 mph => 59 hp
> 164 mph => 65 hp
>
> Again, this has been fun.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Jackson, MO
>
>
> Jack & Louise Hart
> jbhart(at)ldd.net
>
>
> ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Diameter |
In a message dated 8/20/03 4:13:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
> I highly recommend Warp Drive Props with nickel
> steel leading edges, unless you are guaranteed to
> fly in cool, clean, dry air, without the
> possibility of anything falling off your airplane
> or engine and going through the prop.
>
>
Hey, Tom!! John knows what he's talking about.
The Ivo is very easy to adjust, is smoother & quieter. That aside, if you
want the best performance [both climb & cruise], go with the Warp.
Shack
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Diameter |
> Hey, Tom!! John knows what he's talking about.
>
> The Ivo is very easy to adjust, is smoother & quieter. That aside, if you
> want the best performance [both climb & cruise], go with the Warp.
>
> Shack
Shack/All:
Your comment jogged my memory.
I don't have to have an instant method to set prop
pitch. Don't need it. Once the correct pitch is
set on the Warp, I fly and leave it alone. It
stays where I put it. Sorta like fix and forget.
I have about 500 hours on this last adjustment,
when I cut an inch off the 72" prop to make it a
70". BTW: Did not take that much increase in
pitch to make up for the performance difference.
Just a tiny bit of pitch increase.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Diameter |
I currently have an IVO. If I need to replace it soon, will strongly
consider the Warp for the reasons that John H. mentions.
1) Things do come off your airplane and go through the prop. At about 100
hours, a little bitty bolt vibrated off and went through the prop. Put a nice
nick in one blade of the IVO. Sent it back to IVO and they reworked it for a
very reasonable price. IVO has provided good service.
2) IVO's don't seem to like long flights, during the summer in the south.
Last summer made a long XC (~450 nm) during the first week of July. Started
loosing the SS tapes on the leading edges. One came off and damaged the fabric
on the top of a flap. Not a good thing on a long XC. That has been the only
time I had trouble with the tapes coming off. That is the hottest and longest
periods of time I pushed the plane.
If you are a short hopper, the IVO is smooth. I have been very happy with
it, except for that one long trip last summer. I still fly it with no problems,
I just carry extra SS tapes on long flights. If I have to replace it, I will
probably go with the warp.
Just my experience with an IVO.
John Bickham
St. Francisville, LA
N308JB
Mark III - 912
190 hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Flight planning TNK fly-in |
Starting to think about the TNK fly-in. I drove to the first one while I was
building. Work or terrorist have not allowed me to return since. I am
flying this time and developing two plans based on weather and looking for any
advice from those veteran XC'ers. The airports listed are where I plan to RON.
Looking for any suggestions.
Plan A - Weather is outstanding
Depart HZR (New Roads, LA) Monday,9/22 and pass by Kitty Hawk on the way to
TNK.
HZR -> 08A (Wetumpka, AL) -> CDN (Camden, SC) -> FFA -> RZZ (Roanoke Rapids,
NC) -> 3KY2
If weather is excellent, may get to TNK around Thursday. Would that be a
problem - getting there too early?
Plan on tent camping.
Plan B - Weather is marginal
HZR -> TNK and back .
This will probably be the only time I get this close to Kitty Hawk this year
during the Centennial. I sure would like to make that stop if the weather
cooperates.
Any suggestions or good stops along the way? John Williamson has been
planning the same thing for a while. Maybe he will see me as he passes me by in
his
Kolbra.
John Bickham
St. Francisville, LA
N308JB
Mark III - 912
190 hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prospective Kolbra Owners |
Question.............since I've also got the bigger brakes, wheels, tires
(8.00-6), bearings, axles, etc. - are those brakes dual caliper, or dual
piston ?? My new ones are single caliper (BIG caliper) but it seems to me
Matco told me they were dual piston.........??.........or is there another,
even heavier duty version ?? The new setup is rated for a 1300# airplane,
vs the 600# rating for the standard set-up. I do know for sure that all the
components are much larger and stronger than the standard ones.
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose N78LB
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Prospective Kolbra Owners
>
>
> > - I am changing out the Tracey O'Brien brakes for Matco dual caliper
brakes.
> > - Changing wheels from 8:00-6 Azusa to Matco 8:00-6.
> > - Changing turff tires for McCreary Air Trac.
> > - Will build new ailerons and a set of flaps to replace the flaperons.
>
> > John Williamson
>
> John W/All:
>
> Which brake is the dual caliper and what is the
> axle and bearing size for the wheel?
>
> Looks like Miss P'fer is going to have some
> competition in the landing and stopping
> department, but I believe it was needed for
> certain Yooper airfields.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Camber ??? |
>
>OK I need to know ... My firestar has a LOT of positive camber ...is this
>good or bad ... Thanks !!! ...Dave
>
>
Dave,
Excessive camber creates excessive bearing and wheel side loads, tire wear, and
increases rolling resistance. In turn, this increases the chances of bearing
failure and cracking of a wheel, and increases takeoff distance.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Williamson" <KolbraPilot(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Brakes, Wheels & axels |
Everything you always wanted to know about wheels and brakes before you buy them
is available on the matcomfg.com website. I wish I knew this before I bought
the o'Brian brakes.
MATCO mfg produces a six inch wheel and brake assembly for use with ultralight
aircraft less than 1300 pounds--the MH6B. This six inch wheel is available with
.625 bearings or .75 bearings (the MH6B.75) and three caliper configurations
MATERIAL
WHEEL ASSEMBLY
CALIPER SPACING (DIM B)
BEARING AXLE DIAMETER (DIM C)
AXLE SPACING (DIM D)
BEARING SPACING (DIM E)
BEARING TYPE SEALED
WHEEL/BRAKE ASSEMBLY WIDTH (DIM F)
STATIC CAPACITY (LBS)
LOAD LIMIT
KINETIC CAPACITY (FT LBS)
TORQUE RATING (IN-LB@450 PSI)
WEIGHT (LBS)
SPUN AL
MH6B /6"
1.24
0.625
2.00
2.000
BALL
5.3750
660
2000
93,441
1070
4.4
SPUN AL
MH6B.62D /6"
1.24
0.625
2.00
2.000
BALL
5.3750
660
2000
93,441
1440
4.65
SPUN AL
MH6B D.62/6"
1.24
0.625
2.00
2.000
BALL
5.3750
660
2000
93,441
2140
5.18
SPUN AL
MH6B.75 /6"
1.24
0.750
2.00
2.000
BALL
5.3750
660
2000
93,441
1070
4.4
SPUN AL
MH6B.75D /6"
1.24
0.750
2.00
2.000
BALL
5.3750
660
2000
93,441
1440
4.65
SPUN AL
MH6B D.75/6"
1.24
0.750
2.00
2.000
BALL
5.3750
660
2000
93,441
2140
5.18
MH WHEELS
AVAILABLE IN
GOLD OR
SILVER
The third type caliper is the DXT but not listed in the table above:
Torque Rating (@450 PSI) MH6BDXT.62 & MH6BDXT.75 3082 in-lbs torque.
I will use Matco MH6BD.62/6" Dual Caliper brakes with 2140 inch pounds of torque. http://www.matcomfg.com/specs/mh6b_d.htm
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolb Kolbra, Verner 133M, 68", 3 Blade Warp Drive (ZERO hours)
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Diameter |
I understand that the source of the stainless steel tape IVO used on the
prop leading edge no longer produces the product and alternative sources
have not held up (adhering) nearly as well. Your prop may be one that has
the alternative source edge tapes. Over all I am happy with my IVO.
I read claims that the Warp is supposed to be better but have never seen
any back to back performance test on similar blade number props. Would
nice to see back to back flight test of both props performed with on the
same plane say on a very early morning flight test. At the end of each
test flight, fuel would need to be topped to maintain the same test
weight. Each prop of same number of blades could be tested before hand to
arrive at the pitch to produce the best performance. Then at the time of
the test each prop could be switched and the pitch quickly restored with
minimum time between flights.
jerb
>
>I currently have an IVO. If I need to replace it soon, will strongly
>consider the Warp for the reasons that John H. mentions.
>
>1) Things do come off your airplane and go through the prop. At about 100
>hours, a little bitty bolt vibrated off and went through the prop. Put a
>nice
>nick in one blade of the IVO. Sent it back to IVO and they reworked it for a
>very reasonable price. IVO has provided good service.
>
>2) IVO's don't seem to like long flights, during the summer in the south.
>Last summer made a long XC (~450 nm) during the first week of July. Started
>loosing the SS tapes on the leading edges. One came off and damaged the
>fabric
>on the top of a flap. Not a good thing on a long XC. That has been the only
>time I had trouble with the tapes coming off. That is the hottest and
>longest
>periods of time I pushed the plane.
>
>If you are a short hopper, the IVO is smooth. I have been very happy with
>it, except for that one long trip last summer. I still fly it with no
>problems,
>I just carry extra SS tapes on long flights. If I have to replace it, I will
>probably go with the warp.
>
>Just my experience with an IVO.
>
>
>John Bickham
>St. Francisville, LA
>N308JB
>Mark III - 912
>190 hrs.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | WARNING ! 914 rotax !!! |
This is from "ROTAX"
Subj: ATTENTION! - RELEASE OF MANDATORY ALERT SERVICE BULLETIN FOR
SPECIFIC ROTAX 914 F & 914 UL ENGINES.
Date: 8/21/03 6:45:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: updates@rotax-owner.com (updates@rotax-owner.com)
Dear Registered User;
The following MANDATORY ALERT SERVICE BULLETIN has been released by Rotax.
ASB-914-028 -- INSPECTION OF THE EXHAUST MUFFLER PART NO. 979402 FOR ROTAX
ENGINE TYPE 914 SERIES
SUMMARY OF SERVICE BULLETIN:
THIS SUMMARY IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND IS NOT INTENDED TO REPLACE THE
INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE SERVICE BULLETIN.
ALL OWNERS, OPERATORS AND MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL SHOULD OBTAIN AND CAREFULLY
REVIEW THE FULL TEXT OF THE SERVICE BULLETIN.
Cracks have been detected on some genuine ROTAX exhaust mufflers part no.
979402. Mufflers within the serial numbers ranges specified in the ASB must be
inspected before next flight and daily there after until further notice.
If cracks are detected, the aircraft must not be operated until the exhaust
muffler is replaced.
This new Alert Service Bulletin may be downloaded from www.rotax-owner.com
ASB-914-028 -
http://www.rotax-owner.com/si_tb_info/getdoc.asp?USERID=BMWBikeCrz&DOCID=ASB-914-028&S_TYPE=NW
This e-mail update is provided as a free service to registered users.
Register with Rotax Owners Association News today!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Propeller Diameter GSC ??? |
anyone using a GSC ? pros / cons
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lawrence M. Rice" <tailwind5(at)juno.com> |
If you do it with gas, use RG45 or a similar mild steel rod. Do not use
high alloy rod like 4130 or your weld will turn out brittle, as it picks
up carbon from the acetylene (run the flame VERY slightly reducing to
avoid too much oxygen). You'll need a small tip. And, if you do it with
gas you'll need a bunch of practice welding thin wall tubing (maybe 5 -10
evenings of messing around).
Larry the MicroMong guy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Camber ??? |
Jack & Louise Hart wrote:
>
> Excessive camber creates excessive bearing and wheel side loads, tire wear, and
increases rolling resistance. In turn, this increases the chances of bearing
failure and cracking of a wheel, and increases takeoff distance.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
You are correct but for best results zero camber and toe in should be
when the maximum load is upon the wheels. This would be on a hard bounce
landing with the landing substantially sprung. If the alignment is on
zero with one G load it will be seriously out of alignment when the
wheel load is at max. resulting in even more stress on all the
individual parts at their most vulnerable moment. Hence the bent Kolb
landing gear.
EZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | IVO Propellers Right & Left & Powerfin? |
When I replaced the Rotax 447 with the Simonini Victor 1+, I could use the original
spacer and IVO hub, but I had to purchase left hand blades. When I got the
new blades, I noticed that they were not as broad chord wise as were the old
right hand blades. I did not think much about it because the original blades
were so old that they had the aluminum inserts around the blade mounting holes.
I just thought IVO had up graded the design.
I ran the new 68 inch high pitch IVO and then cut it to 62 inches to more closely
approximate the Simonini test propeller. Currently the FireFly will fly 55
mph at 5,200 rpm. This is the point that Simonini claims the Victor 1+ is putting
out 38 hp. But when the 447 was installed and it was cranked up, the FireFly
would fly about 70 mph at 38 hp. The Victor 1+ is still breaking in, because
on hour flights engine rpm will slowly drift up ward with no change in throttle
setting. Climb out after takeoff with the Victor 1+ is about half of
what I experienced with the 447. But part of this is due to very warm weather,
and I cannot run the Victor 1+ much over 5,400 rpm with out over running the
radiator capacity. Once one gets to altitude and in level flight cooling improves
and one can run the engine harder.
With my head sticking out I am happy with the 55 mph at 5,200 rpm and 2 gph, but
I would like to get a little better climb. I got to thinking about the old/new
blade chord difference. It seemed that a longer chord blade would give better
climb. I called IVO and asked why they had changed the design of the blade.
I was told that original blade design had not changed. Evidently the right
hand blade was designed first followed by the left hand blade. And the left
hand blade was designed with a shorter chord. It is not possible to get a left
hand blade with the same chord as the right.
I have been looking for another propeller with a broad blade. I came across Powerfin.
They make claims of lower inertia than, 1/3 the flexure of, and better
performance than the IVO. Does anyone have any experience with Powerfin on
a Kolb product? If so, how has it performed?
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Clayton <jspc78(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Belt sander specs. |
Hello all,
I am looking at small, bench mounted belt sanders for
smoothing aluminum after cutting. Any advice on the
grade of sandpaper to use? Been looking at some
Harbor Freight models priced around $80; any thoughts
on whether it will last longer than a week ;-), or
other suggested sanders?
Thanks, Jim
Jim Clayton
California
Mark-3X, waiting for Kit#1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
I just bought a Henrob torch at Osh. Great little toy. Welds a lot easier
than the old large torches. They even taught me top weld aluminum with it
before I bought it. That is what really sold me.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence M. Rice" <tailwind5(at)juno.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Welding
>
> If you do it with gas, use RG45 or a similar mild steel rod. Do not use
> high alloy rod like 4130 or your weld will turn out brittle, as it picks
> up carbon from the acetylene (run the flame VERY slightly reducing to
> avoid too much oxygen). You'll need a small tip. And, if you do it with
> gas you'll need a bunch of practice welding thin wall tubing (maybe 5 -10
> evenings of messing around).
>
> Larry the MicroMong guy
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob N." <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
There's a good article on wood props in June/July Air&Space magazine.
Bob N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IVO Propellers Right & Left & Powerfin? |
----- Original Message -----
: Jack Hart wrote:
I have been looking for another propeller with a broad blade. I came across
Powerfin. They make claims of lower inertia than, 1/3 the flexure of, and
better performance than the IVO. Does anyone have any experience with
Powerfin on a Kolb product? If so, how has it performed?
Jack,
I am currently using a Powerfin F model three blade 68" diameter on my 690L
powered Mk-3. I purchased this propeller from Slingshot owner Luray Weactor
of Lancaster PA who also flies a 690L on his Slingshot.
Luray put 50 hrs on the prop prior to selling it to me and was very happy
with it, he only sold it so he could install an inflight adjustable prop to
fully take advantage of the 690Ls wide torque range.
I have since put 11.2 hrs on it and it still looks like new. The pitch
adjust system while not as easy as an IVO quick adjust, is very slick and
the quality of the prop is first rate. Powerfins claims of low inertia are
true and it is a very smooth running prop.
It is much more rigid than IVO blades, I figure it is between Warp and IVO
in stiffness and definitly lighter than either.
I am sure it is a lot tougher than an IVO, but not as tough as a Warp.
I am very happy with the overall performance I am seeing and thus far would
have to rate the Powerfin a very good prop.
Again, my prop only has 61.2 total hours on it so my opinion is worth what
you paid for it.
Denny Rowe, N616DR, Leechburg,PA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
Does anybody know who makes the wood props that Kolb uses on their fireflies? Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 8/21/03 4:39:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
WillUribe(at)aol.com writes:
> Greetings,
> I'm getting bored of Indianapolis, I have 4 more weeks left here.
> This weekend I'm driving to Dayton, Ohio and visit the Wright brothers
> bicycle shop.
>
> Any Kolb flyer out that way?
>
> Regards,
> Will Uribe
> El Paso, TX
> FireStar II N4GU
> C-172 N2506U
> http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
>
Will, it would have been great to meet you but we are in the process of
moving to Swiderski and Merle Hargis land in Florida and don't have a house
anymore...
Especially a buddly from ol El Paso....geez.
George Randolph
Firestar driver from Akron O...no longer in Akron though
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IVO Propellers Right & Left & Powerfin? |
I have a three bladed 72" F Model Power Fin on my Redrive VW. I purchased it
primarily because of its low inertia. I'm happy with it but I haven't tried
a identical other prop so?? I got to look at a Power Fin prop off a CGS Hawk
that had a takeoff problem a Oshkosh. They parked the damaged plane next to
me in the camping area. The blades were broken off the hub with about one
inch sticking out of the three blade hub. The blades were broken in many
pieces and separated front from the back at the leading/ trailing edge
joint. They appeared to be foam filled or hollow. I have no feelings good or
bad about what I saw. They fixed the broken plane and mounted a new prop and
flew it. In general aviation engines you need to check the engine crank when
you have a prop strike like that. I hope the combination of broken prop and
Rotax gear box dampener saved the engine? It seemed to fly ok the next few
days.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack & Louise Hart" <jbhart(at)ldd.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: IVO Propellers Right & Left & Powerfin?
Does anyone have any experience with Powerfin on a Kolb product? If so,
how has it performed?
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Jackson, MO
>
>
> Jack & Louise Hart
> jbhart(at)ldd.net
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
all....especially MkIII drivers, I'll be experimenting with the 2 blade
warp drive
hub. How many out there are using a 2 blader and satisfied with it? I've
read all the negatives, just wonder about success stories. -BB
________________________________________________________________________________
Kolbers,
Well today is the big day. I mailed a check to TNK for kit 1 for a King Kolbra.
Plan on working in the shop this weekend getting ready to start. I bought two
real heavy built 4 x 8 tables that I plan to put end to end and true up. They
have Formica surfaces with a back splash. This sound like a suitable work surface?
I'm very excited to finally get going on this project. Thanks to all for
the good advice.
Let the madness begin!
pp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
How about Firestar drivers? I've tried both a two and three blade prop. The three
blade has more moment of inertia, is tougher on the gear box, and has a buzzing
sound that I didn't like.
The two blade is quieter, and performs well.
Ralph
Original Firestar
16 years flying it
--- Bob Bean wrote:
all....especially MkIII drivers, I'll be experimenting with the 2 blade
warp drive
hub. How many out there are using a 2 blader and satisfied with it? I've
read all the negatives, just wonder about success stories. -BB
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "T. K. Frantz" <tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net> |
Kirk Smith wrote:
>
> Does anybody know who makes the wood props that Kolb uses on their fireflies?
Kirk
>
Kirk,
Tennessee Propellors makes the wood prop, at least they did a year ago. If your
looking to get a better price by dealing with them direct, think again. I tried
and
found that I was able to get a better price from TNK. Go figure?!!!
Found out they will do a urethane leading edge if you ask for it.
Terry - FireFly # 95
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
This has been hashed and rehashed before but you may want to also setup a
couple good sawhorses. By building 6 Kolbs I have found that this is the
easiest way to work on the wings. Other opinions may vary.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Big Day
>
> Kolbers,
> Well today is the big day. I mailed a check to TNK for kit 1 for a King
Kolbra. Plan on working in the shop this weekend getting ready to start. I
bought two real heavy built 4 x 8 tables that I plan to put end to end and
true up. They have Formica surfaces with a back splash. This sound like a
suitable work surface? I'm very excited to finally get going on this
project. Thanks to all for the good advice.
>
> Let the madness begin!
>
> pp
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gherkins Tim-rp3420 <rp3420(at)motorola.com> |
Folks,
I just posted some thoughts and here are some more------ If my engine gearbox could
throw a three bladed Warp that is what I would have purchased. If I go to
a two blade prop and I am sure I will in the future, to give it a try, what
I would select hands down is a two blade Warp.
Tim G.
PS- Take my opinion for what it is worth, I have not flown either prop yet! But
I have read and followed prop subject for the last four years, and these are
my conclusions. tg
-----Original Message-----
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com [mailto:ul15rhb(at)juno.com]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: props
How about Firestar drivers? I've tried both a two and three blade prop. The three
blade has more moment of inertia, is tougher on the gear box, and has a buzzing
sound that I didn't like.
The two blade is quieter, and performs well.
Ralph
Original Firestar
16 years flying it
--- Bob Bean wrote:
all....especially MkIII drivers, I'll be experimenting with the 2 blade
warp drive
hub. How many out there are using a 2 blader and satisfied with it? I've
read all the negatives, just wonder about success stories. -BB
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | WELDING & BELT SANDERS |
| From: | "Lawrence M. Rice" <tailwind5(at)juno.com> |
The Henrob torch is really nice. If it weren't so pricy and if I didn't
already have a good torch.......
A belt or disc sander is nice for smoothing the edges of thin aluminum
parts. I made my own disc sander with an old electric motor I got from a
friend and a disc I bought from a woodworking tool place, made the table
from wood. However, if you need to smooth the edge of heavier aluminum
parts (say 1/4" thick or more), forget the sander & use a Vixen file. It
does the job faster & better & you won't go through enough sanpaper to
pay Guatemala's national debt!
Larry the MicroMong guy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski(at)rocketjet.net> |
Kirk,
I'm going to have to go with Ivo as I will need n inflight adjsutable to
use my lower end torque with the turbo, so I'll be looking for a 72" left
hand or quick adjust that I can convert. Regarding your search for a
quality wooden prop, I'd put my money in a Precision Propellor. they are
ground adjustable, 2 or 3 blade & even had a semi constant speed version.
I've used them for years & would recommend one to my mother.
Richard Swiderski
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Wood props
>
> Does anybody know who makes the wood props that Kolb uses on their
fireflies? Kirk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | george murphy <geomurphy(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Aluminum rib bracing |
Help ---I am reconstructing wings for my ole Firestar and understand that
the 5 rib design needs a little bracing using aluminum angle. My question
is, what is the material made of ? Is a certain type of aluminum required
or can I just use a hardware store type? And if I were to replace the
leading edge tube what would the recommended thickness be.
Any help would be appreciated, George Murphy / 85 Firestar / Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob N." <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
What's wrong with this picture? http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/Blackout.jpg
Bob N.
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob
There are too many lights on across the country save the middle north
east!!:-) Herb in KY
>
> What's wrong with this picture?
> http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/Blackout.jpg
>
>
> Bob N.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob N." <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UL: Wood props |
Scott Perkins asks: what are its (article in Air&Space on wood props)
best points?
Here's what I clipped out:
from Air&Space art. on wood props
On the majority of aircraft, metal and
composite props have replaced wood, but
wooden propellers still own 10 percent of
the aviation market. The demand derives
from attributes including performance ("It's
much easier to design the optimum wood
propeller for custom aircraft," says Rowell;
"Wood propellers inherently have less
vibration"), price, and, in the case of vintage
aircraft, authenticityright down to the
1940s-vintage Sensenich decals that the
company applies to the finished product.
"Wood makes sense," says Steve Boser,
the design engineer at Sensenich. "Metal
props are much more sensitive to engine
vibrations. All props flex in flight, due to
harmonics, the high-frequency oscillations
excited by engine vibrations. Wood props
damp out engine-induced vibrations by
several magnitudes better than metal. But
countless flexion cycles don't affect wood
significantly, while metal props accumulate
invisible flaws from vibrations and flexing.
"A wood prop is as good as it looks. We've
had 30-year-old wood props come in that
only needed refurbishing, cosmetics. And
we've had wood props come back in two
years that were unairworthy. It all depends
on proper maintenance."
Metal props initially had a performance advantage
over woodbecause metal is so strong,
metal props can be made thinner than wood
and are therefore more efficient. But the
benefits were obviated in the early 1950s by
the design of a new airfoil for wooden
propellers. Wood props traditionally had a
flat backside, which worked well, but the
thickness that was required to keep them
from flexing cost some efficiency, measured
by the percentage of shaft horsepower
converted to thrust horsepower. Sensenich
engineer Henry Rose designed a wooden-
blade airfoil that was curved on both
sidesnow called the Rose "E"which
brought wood prop performance within a
few percentage points of the performance
of metal props.
John Monnet, an experimental
aircraft designer in Oshkosh,
Wisconsin, who has sold more than
2,000 kit planes and 500 Sonex aircraft,
uses wood props exclusively. "We've
designed aircraft that use engines that
run from 2,750 to 6,000 rpms," he says.
"You can't safely cover that range with
metal props. Wood is durable,
experiences far less torsional
vibrations, and we can experiment with
different tuning of the prop. It costs a
few hundred dollars for Sensenich
people to change a computer program and
carve a new pitch and diameter. It costs
thousands for recasting, grinding, and
polishing a forged metal prop.
Bob N.
http:www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Davis - Comcast" <davis207(at)comcast.net> |
"Kolb-List Digest List"
| Subject: | EAA Easter Coast Regional Flying |
Well, we can't all make it to Oshkosh. However, the East Coast Regional
fly-in is at New Garden (N57) in South East PA Sept 13-14. I plan on flying
down from Princeton in the Firefly. Any other Kolb drivers planning to make
it?
http://www.n57.com/
Chuck Davis
FF 028
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bryan green" <lgreen1(at)sc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum rib bracing |
Hey George let me know what you find out. I flew mine Wed. with the 377 for
1.5 and it was great.
Bryan Green (Elgin SC)
----- Original Message -----
From: "george murphy" <geomurphy(at)direcway.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Aluminum rib bracing
>
> Help ---I am reconstructing wings for my ole Firestar and understand that
> the 5 rib design needs a little bracing using aluminum angle. My question
> is, what is the material made of ? Is a certain type of aluminum required
> or can I just use a hardware store type? And if I were to replace the
> leading edge tube what would the recommended thickness be.
>
> Any help would be appreciated, George Murphy / 85 Firestar / Alabama
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bryan green" <lgreen1(at)sc.rr.com> |
Here's a question from a new Kolb driver to get you all going. If you could do
one thing to an older Firestar I with 377 to improve safety, performance and reliability
what would it be? ( without letting you fly it instead of me )
Bryan Green (Elgin SC)
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 8/22/03 10:20:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lgreen1(at)sc.rr.com writes:
> Here's a question from a new Kolb driver to get you all going. If you could
> do one thing to an older Firestar I with 377 to improve safety, performance
> and reliability what would it be? ( without letting you fly it instead of me
> )
> Bryan Green (Elgin SC)
>
>
>
I would install my Vortex Generators on the wings -one on each main rib for a
total of 10. The cost to make them is under $20.
They should lower your stall speed by 4-5 mph, give better gas mileage,
increase your cruise speed for same rpm's, etc..
Put some on your vertical fin for power steering.
If you want the plan, let me know.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
Lexington, SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | speaking of Vortex generators..WOW |
Well, Im so dang suprised, I cant hardly tell youall....some of you in fact
you likely think ive fell off the deep end....but...here goes
FireFly....UL2-OII Cuyuna...3 blade 60 Inch warp....6200rpms wot...
loaded to gross , actually 2 lbs over at 502
PRIOR Stall tests
stall with 5000 rpms throttle setting.....33 mph...real easy break over...
stall at WOT..6200....hanging stall..mushing then an break...prop making all
kinds of strange sounds to warn you plenty early...still about 33 mph...due
to mush tho hard to pin down speed...
installed 12 vortex gens today...6 per side...in valley between ribs...none
in inside quadrant of wing in front of prop arc ( I was worried about that
carpet tape)
Loaded to 502....
stall at wot....never did really....nose stayed up and just wouldnt come
down.....airspeed indicator dropped off to less than 20..likely because
angle to steep for pitot...or I was tailslideing slightly....I had to lower
nose to come out of it...
2nd try WOT...determined that i oughtta be able to stall this turd...so I
just held it up there and danced the rudder to keep it straight....finally
the nose dropped after what seemed like forever....I had so little
resistance on stick i think i was standing still or sliding...it finally
fell over quick...definatly a Different bird with these on! Also never did
hear that prop noise so I guess there is some air getting to the prop that
wasnt getting there before from the inner most VG's, even tho they are not
directly in front of the prop arc..very noticable..although the cavitating
noise before was a nice warning...
Stall at 5000 rpms throttle.....27 mph!!!!!!....did it 3 or 4 times and I
think I might have seen 26 once!...loaded to GROSS folks...!
I have gained actually a solid 6 mph of slow flight envelope.....I can't
believe it....Im gonna do it again in the morning to see if i was dreaming
today!
I installed them at 13.5 inches back from the center of the leading edge
tube...they are a tad behind the high part of the wing when at flight
attitude. what i attempted to do was raise the wing to flight attitude..and
threw a line across the top of the wing at what appeared to be the highest
point...then placed the front of the vg on this line.
I made the Vgs at a 20 deg angle....\ / not because im a smart
feller...but because I studied all the patent data at US patent web
site...Studied brother Shacks archives...and brother Harts stuff too. I
could not decide after all this that I knew what was best..so I just went in
between!
I cant say if I have done it right, or the best way..but im not gonna change
em..I'm very pleased.
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Don Gherardini-
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 8/22/03 10:40:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
WillUribe(at)aol.com writes:
> Where=20is
> Swiderski?
> http://www.springeraviation.net/database.html
>
> Will Uribe
> El Paso, TX
> FireStar II N4GU
> C-172 N2506U
> http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
>
He is in or near Ocala up north central Fla.
George Randolph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Bonsell" <ebonsell(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi All,
I have a 377 Rotax with Warp Drive 66 x 28 on my 86 Firestar. I like it.
Sincerely,
Ed Bonsell
________________________________________________________________________________
Kolbers,
After Big Lar's visit I started rethinking the Harley redrive. Then last night
it hit me! The whole problem thus far has been trying to work around the starter
flex plate and retain the HD compensating sprocket for torsional dampening.So
I plan to move the starter up on the propshaft end of the drive like it is
on the motorcycle. this will allow me to use the HD double roller chain in oil
with the HD slack adjuster.I can make a drive train case that will bolt to the
engine case much like the primary drive on the bike and use tapered roller bearings
on the prop shaft. I'm thinking 1 1/4" shaft. This set up will also allow
the stator to run in oil for cooling. I guess taking some time off the project
helped. Thanks to Big Lar for the nuge.....
pp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Belt sander specs. |
Go down to your local Homely Depot (ugly orange) or Lowe's and check out
the Delta sanders. They not bad for the money, cost much less than they
did in early 90's. I have one of the small Delta 1" belt sanders and a 4"
belt/5-6"disk sander. They work good. Also have a Sears 1" belt/6-8" disk
sander, it has more power than the Delta, hard to stop the belt on it but
I've had to do some work on it. It's now working fine. I've seen another
similar design but it had a improved design of the belt tracking and
tightener, and easier putting a belt on and off.
Can't recall for sure, but one of the companies 1" belt sander came with a
clear plastic shield at the top which stops it from throwing stuff back at
you into your face. It was a nice feature. I do believe you would be
happier with the Delta tools in the long run.
While I have a friend that has had good luck with Harbor Freight power and
air tools, I my self have not. This was back in the early 90's about the
time they were switching from manufacturing in Twain to China. The Taiwan
made hand tools were good but the early on China stuff was junk. I
returned more brand new faulty tools than you would believe. I did just
recently purchase one of Harbor Freight sliding miter saws ($99) and so far
it works fine. I got the slider so I could cut wider 2x12"s. Now having
used it I would now purchase the Delta units that sells for about $90-$100
that's lighter making it easier to move around and it still would cut 2x8's.
harbor freight had a Metal Chop Saw on sale for $49, you can't beat
that. If you put a fine metal blade on it, it would be a killer for
cutting tubing I think. The abrasive blade it comes with wouldn't work
well for aluminum. A table saw works good too.
jerb
(some folks get their high from using drugs including smoking, I get mine
from buying tools and I still have the tools to use afterwards)
>
>Hello all,
>
>I am looking at small, bench mounted belt sanders for
>smoothing aluminum after cutting. Any advice on the
>grade of sandpaper to use? Been looking at some
>Harbor Freight models priced around $80; any thoughts
>on whether it will last longer than a week ;-), or
>other suggested sanders?
>
>Thanks, Jim
>
>Jim Clayton
>California
>Mark-3X, waiting for Kit#1
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
What kind of increase did you see on cruise speed?
jerb
>
>In a message dated 8/22/03 10:20:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>lgreen1(at)sc.rr.com writes:
>
>
> > Here's a question from a new Kolb driver to get you all going. If you
> could
> > do one thing to an older Firestar I with 377 to improve safety,
> performance
> > and reliability what would it be? ( without letting you fly it instead
> of me
> > )
> > Bryan Green (Elgin SC)
> >
> >
> >
>
>I would install my Vortex Generators on the wings -one on each main rib for a
>total of 10. The cost to make them is under $20.
>
>They should lower your stall speed by 4-5 mph, give better gas mileage,
>increase your cruise speed for same rpm's, etc..
>
>Put some on your vertical fin for power steering.
>
>If you want the plan, let me know.
>
>Howard Shackleford
>FS II
>Lexington, SC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> You know I heard and read about this prop or that prop being better, but
> you never seen any true back to back test that provide conclusive data
that
> one is better. Now "Kirk" being engineering orientated, I truly surprised
> he hasn't taken this on and applied his true engineering talents
> by devising a true test that could be done on the ground that would
> conclusively establish which prop performs better. Appears like it may
> take a wind tunnel and possibly environmental control of temperature or
> electric motor as the prop power source.....
> jerb
>
Sounds interesting. Have done a few tests as a matter of fact and found out
that one blade follows the other. Kind of like what goes around comes
around. Really useless data though. Wouldn't call it scientific or even
elementary engineering........Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vortex Generators |
In a message dated 8/23/03 10:57:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ulflyer(at)verizon.net writes:
> What kind of increase did you see on cruise speed?
> jerb
>
>
I have not documented this. Most of the performance gains are theoretical,
except for the lowering of stall speed. In my opinion, just to be able to
lower stall by 5 mph is incredible, especially when you consider you can build
&
install them in under two hours & less than $20.
Back to theoretical increase of cruise speed with same rpm; we know the VG's
are working because the stall has lowered. Not to oversimplify, but the
moving air is staying attached more to the top wing surface, creating more lift
for the same angle of attack. Therefore, we should be able to lower the angle
of attack [therefore less drag]
with the result of an increase in speed with no throttle change.
For this same reason, top speed should increase.
I've also installed three VG's on each side of my fuselage to give better
airflow to the prop [again, theoretical].
Shack
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 8/23/03 11:13:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
WillUribe(at)aol.com writes:
> Come to think of it, Dave had vortex generators installed on top of his
> FireStar's wings. Could that be why he was flying away from me?
>
>
I'll bet he gets better gas mileage while flying away from you...........
Shack
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lawrence M. Rice" <tailwind5(at)juno.com> |
Wood props are lovely, absorb vibration, can be made to flex so close to
being a constant speed, but rain really chews them up. A friend of mine
hit some rain in his Hatz a few months back and the leading edges of the
prop looked like a beaver had been chewing on them, had to fix with epoxy
before heading home. A urethane or matal leading edge helps.
Larry the MicroMong guy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vortex Generators |
----- Original Message -----
From: <HShack(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Vortex Generators
> I've also installed three VG's on each side of my fuselage to give better
> airflow to the prop [again, theoretical].
>
> Shack
> FS II
> SC
As a point of interest, I have the factory enclosure on my Firestar II. I am
not sure how everyone else did theirs, but mine flares out quite a bit at
the sides. I was worried about the air swirling back and causing a lot of
drag, plus something Pike said about dirty air to the prop. So I stuck three
VG's to the bulging enclosure and tufted yarn to the back of the cage all
along the rear of the bird. Some were up by the enclosure, others back along
the cage. Unfortunately I didn't do a flight without the VG's, but with them
on there was no swirling air anywhere on the cage in front of the prop or
anywhere at all. I had the wife film my fly by's so I could see for myself.
All the yarn pieces were straight back, One feature of the VG's is that it
quieted the noise a lot, leading me to believe that the air to the prop was
a lot cleaner than it had been.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
Good luck to ya, Paul, and thanks to you and Charlie for your hospitality
the other day. Lar in Pineville, Lousy-ana. Do not
Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose N78LB
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Big Day
>
> Kolbers,
> Well today is the big day. I mailed a check to TNK for kit 1 for a King
Kolbra. Plan on working in the shop this weekend getting ready to start. I
bought two real heavy built 4 x 8 tables that I plan to put end to end and
true up. They have Formica surfaces with a back splash. This sound like a
suitable work surface? I'm very excited to finally get going on this
project. Thanks to all for the good advice.
>
> Let the madness begin!
>
> pp
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bryan green" <lgreen1(at)sc.rr.com> |
Thanks Shack e-mail them to me and I'll make a set and put them on. Hope to
see ya at our flyin in Oct.
Bryan Green (Elgin SC)
----- Original Message -----
From: <HShack(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: think
>
> In a message dated 8/22/03 10:20:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> lgreen1(at)sc.rr.com writes:
>
>
> > Here's a question from a new Kolb driver to get you all going. If you
could
> > do one thing to an older Firestar I with 377 to improve safety,
performance
> > and reliability what would it be? ( without letting you fly it instead
of me
> > )
> > Bryan Green (Elgin SC)
> >
> >
> >
>
> I would install my Vortex Generators on the wings -one on each main rib
for a
> total of 10. The cost to make them is under $20.
>
> They should lower your stall speed by 4-5 mph, give better gas mileage,
> increase your cruise speed for same rpm's, etc..
>
> Put some on your vertical fin for power steering.
>
> If you want the plan, let me know.
>
> Howard Shackleford
> FS II
> Lexington, SC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FlyColt45(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Propellors Bonsell |
Glad to hear that you finally got that Kolb up in the air again!
Jim Cote
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CRAIG M NELSON" <vitalfx0(at)msn.com> |
Uncle Craig has just signed up for the klob list, and hope to share on the info.
Tim and I have been so busy building the extra and f star that we haven't had
time to fix our downed web site. I started an engine faring at this time a
year ago, thought it would take me 2 mo. However in Jan I finally had a part to
put on the plane. I GOT THE AIR FRAME FROM THE POWDER COATER YESTERDAY AND TODAY
INSTALLED THE FUEL TANK AND GOT THE FABRICK PUT ON!!!!!!!!!!!! Hope it wont
be long before the first flight. If the files aren't to big here's 2 photos
of the engine faring.
Uncle Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: T. K. Frantz
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wood props
Kirk Smith wrote:
>
> Does anybody know who makes the wood props that Kolb uses on their fireflies?
Kirk
>
Kirk,
Tennessee Propellors makes the wood prop, at least they did a year ago. If your
looking to get a better price by dealing with them direct, think again. I tried
and
found that I was able to get a better price from TNK. Go figure?!!!
Found out they will do a urethane leading edge if you ask for it.
Terry - FireFly # 95
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 8/23/03 8:13:34 PM Central Standard Time,
WillUribe(at)aol.com writes:
<< airport, lots of ultralights but no Kolbs were out. Went to the Waco
fly-in,
now that was fun.
>>
Will,
When was the waco Flyin.? Do they have it every year?
Ed (In Houston)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
I figure it like this. The kit manufacturer has researched the prop and
knows the particulars of it when operated on their aircraft. Because of
that they can better field most questions from customers than the prop
manufacturer. Due to this the kit manufacturer likely gets a better price
which means they can past some of the discount on to the customer. On the
other hand when a customer attempts to deal direct with the
manufacturer, the manufacturer has to respond and educate each customer on
a individual basis. This reduces the prop manufacturers productivity and
increase their cost thus they must pass it on to the buyer. Another
influential factor it may be the prop manufacturers intent discourage
competition against his own dealers.
jerb
>
>Uncle Craig has just signed up for the klob list, and hope to share on the
>info. Tim and I have been so busy building the extra and f star that we
>haven't had time to fix our downed web site. I started an engine faring at
>this time a year ago, thought it would take me 2 mo. However in Jan I
>finally had a part to put on the plane. I GOT THE AIR FRAME FROM THE
>POWDER COATER YESTERDAY AND TODAY INSTALLED THE FUEL TANK AND GOT THE
>FABRICK PUT ON!!!!!!!!!!!! Hope it wont be long before the first flight.
>If the files aren't to big here's 2 photos of the engine faring.
>Uncle Craig
>----- Original Message -----
>From: T. K. Frantz
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wood props
>
>
>Kirk Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > Does anybody know who makes the wood props that Kolb uses on their
> fireflies? Kirk
> >
>
>Kirk,
>
>Tennessee Propellors makes the wood prop, at least they did a year
>ago. If your
>looking to get a better price by dealing with them direct, think again. I
>tried and
>found that I was able to get a better price from TNK. Go figure?!!!
>
>Found out they will do a urethane leading edge if you ask for it.
>
>Terry - FireFly # 95
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
Guys,
My Warp drive is coated with mosquito goop. What can I use to clean it that
won't damage the prop? Thanks! Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Warp Drive prop |
409 and a scrub pad that is safe for Teflon coated pans.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>Guys,
> My Warp drive is coated with mosquito goop. What can I use to clean
> it that won't damage the prop? Thanks! Kirk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Warp Drive prop |
Hi Kirk and Gang,
I use the green stuff that Walmart sells and a rag. I think it is called
Simple Green". I also dilute it and use it to clean the oily mess of model
airplanes. It works very good.
Later,
John Cooley
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Sunday, August 24, 2003 06:18:02 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Warp Drive prop
Guys,
My Warp drive is coated with mosquito goop. What can I use to clean it that
won't damage the prop? Thanks! Kirk
.
________________________________________________________________________________
Kolbers,
At the NAPA store I run we sell a cleaning cloth that is amazing! It's called "The
Cajun Clean All" this micro fiber cloth uses only water and will remove bugs
and anything that may come along. They sell for $9.95 each or 3 for $19.95.
If you cant locate one and are interested, let me know. I can ship UPS.
For Richard Pike, I tried to e-mail you off the list but it came back. Can you
resend me this month's prop wash? I have a friend that's interested in the Ran's
S7 that's for sale.
Thanks
pp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FRED2319(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Fred 2319(at)aol.com |
Please remove me from mailing list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Ledbetter" <gdledbetter(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Fred 2319(at)aol.com |
Fred,
If you will look at the bottom of any message, it shows how to
unsubscribe.
Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
FRED2319(at)aol.com
Subject: Kolb-List: Fred 2319(at)aol.com
Please remove me from mailing list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blind runner |
> Kirk,
>
> Any pics of Howard's run?
>
> Bob
I may have one from last years race. Also some of him running on his track.
I'll check with his wife also... Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: The annual WACO Celebration and Reunion |
In a message dated 8/23/03 10:10:17 PM Central Standard Time,
WillUribe(at)aol.com writes:
<< The fly in was today and it's held at 1865 South County Road 25A, Troy,
Ohio.
I think it is held every year.
http://www.wacoairmuseum.org/
>>
Will,
Sorry, I thought You ment Waco Texas, Seeing you are in Texas. Just
wanted to know if there was a flyin close to home I was unaware of.
Ed ( in houston)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Davis - Comcast" <davis207(at)comcast.net> |
"Kolb-List Digest List"
| Subject: | EAA Easter Coast Regional Flying - canceled |
Bill, Terry & others,
Sorry to hear the regional fly-in was cancelled. However, I am still
planning to make at least one day of the Chapter 240 fly-in on the 6/7th,
most likely the 7th. My chapter (176 - Trenton, NJ) is having our annual
picnic on the 6th, plus the wife has activities planned that preclude a full
day's absence.
I drove to this event a year or 2 ago, and it was a great gathering. I'm
hoping to see some other Kolbs this time. Anyone who's planning to attend,
let me know and we can try and hook up.
Chuck Davis
FF 028
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 45 Msgs - 08/23/03 |
> My MK3 runs great with the 618 but in the last few flights it seems to have
>
> >developed a buzzing or whining sound at full throttle. As I level off and
> >throttle back, as soon as I come below 5900 rpm it dissapears. Probably
> prop noise
>
> >but I hav'nt changed anything and it never made this sound in 7 yrs? We
> all
> >know how as pilots that we are very sensitive to any change in sounds.
> > Thanks for any feed back.
> >
> >Fly Safe
> >Bob Griffin
> I had sent this in to the list about a month ago and have solved the
> mystery. The lexan cut out door in the wing gap area which allows the ballistic
> chute to exit, was held down with velcro which had come loose and at high rpm
the
> lexan vibrated like a guitar string. At a lower rpm the noise went away. For
> the time being, I have glued down the velcro with liquid nails. So far so
> good.
Bob Griffin
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: speaking of Vortex generators..WOW |
After flying quite abit today...I will add this comment about those VG's...
with 1 notch of flaps...the little bird floats an awful lot more than it did
before..I had gotten used to landing the FireFly..
and I was really "grease'n em in"
I have not done that since installing VG's..I have not had any hard
landings, but I have had a bounce or 2 on every one since.Hard to believe
its floats like it does now with one notch of flaps...but it does.
No, Im not going to take them off...just practice landing till I get better
at it!
BTW..Jack H..I met a couple of your compadres this weekend at the Fly-in up
here at Tommy's airpark. some real fine fellows...even if they do fly
Challengers!
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Attaching velcro |
>Several years ago I had some velcro which seemed like it gradually would
>turn loose from the glue, and I ended up drilling a bunch of little holes
>down either side of the velcro strip and "sewing" it to the aluminum sheet
>with thin wire. That, combined with the glue, gave me peace of mind that
>it wouldn't come loose, and the little strands of wire running across the
>face of the velcro didn't seem to cause any problem.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>The lexan cut out door in the wing gap area which allows the ballistic
> > chute to exit, was held down with velcro which had come loose and at
> high rpm the
> > lexan vibrated like a guitar string. At a lower rpm the noise went
> away. For
> > the time being, I have glued down the velcro with liquid nails. So far so
> > good.
>Bob Griffin
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 45 Msgs - 08/23/03 |
In a message dated 8/24/03 10:14:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ulflyer(at)verizon.net writes:
> Does GOOP dry hard or is it soft and pliable. I always wondered! Hows
> it's bonding strength?
> jerb
>
>
It dries really firm- much less pliable than silicone. Very strong! If it's
real important to get a really strong bond, use a fresh tube.
Shack
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | cherry grove fly in |
Sunday aug. 31 is the 11th anual cherry grove airpark flyin. all are
welcome.
cherry grove airpark is in wanamingo mn. you can get info at
www.theflyin.com
Mark
twinstar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gtalexander(at)att.net |
| Subject: | UL Activity in FL |
Kolbers:
Am in the process of exploring areas of FL as possible sites to relocate.
Strongly considering the areas around Bradenton, Sarasota, Venice, Englewood.
One of the factors is obviously UL activity, areas to hangar, etc... Anyone
with any thoughts/information about the area would be appreciated. email off-
list if you like. gtalexander(at)att.net
Thanks,
George Alexander
Original Firestar
http://gtalexander.home.att.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gherkins Tim-rp3420 <rp3420(at)motorola.com> |
Welcome to the list uncle Craig! The photo's did not come thru? I'll have to
work with you on that.
nephew Timmy
-----Original Message-----
From: CRAIG M NELSON [mailto:vitalfx0(at)msn.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: uncle craig
Uncle Craig has just signed up for the klob list, and hope to share on the info.
Tim and I have been so busy building the extra and f star that we haven't had
time to fix our downed web site. I started an engine faring at this time a
year ago, thought it would take me 2 mo. However in Jan I finally had a part to
put on the plane. I GOT THE AIR FRAME FROM THE POWDER COATER YESTERDAY AND TODAY
INSTALLED THE FUEL TANK AND GOT THE FABRICK PUT ON!!!!!!!!!!!! Hope it wont
be long before the first flight. If the files aren't to big here's 2 photos
of the engine faring.
Uncle Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: T. K. Frantz
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wood props
Kirk Smith wrote:
>
> Does anybody know who makes the wood props that Kolb uses on their fireflies?
Kirk
>
Kirk,
Tennessee Propellors makes the wood prop, at least they did a year ago. If your
looking to get a better price by dealing with them direct, think again. I tried
and
found that I was able to get a better price from TNK. Go figure?!!!
Found out they will do a urethane leading edge if you ask for it.
Terry - FireFly # 95
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Warp Drive prop |
Kirk, I have been using Simple Green on my Warp drive. Works well.
Bob Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 45 Msgs - 08/23/03 |
http://www.ultralightflyingny.org/flyin.htm Here is the infor on Mohawk
Valley Fly-In. Aug 22-25 Plateau Sky Ranch,, Edinburg, NY ( Upstate NY)
Bob Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron wehba" <rwehba(at)wtxs.net> |
howard, could you send it to me also, just had a new drive installed ,,lost
everything
----- Original Message -----
From: <HShack(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: think
>
> In a message dated 8/22/03 10:20:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> lgreen1(at)sc.rr.com writes:
>
>
> > Here's a question from a new Kolb driver to get you all going. If you
could
> > do one thing to an older Firestar I with 377 to improve safety,
performance
> > and reliability what would it be? ( without letting you fly it instead
of me
> > )
> > Bryan Green (Elgin SC)
> >
> >
> >
>
> I would install my Vortex Generators on the wings -one on each main rib
for a
> total of 10. The cost to make them is under $20.
>
> They should lower your stall speed by 4-5 mph, give better gas mileage,
> increase your cruise speed for same rpm's, etc..
>
> Put some on your vertical fin for power steering.
>
> If you want the plan, let me know.
>
> Howard Shackleford
> FS II
> Lexington, SC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Here's one for the motor heads. How does one measure how much thrust a given engine/prop
is producing? And once this info is obtained can one figure out how
well the engine will perform?
pp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues. |
FireFliers & Kolbers,
On the last trip to Painton from Perryville, there was a little cross wind from
the west. It gave me one of the best test flights on the new engine. Running
the Victor 1+ at 5,200 rpm, the average ground speed point to point was 56 mph,
and the fuel burn was 2.08 gph. This gives a four gallon range of 108 miles.
I am finding that the faster I run the engine, the better range I am getting.
Evidently, the drag profile reduction due to lower wing attack angle is greater
than the increase in parasitic drag due to increased speed, and maybe the
engine performance is moving toward a sweet spot too. It will take several
more trips at higher engine rpms to find out.
This trip has given me more encouragement to add more fairings to try stretch fuel
a little further. I have been adding fairings to the aileron torque tubes
and to the angle side of the ailerons. These fairings reduce the prop clearance
to just a little under four inches. From using clearance test strips in the
past, I believe the IVO will not hit the fairings. Calculations indicate that
these fairings should reduce the hp requirement to fly 55 mph by about 0.62
hp. Tomorrow I will be cutting out foam fairing pieces for the aileron push
rod tubes. Once these are installed, another 0.19 hp will be saved. Cutting
out foam pieces on a table scroll saw is a good activity for a couple of hours
on a hot day. But gluing them into place etc. is much more fun.
The last big drag reduction will be fairing in the 5/16 tubes on the trailing edges
of the ailerons and the tail feathers. The gluing of one inch thick foam
pieces to too laborious to think about. I have tried two things that ended up
in glorious failures. I am waiting for some nicrom wire so that I can make
a foam hot wire cutter, and then I will try again. What makes this one so encouraging
is that calculations show that by fairing in these little edges will
save another 0.78 hp. at 55 mph.
Don,
I believe you met Jerry Deckard and Richard Hoyer. Jerry flys out of Poplar Bluff,
MO, and Richard Hoyer flys from a grass strip at Painton, MO. This is were
EAA Chapter 453 meets. They have asked me several times to make the trip,
but family or spousal duties keep me from making the trip.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CRAIG M NELSON" <vitalfx0(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | uncle Craig engine faring |
I just got this computer and MSN having trouble with attachments I tried earlier
to send pics but had delivery failure. here go's another try for a couple attachments
uncle
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: uncle Craig engine faring |
| From: | Gene Ledbetter <gdledbetter(at)earthlink.net> |
Craig,
You can attach photos on the Kolb List.
Look at the bottom of any email and it will take you to the
instructions for how to share photos with the Kolb List.
Gene
On Monday, Aug 25, 2003, at 20:56 US/Eastern, CRAIG M NELSON wrote:
>
> I just got this computer and MSN having trouble with attachments I
> tried earlier to send pics but had delivery failure. here go's another
> try for a couple attachments
> uncle
> Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
Paul here's an interesting site, can't guarantee it's accuracy.
http://www.altimizer.com/propspd.html
IMO static thrust is overrated, doesn't have much bearing on what you'll
be doing at speed. More relevant to slower craft like trikes. -BB
Paul Petty wrote:
>
>Here's one for the motor heads. How does one measure how much thrust a given engine/prop
is producing? And once this info is obtained can one figure out how
well the engine will perform?
>
>pp
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 8/25/03 4:51:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rwehba(at)wtxs.net
writes:
> howard, could you send it to me also, just had a new drive installed ,,lost
> everything
>
Yep.
Shack
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CRAIG M NELSON" <vitalfx0(at)msn.com> |
Milow(Tim)
Where were you last night? I think I got the pictures to work.
uncle Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: Gherkins Tim-rp3420
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: uncle craig
Welcome to the list uncle Craig! The photo's did not come thru? I'll have to
work with you on that.
nephew Timmy
-----Original Message-----
From: CRAIG M NELSON [mailto:vitalfx0(at)msn.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: uncle craig
Uncle Craig has just signed up for the klob list, and hope to share on the info.
Tim and I have been so busy building the extra and f star that we haven't had
time to fix our downed web site. I started an engine faring at this time a
year ago, thought it would take me 2 mo. However in Jan I finally had a part to
put on the plane. I GOT THE AIR FRAME FROM THE POWDER COATER YESTERDAY AND TODAY
INSTALLED THE FUEL TANK AND GOT THE FABRICK PUT ON!!!!!!!!!!!! Hope it wont
be long before the first flight. If the files aren't to big here's 2 photos
of the engine faring.
Uncle Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: T. K. Frantz
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wood props
Kirk Smith wrote:
>
> Does anybody know who makes the wood props that Kolb uses on their fireflies?
Kirk
>
Kirk,
Tennessee Propellors makes the wood prop, at least they did a year ago. If your
looking to get a better price by dealing with them direct, think again. I tried
and
found that I was able to get a better price from TNK. Go figure?!!!
Found out they will do a urethane leading edge if you ask for it.
Terry - FireFly # 95
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski(at)rocketjet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: thrust, measurement, prop setting |
Paul,
You have 2 choices. With the engine mounted on the plane or engine
stand, you can either have it push on a scale, or pull on a scale. A 47hp
503 swinging a kolb wood 2-blade gets 275lbs thrust & a 64hp 582 with a
3-blade Precision Prop will generate 360 lbs of thrust. A bathroom scale
tops out around 350 & the middle of the range is most accurate, so a its not
a great option, besides, if its on the plane, its hard to push & not hurt a
kolb nose. Pulling on a spring scale is the most common way as all you need
is level, hard ground & a stout post or car to tie to, & the tail wheel is
strong enough to handle the thrust. Finding a cheap 360 plus lb. tension
scale is not easy. Using pullies to get a reduction for a smaller scale
does not work well as the friction loss it high & unreliable. You could
make a 2:1 lever, pull on the short side & have long side push against a
bathroom scale & double the reading. I was going to find a surplus
piston/cylinder capable of handling 500lb, fill it with oil, put a pressure
guage on it, calibrate the guage in 5lb increments in the range I need & use
it for a pull guage. I have since found an electronic freight scale with a
remote screen/display at Sam's Club for $40 on their discount shelf & will
mount it on my engine stand. They actually sell electronic pull scales just
for this application but I never seen one yet for under $150.
The static thrust will give you a good indication on how it will
perform, more so in the climb mode than in the top speed mode. I have found
I needed to pitch my props about 12% below the highest attainable full
throttle thrust to get an acceptable cruise setting. If I pitched for
maximum static thrust, depending on the prop, I sometimes would accelerate
extremely fast but then it would barely attain flight speed, it would just
peter out. To start out, increase pitch untill your engine is pulled down
about 300rpm below its maximum rpm. That will get you in the ball park.
Richard Swiderski
Ocala FL
SlingShot with soon to be Tubo 3cylinder
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: thrust
>
> Here's one for the motor heads. How does one measure how much thrust a
given engine/prop is producing? And once this info is obtained can one
figure out how well the engine will perform?
>
> pp
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues. |
Jack, don't wait for the nicrome wire, use stainless safety wire instead.
Years ago I needed to cut out a bunch of leading edge false ribs from foam
and used regular stainless safety wire to do it with. Built a tension bow
from wood with a stout spring at one end and used that to tighten the wire.
For resistance and power, I used a 12 volt 6 amp battery charger and added
a couple old fog lamps I had laying in a box. By adding or subtracting
lamps, (high tech, huh?) I was able to come up with a load that would get
the wire hot enough to cut the foam very smoothly without getting it too
hot. It was a messy rig, what with wires and lamps, but it worked good.
One thought - Having read a bit on flutter, there is a possibility that
taking the trailing edges on the ailerons to a knife edge may make them
more flutter prone. Plus, you will inevitably be adding a tad more weight
to the aileron trailing edges.
Make haste slowly and carefully! I have seen Kolb aileron flutter and it's
not pretty.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>FireFliers & Kolbers,
>
>On the last trip to Painton from Perryville, there was a little cross wind
>from the west. It gave me one of the best test flights on the new
>engine. Running the Victor 1+ at 5,200 rpm, the average ground speed
>point to point was 56 mph, and the fuel burn was 2.08 gph. This gives a
>four gallon range of 108 miles. I am finding that the faster I run the
>engine, the better range I am getting. Evidently, the drag profile
>reduction due to lower wing attack angle is greater than the increase in
>parasitic drag due to increased speed, and maybe the engine performance is
>moving toward a sweet spot too. It will take several more trips at higher
>engine rpms to find out.
>
>This trip has given me more encouragement to add more fairings to try
>stretch fuel a little further. I have been adding fairings to the aileron
>torque tubes and to the angle side of the ailerons. These fairings reduce
>the prop clearance to just a little under four inches. From using
>clearance test strips in the past, I believe the IVO will not hit the
>fairings. Calculations indicate that these fairings should reduce the hp
>requirement to fly 55 mph by about 0.62 hp. Tomorrow I will be cutting
>out foam fairing pieces for the aileron push rod tubes. Once these are
>installed, another 0.19 hp will be saved. Cutting out foam pieces on a
>table scroll saw is a good activity for a couple of hours on a hot
>day. But gluing them into place etc. is much more fun.
>
>The last big drag reduction will be fairing in the 5/16 tubes on the
>trailing edges of the ailerons and the tail feathers. The gluing of one
>inch thick foam pieces to too laborious to think about. I have tried two
>things that ended up in glorious failures. I am waiting for some nicrom
>wire so that I can make a foam hot wire cutter, and then I will try
>again. What makes this one so encouraging is that calculations show that
>by fairing in these little edges will save another 0.78 hp. at 55 mph.
>
>Don,
>
>I believe you met Jerry Deckard and Richard Hoyer. Jerry flys out of
>Poplar Bluff, MO, and Richard Hoyer flys from a grass strip at Painton,
>MO. This is were EAA Chapter 453 meets. They have asked me several times
>to make the trip, but family or spousal duties keep me from making the trip.
>
>Jack B. Hart FF004
>Jackson, MO
>
>
>Jack & Louise Hart
>jbhart(at)ldd.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: uncle Craig engine faring |
The way this list is set up, attachments will not appear. You need to go
down below to where the PHOTO SHARE thing is and add them there. It takes a
day or so for them to show up because Matt has to load them manually.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>I just got this computer and MSN having trouble with attachments I tried
>earlier to send pics but had delivery failure. here go's another try for a
>couple attachments
>uncle
>Craig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Foam cutter |
In a message dated 8/25/03 11:20:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rwpike(at)charter.net writes:
> For resistance and power, I used a 12 volt 6 amp battery charger and added
> a couple old fog lamps I had laying in a box. By adding or subtracting
>
As usual, Brother Pike is right on; however, instead of the fog lamps you can
put in a dimmer switch [cheap from Lowe's]. Adjust for proper wire temp.
Shack
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
08/26/2003 08:28:07 AM
>I have been looking for another propeller with a broad blade. I came
across Powerfin.
>They make claims of lower inertia than, 1/3 the flexure of, and better
>performance than the IVO. Does anyone have any experience with Powerfin
on
>a Kolb product? If so, how has it performed?
>Jack B. Hart FF004
>Jackson, M
I used a 3 blade 66" Powerfin original design blade prop for six years/170
hours. It performed perfectly for me. It would not survive a bolt or
spark plug passing thru it as well as a Warp prop would, but other than
that, it beats Warp in many ways. Most guys in the know agree that if you
can beat a Warp, buy it. Powerfin weighs less, has lower rotational
inertia, better aerodynamics. Hans did a back to back with Warp, Ivo,
Powerfin and found Powerfin to be slightly more efficient than others
tested. Powerfin runs smoother than Warp due to slightly more flexible,
but is not nearly as flexible as Ivo so will not require the 5" clearance
of Ivo. The newest Powerfins (B or F blade designs) are more efficient
than my old A blade. My A blade was pitched for use with a 582 on a
Mkiii, "C" box at 2.62:1, 6200 static, 6600 WOT level flight at 93 mph.
Climb was excellent, I had no vertical indicator but, with 20 mph headwind
the plane would go very nearly straight up. I kept the prop and will now
use it on the BMW. BMW progress report soon.
Jim Gerken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> I used a 3 blade 66" Powerfin original design blade prop for six years/170
> hours. It performed perfectly for me.
It would not survive a bolt or
> spark plug passing thru it as well as a Warp prop would, but other than
> that, it beats Warp in many ways.
Most guys in the know agree that if you
> can beat a Warp, buy it.
> Jim Gerken
Jim G/Gang:
How much experience do you have flying with the
Warp Drive Prop?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues. |
>
>I am curious. What was your aileron chord, and at what speed did you
>experience the flutter?
>
>Jack B. Hart FF004
>Jackson, MO
Standard MKIII aileron, except with a trim tab added. (Leetle extra weight)
And flutter started at around 87-88 mph.
The aileron counter balancer from Kolb cured it.
However, the MKIII was somewhat aileron flutter susceptible anyway, so who
knows?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Foam cutter |
In a message dated 8/26/03 12:50:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, HShack(at)aol.com
writes:
>
> > For resistance and power, I used a 12 volt 6 amp battery charger and added
> > a couple old fog lamps I had laying in a box. By adding or subtracting
> >
>
> As usual, Brother Pike is right on; however, instead of the fog lamps you
> can
> put in a dimmer switch [cheap from Lowe's]. Adjust for proper wire temp.
>
> Shack
> FS II
> SC
>
> If you use the battery approach, make sure the dimmer switch is good for DC
> ...an AC switch won't work...a cleaner arrangement would be to use a variac
> plugged into ac going into a 120/12volt or 10:1 transformer...then the variac
> is your adjustment of heat...of course you could also replace the variac
> with that AC dimmer switch if it is rated high enough on current...usually they
> are rated at 6 amps.. ie. 600 watts......of course you could put it in the
> refrigerator and keep it cool if the current is above that ..and ......etc.
>
George Randolph
firestar driver from Akron...soon to be The Villages Fla
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | special tap for mounting holes for Rotax gearbox? |
| From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
08/26/2003 10:27:01 AM
I seem to remember vaguely that Richard or someone (sorry) recommended
something I think was called a close tolerance tap for making the holes for
mounting a gearbox to an engine which was not already threaded for a
gearbox. Is this ringing anyone's memory bell? I am about to tap the
holes to mount a "C" box to a 6061 T651 plate, 0.65" thick, for "C" box
mounting.
Jim Gerken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
I put it on
> my Ivo and found the two tips to be 2.5 degrees off from each other. I
> then checked my old Tennessee wood prop and found the tips to be 2 degrees
> off. Is this common for tips to be different from each other?
>
> The Flying Farmer
Dwight/All:
I don't know, but all three of my Warp Drive Prop
Blades are at the same angle of attack (using the
Warp Drive Protractor).
The Warp Drive Prop will raise Hell if all two or
three blades are not the same angle. Maybe
different angles for different blades don't affect
their performance. I can not speak to IVO or
Power Fin in that respect.
I can say the Warp Drive System is set and forget,
once you have the prop set up to your
satisfaction. I am talking more than 500 hours
without additional adjustment to bring blades back
to the same pitch, vibration, losing leading edge
tape, blades coming apart, :-), or other problems.
I was sitting here in the secure environment of my
old lake house contemplating some of the comments
about props other than Warp Drive. Came to the
conclusion I would not fly to Alaska with anything
but a Warp. For that matter, the up coming flight
to Kitty Hawk and then to London, KY, for the
Annual Kolb Flying, will be done with none other
than a Warp. Don't need the nagging thought of a
blade coming apart to ruin my flight, airplane, or
my butt. :-) I fly for fun. Safety,
reliability, the capability to get me there and
back safely, is a key ingredient to "fun" flying.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
Paul,
from a mechanics point of veiw only, not thinking of preformance, but of
durability..a GA engine such as the one in a Cessna or that RV, it is
designed to withstand the load(s) of the prop directly on the
crankshaft....as an mechanic you would recognize this right away if you saw
the size of the crank on the prop end and the size of the bearing
journal...it is about 4 inches long and the crankcase is re-inforced all
around it. I believe that few of the engines we use in our super light
aircraft world...with exception to the R912, could stand anywhere near the
inertial loads on that end of the crankshaft. I also believe that the
development of all these composite props are directly related to this fact,
and would there would not be a market for them if these psuedo snowmobile
engines and redrives that dominate sales could use a stiffer, heavier,better
prop, and not bust.!
About the only thing you ever hear against a warp, is that it is one of the
heaviest and has a pretty high inertia....well, thats really only compared
to everything lighter, and for low horsepower, and it not even close to GA
props. Generally it is accepted that a stiffer prop preforms better.
when chooseing a prop for an engine that was never designed to run on an
airplane..(only modified to do so), you should probably take into
consideration how stout the business end is...the bearings on the
re-drive...the crankend support, also the gross weight of the aircraft, and
so on, and pick a prop that wont be to heavy for that design.
For instance...I would luv to be able to run a warp on my Firefly, but I
dont have the confidence in the ability of a light weight belt reduction
like the one I have to handle the inertia loads of any but the lightest
props....and because I have to run an extention in this pusher config, I am
ever more concerned about the weight.
Course...I could be all wet too!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues. |
> However, the MKIII was somewhat aileron flutter susceptible anyway, so who
> knows?
>
> Richard Pike
Richard/All:
I'll drink to that, Diet Pepsi, of course.
All my Kolbs, Ultrastar, Firestar, MK III,
experienced aileron flutter. Is it coincidental
that I load up the fabric with dope and paint? I
think so. It is all a matter of "unbalance". The
weight of that aileron hanging on the hinge at the
leading edge. With an airframe at 1,850+ hours, I
find the Kolb aileron counterbalance weights do a
wonderful job of 100% flutter prevention. I used
to think it was a matter of loose linkage in the
system, but many flight hours and extremely loose
rod end bearings, 4130 bushings and pivot points,
I find the counterbalance weights do their job in
spite of sloppy aileron controls.
Why don't all Kolbs experience flutter? I don't
know. I put many hours on the Factory MK III and
other Kolb models. Never experienced a flutter
problem. In fact, the only flutter problem of a
Kolb Factory airplane that I am aware of is the
experience of Dick Rahil (gray beard) who flied
the Firestar. Old Kolb never got concerned about
my crying and whining of aileron flutter until
Dick got into severe flutter at Sun and Fun
several years ago. Shortly thereafter, Kolb
designed, built and made available aileron counter
balance weights. First for the Firestar, then the
MK III. The counter balance weights I first
installed on my MK III were designed for the
Firestar, but worked splendidly on the MK III.
What a relief. Peaceful flight at last.
Will your Kolb go into aileron flutter? I don't
know, but I for one, would not gamble on it. When
severe flutter is encountered the control stick is
immediately snatched from your hand as it tried to
beat itself to death laterally swinging from stop
to stop. I am not sure what damage will occur if
throttle is not immediately closed to slow
airspeed and get the ailerons loaded up to stop
the flutter. Getting too old to gamble on
problems that might hurt my old bod, but not as
old as dirt, or Bob Noyer (my good buddy from
Winchester, VA).
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski(at)rocketjet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues. |
Jack,
Several years back I read a study were they found that making the
trailing edges square, increased handling & cut drag. They also said the
knife edge was not recommened. The squared edge needed to be something like
1/4" or slightly less. I don't remember that detail. I'll see if I saved
the article.
Richard Swiderski
> >
> >One thought - Having read a bit on flutter, there is a possibility that
> >taking the trailing edges on the ailerons to a knife edge may make them
> >more flutter prone. Plus, you will inevitably be adding a tad more weight
> >to the aileron trailing edges.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski(at)rocketjet.net> |
Dwight,
I have found that anything more than .5 degree difference makes a
noticable effect on performance. Richard Swiderski
> With the recent prop discussion, I have a question for all. At Oshkosh
> this year I bought a Warp Drive prop protractor (great tool). I put it on
> my Ivo and found the two tips to be 2.5 degrees off from each other. I
> then checked my old Tennessee wood prop and found the tips to be 2 degrees
> off. Is this common for tips to be different from each other?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
You could tell the difference in smoothness when they were correct.
> My new IVO is behaving itself. (So far...)
Speaking of smoothness. It appears that the reduction of drag can do more
for a Kolb than big horsepower and mighty props. ;o) Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski(at)rocketjet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: special tap for mounting holes for Rotax gearbox? |
Jim,
That was me. I didn't know different tolerences were an option when
buying taps. I used a standard tap for my 1st hole when converting a SeaDoo
587 to a aviation 582. It was not acceptable, much too loose. My machinist
buddy ordered me a closer tolerance starting & bottom tap & it was perfect.
The tap was a Regal 8 X 1.25 D3. It has 1E08 on it as well.
Richard Swiderski
> I seem to remember vaguely that Richard or someone (sorry) recommended
> something I think was called a close tolerance tap for making the holes
for
> mounting a gearbox to an engine which was not already threaded for a
> gearbox. Is this ringing anyone's memory bell? I am about to tap the
> holes to mount a "C" box to a 6061 T651 plate, 0.65" thick, for "C" box
> mounting.
>
> Jim Gerken
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> Speaking of smoothness. It appears that the reduction of drag can do more
> for a Kolb than big horsepower and mighty props. ;o) Kirk
Snuffy/All:
After everything else on the Kolb is cleaned up to
the 'enth degree, what are you going to do to the
wing? I, personally, do not think you will ever
get much past 90 mph normal cruise for a MK III
with the current wing. I do not believe you can
have your cake and eat it too. If you want high
lift, low stall, extremely good STOL
characteristics, you will not also have a speed
demon. On the other hand, if you have a fast
wing, probably will not have good slow speed high
lift capability.
My thoughts only. Nothing to back them up except
the performance of the Kolb aircraft I have been
flying.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CRAIG M NELSON" <vitalfx0(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues. |
Jack,
glass air craft not only have a square trailing edge but they flair slightly 1/2
in. to/8 in. to have the air leave the surface clean like a small spoiler. Increases
efficiency of the wing, reduces drag ,and increases speed. I just talked
to the guys at phoenix composites about this a few weeks ago, when I noticed
the unusual trailing edge on several planes they are building.
uncle Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Swiderski
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues.
Jack,
Several years back I read a study were they found that making the
trailing edges square, increased handling & cut drag. They also said the
knife edge was not recommened. The squared edge needed to be something like
1/4" or slightly less. I don't remember that detail. I'll see if I saved
the article.
Richard Swiderski
> >
> >One thought - Having read a bit on flutter, there is a possibility that
> >taking the trailing edges on the ailerons to a knife edge may make them
> >more flutter prone. Plus, you will inevitably be adding a tad more weight
> >to the aileron trailing edges.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
> Kirk
>
>
> Can you explain "then added some wing." please?
John,
He turned the Mark 3 into a parasol. The center section now has air
flowing under it creating more lift and drag as far as the total wing drag
goes. But less overall drag and better air flow to the prop. Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues. |
I never knew why they were shaped that way...got a degree in areonautical
engineering and they never told me in school ( that i remember)...but I know
that several GA types have a "bead" on the trailing edge of the control
surfaces, making them actually a shade fatter right along the edge. Also I
have seen some control surfaces with built in, notched out trim tabs, where
the tabs show this "bead"...and the control surface did not..making them
pretty obvious because they didnt match. This little question has always
made me wonder, I'm sure there is a simple answer, but I never have heard
what it is. Do ya reckon it was so they wouldnt dent so easy?????......hehe
OH ya..guess what men....The FlagFly won "Best of Show " at her 1st
flyin!!..88 registered birds!!!!
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Don Gherardini-
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues. |
Craig,
Are we talking reflex the trailing edge up a little?
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>
>Jack,
>glass air craft not only have a square trailing edge but they flair slightly 1/2
in. to/8 in. to have the air leave the surface clean like a small spoiler.
Increases efficiency of the wing, reduces drag ,and increases speed. I just talked
to the guys at phoenix composites about this a few weeks ago, when I noticed
the unusual trailing edge on several planes they are building.
>uncle Craig
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Richard Swiderski
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues.
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
I'm sure this has been gone over in the past, but can't remember specifics. I
replaced my stock issue Kolb tailwheel with a "real" tailwheel. Don't remember
which flavor, but it's the $140.00 one in the new Aircraft Spruce catalog.
This is a dandy unit, but lacks the "breakaway" feature which would let it pivot
all the way around. Being a cheapskate, I hate to spend another $250.00 on
a proper one, so, here's my question..................can I get away with just
eliminating the springs and chains from the rudder and just let the tailwheel
caster on its' own back there ?? I have the heel brakes, so differential braking
will give me control in turns, etc. Seems to me that airflow would keep
it aligned properly while in flight, so it wouldn't veer when touching down.
(??) I've asked several people during this trip, and got several answers/opinions.
Whadda you guys think ?? Big Lar, expecting to be in El
Paso, Texas by tomorrow (Wed) night.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose N78LB
www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues. |
Hokay..................with that thought in mind, what about this - to make
Vamoose fit in that trailer, I had to cut the aileron counterbalance rod
sockets about 4" to get clearance in the nose of the trailer. Do you think
I'll need longer counterbalance rods, or will the existing ones be heavy
enuf ?? Do you feel that the ailerons should balance "neutral" with the
rods, or just off-set some of the weight ?? I had trouble figuring just
where "neutral" was, cause of the weight of the flaps.
Puzzled Lar, camped at Carlsbad Caverns, NM tonight. (at Ronnie Wehba's
excellent suggestion, during our visit in Sweetwater, Texas today)
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose N78LB
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pike" <rwpike(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues.
>
>
> >
> >I am curious. What was your aileron chord, and at what speed did you
> >experience the flutter?
> >
> >Jack B. Hart FF004
> >Jackson, MO
>
> Standard MKIII aileron, except with a trim tab added. (Leetle extra
weight)
> And flutter started at around 87-88 mph.
> The aileron counter balancer from Kolb cured it.
>
> However, the MKIII was somewhat aileron flutter susceptible anyway, so who
> knows?
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> Some one who has done this in ultra lights is
> Morry Hummel. He has produced some very
> efficient slick designs and if you want to fly
> inside a tin can, this is the way to go. If
> you want to fly up front with your head out,
> there is the FireFly and other Kolb designs.
> Some work can be done to smooth out the Kolb
> designs, but they will never be defined as
> efficient.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004 Jackson, MO
Jack/Gang:
Agree with you totally.
My MK III may be slow and inefficient, but it high
STOL performance and carries a lot of weight and
volume. I would be hard pressed to try a cross
country in a Hummel Bird. Probably one pair of
clean drawers, my credit card, and sectionals.
Thanks for all the numbers, but you lost me from
the get go. :-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
Some time ago, I published a page on pitching the prop with a laser. It was
far more accurate than the protractor, but my setup was pretty crude, too,
and took a lot of cussing to make it work properly. With proper support for
the laser, and a shady area, it'd be a simple and precise system. Food for
thought. In this campground, I don't have immediate access to a phone line
to check, but I believe I published it on the 1st page of
http://www.gogittum.com . Look down by the "Picture Pages."
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose N78LB
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski(at)rocketjet.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Props
>
> Dwight,
> I have found that anything more than .5 degree difference makes a
> noticable effect on performance. Richard Swiderski
>
> > With the recent prop discussion, I have a question for all. At Oshkosh
> > this year I bought a Warp Drive prop protractor (great tool). I put it
on
> > my Ivo and found the two tips to be 2.5 degrees off from each other. I
> > then checked my old Tennessee wood prop and found the tips to be 2
degrees
> > off. Is this common for tips to be different from each other?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: special tap for mounting holes for Rotax gearbox? |
I didn't know special tolerances were available. A while back, (last year
??) I published a couple of photos on Photoshare that showed the difference
between a couple of 3/8" fine pitch taps that I was going to use to chase
the threads for the re-drive adapter on the flywheel. This is a very
critical area and the bolts weren't threading easily, so I grabbed my handy
Chinese tap to chase the threads, and it immediately started making a heavy
cut - on a hole that had been torqued in the past. I stopped - instantly.
With that heavy cut, torquing would have stripped the threads. Went down to
the local Ace Hardware & Aircraft Supply with my calipers, and started
checking taps. They ranged over several thou in actual size, so I picked
the smallest and took it home. Did a beautiful job. Can anyone find that
photoshare for me ?? As I said in the other post............I don't have
access to a phone line, and then only for a few minutes, as others wait
their turn. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose N78LB
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski(at)rocketjet.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: special tap for mounting holes for Rotax gearbox?
>
> Jim,
> That was me. I didn't know different tolerences were an option when
> buying taps. I used a standard tap for my 1st hole when converting a
SeaDoo
> 587 to a aviation 582. It was not acceptable, much too loose. My
machinist
> buddy ordered me a closer tolerance starting & bottom tap & it was
perfect.
> The tap was a Regal 8 X 1.25 D3. It has 1E08 on it as well.
>
> Richard Swiderski
>
> > I seem to remember vaguely that Richard or someone (sorry) recommended
> > something I think was called a close tolerance tap for making the holes
> for
> > mounting a gearbox to an engine which was not already threaded for a
> > gearbox. Is this ringing anyone's memory bell? I am about to tap the
> > holes to mount a "C" box to a 6061 T651 plate, 0.65" thick, for "C" box
> > mounting.
> >
> > Jim Gerken
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
I must check into the compression
> method some on the list are using, where do I buy them? -BB
Bob/All:
Any of the acft supply houses probably have them.
Maule has a spring kit for their tail wheels,
one large and one small spring. I had a couple
kits and pieces, decided to use the two smaller
springs (compression) because they worked better
in my situation. Rudder horn is smaller than the
tail wheel horn, screws up my geometry a little.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com> |
I flew my Firestar (447) with a warp (66"?) high aspect ratio for 4
years (170 hours or so) and then tried a Powerfin. That ended after
just 4 or 5 good fun flights and the ruin of my plane from breaking
away from its tie-downs. In those first 4-5 flights, I was working on
optimizing the powerfin performance. I don't recall off-hand which
model from Powerfin, but I think it was a B cut, and pretty new from
Powerfin at that time (early 1999). Powerfin worked with me to advise
on trimming off a little diameter as I was the first 447 Firestar to
use this. I believe I got the prop pitch and diameter about as close
to ideal as possible -- of course, I didn't want to trim diameter too
far as you can't add back. :) As of last tests with this prop, it
gave me just a little lower climb performance, and barely noticeble
less cruise compared to the Warp. However, it was also a little
smoother, as expected. The Warp is smooth enf while flying, just a
jumpy racket at low to idle rpm. (If you have good brakes, run a high
idle and sit on the brakes when passing admirers.) If I recall
correctly, Dennis of orig Kolb advised against the Warp on the smaller
engines, but great on the bigger ones. I still love the performance of
the Warp -- I doubt if it can be beat. There might be some question as
to whether the B gearbox will last as long with the Warp.
-Ben Ransom
First flight after rebuild expected in 2-3 weeks ...stay tuned.
--- Jim Gerken wrote:
>
>
> >I have been looking for another propeller with a broad blade. I
> came
> across Powerfin.
> >They make claims of lower inertia than, 1/3 the flexure of, and
> better
> >performance than the IVO. Does anyone have any experience with
> Powerfin
> on
> >a Kolb product? If so, how has it performed?
>
> >Jack B. Hart FF004
> >Jackson, M
>
> I used a 3 blade 66" Powerfin original design blade prop for six
> years/170
> hours. It performed perfectly for me. It would not survive a bolt
> or
> spark plug passing thru it as well as a Warp prop would, but other
> than
> that, it beats Warp in many ways. Most guys in the know agree that
> if you
> can beat a Warp, buy it. Powerfin weighs less, has lower rotational
> inertia, better aerodynamics. Hans did a back to back with Warp,
> Ivo,
> Powerfin and found Powerfin to be slightly more efficient than others
> tested. Powerfin runs smoother than Warp due to slightly more
> flexible,
> but is not nearly as flexible as Ivo so will not require the 5"
> clearance
> of Ivo. The newest Powerfins (B or F blade designs) are more
> efficient
> than my old A blade. My A blade was pitched for use with a 582 on a
> Mkiii, "C" box at 2.62:1, 6200 static, 6600 WOT level flight at 93
> mph.
> Climb was excellent, I had no vertical indicator but, with 20 mph
> headwind
> the plane would go very nearly straight up. I kept the prop and will
> now
> use it on the BMW. BMW progress report soon.
>
>
> Jim Gerken
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=====
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
__________________________________
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
If I recall
> correctly, Dennis of orig Kolb advised against the Warp on the smaller
> engines, but great on the bigger ones. I still love the performance of
> the Warp -- I doubt if it can be beat. There might be some question as
> to whether the B gearbox will last as long with the Warp.
>
> -Ben Ransom
Ben/All:
If Dennis Souder is lurking, perhaps he will
enlighten us on why he would advise not running
the Warp two blade on smaller Rotax with B gearbox.
Heck, I remember seeing folks running 3 blade
warps on the B gearbox on 582's.
Thanks for the info Ben. Waiting patiently for
you to get back into the air. Good luck.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
I did that once - off St. Simon's Island. Lost a spring while landing on a
sand
bar (on a stock Firestar wheel).
Just happened to notice it before I took off. Couldn't find the missing one
- so it seemed
only reasonable to take the other one off and let it caster, rather than
leave on just the one.
My next landing was on Jekyll Island and I lost almost complete control as
soon as my rear
wheel touched down - YEEFRIGGINHAAA.
Did a nice 45 degree turn across the grass and taxie/parking area.
If there had been any planes there I would have hit them.
My friend - sitting on the ground thought I was doing it on purpose and
thought it was hilarious.
Got one of them real $250 wheels now.
>
>I'm sure this has been gone over in the past, but can't remember
>specifics. I replaced my stock issue Kolb tailwheel with a "real"
>tailwheel. Don't remember which flavor, but it's the $140.00 one in the
>new Aircraft Spruce catalog. This is a dandy unit, but lacks the
>"breakaway" feature which would let it pivot all the way around. Being a
>cheapskate, I hate to spend another $250.00 on a proper one, so, here's my
>question..................can I get away with just eliminating the springs
>and chains from the rudder and just let the tailwheel caster on its' own
>back there ?? I have the heel brakes, so differential braking will give
>me control in turns, etc. Seems to me that airflow would keep it aligned
>properly while in flight, so it wouldn't veer when touching
>down. (??) I've asked several people during this trip, and got several
>answers/opinions. Whadda you guys think ?? Big Lar,
>expecting to be in El Paso, Texas by tomorrow (Wed) night.
>
>Larry Bourne
________________________________________________________________________________
For anyone that has not seen the Harley run go here.
www.c-gate.net/ppetty/testrun032303.wmv
The website is www.c-gate.net/~ppetty
pp
________________________________________________________________________________
Opps! try this www.c-gate.net/ppetty/TestRun032303.wmv
pp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
Big Lar,
<>
Strongly agree with all the negative comments. In a taildragger you
will sooner or later need every ounce of yaw control you can muster.
Attach the wheel, then for the rare times you need to turn sharper than
the wheel will allow after you have started the engine, just add power
(gently), full "down" elevator and perhaps inside brake. The tail will
easily skid the wheel sideways.
Hope your Grand Tour was as much fun as it looked from here.
Tom Kuffel
Whitefish, MT
Building Original FireStar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
I must check into the compression
> method some on the list are using, where do I buy them? -BB
Bob, Gang,
Got mine from Aircraft Spruce. Page 220 of the 2002-2003 catalog.
Later,
John Cooley
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
Larry
You need tail wheel springs. You need them for landing if you are ever going
to land in more than a 5 MPH wind. Brakes should get you from 1-5 MPH range
without springs but beyond that you need both. You remember my post about
control problems in 15-20 MPH winds. Without springs I would have been in
big trouble. You can't always restrict yourself to no wind. Another issue is
with the take off. You need to counter a change in direction that will occur
at low air speeds when you add power and with the high thrust line you will
have, the LAST thing you want to do is hit a brake.
Also I spent the $ for the full swivel tail wheel so that I could maneuver
easily. I never had a problem with the original bogy wheel tail wheel. If I
didn't need the ability to easily pivot on a point I would have stayed with
the original wheel.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Tailwheel
>
> I'm sure this has been gone over in the past, but can't remember
specifics. I replaced my stock issue Kolb tailwheel with a "real"
tailwheel. Don't remember which flavor, but it's the $140.00 one in the new
Aircraft Spruce catalog. This is a dandy unit, but lacks the "breakaway"
feature which would let it pivot all the way around. Being a cheapskate, I
hate to spend another $250.00 on a proper one, so, here's my
question..................can I get away with just eliminating the springs
and chains from the rudder and just let the tailwheel caster on its' own
back there ?? I have the heel brakes, so differential braking will give me
control in turns, etc. Seems to me that airflow would keep it aligned
properly while in flight, so it wouldn't veer when touching down. (??)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
Hi Gang,
I am no longer engine-less for the Mark III that I am building. Made a good
deal on a 912S package today with John Russell, if there is such a thing as
a good deal on a Rotax 912. Getting everything needed to mount and fly on
the Mark III.
I have been busy making mods to the frame and have finished the Hauck
brothers special landing gear (many thanks goes out to Jim and John Hauck
for all the information and endless questions they have put up with). I have
modified the bottom vertical stabilizer with chrome-moly to take the extra
abuse and weight. I have also built gull wing door frames out of 1/2 x .028
chrome-moly tubing and took out the big bulge at shoulder height of the
stock setup. Still have plenty of room for two 220+ pounders, more headroom
and will hopefully get a little better air flow to the prop.
Maybe in a year or so I will be able to make one of those Monument Valley
trips, Oshkosh, Sun-n-fun or whatever comes up. Sounds like a lot of fun.
Later,
John Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
Could someone explain to me the differences and advantages of different gear
ratios. For instance I have a 3:1 gear reduction on my 582. The reason for
the question is that I sent in my "in flight adjustable motor to IVO in Long
Beach Calif for repair. The guy wanted to know what my gear ratio was. When
I told him he proceeded to try to sell me a medium blade rather than the
"light" ones that I have. I didn't tell him if I was to actually change
blades it would probably be a warp. :-) Anyway if anyone has a plain layman
simple explanation of the differences between the different drives I would
be grateful.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
John/All
> Nope, was referring to this one.
> http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/kolb.htm Kirk
Kirk/All:
OK. Richard really reduced the stall speed on his
MK III, 26 mph.
Other than stall, the numbers jive with my numbers
when Miss P'fer was powered by 582 to include fuel
burn. She burned 5 to 5.5 gph at 5800 to 6000 rpm.
I have no parasol wing, but a fully enclosed
fuselage. I still have my big, wide, bulging
doors. Yes, there is dead air on the rear quarter
windows and also in the area between leading edge
of wing and windshield. I always take note of the
dead air when I fly in rain. However, not worth
the effort to change my original design. The Kolb
Factory built me a fairing to go between wing and
windshield, but alas, by the time it was completed
a slight error was made and it did not fit
correctly. Was really looking forward to this mod
to see if we had reduced a lot of dead air. The
bulging doors were considered for down sizing, but
during the last two complete glass replacements I
decided to keep the bulges for comfort and
visibility.
Thanks for the hint,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues. |
Larry
You may want to check the archives. We beat this to death a few years ago
and I don't need to see it again. My personal feeling is you should have
modified the trailer. The longer rod socket gives you more leverage so you
don't have to put as much weight on to counter balance the ailerons.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues.
>
> Hokay..................with that thought in mind, what about this - to
make
> Vamoose fit in that trailer, I had to cut the aileron counterbalance rod
> sockets about 4" to get clearance in the nose of the trailer. Do you
think
> I'll need longer counterbalance rods, or will the existing ones be heavy
> enuf ?? Do you feel that the ailerons should balance "neutral" with the
> rods, or just off-set some of the weight ?? I had trouble figuring just
> where "neutral" was, cause of the weight of the flaps.
> Puzzled Lar, camped at Carlsbad Caverns, NM tonight. (at Ronnie Wehba's
> excellent suggestion, during our visit in Sweetwater, Texas today)
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, CA
> Kolb Mk III - Vamoose N78LB
> www.gogittum.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gherkins Tim-rp3420 <rp3420(at)motorola.com> |
| Subject: | Dennis choice of prop |
John and gang,
Below is a "Prop" message I saved from Dennis S. posted on 1-17-01.
Read on and enjoy.
Tim G.
Firestar II waiting for cool paint weather.
---The following is from Dennis S.----
I didnt intend to sound like a commercial for Ivo; rest assured I have
nothing to gain if Ivo sells another prop. Seems to me the question asked
was pretty focused on choosing between Ivo and Warp. My comments were
further restricted to FireStars and FireFlys. If I had extended the
discussion to Mark-IIIs, SlingShots and Lasers, my prop preference would
have largely (but not entirely) moved to the Warps for other valid reasons -
but that was not the scope of my discussion. It is simply that for the
FireStar and FireFly, I have come to appreciate the unique blend of
qualities the Ivos possess. This is confirmed by many years of experience
flying with all these propellers.
Ivos have always felt smoother to me perhaps lots of self-canceling
harmonics are going on as you suggest, perhaps the rougher running Warps
are actually ... smoother? Perhaps we will never know. But I do know
(1) the Ivo feels smoother than any other prop I have used and (2) parts
arent cracking, breaking or otherwise coming apart - all this over many
years of flying experience. I dont think it is stretching to conclude the
Ivo is a smoother running prop. And there are reasons why I believe the Ivo
is smoother than Warp, given a comparable degree of balance:
I have taken considerable pains with many individual propellers to achieve
what I would describe as a perfect static balance. I am very sensitive to
vibration it drives me nuts and so I expended no small amount of time and
energy over the years to achieve as smooth a running engine as possible. I
have balanced, as described above, many wood propellers, Ivos and Warps.
The best-balanced wood propellers I always felt were still relatively rough
running not entirely across the rpm range, but in sufficient areas to be
annoying. Ditto Warps (except for 3-blades which could run relatively
smoothly). This is not to say that I havent felt I made improvements in
smoothness with accurate balancing - but I never felt I could achieve as
smooth running engine & prop combinations with wood and Warps as I would
have liked.
(I have only ever statically balanced propellers and I realize that it is
possible to have a static balance but a dynamic imbalance. Undoubtedly this
frustrates our mastery of the whole balance and smoothness issue.)
I soon discovered that Ivos were in a class by themselves. Have I ever had
a rough running Ivo? Yes, but this was the exception not the rule.
I have used several balancing techniques and I could not discover much
difference between the methods. The most common method was simply to apply
extra paint to the lighter prop tip. This would take several days of
repeated applications, because as the paint dries, the balance changes, so
it is an iterative technique. With the composite props I would sand the end
of the heavy tip to achieve balance.
The other method involved drilling the prop hub and inserting weights into
the hole, usually cut-off bolts. This was done between the prop flanges to
capture the slugs. I would fine tune if necessary by adding additional
washers under the bolt head. For the composites, I would use longer bolts,
if necessary for extra washers.
But the results were always the same, Warps and woods still had an edge of
roughness, but not the Ivos.
It was then that I formulated my hypothesis, that the Ivos flexibility was
what made the critical difference in smoothness. Especially with pushers
with the prop directly behind the wing, the air inflow is very turbulent. I
believe the flexible Ivo dissipates some of the resultant vibrations before
they get transmitted to the hub. An analogy would be comparing a flexible
airplane wing and a very rigid airplane wing flying along in extreme
turbulence. The rigid wing will transmit all the bumps and shock directly
into the fuselage. The flexible wing will flex and bend along with the
bumps and absorb some of the vibration before it gets to the fuselage.
(With the larger reduction ratios, this flexiblity can become a problem, I
feel the Ivo's are happiest spinng at the faster speeds with ratios at less
than 3:1)
For many years Kolb resisted Ivos simply because they appeared to be too
flexible. But the first time the Ivo & spacer was used, the lower prop
noise was immediately apparent. This was when it was discovered the magic
of just adding an additional 2 of clearance between prop and wing. It
does lessen the prop noise considerably a decibel meter is not needed to
discern this.
The main point of the spacer is not that its needed because of the Ivos
flexibility but the extra distance this spacer creates for the prop behind
the wing which reduces the noise.
I do consider the Warps to be very difficult to adjust if done accurately.
I had special jigs and fixtures made up to speed the process but it was
still a lot of work. The Ivo is so easy and simple that it is practical to
change the pitch for a single flight if desired, say a cross country flight
is contemplated when most of your flying is around the patch. It only takes
a couple minutes to change the pitch to a cruise setting.
Back when Phil Lockwood was powering his Air-Cam with 582s I asked him why
he was running Ivos, he said he had tried all the major props on the Air
Cam and the Ivo was the winner for making thrust. He said its easy to
determine which engine is stronger as the aircraft will yawl one way or the
other. This compares thrust, not just statically, but over a range of
airspeeds. Hmm reason # 8?
Dennis
If I recall
> correctly, Dennis of orig Kolb advised against the Warp on the smaller
> engines, but great on the bigger ones. I still love the performance of
> the Warp -- I doubt if it can be beat. There might be some question as
> to whether the B gearbox will last as long with the Warp.
>
> -Ben Ransom
Ben/All:
If Dennis Souder is lurking, perhaps he will
enlighten us on why he would advise not running
the Warp two blade on smaller Rotax with B gearbox.
Heck, I remember seeing folks running 3 blade
warps on the B gearbox on 582's.
Thanks for the info Ben. Waiting patiently for
you to get back into the air. Good luck.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher J Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
Could someone explain to me the differences and advantages of different
gear
ratios. For instance I have a 3:1 gear reduction on my 582. The reason
for
the question is that I sent in my "in flight adjustable motor to IVO in
Long
Beach Calif for repair. The guy wanted to know what my gear ratio was.
When
I told him he proceeded to try to sell me a medium blade rather than the
"light" ones that I have. I didn't tell him if I was to actually change
blades it would probably be a warp. :-) Anyway if anyone has a plain
layman
simple explanation of the differences between the different drives I
would
be grateful.
Larry
Think about riding a bike... when you want to go fast you shift to a
gear that lets you spin the wheels real fast. When you want to go up a
hill you can't push the big a gear anymore so you shift down to a gear
that you can spin.
In planes if you want to turn a real big prop that can make lots of
thrust it takes lots of torque, and you get lots of torque by reducing
rpm. To absorb the torque you need more prop, so wider blades (or a
larger diameter or more blades, what ever fits) are useful. It you want
to go fast then you need lots of pitch in the blades and if you spin
them slow they will be at a high angle of attack, and they will probably
be stalled and you will get very little thrust. If you spin them faster
they will be a lower angle of attack and not stalled.
In-flight adjustable pitch becomes really useful on planes with a big
speed range, but you could also change gears to get a similar effect.
You are setting the angle of attack to the props most efficient setting
at each speed that you are flying.
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher J Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | gear boxes correction |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Christopher J
Armstrong
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: gear boxes
Could someone explain to me the differences and advantages of different
gear
ratios. For instance I have a 3:1 gear reduction on my 582. The reason
for
the question is that I sent in my "in flight adjustable motor to IVO in
Long
Beach Calif for repair. The guy wanted to know what my gear ratio was.
When
I told him he proceeded to try to sell me a medium blade rather than the
"light" ones that I have. I didn't tell him if I was to actually change
blades it would probably be a warp. :-) Anyway if anyone has a plain
layman
simple explanation of the differences between the different drives I
would
be grateful.
Larry
Think about riding a bike... when you want to go fast you shift to a
gear that lets you spin the wheels real fast. When you want to go up a
hill you can't push the big a gear anymore so you shift down to a gear
that you can spin.
In planes if you want to turn a real big prop that can make lots of
thrust it takes lots of torque, and you get lots of torque by reducing
rpm. To absorb the torque you need more prop, so wider blades (or a
larger diameter or more blades, what ever fits) are useful. It you want
to go fast then you need lots of pitch in the blades and if you spin
them slow they will be at a high angle of attack, and they will probably
be stalled and you will get very little thrust. If you spin them faster
they will be a lower angle of attack and not stalled.
In-flight adjustable pitch becomes really useful on planes with a big
speed range, but you could also change gears to get a similar effect.
You are setting the angle of attack to the props most efficient setting
at each speed that you are flying.
Sorry, The part about aoa is backwards... if you spin it slower the
aoa is reduced and if you spin it faster the aoa is increased. Anyway
the point is you are matching a forward airspeed with a rotation speed
to get the prop you want in its optimum aoa range
---
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> I think John Hauck is right in his assessment
> that the MKIII is top end limited, so far 93 is
> about all I can coax out of it with 65 hp,
> mostly the various mods have resulted in being
> able to cruise at lower rpm's than previously.
> Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Richard/All:
Our numbers track together consistently.
I think it is the wing that keeps us in that 90 to
100 mph top speed area.
80 to 90 for cruise is fine for me. If I need to
go faster, better get another airplane. However,
I don't know what I could get and afford that
would perform the way Miss P'fer does. She
satisfies all my aviating desires and
requirements. That is why I am still flying her
after all this time. Just got back from 3+ hours
of very enjoyable flight. Big ole puffy white
cumulus clouds, blue shy, no wind, and 58F at
7,000 feet. Cloud dancing at its best. So good
it is almost like cheating................
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dennis choice of prop |
> Below is a "Prop" message I saved from Dennis S. posted on 1-17-01.
> Read on and enjoy.
>
> Tim G.
Tim G/All:
Thanks for the message Tim.
I read Dennis' msg and he talks a lot about the
ease of balancing and setting pitch on the IVO. I
think I mentioned in a recent post I set and
forget, once I get the Warp dialed in where I want
it. This process usually takes three adjustments
if I am starting from zero experience with a prop,
engine, and airplane.
Ease of balance??? I have never had to balance a
Warp blade. I don't know of anyone that has. Us
Warpers just don't discuss prop balance. Warps
come from the factory balanced, have good hubs, so
balancing and "frequent" pitch adjustments are not
necessary.
Again, I frequently fly more than 500 hours
without touching the Warp (and that includes
retorque of prop bolts). Warp is set and forget.
I think Dennis' flight experience in Kolbs is
primarily local area flying. I never heard him
discuss doing a long XC in one. There is a lot of
difference playing in the local area and what one
can discover after sitting in the seat for 8 to 10
hours a day. If you have a prop problem, I can
assure you you will know it in those conditions.
I am not slamming Dennis for his type flying or
his props. Just stating what I have discovered
flying Warps for many many hours, day after day.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues. |
>
>One thought - Having read a bit on flutter, there is a possibility that
>taking the trailing edges on the ailerons to a knife edge may make them
>more flutter prone. Plus, you will inevitably be adding a tad more weight
>to the aileron trailing edges.
>
Richard,
I researched this a little. I searched the Web using Google and the words "knife
edge" and "aileron flutter". There were many references to RC model aircraft,
but I found none relative to actual aircraft. Also, I took a walk about K02
and checked out the various GA planes that are hangared there. Many had knife
edges on the ailerons and the tail feathers.
I searched the Kolb Archives, and I found that Jimmy Hankinson, a FireFly owner,
asked the list if anyone had experienced aileron flutter on a FireFly. None
was reported. Using the Web, Google, and the words "FireFly" and "aileron flutter",
the only site listed was the Kolb email list archive. With the early
FireFlys using 15 inch chord ailerons one would expect that if it was going to
happen, aileron flutter would have been reported by now.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning Up The FireFly Continues. |
>
>
>One thought - Having read a bit on flutter, there is a possibility that
>taking the trailing edges on the ailerons to a knife edge may make them
>more flutter prone. Plus, you will inevitably be adding a tad more weight
>to the aileron trailing edges.
Richard,
I have researched this a little. I searched the web with Google using the words,
"knife edge" and "aileron flutter". I discovered many sites that describe
the phenomena relative to RC model planes but none relative to actual aircraft.
I searched the Kolb Archives and found that Jimmy Hankinson, a FireFly owner, actually
asked if anyone had experienced aileron flutter on a FireFly. There has
been no reported case of aileron flutter on a FireFly to this list, and I did
not find any on the Web using Google and the words "FireFly" and "aileron flutter".
I took a walk around at K02 and looked at trailing edges of wings, rudders, and
elevators on GA planes. Many come to a knife edge.
The early FireFlys had 15 inch chord ailerons, so if they were going to flutter,
it seems reasonable that we would have heard about it by now.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
OK, that's what I was lookin' for................I'll get the tailwheel.
See how good I am at saving money ?? :-) Muchas Grassy
A................... Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose N78LB
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "possums" <possums(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Tailwheel
>
>
> I did that once - off St. Simon's Island. Lost a spring while landing on a
> sand
> bar (on a stock Firestar wheel).
> Just happened to notice it before I took off. Couldn't find the missing
one
> - so it seemed
> only reasonable to take the other one off and let it caster, rather than
> leave on just the one.
> My next landing was on Jekyll Island and I lost almost complete control as
> soon as my rear
> wheel touched down - YEEFRIGGINHAAA.
> Did a nice 45 degree turn across the grass and taxie/parking area.
> If there had been any planes there I would have hit them.
> My friend - sitting on the ground thought I was doing it on purpose and
> thought it was hilarious.
> Got one of them real $250 wheels now.
>
>
> >
> >I'm sure this has been gone over in the past, but can't remember
> >specifics. I replaced my stock issue Kolb tailwheel with a "real"
> >tailwheel. Don't remember which flavor, but it's the $140.00 one in the
> >new Aircraft Spruce catalog. This is a dandy unit, but lacks the
> >"breakaway" feature which would let it pivot all the way around. Being a
> >cheapskate, I hate to spend another $250.00 on a proper one, so, here's
my
> >question..................can I get away with just eliminating the
springs
> >and chains from the rudder and just let the tailwheel caster on its' own
> >back there ?? I have the heel brakes, so differential braking will give
> >me control in turns, etc. Seems to me that airflow would keep it aligned
> >properly while in flight, so it wouldn't veer when touching
> >down. (??) I've asked several people during this trip, and got several
> >answers/opinions. Whadda you guys think ?? Big Lar,
> >expecting to be in El Paso, Texas by tomorrow (Wed) night.
> >
> >Larry Bourne
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
>
> Yes sir, it did. I read but did not respond. Are
> you by chance referring to Woody's T-Bird Kolb clone?
>
> john h
That ain't no clone. It is a stock Mk111 with a whole bunch of mods.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gherkins Tim-rp3420 <rp3420(at)motorola.com> |
| Subject: | Another Dennis prop choice post |
Gang,
Found another saved "Prop" message in my personal folder from Dennis S. This
one was posted 11-2-01.
Enjoy, Tim
-----------Following message from Dennis Souder-----------
"The Ivo was my favorite prop particuarily on the FS and FF. In the speed
range of these AC, the Ivo does an excellent job and is very smooth running.
Some time ago Phil Lockwood was experimenting with his Aircam (with 582's at
the time) and tried different props on it at the same time. He could tell
by the yawing of the AC which prop was developing more thrust. His
findings: the Ivo was the winnner. (This was before Powerfin came along.)
The other big advatage of the Ivo was the 2-1/2" Ivo prop spacer which place
the Ivo further from the trailing edge of the wing. This reduced the noise
considerably. The spacer works with the Ivo because the flexible blades
reduces the vibration transmitter to the hub. This is most helpful on the
FS2 where the prop is closer to the trailing edge than the other Kolb
models.
Had many hours on an Ivo on 447's, 503's, 582,s and 912's, never had a
"proplem"
Dennis"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Another Dennis prop choice post |
> Found another saved "Prop" message in my personal folder from Dennis S. This
one was posted 11-2-01.
> Enjoy, Tim
Hi Tim/All:
I guess it boils down to how far you have to walk
to get back home. One of the reasons I chose Warp
Drive in 1993, and have not looked back since.
June 1994, Sparky, private airstrip, south of
Delta Junction, Alaska. My Warp Drive was
responsible for preventing the end of my first
flight to Dead Horse, Alaska. I turned it into a
Bush Hog when I inadvertently tried to land on
what I thought was a grass strip with tall weeds.
Turned out to be tall Alder, the famous Alaska Bush.
Guess we have about beat the prop thread to death.
You all know where I stand on props though.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
Woody,
You got to share the secret with us. I use a digital level, two or three
rolls of string and a couple of days when I do my rigging and they still
want to roll left. Is this just me or is it the torque of the 2 stroke
pusher motor? How about you fellows with the 912's, do you roll right or
left when you let go of the stick? Before trim tabs and such of course.
Later,
John Cooley
I must be too used to Kolbs. I never notice any problem with pitch up or
down. It seems to want to leave the ground about 32 mph. The new club Mk111
takes off at the same speed and it was built with the factory standard gap
seal.Only Kolb I have flown that flies hands off. I still can;t believe it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Harley Powred Wright Flyer |
Dang..... Someone beat me to it errrrgggg...
Check this out folks....
http://wrightflyer.usurf.usu.edu
Go to building wow!
pp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> You got to share the secret with us. I use a digital level, two or three
> rolls of string and a couple of days when I do my rigging and they still
> want to roll left.
> John Cooley
John C/Gang:
That is part of the problem.
Doesn't matter which way the prop turns, it will affect roll.
The chance of not getting it rigged exact is another. If
anyone has an "exact" rigged Kolb, it probably happened by
accident. Chances are much greater to be the other way around.
I rig the wings like Homer told me to in his plans and
instruction book. When I do it that way, I can squeeze the
max performance out of my airplane. It is unstable by
design. Some have experimented with increased dihedral to
increase stability, but in the process are sacrificing
performance. I am not indicating increased airspeed, but
lift, climb and maneuver performance.
There are times in smooth air I can trim up Miss P'fer to
fly for a period of time hands off. Enough time to unfold
and fold a map, do my chores around the cockpit.
Rough air knocks it off its even keel if I don't help it out
a little.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Prop Pitch Checker |
Since there has been some discussion on the list lately about making sure
that your prop blades are pitched the same, thought I would add two
pictures to my web page showing my ultra cheapo (but very accurate) blade
pitch checker. It won't tell you the angle, but it will tell you if the
blades are at the same angle or not.
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/Proppitch.html
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron wehba" <rwehba(at)wtxs.net> |
need help, lost my hard drive, somewhere i saw a picture of a kolb trailer with
a single square tube for the main part, the wheels were at the back, the plane
sat on the trailer tail forward. anyone know where I can find the pictures of
it again?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
"Larry Bourne"
| Subject: | counter balances |
?? I had trouble figuring just
where "neutral" was, cause of the weight of the flaps.
I took the flaps off when i balanced the ailerons
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
http://wrightflyer.usurf.usu.edu
==============================
much more fun to ride in than read about.... i will have to get some
pictures posted.
boyd
i guess it was not kolb related so if any would like any info let me know.
________________________________________________________________________________
John,
My Mark III with a 912 rolls left.
L. Ray Baker
Gainesville. FL
Woody,
You got to share the secret with us. I use a digital level, two or three
rolls of string and a couple of days when I do my rigging and they still
want to roll left. Is this just me or is it the torque of the 2 stroke
pusher motor? How about you fellows with the 912's, do you roll right or
left when you let go of the stick? Before trim tabs and such of course.
Later,
John Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
Ronnie
The Ultra Star plans that I have came with a single page drawing that
is as you describe. Scanner is busted. I can borrow my buddys computer
tomorrow and scan it if you want.
It uses square tubing, 2X2 inches with 1/8 inch wall for the most
part. You are on your own for the axle and springs however. Suggested
tires are 4.80--4.00X8. Herb in Ky
writes:
>
> need help, lost my hard drive, somewhere i saw a picture of a kolb
> trailer with a single square tube for the main part, the wheels were
> at the back, the plane sat on the trailer tail forward. anyone know
> where I can find the pictures of it again?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Masqqqqqqq(at)aol.com |
I wonder if it was my pictures.
Here:
http://www.iverstuff.com/my_1984_kolb_ultrastar.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duncan McBride" <duncanmcbride(at)comcast.net> |
Mine too. I've been reading the archives and I think I'm going to raise the
thrust angle (washers under the front edge of the engine) so as to induce a
little p-factor into the mix. I have to use an aileron trim tab about 2.5
inches by 20 inches angled down about 20 degrees to fly the right aileron
now. At cruise the right aileron wants to fly up about 3/4 inch at the
trailing edge (that's eyeballing it from the cockpit) and that's enough that
the stick pressure to keep the wings level is negligible. Sure hate to fly
with the ailerons sticking out in the airflow.
----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Ray Baker" <rbaker-@atlantic.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Roll
>
> John,
>
> My Mark III with a 912 rolls left.
>
> L. Ray Baker
> Gainesville. FL
>
>
> Woody,
>
> You got to share the secret with us. I use a digital level, two or three
> rolls of string and a couple of days when I do my rigging and they still
> want to roll left. Is this just me or is it the torque of the 2 stroke
> pusher motor? How about you fellows with the 912's, do you roll right or
> left when you let go of the stick? Before trim tabs and such of course.
>
> Later,
> John Cooley
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MEMATUZAK(at)aol.com |
Ive got a FSII with a 503. Presently have a Tenn. wood prop. Just got a a
full lotus system so she will be seeing more H2O. What are the suggestion on
make and size of prop to invest in??
Also sounds like VG's would help get her off the water. Where do I get the
details on making them.
Thanks everyone:)
FSII 200 GREAT hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)charter.net> |
Although I am an IVO user I would go with a 66" 2-blade Warp. (assuming a
2.58:1 gearbox)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>Ive got a FSII with a 503. Presently have a Tenn. wood prop. Just got a a
>full lotus system so she will be seeing more H2O. What are the suggestion on
>make and size of prop to invest in??
>
>Also sounds like VG's would help get her off the water. Where do I get the
>details on making them.
>
>Thanks everyone:)
>FSII 200 GREAT hours
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Pitch Checker |
Larry Bourne wrote:
> Yah, they work, but the trouble with bubbles (aside from
> "tiny bubbles") is that it's very difficult to
> differentiate between a couple of degrees.
I beg to disagree. Using my trusty little Warp Drive
Protractor correctly, which isn't difficult if I can do it,
I keep the bubble between the lines. If I do all three
blades the same, then I am not differentiating a couple of
degrees. I don't really care what the pitch or the degree
of the angle is, all I want is for all three blades to be
the same. The protractor will get me close to the first
setting. Static runup, increase or decrease until I have it
where I want it. One half of one degree pitch change is
simple to attain with the Warp Drive Protractor.
Warps don't like to fly with blades of different pitch
settings. It will tell you right away that it is unhappy.
Don't think I have been flying the last 10 years with prop
out of pitch. :-)
The bubble
> works quite well, but we're down to nit-picking now.
Keep on nit-picking and you'll spend more time nit-picking
than flying.
> Simplest and most accurate way to pitch a prop that I've
> seen is to use a digital level. They give truly accurate
> repeat-ability,
Probably not at repeatable as the old spirit level. Bet
that high dollar digital thing-a-ma-jig has to be calibrated
periodically, is sensitive to heat and cold, and extremely
sensitive to the sudden stop on a concrete floor after it
has been dropped.
> Lar, at home in Palm Springs since noon today - after 2
> months and 2 days; 13,950 miles; 24 states; 5 Canadian
> provinces. Sigh..........back to
> reality...........where's that Waaaambulance ??
Welcome home. Now you can enjoy the thrill of "after trip
withdrawal pains".
john h (Some things do not need to be reinvented)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
MEMATUZAK(at)aol.com wrote:
> What are the suggestion on
> make and size of prop to invest in??
MEMATUZAK/All:
That isn't your name is it?
I'm sure the Power Fin and IVO boys will tell you to use
their prop. However, I think is I was going to fly off
water I could expect a lot of the same type atmosphere as
flying in heavy rain. In that case, I personally, would not
want to fly with a wooden prop (tried that in heavy rain
without a protected edge), an IVO with silver tape leading
edges, or a Power Fin which probably also uses silver tape
for leading edge protection. I have personally experienced
flight in heavy rain for extended periods of time with the
old faithful Warp Drive with 15" of nickel steel inlaid
leading edge on a solid carbon fiber blade. Warp comes
through with "flying" colors.
Do you know if you are going to get caught in a rain storm,
rain shower, or a sprinkle, at some time during your flying
career?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron wehba" <rwehba(at)wtxs.net> |
that would be great to have something to go by! thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: <herbgh(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: trailer
>
> Ronnie
>
> The Ultra Star plans that I have came with a single page drawing that
> is as you describe. Scanner is busted. I can borrow my buddys computer
> tomorrow and scan it if you want.
>
> It uses square tubing, 2X2 inches with 1/8 inch wall for the most
> part. You are on your own for the axle and springs however. Suggested
> tires are 4.80--4.00X8. Herb in Ky
> writes:
> >
> > need help, lost my hard drive, somewhere i saw a picture of a kolb
> > trailer with a single square tube for the main part, the wheels were
> > at the back, the plane sat on the trailer tail forward. anyone know
> > where I can find the pictures of it again?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron wehba" <rwehba(at)wtxs.net> |
great, thanks,,,where is your shoulder harness hooked to?
----- Original Message -----
From: <Masqqqqqqq(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: trailer
>
> I wonder if it was my pictures.
> Here:
> http://www.iverstuff.com/my_1984_kolb_ultrastar.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "johnjung(at)compusenior.com" <johnjung(at)compusenior.com> |
Unnamed 503er and Group,
I used a 66" two blade Warp on an original Firestar with a 377. It
worked great and sounded good. After I built my Firestar II, I bought a
wood prop to sell with the original Firestar, so that I could use the
Warp on the II. I used it on the II for less than 30 minutes. It was way
too loud for me. And a Warp is too heavy to add the extension that you
can use on an IVO (at least on a B box). So I have been using an IVO on
an extension for the last 5 years on my Firestar II.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
I wish I knew what I did. I will have to set it up and take a whole bunch
of measurements to find out what is going on. If I discover anything I will
post it to the list.
> Woody,
>
> You got to share the secret with us. I use a digital level, two or three
> rolls of string and a couple of days when I do my rigging and they still
> want to roll left.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Pierzina" <planecrazzzy(at)lycos.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel Pump or Vapor Lock ? |
Hey Guys,
I fired up my 582 the other day and "top end" was rough....I figured it
was old fuel....I didn't have a decent hose to sipfon the fuel , so I pulled
the fuel line apart and drained most the fuel. I added the new fuel and with
a few primes it was running. I warmed it up to 140 degrees and then started to
raise the RPM's higher until I could test "top end".
It ran great , top end was smooth again.
Next day I loaded it on the trailer , packed all the gear, and while I was doing
my warm-up I couldn't get it to rev up , I noticed the fuel line going to
the rear carb wasn't pushing the fuel. and after the engine would die , I noticed
the fuel in the line would return to the fuel pump....
I'm getting a new rebuild kit for the Mikuni fuel pump.
Do any of you guys think it has anything to do with "Vapor Lock" .....I wouldn't
think so because of the run time the day before 10 - 15 min ......
and wouldn't you know it parts place is closed today...
Well, back to work on my Kolb. I'm still fabracating a 2cycle oil tank....which
was delayed because of the heat & humidity...
Gotta Fly...
Mike in MN FSII 503 w/injection
"B" w/ 3 blade-66" IVO ,EIS,GPL, 90% done 90% to go...
---
Sometimes you just have to take the leap
and build your wings on the way down...
Gotta Fly...
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MEMATUZAK(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb: props reply |
Thanks for the input. And no I NEVER get caught in rain living in the
Sunshine state. Just like it never rains at SunNFun. Or wait 20 minutes and it
will
change:)
Thanks
Richard P
John H
John J
and Bryan for the VG plans
MEMatuzak
AKA
Mike Matuszczak
FSII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Davis - Comcast" <davis207(at)comcast.net> |
"Kolb-List Digest List"
The stock seat in my firefly is coming apart. I know several list members
have replaced their seats with office chairs. I have a chair I'm looking to
mount in the firelfy. Any tips on good ideas or what to aviod?
thanks
Chuck Davis
Firefly 028
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly Seat |
My Firestar has the sling I would replace it with the same thing in a
heartbeat ! It will save your bacon in a hard landing !!! ...
Dave
In a message dated 8/31/03 5:52:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rwpike(at)charter.net writes:
<< http://www.fairfieldchair.com/cgi-bin/showprodthumb.cgi?sid=1030-35 >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Masqqqqqqq(at)aol.com |
I bolted the shoulder harnesses to the upper engine mounts, up on the frame
where the pivots bolt through. Then I crossed the straps before they get to my
shoulders. I'll keep your e-mail address, and let you know when I post pics
of it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron wehba" <rwehba(at)wtxs.net> |
thanks, much help!! ron in tx.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Masqqqqqqq(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: trailer
>
> I bolted the shoulder harnesses to the upper engine mounts, up on the
frame
> where the pivots bolt through. Then I crossed the straps before they get
to my
> shoulders. I'll keep your e-mail address, and let you know when I post
pics
> of it.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly Seat |
> Yes ...I am haveing the Sling seat blues also....only have 12 hours logged,
> and I cant go very far on the 5 gallons...
> Don Gherardini-
Don/All:
That's the normal reaction from someone who doesn't do the
mods before they fly. I did the same thing with the
Ultrastar, a whopping 3.5 gal capacity. After the first
cross country flight of about 80 miles, I was quite aware of
the need for more fuel. Added another 1.75 gal go cart tank
behind my head and above the engine.
When it came time to build the Firestar I made arrangements
to have enough fuel to cross country.
I also used a fiberglass jon boat seat. It was rigid,
light, and fit into the airframe. The Firefly used the
front portion of the original Firestar fuselage. In fact,
the original Firestar was shipped with the fuselage in two
pieces, fore and aft, that were bolted together with 4 ea
3/16 bolts. Brother Jim welded the fuselage parts together
and sewed up a nice seat cover for the jon boat seat. I
think I recently sent it to Kolb heaven when was cleaning
out the basement recently.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly Seat |
I tried one of
> those fiberglass seats with a 5 gallon tank made on the back but it just
> would not fit with out alot of trouble, and then would sit too high I think.
> I have flown along time one of those and i was sure hoping it would
> fit..solving my fuel prob and seat problem also...
> Don Gherardini-
Don/All:
I initially went the Ken Brock 8 gal seat tank route, with
the original 5 gal jug tank in the rear for reserve. Would
fly two hours off the clock, then open a fuel valve and
gravity feed the 5 gal rear tank into the seat tank. That
worked out great unless I got preoccupied and forgot to
drain fuel. My first clue that I had not opened the valve
in time was a suddenly dead engine.
The seat tank, as you indicated, was too big and sat me up
too high in the Firestar cockpit.
When Jim and I reconfigured the Firestar we went with the
jon boat seat and an 18 gal aluminum fuel tank in the top
rear of the fuselage. Configured the same as the 25 gal
fuel system in my MK III. Putting the fuel tank up top
opened up the bottom for my gear.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
That was my trailer.Jim Oday {oday(at)cableone.net} scaned the pictures and
posted them.G.Aman FS2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Kolb Seat (Think ) |
You guys are missing the point ! The sling will cradle you during a crash !
A seat fastened by its bottom will transmit all the force right up through
your bottom ... I speak from experience here ... Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firefly Seat |
In a message dated 8/31/03 6:40:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com writes:
>
> My Firestar has the sling I would replace it with the same thing in a
> heartbeat ! It will save your bacon in a hard landing !!! ...
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
I love my sling too....as a matter of fact it is a true sling not like on the
plans...I never attached it to the bottom as designed and it is very
forgiving on MY back...(I have had two back operations for the lower back in the
'70's) By being a true sling, I can sit up if I want to treat it like a seat..or
run my CG back an inch or so...and i can slouch forward if I want to go nose
heavy and sleep...er...well...just go nose heavy. I have a long torso and short
legs....what a sight!!
George Randolph
Firestar driver from Akron Ohio...er... The Villages in Fla
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Blackwell, Charlie & Meredith" <wozani(at)optonline.net> |
The sling seats in my MKII were turned into meshback chairs, like lawn chairs,
by riveting the material between aluminum strips and mounting to the plane frame
at the back/bottom of the seat. This gives a permanent shape and angle to
the seat. Onto this I put removable 2" foam seats made by a custom boat cushion
maker. The combination works reasonably well, but sometimes I use an orthopedic
lumbar support driving cushion for the longer flights. I don't see a reason
to add the extra weight of plastic or fiberglass seating when the mesh sling
can be given a permanent angle and tension. Also it comes out for cleaning
or storage, which frustrates the mice nicely.
Good luck on your seating quest.
Charlie, NJ, '90 MKII 503dcdi,Ivo,BRS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | EGT Instrument problem |
| From: | Gene Ledbetter <gdledbetter(at)earthlink.net> |
Kolbers,
While flying last week, the temperature needle for the front cylinder
on my 447 starting vibrating and then died. Analysis of the problem
indicates that the sender thermocouples for both cylinders function
correctly so the problem is either the wiring between my terminal strip
and the instrument or the instrument.
Have any of you folks had the instrument (Westach Dual EGT) fail? I
lean toward that to be the problem but really don't want to spend the
$74 plus shipping to find it's a wiring problem...
Gene Ledbetter
Cincinnati
Firefly 445 - 240 hrs
85 hrs since January (I've really been flying this thing)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim O'Day" <oday(at)cableone.net> |
I took my just completed FSII out for some taxi testing yesterday. The wind
was at about a 30 deg X-Wind to the runway @8 KT. I made 20 +/- taxi/hop
runs up and down a rural runway with long grass.
My notes:
After about 3 passes, very comfortable with the directional control.
I accidentally got airborne (4th pass down the runway) one time and nearly
lost it. The wind was a bit gusty....and.... - whoops! Important, keep
angle of attack low at low speeds. Cindy was sure I was going to crash in
the plowed field. Recovered with adding a bit of power and lowering the
nose and steered it back onto the runway.
Flew several runs down the runway (it is 5000' long) at 3' and 45 +/- mph
indicated. I let it crab into the wind, fly for 500', then cross control
and land. Very easy to manage.
Need to remember to lower the nose to keep from climbing, got up 20+ ft
again by mistake.
I have flown gliders a lot and the visual reference is nearly identical.
The engine runs incredibly smooth, but there is more lag in the power coming
in than I am used to.
Landed tail first, felt OK, landed 3 point, felt fine, landed with the
mains, that felt good too.
I imagine getting more airspeed will be a different feel again.
I posted a couple of pictures to the web. My pictures are not great, but it
is of interest just how flat the ND land is. Trees in this part of the
country are all planted.
http://myweb.cableone.net/ODAY/index.html
Much to windy today for UL novice flying. Will wait for a calm wind
condition (rare in ND) or a light wind aligned with the runway. Looking
forward to a test in the pattern.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> Still at it................just published the new web
> page on the deep south, including Alabama, Mississippi
> and Louisiana.
> Busy Lar.
Larry/All:
Thanks for the fine pictures of my AO and airstrip. You did
a good job and enjoyed your visit, even though it was short.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne" <boyter(at)mcsi.net> |
HELP
Need Stator plate, And Flywheel for rotax 582 Blue head motor.
A good used one would be nice.
Wayne Boyter
Kolb mark 111
Rotax 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Olenik Aviation" <olenik-aviation(at)buyitsellitfixit.com> |
I think I may have just such a beast from a worn out, parted out 582.
Tom Olenik
Olenik Aviation
http://www.buyitsellitfixit.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Wayne
Subject: Kolb-List: Rotax 582
HELP
Need Stator plate, And Flywheel for rotax 582 Blue head motor.
A good used one would be nice.
Wayne Boyter
Kolb mark 111
Rotax 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Which prop for use on/in water |
| From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
09/02/2003 08:28:30 AM
MEMATUZAK(at)aol.com wrote:
> What are the suggestion on
> make and size of prop to invest in??
John wrote:
>I'm sure the Power Fin and IVO boys will tell you to use
>their prop. However, I think is I was going to fly off
>water I could expect a lot of the same type atmosphere as
>flying in heavy rain. In that case, I personally, would not
>want to fly with a wooden prop (tried that in heavy rain
>without a protected edge), an IVO with silver tape leading
>edges, or a Power Fin which probably also uses silver tape
>for leading edge protection. I have personally experienced
>flight in heavy rain for extended periods of time with the
>old faithful Warp Drive with 15" of nickel steel inlaid
>leading edge on a solid carbon fiber blade. Warp comes
>through with "flying" colors.
John, I guess you are referring to me (and more and more other guys lately)
as a "Powerfin boy" since I have been running Powerfin and telling you guys
about it since 1997.
Actually, even as a "Powerfin boy" I would recommend a Warp prop for use
in/on water. I think it would last the longest. Expect some degradation
over time if it runs in a spray. And follow manufacturers recommendations
closely concerning rechecking hub and blade bolt torque, since you will be
subjecting the prop to some unusual shock loading.
Also, FYI, Powerfin uses a urethane tape leading edge tape, which is
resiliant and lasts well. I have replaced mine once. Rain does not damage
it. Bug damage gradually degrades it over several years. My theory on the
tape is this: Stuart cannot use an inlaid nickel edge since the nickel
would not flex enough so it would not stay in the prop. Warp props are
stiff enough to more nearly match the stiffness of the nickel edge, so it
stays together. The slightly more flexible Powerfin runs smoother while
still maintaining efficiency, so it is a good tradeoff, in my opinion.
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Which prop for use on/in water |
An observation regarding warp drive prop torques.....since doing some
experimentation , changing hubs, etc. -The recommended range for the
1/4" clamping bolts has been 100-120 inlbs. If you go to a standard
industrial torque chart for that size bolt you find 84 inlbs/grade5 and
120 in/lbs/grade 6. I initially went with 100 in/lbs on the 3 blade hub.
When I swapped for the 2 blader. I also did 100 as it seems to draw
the halves together satisfactorily. -so then, being curious, I said what
the hey, try 115........well, that feller stripped out the nut , which
by the
way was new from warp last week. -bolt was unscathed so I stuck on
a new nut and retorqued back to 100. Just wondering if I had a batch
of bad nuts. Just the same I think I'll stick with 100 for a bit.
--Also maybe I'll check the wrench calibration.
For what it's worth, -BB
Jim Gerken wrote:
>
>
>MEMATUZAK(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>> What are the suggestion on
>>make and size of prop to invest in??
>>
>>
>
>
>John wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'm sure the Power Fin and IVO boys will tell you to use
>>their prop. However, I think is I was going to fly off
>>water I could expect a lot of the same type atmosphere as
>>flying in heavy rain. In that case, I personally, would not
>>want to fly with a wooden prop (tried that in heavy rain
>>without a protected edge), an IVO with silver tape leading
>>edges, or a Power Fin which probably also uses silver tape
>>for leading edge protection. I have personally experienced
>>flight in heavy rain for extended periods of time with the
>>old faithful Warp Drive with 15" of nickel steel inlaid
>>leading edge on a solid carbon fiber blade. Warp comes
>>through with "flying" colors.
>>
>>
>
>John, I guess you are referring to me (and more and more other guys lately)
>as a "Powerfin boy" since I have been running Powerfin and telling you guys
>about it since 1997.
>
> Actually, even as a "Powerfin boy" I would recommend a Warp prop for use
>in/on water. I think it would last the longest. Expect some degradation
>over time if it runs in a spray. And follow manufacturers recommendations
>closely concerning rechecking hub and blade bolt torque, since you will be
>subjecting the prop to some unusual shock loading.
>
>Also, FYI, Powerfin uses a urethane tape leading edge tape, which is
>resiliant and lasts well. I have replaced mine once. Rain does not damage
>it. Bug damage gradually degrades it over several years. My theory on the
>tape is this: Stuart cannot use an inlaid nickel edge since the nickel
>would not flex enough so it would not stay in the prop. Warp props are
>stiff enough to more nearly match the stiffness of the nickel edge, so it
>stays together. The slightly more flexible Powerfin runs smoother while
>still maintaining efficiency, so it is a good tradeoff, in my opinion.
>
>Jim G
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob, Kathleen, & Kory Brocious" <bbrocious(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | FAA Inspection in the morning |
Folks, "Miss B" undergoes her airworthiness inspection in the morning. I'm a bit
jittery about the whole thing, trying to make sure I've got my ducks lined up.
Any suggestions from those of you who've been through this?
I have not installed the data plate yet. Have most of you put the flat plate on
the round fuselage tube or did you put it somewhere else?
Keep your fingers crossed, please.
Bob
Bob, Kathleen, and Kory BrociousTenacity Farm
Campbellsburg, Kentucky
MSN 8: Get 6 months for $9.95/month.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Which prop for use on/in water |
> Just wondering if I had a batch
> of bad nuts.
> For what it's worth, -BB
BB/Gang:
A batch of bad nuts is better than a case.
Seriously, the aircraft hardware business is very
questionable when it comes to quality. I have received
bolts that had no threads, half heads, round heads, etc. As
of yet, have not experienced any bad nuts, that I know of.
Makes one wonder evertime he uses one. Knowing that each
and every nut and bolt is not inspected.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA Inspection in the morning and Data Plates |
> I put mine at the back of the cage, but if I had it to do over, it would be
> on the left side of the tube just below the leading edge of the stab.
>
> Richard Pike
Richard/Gang:
I had a bad spot in the fabric just below the left entrance
door. Backed it up with a sheet metal plate, same size as
the data plate, and cut a piece of black leather with
pinking shears, a little larger than the data plate.
Attached with 4 pop rivets. Been there since day one and
doing fine.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
Kolbers,
Would one of you like to explain the differences between the gear boxes offered
for the 583 Rotax and why Kolb offers an "upgrade" from a b to a c?
pp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)charter.net> |
The C box will safely handle a much heavier prop than the B box will. The B
box can have problems (and we have seen some locally) by using props that
are too heavy for it. Which is one more reason why I run an IVO, it is very
light. Change the gearbox oil regularly with good oil and the 2-blade IVO
will give you almost no metal mung on the magnet in the drain. I suspect
the same results would be found with the Powerfin, as it is also very
light. I would suspect that the low tolerance of the Rotax B box for high
inertial weight is one of the reasons that IVO and Powerfin started making
very light props, but that is just speculation.
A friend who was using a much better and almost indestructible 2 blade prop
of the same diameter as I, with the B box, always got about 4 times the
metal showing up on the magnet in his drain. But maybe that was just
coincidence...
Might want to read this tech article from Mike Stratman of CPS on the subject
http://www.800-airwolf.com/pdffiles/ARTICLES/part31.pdf
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>Kolbers,
>Would one of you like to explain the differences between the gear boxes
>offered for the 583 Rotax and why Kolb offers an "upgrade" from a b to a c?
>
>pp
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
Kolb Friends -
What's the preferred method for setting the gaps on aviation spark plugs?
(The kind of plugs with the two side electrodes.)
Do I need a special tool, or will pliers or a vice work?
I have a blade-type feeler guage. Will this work, or do I need a wire-type
feeler guage?
Many thanks ...
Dennis Kirby
Mark-3, Verner-powred in
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tiny Tach #s vs. Westach #s |
> John H./Richard/All I'm a non-mechanic, so take what I'm
> saying with that in mind. Years ago, I found that the
> best "fuel saver" was a vacuum gauge on my pickup.
> AzDave
Dave/All:
Good to hear form you. I send Eve my love. What a gal.
Best damn cook at MV. Course AZ Dave helped her a little.
That reminds me of what a good time everyone had at MV. I
look forward to doing it again soonest.
I have used the vacuum gauge in boat and car. It is a good
reminder to come off the power to save fuel. However, for
me, the fuel flow meter really gets my attention when it
shouts the full gallons and tenth of gallons racing through
the system. Maybe use both and get the max out of them.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harry Wingert" <Geezertwo(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | MKIII Throttle Extension |
I am looking for the hardware to move my throttle from center to the left side
of the cockpit. Does anyone know where I can order it?
Harry Wingert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Throttle Extension |
I'm not sure there's a kit available. It's pretty simple to build; if you
like, take a look at mine on my website, under "Building Vamoose."
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose N78LB
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Wingert" <Geezertwo(at)cox.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: MKIII Throttle Extension
>
> I am looking for the hardware to move my throttle from center to the left
side of the cockpit. Does anyone know where I can order it?
> Harry Wingert
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob, Kathleen, & Kory Brocious" <bbrocious(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | FAA Inspection is over ... . |
And I have an airworthiness certificate AND a Repairman's certificate in my
possession! The FAA lady was a real sweetheart. Now there's one woman that
dearly loves general aviation! She talked about getting goose bumps
listening to the sound of the big radial engines at Oshkosh and touching the
fabric on their old wings. The inspection lasted 5 hours but that was only
because of all the stories she wanted to tell. Hardly took a glance at the
builder's log, pictures, or even the airplane for that matter.
Thanx again for all the Kolb List help. It was most valuable! See ya'll at
the Kolb Fly In later this month!
Bob
Bob, Kathleen, and Kory Brocious
Tenacity Farm
Campbellsburg, Kentucky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA Inspection is over ... . |
Good for you................hope I get one like that. 5 hours ?? You
must've been wore out. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose N78LB
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob, Kathleen, & Kory Brocious" <bbrocious(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: FAA Inspection is over ... .
>
> And I have an airworthiness certificate AND a Repairman's certificate in
my
> possession! The FAA lady was a real sweetheart. Now there's one woman
that
> dearly loves general aviation! She talked about getting goose bumps
> listening to the sound of the big radial engines at Oshkosh and touching
the
> fabric on their old wings. The inspection lasted 5 hours but that was
only
> because of all the stories she wanted to tell. Hardly took a glance at
the
> builder's log, pictures, or even the airplane for that matter.
>
> Thanx again for all the Kolb List help. It was most valuable! See ya'll
at
> the Kolb Fly In later this month!
> Bob
>
> Bob, Kathleen, and Kory Brocious
> Tenacity Farm
> Campbellsburg, Kentucky
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harry Wingert" <Geezertwo(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Throttle Extension |
Thanks Lar
Har
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: MKIII Throttle Extension
>
> I'm not sure there's a kit available. It's pretty simple to build; if
you
> like, take a look at mine on my website, under "Building Vamoose."
> Lar.
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, CA
> Kolb Mk III - Vamoose N78LB
> www.gogittum.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harry Wingert" <Geezertwo(at)cox.net>
> To: "Kolb Chat Line"
> Subject: Kolb-List: MKIII Throttle Extension
>
>
> >
> > I am looking for the hardware to move my throttle from center to the
left
> side of the cockpit. Does anyone know where I can order it?
> > Harry Wingert
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | TRIP, Oil pressure gauge & sad news |
| From: | Scott Trask <sctrask(at)diisd.org> |
(not processed: message from valid local sender)
Hi
Last month my wife and I flew down around lower Michigan and it was a nice
trip. The weather mostly was good. We had one day that we had to sit for 4
hours because of low ceiling. We didn't get over to see Rick Neilsen or my
wife's brother on that side of the state because the weather was not doing
too good.
We began our 5-day trip by flying up to Munising (Lake Superior) and
followed the shoreline for a ways. Then to Mackinac Island, around the
thumb area and ventured to the west. Our goal was to hop & stop at many
airports--flying short legs. We stopped at an airport in the thumb that had
sailplanes and caught a ride--that was great! Then we headed north, back
over the bridge to the U.P. We flew to Whitefish Point, following the Lake
Superior shoreline we had missed on the way down to Lower Michigan. Then I
experienced loss in oil pressure--or at least my gauge said so. It couldn't
have happened at a worse place! I watched the needle drop to about 20 lbs.
then back to 50 lbs. and then to 0 or below and then back up to 50 lbs. I
was playing with the throttle, seeing if the oil pressure would get better.
My wife asked me what I was doing. I pointed to the oil pressure gauge and
now she could sit on the edge of her seat too. All we had to land on was
tree tops. The engine kept running, the temperature didn't get any hotter.
I headed to the closest airport (Luce County in Newberry) about 40 miles
away. By then I knew my oil pressure gauge couldn't be right. I should
have put a piece of tape over the gauge so I couldn't see it, in case it did
its crazy dance again. From then on, however, the gauge read that I had
adequate pressure. When I got home, I put a manual gauge on and got rid of
the sending unit system!
John Hauck, John Williamson and Rick Neilsen, it was a pleasure to have
you guys as guests in my home on the way to Oshkosh this year. It was a
load of fun to watch you guys to fly in, as well as to fly out with you to
Oshkosh. Hope we can do it again next year. One thing I was a bit
disappointed in was that after I fed you guys pasties and venison, nobody
jumped up and volunteered to move my wood pile into the hangar for the
winter. (It's just a little 8-hour job, after all!) Maybe next year I'll
have to try porketta and wild turkey and see if I get any volunteers then!
Just a quick note and invitation to all you out there. My EAA Chapter 439
is sponsoring a fly-in at IMT on Saturday, Sept. 20 (rain day Sept. 21).
One sad note. Aaron Gustafson (the guy that flew in the day before our
Oshkosh trip and had a flat tire on his Firestar) lost his 29 year old son
in an auto accident. He had a wife and two kids.
Scott Trask
MKIII IMT
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Annual Fly-in pics |
I Just recieved a message from the webmaster of American Aero's web site. he
posted pictures of the Fly-in at Tommy's Airpark at lake Sangchris, where my
bird is hangared . The Fly-in was a HUGE success...over 100 planes showed
up.....well....about 90 airplanes and a half a dozen spam-cans!!..LOL
Anyway here is the link...lots of pretty birds to gaze at, and a wonderful
Fly-in to attend for all you fellas looking for a place to wander. Several
venders, including Wayne Ison and his new Tricycle Airbike...a couple of PPC
dealers...wonderful camping areas, lots of free food and drink..always held
the weekend before labor day..also BFI refresher courses on friday. Mark you
calanders for next year and consider it folks..its a real good one.
Go to Annual eaa flyin button....then 2003 flyin button...to look at flyin
pics. here is the link.
http://americanaero.us/
Oh Ya...the FlagFly got alot of celluloid....also on the photo gallery
page...I guess the photographer was kinda taken by my paint job.
I might add that there were 3 forced landings due to engine outs. 2 were
Kolbs .. no one hurt..but a bent gear on a Firestar...a busted boom and bent
gear an cage on a twinstar..he landed in a tall bean feild just 50 ft short
of runway.... and a total'd Team ?-Max..he found the CornFeild on the other
side....All 3 Rotax's ....To bad they didnt have a good American engine like
a Cuyuna!.(snicker)
Highlight for me was Sunday eve...everybody was about gone...and a P-51 and
a F4U Corsair buzzed us real low 3 times around (dethatched the runway) on
their way back from an Airshow somewhere...
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Don Gherardini-
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TRIP, Oil pressure gauge & sad news |
Scott, & Kolber's
The pleasure was all mine Scott, truly enjoyed your hospitality. You should
have hinted harder you need some wood moved.
I recommend a stop at Iron Mountain, MI and a visit with Scott if you are
anywhere close.
Aaron if a great guy and my sympathy goes out to him for his lose.
Fly Safe,
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolb Kolbra, SN: 008, Verner 133M
Airplane: 441 hours, Engine: 0 hours
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Safety Question - Oil pressure gauge |
Here's a safety question. Should there be a restrictor inserted in the oil
pressure line in the event if should break it would reduce the oil
loss. Ask your A&I, A&P, and DAR?
jerb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety Question - Oil pressure gauge |
> Here's a safety question. Should there be a restrictor
> inserted in the oil pressure line in the event if should
> break it would reduce the oil loss. Ask your A&I, A&P,
> and DAR? jerb
jerb/Gang:
I'll stick with electronic guauges with senders. I use VDO
most of the time. Get them from marine suppliers. Once in
a great while I'll get a sender to start acting up on me,
but for the most part they seem to be pretty reliable.
Wouldn't look forward to the chance of hot oil being sprayed
on me from the pressure line.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety Question - Oil pressure gauge |
It is a good idea but it only produces a longer time before all the oil is
pumped overboard; a longer time to find a landing area.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: "jerb" <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Safety Question - Oil pressure gauge
>
> Here's a safety question. Should there be a restrictor inserted in the
oil
> pressure line in the event if should break it would reduce the oil
> loss. Ask your A&I, A&P, and DAR?
> jerb
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
Hi John W. and Gang,
John, was curious about why you are switching to the Verner engine. I haven
t saw anything posted on this other than you are installing the Verner. Isn
t it the same hp?
John Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
| Subject: | Cockpit adjustable trim |
Hi Gang,
Would like to hear some pro's and con's on installing a cockpit adjustable
trim tab one of the elevator halves on the Mark III. The Twinstar Mark II
uses one and they work very well. Not very pretty but neither is a big ole
trim tab on the rudder to offset the P factor of the Rotax 912. Is anyone on
the list with a Mark III using this setup. One big advantage is that it
could be used for pitch control in the unlikely event that a elevator
control cable became inoperable. Any thoughts on this?
Later,
John Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit adjustable trim |
John Cooley wrote:
> Would like to hear some pro's and con's on installing a cockpit adjustable
> trim tab one of the elevator halves on the Mark III.
> John Cooley
John C/Gang:
On the original Twinstar, the adjustable elevator trim was
the cause of a fatal crash. It is in the NTSB archives.
I have no problem with the basic pitch trim on the Mark III.
I did change the actuator on mine, but the basic design
is still there.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Trask <sctrask(at)diisd.org> |
(not processed: message from valid local sender)
Hi
On a manual oil gauge the oil line is very small not much larger then the
wire that you would use. The likelihood of that line braking is very slim. I
thought the same way till I did some of my own experiments with the line. I
also checked with some of Rotax Tec. people and they say that a lot of guys
are going manual and that's ok. I when though two sender unit and checking
both when I install them nether was very accrete. If you can't trust your
gauges what good are they.
Scott Trask IMT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit adjustable trim |
John H.,
Thanks, I think. I will have to look that one up. Would like to know as
much detail as possible as I am currently flying a Twinstar with this trim
system.
John Cooley
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Thursday, September 04, 2003 04:20:00 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Cockpit adjustable trim
John Cooley wrote:
> Would like to hear some pro's and con's on installing a cockpit adjustable
> trim tab one of the elevator halves on the Mark III.
> John Cooley
John C/Gang:
On the original Twinstar, the adjustable elevator trim was
the cause of a fatal crash. It is in the NTSB archives.
I have no problem with the basic pitch trim on the Mark III.
I did change the actuator on mine, but the basic design
is still there.
john h
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
I when though two sender unit and checking
> both when I install them nether was very accrete. If you can't trust your
> gauges what good are they.
> Scott Trask IMT
Scott/Gang:
You got that right. I have never had an electric gauge on
the 912 or 912S that was reliable. Now you got me thinking
about a mechanical gauge. They do not lie, for the most part.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
In my racing days I used ss braid line and VDO gauges NEVER a failure !
........ Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Hi Gang:
Found out recently I have a free Summer next year which
opens things up for a flight back to Alaska. What a way to
celebrate your 65th year!!!
John Williamson and I have been talking about making it a
twosome. So John has to get busy and get the Verner flying
and squared away for the long trek north.
Just got off the phone with Tom Kuffel, Whitefish, MT. He
and his wife Betty, were attendees at the Unplanned Kolb
Flying 2003 last May at Monument Valley, UT.
Anybody else want to tag along?
This will be an unofficial, relaxed, enjoyable, exciting,
flight. Departing around 1 Jul 2004. Probably take a month
or so. The nice thing about it is if you get bored, are too
fast or too slow, you can always bail out and do your own
thing and go your own way. This is a no strings attached
adventure.
Will be nice to have company along for a long flight. Of
course Tom's Prospector flies much faster than John's Kolbra
and my MK III. Sooooooooooo, Tom and Betty can get to the
RON site first, set up our tents, and have a hot supper
ready for us when we come dragging in. hehehe
Plan to do some serious site seeing that I have not had the
opportunity to do on my last two flights North. Included
will be a flight back up to the North Slope, Dead
Horse/Prudhoe Bay, a visit with the Helmericks at Colville
Village, 48 miles NW of Dead Horse, and if we make it that
far, it is only another 185 miles to Barrow, the top of the
world.
We are in the talking stage and next Summer will be here
before we know it.
Anybody else interested?
john h
Titus, Alabama
MK III/912S
N101AB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
Group,
Does anyone know if they have electricity avalible for campers at the
New Kolb flyin site?
Ed (In Houston)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Where To Place The Antenae On MkIII |
H MITCHELL wrote:
> The DAR will be eyeing my MkIII Sunday afternoon. About
> the only thing left to do is mount my ELT antenna,
> keeping in mind that my aircom antenna will also have to
> be mounted in the near future.
> Duane the plane
Duane/All:
I have always mounted the VHF comm antenna on the bottom of
the nose cone, since my Firestar days. Put a 45 degree bend
to the rear, per instruction with the antenna. BTW: I use
ELT antenna's for comm and ELT. They are cut perfect for
VHF voice.
The ELT antenna is mounted on the rear of the center section
behind the parachute deployment port.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
kuffel wrote:
> It would appear our participation is a go.
> Now what about Jackpot, NV in May 2004 and then back to Monument Valley
> in 2005 instead of MV every year.
> Tom Kuffel
Tom K/All:
Great!
That will make a fine threesome of airplanes and foursome of
people, so far. The people are the most important
ingredient. Not only those flying, but the wonderful people
we will meet on the ground at every stop.
All are invited to participate in our Alaska 2004 adventure.
I started to type flight, but adventure makes a better
description.
This is going to be a unplanned, unorganized gaggle, but we
are going to have fun and enjoy some of the most beautifully
wild country in the world. I'll have to watch John
Williamson though. He'll have me on one of his detailed
flight plans and thoroughly confuse me. Just kidding, John W.
If you are interested in joining us, let us know. All are
welcome.
The price of this tour is right: $00.00. Only your own
personal expenses.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Where To Place The Antenae On MkIII |
Richard Pike wrote:
> Mine is on the front portion of the gap cover off to one side.
> Richard Pike
Richard/All:
I started putting the comm ant under the nose cone back when
RF noise from engine ign and alternator were an extreme
problem. My theory then and now is to get the antenna away
from the eng and put something between the ant and eng.
Did a lot of experimenting back in the 80's trying to kill
enough RF so I could receive and hear transmissions.
One of the biggest aids to noise reduction was the
installation of large capacitor in the 12VDC regulated wire
coming out of the reg/rec. Another was going to metal
shield plug wire terminals. I used Volvo, about 1975
vintage, Bosch wires and WR4CP Bosch Platinum Plugs with the
447. Had good noise canceling and good performance from the
Bosch resistor plugs. At that time it was a serious no no
to run resistor plugs in a Rotax. I experimented and found
not reduction in performance or reliability. The Plantinum
plugs were good for twice the hours of the NGK B8SE (I think
that is what was called for back then).
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Dave & Eve Pelletier wrote:
> I would be a go for Jackpot.
Dave and Eve/All:
Me too.
I liked Tom K's suggestion for Jackpot, NV, in 2004, then
back to MV in 2005.
Some of you may be familiar with Jackpot. I have not been
there, but will be roaming around the SW in the 5th Wheel
during Oct this year. Probably run up there and take a look
for myself.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Address by request |
| From: | Scott Trask <sctrask(at)diisd.org> |
(not processed: message from valid local sender)
Hi John
Here's Aaron G Gustafson address N-4323 Traders Mine Rd, Iron Mountain MI.
906 774 0683.
It looks like your not driving back up this way with your camper.
Scott
John Hauck
I tried to send this to your home e-mail twice with no success. Drop a
line to me by e-mail to see if I can send it back. It looks like I have the
right e-mail address?
Scott Trask
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
Works good for me. 2nd notch up for me or fifth notch for a 200 lb
passenger.
> elevator trim tab on the old Twinstar. I never flew one, so
> have no idea of how effective or over effective it was.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Blackwell, Charlie & Meredith" <wozani(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Elevator trim, twinstar |
The factory plans from 1985 show an elevator trim tab for the left elevator
on my MK II. It has been flying and working well according to the logs and repair
records that I have since 1990. The trim tab is roughly 10"X16" in the
plans and 6"X16" as installed, large but easily overpowered by the stick pressure.
The mechanism is very simple, if the spring breaks I would imagine that
the plane would have a little flutter but not be uncontrollable. And if the cable
actuator would fail, then it would nose over similar to a full trim position,
but that would be easily controllable still, even if a bit hard on the stick.
The accident seems to have been preceded by a separation of the trim tab and
not faulty use. The report states that full elevator and rudder travel remained
even after the accident. The mechanism of this accident is a bit confusing
for me. Even if the thing is a 10"X20" kite hanging off the back by the actuator
cable I do not see how this can cause an uncontrollable pitching problem.
Contributing factors could be the experience of the pilot, who was a bit confusingly
only student rated on his medical at the time, even though he had 1200
hours in a C-172. But he had only 2 hours in a Kolb. Not many instructors
would sign off a student to solo in a new type of plane after only 2 hours and
it is not even clear if those 2 hours the pilot had was with an instructor at
all, never mind one familiar with the Kolb. As an N numbered plane the pilot
had much stricter rules to follow than if it were an ultralight. Further, the
idea of being able to fly a plane just because you buy it is one that invites
disaster.
This case bother me because the factory designed elevator trim tab in the Twinstar
seems to be safe and has performed without trouble in the plane I have.
If there is a hidden danger that I can't picture, then I would like to understand
it.
For pilot experience, I can only say that I flew 10 hours with a very competent
instructor in the MK II before I felt comfortable soloing. I can't picture
going from a C-172, C-150, Piper Cherokee or Warrior, which I had hours in
all of them to the MK II without some transition training. The unfortunate pilot
in the report highlights that danger very well.
I can't see any reason to change from the factory plans for elevator trim in
whatever model you are building. But neither can I see inherent danger in the
trim tab style used on the MK II.
Charlie, NJ: MK II '90, 503 dcdi, 3blade Ivo, BRS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Bonsell" <ebonsell(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Friends,
On the original Firestar 5 rib wing the Bow tip of the wing is made of 3/4 x .035.
On the blueprint I have for the 7 rib wing it originally called for 7/8 x .049,
but then was crossed out and 3/4 x .035 was written in.
I have heard some say it should be stronger. What is called for presently?
I would like to make it stronger but I don't want to build in any un-necessary
weight.
Here is my question. Would you go to a 3/4 x .049 or a 7/8 x .049?
Sincerely,
Ed Bonsell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James and Cathy Tripp" <jtripp(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Ed,
My FSII plans and instructions both called for 7/8" X .049 for the bow tip
but there was a correction made to the plans calling for 3/4 X .035 so
that's what I used. With that in mind, John H suggested stiffing up the
support braces to add strength so I changed the 3/8" tubes which run from
the main spar straight out to the bow tip out of 1/2" tubing. I also changed
the back corner diagonal brace (running from trailing edge to bow tip) from
5/16" to 3/8". The long 5/16" tube running from the spar to the back corner
is still 5/16". John also suggested adding an additional brace running from
the spar forward to the bow tip. Probably good advise but I didn't do it.
James Tripp
FSII, Covering Stage
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Bonsell" <ebonsell(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Wing tips
>
> Hi Friends,
>
> On the original Firestar 5 rib wing the Bow tip of the wing is made of 3/4
x .035.
> On the blueprint I have for the 7 rib wing it originally called for 7/8 x
.049, but then was crossed out and 3/4 x .035 was written in.
> I have heard some say it should be stronger. What is called for presently?
> I would like to make it stronger but I don't want to build in any
un-necessary weight.
> Here is my question. Would you go to a 3/4 x .049 or a 7/8 x .049?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ed Bonsell
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot(at)comcast.net> |
Hello,
Well I finally got the Verner 133M engine started today. I had a wiring problem
yesterday that kept it from starting and the exhaust system the dealer built
for me won't fit and be flyable.
Here is what the Verner 133M looks like on top of the Kolbra: http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot5/100_1012.JPG
I rigged the exhaust with just straight pipes so I could at least start it. Here is the QuickTime Movie of the engine start (5.5 MB): http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot5/100_1014.MOV
Since it will be a while before I can get an exhaust system built that I will fly
under, I will remove the Verner and install the Jabiru back on the Kolbra.
I have some serious flying to do this month and I won't let the exhaust problem
slow me down.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolb Kolbra, SN: 008, Verner 133M
Airplane: 441 hours, Engine: 0 hours
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | tinted windshield |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
09/07/2003 12":39:20.PM(at)matronics.com,
MIME-CD complete at 09/07/2003 12:39:20.PM(at)matronics.com,
Serialize by Router on SMTP102/URSCorp(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at
09/07/2003 12:42:19.PM(at)matronics.com
I am considering replacing the existing windshield on my Mrk III, which is
scratched some, with tinted lexan. Has anybody else done this? I was
concerned it might be too dark to be safe. Im pretty much a fair-weather
only pilot, and definitely wont be flying at night, so that is not an
issue. Would like to hear any experience and opinions on this.
regards,
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tinted windshield |
In a message dated 9/7/03 12:43:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com writes:
> I am considering replacing the existing windshield on my Mrk III, which is
> scratched some, with tinted lexan. Has anybody else done this? I was
> concerned it might be too dark to be safe. Im pretty much a fair-weather
> only pilot, and definitely wont be flying at night, so that is not an
> issue. Would like to hear any experience and opinions on this.
>
>
>
The tinting will decrease your vision when fying at dust [somewhat].
Get the least shade of tint & it won't affect you too much.
It looks cool too.
Shack
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
Kolbers,
IFR weather kept me from flying lessons today:-( so ground school has been it for
today. I am in the weight and balance section of my ground school. I am using
the ASA ground school test prep for my training. They mention that the "datum
line" is provided from the aircraft engineer. So I am wondering, where is the
datum line on a Kolb and is it provided by the factory or is this a reference
point that has to be figured out by me, the builder? In the lesson they show
the datum line at or about the prop on a C-172. Is this normal? And how does
a pusher configuration compare? Geeeeessss... flight training and learning to
built at the same time!! I must be nuts!
King Kolbra ordered.....
pp
the student
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rwpike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: tinted windshield |
When I next replace my windshield, I will put some of that plastic window
tint film on the inside. We have picture windows on the south side of our
house at the dining room, and we used plastic tinted film to cut the sun's
heat and glare. It does not scratch like Lexan, it seems almost scratch
proof in normal usage. I plan to use amber (bronze) to improve visibility
in hazy conditions.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>I am considering replacing the existing windshield on my Mrk III, which is
>scratched some, with tinted lexan. Has anybody else done this? I was
>concerned it might be too dark to be safe. Im pretty much a fair-weather
>only pilot, and definitely wont be flying at night, so that is not an
>issue. Would like to hear any experience and opinions on this.
>
>
>regards,
>
> Erich Weaver
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Richmond <twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Fwd: Kolb Mk III parts |
For sale, parts from Mk III.
Gas cans (4), tires(4), brake set, 5-point
harnesses (2), cushions(2), strobes(2), facet fuel pumps (2, not
pictured), ASI, tach, ignition.
Make offers, will take checks, reasonable shipping charges.
If not satisfied, your $$ back.
Contact me off-list at this YAHOO address. Thanks.
*********
VIEW PICTURES
http://www.shutterfly.com/osi.jsp?i=67b0de21b32e3f642592
(If you can't click on this link, try copying and pasting it
into your web browser.)
NOTE : You don't have to buy any of these pictures....these are just for you to
view for my sale. They would LIKE you to buy pictures, but NOTrequired.
John & Lynn Richmond
Mary Kay Cosmetics - D.I.Q. !
lynn-richmond(at)marykay.com
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tinted windshield |
You'll want to get the good stuff, and follow the directions exactly. I see
many, many cars here in the desert with window film that's a mass of
bubbles. Can't do the visibility any good. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose N78LB
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pike" <rwpike(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: tinted windshield
>
> When I next replace my windshield, I will put some of that plastic window
> tint film on the inside. We have picture windows on the south side of our
> house at the dining room, and we used plastic tinted film to cut the sun's
> heat and glare. It does not scratch like Lexan, it seems almost scratch
> proof in normal usage. I plan to use amber (bronze) to improve visibility
> in hazy conditions.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >I am considering replacing the existing windshield on my Mrk III, which
is
> >scratched some, with tinted lexan. Has anybody else done this? I was
> >concerned it might be too dark to be safe. Im pretty much a fair-weather
> >only pilot, and definitely wont be flying at night, so that is not an
> >issue. Would like to hear any experience and opinions on this.
> >
> >
> >regards,
> >
> > Erich Weaver
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
| Subject: | In flight adjustable |
Gang,
It has been said before that the in-flight adjustable did not work very
well on a Kolb. When I bought my Mark III it had a non working in-flight
adjustable on it. Well I sent it to Long Beach to get repaired because I was
only able to get 6100 wot and I knew that at 4100 feet altitude I needed all
the rpm that I could get for climb out. I put it on last night and was able
to fly it for the first time today. I took all the pitch out of the blade
that I could get and headed down the runway. By pitching it as flat as I
could get I achieved 6600 on climb out. It was better. Once I attained
altitude I started applying pitch. It was very noticeable in the sound of
the engine. Next I ran it all the way up to as close to 6700 as I could get
and then cut the throttle back to 6000 rpms, and observed my air speed. 67
mph on my GPS. I flew a triangle and did not see any change in air speed so
I felt sure that the wind was not a factor. Leaving the throttle alone I
applied pitch until my rpm's dropped to 5500. My air speed also dropped to
55 mph GPS. The motor noise was again noticeably laboring.
All in all I flew 74 miles and burned approximately 5 gal of gas. I did
quite a bit of engine runs on the ground trying to get the prop torked
properly, so the gas burn may be a bit off. I find it hard to believe that a
harder working engine using the same amount of throttle could possibly burn
less fuel. I do know that it would take quite a bit longer to go anywhere. I
can find no reason to pitch the plane for anything other than 6600.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: In flight adjustable |
I can find no reason
> to pitch the plane for anything other than 6600. Larry
Larry/All:
Thanks for sharing the test info with us.
Did you happen to record, paper or memory, what you EGT's
were doing as you changed pitch adjustments?
Would be very interesting to find out.
I agree with you on single pitch, best approach, for Kolbs.
Especially two stroke engines. We do not have a report
from Kolbs with 4 stroke and inflight adjustable prop.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SGreenpg(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 9/7/03 3:01:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ppetty@c-gate.net
writes:
> So I am wondering, where is the datum line on a Kolb and is it provided by
> the factory or is this a reference point that has to be figured out by me,
> the builder?
Paul,
The instructions with my M3 used the wing leading edge. But you can
establish your own datum and it will work out too. It is just a reference point
to do
all measurements and calculations from.
Steven
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Richmond <twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Rotax 582 for sale |
Rotax 582 for sale, Silver Head, approximately 81.5 hrs since major overhaul by
A&P 314820886AP. AT 44 hrs, installed new Rotax radiator / cooling system, and
both pistons. Oil injector and two, three blade props included (composite
WARP drive, and one wood). Excellent condition, runs GREAT. $2000 o.b.o.
Contact me off-list at this YAHOO address. Thanks.
*********
VIEW PICTURES
http://www.shutterfly.com/osi.jsp?i=67b0de21b32e31792588
(If you can't click on this link, try copying and pasting it
into your web browser.)
NOTE : You don't have to buy any of these pictures....these are just for you to
view for my sale. They would LIKE you to buy pictures, but NOTrequired.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
| Subject: | Re: In flight adjustable |
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: In flight adjustable
> Did you happen to record, paper or memory, what you EGT's
> were doing as you changed pitch adjustments?
>
> Would be very interesting to find out.
Sorry I left that out, I considered it to be one of the more interesting
things that occurred during the test. At first there did not seem to be any
difference other than the reduction of speed, then about 10 minutes into the
flight with the 6600 rpm's I got a warning light on my EIS telling me that
the egt temps were over 1200. I was of course operating in the mid range of
6000 rpm's. I then pitched the blades just a bit more, not more than 100
rpms down and brought the temps back down to the 1160 range. They did not go
much more than 1210 at the highest, but I considered the fact that I may
need to change the needle setting.
I am not sure if I told every one the plane was set up to be operating
at approx 300 feet altitude. I was sure that I would have trouble with the
setting at 4000 feet. I changed the needles in both carbs because the plugs
were a bit darker than I thought they should have been.After the change I
found that it was running way too lean, due to higher egt temps, so I reset
it to the original setting.It seemed to stay between 1050 and 1100 with that
jet setting. Now with the prop turning where it should be I may need to
change. I will need to look into it more, taking the plugs out and doing
some checking that way. I will probably reset the needles again and see what
that does.
For the first time I felt that the plane performed as it should have. So
far the performance has been the same as my firestar with a 447, only it
burned more gas.
I may be open to a offer for the In- Flight adjustable, if any one wants
it. Now I think that I will sell my Firestar II as well.
Larry, Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
Paul...It might not be the same on a Kolbra..but on my FireFly the factory
suggested Datum is the leading edge of the wing with the tail jacked up to
in-flight atrtitude.
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Don Gherardini-
FireFly 098
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolbra Modificaitions |
Hi Rick and all,
Thanks for the advice on not going full power too soon.
The thrust line is 3 inches higher with the Verner compared to the Jabiru.
Yes it did sound awesome with the straight pipes pointed outward.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolb Kolbra, SN: 008, Jabiru 2200, 441 hours
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: TRIP, Oil pressure gauge & sad news |
about visits and even Larry
> Bourne thumbed his nose at me.
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIII
>
Don't feel bad he begged for an invitation then just drove right on by.
Maybe he heard about my skills in the kitchen.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolbra Modificaitions |
John W,
Well monday morn..back at work!...Logged over 5 hours this weekend in the
FireFly,,,beautiful Flying weather in the midwest!
That mov downloaded all right for me also...jeez...that V133 is a big puppy!
Anyway..I dont know if you are going to build the exhaust youself or have it
done. But I want to say that on a 2 cyl 4 stroke...your exhaust system makes
a world of difference in preformance....particularly in the torque. A 2 in
to 1 is generally the most desirable design for the rpms ranges that the
V133 operates at. You may already know all this, But there is a wealth of
info at the Headers by Ed website that might be really worth you looking at,
not to mention he is a great source for mandrel bent tubing and flanges and
such...
here is his link....... http://www.headersbyed.com/
Good luck.
Don Gherardini
Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
800-626-7326
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TRIP, Oil pressure gauge & sad news |
Yah, now I know how Michiganders are ( and Woody, too, by association)
Issue me an invitation, then all go hide while I'm in the area. Gave me a
complex, it did. Woody even turned his answering machine off, and hid in
his shop. Then he'd have expected me to EAT there ?? Uh-uh...........I
heard about him. Fortunately, many to the east and south were much more
welcoming, and restored my confidence. Some even tolerated me for 2 days !
! ! Viva la Kolb ! ! ! Lar. Do not
Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose N78LB
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: TRIP, Oil pressure gauge & sad news
>
>
> about visits and even Larry
> > Bourne thumbed his nose at me.
> >
> > Rick Neilsen
> > Redrive VW powered MKIII
> >
>
> Don't feel bad he begged for an invitation then just drove right on by.
> Maybe he heard about my skills in the kitchen.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Kolbers,
Can anyone confirm the part number from aircraft spruce for the Lord mounts used
on Kolb's? I have it at LMT01 or LMT02 on page 267. I ordered the engine mount
section of the airframe to make engine mounts for the HD. I plan to weld the
engine mount section to the test stand. Also need to know the angle of the engine
mount in reference to the ground.
Thanks
pp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Davis - Comcast" <davis207(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | The perfect Kolb day |
This weekend the Mid-Atlantic had perfect "Kolb weather" which coincided with the
EAA Chapter 240 fly-in at New Garden (N57). Climbing out due east, I was looking
directly into the morning glare off the Atlantic Ocean across most of the
width of New Jersey.
It was 1hour 25 minute flight from the Princeton, NJ area (N75) to Spitfire Airdrone
(7N7) in South Jersey. Spitefire is so overgrown I wasn't sure the airport
wasn't abandoned until a saw a small line of parked aircraft. There were
even a few souls about. A quick fill up from a 2 gallon can and I was ready to
leave. However, the owner of a RV6 appraoched to inquire about ultralights.
He's worried about the medical and thinking about what he could still fly. After
a 20 minute discussion, I taxied down to see his RV on the way out. Unfortunately,
hidden in some grass was the mother of all ruts. It was the perfect
tank ditch for Kolbs, about 1 foot wide, 8 in deep and perpendicular to the
taxi way. At a 6 mph taxi, It just went over on it's nose with no warning. I'll
be doing some fiberglass work in the future...
Spitfire is right by the Delaware river across from Wilmington, DE. Crossing the
Delaware was beautiful, if a little daunting. Downtown Wilmington on the left,
with the Delaware Memorial Bridge beyond that, and Philadelphia on the right.
A large airport on either side as well: Wilmington County and Philly International.
Fortunately, the restricted airspace lifts to 2500 just prior to
the crossing point so there was comfort in not having any mid-crossing "no option"
zone.
After 25 minutes across DE and into PA, N57 is hidden almost along a ridgeline.
After landing I was directed onto the greass glider strip perpendicular to the
main runway and parked next to 2 Original Firestars owned by Bill Varnes and
his friend Al. Almost immediately they were down to checkout the firefly.
Bill and Al turne out to be great guys, very friendly. Their planes both had
several clever custom mods and they were eager to talk "shop".
After a pleasnt day, we lined up together and left together, each demonstrating
a "Kolb Climbout". Bill and Al stayed with me back across the Delaware then
I headed north and they turned south.
FF 028, now fitted with either a tab or adjustable trim on all three axis, flies
hands and feet off. I was even able to do some 30 degree "S" turns by alternating
leaning and sticking a arm out the cockpit.
The perfect Kolb day.
Total distance: 160nm
Total time: 3 h 40m
Chuck Davis
FF 028
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Paul
I went throught the plant last Tuesday(I drive by there 3 or 4 times a
year and always stop) and saw that your kit was nearing the shipping
stage. That is good news!
The other good news is that TNK is doing a brisk business! Last fall
at the Fly in Bruce told us that business was the pits!
The bad news is that I still haven't found a Firestar
project/rebuilder!:-( Frugal Herb in Ky(still flying a Zmax; which
ain't all bad!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
Only a couple of weeks to the "kolb Fly-in" in London KY. I was wondering if
we can get a response on the list as to who we can expect to see there and if
they are flying or driving. Who knows, there may be someone 100 miles away
going, that you could fly along with or car pool?
Sept 27th & 28th
Directions on the Kolb web site
Fly Safe
Bob Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry, make that Kitlog Pro software. By the way I haven't purchased the software
as of yet. Only tried out the demo.
Has anyone on the list used this type software? Perhaps there is a better one. Check it out at www.kitlog.com and let me know what you think.
pp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BMWBikeCrz(at)aol.com |
Dave , Tampa bay area (Driving)
In a message dated 9/9/03 7:35:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Airgriff2(at)aol.com
writes:
<< Subj: Kolb-List: Kolb fly-in
Date: 9/9/03 7:35:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Airgriff2(at)aol.com
Sender: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
Reply-to: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Only a couple of weeks to the "kolb Fly-in" in London KY. I was wondering
if
we can get a response on the list as to who we can expect to see there and
if
they are flying or driving. Who knows, there may be someone 100 miles away
going, that you could fly along with or car pool?
Sept 27th & 28th
Directions on the Kolb web site
Fly Safe
Bob Griffin
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Kitty Hawk/Kolb Flyin |
In a message dated 9/9/03 9:16:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
> Here is a route of flight by city:
>
> Wetumpka, AL
>
> Milledgeville, GA
>
> Thomson, GA
>
> Columbia, SC
>
> Elizabethton, NC
>
John H.,
We would love for your flight to drop by our field.
We are located about half-way between Thomson, Ga. & Columbia, SC at Trenton
Municipal Airport, SC [AKA. Edgefield County Airport].
We have an airconditioned clubhouse [Trenton Flyers] in which you could RON.
We could have a car & driver available for gas, food, etc.
Let me know & I''ll give co-ordinates, etc.
We have 5 Kolbs based here & plan to attend next year.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
Ed Diebel
Driving camper. Hope to arrive by the 26th
In a message dated 9/9/03 5:35:24 AM Central Standard Time, Airgriff2(at)aol.com
writes:
<<
Only a couple of weeks to the "kolb Fly-in" in London KY. I was wondering
if
we can get a response on the list as to who we can expect to see there and
if
they are flying or driving. Who knows, there may be someone 100 miles away
going, that you could fly along with or car pool?
Sept 27th & 28th
Directions on the Kolb web site
Fly Safe
Bob Griffin
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Blackwell, Charlie & Meredith" <wozani(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | MKII Twinstar legs |
Anyone with a MK II--
I have not had good results using the Firestar leg to axle bracket as sold
by TNKolb. It gives me what looks like 5 degrees negative camber and a penchant
for darting to the side on landings. My best guess from an old MKII bracket
is they are 28 degrees between the gear legs center line and the axle. Measuring
from the blue prints marked "not to scale" gives me a similar measurement.
But I would like a couple degrees positive camber at rest when loaded to
make up for my oh so very rare hard landing..... and to have the wheels flat and
parallel under those loads.
I have not seen a plane with the original bracket and don't know if they are
at positive camber (top of wheel leaning away from plane) or neutral.
I intend to go with 4130 chrome moly steel of 1/8" wall thickness on both pipes,
welded into a 'Y' and then heat treated to relieve stress to R40 like I
have been told Kolb now does. Any ideas on this from some of you builders with
welding history? For my own peace of mind I will go to a machine shop to have
it done because my own welding is pretty sketchy. How is the camber angle
and behavior on other planes? Anyone have suggestions?
Charlie Blackwell, NJ
3rd owner MKII, '90
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
One of the biggest aids to noise reduction was the
installation of large capacitor in the 12VDC regulated wire
coming out of the reg/rec. Another was going to metal
shield plug wire terminals.
I used coax for my engine kill switches. it keeps the static from the cdi inside
a braided, grounded wire.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 09/05/03 |
Now what about Jackpot, NV in May 2004 and then back to Monument Valley
in 2005 instead of MV every year.
=============================
that works for me... it is close enough that i could slip home to take a
shower.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Derek Lawrence" <Derek(at)prestwoodpetcrematorium.co.uk> |
Just a brief word of introduction. My name is Derek Lawrence and I live just outside
Stourbridge, England, I have a Kolb Mk111 Xtra on order with Silver Fern
Microlights the British agents. I am still waiting for a shipping date.I hope
you will all excuse the many questions I will have to ask but this is my first
kit build having spent the last fifteen years flying flexwing microlights.
Derek Lawrence
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Kitty Hawk/Kolb Flyin |
In a message dated 9/9/03 10:44:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:
> I think we can land their and say howdy. We'll just be
> getting into our flight real good about that time. RON is
> on down the road a piece.
>
> I am going to go ahead and put 6J6 in my gps.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
>
I'll keep an eye out for when you may arrive.
Shack
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kit on order |
> I live just outside Stourbridge, England, I
> have a Kolb Mk111 Xtra on order with Silver Fern
> Microlights the British agents. Derek Lawrence
Derek/All:
Welcome to the Kolb Builders List.
When you get ready, fire away. We have a lot of good Kolb
Builders on our List. We are one big happy family. That
is, when we can fly, when our parts arrive early, when we
don't make expensive mistakes during the building process,
and when the airplanes have been painted.
Fire away with your questions when you get ready.
Take care,
john h
Titus, Alabama
MK III, 912S
N101AB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kit on order |
Really novel address you have there Derek. Welcome aboard the
incongruous array
of personalities in "Kolb world". Do you have an engine preference yet?
-BB, lowest time (Kolb, that is) in the bunch ...Lar, zero don't count. :)
Derek Lawrence wrote:
>
>Just a brief word of introduction. My name is Derek Lawrence and I live just outside
Stourbridge, England, I have a Kolb Mk111 Xtra on order with Silver Fern
Microlights the British agents. I am still waiting for a shipping date.I hope
you will all excuse the many questions I will have to ask but this is my first
kit build having spent the last fifteen years flying flexwing microlights.
>Derek Lawrence
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Kitty Hawk/Kolb Flyin |
In a message dated 9/9/03 1:37:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kolbrapilot(at)comcast.net writes:
> Howard S, John H, John B and everyone else in the Southeast USA,
>
> Have added Edgefield County (6J6) to our route.
>
> Assuming we leave Wetumpka at 0800 we should be at Milledgeville at about
> 1030 and at Trenton at about 1230.
>
> If there was anybody to meet us it would be a great place to stop for lunch.
>
>
> John Williamson
>
Confirm Wed. Sept. 24 at approx. 12:30 pm. Yeah, we'll do lunch.
Any changes, let me know.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gene Ledbetter <gdledbetter(at)earthlink.net> |
I will be flying the Firefly from Cincinnati if the weather looks good.
Otherwise, I'll be driving down and meeting with up with Duane the
Plane and sharing the motel.
Gene
Cincinnati
Firefly
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 07:33 US/Eastern, Airgriff2(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Only a couple of weeks to the "kolb Fly-in" in London KY. I was
> wondering if
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SGreenpg(at)aol.com |
My plans are to leave Wed. morning for the fly-in and stop by Kitty Hawk
Thurs. if the weather forecast looks favorable, otherwise I will leave Friday for
a direct flight to Chestnut Knolls.
Steven Green
MkIII
> Only a couple of weeks to the "kolb Fly-in" in London KY. I was wondering
> if
> we can get a response on the list as to who we can expect to see there and
> if
> they are flying or driving. Who knows, there may be someone 100 miles away
> going, that you could fly along with or car pool?
>
> Sept 27th &28th
> Directions on the Kolb web site
>
> Fly Safe
> Bob Griffin
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CRAIG M NELSON" <vitalfx0(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kit on order |
Derek
You made a great choice in aircraft and will find the transition to be great. I
have been building an extra for a few years. it has been enjoyable. I have a
rotax 912 ULS 100 hp and have made many modifications to personalize my ship,
including an engine cowling. I am putting the final two colors on the fuselage
and then it will be final assembly.--- I spent two years in England, around
Southampton, London, Redding and Luton, Love your country, Have fun building!!!
Uncle Craig
Arizona
MkIII Extra
----- Original Message -----
From: Derek Lawrence
Subject: Kolb-List: Kit on order
Just a brief word of introduction. My name is Derek Lawrence and I live just outside
Arizona, England, I have a Kolb Mk111 Xtra on order with Silver Fern Microlights
the British agents. I am still waiting for a shipping date.I hope you
will all excuse the many questions I will have to ask but this is my first kit
build having spent the last fifteen years flying flexwing microlights.
Derek Lawrence
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "info" <info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com> |
We'll be there doing a fabric "hands-on" this year,
Looking forward to seeing everyone!!
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: | "J.L.Turner" <jimturner(at)mwt.net> |
- - - , 20- - September 10, 2003
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-el