Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-ig
May 17, 2009 - June 08, 2009
>
> You have cherry picked my
> answer. I said `if it was not less safe why don`t we use it all the time."
>
>
One last time: we don't use it all the time, NOT because it's _less safe_, but
because it's not _necessary_ under all t/o circumstances (i.e. for short fields).
Again, there's _nothing unsafe_ about using GE in soft-field t/o operations in
the way we've been discussing. You keep asserting that it is so I keep countering
that it is NOT (and offering a way for you to learn that it is not).
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244393#244393
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear photos |
| From: | "ces308" <ces308(at)ldaco.com> |
Mike !
It looks great ! I like the wheel pants and your neat little tail boom/wing caddy
! That is cool ! So is this an Xtra Classic or a Classic Xtra?? lol
chris ambrose
m3x/jab
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244416#244416
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear photos |
Thanks Chris=2C
Hmmm? I'm not sure. Maybe closer to a Classic Xtra. So far=2C I've jus
t referred to it as "CX". But=2C the fact is=2C only the purest Kolbers wo
uld be able to tell that it wasn't born an Xtra. The changes I've done lea
ve little resemblance to its old heritage=2C and about 98% toward an Xtra.
The tail boom idea came from "Uncle Craig" Nelson. Yes=2C it is VERY han
dy. The little castoring pneumatic tires (Harbor Freight) allow for easy m
ovement=2C and are big enough to not get stuck on pebbles. The cradles=2C
that the wings rest in=2C rock a little=2C to allow for even weight distrib
ution.
My total cost in the project ran me $75. Parts list available on request!
BTW=2C after making a set front wheel dolleys=2C (and they were too small
) I redesigned and built a very nice second set of steel front wheel dolley
s. They work much better than my first prototype set.
(If you use small castors=2C they hang up on little rocks and concrete bump
s=2C and flip over. I did 'em right the second time around.
Now=2C 360 degree movement of the whole plane around in my hangar is as i
t should be....easy.
Mike Welch
MkIII CX
> Mike !
> It looks great ! I like the wheel pants and your neat little tail boom/wi
ng caddy ! That is cool ! So is this an Xtra Classic or a Classic Xtra?? lo
l
>
> chris ambrose
> m3x/jab
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail=AE has ever-growing storage! Don=92t worry about storage limits.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tuto
rial_Storage1_052009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stephen Spence <sspence801(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is a Mark 3 Xtra considered Light Sport? |
Guys:=0A=0AThe MULA newsletter can be found @:http://www.michiganultralight
.com/newsletter/FW52009/May09.pdf , at end says August 15 is date for Purdy
Field flyin.=0A=0A=0A=0ASteve Spence=0AMark3X 912-S=0AAuburn Hills, MI=0A
=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Richard & Martha Neilsen <Ne
ilsenRM(at)comcast.net>=0ATo: kolb-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Sunday, May 17,
2009 12:44:39 PM=0ASubject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Is a Mark 3 Xtra considered
n" =0A=0AI just check on the MULA web site http://ww
w.michiganultralight.com/ and =0Athat event at Purdy Field at Durand, MI ha
sn't been scheduled yet.=0A=0ARick Neilsen=0ARedrive VW powered MKIIIC=0A
=0A----- Original Message ----- =0AFrom: "Kirkds" <kirkds(at)dishmail.net>=0AT
o: =0ASent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 11:46 AM=0ASubjec
t: Kolb-List: Re: Is a Mark 3 Xtra considered Light Sport?=0A=0A=0A> --> Ko
lb-List message posted by: "Kirkds" =0A>=0A>=0A> Neils
enRM(at)comcast.net wrote:=0A>> . There is a good one at Purdy=0A>> field o
ver by Durand every year. I will likely also fly to Oshkosh this=0A>> summe
r.=0A>>=0A>> Rick Neilsen=0A>> Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC=0A>>=0A>> ---=0A>
=0A>=0A> When is that flyin at Purdy? I'll try to make that one.=0A>=0A>=0A
>=0A>=0A> Read this topic online here:=0A>=0A> http://forums.matronics.com/
viewtopic.php?p=244373#244373=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> =0A
=============
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear photos |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Your plane is looking real good Mike, you have done a great job reproducing and
welding the tubes to make the change to the MK III Xtra. I also like the boom
dolly, just dont forget to remove it before you take off, or you are in for
one wild ride [Shocked]
I really like your aileron cable conversion, I may do that to my Kolb one day.
Can you post pictures of your aileron pulleys, their attachments, and how you
connected the cables to the ailerons themselves ?
Thanks,
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244508#244508
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Horiz. stab front attach brackets. |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Make sure to replace the brackets that were flexing, chances are they have been
weakened after 9 years of flexing. There was a Kolb that had one of those tabs
break in flight, the horizontal stab went straight up against the tail wire,
it scared the hell out of the pilot, but he was in the pattern and was able
to land :) That was a good catch, you might have saved his arse on that one
!
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244509#244509
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Herb <herbgh(at)nctc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear photos |
Mike
How did you run the cable that connects the ailerons together? Herb
At 09:19 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
>
>Your plane is looking real good Mike, you have done a great job
>reproducing and welding the tubes to make the change to the MK III
>Xtra. I also like the boom dolly, just dont forget to remove it
>before you take off, or you are in for one wild ride [Shocked]
>
>I really like your aileron cable conversion, I may do that to my
>Kolb one day. Can you post pictures of your aileron pulleys, their
>attachments, and how you connected the cables to the ailerons themselves ?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mike
>
>--------
>"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as
>you could have !!!
>
>Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244508#244508
>
>
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>05/17/09 16:58:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Horiz. stab front attach brackets. |
Howard=2C
Since you already likely have the 3/16th holes for the first stab. mounti
ng bracket=2C I would suggest using 3/16" AN bolts. I "may" have somethin
g you could use=2C also. I say may=2C because I don't know how many I've g
ot. They are aircraft hardware. They are a bolt..that uses a hex wrench o
n the threaded end.
If you want me to see if I have 12 of 'em=2C give me a call. 573-489-980
2
Mike Welch
MkIII
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Sun=2C 17 May 2009 00:07:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Horiz. stab front attach brackets.
Was looking at my friends MkIII boom tube today & discovered that those hor
iz. stab brackets had been installed tight against the tabs on the front of
the stab[?]. I could see flexing of the brackets & tabs when the elevator
was operated. Been this way for about 9 yrs.=3B surprised nothing has bro
ken as of yet.
Question is=2C how to fix it? Do we need to make new brackets=2C using the
same rivet holes=2C with the bends to give the necessary clearance? What
are they made of=2C 4130? Would a slightly thicker stainless do?
Yeah=2C I'll be calling TNK on Monday. Just getting prepared.........
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
In a message dated 5/16/2009 11:34:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time=2C slyck@f
rontiernet.net writes:
Sport Pilot is a pilot's license.
The dropped medical requirement applies to all categories=2C private=2C
commercial=2C (ok not airship and heli)
as a default rating equivalent to Sport Pilot.
They refer to it as a "privilege". As an example=2C my commercial heli
license notes that I have
private fixed wing privilege.
BB
back hurts tonight after rasslin' with that left gear leg. Gotter in
though.
On 16=2C May 2009=2C at 11:15 PM=2C ces308 wrote:
>
> Thank you Rick....That is what I thought too=2Cbut when the FAA guy
> finished inspected the airplane last Wednesday we talked about
> that and he said I needed a pilots license to fly it...??? He said
> it didn't fall in that category ...not wanting to argue with the
> guy who was going to sign off my airplane =2CI decided to find out
> later=2Cas maybe he was mistaken . I looked it up in the FAR's and it
> looked like it fit that category to me too.
>
> chris ambrose
> m3x/jab
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244320#244320
>
>
Recession-proof vacation ideas. Find free things to do in the U.S.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail=AE has a new way to see what's up with your friends.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tut
orial_WhatsNew1_052009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
Gang,
John B, Bruce C, Mike Marker and John Hauck are all here. The wind
has made it very interesting, hope that it will calm down so that we can
do some serious flying.
Larry C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mark rinehart <capt_riney(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Rotax 582 Gearbox Choices |
I found a good deal on a Rotax 582 for my Mark III project, but don't know which
gearbox to pick. I definitely want electric start. Will an B, C, or E box
work equally well on a Mark III? I've heard that I can only use a B box or I'll
have to raise the engine mounts and the thrust line may be too high. Those
of you who have (or had) 582's, what gearbox are you using and what gear ratio?
Thanks.
Mark Rinehart
Indianapolis Mark III project
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 582 Gearbox Choices |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Mark, The B box has some limits on which props you can use. Its allowable
prop inertia is half that of the C and E boxes. I have a C box with a 4:00
to 1 ratio. It requires nothing special to mount and has clearance for a 68"
prop.
Rick
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:51 PM, mark rinehart wrote:
>
>
> I found a good deal on a Rotax 582 for my Mark III project, but don't know
> which gearbox to pick. I definitely want electric start. Will an B, C, or
> E box work equally well on a Mark III? I've heard that I can only use a B
> box or I'll have to raise the engine mounts and the thrust line may be too
> high. Those of you who have (or had) 582's, what gearbox are you using and
> what gear ratio? Thanks.
>
> Mark Rinehart
> Indianapolis Mark III project
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Longo" <tlongo(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Rotax 582 Gearbox Choices |
582 E-Box 2:62 with Warp Drive 66" Pitched at 9.75 Degrees on Kolb MK III
Classic.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of mark rinehart
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:51 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Rotax 582 Gearbox Choices
I found a good deal on a Rotax 582 for my Mark III project, but don't know
which gearbox to pick. I definitely want electric start. Will an B, C, or
E box work equally well on a Mark III? I've heard that I can only use a B
box or I'll have to raise the engine mounts and the thrust line may be too
high. Those of you who have (or had) 582's, what gearbox are you using and
what gear ratio? Thanks.
Mark Rinehart
Indianapolis Mark III project
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
06:21:00
--
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
The Professional version does not have this message
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Nelson, Craig" <craig.nelson(at)heraeus.com> |
<> <> WOW! What a great turn out! No
breakfast next year I will not go to mv again in a truck and trailer. No
room in the plane for the grill. Thanks for the bed time stories Popa
Larry.
Great rabbit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Uncle craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "R. Hankins" <rphanks(at)grantspass.com> |
Winds aloft forecast for Wednesday thru Friday is for south-westerlies under 15
kts all the way up to 9000ft. Looks pretty good. The truck is loaded, trailer
hooked up, and suitcase packed. I'll see ya when I get there.....
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244744#244744
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
A few weeks ago someone asked me for a copy of the film made by the
on board cameras when I flew a Mustang at Kissimmee many years ago.
I have been able to transfer the video to DVD so whoever it was please
contact me.
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I just watched the video of John H landing at the rock house. One has to love
a place where the hangar is bigger than the house, Larry definitely has his priorities
straight ! Looks like they are going to have a great time there, what
a neat area to fly in.
http://www.kolbadventures.blogspot.com/
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244853#244853
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
Hi Gang:
I might add, I had flown up, across the mountains from Elko, NV. Winds
at the time were 25 gusting to 36 mph. My ground speed during the 2.4
hour flight was from 60 to 74 mph. Mostly 64. Turbulence to 9,000
feet. There were two dust storms in the area of the Rock House. I
landed with a lot of power, no flaps, and a 50 ft ground roll. My right
hand was sweating so much I had to wipe it on my pants leg twice the
last 20 miles. I was very lucky, landed without any severe turbulence
at the time of touch down. I sure was glad I was flying a Kolb.
We are having a great time at Larry's. Roger H and Keith from Grants
Pass, OR, arrived just before supper tonight. They trailered in because
of severe wind. They are getting their airplanes out of the trailers
and unfolding now. One is a FS KXP and the other a MKIII.
Tomorrow we are flying to the Skinner Ranch to have some quiet time with
our buddy John W. Larry has already placed an engraved native stone
marker at John's crash site. Hopefully, this will bring some closure to
the loss of our flying friend.
Plans are to return to Louisiana and Alabama my normal, nearly direct
route.
We had a great time at Monument Valley, one of the best yet.
Wish you all could join us on this flight.
john h
Rock House, Oregon
I just watched the video of John H landing at the rock house. One
has to love a place where the hangar is bigger than the house, Larry
definitely has his priorities straight ! Looks like they are going to
have a great time there, what a neat area to fly in.
http://www.kolbadventures.blogspot.com/
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GARY JINDRA <gajindra(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 582 Gearbox Choices |
Mark,I'm building a mark 111c at this time.My motor is a 582 that I put a e-box
on.Rather then raising the motor much I changed the rear mount.I removed rear
mount,took off app. 2 inches of the root tube.Put a 1/4 plate across and turned
the mounts rearward so as the starter could sit between the mounts with plenty
of clearance.The motor is sitting exactly the same as original.Not flying
yet.Pictures attached
Gary Jindra
--- On Tue, 5/19/09, mark rinehart wrote:
From: mark rinehart <capt_riney(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Rotax 582 Gearbox Choices
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 5:51 PM
I found a good deal on a Rotax 582 for my Mark III project, but don't know
which gearbox to pick. I definitely want electric start. Will an B, C, or E
box work equally well on a Mark III? I've heard that I can only use a B box
or I'll have to raise the engine mounts and the thrust line may be too high.
Those of you who have (or had) 582's, what gearbox are you using and what
gear ratio? Thanks.
Mark Rinehart
Indianapolis Mark III project
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dalewhelan" <dalewhelan(at)earthlink.net> |
My ballast took some photos, I will post some. I am writing about it, I have other
things going on so it may take a bit of time. I learned some cool things there.
I have been a mechanic for a long time. I like airplanes. I was one of the
last ones to leave, the place felt empty without the planes but emptier without
the people. I have read about landing with a quartering tailwind. Reading
is not the same as doing, and not knowing, and then being blown off the runway
without understanding. Further the learning by watching someone else wreck his
plane, interview the pilot who said it got away from his all of the sudden,
then have Milo who saw the incident say he was the victim of a quartering tail
wind. Wow, I finally get it!
I like the photo of all the people helping load the plane, and I like the tail
booms. Rebeka seems to have a good eye for this picture taking stuff.
--------
Dale Whelan
503 powered Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244972#244972
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc01975_209.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dalewhelan" <dalewhelan(at)earthlink.net> |
Team work
--------
Dale Whelan
503 powered Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244974#244974
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc02031_346.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dalewhelan" <dalewhelan(at)earthlink.net> |
It's in the dirt, safe at first
--------
Dale Whelan
503 powered Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244975#244975
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc02025_194.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dalewhelan" <dalewhelan(at)earthlink.net> |
The trip back down the runway
Sorry about the size of the photos
--------
Dale Whelan
503 powered Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244976#244976
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc02037_622.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
I was going to ask for more details but this last pic tells the story.
BB, steel legs on and brakes bled. Time to tow it up the hill.
On 22, May 2009, at 12:26 PM, dalewhelan wrote:
>
>
> It's in the dirt, safe at first
>
> --------
> Dale Whelan
> 503 powered Firestar II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244975#244975
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc02025_194.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Stripping a Firestar wing |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
So how long does it take to strip all the fabric off the wings of a five rib
Firestar? About 4 hours including removing the aileron hinges from both
wings and ailerons.First the reason for the task. I had some hangar rash
that needed attention and began the process of doing patches per the Poly
Fiber manual. Hmmmm, shouldn't there be some evidence of Poly Brush? I mean,
unless you specifically order it with no colorant, it's bright orange red.
Sort of hard to miss. There was some evidence along the leading and trailing
edge tubes, otherwise, nada, and truthfully, there wasn't much along the
tubes, either. And silver, how about a little Poly Spray? There did appear
to be some, maybe one coat, but certainly not the recommended three coats
cross sprayed. Hmmmmm, again.
Okay, there was the choice to get a couple of 5 gallon cans of MEK, strip
the Poly Spray and Poly Tone down to bare fabric and start over from there.
Then came the killers that sealed the deal to strip.
First, there was one 6" long cut just behind the leading edge on the top
surface of one wing. My intention was to cut a hole to remove the ragged
edges of the cut and patch around the leading edge so that neither edge of
the patch would face the wind stream. When my handy dandy box knife snagged
the cloth near the leading edge the material virtually fell off. This was
confirmed later when the decision to strip and recover was made, With a few
exceptions like the root rib, the fabric was held on more by the rivets than
any combination of Poly Tack and Poly Brush.
Second, were the type and placement of reinforcing tapes. They edges of the
tapes weren't pinked and, on the leading edge, they weren't there. There
were tapes, but they were rotated around such that the straight edge was
directly into the airstream. Per the Poly Fiber manual, tapes are applied
over structure. Well, they were, sort of, about an inch or so, the rest was
on the bottom fabric of the wing. On the trailing edge there didn't seem to
be any tapes at all.
Once the fabric was off the inspection of structure began. There was a fair
amount of corrosion on the leading and trailing edges and on the rib tubes
of the root ribs. It's mostly on the surface, you can wipe it off with light
finger pressure, but there are lots of rusted rivets.
Did I mention there were no drain grommets on the fabric, either? Inspection
patches? Fagidaboutit.
So, in conclusion, it's an old five rib Firestar, built in the early 90's
and first put into service around '94. No attempt to add any corrosion
protection was done to any of the wing components, no provision was made for
draining condensation or inspection, and the fabric job was someone's idea
of how to save a little weight at the expense of UV protection.
Plans for restoration? Remove steel rivets in small sections and replace
with SS after removing any underlying corrosion and treating with alodine.
Recover per Appendix A with the Navajo Silver option to save weight but get
full UV protection.
In conclusion, the purpose of this little treatise is to give ya'll
something to think about, provide a little data on the service life of these
cool little birds, and maybe keep new builders from making some of the
mistakes the builder of this Firestar made.
As my friend, Steve, always said, "For a nickel more, you can go first
class."
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stripping a Firestar wing |
- Rick- You better think about re-covering-the rest of it, too.--I
asked the guys on the List about the steel rivets, as I had found some.-
John H. said the early ones were shipped with regular rivets.- Stripping
time-was about the same for me, but my fabric was well glued down (both w
ing sets) and riveted on one, and stitched on the other.- I did have drai
n holes, so no corrosion other than light rust on rivet heads.- Sounds li
ke you were very lucky to have found out now, rather than in the air.- My
wings were probably built around 1986.- I don't know how long after that
they changed to- SS rivets.- Good luck.
-
-------------------------
------------------ Bill Sullivan
-------------------------
------------------ Windsor Locks, Ct.
-------------------------
------------------ FS 447 (wing coverin
g starting soon- 5 rib type)-
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stripping a Firestar wing |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Oh yeah, no plans to stop at this point. It wood look strange with different
color wings and tail. There are other things that need to be fixed, too.
Struts put together with pop rivets only, minor things like that. She'll be
a new bird when I'm done.
Rick
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM, william sullivan wrote:
> Rick- You better think about re-covering the rest of it, too. I asked
> the guys on the List about the steel rivets, as I had found some. John H.
> said the early ones were shipped with regular rivets. Stripping time was
> about the same for me, but my fabric was well glued down (both wing sets)
> and riveted on one, and stitched on the other. I did have drain holes, so
> no corrosion other than light rust on rivet heads. Sounds like you were
> very lucky to have found out now, rather than in the air. My wings were
> probably built around 1986. I don't know how long after that they changed
> to SS rivets. Good luck.
>
> Bill Sullivan
> Windsor Locks, Ct.
> FS 447 (wing covering starting
> soon- 5 rib type)
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stripping a Firestar wing |
- Rick- My original struts were the old pop rivet style.- The crash sna
pped one through the middle portion of the tube, and bent a steel end on th
e other.- No rivet failure.- Mine had all rivet heads sealed with silic
one or something.- I understand the new style is bolted together, and I a
m going to order some.- Right now I have a set of streamlined steel ones-
over 9 pounds for the pair.- Way too heavy.
-
-------------------------
------------------------ Bi
ll Sullivan
-------------------------
-------------------------
Windsor Locks, Ct.
-------------------------
------------------------ FS
447
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
Gang, regarding the cause of the "faux paux". with Gary's plane. I
cannot say of course for obvious reasons as to what did cause the
problem, but since I have experienced something similar, I can make a
"WAG". One of the biggest problems with landing in a cross wind with a
break away tail wheel is that it breaks with very little rudder input.
If you have a cross wind and you give it enough rudder to stay on the
runway your tail wheel is going to be loose when you land on the ground.
That will allow your plane to ground loop, which could very likely
result in the situation that Gary found himself in. What I did with mine
was to take the bolt or the tail wheel assembly out and hog out or
extend the groove that keeps the wheel slaved to the rudder. With mine,
it will only break loose with maximum rudder input. Keep in mind that
your reality may be a bit different than mine.
Larry C
Having fun with all the company.
----- Original Message -----
From: robert bean
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: MV
I was going to ask for more details but this last pic tells the story.
BB, steel legs on and brakes bled. Time to tow it up the hill.
On 22, May 2009, at 12:26 PM, dalewhelan wrote:
>
>
> It's in the dirt, safe at first
>
> --------
> Dale Whelan
> 503 powered Firestar II
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244975#244975
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc02025_194.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
05/22/09 06:03:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stripping a Firestar wing |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I would most defiantly recover the tail while you are at it. The tail section
of a Kolb take a huge beating from the prop. The fabric on my tail surfaces is
more stressed than the fabric on the wings on my MK III with 100 HP due to prop
blast.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244996#244996
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. M. Guidi" <fmguidi(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is a Mark 3 Xtra considered Light Sport? |
Maybe you fellas can help me too.
I've inherited a Firestar MK I w/Rotax 366 engine from my father-in-law.
It has been trailer for a long period of time since he hadn't flown it in about
10 years.
He had ran the engine regularly from my understanding. I has about 300 hrs on it.
Fabric looks okay with no major issues. Chute will obliviously need re-packing.
Engine will need a overhaul.
I'm pretty sure it's not registered and my question is what is required to get
it registered as a light sport aircraft? Is a deadline approaching?
Thanks
Frank
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Is a Mark 3 Xtra considered Light Sport?
From: "ces308" <ces308(at)ldaco.com>
Thank you Rick....That is what I thought too,but when the FAA guy finished inspected
the airplane last Wednesday we talked about that and he said I needed a
pilots license to fly it...??? He said it didn't fall in that category ...not
wanting to argue with the guy who was going to sign off my airplane ,I decided
to find out later,as maybe he was mistaken . I looked it up in the FAR's and
it looked like it fit that category to me too.
chris ambrose
m3x/jab
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is a Mark III considered light sport? |
- I never heard of a Firestar "Mark I".- You may have an "original Fire
star"- one of the old ones.- It may have been built to 103 specs, and not
need registration.- Are you familiar with those specs?- How many full
ribs on each wing (not counting the root rib)?- What accessories- brakes,
full canopy?- How big is the gas tank?- The 366 engine has me wonderin
g.- Any photos available?- I went through identification problems last
year with mine, and the guys on the List were very helpful and informative.
- Please be patient for an answer- a lot of the regulars on the List are
out of town at MV.
-
-------------------------
--------------------- Bill Sulliv
an
-------------------------
--------------------- Windsor Loc
ks, Ct.
-------------------------
--------------------- FS 447
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley |
Uncle Craig's breakfast
Muchas gracias
**************Recession-proof vacation ideas. Find free things to do in
the U.S.
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Air Filter Function & When To Clean |
Kolbers,
About a month ago there was quite a discussion about air filter cleaning,
oiling etc., under the subject "One Thing At A Time".
A couple of days ago I was at a farm implement dealer to pick up some parts
for my lawn mower. While there I walked down the line of used commercial
zero turn mowers. I noticed one had little gadget attached to an air
cleaner. It was a "Filter Minder". I Goolged it and found out it is made
by a http://www.filterminder.com. Evidently they supply K&N as can be seen
at: http://www.knfilters.com/filterminder.htm.
The beauty of this device is that one does not have to watch it continuously
to determine what the pressure drop is over the filter element. It records
and maintains the highest recorded drop across the filter medium. More than
likely this will happen at max rpm, and so one can watch it over a period
of time to see how the pressure drop increases and decide at what point to
change/clean the filter.
FWIW - you may want to check it out.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Air filter function and when to clean |
- Jack- The filter minder has been in use on heavy trucks for many years,
and they have always worked very nicely.- Very light, too.
-
-------------------------
---------------- Bill Sullivan
-------------------------
---------------- Windsor Locks, Ct.
-------------------------
---------------- FS 447
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley |
John H keeping up with foreign relations
W for John W.
**************Recession-proof vacation ideas. Find free things to do in
the U.S.
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stripping a Firestar wing |
Mike
You would recover the tail DEFIANTLY??
That do seem odd --
On May 22, 2009, at 3:30 PM, JetPilot wrote:
>
> I would most defiantly recover the tail while you are at it. The
> tail section of a Kolb take a huge beating from the prop. The
> fabric on my tail surfaces is more stressed than the fabric on the
> wings on my MK III with 100 HP due to prop blast.
>
> Mike
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast
> as you could have !!!
>
> Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244996#244996
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley |
| From: | "Dave Rains" <RangeFlyer72(at)yahoo.com> |
Monument Valley was a great success! Sorry I missed Uncle Craig's breakfast, was
flying kids, (one left a jacket in my plane, hope his mother isn't' mad at
me) until mid morning. Thanks for the home brew Larry, couldn't get enough!
I recommend next year we take one of those tour trucks as a group, and see the
sites from the ground too. Also, we should do a professional type story of the
Kolb fly-in, with photos/history and submit it to EAA for publication. John
W. showed us the way.
Dave
--------
Dave Rains
N8086T
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245016#245016
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is a Mark 3 Xtra considered Light Sport? |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Frank, The deadlline for conversion to experimental light sport passed in
Jan 31,2008 UNLESS you have a registration issued before that date, then the
deadline is extended to Jan 31, 2010. If your father in law has a builders
log you could try getting it through as experimental amatuer built, but
since the aircraft has been flown as an ultralight you probably don't have
much chance of getting that one either. If you don't care about going much
of anyplace and just flying around the patch occasionally you could go
experimental exhibition and hope for an inspector with a liberal bent toward
the category since they can write some stiff restrictions into your
operating limitations. Best bet is look up your local EAA chapter and see if
they can help. They might be able to point you toward an inspector who'll
help.
Rick
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:45 PM, F. M. Guidi wrote:
>
>
> Maybe you fellas can help me too.
> I've inherited a Firestar MK I w/Rotax 366 engine from my father-in-law.
> It has been trailer for a long period of time since he hadn't flown it in
> about 10 years.
> He had ran the engine regularly from my understanding. I has about 300 hrs
> on it.
> Fabric looks okay with no major issues. Chute will obliviously need
> re-packing. Engine will need a overhaul.
> I'm pretty sure it's not registered and my question is what is required to
> get it registered as a light sport aircraft? Is a deadline approaching?
> Thanks
> Frank
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Is a Mark 3 Xtra considered Light Sport?
> From: "ces308" <ces308(at)ldaco.com>
>
>
> Thank you Rick....That is what I thought too,but when the FAA guy finished
> inspected
> the airplane last Wednesday we talked about that and he said I needed a
> pilots license to fly it...??? He said it didn't fall in that category
> ...not
> wanting to argue with the guy who was going to sign off my airplane ,I
> decided
> to find out later,as maybe he was mistaken . I looked it up in the FAR's
> and
> it looked like it fit that category to me too.
>
> chris ambrose
> m3x/jab
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stripping a Firestar wing |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Before everyone chimes in, I just haven't gotten that far in the project. I
just wanted to get my thoughts down while they were fresh. And before anyone
wants to remind to recover the fuselage, yes, I'll do that, too. :-)
Rick
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:56 PM, russ kinne wrote:
>
> Mike
> You would recover the tail DEFIANTLY??
> That do seem odd --
>
>
> On May 22, 2009, at 3:30 PM, JetPilot wrote:
>
>>
>> I would most defiantly recover the tail while you are at it. The tail
>> section of a Kolb take a huge beating from the prop. The fabric on my tail
>> surfaces is more stressed than the fabric on the wings on my MK III with 100
>> HP due to prop blast.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> --------
>> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you
>> could have !!!
>>
>> Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=244996#244996
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley |
| From: | loseyf(at)comcast.net |
Is there a date for 2010 yet?
------Original Message------
From: Dave Rains
Sender: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
ReplyTo: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: May 22, 2009 7:26 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Monument Valley
Monument Valley was a great success! Sorry I missed Uncle Craig's breakfast, was
flying kids, (one left a jacket in my plane, hope his mother isn't' mad at
me) until mid morning. Thanks for the home brew Larry, couldn't get enough!
I recommend next year we take one of those tour trucks as a group, and see the
sites from the ground too. Also, we should do a professional type story of the
Kolb fly-in, with photos/history and submit it to EAA for publication. John
W. showed us the way.
Dave
--------
Dave Rains
N8086T
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245016#245016
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dalewhelan" <dalewhelan(at)earthlink.net> |
I think his name is Roger, but it may be Gary. He was fine and in good spirits.
--------
Dale Whelan
503 powered Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245040#245040
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Cowan" <tc1917(at)bellsouth.net> |
I am again going to chime in and mention something about SS rivets. If this
is an older Firestar, five rib, etc., you have better check the size and
thickness of the tubing. The older firestars had really thin tubing on the
leading and trailing edges. Now, it is my opinion (my opinion AND
experience) that if you are the first one to drill the holes, they are nice
and tight and MIGHT hold a SS rivet but you will really suffer if you have
to repair damage or recover later. If it is a repair job, the holes have
been reamed out by drilling or possibly someone used an oversized drill
(this was recommended way back when) to facilitate rivet installation, your
SS rivets might crack the holes, pull through or not even pop when
installed. (you are going to hate yourself in the morning). If you are
going to keep the bird in a hanger or trailer or whatever, the rivets are
going to only get minimal exposure to moister. Some of the builders put
anti rust stuff on the rivets before covering (if they were flying over
water) and I think that might be a good idea. Again, if you pull SS rivets
on these lightweight tubes, you are looking and are going to find trouble.
A bunch of you who have not rebuild a dozen of these crafts in the last ten
or twelve years, are going to resist or say bull s____t but, I am telling
you, dislike materials dont like each other to begin with, i.e., steel (SS)
rivets vs very thin alum.and you know what, alum usually looses. My
opinion. By the way, these suggestions were passed on to me by Dennis S.
back when I was a nubie at this. I have never had one come apart. Up to
you. Hope you have a great time. By the way, eliminating the silver
undercoat UV protectant-filler, you can save a ton of money and weight and
use the UV protection you add to the poly tone paint. Call Dolly and she
can explain it to you. Works for me. Lots of ways to save money and weight
for the ole five ribber. Have a great weekend. Thanks for the pics of MV.
Gotta do that some day. Ted Cowan, Alabama, Slingshot, 912, zoom zoom.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
>Call Dolly and she
> can explain it to you. Works for me. Lots of ways to save money and weigh
t
> for the ole five ribber. Have a great weekend. Thanks for the pics of MV.
> Gotta do that some day. Ted Cowan=2C Alabama=2C Slingshot=2C 912=2C zoom
zoom.
Ted=2C
No argumment with your rivet experience or beliefs=2C but respectfully=2C
the lovely lady's name is Dondi=2C not Dolly. Unless=2C of course=2C we w
ere talking about Parton. She's lovely=2C too.
To clear matters up=2C were you making the point that we should use alumi
num rivets=2C instead of SS rivets? I recently bought a huge supply of SS
rivets=2C specifically for attaching my ailerons and flaps. Is it your opi
nion that a guy should just use aluminum ones?
Mike Welch
MkIII
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail=AE.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tut
orial_QuickAdd1_052009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley |
Is there a date for 2010 yet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Every year it has been the weekend after mothers day.
Boyd Young
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley |
| From: | loseyf(at)comcast.net |
Thank you Sir. Looks like a great place, I have vacationed on Lake Powell, Bryce
and Zion....truly one of God's gifts!
Thanks
------Original Message------
From: b young
Sender: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
ReplyTo: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: May 23, 2009 11:42 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Monument Valley
Is there a date for 2010 yet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Every year it has been the weekend after mothers day.
Boyd Young
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Final at Monument Valley |
| From: | "dalewhelan" <dalewhelan(at)earthlink.net> |
Shot by my ballast in a Firestar II May 2009
--------
Dale Whelan
503 powered Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245070#245070
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc02012_194.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Bing Carb Problem FYI |
Hi All,
For what its worth, I though I`d share a recent problem & solution with
a Bing carb I had this week. It all started last Sat, when after a short
flight in my MK3C 912 bird, one of my bing 64 carbs started leaking
after engine shutdown. It quit after a minute or so, but not after
scaring the bejeebers out of me, cuz the fuel was boiling off of a hot
exhaust pipe!
Once it quit, & cooled down for a few miute, I thought, I`d better be
sure where it was coming from. I turned on the electric fuel pump & the
carb bowl instantly was wet & dripping again.
Since it was hot outside, & in the hangar, & the engine was still hot, I
left the airport ticked off, thinking I`d research the possible problems
& check out solutions.
Not knowing that much about bing 64s, I asked a few of my fellow Kolb
drivers their opinions, and, once I learned more, Agreed that it must be
a sticking float needle & or float bowl gasket.
Didn`t get to get back to it until Tuesday, & had a helper flip on the
fuel pump again & after repeated checks, found that it was the Brass
fitting that the fuel line attached to! This wasn`t a threaded in
fitting like on the new carbs, but a "pressed in fitting" (Pressed in
according to the folks at BING in Kansas)
LOOOONg story short, (I know, too late, its already long), the folks at
Bing, L. E. A. F. & Lockwood, have never seen this before & each had a
different recommendation. The bottom line was this, that fitting was not
just pressed in, but was inserted with an "O"-ring. The O-ring was
letting fuel pass by. Once I got the fitting out, found that it was a
Nickel fix, re-inserted it a new o-ring with some green Locktite ( LEAF
Recommended), I enjoyed a 15 minute check flight yesterday, & 1.2 hours
today.
I also bought the fuel drip pan kit from CPS & will install it shortly .
Some of you may have already known of this O-ring deal before, but
Since Bing & LEAF & Lockwood didn`t, I thought I `d pass it along.The
folks with thread-in fittings have an advantage, cuz the seal will be
easier to replace.
Jim Kmet
Cookeville TN
MK-3C 912
MK-3C 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Cowan" <tc1917(at)bellsouth.net> |
sorry about the name change, meant the same person, just had the wrong
handle on it. (age thing). Sorry Dondi -- you are nicer than Dolly anyway.
Actually, now that you mention alum. rivets -- according to an aviation mech
for the Navy, Yes, we SHOULD be using alum rivets. I dont think you want to
either pay for or pull these rivets though. I think they are called cherry
max or something like that. Steel rivets of good quality should do the
trick. Hinges and such are still the same thing, light weight alum tube
either way. The new tubes for most all the planes out there, other than the
five rib firestar, are all a thicker quality and might quite easily take the
SS rivets. My remarks were zeroed in on the five rib, light weight original
firestar and any others with the thin walled tubing.
Hope this clearifies this. ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
Just to make sure everyone is clear on this, under NO circumstance should
you use plain aluminum pop rivets in the construction of a Kolb aircraft.
Good quality steel or stainless steel pop rivets only.
Aluminum pop rivets of the downspout type are nowhere near strong enough for
aircraft use.
Denny Rowe
>
> sorry about the name change, meant the same person, just had the wrong
> handle on it. (age thing). Sorry Dondi -- you are nicer than Dolly
> anyway.
> Actually, now that you mention alum. rivets -- according to an aviation
> mech
> for the Navy, Yes, we SHOULD be using alum rivets. I dont think you want
> to
> either pay for or pull these rivets though. I think they are called cherry
> max or something like that. Steel rivets of good quality should do the
> trick. Hinges and such are still the same thing, light weight alum tube
> either way. The new tubes for most all the planes out there, other than
> the
> five rib firestar, are all a thicker quality and might quite easily take
> the
> SS rivets. My remarks were zeroed in on the five rib, light weight
> original
> firestar and any others with the thin walled tubing.
> Hope this clearifies this. ted
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Hartung" <hartungj(at)srt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: older firestar |
Hi All, reply to rivet comments. I don't remember any references where
kolb recommended using aluminum rivets, I believe the discussion is
between using steel rivets which came with many kits or the use of
stainless steel rivets. (Steel Rivets vs. Stainless Steel Rivets), you
should not use aluminum rivets anywhere except on wing fabric attach
special rivet per instruction of the plans.
I Also remember the recommendations about mixing a sun blocker with the
poly tone paint and skipping an expensive and heavy silver sun blocking
coat to save weight and cost, this is especially true if the plane is
hangered and not going to set outside all the time.
Couldn't resist the comment and old memories, hope I got it right.
Jim H, 4 kolbs.
REF: Mike. To clear matters up=2C were you making the point that we
should use alumi
num rivets=2C instead of SS rivets? I recently bought a huge supply
of SS
rivets=2C specifically for attaching my ailerons and flaps. Is it
your opi
nion that a guy should just use aluminum ones?
REF: Ted. By the way, eliminating the silver
undercoat UV protectant-filler, you can save a ton of money and weight
and
use the UV protection you add to the poly tone paint.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 05/23/09 |
| From: | david watkins <david.watkins0(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for the tip, Jim. Congratulations on finally receiving some flyable
weather there in Cookeville. We're still waiting (along with the Shuttle)
for calm weather in Florida!
Dave
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Kolb-List Digest Server <
kolb-list(at)matronics.com> wrote:
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete Kolb-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the Kolb-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 09-05-23&Archive=Kolb
>
> Text Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 09-05-23&Archive=Kolb
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Kolb-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Sat 05/23/09: 6
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 03:42 AM - older firestar (Ted Cowan)
> 2. 05:38 AM - Re: older firestar (Mike Welch)
> 3. 08:43 AM - Re: Re: Monument Valley (b young)
> 4. 09:33 AM - Re: Re: Monument Valley (loseyf(at)comcast.net)
> 5. 10:42 AM - Final at Monument Valley (dalewhelan)
> 6. 06:44 PM - Bing Carb Problem FYI (Jim Kmet)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Ted Cowan" <tc1917(at)bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Kolb-List: older firestar
>
>
> I am again going to chime in and mention something about SS rivets. If
> this
> is an older Firestar, five rib, etc., you have better check the size and
> thickness of the tubing. The older firestars had really thin tubing on the
> leading and trailing edges. Now, it is my opinion (my opinion AND
> experience) that if you are the first one to drill the holes, they are nice
> and tight and MIGHT hold a SS rivet but you will really suffer if you have
> to repair damage or recover later. If it is a repair job, the holes have
> been reamed out by drilling or possibly someone used an oversized drill
> (this was recommended way back when) to facilitate rivet installation, your
> SS rivets might crack the holes, pull through or not even pop when
> installed. (you are going to hate yourself in the morning). If you are
> going to keep the bird in a hanger or trailer or whatever, the rivets are
> going to only get minimal exposure to moister. Some of the builders put
> anti rust stuff on the rivets before covering (if they were flying over
> water) and I think that might be a good idea. Again, if you pull SS rivets
> on these lightweight tubes, you are looking and are going to find trouble.
> A bunch of you who have not rebuild a dozen of these crafts in the last ten
> or twelve years, are going to resist or say bull s____t but, I am telling
> you, dislike materials dont like each other to begin with, i.e., steel (SS)
> rivets vs very thin alum.and you know what, alum usually looses. My
> opinion. By the way, these suggestions were passed on to me by Dennis S.
> back when I was a nubie at this. I have never had one come apart. Up to
> you. Hope you have a great time. By the way, eliminating the silver
> undercoat UV protectant-filler, you can save a ton of money and weight and
> use the UV protection you add to the poly tone paint. Call Dolly and she
> can explain it to you. Works for me. Lots of ways to save money and
> weight
> for the ole five ribber. Have a great weekend. Thanks for the pics of MV.
> Gotta do that some day. Ted Cowan, Alabama, Slingshot, 912, zoom zoom.
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: older firestar
>
>
> >Call Dolly and she
> > can explain it to you. Works for me. Lots of ways to save money and weigh
> t
> > for the ole five ribber. Have a great weekend. Thanks for the pics of MV.
>
> > Gotta do that some day. Ted Cowan=2C Alabama=2C Slingshot=2C 912=2C zoom
> zoom.
>
> Ted=2C
>
> No argumment with your rivet experience or beliefs=2C but respectfully=2C
> the lovely lady's name is Dondi=2C not Dolly. Unless=2C of course=2C we w
> ere talking about Parton. She's lovely=2C too.
>
> To clear matters up=2C were you making the point that we should use alumi
> num rivets=2C instead of SS rivets? I recently bought a huge supply of SS
> rivets=2C specifically for attaching my ailerons and flaps. Is it your opi
> nion that a guy should just use aluminum ones?
>
> Mike Welch
> MkIII
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail=AE.
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tut
> orial_QuickAdd1_052009
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net>
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Monument Valley
>
>
> Is there a date for 2010 yet?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Every year it has been the weekend after mothers day.
>
> Boyd Young
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 4
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Monument Valley
> From: loseyf(at)comcast.net
>
>
> Thank you Sir. Looks like a great place, I have vacationed on Lake Powell,
> Bryce
> and Zion....truly one of God's gifts!
>
> Thanks
> ------Original Message------
> From: b young
> Sender: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> ReplyTo: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: May 23, 2009 11:42 AM
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Monument Valley
>
>
> Is there a date for 2010 yet?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Every year it has been the weekend after mothers day.
>
> Boyd Young
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 5
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Final at Monument Valley
> From: "dalewhelan" <dalewhelan(at)earthlink.net>
>
>
> Shot by my ballast in a Firestar II May 2009
>
> --------
> Dale Whelan
> 503 powered Firestar II
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245070#245070
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc02012_194.jpg
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 6
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Bing Carb Problem FYI
>
> Hi All,
> For what its worth, I though I`d share a recent problem & solution with
> a Bing carb I had this week. It all started last Sat, when after a short
> flight in my MK3C 912 bird, one of my bing 64 carbs started leaking
> after engine shutdown. It quit after a minute or so, but not after
> scaring the bejeebers out of me, cuz the fuel was boiling off of a hot
> exhaust pipe!
> Once it quit, & cooled down for a few miute, I thought, I`d better be
> sure where it was coming from. I turned on the electric fuel pump & the
> carb bowl instantly was wet & dripping again.
> Since it was hot outside, & in the hangar, & the engine was still hot, I
> left the airport ticked off, thinking I`d research the possible problems
> & check out solutions.
> Not knowing that much about bing 64s, I asked a few of my fellow Kolb
> drivers their opinions, and, once I learned more, Agreed that it must be
> a sticking float needle & or float bowl gasket.
> Didn`t get to get back to it until Tuesday, & had a helper flip on the
> fuel pump again & after repeated checks, found that it was the Brass
> fitting that the fuel line attached to! This wasn`t a threaded in
> fitting like on the new carbs, but a "pressed in fitting" (Pressed in
> according to the folks at BING in Kansas)
> LOOOONg story short, (I know, too late, its already long), the folks at
> Bing, L. E. A. F. & Lockwood, have never seen this before & each had a
> different recommendation. The bottom line was this, that fitting was not
> just pressed in, but was inserted with an "O"-ring. The O-ring was
> letting fuel pass by. Once I got the fitting out, found that it was a
> Nickel fix, re-inserted it a new o-ring with some green Locktite ( LEAF
> Recommended), I enjoyed a 15 minute check flight yesterday, & 1.2 hours
> today.
> I also bought the fuel drip pan kit from CPS & will install it shortly .
> Some of you may have already known of this O-ring deal before, but
> Since Bing & LEAF & Lockwood didn`t, I thought I `d pass it along.The
> folks with thread-in fittings have an advantage, cuz the seal will be
> easier to replace.
>
> Jim Kmet
> Cookeville TN
> MK-3C 912
> MK-3C 582
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
Thanks for the reply Ted=2C and Denny=2C
Like I said=2C I purchased the SS rivets for attaching my ailerons and fl
aps. I planned on using these=2C but got the impression Ted was saying alu
minum ones would be better. I will continue with "Plan A" and use the SS r
ivets.
Thanks again=2C Mike Welch
> Just to make sure everyone is clear on this=2C under NO circumstance shou
ld
> you use plain aluminum pop rivets in the construction of a Kolb aircraft.
> Good quality steel or stainless steel pop rivets only.
> Aluminum pop rivets of the downspout type are nowhere near strong enough
for
> aircraft use.
>
> Denny Rowe
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail=AE.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tut
orial_QuickAdd1_052009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
some interesting info:
http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/ht-87-1.html
scroll to the page bottom for his flush rivet mod
BB
On 24, May 2009, at 9:45 AM, Mike Welch wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Ted, and Denny,
>
> Like I said, I purchased the SS rivets for attaching my ailerons
> and flaps. I planned on using these, but got the impression Ted
> was saying aluminum ones would be better. I will continue with
> "Plan A" and use the SS rivets.
>
> Thanks again, Mike Welch
>
> > Just to make sure everyone is clear on this, under NO
> circumstance should
> > you use plain aluminum pop rivets in the construction of a Kolb
> aircraft.
> > Good quality steel or stainless steel pop rivets only.
> > Aluminum pop rivets of the downspout type are nowhere near strong
> enough for
> > aircraft use.
> >
> > Denny Rowe
>
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail=AE. See how.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Bing Carb Problem FYI |
the folks at Bing, L. E. A. F. & Lockwood, have never seen this before &
each had a different recommendation. The bottom line was this, that fitting
was not just pressed in, but was inserted with an "O"-ring. The O-ring was
letting fuel pass by. Once I got the fitting out, found that it was a Nickel
fix, re-inserted it a new o-ring with some green Locktite ( LEAF
Recommended),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
How did you get it out without destroying it?. was it loose, or did it take
a bit of twisting and pulling? What kind of o ring did you use? All
orings are not made of the same material, was what you used suitable for
use with gas?
Boyd Young
MKIIIC
Utah
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
After 2,933.7 hours on my mkIII, it still has all its SS rivets. ;-)
Built the US in 1984, with carbon steel. Some of them rusted. When I
got ready to build the FS in 1986, Kolb was still shipping carbon steel
rivets with their kits. Little Mike got me SS rivets for my FS. Soon
after, kits were shipped with SS rivets.
Never had a problem with corrosion between the SS rivets and aluminum.
Was true, the US and original FS were shipped with .028" 6061 leading
and trailing edge tubes, and 5/16" rib tubes. Later kits had .032"
tubing. Not a whole lot of difference when you get right down to the
nitty gritty.
Takes a really crude craftsman to screw up construction of a Kolb kit,
but I guess there are of few of those out there.
john h
mkIII
Rock House, OR
Like I said, I purchased the SS rivets for attaching my ailerons and
flaps. I planned on using these, but got the impression Ted was saying
aluminum ones would be better. I will continue with "Plan A" and use
the SS rivets.
Thanks again, Mike Welch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bing Carb Problem FYI |
Boy I hope it`s compatable with gas, now you`ve prompted me to do some
more research on the other ones in this o-ring stash that it came from.I
got it out by having a helper securly hold the carb on a work bench, & I
put a short pc of fuel line over the nipple to cushion & protect it.
Then held it just below the flare with a unique pair of pliers that when
clamped, held close to the same diameter as the pipe nipple, & tapped
the Pliers with the hammer, away from the carb body, & after a few Raps,
it popped out.
now on to research to make sure I put a gas compatable o-ring on it. If
not, I gotta do it again, thanks for the heads up on the o-rings.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: b young
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 9:47 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Bing Carb Problem FYI
the folks at Bing, L. E. A. F. & Lockwood, have never seen this
before & each had a different recommendation. The bottom line was this,
that fitting was not just pressed in, but was inserted with an "O"-ring.
The O-ring was letting fuel pass by. Once I got the fitting out, found
that it was a Nickel fix, re-inserted it a new o-ring with some green
Locktite ( LEAF Recommended),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
How did you get it out without destroying it?. was it loose, or did
it take a bit of twisting and pulling? What kind of o ring did you
use? All orings are not made of the same material, was what you used
suitable for use with gas?
Boyd Young
MKIIIC
Utah
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bing Carb Problem FYI |
| From: | "Thomas R. Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Here is a fluid compatibility guide for o-ring materials that may help you.
http://www.allorings.com/compatibility.htm
Thom in Buffalo
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Jim Kmet wrote:
> Boy I hope it`s compatable with gas, now you`ve prompted me to do some
> more research on the other ones in this o-ring stash that it came from.I
got
> it out by having a helper securly hold the carb on a work bench, & I put
a
> short pc of fuel line over the nipple to cushion & protect it. Then held
it
> just below the flare with a unique pair of pliers that when clamped, held
> close to the same diameter as the pipe nipple, & tapped the Pliers with t
he
> hammer, away from the carb body, & after a few Raps, it popped out.
> now on to research to make sure I put a gas compatable o-ring on it. If
> not, I gotta do it again, thanks for the heads up on the o-rings.
> Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* b young
> *To:* kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 24, 2009 9:47 AM
> *Subject:* RE: Kolb-List: Bing Carb Problem FYI
>
> the folks at Bing, L. E. A. F. & Lockwood, have never seen this before
&
> each had a different recommendation. The bottom line was this, that fitti
ng
> was not just pressed in, but was inserted with an "O"-ring. The O-ring wa
s
> letting fuel pass by. Once I got the fitting out, found that it was a Nic
kel
> fix, re-inserted it a new o-ring with some green Locktite ( LEAF
> Recommended),
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
>
>
> How did you get it out without destroying it?=85 was it loose, or did it
> take a bit of twisting and pulling? What kind of o ring did you use? A
ll
> orings are not made of the same material, was what you used suitable fo
r
> use with gas?
>
>
> Boyd Young
>
> MKIIIC
>
> Utah
>
> *href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
*
>
===========
ronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
===========
===========
com/contribution
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bing Carb Problem FYI |
Thanks for the chart, they are NBR & according to this chart, they are
recommended for gasoline. Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas R. Riddle
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Bing Carb Problem FYI
Here is a fluid compatibility guide for o-ring materials that may help
you.
http://www.allorings.com/compatibility.htm
Thom in Buffalo
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Jim Kmet
wrote:
Boy I hope it`s compatable with gas, now you`ve prompted me to do
some more research on the other ones in this o-ring stash that it came
from.I got it out by having a helper securly hold the carb on a work
bench, & I put a short pc of fuel line over the nipple to cushion &
protect it. Then held it just below the flare with a unique pair of
pliers that when clamped, held close to the same diameter as the pipe
nipple, & tapped the Pliers with the hammer, away from the carb body, &
after a few Raps, it popped out.
now on to research to make sure I put a gas compatable o-ring on it.
If not, I gotta do it again, thanks for the heads up on the o-rings.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: b young
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 9:47 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Bing Carb Problem FYI
the folks at Bing, L. E. A. F. & Lockwood, have never seen this
before & each had a different recommendation. The bottom line was this,
that fitting was not just pressed in, but was inserted with an "O"-ring.
The O-ring was letting fuel pass by. Once I got the fitting out, found
that it was a Nickel fix, re-inserted it a new o-ring with some green
Locktite ( LEAF Recommended),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
How did you get it out without destroying it?=85 was it loose, or
did it take a bit of twisting and pulling? What kind of o ring did you
use? All orings are not made of the same material, was what you used
suitable for use with gas?
Boyd Young
MKIIIC
Utah
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
==== get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
a>http://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley |
In a message dated 5/22/2009 10:42:55 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
slyck(at)frontiernet.net writes:
I was going to ask for more details but this last pic tells the story.
BB, steel legs on and brakes bled. Time to tow it up the hill.
**************Recession-proof vacation ideas. Find free things to do in
the U.S.
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chris davis <capedavis(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley |
I sorry i missed all the news on this mishap but i Have 2 questions was the
pilot hurt and I believe that it was a downwind landing that got him , by
looking at the photos of the MV field I would swear that I could land my KX
P in both directions with a 1000 ft to spare is it a field rule that you la
nd and take off in the same direction? Please excuse my ignorance if this h
as been discussed before .--- Chris=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A___________________
_____________=0AFrom: "WillUribe(at)aol.com" <WillUribe(at)aol.com>=0ATo: kolb-li
st(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:59:02 PM=0ASubject: Re: Kol
b-List: Monument Valley=0A=0AIn a message dated 5/22/2009 10:42:55 A.M. Mou
ntain Daylight Time, slyck(at)frontiernet.net writes:=0A=0AI was going to ask
for more details but this last pic tells the story.=0ABB, steel legs on and
brakes bled.- Time to tow it up the hill.=0A=0A=0A______________________
__________=0ARecession-proof vacation ideas. Find free things to do in the
U.S.=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley |
ouch, that'll keep someone out of trouble for a spell.
BB
On 24, May 2009, at 5:59 PM, WillUribe(at)aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/22/2009 10:42:55 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
> slyck(at)frontiernet.net writes:
>
> I was going to ask for more details but this last pic tells the story.
> BB, steel legs on and brakes bled. Time to tow it up the hill.
>
>
>
> Recession-proof vacation ideas. Find free things to do in the
> U.S. 20090516-1127.jpg>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | K I <wrk2win4u(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | sport pilot certificate |
Hi again list=2C
I am buying a Kolb Mark 3. Ii has an =93N=94 number and received an =93air
worthiness=94 certificate in 1996.
I have been told that it does qualify as a =93light sport=94 and can be flo
wn with a sport pilot license.
Have I been misinformed?
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail=AE goes with you.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutor
ial_Mobile1_052009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sport pilot certificate |
Your new plane will qualify as a "light sport" unless a in flight
adjustable prop has been installed.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: K I
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 7:46 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: sport pilot certificate
Hi again list,
I am buying a Kolb Mark 3. Ii has an =93N=94 number and received an
=93air worthiness=94 certificate in 1996.
I have been told that it does qualify as a =93light sport=94 and can
be flown with a sport pilot license.
Have I been misinformed?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Hotmail=AE goes with you. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gliderx5(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: sport pilot certificate |
Your information is correct. You can fly the aircraft described with a spor
t pilot certificate. Welcome to the group and enjoy your Kolb.
Malcolm Morrison
----- Original Message -----
From: "K I" <wrk2win4u(at)msn.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 7:46:42 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Kolb-List: sport pilot certificate
Hi again list,
I am buying a Kolb Mark 3. Ii has an =9CN=9D number and receive
d an =9Cair worthiness=9D certificate in 1996.
I have been told that it does qualify as a =9Clight sport=9D an
d can be flown with a sport pilot license.
Have I been misinformed?
=======
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: sport pilot certificate |
| From: | "George Alexander" <gtalexander(at)att.net> |
wrk2win4u(at)msn.com wrote:
>
> < < > >
> I am buying a Kolb Mark 3. Ii has an N number and received an air worthiness
certificate in 1996.
> < < > >
>
Airworthiness in 1996 most likely makes it an Experimental - Amateur Built (as
opposed to Experimental - Light Sport).
Can be flown with a Sport Pilot certificate with the proper log book endorsement.
(AP-2 most likely).
--------
George Alexander
FS II R503 N709FS
http://gtalexander.home.att.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245217#245217
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bing Carb Problem FYI |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Glad to help.
On a related subject, according to this material compatibility chart, the Viton
tips on the float valves in Bing 64 carbs on 912 engines is rated only Marginal
for Ethyl Alcohol. So those of us flying with 912 engines should keep close
eye on these valves if we are running ethanol laced autogas.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY
http://riddletr.googlepages.com/sportpilot-cfi
http://riddletr.googlepages.com/a%26pmechanix
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system
that works.
- John Gaule
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245235#245235
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
Morning Gang:
In a few minutes I will begin my 1,884 sm journey back to Alabama from
the Rock House. If I average 75 mph it will require 25 hours flight
time. With the help of a good tail wind and fair weather, I can get
home in 3 days. Or, it could be like last year and take 5 days.
Today I remember my friend John Williamson. It is the first anniversary
of his crash at the Skinner Ranch.
John B departed for Burley, ID, about an hour ago. He wanted to land in
Idaho for the first time. We hope to marry up in Brigham City, UT.
Bruce C spent the night in Goodland, KS, last night. Same place I RON'd
last year. Good folks there, as were in Laramie, WY.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
Rock House, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heading Home |
| From: | loseyf(at)comcast.net |
Safe Journey Sir.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 08:07:31
Subject: Kolb-List: Heading Home
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Bing Carb Problem FYI |
Boy I hope it`s compatable with gas, now you`ve prompted me to do some more
research on the other ones in this o-ring stash that it came from.I got it
out by having a helper securly hold the carb on a work bench, & I put a
short pc of fuel line over the nipple to cushion & protect it. Then held it
just below the flare with a unique pair of pliers that when clamped, held
close to the same diameter as the pipe nipple, & tapped the Pliers with the
hammer, away from the carb body, & after a few Raps, it popped out.
now on to research to make sure I put a gas compatable o-ring on it. If not,
I gotta do it again, thanks for the heads up on the o-rings.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
If you put it together with green locktite,,,, it will probably never come
out or leak. I was told when I had to remove a part that was factory
installed,, or supposedly put in with green locktite,, that you had to
heat the part to 300 to 400 deg to get it out. The green locktite may
hold it with or without an oring.
Boyd Young
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Bing Carb Problem FYI |
Boy I hope it`s compatable with gas, now you`ve prompted me to do some more
research on the other ones in this o-ring stash that it came from.I got it
out by having a helper securly hold the carb on a work bench, & I put a
short pc of fuel line over the nipple to cushion & protect it. Then held it
just below the flare with a unique pair of pliers that when clamped, held
close to the same diameter as the pipe nipple, & tapped the Pliers with the
hammer, away from the carb body, & after a few Raps, it popped out.
now on to research to make sure I put a gas compatable o-ring on it. If not,
I gotta do it again, thanks for the heads up on the o-rings.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
If you put it together with green locktite,,,, it will probably never come
out or leak. I was told when I had to remove a part that was factory
installed,, or supposedly put in with green locktite,, that you had to
heat the part to 300 to 400 deg to get it out. The green locktite may
hold it with or without an oring.
Boyd Young
Just read the post about the o ring being compatible. good on you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heading Home |
Bon Voyage, John!
On May 25, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Larry Cottrell wrote:
> Morning Gang:
>
> In a few minutes I will begin my 1,884 sm journey back to Alabama
> from the Rock House. If I average 75 mph it will require 25 hours
> flight time. With the help of a good tail wind and fair weather, I
> can get home in 3 days. Or, it could be like last year and take 5
> days.
>
> Today I remember my friend John Williamson. It is the first
> anniversary of his crash at the Skinner Ranch.
>
> John B departed for Burley, ID, about an hour ago. He wanted to
> land in Idaho for the first time. We hope to marry up in Brigham
> City, UT.
>
> Bruce C spent the night in Goodland, KS, last night. Same place I
> RON'd last year. Good folks there, as were in Laramie, WY.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
> mkIII
> Rock House, OR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | empty nest syndrome. |
Every one has now gone on their way back home and the wife and I now
have to cope with the quiet of a house once full of celebration and
happy chatter and yes, a bit of bull as well. Every one that was here
was a real character, and a pleasure to be around. With eight people all
sharing one bathroom and a table too small for such a large group, it
went surprisingly well. Every one chipped in doing their share and more
if one did not watch them closely. It was a great time for us and the
highlight of our spring, and we are grateful that they chose to share
that time with us.
We made a trip to visit John Williamson and reflect on his visits and
how much all of us miss him and his cheerful personality.
Take care of yourselves,
Larry Cottrell
Rock House, Jordan Valley, Or.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bing Carb Problem FYI |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
Thom Riddle wrote:
> Glad to help.
>
> On a related subject, according to this material compatibility chart, the Viton
tips on the float valves in Bing 64 carbs on 912 engines is rated only Marginal
for Ethyl Alcohol. So those of us flying with 912 engines should keep close
eye on these valves if we are running ethanol laced autogas.
great.... and here I was thinking Rotax approved 10% with no restrictions including
the carburettors.
I'd take that to mean the carburettor parts should still last their normal lifetimes,
but we can't let the maintenance slip as long as before ;).
FWIW, I'm on my 3rd tank (maybe 4th) of 10% premium with no running problems or
problems with the fuel system. So far no vapour lock or even so much as a burp
even up to about 9000'. I guess it'll be years from now before I could find
out about any corrosion problems or shortened lifetimes of carburettor rubbers.
Time to order my carburettor overhaul kits anyway....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245269#245269
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Needed a Kolb Ultralight |
Folks:
If anyone knows of a Kolb Ultrlight for sale, somewhere in the S.W. let me know.
I just run into a fellow that needs an Ultrlight in running condition for a
some survey project.
My own project is slow coming along even though progress is being made, but its
not going to be ready in time.
Reply ASAP
Thanks
Ron @ KFHU
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Thacker <gbthacker(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Needed a Kolb Ultralight |
Gary
Souderton=2CPa.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
> Date: Mon=2C 25 May 2009 13:11:27 -0400
> From: captainron1(at)cox.net
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Needed a Kolb Ultralight
>
>
> Folks:
>
> If anyone knows of a Kolb Ultrlight for sale=2C somewhere in the S.W. let
me know. I just run into a fellow that needs an Ultrlight in running condi
tion for a some survey project.
> My own project is slow coming along even though progress is being made=2C
but its not going to be ready in time.
>
> Reply ASAP
>
> Thanks
> Ron @ KFHU
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail=AE.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tut
orial_QuickAdd1_052009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Thacker <gbthacker(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Needed a Kolb Ultralight |
ron
I am considering selling my Firestar II. It has about 50 hours on it. Jus
t a tad less. I live in Pa though.
Gary
Souderton=2CPa.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
> Date: Mon=2C 25 May 2009 13:11:27 -0400
> From: captainron1(at)cox.net
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Needed a Kolb Ultralight
>
>
> Folks:
>
> If anyone knows of a Kolb Ultrlight for sale=2C somewhere in the S.W. let
me know. I just run into a fellow that needs an Ultrlight in running condi
tion for a some survey project.
> My own project is slow coming along even though progress is being made=2C
but its not going to be ready in time.
>
> Reply ASAP
>
> Thanks
> Ron @ KFHU
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: empty nest syndrome. |
| From: | jvanlaak(at)aol.com |
I am one of those people who read the Kolb list every day but rarely contribute
anything.? It is not for lack of understanding Kolb fun - I built one of the
first Firestars in the late 80's - but lack of participation.? I sold the Firestar
15 years ago to get a 2 place something or other and all I have to fly right
now is a Comanche, but?I look forward to?buying a Mark III Extra sometime
soon.? It will have to be a completed and flying one because I work in a town
200 miles from my home and building would take decades, but I am more a flyer
than a builder anyway......
What brings me to write today is to say that even though I am a "lurker" rather
than a contributor, I am struck by the warmth and fellowship shared by so many
here.? So many groups on the internet are always competing with one another,
sniping, flaming, and so on.? But you all chew the fat as if you?grew up together?and
you make me?feel like a??distant member of this fun family.? Larry's
note is only one example,?but a fine one that exemplifies the best about your
group.
Perhaps we?will meet someday at a flyin, but even if we never do, thank you for
making me feel welcome.
Jim Van Laak
Poquoson, VA
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Cottrell <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com>
Sent: Mon, 25 May 2009 11:43 am
Subject: Kolb-List: empty nest syndrome.
Every one has now gone on their way back home and the wife and I now have to cope
with the quiet of a house once full of celebration and happy chatter and yes,
a bit of bull as well. Every one that was here was a real character, and a
pleasure to be around. With eight people all sharing one bathroom and a table
too small for such a large group, it went surprisingly well. Every one chipped
in doing their?share and more if one did not watch them closely. It was a great
time for us and the highlight of our spring, and we are grateful that they
chose to share that time with us.
?
We made a trip to visit John Williamson and reflect on his visits and how much
all of us miss him and his cheerful personality.
?
?
?
?
?
?
Take care of yourselves,
Larry Cottrell
Rock House, Jordan Valley, Or.
?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pj.ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heading Home |
In a few minutes I will begin my 1,884 sm journey back to Alabama >>
Fair winds.
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mark rinehart <capt_riney(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Aluminum Fuel Tank for MIII |
I had a 20 gal aluminum tank made for my MIII project. For those of you who have
done something similar, how did you support it? I'm planning on riveting an
.063 thick aluminum pan to the steel cage tabs (the same tabs that would have
been used for the two 5-gal jug pan) and strapping the tank to it. The pan dimensions
are 36" x 14". Should I go thicker on the aluminum? Do I need to weld
more supports to the cage? 20 gal is a lot of weight and I want to be sure
it's properly supported. Thanks.
Mark Rinehart
Indy Kolb MIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum Fuel Tank for MIII |
I also had custom tanks made, mine are kidney type and they go on the bottom straddling
the tail boom. In fact I just recently finished welding lateral brackets
to support the tanks. If you can post a photo of your tanks so I know where
they go, maybe I can offer some ideas from what I have done.
Ron @ KFHU
================
---- mark rinehart wrote:
============
I had a 20 gal aluminum tank made for my MIII project. For those of you who have
done something similar, how did you support it? I'm planning on riveting an
.063 thick aluminum pan to the steel cage tabs (the same tabs that would have
been used for the two 5-gal jug pan) and strapping the tank to it. The pan dimensions
are 36" x 14". Should I go thicker on the aluminum? Do I need to weld
more supports to the cage? 20 gal is a lot of weight and I want to be sure
it's properly supported. Thanks.
Mark Rinehart
Indy Kolb MIII
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stripping a Firestar wing |
At 12:35 PM 5/22/2009, Richard Girard wrote:
>....Recover per Appendix A with the Navajo Silver option to save weight
>but get full UV protection.
Can you elaborate on that?
-Dana
--
Does fuzzy logic tickle?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sport pilot certificate |
At 08:55 PM 5/24/2009, Richard & Martha Neilsen wrote:
>Your new plane will qualify as a "light sport" unless a in flight
>adjustable prop has been installed.
... and provided the gross weight is listed as being under 1320 lbs.
-Dana
--
Does fuzzy logic tickle?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is a Mark 3 Xtra considered Light Sport? |
At 08:13 PM 5/22/2009, Richard Girard wrote:
>...If your father in law has a builders log you could try getting it
>through as experimental amatuer built, but since the aircraft has been
>flown as an ultralight you probably don't have much chance of getting that
>one either...
I could be wrong, but I believe you can register an aircraft as E-AB
regardless of whether it's been flown as an ultralight... I know of a
couple of Quicksilvers like that, built and flown in the 1980's and
recently registered E-AB, not E-LSA. As I understand it, the deadline
applied only to aircraft that didn't meet the 51% rule. Of course it may
depend on the local DAR...
-Dana
--
Does fuzzy logic tickle?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stripping a Firestar wing |
Dana- The Poly Fiber instruction book, Appendix "A", says that both Navajo
Silver and Piper Trainer Blue contain full UV protection right in the paint
.- The Poly Spray stage of the covering process can be skipped.- I have
both manuals, and they confirm what Rick said.
-
-------------------------
-------------------------
-- Bill Sullivan
-------------------------
-------------------------
-- Windsor Locks, Ct.
-------------------------
-------------------------
-- FS 447
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stripping a Firestar wing |
At 07:44 PM 5/26/2009, william sullivan wrote:
>Dana- The Poly Fiber instruction book, Appendix "A", says that both Navajo
>Silver and Piper Trainer Blue contain full UV protection right in the
>paint. The Poly Spray stage of the covering process can be skipped.
Interesting, I didn't know that! Hmmm, I may have to rethink my favorite
colors for airplanes...
-Dana
--
A day without sunshine is like, night.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william sullivan <williamtsullivan(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stripping a Firestar wing |
Dana- I was slightly mistaken about the colors.- Poly tone 220M Nevada Si
lver; Poly Tone 222M Rancho Silver; and Poly Tone 318M Piper Trainer Blue a
re the colors containing full UV protection.- They estimate a 10 to 11 po
und weight saving on an ultralight, with no loss of protection.- Very int
eresting reading.- I got my copies from Jim and Dondi Miller at Aircraft
Technical Support.
-
-------------------------
------------------ Bill Sullivan
-------------------------
------------------ Windsor Locks, Ct
-------------------------
------------------ FS 447 (probably goi
ng to be Piper Trainer Blue)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is a Mark 3 Xtra considered Light Sport? |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
Dana wrote:
>
> I could be wrong, but I believe you can register an aircraft as E-AB
> regardless of whether it's been flown as an ultralight... I know of a
> couple of Quicksilvers like that, built and flown in the 1980's and
> recently registered E-AB, not E-LSA. As I understand it, the deadline
> applied only to aircraft that didn't meet the 51% rule. Of course it may
> depend on the local DAR...
>
> -Dana
>
As long as it was at least 51% built by an amateur for his/her own rec./ed., and
it has never held another airworthiness certificate before, EAB is available.
My plane was like that, it flew for a while under the exemptions as a UL trainer
after it was first built. After some time and even an engine swap it was put
under EAB.
All the so-called "lawn ornaments" supposedly now unflyable because of the expiration
of the "grandfather" ELSA option are nothing of the kind - they are also
eligible for EAB if they meet the rules....... Just like always, this didn't
change with the "gELSA" expiration........
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245496#245496
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is a Mark 3 Xtra considered Light Sport? |
>
As long as it was at least 51% built by an amateur for his/her own
rec./ed., and it has never held another airworthiness certificate
before, EAB is available.
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
I believe that they can still be registered as EAB even if you did not
build the 51 percent, you just can't get the repairman's certificate.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is a Mark 3 Xtra considered Light Sport? |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
[quote="lcottrell"]
>
> I believe that they can still be registered as EAB even if you did not build
the 51 percent, you just can't get the repairman's certificate.
> Larry
>
Right - but it has to have been 51% amateur built by _somebody_ to get the AW cert,
you still have to prove that. But yeah you don't have to be the original
builder to get the AW cert.
In some cases, it's so obvious that it had to have been built from a kit by an
amateur and 51% or more too, that you can still sometimes satisfy a DAR without
a builder's log or a very minimal one. I.e. an older wire-braced quick that
simply couldn't have been built commercially or by the factory by any stretch
of the imagination......
I've heard of EAB a/w certs being issued under circumstances like this.....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245507#245507
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | short face book album |
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid 17267&id=1002056194&l=a5ce0
d1ecb
I did a short highlight of our trip to Monument Valley and some of the
activities after we and the MV gaggle returned here.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
---- Bruce Chaisson wrote:
> What an adventure! 15 days, 4,400 miles, of unbelievable experiences.
> Bruce Chaisson
Glad Bruce got home safely. Got a call from John Bickham a little while ago. He
was unpacking after his return home this afternoon. I am waiting weather in
Neosho, MO. Arrived here last night in the rain just prior to dark. Sure was
good to see this little airport on the horizon. Will get out of here and head
for Alabama in the morning. 547 sm to go.
I have no idea how far I have flown so far. I accidentally deleted my odometer
in my GPS this morning. ;-( I can go back through the pilots log and add each
flight up, but that would take a long time to do. I have flown more than 50
hours this trip and am looking at about 6 or 7 more flight hours before returning
home.
The airplane and engine are doing great. No problems with either. Well, maybe
one. I put Slime in my tires prior to leaving home. Did not test fly. Discovered
on my takeoff the next morning that Slime really puts those 8X6 tires wayyyy
out of balance. Have been dealing with this little adversity since the
start of the flight. However,...I have not had a flat tire like one of my flying
buddies. ;-) Will order new tubes and replace on my return home.
If you fly through this area, Neosho is a very friendly airport. Billie Sallee,
airport manager, is first class. All the other airport managers in the North
American Continent could learn something from this young man. He takes care
of his customers.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Kulp <undoctor(at)ptd.net> |
| Subject: | Nothing whatever to do with Kolbs, but a lot to do with those |
of us who fly them.
Flying Folks,
Attached are a group of photos from the Memorial Day Air Show at Jones
Beach, NY. Because we love flying and flying machines, you'll love
these, for sure. For those unfamiliar with NYC, pictures #3 and #11 are
over the southern tip of Manhattan, where the twin towers used to be.
Enjoy - they're great pictures!!!
Dave Kulp
Bethlehem, PA
FF 11DMK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
John
Good to here your almost home.
Did someone else have a flat. I had a flat over night at Sault Ste. Marie a
few years ago on the way to Oshkosh. I added Slime to my flat tire the next
morning which got me to Oshkosh with a fully deflated tire. I didn't nose
over or anything but had a very short roll out with a very slow taxi. John W
landed right after me or in his words almost on top of me.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: MV
>
>
> ---- Bruce Chaisson wrote:
> > What an adventure! 15 days, 4,400 miles, of unbelievable experiences.
>> Bruce Chaisson
>
>
> Glad Bruce got home safely. Got a call from John Bickham a little while
> ago. He was unpacking after his return home this afternoon. I am waiting
> weather in Neosho, MO. Arrived here last night in the rain just prior to
> dark. Sure was good to see this little airport on the horizon. Will get
> out of here and head for Alabama in the morning. 547 sm to go.
>
> I have no idea how far I have flown so far. I accidentally deleted my
> odometer in my GPS this morning. ;-( I can go back through the pilots
> log and add each flight up, but that would take a long time to do. I have
> flown more than 50 hours this trip and am looking at about 6 or 7 more
> flight hours before returning home.
>
> The airplane and engine are doing great. No problems with either. Well,
> maybe one. I put Slime in my tires prior to leaving home. Did not test
> fly. Discovered on my takeoff the next morning that Slime really puts
> those 8X6 tires wayyyy out of balance. Have been dealing with this little
> adversity since the start of the flight. However,...I have not had a flat
> tire like one of my flying buddies. ;-) Will order new tubes and replace
> on my return home.
>
> If you fly through this area, Neosho is a very friendly airport. Billie
> Sallee, airport manager, is first class. All the other airport managers
> in the North American Continent could learn something from this young man.
> He takes care of his customers.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
----
> Did someone else have a flat.
>
> Rick Neilsen
Far as I know Bruce C was the only one to have a flat.
I had two last time I flew to Alaska. Got to thinking about that and the remote
areas we would be flying on the MV/Oregon flight. Decided on some insurance
through Slime. Got the insurance and more, out of balance tires.
Last year on the way out of MV, John W had a flat. He used a can of tire stuff
to get going. We landed at Richfield, UT for lunch. Stopped by Walmart and
each of us got another can for emergency use. Got a can in the airplane now.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Green <bgreen(at)bimi.org> |
I am building a Kolb MK III Extra, but have also flown many hours in Centra
l America as a missionary pilot.
A policy that I have is to never patch an airplane tire tube if at all poss
ible to replace it. I carrying a repair kit in the emergency tool kit in t
he plane and of course in a remote area there was no way to replace the tub
e. There is a lot riding on the tube. A patch can cause severe damage o
n landing if it did not "take".
Just a thought.
N830PB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Web Site Address Change |
Kolbers,
Time marches on, and things change in the Web World.
In the near future and due to circumstances beyond my control, the original http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly.html site will be closed down.
Everything that has been moved to: http://jackbhart.com/firefly/firefly.html
I know there will be broken links out there, so please accept my apologies.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nothing whatever to do with Kolbs, but a lot to do with |
those of us who fly them.
Many thanx for sharing those great photos. But PLEASE don't tell us
you shot them from your Kolb!
On May 28, 2009, at 11:07 PM, Dave Kulp wrote:
> Flying Folks,
>
> Attached are a group of photos from the Memorial Day Air Show at
> Jones Beach, NY. Because we love flying and flying machines,
> you'll love these, for sure. For those unfamiliar with NYC,
> pictures #3 and #11 are over the southern tip of Manhattan, where
> the twin towers used to be.
> Enjoy - they're great pictures!!!
>
> Dave Kulp
> Bethlehem, PA
> FF
> 11DMK e0055.jpg>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flat tires... |
FWIW I always carried a spare TUBE in my 170. Didn't weigh much. Also
didn't like the idea of a patch, and many airports didn't (& maybe
still don't) have 8 x 6 tubes. Tailwheel is not all that necessary,
so didn't carry a spare tube for that.
On May 29, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Bob Green wrote:
> I am building a Kolb MK III Extra, but have also flown many hours
> in Central America as a missionary pilot.
> A policy that I have is to never patch an airplane tire tube if at
> all possible to replace it. I carrying a repair kit in the
> emergency tool kit in the plane and of course in a remote area
> there was no way to replace the tube. There is a lot riding on
> the tube. A patch can cause severe damage on landing if it did
> not =93take=94.
> Just a thought.
> N830PB
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | John B back from Great Adventure Thursday! |
| From: | "John Bickham" <gearbender(at)bellsouth.net> |
I think I let everyone know that I made it home, but just in case....
Made it home after 16 great days. Landed Nauga Field about 3:30 pm on Thursday.
We would have been home sooner but John H and I waited for more favorable weather.
We tucked in behind a front and followed it all the way. John H caught
up to it in Missouri and should be getting home this afternoon. I had tailwinds
all the way!
Can't put into words how much fun I had and the great folks I had the pleasure
of spending time with. Too many to thank right now and I don't want to insult
anyone by leaving them out.
Trip Stats:
Total Trip Miles = 4569 sm
Moving average speed = 79.5 mph
Total average speed = 76.8 mph
Fuel used = 258.5 gallons
Avg Fuel burn = 4.24 GPH
Total Tach time = 61.0 hours
Lowest price for 100LL was at SWI @ $2.75
Highest price for 100LL was at GUP @ $4.45
Just a few things I learned:
1) You can read, talk, and type about flying at altitude, but until you've nursed
a plane off a high, hot runway, you haven't got a clue!
2) The extra 20 hp of the 912S is a great advantage flying at the high altitudes
and it shows up quickly in these conditions. I have the 912UL (80hp).
3) I thought I had prepared myself for high wind conditions prior to the flight.
What I did was good but not enough. Need to add tailwind landings to the prep
list. Waiting on light winds would leave you stranded for months out west.
4) Winds in some places out west change speed and/or direction in an instant.
You have to be on your toes when close to the ground.
5) There are almost unlimited places of natural beauty and wonderful people spread
out across this great nation. Take ten lifetimes to see and meet them all.
6) Larry C needs a new "calibrated" wind meter! [Wink]
7) I had more fun than I deserve!
I've got chores to catch up on having been gone so long. I have a few good pics
(nothing of the quality of Mike M's). When I get time, I'll figure out a way
to share those for those that are interested. I'm want to look at putting them
on Google Maps along our route. That would put them in sequence and at the
proper location. I'll let you know. Stay tuned!
--------
Thanks too much,
John Bickham
Mark III-C w/ 912UL
St. Francisville, LA
I know many pilots and a few true aviators. There is a distinct difference that
I have the greatest respect for.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245925#245925
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: John B back from Great Adventure Thursday! |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I really enjoyed reading your Blog John, even though it was short the pictures
were great and I checked your progress every day. A trip like that looks like
more fun than any super expensive vacation that anyone could ever take. I hope
to do the same one day ! Thanks for posting and letting us share in your
adventure.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245950#245950
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Folks I started the mating of the Suzuki motor to the Mounts. I need some measurements
as to prop clearances and measured distance from the Boom the the center
of the prop hub. I can't see where some of you reported where you had a 72
inch prop. I see where I can install a 70 inch prop on my mount but then clearance
will be down to about an inch. These are preliminary measurements for my
airframe.
Anyway I need to figure out what's what WRT that.
Thanks
Ron @ KFHU
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Ron=2C
I have a turbocharged Suzuki G1.0. & a 68" inflight electric adjust IvoPr
op. My measurements are: from tip of prop to boom tube=2C I have close to
2 3/4" clearance. Of course=2C you have a different redrive than I do=2C
but it sounds like your prop position is very close to mine.
Mike Welch
MkIII
> Folks I started the mating of the Suzuki motor to the Mounts. I need some
measurements as to prop clearances and measured distance from the Boom the
the center of the prop hub. I can't see where some of you reported where y
ou had a 72 inch prop. I see where I can install a 70 inch prop on my mount
but then clearance will be down to about an inch. These are preliminary me
asurements for my airframe.
> Anyway I need to figure out what's what WRT that.
>
> Thanks
> Ron @ KFHU
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail=AE goes with you.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutor
ial_Mobile1_052009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
> Folks I started the mating of the Suzuki motor to the Mounts. I need some
measurements as to prop clearances and measured distance from the Boom the
the center of the prop hub. I can't see where some of you reported where you
had a 72 inch prop. I see where I can install a 70 inch prop on my mount but
then clearance will be down to about an inch. These are preliminary
measurements for my airframe.
> Anyway I need to figure out what's what WRT that.
>
> Thanks
> Ron @ KFHU
I've flown with 70,71, and 72" props on my mkIII. Clearances ranged from
the "book" 1.5" to as little as .75". Currently have 1.25" with my new 71"
blades.
The lower the line of thrust the more efficient the system will be.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Kulp <undoctor(at)ptd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nothing whatever to do with Kolbs, but a lot to do with |
those of us who fly them.
Looks like the attachment didn't arrive with the post. The pics are
really great, but I don't want to send them in the body of the post in
consideration of those who still have dial up. If someone can tell me
how to get them here as an attachment I'll re-send them.
Dave Kulp
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nothing whatever to do with Kolbs, but a lot to do with |
those of us who fly them.
| From: | Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
They came across fine as attachments for me.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Dave Kulp wrote:
>
> Looks like the attachment didn't arrive with the post. The pics are really
> great, but I don't want to send them in the body of the post in
> consideration of those who still have dial up. If someone can tell me how
> to get them here as an attachment I'll re-send them.
>
> Dave Kulp
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nothing whatever to do with Kolbs, but a lot to do with |
those of us who fly them.
Dave, the original came through here.
BB
On 29, May 2009, at 6:58 PM, Dave Kulp wrote:
>
> Looks like the attachment didn't arrive with the post. The pics
> are really great, but I don't want to send them in the body of the
> post in consideration of those who still have dial up. If someone
> can tell me how to get them here as an attachment I'll re-send them.
>
> Dave Kulp
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nothing whatever to do with Kolbs, but a lot to do with |
those of us who fly them.
FWIW I got them in the body of the message, and as attachments. Both
came thru fine. On a Mac.
On May 29, 2009, at 6:58 PM, Dave Kulp wrote:
>
> Looks like the attachment didn't arrive with the post. The pics
> are really great, but I don't want to send them in the body of the
> post in consideration of those who still have dial up. If someone
> can tell me how to get them here as an attachment I'll re-send them.
>
> Dave Kulp
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chris davis <capedavis(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nothing whatever to do with Kolbs, but a lot to do with |
those of us who fly them.
I got them too , thank you .Chris=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A___________________________
_____=0AFrom: robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>=0ATo: kolb-list@matronics
.com=0ASent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:15:43 PM=0ASubject: Re: Kolb-List: Noth
ing whatever to do with Kolbs, but a lot to do with those of us who fly the
>=0A=0ADave, the original came through here.=0ABB=0A=0AOn 29, May 2009, at
=0A> =0A> Looks like the attachment didn't arrive with t
he post.- The pics are really great, but I don't want to send them in the
body of the post in consideration of those who still have dial up.- If s
omeone can tell me how to get them here as an attachment I'll re-send them.
====0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Okay thanks, I guess and also based on what John H. said that the Suzuki motor
crank is stationed lower on the mounts than the Rotax.
I would like at one point to have the SPG-2 turned down and have a 5 or 6 blade
prop on it. this will place the center of thrust just about equal with the trailing
edge of the wings. However for the moment and with the budget I got I'll
keep it as is.
A friend of mine was looking at it today for the first time and she said "it has
such a big motor on it"..... :-) I guess the DOHC 1.3 is kinda large looking
on the frame.
---- Mike Welch wrote:
============
Ron,
I have a turbocharged Suzuki G1.0. & a 68" inflight electric adjust IvoProp.
My measurements are: from tip of prop to boom tube, I have close to 2 3/4" clearance.
Of course, you have a different redrive than I do, but it sounds like
your prop position is very close to mine.
Mike Welch
MkIII
> Folks I started the mating of the Suzuki motor to the Mounts. I need some measurements
as to prop clearances and measured distance from the Boom the the center
of the prop hub. I can't see where some of you reported where you had a 72
inch prop. I see where I can install a 70 inch prop on my mount but then clearance
will be down to about an inch. These are preliminary measurements for my
airframe.
> Anyway I need to figure out what's what WRT that.
>
> Thanks
> Ron @ KFHU
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail goes with you.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Oldman" <aoldman(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Nothing whatever to do with Kolbs, but a lot to do with |
those of us who fly them.
Attachments and photos arrived in NewZealand by broadband no problems. Great
photos thanks very much for sharing them.
Tony
Downunder
MK111c 503
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Kulp" <undoctor(at)ptd.net>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 3:07 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Nothing whatever to do with Kolbs, but a lot to do with
those of us who fly them.
> Flying Folks,
>
> Attached are a group of photos from the Memorial Day Air Show at Jones
> Beach, NY. Because we love flying and flying machines, you'll love
> these, for sure. For those unfamiliar with NYC, pictures #3 and #11 are
> over the southern tip of Manhattan, where the twin towers used to be.
>
> Enjoy - they're great pictures!!!
>
> Dave Kulp
> Bethlehem, PA
> FF 11DMK
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Ron=2C
Turning the SPG-2 redrive upside down (lowering the prop center) and then
using a 5-6 blade prop would be a really bad idea.
This subject has been discussed numerous times before on this list. The
smaller the prop=2C the faster is has to spin. Plus=2C because the prop is
small=2C you have to add more blades=2C because a large engine will overpo
wer a small 2 blade prop. But=2C a faster spinning prop means more noise a
nd is not as efficient.
IIRC=2C someone proposed putting on a multiblade prop (4-5 blades) a year
or two ago. They thought it looked "cool". They were willing to give up
some performance for "the look". Not a
good idea to just throw away some of an engine's thrust.
Just my opinion.....
Mike Welch
MkIII
> Date: Sat=2C 30 May 2009 00:54:30 -0400
> From: captainron1(at)cox.net
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: WRT M3X prop boom measurements.
>
>
> Okay thanks=2C I guess and also based on what John H. said that the Suzuk
i motor crank is stationed lower on the mounts than the Rotax.
> I would like at one point to have the SPG-2 turned down and have a 5 or 6
blade prop on it. this will place the center of thrust just about equal wi
th the trailing edge of the wings. However for the moment and with the budg
et I got I'll keep it as is.
> A friend of mine was looking at it today for the first time and she said
"it has such a big motor on it"..... :-) I guess the DOHC 1.3 is kinda larg
e looking on the frame.
>
>
> ---- Mike Welch wrote:
>
> ============
>
> Ron=2C
>
>
>
> I have a turbocharged Suzuki G1.0. & a 68" inflight electric adjust IvoPr
op. My measurements are: from tip of prop to boom tube=2C I have close to 2
3/4" clearance. Of course=2C you have a different redrive than I do=2C but
it sounds like your prop position is very close to mine.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Welch
>
> MkIII
>
>
>
> > Folks I started the mating of the Suzuki motor to the Mounts. I need so
me measurements as to prop clearances and measured distance from the Boom t
he the center of the prop hub. I can't see where some of you reported where
you had a 72 inch prop. I see where I can install a 70 inch prop on my mou
nt but then clearance will be down to about an inch. These are preliminary
measurements for my airframe.
> > Anyway I need to figure out what's what WRT that.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Ron @ KFHU
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail=AE goes with you.
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tut
orial_Mobile1_052009
> --
> kugelair.com
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail=AE.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tut
orial_QuickAdd1_052009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Got home at 1530 yesterday.
Flight from Larry Cottrell's took 5 days again this year because of weather.
Flew 1/2 day Monday to Brigham City, UT. RON with Boyd Young.
Second day over the Rockies to Laramie, WY. Line boy refused to let us
sleep in the FBO so we sprung for a motel. However, we did get a car to
keep overnight.
Third day it was 33F at Laramie with ice on the airplanes. John Bickham and
I flew our separate ways out of Great Bend, OR, and I made it into Neosho,
MO. Weather was bad on arrival with low ceilings and rain.
Did not improve Day 4, Thursday, so I took a day off and relaxed in a good
FBO with shower, TV, and computer. Another couple had been weathered in
since Monday and they had the old courtesy car, but Billie Sallee, airport
manager, lent me his personal vehicle to go to town for chow.
Day five was beautiful, but woke up to ground fog. However, the fog had
disipated by the time I got loaded up and ready to take off. I flew 547 sm
in 5+55 with two fuel stops.
During the 18 day flight I flew 60.2 hours.
4,800 miles (aprx) I accidentally deleted the mileage from the GPS trip
odometer. When I get time I will add up the mileage in the GPS pilot log.
300 gals fuel (aprx) I need to take time to add up the actual fuel burn in
my notebook.
Airplane performed flawlessly. She now has 2,957.5 hours on the airframe
and 389.0 on the 912ULS. All I did was put gas in her, check her oil, clean
her windshield with Plexus, and fly.
60.2 hours in 18 days averages out to 3.4 hours a day, although I did not
fly nearly every day.
It was a fantastic flight, especially being able to enjoy it with my flying
friends.
Monument Valley could not have been better. I think it was the best yet.
They keep getting better every year.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Kulp <undoctor(at)ptd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nothing whatever to do with Kolbs, but a lot to do with |
those of us who fly them.Nothing whatever to do with Kolbs, but a lot to do
with
I get the entire day's forum in the middle of the night following.
Frequently I don't get pics that people post unless they come up as
mouse-sensitive blue links. I guess the problem is in my configuration
of my ISP. 'Bout time to call Penn TeleData! Didn't some of the shots
just make you wish you were in the cockpit of one of those planes?!
Dave Kulp
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: John B back from Great Adventure Thursday! |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
John Bickham wrote:
>
>
> Just a few things I learned:
> 1) You can read, talk, and type about flying at altitude, but until you've nursed
a plane off a high, hot runway, you haven't got a clue!
> 2) The extra 20 hp of the 912S is a great advantage flying at the high altitudes
and it shows up quickly in these conditions. I have the 912UL (80hp).
> 3) I thought I had prepared myself for high wind conditions prior to the flight.
What I did was good but not enough. Need to add tailwind landings to the
prep list. Waiting on light winds would leave you stranded for months out west.
> 4) Winds in some places out west change speed and/or direction in an instant.
You have to be on your toes when close to the ground.
>
Just FWIW, now that I live out in the wild west I'm starting to get a general idea
of the meteorology here,
The winds aren't hideous all the time if you can believe it. Spring and summer
are the very worst seasons for wind and convective activity pretty much everywhere
but especially in the south and southwest.
In fact, even when I lived in TX, the flying season ended in spring rather than
started, at least for more cautious with the equipment folks like me. Basically
end of Feb through end of Aug I pretty much just try to find different hobbies
and get the routine maint. done on the plane.
Come sept. I start planning and taking trips again as the plane had been maintained
to within an inch of its life by then and it's all ready to go.
Never figured out why all the neat flyins were scheduled in the spring where the
weather is the worst?
As for the southwest, fall and winter are best times to fly as there's lots of
superb weather, even here in the southern Rockies. Got to bundle up and get out
the tape for the radiators tho.
Hopefully Dennis and I will get to do some of our planned trips later in the summer
as things start to calm down some.
Also hopefully I'll get my vacation act together so we can make MV next year, spring
weather be damned......
Just some musings worth what ya paid for it,
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246032#246032
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
It could have been me last year ( or 2 or 3 years ago) that spoke of a high number
multi blade propeller. However for me as evidenced by my own paint jobs,
beauty or looking cool for looking cool is seldom a consideration. :-)
A multi blade prop all else being equal is more efficient and effective. I truly
don't want to delve into this subject again, but I think that real life experience
and the math supports what I say. But again the last thing I want to start
is another debate about this. :-)
I just felt for whatever strange reason to say the above fully knowing that this
may yet start another thread..... LoL.
Anyway budgetary consideration will probably keep me more or less in a more popular
configuration engine prop wise ( for the time being....). :-)
Ron @ KFHU
============================
---- Mike Welch wrote:
============
Ron,
Turning the SPG-2 redrive upside down (lowering the prop center) and then using
a 5-6 blade prop would be a really bad idea.
This subject has been discussed numerous times before on this list. The smaller
the prop, the faster is has to spin. Plus, because the prop is small, you
have to add more blades, because a large engine will overpower a small 2 blade
prop. But, a faster spinning prop means more noise and is not as efficient.
IIRC, someone proposed putting on a multiblade prop (4-5 blades) a year or two
ago. They thought it looked "cool". They were willing to give up some performance
for "the look". Not a
good idea to just throw away some of an engine's thrust.
Just my opinion.....
Mike Welch
MkIII
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 00:54:30 -0400
> From: captainron1(at)cox.net
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: WRT M3X prop boom measurements.
>
>
> Okay thanks, I guess and also based on what John H. said that the Suzuki motor
crank is stationed lower on the mounts than the Rotax.
> I would like at one point to have the SPG-2 turned down and have a 5 or 6 blade
prop on it. this will place the center of thrust just about equal with the
trailing edge of the wings. However for the moment and with the budget I got I'll
keep it as is.
> A friend of mine was looking at it today for the first time and she said "it
has such a big motor on it"..... :-) I guess the DOHC 1.3 is kinda large looking
on the frame.
>
>
> ---- Mike Welch wrote:
>
> ============
>
> Ron,
>
>
>
> I have a turbocharged Suzuki G1.0. & a 68" inflight electric adjust IvoProp.
My measurements are: from tip of prop to boom tube, I have close to 2 3/4" clearance.
Of course, you have a different redrive than I do, but it sounds like
your prop position is very close to mine.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Welch
>
> MkIII
>
>
>
> > Folks I started the mating of the Suzuki motor to the Mounts. I need some measurements
as to prop clearances and measured distance from the Boom the the
center of the prop hub. I can't see where some of you reported where you had a
72 inch prop. I see where I can install a 70 inch prop on my mount but then clearance
will be down to about an inch. These are preliminary measurements for
my airframe.
> > Anyway I need to figure out what's what WRT that.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Ron @ KFHU
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail goes with you.
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009
> --
> kugelair.com
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Glad to hear you made it back safely John. The one day according to your stats
your cruise speed had to be around 100 MPH :) Did you get pictures of your
flight, I cant wait to see them !!
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246040#246040
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
> But again the last thing I want to start is another debate about this. :-
)
> I just felt for whatever strange reason to say the above fully knowing th
at this may yet start another thread..... LoL.
>
> Ron @ KFHU
Ron=2C
You are entitled to think whatever you want. I'm not going to argue with
you. subject has ended
Mike
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
captainron1(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
> It could have been me last year ( or 2 or 3 years ago) that spoke of a high number
multi blade propeller. However for me as evidenced by my own paint jobs,
beauty or looking cool for looking cool is seldom a consideration. :-)
> A multi blade prop all else being equal is more efficient and effective. I truly
don't want to delve into this subject again, but I think that real life experience
and the math supports what I say.
>
>
How many blades do you mean by " Multi Blade ? " One huge factor is power for
the amount of prop area and speed. For a turboprop going fast, I think the 6
blade prop works better, but they are trying to get 3000 horsepower into a limited
diameter prop.
With all the LSA and experimental planes out there, no significant number of planes
are using more than 3 or 4 blades. If it were as easy as adding more blades
to get significantly more performance on our class of airplane, many would
be doing it. Theory is nice, but nothing trumps real life performance, and by
the lack of many bladed propellers on our class airplanes seems to indicate
there is just noting to be gained by that. If were as easy as changing a prop,
and there were some reports of a 6 blade propeller significantly improving
performance of our class planes, people would be lined up waiting to buy these
props.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246065#246065
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
It goes without saying that adding blades, will not do a thing for HP. We got what
we got in that motor. The question is, well let me back up. I am thinking
of lowering the thrust line further. With the SPG-2 it can be mounted 12-3-6-
and 9 o'clock.
If I turn it down the thrust line gets be be pretty low. But now I am down to a
55 inch prop. If I use a two blades I will be nowhere near optimal conversion
of HP/thrust. As you said it needs enough wing airfoil or prop to take the hp
and make the thrust that the motor is capable of producing
thus I gotta put more blades. Or another way I gotta create more blade area. I
guess we can figure out how much effective airfoil area two 71 inch props has
and then figure out how many blades I gotta put on that hub to get the same total
area. And then You can throw another blade in there for rotating disc efficiency
and be done with it. Like I said the last I commented about this some
experimentation is certainly required. One of the prop makers has a hub that can
use six blades I guess if its not too expensive I buy it and start with 3 blades
like everyone else and then add 3 more blades ( down sizing the whole deal
as needed), and see the difference.
I think that would be fun to explore.
Ron @ KFHU
=========================
---- JetPilot wrote:
============
captainron1(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
> It could have been me last year ( or 2 or 3 years ago) that spoke of a high number
multi blade propeller. However for me as evidenced by my own paint jobs,
beauty or looking cool for looking cool is seldom a consideration. :-)
> A multi blade prop all else being equal is more efficient and effective. I truly
don't want to delve into this subject again, but I think that real life experience
and the math supports what I say.
>
>
How many blades do you mean by " Multi Blade ? " One huge factor is power for
the amount of prop area and speed. For a turboprop going fast, I think the 6
blade prop works better, but they are trying to get 3000 horsepower into a limited
diameter prop.
With all the LSA and experimental planes out there, no significant number of planes
are using more than 3 or 4 blades. If it were as easy as adding more blades
to get significantly more performance on our class of airplane, many would
be doing it. Theory is nice, but nothing trumps real life performance, and by
the lack of many bladed propellers on our class airplanes seems to indicate
there is just noting to be gained by that. If were as easy as changing a prop,
and there were some reports of a 6 blade propeller significantly improving
performance of our class planes, people would be lined up waiting to buy these
props.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246065#246065
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
For a slow flying plane like a Kolb, a larger diameter prop is far more efficient
and provides more thrust. As you make the prop disc smaller, the velocity
of the air that you need to move becomes faster... A Kolb can not take advantage
of High Velocity thrust. Imagine putting a small jet engine on a Kolb, you
would be using a huge amount of power and fuel just to cruise at 80 MPH. It
is an extreme example, but its the same thing as putting a small prop that depended
on high velocity air on a Kolb, you would need about 200 HP to get the same
performance as we get with our large diameter props.
A helicopter rotor is just a large prop that is very large diameter and optimized
for slow speeds ( Lifting ). An R-22 will have more thrust than weight with
just 160 HP and fly... If you took that same 160 HP engine on a helicopter
and put a small high speed prop on it instead of a rotor, it would not even come
close to lifting it on the ground. On the same token, the helicopter rotor
would not fly very fast mounted on the front of a Cirrus or other high speed
plane.
The idea of getting the thrust line much lower would be great, but it is not practical
with this type of airplane. You would need so much extra power to compensate
for the small diameter high speed optimized propeller that you would create
more problems than you would solve. There has been a lot of experimentation
with props and thrust lines on pushers, and what we have now as about as
good as a compromise that you will get. Again, if it were as easy as adding prop
blades, and lowering the thrust line closer to the CG of the airplane, it
would make a much nicer flying airplane, and it would have been done long ago.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246074#246074
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Ideally an Ultrastar should have the prop rotating around the boom
tube. Take a nice big bearing......
BB
On 30, May 2009, at 8:22 PM, JetPilot wrote:
>
> For a slow flying plane like a Kolb, a larger diameter prop is far
> more efficient and provides more thrust. As you make the prop disc
> smaller, the velocity of the air that you need to move becomes
> faster... A Kolb can not take advantage of High Velocity thrust.
> Imagine putting a small jet engine on a Kolb, you would be using a
> huge amount of power and fuel just to cruise at 80 MPH. It is an
> extreme example, but its the same thing as putting a small prop
> that depended on high velocity air on a Kolb, you would need about
> 200 HP to get the same performance as we get with our large
> diameter props.
>
> A helicopter rotor is just a large prop that is very large diameter
> and optimized for slow speeds ( Lifting ). An R-22 will have more
> thrust than weight with just 160 HP and fly... If you took that
> same 160 HP engine on a helicopter and put a small high speed prop
> on it instead of a rotor, it would not even come close to lifting
> it on the ground. On the same token, the helicopter rotor would
> not fly very fast mounted on the front of a Cirrus or other high
> speed plane.
>
> The idea of getting the thrust line much lower would be great, but
> it is not practical with this type of airplane. You would need so
> much extra power to compensate for the small diameter high speed
> optimized propeller that you would create more problems than you
> would solve. There has been a lot of experimentation with props
> and thrust lines on pushers, and what we have now as about as good
> as a compromise that you will get. Again, if it were as easy as
> adding prop blades, and lowering the thrust line closer to the CG
> of the airplane, it would make a much nicer flying airplane, and it
> would have been done long ago.
>
> Mike
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast
> as you could have !!!
>
> Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246074#246074
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
At 09:42 PM 5/30/2009, robert bean wrote:
>Ideally an Ultrastar should have the prop rotating around the boom
>tube. Take a nice big bearing......
Y'know, I've thought of that. Suitable bearings _are_ available (I
checked). Replacing the redrive belt would be quite a procedure, though...
-Dana
--
We wonder why the dogs always drink out of our toilets, but look at it
from their point of view: why do humans keep peeing into their water bowls?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
At 09:42 PM 5/30/2009, robert bean wrote:
>Ideally an Ultrastar should have the prop rotating around the boom
>tube. Take a nice big bearing......
Y'know, I've thought of that. Suitable bearings _are_ available (I
checked). Replacing the redrive belt would be quite a procedure, though...
-Dana
--
We wonder why the dogs always drink out of our toilets, but look at it
from their point of view: why do humans keep peeing into their water bowls?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
See this is the thing I don't understand about the idea that a larger prop is more
efficient. If say ( and its better if we use numbers as then we have a hard
baseline) 55 inch blade. The 55 inch blade lets for the heck of it say six
blades has a total effective surface area which may be larger than three blades
of say 72 inches.
Furthermore if the tips of the props remain under .8 mach ( which they will) and
the prop is near its Ld / Max, where in the world a three blader will be better
( we are rich so money is not a limit ).
Its like the gears in a car, it will do 70 miles an hour as long as you get the
rght amount of HP to the wheels, be the wheels 20 inch rims or be the wheels
13 inch rims with taller gearing at the same RPM (more blades roughly speaking
35% more blades) output at the crank. Not exactly aples to aples but close
enough for us. :-)
---- JetPilot wrote:
============
For a slow flying plane like a Kolb, a larger diameter prop is far more efficient
and provides more thrust. As you make the prop disc smaller, the velocity
of the air that you need to move becomes faster... A Kolb can not take advantage
of High Velocity thrust. Imagine putting a small jet engine on a Kolb, you
would be using a huge amount of power and fuel just to cruise at 80 MPH. It
is an extreme example, but its the same thing as putting a small prop that depended
on high velocity air on a Kolb, you would need about 200 HP to get the same
performance as we get with our large diameter props.
A helicopter rotor is just a large prop that is very large diameter and optimized
for slow speeds ( Lifting ). An R-22 will have more thrust than weight with
just 160 HP and fly... If you took that same 160 HP engine on a helicopter
and put a small high speed prop on it instead of a rotor, it would not even come
close to lifting it on the ground. On the same token, the helicopter rotor
would not fly very fast mounted on the front of a Cirrus or other high speed
plane.
The idea of getting the thrust line much lower would be great, but it is not practical
with this type of airplane. You would need so much extra power to compensate
for the small diameter high speed optimized propeller that you would create
more problems than you would solve. There has been a lot of experimentation
with props and thrust lines on pushers, and what we have now as about as
good as a compromise that you will get. Again, if it were as easy as adding prop
blades, and lowering the thrust line closer to the CG of the airplane, it
would make a much nicer flying airplane, and it would have been done long ago.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246074#246074
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Every long flight I have ever done started right here at Gantt International
Airport, Titus, Alabama.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Some flights brought me to places like this, chasing my shadow, low level
flight across the desert between the Rock House and the Alvord Desert in
Oregon.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
My mkIII takes me flying over the Rocky Mountains near Soldiers Summit,
Utah.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
At 11:25 PM 5/30/2009, Ron wrote:
>See this is the thing I don't understand about the idea that a larger prop
>is more efficient. If say ( and its better if we use numbers as then we
>have a hard baseline) 55 inch blade. The 55 inch blade lets for the heck
>of it say six blades has a total effective surface area which may be
>larger than three blades of say 72 inches...
There are several aspects to this.
First, a prop creates thrust by increasing the speed of air passing through
it. It's more efficient to accelerate a lot of air a little bit than to
accelerate a little bit of air a lot. Thus a larger prop is better.
Second, there are tip losses, just like a wing. A higher aspect ratio wing
is more efficient (look at a sailplane).
Third, the closer together the blades are, the more each blade is operating
in the air disturbed by the previous blade. This causes inefficiency in
the same way that a biplane is less efficient than a monoplane.
The ONLY reason for more than two blades is if you don't have enough room
for a 2 blade prop that can absorb all the engine's power, or if it's
turning too fast so that you get tip losses due to sonic effects and you
can't increase the reduction ratio.
-Dana
--
Ethernet (n): something used to catch the etherbunny
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | "robcannon" <leecannon(at)telus.net> |
A very good parallel for understanding the prop diameter / efficiency thing is
to look at a tug boat prop. A tug has a huge diameter slow turning propeller
which is what it takes to produce alot of thrust, as opposed to a speedboat's
small prop turning very fast to achieve high speeds. I think it's fairly obvious
that you need diameter to move alot of water or air, and create thrust. Hence,
if you are limited in diameter, you will be giving up some thrust.
I hope that helps, Rob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246096#246096
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Video of John H arriving at Rock House |
| From: | "John Bickham" <gearbender(at)bellsouth.net> |
In case you missed it...
Here is a link for the video of John H arriving at the Rock House on Tuesday.
Listen for the throttle inputs. This was a lot harder than he made it look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMYsdarPcnY
--------
Thanks too much,
John Bickham
Mark III-C w/ 912UL
St. Francisville, LA
I know many pilots and a few true aviators. There is a distinct difference that
I have the greatest respect for.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246101#246101
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Cowan" <tc1917(at)bellsouth.net> |
Okay, boys and girls, it is time for a good Kolb story. I am sure all of
you remember me and my little slingshot 912 with the rum rum syndrome. A
good friend of mine down in Florida loaned me his just reconditioned WD prop
to check the noise issue. It seemed to drop the noise in half. I contacted
WD (remember I stated that I needed proof to verify the prop noise) and
after a long conversation, they decided that I had the wrong blades. (duh).
They sent me three brand new 68" taper tips with nickel edges. Some of the
best looking and balanced blades I have ever seen come out of there.
Anyway, I purchased a sound meter (db) as per suggestion of someone on this
kolb list. I started taking soundings and ended up putting some serious
noise reduction materials under my engine and everywhere I could behind me.
This really helped. I started out with the same dbs inside as there were
outside under the wing. Mike Bigelow sent me his Kiev 70" three blade on
the agreement if I liked it fine, but if I did not, I could send it back.
What a deal. He is certainly a great guy to do this for a fellow kolber.
Anyway, after a lot of testing and readjusting both blade setups, I finally
concluded that overall, the WD blade out performed the Kiev. The Kiev was
definitely quieter on the ground or at low RPMs but did not have the climb
and/or cruise of the taper tip WD. It WAS a lot lighter but with a four
inch extension, it set my blade thrust back too far (I found this was the
case with the WD blade also). So I was back to my WD 68" taper tip. I also
added a perforated stainless shroud around my exhaust pipes and that was the
cats meeyow. When I turned it straight up, it really made a difference. My
numbers were nice. Behind me I was 104 db (started out 123 and under the
wing was off the scale of 126) and was now 116 db under the wing cruising at
4800 rpm and over 80 mph indicated. That was a staggering 20 db difference
from when I started!!! Mike happily agreed for me to send the Kiev set up
back to him so it is now available again. If I were flying a MkIII or
something, this would be the prop I would want. By the way, I still have
the harmonics but it is now subdued and since I repitched my prop to add
about two hundred rpms, I found that the engine is actually quieter on the
wom wom at 5000 rpms than it is at 4800. All in all I now have a tolerable
situation and still have my zoom zoom. If anyone wants the name of the type
of insulation I used and pics of the new exhaust extension, let me know. If
I could stop the wom wom, I would not even hear my engine at cruise. Cool.
Oh yes, by the way, the man at Kiev told me has a rans 12 with same engine
and it does the same thing and he knows of several others and no one can do
anything about it. Seems Rotax doesnt want to us to know they know about
this problem which means it IS in the engine. Shame on them. Sorry for the
length. I appreciate what all have done and suggested. If I can help
anyone with this stuff, let me know. I had a $50 reward for anyone who
could solve my problem but I think between Jim Holbrook lending his blades
and Mike Bigelow effectively doing the same, I will give each $25. Does
that seem fair to everyone? Ted Cowan, Alabama, Slingshot, 912UL zoom zoom.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <russ(at)rkiphoto.com> |
Ted
Delighted you've solved, or at least, lessened your noise problem.
But I guess you realize you've guaranteed yourself a
new nickname -- from, now on, it's ''ZOOM ZOOM" Cowan
And thanks for sharing -- l'm sure this is useful info for many,
do not forget. er, archive
On May 31, 2009, at 6:33 AM, Ted Cowan wrote:
>
> Okay, boys and girls, it is time for a good Kolb story. I am sure
> all of you remember me and my little slingshot 912 with the rum rum
> syndrome. A good friend of mine down in Florida loaned me his just
> reconditioned WD prop to check the noise issue. It seemed to drop
> the noise in half. I contacted WD (remember I stated that I needed
> proof to verify the prop noise) and after a long conversation, they
> decided that I had the wrong blades. (duh). They sent me three
> brand new 68" taper tips with nickel edges. Some of the best
> looking and balanced blades I have ever seen come out of there.
> Anyway, I purchased a sound meter (db) as per suggestion of someone
> on this kolb list. I started taking soundings and ended up putting
> some serious noise reduction materials under my engine and
> everywhere I could behind me. This really helped. I started out
> with the same dbs inside as there were outside under the wing.
> Mike Bigelow sent me his Kiev 70" three blade on the agreement if I
> liked it fine, but if I did not, I could send it back. What a
> deal. He is certainly a great guy to do this for a fellow kolber.
> Anyway, after a lot of testing and readjusting both blade setups, I
> finally concluded that overall, the WD blade out performed the
> Kiev. The Kiev was definitely quieter on the ground or at low RPMs
> but did not have the climb and/or cruise of the taper tip WD. It
> WAS a lot lighter but with a four inch extension, it set my blade
> thrust back too far (I found this was the case with the WD blade
> also). So I was back to my WD 68" taper tip. I also added a
> perforated stainless shroud around my exhaust pipes and that was
> the cats meeyow. When I turned it straight up, it really made a
> difference. My numbers were nice. Behind me I was 104 db (started
> out 123 and under the wing was off the scale of 126) and was now
> 116 db under the wing cruising at 4800 rpm and over 80 mph
> indicated. That was a staggering 20 db difference from when I
> started!!! Mike happily agreed for me to send the Kiev set up back
> to him so it is now available again. If I were flying a MkIII or
> something, this would be the prop I would want. By the way, I
> still have the harmonics but it is now subdued and since I
> repitched my prop to add about two hundred rpms, I found that the
> engine is actually quieter on the wom wom at 5000 rpms than it is
> at 4800. All in all I now have a tolerable situation and still
> have my zoom zoom. If anyone wants the name of the type of
> insulation I used and pics of the new exhaust extension, let me
> know. If I could stop the wom wom, I would not even hear my engine
> at cruise. Cool. Oh yes, by the way, the man at Kiev told me has a
> rans 12 with same engine and it does the same thing and he knows of
> several others and no one can do anything about it. Seems Rotax
> doesnt want to us to know they know about this problem which means
> it IS in the engine. Shame on them. Sorry for the length. I
> appreciate what all have done and suggested. If I can help anyone
> with this stuff, let me know. I had a $50 reward for anyone who
> could solve my problem but I think between Jim Holbrook lending his
> blades and Mike Bigelow effectively doing the same, I will give
> each $25. Does that seem fair to everyone? Ted Cowan, Alabama,
> Slingshot, 912UL zoom zoom.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Video of John H arriving at Rock House |
John, just like I said, " 6 to 10 right down the runway"
Larry
Rock House
----- Original Message -----
From: John Bickham
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 2:30 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Video of John H arriving at Rock House
In case you missed it...
Here is a link for the video of John H arriving at the Rock House on
Tuesday. Listen for the throttle inputs. This was a lot harder than he
made it look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMYsdarPcnY
--------
Thanks too much,
John Bickham
Mark III-C w/ 912UL
St. Francisville, LA
I know many pilots and a few true aviators. There is a distinct
difference that I have the greatest respect for.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246101#246101
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
05/30/09 05:53:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Video of John H arriving at Rock House |
Yea, what's all the cause for alarm. From the video it looks like it was a
piece of cake.
That landing ranks right up there with one of the most demanding and dreade
d landings I have ever made. I had a lot of time to think about it for the
last 150 miles on the flight north from Elko, NV.
When I started my approach I had to go full throttle a couple of times to m
ake any progress and keep up a decent.
Someone was looking out for me, the wind, although extremely high, was not
turbulent at touch down. I was extremely relieved.
Nothing to it! A piece of cake! ;-)
john h - Remember wiping my sweaty right hand several time during that appr
oach...
mkIII
John, just like I said, " 6 to 10 right down the runway"
Larry
Rock House
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Link belt
On 30, May 2009, at 10:59 PM, Dana Hague wrote:
>
> At 09:42 PM 5/30/2009, robert bean wrote:
>
>> Ideally an Ultrastar should have the prop rotating around the boom
>> tube. Take a nice big bearing......
>
> Y'know, I've thought of that. Suitable bearings _are_ available (I
> checked). Replacing the redrive belt would be quite a procedure,
> though...
>
> -Dana
> --
> We wonder why the dogs always drink out of our toilets, but look
> at it from their point of view: why do humans keep peeing into
> their water bowls?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Have you balanced your carbs lately? That wom wom or vibration that sounds like
that will show up at lower rpms and go away just as you stated if rpms are increased
if they are out. Carbs need balancing every 100 hrs. or at least each
annual if you don't put on 100 hrs a year. They will be out and it's too easy
to do for you not to do it. The cross over tube can only help so much. Think of
your 912 as a left engine and a right. You don't want the left trying to run
at 5000 and the right trying to run at 5050 or worse 5100. Do the mechanical
and pneumatic sync. Just doing the mechanical without doing the pneumatic is a
waist of time. How do I know because I get to sync at least 30 or more sets of
carbs a year and they are all out of balance by 100 hrs. or the annual, just
some more than others.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Service Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246135#246135
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Video of John H arriving at Rock House |
Well, I do have to admit that the wind was up a bit on some of the days
that you guys were here. It has been windy all year and the worst
weather, for wind and rain, seems to always occur after Monument Valley.
I don't know whether it is a natural reaction to all of those Kolbs
parked in the yard, but we need the moisture bad enough to secretly not
be too upset.
The house and runway are down by about 100 feet under a hill that the
winds predominately comes from, so the winds at about 150 to 200 feet
above ground level are much more severe than that on the ground. That of
course is not to say that the winds on the ground are anything to sneer
about, which is why I cut in a cross wind runway. It is only about 600
feet long, 1000 if you count in a dogleg to the left. It is still a bit
intimidating none the less.
Where the discussion ( outright ridicule would be more like it) about my
wind meter comes in, is because of the wind report that I gave John
Bickham and Bruce Chaisson as they were coming in to the Rock house for
their initial arrival. When I was working for the BNSF RR as a welder,
we were restricted from welding outside in high winds. They gave us this
cute little wind meter that you could hold to the wind to determine the
strength. Needless to say there was never a day that the wind blew hard
enough to curb my work production. :-) As the guys approached I went out
into the wind and took readings, and the wind showed 6 to 10 MPH mostly
down the runway. The winds every where else was really rocking and
rolling, and these guys were white knuckled already. There were of
course a few gusts that could get your attention.
John's landing did look easy, but I can assure you that it was not. He
had reason for sweaty palms. As I recall mine were a bit sweaty
watching.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hauck
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Video of John H arriving at Rock House
Yea, what's all the cause for alarm. From the video it looks like it
was a piece of cake.
That landing ranks right up there with one of the most demanding and
dreaded landings I have ever made. I had a lot of time to think about
it for the last 150 miles on the flight north from Elko, NV.
When I started my approach I had to go full throttle a couple of times
to make any progress and keep up a decent.
Someone was looking out for me, the wind, although extremely high, was
not turbulent at touch down. I was extremely relieved.
Nothing to it! A piece of cake! ;-)
john h - Remember wiping my sweaty right hand several time during that
approach...
mkIII
John, just like I said, " 6 to 10 right down the runway"
Larry
Rock House
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
05/30/09 05:53:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
My escort, Bruce Chaisson/MKIII, over Bonneville Salt Flats, UT.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
I was pleased to out run an 18 wheeler on the Bonneville Salt Flats.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Video of John H arriving at Rock House |
For some reason my computer flags John's posts on that computer as
phishing, it also marked my reply to his post as the same phishing as
the original even though I "unblocked" it. Did they show up that was on
other computers or is it just mine?
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
North end of the Ruby Mountains between Wells and Elko, NV. We were bless
with a beautiful day of flying from Wendover, UT, and the old WWII Army Air
Corps Airbase. For those interested in military history, here is a good web
site on Wendover:
http://www.wendoverairbase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=168&Itemid=111
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Bottom center of the photo, left of the trail, is the FSII and Larry
Cottrell, flying down the creek to the Owyhee River Canyon. The tiny FSII
puts the size of the area into prospective.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Flying north and down stream over the Owyhee River Canyon and backwaters of
the lake. One of my favorite photos of this flight.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Chaisson" <b-chaisson(at)hotmail.com> |
Great photos John. Here's some of mine if I did it right.
http://www.dropshots.com/bruce20#date/2009-05
--------
Bruce Chaisson
Mark III Classic
912 ULS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246159#246159
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | michigan fly in's June 7th |
Hi group,
wondering if any one is planning on flying to one of the following fly
in's June 7th, here in Michgain, weather permitting..these are rather
close to me here in Michigan and I would attend...
JUNE, 7
Coldwater
Branch County Memorial Airport (OEB) 7:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Pancake breakfast.
Sponsored by the Branch County Flying Club. Call Joe Best 517-278-8348.
JUNE, 7
Ionia
Ionia County Airport (Y70) 7:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
Dawn Patrol
Sponsored by Benz Aviation. Call Tony Smit 616-527-9070
Jswan firestar ll N663S Eaton Rapids, Mi
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
ExcfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
"First, a prop creates thrust by increasing the speed of air passing through
it. It's more efficient to accelerate a lot of air a little bit than to
accelerate a little bit of air a lot. Thus a larger prop is better. "
============== above is a quote=============
that's actually incorrect, it may be correct if we were talking about a Rocket
motor or say a Turbo Jet but not a conventional propeller. The propulsion that
a prop creates is directly proportional to how much lift the prop airfoil creates.
Now if you look at the mechanic of lift you will see that to top of the
prop creates a low pressure area. the air movement that you notice as the prop
blast is to a large extent a stream of onrushing air filling in the low pressure
area that the blades created. It can be accomplished by a large blade or many
small blades. In fact the many small blades are way better at creating a vacuum
in front of the propeller than a fewer blades attempting the same thing.
This is not an opinion this is a fact of aerodynamics ( all else being equal
).
I sense that people have some problems in letting go of some constants in their
minds, one of them is notion that a large because its large creates more propulsive
force than an equally sized volume disc with multiple blades. Anyway I
really gave out more information then I want, since who knows I may want to have
a Kolb Air Race and I want to compete against the folks who hold a different
concept. :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
I don't know about that,,,,, :-).
I just did a quick Google search for boat props and most of them are at least
4 blades, and their cross section support 100% just what I'v been saying all along.
Submarine props are very much multi blade props, they almost look like the
Propjets from the 80's.
---- robcannon wrote:
============
A very good parallel for understanding the prop diameter / efficiency thing is
to look at a tug boat prop. A tug has a huge diameter slow turning propeller
which is what it takes to produce alot of thrust, as opposed to a speedboat's
small prop turning very fast to achieve high speeds. I think it's fairly obvious
that you need diameter to move alot of water or air, and create thrust. Hence,
if you are limited in diameter, you will be giving up some thrust.
I hope that helps, Rob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246096#246096
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
I want a front row seat.
BB
On 31, May 2009, at 12:36 PM, Ron wrote:
>
> "First, a prop creates thrust by increasing the speed of air
> passing through
> it. It's more efficient to accelerate a lot of air a little bit
> than to
> accelerate a little bit of air a lot. Thus a larger prop is better. "
> ============== above is a quote=============
> that's actually incorrect, it may be correct if we were talking
> about a Rocket motor or say a Turbo Jet but not a conventional
> propeller. The propulsion that a prop creates is directly
> proportional to how much lift the prop airfoil creates. Now if you
> look at the mechanic of lift you will see that to top of the prop
> creates a low pressure area. the air movement that you notice as
> the prop blast is to a large extent a stream of onrushing air
> filling in the low pressure area that the blades created. It can be
> accomplished by a large blade or many small blades. In fact the
> many small blades are way better at creating a vacuum in front of
> the propeller than a fewer blades attempting the same thing. This
> is not an opinion this is a fact of aerodynamics ( all else being
> equal ).
> I sense that people have some problems in letting go of some
> constants in their minds, one of them is notion that a large
> because its large creates more propulsive force than an equally
> sized volume disc with multiple blades. Anyway I really gave out
> more information then I want, since who knows I may want to have a
> Kolb Air Race and I want to compete against the folks who hold a
> different concept. :-)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
Hi Ted
For 50 bucks I'll help you.
I am guessing that you have the regular factory kolb single tube motor mount.
Obviously you get an airframe engine resonance problem. Its easy to cure, all we
got to do is remove the resonating frequency above the operating rpm range of
your motor. I am guessing that you already tried different rubber mounts, that's
the quickest and easiest solution and should work. A harder mount will move
up the resonance frequency and a softer rubber mount will lower it. If you
tried that and it didn't work then the only other thing is change the tube mount
resonance. The only way I can thing for you to do that is weld two parallel
braces to the kolb tube which are also welded to the tray mount. That will also
have the effect of increasing the frequency range above what you have right
now. The stiffer the engine mount the higher the resonating frequency, Like I
mentioned earlier the trick is to move the onset frequency above the operating
range of the motor. You may just have been unlucky in terms of the mount tube
thickness or some other minor difference from most of the others who do not
report that problem. I certainly do not think its the motor itself, those are
balanced and tested very carefully in their assigned rpm operating range.
==========================================================================================================================================================================
---- Ted Cowan wrote:
============
Okay, boys and girls, it is time for a good Kolb story. I am sure all of
you remember me and my little slingshot 912 with the rum rum syndrome. A
good friend of mine down in Florida loaned me his just reconditioned WD prop
to check the noise issue. It seemed to drop the noise in half. I contacted
WD (remember I stated that I needed proof to verify the prop noise) and
after a long conversation, they decided that I had the wrong blades. (duh).
They sent me three brand new 68" taper tips with nickel edges. Some of the
best looking and balanced blades I have ever seen come out of there.
Anyway, I purchased a sound meter (db) as per suggestion of someone on this
kolb list. I started taking soundings and ended up putting some serious
noise reduction materials under my engine and everywhere I could behind me.
This really helped. I started out with the same dbs inside as there were
outside under the wing. Mike Bigelow sent me his Kiev 70" three blade on
the agreement if I liked it fine, but if I did not, I could send it back.
What a deal. He is certainly a great guy to do this for a fellow kolber.
Anyway, after a lot of testing and readjusting both blade setups, I finally
concluded that overall, the WD blade out performed the Kiev. The Kiev was
definitely quieter on the ground or at low RPMs but did not have the climb
and/or cruise of the taper tip WD. It WAS a lot lighter but with a four
inch extension, it set my blade thrust back too far (I found this was the
case with the WD blade also). So I was back to my WD 68" taper tip. I also
added a perforated stainless shroud around my exhaust pipes and that was the
cats meeyow. When I turned it straight up, it really made a difference. My
numbers were nice. Behind me I was 104 db (started out 123 and under the
wing was off the scale of 126) and was now 116 db under the wing cruising at
4800 rpm and over 80 mph indicated. That was a staggering 20 db difference
from when I started!!! Mike happily agreed for me to send the Kiev set up
back to him so it is now available again. If I were flying a MkIII or
something, this would be the prop I would want. By the way, I still have
the harmonics but it is now subdued and since I repitched my prop to add
about two hundred rpms, I found that the engine is actually quieter on the
wom wom at 5000 rpms than it is at 4800. All in all I now have a tolerable
situation and still have my zoom zoom. If anyone wants the name of the type
of insulation I used and pics of the new exhaust extension, let me know. If
I could stop the wom wom, I would not even hear my engine at cruise. Cool.
Oh yes, by the way, the man at Kiev told me has a rans 12 with same engine
and it does the same thing and he knows of several others and no one can do
anything about it. Seems Rotax doesnt want to us to know they know about
this problem which means it IS in the engine. Shame on them. Sorry for the
length. I appreciate what all have done and suggested. If I can help
anyone with this stuff, let me know. I had a $50 reward for anyone who
could solve my problem but I think between Jim Holbrook lending his blades
and Mike Bigelow effectively doing the same, I will give each $25. Does
that seem fair to everyone? Ted Cowan, Alabama, Slingshot, 912UL zoom zoom.
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
John that photo is really beautiful, I wouldn't mind having a poster of it hanging
on the wall.
=====================================
---- John Hauck wrote:
============
Bottom center of the photo, left of the trail, is the FSII and Larry
Cottrell, flying down the creek to the Owyhee River Canyon. The tiny FSII
puts the size of the area into prospective.
john h
mkIII
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
You got it, but they cost more.
====================================================
---- robert bean wrote:
============
I want a front row seat.
BB
On 31, May 2009, at 12:36 PM, Ron wrote:
>
> "First, a prop creates thrust by increasing the speed of air
> passing through
> it. It's more efficient to accelerate a lot of air a little bit
> than to
> accelerate a little bit of air a lot. Thus a larger prop is better. "
> ============== above is a quote=============
> that's actually incorrect, it may be correct if we were talking
> about a Rocket motor or say a Turbo Jet but not a conventional
> propeller. The propulsion that a prop creates is directly
> proportional to how much lift the prop airfoil creates. Now if you
> look at the mechanic of lift you will see that to top of the prop
> creates a low pressure area. the air movement that you notice as
> the prop blast is to a large extent a stream of onrushing air
> filling in the low pressure area that the blades created. It can be
> accomplished by a large blade or many small blades. In fact the
> many small blades are way better at creating a vacuum in front of
> the propeller than a fewer blades attempting the same thing. This
> is not an opinion this is a fact of aerodynamics ( all else being
> equal ).
> I sense that people have some problems in letting go of some
> constants in their minds, one of them is notion that a large
> because its large creates more propulsive force than an equally
> sized volume disc with multiple blades. Anyway I really gave out
> more information then I want, since who knows I may want to have a
> Kolb Air Race and I want to compete against the folks who hold a
> different concept. :-)
>
>
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1(at)cox.net>
> I don't know about that,,,,, :-).
> I just did a quick Google search for boat props and most of them are at
> least 4 blades, and their cross section support 100% just what I'v been
> saying all along. Submarine props are very much multi blade props, they
> almost look like the Propjets from the 80's.
>
What works in water does not directly transfer to air being that air is a
lot thinner.
Enter the Wright brothers, a big reason they succeded first is that they
discovered Otto Ls lift tables for airfoils were incorrect, Shazzam, their
wing and propeller aspect ratios went way up and away they went. Up till
than, most propeller designers were basing there props on marine props and
were getting nowhere.
Spend all the money you want to on a 55 inch gazzillion blade prop, you will
never outperform a two or three blade 66 to 72 inch prop with the proper
reduction unit.
The laws of physics don't bend, it is easier to accelerate a lot of air a
little, than a little a lot.
Seen any 55 inch wind mills lately?
Denny Rowe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
Bruce, those are some great shots, and a easy to use format. Thanks for
sharing.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Chaisson
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 10:09 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MV2009
Great photos John. Here's some of mine if I did it right.
http://www.dropshots.com/bruce20#date/2009-05
--------
Bruce Chaisson
Mark III Classic
912 ULS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246159#246159
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
05/31/09 05:53:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
I want a front row seat.
BB
On 31, May 2009, at 12:36 PM, Ron wrote:
> I sense that people have some problems in letting go of some
> constants in their minds, one of them is notion that a large
> because its large creates more propulsive force than an equally
> sized volume disc with multiple blades. Anyway I really gave out
> more information then I want, since who knows I may want to have a
> Kolb Air Race and I want to compete against the folks who hold a
> different concept. :-)
>
By all means Capt Kangaroo, show us where we are wrong. I look forward
to seeing the outcome. Its only money, and worse comes to worse, you
will have a spare three blade prop.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: michigan fly in's June 7th |
| From: | "Kirkds" <kirkds(at)dishmail.net> |
Ionia is possible but Coldwater is out. Hope the weather is better than lately.
Took the plane out of the hanger yesterday to wash it and had to tie it to the
tractor to keep it from blowing away.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246188#246188
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: michigan fly in's June 7th |
| From: | "ces308" <ces308(at)ldaco.com> |
Hi Guys,
For any northern pilots , there is one at HTL in Houghton Lake the 7th also...I
will be at that one...have to work that weekend so I have to stay close...also
the next weekend ,june 11-12 is Otsego Lake Splash - in ,in Gaylord,Mi.If you
land at Otsego Co airport,they provide free bus service to the sea plane base
and back again. Hope to meet some of you guys this summer somewhere !
chris ambrose
m3x/jabiru
n327CS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246190#246190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ces308" <ces308(at)ldaco.com> |
John,
Too Cool ! what else can I say !
chris ambrose
m3x/jab
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246192#246192
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
At 12:36 PM 5/31/2009, Ron wrote:
>
>"First, a prop creates thrust by increasing the speed of air passing through
>it. It's more efficient to accelerate a lot of air a little bit than to
>accelerate a little bit of air a lot. Thus a larger prop is better. "
>============== above is a quote=============
>that's actually incorrect, it may be correct if we were talking about a
>Rocket motor or say a Turbo Jet but not a conventional propeller. The
>propulsion that a prop creates is directly proportional to how much lift
>the prop airfoil creates. Now if you look at the mechanic of lift you will
>see that to top of the prop creates a low pressure area...
Which are you saying is incorrect? That a prop creates thrust by
accelerating the air passing through it (true, or you can look at in the
opposite direction, that the thrust accelerates the air) or that larger is
better (true in most cases).
It's kind of like the Bernoulli (faster moving air over the top of the wing
creating low pressure) vs Newton (wing lift force from accelerating air
downward) arguments of lift. There is no argument, because they're
different ways of describing the same thing.
The prop blade creates lift-- which is a force (thrust)-- which accelerates
the air backward.
At low speeds, the larger prop with less blades is more efficient, for the
same reason that nearly all helicopters have large two blade rotors rather
than small multi blade fans.
-Dana
>. the air movement that you notice as the prop blast is to a large extent
>a stream of onrushing air filling in the low pressure area that the blades
>created. It can be accomplished by a large blade or many small blades. In
>fact the many small blades are way better at creating a vacuum in front of
>the propeller than a fewer blades attempting the same thing. This is not
>an opinion this is a fact of aerodynamics ( all else being equal ).
>I sense that people have some problems in letting go of some constants in
>their minds, one of them is notion that a large because its large creates
>more propulsive force than an equally sized volume disc with multiple
>blades. Anyway I really gave out more information then I want, since who
>knows I may want to have a Kolb Air Race and I want to compete against the
>folks who hold a different concept. :-)
>
--
When authorities warn you of the sinfulness of sex, there is an important
lesson to be learned. Do not have sex with the authorities.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
At 12:45 PM 5/31/2009, Ron @ KFHU wrote:
>...Submarine props are very much multi blade props, they almost look like
>the Propjets from the 80's...
Submarine props are optimized for minimum noise. The propfans are
optimized for fuel efficiency in cruise, not max thrust at takeoff.
-Dana
--
When authorities warn you of the sinfulness of sex, there is an important
lesson to be learned. Do not have sex with the authorities.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Dana.
Also there is another aspect to be added. Over propping. By this I mean
you can run a propeller that is too long for your combination of your
aircraft drag and the available engine torque.
I have run a 72" IVO on the FireFly. Climb out was impressive, but I could
not get over 55 mph, due to the fact that I had reduce pitch to get engine
rpm up.
While working on propeller noise reduction, I used an old IVO prop 56 inch
two blade IVO and by converting it to "Power Tips", it ended up at 54
inches. To limit top engine cruise speed, I had to increase the tip pitch
angle from 17.25 to 18.75 degrees. Both of these props would push the
FireFly over 63 mph, but climb out was not exceptional.
Then I purchased a third blade, and matched it to the original two "Power
Tip" blades. I had to reduce the pitch to 15.0 degrees. This set up flew
just as well as the two blade.
These short blade props gave very acceptable cruise performance, but they
had nothing to shout about when it came to climb performance.
To get away from the 72 inch low cruise speed problem, I started cutting the
prop. Currently it is at 64 inches and it gives very good cruise and
acceptable climb.
For your interest:
The noise level at 5,200 rpm for the IVO
56 inch two blade square tip - 110 db
54 inch two blade power tip - 106 db
54 inch three blade power tip - 105 db.
No data has been taken on the current propeller.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
>There are several aspects to this.
>
>First, a prop creates thrust by increasing the speed of air passing through
>it. It's more efficient to accelerate a lot of air a little bit than to
>accelerate a little bit of air a lot. Thus a larger prop is better.
>
>Second, there are tip losses, just like a wing. A higher aspect ratio wing
>is more efficient (look at a sailplane).
>
>Third, the closer together the blades are, the more each blade is operating
>in the air disturbed by the previous blade. This causes inefficiency in
>the same way that a biplane is less efficient than a monoplane.
>
>The ONLY reason for more than two blades is if you don't have enough room
>for a 2 blade prop that can absorb all the engine's power, or if it's
>turning too fast so that you get tip losses due to sonic effects and you
>can't increase the reduction ratio.
>
>-Dana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
> At low speeds, the larger prop with less blades is more efficient, for
the
> same reason that nearly all helicopters have large two blade rotors rather
> than small multi blade fans.
>
> -Dana
I am from the old days of helicopters, mostly two blades, except the CH-47
Chinook, which had two each three blade main rotors.
However, today things have changed a bit. Most have gone to ridgid rotor,
hingeless, multiblade main rotors of at least 4 blades.
The little TH-55, or I think the civilian designation is Hughes 269 or 369,
had a three main rotor blade system.
The main rotor blades have become multi-blades and the rotor diameter has
shrunk, but they are still pretty big props.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fw: The kit has arrived! |
| From: | loseyf(at)comcast.net |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=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
At 07:32 PM 5/31/2009, John Hauck wrote:
>I am from the old days of helicopters, mostly two blades, except the CH-47
>Chinook, which had two each three blade main rotors.
>
>However, today things have changed a bit. Most have gone to ridgid rotor,
>hingeless, multiblade main rotors of at least 4 blades...
Yes, but I suspect the multi blades are for space or controllability
reasons, not aerodynamic efficiency.
-Dana
--
I love my country, but I fear my government.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
At 07:36 PM 5/31/2009, Jack B. Hart wrote:
>Also there is another aspect to be added. Over propping. By this I mean
>you can run a propeller that is too long for your combination of your
>aircraft drag and the available engine torque.
Absolutely. As in everything, there are limits.
>I have run a 72" IVO on the FireFly. Climb out was impressive, but I could
>not get over 55 mph, due to the fact that I had reduce pitch to get engine
>rpm up.
Yes, I should have mentioned that the larger slow turning prop may make
more static thrust, but it has a lower efficient speed range. Big slow
turning flat pitch props are great for climb, but less good for cruise.
>While working on propeller noise reduction, I used an old IVO prop 56 inch
>two blade IVO and by converting it to "Power Tips"...
Dunno if I mentioned it to you, I did the Power Tip mod to one of my PPG
props after chewing it up flying at the beach (pebbles get kicked up during
takeoff). Rather than fill the damaged area, I cut it away (diameter at
the trailing edge tip is unchanged). I can't say if it's any quieter, that
single cylinder engine is pretty loud anyway, but I picked up maybe
1-200rpm at WOT with no loss in thrust, and (though I've made no accurate
measurements) a bit better fuel consumption. A side benefit is that it's
much easier to wrap the polyurethane leading edge tape around the tip! I'm
debating making the mod to my UltraStar prop.
-Dana
--
I love my country, but I fear my government.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Remember the boat prop was not my example!
I just run with it because it was a good example that even in boats they went to
multi blade props.
but the observation is correct to the same extant as a wood screw needs much less
blade length to dig its way through the way more dense wood. :-)
The fact though is that propulsion is not by and large a consequence of throwing
the air back to create high pressure behind the prop to Push it forward, that
is false. Because for example an airplane that moves at 300 kt will never be
able to throw back enough air to move it forward.. On the ground at full power
the max velocity of the air that you throw back or move back is maybe 30-40
mph at most. If you are moving at say 300 kt it is obviously impossible that
30-40 mph is pushing you at 300kt. It is something else then. And that something
is of course the lift that the prop is generating and not the air that it moves.
Say you have a big two blade prop moving the air at 15 mph it is still impossible
for it to move you forward at say 70mph.
Anyway one fellow (Larry Cottrell I think he was at MV but I don't exactly remember
the face with that name),, is getting irate so to make sure we don't degenerate
here into negativity I am dropping this subject. :-)
Or you come over to Geo group and we can continue there. There are no personal
attacks allowed there, as a moderator I make sure of that.
========================================
However a fluid is a fluid, and true
---- Denny Rowe wrote:
============
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1(at)cox.net>
> I don't know about that,,,,, :-).
> I just did a quick Google search for boat props and most of them are at
> least 4 blades, and their cross section support 100% just what I'v been
> saying all along. Submarine props are very much multi blade props, they
> almost look like the Propjets from the 80's.
>
What works in water does not directly transfer to air being that air is a
lot thinner.
Enter the Wright brothers, a big reason they succeded first is that they
discovered Otto Ls lift tables for airfoils were incorrect, Shazzam, their
wing and propeller aspect ratios went way up and away they went. Up till
than, most propeller designers were basing there props on marine props and
were getting nowhere.
Spend all the money you want to on a 55 inch gazzillion blade prop, you will
never outperform a two or three blade 66 to 72 inch prop with the proper
reduction unit.
The laws of physics don't bend, it is easier to accelerate a lot of air a
little, than a little a lot.
Seen any 55 inch wind mills lately?
Denny Rowe
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
At 09:21 PM 5/31/2009, Ron @ KFHU wrote:
>The fact though is that propulsion is not by and large a consequence
>of throwing the air back to create high pressure behind the prop to Push
>it forward, that is false...
The thrust produced by a propeller is equal to the mass flow rate
multiplied by the change in velocity. Remember Newton's laws: For every
action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The propeller is pulling
the plane forward; thus the propeller must be pushing the air back with
equal force. If you exert a force on the air (or anything!) it will
accelerate (that's the change in velocity). I didn't say that the velocity
change is the _cause_ of the thrust, you could just as easily say that the
velocity change is caused by the thrust, but it's an essential part of the
picture.
Just like wing lift, you can describe it by downwash and Newton's law or by
Bernoulli's principle and air velocities and pressure distribution, but
they're just two different ways of describing and calculating the same
phenomenon. Using one description or method doesn't mean the other is
incorrect.
-Dana
--
Black holes are where God is dividing by zero.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
The Goose Necks of the San Juan River, Utah. We were on our way from MV to
Blanding, UT, to meet up with Mike Marker, then fly on to Wendover, UT.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
We landed at Owyhee Reservoir State Airport. Check it out:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/28U
This was just prior to Memorial Day Weekend. One gentleman in a Super Cub
said he had been spending Memorial Day holidays here since 1981. Only way
in and out is by air or boat. Larry Cottrell can correct me if I am wrong.
This is a photo of Larry Cottrell and Mike Marker. Although Mike was flying
his RANS S-18, he also built and flies a FSII.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Larry Cottrell and John Bickham, Owyhee Reservoir State Airport.
john h
MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Roger Hankins, FS KXP, Grants Pass, Oregon. Roger has flown with us every
trip since we met in the Alvord Desert in 2005.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Sorry for the boo boo. I attached 1445-1 on the previous instead of 1454-1.
john h
We landed at Owyhee Reservoir State Airport. Check it out:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/28U
This was just prior to Memorial Day Weekend. One gentleman in a Super Cub
said he had been spending Memorial Day holidays here since 1981. Only way
in and out is by air or boat. Larry Cottrell can correct me if I am wrong.
This is a photo of Larry Cottrell and Mike Marker. Although Mike was flying
his RANS S-18, he also built and flies a FSII.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
The larger heavy lift helicopters use more blades, especially the
russians.
To harness all that power while maintaining reasonable
maneuverability, to avoid retreating blade stall they have to keep
the rotor diameter down.
-not a problem we have to contend with on our Kolbs.
BB
On 31, May 2009, at 7:54 PM, Dana Hague wrote:
>
> At 07:32 PM 5/31/2009, John Hauck wrote:
>
>> I am from the old days of helicopters, mostly two blades, except
>> the CH-47 Chinook, which had two each three blade main rotors.
>>
>> However, today things have changed a bit. Most have gone to
>> ridgid rotor, hingeless, multiblade main rotors of at least 4
>> blades...
>
> Yes, but I suspect the multi blades are for space or
> controllability reasons, not aerodynamic efficiency.
>
> -Dana
>
> --
> I love my country, but I fear my government.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Okay fine, however that statement could also apply using your reasoning to a multi
blade prop of equal volume as to one of less blades with the same total airfoil
volume.
=================================================
---- Dana Hague wrote:
============
At 09:21 PM 5/31/2009, Ron @ KFHU wrote:
>The fact though is that propulsion is not by and large a consequence
>of throwing the air back to create high pressure behind the prop to Push
>it forward, that is false...
The thrust produced by a propeller is equal to the mass flow rate
multiplied by the change in velocity. Remember Newton's laws: For every
action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The propeller is pulling
the plane forward; thus the propeller must be pushing the air back with
equal force. If you exert a force on the air (or anything!) it will
accelerate (that's the change in velocity). I didn't say that the velocity
change is the _cause_ of the thrust, you could just as easily say that the
velocity change is caused by the thrust, but it's an essential part of the
picture.
Just like wing lift, you can describe it by downwash and Newton's law or by
Bernoulli's principle and air velocities and pressure distribution, but
they're just two different ways of describing and calculating the same
phenomenon. Using one description or method doesn't mean the other is
incorrect.
-Dana
--
Black holes are where God is dividing by zero.
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Oldman" <aoldman(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Video of John H arriving at Rock House |
Shows up on mine the same. Always has done.I still open and have a look,
John leads such a interesting life with many experiences that I have
always thought the risk worth taking .Less risky than his landing posted
in the last vidio. Keep it up,
Tony
Downunder
MK111c 503
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Cottrell
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:18 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Video of John H arriving at Rock House
For some reason my computer flags John's posts on that computer as
phishing, it also marked my reply to his post as the same phishing as
the original even though I "unblocked" it. Did they show up that was on
other computers or is it just mine?
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fw: The kit has arrived! |
| From: | loseyf(at)comcast.net |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Sharp <kolbdriver(at)mlsharp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: The kit has arrived! |
Fran!!=C2- A person after my own heart!!!=C2- =0A=0AMy plan was/is in P
3.... I have so much negative float that it's scary!!!!=0A=0AUs nerds gota
stick together!!!!=0A=0A=0AMike=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_____________________________
___=0AFrom: "loseyf(at)comcast.net" <loseyf(at)comcast.net>=0ATo: kolb-list@matro
nics.com=0ASent: Monday, June 1, 2009 6:46:18 AM=0ASubject: Re: Kolb-List:
Fw: The kit has arrived!=0A=0A=EF=BB Thanks Rick! I have a Microso
ft project timetable with milestones...I am usually good at completion as l
ong as I have milestones set. I am appreciative of the offer for questions
and answers and will ask if I am unsure.=0A=0AThanks again. =0ASent from my
Verizon Wireless BlackBerry=0A________________________________=0AFrom: "Ri
chard & Martha Neilsen" =0ADate: Sun, 31 May 2009 21:58:32 -0400=0ATo: =0ASubject: Re: Kolb-List: Fw: The kit has arrived!=0A
=0AFran=0A=C2-=0ACongratulations.=0A=C2-=0AI set up a work schedule/goa
l of one hour a day. In = the beginning it was much more than that b
ut as time went by I would work a = bunch of hours on week ends and
try to get at least a hour a day during the week = after work. After
three years it worked out to be about one hour per day. I = figured
about a extra year to put the the VW on the plane so really only two = y
ears to build the plane. Now with most of the details worked out the V
W should = only take a extra month or so. My point is set a realisti
c goal and don't get = burned out with to much work a one time. Don'
t make=C2-a bunch of=C2-changes to = the plane, this can really
expand the time to build.=C2-Also watch out for = AIDS (aviation i
nduced divorce syndrome).=C2-=0A=C2-=0AHave fun, keep us up to date on
your progress, and = ask questions. We are here to help.=0A=C2-=0A
I haven't heard from you guys that are working on VW = powered Kolbs
for a long time. Are you still working on them?????? At home = coming th
is year I want to see at least one more VW flying.=0A=C2-=0ADo not a
rchive=0A=C2-=0ARick Neilsen=0ARedrive VW powered MKIIIC=0A=C2-=0A=C2
-=0A----- Original Message ----- From: loseyf(at)comcast.net =0ATo: kol
b-list(at)matronics.com ==0ASent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 7:57 = PM=0ASubject
: Kolb-List: Fw: The kit = has arrived!=0AResending...Matronics like
s this address.=0A=0ASent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry=0A___________
_____________________=0AFrom: =0ADate: Sun, 31 May 2009 = 19:48:46 -
0400=0ATo: < loseyf(at)comcast.net>=0ASubje= ct: Fw: The kit has arrive
d!=0A=0A=0AFran Losey Director of = Technical Services=0A___________
_____________________=0AFrom: Losey, Fran [ENP/ALBER] ==0ATo: kolb-l
ist(at)matronics.com = < kolb-list(at)matronics.com> =0ACc: Travis Brown <
travis(at)tnkolbaircraft.com> ==0ASent: Sun May 31 19:30:14 2009=0ASubj
ect: The kit has arrived! ==0A=0AJust posting a note to say I have now st
arted the = process..of building.=0A=C2-=0AMy MK3X kit a
rrived yesterday thanks to the fine = folks at Kolb, and Brian and H
elen who delivered.=C2- I truly enjoyed their = Company, and can s
ay that good folks make all the difference in the world when = making a
decision of this type.=0A=C2-=0AI have a grin bigger than Bob the E
nzyte guy!=0A=C2-=0ASincerely,=0A=C2-=0AFran = Losey N62FL
(reserved)=C2-=EF=BD=EF=BD=EF=BD~= =EF=B
F=BD=EF=BD=EF=BD,=EF=BD=03g(=EF=BD
=EF=BD=EF=BDM=EF= =BDGq=EF=BDz=EF
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =C2
=C2=B7=BA~=B0=C3=AD=C2=B2,=C3=9Eg(=93=C5-=C3=93M4=C3
=93G=C3=9Aq=C3=BC=C2=A2=C3=AA=C3=A2z=C2=B9=C3=9E=C3=81=C3=8A.=C2=AE'=C2=AB8
^*=B0[.+-f=C2=A2=9DZ+=C2=BAt=C2=B1=C3=ABax=C3=86=C2=AD=C2=AE
=B0=C3=A2r=C3=82=C3=A2=C2=B2=C3=91^j=C3=9B=C2=ABz=C3=83Z=C2=BE(=C2=B6=C5
-=C3=AD=C2=A1=C2=BA=C3=A8=C3=82=C3=87=C2=B6=C2j|=B9=C5-=C3=8Bn
=C2=B6)b=C2=B6'=C2=AC=C2=B2=C3=A7!j=C3=82=C3=A2=C2=B2=C3-'=C3=BD+
=BA=C2=B1=C3=8A=C3=A2=C2=C3=98=C2=A8=C5=93+r=C2=AFy'=C5=A1=C2=AD=C3=88C
=C2=A3 =C3=A5=C2=A1=C2=A7{ =C2=AC=EF=BD=C2=AE=C5=92,x(Z=C2=B4P
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Link to MV/Rock House Pictures |
| From: | "John Bickham" <gearbender(at)bellsouth.net> |
If you are interested.....
Here is the link to my pictures from the trip to MV and then on to the Rock House.
http://kolbadventures.shutterfly.com/
I posted them on Shutterfly. I think you can save or print whatever you like that
way, if you so desire.
John H, let me know if you need me to send the pictures of the mine directly to
Tony.
I have a few videos that I want to download to YouTube when I get a chance. Still
catching up on chores. I'll let you know when I get to that.
http://kolbadventures.blogspot.com/
--------
Thanks too much,
John Bickham
Mark III-C w/ 912UL
St. Francisville, LA
I know many pilots and a few true aviators. There is a distinct difference that
I have the greatest respect for.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246288#246288
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Video of John H arriving at Rock House |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
Hmm... Looks like just a typical spring/summer day where I live. Wind won't go
below 15G25 until Sept here ;).
Former partner in my titan was practicing landings in his RV6-A yesterday with
his instructor while I was watching on the ground. Don't think I've ever seen
a plane that big and heavy yaw and pitch all by itself that much on short final
ever.
I put my FSII down in TX in some shifty wind not quite that strong once. Sure was
glad I had that big 68" warp drive honker on it as full throttle was needed
in some of the dips. Drove it onto the runway in a full wheel landing not much
below cruise due to a gust right at the end.
Learned a while back that going to the stops on the controls just to keep the plane
doing what you want is actually not safe and can bend stuff pretty easily.
I was lucky on that landing as the stops were being put to full use on all controls......
Still miss my FSII a bunch tho. May end up building another one in a few years
if Kolb still makes the kit....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246287#246287
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
captainron1(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
> On the ground at full power the max velocity of the air that you throw back or
move back is maybe 30-40 mph at most. If you are moving at say 300 kt it is
obviously impossible that 30-40 mph is pushing you at 300kt. It is something else
then.
>
> -
You could not be more wrong about this. In a high performance propeller plane,
at full power you can easily flip over GA planes over by doing a full power runup
in front of them, and it take a hell of a lot more than 30-40 MPH to do that.
Ever stand behind a Cessna 150 or 172 during a full power runup, it is a
like a hurricane, WAY more than 30-40 MPH. Now I am starting to understand
why you are making some bad assumptions about different props and their effects
on performance here. You do not have an understanding of some of the basics.
captainron1(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
> It can be accomplished by a large blade or many small blades. In fact the many
small blades are way better at creating a vacuum in front of the propeller than
a fewer blades attempting the same thing. This is not an opinion this is a
fact of aerodynamics ( all else being equal ).
>
>
Many of your " facts " are wrong, and the facts you do know you have used to come
to some very wrong conclusions. You are not the first person to take a fact,
and make very bad assumptions based on that. For the last 80 years or more,
smaller props would have allowed shorter and lighter landing gear on many military
fighters and WWII, shorter gear on many prop transports, better engine
placement on modern low wing turboprops instead of having to mount engines above
the wings, more prop clearance on the ground resulting in less FOD, and much
better engine placement on pusher type airplanes.
Captain Ron, it is really plausible that airplane designers have just overlooked
all of this and never thought about using small multi-bladed props ? This
issue has been very carefully studied, and researched for many years, and the
FACT is that aircraft designers don't use large props just to make planes heaver
and harder to deal with.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246290#246290
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Mike B.
Eloquently put. That's why I decided to not participate in this debate.
When someone says "On the ground at full power the max velocity of the ai
r that you throw back or move back is maybe 30-40 mph at most"=2C then you
have to realize your opposition in the argument.
To belabor the point is futile=2C really.
I recall doing a full power runup with an ultralight I had one. 440 Kawa
saki 40 HP=2C seems like all hell was breaking loose. Yeah=2C I know=2C it
was only 40 horses=2C but the wind that sucker blew back moved trees 100 f
eet away. Maybe it got to 42 mph.
Mike Welch
MkIII Geo Turbo=2C blows back air 24 mph
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements.
> From: orcabonita(at)hotmail.com
> Date: Mon=2C 1 Jun 2009 06:55:00 -0700
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>
> captainron1(at)cox.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > On the ground at full power the max velocity of the air that you throw
back or move back is maybe 30-40 mph at most. If you are moving at say 300
kt it is obviously impossible that 30-40 mph is pushing you at 300kt. It is
something else then.
> >
> > -
>
>
> You could not be more wrong about this. In a high performance propeller p
lane=2C at full power you can easily flip over GA planes over by doing a fu
ll power runup in front of them=2C and it take a hell of a lot more than 30
-40 MPH to do that. Ever stand behind a Cessna 150 or 172 during a full pow
er runup=2C it is a like a hurricane=2C WAY more than 30-40 MPH. Now I am s
tarting to understand why you are making some bad assumptions about differe
nt props and their effects on performance here. You do not have an understa
nding of some of the basics.
>
>
> captainron1(at)cox.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > It can be accomplished by a large blade or many small blades. In fact t
he many small blades are way better at creating a vacuum in front of the pr
opeller than a fewer blades attempting the same thing. This is not an opini
on this is a fact of aerodynamics ( all else being equal ).
> >
> >
>
>
> Many of your " facts " are wrong=2C and the facts you do know you have us
ed to come to some very wrong conclusions. You are not the first person to
take a fact=2C and make very bad assumptions based on that. For the last 80
years or more=2C smaller props would have allowed shorter and lighter land
ing gear on many military fighters and WWII=2C shorter gear on many prop tr
ansports=2C better engine placement on modern low wing turboprops instead o
f having to mount engines above the wings=2C more prop clearance on the gro
und resulting in less FOD=2C and much better engine placement on pusher typ
e airplanes.
>
> Captain Ron=2C it is really plausible that airplane designers have just o
verlooked all of this and never thought about using small multi-bladed prop
s ? This issue has been very carefully studied=2C and researched for many y
ears=2C and the FACT is that aircraft designers don't use large props just
to make planes heaver and harder to deal with.
>
> Mike
>
> --------
> "=3BNO FEAR"=3B - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as y
ou could have !!!
>
> Kolb MK-III Xtra=2C 912-S
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246290#246290
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail=AE goes with you.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutor
ial_Mobile1_052009
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.co wrote:
>
> > On the ground at full power the max velocity of the air that you throw back
or move back is maybe 30-40 mph at most. If you are moving at say 300 kt it
is obviously impossible that 30-40 mph is pushing you at 300kt. It is something
else then.
> >
>
Er, maybe if the AOA of the prop blades is low enough, yeah, you could get a wind
of only 30-40 mph..........
The way I learnt it, a prop is basically just a rotating wing. It's a little different
because the airflow over the different sections of the blade varies due
to it rotating, but the same principles concerning efficiency and mechanical
limits applies to it.
I.e. high-aspect ratio wing sections tend to be more efficient (i.e. have high
L/D ratios) but have lower mechanical limits due to their structure. Low aspect-ration
wing sections are less efficient (low L/D ratios) but have higher mechanical
limits due to structure as well.
This is why, for example, the warp drive prop is so efficient, probably the most
efficient prop you can buy for our light a/c applications. It's got a high-aspect
ratio blade platform with a very thin cross section. Ideal for high L/D
and thus very efficient at producing rotating power into thrust. The main compromise
is blade area to maintain the high AR and keep the diameter within mechanical
restrictions. Blades stall at static and low speed regimes - big whoop,
easily compensated for by correct power usage on the takeoff roll.
Short, stubby props, OTOH, are less efficient for the same reasons (low aspect
ratio) but are used on high-power applications because they can be built strong
as an ox...... That's why fighters have those short low-efficiency wings on
them. Less efficient but that is overcome simply by applying enough power into
the equation ;).
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246302#246302
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
It was a poor choice of words and no sooner I sent it I thought it probably will
cause a bit of a prop blast in my direction. My intent was to dissuade others
from the notion that a prop is a reaction motor such as a rocket, i.e. throwing
a mass backwards to cause Newton's law of equal reaction. :-)
I guess we can argue about my less than brilliant example, but that will not change
any facts about the efficiency of a multi blade prop as compared to a two
blade prop of equal volume of displacement.
Anyway I am chuckling here thinking that drinking a Heineken after a long day and
then posting something of a serious nature does not really further the cause
of science.
---- JetPilot wrote:
============
captainron1(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
> On the ground at full power the max velocity of the air that you throw back or
move back is maybe 30-40 mph at most. If you are moving at say 300 kt it is
obviously impossible that 30-40 mph is pushing you at 300kt. It is something else
then.
>
> -
You could not be more wrong about this. In a high performance propeller plane,
at full power you can easily flip over GA planes over by doing a full power runup
in front of them, and it take a hell of a lot more than 30-40 MPH to do that.
Ever stand behind a Cessna 150 or 172 during a full power runup, it is a
like a hurricane, WAY more than 30-40 MPH. Now I am starting to understand
why you are making some bad assumptions about different props and their effects
on performance here. You do not have an understanding of some of the basics.
captainron1(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
> It can be accomplished by a large blade or many small blades. In fact the many
small blades are way better at creating a vacuum in front of the propeller than
a fewer blades attempting the same thing. This is not an opinion this is a
fact of aerodynamics ( all else being equal ).
>
>
Many of your " facts " are wrong, and the facts you do know you have used to come
to some very wrong conclusions. You are not the first person to take a fact,
and make very bad assumptions based on that. For the last 80 years or more,
smaller props would have allowed shorter and lighter landing gear on many military
fighters and WWII, shorter gear on many prop transports, better engine
placement on modern low wing turboprops instead of having to mount engines above
the wings, more prop clearance on the ground resulting in less FOD, and much
better engine placement on pusher type airplanes.
Captain Ron, it is really plausible that airplane designers have just overlooked
all of this and never thought about using small multi-bladed props ? This
issue has been very carefully studied, and researched for many years, and the
FACT is that aircraft designers don't use large props just to make planes heaver
and harder to deal with.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246290#246290
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
This argument has gotten way off the subject line.
I don't intend to be a part of it, but I will throw this in to think about.
When it comes to Kolbs, especially the mkIII, a model that has been out
since 1991, there isn't a whole lot that can be done to it to improve on a
proven design. That includes available, reliable, efficient power plants
and props. For what it is worth, I think I have the best of the
combinations available. In my travels, I haven't found another Kolb mkIII
that will out perform Miss P'fer. There may be some out there, but we have
not encountered them yet. That includes the newest model MKIIIx that I had
the privelege of testing last year.
I have done side by side comparison tests for slow flight and also top speed
with other mkIII's. I think I did as well at slow speed as the much lighter
competition, and I also out ran a mkIII powered with a 912uls and an IVO two
blade, heavy duty prop. I haven't raced with other mkIII's with 912uls's
and three blade fast taper Warp Drive blades, so I don't know how I would
perform with them. My mkIII is an 80 mph cruise hog, that carries all the
weight I ask her to. She does quite well as a super STOL aircraft, even
with out the aid of VGs.
This last flight was 60 hours with no maintenance of any kind to aircraft or
engine. She flew in some extreme weather conditions and survived. She got
me home safe and sound.
I might note, most of this argument about props has been voiced by folks
that don't have a whole heck of a lot of experience with Kolb aircraft.
They don't necessarily get into step with all the other aircraft in the
world. They are a special breed, and have there own very special quirks
that are hard for a lot of engineers to understand. I know they do them and
can not tell you why. Guess that is why I like flying my Kolb.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brad Stump <sky-king(at)inbox.com> |
| Subject: | WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Hay Ron,Iam thinking about starting to work on a Suzuki 1.3 non turbo to replace
my Hirth by some time next year.Would like to see any pics as you progress..Thanks
> -----Original Message-----
> From: captainron1(at)cox.net
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: WRT M3X prop boom measurements.
>
>
> Okay thanks, I guess and also based on what John H. said that the Suzuki
> motor crank is stationed lower on the mounts than the Rotax.
> I would like at one point to have the SPG-2 turned down and have a 5 or 6
> blade prop on it. this will place the center of thrust just about equal
> with the trailing edge of the wings. However for the moment and with the
> budget I got I'll keep it as is.
> A friend of mine was looking at it today for the first time and she said
> "it has such a big motor on it"..... :-) I guess the DOHC 1.3 is kinda
> large looking on the frame.
>
>
> ---- Mike Welch wrote:
>
> ============
>
> Ron,
>
>
>
> I have a turbocharged Suzuki G1.0. & a 68" inflight electric adjust
> IvoProp. My measurements are: from tip of prop to boom tube, I have
> close to 2 3/4" clearance. Of course, you have a different redrive than
> I do, but it sounds like your prop position is very close to mine.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Welch
>
> MkIII
>
>
>
>> Folks I started the mating of the Suzuki motor to the Mounts. I need
>> some measurements as to prop clearances and measured distance from the
>> Boom the the center of the prop hub. I can't see where some of you
>> reported where you had a 72 inch prop. I see where I can install a 70
>> inch prop on my mount but then clearance will be down to about an inch.
>> These are preliminary measurements for my airframe.
>> Anyway I need to figure out what's what WRT that.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Ron @ KFHU
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail goes with you.
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009
> --
> kugelair.com
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click.
Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Yeah, 'cause instead of 250 hp, they have 1500 turbo horses [maybe two of
them].
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
In a message dated 5/31/2009 8:03:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
d-m-hague(at)comcast.net writes:
Yes, but I suspect the multi blades are for space or controllability
reasons, not aerodynamic efficiency.
**************We found the real =98Hotel California=99 and the
=98Seinfeld=99
diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.
(http://www.whereitsat.com/#/music/all-spots/355/47.796964/-66.374711/2/Yo
uve-Found-Where-Its-At?ncid=eml
cntnew00000007)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Hi Brad
We got quite a List with a big library of pictures. If you need info on the Suzuki
you can find it at FlyGeo(at)yahoogroups.com
One of the moderators will approve you pretty quick. Have fun and post any questions
that you can think of we have some very apt people there about the motor,
and even two fellows that will sell you the whole motor package for the Kolb.
If you got the money that's probably the best route to go.
You could go back and review the libraries, all the posts are there. I think we
have discussed that motor and the different types in great detail. Bob B can
correct me but I think the latest motor that is consensus recommended for the
big Kolbs is the 1.3l 16V SOHC from the 2000 Model Geo / Sprint. The little Kolbs
can probably do fine with the 1. ltr Suzi motor.
I am sure that pictures of my motor mount are already there but the latest batch
has the final configuration with all the bracing that I felt were needed.
I will post my most recent photos today sometime there.
==================================================
================================================
---- Brad Stump wrote:
============
Hay Ron,Iam thinking about starting to work on a Suzuki 1.3 non turbo to replace
my Hirth by some time next year.Would like to see any pics as you progress..Thanks
> -----Original Message-----
> From: captainron1(at)cox.net
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: WRT M3X prop boom measurements.
>
>
> Okay thanks, I guess and also based on what John H. said that the Suzuki
> motor crank is stationed lower on the mounts than the Rotax.
> I would like at one point to have the SPG-2 turned down and have a 5 or 6
> blade prop on it. this will place the center of thrust just about equal
> with the trailing edge of the wings. However for the moment and with the
> budget I got I'll keep it as is.
> A friend of mine was looking at it today for the first time and she said
> "it has such a big motor on it"..... :-) I guess the DOHC 1.3 is kinda
> large looking on the frame.
>
>
> ---- Mike Welch wrote:
>
> ============
>
> Ron,
>
>
>
> I have a turbocharged Suzuki G1.0. & a 68" inflight electric adjust
> IvoProp. My measurements are: from tip of prop to boom tube, I have
> close to 2 3/4" clearance. Of course, you have a different redrive than
> I do, but it sounds like your prop position is very close to mine.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Welch
>
> MkIII
>
>
>
>> Folks I started the mating of the Suzuki motor to the Mounts. I need
>> some measurements as to prop clearances and measured distance from the
>> Boom the the center of the prop hub. I can't see where some of you
>> reported where you had a 72 inch prop. I see where I can install a 70
>> inch prop on my mount but then clearance will be down to about an inch.
>> These are preliminary measurements for my airframe.
>> Anyway I need to figure out what's what WRT that.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Ron @ KFHU
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail goes with you.
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009
> --
> kugelair.com
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click.
Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
At 01:10 PM 6/1/2009, Ron @ KFHU wrote:
>My intent was to dissuade others from the notion that a prop is a reaction
>motor such as a rocket, i.e. throwing a mass backwards to cause Newton's
>law of equal reaction. :-)
A prop is not a rocket in that the mass originates in a rocket, but the
prop does accelerate aft the air passing through it, and Newton's law of
reaction says that the force exerted in pushing the air back is equal to
the force the air exerts pushing the prop forward. Thrust is equal to the
mass flow times the velocity change, as I said.
I'm not idly speculating... I kinda had to study this stuff when I was
earning my aerospace engineering degree...
>Anyway I am chuckling here thinking that drinking a Heineken after a long
>day and then posting something of a serious nature does not really further
>the cause of science.
OK, I'm done with science/engineering for tonight too... don't care for
Heineken, think I'll go open an Anchor Steam.
-Dana
--
The greatest threat to western civilization are people whose fear of
other people's liberty exceeds the love of their own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
At 01:10 PM 6/1/2009, Ron @ KFHU wrote:
>My intent was to dissuade others from the notion that a prop is a reaction
>motor such as a rocket, i.e. throwing a mass backwards to cause Newton's
>law of equal reaction. :-)
A prop is not a rocket in that the mass originates in a rocket, but the
prop does accelerate aft the air passing through it, and Newton's law of
reaction says that the force exerted in pushing the air back is equal to
the force the air exerts pushing the prop forward. Thrust is equal to the
mass flow times the velocity change, as I said.
I'm not idly speculating... I kinda had to study this stuff when I was
earning my aerospace engineering degree...
>Anyway I am chuckling here thinking that drinking a Heineken after a long
>day and then posting something of a serious nature does not really further
>the cause of science.
OK, I'm done with science/engineering for tonight too... don't care for
Heineken, think I'll go open an Anchor Steam.
-Dana
--
The greatest threat to western civilization are people whose fear of
other people's liberty exceeds the love of their own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Captain Ron,
It would be a rather expensive test that will surely have poor results. Lots of
prop testing has been done on Kolbs, and lots of other planes by Warp Drive,
Power Fin, And IVO. These guys know a LOT about props, and have done the research.
Whenever I call any of these companies, they are very knowledgeable about
prop/speed/motor combinations and what works, and what does not. If they
could sell more props and make a bunch of money by selling us new multi blade
smaller diameter props that would work better, they would ! If you have doubts
I would suggest you talk to some of these prop experts. I'm just trying to
save you the trouble and expense of an experiment that has a known outcome...
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246395#246395
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Thought some of you may be interested in multiple blade props offered by
Warp Drive for air boats. Alabama Power Corp uses air boats on our lakes
powered by 350 Chevy engines and 8 blade WD props.
john h
mkIII - Only have 3 blades. ;-)
AIRBOAT AND HOVERCRAFT PROPELLER PRICE SCHEDULE
NOTE: These prices are for Airboat and Hovercraft applications with
direct-drive engines exceeding 80 hp and for engines exceeding 120 hp with a
PSRU installed. The price includes the Nickel Leading Edges which are
mandatory and a Protractor to measure and set blade pitch.
3 Blade Up to 72" $1135
4 Blade Up to 72" $1530
5 Blade Up to 72" $1840
5 Blade Up to 80" $1890
6 Blade Up to 72" $2120
6 Blade Up to 80" $2175
6 Blade Up to 90" $2695
7 Blade Up to 80" $2475
8 Blade Up to 72" $2725
8 Blade Up to 80" $2785
10 Blade Up to 80" $3315
All Airboat and Hovercraft Replacement Blades are $300.00 per blade
including the Nickel Edges. (Provide prop serial number)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Long winded post about props. If you are not interest hit delete.
I have seen the charts that show small diameter props turning fast rpm's
reach their maximum efficiencies at high speeds. AND large diameter
props reach their maximum efficiencies at slow speeds.
SO when building a plane the first thing you want to do is to determine
what the plane is to be designed to do. That will determine the speed
range of the design, the speed of the design will determine the prop
diameter and pitch.
That said, the most efficient prop is a "1" blade prop... you read it right
"one" blade. The problem with a one blade prop is keeping things in
balance. And yes it has been experimented with, you have to have a counter
balance on the other side, and by playing with the angle of a pivot you can
make it more or less a constant speed prop. When it is pulling hard it will
cone forward and if mounted at the correct pivot angle it will reduce the
pitch,,, when the plane is up to speed the centrifugal force causes it to
run in a flatter coneing angle, increasing the pitch. Why do I mention the
one blade prop as the most efficient???? because every prop or wing going
through the air has two types of drag acting on it.
Drag: drag may de subdivided into induced drag and parasite drag. Induced
drag is simply the drag created in the process of developing lift / thrust.
In addition to the induced drag caused by the development of lift, there is
parasite drag due to skin friction and form. This term is used because
parasite drag is not directly associated with the development of lift.
Parasite drag is present ant time the wing or prop is moving through the
air, even in a zero lift condition.
The more blades the more parasite drag. The more parasite drag, the more HP
will be used up that is not creating lift / thrust, the more hp not
producing thrust the less efficient the prop / wing.
Now props work best when set to the best pitch angle at cruise, as to be
able to use up the available HP. Fast aircraft have a high pitch angle.
And if set as a constant pitch, they have very poor takeoff performance.
That is why they put on a variable pitch prop on fast aircraft. So they can
maximize the efficiency at both slow and fast speeds. At the speed that
the kolb line of aircraft fly,, the variable pitch seems unnecessary.
Because we get good take off performance and flight with one pitch. Look at
the production aircraft that fly in the speeds that the kolbs fly. They
have very simple fixed pitch props. Generally a two blade prop. Now as
the HP increases and you start to have prop ground clearance problems, and
you cant pitch the prop to use up the available HP in cruise, by setting the
pitch for maximum efficiency, then you add an additional blade.
Now on a pusher there is a different reason to add the third blade sooner
than you would on a tractor, that is because of the noise developed by
having a prop with greater pitch go into and out of the disturbed airflow.
The smaller pitch on a three blade seem to make less noise. But we trade
the quieter operation for less efficiency caused by increased parasite
drag.
On most aircraft the prop diameter is limited by ground clearance. Has
anyone ever seen a Cessna 150, or a j5 cub with a 45 inch 6 blade prop? If
it were more efficient it would be the norm.
Boyd Young
Kolb MkIII C 580+ hours and counting
Brigham City Utah.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
At 03:07 PM 6/2/2009, Ron @ KFHU wrote:
>A couple of years ago I pretty much had said to Bob B pretty much what I
>will say again.
>The claim that a singe blade prop is more efficient than say a 2 blade
>prop does not stand the test of reason. I have heard that claim since I
>was a kid, that a one blade prop is better but never quite understood it
>even back then...
For aircraft like ours, I agree that there wouldn't be much if any
measurable advantage to a one blade prop, and the associated problems would
outweigh any slight advantages. However, they have been used to advantage
on some model airplanes... control line "speed" ships that can do 200mph,
with engines turning around 30,000 rpm. With such tiny props turning so
fast, the blades ARE close enough together that going to one blade helps.
-Dana
--
A goverment that fears arms in the hands of it people should also fear ROPE!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
At 03:07 PM 6/2/2009, Ron @ KFHU wrote:
>A couple of years ago I pretty much had said to Bob B pretty much what I
>will say again.
>The claim that a singe blade prop is more efficient than say a 2 blade
>prop does not stand the test of reason. I have heard that claim since I
>was a kid, that a one blade prop is better but never quite understood it
>even back then...
For aircraft like ours, I agree that there wouldn't be much if any
measurable advantage to a one blade prop, and the associated problems would
outweigh any slight advantages. However, they have been used to advantage
on some model airplanes... control line "speed" ships that can do 200mph,
with engines turning around 30,000 rpm. With such tiny props turning so
fast, the blades ARE close enough together that going to one blade helps.
-Dana
--
A goverment that fears arms in the hands of it people should also fear ROPE!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
At 03:35 PM 6/2/2009, Brad Stump wrote:
>I hope i'am not asking a dumb question here,but I need some advice.My
>engine's peak Hp is at 6500 rpm,I climb out at 700-800 fpm,and cruse at
>65-70 mph.If I increase the pitch of my 3-blade prop, will I increase my
>cruse or climb rate?
If your prop is already pitched optimally for climb, increasing the pitch
will improve your cruise at the expense of climb. If it's pitched too flat
for best climb, you'll improve both. If you already have too much pitch
for best cruise, both may suffer.
Generally a prop is pitched for a good compromise between climb and cruise,
often a bit more one way or another... so you hear people talk about a
"climb prop" or a "cruise prop". On a typical small slow plane, IIRC the
difference is about 2" of pitch.
-Dana
--
A goverment that fears arms in the hands of it people should also fear ROPE!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | strange sputtering |
| From: | "cristalclear13" <cristalclearwaters(at)gmail.com> |
Decided to take my dad, who is visiting me, on a little cross country in my Kolb
Mark II to Douglas, GA. I wanted to show him the WWII museum there but found
out they are only open on Fridays and Saturdays once we got there.
We had had some fog in the morning but it burned off around 10:30am and so we headed
out. When we got to Douglas and landed, I was about to turn the plane around
and exit on the taxiway I just passed but when I started to turn and gave
it a little more on the throttle it kind of sputtered and wouldn't rev up.
I pulled it back and tried it again and it went fine. Then when I was parking
her it did it again.
My carbs were sweating the front one more than the back. That isn't unusual in
the hot weather we have though. On the front carb where the rubber socket is
the carb had some black stuff along the edge where it fits into the socket (whereas
my back carb was nice and clean in that area). I grabbed my screwdriver
and tightened the clamp around the socket. It may have been a little loose.
Perhaps it was sucking air?
We ate lunch, considered our options and then decided to start it up, if no problems
then take off and go around the airport a bit. We didn't have any more
problems so we headed home and didn't have any more symptoms of the sort. The
afternoon thermals sure gave us an interesting ride home. I think I'm getting
more used to it. I think I had my best landing yet with a full-size passenger
when Dad and I got back to Waycross. :D
Side note to George Alexander: Got your message...thanks.
--------
Cristal Waters
Kolb Mark II Twinstar
Rotax 503 DCSI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246552#246552
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | strange sputtering |
> My carbs were sweating the front one more than the back. That isn't unusu
al in the hot >weather we have though.> --------
> Cristal Waters
> Kolb Mark II Twinstar
> Rotax 503 DCSI
Christal=2C
Sounds as though you experienced the classic symptoms of "carb icing"=2C
although from your description of the carb's sweating=2C you may have only
developed condensation=2C not icing.
If your rpms are high=2C as they are in cruise=2C your engine can usually
ride out the humidity's sweating condition. However=2C the moisture often
presents itself on throttling back=2C as in the landing mode or taxiing.
It's not uncommon for some people to report their engines died on enterin
g the traffic pattern(with a reduced power setting).
I'm not sure what you could do to minimize this tendency. Has anyone com
e up with a carb heat mechanism for Bing carbs??
Mike Welch
MkIII
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail=AE.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tut
orial_QuickAdd_062009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | strange sputtering |
At 11:25 PM 6/2/2009, Mike Welch wrote:
> > My carbs were sweating the front one more than the back. That isn't
> unusual in the hot >weather we have though.> --------
>
> Sounds as though you experienced the classic symptoms of "carb icing",
> although from your description of the carb's sweating, you may have only
> developed condensation, not icing.
I spent some time chasing carb icing when the engine was reluctant to
increase from cruise to full throttle and was covered with condensation
when I landed. Turned out, though, it was not icing but simply running too
rich for the very hot humid day that it was... dropping the needle one
notch solved the problem.
> I'm not sure what you could do to minimize this tendency. Has anyone
> come up with a carb heat mechanism for Bing carbs??
Somebody does make an electric carb heater for the Bings. It's a spacer
block that goes between the carb and the manifold. Since it heats the carb
body and not the air, you leave it turned on all the time without affecting
performance.
-Dana
--
Growing old is inevitable, but we can stay immature indefinitely.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: strange sputtering |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
cristalclear13 wrote:
> Decided to take my dad, who is visiting me, on a little cross country in my Kolb
Mark II to Douglas, GA. I wanted to show him the WWII museum there but found
out they are only open on Fridays and Saturdays once we got there.
>
> We had had some fog in the morning but it burned off around 10:30am and so we
headed out. When we got to Douglas and landed, I was about to turn the plane
around and exit on the taxiway I just passed but when I started to turn and gave
it a little more on the throttle it kind of sputtered and wouldn't rev up.
I pulled it back and tried it again and it went fine. Then when I was parking
her it did it again.
>
> My carbs were sweating the front one more than the back. That isn't unusual
in the hot weather we have though. On the front carb where the rubber socket
is the carb had some black stuff along the edge where it fits into the socket
(whereas my back carb was nice and clean in that area). I grabbed my screwdriver
and tightened the clamp around the socket. It may have been a little loose.
Perhaps it was sucking air?
>
> We ate lunch, considered our options and then decided to start it up, if no problems
then take off and go around the airport a bit. We didn't have any more
problems so we headed home and didn't have any more symptoms of the sort. The
afternoon thermals sure gave us an interesting ride home. I think I'm getting
more used to it. I think I had my best landing yet with a full-size passenger
when Dad and I got back to Waycross. :D
>
> Side note to George Alexander: Got your message...thanks.
Yet another reason I finally made my escape from the Gulf Coast to a place with
cleaner air..........
It was rare for me when I lived in TX to land _without_ the carburettor bodies
simply soaked with condensation, enough for it to be literally dripping down onto
the float bowls on the outside. It became more or less SOP for me to drop
the bowls after the motor had cooled down to check for water collecting in the
bottom. From time to time there was a small bead of it in there.
High humidity also acts to increase the effective density altitude since water
vapour is less dense than air so, as Dana said, everything will go rich in those
conditions.
If you're already rich at idle, it'll be aggravated pretty good as the humidity
rises.
You might also make sure your idle jets are clear. Those are the first parts to
plug up on the 2-stroke bings, especially if you're running premix. Being unable
to get a lean enough idle is the typical symptom of this. You even see this
from time to time on the 912 bings, as one of our locals found out on his 912ULS
here a few weeks ago.....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246586#246586
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: strange sputtering |
| From: | zeprep251(at)aol.com |
Cristal,
???? When you evaporate fuel at the discharge nozzle,it is possible to get a temperature
drop of 30 degrees or more,and under high humidity conditions have some
ice form on the inside of the carb body affecting fuel discharge at low speed.It,s
less likely with the Bing 54 than on the 64CV Bings on the 912,s and
Jabiru's because they also have a throttle plate downwind of the discharge nozzle
which ice forms on readily.On my 64CV I use an electrically powered heater
unit that mounts with 2 screws to the boss at the throttle shaft and it heats
the shaft area of the carb body effectively. Got it from the Jabiru dealer.I
doubt if you will have enough trouble with icing to warrant that much effort.Just
watch for those days of high humidity and temps when a 30 degree drop could
put you in that freezing range, and make your throttle movements carefully.
? ? ? ?? G.Aman MK3C 2200Jabiru?
-----Original Message-----
From: cristalclear13 <cristalclearwaters(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:36 pm
Subject: Kolb-List: strange sputtering
Decided to take my dad, who is visiting me, on a little cross country in my Kolb
Mark II to Douglas, GA. I wanted to show him the WWII museum there but found
out they are only open on Fridays and Saturdays once we got there.
We had had some fog in the morning but it burned off around 10:30am and so we
headed out. When we got to Douglas and landed, I was about to turn the plane
around and exit on the taxiway I just passed but when I started to turn and gave
it a little more on the throttle it kind of sputtered and wouldn't rev up. I
pulled it back and tried it again and it went fine. Then when I was parking her
it did it again.
My carbs were sweating the front one more than the back. That isn't unusual in
the hot weather we have though. On the front carb where the rubber socket is
the carb had some black stuff along the edge where it fits into the socket
(whereas my back carb was nice and clean in that area). I grabbed my
screwdriver and tightened the clamp around the socket. It may have been a
little loose. Perhaps it was sucking air?
We ate lunch, considered our options and then decided to start it up, if no
problems then take off and go around the airport a bit. We didn't have any more
problems so we headed home and didn't have any more symptoms of the sort. The
afternoon thermals sure gave us an interesting ride home. I think I'm getting
more used to it. I think I had my best landing yet with a full-size passenger
when Dad and I got back to Waycross. :D
Side note to George Alexander: Got your message...thanks.
--------
Cristal Waters
Kolb Mark II Twinstar
Rotax 503 DCSI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246552#246552
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
> Hi Russ,
> I hope i'am not asking a dumb question here,but I need some
> advice.My engine's peak Hp is at 6500 rpm,I climb out at 700-800
> fpm,and cruse at 65-70 mph.If I increase the pitch of my 3-blade
> prop, will I increase my cruse or climb rate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Brad
Lets think out loud here.
With a plane with a constant speed prop they always set to a fine pitch for
takeoff allowing max rpm. This equals max take off performance, climb
rate.
When the same plane gets up to speed they increase the pitch, reducing the
rpm. This gives them a little faster cruse. It allows the prop to use up
the HP with out over reving.
This becomes a larger factor when the aircraft speed is above 130 - 150 or
so.
In your case, if you climb at 6500 at wot,,, then at straight and level you
will be over reving. So you have to pull the power back. If you increase
the pitch you will climb at (lets say for example) 6250 rpm.. at that rpm
your engine is not putting out the full rated hp.(slower climb) But in
straight and level flight you will pull 6500 and put the full hp to the
prop. Thus going faster, because you have not had to pull the power back.
Boyd Young
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | mildew on fabric |
| From: | "cristalclear13" <cristalclearwaters(at)gmail.com> |
I have found another "bonus" (not) of living in this area of high humidity. I
am seeing quite a bit of black mildew now on the inside of my plane. What will
safely clean that off the fabric?
--------
Cristal Waters
Kolb Mark II Twinstar
Rotax 503 DCSI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246616#246616
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: mildew on fabric |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Flying more often will prevent it [Wink]
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246618#246618
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: strange sputtering |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I don't think Carb icing is a possibility in Crystal's case. The outside temp
was probably 85 degrees or maybe even hotter. Even with a 30 degree temperature
drop in the carburetor, that is not even close to forming ice. There is a
lot of humidity, and the carbs will sweat due to them being much cooler than
the surrounding air flowing over them, but it ice just is not going to form in
a carburetor on an 85 degree day.
Better not to get distracted with something that was not the problem, and look
for the real culprit to the rough running engine.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246620#246620
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | First Annual Allison Birthday Fly In |
| From: | EmailUser greg <greg(at)skyelink.com> |
Your invited to my first annual fun fly weedend. Located at ace airfield in
Farnham VA. Camping under the wing fun with food music and great fun with
other pilots like yourselves. The fun starts on July 25,26 Anyone that would
like to come early you can fly in on the 24th. i will be around all day. My
Airfield is located GPS 76*36.071w and 37*56.500n close to the bay.
My runway is on north south orientation. It is a 2000 ft grass strip with a
line of trees on the west side of the field. Please use trafic pattern over
these trees on the west. I will be using communication ch 12300 to help if
needed. If you choose to drive an rv or a car to fun fly use kings ln
Farnham in your GPS it will bring you here. Any questions please call me
804-450-6200 my name is Greg Allison.
There will be drinks and food available for everyone. horse shoe,bola ball
and music sat night.I look forward to seeing you all there.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: strange sputtering |
| From: | "Thom Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Carb ice can form at 85F OAT in high humidity. See graph at following link.
http://www.ez.org/carb_ice.htm
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY
http://riddletr.googlepages.com/sportpilot-cfi
http://riddletr.googlepages.com/a%26pmechanix
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system
that works.
- John Gaule
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246625#246625
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mildew on fabric |
From what I have read, a solution of baking soda and water sprayed
on lightly will inhibit fungus and mold.
-Haven't tried myself though.
BB
On 3, Jun 2009, at 12:29 PM, cristalclear13 wrote:
>
>
> I have found another "bonus" (not) of living in this area of high
> humidity. I am seeing quite a bit of black mildew now on the
> inside of my plane. What will safely clean that off the fabric?
>
> --------
> Cristal Waters
> Kolb Mark II Twinstar
> Rotax 503 DCSI
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246616#246616
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: mildew on fabric |
| From: | loseyf(at)comcast.net |
While covering is the topic, has anyone had any experience with Oratex UL600?
This product requires no secondary processes.....
Loseyf(at)comcast.net
------Original Message------
From: robert bean
Sender: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
ReplyTo: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Jun 3, 2009 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: mildew on fabric
From what I have read, a solution of baking soda and water sprayed
on lightly will inhibit fungus and mold.
-Haven't tried myself though.
BB
On 3, Jun 2009, at 12:29 PM, cristalclear13 wrote:
>
>
> I have found another "bonus" (not) of living in this area of high
> humidity. I am seeing quite a bit of black mildew now on the
> inside of my plane. What will safely clean that off the fabric?
>
> --------
> Cristal Waters
> Kolb Mark II Twinstar
> Rotax 503 DCSI
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246616#246616
>
>
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Covering system |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
As I have said before, anything labeled " Eco " usually means does not work very
well. Cleaners, paints, you name it, when they come up with the " Eco Friendly
" version, it is usually not as strong and not as good as the non eco friendly
stuff...
Seems that labeling a product " ECO " is a good way of selling a substandard product
that would never sell on its own merits. Even if this eko friendly system
was cheap, I sure as heck would not want my airplane to be the test case for
this.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246663#246663
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mildew on fabric |
At 02:40 PM 6/3/2009, loseyf(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
>While covering is the topic, has anyone had any experience with Oratex
>UL600? This product requires no secondary processes.....
There was a big discussion about Oratex on the homebuiltairplanes.com
forums not long ago. It's rather expensive, and the one guy who got some
samples said it has an unattractive (to him) dull finish. They're
apparently still developing the product line, but at the present it sounds
like one of those prodcts that's "not quite there yet".
-Dana
--
When Columbus came to America, there were no taxes, no debts, and no
pollution. The women did all the work while the men hunted or fished all
day. Ever since then, a bunch of idiotic do-gooders have been trying to
"improve" the place.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mildew on fabric |
At 02:40 PM 6/3/2009, loseyf(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
>While covering is the topic, has anyone had any experience with Oratex
>UL600? This product requires no secondary processes.....
There was a big discussion about Oratex on the homebuiltairplanes.com
forums not long ago. It's rather expensive, and the one guy who got some
samples said it has an unattractive (to him) dull finish. They're
apparently still developing the product line, but at the present it sounds
like one of those prodcts that's "not quite there yet".
-Dana
--
When Columbus came to America, there were no taxes, no debts, and no
pollution. The women did all the work while the men hunted or fished all
day. Ever since then, a bunch of idiotic do-gooders have been trying to
"improve" the place.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
For aircraft like ours, I agree that there wouldn't be much if any
measurable advantage to a one blade prop, and the associated problems would
outweigh any slight advantages. However, they have been used to advantage
on some model airplanes... control line "speed" ships that can do 200mph,
with engines turning around 30,000 rpm. With such tiny props turning so
fast, the blades ARE close enough together that going to one blade helps.
-Dana
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Dana
For a 1 blade to do its job effectively I would think that it should be
installed on a slick go fast plane. The cruise would be in keeping with the
large pitch angle needed to use up the HP. And less of the HP being used up
as parasitic drag. To put it on a slow aircraft the prop would use up the
hp but be stalled, therefore not creating the thrust that it could do on a
faster craft.
And as for the 1 blade design being the most efficient,, I should have
clarified it by saying in cruise, and in a tractor configuration, where it
is not slapping the large pitch against the disturbed air,, climb would
probably not be as good even with the pitch reducing coning angle.
Boyd Young
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
[quote="by0ung(at)brigham.net"]
> Hi Russ,
> I hope i'am not asking a dumb question here,but I need some
> advice.My engine's peak Hp is at 6500 rpm,I climb out at 700-800
> fpm,and cruse at 65-70 mph.If I increase the pitch of my 3-blade
> prop, will I increase my cruse or climb rate?
>
>
That sounds about like the envelope of my old FSII. Mine had the 503 with 3.47:1
C box and 68" WD 3-blade taper tip. I'd say thats about the best combo you can
get on the FSII, tho admittedly I only had one other FSII in my area to actually
compare to. He had the 2.58 B box and a 2 blade woody, I could outclimb
him just a little bit, tho he seemed to have a little higher top end than my best
climb pitch setting.
For a while I ran about 6400 on climbout on mine but it would easily get to redline
in level flight. The rule of thumb of bumping just up to redline at WOT straight
and level will give the best compromise. With the prop set that way on
my FSII that gave me about 6200 on climbout which was still plenty good climb
and gave a comfortable 65mph cruise at about 5300. Just under 3 gph.
I sure kinda miss that plane.... don't know if I ever mentioned that....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246717#246717
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: strange sputtering |
| From: | "dalewhelan" <dalewhelan(at)earthlink.net> |
One person posted that it was possible the pilot jet was plugged. I think he meant
to say this would cause a lean condition, as plugging up a fuel jet reduces
fuel delivery. When they are lean throttle response is poor, just like when
the motor is too cold.
--------
Dale Whelan
503 powered Firestar II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246724#246724
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
http://www.ultraligero.net/Cursos/varios/helice_de_una_pala.pdf
<http://www.ultraligero.net/Cursos/varios/helice_de_una_pala.pdf>Rick
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:35 PM, b young wrote:
>
>
> For aircraft like ours, I agree that there wouldn't be much if any
> measurable advantage to a one blade prop, and the associated problems would
> outweigh any slight advantages. However, they have been used to advantage
> on some model airplanes... control line "speed" ships that can do 200mph,
> with engines turning around 30,000 rpm. With such tiny props turning so
> fast, the blades ARE close enough together that going to one blade helps.
>
> -Dana
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>
> Dana
>
> For a 1 blade to do its job effectively I would think that it should be
> installed on a slick go fast plane. The cruise would be in keeping with
> the
> large pitch angle needed to use up the HP. And less of the HP being used up
> as parasitic drag. To put it on a slow aircraft the prop would use up the
> hp but be stalled, therefore not creating the thrust that it could do on a
> faster craft.
>
> And as for the 1 blade design being the most efficient,, I should have
> clarified it by saying in cruise, and in a tractor configuration, where it
> is not slapping the large pitch against the disturbed air,, climb would
> probably not be as good even with the pitch reducing coning angle.
>
> Boyd Young
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brad Stump <sky-king(at)inbox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Boyd,
Thank you and others who have offered advice.Iam going to increase the pitch this
week-end and see if this will make go faster.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: by0ung(at)brigham.net
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements.
>
>
>> Hi Russ,
>> I hope i'am not asking a dumb question here,but I need some
>> advice.My engine's peak Hp is at 6500 rpm,I climb out at 700-800
>> fpm,and cruse at 65-70 mph.If I increase the pitch of my 3-blade
>> prop, will I increase my cruse or climb rate?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Brad
>
> Lets think out loud here.
>
> With a plane with a constant speed prop they always set to a fine pitch
> for
> takeoff allowing max rpm. This equals max take off performance, climb
> rate.
>
> When the same plane gets up to speed they increase the pitch, reducing
> the
> rpm. This gives them a little faster cruse. It allows the prop to use
> up
> the HP with out over reving.
>
> This becomes a larger factor when the aircraft speed is above 130 - 150
> or
> so.
>
> In your case, if you climb at 6500 at wot,,, then at straight and level
> you
> will be over reving. So you have to pull the power back. If you
> increase
> the pitch you will climb at (lets say for example) 6250 rpm.. at that
> rpm
> your engine is not putting out the full rated hp.(slower climb) But in
> straight and level flight you will pull 6500 and put the full hp to the
> prop. Thus going faster, because you have not had to pull the power back.
>
> Boyd Young
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
GET FREE 5GB EMAIL - Check out spam free email with many cool features!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Prop pitch will have a huge effect on your cruise and top speed. I have done
a lot of experimenting with it on my MK III Xtra with the 912-S and 3 blade Warp
Drive prop.
When I pitched for 5800 RPM climb, which is the maximum RPM for the Rotax 912-S,
I get the best acceleration and climb, but cruise speed is horrible. It takes
a lot more RPM, power, and fuel to cruise at 75 MPH. All my high end speeds
were way down, top level flight speed is limited by RPM. If all one ever did
was climb, the low pitch / high RPM setting might be ok, but for overall flying,
it really sucks :(
With the prop set for 5200 RPM climb, I give up a couple hundred feet per minute
in climb, but 75 MPH cruise is achieved at a much lower RPM, and power setting
with significantly lower fuel usage, and top level flight speed is much better.
The cruise with lots of pitch in the prop is so much improved, I will
gladly give up a couple hundred RPM in climb. The added advantage is that not
running the engine to its absolute maximum RPM should increase its life.
The Rotax 912-S is designed to run at high RPM's, but the 5500 - 5800 RPM range
is time limited by Rotax for a reason, and it will probably increase the engines
life keep it at 5500 RPM and below and just not to try to get every last
HP out of it.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246775#246775
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
JetPilot wrote:
> Prop pitch will have a huge effect on your cruise and top speed. I have done
a lot of experimenting with it on my MK III Xtra with the 912-S and 3 blade
Warp Drive prop.
>
> When I pitched for 5800 RPM climb, which is the maximum RPM for the Rotax 912-S,
I get the best acceleration and climb, but cruise speed is horrible. It takes
a lot more RPM, power, and fuel to cruise at 75 MPH. All my high end speeds
were way down, top level flight speed is limited by RPM. If all one ever
did was climb, the low pitch / high RPM setting might be ok, but for overall flying,
it really sucks :(
>
> With the prop set for 5200 RPM climb, I give up a couple hundred feet per minute
in climb, but 75 MPH cruise is achieved at a much lower RPM, and power setting
with significantly lower fuel usage, and top level flight speed is much
better. The cruise with lots of pitch in the prop is so much improved, I will
gladly give up a couple hundred RPM in climb. The added advantage is that
not running the engine to its absolute maximum RPM should increase its life.
The Rotax 912-S is designed to run at high RPM's, but the 5500 - 5800 RPM range
is time limited by Rotax for a reason, and it will probably increase the engines
life keep it at 5500 RPM and below and just not to try to get every last
HP out of it.
>
> Mike
BTW, this is also true of the 2-strokes but a bit higher degree than the 912. It's
a common misconception that they last longer running at 6000+ rpm continuously.
Actually, the "sweet spot" for continuous operation with them is in the
5200 to 5500 range, at somewhere in the neighborhood of 2/3 throttle.
Also, they can't run at full throttle on a continuous basis. The TBO goes down
significantly when they're run wide open all the time regardless of the rpm and
something will eventually give (usually the con rod big end is the first to
go). Especially the 582, tho the 503 and 447 can take that for a while longer.
The 912 is sturdier in that regard as they can run WOT continuously below 5500
rpm (IIRC from the operator's manual).
The sweet spot on my 912ULS seems to be around 5050 rpm....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246778#246778
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Boyd,
Thank you and others who have offered advice.Iam going to increase the pitch
this week-end and see if this will make go faster.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
My thoughts were placed out there for theory. Remember I have never run a
two stroke. And I don't know what the changes will do to the engine /
jetting / temps / etc.
You mentioned that you were going to pull it back and run at 5300 rpm....
also know that in a go fast design with constant speed prop, they set the
power level by using the manifold pressure gauge.. assuming that you run
at 5300 before and you increase the pitch and run again at 5300,,, it will
require a bit more throttle ( increased manifold pressure ) to compensate
for the additional prop load.. it theory you should go faster and also
have a greater fuel burn per hour, but the fuel burn per mile may go down.
As you go faster there is also an increase in drag... hard to know what the
trade off's will be.
If you make a good discovery, let us know.
Boyd Young
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
I have put up a blog about the Owyhee area, and the things that I do and
see here. I just finished a post about the little fly-in that we hosted
here after the MV trip. The pictures enlarge if clicked on. You are
welcome to "follow" or just visit occasionally. No kids, just flying and
fishing pictures with an occasional funny ( to me) story.
http://owyheeflyer.blogspot.com/
Larry C
Firestar II 480 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
The Rotax 912-S is designed to run at high RPM's, but the 5500 - 5800 RPM
range is time limited by Rotax for a reason, and it will probably increase
the engines life keep it at 5500 RPM and below and just not to try to get
every last HP out of it.
>
> Mike
The 912 series engines are designed to operate up to 5800 rpm for 5 minutes
max.
5500 max contiuous.
To get the best overall performance with a fixed pitch prop (ground
adjustable), prop it like you would a boat: WOT, straight and level flight,
just bump the red line - 5500 rpm.
75% power is about 5,000 rpm.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
> BTW, this is also true of the 2-strokes but a bit higher degree than the
912. It's a common misconception that they last longer running at 6000+ rpm
continuously. Actually, the "sweet spot" for continuous operation with them
is in the 5200 to 5500 range, at somewhere in the neighborhood of 2/3
throttle.
>
> LS
Max rpm for Rotax two strokes is 6800 rpm for 5 minutes.
Max contiuous is 6500 rpm.
5800 rpm is 75% power, the optimum rpm to operate a Rotax two stroke
continuously.
5200 to 5500 rpm is the area the engine is trying to get "on the pipe", not
the sweet spot for me. The older two strokes were very unhappy in this rpm
range. They would either speed up or fall off. The engine is not
developing full efficiency below 5500 rpm.
Power settings are easier to describe using rpm rather than throttle
settings.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> Max rpm for Rotax two strokes is 6800 rpm for 5 minutes.
>
> Max contiuous is 6500 rpm.
>
> 5800 rpm is 75% power, the optimum rpm to operate a Rotax two stroke
> continuously.
>
> 5200 to 5500 rpm is the area the engine is trying to get "on the pipe", not
> the sweet spot for me. The older two strokes were very unhappy in this rpm
> range. They would either speed up or fall off. The engine is not
> developing full efficiency below 5500 rpm.
>
> Power settings are easier to describe using rpm rather than throttle
> settings.
>
> john h
> mkIII
The 503 can handle 5800, but the TBO does come out a bit higher when it's kept
in the region of 5400 or thereabouts.
Putting it another way, if 5400 continuous isn't enough to fly the plane as needed,
it's probably underpowered.
5800 was high on my FSII, regardless of throttle setting (as it varied depending
on my pitch setting) it also put the gas consumption above 3 gph without really
substantially increasing my cruise speed.
5300 was spot on comfortable for the engine with no wandering rpm or sensitivity
in the throttle setting that I ever noticed on any plane I've used the 503 on.
With my FS II, gas consumption ran about 2.8 gph and I got about 65mph cruise
at that RPM.
There was never a better match made between plane and engine than the FSII and
503.
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246824#246824
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
> The 503 can handle 5800, but the TBO does come out a bit higher when it's
kept in the region of 5400 or thereabouts.
>
> LS
A 503 can operate continuously at 6500 rpm.
Optimum performance is 75% power, 5800 rpm.
TBO is established by the manufacturer who does not specify a particular rpm
other than 6500 max continuous.
Where do you get your info reference extended TBO if you operate "in the
region of 5400 or thereabouts"?
I don't pay much attention to TBO on two or four stroke engines established
by manufacturers. There is no guarantee the engines will go that long.
Most will go well beyond manufacturers "suggested" TBO before performance
degradation or failure.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> A 503 can operate continuously at 6500 rpm.
>
Don't mean to be contrary, but no it cannot. The chances of failure go WAY up if
it's run at 6500 rpm all the time. Sometimes they make the specified 300 hour
TBO run this hard, but failures are far more frequent (siezures and con rod
failures are the most usual ones).
>
> Optimum performance is 75% power, 5800 rpm.
>
> TBO is established by the manufacturer who does not specify a particular rpm
> other than 6500 max continuous.
>
> Where do you get your info reference extended TBO if you operate "in the
> region of 5400 or thereabouts"?
>
Decades of field experience in a variety of planes by a very wide variety of pilots.
I have about a decade under/in front of the 503 myself.
What we know from that is that when run in the region of 5200 to 5500 continuous,
the 503 generally goes for about 450 to 500 hours (the original motor on my
FS II had about 450 hours or so on it when I replaced it, it was still running
fine at the time). The 447 commonly goes even longer than that. The 582 is the
only weak one and that's in the area of the crankshaft. But even it commonly
still has good compressions after over 400 hours of use
503's run at 6500 continuous may hit the factory 300 hour TBO but the failure rate
is somewhat higher. drop 1000rpm off that cruise figure and 300 hours is cake.
>
> I don't pay much attention to TBO on two or four stroke engines established
> by manufacturers. There is no guarantee the engines will go that long.
> Most will go well beyond manufacturers "suggested" TBO before performance
> degradation or failure.
>
> john h
> mkIII
I tend to go with field experience myself, especially when there's a lot of data
like there is with the 503.
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246832#246832
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
> Decades of field experience in a variety of planes by a very wide variety
of pilots. I have about a decade under/in front of the 503 myself.
>>
10 years is a long time. How does that equate to flight hours?
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
> > Decades of field experience in a variety of planes by a very wide variety
> of pilots. I have about a decade under/in front of the 503 myself.
> >>
>
>
> 10 years is a long time. How does that equate to flight hours?
>
> john h
> mkIII
I stopped counting at about 500, but there's some unaccounted-for trike hours and
my 100 hours in my FSII since then.
Definitely enough to learn what a fine motor it is... I still have my toolset and
a spare gasket set.....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246843#246843
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | zeprep251(at)aol.com |
Don't you believe manifold pressure or throttle position should also be a factor
in determining % of power calculations? At full throttle my 503 pulled 2 inches
of cable out of the housing and turned 6200 on climb out.But at cruise at
5500 it only pulled 7/8 of an inch of cable out of the housing.With no prop on
it,it probably would turn 7000 slightly off idle but it would not be a good
measure of power production.5800 could be 75% of allowable rpm but not power production
it would seem to me.
? Just wondering,G Aman
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements.
?
> BTW, this is also true of the 2-strokes but a bit higher degree than the
912. It's a common misconception that they last longer running at 6000+ rpm
continuously. Actually, the "sweet spot" for continuous operation with them
is in the 5200 to 5500 range, at somewhere in the neighborhood of 2/3
throttle.?
>?
> LS?
?
Max rpm for Rotax two strokes is 6800 rpm for 5 minutes.?
?
Max contiuous is 6500 rpm.?
?
5800 rpm is 75% power, the optimum rpm to operate a Rotax two stroke
continuously.?
?
5200 to 5500 rpm is the area the engine is trying to get "on the pipe", not
the sweet spot for me. The older two strokes were very unhappy in this rpm
range. They would either speed up or fall off. The engine is not
developing full efficiency below 5500 rpm.?
?
Power settings are easier to describe using rpm rather than throttle
settings.?
?
john h?
mkIII ?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Rotax Operating Parameters |
If the engine is propped correctly, 5800 rpm in cruise is 75% power.
Don't believe the engines are intended to be operated without a prop.
john h
mkIII
Don't you believe manifold pressure or throttle position should also
be a factor in determining % of power calculations? At full throttle my
503 pulled 2 inches of cable out of the housing and turned 6200 on climb
out.But at cruise at 5500 it only pulled 7/8 of an inch of cable out of
the housing.With no prop on it,it probably would turn 7000 slightly off
idle but it would not be a good measure of power production.5800 could
be 75% of allowable rpm but not power production it would seem to me.
Just wondering,G Aman
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
zeprep251(at)aol.com wrote:
> Don't you believe manifold pressure or throttle position should also be a factor
in determining % of power calculations? At full throttle my 503 pulled 2 inches
of cable out of the housing and turned 6200 on climb out.But at cruise at
5500 it only pulled 7/8 of an inch of cable out of the housing.With no prop
on it,it probably would turn 7000 slightly off idle but it would not be a good
measure of power production.5800 could be 75% of allowable rpm but not power
production it would seem to me.
> Just wondering,G Aman
>
> --
Don't know about anyone else, but I do.....
OTOH, it's hard to tell w/o a manifold pressure gauge which most 503 equipped planes
don't have. There you have to approximate the power level based on the load
and rpm, etc. So it's reasonable to guess that at a certain rpm you're running
such-and-such throttle.
The torque/power graphs for the rotaxen are all done at WOT I believe, so those
are max figures possible for each of those rpms. If you're turning those rpm's
at more closed throttle settings, or flying at higher altitudes, the power output
will be less than that stated on the graph.
Where I live, 3/4 throttle is all you can do unless you have a turbo or supercharger
fitted......
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246855#246855
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax Operating Parameters |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
> If the engine is propped correctly, 5800 rpm in cruise is 75% power.
>
> Don't believe the engines are intended to be operated without a prop.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
Ah, thanks for starting a new thead on this.
So if I may ask again, how many hours do you have on the 503 at 6500 continuous
rpm? How many motors did you run to TBO at that setting? How many did you run
past TBO?
I'd also be interested in your operating parameters - CHT and EGT readings in particular.
Thanks,
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246878#246878
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
There is no adventage at all to a single nlade prop. The parasitic drag and for
that matter the induced drag will be the same. If all the props were designed
for optimal effiecncey their total surface area would be almost identical, with
probably the single blade prop having a bit more crosse sectional plane, and
more parasitic drag as it has to be heavier to handle the root load on the single
blade.. In other words to use up 100 HP all the props by deffinition will
have pretty much the same total airfoil surface area and the same induced drag
curve.
The problem with the single blade prop using 100 hp will be a tremendous wieght
disadventage to boot. so not only it will have the same parasitic ( or more )
drag but also the same induced drag and then it will weigh X times more (lets
start with a counter weight that does nothing, then add to that a very thick
crank to stop the bending moment on the crank, overbuilt engine mounts and frame,
not to mention a very likely resonance that will be impossible to stop as
the airframe has to deal with that big asymmetrical load frequency. Look we have
two legs, not one. A kangaroo has two hind legs not one. Dogs run faster because
they have four legs. Birds have two wings not one, dragon fly has 4 wings
not one. If there is a case where one propelling surface with his inherent imbalance
was better some creature somewhere would have taken advantage of it.
:-)
Sometimes I think that the original progenitor of the single blade prop was a Jokester.
================================================================================
---- Richard Girard wrote:
============
http://www.ultraligero.net/Cursos/varios/helice_de_una_pala.pdf
<http://www.ultraligero.net/Cursos/varios/helice_de_una_pala.pdf>Rick
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:35 PM, b young wrote:
>
>
> For aircraft like ours, I agree that there wouldn't be much if any
> measurable advantage to a one blade prop, and the associated problems would
> outweigh any slight advantages. However, they have been used to advantage
> on some model airplanes... control line "speed" ships that can do 200mph,
> with engines turning around 30,000 rpm. With such tiny props turning so
> fast, the blades ARE close enough together that going to one blade helps.
>
> -Dana
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>
> Dana
>
> For a 1 blade to do its job effectively I would think that it should be
> installed on a slick go fast plane. The cruise would be in keeping with
> the
> large pitch angle needed to use up the HP. And less of the HP being used up
> as parasitic drag. To put it on a slow aircraft the prop would use up the
> hp but be stalled, therefore not creating the thrust that it could do on a
> faster craft.
>
> And as for the 1 blade design being the most efficient,, I should have
> clarified it by saying in cruise, and in a tractor configuration, where it
> is not slapping the large pitch against the disturbed air,, climb would
> probably not be as good even with the pitch reducing coning angle.
>
> Boyd Young
>
>
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax Operating Parameters |
> So if I may ask again, how many hours do you have on the 503 at 6500
continuous rpm? How many motors did you run to TBO at that setting? How many
did you run past TBO?
> I'd also be interested in your operating parameters - CHT and EGT readings
> in particular.
>
> Thanks,
> LS
Had a Cuyuna ULIIO2 on my Ultrastar. It had 385.0 hours on it when I tossed
the parachute and totaled the airplane. This engine developed 75% power at
5800 rpm. 5800 rpm was my cruise power setting. I can not remember what
max continuous rpm was. Been 24 years since I flew that airplane. No
problems with this engine. Flew that time in one year.
Had two Rotax 447 single carb engines. Kept one built on the bench so I
would not miss air shows. Flew these engines 1135 hours in my original
Firestar, in all states east of the Mississippi and a hand full west of the
Mississippi River. Cruise power was 5800 rpm. Biggest problem with these
engines was dual point ignition. Timing was critical for optimum
performance, or even mediocre performance. Soon and new points started
wearing in, timing changed. On a typical 3 to 4 week cross country flight
the points rubbing blocks would wear enough to cause engine problems. Many
engines in the old days were seized and ruined because of point ign. Coils,
hard mounted on the blower housing would wear so badly from vibration, the
coil windings would break loose inside the steel frame. Another weakness
was caged wrist pin bearings which failed and destroyed an entire engine.
Never had a big end bearing or crank be aring fail. I don't know how many
hours each engine had individually. Parts and components were swapped when
necessary to keep me flying. One of those engines came from Disney World
when they had a flight demo team in Orlando. BTW, I put that time on the FS
in less than 3 years.
I never had a CHT problem and can not remember what temps I operated at.
CHT was run 1150 to 1200F cruise and about 1050 full throttle.
You asked how many hours I have on a 503 at 6500 rpm. Have no idea.
Probably not many. My 503 experience is flying factory aircraft equipped
with that engine, usually at Sun and Fun and Oshkosh. Normally, not much
chance to pull 6500 rpm in that environment, but the factory always pitches
engines light for the two big air shows. Makes for impressive take off and
climb rates. Probably pulled well over 6500 every take off and down wind if
there wasn't someone in my way. ;-)
I didn't fly my two strokes WOT on cross countries because of their
vulnerabilities and the fact I was breaking new ground by traveling many
miles from home. Normal cruise was 5800.
912 is a different animal. WOT for several hours climbing over the Rockies
is not uncommon. 5000 is normal cruise, for me, but 5200 and 5400 if I need
it.
I believe two and four stroke engines today need to be run, not babied. I
flew 60.2 hours in less than 18 days. The last two days on my return
flight, about 15 hours, were turned at 5200. Normally, my cruise speed
increases as I get nearer to home base. ;-)
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
>
>
................
If there is a case where one propelling surface with his inherent imbalance was
better some creature somewhere would have taken advantage of it. :-)
>Sometimes I think that the original progenitor of the single blade prop was a
Jokester.
>
May be a fish?
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Yeah thought about that too, even a shark has two balanced fins to his tail. I
suspect Bob Young (?) could be the same troll I bounced off the flygeo list twice,
each time with a different name. :-)
======================================
---- "Jack B. Hart" wrote:
============
>
>
................
If there is a case where one propelling surface with his inherent imbalance was
better some creature somewhere would have taken advantage of it. :-)
>Sometimes I think that the original progenitor of the single blade prop was a
Jokester.
>
May be a fish?
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
--
kugelair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax Operating Parameters |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
>
> Had a Cuyuna ULIIO2 on my Ultrastar. It had 385.0 hours on it when I tossed
> the parachute and totaled the airplane. This engine developed 75% power at
> 5800 rpm. 5800 rpm was my cruise power setting. I can not remember what
> max continuous rpm was. Been 24 years since I flew that airplane. No
> problems with this engine. Flew that time in one year.
>
> Had two Rotax 447 single carb engines. Kept one built on the bench so I
> would not miss air shows. Flew these engines 1135 hours in my original
> Firestar, in all states east of the Mississippi and a hand full west of the
> Mississippi River. Cruise power was 5800 rpm. Biggest problem with these
> engines was dual point ignition. Timing was critical for optimum
> performance, or even mediocre performance. Soon and new points started
> wearing in, timing changed. On a typical 3 to 4 week cross country flight
> the points rubbing blocks would wear enough to cause engine problems. Many
> engines in the old days were seized and ruined because of point ign. Coils,
> hard mounted on the blower housing would wear so badly from vibration, the
> coil windings would break loose inside the steel frame. Another weakness
> was caged wrist pin bearings which failed and destroyed an entire engine.
> Never had a big end bearing or crank be aring fail. I don't know how many
> hours each engine had individually. Parts and components were swapped when
> necessary to keep me flying. One of those engines came from Disney World
> when they had a flight demo team in Orlando. BTW, I put that time on the FS
> in less than 3 years.
>
> I never had a CHT problem and can not remember what temps I operated at.
> CHT was run 1150 to 1200F cruise and about 1050 full throttle.
>
> You asked how many hours I have on a 503 at 6500 rpm. Have no idea.
> Probably not many. My 503 experience is flying factory aircraft equipped
> with that engine, usually at Sun and Fun and Oshkosh. Normally, not much
> chance to pull 6500 rpm in that environment, but the factory always pitches
> engines light for the two big air shows. Makes for impressive take off and
> climb rates. Probably pulled well over 6500 every take off and down wind if
> there wasn't someone in my way. ;-)
>
> I didn't fly my two strokes WOT on cross countries because of their
> vulnerabilities and the fact I was breaking new ground by traveling many
> miles from home. Normal cruise was 5800.
>
> 912 is a different animal. WOT for several hours climbing over the Rockies
> is not uncommon. 5000 is normal cruise, for me, but 5200 and 5400 if I need
> it.
>
> I believe two and four stroke engines today need to be run, not babied. I
> flew 60.2 hours in less than 18 days. The last two days on my return
> flight, about 15 hours, were turned at 5200. Normally, my cruise speed
> increases as I get nearer to home base. ;-)
>
> john h
> mkIII
Ok, was just wondering. After 10 years and lost-count-of hours hanging under the
503, I just found 6500 rpm continuous an extremely unusual recommendation. not
one that jives with my and many others experiences with this engine.
It's a good climbout RPM that will have no ill effects, but not on a continuous
basis....
The 2 strokes stay together just fine over the long haul, but that means running
at the 5400 watering hole rpm. 5800 the 447 and 503 can usually take ok, tho
the engine would probably be more reliable over time about 400 rpm below that
for cruise. Even more important for the 582.
WOT all the time and no I'm not surprised you had some trouble with them.
The 2-strokes can't be flown like our 912's, as you say they're very different
animals. My 912ULS just laughs when I push the go-stick forward to the stop, no
problem holding it open as needed. I do 5000 to 5100 cruise on mine and it just
hums along......
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246913#246913
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brad Stump <sky-king(at)inbox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Thanks for the info,my main concern is that to make 65-70 mph in cruse Iam wot,6500
rpm and 4.5 gph.I want to increase my flight time,so need to get the fuel
burn down into the 3gph range.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements.
>
>
>
> John Hauck wrote:
>>
>>
>> A 503 can operate continuously at 6500 rpm.
>>
>
>
> Don't mean to be contrary, but no it cannot. The chances of failure go
> WAY up if it's run at 6500 rpm all the time. Sometimes they make the
> specified 300 hour TBO run this hard, but failures are far more frequent
> (siezures and con rod failures are the most usual ones).
>
>
>>
>> Optimum performance is 75% power, 5800 rpm.
>>
>> TBO is established by the manufacturer who does not specify a particular
>> rpm
>> other than 6500 max continuous.
>>
>> Where do you get your info reference extended TBO if you operate "in the
>> region of 5400 or thereabouts"?
>>
>
>
> Decades of field experience in a variety of planes by a very wide variety
> of pilots. I have about a decade under/in front of the 503 myself.
>
> What we know from that is that when run in the region of 5200 to 5500
> continuous, the 503 generally goes for about 450 to 500 hours (the
> original motor on my FS II had about 450 hours or so on it when I
> replaced it, it was still running fine at the time). The 447 commonly
> goes even longer than that. The 582 is the only weak one and that's in
> the area of the crankshaft. But even it commonly still has good
> compressions after over 400 hours of use
>
> 503's run at 6500 continuous may hit the factory 300 hour TBO but the
> failure rate is somewhat higher. drop 1000rpm off that cruise figure and
> 300 hours is cake.
>
>
>>
>> I don't pay much attention to TBO on two or four stroke engines
>> established
>> by manufacturers. There is no guarantee the engines will go that long.
>> Most will go well beyond manufacturers "suggested" TBO before
>> performance
>> degradation or failure.
>>
>> john h
>> mkIII
>
>
> I tend to go with field experience myself, especially when there's a lot
> of data like there is with the 503.
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> Titan II SS
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246832#246832
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brad Stump <sky-king(at)inbox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax Operating Parameters |
EGT and CHT are all in the green.The CHT has increased some due to the warmer weather
of summer but still in the green.CHT 180F front cyl. 200F back cyl. EGT
870F front, 1100F back.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Rotax Operating Parameters
>
>
>
> John Hauck wrote:
>> If the engine is propped correctly, 5800 rpm in cruise is 75% power.
>>
>> Don't believe the engines are intended to be operated without a prop.
>>
>> john h
>> mkIII
>>
>
>
> Ah, thanks for starting a new thead on this.
>
> So if I may ask again, how many hours do you have on the 503 at 6500
> continuous rpm? How many motors did you run to TBO at that setting? How
> many did you run past TBO?
> I'd also be interested in your operating parameters - CHT and EGT
> readings in particular.
>
> Thanks,
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> Titan II SS
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246878#246878
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Blumax008(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax Operating Parameters |
In a message dated 6/4/2009 8:39:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com writes:
So if I may ask again, how many hours do you have on the 503 at 6500
continuous rpm? How many motors did you run to TBO at that setting? How
many did
you run past TBO?
This is me again. Over 1,600 hours on my 12 year old 503, with now 4 top
overhauls. Just did one. Checked the crank...no problems, no strange noise
s.
Probably 50% of those hours are WIDE OPEN towing hang gliders.
IF IT AIN'T BROKE...DON'T FIX IT.
**************Mortgage rates dropped. Record lows. $200,000 for $1,029/mo
Fixed. LendingTree=AE
=http:%2F%2Fwww.lendingtree.com%2Fborrower%2Falliance%2Ffrom.a
sp%3Fwhereto%3Dpromopagev3%26promo%3D00279%26loan%5Ftype%3D2%26source%3D28
89
570%26esourceid%3D2889570%26800num%3D1%2D800%2D289%2D3915%26AdType%3D2)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Blumax008(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax Operating Parameters |
In a message dated 6/5/2009 12:08:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com writes:
I believe two and four stroke engines today need to be run, not babied.
I concur 100%. They love running wide open...and run (or should run) coole
r
wide open. I'm talking 503 with Pennzoil.
Bill Catalina
Florida
**************Mortgage rates dropped. Record lows. $200,000 for $1,029/mo
Fixed. LendingTree=AE
=http:%2F%2Fwww.lendingtree.com%2Fborrower%2Falliance%2Ffrom.a
sp%3Fwhereto%3Dpromopagev3%26promo%3D00279%26loan%5Ftype%3D2%26source%3D28
89
570%26esourceid%3D2889570%26800num%3D1%2D800%2D289%2D3915%26AdType%3D2)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax Operating Parameters |
> Ok, was just wondering. After 10 years and lost-count-of hours hanging
under the 503, I just found 6500 rpm continuous an extremely unusual
recommendation. not one that jives with my and many others experiences with
this engine.
>
> It's a good climbout RPM that will have no ill effects, but not on a
> continuous basis....
>
> The 2 strokes stay together just fine over the long haul, but that means
> running at the 5400 watering hole rpm. 5800 the 447 and 503 can usually
> take ok, tho the engine would probably be more reliable over time about
> 400 rpm below that for cruise. Even more important for the 582.
> WOT all the time and no I'm not surprised you had some trouble with them.
LUCIEN
The Op Man indicates take off speed 447/503 - 6800 rpm max 5 min.
Cruise speed - 6500 rpm.
582 - 6400 rpm max 5 min.
Cruise speed - 6000 rpm.
Eric Tucker, Kodiak Research indicates 5800 rpm optimum cruise.
Only one way to keep up with flight time and engine operating time, log it.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b young" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WRT M3X prop boom measurements. |
Don't you believe manifold pressure or throttle position should also be a
factor in determining % of power calculations? At full throttle my 503
pulled 2 inches of cable out of the housing and turned 6200 on climb out.But
at cruise at 5500 it only pulled 7/8 of an inch of cable out of the
housing.With no prop on it,it probably would turn 7000 slightly off idle but
it would not be a good measure of power production.5800 could be 75% of
allowable rpm but not power production it would seem to me.
Just wondering,G Aman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Manifold pressure is the best way,, and the only way on a plane with a
constant speed prop. But with a fixed pitch prop rpm does extremely well .
and once the relationship between the two is determined, they are
interchangeable. At least they would be interchangeable as long as the
prop is pitched correctly.
Boyd Young
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax Operating Parameters |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
>
> LUCIEN
>
> Cruise speed - 6500 rpm.
>
> john h
> mkIII
Well ok - it's your engine and airframe. Good luck with it....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=246996#246996
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax Operating Parameters |
>> Cruise speed - 6500 rpm.
>>
>> john h
>> mkIII
>
>
> Well ok - it's your engine and airframe. Good luck with it....
>
> LS
Those figures came right out of the Rotax two manual for the 582/503/447.
This is what the manufacturer recommends.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax Operating Parameters |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> Those figures came right out of the Rotax two manual for the 582/503/447.
>
> This is what the manufacturer recommends.
>
> john h
> mkIII
FWIW, the manual also recommends a max CHT of 485F on the 503. You might give Ronnie
Smith or any other Rotax repair station a call about that one - ask them
how long the engine will run at or even below 485F. You might be surprised at
what they tell you.
But like I said, you don't have to believe me. Lots of other guys with the same
years and hours and even more on the 503 who can tell you more or less what I
have....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247012#247012
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
That is a great idea Larry, I will visit often !!! Stuff like that will motivate
those building and also probably also encourage others to build and fly Kolbs.
Now that you have the page, we just need to find a way to advertise it
to more pilots, I should post a link over on the Cessna List ;)
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247033#247033
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Oldman" <aoldman(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax Operating Parameters |
350 hrs at 6100 to 6200 and engine still running well, good compresions
,starts well and passes all tests . I did an overhaul on a 503 a number of
years ago that included breaking the crank replacing the main bearings with
proper rotax ones and re ringing the engine then flew about 200 hrs on it
before selling the Thruster Gemini{ Australian kit} Last time I spoke to the
new owner he had flown it past 800hrs and on sold the engine that was then
put on another project and still running fine. This engine was a single
points ignition T/C and always ran well, checked points and ring tensions
about every 100hrs, other than that carbs cleaned and checked at 50hrs.
Never found anything that would indicate that they needed looked at this
often. The only problem that I ever had was some times it would idale a bit
rough, every time this happened it was a bit of something{ fibreglass from
the fuel tank }cought up in the fuel air mixing part of the carb . Very fine
glass strands and hard to see for the first time
Downunder
MK111c 503
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Rotax Operating Parameters
>
>
> > Ok, was just wondering. After 10 years and lost-count-of hours hanging
> under the 503, I just found 6500 rpm continuous an extremely unusual
> recommendation. not one that jives with my and many others experiences
> with this engine.
>>
>> It's a good climbout RPM that will have no ill effects, but not on a
>> continuous basis....
>>
>> The 2 strokes stay together just fine over the long haul, but that means
>> running at the 5400 watering hole rpm. 5800 the 447 and 503 can usually
>> take ok, tho the engine would probably be more reliable over time about
>> 400 rpm below that for cruise. Even more important for the 582.
>> WOT all the time and no I'm not surprised you had some trouble with them.
>
> LUCIEN
>
>
> The Op Man indicates take off speed 447/503 - 6800 rpm max 5 min.
>
> Cruise speed - 6500 rpm.
>
>
> 582 - 6400 rpm max 5 min.
>
> Cruise speed - 6000 rpm.
>
> Eric Tucker, Kodiak Research indicates 5800 rpm optimum cruise.
>
> Only one way to keep up with flight time and engine operating time, log
> it.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax Operating Parameters |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
aoldman(at)xtra.co.nz wrote:
> 350 hrs at 6100 to 6200 and engine still running well, good compresions
> ,starts well and passes all tests . I did an overhaul on a 503 a number of
> years ago that included breaking the crank replacing the main bearings with
> proper rotax ones and re ringing the engine then flew about 200 hrs on it
> before selling the Thruster Gemini{ Australian kit} Last time I spoke to the
> new owner he had flown it past 800hrs and on sold the engine that was then
> put on another project and still running fine. This engine was a single
> points ignition T/C and always ran well, checked points and ring tensions
> about every 100hrs, other than that carbs cleaned and checked at 50hrs.
> Never found anything that would indicate that they needed looked at this
> often. The only problem that I ever had was some times it would idale a bit
> rough, every time this happened it was a bit of something{ fibreglass from
> the fuel tank }cought up in the fuel air mixing part of the carb . Very fine
> glass strands and hard to see for the first time
>
> Downunder
> MK111c 503
>
> ---
As I said, when you run the engine continuously that hard, you're taking your chances.
Those of us with years and many hours of experience with this engine know this.
Advice on the operation of this engine (or any engine) from those who do _not_
have that experience should only be taken with a lot of cross-checking with
experienced operators.
Your plane and your motor is on the line - be careful... Make lots of phone calls
and ask questions of experienced persons first before you commit to that advice.
The 503 is probably the toughest 2-stroke available. Even at $4k it's probably
still the best deal available in aviation for 50bhp. It gives long life and very
reliable operation as long as it's run the way we know how to run it.
The only problem I ever had with a 503 was taking off once with one of the chokes
stuck partially open - stumbled pretty bad as I approached full throttle. Shut
the choke and installed a primer system and that was cured....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247081#247081
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WEATHER REPORT AND MICHIGAN FLY IN SUNDAY |
| From: | "ces308" <ces308(at)ldaco.com> |
Hello Gang,
Ditto for northern Mi too....
chris ambrose
m3x/jab 20.7hrs
N327CS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247100#247100
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Corrosion in 912 engines |
| From: | jvanlaak(at)aol.com |
All,
I have been considering buying a Mk III Extra that I like but which currently has
a 582 on it and then converting it to a 912.? There are a number of mid time
engines for sale but I wonder how long they can sit without starting to?corrode.?
I have had to replace cams and lifters on Lycomings that sat too long and
would like to avoid it.
Does anyone on the list have experience with this?? Or with signs that corrosion
might be starting before the engine gets to the stage of "making metal?"? What
does a repair/overhaul for something like this run?
Thanks for any insight you can offer.
Jim Van Laak
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corrosion in 912 engines |
| From: | "Thomas R. Riddle" <riddletr(at)gmail.com> |
Overhaul of 912 series engines, done by Rotax overhaul facility
generaly costs roughly 1/2 the cost of a new engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corrosion in 912 engines |
| From: | "lucien" <lstavenhagen(at)hotmail.com> |
Thom Riddle wrote:
> Overhaul of 912 series engines, done by Rotax overhaul facility
> generaly costs roughly 1/2 the cost of a new engine.
That's actually a pleasant surprise. Last I checked it was about 3/4 of new - for
grins I asked Lockwood what it was for a 912ULS (which was about 16K new at
the time) and they said it was about 12K.
1/2 of new and it's worth it to overhaul.....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247186#247186
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "N111KX (Kip)" <n111kx(at)mindspring.com> |
Here's one from last evening...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuLr46TRcYE
--------
Kip
Firestar II, N111KX
Waiex, N111YX
Quickie 1, N111QX
Atlanta
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247187#247187
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
> Here's one from last evening...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuLr46TRcYE
>
> --------
> Kip
Looks like fun, in addition to excellent training when the time comes.
During our day at the Alvord Desert last month, several of us shot dead
stick landings to the dry lake. I took a video of Roger Hankins landing
dead stick. I was hoping to get the sound the FS made gliding through the
air. However, the wind was blowing harder than I realized. Ended up
recording wind sound and not much Kolb sound.
BTW: How large was the file you updated to Youtube?
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
Kip, I wondered how the camera pointed itself so well until I heard
the back seat talking. Good stuff.
First event of the season for me. I like the new legs although I did
get a nice bounce after this morning's ride.
-after several perfect greasers last evening. live and learn.
Here warming up for departure..... This is the grass AFTER mowing
(plus a few days)
DSCN1977.JPG
guess which airplane gets looked at more.......
DSCN1982.JPG copy