Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-fr
December 14, 2005 - January 06, 2006
|Also, look inside the cap for a black powerdy, sooty
| looking substance. If you see this, this isn't soot from the motor,
but
| disintegration of the parts inside the cap (the resistor typically).
Replace
| if any soot is seen in the plug.
|
| LS
LS/All:
How do we know the soot is from a disintegrating resistor in the plug
cap?
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb List: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick!/Fails to |
Fire
| "Thank you!" John Hauck. it was the plug gap.
|
| John Jung
John J/Gang:
I'll be damned! ;-) hehehe
Sometimes it pays to be an old fart, having paid my dues to the God of
Rotax and many of the baffling problems she can throw at us.
Seriously, John, glad that is all it was. Usually, it is something
very simple. If the plugs ain't firing it isn't because it isn't
getting fuel. Doesn't take fuel to fire a plug, but it takes a plug
to fire the fuel. hehehe
Glad I could be of help, even though you are retired Air Force.
Later,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick!/Soot in the Spark Plug |
Wire Caps
John and list,
The main clue is the fact that there's no soot anywhere else on the motor,
so it can't have come from there.... The resistor is just a little piece of
carbon that eventually crushes and the dust ends up in the cap..... I've
seen this a lot, though generally on caps with lots of hours on them, 100 or
more.....
The rubber boot deteriorates as well showing up as the loose cap syndrome,
but the powdery stuff comes from inside the cap....
The caps can also open up electrically without visible soot. I've had this
happen a lot too.
A deceptive thing is, the cap will usually continue to sort of work even
though it's electrically open, because the voltage is usually high enough to
bridge the extra gap as well as the plug.... That could cause hard starting,
tho I once ran my 503 on my other plane for probably 50 hours with an
unknown-to-me open plug cap....
LS
N646F
>LS/All:
>
>How do we know the soot is from a disintegrating resistor in the plug
>cap?
>
>john h
>MKIII/912ULS
>hauck's holler, alabama
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb List: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick!/Fails to |
Fire
John,
.02 probably still shouldn't give you that much grief. It should still start
easily, even though that's a slightly large gap.
So it's possible that you might still have a problem, keep your eye on it.
I'd keep troubleshooting but it looks like you're narrowing in on the
problem (i.e. you've eliminated fuel sounds like). You might check the plug
caps with a VOM - they should measure around 5K if I recall correctly. If
any of them check out as open, they need to be replaced... and if soot is
present replace for sure....
LS
N646F
>"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
| The main clue is the fact that there's no soot anywhere else on the
motor,
| so it can't have come from there....
|
| LS
LS/All:
Do you reckon that the black residue you are seeing is the result in
arching inside the plug cap? This is very common in high capacity
ignition systems.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb List: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick!/Fails to |
Fire
| .02 probably still shouldn't give you that much grief. It should
still start
| easily, even though that's a slightly large gap.
| |
| LS
LS/All:
Should start, but they won't. Got something to do with the CDI
system. All things are not the same on Rotax engines.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
required 4.6, BAYES_44 -0.00, HTML_MESSAGE 0.25)
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Petty
Subject: prop hub
Ronnie,
Here are a few pictures of my prop flange on my 912UL. There are three threaded
lugs and three lugs that are striaght through. As you mentioned, knocking them
out and going with the 1/2" AN bolts was not a problem with the 3 non threaded
lugs.. however the other 3 will not budge.... ergggg I beat on the tip and
placed a 8mm bolt in the threads and only managed to move the lug maybe 1/16"
of an inch.
I am afraid of bending the prop shaft or damaging the gears if i hit it any harder..
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC140001.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC140002.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC140003.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC140004.JPG
________________________________________________________________________________
required 4.6, BAYES_20 -1.43, HTML_60_70 0.11, HTML_MESSAGE 0.25)
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Petty
Subject: more photos
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC140006.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC140007.JPG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick! |
If a 2 cycle does not run right the first thing to do is put a new set of
plugs in it. Don't throw out the old ones untill you are sure that is the
problem. Did you spin the engine with the plug wires off? I understand that
can screw up the ignition system. Is the throttle going back to full closed
idle? I could never get a 2 cycle to start unless the choke was full on and
throttle was full off. Only a little bit open and no luck..Its hard to be a
doctor from a distance :)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
Greetings,
Last year, when I was at London, KY I picked up this newspaper called The
Sentinel. It is a very good tribute. It was published November 19, 2004.
_http://www.members.aol.com/willuribe/norm-part1.jpg_
(http://www.members.aol.com/willuribe/norm-part1.jpg)
_http://www.members.aol.com/willuribe/norm-part2.jpg_
(http://www.members.aol.com/willuribe/norm-part2.jpg)
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb List: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick!/Fails to |
Fire
In a message dated 12/14/2005 8:16:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com writes:
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.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think the manual reads ".016-.02" [not +-]; that is
.016 TO .020.
I try to set mine to .017.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb List: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick!/Fails to |
Fire
| I'm not 100% sure, but I think the manual reads ".016-.02" [not
+-]; that is
| .016 TO .020.
|
| I try to set mine to .017.
|
| Howard Shackleford
Hi Shack/Gang:
I don't know. I haven't looked at the manual for a long time.
However, I interpret the plug gap as a wear limit. One could start
out at .016 and regap when it gets to .020", or any where in-between.
Reckon the Rotax engineers that designed and built the 503 knew enough
to know what the correct plug gap should be. Again, if it will not
fire, close'em down a little until it does. Anyhow, that is what I
would do.
How goes it in Trenton, SC. Got to get back over there one of these
days real soon. That group serves up a mean lunch and some true
southern hospitality to wayfaring strangers. ;-)
john h
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb List: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick!/Fails to |
Fire
> | .02 probably still shouldn't give you that much grief. It should
>still start
>| easily, even though that's a slightly large gap.
>| |
>| LS
>
>LS/All:
>
>Should start, but they won't. Got something to do with the CDI
>system. All things are not the same on Rotax engines.
My memory is a bit fuzzy on this since the last time I tried this was a long
time ago. I believe at one point I was setting my plug gap to .02 on my
503's due to the recommendation in one of the manuals, but I don't remember
exactly.
The spark is intentionally a bit weak with the Ducati ignition for safety
purposes. At least 300 rpm is needed to get a spark good enough to fire the
motor, so that it can't inadvertantly fire while moving the prop through by
hand (this was a hazard on the old point ignition motors for sure).
So .02 may very well be too much gap and my memory is faulty about this.....
I run .018 with nominal results so I know that gap works fine....
Hope that's all the problem was in any case.....
LS
N646F
>john h
>MKIII/912ULS
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick!/Soot in the Spark Plug |
Wire Caps
>LS/All:
>
>Do you reckon that the black residue you are seeing is the result in
>arching inside the plug cap? This is very common in high capacity
>ignition systems.
It's possible, but I'm inclined to think it's just normal wear/tear from the
vibration... Break an old cap open with a hammer sometime and look at all
the little parts that make it up..... It's amazing they last as long as they
do!
I change them good or not about every 100 to 150 hours with the black NGK
part. This is the same cap as the tan one sold by Rotax, but at a MUCH
cheaper price (about $5 a piece instead of $25). Replacement is about a 5 to
10 min. job and is very cheap preventative maintenance.....
Don't know what cap is used on the 912, though.....
LS
N646F
>john h
>MKIII/912ULS
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
Any prop that would allow 1/2 inch bolts through it will be inappropriately
large for this engine. The drive lugs are a crucial part of mounting of a
prop to a prop hub. This is a really dangerous thing to be doing!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "chris davis" <scrounge69(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Final report NORMS MK3 CRASH |
Todd Fredrics, I talked to the NTSB man that worked on the crash he said"there
was bugs and water in the fuel line above the filter"the FAA and the NTSB
checked TNKs fuel 'no water no bugs, I always pour my fuel through a fine
filter that is a fuel water separator also ! No one knows where Norm got the
contaminated fuel . chris davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb List: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick!/Fails to |
Fire
Hi LS/Gang:
Some interesting information you are sharing.
| The spark is intentionally a bit weak with the Ducati ignition for
safety
| purposes. At least 300 rpm is needed to get a spark good enough to
fire the
| motor, so that it can't inadvertantly fire while moving the prop
through by
| hand (this was a hazard on the old point ignition motors for sure).
Would it be possible to supply us some Rotax reference so we can read
up on the above?
john h
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
required 4.6, BAYES_44 -0.00, HTML_MESSAGE 0.25)
Kolbers,
For the record this is what I found out about the lugs vs. AN8 bolts that hold
the prop hub extension (Not the prop hub) to the prop flange on the 912 Rotax
engine. This all started when I called TNK and ordered the bolts that hold the
"Extension" to the prop flange. They sent me 6 AN-8 bolts and 6 lock nuts also
AN hardware. My "Used" 912UL that I bought (or stole as some say) had 3 8mm
threaded lugs and 3 unthreaded "Inserts".... strange. So after talking with TNK
and others the 6 AN-8 bolts will do fine for the 80hp 912UL. It seams that the
older 912UL's were shipped without the lugs and the 912S engines were shipped
with the lugs. The lugs are a $18.00 each option for a new 912UL but come with
the S engines. TNK has mounted several 912UL 80 hp engines on Kolb aircraft
and never had a problem with them. As a matter of fact the parts person at TNK
remembers ordering two thousand dollars worth of the AN-8 hardware.
Paul Petty
Building Ms. Dixie
Kolbra/912UL/Warp
www.c-gate.net/~ppetty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb List: Doctor! Doctor! My 503 is sick!/Fails to |
Fire
>Hi LS/Gang:
>
>Some interesting information you are sharing.
>
>| The spark is intentionally a bit weak with the Ducati ignition for
>safety
>| purposes. At least 300 rpm is needed to get a spark good enough to
>fire the
>| motor, so that it can't inadvertantly fire while moving the prop
>through by
>| hand (this was a hazard on the old point ignition motors for sure).
>
>Would it be possible to supply us some Rotax reference so we can read
>up on the above?
Probably not.... This is generally knowledge from the field, a lot of what I
learned came from the various Rotax mechanics I've worked with over the
years.
I've never been to locate Rotax docs on this anyway...
LS
N646F
>john h
>MKIII/912ULS
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello all Kolb flyers and builders,
My name's Ben Ramler. I live in the SW portion of Minnesota. I'm thinking about
getting my Sport pilot Lic. and I have right now 2 hours on a cessna which
means I only need 18 hours left for flight training. So in order to get my lic.
I need to build an airplane first! So my question is this.....Who on the list
flys the MK IIIC or the xtra and would an airplane like that be right for Me?
The other airplanes I've been looking at are: CH-701 (zenith) and the FX-4
(made by Ferguson aircraft). I'm also wondering what the flight characteristiccs
of that airplane are? Does anyone have some in flight photos from out of the
cockpit to share? Any would be appreciated very much!
thanks & Merry christmas to you all,
Ben Ramler
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM05(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: new to the List |
Ben
Welcome. One word of advice, don't use that F...... word on this list. Those
planes are made with designs stolen from Kolb.
Well are Kolb's the plane for you???? Only you can answer that. They are
very rugged well designed airplanes. They are STOL airplanes and as such
don't fly very fast but they will get you there and home. We have members
that don't think twice about flying their airplanes just about every where.
One has flown to Alaska three times another every state in the lower 48 in
his first summer of flying his new plane and the list goes on and on.
I have a bunch of photos I could send you if you want but to wet your
appetite you may want to view some of the following:
http://www.hawaiiscenics.com/gallery/144699/1/5411187
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbflyer/
Also John Hauck has a fantastic photo journal of a couple of his flight to
Alaska that is beyond belief from his MKIIIc. I couldn't find my link to
them but I'm sure some one will point you to them if you like.
The Kolb factory is fantastic to work with and we as a group stand ready to
help at any time.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Ramler" <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: new to the List
>
> Hello all Kolb flyers and builders,
>
> My name's Ben Ramler. I live in the SW portion of Minnesota. I'm
> thinking about getting my Sport pilot Lic. and I have right now 2 hours on
> a cessna which means I only need 18 hours left for flight training. So in
> order to get my lic. I need to build an airplane first! So my question is
> this.....Who on the list flys the MK IIIC or the xtra and would an
> airplane like that be right for Me? The other airplanes I've been looking
> at are: CH-701 (zenith) and the FX-4 (made by Ferguson aircraft). I'm also
> wondering what the flight characteristiccs of that airplane are? Does
> anyone have some in flight photos from out of the cockpit to share? Any
> would be appreciated very much!
>
>
> thanks & Merry christmas to you all,
>
>
> Ben Ramler
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
Not so far.......I'll be driving from Palm Springs. Do not
Archive.
---------------------------------------------
d.....d....... d........ dddd........driving?????????
larry larry larry............
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: new to the List |
Rick if you want to send me more pictures that would be great! Why don't you contact
me off the list and I will give you my address if you are planning on putting
a CD together? ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com
Ben
Richard & Martha Neilsen wrote:
Ben
Welcome. One word of advice, don't use that F...... word on this list. Those
planes are made with designs stolen from Kolb.
Well are Kolb's the plane for you???? Only you can answer that. They are
very rugged well designed airplanes. They are STOL airplanes and as such
don't fly very fast but they will get you there and home. We have members
that don't think twice about flying their airplanes just about every where.
One has flown to Alaska three times another every state in the lower 48 in
his first summer of flying his new plane and the list goes on and on.
I have a bunch of photos I could send you if you want but to wet your
appetite you may want to view some of the following:
http://www.hawaiiscenics.com/gallery/144699/1/5411187
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbflyer/
Also John Hauck has a fantastic photo journal of a couple of his flight to
Alaska that is beyond belief from his MKIIIc. I couldn't find my link to
them but I'm sure some one will point you to them if you like.
The Kolb factory is fantastic to work with and we as a group stand ready to
help at any time.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Ramler"
Subject: Kolb-List: new to the List
>
> Hello all Kolb flyers and builders,
>
> My name's Ben Ramler. I live in the SW portion of Minnesota. I'm
> thinking about getting my Sport pilot Lic. and I have right now 2 hours on
> a cessna which means I only need 18 hours left for flight training. So in
> order to get my lic. I need to build an airplane first! So my question is
> this.....Who on the list flys the MK IIIC or the xtra and would an
> airplane like that be right for Me? The other airplanes I've been looking
> at are: CH-701 (zenith) and the FX-4 (made by Ferguson aircraft). I'm also
> wondering what the flight characteristiccs of that airplane are? Does
> anyone have some in flight photos from out of the cockpit to share? Any
> would be appreciated very much!
>
>
> thanks & Merry christmas to you all,
>
>
> Ben Ramler
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thom Riddle <jtriddle(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: new to the List |
Ben,
I've owned both a Zenith CH-701 and a Kolb Firestar. The 701 is a fine
all metal airplane and a good STOL airplane but the visibility sucks
compared to ALL KOLBS. The Kolbs are simpler and usually lighter
airplanes with as good or better STOL capability as the 701. Until
you've flown in a pusher aircraft you can not even imagine the
difference in enjoyment of flight resulting from the far superior
forward visibility provided by this configuration. I also took a demo
flight in a Ferguson once and did not like it.
Bottom line: If you want to really see the world from the cockpit, then
you MUST have a pusher.
Hope this helps.
Thom in Buffalo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: new to the List |
Hi Ben,
I've flown several different types of aircraft. I started out in general
aviation, then owned and flew a quicksilver MX Super, a trike and a PPC
(which I still have). I've flown in various other airplanes, such as an RV,
a rans coyote S6 and a couple others that I can't remember at the moment.
I now own a Kolb Firestar II (built by someone else though) and have about
50 to 60 hours flight time in it.
I'd say, in comparison to the other planes I've flown or the others I could
potentially get into, the Kolb has the following advantages:
- the view. Other guys have mentioned this and it's true. In fact, only my
quicksilver and my trike had a better view than the Kolb and that still
wasn't by too much (I suppose if you didn't put fabric on the cockpit cage,
the vis. would be even better). For sure, tractor config airplanes become
rather boring after a while, since you stare at a lot of airplane instead of
sky when you fly them.
- the folding wings. The Kolb is the only plane that I know of that's not a
pain in the butt to fold up. My trike's wing could be broken down, but it
was a pain (easy to booger cables and wear holes in the sail taking it in
and out of the bag). No other plane can fold up as well as the Kolb. This is
a big advantage of the Kolbs...
- dope and fabric covering. Kolbs are covered in Stitts, which is much
longer lasting than traditional dacron coverings that you find on most light
aircraft. Dacron covers are easier to install, but dope and fabric lasts
simply forever..
- overall design advantages that I like about the Kolb are:
-- no moving parts whatsoever inside the wing. Hooray! This was my favorite
part about trikes and what I hate hate hate the most about traditional
construction of GA planes and such. The Kolb has the same advantage. No
cables, pullys, bellcranks and associated hard-to-reach
nuts/bolts/pushrods/teleflex cables in the wing. The entire aileron/flap
system is all completely outside the wing in easy-to-inspect and service
places.
-- strong construction. The spars and fuse tube are much stronger than
required.
-- Rivets and lots of them substitute for bolt/channel bracket construction
found in many other designs. Bolt/tube/channel bracket construction wears
out surprisingly quickly requiring new tubes and brackets (or frustrating
repair of boogered holes in tube ends) on a somewhat regular basis. The Kolb
is riveted together just about everywhere with only a few wearing parts. For
example, the hinges on the Kolb are the flat door-like hinges that use a pin
and they're riveted to the control surface. They're designed to last the
entire life of the plane and not need periodic replacement like the more
typical bolt/channel bracket type hinges sometimes found on other designs.
-- fuselage is just a tube. This is the way to go, and it's done in a strong
manner on the Kolb.
-- control cables are extremely simple. Only 4 of them that lead from the
stick and rudder pedals, through the fuse tube and hook to the horns on the
elevator/rudder. They go around only one set of pullies under the seat. Very
simple and easy to inspect and service.
So basically, I really like the way the Kolb is built. It's not an F16 for
sure, but for a small light aircraft, it's a very good design.
The only disadvantages I can think of are apparently quite difficult
construction (though this looks like a non-issue with the quickbuild
options!) and not a whole lot of aileron authority, which might be only an
aspect of the Firestar (and I don't have the gap seals on mine yet).
So for sure shop around and see what appeals to you. Personally, these are
the advantages I can see with the Kolb and if they work for your mission,
the Kolb is a really good choice....
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: new to the List/Gap Seals |
| The only disadvantages I can think of are apparently quite
difficult
| construction (though this looks like a non-issue with the quickbuild
| options!) and not a whole lot of aileron authority, which might be
only an
| aspect of the Firestar (and I don't have the gap seals on mine yet).
|
| LS
LS/All:
Sounds like you are flying an incomplete aircraft. Aileron gap seals
are an extremely important component of Kolb aircraft.
You may be surprised when you find out how well your FS flies in its
finished state.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM05(at)comcast.net> |
Lucien
The lack of gap seals IS the reason for poor aileron power. Kolbs are
legendary for their great aileron power. I don't understand it, the
instructions are very clear that they are needed but.......
I had a guy fly into my strip last summer that knew everything about
building airplanes and told me so. He had built a MKIIIc like mine without
the gap seals and a bunch of other design changes. He explained that gap
seals weren't important and nothing I could say could change his mind. Later
when he took off he used every inch of my 1400' strip and barely cleared the
power lines 1/2 mile away nearly killing him and his passenger. Why??????
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: new to the List
>
>
> The only disadvantages I can think of are apparently quite difficult
> construction (though this looks like a non-issue with the quickbuild
> options!) and not a whole lot of aileron authority, which might be only an
> aspect of the Firestar (and I don't have the gap seals on mine yet).
> LS
> N646F
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: new to the List/Gap Seals |
Should the rudder and elevators be sealed too...
|
| DVD
DVD/Gang:
Plans did not call for them on any of my three different Kolbs. Gave
it some thought, but never got around to experimenting with elevator
and rudder gap seals, and sealing the area between vertical
stabilizers, upper and lower, where they mate with the tail boom.
Can't remember if anyone else I know has done that experimentation or
not.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Re: new to the List/Gap Seals |
Thanx John...
The only airplane I've owned that had all the surfaces sealed (except flaps)
was my Mooney Mite and the factory built them that way, so I don't know how
it would have performed without them...
DVD
On 12/16/05, John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> Should the rudder and elevators be sealed too...
> |
> | DVD
>
> DVD/Gang:
>
> Plans did not call for them on any of my three different Kolbs. Gave
> it some thought, but never got around to experimenting with elevator
> and rudder gap seals, and sealing the area between vertical
> stabilizers, upper and lower, where they mate with the tail boom.
> Can't remember if anyone else I know has done that experimentation or
> not.
>
> john h
> MKIII/912ULS
> hauck's holler, alabama
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | roger lee <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: new to the List/Gap Seals |
Hi John,
John, My Mark III hasgap seals on the elevator, rudder and the wings. They work
very well.
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
John Hauck wrote:
Should the rudder and elevators be sealed too...
|
| DVD
DVD/Gang:
Plans did not call for them on any of my three different Kolbs. Gave
it some thought, but never got around to experimenting with elevator
and rudder gap seals, and sealing the area between vertical
stabilizers, upper and lower, where they mate with the tail boom.
Can't remember if anyone else I know has done that experimentation or
not.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
required 4.6, BAYES_44 -0.00, HTML_50_60 0.10, HTML_MESSAGE 0.25)
Hey gang,
Took some photos last night of how I made the support for the aileron torque tube.
I don't need the slider because I have flaps. Figured I would show everyone.
Also tossing in a few pics of the panels.
Enjoy.
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC150002.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC150003.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC150004.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC150005.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC150008.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC150010.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC150012.JPG
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/PC150014.JPG
Paul Petty
Building Ms. Dixie
Kolbra/912UL/Warp
I.L.D.S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: new to the List/Gap Seals |
Norm flew my MKIII which has vortex generators, and due to the lower
stall speeds, he suggested that I not add gap seals between the
elevators and the horizontal tail. He said it was possible I might get
into some really unexplored territory where no one could predict what
might happen, perhaps have the elevators hang in a bit longer than
before and the tail stall sharply instead of the elevators gradually
losing control authority like it does now. He did not think adding
vortex generators to both the wings and the underside of the horizontal
tail, or gap sealing the tail if you had VG's on the wing was a good
idea. However he liked the VG's on the wing a lot. I sure wish the
factory Xtra would have had them...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
roger lee wrote:
>
>Hi John,
>
> John, My Mark III hasgap seals on the elevator, rudder and the wings. They work
very well.
>
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
>
>John Hauck wrote:
>
>Should the rudder and elevators be sealed too...
>|
>| DVD
>
>DVD/Gang:
>
>Plans did not call for them on any of my three different Kolbs. Gave
>it some thought, but never got around to experimenting with elevator
>and rudder gap seals, and sealing the area between vertical
>stabilizers, upper and lower, where they mate with the tail boom.
>Can't remember if anyone else I know has done that experimentation or
>not.
>
>john h
>MKIII/912ULS
>hauck's holler, alabama
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Memories and Merry Xmas!!! |
roger lee wrote:
>
>Hi John,
>
> Was having some trouble on cold mornings starting my 912s. I read your post
about reducing the plug gap to .025 from .028. I also took out the old battery
that was only 18 ah and put in a new Odessy gel cell 27ah battery. Fires right
up now.
>
> Thanks for the tip,
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
>
snipped
FWIW, an 18ah sealed lead-acid battery (not really a gel cell; different
technology) like the Odyssey will easily crank a hotrodded 10-1
compression IO-360 Lycoming if wiring is done right & the battery is in
good condition. With 27ah, you shouldn't even need gas for short flights.
Charlie
(obligatory ;-) here)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | MarkIIIvs Kolbra |
I am longing for another Kolb but I've only had a Mark III. I am seriously
looking at a Kolbra. I wanted to hear from someone that has flown in both.
Besides the side by side seating what are the diffrences on how they feel?
Thanks,
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
i put gap seals on my mkIII elevators and could not tell much
difference...... but i took my old aileron seals off when i washed my
plane last summert and flew around the pattern once to dry things off before
installing new ones........ BELIEVE ME they make a lot of
difference!!!!!! i have not ever put them on the rudder.
boyd
---------------
Should the rudder and elevators be sealed too...
|
| DVD
DVD/Gang:
Plans did not call for them on any of my three different Kolbs. Gave
it some thought, but never got around to experimenting with elevator
and rudder gap seals, and sealing the area between vertical
stabilizers, upper and lower, where they mate with the tail boom.
Can't remember if anyone else I know has done that experimentation or
not.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: new to the List/Gap Seals |
>
>Norm flew my MKIII which has vortex generators, and due to the lower
>stall speeds, he suggested that I not add gap seals between the
>elevators and the horizontal tail. He said it was possible I might get
>into some really unexplored territory where no one could predict what
>might happen, perhaps have the elevators hang in a bit longer than
>before and the tail stall sharply instead of the elevators gradually
>losing control authority like it does now. He did not think adding
>vortex generators to both the wings and the underside of the horizontal
>tail, or gap sealing the tail if you had VG's on the wing was a good
>idea. However he liked the VG's on the wing a lot. I sure wish the
>factory Xtra would have had them...
>
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
Richard & FireFlyer's,
To help civilize the FireFly, I mounted VG's on the wings at 28.5 hours.
The FireFly became much more solid and docile. VG's reduced stall speed,
with no wing drop off and no clean break, just a mush. This would indicate
the center of lift has moved more toward the rear.
I found that at slow speeds and flying in ground effect there was little
pitch control authority. As result one had to maintain higher speeds to
keep pitch control crisp. To increase back stick reaction, I installed book
binding tape back seals between the horizontal stabilizers and elevators at
43 hours. I could not feel much if any improvement. At 69 hours I added
temp VG's to the underside of the horizontal stabilizer. These VG's
increased back pressure feed back at low speeds. I can three point the
FireFly with three degrees of flaperon and at lower speeds with out it
becoming mushy in pitch.
The current total flight time is 194 hours. The library tape needs to be
replaced. This Spring, I will take it off and fly with out it to see if
there is a change in performance. I doubt that I will replace the tape.
Checking my records, I could not find that I have done any stall testing
since adding the VG's to the bottom of the horizontal stabilizer. I added
stall testing to my short list.
Snow is a couple feet deep next to the hangar doors.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | roger lee <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Memories and Merry Xmas!!! |
Hi Charlie,
The 18ah battery was the original battery. When I talked to Lockwood, Rotax distributor
and service facility, about the starting issue they said all the 912s
were supposed to have a 28 ah battery. I will say it made a big difference.
I am also installing this week the heavy duty starter. The heavy duty starter
is supposed to have more torque and turning speed.
We will see shortly.
Take Care,
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az
roger lee wrote:
>
>Hi John,
>
> Was having some trouble on cold mornings starting my 912s. I read your post about
reducing the plug gap to .025 from .028. I also took out the old battery
that was only 18 ah and put in a new Odessy gel cell 27ah battery. Fires right
up now.
>
> Thanks for the tip,
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
>
snipped
FWIW, an 18ah sealed lead-acid battery (not really a gel cell; different
technology) like the Odyssey will easily crank a hotrodded 10-1
compression IO-360 Lycoming if wiring is done right & the battery is in
good condition. With 27ah, you shouldn't even need gas for short flights.
Charlie
(obligatory ;-) here)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Batteries and 912ULS |
the 912s were supposed to have a 28 ah battery. I will say it made a
big difference. I am also installing this week the heavy duty starter.
| |
| Roger Lee
Roger L/Gang:
Did the 1994 flight to Alaska with a 912 and a 14 ah Wal*Mart wet
motorcycle battery. Had to get a jump start in Dead Horse, AK, when
the temps below freezing.
2000 and 2001 flight to Alaska was with a 12 ah sealed battery. It
got the job done with out any starting assistance.
2004 flight was with 16 ah Odesey sealed lead acid battery. It also
got the job done, turning the 912ULS with a new high torque starter
and slip clutch. The new starter and slip clutch were excellent
improvements to the older 912ULS. Newer 912ULS's come with equipped
with the starter and slip clutch.
The 16 ah bat weighs 15 lbs.
Don't have any documentation to back me up, only experience, but that
big battery is probably an overkill. However, you may have a
requirement for it.
BTW the 12 ah battery would start the Cummins Diesel in my truck,
without a whimper.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron" <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
Glad to see you recovering. You are certainly handling all of this as best
as anyone possibly can. See you in the sky sometime.
Ron
Arizona
===================
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris davis
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: | "Ron" <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Suki motor with a turbo |
Bob B. sorta suggested that I repost this message here. Which makes sense as
Richard S. is doing or may have already finished doing the same thing.
-------------
Folks
I am about to make a call and send off 600 smackers
for a 1.0 ltr Suzuki with a turbo. This is what I know is
to be delivered. One motor low mileage (according to
the seller) and one turbo charger.
I also know that I will need the following; a starter,
a radiator, an ignition system, and adopter plate and plumbing for the
turbo, and of course an RDU. The Rdu I can leave
for later as we have two qualified gentlemen here (yahoo Geo list) that can
help me with that. What I would like to get in
terms of input is just what all I will need to do the
day the crate arrives at my door step.
It would be great if you would tell me in as much
detail what you would do, from the minute the create
is on the garage floor. No detail will go un
Appreciated. Plus it will be guidance to all of us.
(Main problem is that I cannot find any 1.3 liter
motor in Southern Arizona at all, and as some of you
have commented that the 1.0 liter with a turbo is as
Sufficient as a 1.3
Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukah as the case may be.
Ron
Arizona
(Needing to get that Big Kolb finished, all the other
little things have been done and I have nothing to
stall the project with any longer)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
Hey All,
Just an FYI, I made some temporary aileron gap seals for my FS II out of
packing tape with a strip of light cloth down the middle (to keep the tape
from sticking and crumpling up as the ailerons were moved) and flew around
with them a bit today.
Yep, just like my r/c airplanes, the tape made a significant difference. The
roll rate was higher and there was just overall more aileron (seemed like
slightly less adverse yaw too, perhaps the seals reduce drag as well).
I'm going to do some more test flying tomorrow if the weather holds. But it
sure seemed to help with the aileron authority.
I guess now I have to plan some permanant ones, a-la the drawing on the kolb
list photos.... Never done dope and fabric, but I guess this will be a good
way to start.... I'll have to ask a bunch of ignorant fabric work questions
on here I guess ;)....
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gap seals redux |
| I'll have to ask a bunch of ignorant fabric work questions
| on here I guess ;)....
|
| LS
LS/Gang:
Not necessary if you read and study the Poly Fiber Manual before you
get in over your head.
Best place to start is with Jim and Dondi Miller. You can go to their
web page, get their toll free number, call and ask all the dumb
questions you can come up with. They have a lot of good answers.
Have been invaluable to most of us on the Kolb List when it came to
covering and painting our Kolbs.
http://www.aircrafttechsupport.com/
Glad the gap seals helped. That is why they are included in the plans
and instructions for Kolb airplanes.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, al
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Mark III vs Kolbra |
I am going to get another Kolb and I'm considering the Kolbra. I've owed a
Mark III C, can someone who has time in both explain their flight
diffrences?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark III vs Kolbra |
| I am going to get another Kolb and I'm considering the Kolbra. I've
owed a
| Mark III C, can someone who has time in both explain their flight
| diffrences?
Morning David K/All:
Basically, the same aircraft, same wing and tail section. Seems like
the tailboom is longer, but can not say for sure. Major difference is
tandem versus side by side seating. The Kolbra will cruise faster
than the MKIII with the same engine and prop because of the narrower
profile. However, the Kolbra can not be configured like the MKIII to
provide much more cargo space. In addition, the MKIII has a built in
flight desk, the second seat that is not occupied. There have to be a
few changes to the MKIII to gain the additional cargo room, e.g., move
fuel tank to upper area behind the bulkhead that is normally open and
not used. This opens up the lower area where the original fuel tanks
were for cargo.
As far as handling, the Kolbra seems to me to be a bit more docile
than the MKIII, which is also a docile handling airplane like all the
other Kolb models, new and older. Also some of the adverse yaw and
pitch attitude problems experienced with the MKIII seem to be gone.
These observations are based on only a short period of flight in two
different Kolbras, one 582 and the other 912 powered.
One additional item is the flaps on the MKIII, which are a definite
plus. The standard Kolbra does come with a standard flap setup.
However, Paul P is building a Kolbra that has full flaps like the
MKIII. We'll have to wait until Paul's airplane flies to see how well
they perform. I am sure they will be a welcome addition to the
already good flying Kolbra.
I think it is a toss up of whether one wants tandem or side by side
seating. I like both and would certainly own a Kolbra if I didn't
already have a good MKIII.
Take care,
john h
MKIII,912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "woody" <duesouth(at)govital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gap seals redux |
I have used the original Stits fabric for my gap seals on all 6 Kolbs I
have built. Fast, simple and just like me "cheap". It does not have to be
replaced unless you play lawn dart into cornfields like I do.
> LS
> I used the book binding tape method as described in the build manual. It
> saves a lot of time and mess. It's easy to apply and works just fine. It
> may have to be replaced every other year or so but that should be easy.
> Jim Ballenger
> MK III X 582
> Virginia Beach, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <rswiderski(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Suki motor with a turbo |
Hi Ron,
A lot of your questions can be answered at my website:
http://www.geocities.com/ib2polish/
If the engine came with the turbo you will be well on your way. If it is a
naturally aspirated engine, then you have a lot of work in front of you.
The turbo version has beefed up rods & wristpins plus low compression
pistons. Give me a call & I'll be happy to share what I know.
Richard Swiderski
352-307-9009
Folks
I am about to make a call and send off 600 smackers
for a 1.0 ltr Suzuki with a turbo. This is what I know is
to be delivered. One motor low mileage (according to
the seller) and one turbo charger.
I also know that I will need the following; a starter,
a radiator, an ignition system, and adopter plate and plumbing for the
turbo, and of course an RDU. The Rdu I can leave
for later as we have two qualified gentlemen here (yahoo Geo list) that can
help me with that. What I would like to get in
terms of input is just what all I will need to do the
day the crate arrives at my door step.
It would be great if you would tell me in as much
detail what you would do, from the minute the create
is on the garage floor. No detail will go un
Appreciated. Plus it will be guidance to all of us.
(Main problem is that I cannot find any 1.3 liter
motor in Southern Arizona at all, and as some of you
have commented that the 1.0 liter with a turbo is as
Sufficient as a 1.3
Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukah as the case may be.
Ron
Arizona
(Needing to get that Big Kolb finished, all the other
little things have been done and I have nothing to
stall the project with any longer)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com> |
Mark German,
I have another question why couldn't a person add a pod underneath the aircraft
of the Kolbra? The pod would be for duffle bags, tents, inflatable air mattresses?
thanks,
Ben
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dallas Shepherd" <cen23954(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: more questions |
Titan Aircraft has such a pod for their planes.
Dallas Shepherd
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: 12/18/05 13:35:31
Subject: Kolb-List: more questions
Mark German,
I have another question why couldn't a person add a pod underneath the
aircraft of the Kolbra? The pod would be for duffle bags, tents, inflatable
air mattresses?
thanks,
Ben
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
To those interested in flying off water --
I have no time in a Kolb on floats, but have done some seaplane flying,
so these comments may be useful. It is the GREATEST flying you=92ll ever
do. Just marvellous.
I do hope John H gets to do some soon, to round out his impressive
flying career, and have a ball as well.
It is obviously very different, and it seems people break things
regularly -- the insurance rates are much higher. When I put my 170 on
floats my premium almost doubled. Then when I went back to wheels the
insurance co. refused to lower my premium again! -- saying =91We know
you=92ll go back on floats next year=92 Well, I consider that=92s my
decision, not yours, so Goodby Avemco.
Mounting is straightforward, but the step must be right on the takeoff
CG, and should be ventilated to break suction. I personally think Lotus
floats are very heavy but I have heard good things about them
otherwise. The best material I ever saw, or flew, was on an ultralight
flying boat -- thin marine plywood sandwiched with polycarbonbate
honeycomb -- light and lovely, but hugely labor-intensive.
One thing you should know -- when a seaplane is on the water, it is a
powerboat and under the Coast Guard rules, not those of the FAA. I=92ve
never seen nor heard of them being enforced for light planes, but it=92s
possible. You could run into a zealous CG Auxiliaryman on a weekend and
be inspected. A fire extinguisher is required, and a PFD (life
preserver) for everyone onboard, =93readily available for immediate use=94.
Anyone under 13 may be required to wear one. The regs also require
things like a horn, bell, whistle, flares and distress signals, a copy
of the Rules of the Road; and specific lights for nighttime use. You=92d
have to add a forward-facing =93masthead light=94 to the regular aircraft
lights to be legal.
I doubt you=92ll ever need any of these, but it doesn=92t hurt to know
about them.
Russ Kinne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: float flying |
on floats my premium almost doubled.>>
Hi Russ,
that is because with a seaplane you can have all the things that go wrong
with boats and all the things that go wrong with airplanes wrapped up in one
handy package.
I am kidding. Only flown from water a couple of times, both times in
amphibian ultrlights, and it was great.
Cheers
Pat
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com> |
what is the total price for the kit? The website says a little over 8,000 but it
says at the top firefly. I'm talking about the Kolbra now
thanks,
Ben
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: float flying |
In a message dated 12/18/2005 4:39:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kinnepix(at)earthlink.net writes:
> One thing you should know -- when a seaplane is on the water, it is a
> powerboat and under the Coast Guard rules, not those of the FAA. I=92ve
> never seen nor heard of them being enforced for light planes, but it=92s
> possible. You could run into a zealous CG Auxiliaryman on a weekend and
> be inspected. A fire extinguisher is required, and a PFD (life
> preserver) for everyone onboard, =93readily available for immediate use=94.
> Anyone under 13 may be required to wear one. The regs also require
> things like a horn, bell, whistle, flares and distress signals, a copy
> of the Rules of the Road; and specific lights for nighttime use. You=92d
> have to add a forward-facing =93masthead light=94 to the regular aircraft
> lights to be legal.
> I doubt you=92ll ever need any of these, but it doesn=92t hurt to know
> about them.
> Russ Kinne
>
>
Hi Russ,
Not here in Fla. A floatplane is not considered a boat in any terms. You may
want to carry the extra gear but it is not required or governed by the CG or
Fla Marine Patrol. It is important to understand this because while in a
floatplane or seaplane you must yield to ALL vessels. You do not have any rights
as a boat. Also you are not required to have a boat registration and nighttime
operations on the water are prohibited. only amphibs can fly at night and only
by means of land operations after dark. Most people I know here carry a copy
of the state reg with them in case of an over zealous Marine Officer.
Thing may be different when you leave the Sunshine State,
Steve Boetto
FireFly on Floats
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gap seals redux |
I called
| Jim Dondi and ordered some reinforcement tape , I think 3 inch and
used poly
| tack to put it on over the poly tone paint a and it was simple ,
easy and
| looks great. | Bill Futrell
Hi Billy/Gang:
I have some gap seals on my MKIII that have been there since 1992, and
done a bit of flying during that time. A little extra effort during
the finishing stages of the airplane, but well worth the effort.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
2,444.0/1,098.1 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | roger lee <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gap seals redux |
Hi John,
Installed my new heavy duty starter today and with the new 28 ah battery that
prop really spins now. I think I could just hold the key in the on position and
I could fly without a start up. Huge difference. Glad I made the changes. I
also beefed up my landing gear from the original tapered aluminum legs to a straight
1 3/8" aluminum (7075-T651) all the way to the wheel hub. I also lengthened
the legs 4 inches. That raised the front end up and now I land mains first.
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az
John Hauck wrote:
I called
| Jim Dondi and ordered some reinforcement tape , I think 3 inch and
used poly
| tack to put it on over the poly tone paint a and it was simple ,
easy and
| looks great. | Bill Futrell
Hi Billy/Gang:
I have some gap seals on my MKIII that have been there since 1992, and
done a bit of flying during that time. A little extra effort during
the finishing stages of the airplane, but well worth the effort.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
2,444.0/1,098.1 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
List, I apologize -- I made some misleading statements.
Let me add that ON NAVIGABLE WATERS the Coast Guard is in charge of
seaplanes while they're on the water. Obviously on a land-bound lake
there's no CG and the local laws will be in effect. And as Steve B
pointed out, the local lawman may not realize that when a seaplane
stops, it WILL weathercock into the wind, right now too, no matter what
else happens. So he should know that it's inadvisable to command a
pilot to stop when it could cause damage, collisions, etc. Hopefully
the local officer will learn at least a little about the watercraft
he's trying to control.
Russ Kinne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | 912UL on a Firestar II |
Group,
I really like my fully enclosed Firestar II and it's 503 DCDI, electric
start. But one thing that I am disappointed in is the lack ability to
travel. With 10 gallons of gas, I have only 140 miles planned range at
70 mph. When I fly on cross-countries, I tend to worry about changing
winds and remaining fuel. I have tried to figure out how to carry more
fuel in my Firestar, but the best that I have come up with is an extra
6 gallon tank in the back seat. Not a real solution. I need all the
back seat for cargo. So, I searched for a light weight, economical four
stroke for the Firestar. There is not much. And I don't like what there
is. Because of that, I have considered a Kolbra. I paid attention when
John W. wrote or talked about his, with special interest in fuel
economy (which to me is range). What I got from that, is that if you
push a Kolbra fast enough, you still have range problems. Recently, I
have wondered what the fuel burn of a 912UL would be at 80 mph on a
Firestar. By my calculations, using the Rotax HP and fuel burn graphs,
it would be less than 2 gph. If correct, I would have a 320+ mile
planned range with 8 of my 10 gallons. If it was possible to use a 912,
and the calculations are correct, it would change the whole character
of the plane. So what are the problems, and are they solvable? Any
interest?
John Jung
Firstar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Harrison" <kenharrison(at)ubgcharlotte.com> |
| Subject: | Firestar II For Sale |
Hello gentlemen,
I am putting my Firestar II up for sale. It's in great shape and is ready
to fly home. Here are the particulars.
KOLB FIRESTAR II 2004, VFR, Mint 2004 Kolb Firestar II, 2004 Paint, 2 Seats,
For Sale - $12,000
Mint 2004 Kolb Firestar II with Rotax 503 DCDCDI, Ivoprop, BRS-5 ballistic
chute, and Stits PolyTone color
scheme. Airframe has only 66 hours. Engine 235 hours. Extended panel, basic
VFR instruments, lexan gap seal, 5 gallon tank
installed and another 5 gallon tank available. Folding wings and tail
feathers. Easy to trailer.
Lots of pictures available. Sale price $12,000 ready to fly away. Ken
704-490-5499
Parts/options that are on the plane or come with the plane:
Extended panel that is hinged so that you can work on the back of the
instrument wiring.
BRS-5 ballistic chute
Map pocket on rear of pilot seat
Radio box under seat for handheld radio
One 5 gallon tank installed-second tank is available for optional install
behind the first one.
Lexan gap seal--held on with 4 stainless screws into 4 tabs welded to root
ribs
Basic VFR instruments
aircraft grade 4-pt locking harness
Shielded spark plug wires and shielded kill switch wires-- to cut down radio
static
Dual kill switches mounted by left hand
Foot panels for jump seat mounted in plane
Lexan windshield can be removed for maintenance
Ground adjustable 66" IvoProp with custom extension as required by Kolb
Passenger seat back (second seat kit)
Not installed but included:
Dual carb manifold and second carburetor and all gaskets
Dual throttle and choke cables and splitters
Spare tail wheel assembly and tail wheel
Second 5 gallon tank and pickup tube
Optional primer kit
Plans and Builder's manual
Let me know if you have any questions or would like to see pictures.
I'm in Lancaster, South Carolina.
Ken Harrison 704-490-5499
kenharrison(at)ubgcharlotte.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | 912UL on a Firestar II |
Hey John,
My experience is still very limited, but I don't think I'd even want to try
putting a 912 on a FS II... I don't think the mount and the associated parts
are strong enough to handle that kind of weight, shaking and power. The
plane would probably also weigh a ton afterwards. Just eyeballing mine, I
think the 503 is as strong of a motor as I"d want to put on it - even a 582
is probably too much.......
As far as a 4-stroke alternative to the 503, the closest motor I know of is
the HKS, but there you're in somewhat unknown territory as far as the
installation goes and also a little more weight. And probably a hell of a
lot more vibration too....
Try flying a bit slower, say 60mph instead of 70. This is what I do with my
plane. I run a little less pitch on the prop (6350 or so at full throttle on
climbout) and just keep it at 60 (about 5300 to 5400 rpm to maintain my
altitude). The gas consumption is definitely lower, under 3gph now. I
estimate about 2.5gph so far, but I havn't done any really accurate
measurements lately.
The 503 is the perfect match for this plane, I can't think of a better setup
than what (we) already got....
I do like you, I just carry a gas can in the back seat if I need the extra
gas.....
LS
N646F
>Group,
>
>I really like my fully enclosed Firestar II and it's 503 DCDI, electric
>start. But one thing that I am disappointed in is the lack ability to
>travel. With 10 gallons of gas, I have only 140 miles planned range at
>70 mph. When I fly on cross-countries, I tend to worry about changing
>winds and remaining fuel. I have tried to figure out how to carry more
>fuel in my Firestar, but the best that I have come up with is an extra
>6 gallon tank in the back seat. Not a real solution. I need all the
>back seat for cargo. So, I searched for a light weight, economical four
>stroke for the Firestar. There is not much. And I don't like what there
>is. Because of that, I have considered a Kolbra. I paid attention when
>John W. wrote or talked about his, with special interest in fuel
>economy (which to me is range). What I got from that, is that if you
>push a Kolbra fast enough, you still have range problems. Recently, I
>have wondered what the fuel burn of a 912UL would be at 80 mph on a
>Firestar. By my calculations, using the Rotax HP and fuel burn graphs,
>it would be less than 2 gph. If correct, I would have a 320+ mile
>planned range with 8 of my 10 gallons. If it was possible to use a 912,
>and the calculations are correct, it would change the whole character
>of the plane. So what are the problems, and are they solvable? Any
>interest?
>
>John Jung
>Firstar II N6163J
>Surprise, AZ
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912UL on a Firestar II |
| I really like my fully enclosed Firestar II and it's 503 DCDI,
electric
| start. But one thing that I am disappointed in is the lack ability
to
| travel. |
| John Jung
Hi John J/Gang:
If you want 912 power you need a Kolbra or MKIII. The FS was not
designed to accomodate the 912.
If you want to keep your FS II and 503 then design and build a larger
fuel tank. I had an 18 gal alum tank in my original Firestar,
configured same as the 25 gal tank in my MKIII, cross baffled and
mounted in the upper rear section of the fuselage. Not in the center
section as Larry B indicated in his post reference my fuel tank. I
did a lot of serious cross country flying in the FS back in the 1980's
powered by a point ignition 447.
Both fuel tanks were built from .050" 5052 aluminum. Was necessary to
cut a couple tubes to facilitate installation and removal if
necessary. Welded plates to the cut tubes and bolted them back with
3/16 bolts. Have had no reason to remove the tank in the MKIII. Have
had perfect service from the tank which was sloshed 4 times with
Randolph Slosh/Seal for auto and avn fuel.
Firestar and MKIII configured identically. By moving fuel tank into
the upper rear of the fuselage, this opened up the lower rear for my
gear.
The 912 series engines have to operate at a minimum of 190F oil temp
in order to burn off condensation. Would be very difficult to get the
912 to that temp if it was loafing along at 2 gph, even without an oil
cooler. I used to bypass the oil cooler on my 912UL during the winter
here in the SE in order to keep temps up to operating level. The 912
series engines also operate better when the CHT is kept up around
180F.
80 mph cruise in a FSII my be a bit uncomfortable in anything but
perfectly smooth air.
John J: You would love a Kolbra with a 912ULS!!! ;-)
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912UL on a Firestar II |
| I don't think the mount and the associated parts
| are strong enough to handle that kind of weight, shaking and power.
|
| As far as a 4-stroke alternative to the 503, the closest motor I
know of is
| the HKS, And probably a hell of a
| lot more vibration too....
|
| LS
LS/Gang:
Could you expand on the "shaking" and "lot more vibration" you
associate with the 912 and HKS, please.
John J likes to do serious cross country flying. In order to enjoy
this type flying, one must have a machine that is set up for it. An
airplane that makes it fun to fly all day long, and at a comfortable
airspeed fast enough to get you there and keep you awake doing it.
Flying around with a gerry can of fuel in the back is not a good idea.
Much more comfortable to have the range and ease of a larger, safe
fuel tank. They are not that difficult to design and fabricate. We
always start off with a cardboard mockup, then move to the actual
aluminum fabrication once we get the size and shape correct.
Take care,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: 912UL on a Firestar II |
Like you, my hangarmate with his 582 powered FSII is wanting more fuel
capacity. Since he seldom needs to carry cargo, he is going to a 6
gallon boat tank strapped securely into the back seat.
The better alternative is to resign yourself to doing a partial recover
on the main fuselage, and then weld up some good bracing tabs on the
cross braces that go in front of the stock tanks, so that they can be
removed and replaced without losing any structural integrity. Then cut
those braces out, make up a new, oversize tank to fit where the stock
tanks go, recover the fuselage around the areas you had to weld, put the
new tank in place and then bolt the original braces back in place. The
FSII with a 582 is not bad on fuel at all, Ed went flying Sunday
afternoon, was getting 75 mph at 5300 rpm, which is around 3.5 gph. With
18 gallons of fuel, that gives you more than 320 miles with a good
reserve. And the extra structural braces we added to the FSII so we
could safely use a 582 were not hard to make, they are bolt ons. The 582
is the same weight as a 503, not counting the cooling system, which
makes it a pretty easy swap, with predictable results.
The mods we did on the FSII are here
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/kolb.htm
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
John Jung wrote:
>
>Group,
>
>I really like my fully enclosed Firestar II and it's 503 DCDI, electric
>start. But one thing that I am disappointed in is the lack ability to
>travel. With 10 gallons of gas, I have only 140 miles planned range at
>70 mph. When I fly on cross-countries, I tend to worry about changing
>winds and remaining fuel. I have tried to figure out how to carry more
>fuel in my Firestar, but the best that I have come up with is an extra
>6 gallon tank in the back seat. Not a real solution. I need all the
>back seat for cargo. So, I searched for a light weight, economical four
>stroke for the Firestar. There is not much. And I don't like what there
>is. Because of that, I have considered a Kolbra. I paid attention when
>John W. wrote or talked about his, with special interest in fuel
>economy (which to me is range). What I got from that, is that if you
>push a Kolbra fast enough, you still have range problems. Recently, I
>have wondered what the fuel burn of a 912UL would be at 80 mph on a
>Firestar. By my calculations, using the Rotax HP and fuel burn graphs,
>it would be less than 2 gph. If correct, I would have a 320+ mile
>planned range with 8 of my 10 gallons. If it was possible to use a 912,
>and the calculations are correct, it would change the whole character
>of the plane. So what are the problems, and are they solvable? Any
>interest?
>
>John Jung
>Firstar II N6163J
>Surprise, AZ
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912UL on a Firestar II |
A friend has an HKS on a Murphy Maverick... He says it's smooth as
silk... here are some of the details:
gross weight 950 lbs
empty weight 538 lbs
rotate @ 35mph
best angle climb 46 mph
best rate of climb 58 mph
stall @ 30 mph
max-cross wind at 90 deg., 18 mph
vne max-120 mph
max cruise 90 mph
va maneuvering 80 mph at 6200 rpm
full throttle maximum at 3 min (60 hp)
cruise rpm 5,800 (56 hp)
1400rpm idle
oil pressure 85 psi at 6200 rpm
oil temp. 140-170F optimum, 190F max-122F min
Cht 338F max
Egt 1400F max
Gallons per hr about 3 1/2
Engine weighs about 121 lbs.
On 12/20/05, John Hauck wrote:
>
> | I don't think the mount and the associated parts
> | are strong enough to handle that kind of weight, shaking and power.
> |
> | As far as a 4-stroke alternative to the 503, the closest motor I
> know of is
> | the HKS, And probably a hell of a
> | lot more vibration too....
> |
> | LS
>
> LS/Gang:
>
> Could you expand on the "shaking" and "lot more vibration" you
> associate with the 912 and HKS, please.
>
> John J likes to do serious cross country flying. In order to enjoy
> this type flying, one must have a machine that is set up for it. An
> airplane that makes it fun to fly all day long, and at a comfortable
> airspeed fast enough to get you there and keep you awake doing it.
> Flying around with a gerry can of fuel in the back is not a good idea.
> Much more comfortable to have the range and ease of a larger, safe
> fuel tank. They are not that difficult to design and fabricate. We
> always start off with a cardboard mockup, then move to the actual
> aluminum fabrication once we get the size and shape correct.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
> MKIII/912ULS
> hauck's holler, alabama
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | 912UL on a Firestar II |
The 912 is simply too heavy and too much power to safely be put on a FSII.
If you modified it a bunch maybe but how about this engine...
http://www.aerotwinmotors.com/
Deliveries are scheduled to be starting early next year. This one is
extremely well funded by Woody Norris (a real rich guy) and has an existing
customer base via Airscooter corp. http://www.airscooter.com/index.html and
they have production parts in the pipeline already. I think they are
actually going to ship engines... lots of engines.
Weight with gearbox 115 pounds. Fuel burn should be really low, but not
available yet.
General Specifications:
65 HP @ 4200 RPM (with turbo)
Weight: Less than 95 lbs "Ready to Run"
(Includes cooling shroud, exhaust and oil reservoir)
Dimensions (Height): 17.5"
Two Cylinders, In Line
Dry Sump (Runs in Vertical and Horizontal position)
Air Cooled 972cc 4 Stroke
Firing Angle 360
Bore: 101.6
Stroke: 60mm
Compression Ratio: 8.0:1
Manifold Pressure: 8 psi
Two Sparkplugs per Cylinder
Two Valves per Cylinder
Belt Driven Twin Camshafts
Electronic Fuel Injection and Ignition
Fuel Octane Requirement: 91UL
Gear Reduction Box: 18.5lbs (see detail below)
Propellar Flange: standard output flange has 75mm and 100mm bolt-circle
pattern for mounting, an aircraft standard SAE No.2 propeller flange is also
available as an option
Detail Specifications:
Intake Valve dia ... 46mm / Exhaust ... 40mm
Intake Port dia ... 38mm / Exhaust ... 34mm
Intake Cam lift centre ... 102
Exhaust Cam lift centre ... 112
Total lift Inclusive ... 10mm
Included Angle ... 32
Feature Note: The cylinder head is designed to allow it to be rotated 180
so that intake and exhaust positions can be changed.
Piston Type ... Shallow Slipper
Piston Pin dia ... 22mm
Connecting Rod Centres ... 120mm
Connecting Rod Material ... Titanium (Ti 6AL 4V)
Connecting Rod Crankpin dia ... 50.8mm
Crankshaft Material ... Titanium (Ti 6AL 4V)
Crankshaft Main Bearing dia ... 58.42mm
Crankshaft Number of Bearings ... 3
Gear Reduction Box Ratios:
------ 22x47 =2.136
------ 23x46 =2.000
------ 24x45 =1.875
------ Thus for a Prop speed of 2000rpm;
------ 2.136 =4272rpm
------ 2.000 =4000rpm
------ 1.875 =3750rpm
------ Prop speed of 2200rpm
------ 2.136 =4699rpm
------ 2.000 =4400rpm
------ 1.875 =4125rpm
------ Prop speed of 2500rpm
------ 2.136 =5340rpm
------ 2.000 =5000rpm
------ 1.875 =4687rpm
Feature Note: The gear centres remain the same for all ratios, so it's just
a
gear pair to change from one ratio to another. All of the bearings have slip
fit
mounting clearances, as does the drive shaft, so the system requires no
pressing or heating to change a gear pair. The casing is sealed with one
perimeter Oring, so there are no gasketing issues to contend with.
Christopher Armstrong
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jung
Subject: Kolb-List: 912UL on a Firestar II
Group,
I really like my fully enclosed Firestar II and it's 503 DCDI, electric
start. But one thing that I am disappointed in is the lack ability to
travel. With 10 gallons of gas, I have only 140 miles planned range at
70 mph. When I fly on cross-countries, I tend to worry about changing
winds and remaining fuel. I have tried to figure out how to carry more
fuel in my Firestar, but the best that I have come up with is an extra
6 gallon tank in the back seat. Not a real solution. I need all the
back seat for cargo. So, I searched for a light weight, economical four
stroke for the Firestar. There is not much. And I don't like what there
is. Because of that, I have considered a Kolbra. I paid attention when
John W. wrote or talked about his, with special interest in fuel
economy (which to me is range). What I got from that, is that if you
push a Kolbra fast enough, you still have range problems. Recently, I
have wondered what the fuel burn of a 912UL would be at 80 mph on a
Firestar. By my calculations, using the Rotax HP and fuel burn graphs,
it would be less than 2 gph. If correct, I would have a 320+ mile
planned range with 8 of my 10 gallons. If it was possible to use a 912,
and the calculations are correct, it would change the whole character
of the plane. So what are the problems, and are they solvable? Any
interest?
John Jung
Firstar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | 912UL on a Firestar II |
As far as a 4-stroke alternative to the 503, the closest motor I know of
is
the HKS, but there you're in somewhat unknown territory as far as the
installation goes and also a little more weight. And probably a hell of
a
lot more vibration too....
Never flown a HKS, but talked extensively with 2 gents that combined had
approx. 1000 hours on them. They were flying Earthstar Gull 2000's
(Good bit cleaner then a Kolb ;-) Anyway they were absolutely smooth as
silk and they were so quiet they were unnerving. (A lot of the "quiet"
can be attributed to the DUC prop they used, but the motor has a very
mellow tone to it...)
By the way...the little single seat Gull saw an average 90mph at 2.2 gph
and 100mph at 2.3 gph...this was averaged over a lot of flying from
Texas to Florida and back, not a hop around the pattern.
Without a doubt though the HKS motors don't produce the HP of a 912 and
don't have the track record yet of the 912's. They ARE good little
motors in the 4 stroke world that are a good 503 replacement. They are
supposedly making 60hp but the guys I talked to said they figured more
like 54-55. That jived with what Dennis Souder said several years back
after they flew it on the Slingshot...he said it was a good 503
replacement powerwise if you wanted to spend the extra money over a 503
for 4 stroke...he said it WASN'T a 582 replacement. (paraphrased his
words...but the message is probably in the archives)
Jeremy Casey
John J. if you don't want to spend the money/time to build a Kolbra, I
think you would do good to consider the HKS...bolting a 912 on a
Firestar would definitely be "pushing" the design a bit...tread
carefully...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912UL on a Firestar II |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 912UL on a Firestar II
|
| The 912 is simply too heavy and too much power to safely be put on a
FSII.
| If you modified it a bunch maybe but how about this engine...
|
| http://www.aerotwinmotors.com/
|
|
| Deliveries are scheduled to be starting early next year. This one
is
| extremely well funded by Woody Norris (a real rich guy) and has an
existing
| customer base via Airscooter corp.
http://www.airscooter.com/index.html and
| they have production parts in the pipeline already. I think they
are
| actually going to ship engines... lots of engines.
|
| Weight with gearbox 115 pounds. Fuel burn should be really low, but
not
| available yet.
|
| General Specifications:
| 65 HP @ 4200 RPM (with turbo)
| Weight: Less than 95 lbs "Ready to Run"
| (Includes cooling shroud, exhaust and oil reservoir)
| Dimensions (Height): 17.5"
| Two Cylinders, In Line
| Dry Sump (Runs in Vertical and Horizontal position)
| Air Cooled 972cc 4 Stroke
| Firing Angle 360
| Bore: 101.6
| Stroke: 60mm
| Compression Ratio: 8.0:1
| Manifold Pressure: 8 psi
| Two Sparkplugs per Cylinder
| Two Valves per Cylinder
| Belt Driven Twin Camshafts
| Electronic Fuel Injection and Ignition
| Fuel Octane Requirement: 91UL
| Gear Reduction Box: 18.5lbs (see detail below)
| Propellar Flange: standard output flange has 75mm and 100mm
bolt-circle
| pattern for mounting, an aircraft standard SAE No.2 propeller flange
is also
| available as an option
|
| Detail Specifications:
| Intake Valve dia ... 46mm / Exhaust ... 40mm
| Intake Port dia ... 38mm / Exhaust ... 34mm
| Intake Cam lift centre ... 102
| Exhaust Cam lift centre ... 112
| Total lift Inclusive ... 10mm
| Included Angle ... 32
| Feature Note: The cylinder head is designed to allow it to be
rotated 180
| so that intake and exhaust positions can be changed.
| Piston Type ... Shallow Slipper
| Piston Pin dia ... 22mm
| Connecting Rod Centres ... 120mm
| Connecting Rod Material ... Titanium (Ti 6AL 4V)
| Connecting Rod Crankpin dia ... 50.8mm
| Crankshaft Material ... Titanium (Ti 6AL 4V)
| Crankshaft Main Bearing dia ... 58.42mm
| Crankshaft Number of Bearings ... 3
| Gear Reduction Box Ratios:
| ------ 22x47 =2.136
| ------ 23x46 =2.000
| ------ 24x45 =1.875
| ------ Thus for a Prop speed of 2000rpm;
| ------ 2.136 =4272rpm
| ------ 2.000 =4000rpm
| ------ 1.875 =3750rpm
| ------ Prop speed of 2200rpm
| ------ 2.136 =4699rpm
| ------ 2.000 =4400rpm
| ------ 1.875 =4125rpm
| ------ Prop speed of 2500rpm
| ------ 2.136 =5340rpm
| ------ 2.000 =5000rpm
| ------ 1.875 =4687rpm
| Feature Note: The gear centres remain the same for all ratios, so
it's just
| a
| gear pair to change from one ratio to another. All of the bearings
have slip
| fit
| mounting clearances, as does the drive shaft, so the system requires
no
| pressing or heating to change a gear pair. The casing is sealed with
one
| perimeter Oring, so there are no gasketing issues to contend with.
|
| Christopher Armstrong
|
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
| [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jung
| To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: Kolb-List: 912UL on a Firestar II
|
|
| Group,
|
| I really like my fully enclosed Firestar II and it's 503 DCDI,
electric
| start. But one thing that I am disappointed in is the lack ability
to
| travel. With 10 gallons of gas, I have only 140 miles planned range
at
| 70 mph. When I fly on cross-countries, I tend to worry about
changing
| winds and remaining fuel. I have tried to figure out how to carry
more
| fuel in my Firestar, but the best that I have come up with is an
extra
| 6 gallon tank in the back seat. Not a real solution. I need all the
| back seat for cargo. So, I searched for a light weight, economical
four
| stroke for the Firestar. There is not much. And I don't like what
there
| is. Because of that, I have considered a Kolbra. I paid attention
when
| John W. wrote or talked about his, with special interest in fuel
| economy (which to me is range). What I got from that, is that if you
| push a Kolbra fast enough, you still have range problems. Recently,
I
| have wondered what the fuel burn of a 912UL would be at 80 mph on a
| Firestar. By my calculations, using the Rotax HP and fuel burn
graphs,
| it would be less than 2 gph. If correct, I would have a 320+ mile
| planned range with 8 of my 10 gallons. If it was possible to use a
912,
| and the calculations are correct, it would change the whole
character
| of the plane. So what are the problems, and are they solvable? Any
| interest?
|
| John Jung
| Firstar II N6163J
| Surprise, AZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912UL on a Firestar II |
|| The 912 is simply too heavy and too much power to safely be put on
a
| FSII.
|| If you modified it a bunch maybe but how about this engine...
||
|| http://www.aerotwinmotors.com/
||
|| Christopher Armstrong
Hi Topher/Gang:
Sorry about the previous uh-oh. Hit the send instead of the reply
button.
Great looking engine. Titanium rods and crank. I love titanium. 65
hp sounds good for a FSII or a beefed up FF.
Didn't find any info on price, nor what type torsional vibration
dampening this gear box will use. This is one of the biggest problems
with our little airplane engines, right up there with purchase price.
Like all the rest of the engines on the market, I wouldn't want to
invest a lot of money in an unproven system. Before I bought one I'd
let the user base work out the bugs.
Take care,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | 912UL on a Firestar II |
By the way, before I get a rep as anti-HKS somehow,, I should mention these
guys:
http://www.greenskyadventures.com/
who are HKS dealers.
These are the Olenik's, Tom and his father Gerald I believe is his name (not
sure if Tom is also working at Greensky or not). I had Tom do the
maintenance on two of my previous 503's and he just simply does superb work.
The motors came back looking like little pieces of jewelry, I just wanted to
sit and admire them instead of putting them back on the planes........
Tom is a bottomless pit of knowledge of motors and I'm sure his dad is the
same way if not even moreso......
So.... if you do go with the HKS, I wouldn't get the motor from anyone else
but them. You'll be guaranteed to get the best support possible. And if Tom
and his dad think a motor is good you can be assured there's something to
it..
Might be worth an email to them to see if they've ever done a Kolb
installation of the HKS.....
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D Lucas" <d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more questionsmore questions |
Re: Cargo Pod possibility.
>I wonder if that would not kill the advanage for having the Kolbra
>over the MkIII which is faster cruise speed?
Maybe, Maybe not, but just for info, those 10 cubic ft cargo pods on the bottom
of C180/185 which are about 9" deep by 30" wide only drop cruise speed at 75%
pwr by about 1 or 2 MPH (according to an article in 'Light Plane Maintenance',
January edition)
David L
No plane (yet), just a dream.
Do Not Archieve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
Topher and Group,
Well, after a slow Monday, I woke up the list with my wild idea. But I
am not yet convinced that it is so wild.
Why is it too heavy if I don't exceed the gross weight and can keep it
within CG limits?
And where is the problem with too much power? Couldn't a throttle stop
handle that, if in fact, it is a problem?
Now, the points John H. brought up about 912 temperatures are concerns
that I was not aware of.
I worry about things like will the thrust line be higher? Will the 912
really burn as little fuel as the chart says? What would the actual
installed weight be?
My Firestar does fly smooth at 80, and being enclosed, it is
comfortable at that speed.
As far as other engines goes, the only other engine that I would
consider is the Jabiru. For me to spend the kind of money that a 4
cycle costs, it is going to have to be a combination that does good
cross-country and a plane that I can get excited about. A little better
than a 503 is not enough for me.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
The 912 is simply too heavy and too much power to safely be put on a
FSII.
If you modified it a bunch maybe but how about this engine...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
| Now, the points John H. brought up about 912 temperatures are
concerns
| that I was not aware of.
|
| John Jung
John J/Gang:
Adrial Heisey has a 912ULS on an original Twinstar he uses exclusively
for aerial photography:
http://www.statemuseum.arizona.edu/exhibits/heisey/heisey9.shtml
You can contact him from info on this page:
http://www.adrielheisey.com/contact.htm
I think a 912UL on a FSII would be cool. Heck, I have seen 912ULS's
on trikes at S&F and OSH.
A throttle stop would be the last thing I would put on an airplane to
prevent going full power. Never know when you might need that extra
little bit of power to get yourself out of trouble.
My personal opinion again. Continuous duty engines, such as we use on
airplanes, are designed to run at certain speeds, both two and four
stroke. The engineers did not design a 503 or a 582 to operate
continuously at 4,500 rpm so they would get good fuel economy. They
were designed to run best at 5,800 rpm, close to the best torque of
that engine. Same, same for 912UL and 912ULS. They weren't desgined
to run 4,000 rpm to get a 2 gph fuel burn. They were designed to run
best at 5,000 rpm, and are rated to run all day at 5,500 rpm maximum
continuous with no harm or accelerated wear. The two strokes have a
max continuous rpm of 6,500 rpm, yet most folks run them slow to
prolong their life, when they are probably accelerating wear and
reducing their life. Again, my own personal opinion, and what I have
gleaned from others and personal experience over the years.
I think it is doable is the FSII fuselage is beefed up to handle the
extra weight and power. I am no engineer. A lot of the stuff I have
experiemented with has failed, some more than once, over the years.
On the other hand, there are a lot of good things that Bro Jim and I
have been able to come up with to make my Kolbs fly better and
accomodate my needs better.
Have fun, something to think about,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
>Topher and Group,
>
>Well, after a slow Monday, I woke up the list with my wild idea. But I
>am not yet convinced that it is so wild.
>
>Why is it too heavy if I don't exceed the gross weight and can keep it
>within CG limits?
I think the weight and CG will probably be the limiting factor. Just to give
you an idea, my FSII has the 503 DCDI with a 3.47:1 C box and RK-400 clutch.
According to Kodiak, the installed weight of the 503 + C box is 103.1 lbs.
The RK-400 clutch adds a total of 3 more lbs altogether, making that 106.1
lbs. Add maybe another lb or two for the muffler bracket, and call it
107lbs.
With that installation, the plane as built just barely made the aft limit on
the CG (it was about 1/2" away from the aft limit with most-aft loading). In
fact, the builder had to add ballast to the nose to compensate for this (how
much I'm not sure, I'll have to look through the old weight and balance) and
get the aft load limit a little further in to the allowed CG.
The empty weight came out to 440lbs, a pretty heavy plane overall, though it
still flies heavenly. Add 10lbs of gas, 60lbs, that's 500lbs with full gas.
That only leaves 250lbs carrying capacity.... I'm about 190, so that leaves
only 60lbs leftover....
Now, with the Jabiru you're looking at 132 lbs (according to usjabiru.com)!
I believe the 912UL is about the same weight all up. So, just at a rough
guess, it's concievable that after adding ballast to get the CG right, you
could be near gross with full gas and just yourself in that case. And
probably not the best flying plane....
Anyway, that's my rough guess based on the results with my FSII. I'd say
personally that both of those motors are too large/heavy for the plane,
though you might push a pencil across a piece of paper to see what you get
on your setup.
>And where is the problem with too much power? Couldn't a throttle stop
>handle that, if in fact, it is a problem?
>
>Now, the points John H. brought up about 912 temperatures are concerns
>that I was not aware of.
>I worry about things like will the thrust line be higher? Will the 912
>really burn as little fuel as the chart says? What would the actual
>installed weight be?
>
>My Firestar does fly smooth at 80, and being enclosed, it is
>comfortable at that speed.
>
>As far as other engines goes, the only other engine that I would
>consider is the Jabiru. For me to spend the kind of money that a 4
>cycle costs, it is going to have to be a combination that does good
>cross-country and a plane that I can get excited about. A little better
>than a 503 is not enough for me.
>
Again, I think the motor you already have is ideal for the plane. I have no
reliability concerns about my 503, I"ve been running them for years now
without so much as a hiccup and they last quite a long time as long as you
avoid things that can reduce the lifetime of them. The 503 is the best
2-stroke Rotax makes in my opinion....
I agree they're not the most economical engines as far as gas consumption,
though I think that can be controlled somewhat by not running the motor too
hard. Flying at a slower cruise speed has helped my gas consumption quite a
bit and is probably easier on the airframe in heavy turbulence anyway....
Seems to me the alternatives don't really buy you that much until you get
into a bigger plane like the Kolbra or Mark III.....
Anyway, my .02,
LS
N646F
>John Jung
>Firestar II N6163J
>Surprise, AZ
>
>
>
>The 912 is simply too heavy and too much power to safely be put on a
>FSII.
>If you modified it a bunch maybe but how about this engine...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
The problem is that the structure is probably not strong enough for a crash
at that engine weight. In flight loads ( up to 4 or 6 gs) may not be a
problem, have no idea. But in a crash the engine might end up on your back.
You want to be able to take at least 10 and probably 15 gs of crash load on
that engine mount before it sends the engine through your head. If the 912
is 30 pounds more then a 503 then you get 300 to 450 more pounds of crash
load. Total crash load for the big engine is around 1400 to 2100 pounds.
(20 gs is occasionally survivable, so that is all the way up to 2800 pounds
just for the engine! At 750 pounds gross weight the forward cage has to
catch 15,000 pounds in a 20 g crash.)
Power wise you will be able to exceed VNE easily and the wings will probably
flutter and fail if you go too fast. (I have no idea how fast is too
fast... who wants to find out?) So all you have to do is not go too fast...
ever ever ever!
More practically getting the cg right is going to be a real bear with an
extra 30 pounds about 2 feet behind the cg. And useful load is going to
take a big hit! Everything is a compromise... you would have a really
wicked performer that could go a long ways but not carry much load, and
would be tough to balance.
Christopher Armstrong
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jung
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II
Topher and Group,
Well, after a slow Monday, I woke up the list with my wild idea. But I
am not yet convinced that it is so wild.
Why is it too heavy if I don't exceed the gross weight and can keep it
within CG limits?
And where is the problem with too much power? Couldn't a throttle stop
handle that, if in fact, it is a problem?
Now, the points John H. brought up about 912 temperatures are concerns
that I was not aware of.
I worry about things like will the thrust line be higher? Will the 912
really burn as little fuel as the chart says? What would the actual
installed weight be?
My Firestar does fly smooth at 80, and being enclosed, it is
comfortable at that speed.
As far as other engines goes, the only other engine that I would
consider is the Jabiru. For me to spend the kind of money that a 4
cycle costs, it is going to have to be a combination that does good
cross-country and a plane that I can get excited about. A little better
than a 503 is not enough for me.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
The 912 is simply too heavy and too much power to safely be put on a
FSII.
If you modified it a bunch maybe but how about this engine...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
Topher, Lucien, John H. and Group,
I really appreciate all the input. The crash forces mentioned by
Topher, is another area that I had not considered. i will have to give
that some serious thought. I have had the chance to examine several
crashed Firestars.
I have considered W&B and gross weight and I believe that I can solve
those. One advantage that I have is that I only weigh 155 pounds. And
my plane is 400 empty with an electric start oil injected 503. So, I
can add a 912 and still be 45 pounds lighter than Luicen is flying now
with a 503. I may have to add 10 pounds of weight to the front for CG,
but I can easily afford it. My plane is 400 + 10 for CG + 30 for 912 +
60 for fuel + 160 for me = 660. That leaves 65 pounds for cargo, if I
limit myself to the suggested 725 pound gross weight. I could carry 5
gallons of gas, no cargo and still take my wife for her annual ride
without exceeding 750 pounds.
Has anyone added a thermostat to a 912? I never understood why they run
without them. I guess the low temperature issue that John H. brought up
is what I know least about. Anyone else have input on this?
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
| I really appreciate all the input. The crash forces mentioned by
| Topher, is another area that I had not considered. i will have to
give
| that some serious thought. I have had the chance to examine several
| crashed Firestars.
| John Jung
John J/Gang:
One gets a finer appreciation for the crash worthiness of his Kolb
aircraft if one has survived a serious crash in one.
The FSII was not designed or envisioned that it would ever be powered
by more than a 503. Now we have some flying with 582's, and now you
want to put a 912 on one. Nice thing about experimental/homebuilt
airplanes here in the States. We can do just about anything we want
to. Experimental, ain't it. As long as we don't hurt anyone else in
the process.
I think you need to take a very close look at what you are
anticipating. Would you put a big Harley V-Twin in a bicycle. Not
hardly. Bike wasn't designed and built for a Harley. Same, same the
FSII. Was not designed and built for the 912.
In order to fly safely with a 912 powered FSII, the FSII would have to
be redesigned/modified/beefed up to carry on that duty. Yes, Adrial
Heisey has a 912 powered Twin Star. Primary reason for this
configuration is reliability, based on the type terrain Adrial flies
to get his photos. Contrary to Lucien's faith in the two stroke,
they are not nearly reliable as the four stroke. Have a good friend
in North Florida who has flown two strokes for many years. Had
extremely good luck with them until last summer when the 582 failed on
takeoff. This gentleman is still recovering from some terrible
injuries he received when his Ferguson came apart on impact. He may
have a change of heart about the possibility of a four stroke in his
future.
Take care,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
>to get his photos. Contrary to Lucien's faith in the two stroke,
>they are not nearly reliable as the four stroke. Have a good friend
>in North Florida who has flown two strokes for many years. Had
>extremely good luck with them until last summer when the 582 failed on
>takeoff. This gentleman is still recovering from some terrible
>injuries he received when his Ferguson came apart on impact. He may
>have a change of heart about the possibility of a four stroke in his
>future.
Just an FYI for the list, this looks like an invitation to the 2-stroke vs.
4-stroke argument which I've already done my time in many times over the
years. My response is: There are many engine-specific mailing lists and
yahoo groups where this has been gone over more than once, I refer the
reader there if there's any interest in the subject. It no longer holds
mine.
Meanwhile, I agree with John on this - the FS just isn't designed for the
bigger 912 and it would require, in my opinion, a lot of modification to be
able to handle it.
Have you considered the HKS? I may have spoken too soon against it, but it
looks like it might be a good alternative having looked at it again on
greensky's website.... Might be worth looking into...
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more questionsmore questions |
> Re: Cargo Pod possibility.
....
>those 10 cubic ft cargo pods on
> the bottom of C180/185 which are about 9" deep by 30" wide only
drop
> cruise speed at 75% pwr by about 1 or 2 MPH
If I were to have a clean start to re-build my Firestar, I'd weld up
those tabs on the bottom and construct just the pod you're
describing. I can see all benefit, no disadvantage.
As for the apples/orange comment, my second ride, a Bellanca
Super Viking, occupies the same hanger as my FS2. Each has it's
mission but there are more similarities than dis-similarities as far as
systems and operating envelopes go...each occupies it's corner of
the envelope.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <rswiderski(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
John J,
The FSII is basically identical to the Twinstar wing & engine mount.
582's have been used on them for years. Some cracks in engine mount area
have been noticed in at least one. This has been discussed already & I
believe can be easily enough dealt with. The all up weight of a 912 with
all that it takes to fly is around 168 lbs. I'm not sure, but I think their
literature is much more "optimistic". I believe the excess power of the 912
would only be detrimental in straight & level flight where you could easily
exceed your Vne. I assume your brain is quite capable of controlling that
situation. Climb out would absorb the power. Intelligently installed &
used & modified, I believe it is not an irresponsible undertaking, but....
you would certainly need more vigilance in use & maintenance than a stock
setup, & undeniably, you will be a pioneer/test pilot.
My 1 liter, 3cylinder, 4-stroke Suzuki engine weighed in at 169 lbs
minus radiator. That included a heavy duty 150 hp redrive & turbocharger.
A naturally aspirated 60-64 hp (depending on fuel setup) & lighter redrive
could easily come in under 145 lbs. Bob Bean is flying one now on a MkIII &
there are several other Kolbs with them. They cruise at 2gph. You can see
ore info & pics on my website http://www.geocities.com/ib2polish/
Richard Swiderski
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jung
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II
Topher, Lucien, John H. and Group,
I really appreciate all the input. The crash forces mentioned by
Topher, is another area that I had not considered. i will have to give
that some serious thought. I have had the chance to examine several
crashed Firestars.
I have considered W&B and gross weight and I believe that I can solve
those. One advantage that I have is that I only weigh 155 pounds. And
my plane is 400 empty with an electric start oil injected 503. So, I
can add a 912 and still be 45 pounds lighter than Luicen is flying now
with a 503. I may have to add 10 pounds of weight to the front for CG,
but I can easily afford it. My plane is 400 + 10 for CG + 30 for 912 +
60 for fuel + 160 for me = 660. That leaves 65 pounds for cargo, if I
limit myself to the suggested 725 pound gross weight. I could carry 5
gallons of gas, no cargo and still take my wife for her annual ride
without exceeding 750 pounds.
Has anyone added a thermostat to a 912? I never understood why they run
without them. I guess the low temperature issue that John H. brought up
is what I know least about. Anyone else have input on this?
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
Richard and Group,
Richard wrote:
The all up weight of a 912 with all that it takes to fly is around 168
lbs. I'm not sure, but I think their
literature is much more "optimistic".
Now, this is the kind of information that, if true, will make me give
up the 912 Firestar idea. I think that I have heard weights like 168
before, and ruled out the 912 because of it. But Rotax says 132 pounds,
and even CPS suggests an all up weight of 140. Have any of the 912
flyers on the list ever weighed your engines? What is the truth?
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | 912UL on a Firestar II |
Jeremy and Group,
Thanks for your input. The HKS is an engine that I have considered.
You mentioned a "DUC" prop that was "quiet". What does DUC stand for?
I have always had an interest in keeping the noise down. The wind and
the noise are two of the things that I have already improved on my
Firestar, to be comfortable enough to cruise at 80. But quieter is
always better, as long as the engine doesn't stop all noise.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
> Jeremy wrote:
> Never flown a HKS, but talked extensively with 2 gents that combined
> had
> approx. 1000 hours on them. They were flying Earthstar Gull 2000's
> (Good bit cleaner then a Kolb ;-) Anyway they were absolutely smooth
> as
> silk and they were so quiet they were unnerving. (A lot of the "quiet"
> can be attributed to the DUC prop they used, but the motor has a very
> mellow tone to it...)
>
> By the way...the little single seat Gull saw an average 90mph at 2.2
> gph
> and 100mph at 2.3 gph...this was averaged over a lot of flying from
> Texas to Florida and back, not a hop around the pattern.
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
John J and others,
My opinion is to put in a John H style fuel tank to increase your range, and
a 3.47 C- gearbox with a two or three blade 72" tapered Warp Drive prop to
maximize performance. No doubt you will be able to cruise in the mid
seventies with that setup.
An HKS with the big reduction will give even better performance on less gas
further increasing your range. It is beyond me why there is not a ton of
Firestars zipping around with the HKS on em, I suppose it is the price, not
enough yuppies flying FSs I guess.
The 912 is a great engine and its smooth but Brother Pikes friend is pushing
the limits with the 582 installation, and a 912 makes me real nervous, this
is only a 5 inch wing spar you have there and pushing it along at 80mph year
after year?
Do what you want but Homer made it clear years ago that a 503 was the top
limit on a FS, I just feel that the safety margins that he and the New Kolb
gave us in these fine little aircraft are best left at our disposal, "not
disposed of"
Denny Rowe, Mk-3 N616DR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
It's been well established, John. The 168# figure, or very close to it, is
accurate. The lower number is for a stripped engine.
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II
>
> Richard and Group,
>
> Richard wrote:
> The all up weight of a 912 with all that it takes to fly is around 168
> lbs. I'm not sure, but I think their
> literature is much more "optimistic".
>
> Now, this is the kind of information that, if true, will make me give
> up the 912 Firestar idea. I think that I have heard weights like 168
> before, and ruled out the 912 because of it. But Rotax says 132 pounds,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
Our 582 FSII airframe has been modified by the addition of a subframe
supporting the motor mounts, in order to deal with any extra engine
torque. The 582 weighs less than the 503, only the radiator and coolant
adds weight, and the radiator is attached to the substructure which
reinforces the rear motor mounts. The airplane structure will not notice
the extra power, and the extra weight consists primarily of the subframe
and attached radiator, which with coolant is which is less than 9 pounds.
The airplane has never been flown two up, there is no need for it, since
there is a MKIII in the hangar, so it is always operated below the gross
weight that Kolb lists. We use the same airspeeds on the FSII that Kolb
calls for, the airspeed indicator is redlined at 90.
Personally, I think the 503 is enough engine, but that's not the point
here: I am curious as to how and why you think we are pushing the limits?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Denny Rowe wrote:
>
>
>The 912 is a great engine and its smooth but Brother Pikes friend is pushing
>the limits with the 582 installation, and a 912 makes me real nervous, this
>is only a 5 inch wing spar you have there and pushing it along at 80mph year
>after year?
>Do what you want but Homer made it clear years ago that a 503 was the top
>limit on a FS, I just feel that the safety margins that he and the New Kolb
>gave us in these fine little aircraft are best left at our disposal, "not
>disposed of"
>
>Denny Rowe, Mk-3 N616DR
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
| It's been well established, John. The 168# figure, or very close
to it, is
| accurate. The lower number is for a stripped engine.
| Lar.
Lar/Gang:
Based on the following chart, taken directly off the Kodiak Reasearch
Rotax Web Site, I don't see 168 lbs, unless it is the 914UL:
912UL
912 ULS
914UL
KW/HP
60.4
81.0
73.5
100.
85.7
115.0
Items
Kg.
Lbs.
Kg.
Lbs.
Kg.
Lbs.
Engine with carbs
55.0
121.2
56.6
124.7
64.0
141.1
Exhaust system
4.0
8.8
4.0
8.8
4.0
8.8
Airbox -
-
1.3
2.9
-
-
Air filter(s)
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.2
0.4
Radiator
1.0
2.2
1.0
2.2
1.0
2.2
Oil Radiator
0.5
1.1
0.5
1.1
0.5
1.1
Engine truss assembly -
-
-
-
2.0
4.4
Rectifier / regulator 0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
Electric fuel pumps -
-
-
-
0.7
1.5
External alternator
-
-
-
-
3.0
6.6
Installed weight 60.9
134.2
63.8
140.6
75.5
166.4
Weight to power
1.008
1.657
0.868
1.406
0.881
1.447
Kg/KW
Lbs/HP
Kg/KW
Lbs/HP
Kg/KW
Lbs/HP
I think we can reduce total weight even more, on the 912ULS:
-2.9 lbs for airbox most of us do not have installed.
-8.9 lbs for Rotax exhaust system. The STE system I am using probably
does not weigh nearly what the Rotax system weighs:
http://www.rick-thomason.com/ste_002.htm Wish I had weighed the STE
system prior to installation. I need to remove it and use some
anti-seize on the slip joints (that have not leaked nary a drop of
white lead from 100LL) so it won't be so difficult to disassemble in
the future. At that time I will try to remember to weigh it.
Lar, what are you basing your above comments on? You said well
established info.
My installed weight is probably pretty close to what Rotax indicates
in their chart, 140 lbs, but, alas, I have never weighed it. I might
add, it does fly well though, and has been for 1,098.1 hours. And the
912UL flew well for 1,135.0 hours before the 912ULS. The 582 flew
well for a couple hundred hours before it seized!
Check out the lbs to HP between the 912ULS and 914UL. Pretty close.
Take care,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
| >this is only a 5 inch wing spar you have there and pushing it
along at 80mph year
| >after year?
| >Denny Rowe, Mk-3 N616DR
Denny R/Gang:
The 5" wing spar is actually an overkill. It will be the last thing
to wear out on a Kolb.
Some of the mathematicians can tell us what the difference is between
the 5" and the 6" wing spar. Not only is the 6" an inch larger in
diameter, when one figures out the math, I believe, it is several
times stronger than the 5" spar.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
N101AB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
|I am curious as to how and why you think we are pushing the limits?
|
| Richard Pike
Morning Richard P/Gang:
Only pushing the limits if you are push the limits.
Neat thing about our homebuilt/experimental program. Being able to do
about anything we want to.
john h
N101AB
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
>My installed weight is probably pretty close to what Rotax indicates
>in their chart, 140 lbs, but, alas, I have never weighed it. I might
>add, it does fly well though, and has been for 1,098.1 hours. And the
>912UL flew well for 1,135.0 hours before the 912ULS. The 582 flew
>well for a couple hundred hours before it seized!
Speaking of citing evidence, I'm curious: Is this experience with a 582 the
basis for the claim you made a while ago that 2-strokes were much less
reliable than 4-strokes?
Just curious,
Thanks,
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
| Based on the following chart, taken directly off the Kodiak
Reasearch
| Rotax Web Site, I don't see 168 lbs, unless it is the 914UL:
Hi Gang:
Sorry about that. The chart I copied of the web site looked good on
my copy of my reply, but certainly did not come out on the List copy
the same way.
Here's a url to the chart:
http://www.kodiakbs.com/4intro.htm
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
John H. --
I, too, have the STE exhaust on my 912S/MkIIIc ... I'm using the
same headset I've comfortably used for years on different UL and
experimental airplanes, and I'm finding the noise level is MUCH higher
in the MkIIIc... Do you know if that's because of the STE exhaust, or
because the 912S engine/prop is closer to me than it was in the other
aircraft, or a combination, or ????
Last time out I used ear-plugs in addition to my headset, and that was
audibly comfortable, but it made the radio much harder to hear, of
course.
I asked Rick Thomason whether he knew if after-mufflers would work on
the STE, and he said he didn't know. What do you think?
-- Robert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us> |
| Subject: | 912UL on a Firestar II |
Answer below:
Jeremy and Group,
Thanks for your input. The HKS is an engine that I have considered.
You mentioned a "DUC" prop that was "quiet". What does DUC stand for?
I have always had an interest in keeping the noise down. The wind and
the noise are two of the things that I have already improved on my
Firestar, to be comfortable enough to cruise at 80. But quieter is
always better, as long as the engine doesn't stop all noise.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
DUC prop info...
http://www.duc-helices.com/anglais/windspoon.htm
Mark Bierle of Earthstar aircraft tested (really tested...the guy is a
genius.) about 30 props on his Gull aircraft and settled on the DUC.
Have heard they are pricey...but the folks I've talked to that fly them
wouldn't sell them back for twice the money.
And here is the message I just got from the archives from Dennis Souder
regarding 912 weight...
Hi Group: Has anyone actually weighed a 912 all up, ready to go ??
>I've seen various quotations from l35 - 185 lbs. If you have the
engine
>equipped with starter, alternator, intake + exhaust, radiator, oil
cooler,
>fluids, hoses etc., what is the true life weight of the thing ?? Got
into
>a fairly spirited discussion recently. I figured around 175 lbs. and
>darned near got shot by a true believer, who claimed 145 lbs. Wasn't
sure
>enough to get real spirited so eased off a bit, but I sure would like
to
>know for sure. Big Lar.
>
>Correct; 163 lbs is the weight of the 912 engine and all accessories
with
fluids - the 912 was taken from our SlingShot and I weighed it complete
with
motor mount which was 167 lb. I figured the motor mount weight about 4
lbs,
hence the 163 figure. The scales I used typically underreport the
weight by
a couple pounds, so it is at least that much and possibly a bit more.
The
bare engine weighs a bit under 130 lbs., but those accessories do pile
on
the weight. This did not include the propeller.
Dennis
>
_____
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
| Seems to me it was Dennis Souder who took a 912 off a Mk III years
ago and
| weighed the Complete Running Package, with clamps, hoses, oil,
radiator,
| etc. | Lar.
Lar/Gang:
The Rotax chart does not include coolant and oil weights which are
about .6 gal coolant and 3.5 qts oil.
I have never weighed one, and only have the info on the Rotax chart to
go by. Can not verify correct or not. However, based on info from
Rotax over many years, I have no reason to believe they would
intentionally reduce actual weights.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
|
| Speaking of citing evidence, I'm curious: Is this experience with a
582 the
| basis for the claim you made a while ago that 2-strokes were much
less
| reliable than 4-strokes?
|
| Just curious,
|
| Thanks,
| LS
LS/Gang:
Not hardly.
Since 1984, I have owned and flown with 4 different two strokes in my
three Kolbs. Cuyuna ULII02 in the US, two 447's in the FS, and the
582 in the MKIII. Did a lot of cross country flying, back in the 80's
with the FS. Required two 447's to keep me going so I would not miss
flyins and shows. I kept one built and ready, on the bench, to
install when needed. Haven't found that necessary, to have a spare
built and ready to install, during the past 2,233.1 hours of flying
the 912UL and 912ULS.
Also flew two strokes for Kolb Aircraft and TNK for the past 15+
years.
My own personal experience and observations of others, during 22 years
of building and flying Kolb aircraft, are my basis for my belief that
the 912 series 4 stroke is tremendously more reliable than the Rotax
and other brands of two strokes.
I believe if two stroke engines have tremendously more engine failures
than the 912 series four stroke, then probably the 4 stroke is more
reliable than a 2 stroke.
Of course, this is only my own personal experience and opinion.
Nothing else to back up these feelings.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
2,444.0 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912UL on a Firestar II |
| >Correct; 163 lbs is the weight of the 912 engine and all
accessories
| with
| fluids - the 912 was taken from our SlingShot and I weighed it
complete
| with
| motor mount which was 167 lb. I figured the motor mount weight
about 4
| lbs,
| hence the 163 figure. The scales I used typically underreport the
| weight by
| a couple pounds, so it is at least that much and possibly a bit
more.
| The
| bare engine weighs a bit under 130 lbs., but those accessories do
pile
| on
| the weight. This did not include the propeller.
|
| Dennis
Gang:
I'll buy that. Maybe one of these days I will actually get around to
weighing mine, if I find that task important enough to accomplish and
have the means to accomplish it at the time the engine and all its
accessories are off the aircraft.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| I, too, have the STE exhaust on my 912S/MkIIIc ... |
| -- Robert
Robert L/Gang:
Yes, your system is the first STE exhaust I saw and heard at MV last
May. Sounded terrible. The right exhaust pipe is oriented about 45
degrees down. This causes the exhaust pulses of the 4 cyl 4 stroke
engine to hit the advancing blades at just the right angle and timing
to cause an irratic blade slapping sound. I knew mine was going to do
the same thing when I installed it, and it did. Sounded like crap.
Was going to remove the outlet pipes and replace with straight pipes.
However, my Brother Jim told me to cut the tips at 45 degree angle,
which I did, and which cured the ugly sound syndrome.
Those silencers are built for the Pulsar. The silencers for the
pusher configuration on the web site show straight outlet pipes.
As far as noise, I believe 95% of what you are hearing is prop noise
caused by the prop swinging in close proximity to aircraft parts. The
3 blade Warp Drive Prop on the Kolb Sport 600 tractor aircraft is
extremely quiet, almost a whisper.
MKIII's are noisy in the cockpit. I am having good luck with the
DRE600 active noise canceling headset. Works great compared to the
David Clarks I flew with for years. I can not wear ear plugs and hear
the radio. Too damn deaf.
I like my new exhaust system that I am testing. Put 30+ hours on it
in 5 days on the flight to Texas the first of December. This system
my perform a tad better than the Titan system. No hard facts to go on
except fuel burn was down a little and I was flying primarily at 5,200
to 5,300 rpm for the entire flight.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
At 10:30 AM 12/21/2005, you wrote:
>
>Our 582 FSII airframe has been modified by the addition of a subframe
>supporting the motor mounts, in order to deal with any extra engine
>torque.
They are putting one of the brand new Hearth engines - 70 HP
on one of ours down here> Think it is this model engine
http://www.aati.com.au/hirth/3503_engines.htm
But the rear frame is modified and has 6in wing spars etc.
Like mine.
http://www.aati.com.au/hirth/3503_engines.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
in my experience with 2 cycle engines (starting with snowmobiles back in the
70's)
the 2 cycle engine runs great when it is running lean, then dies fast. you
need to give
them a little extra gas to keep them cool. the gas is part of the cooling
system in the 2 cycle engine. I run my egt's at 1,100 or less. I have been
flying for 11 years and no engine has been damaged in that time. I had a plug
wire come off and some bad gas once, a fuel line plugged so I had a few
unplanned landings, but I don't fly over anything I can't glide over
or land on.
Mark
twinstar
s.e.minnesota
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | fuel contamination |
Kolbers, I got to thinking recently about Norm's crash and fuel
contamination.
The report mentioned bug guts.
Wondering if, despite due care for clean fuel, He got chunks in the gas
from
a spot easily overlooked. The vent system.
We go nuts installing redundant filters and gascolators and yet the vent
sits there inviting intruders and nesters. Mine is especially out of
mind,
going out the belly. I do occasionally stick something up a few inches
into it and blow through it. -but bugs work fast. A spider or a mud
dauber
(dobber for youse southerners) can fill a small tube in a short time.
I think a simple remedy like a small filter tip would be a help.
-suggestions?
-BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
| Subject: | 912UL on a Firestar II |
Hi Gang,
I dont usually get to contribute anything worthwhile, but since I have a
912S with most everything mounted on it in the shop I decided I would weigh
it and report back and hopefully contribute something useful.
My engine has a beefier than stock motor mount, it is 3/8" thick and I
believe the stock mount is 1/4" thick, and a custom built aluminum prop
extension. The oil cooler and radiator are mounted to the engine in a fairly
lightweight fashion with custom built brackets. All the radiator and oil
cooler hoses are attached. The only thing that wasn't attached when I
weighted the engine was the oil tank. It also includes the weight of a Titan
S/S exhaust system. About the only other weights to add would be the oil
tank weight (maybe 2 lbs), fluid weights and prop weight.
I believe the scales to be fairly accurate and they showed a weight of 161
pounds. This should be pretty close to most applications on Kolb's. The
motor mounts may be a pound more (just a guess) and the prop extension is
aluminum and probably slightly lighter weight than most of the steel units
used. Hope this helps some.
Take care,
John Cooley
-----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: 912UL on a Firestar II
| >Correct; 163 lbs is the weight of the 912 engine and all
accessories
| with
| fluids - the 912 was taken from our SlingShot and I weighed it
complete
| with
| motor mount which was 167 lb. I figured the motor mount weight
about 4
| lbs,
| hence the 163 figure. The scales I used typically underreport the
| weight by
| a couple pounds, so it is at least that much and possibly a bit
more.
| The
| bare engine weighs a bit under 130 lbs., but those accessories do
pile
| on
| the weight. This did not include the propeller.
|
| Dennis
Gang:
I'll buy that. Maybe one of these days I will actually get around to
weighing mine, if I find that task important enough to accomplish and
have the means to accomplish it at the time the engine and all its
accessories are off the aircraft.
john h
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | 912ULS Weight With Accessories |
| I believe the scales to be fairly accurate and they showed a weight
of 161
| pounds.
| Take care,
| John Cooley
Hi John C/Gang:
Now I don't have to weigh my engine will all the assorted stuff
attached. I believe your engine is the one you bought from John R in
Rome, GA. If so, then his mounts and mine are identical. That's
cause he made me a set of 3/8" mounts when I aquired my 912ULS in
2000.
I can tell you, because I weighed them last night, two sets of Titan
exhaust minus the #4 exhaust tube weighs 23 lbs. So the exhaust
system alone weighs pretty close to 12 lbs, not counting the 4
springs. I believe the new STE system is lighter, but I do not know
how much until the next time I remove the exhaust system and remember
to weigh it. Might be able to get an answer from Rick Thomason, the
gentleman that designed the system for Pulsars.
Take care and merry Xmas everyone,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
John C. and Group,
Thank you, John Cooley! The numbers are not what I wanted to hear, but
they pretty much back up Dennis's information to the list. I just can't
see putting a 160 pound engine on my Firestar. Without any other weight
information, I am going to give up on the idea.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
I believe the scales to be fairly accurate and they showed a weight of
161
pounds. This should be pretty close to most applications on Kolb's.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel contamination |
>a spot easily overlooked. The vent system.
>We go nuts installing redundant filters and gascolators and yet the vent
>sits there inviting intruders and nesters. Mine is especially out of
>mind,
>going out the belly. I do occasionally stick something up a few inches
>into it and blow through it. -but bugs work fast. A spider or a mud
>dauber
>(dobber for youse southerners) can fill a small tube in a short time.
>I think a simple remedy like a small filter tip would be a help.
>-suggestions?
>-BB
Bob,
Most bugs like to breath fresh air just like we do. If there is fuel in the
system, it would be difficult for a bug to build a nest and to close off the
vent tube. The heavy fuel vapor will flush all the oxygen out of the tube.
This is not true for dynamic and static pressure vents. If you are
uncomfortable, it is fairly simple to make a vent cover just like one used
on the airspeed probe for a fuel vent.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel contamination |
I think you're absolutely right, and it's a h... of a good idea. I'll copy
it, for sure. Vamoose might even fly......some year. Do not
Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "robert bean" <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: fuel contamination
> > dauber
> (dobber for youse southerners) can fill a small tube in a short time.
> I think a simple remedy like a small filter tip would be a help.
> -suggestions?
> -BB
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel contamination |
| Most bugs like to breath fresh air just like we do. If there is
fuel in the
| system, it would be difficult for a bug to build a nest and to close
off the
| vent tube. The heavy fuel vapor will flush all the oxygen out of
the tube.
|
| Jack B. Hart FF004
| Winchester, IN
Hi Jack H/Gang:
Not particularly true in all cases. I have a vent line on a 55 gal
aux diesal tank in the old Dodge/Cummins that gets plugged regularly
by fanatic Alabama mud daubers.
However, have never had a problem with the vent line on my MKIII that
is venting combinations of 93 and 100LL fumes continously.
As far as bugs in the fuel tank, a good finger strainer in the outlet
helps keep them out of the fuel filter.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
required 4.6, HTML_MESSAGE 0.25)
Kolbers,
I can make a contribution here. I, as well as several other Kolb aircraft owners,
live in the bug capitol of the USA!
I think a simple remedy like a small filter tip would be a help.
-suggestions?
What we do is place automotive rubber vacuum caps on every vent/orifice on any
thing that burns fuel from leaf blowers to the RV8 when not in use. Don't forget
to put a bright red "Remove before flight" tag on the airplanes though. Heck
even have them on my snapper mower! hehehe
Merry Christmas and Happy new Year!
Paul Petty
Building Ms. Dixie
Kolbra/912UL/Warp
www.c-gate.net/~ppetty
I.L.D.S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdmurr(at)juno.com" <jdmurr(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel contamination |
I have a fuel filter on my vent line to keep out things that don't belong.
John Murr
1989 FS
I have a fuel filter on my vent line to keep out things that don't belong.
John Murr
1989 FS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
>You're a welcome addition to the Kolb List, Lucien. You sound well
>informed and reasonable, yet willing to listen to others......not all that
>common a trait. Ol' Johnnie H. and I have become fair friends over the
>years, and I enjoy his input, but sometimes it's good to see someone rattle
>his cage a bit. Keeps him on his toes, I think, and he IS a little (??)
>opinionated. :-) Lar.
Hey Larry,
Well just to set the record straight, if there were a good 4-stroke
alternative to the 447/503 in the typical applications I admit I'd strongly
consider it. But so far, the alternatives there are have their own
disadvantages - weight, cost, installation problems being the main ones -
that have so far always sent me back to the Rotax.
Also, as I alluded to before, I'd definitely go to an alternative on the
582. I'm not as happy with this motor since it's not as reliable as the
aircooled motors. In something requiring 582 sized power, I'd definitely
look at the HKS on up through the jabiru and 912 instead.
So far the dark horse appears to be the HKS. I, for example, was thinking it
vibrated too much; well I was corrected here on the list. Also, I have read
a pretty large body of opinion that it "performs more like a 503" that Tom
Olenik has actually found not to be the case. He and his father have done a
lot of experimenting with the propping which is what he's found to be the
source of this. He says you can't prop it like a 582 - generally it needs a
bit more prop since it lugs a lot better than the 582.
So there's some mythology going on there as well which might be masking
things a bit....
Anyway, it's no secret that my favorite 2-stroke is the 503. I don't
hesitate to jump in my firestar and go somewhere ever because of concerns
about the motor. Usually wind and bad weather are the limiting factors
there. I've found it to be plenty dependable for any kind of flying or trips
I might want to take.
Finally, though, I will agree with John that the 912 is more reliable and
for sure if I were to build a long-haul airplane like a Kolbra/mark III or
such, intended for long trips I'd definitely fit a 912 instead.
We only differed on _how much_ more reliable it was, not that it wasn't more
reliable period.
As I said, I eventually plan to fly in front of/underneath a 912 at some
point soon as I get a little richer. But that won't keep me out of the FS in
the meantime ;).
LS
N646F
>Larry Bourne
>Palm Springs, CA
>Building Kolb Mk III
>N78LB Vamoose
>www.gogittum.com
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "lucien stavenhagen"
>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 11:32 AM
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II
>
>
>>
>>
>>>LS/Gang:
>>>
>>>Said I was going to drop this one, but possum and BB made me do it.
>>>
>>>8 engines in 700+ hours and 7+ years. Am I understanding this
>>>correctly?
>>>
>>>Looks like that works out to about an engine every year or less, and
>>>less than 100 hours per engine. Doesn't seem like you gave your two
>>>strokes time to get broken in, much less hiccup.
>>
>>Actually, no, the Rotaxen break in pretty much fully by about 15 hours run
>>time.
>>
>>As for your math, it's ok, but the conclusion is a little more complex
>>than
>>you're making it out to be. For most of the time, I"ve
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | looking for some one |
Hello Kolb flyers,
I was wondering if there any Mk III flyers from Minnesota on the list that could
respond to me off the list? I know of one person so far by the name of Mike
P.
thanks, Merry Christmas & Best wishes for great New Year!
Ben
ben_ramler2002(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II |
> Thank you, John Cooley! The numbers are not what I wanted to hear, but
> they pretty much back up Dennis's information to the list. I just can't
> see putting a 160 pound engine on my Firestar. Without any other weight
> information, I am going to give up on the idea.
>
> John Jung
> Firestar II N6163J
> Surprise, AZ
>
John J,
Keep us posted on what you decide to do, I can't wait to hear about the
first Firestar with an HKS and big reduction drive, it should be a fuel
sipping butt hauling machine.
Also would be cool to get a report on the exact differance between a 2.58
Rotax reduction and the 3.47 C box with the big blades.
Denny Rowe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DCulver701(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Trailering A Kolb |
Thanks George, for the great shots of Richard Swiderski,s custom built
trailer. The trailer is very unique with great design features. Did you design
&
build it yourself, Richard? If You did, it was one heck of a nice job. What
type of trailer did you start with, or was it designed from the ground up? I
didn't see any dimensions for length & width, weight, or materials used? Is
that available someplace? Again , thanks George for posting the pictures. Best
regards. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year everyone. Dave Culver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <rswiderski(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Trailering A Kolb |
Dave, yes I designed & built it from scratch after seeing Dennis Souders
open air trailer with a drop step immediately behind the axle. It's a
brilliant idea & I used that concept & enclosed it. The design goal was: a
2000 lb or lighter empty weight; a 150 lb tongue weight; a streamlined shape
so it could be pulled by a 6 cylinder vehicle; to provide a cushy ride; to
provide easy loading; to be amenable to FL summer heat; & double as a
hanger. The tongue weight was unbelievably difficult to achieve. It is
made of 1" 1x3 rectangular
tubing for side frame; 4x4 tubing for tongue; steel siding for walls;
seamless aluminum sheeting for roof. I lost the detailed measurements.
Below is the comments I sent along with the pictures to George. If I was to
build it again, I would make it much simpler with less pieces.
The beauty of this trailer is that: 1)It is relatively light (2000 lbs);
2)It has a drop step at the rear that allows you to easily roll the Kolb
into trailer without scrapping leading edge of wings & only having to raise
the plane 6 inches; 3) It has a 150 lb tongue weight loaded or empty, yet
tracks solid with no wagging; and 4) It is very streamlined with front walls
tapering inward, front roof tapering down, rear floor tapering upward & 11
inches of road clearance (except for the drop step 2ft behind the rear axle
which has 5" clearance & has drag strips with the paint still on them.)
The weird box inside the trailer on the upper left is a 12V/propane
refrigerator. The rear ramp has a garage door spring assist & requires two
fingers to lift. The rear door is adjustable for opened height. The RV
awning is a great reprieve from treeless airports. The front door allows
quick access on road & cross breeze ventilation when loading. Two side
windows & trap door in floor allow ventilation when parked. Plexiglass roof
window brightens entire trailer. The dual axles prevents the trailer from
dropping if you have to go over pot holes & the rubber torsion suspension
provides a cushy ride. Interior & exterior 12V lighting makes those after
sunset folding & loading jobs easy. Lots of 120V AC lighting is for using
the trailer as a hanger & shop. The robust roof truss with ratchet strap is
what takes the weight completely off the tail wheel & puts that weight
immediately in front of the front axle. This was the big break through
solution that allowed a light tongue weight without moving the axles so far
forward that towing stability would be compromised. The ratchet strap goes
around the tail boom where the h-section is installed. All in all, I am
thrilled with this purpose trailer.
-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Pellien" <jim(at)pellien.com> |
| Subject: | T'was The Night Before Christmas - Sport Plane Version |
'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the forum
not an EMAIL was posted, not even a note.
The stockings were hung by the laptop with care,
in hopes that Tom P. soon would be there.
The pilots were nestled all snug in their beds,
while visions of SLSA's danced in their heads.
The aircraft in their hangars, and I in my cap,
had just settled our brains for a long winter's nap.
When out on the tarmac there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my desk to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
tore open the shutter, and threw up the sash.
The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow
gave the lustre of midday to the tie-downs below,
when, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
but a Light Sport Aircraft and eight big EAA 'rs.
With a little old pilot, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it must be Tom P.
More rapid than eagles, his coursers they came,
and he whistled and shouted and called them by name:
"Now Rutan! Now Melville!
Now, Fossett and Boyer!
On, Lawrence! On, Heintz!
On, Van G and Sawyer!
To the end of the runway!
To the tie-down area
Now Shut Down ! Shut Down!
Shut Down All Engines"
As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,
when they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky
so up to the top of the FBO they flew,
with the sleigh full of flight toys, and Tom P. too.
And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof
the prancing and pawing of each little hoof.
As I drew in my head and was turning around,
down the chimney Tom P. came with a bound.
He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,
and his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot.
A bundle of new FAA rules he had flung on his back,
and he looked like a peddler just opening his pack.
He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
and filled all the stockings, with SP and LSA Rulings.
And laying his finger aside of his nose,
and giving a nod, up the chimney he rose.
He sprang to his SLSA, completed his preflight,
And away he flew like the down of a thistle.
But I heard him exclaim, 'ere he flew out of sight,
"Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night!"
(An Adaptation of the Classic Poem, "T'was the Night Before Christmas")
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to All
Jim Pellien
Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
The Mid-Atlantic Region of SportsPlanes.com
www.MASPL.com
703-313-4818
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel contamination |
John Hauck wrote:
>
> | Most bugs like to breath fresh air just like we do. If there is
>fuel in the
>| system, it would be difficult for a bug to build a nest and to close
>off the
>| vent tube. The heavy fuel vapor will flush all the oxygen out of
>the tube.
> |
>| Jack B. Hart FF004
>| Winchester, IN
>
>Hi Jack H/Gang:
>
>Not particularly true in all cases. I have a vent line on a 55 gal
>aux diesal tank in the old Dodge/Cummins that gets plugged regularly
>by fanatic Alabama mud daubers.
>
>However, have never had a problem with the vent line on my MKIII that
>is venting combinations of 93 and 100LL fumes continously.
>
>As far as bugs in the fuel tank, a good finger strainer in the outlet
>helps keep them out of the fuel filter.
>
>john h
>MKIII/912ULS
>hauck's holler, alabama
>
I've found dauber nests in *both* fuel vents of an RV-4. The plane flew
for around 5 years in & around central Mississippi with no infestation,
then they got both sides at once. I discovered the problem after a 15
minute flight. Heard 'that great sucking sound' & noticed that one of
the leading edge tanks was sunken in about 1" between the ribs. The
vents are made of 1/4" AL tubing, around 1/8" ID & necked down smaller
than that by the tubing cutter. Both vent lines got screens over the
ends before it flew again.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | xtra Quick Build hours? |
Is there someone that can tell me how long the xtra quick build kit takes to
build?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron" <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | xtra Quick Build hours? |
Well it pretty much depends on how much time you can give the project and
how good you are in interpreting the plans. I had one hell of a time
deciphering the old M3X plans. Also I am located remote from any Kolbs. I
had nothing to look at to see how it's put together. This list helped me a
lot when the members sent me pictures. Anyway I think if you have the budget
to get everything including the engine, instruments and covering material
you could finish it in 6 months with 3-4 hrs 3 times a week. Just a guess.
Each builder is different so in reality this estimate applies to me only.
:-)
Ron
Arizona
==========================
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Key
Subject: Kolb-List: xtra Quick Build hours?
Is there someone that can tell me how long the xtra quick build kit takes to
build?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Martin" <kolbdriver(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trailering A Kolb |
I'm in the market for a trailer for the Firestar II. Trying to decide which
axles to go with. A 24 footer with dual 5000 lb axles would be easier to
sell if later I needed to, but it would seem that this stiff suspension
would beat the plane to death on the road. The 3500 lb axles would seem to
give a softer ride. Any ideas???
Don Martin (covering the Firestar II)
>From: DCulver701(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Trailering A Kolb
>Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:53:19 EST
>
>
>Thanks George, for the great shots of Richard Swiderski,s custom built
>trailer. The trailer is very unique with great design features. Did you
>design &
>build it yourself, Richard? If You did, it was one heck of a nice job.
>What
>type of trailer did you start with, or was it designed from the ground up?
>I
>didn't see any dimensions for length & width, weight, or materials used?
>Is
>that available someplace? Again , thanks George for posting the pictures.
>Best
>regards. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year everyone. Dave Culver
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | keep the bugs out of tank vents |
Hi Gang, my 15 gal. tank on my MK3 is vented to the rear of the gage, where
the boom tube comes out. I have always had a small piece of nylon mesh screen
over the end of it, secured with tie wire. I was always concerned about mud
wasps (daubers), and this seems to have worked well.
Fly Safe
Merry Christmas
Bob Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | HKS on a Firestar II |
>Denny and Group,
>
>I have looked into the HKS several times, and it is probably the best
>engine if one wants to go traveling in a Firestar II. For me, the
>likely improvements over a 503 are not worth the money. Now, if I
>didn't already own a 503 and had to buy a new one, I might get the HKS,
>instead. I also would like someone else to be the first.
>
>If anyone know of an HKS on a Kolb, let us know.
>
>I have considered the change in Rotax gear box, too.
My FSII has the 3.47:1 C box on it (with the RK-400 clutch as well), the
prop is a 3-blade warp drive taper tip at 68" diameter.
If you need the smoothness of a 3-blade, this is absolutely the way to go.
With the 2.58/2.62 gear ratios, running a 3-blade is slightly problematic -
either the MOI is too high (i.e. the IVO) or you have to run a smaller
diameter (i.e. less than 66") both of which are suboptimal and/or bad for
the motor/gearbox (yeah I know lots of guys run the 3-blade IVO's on B
boxes...).
With a 3.47:1 C box, you can swing a larger prop in 3 blades, but you're
only going approx. 1800 rpm max, allowing you to run coarser pitch as well
as mitigating MOI problems from heavier props like the warp drive.
On my plane, though, I notice that I'm about at the comfortable limit in
terms of clearance of the tips from the tail boom (about 1.5") at 68"
diameter. I'd like to try a 70" at some point and see what gives me as far
as thrust (I'm more interested in low speed thrust than loading at cruise).
I can't make any comparisons with a 2.6 ratio and appropriate prop as far as
economy goes on this plane since I've never tried that combo. It should also
be noted that the C box adds weight over the B box, approx. 7lbs (if you add
the clutch that tacks on another 3lbs for a total of 10). That might reduce
the economy a bit.
I have a feeling also that a little better static/low speed thrust is
obtainable with a 2.6:1/66" 2-blade prop combo than with the 3.47:1/68"
3-blade combo.
But since I much prefer the smoothness of a 3 blade, thats still the combo
that I run (the C box also allows using the clutch, which I don't think I'll
ever not use again ;))....
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: keep the bugs out of tank vents |
nylon mesh screen
| over the end of it, secured with tie wire. I was always concerned
about mud
| wasps (daubers), | Merry Christmas
| Bob Griffin
Morning Bob G/Gang:
Good idea. Although I have never had a problem with the MKIII, I am
going to take care of protecting the end of my fuel vent line.
Because I have never had a problem with it over the years does not
mean some dumb ass mud dauber will not make a home in the vent line
and ruin my day.
Thanks for the reminder, Bob.
Take care and Merry Xmas, Happy New Year,
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kolbdriver" <Kolbdriver(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel contamination |
This is what I use on the end of my vent line. If the link doesn't work it
is item number 09806407 from MSC. mscdirect.com
Steven Green
http://www1.mscdirect.com/CGI/NNSRIT?PMPXNO=1809701&PMT4NO=3520349
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | speaking of long hauls with 2-strokes |
I ran across this web page a little while back:
http://members.aol.com/WillU/index.html
Will I don't think I've met yet - is he on the list?
I was very intrigued/inspired by the trip made to OR from el paso in a pair
of firestars....
My limitation so far has been high winds and having to work all the time,
but with the additional controllability I recently got on my plane from
adding gap seals might up the wind limits a bit. It's inspiring to know I
could do pretty long trips given enough time and weather.....
I've done some trips in my FS of 20 to 30 miles recently, and am looking
forward to doing more soon as I have the time and the weather for em....
Anyway, I enjoyed seeing this site.....
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: speaking of long hauls with 2-strokes |
| Will I don't think I've met yet - is he on the list?
|
| I was very intrigued/inspired by the trip made to OR from el paso in
a pair
| of firestars....
|
| LS
LS/Gang:
Wil Uribe is part of the Kolb List family.
He and Dave Raines did the flight in 2001, I believe. I'm sure Wil
will respond to your post. I enjoyed following their flight on the
internet. At the same time I was on my way to Barrow, Alaska. When I
would have access to a computer I would get on line to see how Wil and
Dave were making out. I was very proud of their effort and the
successful completion of their flight.
From your previous postings, I took for granted you were an
experienced cross country two stroke flyer.
Serious cross country flights have been conducted with two strokes for
many years. In two years I flew my point ignition 447 powered
original Firestar in all the States east of the Mississippi River, and
some west of the Mississippi, plus Canada. That was 1987 to 1989.
Biggest problem I had was vibration would eventually destroy the coils
which were hard mounted on the engine, plus keeping the engine timed
correctly because of normal wear on the ign pts rubbing block and wear
of the micarta pivot bushing. I am sure you are familiar with these
problems if you have experience with the older Rotax engines. The
advent of CDI for the Rotax two stroke was wonderful for folks that
put a lot of hours on the two strokes during cross country flights.
BTW: All of my flights, from the first XC in my 1984 Kolb Ultrastar
on, were solo and completely unsupported. I usually rough it,
sleeping under the wing, finding chow and showers when I can.
I have been very fortunate during the years of my Kolb hobby. Been
poor, but happy. After retiring from the Army in 1980, I learned to
live on limited funds which allowed me to not have to seek a second
career. This gave me the opportunity to devote most of my time to my
hobby. Primarily, if I got caught out by weather or mechanical
problems, I did not have to worry about getting back to my job on
Monday morning.
Experiencing extended cross country flights in Kolb aircraft are very
exciting for me, whether two or four stroke powered. A day flight or
48 day flight, they are all the same. Like walking, cross country
flights are a series of short steps tied together.
John Jung has the cross country bug. He did his first serious cross
country flight to MV last May. If I was going to cross country his
airplane, the first thing I would do is get it set up to do just that.
The open area behind the bulkhead would be the new home of the largest
custom fabricated fuel tank that would fit in that space. This would
open up the lower bay for cargo. One must be comfortable with his
airplane's capabilities to be able to enjoy extended cross country
flying in little airplanes. We built a 25 gal (useable) fuel tank for
my MKIII before it left the factory. It was initially powered by a
582 that burned 5 to 5.5 gph. A 20 gal tank should be doable for the
FSII. I had an 18 gal tank in the original FS, placed in the same
location as the one in my MKIII, up top behind the bulk head. On the
stock MKIII this is also an open, unused area.
Along with enough fuel, one should have good quality camping gear.
Nothing can replace a Thermarest air mattress. Got to be comfortable
to get a good night's sleep so we can enjoy the next day's flight. A
"shake down" overnight flight is a good idea to see if the gear one
has is going to get the job done. Followed by a flight of a couple
two or three days. Then you are ready to head out indefinitely.
There are a few of us cross country nuts that feel comfortable
climbing in our Kolbs, heading out, not knowing when we will land the
next time at our home fields. It is a great feeling. Takes me back
to what it must have been like to have been a barnstormer in the 20's
and 30's. I guess that is what keeps me going in this hobby after all
these years.
Looking forward to the Unplanned/Unorganized 2006 Kolb Flyin next May.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <rswiderski(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Trailering A Kolb |
Don,
Twin axles give a far superior ride because when one wheel hits a
pot hole, the other wheel keeps the trailer level. You will want to get the
lightest rated axles possible that will still support the trailer loaded.
If you ever put a g-meter on your plane, you will faint at the loads seen
while trailering. If you are going to trailer the kolb on a regular
basis, then you need a purpose built trailer. Don't compromise it with a
multi-use design or planning for the guy who might buy it someday. Rubber
torsional axles are the ultimate choice as they dampen the shocks better
than springs, plus, unlike springs, they dissipate much of the energy into
heat. It is like having shock absorbers. -Richard Swiderski
: Trailering A Kolb
I'm in the market for a trailer for the Firestar II. Trying to decide which
axles to go with. A 24 footer with dual 5000 lb axles would be easier to
sell if later I needed to, but it would seem that this stiff suspension
would beat the plane to death on the road. The 3500 lb axles would seem to
give a softer ride. Any ideas???
Don Martin (covering the Firestar II)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: speaking of long hauls with 2-strokes |
>From your previous postings, I took for granted you were an
>experienced cross country two stroke flyer.
>
Oh lord no, I wish - I'm a very experienced 2-stroke flyer, but my
cross-country experience in small aircraft is still very limited. I did
quite a bit xcountry work in my general avaiation days, but my xcountry
efforts in my UL/light plane days have been, well, actually somewhat
pathetic.
Some of that had to do with the aircraft types I've flown in that period. My
first was my quicksilver MX Super. The main limitations on that plane were
gas and insufficient wind screen. Pretty uncomfortable for long treks (this
one had a points 503 in it which gave me the retarded timing problem as the
cam wore too) although it was great for just about everything else. Then
there was my trike, which was very small and light (made part 103 weight in
fact with the 447 and single surface wing) and was somewhat limited in terms
of control.
Rest of the time has been due to lack of time or unemployment, etc....
That's the main reason I bought my Firestar, it's so much more capable in
all respects than either of my other two planes. I've already done 3 short
xcountries in it and it was so much fun after each one I couldn't sleep at
night waiting to plan the next one.
And of course, I avidly read your adventures as well as the others on the
list for fun as well as the excellent information you've accumulated from
your experience.
In fact, I'm already looking at the chart for possible places to go this
weekend....
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trailering A Kolb |
I've been following this thread with some interest, tho' I haven't even
trailered my Kolb yet. I have, however, trailered many boats for hundreds
of thousands of miles over the last 40 years, (seems like I've said this
before ??) and I've seen what overly stiff springs can do to the boat and
trailer. I assume you're talking about 3500 lb per axle ?? That's 7,000
lbs capacity, right ?? In a ~2,000 lb trailer, carrying a +/- 500 lb
airplane ?? What I've done on several boat trailers, is remove one or 2
leaves from the springs, to soften the ride, while retaining enuf capacity
to handle the load. A real eye opener is to ride in the boat while it's
being towed down a rough road at speed. (don't do it when the cops are
watching) That will really get your attention, believe me. Make sure
someone is watching you, so you can flag the driver to stop. You won't want
to ride there for long. Earlier, shocks were mentioned. I don't know as
I've ever seen a trailer with shocks. Why not ?? Have you ever ridden in a
car that's had the shocks removed ?? Not just worn out, but actually
removed ?? That'll get your attention, too. Why don't we put shocks on our
trailers ?? I dunno, but I sincerely wish there were some way to adapt some
to my current boat trailer.....and to Vamoose' trailer.
Shocking Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Building Kolb Mk III
N78LB Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Mallory" <wcm(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Trailering A Kolb
>
> Don,
> I have a 24' with the 3500 lb axels and it gives my Kolb a very soft ride.
> You are right about the 5000 lb. axels being rough on the plane and I
> think
> that you will find that should you want to sell your trailer later on that
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Seasons' Greetings |
To all fellow ULers I sincerely wish you and yours a Merry/Happy
(insert PC word of your choice) Holiday. Under our virtual Holiday
Tree I would like to find...doesn't even have to be gift
wrapped...good friends, better health, and best of all..Peace.
Bob N.
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy pg 2 has a Christmas story
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM05(at)comcast.net> |
Bob/All
By all means stop the noise at its source but if you can't try my idea it
really works. I have been using ear plugs under my headphones but can't
stand not hearing the radio and passengers. I just started using ear phones
like the ones that are used by Ipod users in noisy environments. The ear
phones are the kind that are placed in your ear canal. They reduce outside
noise the same way ear plugs do (but not quite as much) by plugging the ear
canal. I plug the ear phones and the head phones into the intercom. With the
noise canceling headphones on over the ear phones it is quiet AND you can
hear. Note! you will want to turn the radio way down. It's not pretty but it
works.
Also I got my doctor to prescribe noise canceling headphones. Now I'm trying
to get my insurance to pay for them. The insurance covers hearing aids. When
I called them they said I need a procedure code and seems like a treatment
code. With that info it is no problem. From what I hear head phones are much
cheaper than hearing aids and some of the newer noise canceling headphones
should keep me from needing hearing aids a bit longer.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: STE noise
>
> John H. --
>
> I, too, have the STE exhaust on my 912S/MkIIIc ... I'm using the
> same headset I've comfortably used for years on different UL and
> experimental airplanes, and I'm finding the noise level is MUCH higher
> in the MkIIIc... Do you know if that's because of the STE exhaust, or
> because the 912S engine/prop is closer to me than it was in the other
> aircraft, or a combination, or ????
>
> Last time out I used ear-plugs in addition to my headset, and that was
> audibly comfortable, but it made the radio much harder to hear, of
> course.
>
> I asked Rick Thomason whether he knew if after-mufflers would work on
> the STE, and he said he didn't know. What do you think?
>
> -- Robert
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Seasons' Greetings |
Holiday Tree were still using the old Christmas Trees. I guess we could
debate which one is better on this list.
>From: Robert Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com, FLY-UL(at)yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: Seasons' Greetings
>Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 20:56:30 -0500
>
>
>To all fellow ULers I sincerely wish you and yours a Merry/Happy
>(insert PC word of your choice) Holiday. Under our virtual Holiday
>Tree I would like to find...doesn't even have to be gift
>wrapped...good friends, better health, and best of all..Peace.
>
>
>Bob N.
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy pg 2 has a Christmas story
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kirk Smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Seasons' Greetings |
doesn't even have to be gift
> wrapped...good friends, better health, and best of all..Peace.
>
>
> Bob N.
I can't think of any better gifts. Merry Christmas to all .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Domenic Perez" <perezmdomenic(at)plateautel.net> |
| Subject: | Tie downs, gust locks |
All,
What are you guys carrying with you in the plane, by way of tie downs and gust
locks and what does it all weigh? Any tips for making sure the plane is still
there the next morning? I'm thinking of especially the stake thingys to be
driven or screwed in the ground at some unimproved location while on a cross
country, when your'e kind of "forced" to wait out bad weather or nightfall. Also,
do you think wratchet straps around the joystick are sufficient gust locks?
Dave Pelletier of AZ has fabricated a joystick lock with a ring (to go on the
stick) and wratchet straps that is about as good as that method can get. Dave,
pics? Standard type gust locks are probably out of the question for carrying
in the plane on cross country trips - or are they? For that matter, what kind
of gust locks do you use when you don't have to worry about carrying them in
the plane? Is there ever a reason to fold the wings if the plane will be left
outside?
M. Domenic Perez
Vaughn, NM
FS II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Tie downs, gust locks |
I use these for overnight stays. They have a pack to carry them in, I
wouldn't trust them if the wind gets going? http://www.airtimemfg.com/
>From: "Domenic Perez" <perezmdomenic(at)plateautel.net>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Kolb-List: Tie downs, gust locks
>Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:49:14 -0700
>
>
>
>All,
> What are you guys carrying with you in the plane, by way of tie downs
>and gust locks and what does it all weigh? Any tips for making sure the
>plane is still there the next morning? I'm thinking of especially the stake
>thingys to be driven or screwed in the ground at some unimproved location
>while on a cross country, when your'e kind of "forced" to wait out bad
>weather or nightfall. Also, do you think wratchet straps around the
>joystick are sufficient gust locks? Dave Pelletier of AZ has fabricated a
>joystick lock with a ring (to go on the stick) and wratchet straps that is
>about as good as that method can get. Dave, pics? Standard type gust locks
>are probably out of the question for carrying in the plane on cross country
>trips - or are they? For that matter, what kind of gust locks do you use
>when you don't have to worry about carrying them in the plane? Is there
>ever a reason to fold the wings if the plane will be left outside?
>
>M. Domenic Perez
>Vaughn, NM
>FS II
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tie downs, gust locks |
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Tie downs, gust locks
>
> I use these for overnight stays. They have a pack to carry them in, I
> wouldn't trust them if the wind gets going? http://www.airtimemfg.com/
I use them as well, the only thing that I don't like about them is the ropes
are just a bit too short for my firestar. They will work but should be about
a foot longer. I guess on whether or not I would trust them when the wing
gest to really blowing, that would depend on the type of soil. I know they
have seen some pretty windy days on the Alvord Desert. One of the nice
things about them is their weight and toughness.
Larry,Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tie downs, gust locks |
| have seen some pretty windy days on the Alvord Desert. One of the
nice
| things about them is their weight and toughness.
| Larry,Oregon
Hi Folks:
You got that right, Larry, they do work good in the Alvord. I have a
pair of them also.
I never worry about their ability to hold, if I can get them into the
soil, unless it is something like beach sand.
The one draw back is rocky terrain. They are not going to penetrate
that kind of soil, which is what we find most in the Western States.
If you can get them to worm their way down and through the rocks, they
will not pull out.
To be completely covered, in addition to the titanium tie downs, I
have a set of three stakes made from rebar with a chaing link welded
to the side of the rebar near the top. The business end is ground to
a point to help it penetrate between rocks, and a handly survival
hachet will do the job of driving them down far enough to hold.
After an eye opening experience with a micro burst or some other
unexplained weather phenomonen at Moab, Utah, May 2005, the Kolb gang
I frequently cross country with very aware of the necessity of tying
down securely. Would be a terrible way to lose one's airplane, for
lack of adequate tie down.
Merry Xmas and Happy New Year everyone!!!
john h
hauck's holler, alabama
PS: Gusts locks I don't have, per se. However, the seat belt,
snugged around the stick pulled full aft will work for ailerons and
elevators. The rudder can be secured with a cheap bungee cord with
hooks, like the ones you can buy at Wal*Mart. Simply wrap the bungee
around the vertical part of the rudder pedals snugly. This will lock
the rudder. If you have a full swivel tailwheel that is locked to the
rudder until it hits extreme deflection left or right, this will keep
the wind from beating up the rudder, and the bungee is not needed on
the pedals. Just make sure the tail wheel swivel is engaged and not
in the tripped position.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM05(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tie downs, gust locks |
I use 5 dog style twist in tiedowns. I remove the rings from the dog tie
downs and hook the ropes to the handles. I attach one with ropes to each
wing were the strut attaches to the wing and one to each wing fold fittings.
Then I attach the fifth to the tail wheel. Some of the guys I camp with for
a week at a time at Oshkosh think I get carried away but when the wind blows
hard I sleep very well. As for gust locks I hook the seat belt over the
stick and synch it down. The rudder is constrained a bit by the tail wheel
but that doesn't work very well. I have seen people tie a rope around the
rudder peddles and that seems to work better.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Tie downs, gust locks
>
> I use these for overnight stays. They have a pack to carry them in, I
> wouldn't trust them if the wind gets going? http://www.airtimemfg.com/
>
>
>>From: "Domenic Perez" <perezmdomenic(at)plateautel.net>
>>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>>To:
>>Subject: Kolb-List: Tie downs, gust locks
>>Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:49:14 -0700
>>
>>
>>
>>All,
>> What are you guys carrying with you in the plane, by way of tie downs
>>and gust locks and what does it all weigh? Any tips for making sure the
>>plane is still there the next morning? I'm thinking of especially the
>>stake
>>thingys to be driven or screwed in the ground at some unimproved location
>>while on a cross country, when your'e kind of "forced" to wait out bad
>>weather or nightfall. Also, do you think wratchet straps around the
>>joystick are sufficient gust locks? Dave Pelletier of AZ has fabricated a
>>joystick lock with a ring (to go on the stick) and wratchet straps that is
>>about as good as that method can get. Dave, pics? Standard type gust locks
>>are probably out of the question for carrying in the plane on cross
>>country
>>trips - or are they? For that matter, what kind of gust locks do you use
>>when you don't have to worry about carrying them in the plane? Is there
>>ever a reason to fold the wings if the plane will be left outside?
>>
>>M. Domenic Perez
>>Vaughn, NM
>>FS II
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tie downs, gust locks |
| one to each wing fold fittings.
|
| Rick Neilsen
Hi Rick/Gang:
John W also used the wing fold fitting for his primary attach point
for his wing tie downs. During our little weather ordeal at Moab last
May, both wing fold fittings pulled free, completely, from the main
spar. Might hold those wings when they are folded and in stress, but
those 1/8" rivets will hardly hold their own weight in tension. A
miracle JW did not lose his Kolbra.
Thought I should share that tid bit of info with you since you are
using the wing fold fitting.
If I had doubts about one rope holding the wing at the upper lift
strut fitting, I'd put two ropes and two stakes on each fitting,
rather than the wing fold fitting.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob and Jenn B" <tabberdd(at)hotmail.com> |
Has anyone had experience with rebuilt Rotax cranks? With the cost of a new
one at $900+, a rebuilt one starts to sound pretty good.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
>Has anyone had experience with rebuilt Rotax cranks? With the cost of a
>new
>one at $900+, a rebuilt one starts to sound pretty good.
The only one I know that rebuilds rotax cranks is a guy named Steve Beatty.
His operation is called airscrew performance I believe.
I don't have any personal experience, but I've heard both good and bad about
both Steve B. and the rebuilt cranks. Caveat Emptor is all I can offer
therefore....
My personal opinion: being as how my firestar isn't a stupendous glider, ;),
anything inside the motor, particularly the crank, is the last place I like
to cut any corners or do any experimentation. I only replace with factory
new genuine rotax parts on anything having to do with the motor if a new
part is needed.
JMO,
LS
N646F
>Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tie downs, gust locks |
In a message dated 12/26/2005 1:14:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, dhkey(at)msn.com
writes:
I use these for overnight stays. They have a pack to carry them in, I
wouldn't trust them if the wind gets going? http://www.airtimemfg.com/
Yeah, me too. And as for "gust locks", I secure the stick with my seat belt
with the help of one 18" bunjii.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar 2 windscreen |
Wade and Group,
My firestar has 1/16 inch lexan for rear side windows and an aluminum
piece with sound insulation in the back. I added the enclosure so that
my wife would be more comfortable, but I liked it from the first
flight. I added vents so that I could control the temperature some, and
I'd never go back to flying without the rear enclosure.
Also, I have a domed fiberglass piece above my head to stop the high
speed draft. The rest of the enclosure is stock Kolb.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Group,
I`m looking for some alternative designs for a full enclosure,
factory design
seems to be lacking and i know this group is very creative.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rebuilt Cranks |
Several years ago I had a 532 spin the drive gear at the center of the
crank. Central Snowmobile rebuilt it for about $300, and gave me a warranty.
When I talked to the guy on the phone, I specified that it was from an
aircraft engine, he was like no big deal, we have parts for those too.
Easy company to work with.
Ended up replacing the engine with a zero timed 582 before I ever had a
chance to use it again, sold it, so don't know how it held up.
Here is their url-
http://www.centralsnowmobile.com/Central/crankshaft.htm
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Bob and Jenn B wrote:
>
>Has anyone had experience with rebuilt Rotax cranks? With the cost of a new
>one at $900+, a rebuilt one starts to sound pretty good.
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Cowan <trc1917(at)direcway.com> |
Am investigating the installation of hydraulic brakes on my Sling Shot and
taking those 'slow downs' off. On pavement, that 582 pushes this little
baby no matter how hard I pull on the handle. Was wondering if anyone has
had any dealings with the people in Mn, FBI, Free Bird Innovations. It took
over a week to make contact with an actual person being as they deal through
an answering service (first run instinct). After contact, everything seemed
okay but now over a week later, no contact again, no parts, no explanation.
(second run instinct). Finally got a persons cell phone number to contact
through someone else in the office who didnt know anything about it and left
message but no return on that phone call either. (third run instinct really
kicking in). Now, the brake system sounds and looks real good and I hate to
pass up a good price (caveat emptor) but I dont like getting the run around
and am getting really shaky about this company. anyone heard or dealt with
them? Thanks. Ted Cowan, Alabama.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt(at)kilocharlie.us> |
anyone heard or dealt with
them? Thanks. Ted Cowan, Alabama.
No help with the Freebird folks...but have had excellent service (both
customer and in the plane) of the MATCO products...always try to give a
good report when its appropriate cause like most folks I tend to report
the bad experiences readily...so turnabout is fair play ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| No help with the Freebird folks...but have had excellent service
(both
| customer and in the plane) of the MATCO products... |
Hi Jeremy/All:
I agree with you. Thanks for bringing this note to our attention.
My experience with MATCO has been the best. They have always
supported me and my endeavors with our little airplanes.
Over the years we have flown without brakes, had brakes that only
worked until we went on cross country flights, brakes that were
marginally adequate, and finally got some brakes, wheels, and axles
that really get the job done.
I have bicycle brakes on my Trek mountain bike. They work good.
Think I'll leave them on the bike and use my MATCO's instead for the
airplane.
Thanks again,
john h
MKIII, 912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David L. Bigelow" <dlbigelow(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Tie downs, gust locks |
The seat belt around the stick works OK if you park nose into the wind. I like
to park tail into the wind so the wings don't try to fly. When I do that, the
ailerons bang back and forth stop to stop, and the stick doesn't have the leverage
to stop it. I made a gust lock by pinning from the aileron counter balance
through to the wing tip tube on one side. Be sure and have a red streamer
from the pin. It would be disastrous to forget to pull the lock before flight.
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Tie downs, gust locks |
I like that bright dayglow pink surveyors tape, one end tied to the gust
lock, or the pitot cover or whatever, and the other end left long enough
to reach into the cockpit. If you have to move it out of the way to get
in, it's tougher to overlook. Might sound stupid, but it's the stupid
mistakes that get us killed.
Forty years ago, I was a lineboy at Opa Locka airport, south Florida.
Had to chase down an Aero Commander that was taxiing out with the rudder
gust lock still in place. Got the pilot's attention, got him to stop,
pulled off the gust lock and handed it to him. Guess what? He was tiffed
because I had embarrassed him in front of his passengers.
Takes all kinds...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
David L. Bigelow wrote:
>
>The seat belt around the stick works OK if you park nose into the wind. I like
to park tail into the wind so the wings don't try to fly. When I do that, the
ailerons bang back and forth stop to stop, and the stick doesn't have the leverage
to stop it. I made a gust lock by pinning from the aileron counter balance
through to the wing tip tube on one side. Be sure and have a red streamer
from the pin. It would be disastrous to forget to pull the lock before flight.
>
>Dave Bigelow
>Kamuela, Hawaii
>FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Tie downs, gust locks |
I like to park tail into the wind so the wings don't try to fly.
I made a gust lock by pinning from the aileron counter balance through
to the wing tip tube on one side.
|
| Dave Bigelow
Hi Dave/Gang:
Seems to me my airplanes get beat up a lot more when the tail is to
the wind. Much harder on rudder, elevators, flaps, ailerons, and
everything attached to the airplane. With the nose in the wind, the
airplane is in its natural element, or so it would seem to me. It may
want to fly, but isn't that what the tie downs are for?
An example of which airplane gets the most reaction and abuse from the
wind. Four Kolb aircraft tied down at Moab, Utah, last May. Two
MKIII's and a Kolbra, facing east, tied down side by side. In the
same line, centered and tied down at our rear with nose pointing west
was a little Fire Fly. The four entrepid aviators went into Moab, 18
miles south, to oogle the young and old ladies and get some chow. On
our return, after dark, we discovered that some type of weather/wind
phenononem (?) had occurred while we were gone. Was a shock, because
it had been a picture perfect calm evening in the desert. The Kolbra
had broken loose from both its wing tie downs. One MKIII had held
onto it ropes, but they were stretched like fiddle strings and the
aircraft had jumped the chocks and was straining at the ropes
approximately 10 feet from its original position. The flaps had been
blasted down to the bottom stop with such force that it bent the flap
mechanism welded to the upper bulkhead. The other MKIII had broken
loose from one rope, spun 180 degrees and was dangling on the end of
the remaining rope. The flaps were hanging perpendicular to the
ground and the aluminum flap push/pull tubes were buckled. The 4130
push/pull tubes on the other MKIII were still in column.
Sitting sedately at its tie downs exactly as we left it was the little
Fire Fly. Not a feather had been blown out of place. It weathered
the storm with its little nose in the wind as though it were a battle
ship.
Dave, think you may have weakened the bow tip by drilling a hole
through there to secure your aileron lock?
Had your FS been tied down right by our airplanes that night, good
possibility you probably would have been looking at some serious
aileron and wing repair.
I welded the steel rings used for starting rope guides to the hardware
on my outboard lift strut attachments for a tie down point. Both of
the rings that were symetrical when we went to town are now oblong
from the force of the wind on my airplane and the tie down ropes.
Never thought it would happen.
Take care,
john h
PS: That exerience that night made all four of us much more aware of
the power of Mother Nature. We all are much more concerned with the
way our aircraft are now tied down no matter where we are.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Gust Locks and Safety |
Gang:
Forgot to mention previous msg.
One of my pretakeoff checks is to wipe out the cockpit with the stick,
lower and raise the flaps, and insure the rudder pedals are clear.
Takes a lot out of the chance out of leaving a control locked prior to
takeoff.
"All controls free and clear."
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Tie downs, gust locks |
John Hauck wrote:
> With the nose in the wind, the
>airplane is in its natural element, or so it would seem to me. It may
>want to fly, but isn't that what the tie downs are for?
>
>
Years ago, my first really functional ultralight was a Maxair Hummer,
and I flew it to Virginia Highlands airport along with a friend and his
Hummer. We 3 point tied them down apart from all the other airplanes on
the ramp, nose into the wind, because it looked like it was going to get
windy, and it did. However, the ropes we used were a bit long, and it
wasn't long before both the Hummers were hovering off the ground,
gracefully floating up a couple feet into the air, and then settling
back down as the wind slacked. Got some strange looks from the other
airport tenants. It was great fun.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Domenic Perez" <perezmdomenic(at)plateautel.net> |
| Subject: | Tie downs, gust locks |
All,
When you tie down, do you leave a little slack in the ropes (or straps), or
do you take all the slack out, or do you take all the slack out and then some,
to make the tie downs actually taut? I usually tweak the wings down a little
with tightness, figuring that if a real wicked micro burst hits, if the plane
is able to get some upward momentum before it stops at the rope's end, it would
be more likely to yank the stakes/augers/whatever right out of the ground.
Agree or disagree? Could I be causing some harm?
M. Domenic Perez
Vaughn, NM
FS II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Gust Locks and Safety |
Speaking of this, I encountered an interesting maintenance thing related to
this..
One of my preflight checks is manual inspection of the rudder/elevator
cables where they run through the pully block underneath the seat. I work
all 4 of them while feeling the cables at the pullies (I also feel the
pullies for roughness or pieces missing).
I've discovered over the years on various different planes that control
cables will fray and begin to break strands right at this area where they
run through pullies, particularly if the pullies are smaller and the bend is
sharp.
Sure enough, at 490 hours on the original set of cables on my FS II, I
caught fraying in 2 of the cables on a preflight. I was checking them with
my fingers and one of the strands stabbed me really getting my attention (I
use a towel now ;)). A closer inspection showed that all 4 had broken
strands (one of them had a bunch) and considerable wear on the remaining
ones where they ran in the pully grooves. I replaced all 4 with new
stainless steel control cable.
Just something to check fairly regularly, since the cables can and do
wear......
LS
N646F
>Gang:
>
>Forgot to mention previous msg.
>
>One of my pretakeoff checks is to wipe out the cockpit with the stick,
>lower and raise the flaps, and insure the rudder pedals are clear.
>
>Takes a lot out of the chance out of leaving a control locked prior to
>takeoff.
>
>"All controls free and clear."
>
>john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tie downs, gust locks |
| When you tie down, do you leave a little slack in the ropes (or
straps), or do you take all the slack out, or do you take all the
slack out and then some, to make the tie downs actually taut? I
| M. Domenic Perez
MDP/All:
I snug mine up extra tight is I can.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tie downs, gust locks |
Domenic Perez wrote:
>
>All,
> When you tie down, do you leave a little slack in the ropes (or straps), or
do you take all the slack out, or do you take all the slack out and then some,
to make the tie downs actually taut? I usually tweak the wings down a little
with tightness, figuring that if a real wicked micro burst hits, if the plane
is able to get some upward momentum before it stops at the rope's end, it would
be more likely to yank the stakes/augers/whatever right out of the ground.
Agree or disagree? Could I be causing some harm?
>M. Domenic Perez
>Vaughn, NM
>FS II
>
>
>
When I worked as a lineboy at Opa Locka 40 years ago, we often had to
deal with sudden thunderstorms in the Miami area. Burnside Ott, at that
time the biggest flight school in the country, kept 126 airplanes on the
ramp behind our hangar, which was in addition to all the non-flight
school aircraft on the front ramp, so we had about 350 airplanes total
to look after. On occasion, we got to see C-150's broken in half from
students not properly tying them down, and getting flipped over. Never
have figured out how a Cessna could get flipped inverted when the wings
were tied and the tail wasn't, but it happened.
We had two hurricanes come through Miami while I worked there, and were
responsible to see that all the airplanes tied down outside stayed
undamaged. At that time, I owned a Piper Colt, and it was tied down on a
closed runway with no protecting structure anywhere close. We never lost
an airplane that was properly tied, and the only damage anybody had was
from water getting in. And that was in a hurricane that blew in the main
doors at Hangar One, wiping out (among others) a gorgeous P-51 and a
Tiger Moth. (sob)
Here's how we did it: one rope to the tail, going straight out behind,
one on the nose going straight out in front. If there is a tie down ring
directly under the tail tie down loop or tail wheel, so much the better,
go straight down any time you can. Same with having a tie down ring
under the nose wheel, and tie to an upper or fixed part of the nose
gear. If the wing has a jog in the lift struts like a Kolb, you can tie
to the strut immediately next to the wing. If the wing strut has nothing
to keep the rope right up next to the wing, don't use the strut, the
rope will slide down the strut and buckle it in the middle. A dedicated
tie down ring at the strut attach point is best.
Ideally you want one inch of play in the ropes, no more, no less. Too
much play will let the airplane jerk around, too little play can
actually get the wing into a negative loading and bend it downwards. If
you have time to prepare, a 2X4 covered with carpet and tied to the top
of the wing acting as a spoiler will kill an awful lot of the lift.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "c b" <seedeebee(at)hotmail.com> |
I put Tracy O'Brien disc brakes on my MK III. Great service, very responsive
and good quality for a fair price. Tracy even custom made adaptor plates for
my wheels for something like $20 each.
Here's a link to his site: http://www.tracyobrien.com/showcat.asp?id=9
Happy Flying,
Chris Banys
MKIII 912 UL
N10FR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <rswiderski(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Gust Locks and Safety |
I have read that stainless steel will fray quicker than steel, so I always
use the finest strand steel cable. Richard Swiderski
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of lucien
stavenhagen
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Gust Locks and Safety
Speaking of this, I encountered an interesting maintenance thing related to
this..
One of my preflight checks is manual inspection of the rudder/elevator
cables where they run through the pully block underneath the seat. I work
all 4 of them while feeling the cables at the pullies (I also feel the
pullies for roughness or pieces missing).
I've discovered over the years on various different planes that control
cables will fray and begin to break strands right at this area where they
run through pullies, particularly if the pullies are smaller and the bend is
sharp.
Sure enough, at 490 hours on the original set of cables on my FS II, I
caught fraying in 2 of the cables on a preflight. I was checking them with
my fingers and one of the strands stabbed me really getting my attention (I
use a towel now ;)). A closer inspection showed that all 4 had broken
strands (one of them had a bunch) and considerable wear on the remaining
ones where they ran in the pully grooves. I replaced all 4 with new
stainless steel control cable.
Just something to check fairly regularly, since the cables can and do
wear......
LS
N646F
>Gang:
>
>Forgot to mention previous msg.
>
>One of my pretakeoff checks is to wipe out the cockpit with the stick,
>lower and raise the flaps, and insure the rudder pedals are clear.
>
>Takes a lot out of the chance out of leaving a control locked prior to
>takeoff.
>
>"All controls free and clear."
>
>john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | HKS on a Firestar II |
Group,
Since I gave up on the 912 idea, I have been giving the HKS 700E a
closer look. And it looks promising. My goal is to double my current
range and at the same time, increase the cruise speed to 80 mph. It
appears, from the Googling and reading, that the HKS has the ability to
double the range of a 503. Users are reporting better fuel burn rates
than the company had predicted. To increase the cruise speed without
sacrificing economy, I am going to attempt to aerodynamically clean up
my Firestar. And I can do it before having to spend the big bucks they
want for an HKS.
Based on input, primarily from Richard Pike, I plan to enclose the area
above the tanks.
Where are other areas to improve a Firestar aerodynamically?
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS on a Firestar II |
Group,
I should have mentioned that I already have streamlined struts and a
full enclosure
Where are other areas to improve a Firestar aerodynamically?
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS on a Firestar II |
| Based on input, primarily from Richard Pike, I plan to enclose the
area
| above the tanks.
|
| Where are other areas to improve a Firestar aerodynamically?
|
| John Jung
John J/All:
Seems you missed my post about increased fuel capacity. In any case,
that is where the larger fuel tank would be located, in the open area
that does nothing but haul air at the present time. With a large
capacity tank in the upper location, the former plastic jug fuel tank
area is now available for your cargo.
When the customers are bragging that they are getting better fuel burn
than the factory claims, it is time to take a "really" close look at
reality. Usually, when folks report fuel burn they are basing it on
the fuel they burned when they went out and flew around the local area
for an hour. That figure represents exactly that, fuel burn around
the patch. To accurately compute fuel burn one must fly a serious
cross country flight for an hour or several hours or a day would be
even better. There is a lot of difference between setting the
throttle for cross country flight and leaving it there than fiddle
farting around the local area.
I have not read up on the HKS, and I am not at all familiar with it.
There is a gentleman in our area that has an HKS on a Thunder Gull.
He does a lot of cross country flying. However, there is no
comparison between a Gull and a FSII.
Ted Cowan has his name readily available, and his contact info. I'd
be talking to everyone I could find that flies with an HKS. I'd also
call Tom Pehigny, the guy that imports HKS, or did the last time I
talked with him. Share with Tom what you plans and goals are with the
FS and an HKS power plant. Tom is an honest man. He'll should give
you some straight up answers.
One way to make the FSII fly faster on less power is take the
incidence out of the wing and horizontal stabilizer. Then remount the
tailboom so it will fly through the air parallel to the line of
flight. There is probably a lot of drag being created by the tail
boom being drug through the air at a tail high angle. Then change out
the wings for a set of low drag wings, and lose your super STOF
capability with the FS wings.
The other alternative is to sell the FSII and build a Kolbra. You
would be tickled pink the way it performs with a 912UL and especially
a 912ULS. Still have to build a large fuel tank to feed the power
plant, no matter what you decide to fly with.
80 mph cruise in a FSII is attainable, but not worth the effort and
expense, in my own humble opinion.
I hope you totally fool me and make your FSII cruise comfortably at
80mph with a 2 gph fuel burn. In addition, I hope you end up with an
airplane that will haul twice as much, twice as far, and on half the
fuel mine does.
Good luck on your experimentation.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Gust Locks and Safety |
Hi Richard,
Very interesting... didn't know that, I had always assumed they were the
same (the SS is a bit more pliable than the galvanized steel and I'd always
thought that helped).... I'll definitely go do some research on it....
LS
N646F
>I have read that stainless steel will fray quicker than steel, so I always
>use the finest strand steel cable. Richard Swiderski
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of lucien
>stavenhagen
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Gust Locks and Safety
>
>
>
>Speaking of this, I encountered an interesting maintenance thing related to
>this..
>
>One of my preflight checks is manual inspection of the rudder/elevator
>cables where they run through the pully block underneath the seat. I work
>all 4 of them while feeling the cables at the pullies (I also feel the
>pullies for roughness or pieces missing).
>
>I've discovered over the years on various different planes that control
>cables will fray and begin to break strands right at this area where they
>run through pullies, particularly if the pullies are smaller and the bend
>is
>
>sharp.
>
>Sure enough, at 490 hours on the original set of cables on my FS II, I
>caught fraying in 2 of the cables on a preflight. I was checking them with
>my fingers and one of the strands stabbed me really getting my attention (I
>use a towel now ;)). A closer inspection showed that all 4 had broken
>strands (one of them had a bunch) and considerable wear on the remaining
>ones where they ran in the pully grooves. I replaced all 4 with new
>stainless steel control cable.
>
>Just something to check fairly regularly, since the cables can and do
>wear......
>
>LS
>N646F
>
> >Gang:
> >
> >Forgot to mention previous msg.
> >
> >One of my pretakeoff checks is to wipe out the cockpit with the stick,
> >lower and raise the flaps, and insure the rudder pedals are clear.
> >
> >Takes a lot out of the chance out of leaving a control locked prior to
> >takeoff.
> >
> >"All controls free and clear."
> >
> >john h
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS on a Firestar II |
John/Gang,
Yes,
I have found that an 80 mph cruise in a FSII is easily attainable.
I can easily cruise at 80 mph in my 582 powered FSII if I am willing
to use a cruise at -5800 rpm
and will burn about 3 gal per hour.
My FSII has a full windscreen open behind where the tanks are and
kept no wider than the fuse. I do have streamlined struts and I also
removed some of the incidence from the wings to make the boom tube
level at cruise. I do sacrificed some climb by using a 64" Powerfin
prop pitched for 6500 rpm WOT straight and level.
My preference though is to poke along about 65 mph at 4200 rpm which
is the speed all my other Kolb buddys like to fly.
On Dec 28, 2005, at 4:06 PM, John Hauck wrote:
>
> | Based on input, primarily from Richard Pike, I plan to enclose the
> area
> | above the tanks.
> |
> | Where are other areas to improve a Firestar aerodynamically?
> |
> | John Jung
>
> John J/All:
>
> Seems you missed my post about increased fuel capacity. In any case,
> that is where the larger fuel tank would be located, in the open area
> that does nothing but haul air at the present time. With a large
> capacity tank in the upper location, the former plastic jug fuel tank
> area is now available for your cargo.
>
> When the customers are bragging that they are getting better fuel burn
> than the factory claims, it is time to take a "really" close look at
> reality. Usually, when folks report fuel burn they are basing it on
> the fuel they burned when they went out and flew around the local area
> for an hour. That figure represents exactly that, fuel burn around
> the patch. To accurately compute fuel burn one must fly a serious
> cross country flight for an hour or several hours or a day would be
> even better. There is a lot of difference between setting the
> throttle for cross country flight and leaving it there than fiddle
> farting around the local area.
>
> I have not read up on the HKS, and I am not at all familiar with it.
> There is a gentleman in our area that has an HKS on a Thunder Gull.
> He does a lot of cross country flying. However, there is no
> comparison between a Gull and a FSII.
> Ted Cowan has his name readily available, and his contact info. I'd
> be talking to everyone I could find that flies with an HKS. I'd also
> call Tom Pehigny, the guy that imports HKS, or did the last time I
> talked with him. Share with Tom what you plans and goals are with the
> FS and an HKS power plant. Tom is an honest man. He'll should give
> you some straight up answers.
>
> One way to make the FSII fly faster on less power is take the
> incidence out of the wing and horizontal stabilizer. Then remount the
> tailboom so it will fly through the air parallel to the line of
> flight. There is probably a lot of drag being created by the tail
> boom being drug through the air at a tail high angle. Then change out
> the wings for a set of low drag wings, and lose your super STOF
> capability with the FS wings.
>
> The other alternative is to sell the FSII and build a Kolbra. You
> would be tickled pink the way it performs with a 912UL and especially
> a 912ULS. Still have to build a large fuel tank to feed the power
> plant, no matter what you decide to fly with.
>
> 80 mph cruise in a FSII is attainable, but not worth the effort and
> expense, in my own humble opinion.
>
> I hope you totally fool me and make your FSII cruise comfortably at
> 80mph with a 2 gph fuel burn. In addition, I hope you end up with an
> airplane that will haul twice as much, twice as far, and on half the
> fuel mine does.
>
> Good luck on your experimentation.
>
> john h
> MKIII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS on a Firestar II |
| I have found that an 80 mph cruise in a FSII is easily attainable.
| I can easily cruise at 80 mph in my 582 powered FSII if I am willing
| to use a cruise at -5800 rpm
| and will burn about 3 gal per hour.
Hi Eugene:
Those are good numbers, for sure.
My MKIII when powered with a 582 propped for 6500 rpm WOT straight and
level would true out at 80 mph when loaded very lightly and about 75
mph with 25 gal fuel and all my stuff on board. However, it was
burning 5.0 to 5.5 gph.
Just curious. Was your 80 mph indicated or trued out airspeed? The 3
gph fuel burn at 5,800 is really super. 5,800 rpm was what I normally
cruised, depending on how far it was home. The closer I got to home
after a long flight the faster the 582 turned. ;-)
I believe John Jung's FSII is powered with a 503, and he was talking
of upgrading to an HKS. Wish I had some experience with the HKS, but
unfortunately I don't.
I'm inclined to think getting the tail boom level has helped clean up
you FS quite a bit. The tailboom on the Sling Shot and the Kolbra fly
at a much more level attitude than the MKIII or FSII. I don't
remember the original FS flying as tail high as the FSII. Dennis
Souder can probably quote the exact angle of the tailboom in each
model.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS on a Firestar II |
John H. and Group,
John H. wrote:
> Seems you missed my post about increased fuel capacity.
No, I didn't miss your post, John. I have two problems with adding more
fuel capacity to my Firestar. One is the weight. If carrying an extra
60 pounds of engine is bad, then why is it O.K. to carry an extra 60
pounds of fuel? The second reason is that there just is not room to
carry more fuel and not give up cargo space. The space above the tanks
is not very big in a Firestar II.
Thanks for the names of the importer and flyer. I do intend to check
things out thoroughly.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS on a Firestar II |
Eugene and Group,
What did you do to take some of the incidence from the wings? John H.
mentioned that, too.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
> I do have streamlined struts and I also
> removed some of the incidence from the wings to make the boom tube
> level at cruise.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS on a Firestar II |
John J,
I drilled another hole for the pin in the main spar attach bracket on
the root rib to lower the leading edge of the wing.
If I remember correctly it is about 5/8 or 3/4" above the original
hole. If you do not have enough room on the tab you may need to
modify the tab to make sure you have enough metal around the hole to
bear the load that that main spar attach pin would need to bear.
On Dec 28, 2005, at 8:35 PM, John Jung wrote:
>
> Eugene and Group,
>
> What did you do to take some of the incidence from the wings? John H.
> mentioned that, too.
>
> John Jung
> Firestar II N6163J
> Surprise, AZ
>
>
>> I do have streamlined struts and I also
>> removed some of the incidence from the wings to make the boom tube
>> level at cruise.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS on a Firestar II |
The 80 mph is indicated airspeed and confirmed by GPS.
WOT 6500 rpm is indicated 95/100 mph but I didn't fly long enough to
verify with GPS at that speed. You may call me chicken.
Anything over 80 mph really starts eating HP and fuel. I can
comfortably cruise with Ray Wechter's Jabaru powered slingshot but
remember he is a gentleman.
Leveling the boom will sacrifice some STOL performance as well unless
the main gear is also lengthened to maintain the original 3 point
incidence.
On Dec 28, 2005, at 6:26 PM, John Hauck wrote:
>
> | I have found that an 80 mph cruise in a FSII is easily attainable.
> | I can easily cruise at 80 mph in my 582 powered FSII if I am willing
> | to use a cruise at -5800 rpm
> | and will burn about 3 gal per hour.
>
> Hi Eugene:
>
> Those are good numbers, for sure.
>
> My MKIII when powered with a 582 propped for 6500 rpm WOT straight and
> level would true out at 80 mph when loaded very lightly and about 75
> mph with 25 gal fuel and all my stuff on board. However, it was
> burning 5.0 to 5.5 gph.
>
> Just curious. Was your 80 mph indicated or trued out airspeed? The 3
> gph fuel burn at 5,800 is really super. 5,800 rpm was what I normally
> cruised, depending on how far it was home. The closer I got to home
> after a long flight the faster the 582 turned. ;-)
>
> I believe John Jung's FSII is powered with a 503, and he was talking
> of upgrading to an HKS. Wish I had some experience with the HKS, but
> unfortunately I don't.
>
> I'm inclined to think getting the tail boom level has helped clean up
> you FS quite a bit. The tailboom on the Sling Shot and the Kolbra fly
> at a much more level attitude than the MKIII or FSII. I don't
> remember the original FS flying as tail high as the FSII. Dennis
> Souder can probably quote the exact angle of the tailboom in each
> model.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Flycrazy8(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | A Pilot's Christmas |
THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS
'Twas the night before Christmas and all over the place,
When we were confronted by an old jolly ace.
There was icing reported and turbulent air ,
He said, "Fill me up, I gotta get there".
Outside sat his aircraft all ready to run,
And the old man walked out to that ole Kolb 01
"Bad weather's no problem," he silently mumbled,
The prop came to life...that big Rotax rumbled.
He eased in the throttle, the roar shook the ground,
He taxied on out and turned it around.
He went through the run-up and seemed satisfied,
Then he said to himself, " Hope I don't get terrified."
So he lined it up straight as he poured on the coal,
The tailwheel came up as he started to roll.
Up off the runway, as he barely missed a deer ,
And that mighty Rotax was all you could hear.
He screamed overhead with a deafening crack,
Blue flames flying from that little exhaust stack.
"He pulled up the nose and started to climb,
No ice on that airframe, of canvas and twine .
On top of the weather with the levers all set,
He looked up above him and saw a Learjet.
"With jet fuel and turbines there just ain't no class,
Gimmee pistons, and a prop and lots of avgas!"
Now he was approaching where he wanted to go.
But the weather had covered the runway with dang snow.
How will he land it? We just have to guess,
Because the only safe way is with full I-L-S.
Then over the outer marker, he started his run,
The ceiling was zero, visibility...none.
Still going seventy and he felt the need,
For an overhead break to diminish his speed.
Over the numbers he zoomed, along like a flash,
Pulled into his break, we just knew he would crash.
Oh, why do they do it on these kind of nights??
Then over the threshold, he saw landing lights.
I'm on short final with almost three dials in the green,
Spotting enough runway to land this machine.".
As he tied down that Kolb 01, and they all heard him say,..
"Next year, I'm stickin' with my reindeer and sleigh .
Unless of course, Kolb 02 comes my way........
Merry Christmas and Happy Kolb Year
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> |
I have had the opposite problem trying to slow down my Ultrastar, believe it
or not...I finished modifying my Ultrastar ( photo share Sept 18 ,2004 ) and
was surprised with high cruise speed that made the ailerons feel like they were
set in cement...... Modifications I had made changed the angle of the wing
to the boom and the angle of the engine to the boom ....I was able to correct
the wing incidence , change the engine angle , add dihedral and change the prop
pitch . I discovered a poorly calibrated RPM gauge (new) that had me running
the engine faster than it should have been ...the IVO was set for WOT according
to the gauge and was pulling full power at cruise....SMOKIN !... I could do
fly -bys at close to a 100 with a shallow dive....impressive but scary...and
not good for an airframe designed for 60mph... I know my initial speed claims
on this list were met with skepticism to say the least...
On the other hand , the slow speed characteristics of the Ultrastar were degraded
and that is what I really wanted... So when you think you can make something
better by tinkering you might want to remember the old saying....Be careful
what you wish for, you just might get it...
The only modifications I would do again to an Ultrastar are the centerline
stick, the enclosure, the Firestar gear legs, and wheels and brakes. The guys
that designed these Kolbs did a great job and some small improvements are OK but
when you start changing the aerodynamics it can bite you...leave it alone !
I have recently added a Navman fuel monitor ...I have a seat tank and it
is impossible to monitor the capacity with any accurracy and this may be the solution
( thanks to Ellery in Maine ) . I will not be flying for a while due to
repairs being done after an engine out resulting in a corn field visit. Not
much damage but just getting around to it due to other more important things.....making
a living mostly...
Humbled ED in Western NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Navman 2100 Fuel Flow Indicator... |
Where's the best deal on this?...
Thanx...
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Navman 2100 Fuel Flow Indicator... |
I bought one from BoatersWorld.com...
-- Robert
On 12/29/05, David Lehman wrote:
>
> Where's the best deal on this?...
>
> Thanx...
>
> David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HKS on a FS11 |
>The HKS looks like a really neat little engine, if I was building a
>firestar, that is what would go on it. I know the HKS is very expensive,
>but its worth every penny when it comes to 4 stroke reliablility, fuel
>economy, not having to constantly worry about jetting, mixture, etc etc.
>The list is endless. I did not even consider building my MK-III until I
>could afford the 912S , I would rather walk than fly with a 2 stroke engine
>! Even my dirtbike has a 4 stroke engine on it, 2 strokes are just a
>substandard engine these days and are going the way of the dinosaur...
>Hopefully one day the price on HKS and the other 4 stroke engines will come
>down to all our benefit.
Noooo! Must resist.... must resist... must keep mouth shut.... ;)
On the topic of speed, one thing I wonder about with the efforts to speed
the plane up is the increased likelihood of overstressing the plane in
turbulent conditions. I.e. 80 mph in a FS might be below VNE but I'd be
concerned about speeds that high in strong turbs (what is the actual max.
maneuvering speed on our firestars anyway?).....
I fly my FSII at 60mph pretty much all the time, mainly to save gas but also
to keep the scenery going by a bit slower as well. On trips in turbulent
air, I don't go over 60 either as a conservative measure as far as stressing
the plane. It'll still whack me pretty good, but it's still a pretty long
ways from overstressing the airframe.
But I don't know, it may be strong enough to handle heavy turbs in speeds as
high as 80, particularly at higher weights... Anyone know?
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David L. Bigelow" <dlbigelow(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Tie downs, gust locks |
Forgot to mention that I park tail into the wind when I've stopped somewhere for
just a few minutes to attend to the "call of nature". The wind here blows pretty
steady at 15-25 a lot of the time. Usually there is no tie down for the
wings. I always carry a set of chocks and a tie down kit, but can't use the
tie downs on some of the paved ramps with no tie points.
I started parking tail into the wind after almost bending the plane. I taxied
off the runway and chocked the FS nose into the wind. I got out and things seemed
OK, so walked away. When I turned around, my FS was moving merrily down
the ramp backwards towards the airport fire station. I caught it just before
the tail crunched. A gust of wind had lifted the nose enough to jump the chocks.
I agree that nose into the wind with both wings well secured is the best way for
any real security. A really strong wind could conceivably bend the wing struts
when parked tail into the wind.
John, when I built the wing bow tips, I used 1" x .058 tubing. I've had past experience
with the thinner wall tubing getting bent or dinged easily. The 3/8
inch hole doesn't seem to be a structural problem through the heavier tubing.
It sure was a job bending that stuff, though.
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2 Rotax 503 DCDI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ElleryWeld(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Navman 2100 Fuel Flow Indicator... |
Dave I purchased my NAVMAN from Boaters world also but I told another guy
about NAVMAN and he got one cheaper than I did but there worth every nickle you
pay for it no matter what it is You can Go to the navman Website @
(NAVMAN.com) click on Products,Marine,fuel solutions and from there you can locate
a
distributor and there price
Ellery
Batchelder Jr
in
Maine
Original
Firestar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
Greetings,
I keep hearing that the 2 stroke engine is not reliable or they are not
trustworthy but my 2 stroke has worked fine all these years. For two weeks Dave
and I flew our FireStars with 2 stroke engines every day for hours and they
never gave us problems. Dave's engine had over 300 hours when we took the cross
country flight from Texas to the west coast of Oregon. Every time I pull the
rope it start right away after more then 200 hours and keeps going until I
shut it down. The engine has never let me down, I don't know how the rumor
started. I guess back in the early days the 2 stoke was not as reliable as it
is
now a days. If you don't take care of your engine it will not take care of
you. I love to fly my FireStar low and slow, something I would never do with
my Cessna. The "HKS on a FS II" subject line got me to read some of the
posts so I looked up the price of this HKS. You either have a lot of money to
throw away or your nuts to pay all that for an ultralight type engine. Sorry
but I'm a poor man so I will stick with the reliable 2 stroke Rotax 503.
Regards,
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
Rebuilding a PA-22-108 N4551Z
_http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/_ (http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/)
Do Not Archive
PS - Where do I get the "Real Men fly 2 strokes" sticker? ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Cowan <trc1917(at)direcway.com> |
Hope everyone had a great Christmas and are ready to have a tremendous New
Year. Gotta ring the bell for John Hauck's Brother, Jim. He is apparently
getting out of the aircraft industry and wants to give us a deal. Go see
the For Sale page of our web site at: www.homestead.com/southernflyers
Click on the 'for sale' section and check it out. Yes, all of that for four
grand. He will be having a lot of other stuff also. Great guy. I am sure
you will get a deal. Might want to check out the rest of the web site also.
I am the web master and I try my best. You all take care out there. If you
are building a Kolb and need this stuff, you gotta real bargain listed.
Happy Holidays!! Ted Cowan, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE: HKS on a FS11 |
Will and Group,
Will, too bad you only read some on the posts. You missed my point. I
started this thread and the reason that I am considering the HKS is not
because of reliability. My 503 has been fantastically reliable for 200
hours. It is to increase the range and cruise speed. And, I know that
because of your long trip with a 503, you could still say "Who needs
more range?". But it is something that I would like to have.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 12/29/05 |
Dave I purchased my NAVMAN from Boaters world also but I told another guy
about NAVMAN and he got one cheaper than I did but there worth every nickle
you
pay for it no matter what it is You can Go to the navman Website @
(NAVMAN.com) click on Products,Marine,fuel solutions and from there you can
locate
a
distributor and there price
---------------------------------
i bought the prinston fuel probe.. and it feeds into one of the aux. inputs
to the EIS. it is set up to read in 1/10 of gallons. and is programable
to be accurate at empty, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, full. the eis will even flash the
master warning light when the fuel level reaches a programable limit.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> |
The main reason I did not like the speed of the Ultrastar was because it did
not go as slow as I was used to on the previous stock Ultrastar I owned before
this one. I really liked the 60 mph speed . Pulling the throttle back did
slow the latest one down , but then the engine was not happy at 4800...something
to do with the mid-range of the carburetor that would not be adjusted. I also
feel the engine should be run at 5400 for keeping the engine "healthy".....
2 strokes like higher RPM s. The higher speed on these light airframes could
be a disaster waiting to happen....want to find out ? No Thanks !
Besides , if you want to go fast , buy a standard category airplane ....plenty
of them on the market cause so many pilots are either giving up or going
to ultralights cause of operating costs...I have a Traveler (early Cheetah) that
got 3 hours on it last year and 2 Cassutt Racers that need to be completed
but have been neglected cause I'm having too much fun with the UL's. Got a taildragger
CGS Hawk that is almost ready for covering, too ! Guess which project
is getting my attention first ?
The Navman can be bought for a little under $130 if you do a search using
Navman fuel ....Haven't used mine yet but Ellery in Maine loves his...the thing
I like about it is I can add another tank for cross countrys and just select
the higher capacity without adding sensors to the extra tank...the thing I don't
like is that you won't know if you have a leak in the system (forward of
the transducer) until the engine quits from fuel starvation.......but if you have
a tank that is impossible to gauge , then this may be the answer...
Ed in Western NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
Hola Mike,
You Sir are a scare monger, to allude that a 4 stroke is some mystical,
magical engine that will always keep you in the air is false. Luck or beating
the odds has nothing to do with it.
Like I said, If you don't take care of your engine it will not take care of
you.
I hope you haven't stopped looking for emergency landing spots just because
your flying with a Rotax 912s. I do it all the time, even when flying the
Cessna, and I never forget an engine, any engine, may quit at any time.
Sad to say a Rotax 912 engine may quit at the worst possible time just as
fast as a Rotax 503. It doesn't matter why this 912 quit, it did quit and at
the worst possible time.
_http://members.aol.com/willuribe/912.jpg_
(http://members.aol.com/willuribe/912.jpg)
One of these days I will sell my FireStar and build me a Kolbra or a MK III
and I will install a 4 stroke (maybe when I win the lotto). But right now
I'm having too much fun with my little 2 stroke powered FireStar.
Regards,
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
Restoring a PA-22-108 N4551Z
_http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane_ (http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane)
Do Not Archive
BTW: Any Kolbers in Des Moines, Iowa?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Bigelow
Subject: Kolb-List: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke
" My 2 stroke has worked fine all these years... I will stick with the
reliable 2 stroke Rotax 503 "
That is a pretty dangerous attitude to have. Just because some have beat
the odds so far does not mean that the 2 stroke is a realiable engine, it
just means that you have have had the skill and a certain amount of luck to
keep your 2 stroke running. I flew one of the first weight shit
Quicksilvers with a 10 HP Chrysler 2 stroke engine on it, which never gave
me a problem... That being said, I never forgot what I had, an engine with a
horrible record of quitting and I always respected it as such. 2 Strokes
have improved vastly since then, but they are still 2 stroke engines and
they dont even compare to 4 strokes reliability wise... Never forget it.
Dirt Bikes, boats, even lawn equpment is being made with more expensive 4
stroke engines, because they are simply better. I ride cross country on my
dirt bike, and I would not even consider going cross country on a 2 stroke
bike. I am even less willing to fly over trees, terrain, etc with a 2
stroke engine in my ultralight. The 4 stroke engines are expensive, but
they are well worth the extra money. If you look at the increased fuel and
oil usage, the continual maintenance and rebuilds, if you fly a lot, the 4
stroke eventaully pays for itself over time. For that moment when the 2
stroke quits unexpectedly, the 4 stroke pays for itself instantly. I know
that 16,000 for a 912-s or 8,000 for the HKS is a lot of money, but if this
is the hobby you enjoy and you fly alot, it is worth doing whatever it takes
to get the best engine you can. I have worked more extra days than I can
shake a stick at to afford my 912, but it is well worth it. I love to fly,
and there was a time I could not possibly afford a 4 storke engine, and in
that case I flew 2 strokes rather than walk (that was a Joke :) I am
willing to take risks in pursuit of what I love to do, but I never never
forgot the fact that my 2 stroke was an engine that would quit at any
moment. I think we should always honest with ourselves and others about 2
strokes, tell newcomers that they are not reliable, that they are much more
likely to quit than a 4 storke, and let each person make an intelligent
choice based on the type of flying they do. We are doing a great disservice
to everyone by giving others a false sense of security by saying " 2 strokes
are reliable, I have never had a problem with mine". Just because some
have beat the odds does not change the fact that 2 stroke engines are
substandard in realiability, and that one day they will quit at the worst
possible time.
Michael A. Bigelow
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | RE: HKS on a FS11 |
Hi John,
I'm guilt as charged, I have not been keeping up with all the posts. I too
would love to have more range. On our long trip, one time, we had to walk for
miles to get some fuel. But I would rather sell my FireStar and build me a
Kolbra or a MK III. It's just hard to believe the HKS costs as much as what
I paid for my FireStar kit.
Regards,
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
Restoring a PA-22-108 N4551Z
_http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane_ (http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane)
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jung
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: HKS on a FS11
Will and Group,
Will, too bad you only read some on the posts. You missed my point. I
started this thread and the reason that I am considering the HKS is not
because of reliability. My 503 has been fantastically reliable for 200
hours. It is to increase the range and cruise speed. And, I know that
because of your long trip with a 503, you could still say "Who needs
more range?". But it is something that I would like to have.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
Men...on the 2cycle Vs 4cycle engine issure, I have been following this
thread, and
in reading I sometimes wonder if some might be confuseing...or better said,
interchangeing, the meaning of the word relilable with durability?
Working for the largest manufacturer of 4 cycle engines in the world, I am
very familiar with the commonly misunderstood comparision of these 2
engines.
A 2 cycle can easily be built as reliable as a 4 cycle...but it is almost
impossible to build one as "durable"...I say "almost" because someone who
works for Detroit Deisel might be reading here and take issue with the
statement.
So remember in your reading of the posts...are we debateing a durability
problem..or a dependability problem. Sometimes both I think..and they
shouldnt be confused.
Could we agree that a certain Rotax 2 cycle might be as dependable as a
certain 4 stroke....but it just wont last for as long? With that might come
the admission that it wont be as "dependable" for as long......
Don Gherardini
OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
CortLand, Illinois
800-626-7326
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
Boyd --
Which EIS is that? And where did you get the "prinston" fuel probe?
-- Robert
do archive
---------------
the eis is the " advanced eis - w for the 912 engine" I have a hand written
note that reads " sw ver 5.8 mod eis - 3 - adv - w/912 dual aux" I am not
exactly sure where that info came from but I would guess it came off the
label on the eis.
the Princeton capacitive fuel level probe was 1 of 2 that I had looked
at.... the less expensive of the two would only calibrate at empty and
full....... and the problem I had with that was mounting it.... the
electronics part of the probe was mounted to the end of the probe and is
about the size of a hockey puck...... that would have had an interference
fit with a structural member near my alum fuel tank. Princeton had a sensor
with the same configuration.... but after talking with them they also had
one with the electronics that would remote mount, and the probe would screw
into the fitting on my tank with out an interference fit.
I cant find the receipt but I believe I ordered it from
grand rapids technologies incorprated
4526 Poinsettia SE
KENTWOOD, MI 49508 ( 616 ) 583 - 8000
or possibly they refered me do the manufacture direct.
the information on the princeton sheet, assuming it is still accruate, is
1840 PEMBROKE DR SE
KENTWOOD, MI 49508 ( 616 ) 281 - 5193
the other thing that I liked about the setup is when setting the 5 set
points.... the princeton has no way to know how much fuel is present..... it
only knows that the levels are correct.... the eis has the option of
converting the full level to any value, ex. my tank holds 16 galleons.....
so when I am full of fuel it shows 16 when the level drops to the point
where I have calibrated 1/2 it shows 8.... for example with a custom tank,
if 1/2 the volume files the tank to 2/3 the level of the tank.... when the
level in the tank is at the 2/3 probe level, the eis reads 1/2 or in my case
8.0 gal. it will create a linear readout in a non linear tank.
boyd
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
Hi Don,
Don't get me wrong, I would never try to debate that a 2 stroke is better
then the 4 stroke engine, on dependability or durability. I would loose that
argument hands down. I would love to have a 4 stroke engine on my FireStar
and if the Kolb factory starts selling a 4 stroke kit for the FireStar I would
consider it.
I'm just trying to defend my reliable Rotax 503 engine from absurd claims.
After all that defending watch it quit on me tomorrow morning. ;-)
Regards,
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
Restoring a PA-22-108 N4551Z
_http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane_ (http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane)
Do Not Archive
Men...on the 2cycle Vs 4cycle engine issure, I have been following this
thread, and
in reading I sometimes wonder if some might be confuseing...or better said,
interchangeing, the meaning of the word relilable with durability?
Working for the largest manufacturer of 4 cycle engines in the world, I am
very familiar with the commonly misunderstood comparision of these 2
engines.
A 2 cycle can easily be built as reliable as a 4 cycle...but it is almost
impossible to build one as "durable"...I say "almost" because someone who
works for Detroit Deisel might be reading here and take issue with the
statement.
So remember in your reading of the posts...are we debateing a durability
problem..or a dependability problem. Sometimes both I think..and they
shouldnt be confused.
Could we agree that a certain Rotax 2 cycle might be as dependable as a
certain 4 stroke....but it just wont last for as long? With that might come
the admission that it wont be as "dependable" for as long......
Don Gherardini
OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
CortLand, Illinois
800-626-7326
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
HI Will,
Hehe...ya pard...I would brag on how good the 447 has treated me on the
Flagfly...but then it would probably quit me on the very next flight too!
I think I understand you perfectly Will, and I believe you are very likely
correct...that your 503 has been...and is a very dependable engine, much
like most of them.
What I think is happening in this thread is that sometimes the simple and
dependable nature of a well built 2 cycle is short changed when compared to
a well built 4 cycle because you cannot put as many hours on one before it
starts being "unreliable"..a fella just has to understand that they just
wear out faster.
I would venture to speculate that if we took 500 well built 2 cycles and
compared them to 500 well built 4 cycles fot the first 40 hours or so...all
operateing at 80% duty cycle, that we might get a statistic that shows the
2 cycles were actually more dependable...and this is due to its simple
design and fewer moving parts.
(that statement oughtta get thing stirred up!)
Also I understand John's desire to get more range...I share this desire...as
I bet most operaters of 2 cycle powered aircraft do. 4cycle alternative is
the logical choice if for nothing else than it more efficient fuel/power
ratio. with the same capacity fuel tank.(since we are limited by space and
weight) wouldnt it be nice to get 25 to 40 % better economy...
The HKS is obviously the best choice out there right now for this...its
long range durability has yet to be completely determined I think....but I
also think it surely should go the 300 or 400 hours we can expect out of the
average 2 cycle by now.
Because it is a 4 cycle, I doubt if it will be thought of as a "durable"
engine unless it shows that it can regularly go for 2 or 3 times the 503s
expected life.
It current price, like the ROTAX..is a function of what the market will
bear...and usually the best choices in any catagory of engine are the most
expensive...that rule is pretty well as good as gravity...in any market.
Don Gherardini
FireFly 098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Beauford" <beauford(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
Kolbers:
A strange thing happened on the way to the kleenex airplane today...
As usual, I stopped at the tailgate of the carbon-encrusted pickup to mix a fresh
5 gallons of Race Trac's finest regular with the proper quantity of Amsoil
Sabre 100 to 1 air cooled synthetic... shook the fool out of it for a few seconds,
then dumped it through the filter funnel into the airplane.
I saved the small amount of residual mix in the bottom of the funnel to use to
load the hand primer syringe I employ to start the mighty 447... the hand-held
primer is part of a larger ritual developed over time, involving chants and some
fairly intricate dance steps... but I digress...
Long story short, I got delayed for about ten minutes (geezers tend to do that
a lot), then went back to finish loading the primer. I was surprised to see that
during the ten minutes I had been away, the fuel mix in the bottom of the
funnel had turned into a milky fluid with strings of nasty white mucus-looking
material collected in the bottom...the whitish opaque liquid was tinted a wicked
shade of pale blue from the dye in the oil... Hadn't seen anything like
that in the bottom of a container since a certain frat party at one of the universities
Beauford was asked to leave as a young man...
Anyway.... 'ol Beauford might not be the highest velocity cartridge in the clip,
but he has not yet consumed quite enough Beefeaters and smoked enough cheap
stogies so as to have rendered him wholly incapable of detecting whether the 5
gallons of concoction he was pouring in the tank had been miraculously transformed
by the fuel fairy into milk of magnesia... It looked perfectly OK going
in... But I just had to look...
I hot footed it over there and peered into the Kolb's tank .. nope... it was blue
all right, but crystal clear... you could read an in-law's obituary through
50 gallons of that stuff...
Bewilderment.
I suspect that the moisture in the air was interacting with the mix remaining in
the funnel...but today was a fair day, about 70F, and completely dry. Was it
forming an emulsion of some sort...? But if so, why not also the mix in the
fuel tank, which, through the vent openings, sits exposed to the same atmosphere
for weeks at a time...? The old mix I siphon out of the plane when refueling
is always as clear as the day I put it in.
The gas around here generally has no alcohol... they use MTBE... Is it something
peculiar about the Amsoil ester-base oil...? I know it supposedly has certain
hygroscopic characteristics, but is this normal behavior when mixed with gas
and allowed to sit for a few minutes..? What are the implications for running
this discolored mix through a Bing into a 447..? Will it lube bearings fully...?
Plug jets?
I have taken the liberty to post a close-up of the "stuff" pooled in the bottom
of the funnel... It is (or soon will be) on the Matronics photo-share...
Any insights or explanations from the List would be appreciated.
Baffled Beauford
FF#076
Brandon, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
If it is a filter funnel that is designed to also separate water my guess is
that it separated water leaving mostly water in the funnel with a bit of
higher concentration fuel oil mix from the bottom of the can, being the last
bit that came out of the can and you say you only shook it a bit. Amsoil is
known to turn to goo if it gets much water near it, and that is probably
what happened. I am not a big fan of Amsoil because of this.
You can try to recreate the incident by mixing a similar batch of fuel, with
the same "few seconds" of shaking and intentionally put a little water in
the funnel before you pour through it. If you get the same goo after a few
minutes, then the funnel is doing its job and the Amsoil is doing its funky
thing with water.
Christopher Armstrong
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Beauford
Subject: Kolb-List: Fascinating Gas
Kolbers:
A strange thing happened on the way to the kleenex airplane today...
As usual, I stopped at the tailgate of the carbon-encrusted pickup to mix a
fresh 5 gallons of Race Trac's finest regular with the proper quantity of
Amsoil Sabre 100 to 1 air cooled synthetic... shook the fool out of it for
a few seconds, then dumped it through the filter funnel into the airplane.
I saved the small amount of residual mix in the bottom of the funnel to use
to load the hand primer syringe I employ to start the mighty 447... the
hand-held primer is part of a larger ritual developed over time, involving
chants and some fairly intricate dance steps... but I digress...
Long story short, I got delayed for about ten minutes (geezers tend to do
that a lot), then went back to finish loading the primer. I was surprised
to see that during the ten minutes I had been away, the fuel mix in the
bottom of the funnel had turned into a milky fluid with strings of nasty
white mucus-looking material collected in the bottom...the whitish opaque
liquid was tinted a wicked shade of pale blue from the dye in the oil...
Hadn't seen anything like that in the bottom of a container since a certain
frat party at one of the universities Beauford was asked to leave as a young
man...
Anyway.... 'ol Beauford might not be the highest velocity cartridge in the
clip, but he has not yet consumed quite enough Beefeaters and smoked enough
cheap stogies so as to have rendered him wholly incapable of detecting
whether the 5 gallons of concoction he was pouring in the tank had been
miraculously transformed by the fuel fairy into milk of magnesia... It
looked perfectly OK going in... But I just had to look...
I hot footed it over there and peered into the Kolb's tank .. nope... it was
blue all right, but crystal clear... you could read an in-law's obituary
through 50 gallons of that stuff...
Bewilderment.
I suspect that the moisture in the air was interacting with the mix
remaining in the funnel...but today was a fair day, about 70F, and
completely dry. Was it forming an emulsion of some sort...? But if so, why
not also the mix in the fuel tank, which, through the vent openings, sits
exposed to the same atmosphere for weeks at a time...? The old mix I siphon
out of the plane when refueling is always as clear as the day I put it in.
The gas around here generally has no alcohol... they use MTBE... Is it
something peculiar about the Amsoil ester-base oil...? I know it supposedly
has certain hygroscopic characteristics, but is this normal behavior when
mixed with gas and allowed to sit for a few minutes..? What are the
implications for running this discolored mix through a Bing into a 447..?
Will it lube bearings fully...? Plug jets?
I have taken the liberty to post a close-up of the "stuff" pooled in the
bottom of the funnel... It is (or soon will be) on the Matronics
photo-share...
Any insights or explanations from the List would be appreciated.
Baffled Beauford
FF#076
Brandon, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Cowan <trc1917(at)direcway.com> |
I have had same weird experience with the byproduct of pouring fuel through
a mister funnel. I used to use a rite mix messuring cup and after dumping
the oil in the can, would rinse it with gas. Often, it would leave a white,
milky, paste behind. My guess is it is doing it in the mr funnel bottom
also. always made me wonder if it was doing it in the bottom of my tank but
never found any. never killed an engine with it though. ted cowan, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <neilsenrmf(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fascinating Gas |
Bill
I think Chris is right that's oil and water mixing. I blew a head gasket in
a car years ago and water from the cooling system got into the oil. When I
checked the oil there was the same white pasty goo all over the dip stick
and when I drained the oil it all came out the same way.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Fascinating Gas
>
>
> If it is a filter funnel that is designed to also separate water my guess
> is
> that it separated water leaving mostly water in the funnel with a bit of
> higher concentration fuel oil mix from the bottom of the can, being the
> last
> bit that came out of the can and you say you only shook it a bit. Amsoil
> is
> known to turn to goo if it gets much water near it, and that is probably
> what happened. I am not a big fan of Amsoil because of this.
>
> You can try to recreate the incident by mixing a similar batch of fuel,
> with
> the same "few seconds" of shaking and intentionally put a little water in
> the funnel before you pour through it. If you get the same goo after a
> few
> minutes, then the funnel is doing its job and the Amsoil is doing its
> funky
> thing with water.
>
> Christopher Armstrong
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Beauford
> To: Kolb List
> Subject: Kolb-List: Fascinating Gas
>
>
> Kolbers:
> A strange thing happened on the way to the kleenex airplane today...
>
> As usual, I stopped at the tailgate of the carbon-encrusted pickup to mix
> a
> fresh 5 gallons of Race Trac's finest regular with the proper quantity of
> Amsoil Sabre 100 to 1 air cooled synthetic... shook the fool out of it
> for
> a few seconds, then dumped it through the filter funnel into the airplane.
>
> I saved the small amount of residual mix in the bottom of the funnel to
> use
> to load the hand primer syringe I employ to start the mighty 447... the
> hand-held primer is part of a larger ritual developed over time, involving
> chants and some fairly intricate dance steps... but I digress...
>
> Long story short, I got delayed for about ten minutes (geezers tend to do
> that a lot), then went back to finish loading the primer. I was surprised
> to see that during the ten minutes I had been away, the fuel mix in the
> bottom of the funnel had turned into a milky fluid with strings of nasty
> white mucus-looking material collected in the bottom...the whitish opaque
> liquid was tinted a wicked shade of pale blue from the dye in the oil...
> Hadn't seen anything like that in the bottom of a container since a
> certain
> frat party at one of the universities Beauford was asked to leave as a
> young
> man...
>
> Anyway.... 'ol Beauford might not be the highest velocity cartridge in the
> clip, but he has not yet consumed quite enough Beefeaters and smoked
> enough
> cheap stogies so as to have rendered him wholly incapable of detecting
> whether the 5 gallons of concoction he was pouring in the tank had been
> miraculously transformed by the fuel fairy into milk of magnesia... It
> looked perfectly OK going in... But I just had to look...
>
> I hot footed it over there and peered into the Kolb's tank .. nope... it
> was
> blue all right, but crystal clear... you could read an in-law's obituary
> through 50 gallons of that stuff...
>
> Bewilderment.
>
> I suspect that the moisture in the air was interacting with the mix
> remaining in the funnel...but today was a fair day, about 70F, and
> completely dry. Was it forming an emulsion of some sort...? But if so,
> why
> not also the mix in the fuel tank, which, through the vent openings, sits
> exposed to the same atmosphere for weeks at a time...? The old mix I
> siphon
> out of the plane when refueling is always as clear as the day I put it in.
>
> The gas around here generally has no alcohol... they use MTBE... Is it
> something peculiar about the Amsoil ester-base oil...? I know it
> supposedly
> has certain hygroscopic characteristics, but is this normal behavior when
> mixed with gas and allowed to sit for a few minutes..? What are the
> implications for running this discolored mix through a Bing into a 447..?
> Will it lube bearings fully...? Plug jets?
>
> I have taken the liberty to post a close-up of the "stuff" pooled in the
> bottom of the funnel... It is (or soon will be) on the Matronics
> photo-share...
>
> Any insights or explanations from the List would be appreciated.
>
> Baffled Beauford
> FF#076
> Brandon, FL
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Mallory" <wcm(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel tank cleaning |
I syphon the bottom of the fuel tank on my FS II regularly to remove debris
and whatever else is there.
I use a cheap squeeze bulb syphon hose/tube that you can get almost
anywhere.
I put about a two foot length of straitened coat hanger wire inside the
syphon end of the hose/tube to keep it ridged and then syphon the bottom of
the tank through a Mr Funnel into a small gas can.
This way, I don't lose any fuel and the tank is free of trash.
Works just like a pool cleaner.
Chris Mallory
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke (how it's flown) |
Listening to the thread of 2-strokes vs 4-strokes, please lets not forget there
were two great guys killed this past year. Both were flying reliable 4-stroke
912 engines. Al Reay and our own Norm Labhart.
This proves to me that it's not the engine itself and how reliable it is, but how
the plane is flown.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
19 years flying 2-strokes
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke (how it's flown) |
Sorry Guys that I got the date wrong on Norm's accident. It wasn't this past year,
but Nov 15, 2004. Still it was a 4-stroke engine that should not have quit
at a most critical time.
There was another accident at my home field where a 912 engine quit. The pilot
made a rough landing. Both on board survived without much injury.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firstar
19 years flying it
-- "Ralph" wrote:
Listening to the thread of 2-strokes vs 4-strokes, please lets not forget there
were two great guys killed this past year. Both were flying reliable 4-stroke
912 engines. Al Reay and our own Norm Labhart.
This proves to me that it's not the engine itself and how reliable it is, but how
the plane is flown.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
19 years flying 2-strokes
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
|
| - mag end electric starters. The 2-stroke Rotaxen's weak spots are
generally
| the cranks (especially with the 582) and the ME electric starts can
do a lot
| of damage (especially the GPL starter, but even the Rotax model) -
you have
| that bendix flying out and smacking the starter gear which is like
taking a
| hammer to the edge of it. This puts a heavy side-loading shock on
the mag
| end of the crank, which can knock the journals out of alignment.
Also, they
| have to instantly get the entire moving system - crank and prop - up
to 300
| rpm, which puts a lot of stress on the crank (much moreso than the
pull
| start). You have no such problem at all on the bigger 4-strokes,
since
| their cranks are MUCH beefier even if they are press-fit designs.
|
| LS
|
LS/Gang:
What is the solution for the above? Do you think super glue would
help keep the cranks from twisting as the result of the electric "self
commencer" ???
Take care,
john h
Thinking the electric starter was one of the most significant safety
factors of the two stroke ultralight/light plane engine.............
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
>LS/Gang:
>
>What is the solution for the above?
The model "E" gearbox.
This one does the electric start the right way - it cranks the motor at the
PTO end off the drive gear. This way the inertia of the prop isn't
transmitted through the crank during starting.
More importantly, there's no side loading perpendicular to the crank due to
the hammering action of a bendix on the gear as there is on the mag end
starters.
The E box is also lighter by a few lbs and cheaper than a C box + mag end
starter...
Do you think super glue would
>help keep the cranks from twisting as the result of the electric "self
>commencer" ???
Personally, I won't buy any airplane with a 2-stroke that has a mag end
starter fitted to it, unless the motor is already runout or nearly so and
needs rebuilding (new crank) anyway.
E box, though, is ok.....
LS
N646F
>Take care,
>
>john h
>Thinking the electric starter was one of the most significant safety
>factors of the two stroke ultralight/light plane engine.............
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "frank & margie" <frank-margie(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
Don,
I understand there is a single cyl, 4 stroke Honda, used in Motocross bikes-----and
evidently it's about bulletproof, despite being really abused, at very high
RPM's, under very tough conditions. The guy who told me about them thought
they would make a good U/L engine-----are you familiar with anything fitting
that description?
Also, in the Dan Johnson article on the Hawk Ultra, in the Jan '06 U/L Flying,
he talks about a 2 cyl Jabiru in the developement stage. Supposed to be 45 HP
@ 85 lbs. Sure sounds interesting if it comes to pass.
Frank Clyma
-------------------------------
From: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke
HI Will,
Hehe...ya pard...I would brag on how good the 447 has treated me on the
Flagfly...but then it would probably quit me on the very next flight too!
I think I understand you perfectly Will, and I believe you are very likely
correct...that your 503 has been...and is a very dependable engine, much
like most of them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAquaNut(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 1/1/2006 10:06:17 A.M. Central Standard Time,
kfackler(at)ameritech.net writes:
>>I made it part of my regular maintenance to drain and clean my tank every
6 months.
How do you clean them?
-Ken Fackler
Kolb Mark II / A722KWF
Rochester MI
Ken,
The best method I have found for cleaning a dirty gunked up gas tank is
to use the solvent of your choice along with 1or 2 oz. # 4 lead buck shock.
The tank has to be removed. Just pour in the buckshot and the solvent. Put on
the lid and shake, shake ,shake. Just make sure you get as many buckshot out
as you put in!!!!
Works well for me.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Beauford Tuton ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Beauford Tuton
Lists: Kolb-List
Subject: Discolored Fuel
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/beauford@tampabay.rr.com.01.01.2006/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Kem Dunnebacke ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Kem Dunnebacke
Lists: Kolb-List
Subject: Kitfox
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/jboatm16@netzero.net.01.01.2006/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Ralph Hoover ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Ralph Hoover
Lists: Kolb-List,Ultralight-List
Subject: New Dash / Gauge package Kolb Firestar KXP 1990 w/503 DCDI
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/flht99reh@netzero.net.01.01.2006/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Ralph Hoover ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Ralph Hoover
Lists: Kolb-List,Ultralight-List
Subject: Old gauges from Kolb Firestar KXP 1990 w/503 DCDI
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/flht99reh@netzero.net-1.01.01.2006/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "c b" <seedeebee(at)hotmail.com> |
Fellow Kolbers,
A question about idle on the 912. My engine runs very rough below about 1800
RPM, but runs smoothly above that speed. At idle, if I actuate the choke,
the engine speed picks up considerably, like I hit the gas. The choke
doesn't cause the engine to run rough though.
Is this normal? If not, any ideas on what may be wrong?
Thanks and Happy New Year,
Chris Banys
MK III 912 UL
N10FR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 Idle Issues |
Chris/All:
When my 912 or 921S demonstrated the same symptoms of rough idle it
was caused by the need for carb synchronization and idle mixture
adjustment, or the need to have the torsional vibration dampner
snugged up to specs, or all the above.
The bing carb does not use a choke. It uses an enrichner which, if
operated correctly, will preclude the use of an additional primer.
The enrichner, on each carb, is designed to initially dump a load of
fuel into the intake. In order to do this correctly, the throttle
must be completely closed to idle position. Do not crack the throttle
or the enrichner will not operate as designed. Once the engine fires,
the initial rich charge is pulled out of the enrichner well. The
engine is now running on the enrichner jet which allows more fuel and
a larger air circuit to increase idle speed for the cold engine.
Instructions for synchronizing carbs and adjusting idle mixture and
speed are included in the operators manual and service manual, which
can be accessed at the Kodiak Reasearch web site.
john h
----- Original Message -----
From: "c b" <seedeebee(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: 912 Idle Issues
|
| Fellow Kolbers,
|
| A question about idle on the 912. My engine runs very rough below
about 1800
| RPM, but runs smoothly above that speed. At idle, if I actuate the
choke,
| the engine speed picks up considerably, like I hit the gas. The
choke
| doesn't cause the engine to run rough though.
|
| Is this normal? If not, any ideas on what may be wrong?
|
| Thanks and Happy New Year,
|
| Chris Banys
| MK III 912 UL
| N10FR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
Frank,
The installation Herb is talking about is really the only one I have seen
with a Honda Motorcycle flying successfully. The key to his success I
believe is that the plane fits the engine....in other words..it works
because that particular airplane...a Drifter/Brezzy looking kind of thing
has alot of wing and isn't expected to go very fast. I have lost contact
with this gent..and I always wondered how the long chain would work. There
is a pic of this bird and engine installation at VULA.com
I believe he told me he took off in 3rd and shifted to 4th after leveling
out.
Now...I can easily believe the old Honda 250 2 cycle from an odyssey would
fly a weedhopper. I sold weedhoppers back in the late 70s as a dealer and
remember well how they flew with very little power. also remember a
weedhopper weighed in at 180 lbs soaking wet and had a huge wing. The plane
fit the engine.
What we have to deal with today is a crop of birds that have evolved in
their design to "Fit" the engines, and about all of them have been tweaked
to perform with the snowmobile 2 cycles that have been slightly tweaked to
fit a propeller application instead of a torque converter drive.
What I really think would be the answer is to pick another source of engines
and design some airplanes to fit them better.
Some of you have seen and know of the Legal Eagle flying with a 32 hp
industrial v-twin.(generac)...This is a better match than a Firestar and a
motorcycle engine. IN fact their was a fella who installed a 25 hp Kohler on
a Firestar and claimed it flew really well...until the crankshaft broke off
at the PTO end, which is a common trait among Kohlers even in the lawn
tractor biz. Briggs Vanguards are now up to 35 hp and are very well built
engines and I bet a buck we will see alot of those on airplanes like the
legal eagle's,N-3's and similar planes with alot of wing. Talk about
range!..todays V-twin engines burn from 1.5 to 2 gallons an hour at WOT and
full load.
Anyway..back to the motorcycle engines..
If we operate a Honda motorcycle engine...just about any of them, at a load
that will limit the rpms to 80 or 90 % of the max rpms (like we do our 2
cycle Rotax's) the lifespan will decrease dramatically. These engines are
designed to fit the application and environment they work in...and a full
load at 100% throttle on a dirtbike...or a street bike is always a momentary
thing in the machines they power. to get a motorcycle into the same load
that we regularly operate our airplane engines at...we would need a huge ,
steep hill and a big ole heavy trailer behind the bike...and the hill would
be so steep that about the time we shifted into 2nd or 3rd gear, the engine
would not turn up to the redline. ANd then we hold it there, without letting
off....for an hour or more.
Let me tell you we are gonna wear that Honda out in a hurry men. It will
begin to heat up without any let up in the load, and when an engine cannot
get rid of the heat..we will melt it down.
So...when we look at that CBR600...aprox a 80 hp engine at 12,000 rpms, it
will only work if it is allowed to operate at a continuous load that will
absorb about 50 hp at half the rpms, then it will be able to get rid of the
heat. The transmission allows him to run it at a higher hp level for
takeoff,(when the load is highest) and then shift to reduce the engines rpms
and keep the propspeed up...sounds great and works well I bet...just as long
as you have an airplane that will support to 200 lbs of engine and
transmission and I bet a 25lbs of chain,, and you are not looking for much
of a rate of climb.
Then there is a fella with a Neuport or a spad replica with that Yamaha
v-twin motorcycle engine..very interesting I thought..useing the shaft drive
output and fixing a prop on it..anybody hear how it is getting along?
another plane with alot of wing...2 of em in fact!
Frank, you ask if some gears could be removed from the transmission to save
weight and would they rest hold up if used as a Reduction unit....I cannot
answer these questions...I have pondered them myself for a long time.
Would the straight cut gears in that trans stand up to propeller vs piston
power pulses?
I think a fella could take out a few and replace em with spacers probably.
MY son and I used to be in the tractor pulling sport, and the things we did
there to engines and transmissions would make an engineer spit in disdain!
BUt we broke alot of things too!
How much does the engine and transmission weigh...cannot say..I dont know.
we havent really even specified which motorcross bike we are gonna di-sect
as a donor to this project.
The BMW twins are being used because the transmission will unbolt from the
crankcase, and because they are a lower rpm and high torque engine of high
quality. The have exceptional head cooling ability for a motorcyle engine.
I think there is no doubt they are the best motorcycle engine for aircraft
adaptation.
We need continuous duty designed engines for our sport...and the industrial
engine market is quickly approaching a place where they will have just what
the back to basic flying machines need...the difference this time
around...is the engines will last about 20 time longer than the ones we
started with back in the late 70s.
BTW....a 24 hp honda costs about 1100 complete with electric starter. The
31 hp Vanguard is about 1500..and the 35 will probably be a 100 or so
more...RETAIL....!
Just think...if Dennis and Homer would have set out to design that firefly
to fit the v-twin industrials we have today instead of the 447...hmmmmmmmmm
Don Gherardini
FireFly 098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Bigelow" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
The Honda 4 stroke dirt bikes have very light, reliable, 4 storke, liquid
cooled engines. The only problem is that the transmission is a part of the
motor and makes it pretty heavy. My 650 CC motor is rated around 50 HP and
weighs about 120 pounds with the gearbox. You could never take enough gears
out to make any kind of meaningful difference in that weight. That combined
with the very short chain drive output shaft makes a chain drive the only
practical way to drive a propellor from that engine... Chains break,
require regular maintainence, and wear out. I would not want a chain dirven
prop on my plane... I also agree that these motorcycle engines are not made
to put out anywhere near rated power for extended periods of times. An
engine running near 12,000 RPM most of the time will not last very long. In
typical use, those motorcycle engines see their maximum RPM's for less than
a minute at a time. I would think that a Honda motorcycle engine running at
anywhere near rated power would wear out quickly and be unreliable.
I think the 2 stroke rotax engines are more practical and even more reliable
than trying to push a motorcycle engine way beyond what it was designed to
do.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke / Clutch Question |
>Lucien,
>
>How much experience do you have with the clutch? I was considering
>putting one on my plane. How long do they last? Have you ever had any
>slippage? Is it worth the money? ~ Earl
This one is my first, but the previous owner of my FSII used one on the
original motor for about 400 hours. They appear to last forever. According
to the logbook, there was something like 2 thousandths of wear on the shoes
after 200 hours of use... And there's something like 1/4" of lining on
there. I still have the old one which I kept because I plan to use it on
another project eventually.
Never had any slippage at all, once engaged it's engaged and you don't even
know it's there....
The RK-400 clutch is a very hefty, well built piece of equipment, very
precision that gives no problems once installed (I don't work for AirTech,
BTW, just a happy customer). Personally, I don't know how I ever got along
without it now that I have it.
Advantages:
- Very easy starting. Heaven heaven heaven... Just like pull-starting a
snomobile or ski-doo...
- Eliminates the "rotax rattle" at idle, basically eliminating the stress
that puts on the crank. The crank in the original motor went almost 500
hours with the clutch, I still have it and the runout is still within used
limits (it's rotting away now but isn't worn out).
- allows idling at 1500 rpm or even lower.
- no brakes needed to hold position on the ground anymore.
- allows practicing deadsticks without shutting motor down. Just pull back
to idle and you're in the engine-out configuration!
- windmilling prop adds a LOT of drag, which can be very useful in adjusting
an approach.
- stationary prop while on flight line quite a novelty, turns the heads of
the other pilots, your friends and impresses girls.
Disadvantages:
- expensive, about $500 (well worth the money though IMO).
- adds weight, about 3 lbs over the standard coupler it replaces in the C
box.
- can no longer hand prop engine in case starter is kaput.
- To prevent excessive wear, you have to run it either engaged or
disengaged. Fully engaged rpm is about 2800 or more which can be more than
needed to taxi comfortably. So to taxi, you have to work the throttle back
and forth, which can be slightly annoying (I've gotten used to this though).
- noticeable rattle at idle when disengaged, if you care about such things
(I don't and am used to it). This is due to the shoes rattling in the
housing (personally, it reminds me that it's a stout, strong piece of
equip).
- windmilling prop adds a LOT of drag, which will significantly reduce your
engine-off glide ratio.
The only other thing about adding the clutch is getting the idle speed low
enough to keep the clutch fully disengaged. The stock slides in the Bings,
even when bottomed out completely, will still give an idle of 2100 or more.
What I do is just idle a bit rich which solves the problem - when hot, the
motor idles down nicely to 1500 to 1700......
Personally, I'll never not use the clutch again if I can help it... Best
thing since sliced bread for me....
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
Don,
Are you trying to torment me? If so you are succeeding.
Dennis
>
> Just think...if Dennis and Homer would have set out to design that firefly
> to fit the v-twin industrials we have today instead of the
447...hmmmmmmmmm
>
> Don Gherardini
> FireFly 098
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
Herb,
have not used the red ivo yet.....got distracted with a 47 Luscombe 8A which
is now the project in the shed that will keep me outta the poolhalls this
winter!
I have always though that a Pup with about a 35 hp engine with a reduction
drive, so as to get the prop speed down to 23 or 2400 and allow a bigger
prop would be much better that the direct drive half v-dubs...but it is just
a seat of the pants guess...no expierience personally. There are 2 N-3s at
Tommy's airpark where I used to hangar..always admired em....but they took
such a long takeoff roll....
31 or 3200 is just too fast to spin a prop it seems to me...causes you to
have to use such a small dia that it just doesnt seem to have a chance to
maximize the 35 hp. That always seemed to be the biggest drawback of the
v-dub. I bet that the new briggs 35 with a reduction like they are useing on
airboats...swinging a 66 or 68 inch prop would get thet pup off the ground
likety-split and climb like a Kol.....er...eh....well...climb alot better!!
Then again...I dont know if a landing gear is long enough to allow that
prop.
what size is on the global?
I feel for you pard on the 447....hope you dont have to send it off the the
Count either...
Don G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tie downs, gust locks |
I bought these when I had my Cessna 185, the kit is a little heavy, but it
has great holding power and is easy to use...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/flyties.php
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
Don,
Are you familiar with the older Saabs that had 2-stroke engines: they had a
750 CC and an 850 CC, 3-cylinder. The Saab Sonnet had a 2-stroke too. I had
one of each and ran them both for a long time. They were very
conservatively rated. (They had a light that came on when it was time to
add another quart of oil to the oil injector tank.)
Dennis
> A 2 cycle can easily be built as reliable as a 4 cycle...but it is almost
> impossible to build one as "durable"...I say "almost" because someone who
> works for Detroit Deisel might be reading here and take issue with the
> statement.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
Dennis,
So very sorry pard...definately no intention to torment!
The honest truth is...I believe the FireFly very likely to be the best
purpose designed little airplane in the part 103 market.
I Dont know all the exact details of what went on back when this baby was
spawned, I have heard bits and pieces, and I dont know how much you had to
do with it, but since your name is on every single page of the prints I
have, I suspect you put an awful lot of yourself into that project.
Sometimes I dont think people appreciate just what this plane really
is...and the resale value of them seems to support that thought, not that I
want to sell mine.
What other legal ultralite flys with the responsiveness of a FireFly?
What other legal ultralite performs as well as the FireFly?
Rate of Climb?....Top Speed?....roll response?...
What other legal ultralite builds as easy as the FireFly?
I could go on...But anyone who has flown one and has any experience in very
many of the other 103 legal birds out there will line up right behind me I
bet.
NO Dennis...if that little comment I made about a conversation between you
and Homer would have really happened, We would have had a different plane,
and I am quite certain it would not have been near the fun to fly bird as a
FireFly is today.
Now, you may know the truth, but I dont believe there was much luck
involved here, just an honest evolution of a design into an airplane that is
perfectly matched to the engine choice.
I must be honest and say that I had been aware for along time of The Kolbs,
but never really believed they were all that much different than the rest.
When I stumbled onto this FireFly, built it and flew it, it was probably
within the first hour of flight time that I was saying to myself.."I cant
believe I didnt get one a these a long time ago"
IN fact, now that I have a Luscombe project going on in the pole-shed, my
wife keeps asking, "what are we gonna do with 2 airplanes?", and "are you
going to sell the FireFly?" and so on...WEll, because you had the
forethought to put folding wings on it, it will fit in the rented hanger
with the Luscombe...or about any other plane I will ever be able to afford
to park in there. I suspect it will be a very long time before I find
another plane that will satisfy the urges as economically, and as completely
as the Fly.
NO Sir Mr. Souder, No torment intended. Job very well done.
What you might consider however, is figureing out a NEW and Different design
that would take advantage of the upcoming generation of V-twin industrials.
The mere fact that the engines would cost so much less, be so much more
durable, More competitive(read that as several choices of brand) and less
"finicky" than 2 strokes ,would almost insure a market success, and YOU
would likely be given credit for turning the entire part 103 market into a
new and more affordable direction. That direction would be alot closer to
the path we all started out on so many years ago before law dogs and Rotax
engine domination got the reigns and steered us to where we are today.
I might think that the resulting airplane would never perform as well as a
447 Firefly, given a slightly heavier engine of slightly less
horsepower...but then...It wouldnt have to. It would be a different
plane...and with an engine that cost 3000 dollars less...the whole plane
would be a third less cost to the owner...give or take....hmmmmmm
dang....now it sounds like I am tormenting you huh......sorry......
Thanks Dennis for your part in bringing us the FireFly, a masterpiece that
has yet to be outdone!
Don Gherardini
FireFly 098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
P.S. Should you ever decide to try such a thing, I will GIVE you an
engine...or 2 or 3 to help it along.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
Don, what we really need is not another plane but a good reliable
prop GEAR reduction for the 35 horse Vanguard.
Who would want to go back to a belt again? Something like a C box
with a clutch might work ok with the right ratio.
On Jan 3, 2006, at 9:23 PM, Don Gherardini wrote:
> eleven.net>
>
>
> P.S. Should you ever decide to try such a thing, I will GIVE you an
> engine...or 2 or 3 to help it along.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
Frank,
All of the current industrial v-twins are what the market considers
continuous duty engines, however their continuous duty rating is slightly
less that advertised hp...generally in the 90% range. Without looking at the
Vanguard website..I would guess it the 35 is rated at about 32
continuous...but in our industry, it is generally accepted as a 1 hour
rating...in other words...35 hp for 1 hour max...and 32 hp cont. All the
companies except Kohler have adopted a design goal of 2500 hours at the cont
rating. (Kohlers are much less)
The biggest thing one can consider, is the torque rating. Already any
current crop industrial 25 to 28 hp or so v-twin has a torque rating of a
Rotax 503. And it is the torque that we want to turn a prop. I suggest to
you all that a 35 hp industrial will probably out perform a 50 hp 2 cycle
when the job is turning a prop.
Also, due to the industrial markets demands for torque...they all produce
peak torque at around 24 to 2600 and the curve stays the same thru around
3200...then it drops off a bit...but not much.
Now as to what would need to be changed on a Firefly to run a vanguard...I
cannot say for sure, for I am certainly not an aircraft designer...I will
defer to someone with more experience and knowledge on that one. I will
speculate that nothing needs to be changed to be able to make it fly with
one...but as I inferred in a prev post..it is designed to be maximized with
a 447, and likely nothing will be better than that on one.
Don Gherardini
FireFly 098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
Beauford,
I cant think of anything wrong with a 447 either..I like mine alot too. If I
had to wish for something...I would wish they would last longer and burn
less fuel and cost about a third of what they do...but just cause they dont
do any of the above dont make em bad..
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
Dennis,
YEs..I am Vaguely familiar with those old saabs....I also remember the old
Opel wagon with a 2 cycle engine...a buddy of mine had one in high school,
it was a really neat engine, but there wasnt a thing it would do that my 65
289 mustang wouldnt do alot better!
I will tell you that before I worked for Honda...I was with a certain
Swedish equipment company for 12 years, To this very day, I think no,one
builds 2 cycles better than the swedes!
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Hi Gang:
Been a lot of discussion about 2 and 4 stroke engines for our little
airplanes.
I had the opportunity to build and fly three 2 stroke powered Kolbs,
and am still flying the third one, but not with 2 stroke any more.
Did some serious cross country flying with a 447 point ign engine and
an original Firestar. Had a ball doing them all. Had some
disappointments, but survived them. Like an engine failure over the
Niagara River, just north of Buffalo, NY. Broke the airplane in the
process of getting me back on the ground. Got it repaired in about 4
days and flew a very bent FS back to Alabama. That engine out and
bent airplane was the decision point to rebuild the FS to do serious
cross country flying a little better than the first time around. BTW
the engine failure was caused by the NGK fine wire plugs I was using.
One of them let go of the tiny center electrode which lodged between
the ground strap and the base of the spark plug, effectively shutting
it down. Won't fly on one cylinder.
Don't ask me how I got off on that tangent, but what I wanted to share
was a very short description of what I see as the major difference
between the 2 and 4 stroke light aircraft engines. Primarily,
lubrication. The 4 stroke uses a dedicated, precision type, pressure
lube system. The 2 stroke uses a fuel/oil/air mix that relies on air
flow and chance to get things lubricated correctly.
As far as reliability is concerned, the area the 4 stroke is hands
down over the 2 stroke is piston to cylinder wall lubrication. Here
the 2 stroke does a good job as long as that microscopic film of oil
is kept in place between the piston and cylinder wall metal. If, at
anytime, it is broken, just a little bit, the piston is going to scuff
and probably seize in the cylinder. We don't have that problem with
the 4 stroke unless we loose oil pressure, and then the crank and rod
bearings are going to go first.
There are a lot of ways to break the oil film in a 2 stroke:
1-broken ring
2-stuck ring and a little blow by
3-produces a lot of carbon that might have a bearing on creating a
break in the oil film
4-acts of God
5-unnatural, mysterious, unexplainable acts
Can't think of any more at this time, but maybe you all can.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't know of any problems we have
suffered with the 4 stroke Rotax in the area of piston and cylinder
scuffing and seizing. In fact, the factory tolerance for piston to
cylinder wall clearance when new is 0.000 to 0.001". Not a whole lot
of clearance. However, another advantage of the 912 is the use of
plated aluminum cylinders and not cast iron or steel sleeves as used
in the 2 strokes.
Not looking for arguments. Thinking out loud tonight and wanted to
share my thoughts.
Most engine failures are operator induced on both 2 and 4 stroke
engines. I believe the critical difference is the all important oil
film on the cylinder wall.
john h
mkIII
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke VS 4 Stroke |
> Are you familiar with the older Saabs that had 2-stroke engines:
they
> had a 750 CC and an 850 CC, 3-cylinder. The Saab Sonnet had a
> 2-stroke too. I had one of each and ran them both for a long time.
> They were very conservatively rated. (They had a light that came
on
> when it was time to add another quart of oil to the oil injector
> tank.)
Had four different two stroke cars in Japan in the mid 70's. Two were
air cooled two cylinder 500cc and two were 750cc three cylinder, four
speed, water cooled. All of them were Suzuki. Used one of the 750s
for gymkhana, a slalom type event. We beat the living crud out of
that car, well past redline, ported, stuffed crankcase, honkin big
expansion chambers (that's one of the ways I lost some high
frequency hearing). Sure wish I had a couple of them now......
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 and 4 Stroke |
>However, another advantage of the 912 is the use of
> plated aluminum cylinders and not cast iron or steel sleeves as
used
> in the 2 strokes.
Aaaakkkk! Heresy! My Hirth has the same Nikasil as your 912. So
there!
; )
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Two stroke cars..... |
Whoops...old age. The Suzuki displacements were 360cc and then
500cc. Time has a way of inflating memories....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 and 4 Stroke |
| Aaaakkkk! Heresy! My Hirth has the same Nikasil as your 912. So
| there!
|
| ; )
|
|
| Jim Baker
Sorry Jim:
Was talking about Rotax (or is it Rotaxen?) Should have spelled that
out in my original post.
Rotax calls it something else, and my Suzuki DRZ400E 4 stroke thumper
calls it something else again, and Yamaha thumpers call their plating
something difference. Amazing technology. There is a plant in
Auburn, Alabama, that will replate a single cylinder for about
$150.00. When they finish with it, it is ready to go back together.
Send the new piston along with the cylinder so they can hone it to
specs. Will be a new cylinder no matter how bad you screw it up.
I imagine your Hirth still survives as long as that microscopic film
of oil is in place between piston and cylinder.
john h
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Garvelink" <link(at)cdc.net> |
Gentlemen,
This has been the most interesting post session of the year. I guess I
have been very interested in this very subject. I have a pressure
washing business and use these little industrial engines and from what I
have seen would have no problem putting one behind me as a power plant.
I have used the briggs 18hp L-head engines at close to maximum power and
regularly get 3000 plus hours of service out of them. I have not used
the v-twins yet but plan on replacing both of my engines with them soon.
The question that I have is if you can get the engine to run slow enough
to run the prop with out a reduction drive. I truly believe that These
engines will bring about a new chapter in ultralight aircraft. I Thank
Don and all who have contributed to this post .
Steve Garvelink
-----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: 2 and 4 Stroke
| Aaaakkkk! Heresy! My Hirth has the same Nikasil as your 912. So
| there!
|
| ; )
|
|
| Jim Baker
Sorry Jim:
Was talking about Rotax (or is it Rotaxen?) Should have spelled that
out in my original post.
Rotax calls it something else, and my Suzuki DRZ400E 4 stroke thumper
calls it something else again, and Yamaha thumpers call their plating
something difference. Amazing technology. There is a plant in
Auburn, Alabama, that will replate a single cylinder for about
$150.00. When they finish with it, it is ready to go back together.
Send the new piston along with the cylinder so they can hone it to
specs. Will be a new cylinder no matter how bad you screw it up.
I imagine your Hirth still survives as long as that microscopic film
of oil is in place between piston and cylinder.
john h
Titus, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke vs 4 Stroke |
>
>Don, what we really need is not another plane but a good reliable
>prop GEAR reduction for the 35 horse Vanguard.
>
>Who would want to go back to a belt again? Something like a C box
>with a clutch might work ok with the right ratio.
>
Eugene,
I have about 115 hours on a Simonini Victor 1+ belt reduction drive, and the belt
is holding up just fine. The belt reduction unit is much quieter than the
Rotax "B" gear box with no death rattles. Also with the belt reduction drive,
the reed valve engine will idle very nicely below 2,000 rpm with out the aid
of a clutch. Why carry the weight if it is not needed?
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
>As far as reliability is concerned, the area the 4 stroke is hands
>down over the 2 stroke is piston to cylinder wall lubrication. Here
>the 2 stroke does a good job as long as that microscopic film of oil
>is kept in place between the piston and cylinder wall metal. If, at
>anytime, it is broken, just a little bit, the piston is going to scuff
>and probably seize in the cylinder. We don't have that problem with
>the 4 stroke unless we loose oil pressure, and then the crank and rod
>bearings are going to go first.
I'm not arguing either, but I do have an observation. I think the 2 and 4
stroke both have the same constraint here. I don't see this as a significant
difference between the two designs. 4-strokes also depend on a film of oil
keeping the piston and cylinder apart and if the film breaks down the
results are similar.
For example, one way the film of oil can be broken down on the 4-stroke is
excessively rich running. Too much raw gas in the cylinder can wash the oil
film away leading to piston/cylinder contact with the you-know-what result.
Don't ask me how I know this...
The main operative difference when it comes to the piston/cylinder
reliablity issue is probably thermal shocking and not lubrication. The
4-stroke has it all over the 2-stroke here. Because the 2-stroke fires on
every stroke, heat buildup is much more intense and rapid. Also, for
durability reasons, a steel liner is used in the Rotaxen - very very tough
and long wearing design, but susceptible to thermal shocking especially due
to it being a 2-stroke. A long period of idling followed by sudden sustained
full-throttle is a recipe for disaster in the 2-stroke (especially the water
cooled motors). The piston heats up much faster than the liner and expands
faster as well. In extreme cases, siezure is the result as the
piston/cylinder gap closes. Don't ask me how I know this either.
This is much less of a problem with the 4-stroke. The piston heats up a
somewhat less rapidly there, due to the extra intake/compression stroke
which helps slow down the heating of the piston. Generally, then, you can
hammer away with the throttle on a 4-stroke with much less danger of
siezure.
And yes the aluminum/nickasil liners also help with this since they tend to
expand at closer to the same rate as the piston.
If there is one single reason I would ever switch to a 4-stroke, this would
have to be it. They're so much more durable regarding thermal shocking than
the 2-stroke it's not even funny.
Then of course there's the fact that the 912 has a TBO 4x longer than the
2-stroke rotax and is just much beefier in general for the power output,
etc.....
All I need now is just to win the lottery and I can get my kolbra and 912
;).....
Anyway, just my thoughts while drinking my morning coffee.....
LS
N646F
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 and 4 Stroke |
Group,
All this talk about a 35 hp Vanguard engine, with the torque of a 503
got my attention. So, I Googled it. It weighs 153 pounds.
Source: http://www.commercialpower.com/display/router.asp?docid=78080
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 and 4 Stroke |
John,
The Liquid cooled 35 is a real brute...but a tad heavy I think. It has a
double wide clevite bearing on the PTO end of the crank..makes it look like
a lycoming crankshaft.
Anyway...they have an aircooled 35 also...same size...just under 1 litre but
28 lbs less at 125...of which alot is a hugh commercial aircleaner.
another thing I might add,..is the 25 horse engines out there have the
torque of a 503....the 31/33/35 class of engines is a whole lot more, no
matter who the nmanufacturer...
Take the Vanguard 35 aircooled at 52.2 ft lbs torque vs the 582 blue head at
51 ft lbs
and you have a closer comparison
The Vanguard LC 35 is rated at 55 ft lbs...now we are gonna run these thru a
reduction unit and get the speed down to ...say 2500....lets see...1.44 to 1
ratio...what is the torque now?....(where's Topher when ya need him!)
anyway...you fellas see what I mean..these thoughts have been working on me
for awhile..I certainly dont know for sure just how it would be..but the
numbers sure seem favorable.
Some of you know , or remember a year or 2 ago I was fooling around with a
24 hp vtwin and a 60 inch ivo 3 blade. I was able to turn the ivo at a hub
speed of 2200, pitched at the same degree that it was on my cuyuna. At 2200
hub speed..the firefly would run 60 mph.
now..how can that be?...Cuyuna ULII-02 rated at 38 hp and the Vtwin rated at
24hp...both close performance when bolted to a reduction drive with a prop
for the load?....pretty obvious that the torque was about the same.
....just some thinkin as I am competeing to drain the coffee pot this morn!
http://www.commercialpower.com/display/router.asp?docid=78069
Don Gherardini
OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
CortLand, Illinois
800-626-7326
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
The Vanguard LC 35 is rated at 55 ft lbs...now we are gonna run these thru a
reduction unit and get the speed down to ...say 2500....lets see...1.44 to 1
ratio...what is the torque now?....(where's Topher when ya need him!)
anyway...you fellas see what I mean..these thoughts have been working on me
for awhile..I certainly dont know for sure just how it would be..but the
numbers sure seem favorable.
Some of you know , or remember a year or 2 ago I was fooling around with a
24 hp vtwin and a 60 inch ivo 3 blade. I was able to turn the ivo at a hub
speed of 2200, pitched at the same degree that it was on my cuyuna. At 2200
hub speed..the firefly would run 60 mph.
now..how can that be?...Cuyuna ULII-02 rated at 38 hp and the Vtwin rated at
24hp...both close performance when bolted to a reduction drive with a prop
for the load?...
How can that be? Because the rating for the two strokes is at 6500 rpm and
the rating for the little industrial engines is at 3500.
Relationship between torque and HP is really simple: power in units of "hp",
torque is in "lb-ft", and rotation rate is in "rpm", then
power = torque * rotation rate / 5252
(This means that the hp and torque curves always cross(they are equal) at
5252 rpm.)
So an engine with a hp rating given at a lower rpm will make more torque
then an engine with the same hp rating at a higher rpm.
Example:
Engine A makes 100 hp at 6000 rpm --> torque = 100*5252/6000= 87.5
Engine B makes 100 hp at 3000 rpm --> torque = 100*5252/3000= 157
Half the rpm twice the torque.
Put them both through a reduction drive to get them to the same rpm say 2200
so you can turn a nice big prop and they will both have the same torque.
Torque at 2200 = 100*5252/2200=238.7
100 hp at a given rpm is always the same torque... don't care where it comes
from.
Comparing the little industrial motors which would be perfect except for
having a poor power to weight ratio with the lighter 2-strokes you get
Rotax 503 makes 50 hp @ 6800 rpm --> torque = 50*5252/6800= 38.6
Brigss ns600 makes 24 hp at 3600 rpm --> torque = 24*5252/3600= 35.01
So yes the torque is about the same at the engine output shaft... but that
isn't what matters, we need torque at the prop shaft
When you put both engines through a redrive to get to a usable prop rpm
Then you see the real usable torque:
Rotax 503 makes 50 hp @ 2500 prop rpm --> torque = 50*5252/2500= 105.0
Brigss ns600 makes 24 hp @ 2500 prop rpm --> torque = 24*5252/2500= 50.4
Wow, half the power = half the torque... imagine that.
Sure the fuel burns are better( mostly cause your not making any power!),
but half the performance and it weights much more, especially after you add
the redrive.
I don't think these engines are ever going to make a high performance
aircraft engines. Low performance perhaps... but nobody wants low
performance.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 and 4 Stroke |
|
| How can that be? Because the rating for the two strokes is at 6500
rpm and
| the rating for the little industrial engines is at 3500.
| I don't think these engines are ever going to make a high
performance
| aircraft engines. Low performance perhaps... but nobody wants low
| performance.
|
| Topher
Topher/Gang:
Thank you for presenting a very understandable explanation of hp and
torque. I also got a lot out of your comparison of the two
"different" engines' performance. Nice to have someone explain
something mathematical to us old guys that are not mathematically
inclined.
Take care,
john h
PS: Got a good dose of aviating today. First flight since I flew
back from Texas a month ago. Had some airplane parts to deliver to my
buddy, Ted Cowan, over on the other side of the Tallapoosa River.
Didn't get to log quite two hours, but what I got was first class.
The old 912ULS is clocking 1,099.8 hours and still keeps on ticking.
Amazed that it would even fly with all the dirt we picked up on the
flight out to Texas and back, but it did.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 and 4 Stroke |
On Jan 4, 2006, at 3:34 PM, John Hauck wrote:
> The old 912ULS is clocking 1,099.8 hours and still keeps on ticking.
WOW!
What is that?
More than $10,000.00 worth of hydrocarbons blown out the pipe?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine comparison |
Ya Mike..
I knew Topher would be there when we needed him!
Thx Chris, you laid it out well, and as you said,,The Vtwins are not going
to be a replacement for a high performance 2 cycle..
They could be an alternative, but only on some airframes. Kinda like a Jabi
works Great on a Sonex...but not so good on a Kolb. For these engines to be
able to be utilized, the airframes will need to match em.
Alot of us flew alot of miles behind Solos and McCullochs, Sachs and even
West Bends and Chotia's in the early days. all with alot less horses!!
IN the quest for more power we all migrated to higher hp snowmobile engines.
Most of the market stopped searching when we got to these. We started to
tweak airframes to fit em better...and as previously mentioned, even design
them specifically. Now, we are paying the price in Dollars because we have
put all our eggs (well, most or them) in this basket and the people carrying
this basket saw that they had an opportunity to squeeze....and they are
obviously taking that opportunity.
I cannot say if a 103 legal bird could be developed with a 125 lb engine,
but these all have electric start, heavy flywheels and industrial
aircleaners that could be stripped to reduce weight...would they be light
enough then?....I think so...and I think with the experience that the
designers have today all it will take is for someone to decide to just do
it....
From a strictly sales viewpoint....the benefits are obvious. Lower cost and
longer life,and more dependable. All by very large factors.
Imagine what TNK would have to do to try and remove a third of the cost of
any of their birds!!...it would be impossible.
Dreamin Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine comparison |
Don,
Yes, these out-of-the-box engines have a lot of sheet metal they don't need
and some have built in gas tanks which can be replaced by ligher plastic
ones. I would think they could shed quite a bit of weight. Plus the slower
crank speeds would make a reduction device easier to design and manufacture
because the ratio would not need to be a large one. Or a larger dia "fan"
with a suitable ratio could be turned relatively slowly and more
efficiently. It would not have the snap of the 2-strokes, but it would fly
credibly well.
The most refreshing thing in this direction I have ever seen was the "Hudson
Thing" by Sandy Hudson. He did have 2 "out-of the-box" briggs engines, one
on each side of the fusleage. I just couldn't get done looking at that
exercise in simplicty and economy and I just have never been able to get it
out of my mind.
Dennis
> I cannot say if a 103 legal bird could be developed with a 125 lb engine,
> but these all have electric start, heavy flywheels and industrial
> aircleaners that could be stripped to reduce weight...would they be light
> enough then?....I think so...and I think with the experience that the
> designers have today all it will take is for someone to decide to just do
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine comparison |
Dennis/ and all interested/
If you have not seen this video...take a peek at it. The link is here on
Monte Graves Homepage.
This is the Smiths Legal Eagle with the 32 hp vtwin completely stock
including governor....flown this fall.
Of course...we dont know how much the whole thing weighs. 32 ft wing..32
horses
http://home.usmo.com/~mgraves/
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2 Stroke VS. 4 Stroke |
Steve..
the only 4 stroke engines mass produced that are more efficient than than
these Vtwins, are the auto engines today. EPA and CARB regulations have
forced this market to produce cleaner burning and since we sell in the
industrial market by the Horsepower....there was no choice but to gain in
efficiency. IN fact the calif air rescorce board (CARB) has instituted regs
than begining in 1999 started a year by year reduction in emmissions with
all engines produced faceing a stricter compliance each year thru 2008.
This has been a difficult process for manufacturers. when we sell engines to
our OEM customers in the USA...they seldom buy a bigger engine than just
will do the job to remain competitive in their respective market place. So
we could not just lean out the engines..because the resulting loss of
horsepower would not have satisfied the loads.
Maintaining horsepower and torque is a must in this biz...and it must be
done at the 3600 rpm level because the entire marget and all drive
components have been standardized to this level. Transmissions...blade
speeds...coupler ratings...everybodys machines are designed to run at 3600
input.
Honda has done it by varible ratio valve trains....super efficient carbs and
contolled ignition curves. This year we introduced the IGX series of fully
controled fuel mapping and ignition curves, which will be the next
generation of small industrials, just as the auto division as had to do to
keep up with the regs.
So as far as efficiency goes....you will be hard pressed to find engines
more efficient that what is currently out there.
It used to be...to make more horsepower, all we had to do was raise the rpms
and pour the fuel to em....not any more.
Honda engines as of 2005 are compliant to the CARB 08 regs BTW!
Don Gherardini
OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
CortLand, Illinois
800-626-7326
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cat36Fly(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Key West Tach Signal |
Has anyone got a trick for getting a reliable tachometer signal from a Key
West Regulator ? I am using the lighting coil signal (Rotax 582) to drive an
analog tach but want to use the one on my ESI also. Kuntzleman believes it can
be done but Grand Rapids Technologies says I need a different rectifier
(Tympanium 3 phase). Any past experience here?
Larry Tasker
N615 RT
MKlllx 582
________________________________________________________________________________
required 4.6, BAYES_44 -0.00, HTML_60_70 0.11, HTML_MESSAGE 0.25)
Howdy Kolbers,
Finished up my fuel system for Ms Dixie and thought I would share some photos of
my fuel sump.
First we milled a block of aluminum and cross drilled the ports 2 on top.
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/P1040001.JPG
One for the fuel drain valve on the bottom.
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/P1040002.JPG
Then drilled the mounting holes
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/P1040003.JPG
Mounted
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/P1040005.JPG
Ta Da!
http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/P1040006.JPG
This uses the sample cup like a Cessna uses.
Paul Petty
Building Ms. Dixie
Kolbra/912UL/Warp
www.c-gate.net/~ppetty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brandon <tombrandon(at)mac.com> |
Good idea Paul, but I would would have kept the the drains separate.
That way you could tell which tank was making water or trash. Also,
if one valve leaks you won't run out of fuel. It wouldn't weigh
anymore, just another valve.
Just something to think about.
Tom
On Jan 5, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Paul Petty wrote:
>
> Howdy Kolbers,
> Finished up my fuel system for Ms Dixie and thought I would share
> some photos of my fuel sump.
>
> First we milled a block of aluminum and cross drilled the ports 2
> on top.
>
> http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/P1040001.JPG
>
> One for the fuel drain valve on the bottom.
>
> http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/P1040002.JPG
>
> Then drilled the mounting holes
>
> http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/P1040003.JPG
>
> Mounted
>
> http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/P1040005.JPG
>
> Ta Da!
>
> http://www.c-gate.net/~ppetty/photos/P1040006.JPG
>
> This uses the sample cup like a Cessna uses.
>
> Paul Petty
> Building Ms. Dixie
> Kolbra/912UL/Warp
> www.c-gate.net/~ppetty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Good idea Paul, but I would would have kept the the drains
separate.
| Tom
|
Hi Tom/Gang:
I don't think Paul will mind if I respond to your suggestion.
Paul has looped the fuel line around the tail boom with the drain in
the bottom. Only has one fuel tank. So.......fuel is coming down one
side and back ukp the other.
I did this with my MKIII when I built it. However, I was not near as
fancy as Paul. Instead of the machined block of aluminum, I put a "T"
fitting, then ran a drain line forward to the lowest point of the
fuselage, which was between the gear legs. Near the end of the drain
line and inside the fuselage I installed a Briggs and Stratton nylon
fuel shut off valve. Works great.
Take care,
john h
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brandon <tombrandon(at)mac.com> |
OOOPS!
Put my foot in my mouth. Sorry. I thought it had two fuel tanks.
Shows you I have a lot to learn. Some Kolbs have 2 tanks don't they?
Tom
On Jan 5, 2006, at 7:38 PM, John Hauck wrote:
>
> | Good idea Paul, but I would would have kept the the drains
> separate.
> | Tom
> |
>
> Hi Tom/Gang:
>
> I don't think Paul will mind if I respond to your suggestion.
>
> Paul has looped the fuel line around the tail boom with the drain in
> the bottom. Only has one fuel tank. So.......fuel is coming down one
> side and back ukp the other.
>
> I did this with my MKIII when I built it. However, I was not near as
> fancy as Paul. Instead of the machined block of aluminum, I put a "T"
> fitting, then ran a drain line forward to the lowest point of the
> fuselage, which was between the gear legs. Near the end of the drain
> line and inside the fuselage I installed a Briggs and Stratton nylon
> fuel shut off valve. Works great.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Kolbs have 2 tanks don't they?
| Tom
Hi Tom/All:
Yes, the standard configuration for the Kolbra is two plastic jugs.
Same for the MKIII and the FSII.
Ten gallons won't get you very far, so a lot of us come up with much
larger fuel systems.
Take care,
john h
MKIII
Titus, AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Abbott" <jacksbird(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Gas Tanks larger than 5 gallons |
Over the last 9 months that I have been on the "list", the subject of installing
larger gas plastic tanks has been fully discussed but some how I missed the
final conclusion(s). I am building an Xtra and I'm very close to covering the
cage, so knowing the "final" answer is becoming paramount.
Question: Are there "sturdy" (safe) gas tanks available that have a capacity larger
the 5 gallons and will fit in the cage without any significant modifications?
If so.. would you recommend them? How can I find them?
Again, I don't want to start a debate but rather just understand your personal
conclusions.
Thanks in advance for your sharing your wisdom.
John Abbott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gas Tanks larger than 5 gallons |
| Question: Are there "sturdy" (safe) gas tanks available that have a
capacity larger the 5 gallons and will fit in the cage without any
significant modifications? If so.. would you recommend them? How can I
find them?
|
| John Abbott
Hi John A/Gang:
I have no personal knowledge of larger plastic tanks that will fit our
airplanes. Perhaps others on the Kolb List will give you some help in
that area.
Most of the folks I know fabricated aluminum tanks to fit their
particular needs.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gas Tanks larger than 5 gallons |
> Question: Are there "sturdy" (safe) gas tanks available that have a
> capacity larger the 5 gallons and will fit in the cage without any
> significant modifications? If so.. would you recommend them? How
can I
> find them?
http://www.ronco-plastics.com/
All these are HDPE plastics, same as the supplied tanks. They have
a size/volume calculator......
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gene Beenenga <kgbunltd(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gas Tanks larger than 5 gallons |
John, try Summit automotive parts supply, their plastic tanks are designed and
used in race cars, have impact resistance, anti-spill valving in case of being
inverted and also have electric sending units available, and sizes up to 15 or
20 gallon. i have installed their 5 gallon model in the Piet i am building.
also filler cap is large, sealed against spillage and is locking. Gene
-----Original Message-----
>From: John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
>Sent: Jan 5, 2006 10:11 PM
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Gas Tanks larger than 5 gallons
>
>
> | Question: Are there "sturdy" (safe) gas tanks available that have a
>capacity larger the 5 gallons and will fit in the cage without any
>significant modifications? If so.. would you recommend them? How can I
>find them?
> |
>| John Abbott
>
>Hi John A/Gang:
>
>I have no personal knowledge of larger plastic tanks that will fit our
>airplanes. Perhaps others on the Kolb List will give you some help in
>that area.
>
>Most of the folks I know fabricated aluminum tanks to fit their
>particular needs.
>
>john h
>MKIII
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cat36Fly(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Key West Tach Signal |
Denny,
I agree that the Grand Rapids folks should know their equipment (same with
Kuntzelman ) but there is a vast pool of knowledge on this site and I am
fishing.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gtalexander(at)att.net |
| Subject: | Re: Key West Tach Signal |
Larry:
Maybe someone with vast electronic expertise can answer this, but I'm not sure
how you could get ANY tachometer to function on the OUTPUT of ANY rectifier.
I thought a tach reacts to interrupted or alternating conditions (current) and
a rectifier puts out uninterrupted current flow. Dick K? Jack H? I'm so confused.
George Alexander
http://gtalexander.home.att.net
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Subject: Kolb-List: Key West Tach Signal
>
>
> >
> > Has anyone got a trick for getting a reliable tachometer signal from a Key
> > West Regulator ? I am using the lighting coil signal (Rotax 582) to drive
> > an
> > analog tach but want to use the one on my ESI also. Kuntzleman believes it
> > can
> > be done but Grand Rapids Technologies says I need a different rectifier
> > (Tympanium 3 phase). Any past experience here?
> >
> > Larry Tasker
> > N615 RT
> > MKlllx 582
> >
Larry:
Maybe someone with vast electronic expertise can answer this, but I'm not sure
how you could get ANY tachometer to function on theOUTPUT of ANY rectifier.I thought
atach reacts tointerruptedor alternating conditions (current)and a rectifier
puts out uninterrupted current flow. Dick K? Jack H? I'm so confused.
George Alexander
http://gtalexander.home.att.net
----- Original Message -----
From: <CAT36FLY(at)AOL.COM>
To:
Subject: Kolb-List: Key West Tach Signal
-- Kolb-List message posted by: Cat36Fly(at)aol.com
Has anyone got a trick for getting a reliable tachometer signal from a Key
West Regulator ? I am using the lighting coil signal (Rotax 582) to drive
an
analog tach but want to use the one on my ESI also. Kuntzleman believes it
can
be done but Grand Rapids Technologies says I need a different rectifier
(Tympanium 3 phase). Any past experience here?
Larry Tasker
N615 RT
MKlllx 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cat36Fly(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Key West Tach Signal |
George,
Unless I am reading the schematic wrong, the tach signal is tapped off the
input signal and that is what confuses me a bit. Why can I get a good signal
from one rectifier but not another? Evidently, the signal to a Key West gets
saturated (no cycles) at times resulting in some funky readouts. Inquiring
minds want to know.
Larry Tasker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne T. McCullough" <blackbird754(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gas Tanks larger than 5 gallons |
Ok , on the fuel tanks....
I know that everyone has been building their own....However, I have replaced
the 2 5 gallon tanks in my Kolbra ...with the 10 gallon from C.G.S. Hawk
...because it has a fuel sump bowl built in it.....it is tall and
rectangular...however I have had to make a few modifications to make it
fit....cost is $ 95.00 plus shipping......
John H. and John W. are right ...I think that I will eventually put a 912 on
it....but for now........I will use the 582 blue head....LOL.
And Paul.P. thanks for some ideas , especially on the dash panel...hope you
don't mind....
Wayne McCullough
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Abbott" <jacksbird(at)charter.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Gas Tanks larger than 5 gallons
>
> Over the last 9 months that I have been on the "list", the subject of
> installing larger gas plastic tanks has been fully discussed but some how
> I missed the final conclusion(s). I am building an Xtra and I'm very close
> to covering the cage, so knowing the "final" answer is becoming paramount.
>
> Question: Are there "sturdy" (safe) gas tanks available that have a
> capacity larger the 5 gallons and will fit in the cage without any
> significant modifications? If so.. would you recommend them? How can I
> find them?
>
> Again, I don't want to start a debate but rather just understand your
> personal conclusions.
> Thanks in advance for your sharing your wisdom.
>
> John Abbott
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 503 Questions... |
David,
For a long time fellas have be starting Rotax 503's without a prop...and
nothing but a centrifical clutch hooked to a varible sheave torque convertor
with no probs...just make sure the throttle slide is down and you are
operateing on the idle circuit. Not a big deal to anybody who understands a
snowmobile.
Don Gherardini
OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
CortLand, Illinois
800-626-7326
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Key West Tach Signal |
. I thought a tach
reacts to interrupted or alternating conditions (current) and a rectifier
puts out
uninterrupted current flow.
The output of a rectifier alone is a pulsing DC signal. When capacitors
and other types of filters are added it becomes a smooth dc signal.
Frequency and amplitude are the main concerns when feeding it into a
tach.
Do not
archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Lehman <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 503 Questions... |
Thanx Don...
I'm in "Lovely" Fresno so I'm not very conversant with snowmobiles...
I have to remove my prop to get the Firestar in and out of my garage (wings
folded), but it sounds like I better install it to run the engine in my
driveway...
Thanx...
DVD
On 1/6/06, Don Gherardini <donghe@one-eleven.net> wrote:
>
>
> David,
>
> For a long time fellas have be starting Rotax 503's without a prop...and
> nothing but a centrifical clutch hooked to a varible sheave torque
> convertor
> with no probs...just make sure the throttle slide is down and you are
> operateing on the idle circuit. Not a big deal to anybody who understands
> a
> snowmobile.
>
> Don Gherardini
> OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
> American Honda Engines
> Power Equipment Company
> CortLand, Illinois
> 800-626-7326
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 503 Questions... |
One more thing David....withn no load on the 503, the 6500 redline could be
exceeded alot with no damage....it is under load and cylinder pressure that
you need to be careful. So dont be afraid to hit the throttle a tad to see
if it will take. But remember this...it will give you no indication of a
correct carb setup running it this way. Once you put the prop on it and you
have a load, it will be all different.
Don Gherardini
OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
CortLand, Illinois
800-626-7326
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gas Tanks larger than 5 gallons |
You can design to fill every available inch of space.
| Ray
Ray A/Gang:
You are absolutely right. When one has a little airplane one must use
"every available inch of space". That goes, not only fuel, but all
the other stuff one wants and needs to take with them should they
decide they want to do a little cross country flying, especially
overnight. There is a lot of useable room when one takes advantage of
it. If done improperly, then a lot of space is wasted. The basic
Kolb design was not intended to do extended cross country flying and
carry cargo. Look at all the Kolb Models. The designers did not take
fuel and cargo into consideration. This is left up to the kit builder
should he decide to do more than what Homer Kolb had intended for us
to do with his airplanes. I don't think he ever realized what some of
these little birds would accomplish over the years, especially back in
the dark ages of the early 1980's.
The time to start planning on what you want and need is prior to
building the kit. Once it is completed, it is a little late to start
modifying the original design.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | MV/Fourth Annual Kolb Unplanned/Unorganized Flyin 2006 (cont) |
| Patrick, the best source of info on what is happening in Monument
| Valley and the surrounding area can be found at the Gouldings web
| site:
http://www.gouldings.com/english/index.htm
Sorry about that. Nuthin' new, my forgetfulness!!!!!!!!!!
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
December 14, 2005 - January 06, 2006
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-fr