Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-fq
November 18, 2005 - December 14, 2005
does not touch the hinges on the fuselage tube. WE have seen some
installations where the hinges not only touch but actually are deflected with elevator
movement. THIS IS a very dangerous as the hinges could fatigue and crack with
enough such bending. There MUST be clearance on both sides as indicated. "
In my opinion the whole design of the tail attachment is ingenious. It allows
the tail to fold as well as allow for elevator movement in a very simple and
inspectable form. You may not be able to see any movement at the rear of the
stabilizer because the whole horizontal stabilizer and elevator floats on the
control horn.
Hope this helps,
Steve Boetto
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: My Mark III, not a crash |
| From: | guyandjodi(at)bvillemn.net |
> It is kept slightly loose so you can fold the
> stabilizer up. This allows this to have some amount, ever so slight, of
> vibration as you fly. This caused, over time, metal fatigue on the "L"
> brackets. > ---------------------------------
Roger,
They sould not be slightly loose for folding they should be floating on
that bolt.
If you have the "L" brackets on the boom tube installed properly you would
have had to add several washers to each side of the "L" brackets mounted
to the horizontal stabilizer to tighten that bolt up. There should have
been at least a 1/4in gap on both sides of the horizontal stab brackets so
they could move (float) fore and aft as the elevator is moved up and down.
Even if you can't see the movement fore and aft, it's there, and if you
immobilize this connection by tightening up the bolt somethings gotta
give.
If you did have the gap in place for movement then please disregard this
post.
If you could please post pictures of the other horizontal stab mount.
Just my .02 worth.
Guy Swenson
3053B MKIII Xtra
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Blackwell <wozani(at)optonline.net> |
My best guess, measuring on my MkII and also consulting the drawings=85. Is
that the Firestar angle is definitely wrong for the MkII (I can send pics if
you like). It makes the tops of the wheels lean inwards. I would go with
something in the 30 degree angle range, which I measured on my plane. If
you load it up heavy maybe you=92d want something like 35 degrees to allow the
legs to flex a bit more and sit with the wheels still perpendicular to the
ground.
If in doubt, stick some 1 =BC=94 OD pipe in the sockets, or the old gear legs,
and measure the angle from them to a level held perpendicular to the ground.
Also, the MkII is very much like the MkIIIc in its design. I think the only
real difference is the 6=94 tubing replacing the 5=94, and the flaps, all done
to accommodate the higher horsepower engines.
Charlie, MKII in NJ
=93Ok, time for some more help. A good point was brought up about when I
replace the gear legs and axle assemblies on my Mk II that the angle be
correct for the wheels. The 1 1/4" gear legs are from the firestar and the
standard axle assemblies from Kolb are welded at too much of an angle
because the mk II sits low compared to the firestar. Travis at TNK said he
would weld whatever angle I wanted. What do I want?=94
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Blackwell <wozani(at)optonline.net> |
My best guess, measuring on my MkII and also consulting the drawings=85. Is
that the Firestar angle is definitely wrong for the MkII (I can send pics if
you like). It makes the tops of the wheels lean inwards. I would go with
something in the 28 degree angle range, which I measured on my plane. If
you load it up heavy maybe you=92d want something like 25 degrees to allow the
legs to flex a bit more and sit with the wheels still perpendicular to the
ground.
If in doubt, stick some 1 =BC=94 OD pipe in the sockets, or the old gear legs,
and measure the angle from them to a level held perpendicular to the ground.
Also, the MkII is very much like the MkIIIc in its design. I think the only
real difference is the 6=94 tubing replacing the 5=94, and the flaps, all done
to accommodate the higher horsepower engines.
Charlie, MKII in NJ
=93Ok, time for some more help. A good point was brought up about when I
replace the gear legs and axle assemblies on my Mk II that the angle be
correct for the wheels. The 1 1/4" gear legs are from the firestar and the
standard axle assemblies from Kolb are welded at too much of an angle
because the mk II sits low compared to the firestar. Travis at TNK said he
would weld whatever angle I wanted. What do I want?=94
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MkII gear legs/MKII/MKIII Comparison |
| Also, the MkII is very much like the MkIIIc in its design. I think
the only
| real difference is the 6=94 tubing replacing the 5=94, and the
flaps, all done
| to accommodate the higher horsepower engines.
|
|
| Charlie, MKII in NJ
Charlie/All:
Dennis Souder can speak to the above much better than I can.
Please let me disagree with you a tad.
The MKII is very much more like the original Twinstar, the first two
place Homer Kolb kit. Basically, they enclosed a Twinstar to make a
MKII. Structurally, the MKII is a Twinstar. Dennis S can correct me
if I am wrong, please.
About the only similarity between the two is the enclosed side by side
cockpit, and the MKII is much smaller than the MKIII.
The MKIII is a super strong "new" fuselage, six inch spars and
tailboom, 10 rib wing sections, flaps, and does quite well with 582,
912 and 912S.
I don't have any experience with the MKII. Never flown one. Dennis S
and Dick Kuntzleman can certainly fill us in on that particular model.
As far as gear leg/axle sockets, I prefer to set them up to have a
good amount of positive camber. I think that makes the aircraft look
better, fresher, than a Kolb sitting there in the grass or tarmac with
a lot of negative camber, tired and worn looking. Does it handle any
better on the ground. I don't know. On grass, doesn't matter. On
pavement it might, but I have never flown a Kolb with a lot of
negative camber on and off pavement.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MkII gear legs/MKII/MKIII Comparison |
| The MKIII is a super strong "new" fuselage, six inch spars and
| tailboom, 10 rib wing sections, flaps, and does quite well with 582,
| 912 and 912S.
Hi Gang:
Forgot to add in my last post, the MKIII also sported a new "folding
tail section" that took Dennis Souder and Homer Kolb a tremendous
amount of time to come up with. No one else in the UL/Lt Plane world
had anything like it.
Using the MKIII tail section, to include the new folding mechanism,
was the first Ferguson displayed at Sun and Fun 1991. Bill Ferguson's
Fergie was awarded Sun and Fun Grand Champion Light Plane, 1991, or it
may have been 1992. This alone was enough to irritate Homer Kolb and
the rest of the Kolb gang, after putting so much effort into designing
and developing.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
| Subject: | 912 in a Kolb.....in the UK...?? |
Pat L, and KiwiMick -
My Mark-III Classic, with a 912UL and BRS weighs 560 lbs. (254 kg).
Does this fit your Microlight rules?
Dennis Kirby
N93DK, s/n 300
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kolbdriver" <Kolbdriver(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Forward Horizontal Stabilizer Attachment |
Steve,
I am with you Steve. Sheet 3 of my Mark III plans specifically notes to
leave room for the horizonal stab brackets to move fore and aft between the
tail tube mounted "L" brackets. It even tells you that it will fatigue and
break if it is not free to slide fore and aft on the AN3-10 bolt.
When I made my first flight in the Mark III on Feb. 24, 2001 Bruce, Norm,
and Danny came down to watch. Their inspection gave a thumbs up and after I
took it a couple trips around the pattern Norm made a circuit or two in it.
I think the temperature was in the 30s that day. While talking to them they
pointed out the mistake that some builders make by restricting the movement
at the forward horizonal stab. attachment.
My hat is off to Roger for making a sucessful landing with such an inflight
failure.
Steven Green
M3 400 hrs
> Hi John, help me out here, I am not concerned here about whether or not
the
> L bracket is covered or not. Although I am a Kolb Neophyte, I think that I
> understand the importance of having the joint free and moving. I am
concerned if
> people start boltin em up tight. or worse yet if the FAA mandates that it
be
> done based on the report of Roger's plane. The geometry of the elevator
horn
> moves in an arc and requires that the fore mounts can slide fore and aft.
If
> I am wrong here I will relinquish but I think I am on track.
>
> BTW, I'm ready for another Motocross Challenge, I've been practicing.
>
> Steve B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | roger lee <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: My Mark III, not a crash |
Hi Steve,
I checked my free play at this "L" bracket and had about 1/8" free play. I'm
replacing all my "L" brackets and will leave a little more room for free play.
I am also adding a second set of support cables to the leading edge of the horizontal
stabilizer and this will prevent this from flapping up if I should ever
have another type of failure. I hope never again. This should strengthen the
tail area and still let it move. I also took the "L" brakets from under the
fabric on the stabilizer so they can be inspected and replaced at 250 hrs.
Thanks for the advise,
Roger Lee
In a message dated 11/17/2005 12:34:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com writes:
What broke was the stainless "L" bracket on the front inside edge of the
horizontal stabilizer that allows the stabilizer to fold up. Looking at this I
can see why it failed. It is kept slightly loose so you can fold the
stabilizer up. This allows this to have some amount, ever so slight, of vibration
as
you fly. This caused, over time, metal fatigue on the "L" brackets. When I
checked the other side I used a magnifying glass and found another crack.
I would highly recommend that these stainless "L" brackets be changed at 250
hrs. and I would recommend putting in place a second horizontal stabilizer
wire forward of the first. I learned this from J. Hauck, but did not put mine
in place in time. My error. If I had put a second stabilizer wire in front of
the first (top and bottom) it would have prevented the horizontal stabilizer
from flying up. I am also going to add a second "L" bracket some where
between 8"-10" behind the other. My Kolb will then be double wire braced and and
have double "L" brackets. I never fold my plane up so I will also keep these
bolts at the "L" bracket tight which will help with the minute vibration.
To All, Question, I thought that since the trailing edge of the
horizontal stab. moved up and down slightly with elevator changes that it was
important to keep the forward joint at the L brackets loose. If you tightened it
as
suggested above would it not suffer from fatigue over time?
Steve Boetto
Firefly on Floats and Seabase Builder
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | roger lee <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: My Mark III, not a crash |
Thanks for the advise. I am replacing my cables and adding a second set of wires
like yours and using turnbuckles.
Roger Lee
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: My Mark III, not a crash
At 10:29 PM 11/16/2005, you wrote:
You can change those things to. You can even use swaged "machined" turnbuckles.
I used them on the rudders and elevator wires too - gives you some adjustment when
the wires stretch..
Not that there is anything wrong with the original equipment.
It's just cleaner and not that expensive to do it like it should be done.
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/Modtail&swagedwires.jpg
Just to put the rumors to rest. It was my Mark III Classic, 912s with 545 hrs TT.
On take off and on downwind the passenger side horizontal stabilizer bracket broke
and the stabilizer went straight up and stayed there. It was a little hard
to control, but made a safe landing. Had to call NTSB because it was an in flight
control failure. What broke was the stainless "L" bracket on the front inside
edge of the horizontal stabilizer that allows the stabilizer to fold up.
Looking at this I can see why it failed. It is kept slightly loose so you can
fold the stabilizer up. This allows this to have some amount, ever so slight,
of vibration as you fly. This caused, over time, metal fatigue on the "L" brackets.
When I checked the other side I used a magnifying glass and found another
crack.
I would highly recommend that these stainless "L" brackets be changed at 250 hrs.
and I would recommend putting in place a second horizontal stabilizer wire
forward of the first. I learned this from J. Hauck, but did not put mine in place
in time. My error. If I had put a second stabilizer wire in front of the first
(top and bottom) it would have prevented the horizontal stabilizer from flying
up. I am also going to add a second "L" bracket some where between 8"-10"
behind the other. My Kolb will then be double wire braced and and have double
"L" brackets. I never fold my plane up so I will also keep these bolts at the
"L" bracket tight which will help with the minute vibration. I am also going
to use turn buckles like J. Hauck instead of adjustable tangs to dial in my cable
tightness.
The NTSB may have suggestions to Kolb, I'm not sure what they will do?
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | roger lee <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: My Mark III, not a crash/Forward Horizontal Stabilizer |
Attachment
HI John,
I removed the "L" brackets under the fabric and mounted them on the outside.
I have also replaced all the "L" brackets and added a second set of cables with
turnbuckles like your aircraft. I will also leave a little more free play in
the "L" bracket mounts so the horizontal stabilizer can move a little more freely.
Thanks for the tips.
Roger Lee
| The
| crack can and usually does occur under the fabric at the first
rivet.
|
| Steve Boetto
Hi Steve B/All:
Seems to me it is better to fix the bracket on the outside of the
fabric for proper preflight inspection. May be prettier under the
fabric, but not nearly as safe and functional.
I always attach the horizontal stabilizer forward bracket after I
cover and paint. However, all holes for bracket rivets are predrill
and fitted prior to covering.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | roger lee <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Forward Horizontal Stabilizer Attachment |
Hi Steve,
My "L" brackets had about an 1/8" free play. I have changed all my brackets and
put them on the outside of the fabric on the horizontal stabilizer. I will
also give them some more free play. I am also adding a second set of support cables
on the front of the stabilizer and this will keep any failures from happening.
It will be strong, but it will have the free play that it needs.
Thanks for the help,
Roger Lee
Steve,
I am with you Steve. Sheet 3 of my Mark III plans specifically notes to
leave room for the horizonal stab brackets to move fore and aft between the
tail tube mounted "L" brackets. It even tells you that it will fatigue and
break if it is not free to slide fore and aft on the AN3-10 bolt.
When I made my first flight in the Mark III on Feb. 24, 2001 Bruce, Norm,
and Danny came down to watch. Their inspection gave a thumbs up and after I
took it a couple trips around the pattern Norm made a circuit or two in it.
I think the temperature was in the 30s that day. While talking to them they
pointed out the mistake that some builders make by restricting the movement
at the forward horizonal stab. attachment.
My hat is off to Roger for making a sucessful landing with such an inflight
failure.
Steven Green
M3 400 hrs
> Hi John, help me out here, I am not concerned here about whether or not
the
> L bracket is covered or not. Although I am a Kolb Neophyte, I think that I
> understand the importance of having the joint free and moving. I am
concerned if
> people start boltin em up tight. or worse yet if the FAA mandates that it
be
> done based on the report of Roger's plane. The geometry of the elevator
horn
> moves in an arc and requires that the fore mounts can slide fore and aft.
If
> I am wrong here I will relinquish but I think I am on track.
>
> BTW, I'm ready for another Motocross Challenge, I've been practicing.
>
> Steve B
>
>
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MkII gear legs/MKII/MKIII Comparison |
Hi John/all,
Beyond the aesthetic aspect, positive camber is used in taildraggers
(and to a lesser degree in tricycle gear) to aid in tracking during takeoff
and landing. Part of the idea is that when landing on one wheel, the gear
may deflect towards neutral and help keep the aircraft tracking straight.
With negative camber, when the gear splays further out, it will tend to drag
the aircraft away from the intended track.
Of course, it just looks better, too.
Ed in JXN (MI)
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: MkII gear legs/MKII/MKIII Comparison
> Charlie/All:
> As far as gear leg/axle sockets, I prefer to set them up to have a
> good amount of positive camber. I think that makes the aircraft look
> better, fresher, than a Kolb sitting there in the grass or tarmac with
> a lot of negative camber, tired and worn looking. Does it handle any
> better on the ground. I don't know. On grass, doesn't matter. On
> pavement it might, but I have never flown a Kolb with a lot of
> negative camber on and off pavement.
>
> john h
> MKIII/912ULS
> Titus, Alabama
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: slow day - laugh a bit |
In a message dated 11/8/2005 11:48:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ghaley(at)wt.net writes:
Woody,
I forwarded this to my wife and this is her response:
"AND...the airplanes don't mind sleeping in the cold hanger with their
pilots."
Quoting woody :
>
> The list is kind of slow so I thought it would be a good time to add some
> humour. This was recentley sent to me and I found it quite funny.
> Unfortunately the girlfriend didn't. Guess its a pilot thing.
>
>
> Airplanes usually kill you quickly; a woman takes her time.
> >Airplanes can be turned on by a flick of a switch.
> >Airplanes don't get mad if you do a "touch and go."
and I merely say....."God Bless the feisty ladies"
George Randolph
firestar driver in The Villages, Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Silver Fern Microlights Ltd" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 in a Kolb.....in the UK...?? |
Hi Dennis, Yep your bird would be legal in the UK at that weight, provided
the VG's that I have got approved are fitted and we get the second weight
increase we have applied for of 450kg. If the BRS was removed it would pass
easily at our current weight.
You obviously built a nice Kolb without getting carried away with too much
paint etc.
If Kolb's are built as per the book and care is taken with paint even us on
this side of the pond can have a 912, look out mr Hauk I might be persuaded
to go to the other side......... if I ever stop loving my Jab.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil>
Subject: Kolb-List: 912 in a Kolb.....in the UK...??
>
>
> Pat L, and KiwiMick -
>
>
> My Mark-III Classic, with a 912UL and BRS weighs 560 lbs. (254 kg).
>
> Does this fit your Microlight rules?
>
>
> Dennis Kirby
>
> N93DK, s/n 300
>
> Cedar Crest, NM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
Anyone know the panel dimensions and materials for the panel in an Xtra?
I am trying to lay out a panel and need to know how much space I have to
work with.
Thanks, Todd
--
Todd Fredricks, DO
Flying Fox Services
Visit my Blog at www.flyingfoxhangar.blogspot.com
POWERED BY MAC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rest of The Story |
In a message dated 11/14/2005 8:23:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
biglar(at)gogittum.com writes:
P.S. Jimmy, I really like your idea of the D.N.A. in the signature, but
hafta agree with Larry. It'd become awkward in emails to others.
Lar. xxxx
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
Larry, I can't believe you said that....awkward??!! ...NO WAY, It is BECAUSE
of Jimmy that I now have this signoff signature which is always going to be
part of my emails....thank you Jimmy.........well, does everyone get the
drift that I most certainly did not say this with the proper respect to be shown
Mr Biglar. He is most assuredly entitled to his position and I have mine.
The other important observation is that I am soooooo far behind on my
newsgroup emails.
I visited the EAA chapter in Leesburg Fl yesterday and will probably
join....nice group of guys there.
Firestar driver from The Villages, Fl
Rotax 447, 3 blade Ivo, KX, 1991
Do not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Do N*t Archive Flag... |
Come on guys, if you can build and fly an airplane, you can type three words
to indicate that your message shouldn't be appended to the archive....by
Matt Draille
Geeez, how come we never looked at it that way?
Firestar driver from The Villages, Fl
Rotax 447, 3 blade Ivo, KX, 1991
Do not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: space cadets |
A story like that should be archived.
----- Original Message ----- >
>
> For those needing a reason of some kind for buying an Aircraft
>
> I have read many posts on the web site from members and on MMAIL who
> are thinking about owning their own aircraft and looking for ways to
> offset the cost of ownership. I have heard many reasons for and
> against ownership. Why buy an aircraft? It's cheaper to rent and you
> do not have all the hassle with maintenance, fuel and insurance. Well,
> here is a little story that I think explains it all as to why I own my
> own airplane.
>
> It was a beautiful Saturday morning. No winds and the temperature was
> just right. So instead of mowing the lawn like my wife had planned for
> me, I decided to go to the airport and take the Sport out for a run.
> She yells back at me, "WELL IF YOU GO, TAKE YOUR SON WITH YOU." So I
> ask my son. Want to go flying with dad? In which he says Yea, Can I
> take my light saber?
>
> You see, my 9 year son thinks he is a Jedi Knight and that our Sport
> is his personal X-Wing fighter. He is only 4'5 and has to sit on a
> pillow in order to see over the glare shield and he always carries his
> light saber just in case we land on a strange planet in which there
> might be trouble or civil un-rest. Always prepared this one is. So
> away we go.
>
>
> THERE I WAS=85=85..
>
> We were straight and level at around 6,000ft and I let him take the
> controls of the X-Wing to do some turns to the left and right. Joshua
> Approach called and said there was traffic at our 2'oclock 2 miles
> opposite direction and My son said to me "Look over there dad, Tie
> fighter coming right at us". I told him to steer clear of the Tie
> Fighter because our lasers were out for repair and we were un-armed.
> No reason to provoke a fight.
>
> So even though he is having a blast, I am starting to get a little
> bored and thought, "Let's go do a practice approach on the ILS". So I
> called Joshua Approach, requested the ILS 25 Approach to Palmdale Full
> Approach and off we went. I maneuvered the X-Wing to the VOR and
> started the turn outbound to the outer marker. Now my son is just
> really enjoying this. At the outer marker, the blue light started to
> flash and you could hear the BEEP in the headset. My Son jumps in and
> said "That Tie Fighter has locked on to us" I said "That's Right" and
> I started my evasive maneuver on the procedure turn.
>
> My Son is listening to the exchange between me and the controller and
> wants to chime in on the conversion. I said to my son, "Just hang on;
> I will give you a chance". I never should have said that because now
> he is all excited to talk on the radio. As I start to turn inbound on
> the turn, the Approach control said "Contact tower when established on
> the localizer". So I told my young Padawan Learner "OK, when this
> needle gets here on the dial, push the radio button and tell the tower
> that 93 Romeo is inbound on the localizer".
>
> Now imagine this, I am giving basic instrument instruction to a 9 year
> old, I cannot get adults to say this during training. So before I can
> give him something simpler to say he keys the mike and says
>
> "REBEL BASE, THIS IS RED 5. WE ARE STARTING OUR ATTACK RUN ON THE
> DEATH STAR".
>
> Good God.
>
> Now this post 9/11 and before I can key my mike and say anything, the
> tower jumps on and says "RED 5, YOUR CLEARED FOR THE APPROACH TO THE
> DEATH STAR. REPORTS HITS AWAY"
>
> Now I am waiting for the tower to add "And tell your dad to call this
> number" But I hear nothing else. So we continue the approach. Now my
> son is in heaven. This is real life stuff to him and he is doing
> everything I tell him to do as far as tracking the needle. As we
> approach the outer marker inbound, the light starts to flash and there
> is that tone again. "Dad, the Death Star has a lock on us". Yes Son,
> you keep on the approach, I will worry about the guns.
>
> Everything is going great and now we are approaching the middle
> marker. My son has noticed the GPS has a red line with an airplane on
> it and it ends at the Death Star. So he asks me "IS THAT A TARGETING
> COMPUTER DAD?" Well of course it is, and it shows us where we are to
> the target. So now he hears Obewan tell him to USE THE FORCE SCOTT and
> he turns the GPS OFF. Tells me he is OK and does not need the
> targeting computer because he is using the FORCE.
>
> Now the middle marker light flashes and the tone comes on. I apply
> full power and the airplane,,,X-Wing,,, Starts a climb. I start the
> turn to the missed approach path when my son keys the mike and says
> "HITS AWAY". The tower answers back with "GOOD JOB RED 5, CONTACT
> REBEL APPROACH ON 126.1"
>
> We go back to Mojave SPACEPORT, and I decide that the X-Wing needs a
> bath. So out comes all the cleaning stuff and we spend the rest of the
> day washing and waxing the turbo jets and laser pods.
>
> So you see. This is why I own my own aircraft. You cannot beat this
> kind of quality time with your kids. And there is no way you can put a
> price on that.
>
>
> Jeff Bryant
> Southwest Regional Director
> Beech Aero Club
> 1975 X-Wing Fighter Model B-19
> N6993R
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: space cadets |
Hi Robert,
What a great post.
Have I your permission to forward it to a flying magazine?. With Christmas
issues coming out soon I am sure they could use a good story like that.
Incidentally is that the sort of post that should be archived or not. I
would vote `Yes`
MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU.
Pat
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Repairs underway - Highlights and LOWLIGHTS to be on Web |
page
That's really a shame, but, as you say, it could've been a lot worse. Hope
to see you at MV this time. Lar. Do not
Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Bickham" <gearbender(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Repairs underway - Highlights and LOWLIGHTS to be on Web
page
>
> Hello list,
>
>
> Finally getting all my priorities right. Shop is cleared of all projects
> that have taken up space to this point. Been working hard on my welding.
> Really just getting started on the repairs to my Mark III Classic. For
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Ballenger" <ulpilot(at)cavtel.net> |
| Subject: | MK III X 582 PERFORMANCE |
Larry T / Kolbers
This weekend was great for flying Kolbs in southeast Virginia.
Larry, I wanted to let you know what I got for a takeoff climb rate this morning.
OAT was 54 degrees F, the plane with 20 gallons of fuel and me weighted 869
pounds at take off. The 582 was turning 6400 rpm and the ASI indicated 59/60
mph with the VSI initially showing 1000 fpm then 1100 fpm. After gaining a couple
of hundred feet of altitude the VSI indicated 900 - 1000 fpm. Near the
end of my climb at 1000 feet the VSI was indicating 700 - 800 fpm.
I did a high speed run and could only get 87/88 mph IAS with the 9.5 degree pitch
in the taper tip warp drive 3 bladed propeller.
Jim Ballenger
MK III X 582
Virginia Beach, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MK III X 582 PERFORMANCE |
| I did a high speed run and could only get 87/88 mph IAS with the
9.5 degree pitch in the taper tip warp drive 3 bladed propeller.
|
| Jim Ballenger
| MK III X 582
| Virginia Beach, VA
Jim B/Gang:
Got a couple questions for you.
What is the diameter of your Warp Drive?
What was engine rpm at WOT, straight and level flight, 88 mph?
What was gross weight of your Xtra during this test?
Thanks,
john h
MKIII
Titus, AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cat36Fly(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MK III X 582 PERFORMANCE |
Jim/ Kolbers
I performed the same drill this morning. My craft with me a 10 gal of fuel
weighed 776 lbs. I pulled the nose up and held 58 - 60 mph and was showing 1000
fpm, then 1100 and down to 800-900 at 1000 ft. This was also with the taper
tip and 6200 rpm. Later in the day (it was warmer) when taking off from
another airport I could only get 5800 rpm. Got to do some checking there.
Installed a trim tab on the elevator. Flew and adjusted same. Can now fly with
two
fingers for the most part. Have not done any high speed trials yet and usually
cruise at 4500 to 5200 rpm which will give me 56 - 72 mph.
Next the sand bags!
Larry Tasker
MKlllx 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cat36Fly(at)aol.com |
The face of the pod (panel) measures 7" H x 11 1/4" wide.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Fredricks <flyingfox(at)copper.net> |
Cool. I appreciate the reply.
Todd
On 11/20/05 9:17 PM, "Cat36Fly(at)aol.com" wrote:
>
> The face of the pod (panel) measures 7" H x 11 1/4" wide.
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Todd Fredricks, DO
Flying Fox Services
Visit my Blog at www.flyingfoxhangar.blogspot.com
POWERED BY MAC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | FireFly Tail Cable Ends |
FireFlyers & Kolbers,
I have been watching the cable thimbles that pass through the tangs attached
to the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. When I assembled the FireFly, I
de burred the tang holes to remove the sharp corners and to provide a better
load bearing surface to the thimble. At 194 hours one thimble above the
horizontal stabilizer was showing enough wear that repair was required to
prevent cable damage.
I believe I need to increase tension in the cables to keep them from
strumming. To repair the thimbles, I wrapped them with 0.016 inch thick
brass to present a new wear surface to the tang. JB Weld was used to keep
the wrap from sliding out of place on the thimble. If you would like to see
how it was done, it can be seen at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly120.html
Hope to be back in the air tomorrow.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | checking oil level on 912s |
Hi Guys
I have been flying a new 912s for a couple weeks now and each morning, before
flight, I have gone through the procedure of hand turning the prop and
listening for the gurgle sound of air in the oil tank to check the oil level. Up
till now this was done on a cold engine. Yesterday after a flight,(engine warm),
I wanted to check oil level and the second time I turned the prop the oil came
out of the top of the tank, stayed there in the neck and gradually went down
mabey a 1/2 " in 15 minutes but was still covering the handle on dip stick. Is
this normal? Are you not supposed to check oil when the engine is warm?
Fly safe
Bob Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Anliker <manliker(at)uiuc.edu> |
| Subject: | 912 break-in procedure??? |
Is there a Rotax 912 break-in procedure? I have the Installation,
Maintenance, and Operator's Manuals, but don't see any recommended rpm and
run-time guidelines like you see for 2-strokes. I am aware of the suggested
oil system venting procedure prior to start up.
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 break-in procedure??? |
| Is there a Rotax 912 break-in procedure?
|
| Mark
Hi Mark/Gang:
Yes, there is a 912 breakin procedure. Same as every flight. Do not
go full power until the engine oil temp has reached 120F. That's it.
Actually, there is no breakin procedure. You may also start off using
the oil you intend to operate with. 1994, I got my first 912. Has to
run an organic oil for the first 25 hours. 2005, I got my 912ULS.
Now we were authorized to start off with the oil we intended to run.
In my case a full synthetic oil. However, when doing a lot of cross
country flying requiring the use of a steady diet of 100LL, I use a
semi-synthetic oil. In my case, Valvoline Durablend 5W40. When I am
flying around home territory burning a steady diet of auto fuel, I use
Shell Rotella 5W40 Full Synthetic. It is relatively cheap compared to
others at 13.00 a gal in Wal*Mart. I also use Fram Tough Gard TG-3614
oil filters from Wal*Mart, and have for the last 11 or 12 years.
See there. Ya got more than you bargained for.
Guess I better qualify the above info. I am not telling anyone else
to do the same thing I do with my engines. Simply telling you what I
use.
Take care,
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cat36Fly(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MK III X 582 PERFORMANCE |
Rick;
If you have a spare 912 laying around I'm sure Jim or I could use our MKlll
as a flying testbed. I too am eager to see how that combo does.
Larry Tasker
MKlllx 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | blure2(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | SlingShot Purchase |
Hi, Group;
I am contemplating the purchase of a use SlingShot. Two questions prevail: learning
to fly it; and the quality of the aircraft. The answer to the first part
may or may not nullify the second part.
I am a low-time pilot, 75 hours, UL experience only. My plan is to pursue training
in a tail-dragger aircraft. Instruction in Citabrias is available locally.
It is my intent to train to a point of proficiency in a tail-dragger of as close
to similar performance as possible. My concern is that, after a conversation
today with Travis at Kolb, the SlingShot is a difficult plane to fly and I
am placing myself and the plane in a risky position.
Should adequate training be sufficient to raise my competence to an acceptable
level, then I will need to address question number two. I have found a SlingShot
for sale in Summitville, TN. With regard to question number one, the owner,
suffering from impatience, attempted to fly the plane, without benefit of proper
training, and managed to flip it on to it's back. I have been told that the
damage consists of a broken nosecone, and wrinkled wing. The owner purchased
and built a new wing, which needs to be mounted and squared up to the fuselage,
covered and painted. A new nosecone needs to be purchased and installed as
well.
If I determine, with your help, that I will move forward with the SlingShot, I
would like to have the plane inspected on my behalf. Can someone provide me with
the names and contact information of qualified individuals in the Nashville/Chattanooga
areas that can perform a detailed inspection of the plane?
Thank you,
Bob Blu
Centennial, CO
Hi, Group;
I am contemplating the purchase of a use SlingShot. Two questions prevail: learning
to fly it; and the quality of the aircraft. The answer to the first part
may or may not nullify the second part.
I am a low-time pilot, 75 hours, UL experience only. My plan is to pursue training
in a tail-dragger aircraft. Instruction in Citabrias is available locally.It
is myintentto train to a point of proficiency in a tail-dragger of as close
to similar performance as possible. My concern is that, after a conversation
today with Travis at Kolb, the SlingShot is a difficult plane to fly and I am
placing myself and the plane in a risky position.
Should adequate training be sufficient to raise my competence to an acceptable
level, then I will need to address question number two. I have found a SlingShot
for sale in Summitville, TN. With regard to question number one, the owner,
suffering from impatience, attempted to fly the plane, without benefit of proper
training, and managed to flip it on to it's back. I have been told that the
damage consists of a broken nosecone, and wrinkled wing. The owner purchased
and built a new wing, which needs to be mounted and squared up to the fuselage,
covered and painted. A new nosecone needs to be purchased and installed as
well.
If I determine, with your help, that I will move forward with the SlingShot, I
would like to have the plane inspected on my behalf. Can someone provide me with
the names and contact information of qualified individuals in the Nashville/Chattanooga
areas that can perform a detailed inspection of the plane?
Thank you,
Bob Blu
Centennial, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Any tricks for taking straightening bent tubes? |
Try putting your cars scissor jack between the tubes. Put wood betwen top
and bottom so you don't scratch the tubes. A small hydrolic jack will work
great if it will fit in. Heating red hot may help the bending also. I don't
know what you are bending so this is all guessing. You may need to block
other tubes so that you don't bend the wrong tube. Using a long 2x4 on the
base will also distribute the pressure along the tube.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rest of The Story |
I was raised not to pick on the defenseless. Lucky he is out in the middle
of the deseret where no one can check for sure on the tooth ache
>
> Speedy Lar? Speedy Lar? Did I read that right?
> ok, who's going to step up to the plate on that one? ;)
>
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "duncan mcbride" <duncanmcbride(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Repairs underway - Highlights and LOWLIGHTS to be on Web |
page
Hey John, good to hear from you. I've been working on 319DM for about a
year now, I hope it goes more quickly for you. I hope to get some pictures
up on the web too. I just finished spraying silver on the wings, and I have
to say, it was the great job you did on your aileron and flap gap seals that
inspired me to abandon the bookbinding tape and do it according to the
plans. Now all I have to do is flip the wing-flap-aileron assembly over to
spray the color and I'll be ready to attach the hinges. Luckily I have more
help than when I built the first set.
I saw the damage to your nose cone and I'd say that is repairable. It
depends on how much you've had to customize it to fit your plane. I had the
nose ripped off mine, but I had done enough fiberglas work to make a battery
tray and strengthen it that it was easier to fix than start over. Good
thing I was able to find the sliced off part - the hurricane blew it back
into a corner of the hanger where it just rattled around, it could have
blown it to Georgia...
See you at the homecoming,
Duncan
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Bickham" <gearbender(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Repairs underway - Highlights and LOWLIGHTS to be on Web
page
>
> Hello list,
>
>
> Finally getting all my priorities right. Shop is cleared of all projects
> that have taken up space to this point. Been working hard on my welding.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Group,
Recently, I pulled the exhaust from my 503 to check for carbon. I had
100 hours since my last de-carbon. I have never been able to get a good
feeling from checking through the exhaust port, and this time was no
exception, so I took the engine off and pulled the heads and cylinders.
I found one oil ring stuck on an end and the other oil ring had a 3/8"
piece broke off the end. I have no idea what caused the ring to break
or how long it had been that way, but I was glad that I decided to do a
complete check.
As far as the stuck ring goes, is this normal after only 100 hours?
After my last de-carbon, I switched to oil injection and Pennsoil air
cooled. Also, I try to keep the rpm's and temps up to avoid carbon. All
I can think of is that maybe I didn't remove enough carbon from the
ring lands last time. I used to use Amsoil and the carbon from that oil
is really hard.
I always feel better about flying after I have seen the pistons and
cylinders. Carbon may be a concern for me but wear isn't. The rings and
cylinders measured well within new specs after 200 hours.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
please ignore...
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning Stits Polytone |
List,
I checked the archives and found nothing. What works best to clean
Polytone ? Is there any thing I should stear clear of that might damage the
finnish?
Ed ( In Houston)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly rigging and trim |
Group,
I have been doing fast taxis in my Firefly. I have had my left wing to
lift off twice at about 40 mph. Is this normal for a Kolb that is adjusted
properly? Is this a result of the prop blast on the tail surface?
Ed (In Houston)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cat36Fly(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Engine Noise and Radio's |
A general question to all kolbers:
Has anyone found a good headset and mic that works with these noisy engines
we use? I can talk and hear with my Dave Clarks at middle Rpm's but above
5000 it is almost senseless to try and communicate. There are several options on
the market but its like picking a Medicare prescription plan.
Thanks
Larry Tasker
MKlll x 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Noise and Radio's |
My buddy in the hangar next door added an ANR kit to his David Clark's.
Last week I took the FSII for a flight and was amazed at how much quieter
it was. Very impressive. Later, I was on the ground listening when he went
to the Big airport, talking to ATC, he sounded good and he could hear ok,
and they had no trouble hearing him.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>A general question to all kolbers:
>
>Has anyone found a good headset and mic that works with these noisy engines
>we use? I can talk and hear with my Dave Clarks at middle Rpm's but above
>5000 it is almost senseless to try and communicate. There are several
>options on
>the market but its like picking a Medicare prescription plan.
>
>Thanks
>Larry Tasker
>MKlll x 582
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| I have a noise canceling unit made by PILOT. I have this set for 6
years in helicopters and planes. I really like my headset. The model
is the PA 17-79T DNC XL. The price is about $450. Also check this
link:
| www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/buyersguide/headset2000.html
|
| Roger Lee
Hi Roger L/Lanny F/Gang:
I checked out the referenced web page but did not see the headset I
bought last May, the DRE Communications 6000enr Headset
http://www.avionicswest.com/articles/DRE6000enr.html#6000
I have done one flight out West, up and down the West Coast, and back
to Alabama with it. Costs $279.00 and worth every penny. In
addition, this set comes with a small control box that uses 2 ea 9V
bats, although it operates on only one quite well. However, it will
operate more than twice as long on two batteries. Another great
feature is the power adapter to allow the set to operate directly off
the aircraft 12VDC system. I never use the 9V bats although they are
installed.
Highly recommend the DRE 6000.
john h
MKIII
Titus, AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | roger lee <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Good midnight reading on 4 stroke oil |
HI John,
Found some very good articles on oil if you care to read them. Some of the other
Kolb'ers might also find them interesting as well. Just click on the links.
www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm
www.nordigroup.us/oil.htm#oil%20change%20intervals
No serious point here, but some good information and something to help with facts
and myths about oils.
Roger Lee
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Test plse ignore |
test
LS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Lanny and Group,
When I used a Comtronics set, the mic would pick up the sound of the
engine and put it through the speakers, making it all but impossible to
communicate. I switched to a DRE intercom and that problem went away.
It is important to have a unit with a good squelch.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
On Nov 26, 2005, at 12:56 AM, Kolb-List Digest Server wrote:
>
> Happy Thanksgiving to all, Where do you buy an ANR kit, and do you
> think it
will work with a Comtronics dual-com? My set up works well,
however, there is always the drone of the engine coming through the
earphones.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Noise and Radio's |
Larry and Group,
I use the DRE 6000 and I am really happy with it.
But here something really inexpensive that can make a significant
improvement with any headset: Foam ear plugs. They really add to the
noise reduction and the headset volume can be turned up so that hearing
voices is no problem. I like the Remington brand best. They are soft
and comfortable. Some others are very dense and actually work too well.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
On Nov 26, 2005, at 12:56 AM, Kolb-List Digest Server wrote:
> Has anyone found a good headset and mic that works with these noisy
> engines
> we use?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Group,
Recently someone suggested that some of the prop noise for large
diameter props was coming from the prop tips as they passed close to
the boom tube. Whoever suggested that was "right on". For the last year
or two, I had my engine raised up about an inch. It was raised so that
I could fold the wings with a two blade IVO in the horizontal position.
When I put the engine back on after my recent de-carbon, I put it back
in the normal position. On the first flight, I noticed a significant
increase in prop noise. The gap between the prop tip and the boom tube
is now about an inch. Before it was close to two inches. So, now I have
to decide if I should put the engine back up, or cut the 68" prop down
to 66", or both. Ideas?
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cat36Fly(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Noise and Radio's |
Thanks to all who have (and will) responded
. Good input on a common problem most of us share.
I am as concerned with the TX as well as the RX ability of a unit because of
the backround noise (as some have mentioned). Last week while talking to
Dover Approach (Checking X-ponder operation) The controller had to ask me to
repeat three times and give me a code twice. We finally connected when I pulled
the throttle back. Not what I want for normal operation.
Larry Tasker
MKlllx 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Noise and Radio's |
| The controller had to ask me to
| repeat three times and give me a code twice. .
|
| Larry Tasker
Larry T/Gang:
A large capacitor, about 22,000 mf, will do wonders for reducing rf
noise on the tx and rx sides of your radio. Install it on the 12DCV
side of the regulator/rectifier, close to the reg/rec, insuring you
have a good ground. The capacitor will have a + and - connector. It
will soak up a lot of extraneous noise.
Also, the headset you use has a lot to do with radio performance. I
complained for a year that my buddies radios were poorly transmitting.
Had a hard time hearing and understanding them. I had used David
Clark head sets, H-10-40, for years, but it was the DC sets that were
going belly up, not receiving or transmitting well. Was also getting
a squeal when transmitting. Blamed it on the little ICOM A3 radio.
Bought a new radio and had the same problem. May 2005, bought the
DRE6000 ENR headset and my radio and my buddies' radios problems went
away. It was all headset.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Noise and Radio's |
I have found reducing power to be the most consistently successful way of
talking to ATC. You don't need a huge reduction, 4,800 rpm will usually do it.
Something no one else has mentioned as a factor in engine noise is that
there is normally no sound insulation between the engine and the cockpit.
Several people have commented that flying in my MKIII is quieter than the
usual Kolb, and we finally figured out that it is because the main gas tank
is located in the gap seal. Having a dense, thick-walled fiberglass gas
tank between me and the engine is a big factor in reducing engine noise.
That, plus the MKIII has a contiguous fabric insert that spans the full
upper fuselage between the wings.
For those flying MKIII's, how about installing a lightweight foam
sound-absorbing insert atop the fabric spanning the gap seal? And blocking
off any holes or openings within the gap seal that open into the cockpit area?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>Thanks to all who have (and will) responded
>
>. Good input on a common problem most of us share.
>
>I am as concerned with the TX as well as the RX ability of a unit because of
>the backround noise (as some have mentioned). Last week while talking to
>Dover Approach (Checking X-ponder operation) The controller had to ask me to
>repeat three times and give me a code twice. We finally connected when I
>pulled
>the throttle back. Not what I want for normal operation.
>
>Larry Tasker
>MKlllx 582
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | roger lee <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Noise and Radio's |
Hi Richard,
I hate to say it, but sometimes we have to invest more money in some things than
we want to. In this case a good ANR headset is worth the money. Usually, but
not always, a $250 set is not as good as a $450-$500 set. My Pilot series PA17-79
DN XL works very well in all the noise. It cost approximately $450. I bought
it for use in my Helicopter because it is good for higher ambient noise
areas. Several of the helicopter headsets have better ratings because of noise.
(not all) I have no problem hearing or transmitting in my Mark III. I am hard
of hearing and I like the fact also that I can turn the radio to everyone elses
comfort and turn the volume up for me. I would highly recommend this headset.
Thanks for all the help on this site,
Roger Lee
Richard Pike wrote:
I have found reducing power to be the most consistently successful way of
talking to ATC. You don't need a huge reduction, 4,800 rpm will usually do it.
Something no one else has mentioned as a factor in engine noise is that
there is normally no sound insulation between the engine and the cockpit.
Several people have commented that flying in my MKIII is quieter than the
usual Kolb, and we finally figured out that it is because the main gas tank
is located in the gap seal. Having a dense, thick-walled fiberglass gas
tank between me and the engine is a big factor in reducing engine noise.
That, plus the MKIII has a contiguous fabric insert that spans the full
upper fuselage between the wings.
For those flying MKIII's, how about installing a lightweight foam
sound-absorbing insert atop the fabric spanning the gap seal? And blocking
off any holes or openings within the gap seal that open into the cockpit area?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>Thanks to all who have (and will) responded
>
>. Good input on a common problem most of us share.
>
>I am as concerned with the TX as well as the RX ability of a unit because of
>the backround noise (as some have mentioned). Last week while talking to
>Dover Approach (Checking X-ponder operation) The controller had to ask me to
>repeat three times and give me a code twice. We finally connected when I
>pulled
>the throttle back. Not what I want for normal operation.
>
>Larry Tasker
>MKlllx 582
>
>
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly rigging and trim |
Ed, and all,
If your going to do any taxiing at all, make sure you seat belt is
fastened and the plane is ready to fly (preflight and adequate fuel
on board for a hour or so) just in case it gets air bourne. Heard
and see the results of to many panic situations where the plane get
off the ground. The pilot panics because he's not ready to fly and
splats it back down on the runway and busts the airplane. Be ready
to fly and if it gets in the air fly the airplane - circle until you
settle down and then set up for a nice easy approach to touch down.
jerb
At 09:05 PM 11/23/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>Group,
>
> I have been doing fast taxis in my Firefly. I have had my left wing to
>lift off twice at about 40 mph. Is this normal for a Kolb that is adjusted
>properly? Is this a result of the prop blast on the tail surface?
>
> Ed (In Houston)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
When I was at Oshkosh back in 95 looking at the FireFly, Dennis
commented about the noise being generated by the prop passing the
trailing edge of the wing, they added a spacer to increase the
clearance and found it reduced the noise also. John Hack might know
more about this.
jerb
At 06:15 AM 11/26/2005, you wrote:
>
>Group,
>
>Recently someone suggested that some of the prop noise for large
>diameter props was coming from the prop tips as they passed close to
>the boom tube. Whoever suggested that was "right on". For the last year
>or two, I had my engine raised up about an inch. It was raised so that
>I could fold the wings with a two blade IVO in the horizontal position.
>When I put the engine back on after my recent de-carbon, I put it back
>in the normal position. On the first flight, I noticed a significant
>increase in prop noise. The gap between the prop tip and the boom tube
>is now about an inch. Before it was close to two inches. So, now I have
>to decide if I should put the engine back up, or cut the 68" prop down
>to 66", or both. Ideas?
>
>John Jung
>Firestar II N6163J
>Surprise, AZ
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
never thought that the extra
tidbits being archived as being a problem other than taking some
extra disk space on Matt's disk bank. >>
Hi Jerb,
I agree. Search engines are pretty good provided that they have a handle to
latch on to and a few extra items should not cause a real problem.
The problem of not updating the subject line is I am afraid not confined
to this list. The topic is a running grouse on almost all I would suspect.
Things seem to have settled down now.
Cheers
Pat
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 11/26/2005 6:15:32 A.M. Central Standard Time,
jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com writes:
I had my engine raised up about an inch. It was raised so that
I could fold the wings with a two blade IVO in the horizontal position.
When I put the engine back on after my recent de-carbon, I put it back
in the normal position. On the first flight, I noticed a significant
increase in prop noise. The gap between the prop tip and the boom tube
is now about an inch. Before it was close to two inches. So, now I have
to decide if I should put the engine back up, or cut the 68" prop down
to 66", or both. Ideas?
John,
I dont have any advice, But I would like to know how you raised your
engine that 1" and how noticeable of an effect it had on flight characteristics.
Ed ( In Houston)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly rigging and trim |
In a message dated 11/26/2005 12:30:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ulflyer(at)verizon.net writes:
Some thing you might want to consider is changing out the 400x6 Shin
tires to 600x6. Guy Morgan who bought our FF made a post in the past
about changing out the tires and it improving high the speed handling
characteristics claiming it settled it down. Reference the message below:
Jerb,
I found out along time ago, Just like Ole Bro Beauford told me, He got
rid off those little wheels and tires right off.. I have the 6" wheels which
make a BIG difference. I was just wondering if a properly rigged Kolb had a
tendency to lift the left wing first, as viewed from the pilots seat.
Ed (In Houston)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George T. Alexander, Jr." <gtalexander(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Engine Noise and Radio's |
Kolbers:
Based on a number of threads over the last several months, I decided to go
for the DRE6000 ENR. Just prior to acquiring the new headset, I also had
gotten a new Icom A23. (Santa came early this year.)
Early in my use of the combination, I noticed once when, I was testing the
setup on the ground, not in the plane, I developed a very loud squeal when
keying the transmitter. Didn't think much about it at the time. Later,
when doing some Googling re: the A23 and available accessories, I ran across
an evaluation of the A23 by someone from Avionics West (which is where John
Hauck got his DRE6000 I think) that this squeal was common between the A23
and a number of good headsets. Writer says the two will not work together.
(Evaluation write-up at: http://www.avionicswest.com/articles/a23.htm )
The evaluator eludes to the problem being more in the relationship of the
headset and the headset adapter. I would tend to agree since rigged in my
FSII, (the one that Mike Shackleford thinks is retired)..... radio strapped
to my leg, cables under my leg and up my side to the headset and ENR box in
my shirt pocket... no squeal using the combination. Same condition whether
using the rubber ducky or the $5 coax antenna.
My $.02 worth.
George Alexander
http://gtalexander.home.att.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Hauck
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Noise and Radio's
<<>>
Larry T/Gang:
A large capacitor, about 22,000 mf, will do wonders for reducing rf
noise on the tx and rx sides of your radio. Install it on the 12DCV
side of the regulator/rectifier, close to the reg/rec, insuring you
have a good ground. The capacitor will have a + and - connector. It
will soak up a lot of extraneous noise.
Also, the headset you use has a lot to do with radio performance. I
complained for a year that my buddies radios were poorly transmitting.
Had a hard time hearing and understanding them. I had used David
Clark head sets, H-10-40, for years, but it was the DC sets that were
going belly up, not receiving or transmitting well. Was also getting
a squeal when transmitting. Blamed it on the little ICOM A3 radio.
Bought a new radio and had the same problem. May 2005, bought the
DRE6000 ENR headset and my radio and my buddies' radios problems went
away. It was all headset.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Engine Noise and Radio's |
Kolbers,
If you get a squeal in the headset when you press the push to talk button,
more than likely it is a rf (radio frequency) feed back problem. I had this
problem and solved it with a snap on ferrite bead. They are inexpensive. I
have purchased them from:
http://www.allelectronics.com/cgi-bin/category.cgi?category=235&type=store
If your microphone adapter lead is too short, you may not have enough length
to wrap it through one turn. But if you can, it is a much less expensive fix
than purchasing a new head set. These snap on ferrite beads are used on the
computer accessory leads. If you have a junk box, you may have one you can
try. You can see the one I put on my radio at the top of:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly110.html
I used to have ignition noise, but I eliminated it by moving the mag kill
switch from under the seat to close to the engine. I activate the
normally open switch with woven fish line. It is lighter than wire and
cannot radiate ignition noise.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
John Jung wrote:
>
>Group,
>
>Recently someone suggested that some of the prop noise for large
>diameter props was coming from the prop tips as they passed close to
>the boom tube. Whoever suggested that was "right on". For the last year
>or two, I had my engine raised up about an inch. It was raised so that
>I could fold the wings with a two blade IVO in the horizontal position.
>When I put the engine back on after my recent de-carbon, I put it back
>in the normal position. On the first flight, I noticed a significant
>increase in prop noise. The gap between the prop tip and the boom tube
>is now about an inch. Before it was close to two inches. So, now I have
>to decide if I should put the engine back up, or cut the 68" prop down
>to 66", or both. Ideas?
>
>John Jung
>Firestar II N6163J
>Surprise, AZ
>
Until you get up near 200 mph, the larger the prop diameter, the better
its efficiency in converting torque to thrust (the techies talk about
'mass flow' through the prop). Surprisingly small changes in diameter
can make significant differences in low speed thrust.
Did it fly ok with the elevated thrust line?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Pierzina <planecrazzzy(at)yahoo.com> |
http://www.wingsforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=3377#3377
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
| Subject: | Warp Drive prop question |
Hi Guys,
Got a question for you Warp Drive folks or anyone that can enlighten me. I
bought a 66" 2 blade taper tip prop for my MK II that I have been sprucing
up to sale. I didn't like the GSC prop that was on it is the reason for
switching. Anyhow back to the question. With the GSC and the Powerfin prop
on my FS II I would always set the prop for about 6200~6300 static rpm's to
achieve the 6600~6700 level flight WOT rpm's. The prop unloads in flight and
turns higher rpm's, right?
Well, with this prop I first set it up turning 6200 rpm's on the ground and
took it up for a test flight. Max level flight rpm's was about 5700~5800
rpm's and the engine was real slow to rev up. This scared me for a minute or
two as I thought something was going wrong with the engine.
I then went back and adjusted the prop twice more and wound up with 6600
static and 6400 WOT level flight.
This prop came off a Firestar and supposedly vibrated real bad and this was
the reason for selling. I fixed the vibration problem, but am puzzled by the
lower rpm's in WOT level flight. The climb rate seems about normal but I
really couldn't tell as it was very bumpy yesterday. My butt came out of the
seat a few times while descending for landings.
I have heard of constant speed blades on Warp drive props. Is this possibly
the reason for the lower flight rpm's I am seeing?
Thanks,
John Cooley
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Warp Drive prop question |
| I have heard of constant speed blades on Warp drive props. Is this
possibly
| the reason for the lower flight rpm's I am seeing?
|
| Thanks,
| John Cooley
John C/Gang:
Yep.
Set pitch so it will bump the red line at WOT straight and level
flight. You will then obtain the best cruise and climb. That's the
way it works, and that is the way the two strokes, especially, like to
be set up. 5,800 rpm is about 75% power. I ran my two strokes,
primarily, at this rpm and had very good luck with them. I run the
912/912S at 75% power and higher.
My 3 blade taper tip Warp Drive is pitched for 5,400 rpm static. A
few feet into take off roll, the rpm drops 100 to 150 rpm and stays
that way throughout WOT climbs. WOT, straight and level is 5,500.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Ed and Group,
I raised the engine by using longer bolts and washers and nuts for
spacers. I measured it since my last post and it was closer to 1/2 inch
that I had raised it. But the sound difference was noticeable. The
bolts are long enough to go up 3/4 inch, so I will try that.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
On Nov 27, 2005, at 12:56 AM, Kolb-List Digest Server wrote:
> John,
>
> I dont have any advice, But I would like to know how you raised
> your
> engine that 1" and how noticeable of an effect it had on flight
> characteristics.
>
> Ed ( In Houston)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart(at)inebraska.com> |
| Subject: | Warp Drive prop question |
It's amazing how the same subject comes up about the same time on different
lists. I've seen this time and time again. Here's an exchange from the
Titan list (pretty long, but worth the read) during the last few days
concerning this very thing:
-----Original Message-----
From: Titanaircraft(at)yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Titanaircraft(at)yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Kimberly Panos
Subject: Re: [Titanaircraft] tapered prop
Thom,
By eliminating prop area (wing area), it reduces the amount of total thrust
(lift if a wing) the prop is capable of at a given RPM (speed). As a
conventional piston engine's RPM increases, horsepower increases in a
relatively linear fashion (to a point), but the load imposed on the engine
by the prop increases by the square. This means that when the prop load
matches the available horsepower, the engine RPM can't increase (kind of
like hitting a wall). The tip is where the most lift and drag can be
created. After a conventional piston engine reaches it's peak design torque
RPM(determined by bore/stroke combination, cam, compression, heads,
induction system, manifolds, etc.), the torque begins to fall while the prop
load increases.
How and where you reduce the area is crutial. For example, if you had an
unlimited controllable power source that you could turn both props to 3000
RPM, the straight blade, non-tapered tip would produce more thrust and
require more power, even though the tip speed is the same. It kind'a boils
down to physics. You don't get anything for free. By tapering the tips,
the taper tip prop isn't capable of producing the same thrust at the same
RPM as before, but allows the engine to get to its peak operating range
which would allow the maximum thrust that the engine/prop combo is capable
of while maintaining the prop speed (tip speed). It's much more efficient
than running a short, stubby prop or stubby props with many blades. That's
another reason two blades provide better performance than three for the same
application. It allows a larger diameter and more pitch for the same load.
If they weren't any more noisy on a pusher, you can bet we'd be running
two-blade props instead of three-blade (as long as they clear the tailboom).
I'm sorry can't think of a real simple explanation for that one. I think
I'd better quit here since the more I elaborate, the more complicated it's
getting.
cheers,
--Kimberly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thom Riddle" <jtriddle(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: [Titanaircraft] tapered prop
> Kimberly,
>
> Thanks for the explanation and it sounds plausible but confusing a bit, at
> least to me, for
> two reasons.
> 1) How does the Warp Drive prop NOT change rpm much from relatively low
> speed Vy
> climb under full throttle, to straight and level full throttle speeds at
> least 30-40 mph
> faster, without a flexing or pitch change?
> 2) My Woodcomp prop is gradually tapered along the chord from about 25-30%
> radius out
> to about 95%, then sharply tapered the last 5% or so. If it the tapering
> that enables this
> strange phenomenon and not flexing lateraly (effectively changing pitch
> dynamically), then
> my Woodcomp should show similar rpm behavior, wouldn't it?
>
> I'm not questioning you explanation just trying to understand why the Warp
> does what it
> does and others that look similar do not. The leads me to believe that
> their is some
> dynamic lateral flexing (pitch changing) in the Warp that is not happening
> in the
> Woodcomp and others. It does not take much pitch change to make a big
> difference in
> rpm.
>
> Thom
> --- In Titanaircraft(at)yahoogroups.com, "Kimberly Panos"
> wrote:
>>
>> Thom,
>>
>> The so-called CS effect of a warp really isn't because the blades warp.
>> I
>> haven't seen the tips warp or flex on ours at all, even on near full
>> throttle runups. What it does is provide less load at the tip (where the
>> load is hardest to turn) to allow the engine to get up to it's peak
>> horsepower, but keep the prop tip speed alive while doing so. This keeps
>> the efficiency up and the load down. Just like a glider wing compared to
>> the wing on the Tornado. While the two could have the same square
>> footage,
>> the glider wing (due mainly to its high aspect ratio wing), it is much
>> more
>> efficient (more lift, less drag), but not as stout enough to carry heavy
>> loads. Notice that the majority of all certified modern aircraft (except
>> a
>> few like the Archer, trainers, etc) use a tapered chord wing, as does the
>> propeller on mainly piston prop planes because they are more efficient
>> and
>> not because they twist or warp. A constant chord wing is just cheaper
>> and
>> easier to produce, provides docile characteristics, and keeps speeds down
>> for some aircraft categories. The main reason why you'll see those
>> mostly
>> on metal-winged kit planes and trainers.
>>
>> The nice thing about being able to taper a finished prop is to customize
>> the
>> prop load while keeping efficiency up, unlike most other composite props
>> where you can only chop them off for length -- a dismal experience we had
>> with Ivo where the medium HP blades were just down-right too wide for the
>> high RPM requirement of the Jabiru.
>>
>> --Kimberly
And one of the first posts on the subject:
From: "Barry Weinzirl" <rans9(at)wwt.net>
Date: Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:11 am
Subject: Re: [Titanaircraft] Re: Propwash, Texas to Santa Ynez, CA: The Very
Long Story
If you run a warp drive taper tip you will usually static more rpm then what
you turn as you get rolling. I have the same thing on my 503. I will static
a 100rpm or more than what I turn in the climb. It has to do with parts of
the prop being stalled until you get some forward air moving through it. At
least that is what warp says. And they only gain a few hudred between climb
and strainght and level. They are very tight. Barry
There you go. Hope that helps.
Warp Drive Dealer,
J.D. Stewart
UltraFun AirSports, LLC
www.ultrafunairsports.com
Titan Aircraft E-mail list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Titanaircraft/
Challenger E-mail list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyChallenger/
>
> Hi Guys,
> Got a question for you Warp Drive folks or anyone that can enlighten me. I
> bought a 66" 2 blade taper tip prop for my MK II that I have been sprucing
> up to sale. I didn't like the GSC prop that was on it is the reason for
> switching. Anyhow back to the question. With the GSC and the Powerfin prop
> on my FS II I would always set the prop for about 6200~6300
> static rpm's to
> achieve the 6600~6700 level flight WOT rpm's. The prop unloads in
> flight and
> turns higher rpm's, right?
> Well, with this prop I first set it up turning 6200 rpm's on the
> ground and
> took it up for a test flight. Max level flight rpm's was about 5700~5800
> rpm's and the engine was real slow to rev up. This scared me for
> a minute or
> two as I thought something was going wrong with the engine.
> I then went back and adjusted the prop twice more and wound up with 6600
> static and 6400 WOT level flight.
> This prop came off a Firestar and supposedly vibrated real bad
> and this was
> the reason for selling. I fixed the vibration problem, but am
> puzzled by the
> lower rpm's in WOT level flight. The climb rate seems about normal but I
> really couldn't tell as it was very bumpy yesterday. My butt came
> out of the
> seat a few times while descending for landings.
> I have heard of constant speed blades on Warp drive props. Is
> this possibly
> the reason for the lower flight rpm's I am seeing?
>
> Thanks,
> John Cooley
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| that I had raised it. But the sound difference was noticeable. The
| bolts are long enough to go up 3/4 inch, so I will try that.
|
| John Jung
John J/Gang:
Let me ask you a question.
In the process of raising the thrust line to reduce noise, are we also
reducing performance?
john h
MKIII
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM05(at)comcast.net> |
John/All
You would think that raising the trust line would decrease performance but I
don't see it. I had 7 inches of clearance between the boom tube and the tips
of my 72 inch prop with my old engine mount. Now with the lower engine mount
I have app 1.75 inch clearance. This is likely much more than most people
would move their thrust line but I had no detectable change in performance.
With that said I did have some very undesirable handling issues with the
high thrust line but again most people will not likely move their thrust
line up as high as I did. In my own defense I didn't just create that high
thrust line for the heck of it. The VW engine with the Valley reduction
drive just didn't allow a lower mounting with the stock Kolb cage/engine
mount.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Prop noise
>
>
> | that I had raised it. But the sound difference was noticeable. The
> | bolts are long enough to go up 3/4 inch, so I will try that.
> |
> | John Jung
>
> John J/Gang:
>
> Let me ask you a question.
>
> In the process of raising the thrust line to reduce noise, are we also
> reducing performance?
>
> john h
> MKIII
> Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Warp Drive prop question |
What engine/gearbox combination do you have that prop on? Years ago I had
an Anglin J-6 with a 503 on it and a 66" Warp Drive 2 blade, and I had
exactly the same situation. I had to prop it for a high static rpm because
as I began my takeoff roll, the prop would load up and the RPM's would
decrease. It acted exactly as if the prop were stalled at static rpm, and
was revved a bit higher than you would expect - and then unstalled and
loaded up and slowed down as the takeoff roll began - which actually makes
sense, because a 2 blade prop will have a higher angle of attack (more
pitch) than a three blade prop for a given horsepower and prop diameter,
and might have had too much pitch for realistic results at a static runup.
But as soon as forward speed increases at takeoff, the blade unstalls and
loads up the prop, and the engine slows down.
I have my MKIII/582 propped for about 64-6500 WOT, so it sounds like you
are currently in the ball park, even though you got there by non standard
means.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>Hi Guys,
>Got a question for you Warp Drive folks or anyone that can enlighten me. I
>bought a 66" 2 blade taper tip prop for my MK II that I have been sprucing
>up to sale. I didn't like the GSC prop that was on it is the reason for
>switching. Anyhow back to the question. With the GSC and the Powerfin prop
>on my FS II I would always set the prop for about 6200~6300 static rpm's to
>achieve the 6600~6700 level flight WOT rpm's. The prop unloads in flight and
>turns higher rpm's, right?
>Well, with this prop I first set it up turning 6200 rpm's on the ground and
>took it up for a test flight. Max level flight rpm's was about 5700~5800
>rpm's and the engine was real slow to rev up. This scared me for a minute or
>two as I thought something was going wrong with the engine.
>I then went back and adjusted the prop twice more and wound up with 6600
>static and 6400 WOT level flight.
>This prop came off a Firestar and supposedly vibrated real bad and this was
>the reason for selling. I fixed the vibration problem, but am puzzled by the
>lower rpm's in WOT level flight. The climb rate seems about normal but I
>really couldn't tell as it was very bumpy yesterday. My butt came out of the
>seat a few times while descending for landings.
>I have heard of constant speed blades on Warp drive props. Is this possibly
>the reason for the lower flight rpm's I am seeing?
>
>Thanks,
>John Cooley
>
>
>--
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cat36Fly(at)aol.com |
For those that are interested I made some speed runs today as conditions
were decent. It got to about 45-50 degrees today and I was able to consistently
get 1000 FPM climb on repeated take offs. That was with 6500 RPM and 58-60 MPH
indicated.
I made a couple of runs where I kept inching up the throttle and arrived at
84 MPH indicated turning 6500 RPM. I'm finding 5000 RPM is a comfortable
cruise setting and seems to be somewhat fuel efficient.
Read a couple of posts concerning the loading/unloading of props. I'm
turning a 66" Warp 3 Blade With taper and do not see any difference at WOT on
the
ground or in the air (6500 RPM). However, I will watch closer from now on.
Larry Tasker
MKlllx 582 3-blade warp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
| Subject: | Warp Drive prop question |
Richard,
It's a 503 DCDI with a 2.58 "B" box.
The first MK II Twinstar that I owned had the same engine combo and a 3
blade taper tip Warp Drive on it. I never fooled with the pitch setting on
it but as best I remember it performed real well. My other experiences are
with a 3 blade Powerfin and 2 blade GSC and both of these have to be set
several hundred RPM lower static to achieve the max rpm WOT in level flight.
Where do you start with the IVO's?
Later,
John Cooley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Pike
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Warp Drive prop question
What engine/gearbox combination do you have that prop on? Years ago I had
an Anglin J-6 with a 503 on it and a 66" Warp Drive 2 blade, and I had
exactly the same situation. I had to prop it for a high static rpm because
as I began my takeoff roll, the prop would load up and the RPM's would
decrease. It acted exactly as if the prop were stalled at static rpm, and
was revved a bit higher than you would expect - and then unstalled and
loaded up and slowed down as the takeoff roll began - which actually makes
sense, because a 2 blade prop will have a higher angle of attack (more
pitch) than a three blade prop for a given horsepower and prop diameter,
and might have had too much pitch for realistic results at a static runup.
But as soon as forward speed increases at takeoff, the blade unstalls and
loads up the prop, and the engine slows down.
I have my MKIII/582 propped for about 64-6500 WOT, so it sounds like you
are currently in the ball park, even though you got there by non standard
means.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
John H. and Group,
I think Rick Neilsen may have already answered this, but no, I didn't
notice any change in performance or handling.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
On Nov 28, 2005, at 12:56 AM, Kolb-List Digest Server wrote:
>
>
> | bolts are long enough to go up 3/4 inch, so I will try that.
> |
> | John Jung
>
> John J/Gang:
>
> Let me ask you a question.
>
> In the process of raising the thrust line to reduce noise, are we also
> reducing performance?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
jerb and Group,
The IVO on my Firestar II has the spacer and it does make a big
difference in lowering the noise. The Firestar II was designed with the
engine farther forward that the original Firestar, causing this
problem. When I started flying the II, I had wanted to use my taper tip
66" Warp from my original Firestar. But on first try, the noise was
terrible. I would have added the spacer to the Warp, but it is too
heavy to be on a B box with a spacer. This is the only reason that I
run an IVO instead or a Warp.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
On Nov 27, 2005, at 12:56 AM, Kolb-List Digest Server wrote:
>
> When I was at Oshkosh back in 95 looking at the FireFly, Dennis
> commented about the noise being generated by the prop passing the
> trailing edge of the wing, they added a spacer to increase the
> clearance and found it reduced the noise also. John Hack might know
> more about this.
> jerb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Listers, thanks for the observations on the warp prop
characteristics
| regarding static to inflight WOT. | -BB |
BB/Gang:
I'm probably confused, but I understand there is a lot of difference
between static rpm, WOT climb rpm, and WOT straight and level flight
rpm.
The way I prop my airplanes, no matter what prop I am using, whether
it is an Ultrastar, Firestar, or MKIII (I don't like to put a "c"
behind MKIII. My MKIIII was here long before the Xtra came along), is
adjust the prop so I can turn the red line at WOT straight and level
flight, not WOT in a climb attitude.
Initially, static rpm is only a starting point in adjusting my prop
to my engine and airplane. What determines what the final pitch
adjustment is going to be, whether two or four stroke, or what ever
model Kolb I am flying, is WOT straight and level flight with the
tachometer indicating the engine is just touching the red line. If I
do it that way I get the best climb and cruise performance. I am also
loading and operating the engine the way the designers intended it to
be operated.
Once I get the prop pitched so that the engine is turning red line
rpm, in my case 5,500 rpm, with the throttle wide open and the
aircraft in straight and level flight, I am set to go. I can then get
the correct static rpm next time I am on the ground to use during my
pretakeoff check. With a 72" 3 blade taper tip Warp Drive Prop on a
912ULS I get the following characteristics:
1) A drop of approximately 100 to 150 rpm from static rpm soon after
the MKIII starts its take off roll.
2) It holds that rpm through climb out at 60 to 70 mph indicated air
speed.
3) If I keep the throttle wide open in a straight and level attitude
the engine will turn the red line rpm, 5,500, and no more, unless I
put the nose down.
To me, the most important indicator for proper pitch setting is
bumping the redline with the engine at WOT and in straight and level
flight. That dictates all the other rpm readings, static and climb
and cruise.
Overpitching a prop to keep rpm's lower to save the engine is probably
more harmful than not having enough pitch. I think a realistic
comparison of an overpitched prop and overloaded engine is driving a 5
speed automobile around in 5th gear all the time. In the airplane's
situation, with an overpitched prop, it is like operating that
automobile in a gear, too high, while continuously climbing a steep
hill. This is actually overworking the engine and not saving it, in
my humble opinion. These engines were meant to be turned and they
operate best at about 75% power, or 5,800 rpm for the Rotax two
strokes, and 5,000 rpm for the 912 series four strokes. These engines
are designed and tuned to be continuous duty engines, not motor
cycles, weed eaters, or automobiles.
Better stop now. I am confusing myself even more. hehehe
john h
MKIII
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
1.76 SUB_HELLO Subject starts with "Hello"
Please ignore, testing...
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Fine Tuning the Bing 54 for the Victor 1+ |
Kolbers,
I know not many are flying with Victor 1 engines, but the following
information may be helpful. If I knew then what I know now, I might still
be flying with a Rotax engine.
Moving has kept me from flying as much as I would like, but having the
FireFly closer has let me experiment a little more. And I have been
concentrating on getting the engine to run well at all engine speeds. The
basic problem with the Victor 1+ is that it uses the Bing 54 carburetor.
The carburetor is much too large for the engine. This makes it more
sensitive to adjust because the engine will run at full power with the
throttle at less than 30% open position.
First, I worked on fuel flow variation. I could fly twice in the same day,
at the same altitude, temperature, and rpm, and experience several 0.1s of a
gallon in fuel flow. I found that by purchasing and installing a strong
throttle return spring from Bing, that this variation was reduced to 0.01s
of a gallon. Also the reduction of needle bounce lead to a reduction in fuel
flow. Bing ships all carburetors with the middle strength spring. I
recommend replacing them with the strongest spring.
Second, I worked on improving engine idle and low speed performance. I
installed a 25 idle jet and EGT's at the non flight engine speeds increased
and the engine does not quit on final. This change created a problem, in
that, the EGT would exceed the upper limit if the engine was operated
between 5,000 and 6,000 rpm.
The above lead to checking out the needle and needle modification. Although
this effort may not be complete, the engine can be operated through the
complete operating range without exceeding the EGT limit with improved fuel
flow rates.
If you would like to see how it was done, it can be found at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly121.html
The most difficult part of this project was to come up with gauge that lets
one accurately determine needle position relative to throttle opening. If
you would like a copy of the gauge, let me know. If you have a Dermel tool,
a micrometer, and a small flat file, you can modify a needle.
Others have said that one should believe the plugs. In the past I have put
too much faith in the EGT gauge, and so I would stop dropping the needle if
the temperature reached 1,250 degrees F. But by reading the plugs and
dropping the needle by one-quarter of a slot at a time, I discovered the EGT
does not always continue to increase. The EGT temperature held steady, and
fuel consumption went down. At this time the plugs are indicating rich, so
when the weather improves, I will start dropping the needle again by
one-quarter of a slot at a time.
I did install a second EGT probe down stream about six inches from the
original probe. It mirrors the original probe temperatures up through about
4,000 rpm. At this point the down stream probe increases and reads higher.
Through the cruise rpm region it reads 100 degrees higher than the original
probe. This gives more credence to reading the plugs. To save weight, I
will be removing the down stream probe.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
SSdtIHBsYW5uaW5nIHRvIGhhdWwgYSBmb2xkZWQgd2luZ3MgRmlyZXN0YXIgNzcwIG1pbGVzIHRo
aXMgbW9udGguLi4gIEknbGwKYmUgdXNpbmcgYSBmbGF0YmVkIHRyYWlsZXIuLi4gIEFueSB3b3Jk
cyBvZiB3aXNkb20/Li4uCgotLQr0v/QKCldoYXQgZnJlZWRvbSBsaWVzIGluIGZseWluZywgd2hh
dCBHb2RsaWtlIHBvd2VyIGl0IGdpdmVzIHRvIG1lbi4uLiBJIGxvc2UKYWxsIGNvbnNjaW91c25l
c3MgaW4gdGhpcyBzdHJvbmcgdW5tb3J0YWwgc3BhY2UgY3Jvd2RlZCB3aXRoIGJlYXV0eSwgcGll
cmNlZAp3aXRoIGRhbmdlci4uLgoKlyBDaGFybGVzIEEuIExpbmRiZXJnaAoKZG8gbm90IGFyY2hp
dmUK
________________________________________________________________________________
John,
That is a pretty good description of how a fella ought to treat any engine.
The method of useing a load to limit an engines rpms is certainly not the
same thing as simply lowering the throttle setting to limit the rpms. Alot
of people dont understand the difference and think an engine LOADED to ,
say, 75% of max recommended rpms is the same as reducing the throttle to 75%
of rpms...IT is certainly not. WHen we load the engine to 75% of the rpms
we have effectively OVERLOADED the design limits of the engine, and it is
much more strenuous on the engine.
So Gentleman, adjust your props to load your engines as John has described,
and when flying, reduce the throttle to run at the rpms you desire, this way
instead of increaseing it, and your engine will last a whole lot longer.
Don Gherardini
OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
CortLand, Illinois
800-626-7326
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Hauling... |
In a message dated 11/28/05 11:48:28 AM Central Standard Time,
david(at)davidlehman.net writes:
>
> I'm planning to haul a folded wings Firestar 770 miles this month... I'll
> be using a flatbed trailer... Any words of wisdom?...
>
> Thanx...
>
> David
>
Hi David,
I am currently hauling my Firefly on Floats on an open trailer. I played
around with several configurations and some worked better than others. The
airplane really likes to be hauled moving beak to the wind. In my case I had to
come
up with a solution that was solid and stable as well as quick to load and
unload. I would be happy to send you some pictures of what I did.
BTW, I have a real nice enclosed Firefly trailer that my Firefly does not
fit in due to the floats. I need to sell it but I do not think it is long enough
for you.
Steve B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Hauling... |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | new member and Q's on Mark III Xtra |
Hello all,
New Kolb list member here. I'm currently the proud of owner of a Firestar II
(N646F) that was expertly built by a fellow name of Dale Atchetee in
Victoria, TX. I have about 50 hours in it so far and love it already.
I like this plane so much, in fact, I've given some thought to eventually
replacing it (or supplementing it) with a Mark III Xtra. I'd like something
just like my FSII, but a bit bigger/heavier that'll handle wind a bit
better. That's about the only mission objective my FSII isn't that wonderful
for. So I'm looking at the Mark III Xtra as a possibl future replacement.
Everything else - the view, quality of build, folding wings, and so on, are
pretty much met. A little extra cruise speed would be nice too.
So, my specific questions are:
- Does anyone have experience with the quickbuild kits currently produced by
Kolb? I likely would go the quickbuild route for time reasons.
- Kolb themselves - how is the current company to deal with as far as
service, parts, quality of the build manuals and so on?
- Any other general statements to make about the Mark III Xtra?
I like the Mark III classic also, but Xtra has the additional cruise speed
which looks nice to have.
thanks for any input you may have,
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bryan green <lgreen1(at)sc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: new member and Q's on Mark III Xtra |
lucien stavenhagen wrote:
>
>Hello all,
>
>
I can't comment on the extra other than I would like to have one
also, but for Travis and the guys at TNK you could not ask for a better
bunch of folks to work with. They go out of their way to be as helpful
as possible.
Bryan Green Elgin SC
Firestar 447 BRS
>
>
>- Kolb themselves - how is the current company to deal with as far as
>service, parts, quality of the build manuals and so on?
>
>- Any other general statements to make about the Mark III Xtra?
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: new member and Q's on Mark III Xtra |
Lucien/Gang:
| - Does anyone have experience with the quickbuild kits currently
produced by
| Kolb? I likely would go the quickbuild route for time reasons.
Don't think you will find a better quick build deal anywhere.
| - Kolb themselves - how is the current company to deal with as far
as
| service, parts, quality of the build manuals and so on?
Won't find a better company or people to deal with. They are there to
help the customer any way they can, as long as customers do not abuse
their help.
john h
MKIII
Titus, AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Ballenger" <ulpilot(at)cavtel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: new member and Q's on Mark III Xtra |
LS
The Kolb folks are just great to do business with. Over the 2 1/2 years I
was building my MK III X they always had time to answer my questions on
building or flying the X or if I just wanted to talk in general. If I
needed the missing bolt or hardware I would call them up and it would be on
it's way that day. I never doubted that what they said they would do would
not get done.
I am extremely satisfied with my X. I decided on the X over the standard
model because I could keep my feet in front of me, not angled and I liked
the instrument panel placement better on the X. I had a FS KXP while
building the X and enjoyed flying it. The reason I wanted the X was to take
the occasional passenger up and share my passion for grass root flying.
It's a great plane but it still has a light wing load to it.
Jim Ballenger
MK III X 582
Virginia Beach, VA
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: new member and Q's on Mark III Xtra
>
>
> Hello all,
> New Kolb list member here. I'm currently the proud of owner of a Firestar
> II
> (N646F) that was expertly built by a fellow name of Dale Atchetee in
> Victoria, TX. I have about 50 hours in it so far and love it already.
>
> I like this plane so much, in fact, I've given some thought to eventually
> replacing it (or supplementing it) with a Mark III Xtra. I'd like
> something
> just like my FSII, but a bit bigger/heavier that'll handle wind a bit
> better. That's about the only mission objective my FSII isn't that
> wonderful
> for. So I'm looking at the Mark III Xtra as a possibl future replacement.
> Everything else - the view, quality of build, folding wings, and so on,
> are
> pretty much met. A little extra cruise speed would be nice too.
>
> So, my specific questions are:
>
> - Does anyone have experience with the quickbuild kits currently produced
> by
> Kolb? I likely would go the quickbuild route for time reasons.
>
> - Kolb themselves - how is the current company to deal with as far as
> service, parts, quality of the build manuals and so on?
>
> - Any other general statements to make about the Mark III Xtra?
>
> I like the Mark III classic also, but Xtra has the additional cruise speed
> which looks nice to have.
>
> thanks for any input you may have,
>
> LS
> N646F
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cat36Fly(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MKlllx Speed |
Jim;
That seems like a heck of a lot of loss for an atmospheric change. The air
has been somewhat the same a couple hundred miles north (Delaware) and I'm
running the best ever (per my last post). I'm a beginner with these two cycles
but a 50% drop due to density?
Out of curiosity, why the plug swap? I'm guessing you have 50+ hours on
those!
Larry Tasker
MKlllx 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 503 de-carbon |
John, I am at 260 hours with no de-carbon jobs yet. At 150 hours I took it
to a mechanic for service and he said there was no need to tear into it. At
300, I plan to overhaul it and I'm curious to see how it looks inside. BTW,
I run Pennzoil air cooled with a dash of Marvels...
Kip
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: 503 de-carbon
>
> Group,
>
> Recently, I pulled the exhaust from my 503 to check for carbon. I had
> 100 hours since my last de-carbon. I have never been able to get a good
> feeling from checking through the exhaust port, and this time was no
> exception, so I took the engine off and pulled the heads and cylinders.
> I found one oil ring stuck on an end and the other oil ring had a 3/8"
> piece broke off the end. I have no idea what caused the ring to break
> or how long it had been that way, but I was glad that I decided to do a
> complete check.
>
> As far as the stuck ring goes, is this normal after only 100 hours?
> After my last de-carbon, I switched to oil injection and Pennsoil air
> cooled. Also, I try to keep the rpm's and temps up to avoid carbon. All
> I can think of is that maybe I didn't remove enough carbon from the
> ring lands last time. I used to use Amsoil and the carbon from that oil
> is really hard.
>
> I always feel better about flying after I have seen the pistons and
> cylinders. Carbon may be a concern for me but wear isn't. The rings and
> cylinders measured well within new specs after 200 hours.
>
> John Jung
> Firestar II N6163J
> Surprise, AZ
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David L. Bigelow" <dlbigelow(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Warp Drive prop question |
Interesting characteristic of Warp Drive props. Every prop I've ever used (quite
a few) has required static setting of pitch to result in a WOT rpm of 200-300
below maximum rpm on the ground. In flight at WOT, you get the maximum RPM
- the faster you go, the higher the RPM. That's the case with my FS2 equipped
Rotax 503 with a 66 inch Powerfin prop. I set it statically for 6200 rpm, and
get 6400-6500 rpm in flight at WOT.
> The prop unloads in flight and
> turns higher rpm's, right?
> Well, with this prop I first set it up turning 6200 rpm's on the ground
and
> took it up for a test flight. Max level flight rpm's was about 5700~5800
> rpm's
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2 Rotax 503
________________________________________________________________________________
Gentlemen...and ladies...
I ought proof-read my posts a little better...sorry about the confusing
verbage at the end of my last post...I typed:
"..that way , instead of increasing it, your engine will last....""
I was sitting at my desk reading the Kolb list stuff...(supposed to be
working) and, well...I cut the post short when I was distracted (by work)
and didn't make a bit of sense with the last sentence....aright.... my
apologies to all!
What I was thinking ...and didnt get transfered from my brain to the
keyboard...was :
Instead of increaseing BMEP.. (brake mean effective pressure) or cylinder
pressure, from an overloaded condition, you will decrease it and your engine
will last alot longer at the same rpm level.
Another benefit of cruiseing at the rpm level where the BMEP is the
highest..(which will be the peak torque rpm) is that the most horsepower
will be delivered for the fuel burned, because the engine is at its most
efficient cylinder filling capacity. The efficiency level always corresponds
very closely to the peak torque rpm point on the performance curve. To
acheive the level of efficiency the load vs power produced must be
co-ordinated with the throttle opening for the best breathing for any given
rpm, and it will certainly not be co-ordinated correctly unless the WOT
position of the fuel delivery system (carbs in this case) is at the max rpm
point. IF the max rpm level is reduced at WOT due to a heavier load than the
power produced can compensate for, the efficiency goes down quickly.
Many other detrimental things also happen. such as:
Heat cannot be dispersed effectively,
Percent of Fuel burned in combustion drops,
Carbon buildup due to unburned residues,
Oil varnish on piston walls increases,
Pre-detonation occours when cylinder pressures get high enough for
particular conditions,
Connecting Rod stress increases at an alarming rate,
and so on.
Another thing that happens is our performance curve is no longer
valid.....that right....if we have a 65 horse engine at 6600 rpms.....the
load applied must let the engine turn 6600 rpms when the throttle is wide
open. If the throttle is wide open and the engine will not turn 6600 rpms
due to the load...then the load will NOT let the engine produce 55
horsepower at 5500 rpms because the throttle opening will not be correct for
the correct amount of fuel and air to be delivered. CV carbs compensate for
this somewhat....but they are always behind the curve because manifold
vacuum will always be off according to the power produced. About all they
really do is keep the speed of the mixture flowing thru the carb fast enough
to keep fuel coming thru the main jet at a little more accurate rate
according to the air the engine is pumping thru itself.
I Hope I am better explaining myself tonite.....whew.....I did proof-read
this one...which still doesnt insure its accuracy!!!! Ya never know, I Could
be I am all wrong about all this stuff!
Don Gherardini
FireFly 098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Mark III Extra build time |
Hi guys. What's the build time on a Mark III Extra with the quick build
option?
I had a Mark III classic a few years ago. Now, after getting my instrument
rating and buying a house on an airport, I've decided that I liked flying
that Kolb way more than jacking with instruments and filing flight plans.
I've got to get out from behind that instrument panel. I miss my Kolb, I
should wait a year and buy someone's xtra just thought I'd look at buiding
one if it isn't too hard.
________________________________________________________________________________
As the wiring diagram says it is a work in progress.I still have not
determined the cicuit breaker req'd for the started soleniod. And I'm
not real sure about my wiring of the rectifier.
Rick Pearce Mark3C amphib
DO NOT ARCHIEVE
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: new member and Q's on Mark III Xtra |
Hey Jim,
Ok, thanks for the info.
Yeah I remember the original builder of my FSII complained about the kit a
bit, that it was disorganized and etc. Looking through the builders manual
supplied with it, it wasn't, er, exactly builder-friendly.. ;)
But this one is a 96 model, and I assume the new company has upgraded the
manuals and probably made improvements to the kits. That's what I've heard
anyway...
Speaking of that, how are the builders manuals, plans, etc.? Pretty well
laid out? Any confusing parts? Just wondering how that part of building
is...
Thanks,
LS
>LS
>
>The Kolb folks are just great to do business with. Over the 2 1/2 years I
>was building my MK III X they always had time to answer my questions on
>building or flying the X or if I just wanted to talk in general. If I
>needed the missing bolt or hardware I would call them up and it would be on
>it's way that day. I never doubted that what they said they would do would
>not get done.
>
>I am extremely satisfied with my X. I decided on the X over the standard
>model because I could keep my feet in front of me, not angled and I liked
>the instrument panel placement better on the X. I had a FS KXP while
>building the X and enjoyed flying it. The reason I wanted the X was to
>take
>the occasional passenger up and share my passion for grass root flying.
>It's a great plane but it still has a light wing load to it.
>
>Jim Ballenger
>MK III X 582
>Virginia Beach, VA
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
>To:
>Subject: Kolb-List: new member and Q's on Mark III Xtra
>
>
> >
> >
> > Hello all,
> > New Kolb list member here. I'm currently the proud of owner of a
>Firestar
> > II
> > (N646F) that was expertly built by a fellow name of Dale Atchetee in
> > Victoria, TX. I have about 50 hours in it so far and love it already.
> >
> > I like this plane so much, in fact, I've given some thought to
>eventually
> > replacing it (or supplementing it) with a Mark III Xtra. I'd like
> > something
> > just like my FSII, but a bit bigger/heavier that'll handle wind a bit
> > better. That's about the only mission objective my FSII isn't that
> > wonderful
> > for. So I'm looking at the Mark III Xtra as a possibl future
>replacement.
> > Everything else - the view, quality of build, folding wings, and so on,
> > are
> > pretty much met. A little extra cruise speed would be nice too.
> >
> > So, my specific questions are:
> >
> > - Does anyone have experience with the quickbuild kits currently
>produced
> > by
> > Kolb? I likely would go the quickbuild route for time reasons.
> >
> > - Kolb themselves - how is the current company to deal with as far as
> > service, parts, quality of the build manuals and so on?
> >
> > - Any other general statements to make about the Mark III Xtra?
> >
> > I like the Mark III classic also, but Xtra has the additional cruise
>speed
> > which looks nice to have.
> >
> > thanks for any input you may have,
> >
> > LS
> > N646F
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Hauling... |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Hauling... |
David L/Gang:
Maybe..............if you change your email from HTML to Plaintext,
your posts will come out on the Kolb List so we can all understand
what you are trying to communicate.
If that is not the problem, maybe Matte or someone else has some help
to get your problem squared away.
Take care,
john h
MKIII
titus, alabama
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Hauling...
|
|
VGhhbnggR2VvcmdlLi4uCgpJIHRvbyBhbSBjb25jZXJuZWQgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGNyb3Nzd2luZCBz
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring diagram |
In a message dated 11/29/2005 1:20:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rap(at)isp.com writes:
--> Kolb-List message posted by: rap(at)isp.com
As the wiring diagram says it is a work in progress.I still have not
determined the cicuit breaker req'd for the started soleniod. And I'm
not real sure about my wiring of the rectifier.
Rick Pearce Mark3C amphib
on the rectifier, just make sure the ac side is not grounded with the dc
side....otherwise it will blow the bridge
George Randolph
Firestar driver from The Villages, Fl
Rotax 447, 3 blade Ivo, KX, 1991
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
| Subject: | New Memeber Q's on Mark III |
<< Kolb themselves - how is the current company to deal with as far as
service, parts, quality of the build manuals and so on? >>
Lucien, and fellow Kolbers -
Here's my answer: This summer, I installed a Rotax-912ul on my Mark-III.
To do this, I had to order a 912 Installation Kit from the Kolb factory
($850.) I called Travis at TNK and told him I needed the kit, but at that
price, I'd have to save up for a few weeks and therefore, would not be
ordering it for another month or so.
Three days later, the kit shows up on my doorstep with a note from Travis
saying, "Here's the Kit - get started on your installation. Send us a check
when you can."
How many companies provide THAT kind of customer support? I rest my case.
Dennis Kirby
Mark-III, 912ul, in
Cedar Crest, New Mexico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Hauling... |
<<... Any words of wisdom? ... Thanx >>
David -
I, too, use a flatbed trailer to transport my Mark-III.
Here is my idea for supporting the tail:
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil.02.12.2005/
<http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil.02.12.2005
/>
Once on the trailer, I set an old tire under the dolly for added shock
absorption.
The whole affair is then securely strapped down.
Works great.
Dennis Kirby
New Mexico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
| Subject: | Hauling Kolbs on flat beds |
You may also consider removing the wings and laying them flat on the trailer deck
to reduce side area.
If you are pulling with a truck that has a cap, or a van, one of the wings can
even be strapped to the roof.
With the bird exposed you really get a lot of wind loads on the folded structure
that it is not meant to take.
Also dont forget to make control locks for the tail feathers, I made mine out of
CPVC pipe with pipe foam insulation over them for padding. You need four TEEs
and four elbows in addition to the pipe.
Denny Rowe, Mk-3 PA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Hauling... |
Dennis, more great ideas and I appreciate the pictures, thanx...
David
On 11/30/05, Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL wrote:
>
> Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil>
>
> <<... Any words of wisdom? ... Thanx >>
>
>
> David -
>
>
> I, too, use a flatbed trailer to transport my Mark-III.
>
> Here is my idea for supporting the tail:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil.02.12.2005/
> <
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil.02.12.2005
> />
>
>
> Once on the trailer, I set an old tire under the dolly for added shock
> absorption.
>
> The whole affair is then securely strapped down.
>
> Works great.
>
>
> Dennis Kirby
>
> New Mexico
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hauling Kolbs on flat beds |
Thanx Denny, I've been considering the "wing removed" option too... I
noticed the tail lock in some of the pictures on the net... How long do the
pieces of pipe need to be?... Unfortunately, I don't have a Kolb locally to
look at, so I'm going to have to prepare everything before I go to pick it
up...
Thanx again...
David
On 11/30/05, Denny Rowe wrote:
>
>
> You may also consider removing the wings and laying them flat on the
> trailer deck to reduce side area.
> If you are pulling with a truck that has a cap, or a van, one of the wings
> can even be strapped to the roof.
> With the bird exposed you really get a lot of wind loads on the folded
> structure that it is not meant to take.
> Also dont forget to make control locks for the tail feathers, I made mine
> out of CPVC pipe with pipe foam insulation over them for padding. You need
> four TEEs and four elbows in addition to the pipe.
>
> Denny Rowe, Mk-3 PA
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ray anderson <rsanoa(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hauling Kolbs on flat beds |
My Kolb Ultra Star was transported about 800 miles about one year ago on a flat
bed trailer. The wings were removed and stacked underneath the fuselage with
a light wood frame between them to keep them apart. Every thing was wrapped in
a commercial grade plastic similar to Saran Wrap. Careful planing and wrapping
will insure there is no gap that will permit wind to get in between any sections
of the structure. The wrap is available at most hardware stores and Lowes
and comes in a large roll about two feet in width. Is quite cheap. Movers blankets
were wrapped across corners and pointy areas before the plastic wrap. The
rear of the fuselage should be supported in some manner so the aircraft doesn't
rest on the tail wheel. Lash every thing down securely and there should be
no problem. I would strongly suggest that you don't haul it with wings folded.
You can encounter some pretty strong unexpected side loadings in a long haul
like that. Could even tilt the trailer.
Thanx Denny, I've been considering the "wing removed" option too... I
noticed the tail lock in some of the pictures on the net... How long do the
pieces of pipe need to be?... Unfortunately, I don't have a Kolb locally to
look at, so I'm going to have to prepare everything before I go to pick it
up...
Thanx again...
David
On 11/30/05, Denny Rowe wrote:
>
>
> You may also consider removing the wings and laying them flat on the
> trailer deck to reduce side area.
> If you are pulling with a truck that has a cap, or a van, one of the wings
> can even be strapped to the roof.
> With the bird exposed you really get a lot of wind loads on the folded
> structure that it is not meant to take.
> Also dont forget to make control locks for the tail feathers, I made mine
> out of CPVC pipe with pipe foam insulation over them for padding. You need
> four TEEs and four elbows in addition to the pipe.
>
> Denny Rowe, Mk-3 PA
>
---------------------------------
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Bigelow" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | New Memeber Q's on Mark III |
I decided on the Kolb MK III Xtra due to its flying qualities and design
above all else, that is what is most important to me. That being said.....
Now that I having the Mark III built, and the Kolb company has been awesome.
They are very responsive and helpful, and Travis does everything possible
to make whatever I need happen. You could not deal with a better, more
honest and hard working bunch of people. A really good product backed by a
great bunch of people, it just does not get any better than that !!!!
Mike Bigelow
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob and Jenn B" <tabberdd(at)hotmail.com> |
Another suggestion would be to rent a U-haul and fit it all inside or call
Andy Haaden, his number is on Barnstormers / Services, who runs an aircraft
delivery service. He brought mine home last year at $1.25 loaded mile (that
was before the gas increases). Takes care of everything and is cheaper than
breaking the plane on the way.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
Thanx Bob...
Those are two more thoughts I also had... I'm combining a family Christmas
trip with the airplane pickup... I just bought a new Diesel Ford 4X4 pickup
and I'm guessing my chances of good road traction are better with the pickup
than an Uhaul truck during the Winter... I'm getting some real good
information here and I'm leaning towards removing the wings and wrapping it
up like a Christmas present...
David
On 12/1/05, Bob and Jenn B wrote:
>
>
> Another suggestion would be to rent a U-haul and fit it all inside or call
> Andy Haaden, his number is on Barnstormers / Services, who runs an
> aircraft
> delivery service. He brought mine home last year at $1.25 loaded mile
> (that
> was before the gas increases). Takes care of everything and is cheaper
> than
> breaking the plane on the way.
>
> Bob
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hauling Kolbs on flat beds |
Thanx Ray, how you doing?...
David
On 11/30/05, ray anderson wrote:
>
>
> My Kolb Ultra Star was transported about 800 miles about one year ago on a
> flat bed trailer. The wings were removed and stacked underneath the fuselage
> with a light wood frame between them to keep them apart. Every thing was
> wrapped in a commercial grade plastic similar to Saran Wrap. Careful planing
> and wrapping will insure there is no gap that will permit wind to get in
> between any sections of the structure. The wrap is available at most
> hardware stores and Lowes and comes in a large roll about two feet in
> width. Is quite cheap. Movers blankets were wrapped across corners and
> pointy areas before the plastic wrap. The rear of the fuselage should be
> supported in some manner so the aircraft doesn't rest on the tail wheel.
> Lash every thing down securely and there should be no problem. I would
> strongly suggest that you don't haul it with wings folded. You can encounter
> some pretty strong unexpected side loadings in a long haul like that. Could
> even tilt the trailer.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Pierzina <planecrazzzy(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE:FSII / Control Stick-New & OLD |
It's in the Matronics Photoshare
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/planecrazzzy@lycos.com.02.15.2004/
You were looking for a view on a aileron gap seal....I think that's at "Kip's"
site......?
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 503 de-carbon |
At 07:33 PM 11/28/2005, you wrote:
>
>John, I am at 260 hours with no de-carbon jobs yet. At 150 hours I took it
>to a mechanic for service and he said there was no need to tear into it. At
>300, I plan to overhaul it and I'm curious to see how it looks inside.
Me too - got 669 hours now without a decarb - really. 1999 Engine 503
E-gear box
No carbon yet. Compression still 120 per cylinder - like new "outa
of the box" Still checking with the dental mirrors and intake and
exhaust manifolds off (flashlight down the plug holes) every 50 or so hours.
Gotta repaint my muffler once in a while anyway - wish I'd got it
chromed when it was new..
Just a test guys - so don't flame me.
Don't try this at home - we do this for a living (myth busters - ha
ha - I guess I'm Buster).
I'm at the Ferguson Farm & I'm the test pilot for "this one" anyway.
Never had the jugs off never had the engine even hick up.
And I know that's not what the book says. But somebody has to do
it. ( Where no man has gone before - 1,000 hr on a 503 CDI no decarb
no rebuild Wallmart dot 3 oil "BTW - don't use their aircooled oil")
We who are about to die - salute you.
(Again -not trying to be disrespectful - we've had our share of
fatalities over here - as
I'm sure some of you know - but we still fly)
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 503 de-carbon |
Guys,
I'm at 450 hours without a teardown or decarbon (2nd engine). I'm running synthetic
oil 50:1.
Ralph
Original Firestar
19 years flying it, Rotax 447
-- possums wrote:
At 07:33 PM 11/28/2005, you wrote:
>
>John, I am at 260 hours with no de-carbon jobs yet. At 150 hours I took it
>to a mechanic for service and he said there was no need to tear into it. At
>300, I plan to overhaul it and I'm curious to see how it looks inside.
Me too - got 669 hours now without a decarb - really. 1999 Engine 503
E-gear box
No carbon yet. Compression still 120 per cylinder - like new "outa
of the box" Still checking with the dental mirrors and intake and
exhaust manifolds off (flashlight down the plug holes) every 50 or so hours.
Gotta repaint my muffler once in a while anyway - wish I'd got it
chromed when it was new..
Just a test guys - so don't flame me.
Don't try this at home - we do this for a living (myth busters - ha
ha - I guess I'm Buster).
I'm at the Ferguson Farm & I'm the test pilot for "this one" anyway.
Never had the jugs off never had the engine even hick up.
And I know that's not what the book says. But somebody has to do
it. ( Where no man has gone before - 1,000 hr on a 503 CDI no decarb
no rebuild Wallmart dot 3 oil "BTW - don't use their aircooled oil")
We who are about to die - salute you.
(Again -not trying to be disrespectful - we've had our share of
fatalities over here - as
I'm sure some of you know - but we still fly)
http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 503 de-carbon |
At 11:26 PM 12/1/2005, you wrote:
>
>Guys,
>
>I'm at 450 hours without a teardown or decarbon (2nd engine). I'm
>running synthetic oil 50:1.
>
>Ralph
>Original Firestar
>19 years flying it, Rotax 447
Don't go with me - I'M NOT AN ENGINE PERSON
I'm just the test dummy.
Now "Tom" knows all about your 447.
---------
From: "Tom Olenik" <olenik-aviation(at)buyitsellitfixit.com>
Subject:
<http://www.matronics.com/searching//searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=35477735?KEYS=possums?LISTNAME=Kolb?HITNUMBER=259?SERIAL=23491830991X?SHOWBUTTONS=NO>Need
guidance Rotax 447
I'd like to show a picture of a piston that was making 110 pounds of
compression
on a 447. The top ring is gone
along with most of the piston on the exhaust side above the lower ring. The
other piston which was undamaged was at 115 but both pistons were over .008"
clearances and all the rings were over .030" end gap. This engine never
quit and was running right up to the time when he traded it in on a new 447.
Someone had picked up a couple of 447 pistons from a snowmobile shop which
followed the cross references to a piston that is actually smaller than the
current standard sized. Since no one probably actually measure the
clearance, they started out beyond the maximum clearance most likely. At
one point Rotax changed the standard sized piston on the 447 to one that is
a little larger. This engine came with that larger standard size, but
someone installed the smaller standard sized piston. Still ran and still
had compression.
A compression test on a Rotax engine has very little value. It will tell
you if there is a hole in the piston or if there is a differential, it might
tell you something, but there is NO specification to go by what it
acceptable and what is not. However, you can physically check for stuck
rings through the exhaust port.
Tom Olenik
Olenik Aviation
------------------------
I agree with Tom on most of the points he mentions. However, the 503
is a different animal.
It is a rock, it is a stone, it is the pinnacle of the two stroke
dual carb 52 HP engines at 85+ pounds.
However, I don't agree that a compression test "has very little
value" after 8 test over 600 hours'
with very little difference. A broken ring "our ultimate nightmare" -
would show up. I think a "Stuck ring"
would show up even if you neglected to check that with your fingers or a prob.
I've flown a 447 with points - on a KXP for at least 400 hours before
this one - they are finicky little engines,
they want everything to be just right. But...when everything is
right, they are hard to beat - you know what I mean.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 503 de-carbon |
possums and Group,
It is possible that there is no real difference between my engine and
those that are running high hours without de-carbon. I may just be too
fussy about my oil rings being totally free. I don't check compression
and I have not been able to detect a stuck ring through the exhaust
port. Also, I have read that the oil rings are not all that important.
Maybe, in the future, I will check compression and the exhaust port
visual check, and keep flying.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
On Dec 2, 2005, at 12:56 AM, Kolb-List Digest Server wrote:
>
> Me too - got 669 hours now without a decarb - really. 1999 Engine 503
> E-gear box
> No carbon yet. Compression still 120 per cylinder - like new "outa
> of the box" Still checking with the dental mirrors and intake and
> exhaust manifolds off (flashlight down the plug holes) every 50 or so
> hours.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hauling Kolbs on flat beds |
>
> Thanx Denny, I've been considering the "wing removed" option too... I
> noticed the tail lock in some of the pictures on the net... How long do
> the
> pieces of pipe need to be?... Unfortunately, I don't have a Kolb locally
> to
> look at, so I'm going to have to prepare everything before I go to pick it
> up...
>
> Thanx again...
>
> David
>
> David
My pipes are about 27 inches long 1/2" CPVC with pipe insulation over em,
the Tees and Elbows (4 of each) only have about 1/8" inch between each (so
you need to cut six short stubs of pipe) and the whole gizmo slides down
over the folded tail till it hits the tail cable tangs. As wind will work on
it on an open trailer, you want to secure it from sliding up and off with
bungee cords or better yet, wrap the entire tail with your plastic wrap.
also you want to wrap the lexan windscreen also.
Make sure to use primer and the correct cement so there will be no chance of
the tail lock comming apart.
I like this design a little better than the one in the plans that uses nylon
sash cord instead of the Tees and Elbows. Of coarse either work fine.
Denny Rowe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon LaVasseur <firestar503(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Written test |
Hi Ralph,
I just talked with Hummingbird Aviation and we
will need two forms of ID (drivers license and
creidt), your EAA certificate and payment which
can be credit/debit, cash or check. They are
located near the corner of 212 and Pioneer Trail.
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon LaVasseur <firestar503(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Written test |
Hi Ralph,
I just talked with Hummingbird Aviation and we
will need two forms of ID (drivers license and
creidt), your EAA certificate and payment which
can be credit/debit, cash or check. They are
located near the corner of 212 and Pioneer Trail.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon LaVasseur <firestar503(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Written test |
Hi Ralph,
I just talked with Hummingbird Aviation and we
will need two forms of ID (drivers license and
creidt), your EAA certificate and payment which
can be credit/debit, cash or check. They are
located near the corner of 212 and Pioneer Trail.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hauling Kolbs on flat beds |
Thanx Denny, any chance of a picture(s)?... I can't get over the excellent
advice I've received on this list... I have received several messages off
list as well as the on list messages... I'm really excited about picking up
my first Kolb in a couple of weeks, but scared to death that I'll damage it
hauling it home... And then there's the sanity issue regarding bringing it
home on the snow/ice roads... My wife keeps reminding me...
Thanx again...
David
On 12/2/05, Denny Rowe wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Thanx Denny, I've been considering the "wing removed" option too... I
> > noticed the tail lock in some of the pictures on the net... How long do
> > the
> > pieces of pipe need to be?... Unfortunately, I don't have a Kolb
> locally
> > to
> > look at, so I'm going to have to prepare everything before I go to pick
> it
> > up...
> >
> > Thanx again...
> >
> > David
> >
> > David
> My pipes are about 27 inches long 1/2" CPVC with pipe insulation over em,
> the Tees and Elbows (4 of each) only have about 1/8" inch between each (so
> you need to cut six short stubs of pipe) and the whole gizmo slides down
> over the folded tail till it hits the tail cable tangs. As wind will work
> on
> it on an open trailer, you want to secure it from sliding up and off with
> bungee cords or better yet, wrap the entire tail with your plastic wrap.
> also you want to wrap the lexan windscreen also.
> Make sure to use primer and the correct cement so there will be no chance
> of
> the tail lock comming apart.
> I like this design a little better than the one in the plans that uses
> nylon
> sash cord instead of the Tees and Elbows. Of coarse either work fine.
>
> Denny Rowe
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us> |
Is a BRASS wire wheel acceptable for removing old flaky primer and
surface rust from 4130 aircraft tubing?
Enquiring minds want to know...
Jeremy Casey
Kilocharlie Drafting, Inc.
www.kilocharlie.us
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ms. Dixie update |
required 4.6, HTML_MESSAGE 0.25)
Kolbers,
Well it's been 27 months into the construction of Ms. Dixie and I am happy to report
that today I reached a major milestone. I had the pleasure of dealing with
the fine folks at Grand Rapids. Takes forever to get Sandy on the phone but
now I know why. What a pleasant and knowledgeable person to deal with. Between
her and Dick at Kuntzlman I am all set to receive the hot box (custom made)
and EIS for the Kolbra. Note to any 912 user purchasing a hot box from anywhere...
do not pay the $215.00 price because you will receive a $25.00 voltage regulator
you cant use. Tell who ever you order it from you have a 912 and if you
are going to use a EIS tell them that as well. they custom make the battery
cables and leads to the engine. I recommend going straight to the companies them
selves. Great people.
The reason this is a milestone for me is because this is the last leg of building
before disassembly for covering and painting. I want to have a complete running
airplane full of fuel,coolant and oil and instruments before I even think
of covering. This way if anything needs to be changed or modified or heaven forbid
"Leaks" I wont have a problem cleaning up. Thanks to the many that have
helped Travis, Mark German, John Hauck just to name a few and with any luck
Ms Dixie just may fly this spring or early summer.
On another note John Hauck dropped in here yesterday and when I say dropped I
mean Dropped. He uses less runway than anyone that lands here...except for maybe
Jim Williamson. Like to get those two guys here for a short field competition
someday.
Well time to head to the shop and clock in take care guys and fly safe!
Paul Petty
Building Ms. Dixie
Kolbra/912UL/Warp
ps. 2 new items I found this week for our airplanes. 1. Areoquip fuel line FC332
and 2. Powergrip hose clamps.. e-mail me if you want details and prices. I stock
both.:-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
> >Is a BRASS wire wheel acceptable for removing old flaky primer
and
> >surface rust from 4130 aircraft tubing?
> >
> >Enquiring minds want to know...
Got something better for ya...do a search for 3M surface conditioning
discs.....come in several different grades and there are other 3M
Roloc items that are very nice to work with when cleaning/prepping
surfaces.....
http://search.store.yahoo.com/cgi-
bin/nsearch?query=roloc&first=20&only=0&categ=all&catalog=levine
auto
or if you don't want to cut/paste...
http://tinyurl.com/9jl5v
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ray anderson <rsanoa(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly forced to Land |
Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me that any pilot in a private plane
not up to date and current as to the situation at Camp David on any given day,
would have the common sense to assume the the safe thing to do is use always
the six mile figure. For heavens sake, why set your self up for a big hassle
and embarrassment for a measly three miles horizontally. Anyone that haphazard
and careless maybe shouldn't be flying. It's not that I'm so worried about the
president, but that kind of stupidity could run all over me somewhere. O.K
so I'm in a bad mood, but those kind of things tee me off because it makes things
harder for all of us in the long run.
"Jack B. Hart" wrote:
>
< Most of the time, the restricted airspace around Camp David is 12,500
feet
high with a radius of three nautical miles, or about 31/2 miles. But
when
the president is at Camp David, as he was Sunday, the space expands to
an
altitude of 18,000 feet with a radius of five nautical miles, or nearly
six
miles. >
---------------------------------
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Pearce" <rap(at)isp.com> |
| Subject: | posting on matronics. |
Can I use the photoshare to post the wiring diaram that I was trying to
attach the other day?It will be in auto cad.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Guy Morgan" <morganguy(at)hotmail.com> |
Jeremy,
Check FAA pub AC 43.13 for acceptable practices. It is available online,
although I don't have the address at this time. You can download the whole
pub in .pdf format.
A brass wheel would work provided you go easy with it and don't dwell on one
spot for too long at a time. The preferred method is always the least
destructive first. I prefer chemical stripping if possible, then plastic
media bead blasting, and abrasive last. Hope this helps.
Guy Morgan
Galveston, TX Firefly
From: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us>
Subject: Kolb-List: Wire wheel?
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:27:21 -0500
Is a BRASS wire wheel acceptable for removing old flaky primer and
surface rust from 4130 aircraft tubing?
Enquiring minds want to know...
Jeremy Casey
Kilocharlie Drafting, Inc.
www.kilocharlie.us
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: airport alternatives |
If I remember right, I think John's main problem with the cows is their
"residue" painting the underside of his wings. :-) "Dumber than
horses ??" Yah, but that ain't saying much. lol Do
not Archive. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "russ kinne" <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: airport alternatives
>
> we used to fly from a regular, certificated grass airport where a white
> horse shared the runway with us.
> Field was 2000' long and plenty wide. When he was on one side, we'd
> land (Cessnas, Pipers, the skydiver's jump-plane) on the other. He'd
> watch us but never ran around or caused any trouble. Good horse!
> I hope John H hasn't had any trouble with cows; they're dumber than
> horses by a long shot.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bryan green <lgreen1(at)sc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly forced to Land |
Billie I agree with what you have said. One thing that I suggest is
that everyone think twice before they bring outsiders like the insurance
co. into our business. Kinda like the old glass house thing ya know. It
very easy to point out bad things if your not the one thats doing them
and consider yourself some what above others.
I fly both ultralights and GA and can point out problems with both
two examples of this would be.
1. While attending a flyin this year I was presented with the problem of
an ultralight playing in the pattern while I was on down wind for
landing (flying c-172) had to cut down wind short on short field to keep
from running over the guy.
2. While hosting our flyin this year most of the GA pilots flying in
made a left hand pattern to 23 and a nice landing. The problem with that
was 23 is a right hand pattern denoted with a segmented circle at the
field and also listed in the airport and facilities directory.
I think the main problem rest with the person that trained these
pilots and second with the people that run around blabbing about how
stupid ultralight or GA pilots are. I think the best thing to do would
be to remember we are all pilots and we all make mistakes. Perhaps it
would be better to grow a set and walk up to the person and nicely say I
am concerned with your safety while this happened it possibly would be
better to do it this way so that we all can fly safely. Like an old
chief told me one time it's better if we take care of our own.FWIW
Bryan Green Elgin SC
bill_joe wrote:
> We can all get along if everyone follows and understands the rules.
> I hope this helps some of the new ultralite pilots understand the
>importance of this.
> Thanks, gang.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
Latest on Firestar haul... I picked up the trailer yesterday and the bed is
16' X 6' with a 12" rail around the front and sides...
Because I don't have a local Kolb to look at, I have been "guesstimating"
distances...
I need the distance from the main gear to the tailwheel, the distance from
outside of main tire to outside of the other and if possible, the distance
from the main gear to the tip of the nose...
Sorry to be such a "pest", I really appreciate all the help I've received on
the List, hopefully, I'll be able to help someone here in the future...
Thanx...
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Group,
Yesterday, I flew for the first time after raising the engine up a full
inch, leaving a 2 inch gap between the prop tip and the boom tube. It
was noticeably quieter, than with only 1 inch of clearance.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Judy or Larry Gitt" <gittj(at)earthlink.net> |
The way they get around this is to say , we will add your name to the list of
27 that are on the waiting list for a hanger , guess What? It will take years
of waiting to get a hanger. The FBO,s they don't want A/C they can't annual
or sale gas too . Your home built or Experimental or U/L is not going to pay
the bill for them , and im sure if we were in the FBO shoes we would feel
the same .There is a big need for hangers in my area but the city just won't
spend the money . What we need is a A/C that we can drive it home and park
it in our garage, drive it to the Airport and take off . it would put Aviation
in a new era. If you had 10 or 50 new pilots in your area where are they
going to put there planes ??? You sure don't want to leave them out side . Not
with the storms we have been having all across the country. Trailer is fine
but you need two people and it is a pain and some times hard to find that
other person to help out . Aviation needs to make a
nother step forward, in a new designe . Kolb is a great little plane i really
enjoy mine but it sure would be nice to drive it home ,not paying hanger rent
and work on it when i had time at home . For what it's worth! { Dreamer }
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vic" <vicw(at)vcn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 22 Msgs - 12/03/05 |
Kirk: You are never safe from a law suit. The solution is to have someone
defend. If you rent to someone make sure they have insurance and name you
as an additional insured. That way, when you get sued (I didn't say "if")
you have an attorney to defend you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Bigelow" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Im very suprised how many people are running just one inch of prop clearance
on thier Kolbs. The increased noise is bad enough, but even worse is you
also have a greatly increased chance of a prop strike on the tail boom :(
The engines are mounted in rubber mounts which flex, and metal and aluminum
also flex given enough force... With a hard landing, or getting into
aircraft wake or severe turbulance ( it happens ) could easily reduce that
one inch to a negative number ! The top of the tail boom where it connects
to the fuselage is the worst place on the entire boom to take any damage as
the tensional forces there are greater there than anywhere else on the boom.
When you take the center of thrust on the Kolb and compare it to the center
of gravity and drag, another inch or two is just not that big a precentage
change and should not make much of a difference in the flying qualities. I
would not build my MK III with less than 3 inches clearance, and 6 would be
better... Im suprised we are not hearing about more boom strikes here.
Michael Bigelow
Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 22 Msgs - 12/03/05 |
> Kirk: You are never safe from a law suit. The solution is to have
someone
> defend. If you rent to someone make sure they have insurance and name you
> as an additional insured. That way, when you get sued (I didn't say "if")
> you have an attorney to defend you.
I know.....That was the point I had intended. My solution is to just not
rent space on my strip. When you start taking money the rules change
significantly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dimensions... |
Thanx for the pictures Mike...
I plan to support the boom, I was just trying to figure out how far it is to
the tailwheel so that I could plan the support location...
Thanx again...
David
On 12/4/05, Mike Pierzina wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> I need the distance from the main gear to the tailwheel,
>
> Thanx...
>
> David
> <>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> David,
> Why do you need the tailwheel distance....hasn't anyone told you to
> support your plane by making a "saddle" for
> The boom tube......usually in front of the empanage , so that you can
> "strap" it to the tube.....The tailwheel shouldn't touch during
> transport.....
>
> Here's some pictures of my 21' plane on my 10' trailer ( it's in the
> Matronics "photo share" )
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/planecrazzzy@yahoo.com.05.02.2005/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | on't Want to Become a Sport Pilot" |
From December 2005, Sport Pilot, Page 72.
"You might want to get rid of some of the gauges, too. All you really need
is a yaw string; you can feel the wind in your face and see the ground.
You're an ultralight pilot; you should be one with your vehicle...Zen...
enjoying seat-of-pants, grassroots flying."
I believe this is terrible advice. One of the quickest ways to put FAR Part
103 at risk is to increase the kill rate for grassroots 103 pilots. Wind in
your face and seeing the ground is not adequate in that many will believe
what they see over what they feel. The end result is a stall and nose into
the ground when turning from down wind to base. The opposite condition
leads to departure stalls. If instruments are available, observed and
believed, both of these conditions are preventable.
One can keep a radio and gps off the vehicle by wearing it, but it is
difficult to do the same for airspeed, altitude, and rate of climb
indicators, and cylinder head and exhaust gas temperature indicators. To fly
without any of these puts the 103 pilot at greater risk.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
EAA 45676
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vince Nicely" <vincenic(at)xtn.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hanger - Trailering Works |
Larry and Others,
I changed the title line slightly. My experience with trailering is good and
it requires only one person.
>The statement made was: Trailer is fine but you need two people and it
>is a pain and some times hard to find that other person to help out .
>Aviation needs to >make another step forward, in a new designe . Kolb is
>a great little plane i really enjoy mine but it sure would be nice to drive
>it home ,not paying hanger rent >and work on it when i had time at home .
>For what it's worth!
Sorry, in my experience, the Kolb is very trailerable and does not need a
second person to assist in assembly or disassembly. I have been tailering
my Kolb to/from the airport every time I fly it over the last 10 years and
presently have 380 hours on it. In addition to my Firestar II, I made a
simple and open trailer with a tilt bed along with a simple tripod to
support a wing tip.
I can easily roll the folded Kolb on/off the trailer by hand and with no
help. When I wish to unfold the Kolb, I have a tripod that I sit near where
the wing tip will be. I open the wing and sit its outside end on the
tripod. The inner, front tip is supported on the bow for the full enclosure
I use. If you do not have a full enclosure, adding a temporary support for
the front edge would be relatively easy. With the wing supported, I have
my hands free to walk around and to insert the pins needed to make the Kolb
flyable. Very simple, and it only takes a few minutes. Because I usually
fly 2 to 3 hours when I go out, I estimate I have done the fold/unfold
approximately 150 times with no problems.
I keep my folded Kolb in one side of my garage and use it when I have time.
I just wanted all those who might want to store and trailer their Kolb to
know that with a simple jig or two, it is easily done by one person and
provides a very nice way to have an airplane without a hanger.
Vince Nicely
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
Pardon my jumping in, but I have to respectfully disagree.
In fact, I think that if you can't fly a light aircraft or ultralight
without the aid of gauges, you probably shouldn't be solo. At least, you
should still be under an instructors supervision until such time as you can
fly seat-of-the-pants.
An overreliance on the appearance of the ground, to the point that a stall
occurs in a downwind turn or similar situation is a training issue, IMO.
Treating that with instrumentation is the wrong fix.
Good seat-of-the-pants flying skills are vital particularly for the light
aircraft pilot. Gauges and instruments are fallible and give false
information or fail at the worst possible times. But good
stick-rudder/control bar (if you're a triker) skills never malfunction and
always give the correct responses to the pilot. This is even true in most
general aviation a/c - extensive reliance on instruments for flight
generally only starts once you get into larger complex aircraft.
But any ultralight should be flyable completely without any instrumentation
whatsoever. Generally, an ASI is a good idea in a 3-axis plane at first (not
needed in a trike however), but generally you should be able to fly without
one within 25 to 50 hours or thereabouts. I submit this should even be
practiced on a frequent basis once you get some hours under your belt in the
plane.
Personally, if I were allowed one and only one flight instrument in my
airplane it'd be an altimeter. Altitude is the hardest to judge without a
gauge. The rest should only be nice to have in a light aircraft, and
_never_ essential for flight....
JMHO,
LS
N646F
.
>Subject: "Don't Want to Become a Sport Pilot"
>
>
>From December 2005, Sport Pilot, Page 72.
>
>"You might want to get rid of some of the gauges, too. All you really need
>is a yaw string; you can feel the wind in your face and see the ground.
>You're an ultralight pilot; you should be one with your vehicle...Zen...
>enjoying seat-of-pants, grassroots flying."
>
>I believe this is terrible advice. One of the quickest ways to put FAR
>Part
>103 at risk is to increase the kill rate for grassroots 103 pilots. Wind
>in
>your face and seeing the ground is not adequate in that many will believe
>what they see over what they feel. The end result is a stall and nose into
>the ground when turning from down wind to base. The opposite condition
>leads to departure stalls. If instruments are available, observed and
>believed, both of these conditions are preventable.
>
>One can keep a radio and gps off the vehicle by wearing it, but it is
>difficult to do the same for airspeed, altitude, and rate of climb
>indicators, and cylinder head and exhaust gas temperature indicators. To
>fly
>without any of these puts the 103 pilot at greater risk.
>
>Jack B. Hart FF004
>Winchester, IN
>EAA 45676
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hanger - Trailering Works |
Vince is not exaggerating. Many times I have watched him unload and set up
his Firestar by himself. Or fold it up and put it back on the trailer. In
fact, when I offer to help, I am told to stay out of the way, he can do it
quicker by himself. And it really does happen pretty quick, I would say
15-20 minutes from the time he gets out of the car until the airplane is
assembled, the preflight is done and he is ready to start the engine.
Compared to spending a grand or two a year for hangar rent, it's not
unreasonable. And what you saved on hangar rent will buy you a new Rotax
every third year...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>Sorry, in my experience, the Kolb is very trailerable and does not need a
>second person to assist in assembly or disassembly. I have been tailering
>my Kolb to/from the airport every time I fly it over the last 10 years and
>presently have 380 hours on it. In addition to my Firestar II, I made a
>simple and open trailer with a tilt bed along with a simple tripod to
>support a wing tip.
>
>I can easily roll the folded Kolb on/off the trailer by hand and with no
>help. When I wish to unfold the Kolb, I have a tripod that I sit near where
>the wing tip will be. I open the wing and sit its outside end on the
>tripod. The inner, front tip is supported on the bow for the full enclosure
>I use. If you do not have a full enclosure, adding a temporary support for
>the front edge would be relatively easy. With the wing supported, I have
>my hands free to walk around and to insert the pins needed to make the Kolb
>flyable. Very simple, and it only takes a few minutes. Because I usually
>fly 2 to 3 hours when I go out, I estimate I have done the fold/unfold
>approximately 150 times with no problems.
>
>I keep my folded Kolb in one side of my garage and use it when I have time.
>I just wanted all those who might want to store and trailer their Kolb to
>know that with a simple jig or two, it is easily done by one person and
>provides a very nice way to have an airplane without a hanger.
>
>Vince Nicely
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi(at)supernet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Seat-of-the-Pants |
Well said Lucien!! ~ Earl
lucien stavenhagen wrote:
>
> Pardon my jumping in, but I have to respectfully disagree.
> In fact, I think that if you can't fly a light aircraft or ultralight
> without the aid of gauges, you probably shouldn't be solo. At least, you
> should still be under an instructors supervision until such time as you can
> fly seat-of-the-pants.---------------------
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
I think it depends a lot on your situation. I agree with you, and with Ray,
Vince and Richard. Squeezing Vamoose into that tiny trailer of mine works,
but it's an exercise in strain and frustration.........and the thing hasn't
even flown yet. Arizona Dave has his down to a science and zips his Mk III
right in there, tho' his trailer is a *little* larger. I haven't seen this
for myself, but my thought is that Jim Hefner has the right idea. His
trailer is huge, and that little FireFly must be a breeze to load and
unload. (wanna swap trailers, Jim ??) :-) I thought I was saving a few
bucks on the trailer I bought for Vamoose - and I did - but it was false
economy. Wish now that I'd waited, spent more money, (if necessary) and
gotten a bigger trailer. Wiser Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy or Larry Gitt" <gittj(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Hanger
>
>
> The way they get around this is to say , we will add your name to the
> list of 27 that are on the waiting list for a hanger , guess What? It will
> take years of waiting to get a hanger. The FBO,s they don't want A/C
> they can't annual or sale gas too . Your home built or Experimental or
> U/L is not going to pay the bill for them , and im sure if we were in
> the FBO shoes we would feel the same .There is a big need for hangers in
> my area but the city just won't spend the money . What we need is a A/C
> that we can drive it home and park it in our garage, drive it to the
> Airport and take off . it would put Aviation in a new era. If you had 10
> or 50 new pilots in your area where are they going to put there planes
> ??? You sure don't want to leave them out side . Not with the storms we
> have been having all across the country. Trailer is fine but you need
> two people and it is a pain and some times hard to find that other person
> to help out . Aviation needs to make a
> nother step forward, in a new designe . Kolb is a great little plane i
> really enjoy mine but it sure would be nice to drive it home ,not paying
> hanger rent and work on it when i had time at home . For what it's worth!
> { Dreamer } Larry
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
List
I apologise -- thought I was emailing Jim B directly, but it went
onto the list -- without the DNA tag.
Sorry.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kolbdriver" <Kolbdriver(at)bellsouth.net> |
Trailer is fine but you need two people and it is a pain and some times
hard to find that other person to help out .
Larry,
I have kept my MK III in a trailer and at home for the 5 years I've had it
flying. It takes 20 minutes to unload and assemble or 20 minutes to fold,
load and tie down, all done solo. This past summer I mowed a landing strip
behind the house and plan to build a hanger/shed in the future. I have had
hanger space offered but prefered to spend that money on something else.
Steven Green
N58SG
MK III 912S
400 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Seat-of-the-Pants |
Lucien, Earl, and Kolbers,
I agree with you! I did not intend to imply overuse or the need for
instruments while flying a 103 vehicle.
Good stick and rudder habits should be a given, but why give up instruments
that can help you analyze unusual situations? Why do so many 103 pilots
roll their vehicles into a ball below the pattern? Is it lack of good stick
and rudder training and/or inability to react properly to what instruments
indicate? I believe it may be a combination of both plus some pilot
distraction.
I like my vertical air speed indicator the best. It lets me detect ridge
rotors, and high speed thermal sink early, and on very very hot days tells
me if I can maintain a healthy climb rate
The slip indicator could be removed. It is nice to have because once the
FireFly was trimmed out at zero degree flaperons and at cruise, one can
adjust the flaperons and reduce drag at off cruise speeds while maintaining
constant altitude. Once you move off normal cruise speed, P-factor comes
back into play and the FireFly starts slipping. At above normal cruise
speeds, one can pick up a little more speed by re flexing the flaperons a
bit. Not important for bumming around, but it helps stretch five gallons
of fuel on cross countries.
Altimeter and air speed indicator could be replaced with the gps and
throttle position as an in flight speed reference. Typically I like to fly
2,000 to 3,000 feet above ground level so that if the engine quits, I have a
few minutes to pick a landing spot within a two to three mile radius.
As long as I have to run a two cycle engine, I would find it difficult to
give up engine instruments.
If used properly, I believe instruments expand the pilots ability to fly in
a safer and more efficient manner that with out them. And because others
are flying in and around my home and neighboring airports, I like to use a
gps and radio too. But what instruments to use is a personal choice that
every 103 pilot must make.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM05(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Clearance |
Mike/All
I agree that 1 inch is a bit close but I had 7 inches of clearance on my 72
inch prop and that was way too much of a high thrust line. Full power with a
high thrust line is not fun. If you are at the lower end of your speed range
like you are in take off, climb or needing to make a go around on a short
strip it can bite you. When you are at the forward end of your weight and
balance (like when you have a passenger) it gets worse. I have been there
and I spent allot of time and effort to LOWER my thrust line. Don't get
carried away with it two inches of clearance is plenty.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Bigelow" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Prop Clearance
>
>
> Im very suprised how many people are running just one inch of prop
> clearance
> on thier Kolbs. The increased noise is bad enough, but even worse is you
> also have a greatly increased chance of a prop strike on the tail boom :(
> The engines are mounted in rubber mounts which flex, and metal and
> aluminum
> also flex given enough force... With a hard landing, or getting into
> aircraft wake or severe turbulance ( it happens ) could easily reduce that
> one inch to a negative number ! The top of the tail boom where it
> connects
> to the fuselage is the worst place on the entire boom to take any damage
> as
> the tensional forces there are greater there than anywhere else on the
> boom.
>
> When you take the center of thrust on the Kolb and compare it to the
> center
> of gravity and drag, another inch or two is just not that big a precentage
> change and should not make much of a difference in the flying qualities.
> I
> would not build my MK III with less than 3 inches clearance, and 6 would
> be
> better... Im suprised we are not hearing about more boom strikes here.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Seat-of-the-Pants |
Kolbers All,
I must be crazy but I consider an airspeed indicator an essential
device, up there with CHT/EGT or RPM gauge. My ears (and butt) just aren't
that finely tuned to sense decaying airspeed due to wind shear or shift, and
that's when one needs it most. It's a must-have for me. I'm not saying one
can't fly the plane without it (pitch + power = performance and all that),
but it makes it much easier and can save one's bacon on occasion.
Not picking on ya Jack, but some things stuck out:
> I agree with you! I did not intend to imply overuse or the need for
> instruments while flying a 103 vehicle.
I don't think an ASI can be overused. One can always ignore it.
> Good stick and rudder habits should be a given, but why give up
> instruments
> that can help you analyze unusual situations? Why do so many 103 pilots
> roll their vehicles into a ball below the pattern?
Precisely. Probably because they were ignoring the ASI for starters. An
ASI doesn't prevent stall/spin accidents, but it can help avoid them much
more than one's tush IMO.
> I like my vertical air speed indicator the best. It lets me detect ridge
> rotors, and high speed thermal sink early, and on very very hot days tells
> me if I can maintain a healthy climb rate
? I think it's VSI. (grin) I agree the VSI helps on those occasions
and others.
At above normal cruise
> speeds, one can pick up a little more speed by re flexing the flaperons a
> bit. Not important for bumming around, but it helps stretch five gallons
> of fuel on cross countries.
How do you know you're changing a few knots without an ASI?
> Altimeter and air speed indicator could be replaced with the gps and
> throttle position as an in flight speed reference. Typically I like to
> fly
> 2,000 to 3,000 feet above ground level
I suppose one could put notches, magic marker or tape next to the throttle
lever to indicate RPM. And hope a plug doesn't foul, or a cable don't
stretch, or an air leak develop... Seriously, GPS lags much more than an
ASI, and I've seen it be quite inaccurate on some days. The GPS's I've used
don't tell AGL, but MSL when given the local altimeter. The GPS makes a
nice backup, but I wouldn't rely on it for primary info. (Other than where
the he!! on the planet I'm precisely at, of course.) ;
)
> As long as I have to run a two cycle engine, I would find it difficult to
> give up engine instruments.
If you're in an airplane, why not have a couple of airplane instruments
(ASI/altimeter)?
I think the airspeed of my craft is important, and there are times
when I am very interested in its smallest change. Just my opinion, folks.
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Clearance |
Michael and Group,
The reason that I wasn't concerned about a prop strike with one inch of
clearance was that the 68" prop on a Firestar was recommended to me by
the designer, Dennis S. Also, I didn't have a prop strike in 4 years
of running that way.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
On Dec 5, 2005, at 12:56 AM, Kolb-List Digest Server wrote:
>
>
> Im very suprised how many people are running just one inch of prop
> clearance
> on thier Kolbs. The increased noise is bad enough, but even worse is
> you
> also have a greatly increased chance of a prop strike on the tail boom
> :(
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne T. McCullough" <blackbird754(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Seat-of-the-Pants |
And just a quick reply to all ,
I was taught...........Airspeed and Altitude are a pilots best friends...
Wayne McCullough
President EAA chapter 330
Kolbra # 004
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: Seat-of-the-Pants
>
>
> Kolbers All,
>
> I must be crazy but I consider an airspeed indicator an essential
> device, up there with CHT/EGT or RPM gauge. My ears (and butt) just
> aren't
> that finely tuned to sense decaying airspeed due to wind shear or shift,
> and
> that's when one needs it most. It's a must-have for me. I'm not saying
> one
> can't fly the plane without it (pitch + power = performance and all that),
> but it makes it much easier and can save one's bacon on occasion.
>
> Not picking on ya Jack, but some things stuck out:
>
>
>> I agree with you! I did not intend to imply overuse or the need for
>> instruments while flying a 103 vehicle.
>
> I don't think an ASI can be overused. One can always ignore it.
>
>> Good stick and rudder habits should be a given, but why give up
>> instruments
>> that can help you analyze unusual situations? Why do so many 103 pilots
>> roll their vehicles into a ball below the pattern?
>
> Precisely. Probably because they were ignoring the ASI for starters. An
> ASI doesn't prevent stall/spin accidents, but it can help avoid them much
> more than one's tush IMO.
>
>> I like my vertical air speed indicator the best. It lets me detect ridge
>> rotors, and high speed thermal sink early, and on very very hot days
>> tells
>> me if I can maintain a healthy climb rate
>
> ? I think it's VSI. (grin) I agree the VSI helps on those occasions
> and others.
>
> At above normal cruise
>> speeds, one can pick up a little more speed by re flexing the flaperons a
>> bit. Not important for bumming around, but it helps stretch five gallons
>> of fuel on cross countries.
>
> How do you know you're changing a few knots without an ASI?
>
>> Altimeter and air speed indicator could be replaced with the gps and
>> throttle position as an in flight speed reference. Typically I like to
>> fly
>> 2,000 to 3,000 feet above ground level
>
> I suppose one could put notches, magic marker or tape next to the throttle
> lever to indicate RPM. And hope a plug doesn't foul, or a cable don't
> stretch, or an air leak develop... Seriously, GPS lags much more than an
> ASI, and I've seen it be quite inaccurate on some days. The GPS's I've
> used
> don't tell AGL, but MSL when given the local altimeter. The GPS makes a
> nice backup, but I wouldn't rely on it for primary info. (Other than
> where
> the he!! on the planet I'm precisely at, of course.) ;
> )
>
>> As long as I have to run a two cycle engine, I would find it difficult to
>> give up engine instruments.
>
> If you're in an airplane, why not have a couple of airplane instruments
> (ASI/altimeter)?
>
>
> I think the airspeed of my craft is important, and there are times
> when I am very interested in its smallest change. Just my opinion, folks.
>
> Ed in JXN
> MkII/503
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us> |
Thanks for the tip...got a couple locally to try out.
Jeremy
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Baker [mailto:jlbaker(at)telepath.com]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wire wheel?
> >Is a BRASS wire wheel acceptable for removing old flaky primer
and
> >surface rust from 4130 aircraft tubing?
> >
> >Enquiring minds want to know...
Got something better for ya...do a search for 3M surface conditioning
discs.....come in several different grades and there are other 3M
Roloc items that are very nice to work with when cleaning/prepping
surfaces.....
http://search.store.yahoo.com/cgi-
bin/nsearch?query=roloc&first=20&only=0&categ=all&catalog=levine
auto
or if you don't want to cut/paste...
http://tinyurl.com/9jl5v
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us> |
Thanks...
Jeremy
Jeremy,
Check FAA pub AC 43.13 for acceptable practices. It is available online,
although I don't have the address at this time. You can download the
whole
pub in .pdf format.
A brass wheel would work provided you go easy with it and don't dwell on
one
spot for too long at a time. The preferred method is always the least
destructive first. I prefer chemical stripping if possible, then plastic
media bead blasting, and abrasive last. Hope this helps.
Guy Morgan
Galveston, TX Firefly
From: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us>
Subject: Kolb-List: Wire wheel?
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:27:21 -0500
Is a BRASS wire wheel acceptable for removing old flaky primer and
surface rust from 4130 aircraft tubing?
Enquiring minds want to know...
Jeremy Casey
Kilocharlie Drafting, Inc.
www.kilocharlie.us
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Judy or Larry Gitt" <gittj(at)earthlink.net> |
Hay, guys I'm not nocking the trailer and if you can do it your self that
great , I had other U/L the wings fold up , and cost me trying to do it by my
self , I well take a exter hand from now on . I'm lucky i share a hanger were
i don't have that problem . And it always nice to have your own strip and
hanger . Kolbra Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JIM HEFNER" <hefner_jim(at)msn.com> |
Since I use my trailer as my hangar, it is nice having a large trailer.... 27'
x 8.5' on the floor inside. The trailer is parked at the airport most of the
year, snuggled nose first into the T part of the hangar on the end.... no problem
with microbursts parked there! I roll the plane out and 10-12 minutes later
I'm taxiing.... I did it in 8 minutes once just to see how fast I could do
it. Most of the GA guys take quite a bit longer than that for preflight. The
Firefly is light enough that I can easily pull it up the ramps tail first.
I pay $12.50 a year to park the trailer at the airport.... my kind of hangar fees!!
I even have electric hooked up to the trailer from the adjacent hangar
via extension cord.... nice to have lights and power to charge batteries, radio,
etc when I stay overnight. My trailer is big enough to hold all my gear, fuel
and I can get a cot in there, even with the plane in the trailer. For hauling
the plane, it works well but can be a problem on really windy days... I often
haul it at night when winds are light. It weighs 2200#, which is pretty
light for a trailer of that size. The tandem axles are great for smooth hauling.
I've thought about buying or building a smaller lightweight trailer for when
I pull the plane on trips, but decided I didn't need one more trailer sitting
around most of the time. This one is a good compromise for using as a hangar
and for hauling on trips.
To get a Mark III in there would require a winch for sure. AZ Dave has a winch
for his and it sits really low compared to my trailer. Lots of difference in
weight of a Firefly and a Mark III!! Having to use a winch would take a lot
longer and would make using the trailer as a hangar a lot more painful! I'm very
happy with my setup. I pulled the trailer/plane 1750 miles and flew some
incredible places, including Monument Valley, in May. Hope to do more of that
in the future!
Jim Hefner
Tucson, AZ
Firefly #022 219 hrs 1" prop clearance on the 66" IVO 2 blade...
I think it depends a lot on your situation. I agree with you, and with Ray,
Vince and Richard. Squeezing Vamoose into that tiny trailer of mine works,
but it's an exercise in strain and frustration.........and the thing hasn't
even flown yet. Arizona Dave has his down to a science and zips his Mk III
right in there, tho' his trailer is a *little* larger. I haven't seen this
for myself, but my thought is that Jim Hefner has the right idea. His
trailer is huge, and that little FireFly must be a breeze to load and
unload. (wanna swap trailers, Jim ??) :-) I thought I was saving a few
bucks on the trailer I bought for Vamoose - and I did - but it was false
economy. Wish now that I'd waited, spent more money, (if necessary) and
gotten a bigger trailer. Wiser Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | kolb airport, safty |
Ultralite are aloud to fly here they will no longer insure
the airport. It is a big mess, they are going to have a hearing on the 8th
of this month. All ultralites should have at least a handheld radio and
follow the rules set be the FAA around airports.
---------------------------------------------
remind those in charge that unless it is a controlled airport that the use
of a radio is not required.... it is a very good idea but not a
requirement..... also you should observe some of the other operations at the
airport and document some of the others that do not follow the
guidelines..... example... an ex military plane.... t33 jet.... at my field,
while others are in the pattern comes on the radio and announces " t33 jet
( cant remember the manufacture or tail number ) is on a 15 mile straight in
final, everybody get out of my way" it seems to me that he did not want to
burn the extra fuel necessary to go around and join the pattern properly....
some how he seemed to think he owned the place because he burned more
gal/hour than the rest of us.... now the odd part is that the city airport
director was real happy to have him around because of the uniqueness of the
aircraft... also that he could justify the need for a longer runway because
of the needs of the faster aircraft.... when this event happened I had just
turned final.... and because he would routinely make a high speed pass at
250 ( plus) I just got as far away as possible as I was not wanting a
push.... it seems to me that a "ul" is not a safety problem..... it is the
level of education and willingness of the pilot to use the education
properly that makes an airport safe, not the type of plane flown.... now it
seems that many of the ul pilots do not have the level of training as do
private pilots.... but the issue should be " if you will get some training
so you can join the rest of us safely, you can use the airport, if not you
should stay away until you get some training." and this should include t33
jet drivers as well........
if you would like to use any of this during the hearing please feel free to
do so.
boyd young
brigham city utah.
do archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JIM HEFNER" <hefner_jim(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Seat of the pants |
Ray, I agree with you. I can fly comfortably without any instrument but ASI.
I flew once when I forgot to remove the red flag and had no problem landing,
but for safety sake I wouldn't make that a habit. I generally land at idle with
with full flaps, so I'm flirting around stall speed and wouldn't do that if
I didn't have an ASI instrument to look at.... I could land with partial power
or no flaps with more speed without it, but I like having the plane done flying
when it touches down and it's good practice for engine out landings. The
VSI is the 2nd most useful instrument and the altimeter is the least used instrument
for the kind of flying I do.
Jim Hefner
Tucson, AZ
Firefly #022 219hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DCulver701(at)aol.com |
Hi Jim, that is a nice write-up on trailer usage! Who is the
manufacturer, and how much did it cost? Saw most of the pictures posted on Monument
valley, what a gorgeous place. The pictures from the air are fantastic, compared
to ground shots. Hopefully i will make it there someday. Best regards,
Dave Culver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JIM HEFNER" <hefner_jim(at)msn.com> |
Hi Jim, that is a nice write-up on trailer usage! Who is the
manufacturer, and how much did it cost? Saw most of the pictures posted on Monument
valley, what a gorgeous place. The pictures from the air are fantastic, compared
to ground shots. Hopefully i will make it there someday. Best regards,
Dave Culver
------------------------------------
Hi Dave, the trailer was custom built. It's built mostly from 1" square steel
tubing. The floor is 1/2" plywood to keep the weight down, so it gives a little
when you walk on it but it's plenty stong. The original owner said he paid
$4500 to have it custom built. He had it around 8-10 years and had just put
new tires on it when I bought it from him. I pulled it from Tucson up to Seattle,
to Arlington airport, where I purchased the Firefly and hauled it home in
it. At that time I was pulling it with a Ford Explorer. Now I have a 5.4L V8
Expedition, which is much better suited for pulling it. It has a side entry
door on the right side near the front. Ramps store in racks underneath behind
the wheels. Contact me off-list if you want more info, pic's, etc.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Clearance |
Hi Michael B/Gang:
Thought I would respond to your post:
| Im very suprised how many people are running just one inch of prop
clearance
| on thier Kolbs. The increased noise is bad enough, but even worse
is you
| also have a greatly increased chance of a prop strike on the tail
boom :(
I have 3/4" clearance between prop tip and tail boom. If there was a
chance of of blade strike, I would increase the clearance.
| The engines are mounted in rubber mounts which flex, and metal and
aluminum
| also flex given enough force... With a hard landing, or getting
into
| aircraft wake or severe turbulance ( it happens ) could easily
reduce that
| one inch to a negative number !
Don't think so!!! Take a close look at the Lord Mounts we use for
engine mounts. Where do you get your info?
| When you take the center of thrust on the Kolb and compare it to the
center
| of gravity and drag, another inch or two is just not that big a
precentage
| change and should not make much of a difference in the flying
qualities.
But it does make a lot of difference.
| I would not build my MK III with less than 3 inches clearance, and 6
would be
| better... Im suprised we are not hearing about more boom strikes
here.
If there was a problem, we would be hearing of blade strikes on the
tail boom. However, I don't personally know of anyone who has
experienced this.
I think you will be very unhappy with that much clearance. I believe
you might find you get much better performance and handling with a
minimum prop tip clearance to the boom tube.
Probably be a good idea to qualify these types of comments so the new
comer will know from whence they come!!!
john h
MKIII - 2,444.0 hours
912S - 1,098.1 hours
Ultrastar, 1984, and a Firestar, 1987
hauck's holler, alabama
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flying without instruments??? |
| Personally, if I were allowed one and only one flight instrument in
my
| airplane it'd be an altimeter. Altitude is the hardest to judge
without a
| gauge. The rest should only be nice to have in a light aircraft,
and
| _never_ essential for flight....
|
| JMHO,
|
| LS
| N646F
Hi LS/Gang:
Reckon I'll have to disagree with this one too. ;-)
Personally, I can see the ground a hell'uva lot easier than I can see
stall speed. Stall speed is much more important than knowing how high
I am, in my own humble opinion.
Even is an air speed indicator is not calibrated accurately, it will
always indicate the same stall speed, no matter what altitude.
From my poor memory, most Kolb fatal accidents are the result of
stalls low to the ground. Folks forget to cross check their airspeed
indicators, or they rely on their "instincts" to keep them above stall
speed. Very, very difficult to determine accurate airspeed by the
seat of the pants, especially when turning down wind at very low
altitudes.
john h
MKIII/912S
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mitty <benny_bee_01(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | You know that you live in 2005 when... |
0.22 FROM_HAS_ULINE_NUMS From": contains.an.underline.and.numbers/letters(at)roxy.matronics.com
YOU KNOW YOU ARE LIVING IN 2005 when...
1. You accidentally enter your password on the
microwave.
2. You haven't played solitaire with real cards in
years.
3. You have a list of 15 phone numbers to reach your
family of 3.
4. You e-mail the person who works at the desk next
to you.
5. Your reason for not staying in touch with friends
and family is that they don't have e-mail addresses.
6. You pull up in your own driveway and use your cell
phone to see if anyone is home to help you carry in
the groceries.
7. Every commercial on television has a web site at
the bottom of the screen.
8. Leaving the house without your cell phone, which
you didn't have the first 20 or 30 (or 60) years of
your life, is now a cause for panic and you turn
around to go and get it.
10. You get up in the morning and go on line before
getting your coffee.
11. You start tilting your head sideways to smile. :
)
12. You're reading this and nodding and laughing.
13. Even worse, you know exactly to whom you are
going to forward this message.
14. You are too busy to notice there was no #9 on this
list.
15. You actually scrolled back up to check that there
wasn't a #9 on this list.
AND NOW U R LAUGHING at yourself.
Go on, forward this to your friends you know you want
to!
Have a good holidays,everyone!
http://home.earthlink.net/~mr_d/index.html
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Seat-of-the-Pants/No Instruments??? |
| ... Seriously, GPS lags much more than an
| ASI, and I've seen it be quite inaccurate on some days.
| > As long as I have to run a two cycle engine, I would find it
difficult to
| > give up engine instruments.
| I think the airspeed of my craft is important, and there are
times
| when I am very interested in its smallest change. Just my opinion,
folks.
|
| Ed in JXN
| MkII/503
Hi Ed/Gang:
Good post.
GPS is fine for informing me of how fast I am moving over the ground,
but has nothing to do with air speed. Air speed is important to me to
keep me flying. Yep, I can fly an airplane and a helicopter (well,
last time I was flying helicopters) with the instrument panel blanked
out, but that was part of training, not something to do at all times.
I can fly without an engine and engine instruments, Jack H, but I need
that air speed indicator to keep me honest, especially when
maneuvering near the ground.
I agree with Ed 100% on the airspeed indicator being the most
important instrument in my Kolb.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flying without instruments??? |
Hi John/All,
I agree. I agree with the other statements about not 'absolutely'
needing an ASI. The airplane doesn't know it's there, and will fly. But
the pilot needs it on several occasions, even day VFR, so it's a must-have
IMO.
It also occurred to me how much different ops (and 'feel') are in
higher elevations and higher density altitude. I was amazed the first time
I took a Cessna 421 twin into Albuquerque one July day many years ago. I'd
slowed down to normal pattern speed of 120 kts, 100 over the fence, yet the
visible groundspeed and sight picture told me we were near cruise. Had to
really trust the ASI on that one. The simple 'pitch + power' protocol
would've had us in the weeds before the threshold.
I know it's not a Kolb, but the correlation still works for C-150s,
ULs, etc. We routinely crash RC aircraft at my club, usually base-to-final,
because we rely only on visual cues. By the time I see a wing drop, it's
too late. 'Nother one bites the dust...
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: Flying without instruments???
Very, very difficult to determine accurate airspeed by the
> seat of the pants, especially when turning down wind at very low
> altitudes.
>
> john h
> MKIII/912S
> hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Bigelow" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Seat of the pants |
You should at minimun have an airspeed indicator to fly safely. We should
all have the skill to fly without the ASI it should it fail, but it is NOT
something you should make a habbit of doing. Even though many of have the
skill to fly without an airspeed indicator, if you do it on a regular basis,
sooner or later it will probably catch up with you. We all get distracted,
have bad days, etc. etc. and having the ASI can prevent a disastorous
situation. We train for lots of difficult situations in flying, and we are
expected to be able to be able to handle them, but that does not mean we
should be exposing ourselves to unnecessary risk on a regular basis.
An ASI is an important instrument, that gives you information critical for
safe flight. Like any insturment it can fail, or mislead you, so you dont
want to be overly reliant on it.... But that does not change the fact that
it is just plain foolish to routinely fly an ultralight without a working
ASI.
Michael Bigelow
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Bigelow" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Clearance |
The feedback on prop clearance has been very helpful. I dont want the extra
noise and am still not confortable with just one inch, but given your
reports I will most definately not go more than 2 or 3 inches. You guys
helped me avoid a mistake before it was built into my plane, thanks guys !!!
Michael Bigelow
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Seat-of-the-Pants/No Instruments??? |
OK Ray, I retract seat of the pants and substitute "elbow torque".
-however, I have been subjected to several minutes of "fill the pants"
flying in my lifetime. :)
do I detect a CLASSIC statement here?
Well, guys I know we are beating a dead horse at this stage but for some
reason, I cannot let this thought go unsaid.
I feel sorry for the poor lil EGT meter. It gets almost NO credit ...even
amongst such heavies as populate this list. And its absence has popped up and
bit us many, many times.... and we STILL don't give it proper praise. Its
absence on such early models as the Weedhopper and Pterodactyl which used many
Cuyuna engines, brought them down to mother earth like flies, on a chilly day.
And we said "those damn Cuyunas ought to be boat anchors." I know, I was one
of those brought down...at least 3 times. And I didn't learn a thing until I
was introduced to the EGT and squirrely wiles of 2 cycles when I upgraded to
Kolb Firestar..
It is my opinion that the lack of that instrument and the prolific use of 2
cycles in the early days and even today, has turned the reputation of Cuyuna
into .....hmmmm, ..... something really bad.
Of course the ASI is extremely important although I have flown a Pterodactyl
for months without one, but there again, just like the long EZE, it
wouldn't stall either, due to the variable angle of attack on the wing design
and
the fact that it was a canard.
just a thought, and a lil nudge for the importance of EGT ... especially on
2 cycles.
George Randolph
Firestar driver from The Villages, Fl
Rotax 447, 3 blade Ivo, KX, 1991
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flying without instruments??? |
>From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: Flying without instruments???
>Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:28:51 -0600
>
>
> | Personally, if I were allowed one and only one flight instrument in
>my
>| airplane it'd be an altimeter. Altitude is the hardest to judge
>without a
>| gauge. The rest should only be nice to have in a light aircraft,
>and
>| _never_ essential for flight....
>|
>| JMHO,
>|
>| LS
>| N646F
>
>Hi LS/Gang:
>
>Reckon I'll have to disagree with this one too. ;-)
>
>Personally, I can see the ground a hell'uva lot easier than I can see
>stall speed. Stall speed is much more important than knowing how high
>I am, in my own humble opinion.
>
>Even is an air speed indicator is not calibrated accurately, it will
>always indicate the same stall speed, no matter what altitude.
>
>From my poor memory, most Kolb fatal accidents are the result of
>stalls low to the ground. Folks forget to cross check their airspeed
>indicators, or they rely on their "instincts" to keep them above stall
>speed. Very, very difficult to determine accurate airspeed by the
>seat of the pants, especially when turning down wind at very low
>altitudes.
>
>john h
>MKIII/912S
>hauck's holler, alabama
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Seat-of-the-Pants/No Instruments??? |
George....
When you said..
"" It is my opinion that the lack of that instrument and the prolific use of
2
cycles in the early days and even today, has turned the reputation of Cuyuna
into .....hmmmm, ..... something really bad.""
You explain a very important thing...
IN those early days...we were NOT using ROTAX engines.....and we were not
useing insturments....or at least very few insturments and least of which
were engine monitoring.
We used about every other engine that was light...MCCullochs, West Bends,
Chryslers, and of course...the venerable Cuyuna. Dont know if I remember
ANY of them being immune to our lack of knowledge about 2-strokes and
prop-loading and the ..." squirrely wiles of 2 cycles "...as you so
eloquently put it.
I hate to admit it, but I tore up several without any regard to what brand
they were. IT was not until I started useing engine monitering insturments
did the rate of failure go down. At least as soon as I learned what was
going on in that cylinder!
AS I remember....it was a tach first.....then EGT.....or maybe CHT ...I
dont really remember..but soon...nothing I built was without both heat
monitering devices.
I dont think these insturments keep me from gaulding cylinders so much as
they just told me what I was doing to cause it to happen. They gave me a
direction to go in tuneing the engine/carb/prop to keep it from happening
again..or maybe I should say...as often!
ANyway...your observations as usual....are right on the money I think.
Don Gherardini
OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
CortLand, Illinois
800-626-7326
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flying without instruments??? |
> The difficulty here is that stall is determined by _AOA_ and not
airspeed.
My entire takeoff roll with my Minimax I leave the tail on the ground so
my AOA stays the same from zero to liftoff airspeed. According to your
thesis, the wing wasn't ever stalled from the moment it started rolling
forward.
Do not
archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flying without instruments??? |
If my shaky memory serves me correctly, a stalled condition exists when the
angle of attack is such that the airflow separates from the wing and it
stops flying. In your case of takeoff, the wing probably isn't stalled,
there simply isn't sufficient airflow to lift the plane off the ground. A
similar case could be when coming in for landing at too low an airspeed, but
good angle of attack. The plane wouldn't stall, but your rate of descent
would be very high because of insufficient lift. Lots of bent gear from
that one. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <snuffy(at)usol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: Flying without instruments???
>
>> The difficulty here is that stall is determined by _AOA_ and not
> airspeed.
>
>
> My entire takeoff roll with my Minimax I leave the tail on the ground so
> my AOA stays the same from zero to liftoff airspeed. According to your
> thesis, the wing wasn't ever stalled from the moment it started rolling
> forward.
>
> Do not
> archive
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flying without instruments??? |
>
>Again, not to beat the dead horse, but I very respectfully and strongly
>disagree with this. The airplane will tell you when you're approaching the
>critical AOA in circumstances where the ASI won't be reliable. This works
>every time, no matter what the wind is doing or how high you are. I think
>it's absolutely critical that a pilot be trained to recognize these signs
>and be able to fly accordingly. If you need the ASI to tell you you're
>approaching the critical AOA, then I submit more training/experience in the
>plane is needed.
>
>I should mention that this works perfectly for me in my FS II and I've never
>stalled it inadvertantly as a result. My ASI is, well, less than accurate
>I'll put it that way, especially in high AOA situations....
>
>Ok, I'll stop now I promise.
>
Lucien,
During relatively quiet flying conditions, the eyes on the horizon, the
lower cheek and stick hand pressure give good feedback signal inputs. It is
much like flying a sailplane with noise added. Now comes the but. But
during cold winter days flying through very unstable air when the FireFly is
bobbing and twisting like a fishing cork, it adds a high degree of
distraction or error signal inputs that mask the good feedback signal
inputs. This is especially true if your shoulder belts are less than snug.
This is when I use the ASI.
After flying sailplanes for a couple of years with hours of slow flight, I
developed a response that when anything felt uncomfortable to push the stick
forward. This reaction has carried over to the FireFly. In unstable air, I
used to feel very uncomfortable turning from downwind to base and I would
want to push the stick forward. This lead to getting beat up more than
necessary by making a wider skidding turn. The addition of an elevator
position indicator helped. I discovered that as I was being beat up in the
turn, that if I kept the stick in the zero to one degree elevator up
position, I could bring the FireFly on around with confidence and the
discomfort disappeared.
One may say that you should not fly in these kinds of conditions. But if
you want to fly in the winter time, you have to endure unstable air when
leaving and returning to altitude.
Also, I use the ASI just after I flare the FireFly. A quick glance tells me
how much time I have to nurse it on down before it quits flying. I credit
ASI use as the major reason the landing gear legs on the FireFly have not
been replaced. The other time I use the ASI is after lift off to establish
climb rate.
Yes, you can and should be able fly without instruments, but with them and
their proper use, the risk to pilot and craft is reduced and the pilot
flight envelope is increased.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "c b" <seedeebee(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | 912 Kill Switch & Ignition Wiring |
Hey Fellow Kolbers,
Well I've been working on my Mk III for 3 months now since the original
exhaust system cracked up. I've got a new Titan Aircraft stainless system on
the 912 - it looks awesome!
While the ship was in dry dock, I decided to upgrade the kill switch, which
seems to have resulted in a downgrade...
Originally, there was a single switch that interrupted a wire that ran
directly from the battery to the "L" and "R" terminals on the back of the
ignition switch. When I hit the kill switch, the engine ran rough, but kept
on running.
So I decided that I would install 2 switches, one for each mag, and hook
them up so they completely killed the engine. I removed the wire from the
battery and wired in my switches to the wires that lead out from the "L" and
"R" posts on the ignition switch.
Now the engine runs rough all of the time, and the two kill switches do
absolutely nothing.
I looked in the Rotax install manual, and it doesn't make much sense to me.
I can't find a diagram from which I can tell what I did wrong... I'm no
wiring expert, but I didn't think I was a complete moron either... Any help
would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
Chris Banys
Kolb Mk III 912UL (will be amphib again in 2006)
N10FR
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flying without instruments??? |
>
> That's correct - if the wing section was not above the critical AOA
with
> respect to the relative wind, it wasn't stalled....
I'm glad to see you considered the relative wind . Does this relative
wind have a velocity? If so is this wind velocity a factor in the flight of
the wing? Or can we just fly this wing at any velocity as long as the
wing is at the proper AOA?
Do not
archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flying without instruments??? |
>I'm glad to see you considered the relative wind . Does this relative
>wind have a velocity?
Yes.
> If so is this wind velocity a factor in the flight of
>the wing?
Yes.
>Or can we just fly this wing at any velocity as long as the
>wing is at the proper AOA?
We can fly the wing as long as it generates enough lift to overcome gravity
(hint: even a stalled wing still generates lift)....
LS
N646F
>Do not
>archive
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J W Hauck" <jimh474(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flying without instruments??? |
Lucien:
Wut you be aviatin, de dang space shuttle?
Jim Hauck
Do not archieve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Flying without instruments??? |
I worked up a simple, inexpensive directional indicator on the top of my
nose cone. Not only can I tell if the plane is slipping ..... if the
little arrow is pointing back towards me, then I know my AOA is all wrong.
Works every time.
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/possums@mindspring.com.09.27.2003/Seat2.jpg
BTW the ole timers who first flew airmail would carry pigeons with
them. The idea was
to release one if they were caught in the clouds or the fog and
follow the bird out. The problem was the pigeon didn't know which way
was up either.
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/possums@mindspring.com.07.26.2002/thum.jpg
>*I worked up a simple, inexpensive, and light weight aoa indicator that might
>be of interest to anyone who flies a Kolb with the small nose cone. I have
>been using it for last few months and it works well.
>
>It can be seen at:
>
>http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly84.html
>
>Jack B. Hart FF004
>Jackson, MO*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flying without instruments??? |
Spent lots time tight turns ,>>
Hi,
I think all pilots in a perfect world would train in gliders.
An average glider pilots flight, banked at 40 degress about 5 knots above
the stall with 20 other gliders withing 400 yards all doing the same thing
would give the average power pilot the screaming habdabs.
Certainly gave me the habdabs sometimes.
Cheers
Pat
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | John W's Texas Flight Report |
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1/2005_Flights/gky-mfe_2005.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: John W's Texas Flight Report |
Very nice. Thanks..............envy rules. :-) Do not
Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: John W's Texas Flight Report
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1/2005_Flights/gky-mfe_2005.htm
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flying without instruments??? |
Look here for the "homemade" version of the high dollar "Lift reserve
indicator".
http://www.snyder.on.ca/pages/lri.htm
This is a kind of "Ford vs Chevy" debate and some will just find this
useless. I have talked to others that will swear by the AOA gauge as a
landing aid. Have been told the U.S. Navy use AOA instrumentation
heavily (they are arguably the most EXTREME short field landing pilots
in the world ;-)
Your mileage may vary...
Jeremy Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Home Made AOA Meter |
>
>Look here for the "homemade" version of the high dollar "Lift reserve
>indicator".
>
Jeremy,
This is great. One can get a little better printout from:
http://www.ch601.org/resources/aoa/aoa.htm
and the drawing prints out well from:
http://www.ch601.org/resources/aoa/print/angleattack.jpg
I changed the subject line.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Deegan <kb7mxu(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Mark III Xtra in Northwest? |
Hi folks, first time post. I'm a novice pilot going for my Sport Pilot
rating. The Mark III Xtra is on my short list of planes I might want to
build, but I haven't seen one in the flesh yet. Does anyone in the group
know of one flying in the Northwest, more specifically the Eastern
Wash./North Idaho area? Could anyone contrast and compare the M3X with
the Titan II and the RANS S-12 Airaile? I prefer the looks of the Kolb
to either of these and the wing folding feature is good, but the
taildragger aspect worries me a bit. but if the enthusiasm of the list
members is anything to go by, these must be great planes. Thanks.
Mike Deegan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Downwind turns |
downwind turn close to the ground,without an airspeed indicator.>>
Hi All,
I can see this heading for the old arguement about airspeed decreasing as
you turn down wind and I won`t go there, it has been done to death but I
will make the point that if you are turning while low you are also flying
into the area where the windspeed decreases because of its proximity to the
ground. Remember `wind gradient` from those early lessons?
Taking the extreme case. Iif you are flying (foolishly) only 5knots above
the stall and the wind drops by 5 knots. Thats it. Kaput! With no height to
recover.
In stronger winds the gradient may drop by 10 or more.
Cheers
Pat
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David L. Bigelow" <dlbigelow(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Flying without instruments |
At the risk of beating this thread to death.......
There's no doubt that a good angle of attack instrument is the best speed instrument
available. Unfortunately, it's not practical for an ultralight (or any
other a/c) unless it is amplified. You just can't see the difference between
10 and 12 degrees on a vane, and that's roughly where you will be flying on approach.
Only aircraft I've ever flown without an airspeed indicator is hang gliders. Being
completely exposed to the breeze, and able to hear every nuance of sound
makes it easy to control airspeed. Also, hang gliders have a very positive hands
off trim point, and it takes a fair amount of forward pressure on the control
bar (think back stick) to stall one.
Put yourself in a very noisy cockpit sheltered from the wind in an airplane with
light stick forces, and it becomes very difficult to control airspeed precisely
without an instrument reference. If I had to choose only one instrument,
it would be the airspeed indicator. It's not a bad idea to practice stabilized
approaches without looking at the airspeed indicator just in case you ever lose
it, but as regular thing - good way to bust your rear.
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, DCDI 503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Last Flight 2005 - Texas |
Morning Gang:
Had a good flight out to Texas to spend time flying with friends.
Departed my airstrip, Gantt International Airport, 1000, 1 Dec 05.
Dropped in on Paul Petty's in-laws, Harris Field, MS, for coffee and
lunch. Next stop was John Bickham's new airstrip, Nauga Field, St
Francisville, LA. John and his wife graciously put me up for the
night after feeding me the best red beans and rice, and country
sausage, I have ever eaten. In the process got to make the first
landing and take off from John's airstrip.
Next stop was Beaumont, TX. Didn't take long to fly there from St
Francisville, LA. My ground speed was 115 mph. Airspeed was 85 mph.
Would have been difficult to determine airspeed without my trusty
Winter ASI. Don't know what my AOA was. ;-)
Got on the ground and found my three friends had already arrived.
John W on the left, Ken K middle, and Gary H, on the right:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3146_resize.JPG
After lunch at Sonic we took off and headed for Port Authur, TX, the
Texas/Louisiana State Line and the Gulf of Mexico. Here's John W and
his Kolbra heading south on the Texas beach:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3145_resize.JPG
Doing what we do best, low level down the beach from Louisiana to the
Mexican Border. Shot of Gary H in his MKIII:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3149_resize.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3150_resize.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3153_resize.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3155_resize.JPG
John W's Kolbra:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3157_resize.JPG
John W's Kolbra and Ken K's Titan:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3164_resize.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3165_resize.JPG
John W and Ken K leading Miss P'fer:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3174_resize.JPG
The rest of the flight. All aircraft powered with the 912ULS. Might
add, we had nary a problem aircraft or power-wise:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3177_resize.JPG
Gary H and John W:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3182_resize.JPG
The flight has to gain a little altitude and shift to maintain
clearance with beach traffic:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3187_resize.JPG
Good time was being had by all:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3193_resize.JPG
Gary H approaches an old steel light house:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3195_resize.JPG
John H gets a quick snapshot of the old steel light house on the fly:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3196_resize.JPG
Shrimp boat ship wrecked on the beach:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3197_resize.JPG
Made it down to Mustang Beach near Corpus Christi to RON. After a
great steak dinner in the Yacht Club next to the air port, we sacked
out on the floor of the FBO.
Next morning after a short walk to the local convenience store for
coffee and donuts, we were off to continue our flight down the beach.
Here's Gary H leading the way:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3201_resize.JPG
Perfect morning to be flying the beach, except we had a strong
headwind. Air was smooth as silk coming off the water:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3202_resize.JPG
This leg turned out to be 3.5 hours from Mustang Beach to McAllen, TX.
Here are the guys just after we turned west up the Rio Grande River.
That's Mexico on the other side. Gary called Brownsville Tower to get
permission to fly through their airspace south of the field:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3203_resize.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3204_resize.JPG
We landed at Del Rio, TX. Last time I landed here was on the way to
Alaska in 1994. Put up our tents and headed out walking to town for
dinner. Found a local Mexican Resturant (really a locals place to
eat) and had some excellent Mexican food. On the way back to the
airport, stopped off at Dairy Queen for some ice cream to simmer in
the recent Mexican dinner. It was still early when we got back to the
airport, so we sat around and reminiced about the days flying:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3209_resize.JPG
Next morning, Sunday, 4 Dec 05, we took off, headed west to the Rio
Grande. Flew up stream until we came to the Pecos River. Turned
right up the Pecos for a good ways, then headed for Sonora, TX:
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3210_resize.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3213_resize.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/Hauck's%20Stuff/Last%20Flt%2005%20TX/DSCF3214_resize.JPG
After a good Texas Sunday lunch buffet, our group split up. John W
and Ken K headed for Arlington, TX. Gary H and I headed for Houston
and his airstrip at Dry Creek. We made one quick op stop at Austin.
The weather started turning cold and overcast. Up until this point we
had been blessed with beautiful warm weather.
Gary H and his wife feed me some Texas chilli and put me to bed. Next
morning I was off for Alabama at 0830, 5 Dec. Got fuel in Natchez,
MS. Didn't take time to eat lunch. If I had, I would not have been
able to make Gantt IAP before dark. The weather was really cold now,
35 to 40F. After my fuel stop I was also sitting in the shade of the
wing for the remainder of the flight back to Alabama. Had the Chilli
Vest (12VDC) on WOT and still had cold feet and hands, despite wool
socks and boots, and gloves. First time I had the thermostat on the
jacket WOT and still colder than I ever got on two previous trips with
the Chilli Vest to Alaska. However, I was dressed appropriately for
the Alaska flights, and this flight I lacked some essential clothing.
Flew five days straight.
2,429.6 sm.
Average ground speed was 82.5 mph.
Max ground speed was 124 mph.
Burned 166.0 gal fuel at 5.4 gph. Might add Gary H and I both pushed
our 912ULS's to keep up with the Kolbra and Titan. I flew 5,200 rpm
most of the time, yielding 90 mph cruise.
Was a great flight. We all had fun flying and visiting.
Now it is time to get back to my chores. Won't be another good flight
until next Spring.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi all,
Not to take away from the airspeed/AOA thread, but.... ;)
Are there any Kolbra builders/flyers on the list? The Kolbra is one of the
planes I'm considering for my next plane, but I've searched up and down the
internet in vain for detailed photos, info and etc (does Kolb make this
plane anymore?)...
In fact the Kolbra looks like just the ticket for my #1 airplane requirement
(good view) because of the tandem seating...... I'd be interested to hear
about it from other Kolbra owners/builders/flyers...
Thanks,
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JIM HEFNER" <hefner_jim(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Home Made AOA Meter |
Jack, folks,
This is exactly the setup my friend has implemented on his Zenith 701... this was
a big topic of discussion on the Zenith thread not all that long ago, so he
decided to implement on his plane and it is slick!! Having this instrument in
the dash where it is readily visible during landing is great. Looking off to
the side during landing is not a good thing, as Lucien indicated. Planes, including
ultralights, that are in the business of towing gliders pretty much all
use AOA meters of some sort, including strings out in the airstream, with a
reference marker for stall AOA. For us casual Kolb fliers, I don't think this
is an essential instrument, but if you are pushing the envelope with your Kolb,
you might want to consider this.
BB, I don't think I would go as far as saying this is more useful than a VSI, at
least for my usage. I put a VSI in my FF early on and find myself using it
a lot during flight... I have an adjustable trim tab, so it's nice to know I'm
flying level while I'm trimming the plane out. Also on longer flights I find
myself climbing or descending slightly when I didn't intend to... The LRI or
AOA indicator would probably not get used near as much as my VSI. The FF with
full flaps and ASI 50 lands great every time, so I'm not looking for more precision
than that and I don't push the envelope with 90 degree banked turns at
low altitude, so I doubt if this instrument would be all that useful to me.
With folding the wings each time I fly, it would be tough to implement the LRI
in the dash, with sender unit out under the wing, without a veryy long feeder
tube fed through the rear wing mount/universal joint area, fed forward to the
mounting location under the wing chord.
Bottom line is, this started out as a technical discussion about ASI being the
all truthful instrument, but it is not in all circumstances, where the AOA/LRI
indicator is always valid. From a practical point of view, I think it is a neat
concept, but I won't be implementing one on my FF anytime soon.
Jim Hefner
Tucson, AZ
FF #022
>
>Look here for the "homemade" version of the high dollar "Lift reserve
>indicator".
>
Jeremy,
This is great. One can get a little better printout from:
http://www.ch601.org/resources/aoa/aoa.htm>
and the drawing prints out well from:
http://www.ch601.org/resources/aoa/print/angleattack.jpg>
I changed the subject line.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | 914 turbo + 912uls=how much power |
HI experts,
I have been looking at the specs of the Rota flat 4's and was wondering
something.
The 912 makes 80 hp at 5500 rpm with a Bore: 79.5 mm Stroke: 61 mm.
Displacement: 1211 cu.cm (Compression: 9:1 Engine Weight: ~135 lbs
The 912ULS makes 95 hp at 5500 rpm continuous (100hp at 5800 5 min max) with
a Bore: 84mm Stroke: 61 mm. Displacement: 1352 cu.cm Compression: 9:1 Engine
Weight: ~140 lbs
The 914 UL2 makes 100 hp at 5500 rpm continuous (115 hp at 5800 5 min max)
with a Bore: 79.5 Stroke: 61 mm. Displacement: 1211 cu.cm (Compression: 9:1
Engine Weight: ~167 lbs
So if you add a similar sized turbo to a 912s what kinda power will you get?
912 goes from 80 to 100 (115 takeoff) so would a 912s go from 95 to 115 with
130 takeoff. At a weight of around 170 pounds that would be a decent
engine. Add fuel injection while your at it and you have a real engine!
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 914 turbo + 912uls=how much power |
Hi Topher/Gang:
Not an expert, by any means. I get my info off the Kodiak web page.
| The 912 makes 80 hp at 5500 rpm with a Bore: 79.5 mm Stroke: 61 mm.
| Displacement: 1211 cu.cm (Compression: 9:1 Engine Weight: ~135 lbs
912UL makes 79 hp max continuous at 5,500 and 81 hp for 5 min max at
5,800 rpm.
Engine w/gear box (an integral part of the engine) weighs 121.3 lbs.
You can go to this page to add up accessory weight and add it to
engine weight for all up flyable weight. Max torque is at 4,800.
http://www.kodiakbs.com/4intro.htm
| The 912ULS makes 95 hp at 5500 rpm continuous (100hp at 5800 5 min
max) with
| a Bore: 84mm Stroke: 61 mm. Displacement: 1352 cu.cm Compression:
9:1 Engine
| Weight: ~140 lbs
912ULS makes 95 max continuous at 5,500 and 100 hp at 5,800 rpm for 5
min max. Compression ration is 10.5 to 1, rather than 9.5 to 1 on the
912ULS. Eng w/gearbox weight is 124.8, not including accessories.
| The 914 UL2 makes 100 hp at 5500 rpm continuous (115 hp at 5800 5
min max)
| with a Bore: 79.5 Stroke: 61 mm. Displacement: 1211 cu.cm
(Compression: 9:1
| Engine Weight: ~167 lbs
| So if you add a similar sized turbo to a 912s what kinda power will
you get?
I can't answer that question. However, I, as well as John W, have
discovered we do not need a turbo to get more power from the 912ULS,
even at altitudes up to 15,000 feet.
| 912 goes from 80 to 100 (115 takeoff) so would a 912s go from 95 to
115 with
| 130 takeoff.
Don't know that either.
At a weight of around 170 pounds that would be a decent
| engine. Add fuel injection while your at it and you have a real
engine!
For those of us with some "decent" hours flying with the 912UL and the
912ULS, we "know" we have a great engine. Would be extremely nice to
have fuel inject, and I believe that we will see this improvement
soon.
BTW my max continuous cruise with the 912ULS is 95 hp @ 5,500 rpm,
compared to 100 hp on the 914 at same rpm. The degradation of power
at altitude has not presented a problem to those that fly regularly
over the Rockies, and other mountain ranges.
Take care,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
| Subject: | Kolb vs. Titan, Airaile |
Mike Deegan wrote: << Could anyone contrast and compare the M3X with
the Titan II and the RANS S-12 Airaile? I prefer the looks of the Kolb
to either of these and the wing folding feature is good, but the
taildragger aspect worries me a bit... Thanks. >>
Hi, Mike -
Welcome to the List! You'll discover a wealth of info from the members
here.
Before I purchased my Mark-III kit, I visited Randy Schlitter's RANS factory
in Hays, Kansas and flew with him in his 912-powered S-12 demonstrator.
Nice plane, but I preferred the taildragger aspect of our Kolbs. The RANS
kits have "prettier" hardware (like the brackets, rudder pedals, control
horns, bellcranks, handles, etc.), which may suggest quality parts and good
attention to details. Flies just like you'd expect a nosewheel Mark-3 to
behave - very easy to fly. Construction is similar to a Kolb (aluminum tube
& fabric). I think the S-12 is about 10 mph faster than a
similarly-equipped Mark-III, because it is a bit more aerodynamically clean.
But it's not as STOL-capable as the Mark-III, which is another feature I
prefer on the Kolb. Everything is a tradeoff. The mild taildragger manners
of a Kolb make 'em easy to master - not like many other tailwheel airplanes
that are squirrly or difficult to control.
But regardless of all those niceties on the RANS, my choice was more
influenced by the wing-fold and transportability ease of our Kolbs, the
robust quality of the Kolb kits, and the structural crashworthiness (read
SAFETY) inherent in the Kolb design. And, Kolb Factory support is without
doubt the best in the business! (see my List post of 6 Dec 05).
I have no experience with the Titan, other than I know they are all metal
and are a helluva lot faster than a Kolb on the same power. But again, the
tradeoff is: it is way less STOL than a Kolb. (John Williamson's flying
buddy Ken just finished a Tornado - maybe John can offer some direct
comparisons with a Kolbra!)
Pick the Mark-III. I love mine - no regrets that I didn't purchase
something else.
Dennis Kirby
s/n M3-300, 1996 model, 912ul, 37.7 hrs total time, in
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 914 turbo + 912uls=how much power |
|I wonder if someone
| were to buy the 914 would be getting the old engine with a turbo on
it ?
| Michael Bigelow
Michael B/Gang:
The 914 is based on the 912UL engine. No change to basic 912UL. Only
difference between 912UL and 914 is the addition of turbo and
supporting hardware.
The 912ULS is the result of user testing for many years. As of
January 2000, it was the result of 7,000 912 engines and 13 years user
testing. It is a huskier cleaned up 912 with more displacement and
compression. The 912 was a great engine. I put 1135 hour on mine
before I got a chance to trade it for a 912ULS. Had no problems with
the 912. It was 20% more economical that the 912ULS, ran a lot
cooler, and both are equally reliable. My new 912ULS now has 1,098.1
hours on it. Runs as good as new.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Monument Valley 2006 |
Hello All,
I have been looking into the 2006 flying season and need to know if there is
any interest in another Kolb Gathering at Monument Valley.
It looks like 19-21 May should be the proper time to get together at
Monument Valley.
23-24 May would also be a good time to gather on the floor of the Alvord
Desert again if anyone is interested.
I am planning on being at both places then on out to the Oregon coast, then
fly south along the California coast before coming back home.
If I have missed anyone in the address line, please pass this information on
to them and as always, invite whoever you would like to gather with us.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolb Kolbra, Rotax 912ULS, 1006 hours
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1
kolbrapilot2(at)comcast.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley 2006 |
| I'm new to the list, but am getting the impression that this is a
| regular/yearly thing for kolbers?
Yep, we do it every year. Started the first Unplanned/Unorganized
Kolb Flyin three years ago. The 2006 MV Flyin will be number 4.
"Do you fly up there or do you trailer?"
I never trailer. Some folks do trailer in.
Come any way you desire. This is a very informal get together of some
great folks, not including me. ;-)
| Also, I can't seem to access any of the links on your site, they all
give me
| "page not found".
Don't know what to tell you about the links. They work for me.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)AOL.COM |
John,
I wonder how ,or if it changed the flight characteristics top speed etc
Ed (in Houston).
In a message dated 12/4/2005 9:32:54 A.M. Central
Standard Time, jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com writes:
Group,
Yesterday, I flew for the first time after raising the engine up a full
inch, leaving a 2 inch gap between the prop tip and the boom tube. It
was noticeably quieter, than with only 1 inch of clearance.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 12/4/2005 10:09:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
gittj(at)earthlink.net writes:
Trailer is fine but you need two people and it is a pain and some times
hard to find that other person to help out . Aviation needs to make a
nother step forward, in a new designe . Kolb is a great little plane i
really enjoy mine but it sure would be nice to drive it home ,not paying hanger
rent and work on it when i had time at home . For what it's worth! {
Dreamer } Larry
Larry,
I have never had anyone to help me with my Firefly folding. Care must
be taken but it can be done by yourself if its not to windy and you make a few
fixtures to protect the ends of the wings.
Ed
******** Do Not Archive **********
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Ed and Group,
I flew for more than a year with the engine raised 3/4 inch, and never
noticed any difference in flight characteristics or top speed.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
On Dec 9, 2005, at 12:56 AM, Kolb-List Digest Server wrote:
>
>
> John,
>
> I wonder how ,or if it changed the flight characteristics top
> speed etc
>
> Ed (in Houston).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley 2006 |
Um, I don't think the Welsh are a "race"... besides, the word is
"welch"...>>
Hi Robert,
hmm? Well, as the Welsh border is only about 30 miles from where I live
I am not going to risk the Welsh starting their raiding into England again
just to get at me if I annoy them I will leave that question alone.
On the spelling......my Oxford Dictionary gives `Welch. Old spelling of
Welsh retained in the name Royal Wech Fusiliers.
My Longmans Contemporary English gives " welsh, welch. to avoid payment. as
in 1 `he welshed on his bet` 2 to break ones word or promise. 3 she welshed
on her promise`
USAGE. This verb is considered offensive by Welsh people.
You made me look it up though.
Cheers
Pat
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | English lessons ;-) |
Next thing you know that bloody Brit will try to tell us that airplane
is supposed to be spelled "AEROplane"!!!
(Tongue firmly and squarely planted in my cheek ;-)
As someone once said, "The U.S. and the U.K., 2 countries separated by a
common language...
Jeremy "occasional visitor to the U.K." Casey
My Longmans Contemporary English gives " welsh, welch. to avoid
payment. as
in 1 `he welshed on his bet` 2 to break ones word or promise. 3 she
welshed
on her promise`
USAGE. This verb is considered offensive by Welsh people.
You made me look it up though.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart(at)inebraska.com> |
| Subject: | 912 vs 912S question |
91 is as good as it gets around here.
J.D.
>
>
> JD,
>
> Were you using 91 or 93 octane autogas with the 912 ULS?
>
> Jim
>
> Jim Pellien
> Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
> www.MASPL.com
> 703-313-4818
> jim(at)sportsplanes.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | 912 vs 912S question |
J.D. I think he was trying to compare speed to speed, not RPM to RPM.
The 912S turning the same RPM as the 912 should be going faster (i.e.
doing more work) hence certainly should burn more gas. Do you remember
what speed the 912 was doing at say 4900 and then compare what rpm the
912S has to turn to get the same speed (should be less RPM's...I think
the question is if it will be less GPH)
Jeremy Casey
-----Original Message-----
From: J.D. Stewart [mailto:jstewart(at)inebraska.com]
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 912 vs 912S question
On my Titan SS, I started with a 912 for the first 6 hours, then
switched
over to a 912S, so I can offer a good comparison. Same plane, same rpm
(4800~4900), I was getting 3.8gph with the 912, and am using 4.8gph with
the
912S. It didn't hurt that the 912 used regular gas either, especially
with
the cost of gas now.
J.D. Stewart
UltraFun AirSports, LLC
http://www.ultrafunairsports.com
Challenger e-mail list
http://challenger.inebraska.com
Titan e-mail list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Titanaircraft/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 vs 912S question |
| (4800~4900), I was getting 3.8gph with the 912, and am using 4.8gph
with the
| 912S. It didn't hurt that the 912 used regular gas either,
especially with
| the cost of gas now.
|
| J.D. Stewart
JD S/John J/Gang:
Looks good to me.
my 912UL on MKIII at 5,000 rpm burned 4.0 gph
my 912ULS on the same MKIII at 5,000 rpm burns 5.0 gph
I didn't find out about the 912 using a minimum of 87 octane fuel
until the weekend I traded it in to Ronnie Smith and attended the 912
school during the same weekend. Eric Tucker gave us that info after
flying with 93 octane for 1,135 hours, when I could have been running
the cheap stuff. Plugs last half as long in the 912S as the 912,
also.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 vs 912S question |
| Were you using 91 or 93 octane autogas with the 912 ULS?
|
| Jim
Jim/All:
Minimum octane fuel for 912ULS is 91 octane. Kinda hard to find any
place I have been in lower 48, canada, and alaska, so I opt for 93
when available. When not, I got for what the FBO sells, 100LL.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 vs 912S question |
> | Were you using 91 or 93 octane autogas with the 912 ULS?
>|
>| Jim
>
>Jim/All:
>
>Minimum octane fuel for 912ULS is 91 octane. Kinda hard to find any
>place I have been in lower 48, canada, and alaska, so I opt for 93
>when available. When not, I got for what the FBO sells, 100LL.
>
>john h
Hey John,
that's interesting, I was thinking about a 912ULS for my next project if it
should ever come to pass, but now that you mention this I might want to
stick with a 912 (so I can use the cheaper 87 octane gas)...
Also, why is the plug life shorter on the S?
Thanks,
LS
N646F
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 vs 912S question |
| Also, why is the plug life shorter on the S?
| LS
LS/All:
If I remember correctly from Eric Tucker and the 912 School, it is
because of the higher compression ratio, 10.5 to over the 912UL 9.5 to
1. 912ULS runs hotter and is harder on plugs. That is about all the
info I have on that subject. Based on 1,098.1 hours on my 912ULS,
they are ready to come out at 100 hours. I have pushed them to 125
hours, as I did the 912 to 225 hours, just to see what they would do.
No change in performance when replaced with new plugs in either model
as far as I could determine.
john h
PS: The extra power of the 912ULS is a kick in the ass over the 912.
Nice to have that extra power, even if I have to pay more for it. ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thrust line change |
|We will be changing the thrust angle to
| see if it helps. | Richard Pike
Richard P/Gang:
Experimentation was done on my Firestar and MKIII with little if no
change. Not enough to really notice. Changed vertical and horizontal
orientation of engine.
Also experimented with changing the leading edge of the upper vertical
stabilizer with not enough change to warrant messing with it.
Designed and fabricated adjustable forward horizontal stabilizer
mounts. Experimented with different settings to find the "sweet spot"
for my airplane.
The one thing I try to do on my airplane is keep the engine and thrust
line as low as possible. The more power available to me, the more I
want the thrust line low. I am no aerodynamic design engineer, but I
believe the more the engine is moved from the center of mass on a
pusher, the more power it is robbing to fly the aircraft. Imagine
what a 40 inch off set would do to my MKIII if it was horizontal, and
not vertical. Actually, the thrust line on my airplane is 36.75"
inches from the top of the tail boom. I don't know where the center
of mass is on my airplane. This gives me .75" clearance between prop
tips and tail boom. Yes, the 72" prop seems to be louder in the
cockpit than the previous 70" prop I was flying. The 70" prop gave me
1.75" clearance between prop tip and tail boom. Rather have less
noise and more performance, but the pusher configuration on the Kolbs
doesn't work that way.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 vs 912S question |
| > my 912UL on MKIII at 5,000 rpm burned 4.0 gph
|
| At what airspeed?
|
| > my 912ULS on the same MKIII at 5,000 rpm burns 5.0 gph
|
| At what airspeed?
Snuffy/Gang:
I don't know. About the same. Maybe a little faster with the 912ULS.
I'll say 80 mph for the 912UL and 88 for the 912ULS.
Time is flying by so fast I can't keep up with it. Heck, been flying
the 912ULS 6 years this Spring.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thrust line change |
First line of previous should have read, "little or no" instead of
"little if no" change.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Thrust line change |
Agree with all you say, and we also have the prop tips (68" prop)
less than 1" from the tube... but here's the situation - have noticed
a difference in trim change with power settings, higher power
requires more back stick, less power and the noses rises a bit, and
since we are way over powered relative to the original design
parameters - since we are using a 582 - and what was the
Firestar originally designed for - a 447? (I really don't know) ...
Anyway, here's my question:
Are we more concerned with center of mass or center of drag? And
which is more important? The thrust line relative to the center of
mass or drag? I would think drag, at high speeds and high thrust situations.
If all the thrust you have to work with is coming from a 447 or a
503, and it is relative to the center of drag instead of mass, I
wonder if you have enough thrust available to get outside of what
Homer and Dennis originally designed the Firsetar to have, and
therefore, changing the thrust line with those engines (447/503)
would not amount to much -
On the other hand, with a 582, now you have more thrust than the
designers planned for, so is it possible to adjust the handling
characteristics for those situations which are now outside the
original parameters by changing the thrust line? Don't know. But
since all it takes is two bolts 3/8" longer than original, and a
handful of flat washers, I guess we'll find out... Stay tuned, film
at eleven...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
At 06:43 PM 12/9/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>|We will be changing the thrust angle to
>| see if it helps. | Richard Pike
>
>Richard P/Gang:
>
>Experimentation was done on my Firestar and MKIII with little if no
>change. Not enough to really notice. Changed vertical and horizontal
>orientation of engine.
>
>Also experimented with changing the leading edge of the upper vertical
>stabilizer with not enough change to warrant messing with it.
>
>Designed and fabricated adjustable forward horizontal stabilizer
>mounts. Experimented with different settings to find the "sweet spot"
>for my airplane.
>
>The one thing I try to do on my airplane is keep the engine and thrust
>line as low as possible. The more power available to me, the more I
>want the thrust line low. I am no aerodynamic design engineer, but I
>believe the more the engine is moved from the center of mass on a
>pusher, the more power it is robbing to fly the aircraft. Imagine
>what a 40 inch off set would do to my MKIII if it was horizontal, and
>not vertical. Actually, the thrust line on my airplane is 36.75"
>inches from the top of the tail boom. I don't know where the center
>of mass is on my airplane. This gives me .75" clearance between prop
>tips and tail boom. Yes, the 72" prop seems to be louder in the
>cockpit than the previous 70" prop I was flying. The 70" prop gave me
>1.75" clearance between prop tip and tail boom. Rather have less
>noise and more performance, but the pusher configuration on the Kolbs
>doesn't work that way.
>
>john h
>MKIII/912ULS
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Thrust line change |
In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:13:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
richard(at)bcchapel.org writes:
Are we more concerned with center of mass or center of drag? And
which is more important? The thrust line relative to the center of
mass or drag? I would think drag, at high speeds and high thrust situations.
If all the thrust you have to work with is coming from a 447 or a
503, and it is relative to the center of drag instead of mass, I
wonder if you have enough thrust available to get outside of what
Homer and Dennis originally designed the Firsetar to have, and
therefore, changing the thrust line with those engines (447/503)
would not amount to much -
On the other hand, with a 582, now you have more thrust than the
designers planned for, so is it possible to adjust the handling
characteristics for those situations which are now outside the
original parameters by changing the thrust line? Don't know. But
since all it takes is two bolts 3/8" longer than original, and a
handful of flat washers, I guess we'll find out... Stay tuned, film
at eleven...
There is a seaplane that has the engine mounted very high in a pod on a pylon
[I think it may be called a "Lake"]. To offset the very high thrust line,
the engine is tilted to give up-
thrust looks like about 20 degrees [this from memory].
We too have done some experimenting with various thrust angles with little
results, but maybe we didn't go far enough. Maybe we needed to go twice as far
as we did..............
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Thrust line change |
>>>To offset the very high thrust line,
>>>the engine is tilted to give up-
>>>thrust looks like about 20 degrees [this from memory].
According to Thurston ( designer of the Teal, which is the root of the Lake
design) the cruciform tail was used to place it in the propwash, and the
lift on the tail varies directly with power input to counter pitching
effects due to power changes. I think you will find that the thrust line on
these planes is lined up with the cruise attitude of the plane. Parked on
the water they will look like they are pointing upwards a fair bit but when
flying they will not.
If you did alter thrust line on your Kolb to try to get it in line with the
center of gravity , The pitching moment due to thrust is the thrust times
the moment arm to the cg, not the Aero center. (Drag adds its moment as
drag times its moment arm to the cg but it doesn't change with thrust
setting, only with speed.) To change the thrust moment arm significantly
would require so much angle to get the effect you want that it would be
terrible for prop efficiency ( not to mention result in yaw due to the
higher aoa and velocity on the prop on one side of the plane versus the
other, p-factor in cruise is a very bad thing). The engine is fairly close
to the CG front to back so you would have to tilt the engine many degrees to
reduce the thrust line moment arm significantly. If the engine was farther
back then only a bit of angle change would reduce the thrust moment arm much
more. If you raise the engine too much the plane will not have enough pitch
control to overcome the pitch due to thrust and you will not be able to
rotate or climb.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)AOL.COM |
In a message dated 12/9/2005 1:00:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ulpilot(at)cavtel.net writes:
I am interested in the ramp you have put in the center of the trailer. Do
you have a picture you could send me? I had a FS KXP that I kept in the
trailer and had to take the wheels off the trailer and raise the tongue in
order to prevent from scraping the LE of the folded wings when
unloading/loading down my ramp door.
Thanks
Jim Ballenger
Jim,
I built a dolly for my Firefly that cradles the tail wheel axle . It
raises the tail wheel about a foot or so. This gives good clearance at the back
where I need it most. The dolly holds the axle to where I can push the plane
up the incline of the tilted trailer. the dolly can be made to lift the tail
to what ever height you need. You might consider the advantage of using a
dolly to gain a little height. I couldn't make it without mine.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Firestar Hauling... |
Just when I thought I was smarter than the average bear and had this all
figured out...
I'm questioning my tail support...
What is the distance from the leading edge of the wing to the bottom of the
tail boom in the area forward of the tail with the wings folded?... If this
was answered before, I'm sorry, I can't find it now...
Less than two weeks before I pick her up, yeah, I'm excited!...
Thanx...
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
Jim, I'm not sure this is what you're looking for, but John Wood very neatly
solved the leading edge problem in the trailer I bought from him. I had to
modify it a bit to work with my truck, but it works very well. Take a look
at my web page: www.biglar.homestead.com/landing.html I also have a
winch in the front to pull my heavier Mk III up the slope.
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ballenger" <ulpilot(at)cavtel.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Trailers
>
> Chris
> I am interested in the ramp you have put in the center of the trailer. Do
> you have a picture you could send me? I had a FS KXP that I kept in the
> trailer and had to take the wheels off the trailer and raise the tongue in
> order to prevent from scraping the LE of the folded wings when
> unloading/loading down my ramp door.
> Thanks
> Jim Ballenger
> MK III X 582
> Virginia Beach, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Thrust line change |
Kolbers,
With the Victor 1+ belt reduction drive, it was possible to investigate what
would happen if the thrust line was lowered. Using the same propeller
setting and cruise rpm, the FireFly picked up about 0.6 mph for each inch
the thrust line was lowered. You can check out how it was done at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly56.html
Also, I made some assumptions and calculated the change in FireFly wing and
tail loads as the thrust line was changed. I guessed that the center of
drag passed through the trailing wing attachment point and I assumed a CG
near the aft limit. These calculations indicate that for level and for
flight under identical conditions, for every inch the thrust line was
lowered about one pound came off the wing and the tail. Also, if you move
the CG forward the forward limit, lowering the thrust line is more
productive.
How it was done can be seen at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly101.html
I guessed at the center drag position. It seems that if the Firefly is
symmetrical, the center of drag should be on the vertical center line. One
way to get a better first guess would be to draw up the scaled front view
profile, print it out on paper, cut out the profile and balance it on the
point of a pin along a vertical line through the central axis. The balance
point will be the center of flat plate drag. Scaling this point back up to
real size should give a first guess as to where the actual center of drag is
on the FireFly.
Drove by the airport. They have plowed the apron and runways, but they have
not plowed the taxi ways to and in between the hangars. The FireFly hangar
doors are snowed shut. So today, it might be a good day to draw a front
FireFly profile.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Thrust line change |
Got a question on your post, especially the last sentence -
physically raising the engine too much relative to the airframe will
obviously sooner or later get things to the point that the thrust
line moment would overpower the control authority of the elevators,
but I am considering shimming the rearmost motor mounts to raise the
prop end of the engine. The goal is to reduce the need to retrim
elevator pressure with changes in throttle settings.
My thinking is, when the forward end of the engine is too high
relative to the chordline of the wing, then the thrust line relative
to both the center of drag and the center of mass requires various
amounts of up elevator to counteract as throttle settings change.
Because the thrust is trying to push the nose down.
Raising the rear of the engine so that the thrust vector goes through
the chordline of the wing ought to give opposite results, and surely
does up to a point, but as I read your post, apparently you get to a
place where changing the thrust vector to improve elevator pressure
ceases to be helpful and only adds wierd side effects.
Or are you talking thrust moment arm, and I am applying it to thrust
vector angles? Or did I miss something? (Always likely...) Advice welcome -
Thanks
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
At 12:16 AM 12/10/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>The pitching moment due to thrust is the thrust times
>the moment arm to the cg, not the Aero center. (Drag adds its moment as
>drag times its moment arm to the cg but it doesn't change with thrust
>setting, only with speed.) To change the thrust moment arm significantly
>would require so much angle to get the effect you want that it would be
>terrible for prop efficiency ( not to mention result in yaw due to the
>higher aoa and velocity on the prop on one side of the plane versus the
>other, p-factor in cruise is a very bad thing). The engine is fairly close
>to the CG front to back so you would have to tilt the engine many degrees to
>reduce the thrust line moment arm significantly. If the engine was farther
>back then only a bit of angle change would reduce the thrust moment arm much
>more. If you raise the engine too much the plane will not have enough pitch
>control to overcome the pitch due to thrust and you will not be able to
>rotate or climb.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Thrust line change |
>
more. If you raise the engine too much the plane will not have enough pitch
>control to overcome the pitch due to thrust and you will not be able to
>rotate or climb.
Chris & Richard,
I have seen evidence of this with my FireFly. If I tease it off with three
degrees of flaperon and stick back against the stop, the FireFly will fly
off very nicely at minimum speed. But if I get aggressive with the throttle
while using the same stick back and flaperon setting, the FireFly will
accelerate well past minimum flight speed but it will not break loose until
I drop the throttle back.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | roger lee <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Thrust line change |
Hi All,
Just to let everyone know that Kolb has new horizontal stabilizer brackets that
have a 4 position adjustment set up for trim. These new brackets take the place
of the old stainless steel "L" brackets up front on the horizontal stabilizer.
I just ordered a set so I will let you all know very soon. Right now I have
to use too much trim to keep the nose of my Mark III Classic level. My nose
wants to pitch down with the way they have it set up now.
Roger Lee
Tucson, AZ
Richard Pike wrote:
Got a question on your post, especially the last sentence -
physically raising the engine too much relative to the airframe will
obviously sooner or later get things to the point that the thrust
line moment would overpower the control authority of the elevators,
but I am considering shimming the rearmost motor mounts to raise the
prop end of the engine. The goal is to reduce the need to retrim
elevator pressure with changes in throttle settings.
My thinking is, when the forward end of the engine is too high
relative to the chordline of the wing, then the thrust line relative
to both the center of drag and the center of mass requires various
amounts of up elevator to counteract as throttle settings change.
Because the thrust is trying to push the nose down.
Raising the rear of the engine so that the thrust vector goes through
the chordline of the wing ought to give opposite results, and surely
does up to a point, but as I read your post, apparently you get to a
place where changing the thrust vector to improve elevator pressure
ceases to be helpful and only adds wierd side effects.
Or are you talking thrust moment arm, and I am applying it to thrust
vector angles? Or did I miss something? (Always likely...) Advice welcome -
Thanks
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
At 12:16 AM 12/10/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>The pitching moment due to thrust is the thrust times
>the moment arm to the cg, not the Aero center. (Drag adds its moment as
>drag times its moment arm to the cg but it doesn't change with thrust
>setting, only with speed.) To change the thrust moment arm significantly
>would require so much angle to get the effect you want that it would be
>terrible for prop efficiency ( not to mention result in yaw due to the
>higher aoa and velocity on the prop on one side of the plane versus the
>other, p-factor in cruise is a very bad thing). The engine is fairly close
>to the CG front to back so you would have to tilt the engine many degrees to
>reduce the thrust line moment arm significantly. If the engine was farther
>back then only a bit of angle change would reduce the thrust moment arm much
>more. If you raise the engine too much the plane will not have enough pitch
>control to overcome the pitch due to thrust and you will not be able to
>rotate or climb.
>
>
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Thrust line change |
Just changing the thrust angle itself does not change the pitching moment
due to thrust, you must change the thrust moment arm to the cg. If you
moved the engine up and tilted it at the same time to keep a constant moment
arm to the cg then there would be no pitching moment due to thrust change.
Tilting alone will change the pitching moment due to thrust by however much
the moment arm changes. Unfortunately the cg of a Kolb is close to the
engine. On a plane with the engine ten feet from the cg you could get a big
change by tilting the engine a bit, but on a Kolb it is maybe 2 feet away.
So spinning the engine a bit does not change the moment arm much. If the
engine were on the cg then you could spin it all over and it would not
change PM at all. There would be no pitching moment due to thrust! Course
if you pointed the engine straight up (thrust straight down) there would be
no thrust in the direction that you want either! In cruise flight you want
the thrust pointed directly forward. If you don't then you end up shoving
the plane sideways (well downways) through the air. If the plane is being
shoved downwards through the air the wing and tail will be at different
angles of attack and their contributions to pitching moment will change. So
even if you didn't get a change in pitching moment due to thrust, turning
the engine will result in a different total pitching moment, due to the
wing, tail and fuselage going through the wind at a slightly different
angle.
All of you know you don't want to fly around in a sideslip, cause the plane
just flys bad. Well you don't want to fly around with downslip or upslip
either. The plane will be inefficient. The fuselage is designed (term used
loosely when referring to a Kolb fuselage, they basically are cages that fit
around the people and hard points, not very aerodynamic!) to fly through the
air at cruise at a specific angle, and the wings, engine and tail are
mounted on the fuselage to let the fuselage to fly at that angle in cruise,
and the prop is designed to be perpendicular to the wind at that angle. If
you tilt the engine more then a few degrees all of this will get screwed up
and the plane will downslip or upslip. Would you fly around with the engine
tilted to one side more then about 3 degrees, and force the plane to fly
around in a sideslip? I don't think so.
Christopher Armstrong
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Pike
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Thrust line change
Got a question on your post, especially the last sentence -
physically raising the engine too much relative to the airframe will
obviously sooner or later get things to the point that the thrust
line moment would overpower the control authority of the elevators,
but I am considering shimming the rearmost motor mounts to raise the
prop end of the engine. The goal is to reduce the need to retrim
elevator pressure with changes in throttle settings.
My thinking is, when the forward end of the engine is too high
relative to the chordline of the wing, then the thrust line relative
to both the center of drag and the center of mass requires various
amounts of up elevator to counteract as throttle settings change.
Because the thrust is trying to push the nose down.
Raising the rear of the engine so that the thrust vector goes through
the chordline of the wing ought to give opposite results, and surely
does up to a point, but as I read your post, apparently you get to a
place where changing the thrust vector to improve elevator pressure
ceases to be helpful and only adds wierd side effects.
Or are you talking thrust moment arm, and I am applying it to thrust
vector angles? Or did I miss something? (Always likely...) Advice welcome -
Thanks
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
At 12:16 AM 12/10/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>The pitching moment due to thrust is the thrust times
>the moment arm to the cg, not the Aero center. (Drag adds its moment as
>drag times its moment arm to the cg but it doesn't change with thrust
>setting, only with speed.) To change the thrust moment arm significantly
>would require so much angle to get the effect you want that it would be
>terrible for prop efficiency ( not to mention result in yaw due to the
>higher aoa and velocity on the prop on one side of the plane versus the
>other, p-factor in cruise is a very bad thing). The engine is fairly close
>to the CG front to back so you would have to tilt the engine many degrees
to
>reduce the thrust line moment arm significantly. If the engine was farther
>back then only a bit of angle change would reduce the thrust moment arm
much
>more. If you raise the engine too much the plane will not have enough
pitch
>control to overcome the pitch due to thrust and you will not be able to
>rotate or climb.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Ballenger" <ulpilot(at)cavtel.net> |
| Subject: | ROTAX 582 JET NEEDLE ADJUSTMENT/RADIATOR TIPS/ELECTRIC VEST |
TESTIMONIAL
All
A couple of weeks ago when the weather got cold here in Virginia I had trouble
getting a satisfactory mag check. The manual states to run up to 3500 rpm and
check each mag for no more than 300 rpm drop. During the hot summer months I
was able to get good mag check with my needle set in the lowest position on my
582 blue head. When the temperature dropped into the upper thirties/lower forties
I could not get my engine to turn more than 3000 rpm before it would bog
down. I used the choke and it would turn up to 4000 rpm. Armed with that information
I called Lockwood Aviation and they advised me to raise the needle
in the carbs. I put my clip in the third notch from the top and it runs great.
This is the first water cooled 2 stroke rotax I have owned and I am finding it
somewhat different to tune than my prior 277/377/447 air cooled engines. I have
also found out in the cold weather that I needed to install about 4 " of aluminum
sheeting on the face of each radiator to keep the water temperature at
least 150 degrees. This morning the OAT was 32 and I was able to keep my water
temp at 152 with 5800 rpm.
Since I have an electrical system on the MK III X and I had an electric vest left
over from my motorcycling days, I took John Hauck's advise and hooked up the
vest to the battery. What a great easy way to stay warm without all the hassles
of installing a heater system. With the thermostat on 0/1 position I was
warm and my voltage meter indicated a 13.2 volts so the vest did not take prevent
the battery from being charged while I was flying. Thanks John.
Jim Ballenger
MK III X 582
Virginia Beach, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Thrust line change |
OK, we are on the same page. What you said is what I thought, so we
agree. Question is, if the plane is in an upslip or downslip, then I
would think a throttle setting change would change the stick pressure
needed to maintain level flight -
Consequently, what we need to do is accurately determine the angle of
the wing relative to the airflow at level cruise. This could likely
be done using a level and a set of marks, etc. Once this is properly
determined, then we determine if the prop is vertical. Then we go from there.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
At 04:14 PM 12/10/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>Just changing the thrust angle itself does not change the pitching moment
>due to thrust, you must change the thrust moment arm to the cg. If you
>moved the engine up and tilted it at the same time to keep a constant moment
>arm to the cg then there would be no pitching moment due to thrust change.
>Tilting alone will change the pitching moment due to thrust by however much
>the moment arm changes. Unfortunately the cg of a Kolb is close to the
>engine. On a plane with the engine ten feet from the cg you could get a big
>change by tilting the engine a bit, but on a Kolb it is maybe 2 feet away.
>So spinning the engine a bit does not change the moment arm much. If the
>engine were on the cg then you could spin it all over and it would not
>change PM at all. There would be no pitching moment due to thrust! Course
>if you pointed the engine straight up (thrust straight down) there would be
>no thrust in the direction that you want either! In cruise flight you want
>the thrust pointed directly forward. If you don't then you end up shoving
>the plane sideways (well downways) through the air. If the plane is being
>shoved downwards through the air the wing and tail will be at different
>angles of attack and their contributions to pitching moment will change. So
>even if you didn't get a change in pitching moment due to thrust, turning
>the engine will result in a different total pitching moment, due to the
>wing, tail and fuselage going through the wind at a slightly different
>angle.
>
>All of you know you don't want to fly around in a sideslip, cause the plane
>just flys bad. Well you don't want to fly around with downslip or upslip
>either. The plane will be inefficient. The fuselage is designed (term used
>loosely when referring to a Kolb fuselage, they basically are cages that fit
>around the people and hard points, not very aerodynamic!) to fly through the
>air at cruise at a specific angle, and the wings, engine and tail are
>mounted on the fuselage to let the fuselage to fly at that angle in cruise,
>and the prop is designed to be perpendicular to the wind at that angle. If
>you tilt the engine more then a few degrees all of this will get screwed up
>and the plane will downslip or upslip. Would you fly around with the engine
>tilted to one side more then about 3 degrees, and force the plane to fly
>around in a sideslip? I don't think so.
>
>
>Christopher Armstrong
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Pike
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Thrust line change
>
>
>Got a question on your post, especially the last sentence -
>physically raising the engine too much relative to the airframe will
>obviously sooner or later get things to the point that the thrust
>line moment would overpower the control authority of the elevators,
>but I am considering shimming the rearmost motor mounts to raise the
>prop end of the engine. The goal is to reduce the need to retrim
>elevator pressure with changes in throttle settings.
>
>My thinking is, when the forward end of the engine is too high
>relative to the chordline of the wing, then the thrust line relative
>to both the center of drag and the center of mass requires various
>amounts of up elevator to counteract as throttle settings change.
>Because the thrust is trying to push the nose down.
>
>Raising the rear of the engine so that the thrust vector goes through
>the chordline of the wing ought to give opposite results, and surely
>does up to a point, but as I read your post, apparently you get to a
>place where changing the thrust vector to improve elevator pressure
>ceases to be helpful and only adds wierd side effects.
>
>Or are you talking thrust moment arm, and I am applying it to thrust
>vector angles? Or did I miss something? (Always likely...) Advice welcome -
>
>Thanks
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>At 12:16 AM 12/10/2005, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >The pitching moment due to thrust is the thrust times
> >the moment arm to the cg, not the Aero center. (Drag adds its moment as
> >drag times its moment arm to the cg but it doesn't change with thrust
> >setting, only with speed.) To change the thrust moment arm significantly
> >would require so much angle to get the effect you want that it would be
> >terrible for prop efficiency ( not to mention result in yaw due to the
> >higher aoa and velocity on the prop on one side of the plane versus the
> >other, p-factor in cruise is a very bad thing). The engine is fairly close
> >to the CG front to back so you would have to tilt the engine many degrees
>to
> >reduce the thrust line moment arm significantly. If the engine was farther
> >back then only a bit of angle change would reduce the thrust moment arm
>much
> >more. If you raise the engine too much the plane will not have enough
>pitch
> >control to overcome the pitch due to thrust and you will not be able to
> >rotate or climb.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thrust line change |
| Once this is properly
| determined, then we determine if the prop is vertical. Then we go
from there.
|
| Richard Pike
Richard/Gang:
Another factor you must determine is how much the pitch attitude the
engine is going to change from dead engine on the ground to cruise
power in the air. The Lord Mounts will allow the engine to push down
some in the front and up some in the rear. Will also cock the engine
a little as the result of torque. I never realized how much until I
was observing the 447 on my Firestar, tied down and increasing and
decreasing power. The engine changes attitude from stop to different
power settings quite a bit, thus thrust angle.
I've started playing around with this way back in FS days.
For the MKIII with 912ULS, I raise the front of the engine 5/8". This
puts the angle of the prop 90 deg to the bottom of the wing when the
engine is off. Just guessing, but I figure the rear of the engine is
going to come up a bit and the front down just a tad under cruise
power, or about right to give me a thrust line that is parallel to
relative wind. I check this with my old eye ball by looking at the
wing tip in relation to the horizon in straight and level flight at
cruise power. Is it exact? I doubt it, but I think it is more in
line with what I am looking for than leaving the engine level on the
engine mounts as designed.
A good example of what our Kolbs are doing when we push the throttle
forward with an engine at high thrust line is about the same, to me,
as pushing a lawn mower in thick grass with small wheels. The harder
we push horizontally on the high position of the handle, the more the
front wheels of the mower get loaded up and the lighter the rear
wheels, to the point of them coming right off the lawn and tipping up
the rear. I believe that is exactly what we are experiencing with our
Kolbs. Do I have numbers, diagrams, bell curves, slide rules, and
backing by Kolb Aircraft? Nope. Just a lot of hours flying,
tinkering, experimenting, and playing with my Kolbs.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thrust line change |
| What would you say the angle of the bottom of your wing is relative
| to the horizon while in straight and level flight?
|
| Richard Pike
Richard P/Gang:
Heck, what ever is the normal angle of attack at 85mph straight and
level. 3 or 4 degs??
About the same angle as a B-52 approach. ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | ROTAX 582 JET NEEDLE ADJUSTMENT/RADIATOR TIPS/ELECTRIC |
VEST TESTI
The main difference with the 582 in terms of jetting is due to the rotary
intake valve instead of the piston-skirt induction of the aircooled motors -
this causes one of the cylinders to run slightly leaner than the other one.
On the 618, which also used the rotary valve, the difference was enough that
the carbs actually had to be jetted differently.
On the 582, though, the difference isn't enough to require different jets in
each carb, but the technique is to jet both a bit rich overall so the lean
cylinder runs rich enough. So, unlike on the aircooled motors, you've got a
bit narrower of a range of mixture to play with before you're too lean on
the one cylinder or too rich on the other. This makes it a bit harder to get
the jetting just right. But the rotax recommended jetting for your altitude
and temp gets you pretty close....
LS
N646F
>All
>
>A couple of weeks ago when the weather got cold here in Virginia I had
>trouble getting a satisfactory mag check. The manual states to run up to
>3500 rpm and check each mag for no more than 300 rpm drop. During the hot
>summer months I was able to get good mag check with my needle set in the
>lowest position on my 582 blue head. When the temperature dropped into the
>upper thirties/lower forties I could not get my engine to turn more than
>3000 rpm before it would bog down. I used the choke and it would turn up
>to 4000 rpm. Armed with that information I called Lockwood Aviation and
>they advised me to raise the needle in the carbs. I put my clip in the
>third notch from the top and it runs great.
>
>This is the first water cooled 2 stroke rotax I have owned and I am finding
>it somewhat different to tune than my prior 277/377/447 air cooled engines.
> I have also found out in the cold weather that I needed to install about
>4 " of aluminum sheeting on the face of each radiator to keep the water
>temperature at least 150 degrees. This morning the OAT was 32 and I was
>able to keep my water temp at 152 with 5800 rpm.
>
>Since I have an electrical system on the MK III X and I had an electric
>vest left over from my motorcycling days, I took John Hauck's advise and
>hooked up the vest to the battery. What a great easy way to stay warm
>without all the hassles of installing a heater system. With the thermostat
>on 0/1 position I was warm and my voltage meter indicated a 13.2 volts so
>the vest did not take prevent the battery from being charged while I was
>flying. Thanks John.
>
>Jim Ballenger
>MK III X 582
>Virginia Beach, VA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ROTAX 582 JET NEEDLE ADJUSTMENT/RADIATOR TIPS/ELECTRIC |
VEST TESTI
| The main difference with the 582 in terms of jetting is due to the
rotary
| intake valve instead of the piston-skirt induction of the aircooled
motors -
|
| LS
Morning LS/Gang:
Could you explain "piston-skirt indiction" please.
Thanks,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Ballenger" <ulpilot(at)cavtel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ROTAX 582 JET NEEDLE ADJUSTMENT/RADIATOR TIPS/ELECTRIC |
VEST TESTI
LS
Thanks for the info.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: ROTAX 582 JET NEEDLE ADJUSTMENT/RADIATOR
TIPS/ELECTRIC VEST TESTI
>
>
> The main difference with the 582 in terms of jetting is due to the rotary
> intake valve instead of the piston-skirt induction of the aircooled
> motors -
> this causes one of the cylinders to run slightly leaner than the other
> one.
> On the 618, which also used the rotary valve, the difference was enough
> that
> the carbs actually had to be jetted differently.
>
> On the 582, though, the difference isn't enough to require different jets
> in
> each carb, but the technique is to jet both a bit rich overall so the lean
> cylinder runs rich enough. So, unlike on the aircooled motors, you've got
> a
> bit narrower of a range of mixture to play with before you're too lean on
> the one cylinder or too rich on the other. This makes it a bit harder to
> get
> the jetting just right. But the rotax recommended jetting for your
> altitude
> and temp gets you pretty close....
>
> LS
> N646F
>
>
>>All
>>
>>A couple of weeks ago when the weather got cold here in Virginia I had
>>trouble getting a satisfactory mag check. The manual states to run up to
>>3500 rpm and check each mag for no more than 300 rpm drop. During the hot
>>summer months I was able to get good mag check with my needle set in the
>>lowest position on my 582 blue head. When the temperature dropped into
>>the
>>upper thirties/lower forties I could not get my engine to turn more than
>>3000 rpm before it would bog down. I used the choke and it would turn up
>>to 4000 rpm. Armed with that information I called Lockwood Aviation and
>>they advised me to raise the needle in the carbs. I put my clip in the
>>third notch from the top and it runs great.
>>
>>This is the first water cooled 2 stroke rotax I have owned and I am
>>finding
>>it somewhat different to tune than my prior 277/377/447 air cooled
>>engines.
>> I have also found out in the cold weather that I needed to install about
>>4 " of aluminum sheeting on the face of each radiator to keep the water
>>temperature at least 150 degrees. This morning the OAT was 32 and I was
>>able to keep my water temp at 152 with 5800 rpm.
>>
>>Since I have an electrical system on the MK III X and I had an electric
>>vest left over from my motorcycling days, I took John Hauck's advise and
>>hooked up the vest to the battery. What a great easy way to stay warm
>>without all the hassles of installing a heater system. With the
>>thermostat
>>on 0/1 position I was warm and my voltage meter indicated a 13.2 volts so
>>the vest did not take prevent the battery from being charged while I was
>>flying. Thanks John.
>>
>>Jim Ballenger
>>MK III X 582
>>Virginia Beach, VA
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ROTAX 582 JET NEEDLE ADJUSTMENT/RADIATOR TIPS/ELECTRIC |
VEST TESTI
Hey all,
This is where the skirt of the piston acts as the intake valve. On the
aircooled rotaxen, the intake ports are lower in the sleeve (and on the
other side) than the exhaust ports. As the piston goes up, the skirt clears
the port, causing an opening into the crankcase - the vacuum from the
upgoing piston pulls the air/fuel mixture in in the familiar way. On the
power stroke, the skirt blocks the port off closing it, allowing crankcase
pressure to build up for the exhaust stroke....
The 582 uses a mechanically driven rotary valve to control the intake, which
involves some extra machinery and complexity.
The advantage of the rotary valve, though, is very smooth running and broad
powerband. Sure enough, the 582 runs like a swiss watch... The piston skirt
induction motors are much simpler, but they tend to be peakier and behave
more "2-strokey"....
I still far prefer the simplicity of piston skirt induction.......
There are other induction methods for 2-strokes besides these, such as reed
valves and crankshaft induction (these are common on R/C 2-stroke motors)...
LS
N646F
>Morning LS/Gang:
>
>Could you explain "piston-skirt indiction" please.
>
>Thanks,
>
>john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David L. Bigelow" <dlbigelow(at)verizon.net> |
The pitching moment due to thrust is dependent on the distance the thrust line
is from the center of drag - not the CG. If the thrust line is right through
the center of drag, there will be no pitch moment up or down.
Can't show it here, but a vector diagram of an aircraft in equilibrium will illustrate
this fact. The center of drag of a high wing aircraft like a Kolb is
somewhere below and behind the center of lift of the wing. Because of the tail
boom, you cannot get the thrust line low enough on a Kolb to avoid a nose down
pitching moment when thrust is applied. Changing the thrust vector direction
by tilting the engine up or down will affect the equation somewhat, but not
enough to compensate for the loss of efficiency.
Best angle of the thrust line is about 6 degrees down from the chord of the wing.
This allows the aircraft to have all the thrust vector pointed parallel to
the airflow at a normal flying angle of attack of the aircraft, which is the
most efficient.
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, DCDI 503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi all,
Speaking of 912's... I'm starting to put feelers out for a low to mid-time
912 in good shape. The kolbra is looking like the #1 contender for my next
plane, so I'm looking for a 912 to power it. A new one is a little out of
reach at the moment, so a good used motor is what I'm looking for right now.
If anyone knows of a good deal, let me know....
Thanks,
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
12/12/2005 01:09:15 PM
Hey gang
I havent been paying close attention lately, so not sure if the word has
gotten out, but I recently sold my Mrk III and trailer to Robert Laird. I
have been working on an RV-7A project for the past year, and decided that
sooner or later I was going to have to give up my first love. Still a bit
sad about it, but will soon be receiving the engine for the RV, and am
getting very excited about that.
For all those who havent been, Monument Valley is a fantastic place to
fly, and Im proud to count myself as one of the original founders of what
now appears to be an annual tradition. Because of me, we all now know that
fly-bys of the restaurant balcony are frowned on by management! I hope to
see you all there in May 2006, but its going to be a bit to soon to take
the RV, so I'll be ground bound. I believe Robert is excited about MV as
well, so I expect you will be seeing him there in the future with a
familiar looking plane, although Im not sure about his 2006 plans
Best regards to all my Kolb friends
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: monument valley |
I'd like to thank Erich for his offering up his "baby" to me, and very
glad to finally own a Kolb. I took it for a romp around the pattern
on Saturday and, compared to what I was flying before, the Kolb is
nimble and quick... a real joy to fly.
As for Monument Valley, it's my _plan_ to be there, but there are two
problems: one is, my son will still be in school that weekend, so if
I make it, it would have to be solo; and, two, I've just started a new
job and it's still up in the air (no pun intended) whether I'll be
able to get the time off for that period.
But, if the gods favor idiots and fools, then I'll be there for certain!
-- Robert
On 12/12/05, Erich_Weaver(at)urscorp.com wrote:
>
> Hey gang
>
> I havent been paying close attention lately, so not sure if the word has
> gotten out, but I recently sold my Mrk III and trailer to Robert Laird. I
> have been working on an RV-7A project for the past year, and decided that
> sooner or later I was going to have to give up my first love. Still a bit
> sad about it, but will soon be receiving the engine for the RV, and am
> getting very excited about that.
>
> For all those who havent been, Monument Valley is a fantastic place to
> fly, and Im proud to count myself as one of the original founders of what
> now appears to be an annual tradition. Because of me, we all now know that
> fly-bys of the restaurant balcony are frowned on by management! I hope to
> see you all there in May 2006, but its going to be a bit to soon to take
> the RV, so I'll be ground bound. I believe Robert is excited about MV as
> well, so I expect you will be seeing him there in the future with a
> familiar looking plane, although Im not sure about his 2006 plans
>
> Best regards to all my Kolb friends
>
> Erich Weaver
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Ballenger" <ulpilot(at)cavtel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ROTAX 582 JET NEEDLE ADJUSTMENT/RADIATOR TIPS/ELECTRIC |
VEST TESTI
LS
Very informative. Thanks for the insight and explanation of the piston
skirt/rotary valve issue. It kinda makes ense to me.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: ROTAX 582 JET NEEDLE ADJUSTMENT/RADIATOR
TIPS/ELECTRIC VEST TESTI
>
>
> Hey all,
>
> This is where the skirt of the piston acts as the intake valve. On the
> aircooled rotaxen, the intake ports are lower in the sleeve (and on the
> other side) than the exhaust ports. As the piston goes up, the skirt
> clears
> the port, causing an opening into the crankcase - the vacuum from the
> upgoing piston pulls the air/fuel mixture in in the familiar way. On the
> power stroke, the skirt blocks the port off closing it, allowing crankcase
> pressure to build up for the exhaust stroke....
>
> The 582 uses a mechanically driven rotary valve to control the intake,
> which
> involves some extra machinery and complexity.
>
> The advantage of the rotary valve, though, is very smooth running and
> broad
> powerband. Sure enough, the 582 runs like a swiss watch... The piston
> skirt
> induction motors are much simpler, but they tend to be peakier and behave
> more "2-strokey"....
>
> I still far prefer the simplicity of piston skirt induction.......
>
> There are other induction methods for 2-strokes besides these, such as
> reed
> valves and crankshaft induction (these are common on R/C 2-stroke
> motors)...
>
> LS
> N646F
>>Morning LS/Gang:
>>
>>Could you explain "piston-skirt indiction" please.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>john h
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ROTAX 582 JET NEEDLE ADJUSTMENT/RADIATOR TIPS/ELECTRIC |
VEST TESTI
| piston skirt/rotary valve issue.
| Jim
|
Jim B/LS/Gang:
Correct me if I am wrong, please. Isn't this system more commonly
called a "piston/port" system? The system used on the 503 and others,
other than the 582?
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ROTAX 582 JET NEEDLE ADJUSTMENT/RADIATOR TIPS/ELECTRIC |
VEST TESTI
>Jim B/LS/Gang:
>
>Correct me if I am wrong, please. Isn't this system more commonly
>called a "piston/port" system? The system used on the 503 and others,
>other than the 582?
Nope, you're not wrong, I've heard piston ported as well......
LS
N646F
>john h
>MKIII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Bigelow" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Thrust Line |
As I am building a Kolb I have been watching the thread about pitch down
with power with great interest. Changing the thrust line angle works very
well on a standard airplane where the engine is mounted in the nose, and
also works well on a Jet airplane where the engines are mounted on the tail.
This is because in these two cases the engine is far enough foward or
behind the CG, that the angle of the thrust has an effect of pitching the
airplane either up or down. For example, with the engine in the nose, down
thrust will pull the nose downward, and pitch the plane down. An engine in
the tail with downthrust will push the tail of the airplane up cuasing the
plane to pitch down.
In the Kolb, the prop is very close to the CG of the airplane as far as
pitch goes. Pointing the prop up (higher thrust angle) and having the
engine push down right near the CG will have no noticable effect on pitch.
Bottom line is, if you want to help pitch the airplane by using thrust
angle, it needs to be done much further foward or further aft of the PITCH
CG. Its just not going to happen on a Kolb.
With the engine and prop mounted far above the center of drag, the kolb will
always pitch down with power, there is just no getting around it. Best
thing is to lower the engine and prop as much as possible, without striking
the boom.
Michael Bigelow
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ROTAX 582 JET NEEDLE ADJUSTMENT |
> Thanks for the insight and explanation of the
> piston skirt/rotary valve issue. It kinda makes ense to me.
For anyone really serious about understanding the two stroke
engine.....
http://kawtriple.com/mraxl/jennings.htm
I've got a hard copy of the book referenced by the link above.
Wouldn't part wth it for love nor money (out of print and signed by
Jennings).
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Hoyt <rrhoyt(at)ieee.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Thrust line change |
I have been reading the thread with great interest since my mark III
requires a large rudder tab that I dislike. I have been mulling over
the impact of rotating the 912 a couple of degrees in azimuth to
mitigate the yaw that the rudder tab corrects. I tried flexing the
vertical stabilizer to effect a change but it was not noticeable in
flight. Christopher's line of reasoning implies that the moment arm
is small and a substantive change is not likely. Is there any
experience out there with this trimming.
Ron
Kolb Mark III C
N232S
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thrust line change |
| Is there any
| experience out there with this trimming.
|
| Ron
Ron H/Gang:
Yes, a little. I have been dabbling with Kolbs for 21 years, and my
MKIII for the last 15 years.
Did the engine rotation thing, left and right, up and down, on my FS,
back in the mid 80's. Did the same thing on the MKIII with the
engine.
Tried different settings for the leading edge of the upper vertical
stabilizer, offset as much as 1 3/8" to the left, with little positive
effect. Wasn't worth the effort. Put it back where it belonged in
the center.
During construction I knew I was going to have to do something about
the pitch down caused by power, and the tendancy to roll left when
flying left seat solo. To solve those problems I fly right seat and
made up some adjustable horizontal stabilizer forward mounts.
Experiemented lowering at different levels until I found the sweet
spot for the airplane and me. TNK now has these mounts available, I
have been told.
Adverse yaw is caused by the way the prop wash hits the tail section.
I flew for nearly a 1,000 hours 1/2 ball out of trim with a small trim
tab, one rudder rib bay width long. Now I have one twice as long and
I fly trimmed in pitch. No noticeable difference in performance
between then and now. The old MKIII is happy flying in or out of yaw
trim. Now I don't have to push a lot of right pedal to swing it back
into trim. BTW, a lot of folks on the Kolb List refer to the
"slip/skid" indicator as a turn and bank indicator. Don't think so.
It does three things. Tells me when I am skidding, slipping, and when
I am in trim. If I want to check its accuracy, I can stick a yaw
string on the lower center of the windshield or top of the nose cone
to see if they agree.
Nothing wrong with the big trim tab or a lot of forced trim to take
the forward stick pressure off your hand and arm.
This is the nature of the MKIII. Most of the things folks are
experiementing with now, trying to improve on Kolbs, has already been
done. With the exception of seriously cleaning up aerodynamically a
couple areas of my old MKIII, she is going to stay as she is. With
nearly 2,500 hours flying her from the right seat (all those hours on
her are mine), I pretty much accept the way she is. I'm happy with
her. That is why I still fly her.
Not really concerned too much on why she does what she does. All I
know is she does a good job for me.
It is still fun trying to improve your own airplane, expecially is it
is new without a whole bunch of years and hours on it. I know. I
have been there. It was a lot of fun, frustrating at times, but I'd
probably do it again if I could.
Take care,
john h
MKIII, 912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Cowan <trc1917(at)direcway.com> |
Okay, gotta put my two cents in here too. I am not a tech head like some of
you guys with your rulers and scales. I do know something about the Kolb
Sling Shot when it comes to the engine alignment. If you mount the 582 on
the SS as per the instructions, right on the rubber so to speak, you gotta
real horse to ride. I mean, that thing will require so much up elevator to
take off and fly you will think your arm is going to break. The
obstructions used to recommend raising the rear of the engine off the mounts
by some inch or something. Well, my obstructions did not. I learned this
from another SS. My engine is mounted on high risers as recommended and
supplied by the factory to ensure the wings can be folded. This raising the
engine three inches off the saddle really magnified the problem with thrust.
After some experimentation of angles, I have the rear of the engine mounted
7/8" higher than the front mounts which makes the rear mounts approx. 3"
high and the front mounts 2-1/8" high. I have an extra washer on the left
front to help compensate fors torque on takeoff and it makes a world of
difference. It may not do much for a long tailed MkIII or FSII but when
your boom is short and your wings are barely visible, it makes a world of
difference. I must have done something wrong cause this bird flys virtually
hands off when the electric/spring elevator trim is set -- which by the way,
stays the same for take-off, high speed and low speed. I only change it for
the load I am carrying, extra gas, camping equip, etc. I recon my little
hick self musta done sometin wrong cause it dont never dive left or behave
badly. Oh, ya, by the way, my fuel consumption dropped also by a little.
Dont need to be a rocket scientist or college boy to figure out some of this
stuff. My opinions. And -- this SHOULD be archived. Ted Cowan, Alabama,
SS Driver. Can be seen at our Club web site at:
www.homestead.com/southernflyers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "c b" <seedeebee(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley 2006 |
All,
I plan to attend. Is anyone flying there from California?
Chris Banys
Mk III 912UL
N10FR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "c b" <seedeebee(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Flat v. Conical Air Filters for the 912 |
Hey all,
Anyone have any experience with both the flat & conical K&N air filters on
the 912?
I have the flat ones right now, they basically present a pie plate to the
wind and make the air do a 2 90 degree bends before entering the carbs. The
conical ones should allow for more ram air effect. But I wanted to check
with you all before I spent the $75.
Happy Flying,
Chris Banys
Mk III 912UL
N10FR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FlyColt45(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Inspection Repairman Cert |
All,
I also took the Repairman LSA Insp Rating Course here in Lantana, FL last
week. Since mine is an amateur built - experimental and I'll will get the
repairman's certificate for my plane, I really didn't need this course but wanted
to know as much as possible about the inspection side of things. In that
regard the course was great for me - since I knew little about good and bad
welds, good and bad wood and even found out why Aero thane is much better than
auto paint with clear coat.
The discourse with the instructors, (Jerry Stradtmiller and Lisa Turner),
between and after classes were "gold". I even passed the test! If you are
going the LSA route for your Kolb - its a great course to take.
Now - on to the Rotax 912 course : )
Jim PA/FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley 2006 |
Not so far.......I'll be driving from Palm Springs. Do not
Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "c b" <seedeebee(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Monument Valley 2006
>
> All,
>
> I plan to attend. Is anyone flying there from California?
>
> Chris Banys
> Mk III 912UL
> N10FR
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thrust line change & Yaw Correction |
>Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:03:11 -0600
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>From: Ron Hoyt <rrhoyt(at)ieee.org>
>Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Thrust line change
>Sender: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at onlyinternet.net
>
>
>I have been reading the thread with great interest since my mark III
>requires a large rudder tab that I dislike. I have been mulling over
>the impact of rotating the 912 a couple of degrees in azimuth to
>mitigate the yaw that the rudder tab corrects. I tried flexing the
>vertical stabilizer to effect a change but it was not noticeable in
>flight. Christopher's line of reasoning implies that the moment arm
>is small and a substantive change is not likely. Is there any
>experience out there with this trimming.
>
Ron, & Kolbers,
I do not know if this is possible with the Mark III, but I rotated my
reduction drive assembly off to one side to correct for yaw on my FireFly.
This gives an increased moment arm that Chris A. talks about.
One other thing, that I have discovered (more like stumbled on) with the
FireFly. When I was taking the play out of the aileron control system, I
discovered part of the problem was caused by the saddle arrangement that
comes down from the bolt through the main tube that exits at the rear of the
fuselage. The holes drilled through the saddle arms are too large. This
lets the saddle rock from side to side as the stick is displaced from side
to side. The only way I could think of to solve this problem was to re
drill and ream the holes through the saddle ends and insert bronze flange
oil-lite bearings so that the play could be removed.
Then I thought, the holes through the fuselage through which the main bolt
pass are also oversized. With a loose through bolt, a long tail tube and
the tail assembly, their relationship to the wing can change during flight.
The saddle arms must rotate on this through bolt, so if one completely
tightens the nut the flaperons become fixed. As an experiment, I tightened
the nut and went on a test flight. Just by tightening the nut the ball
moved a half a diameter toward the center. This indicates a small change up
by the fuselage can make a fairly large change in yaw. This is reasonable
when one thinks about the relative distances from the cg. It may be useful
to place a shim washer or two in between the tube and the inside of the
fuselage to shift the position of the tail relative to the wing, etc. Seems
low risk, inexpensive, and a fairly simple experiment to do.
I purchased some flanged oil-lite bronze bushings to put over the bolt so
that I could tightened the through bolt nut completely. But moving has
gotten in the way. The bushings are lost in a box and will remain lost
until, I can get my shop put together.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flat v. Conical Air Filters for the 912 |
| The conical ones should allow for more ram air effect.
|
| Chris Banys
Hi Chris/Gang:
The 912 engine was designed as a tractor, rather than a pusher engine.
Thus the carbs are actually on the wrong end of the engine for the
pusher configuration. Check out an old BMW twin motorcycle. The Bing
carb was designed to operate 180 deg from the way we use them on our
pushers.
The Bing gets its info to adjust the piston and fuel needle up and
down from two static pressure sources:
1- One is the float bowl vent tube
2- The other is a port on the lip of the carb
In order to do its job correctly, the two static sources need to be
reading off the same sheet of music. On the flat air filters there is
a plug that can be popped our so you can insert the float bowl vent
tube into the air filter. This will have both ports reading same
static pressure.
Ram air into conical filters is not good, in my opinion. I use some
conical fiber glass covers on my conical filters with the flat chamber
vent tube inserted into the cover. Works good for me and I do not get
the ram air effect to upset the Bing's mind.
I had a problem with fuel vapor standoff being blown out of the flat
filter on the right side. This kept the right carb a nice brown color
from the auto fuel. The covers on the conical filters correct this.
The problem is not the same on all installations on Kolbs. It is a
matter of how the air flows over the engine. My system was aggrevated
by its particular air flow.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flykolb" <flykolb(at)wowway.com> |
2.32 DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24 Date: is 12 to 24 hours after Received: date
Kolbers,
Does anyone on the list have experience with a rotax 670 on a Mark III?
Jim
Mark III
Michigan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tail boom/flaperon link bolt bushings/prop wash and other |
stuff
| Certainly getting the tail aligned straight
| both side to side and vertical twist wise is probably one of the
most
| important parts to trimming up a Kolb.
|
| Topher
Hi Topher/Gang:
Surely you know me well enough now to know I know diddily squat about
formulas, graphs, charts, etc. However, have done a little flying
over the years in our little Kolbs.
No matter how well be build our little airplanes, how well we insure
they are as true and correct as possible, we are going to have a
couple inherent problems, especially with the MKIII. I believe it has
to do with the way the prop wash hits one side of the tail section.
Don't even have to see this to understand it. One can feel it. Stand
behind a MKIII with the engine running. On one side of the vertical
stabilizer it will blow you down. On the other, very little prop
blast. To back this up, on long flights especially, the left side of
the vertical stab and rudder will have oil and fuel residue spatters
coming from the oil tank vent. Also the top of the left horizontal
stabilizer. I believe when prop wash is not hitting the tail section
uniformly, we are going to have yaw, primarily, and maybe some pitch
problems. Not talking about all aircraft, only my MKIII.
Thus, the large rudder trim tab to center the trim ball.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "chris davis" <scrounge69(at)comcast.net> |
HI LIsters its been a year and a month since I was the passenger with Norm at
the Kolb factory. Rest his soul, I was in the hospital til July 15 2005. I had
a tour of the factory in the morn then donnys ears perked up and hr said" here
comes our demo pilot" I had just bought a beautiful MK3From Bob Broucis, the
day before and sold my firestar KXP two weeks before after 10 years of flying
and dreams of the FAA light sport aircraft filling my mind and my heart. I had
an excellent year commercial fishing and had been searching for a flyin
community for 10 years. I found one and bought a 4 acre site and a new
singlewide big enough for my my 85 year old ex pilot Dad and my step mom my wife
and myself in O'Brien Florida thats on the Suwannee river in NW Florida , So
taking a demo flight in the factories two place seem like a good idea , my last
flight in a MK3 was in the late 80s at Sun and Fun with JOHN HAUCK well this
decision was the last thing I remember until Jan 5, 2005. I dont remember Norm
or the walkaround he did or the check ride and another walkaround that he and I
did but my wife does !she was on the ground taking pictures and hoping for a
great uneventful flight .I don't remember the fact that we did a touch and go
and on the next flight my wife says " she heard and saw us take off and then we
went behind the hanger and she thought " we left the area because she couldn't
hear the Rotax" but is smart enough to know it was a quiet 4stroke Rotax not
like my 503 but the she saw us come around the hanger with the engine out and
crash into the end of the runway she was there right after Donny and he said
"there both alive " as he ran to the phone , My wife Becky is an R.N.and ran to
the planeopen the door and I sat up saying " my back" Norm wasn't moving ,
she gave him mouth to mouth and he turned from blue to pink as the EMTs arrived
got me out and said" he is gone" about Norm. What a great bunch of rescue
people they have in London Kentucky, They put me in a helicopter and had me at
University of Kentucky Hospital in a matter of minutes I was busted up pretty
bad . Six broken ribs broken sternum a crushed ,80% spine my pelvis was broken
into 9 pieces .which are now bolted together with 2 seven inch stainless lag
bolts I've got two 3\8 stainless rods going down my spine and there is a spot
above my tailbone that the two ss rods are boxed together to freeze the place
where my spinal cord was crushed I say was because I am learning to walk, I can
lift my body which weighed 148 lbs when I got out of the Hosp after 9months ,but
now weighs alittle over 190ibs most of it is muscle University of Kentucky
Hosp. is a wondrous place , They did a great job on me and they let my wife live
in there waiting room for two weeks ,because she didn't want to be away from me
,I was in such bad shape .She is quite a woman 91\2 months in the hosp. she was
by my side every day accept one there was 8ft of snow in the driveway caused her
to miss a day!The reason am writing is That I had some really excellent lawyers
that my wife Hired when they thought I was going to be a quadriplegic or worse
they considered suing everyone ,ROTA,KOLB , THE PILOT I said no to them all
Rota? we all know the 4 strokes run and the NTSB took the engine to Florida
hooked it up to pure fuel and ran it for hours ran like a dream ,KOLB we all
know that Kolb's are so well designed that if I had been in another ultrslight
type aircraft we would both probly be dead ,crome moly cockpit and all , the
PILOT I didn't want to hurt his family , then the insurance company that held
the Liability policy that Norm had paid for for years told my lawyers there
would be no argument .he paid for it and they would pay me ! no harm to his wife
or kids and I am going to make a deposit in the Labhart children's fund after
all in htis KOLB family we are all -- brothers& sisters are we not ? one more
thing I would like to say the reason I think you all know why I didn't sue KOLB
is I still want to build a MKIII and I believe I will . first I need to build
a shop and hanger in O'Brien the get a kit and work my way through it . in
3or4or5 years maybe I will fly , MY wife says she won't stop me , WHAT A WIFE
she is the reason I live . Thanks for all the good will you all wished us back
in November Norm was lucky to have you all for friends . Sorry about the long
story vie haven't had a computer fo a while . it would be great to hear from
any of you any time . a KOLBER forever Chris davis cape cod ma.& O'Brien Fl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: NORMS MK3 CRASH |
Chris,
Good to see you're on the road to recovery.
"I said no to them all (snip) I am going to make a deposit in the
Labhart children's fund"
You, sir, are a class act. The best to you and your wife and
family!!
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "chris davis" <scrounge69(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: NORMS MK3 CRASH
>
> HI LIsters its been a year and a month since I was the passenger with
> Norm at
> the Kolb factory.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Silver Fern Microlights Ltd" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: NORMS MK3 CRASH |
Hey Chris,
Great you are doing well. Good to read your story, shame there is not more
people around like you, seems like sueing has become a world sport nowdays.
I too am lucky to have an understanding wife, I was lucky to survive a
serious paragliding accident but she supports me in everything I do. I know
what the risks are everytime I leave the ground.
I hope you achieve your ambition of building your new Kolb, I have flown
dozens of types, and I am a microlight instructor and the Kolb still puts a
smile on my face everytime I fly it.
All the best brother Kolber
Kind Regards
Mike Moulai
UK/European Kolb Distributor
----- Original Message -----
From: "chris davis" <scrounge69(at)comcast.net>
Subject: *** SPAM *** Kolb-List: NORMS MK3 CRASH
>
> HI LIsters its been a year and a month since I was the passenger with
> Norm at
> the Kolb factory. Rest his soul, I was in the hospital til July 15 2005.
> I had
> a tour of the factory in the morn then donnys ears perked up and hr said"
> here
> comes our demo pilot" I had just bought a beautiful MK3From Bob Broucis,
> the
> day before and sold my firestar KXP two weeks before after 10 years of
> flying
> and dreams of the FAA light sport aircraft filling my mind and my heart.
> I had
> an excellent year commercial fishing and had been searching for a flyin
> community for 10 years. I found one and bought a 4 acre site and a new
> singlewide big enough for my my 85 year old ex pilot Dad and my step mom
> my wife
> and myself in O'Brien Florida thats on the Suwannee river in NW Florida ,
> So
> taking a demo flight in the factories two place seem like a good idea , my
> last
> flight in a MK3 was in the late 80s at Sun and Fun with JOHN HAUCK well
> this
> decision was the last thing I remember until Jan 5, 2005. I dont remember
> Norm
> or the walkaround he did or the check ride and another walkaround that he
> and I
> did but my wife does !she was on the ground taking pictures and hoping for
> a
> great uneventful flight .I don't remember the fact that we did a touch
> and go
> and on the next flight my wife says " she heard and saw us take off and
> then we
> went behind the hanger and she thought " we left the area because she
> couldn't
> hear the Rotax" but is smart enough to know it was a quiet 4stroke Rotax
> not
> like my 503 but the she saw us come around the hanger with the engine out
> and
> crash into the end of the runway she was there right after Donny and he
> said
> "there both alive " as he ran to the phone , My wife Becky is an R.N.and
> ran to
> the planeopen the door and I sat up saying " my back" Norm wasn't
> moving ,
> she gave him mouth to mouth and he turned from blue to pink as the EMTs
> arrived
> got me out and said" he is gone" about Norm. What a great bunch of rescue
> people they have in London Kentucky, They put me in a helicopter and had
> me at
> University of Kentucky Hospital in a matter of minutes I was busted up
> pretty
> bad . Six broken ribs broken sternum a crushed ,80% spine my pelvis was
> broken
> into 9 pieces .which are now bolted together with 2 seven inch
> stainless lag
> bolts I've got two 3\8 stainless rods going down my spine and there is a
> spot
> above my tailbone that the two ss rods are boxed together to freeze the
> place
> where my spinal cord was crushed I say was because I am learning to walk,
> I can
> lift my body which weighed 148 lbs when I got out of the Hosp after
> 9months ,but
> now weighs alittle over 190ibs most of it is muscle University of Kentucky
> Hosp. is a wondrous place , They did a great job on me and they let my
> wife live
> in there waiting room for two weeks ,because she didn't want to be away
> from me
> ,I was in such bad shape .She is quite a woman 91\2 months in the hosp.
> she was
> by my side every day accept one there was 8ft of snow in the driveway
> caused her
> to miss a day!The reason am writing is That I had some really excellent
> lawyers
> that my wife Hired when they thought I was going to be a quadriplegic or
> worse
> they considered suing everyone ,ROTA,KOLB , THE PILOT I said no to
> them all
> Rota? we all know the 4 strokes run and the NTSB took the engine to
> Florida
> hooked it up to pure fuel and ran it for hours ran like a dream ,KOLB we
> all
> know that Kolb's are so well designed that if I had been in another
> ultrslight
> type aircraft we would both probly be dead ,crome moly cockpit and all ,
> the
> PILOT I didn't want to hurt his family , then the insurance company that
> held
> the Liability policy that Norm had paid for for years told my lawyers
> there
> would be no argument .he paid for it and they would pay me ! no harm to
> his wife
> or kids and I am going to make a deposit in the Labhart children's fund
> after
> all in htis KOLB family we are all -- brothers& sisters are we not ? one
> more
> thing I would like to say the reason I think you all know why I didn't
> sue KOLB
> is I still want to build a MKIII and I believe I will . first I need to
> build
> a shop and hanger in O'Brien the get a kit and work my way through it . in
> 3or4or5 years maybe I will fly , MY wife says she won't stop me , WHAT A
> WIFE
> she is the reason I live . Thanks for all the good will you all wished
> us back
> in November Norm was lucky to have you all for friends . Sorry about the
> long
> story vie haven't had a computer fo a while . it would be great to hear
> from
> any of you any time . a KOLBER forever Chris davis cape cod ma.& O'Brien
> Fl.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NORMS MK3 CRASH |
I for one have seldom met, or even heard of, anyone as downright
decent, and as fine a person as Chris Davis.
The very best of everything to him and his most amazing wife
Fair winds to you both
Russ Kinne
On Nov 13, 2005, at 4:42 PM, chris davis wrote:
>
> HI LIsters its been a year and a month since I was the passenger with
> Norm at
> the Kolb factory. Rest his soul, I was in the hospital til July 15
> 2005. I had
> a tour of the factory in the morn then donnys ears perked up and hr
> said" here
> comes our demo pilot" I had just bought a beautiful MK3From Bob
> Broucis, the
> day before and sold my firestar KXP two weeks before after 10 years of
> flying
> and dreams of the FAA light sport aircraft filling my mind and my
> heart. I had
> an excellent year commercial fishing and had been searching for a
> flyin
> community for 10 years. I found one and bought a 4 acre site and a new
> singlewide big enough for my my 85 year old ex pilot Dad and my step
> mom my wife
> and myself in O'Brien Florida thats on the Suwannee river in NW
> Florida , So
> taking a demo flight in the factories two place seem like a good idea
> , my last
> flight in a MK3 was in the late 80s at Sun and Fun with JOHN HAUCK
> well this
> decision was the last thing I remember until Jan 5, 2005. I dont
> remember Norm
> or the walkaround he did or the check ride and another walkaround that
> he and I
> did but my wife does !she was on the ground taking pictures and hoping
> for a
> great uneventful flight .I don't remember the fact that we did a
> touch and go
> and on the next flight my wife says " she heard and saw us take off
> and then we
> went behind the hanger and she thought " we left the area because she
> couldn't
> hear the Rotax" but is smart enough to know it was a quiet 4stroke
> Rotax not
> like my 503 but the she saw us come around the hanger with the engine
> out and
> crash into the end of the runway she was there right after Donny and
> he said
> "there both alive " as he ran to the phone , My wife Becky is an
> R.N.and ran to
> the planeopen the door and I sat up saying " my back" Norm wasn't
> moving ,
> she gave him mouth to mouth and he turned from blue to pink as the
> EMTs arrived
> got me out and said" he is gone" about Norm. What a great bunch of
> rescue
> people they have in London Kentucky, They put me in a helicopter and
> had me at
> University of Kentucky Hospital in a matter of minutes I was busted
> up pretty
> bad . Six broken ribs broken sternum a crushed ,80% spine my pelvis
> was broken
> into 9 pieces .which are now bolted together with 2 seven inch
> stainless lag
> bolts I've got two 3\8 stainless rods going down my spine and there
> is a spot
> above my tailbone that the two ss rods are boxed together to freeze
> the place
> where my spinal cord was crushed I say was because I am learning to
> walk, I can
> lift my body which weighed 148 lbs when I got out of the Hosp after
> 9months ,but
> now weighs alittle over 190ibs most of it is muscle University of
> Kentucky
> Hosp. is a wondrous place , They did a great job on me and they let my
> wife live
> in there waiting room for two weeks ,because she didn't want to be
> away from me
> ,I was in such bad shape .She is quite a woman 91\2 months in the
> hosp. she was
> by my side every day accept one there was 8ft of snow in the driveway
> caused her
> to miss a day!The reason am writing is That I had some really
> excellent lawyers
> that my wife Hired when they thought I was going to be a quadriplegic
> or worse
> they considered suing everyone ,ROTA,KOLB , THE PILOT I said no to
> them all
> Rota? we all know the 4 strokes run and the NTSB took the engine to
> Florida
> hooked it up to pure fuel and ran it for hours ran like a dream ,KOLB
> we all
> know that Kolb's are so well designed that if I had been in another
> ultrslight
> type aircraft we would both probly be dead ,crome moly cockpit and all
> , the
> PILOT I didn't want to hurt his family , then the insurance company
> that held
> the Liability policy that Norm had paid for for years told my lawyers
> there
> would be no argument .he paid for it and they would pay me ! no harm
> to his wife
> or kids and I am going to make a deposit in the Labhart children's
> fund after
> all in htis KOLB family we are all -- brothers& sisters are we not ?
> one more
> thing I would like to say the reason I think you all know why I
> didn't sue KOLB
> is I still want to build a MKIII and I believe I will . first I need
> to build
> a shop and hanger in O'Brien the get a kit and work my way through it
> . in
> 3or4or5 years maybe I will fly , MY wife says she won't stop me , WHAT
> A WIFE
> she is the reason I live . Thanks for all the good will you all
> wished us back
> in November Norm was lucky to have you all for friends . Sorry about
> the long
> story vie haven't had a computer fo a while . it would be great to
> hear from
> any of you any time . a KOLBER forever Chris davis cape cod ma.&
> O'Brien Fl.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne T. McCullough" <blackbird754(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NORMS MK3 CRASH |
Chris,
You do not know me...but to say you are a class act doesn't even come
close....I wish you a speedy recovery.....and may God's grace go with with
you and your entire family.........Aviators are a special breed of people
anyway......
You my friend have always been in our prayers and will continue to do
so......maybe I can meet you someday....
Wayne McCullough
Kolbra 004
----- Original Message -----
From: "chris davis" <scrounge69(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: NORMS MK3 CRASH
>
> HI LIsters its been a year and a month since I was the passenger with
> Norm at
> the Kolb factory. Rest his soul, I was in the hospital til July 15 2005.
> I had
> a tour of the factory in the morn then donnys ears perked up and hr said"
> here
> comes our demo pilot" I had just bought a beautiful MK3From Bob Broucis,
> the
> day before and sold my firestar KXP two weeks before after 10 years of
> flying
> and dreams of the FAA light sport aircraft filling my mind and my heart.
> I had
> an excellent year commercial fishing and had been searching for a flyin
> community for 10 years. I found one and bought a 4 acre site and a new
> singlewide big enough for my my 85 year old ex pilot Dad and my step mom
> my wife
> and myself in O'Brien Florida thats on the Suwannee river in NW Florida ,
> So
> taking a demo flight in the factories two place seem like a good idea , my
> last
> flight in a MK3 was in the late 80s at Sun and Fun with JOHN HAUCK well
> this
> decision was the last thing I remember until Jan 5, 2005. I dont remember
> Norm
> or the walkaround he did or the check ride and another walkaround that he
> and I
> did but my wife does !she was on the ground taking pictures and hoping for
> a
> great uneventful flight .I don't remember the fact that we did a touch
> and go
> and on the next flight my wife says " she heard and saw us take off and
> then we
> went behind the hanger and she thought " we left the area because she
> couldn't
> hear the Rotax" but is smart enough to know it was a quiet 4stroke Rotax
> not
> like my 503 but the she saw us come around the hanger with the engine out
> and
> crash into the end of the runway she was there right after Donny and he
> said
> "there both alive " as he ran to the phone , My wife Becky is an R.N.and
> ran to
> the planeopen the door and I sat up saying " my back" Norm wasn't
> moving ,
> she gave him mouth to mouth and he turned from blue to pink as the EMTs
> arrived
> got me out and said" he is gone" about Norm. What a great bunch of rescue
> people they have in London Kentucky, They put me in a helicopter and had
> me at
> University of Kentucky Hospital in a matter of minutes I was busted up
> pretty
> bad . Six broken ribs broken sternum a crushed ,80% spine my pelvis was
> broken
> into 9 pieces .which are now bolted together with 2 seven inch
> stainless lag
> bolts I've got two 3\8 stainless rods going down my spine and there is a
> spot
> above my tailbone that the two ss rods are boxed together to freeze the
> place
> where my spinal cord was crushed I say was because I am learning to walk,
> I can
> lift my body which weighed 148 lbs when I got out of the Hosp after
> 9months ,but
> now weighs alittle over 190ibs most of it is muscle University of Kentucky
> Hosp. is a wondrous place , They did a great job on me and they let my
> wife live
> in there waiting room for two weeks ,because she didn't want to be away
> from me
> ,I was in such bad shape .She is quite a woman 91\2 months in the hosp.
> she was
> by my side every day accept one there was 8ft of snow in the driveway
> caused her
> to miss a day!The reason am writing is That I had some really excellent
> lawyers
> that my wife Hired when they thought I was going to be a quadriplegic or
> worse
> they considered suing everyone ,ROTA,KOLB , THE PILOT I said no to
> them all
> Rota? we all know the 4 strokes run and the NTSB took the engine to
> Florida
> hooked it up to pure fuel and ran it for hours ran like a dream ,KOLB we
> all
> know that Kolb's are so well designed that if I had been in another
> ultrslight
> type aircraft we would both probly be dead ,crome moly cockpit and all ,
> the
> PILOT I didn't want to hurt his family , then the insurance company that
> held
> the Liability policy that Norm had paid for for years told my lawyers
> there
> would be no argument .he paid for it and they would pay me ! no harm to
> his wife
> or kids and I am going to make a deposit in the Labhart children's fund
> after
> all in htis KOLB family we are all -- brothers& sisters are we not ? one
> more
> thing I would like to say the reason I think you all know why I didn't
> sue KOLB
> is I still want to build a MKIII and I believe I will . first I need to
> build
> a shop and hanger in O'Brien the get a kit and work my way through it . in
> 3or4or5 years maybe I will fly , MY wife says she won't stop me , WHAT A
> WIFE
> she is the reason I live . Thanks for all the good will you all wished
> us back
> in November Norm was lucky to have you all for friends . Sorry about the
> long
> story vie haven't had a computer fo a while . it would be great to hear
> from
> any of you any time . a KOLBER forever Chris davis cape cod ma.& O'Brien
> Fl.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Chris Davis' Recovery |
I rarely read anything that inspiring. A real merry Christmas story that
was. I wish your demo ride would not have gone wrong but I am very glad to
hear that after what must have been a real tough year you are going to be
able to get on with your life. And great job on the wife selection... bless
her! I swear there is no greater thing then to have the love of a good
spouse.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
required 4.6, BAYES_44 -0.00, HTML_MESSAGE 0.25)
Hi Kolbers,
I second everyone in the hats off to Chris. Class act for sure. Bruce Chestnut
is also a class act and I'm sure that he has been there although you rarely hear
his name.
Rather proud to get the "Hot Box" mounted thanks to Mark German for the bracket.
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC110002.JPG
Also Mark made me really nice brackets for the radiator. Fit perfect!
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC110005.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC110004.JPG
Anyone have a photo of the part that connects the throttle cable to the Kolb quadrant?
I ordered two from Travis today. Also ordered the cables and few remaining
parts from Ronnie at South MS light aircraft.
Getting Close gang!
Paul Petty
Building Ms. Dixie
Kolbra/912UL/Warp
I.L.D.S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: NORMS MK3 CRASH |
Thanks for sharing, Chris. We are all behind you and look forward to sharing
some airspace with you someday...
Kip
Atlanta
FSII
----- Original Message -----
From: "chris davis" <scrounge69(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: NORMS MK3 CRASH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NORMS MK3 CRASH |
Chris, thanks for the update. Many of us were wondering about your
progress.
Better check and see if all that stainless doesn't swing a compass.
-some's magnetic, some's not :)
-BB
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: NORMS MK3 CRASH |
In a message dated 12/13/2005 4:43:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
scrounge69(at)comcast.net writes:
> HI LIsters its been a year and a month since I was the passenger with Norm
> at
> the Kolb factory. Rest his soul,
Chris,
I would like to thank you for your attitude and your decision in regard to
Norm and his family. I worked closely with Norm for a short period of time on a
few projects and grew to love him very quickly. He helped so many people over
that dangerous hurdle of transition from airplane to UL including myself
that nobody really knows the total. I cherish the times that I flew with Norm and
will remember them forever.
Steve Boetto
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Stuart" <tcstuart(at)adelphia.net> |
So glad to hear that Chris Davis is recovering and has such a noble outlook on
his situation.
Has Kolb addressed the fuel tank contamination problems that contributed to this
accident? I had flown with Norm several times and found him to be such a meticulous
pilot, I don't understand how the fuel problem evolved. Shouldn't the
stock tanks be designed so that they can be readily sampled and fed through
a gascolator to prevent these occurances?
I have not touched my Mark IIIXtra project since Norm's accident, and may never
finish. It had a profound effect on me. I had just been up with him at the
fly-in right before the accident, and had teased his small girls. I made a sizeable
contribution to the girls education fund and received a very nice note
from his widow.
Still hoping to fly again, but can't recover my enthusiasm.
Clay Stuart
Danville KY
P.S. Chris, it was good to hear the nice things about the Univ of KY hospital.
I spent 4 years there in dental school many years ago (33).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Duncan <lariardo(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: NORMS MK3 CRASH |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick!/Fails to Fire Plugs |
| In order to get it
| started, needs to be spun faster than even a new battery can spin
it.
|
| John Jung
John J/Gang:
We had a similar problem with the first 912 I bought. Could not get
it to fire. I was pulling my hair out trying to figure out what was
wrong with this "piece of junk". The morning I was going to fly down
to Ronnie Smith's, Lucedale, MS, to diagnose and fix the problem, I
got an idea while in the shower. Figured if I closed the spark plug
gap a bit it might start easier. As soon as I got to Ronnie's, 187
miles by air, I went to eat lunch. When I got back Ronnie had the
problem fixed. He closed the spark plug gaps down to .020. Normal
gap by the book is .028. After that it always fired right up like it
was supposed to, except once at the Lake Texoma Flyin at Cedar Mills,
TX, in 1998. Got ready to head for home and the 912 would not fire,
period. Pulled the plugs, closed the gap back down to .020 and it
fired right up.
Have not had this problem with the 912S, however, I run the plugs at
.025 when I put them in new and at 50 hours when I pulll to inspect
and regap. Not a good feeling to be a long way from home with an
engine that does not want to fire.
I don't know if this is the problem or not. I don't know if you put
new plugs in or not. But if it was me, I would put in new plugs and
close the gap down to see if it would solve the problem.
The 912 ran like a clock once it was started. Just a bugger to get it
to fire..............................
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb List: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick! |
0.00 MANY_EXCLAMATIONS Subject has many exclamations
Bryan and Group,
That is a good question. The problem started after doing a de-carbon.
But I thought that it was just a battery problem, so I didn't think
further. Oh, I didn't change the plugs with the de-carbon, because they
have less than 5 hours on them. Also, the compression seems the same.
Only one broken oil ring was replaced and the engine showed no sign of
significant wear with 200 hours. Although, it doesn't have many hours,
it's probably 10 years since it was manufactured.
John Jung
John was the engine running fine and then one day it just started this
or
has something been changed on it?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick! |
Hey John
http://media.putfile.com/Worst-Job-Ever
How's Charlie doing?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM05(at)comcast.net> |
Clay/All
I thought there was still some debate on the exact cause of the engine
stoppage.
I came from general aviation and every certified airplane has a fuel drain
at the low part of the fuel system. Because of this I didn't feel
comfortable with the Kolb recommended system. My fuel system uses the stock
5 gallon fuel tanks. I take fuel from the bottom of my tanks. Each fuel
outlet has a finger strainer. The fuel lines tee together and feed directly
to a aircraft gascolator. The gascolator is at the low point of the fuel
system and it has a drain valve that sticks out the passenger side of the
fuselage it is also equipped with a strainer. From the gascolator the fuel
goes to a large automotive filter. After the filter it goes to my electric
backup fuel pump and then to my primary electric fuel pump. From the fuel
pumps the fuel goes thru a shout off valve and then to the carburetors. Each
carb has its own strainer.
Before I fly each day and after each fuel fill I drain some fuel from the
gascolator. When I'm home I collect the drained fuel in a small clear glass
jar so that I can see any junk or water in the fuel lines. When away from
home I just drain some on the ground.
I understand Norm's crash had a profound effect on you but life is
dangerous. Just getting out of bed in the morning is a risk and you probably
don't even give a second thought to getting in a car which is much more
dangerous than flying. Just build in those safety features in your plane you
feel necessary to reduce the risk. Come on you still have time to beat the
guy on the left coast with that moose something named airplane into the air.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clay Stuart" <tcstuart(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Norm's crash
>
> So glad to hear that Chris Davis is recovering and has such a noble
> outlook on his situation.
>
> Has Kolb addressed the fuel tank contamination problems that contributed
> to this accident? I had flown with Norm several times and found him to be
> such a meticulous pilot, I don't understand how the fuel problem evolved.
> Shouldn't the stock tanks be designed so that they can be readily sampled
> and fed through a gascolator to prevent these occurances?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
All
Many comments about Chris Davis' comments on the crash that injured him
so badly.
I don't need to add more -- he is one superb human being and we're
lucky to have him in our midst.
Rick Neilson described his excellent fuel system -- IMHO he has taken,
most prudently, just about every precaution he possibly could have, to
avoid fuel contamination and a subsequent engine failure. I personally
would be very reluctant to fly anything that did NOT have a sump-drain
at the lowest point of the fuel system . And I will always drain a
sample and examine it carefully before engine start. After that the
only thing left is to fly defensively, keeping a safe landing area
within reach whenever possible, if the engine should stop at any time .
Can't always do that, of course, esp. during landings & T/O's.
But I still remember being chastised for saying "keep within gliding
range of the field on downwind, base and final" by people who wanted
me to use a 3-degree glideslope on final, and simply hope the engine
will never quit.
Sorry, guys, but I'll fly my way. Safely. Why not?
Merry Christmas to all!
Russ Kinne
________________________________________________________________________________
required 4.6, BAYES_44 -0.00, HTML_50_60 0.10, HTML_MESSAGE 0.25)
Kolbers,
A while back I mentioned the Gates Power Grip hose clamps. Here is what they look
like.
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC130001.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC130006.JPG
Paul Petty
Building Ms. Dixie
Kolbra/912UL/Warp
I.L.D.S. :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb List: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick!/Fails to Fire |
0.00 MANY_EXCLAMATIONS Subject has many exclamations
"Thank you!" John Hauck. it was the plug gap.
I went to the airport after lunch to check the plug gaps. My gaps
measured about .020", and I am not sure why. I reset them to .015, and
then rolled the plane out to give it a test. Turned the key and pumped
the primer. Fired right up on the third pump. This is the way it used
to run, and I am very happy that it was such an easy fix. I even
started it with the prop, to confirm that it is back to normal.
It bothered me that I had set the gaps to .020 when my 503 manual says
.016 + - .02 (I'm sure they meant .002). I looked in my other source of
Rotax information, the CPS catalog. Page 20 indicates a .02 in.
electrode gap for a Rotax 503 dual ignition engine.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Original request:
> I need some two cycle advise. I have a problem with my 503 that I have
> never experienced before with any two cycle. In order to get it
> started, needs to be spun faster than even a new battery can spin it.
> It starts with jumper cables. Once started, it seems to run fine. I
> even flew with it because I thought that I just had a battery problem.
> It will start up normally right after being shut down, but not 15
> minutes later. When it fails to start, it will not fire at all and get
> flooded from using the primer or the chokes. With jumpers on, and the
> throttle opened, it will clear out, and fire up. The battery seems to
> spin it as fast as it ever did. it spins much faster with jumpers.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick!/Soot in the Spark Plug |
Wire Caps
November 18, 2005 - December 14, 2005
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-fq