Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-gk
December 01, 2006 - December 31, 2006
How long does it take to fold / unfold the wings with one person? Is it
feasible to expect to keep it at home and set it up every time I want to
fly it? Alternately, I may be able keep it in a shared hangar cheaper, if
I keep it folded.
What kind of winds can it handle (with an experienced pilot)?
Anything special to look for before buying it?
By way of background, I've got hundreds of hours in a Taylorcraft (so the
tailwheel doesn't worry me) and enough time in Quicksilvers to be
comfortable at that end of the spectrum. Still working on the wife about
whether we can properly afford it, though...
Might also be a Firefly or two (I think that's what they are) available...
the airport is closing, and one of thse has been sitting in the hangar for
several years now, never seeing the light of day. Owner won't sell... but
he might, now, if he has no place to put it. Do the wings on those fold
just as easy?
-Dana
--
--
The family that shoots together..... shouldn't be messed with!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cables, pulleys and nico press swages |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
Rick has some good points.....
> A second nico actually decreases the cables strength.
Any supporting data? Testing?
If you leave cable sticking out
> of the second one, then it has no purpose whatsoever. Its only function is to
keep you from
> getting those nasty little holes in your finger.
Perhaps on the second but necessary on the first Nicopress
sleeve if that is the only one used. The sleeve elongates from
the press and having the end stick out ensures full coverage. I
suspect the second sleeve was to cover those who don't know
about proper procedures or didn't take the time to measure the
final swaged product for conformity.
> Stainless Steel is dry, usually, and if you get it from a boat shop, like West
Marine, is
> usually pre stretched.
Just for clarity.....
Elastic stretch is the result of the inherent elasticity, or
recoverable deformation, of the metal itself. Since the elastic
properties of a given cable can be determined, elongation due to
elastic stretch is predictable. This is not the pre-stretch
mentioned.
Constructional stretch occurs when cable is loaded for the first
time. When a cable is first loaded, the helically-wound wires
and strands are pulled more tightly together, compressing the
core and bringing all of the cable elements into closer contact.
This results in a slight reduction in diameter and a corresponding
increase in length. Some types of high strength cable, such as
prestressing strand,are commercially available with
constructional stretch removed by preloading at the factory.
Such cable will conform to the requirements for ASTM
Designation A586 (structural strand) or ASTM Designation A603
(structural rope), and will be clearly identified as prestretched
cable.
Unless I saw the ASTM designation for the cable involved, I'd
consider the seller's statement of pre-stretch as marketing hype.
Does pre-stretch make a difference in UL applications? Do the
math and see if you have any concerns....
Delta CS = (applied load / (.65 x Cable strength)) x (CS%) x (L)
CS in feet, CS% as given by the mfg, L in feet, and applied load
and cable strength in pounds.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cables, pulleys and nico press swages |
----- | If you leave cable sticking out
| > of the second one, then it has no purpose whatsoever. Its only
function is to keep you from
| > getting those nasty little holes in your finger.
Folks:
We went through this cable thing several years ago, especially leaving
a short piece of the cable tail extended past the sleeve.
If I understand correctly, keeping the tail inside the second sleeve
is like putting the cable in a shear. Most folks would cut the cable
end square. Then put this under tremendous load from the compression
tool on the sleeve against the other cable. What we have is a 90
degree shearing force from the tucked end on the opposite cable. I am
willing to take the nicks from the cable ends over the possibility of
weakening the splice with a tucked end. Through the years I have seen
several ultralight manufacturers tuck the ends of cables. Most
notably, Eipper. When questioned about this practice I got the
standard answer of, "that's the way we do it."
Some where I have read about using second sleeve for 3/32 and smaller
cable. Might have been Tony Bingelis' Book, or one of his books.
Have to get them out, dust them off, and do some refresher training.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cables, pulleys and nico press swages |
John, I'll go with AC 43.13, National Telephone Co (the people who developed
the Nico process) and 20 years of flying Wills Wing hang gliders. Do the
swage right, leave the tail out, and use a piece of heavy, clear heat shrink
tubing to protect your fingers. Anything more is excess weight and work.
What can go wrong with a second swage? Bubbles, where the cable does not lay
back parallel to itself, and twists where the two nicos are not parallel.
Both will work the cable and are unacceptable workmanship. I still think
Mike Riggs had it right in the Seagull 3 plans. The second nico does nothing
but tie down the wire tail.
Rick
On 12/1/06, John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> ----- | If you leave cable sticking out
> | > of the second one, then it has no purpose whatsoever. Its only
> function is to keep you from
> | > getting those nasty little holes in your finger.
>
> Folks:
>
> We went through this cable thing several years ago, especially leaving
> a short piece of the cable tail extended past the sleeve.
>
> If I understand correctly, keeping the tail inside the second sleeve
> is like putting the cable in a shear. Most folks would cut the cable
> end square. Then put this under tremendous load from the compression
> tool on the sleeve against the other cable. What we have is a 90
> degree shearing force from the tucked end on the opposite cable. I am
> willing to take the nicks from the cable ends over the possibility of
> weakening the splice with a tucked end. Through the years I have seen
> several ultralight manufacturers tuck the ends of cables. Most
> notably, Eipper. When questioned about this practice I got the
> standard answer of, "that's the way we do it."
>
> Some where I have read about using second sleeve for 3/32 and smaller
> cable. Might have been Tony Bingelis' Book, or one of his books.
> Have to get them out, dust them off, and do some refresher training.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Cable |
I have two nicros at each end of the cable. The ends of the cable are
just inside the end of the last nicro in the uncompressed part.
Testing? Is 20 years 810 hours long enough?
I've noticed the cables have stretched. I will replace them in a
couple of years. There are no broken strands under the pulleys even
when they are twisted backwards. The cables have lasted a long time
due to the light load and the small angle around the pulleys.
Ralph
Original Firestar
20 years flying it
-- "Ralph" wrote:
John, sorry about not posting the hours. I have 810 hours on the
Firestar in 20 years. I'm a weekend flyer.
Ralph
Original Firestar
-- "John Hauck" wrote:
| John and all, I've never changed elevator or rudder cables in the
20
| years of flying my Kolb. I've inspected them many times and they are
| still good.
|
| Ralph
Hi Ralph:
That is great!
Now, how does 20 years flying equate to hours flown?
Flight hours gives us a better idea of how much use/wear has been
placed on a piece of equipment. Most Kolb owners don't fly 50 hours
a
year, and many of them do not log their flight time.
Guess you are getting geared up to start flying off the ice. :-)
john h
mkIII
I change mine out about every 1,000 hours.
john h
mkIII
______________________________________________________________________
__
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Control Cable |
In a message dated 12/1/2006 3:35:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ul15rhb(at)juno.com writes:
Testing? Is 20 years 810 hours long enough?
Hi there Ralph,
I see that you are heeding John Haucks advice and including testing data
now. hehehe
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
Audubon NJ
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Elevator Cables |
In a message dated 12/1/2006 11:14:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com writes:
does that mean that anyone can build a plane (within the ultralight limits)
and just fly it?
"Land of the Free, Home of the Brave"
Hope it stays that way.
Steve
FF007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Bonsell" <ebonsell(at)earthlink.net> |
Cables may not look bad at first sight. If you remove the cable and bend
it where it went around the pulley, some threads may break from bending
it the opposite way. Rubbing a piece of tissue on the cable will find
broken threads. It rips off on the sharp ends. Watch your fingers the
threads are sharp.
Also, Eugene said:
>To the best of my knowledge both planes had the cables that were
>supplied with the kits from kolb. I don't recall if they were
>stainless or galvanized but stainless definitely is inferior and
>should be avoided for this application IMHO.
Is this true? I got stainless cable to replace mine. Maybe I should have
gotten the Galvanized cable?
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Dana,
The Ultrastar with an enclosed trailer for $3000 sounds like a very good deal.
But that assumes that you want an Ultrastar. The Ultrastar is know as an excellent
flying airplane, like all Kolbs. It has a lower thrust line then the others
which is desireable. But, IMO, the thrust line and the price are the only things
better, and may not be enough reason to buy one. Ultrastars were likely
welded by the builders and not by Kolb. They have no factory support. They are
realatively easily damaged on the ground, and not easy to repair. They also may
lack a structural improvement in the wings.
I suggest that you consider buying it, selling the Ultrastar, and buying a Firefly
to keep in the trailer.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78615#78615
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Cables |
Ed / All,
In retrospect my statement about stainless cable being inadequate for
our Kolb aircraft applications appears to be an exaggerated
overstatement.
I have not been able to find the specific data to confirm my comment
and even if I had it would probably have been outdated by now anyway.
If your stainless cable is rated aircraft cable it is most likely
is more than adequate for our use. However that said, it is true
that aircraft cable is made in several different types designed to
meet various specific criteria.
I apologize to you / all, for making what appears to me now to be an
exaggerated stereotypical statement about stainless steel cable for
our Kolb planes.
Eugene Zimmerman
On Dec 2, 2006, at 12:27 AM, Edward Bonsell wrote:
> Cables may not look bad at first sight. If you remove the cable and
> bend it where it went around the pulley, some threads may break
> from bending it the opposite way. Rubbing a piece of tissue on the
> cable will find broken threads. It rips off on the sharp ends.
> Watch your fingers the threads are sharp.
>
> Also, Eugene said:
> >To the best of my knowledge both planes had the cables that were
> >supplied with the kits from kolb. I don't recall if they were
> >stainless or galvanized but stainless definitely is inferior and
> >should be avoided for this application IMHO.
>
> Is this true? I got stainless cable to replace mine. Maybe I should
> have gotten the Galvanized cable?
>
> Ed
>
> ============================================================ _-
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List_-
> ===========================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Elevator Cables |
Then several bad accidents occurred and it was either get organised
or get banned completely.
Cheers
Pat
Patrick:
Did over regulation, on your side of the pond, prevent further "bad
accidents"?
john h
mkIII
hauck's holler, alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Cables |
Gene, As it happens, I was buying cable last night from that great aviation
supplier, McMaster Carr (www.mcmaster.com). The have an excellent set of
drawings of cable types and a spec table for each type. Look under wire
rope.
As for this worry about control cables beaking, consider this. Hang gliders
use this same cable as primary structure. My 1981 Sensor 510 has stainless
steel, 3/32" rigging. I inspect it every time I set it up and I end every
flight with a wing over just because. Now that I live in Kansas, I'll have
to give up the wing over unless it's a REALLY GOOD day. :-)
Rick
On 12/2/06, Eugene Zimmerman wrote:
>
>
> Ed / All,
>
> In retrospect my statement about stainless cable being inadequate for
> our Kolb aircraft applications appears to be an exaggerated
> overstatement.
>
> I have not been able to find the specific data to confirm my comment
> and even if I had it would probably have been outdated by now anyway.
>
> If your stainless cable is rated "aircraft cable" it is most likely
> is more than adequate for our use. However that said, it is true
> that "aircraft cable" is made in several different types designed to
> meet various specific criteria.
>
> I apologize to you / all, for making what appears to me now to be an
> exaggerated stereotypical statement about stainless steel cable for
> our Kolb planes.
>
> Eugene Zimmerman
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2006, at 12:27 AM, Edward Bonsell wrote:
>
> > Cables may not look bad at first sight. If you remove the cable and
> > bend it where it went around the pulley, some threads may break
> > from bending it the opposite way. Rubbing a piece of tissue on the
> > cable will find broken threads. It rips off on the sharp ends.
> > Watch your fingers the threads are sharp.
> >
> > Also, Eugene said:
> > >To the best of my knowledge both planes had the cables that were
> > >supplied with the kits from kolb. I don't recall if they were
> > >stainless or galvanized but stainless definitely is inferior and
> > >should be avoided for this application IMHO.
> >
> > Is this true? I got stainless cable to replace mine. Maybe I should
> > have gotten the Galvanized cable?
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > ============================================================ _-
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List_-
> > ===========================================================
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Elevator Cables |
At 09:45 AM 12/2/2006, Richard Girard wrote:
>Right now the FAA is seeking the maximum penalty, 10 years in prison and a
>$10,000 fine, against an ultralight pilot in Nebraska who crashed his
>Quicksilver into a storage building along side a football field while
>carrying a passenger, after dark, doing low level aerobatics, while a
>football game was in progress...
Typically the FAA doesn't investigate ultralight crashes at all, fatal or
not... once they determine it was a legal ultralight, they leave it up to
local law enforcement to conduct any investigation.
In the Nebraska crash, if it's the one I recall, although it looked like a
2 seater in the TV news film, I didn't think he was carrying a
passenger. Either way, as soon as there are two seats, or it's otherwise
blatantly "fat", unless the pilot can make a convincing case that it was
being legally operated under a training exemption, they throw the book at
him, considering it not an ultralight but an unregistered, uninspected
aircraft, probably unlicensed pilot, no BFR, low flying (unlike part 103,
the 500' rule applies if they determine it's an "aircraft" and not a
"vehicle", even if unregistered), low aerobatics, careless and reckless
operation, etc. I don't envy that pilot... but he's an idiot, deserves
whatever he's got coming.
-Dana
--
--
The family that shoots together..... shouldn't be messed with!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Elevator Cables |
| Right now the FAA is seeking the maximum penalty, 10 years in
prison and a
| $10,000 fine, against an ultralight pilot in Nebraska who crashed
his
| Quicksilver into a storage building along side a football field
while
| carrying a passenger, after dark, doing low level aerobatics, while
a
| football game was in progress.
|
| Rick
Rick G:
Is this the accident you are referring to?
http://urlsnip.com/882618
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Elevator Cables |
----- Original Message -----
From: pat ladd
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Dual Elevator Cables
Hi Pat,
"If I had a design that had never been subjected to a proper
engineering analysis I would have dual cables everywhere."
I wasn't aware the Kolb series had never had 'proper engineering
analysis' as you infer. It's my understanding that Kolbs are all
well-designed and engineered. Adding cables for no better reason than
appeasing one's insecurity doesn't seem a sound design principle. Hell,
why stop at two? Three, seven, keep going until the boom is stuffed.
I've not seen a statement anywhere on this list to date that convinces
me of a need for dual cables anywhere on a Kolb.
*************************************************************************
*******************
George: "However they said it is way down the line on the list of
planes to be
looked at. I am afraid that it will be months before we get any word
on the
cause."
Hi George,
"that is what I would have expected. Bit scary that they have such a
backlog
of wrecks to examine though. Planes must be falling out of the sky
like
autumn leaves."
The backlog is due more to understaffing than 'planes falling out of
the sky'. No one's immune to aircraft accidents, and I believe you
folks have had your fair share. Don't forget the far greater number of
operations here, too.
*************************************************************************
********************
"There are murmurings hers about a move towards something like an
`Experimental` category and that would be good. Present regs are too
tight. We couldnt change a prop. without approval for instance, but I
wouldn`t be very happy about a`build what you like provided the C of G
is in the right place. That wont stop your flying wires from giving way,
or your engine stopping on climb out because there is insufficient fuel
flow."
No one here adopts an attitude of 'build what you like provided the C
of G is in the right place'. Were that the case, how would one know
whether the CG is off? Certainly not the haphazard shadetree designer
providing the data. Flying wires and engines don't know from
bureaucratic rules.
Regulations don't make an aircraft safe. Design and the operator do.
*************************************************************************
***********************
" perhaps someone with more experience will kick in on this but I
think that OPENING the throttle will often clear an ice blockage."
If that were so, no one would ever have a problem with carb ice. You
obviously have never experienced it.
*************************************************************************
*****************
These posts seem to reflect an anti-US attitude, call into question
the design standards of the Kolb series, and demonstrate a general lack
of knowledge about aircraft design and operation, at least as it applies
in the US. (Or, it could be me and the approach of winter here in
Michigan.) At any rate, we wouldn't be having this discussion were it
not for the many talented ultralight pioneers like Homer Kolb and
others, both here and abroad.
I for one would appreciate less 'conjecture' and more pure information
without the bias and misinformation.
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
http://urlsnip.com/882618
Hard to believe two morons would do nearly the same thing, but the
description is all wrong compared to the video. It looked like he was coming
out of a dive to buzz the field and clipped the building just below the top
(missed it by that much!) about four to six feet inboard of the left
wingtip. The aircraft was spun around and inverted when it went down between
scrambling spectators, the building and a chain link fence. The pilot was
okay, but his passenger had a broken arm.
I'll try to get a copy of the video and post it.
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
After a little poking around I found another report on this crash that
describes it more like what's in the video. The links to the video have
apparently expired.
Rick
On 12/2/06, Richard Girard wrote:
>
>
> http://urlsnip.com/882618
>
> Hard to believe two morons would do nearly the same thing, but the
> description is all wrong compared to the video. It looked like he was coming
> out of a dive to buzz the field and clipped the building just below the top
> (missed it by that much!) about four to six feet inboard of the left
> wingtip. The aircraft was spun around and inverted when it went down between
> scrambling spectators, the building and a chain link fence. The pilot was
> okay, but his passenger had a broken arm.
> I'll try to get a copy of the video and post it.
>
> Rick
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Elevator Cables |
Ed, the "need" is questionable, obviously, and that has been well
addressed here. Addressing my insecurity is also questionable, but sure
makes me feel better. There are obviously many on the List who disagree
with me, and also some who do agree. It's well established that the
Kolb's are well engineered planes, which is one of several reasons I
bought my kit in the 1st place.
When taking my flying lessons for my private pilot's license in Port
Angeles, WA, back in '95, my instructor, Roger Andersen, required me to
learn to fly the plane (Cessna 172) with trim only, since, as I recall
he said, "if something happens to the up elevator system, you're in bad
trouble, and this gives you a way to fly the plane." A couple of BFR's
later, my check instructor had me fly the plane (again, a 172) onto
short final with only the elevator trim, before ending the exercise. It
worked well - the landing would have been a good one - and I was
suitably impressed. I believe it was around that time that I was
assembling my Mk III and got to looking at the elevator cable &
attachment to the elevator tang. "Hmmm," I thought, "what if that thing
decided to pop, for whatever reason ??" The chances are vanishingly
small, but the picture in my mind of watching the ground come up while I
could do nothing didn't please me much, when an alternative is so
simple. In my youth I rode motorcycles for several years and several
times saw the brake and clutch cables break. So. I ran a completely
separate cable to the elevator tang, and connected it to the trim
mechanism. I feel much more secure. If someone doesn't agree with me,
fine. Don't use it. But......I WILL use it. Don't bash me for
watching out for my precious ass. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Santa Fe, NM
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Chmielewski
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Dual Elevator Cables
----- Original Message -----
From: pat ladd
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Dual Elevator Cables
Hi Pat,
"If I had a design that had never been subjected to a proper
engineering analysis I would have dual cables everywhere."
I wasn't aware the Kolb series had never had 'proper engineering
analysis' as you infer. It's my understanding that Kolbs are all
well-designed and engineered. Adding cables for no better reason than
appeasing one's insecurity doesn't seem a sound design principle. Hell,
why stop at two? Three, seven, keep going until the boom is stuffed.
I've not seen a statement anywhere on this list to date that convinces
me of a need for dual cables anywhere on a Kolb.
*************************************************************************
*******************
George: "However they said it is way down the line on the list of
planes to be
looked at. I am afraid that it will be months before we get any word
on the
cause."
Hi George,
"that is what I would have expected. Bit scary that they have such
a backlog
of wrecks to examine though. Planes must be falling out of the sky
like
autumn leaves."
The backlog is due more to understaffing than 'planes falling out of
the sky'. No one's immune to aircraft accidents, and I believe you
folks have had your fair share. Don't forget the far greater number of
operations here, too.
*************************************************************************
********************
"There are murmurings hers about a move towards something like an
`Experimental` category and that would be good. Present regs are too
tight. We couldnt change a prop. without approval for instance, but I
wouldn`t be very happy about a`build what you like provided the C of G
is in the right place. That wont stop your flying wires from giving way,
or your engine stopping on climb out because there is insufficient fuel
flow."
No one here adopts an attitude of 'build what you like provided the
C of G is in the right place'. Were that the case, how would one know
whether the CG is off? Certainly not the haphazard shadetree designer
providing the data. Flying wires and engines don't know from
bureaucratic rules.
Regulations don't make an aircraft safe. Design and the operator
do.
*************************************************************************
***********************
" perhaps someone with more experience will kick in on this but I
think that OPENING the throttle will often clear an ice blockage."
If that were so, no one would ever have a problem with carb ice.
You obviously have never experienced it.
*************************************************************************
*****************
These posts seem to reflect an anti-US attitude, call into question
the design standards of the Kolb series, and demonstrate a general lack
of knowledge about aircraft design and operation, at least as it applies
in the US. (Or, it could be me and the approach of winter here in
Michigan.) At any rate, we wouldn't be having this discussion were it
not for the many talented ultralight pioneers like Homer Kolb and
others, both here and abroad.
I for one would appreciate less 'conjecture' and more pure
information without the bias and misinformation.
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Hard to believe two morons would do nearly the same thing, but the
| description is all wrong compared to the video.
|
| Rick
Rick:
Sure is.............and at the same town, Lincoln, Nebraska, and at
the same football stadium, Blue Hill. ;-)
Oh yea, and on the same date.
Here are a buncha articles on the crash. I am out the door for cat
fish, shrimp, and oysters, in Wetumpka, Alabama. Don't have time to
read them now.
http://www.topix.net/city/blue-hill-ne/page2
Take care,
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "grabo172" <grabo172(at)sc.rr.com> |
So I got the plans for my Firestar that I bought used. While looking through them
I noticed the aileron assembly section mentioned that they fold down against
the wing bottom when folding the wings... as I was thinking about it I thought
"my ailerons don't fold down that far?"
Went and checked the plans against my plane and it appears my hinges are installed
upside down. The pin bump is on the top, when the plans show it being toward
the bottom... that explains why they don't fold correctly.
So my question is... are the holes drilled in the hinges even on both sides so
all I have to do is drill out the rivets and flip the hinges over?
I didn't look close when I went to check which way they were, and I just thought
that I'd ask if anyone know off hand...
Secondly, do you think that may be why I've had to replace a bunch of rivets already
(I've had the plane for 4 months and have replaced about 15 or so of the
hinge rivets)
Thanks!
--------
-Erik Grabowski
Kolb Firestar N197BG
CFI/CFII
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78743#78743
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
I would be seriously amazed if you could flip them and have the holes line
up. Hinges are inexpensive, and seems to me you could buy new hinges and
use the old ones back to back as templates to drill the new holes. No idea
how many hours on the plane, but if things are loosening up, new hinges may
just be a good idea. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Santa Fe, NM
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "grabo172" <grabo172(at)sc.rr.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:39 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Aileron Hinges
>
> So I got the plans for my Firestar that I bought used. While looking
> through them I noticed the aileron assembly section mentioned that they
> fold down against the wing bottom when folding the wings... as I was
> thinking about it I thought "my ailerons don't fold down that far?"
>
> Went and checked the plans against my plane and it appears my hinges are
> installed upside down. The pin bump is on the top, when the plans show it
> being toward the bottom... that explains why they don't fold correctly.
>
> So my question is... are the holes drilled in the hinges even on both
> sides so all I have to do is drill out the rivets and flip the hinges
> over?
>
> I didn't look close when I went to check which way they were, and I just
> thought that I'd ask if anyone know off hand...
>
> Secondly, do you think that may be why I've had to replace a bunch of
> rivets already (I've had the plane for 4 months and have replaced about 15
> or so of the hinge rivets)
>
> Thanks!
>
> --------
> -Erik Grabowski
> Kolb Firestar N197BG
> CFI/CFII
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78743#78743
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
| No idea
| how many hours on the plane, but if things are loosening up, new
hinges may
| just be a good idea. Lar.
Might be a good idea to determine why rivets are loosening on a
relatively new airplane licensed this year. That is not a normal
situation.
Never had to replace a hinge because of lose rivets.
Second thought, because the hinges are reversed, could it be possible
the hinge rivet line was stressed when attempts to fold the wings were
attempted?
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
| From: | "grabo172" <grabo172(at)sc.rr.com> |
John Hauck wrote:
> |
>
> Second thought, because the hinges are reversed, could it be possible
> the hinge rivet line was stressed when attempts to fold the wings were
> attempted?
>
> john h
> mkIII
That was my thought... I think since they are reversed there may be stresses that
the hinges weren't designed for, pulling on the rivets.
Good Idea to used the old hinges for templates... that's exactly what I'll do...
I don't know why I don't think of these things myself [Embarassed] just loosing
my mind in my old 33 years I guess... :D
--------
-Erik Grabowski
Kolb Firestar N197BG
CFI/CFII
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78757#78757
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
Although aimed at rotary engines, this is a very comprehensive
(and lengthy) report on cooling:
http://www.rotaryeng.net/how-to-cool12.html
I have a couple of hose connections that will get beading this winter.
BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
>
......................................>
>Secondly, do you think that may be why I've had to replace a bunch of
rivets already (I've had the plane for 4 months and have replaced about 15
or so of the hinge rivets)
>
Erik,
If aileron hinge rivets are coming loose, it would seem that it could be
caused by poor hinge alignment. This can be verified by removing the pin
from the push rod clevis and rotating the aileron by hand. If it is badly
misaligned the hinges will squawk. If only one hinge rivet set is becoming
loose that is a hint that, that hinge is out of alignment. This can be
verified by pulling the hinge pin and check to see how the two halves line
up to each other as the aileron is rotated.
For what it is worth.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
From: robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>
Although aimed at rotary engines, this is a very comprehensive
(and lengthy) report on cooling:
http://www.rotaryeng.net/how-to-cool12.html
.......................................................
Bob,
It looks like I am using the wrong approach. Thanks.
As I am running the Victor 1+ with a small radiator, I have looked into different
coolants. I tried out water, water with WaterWetter, and 50/50 water/glycol
and a product called "Engine Ice". WaterWetter was purchased from AutoZone
and the Engine Ice I found on the web.
The results from initial testing this summer gave the following:
WaterWetter and H20 <-BEST
H2O
Engine Ice and WaterWetter
Engine Ice
Half H2O and Glycol <-WORST
WaterWetter when added to water lowers water surface tension. If you have
ever watched water start to boil in a pan on the stove you may have noticed
that little bubbles filled with steam begin to form and remain attached to
the pan bottom. As the water continues to heat the bubbles break loose and
float to the surface. These bubbles attached to the heated surface actually
reduce heat flow to the water. By reducing the water surface tension, the
bubbles break away from the metal surface earlier in their formation
allowing liquid water to re-attach to the surface and improves heat flow.
WaterWetter is not an anti-freeze solution, but Engine Ice is. Engine Ice
is expensive, and it is claimed that it will lower coolant temperatures by
50 degrees. I did not find this to be true. Now that cooler air
temperatures are here, I do not see that much improvement over glycol/water
solution.
Next Spring after the date for last frost, I will go back to WaterWetter and
distilled water.
I left the Engine Ice in for this winter and I expected it to be much better
in the cooler air, but this does not seem to be the case.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
> By reducing the water surface tension, the
> bubbles break away from the metal surface earlier in their formation
> allowing liquid water to re-attach to the surface and improves heat flow.
If you're running a pressure coolant system that gets hot enough
to form bubbles in operation........
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
Hi All,
can anyone comfirm the dates for Monument Valley next May please. Its no
good saying Labor Day or whatever we don`t celebrate that.
Also, what is the hotel which is close by. Can find nothing specific
among the reams of stuff on the net.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Elevator Cables |
Hi Lar,
I had a mate, now dead, unfortunately, who was a gunner in a Halifax. He
told me that his skipper always rounded out on the trim. Not quuite
pattern and approach I agree but pretty neat.
Thanks for the pics. we may use your hotel if we make it to MV next year
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Elevator Cables |
It's a fair hike from La Posada de Santa Fe to MV, (about 400 miles) but
if you stop here en route, I'll scramble to play tour guide for
you......and for any other Kolb'ers who may stop by at any time.
I've got a few picture stories put together on my activities to and
around Santa Fe, so anyone who's interested, let me know and I'll send
'em on to you. Lar. Do not
Archive.
Larry Bourne
Santa Fe, NM
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: pat ladd
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Dual Elevator Cables
Hi Lar,
I had a mate, now dead, unfortunately, who was a gunner in a Halifax.
He told me that his skipper always rounded out on the trim. Not quuite
pattern and approach I agree but pretty neat.
Thanks for the pics. we may use your hotel if we make it to MV next
year
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MV mothers' day |
In US, at least my part, Mothers' Day is celebrated 5/13, a Sunday.
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
Erik, You didn't say how you determined the rivets needed to be replaced,
and whether you replaced them with the same size rivet or went oversize.
There's a condition called "smoking rivets" in which the rivets begin to
move in the holes creating an aluminum oxide dust ring around the head of
the rivet. If you see evidence the rivets are smoking, going oversize to
5/32 is probably your only option to get a true fix to the problem.
Rick
On 12/3/06, Jack B. Hart wrote:
>
>
> >
> ......................................>
> >Secondly, do you think that may be why I've had to replace a bunch of
> rivets already (I've had the plane for 4 months and have replaced about 15
> or so of the hinge rivets)
> >
>
> Erik,
>
> If aileron hinge rivets are coming loose, it would seem that it could be
> caused by poor hinge alignment. This can be verified by removing the pin
> from the push rod clevis and rotating the aileron by hand. If it is badly
> misaligned the hinges will squawk. If only one hinge rivet set is
> becoming
> loose that is a hint that, that hinge is out of alignment. This can be
> verified by pulling the hinge pin and check to see how the two halves line
> up to each other as the aileron is rotated.
>
> For what it is worth.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Elevator Cables |
Hi Ed,
sorry if I have inadverdently trodden on your toes..
I think maybe you came into this thread partway through as you seem to
have missed the previous posts to which I was replying.
I was certainly not denigrating Kolbs. I have one, and I agree with you
that it is well designed, except for the flap handle, and very strong.
I shall NOT be fitting dual cables. I was merely continuing a discussion
about the differing approaches to legislation in the US and the UK.
The comment about the length of time that was apparently going to be
taken in investigating Daves sad accident did not suggest for a moment
that we don`t have accidents in greater or lesser numbers than you but
merely making the point that if an accident(any accident) occurs then
the cause needs to be determined as quickly as possible. If the tail
falls off a Rans at 1000 hours and I have 950 hours on mine I would like
to know NOW if it is a generic flaw or if the pilot sawed through half
the longerons to install an extra fuel tank. Not in six months time when
someone has finally got round to it.
Another lister was applauding the fact that in the US you could `do
pretty much as you liked`. In fact I think that his words were "you
could carve a plane out of cheese and provided the C of G was in the
right place it would pass". Apologies if I have misquoted but those were
the general sentiments. I was merely commenting. If it is not true dont
blame me.
I agree, (we seem to agree about everything Ed, whats the argument?)
that regs don`t make an aircraft safe. Design does. But what except regs
ensures that a builder follows the design? Also, would you be happy that
any designer could market a plane without it being checked by an outside
source.? You couldn`t do that here.
In the States you seem to be in the position that you can change much
more in the design without permission than we are in the UK. Is that
good or bad? I don`t know. I would like to be able to change a prop. or
an engine or fiddle with the dihedral or extend the undercarriage legs
without getting approval but I have no expertise and the fact that I am
willig to take a chance on killing myself should not entitle me to
hazard some innocent bystander. We are working slowly towards your
approach and I suspect that in time we shall arrive at some middle
point.
Incidentally I have had carb icing , twice. Each time it was cleared by
opening the throttle. I didn`t just make up the idea. I read it in a
book.
I am sorry if you find any of this an attack un the US or on Kolb. Put
it down to cabin fever.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
the date is the weekend after Mother's Day...>>
Crikey Lar,
cant you put some numbers on that? We do have Mothers day, I
think,probably not the same as you, and I am almost sure we have Fathers
Day. When the Card Manufacturers and the flower growers get around to it
we shall no doubt have Nephew and Nieces day and Cousins Day, Pumpkin
Pie day.......
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Elevator Cables |
Did over regulation, on your side of the pond, prevent further "bad
accidents"?>>
Good question John. I don`t know. On balance I think it probably did. It may
well have stultified some exciting new developments too. Thats the trade
off.
The main thing that happened was that the series of accidents put the whole
sport in jeopardy. Committees were formed etc., and we were lucky enough
that Anne Welch who had cut her teeth on the Gliding movement and was Sec of
the BGA for years took an interest and was able to lay down enough
guidelines that the government handed over regulation to the new committee
instead of running it directly themselves.
Therefore we enjoy pretty much the status of the Gliding Assoc, and
regulate, inspect, instruct etc., ourselves without too much outside
interference.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Elevator Cables |
At 06:21 PM 12/3/2006, pat ladd wrote:
>In the States you seem to be in the position that you can change much more
>in the design without permission than we are in the UK. Is that good or
>bad? I don`t know. I would like to be able to change a prop. or an engine
>or fiddle with the dihedral or extend the undercarriage legs without
>getting approval but I have no expertise and the fact that I am willig to
>take a chance on killing myself should not entitle me to hazard some
>innocent bystander. We are working slowly towards your approach and I
>suspect that in time we shall arrive at some middle point.
Pat, there are two sets of regs here. If it's two seats, or over 254 lbs,
factory built you can't change much; homebuilt, you have to register it as
experimental and go through inspections, test flying in a restricted area,
etc. You can change pretty much anything when you build it but you still
have to get it approved for flight.
If it's under 254 lbs and single seat (i.e. ultralight), you can do
virtually anything... but the ultralight regs prohibit you from flying, at
ANY altitude, over any congested area or open air assembly of persons. So
our regs DO protect the innocent bystander either way, but you're free to
kill yourself flying solo.
-Dana
--
--
For every new foolproof invention there is a new and improved fool.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
The weekend after is the 19th and 20th. I think this is the normal
"regular" weekend.
Larry,Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
| From: | "grabo172" <grabo172(at)sc.rr.com> |
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Erik, You didn't say how you determined the rivets needed to be replaced, and
whether you replaced them with the same size rivet or went oversize.
The heads were just a bit pulled out from the hinge, not flush...
Not smoking at all thank goodness. I just drilled them out and replaced them with
1/8x 1/4 steel rivets. The ones I took out were 1/8 x 1/8. But the manual
said that the larger grip is ok if needed.
But of course I'm going to drill them all out anyway and replace the hinges. Better
safe than sorry.
On another note.. I passed my Light Sport Repairman - Inspector class today so
I can legally sign off my own annual condition inspection...
So I have to replace those hinges anyway... as a maintenance man I have to say
my "Inspector" (me) is a real tough cookie [Laughing]
--------
-Erik Grabowski
Kolb Firestar N197BG
CFI/CFII/LS-I
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78934#78934
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)uplink.net> |
| Subject: | Repairman course |
Eric, Congratulations on passing the repairman course. Lanny Do not
archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
Richard,
Please e-mail me directly.
imhisson2 (at) yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Elevator Cables |
Dana Hague wrote:
> At 06:21 PM 12/3/2006, pat ladd wrote:
>
>> In the States you seem to be in the position that you can change much
>> more in the design without permission than we are in the UK. Is that
>> good or bad? I don`t know. I would like to be able to change a prop.
>> or an engine or fiddle with the dihedral or extend the undercarriage
>> legs without getting approval but I have no expertise and the fact
>> that I am willig to take a chance on killing myself should not
>> entitle me to hazard some innocent bystander. We are working slowly
>> towards your approach and I suspect that in time we shall arrive at
>> some middle point.
>
>
> Pat, there are two sets of regs here. If it's two seats, or over 254
> lbs, factory built you can't change much; homebuilt, you have to
> register it as experimental and go through inspections, test flying in
> a restricted area, etc. You can change pretty much anything when you
> build it but you still have to get it approved for flight.
>
> If it's under 254 lbs and single seat (i.e. ultralight), you can do
> virtually anything... but the ultralight regs prohibit you from
> flying, at ANY altitude, over any congested area or open air assembly
> of persons. So our regs DO protect the innocent bystander either way,
> but you're free to kill yourself flying solo.
>
> -Dana
> --
> --
> For every new foolproof invention there is a new and improved fool.
> For Pat, just a little bit of extra clarification on the Experimental
> Homebuilt vs. U. S. 'Part 103' (of the FAA regs) Ultralite regs:
Under 254 lbs, 1 seat, less than 5 gal fuel capacity, under 55kts top
speed, less than 24 kts stall speed can qualify as a Part 103 Ultralite
& there is no registration, training, reporting, maintenance/inspection
schedule etc required.
http://www.ccnow.com/cgi-local/sc_cart.cgi?2170208198401745
You can register one of these as an Experimental Homebuilt if it wasn't
built commercially (meaning 51% was built for personal education or
recreation) just like larger homebuilts, but I don't know why anyone would.
Experimental Homebuilts can be virtually any size/weight/speed/number of
seats but must meet the 51% rule above. These must be registered & get
registration numbers just like factory built planes. The rules say no
flight over densely populated areas 'except in the process of takeoff or
landing' but these days this is largely a political thing to keep the
masses from complaining. Air traffic control will often route you
directly over a major city if you ask to transistion their airspace
while on a cross-country, if it keeps you out of the way of traffic at
their airport. *Anyone* (even a dog or a chimp) can make *any* repair or
modification to an Experimental Homebuilt. If it's considered to be a
'major' modification, the owner must notify the FAA of the change & get
a test area approved for 5 hours of flight test time after the mod.
Details on the test proceedure after a mod vary slightly depending on
the rules in effect when the plane got its original Operating
Limitations, but you get the idea. Experimentals must be inspected once
a year by either someone with an airframe & powerplant ticket from the
FAA, or by the holder of the Repairman's Certificate for that particular
plane (meaning the builder). You've got to have the word 'Experimental'
in big letters in the cockpit so any passenger is expected to know he's
taking his life in his hands if he gets in the plane. In the USA, even
with 300 million people the odds of hitting anyone on the ground are
almost unmeasurably small. These are very good rules, just like the
provision in our constitution that guarantees us the right to 'keep and
bear arms', which was put in place to allow us to protect ourselves from
a corrupt government, even if it's our own.
Hope this helps...
Charlie
flying my 4th (purchased) homebuilt, building another
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WhiskeyVictor36(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Massey Aero 6th Annual Open Hangar Day |
Hi Terry (FireFly),
Was glad to see that you and Wilmar were able to fly in to the event on
Sunday 12/03/06. Wish I had done so. Earlier in the week they were predicting
high winds, but fortunately that changed and the day was really pretty good,
although a little on the cold side. I saw that you had dressed warmly, but
with the short windshield, do you still get cold? I cannot stand the cold
anymore. Maybe age has something to do with it. I do have a full coverage
canopy, but had removed the side/rear windows for the summer and because we've
been having a warm fall, I haven't installed them yet. But now I believe winter
is here, so next time I fly, they'll be on. Hope to see you again at
Homers, if that visit becomes a reality.
Bill Varnes
Original Kolb FireStar
Audubon NJ
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Repairman course |
| From: | "grabo172" <grabo172(at)sc.rr.com> |
Thanks! :D
--------
-Erik Grabowski
Kolb Firestar N197BG
CFI/CFII/LS-I
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79189#79189
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
>
>> By reducing the water surface tension, the
>> bubbles break away from the metal surface earlier in their formation
>> allowing liquid water to re-attach to the surface and improves heat flow.
>
>If you're running a pressure coolant system that gets hot enough
>to form bubbles in operation........
Jim,
There is a temperature drop across the cylinder and head surface walls to
the water. The reason for this due to the fact that the thermal
conductivity or heat transfer rate of aluminum is about 250 times greater
than that for water. So steam bubbles will form on the high temperature
aluminum surface even though the apparent water temperature is much less
than the water boiling temperature. As the steam bubbles migrate further
away from the aluminum surface hot spot into the cooler water they
collapse.
This can easily be shown. Place a small pan filled with about two inches of
cold water on a stove. Turn on the burner to a medium heat. Hold a candy
thermometer so that the bulb is about one inch below the waters surface.
Watch the bottom of the pan. In a few minutes you will notice small steam
bubbles forming on the bottom of the pan. The thermometer will read about
100 degrees F. To form the steam bubbles, the metal to water interface has
to be at least 212 degrees F.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| The thermometer will read about
| 100 degrees F. To form the steam bubbles, the metal to water
interface has
| to be at least 212 degrees F.
|
| Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack/Gang:
Would you get the same results with a water pump rapidly circulating
the water?
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
> >
> >> By reducing the water surface tension, the
> >> bubbles break away from the metal surface earlier in their formation
> >> allowing liquid water to re-attach to the surface and improves heat flow.
> >
> >If you're running a pressure coolant system that gets hot enough
> >to form bubbles in operation........
>
> Jim,
>
> There is a temperature drop across the cylinder and head surface walls to
> the water. The reason for this due to the fact that the thermal
> conductivity or heat transfer rate of aluminum is about 250 times greater
> than that for water. So steam bubbles will form on the high temperature
> aluminum surface even though the apparent water temperature is much less
> than the water boiling temperature. As the steam bubbles migrate further
> away from the aluminum surface hot spot into the cooler water they
> collapse.
>
> This can easily be shown. Place a small pan filled with about two inches of
> cold water on a stove. Turn on the burner to a medium heat. Hold a candy
> thermometer so that the bulb is about one inch below the waters surface.
> Watch the bottom of the pan. In a few minutes you will notice small steam
> bubbles forming on the bottom of the pan. The thermometer will read about
> 100 degrees F. To form the steam bubbles, the metal to water interface has
> to be at least 212 degrees F.
You're talking about nucleation which is pressure dependent. As
an example, at the recommended 1.2 Bar pressure of a closed
Rotax cooling system (1.18 atm, or 900 mm/Hg) the boiling
point of pure water is raised to 104.75C, 220.46F, clearly not the
212F you cite in the open pan. Add ethylene glycol at 50/50 and
the temp goes up even further, my calcs show about 231F at 1.2
Bar. There is some evidence, however, that small bubbles may
promote heat transfer but most of that work was done under
microgravity conditions and not 1g conditions.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
>
> Would you get the same results with a water pump rapidly circulating
>the water?
John,
In most cases yes because the water next to the hot aluminum surface is not
moving. Water has the same flow properties as air flowing over an airfoil,
in that the water next to the surface is not moving and then due to shearing
action the velocity picks up as the distance from the surface increases and
finally goes turbulent. One must remember that there are hot spots in the
system. Most likely they will be found next to the exhaust ports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>You're talking about nucleation which is pressure dependent. As
>an example, at the recommended 1.2 Bar pressure of a closed
>Rotax cooling system (1.18 atm, or 900 mm/Hg) the boiling
>point of pure water is raised to 104.75C, 220.46F, clearly not the
>212F you cite in the open pan. Add ethylene glycol at 50/50 and
>the temp goes up even further, my calcs show about 231F at 1.2
>Bar. There is some evidence, however, that small bubbles may
>promote heat transfer but most of that work was done under
>microgravity conditions and not 1g conditions.
Jim,
You are correct that boiling temperature increases with pressure. If one
could pressurize the pan, you would see the same effect of bubbles forming
on the bottom of the pan. The pan surface temperature would be higher than
212 degrees F.
Yes, steam bubbles will help promote heat transfer with in a pool of water
such as in a pan. But at the hot metal surface with the water the heat
transfer rate decreases due to the combination of water and steam. This is
why the water is circulated. The moving water helps to shear off the steam
bubbles and to make room for more bubbles to form.
I use a coolant temperature gage, but a coolant pressure gage is a much
better indicator of what is going on at the head and cylinder aluminum and
water interface. The aluminum surface temperature will always be much
higher than the coolant temperature.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Elevator Cables |
the word 'Experimental' in big letters in the cockpit so any passenger is
expected to know he's taking his life in his hands if he gets in the
plane.>>
Hi Charlie,
we have a little piece of paper about twice as big as a postage stamp stuck
up somewhere in the cockpit with a note that `this plane is not built to
accepted aeronautical standards`.
Serves the same purpose I suppose. The first line of defence if some some
smart guy sues you.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Registering ultralights |
At 07:58 AM 12/5/2006, pat ladd wrote:
>thanks for that. About the only thing we have flying here which would fit
>those parameters is a foot launched paramotor. It will be very interesting
>to see what comes out of our `deregulation` talks.
Where are you? I know in Britian there is a "foot launched exemption" from
registration requirements. It was the same here once, briefly, as
ultralights grew out of powered hang gliders (the old Quicksilver I just
sold was foot launchable to comply with the requirements, though I never
attempted it).
With the new Sport Pilot regs here it will also be interesting to see of
the requirement to register "fat" ultralights leads to a resurgence of very
light single seaters... this already seems to be happening in the PPC world.
-Dana
--
--
Sex in a Volkswagen = Farfergnookie.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rules for Homebuilts |
| From: | "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
(Note - I changed the 'Subject' line.)
Charlie England wrote: << Homebuilts ... The rules say no flight over
densely populated areas 'except in the process of takeoff or landing'
but these days this is largely political ... >>
Kolb Friends -
Charlie is correct: this is what used to be written in the FARs,
regarding Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. However, this single
rule was vehemently contested by pilots, EAA, and others. So, about two
years ago, the FAA relaxed the wording (and intent) of the rule that
restricted our homebuilt aircraft from flying over populated areas.
Now, we enjoy the same latitude as the "store-bought" aircraft. Our
N-numbered Experimentals are allowed to fly over cites, provided we
follow the FAR regulations that state we must fly at least 1000 feet
above populated areas.
Dennis Kirby
Mark-III, 912ul, in
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Ikola" <rob(at)fabform.com> |
| Subject: | Ultrastar Information |
I am looking for anyone that owns or has owned an Ultrastar. I just
bought one that was recently completed and I am looking for any reports
or problems with this design. Also looking for info on handling and
areas to watch as far as this plane is concerned. The plane has about 2
hours of test flight, and the local pilots that flew it have some
knowledge, but looking for everything I can on this unit, as it is not
my intention to die flying ultralights!!
Thanks, Rob Ikola contact: rob(at)fabform.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Ikola" <rob(at)fabform.com> |
Looking for any owners or pilots of Ultrastar's. I want to be aware of
all notices and fatalities on this model. What ever else I should know
before flying, Rob Ikola rob(at)fabform.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ultrastar Information |
I am looking for anyone that owns or has owned an Ultrastar.
but looking for everything I can on this unit, as it is not my
intention to die flying ultralights!!
Thanks, Rob Ikola contact:
Rob I:
Well.........don't think it is anyone's intention to die flying
ultralights. ;-) Although we do once in a while.
Before some of us with Ultrastar experience spill our guts out to you
about our airplanes, how about telling us something about you. Where
are you from, UL experience, intentions, etc???
Thanks and take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ultrastar Info. |
Looking for any owners or pilots of Ultrastar's. I want to be aware
of all notices and fatalities on this model. What ever else I should
know before flying, Rob Ikola
Rob I:
Sorry, but there is no way for any of us to know of "all notices and
fatalities" in the Ultrastar.
For the record, there is no record of US accidents, to inlcude
fatalites.
You sure you want to fly this thing. ;-)
Take care,
john h
mkIII
hauck's holler, alabama
PS: Almost forgot. Why not do a comprehensive search through the
Kolb List Archives. If there is any mention of US and accidents,
updates, fatalities, etc., should be in the archives. To get there,
go to this url:
http://www.matronics.com/search/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Ikola" <rob(at)fabform.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ultrastar Info. |
John,
thanks for the info, share with me what you can, Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ultrastar Info.
>
>
> Looking for any owners or pilots of Ultrastar's. I want to be aware
> of all notices and fatalities on this model. What ever else I should
> know before flying, Rob Ikola
>
> Rob I:
>
> Sorry, but there is no way for any of us to know of "all notices and
> fatalities" in the Ultrastar.
>
> For the record, there is no record of US accidents, to inlcude
> fatalites.
>
> You sure you want to fly this thing. ;-)
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
> mkIII
> hauck's holler, alabama
>
> PS: Almost forgot. Why not do a comprehensive search through the
> Kolb List Archives. If there is any mention of US and accidents,
> updates, fatalities, etc., should be in the archives. To get there,
> go to this url:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/search/
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rules for Homebuilts |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Guys,
If your original operating limitations state that you can not fly over a densly
populated area then you can not. The rule for LSA was changed in July 2006. You
need to have another set of operating limitations issued for your "N" numbered
aircraft. I just had mine done. My Kolb had a complete re-issue of my operating
limitations to say it was ok to fly over densly populated areas. Your aircraft
logbook also needs to be signed off.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79437#79437
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <kfackler(at)ameritech.net> |
This question is about the behavior of the Rotax 912 ULS.
This is the engine that it's in the plane in which I took my checkride, not
my Kolb. I also have rented it some since then. I realize that every engine
design is unique but I've never seen any engine do this. When you kill the
mags to turn off the engine, it STOPS, thunk. No wind-down at all. It's
actually quite startling. The CFI with whom I trained said it was perfectly
natural for that engine.
How say you all? Does this sound like normal behavior?
-Ken Fackler
Kolb Mark II / A722KWF
Rochester MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 912 question |
| From: | "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot1(at)comcast.net> |
Ken and All,
It is normal for the 912 ULS stop turning immediately. It is also normal to hear
a small squeak at shutdown if it has the slipper clutch installed.
--------
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolbra, 912ULS
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot1
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=79462#79462
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 question |
Hi Ken:
I'll echo what John W said. When you shut down a 912ULS, it stops,
right now. It has 10.5 to 1 compression ration running through a 2.43
to 1 gear box.
Sorta reminds me of shutting down my Dodge Cummins. The Cummins B6
has 16 or 17 to 1 compression ratio. On shut down it shakes hell
outta the whole truck.
Take care and stay warm,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Registering ultralights |
>Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:52:03 -0500
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>From: possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net>
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Registering ultralights
>
>At 07:58 AM 12/5/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Hi Richard,
>>
>>thanks for that. About the only thing we have flying here which
>>would fit those parameters is a foot launched paramotor. It will be
>>very interesting to see what comes out of our `deregulation` talks.
>
>See what came from our `deregulation` talks - "foot launched
>paramotorhangliders"
>evolved into what we generally refer to as "Ultralights". It will
>never happen again in a
>million years.....if the FAA could have seen it coming. Most of us
>here have been illegal
>for the last 20 years - I know I have.
>Like the "Cowboys" of the old west, just a "one time thing".
>I think they're just trying to round up the mustangs here for the last time.
>
>Glad I was there while it lasted.
>My grand kids will say "You used to do what!!!"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron wehba" <rwehba(at)cebridge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ultrastar Information |
rob mail me direct at rwehba(at)cebridge.net and i'll tell ya about my old
one.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Ikola
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:50 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Ultrastar Information
I am looking for anyone that owns or has owned an Ultrastar. I just
bought one that was recently completed and I am looking for any reports
or problems with this design. Also looking for info on handling and
areas to watch as far as this plane is concerned. The plane has about 2
hours of test flight, and the local pilots that flew it have some
knowledge, but looking for everything I can on this unit, as it is not
my intention to die flying ultralights!!
Thanks, Rob Ikola contact: rob(at)fabform.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Registering ultralights |
At 07:58 AM 12/5/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Richard,
>
>thanks for that. About the only thing we have flying here which
>would fit those parameters is a foot launched paramotor. It will be
>very interesting to see what comes out of our `deregulation` talks.
See what came from our `deregulation` talks - "foot launched
paramotorhangliders"
evolved into what we generally refer to as "Ultralights". It will
never happen again in a
million years.....if the FAA could have seen it coming. Most of us
here have been illegal
for the last 20 years - I know I have.
Like the "Cowboys" of the old west, just a "one time thing".
I think they're just trying to round up the mustangs here for the last time.
Glad I was there while it lasted.
My grand kids will say "You used to do what!!!"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry <tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot Certificate |
DANIEL WALTER wrote:
> Guys,
> Just have to boast. I took and passed my Sport Pilot Practical
> (flight test) today in an Aeronca Champ. At long last I am a Sport Pilot.
> Although the Skies are clear, the air was rough and about 26Kts at
> altitude, I sure am glad the examiner to it into consideration, every
> time I looked at the winds aloft fo
Dan,
Way to go!! Glad you got that out of the way. Looking forward to
flying with you again, maybe to Homer's again next year. Now get back
to the a real ultralight, not the Champ.
I'll be contacting you later about another Lancaster/Lebanon County
Ultralight breakfast after the New Year,
Terry - FireFly #95
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Flycrazy8(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot Certificate |
Just have to boast. I took and passed my Sport Pilot Practical (flight test)
today in an A
Aeronca Champ. At long last I am a Sport Pilot
Dan Walter
Ultrastar
Palmyra, P.
Congratulations to You Dan
Tell us how you did it ?
Stephen
Kolb Firefly
03035
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike moulai" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk> |
Does anyone know what the minimum horse power required for a Firefly is
and what kind of performance with a small engine?.
Also has anyone used a Simonini engine on a firefly?, which model?, and
what was the performance like?.
Thanks in advance
Mike Moulai
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
From: "mike moulai" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: Kolb-List: Firefly
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:57:44 -0000
Sender: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at onlyinternet.net
Does anyone know what the minimum horse power required for a Firefly is and what
kind of performance with a small engine?.
Also has anyone used a Simonini engine on a firefly?, which model?, and what was
the performance like?.
Mike,
Check out:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly.html
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike moulai" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk> |
Hey thanks Jack, Great web site.
Looks like Simonini is much lighter and more economical than 447, this is
very important in UK.
In your opinion did the Victor 1+ perform better than the 447 and was it
quieter than the 447?.
Kind Regards
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firefly
>
> From: "mike moulai" <kiwimick(at)sfmicro.fsnet.co.uk>
> To:
> Subject: Kolb-List: Firefly
> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:57:44 -0000
> Sender: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at onlyinternet.net
>
> Does anyone know what the minimum horse power required for a Firefly is
> and what kind of performance with a small engine?.
> Also has anyone used a Simonini engine on a firefly?, which model?, and
> what was the performance like?.
>
> Mike,
>
> Check out:
>
> http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly.html
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Matronics Fund Raiser - 2006 List of Contributors |
Dear Listers,
I would like to thank everyone that made a Contribution in support of the Lists
this year! It was really nice to hear all great comments people had regarding
the Lists! As I have said many times before, running these Lists is a labor
of love. Your generosity during the List Fund Raiser only underscores the great
sentiments people have made regarding the Lists.
If you haven't yet made a Contribution in support of this year's Fund Raiser please
feel free to do so. The nice List gifts will be available on the site for
just a little while longer, so hurry and make your Contribution and get your
great gift. Once again, the URL for the Contribution web site is:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
I would like to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com ), Paul Besing of Aeroware Enterprises ( http://www.kitlog.com ), Jon Croke of Homebuilt HELP ( http://www.homebuilthelp.com ) and Bob Nuckolls of AeroElectric ( http://www.aeroelectric.com ) for their extremely generous support during this year's Fund Raiser through the contribution of merchandise. These are great guys that support the aviation industry and I encourage each and every Lister to have a look at their products. Thank you Andy, Paul, Jon and Bob!! Your support is very much appreciated!
And finally, below you will find a web link to the 2006 List of Contributors current
as of 12/7/06! Have a look at this list of names as these are the people
that make all of these List services possible! I can't thank each of you enough
for your support and great feedback during this year's Fund Raiser!
THANK YOU!
http://www.matronics.com/loc/2006.html
I will be shipping out all of the gifts in the next few weeks and hope to have
everything out by the end of the month. In most cases, gifts will be shipped
via US Postal Service. Kitlog Pro serial numbers should go out via email this
weekend.
Once again, thank you for making this year's List Fund Raiser successful!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
Hi,
It appears that the list is quiet, so I guess I can at least make a
contribution.
I moved this year after retirement and got a fair amount of money
for my old house and decided that I would buy a new 503 to replace the
447 that I have 260 hours on rather than do a rebuild. Through an
astounding amount of circumstances the engine arrived with the crate
damaged, and since my normal UPS lady was on vacation it was dumped off
when I was not aware of its arrival. The damage appeared to be
superficial and the fill in UPS guy was unhelpful in what my options
were. The damage appeared to be only the air filters so I decided that I
wanted the engine badly enough that I wasn't going to give it up just
for a couple of filters. So the engine sat there until August when I got
the plane rebuilt and was ready for the engine. I mounted it on the
plane and then found that it would not turn over. I have to admit that I
am not a mechanical type guy. If I have to get greasy, I feel that my
day has been a failure. So I took it off and put my 447 back on. I flew
it for 13 hours. Terry Davis and his wife came down for a visit, and he
wanted to look at the engine to see if he could figure out what was
wrong. It turned out that the fan shroud was bent into the fan and
stopping it from turning over. So I ordered new parts and Terry
graciously agreed to come back down and help me put it back together. (I
watched) Then it was only a matter of redoing the wiring, mounting the
muffler, welding on thermocouple bosses so that I could use the sensors
that I had on my EIS. I have to admit that I didn't get in a hurry as it
has been in the single digits for temps for quite a while. I finally got
it all done yesterday, (it is surprising how much time it seems to take
to do anything with that blasted plane) The weather finally warmed up to
freezing so I put it back together and pushed it outside. My old battery
didn't hold enough power to turn over the starter, so I hooked it to my
quad for a jump start. It just didn't want to start, but I finally got
it to fire. It ran for a bit then all of a sudden it started revving
faster and faster. I was standing outside blocking it with my leg. Well
at 5400 rpm's it got pretty hard to hold. I was able to reach over and
turn off the key and kill the motor. Thank goodness I had the wires
hooked properly. I tried it again and the same thing happened. I
checked to make sure that the throttle was off. So I start with the
carb, thinking that the splitters weren't adjusted properly. I finally
found that when I had zip tied the cable to the cage, I had
inadvertently pulled the cables, opening the carbs. After that it ran
quite nicely. I then tied it to the truck to make sure that it was going
to run correctly.(the engine only has about four hours on it, but it
dates back to the early 90's and I wanted to make sure that there were
no leaks or other problems.) Every thing was just fine and the engine
was as smooth as silk, so I untied it and went flying. It was nice to
get back in the air, and it flew very well. The only thing of
consequence was that the idle was down to 1400 rpms.
Today I rolled it back out and repaired a few of the things that
needed attention, filled her full of gas, turned the idle screws a half
a turn, and fired it up. Actually the battery was to weak to turn it
over again. So I began to hand prop it to see if it could actually be
done. To my surprise it wasn't that hard to do and it fired fairly
quickly. I then allowed it to die by turning off the enrichner and had
to do it again. I was also surprised that the engine was now showing
2100 rpms. (I rarely get things right the first time) After warm up I
took off and began to do some landings and to also get some test time on
the engine to make sure that every thing was right and going to keep
running. I then found that the RPM's were fluctuating. I had two choices
on the wires coming out of the rectifier and of course chose the wrong
one. (story of my life) That took care of the problem. I flew for 72
minutes total today at 27 degrees and burned 3 gal of gas. Its nice to
be back in the air again, and it is very nice to have 295 hours left on
a new motor.
Larry, Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Its nice to be back in the air again, and it is very nice to have 295
hours left on a new motor.
Larry, Oregon
Hi Larry C/Gang:
Almost as cold at hauck's holler.
Keep that 503 running til we get back up your way one of these days.
Glad the engine is working out for you. Engine seems fine. Might
need to tune up the pilot a tad.
Regards to Karen, the dogs, the birds, the horses. Who did I leave
out? ;-)
john h
mkIII (no engine)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net> |
I have read thru the archieves and still dont really know if I would be
better off with a warp drive prop on my sling shot or not. I have a 582,
three blad IVO on it now with an E box and about 1 1/2 " of shim behind the
prop to bring it away from the ails. my buddy has about the same exact set
up, 2.62 gears in his C box and flys circles around me with a 68' three
blade warp. Now, my plane is a little heavier but he is physically heavier
so that cant be all that. I have my engine mounted probably an inch or so
higher than his so I can fold the wings. that might be some of it but he
drinks way less gas and climbs like an bat out of hell and suffers no take
off lag. Is it or could it just be the warp is just that much better? what
say you kolb gouls? these are both new blue heads and our temps are almost
the same. ted cowan, alabama.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)pa.net> |
Ted,
The faster UL's such as your SS will do better with the warp.
I like Ivos for the FF and FS, but not for the SS. I tried Ivos on both the
582 powered SS and the much faster 582 powered Laser and the Ivos are
definitely not as fast. The Laser suffered more speed loss than the SS - the
faster the aircraft the larger the speed loss with Ivo. (Now I am referring
to the smaller x-section Ivo blade; had no experience with the larger HP
ivos.) If you want to out run your buddy, put on a 2-blade warp. But I'd
stay with the 3-blade warp for smoothness.
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tc1917
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 6:52 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: props
I have read thru the archieves and still dont really know if I would be
better off with a warp drive prop on my sling shot or not. I have a 582,
three blad IVO on it now with an E box and about 1 1/2 " of shim behind the
prop to bring it away from the ails. my buddy has about the same exact set
up, 2.62 gears in his C box and flys circles around me with a 68' three
blade warp. Now, my plane is a little heavier but he is physically heavier
so that cant be all that. I have my engine mounted probably an inch or so
higher than his so I can fold the wings. that might be some of it but he
drinks way less gas and climbs like an bat out of hell and suffers no take
off lag. Is it or could it just be the warp is just that much better? what
say you kolb gouls? these are both new blue heads and our temps are almost
the same. ted cowan, alabama.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Ted,
Here is an idea: Exchange props for a day or two and see what happens to performance.
Then, let the rest of us know.
In my experience, there is little or no difference in performance between the Warp
and the IVO.
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p318#80318
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
Do you also have 2.62 gears like your buddy does? If so, try taking off one
of your three blades (It doesn't matter which one... ) and making it
a two blade Ivo. Prop if for about 6250 rpm at 50 mph on climbout and see
what happens top end. If that doesn't work, follow Dennis Souder's advice
and buy a 2 blade Warp. And let us know how things turn out.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "tc1917" <tc1917(at)hughes.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 6:51 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: props
>
> I have read thru the archieves and still dont really know if I would be
> better off with a warp drive prop on my sling shot or not. I have a 582,
> three blad IVO on it now with an E box and about 1 1/2 " of shim behind
> the prop to bring it away from the ails. my buddy has about the same
> exact set up, 2.62 gears in his C box and flys circles around me with a
> 68' three blade warp. Now, my plane is a little heavier but he is
> physically heavier so that cant be all that. I have my engine mounted
> probably an inch or so higher than his so I can fold the wings. that
> might be some of it but he drinks way less gas and climbs like an bat out
> of hell and suffers no take off lag. Is it or could it just be the warp
> is just that much better? what say you kolb gouls? these are both new
> blue heads and our temps are almost the same. ted cowan, alabama.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Is it or could it just be the warp is just that much better?
ted cowan,
Ted C:
What is your engine rpm at WOT straight and level flight?
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Blumax008(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:engine replacement time |
In a message dated 12/9/2006 7:21:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ElleryWeld(at)aol.com writes:
What is the normal engine replacement that others are getting and on what
engines?
Best thing to do is ignore 90% of what you read on the internet about
overhauling at 300 or 400 hours...& a lot of other B.S. Most of these statements
are
made by armchair bullshitters with nothing else to do but sit at their
computers spewing bullshit...and I don't give a crap what the owner's manual says.
I've worked both 503s & 582s for the past near 30 years. Worked them very,
very hard towing hang gliders & doing aerial photography. Wide open, full
throttle, slow speed tows from 3,000 to 5,000 ft. The Kolb I use for aerial
photography goes wide open to 15,000 ft.
The Kolb is a low time 503 with about 270 hours on it...a mere child. The
Edge X 503 I have is at 230 hours...another baby.
The Tukan 503 I have for fun flying & towing is closing on 1,500 hours. I
plan to take it to 2,000 hours & beyond. I've topped it only twice in the last
8
years. It could use a top now but still runs fine, still tows gliders &
banners at full throttle.
The 582 I had on a previous Maxair had over 1,000 hours & the biggest mistake
I made was overhauling that one. When we decided to overhaul it, we turned
the motor up-right in order to swing a wider prop. We neglected to turn the oil
reservoir which supplies oil to the crankshaft. I had 3 or 4 engine failures
before we figured out what was wrong.
I've used Pennzoil & a clutch on all aircraft except the Kolb. The Kolb I'm
anxious to see how far it goes without a clutch. Do NOT be afraid to run these
motors wide open. They love it, revel in it & are made for it.
IF IT AIN'T BROKE...DON'T FIX IT.
Now you'll get to hear from all the armchair bullshiters telling you to
ignore all the above.
Bill Catalina
Ochlockonee Bay, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:engine replacement time |
| We neglected to turn the oil
| reservoir which supplies oil to the crankshaft. I had 3 or 4 engine
failures
| before we figured out what was wrong.
| |
| Now you'll get to hear from all the armchair bullshiters telling you
to
| ignore all the above.
|
| Bill Catalina
Hi Bill C:
Looks like you have a lot more experience with ultralights and two
strokes than I do. I haven't owned one since 1993, when the 582 that
powered my mkIII seized. Yep, at about 220 hours. Must not have been
running it hard enough. ;-)
Anyhow, with limited experience with the 582, 220 hours on mine, and
some time with factory mkIII and SS powered by the 582, I am not
familiar with the "oil reservoir which supplies oil to the crankshaft"
you mention reference you "3 or 4 engine failures." Could you explain
that system for me please.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ms. Dixie update |
| From: | "Paul Petty" <paulpetty(at)myway.com> |
Hey gang,
Got the tail boom stabbed and got her back on her feet. Going to finish covering
the rest of the tail section this weekend I hope!
http://groups.msn.com/AerialWorld/kolbra012.msnw?Page=6
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
covering and painting
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p425#80425
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:engine replacement time |
At 03:32 PM 12/9/2006, you wrote:
>
>| We neglected to turn the oil
>| reservoir which supplies oil to the crankshaft. I had 3 or 4 engine
>failures
>| before we figured out what was wrong.
>
>Anyhow, with limited experience with the 582, 220 hours on mine, and
>some time with factory mkIII and SS powered by the 582, I am not
>familiar with the "oil reservoir which supplies oil to the crankshaft"
>you mention reference you "3 or 4 engine failures." Could you explain
>that system for me please.
>
>john h
>mkIII
Maybe this is what he is talking about on overhauls and crankshafts:
"If I were to write it for the 447, it would be 600 hours and it would be
closer to 900 hours for the 377. I'm one that thinks the 300 hours is about
right for the 582 though. If you have had the opportunity to look at
various crankshafts in 2-stroke engines of this size you will notice that
the lower rod area on the Rotax crankshaft has much less slop side to side
and less of an area for lubrication to make it into the bearing. The 377
and 447 have a slit on either side of the lower rod, but the 503 and 582
only have a slit on one side.
Since the time has been put on fast, you have been able to go that long
but even engines that get time fast like that are probably likely to need
at least some attention by 500.
If I was the one writing the TBO for the 503 I would put it at 450 because
that is about where I start seeing crank failures even with well kept
engines."
Tom Olenik
Olenik Aviation
from the archives: 06/20/05
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:engine replacement time |
John,
The oil injection pump depends on gravity flow to feed the pump.
When he changed his engine from a plugs down configuration to a plugs
up configuration without relocating the oil reservoir he no longer
had enough height to gravity flow the oil to the pump when the oil
level in the tank went down some.
At least that is my take on what he wrote.
On Dec 9, 2006, at 3:32 PM, John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> | We neglected to turn the oil
> | reservoir which supplies oil to the crankshaft. I had 3 or 4 engine
> failures
> | before we figured out what was wrong.
> | |
> | Now you'll get to hear from all the armchair bullshiters telling you
> to
> | ignore all the above.
> |
> | Bill Catalina
>
> Hi Bill C:
>
> Looks like you have a lot more experience with ultralights and two
> strokes than I do. I haven't owned one since 1993, when the 582 that
> powered my mkIII seized. Yep, at about 220 hours. Must not have been
> running it hard enough. ;-)
>
> Anyhow, with limited experience with the 582, 220 hours on mine, and
> some time with factory mkIII and SS powered by the 582, I am not
> familiar with the "oil reservoir which supplies oil to the crankshaft"
> you mention reference you "3 or 4 engine failures." Could you explain
> that system for me please.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Facet pump thread sealer |
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
Dennis Kirby Wrote:
> Use the Permatex product called "High Temperature Thread Sealant."
> Available in most auto parts stores.
> It's purpose is to seal any threaded fuel or oil lines, instead of
> Teflon tape.
>
> Reason to avoid the Teflon tape: someone on this List shared a story
> about an engine stoppage that was due to a tiny fleck of Teflon tape
> that came loose from a threaded fuel line fitting and got stuck in a
> carb jet.
>
> Dennis Kirby
> Mark-III, 912ul
Just took off my fuel pump fittings that were sealed with teflon tape, and carefully
cleaned off all the tape. I'm now using the Permatex product.
I sometimes wonder just how many butts have been saved by the generous sharing
of knowlege on this list. My thanks to everyone - I've learned a lot here!
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, HKS 700E
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p469#80469
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:engine replacement time |
I assume he is referring to the oil reservoir which is plumbed to the center
section of the crankcase, housing the crank part that drives the water pump
and the rotary valve. Picture here -
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg2.htm
Bottom of the page on the left -
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
dna
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List:engine replacement time
>
I am not familiar with the "oil reservoir which supplies oil to the
crankshaft"
> you mention reference you "3 or 4 engine failures." Could you explain
> that system for me please.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
I was presented with this philosophy about Rotax overhauls at the repairman
maintenance class I took this summer. It opened my eyes to a new way of
looking at the subject. The A & P who offered it has been in ultralights for
over 20 years, is a Quicksilver dealer, and used to have a clean room for
doing Rotax overhauls. He no longer does them and advises his clientele to
do the following.
Set your engine up per Rotax, warm it properly before flying, use good oil,
perform the normal maintenance per Rotax, and keep good engine logs. Fly it
for 400 hours, then put it up for sale, while you are still flying it, for
half the price of a new engine. There will always be somebody looking for a
bargain engine and you should have no problem selling it at that price
(that's the complete engine, gearbox, carbs, exhaust, i.e. the works). Take
that money and the cost of an overhaul (including new crank, as per Rotax)
and buy a new engine.
Brian used the example of a 582. New engine (check falling dollar value to
be correct) $7,000 USD. Cost to overhaul, with new crank, $3500, or half the
cost of a new engine. Voila', you just bought a NEW engine for the cost of
an overhaul.
And the guy who bought your old engine? If he treats it the same way you
did, it goes at least another 400 hours. The average guy flies 50 hours a
year, so he gets eight years of service from the engine at $450 a year
(approx) or $9 an hour. AND the engine still has value at the end of that
time.
One of the fellows in the class runs a towing operation in FL just like the
fellow who commented on engine longevity. When presented with this idea, he
ran the numbers for his business that night and told me the next day he had
just done his last engine overhaul, too.
Now there are some important considerations to this philosophy.
Number one is you can't scrimp or cheat. You have to embrace the philosophy
in its totality. Two things, that are free to you are selling while the
engine is still on your aircraft. The potential buyer gets to see it run,
it's not under a bench covered by a blanket. It's a living, breathing,
honest to goodness aircraft engine, not a bench weight of unknown condition.
Number two, keep good logs. If you are familiar with TC aircraft you know
that the logs themselves have value, even without an engine attached. Their
value to you is that it shows you are an above average owner, in the
ultralight universe, and this impression is passed on to your prospective
buyer.
As I said, I didn't invent this philosophy, I only present it for your
consideration.
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
Rick
Or buy a Hirth with factory suggested overhaul of 1000 hours...:-) I
am assuming that the main reason for a 300 hour overhaul has to do with
big end rod bearing wear? Anyone know the difference. Nickasil
cylinders on the Hirth.. Herb
writes:
I was presented with this philosophy about Rotax overhauls at the
repairman maintenance class I took this summer. It opened my eyes to a
new way of looking at the subject. The A & P who offered it has been in
ultralights for over 20 years, is a Quicksilver dealer, and used to have
a clean room for doing Rotax overhauls. He no longer does them and
advises his clientele to do the following.
Set your engine up per Rotax, warm it properly before flying, use good
oil, perform the normal maintenance per Rotax, and keep good engine logs.
Fly it for 400 hours, then put it up for sale, while you are still flying
it, for half the price of a new engine. There will always be somebody
looking for a bargain engine and you should have no problem selling it at
that price (that's the complete engine, gearbox, carbs, exhaust, i.e. the
works). Take that money and the cost of an overhaul (including new crank,
as per Rotax) and buy a new engine.
Brian used the example of a 582. New engine (check falling dollar value
to be correct) $7,000 USD. Cost to overhaul, with new crank, $3500, or
half the cost of a new engine. Voila', you just bought a NEW engine for
the cost of an overhaul.
And the guy who bought your old engine? If he treats it the same way you
did, it goes at least another 400 hours. The average guy flies 50 hours a
year, so he gets eight years of service from the engine at $450 a year
(approx) or $9 an hour. AND the engine still has value at the end of that
time.
One of the fellows in the class runs a towing operation in FL just like
the fellow who commented on engine longevity. When presented with this
idea, he ran the numbers for his business that night and told me the next
day he had just done his last engine overhaul, too.
Now there are some important considerations to this philosophy.
Number one is you can't scrimp or cheat. You have to embrace the
philosophy in its totality. Two things, that are free to you are selling
while the engine is still on your aircraft. The potential buyer gets to
see it run, it's not under a bench covered by a blanket. It's a living,
breathing, honest to goodness aircraft engine, not a bench weight of
unknown condition. Number two, keep good logs. If you are familiar with
TC aircraft you know that the logs themselves have value, even without an
engine attached. Their value to you is that it shows you are an above
average owner, in the ultralight universe, and this impression is passed
on to your prospective buyer.
As I said, I didn't invent this philosophy, I only present it for your
consideration.
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
Herb, I can't tell you the reason that Rotax suggests the TBO that they do,
but like the TBO of Lyc's and Conti's, there's no law that says you have to
do an overhaul then. If the engine is within service limits and it doesn't
put you over your personal comfort limits, fly on.
As for the Hirth, has anyone ever taken one to TBO? Not to sound like an
economist, but the market has spoken about Hirth. If the Hirth is such a
long lived powerplant, where are they?
Rick
On 12/10/06, Herb Gayheart wrote:
>
> Rick
>
> Or buy a Hirth with factory suggested overhaul of 1000 hours...:-) I
> am assuming that the main reason for a 300 hour overhaul has to do with big
> end rod bearing wear? Anyone know the difference. Nickasil cylinders on
> the Hirth.. Herb
>
>
> writes:
>
> I was presented with this philosophy about Rotax overhauls at the
> repairman maintenance class I took this summer. It opened my eyes to a new
> way of looking at the subject. The A & P who offered it has been in
> ultralights for over 20 years, is a Quicksilver dealer, and used to have a
> clean room for doing Rotax overhauls. He no longer does them and advises his
> clientele to do the following.
> Set your engine up per Rotax, warm it properly before flying, use good
> oil, perform the normal maintenance per Rotax, and keep good engine logs.
> Fly it for 400 hours, then put it up for sale, while you are still flying
> it, for half the price of a new engine. There will always be somebody
> looking for a bargain engine and you should have no problem selling it at
> that price (that's the complete engine, gearbox, carbs, exhaust, i.e. the
> works). Take that money and the cost of an overhaul (including new crank, as
> per Rotax) and buy a new engine.
> Brian used the example of a 582. New engine (check falling dollar value to
> be correct) $7,000 USD. Cost to overhaul, with new crank, $3500, or half the
> cost of a new engine. Voila', you just bought a NEW engine for the cost of
> an overhaul.
> And the guy who bought your old engine? If he treats it the same way you
> did, it goes at least another 400 hours. The average guy flies 50 hours a
> year, so he gets eight years of service from the engine at $450 a year
> (approx) or $9 an hour. AND the engine still has value at the end of that
> time.
> One of the fellows in the class runs a towing operation in FL just like
> the fellow who commented on engine longevity. When presented with this idea,
> he ran the numbers for his business that night and told me the next day he
> had just done his last engine overhaul, too.
> Now there are some important considerations to this philosophy.
> Number one is you can't scrimp or cheat. You have to embrace the
> philosophy in its totality. Two things, that are free to you are selling
> while the engine is still on your aircraft. The potential buyer gets to see
> it run, it's not under a bench covered by a blanket. It's a living,
> breathing, honest to goodness aircraft engine, not a bench weight of unknown
> condition. Number two, keep good logs. If you are familiar with TC aircraft
> you know that the logs themselves have value, even without an engine
> attached. Their value to you is that it shows you are an above average
> owner, in the ultralight universe, and this impression is passed on to your
> prospective buyer.
> As I said, I didn't invent this philosophy, I only present it for your
> consideration.
>
> Rick
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
>
> *
> aeroelectric.com
> ">www.buildersbooks.comkitlog.comhomebuilthelp.com
> .matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 12/09/06 |
I have a great Firestar II that I just listed on Barnstormers for $10,500.
Its a real deal. I've had the bug for an amphibian and a friend made me an
offer I couldn't refuse, so as much as I love my Kolb, I'm going to join to
the water boys with a Buccaneer SX. The Firestar is in great shape and won't
last long. Give me a call if your interested.
Tom Yowell
(352) 243 5580
Lake County, Florida
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electric Carb Heater? |
| From: | "grabo172" <grabo172(at)sc.rr.com> |
Where can one purchase one of those fancy electric carb heaters? I've been searching
online and can only find plans from a fella on ebay...
I had a good episode in carb ice today on my 447. Climbing out at 45 mph at full
throttle the RPMs suddenly were dropping out and when I leveled it out and
throttled back I could feel the itermittent misses... In talking to a mechanic
very familliar with Rotax and a few other sources, it most defidently was carb
ice...
Anyone have a source for the electric carb heaters?
Thanks all,
Fly safe,
--------
-Erik Grabowski
Kolb Firestar N197BG
CFI/CFII/LS-I
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p662#80662
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Carb Heater? |
| They used to be over 300 bucks
|
|
| Gotta Fly...
| Mike in MN
Mike:
Do they work?
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)uplink.net> |
| Subject: | Electric carb heater |
Hi All, I had a carb heater on my Quicksilver years ago. It worked great.
Got nice and warm. In fact, I would have kept it for the FSII when I sold
the plane, but it was a press fit and I didn`t think I could remove it
without damage. I also would have had to buy another one because of the
dual carbs on the 503. Seemed like a lot of money as they were indeed
$300.00 each at that time. Lanny Fetterman N598LF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)uplink.net> |
| Subject: | Electric carb heater |
Hey, I just went to the LEAF site and that is a totally different heater
then the one I was talking about. Lanny
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electric Carb Heater? |
| From: | "grabo172" <grabo172(at)sc.rr.com> |
Arksey(at)aol.com wrote:
> go to this web site http://www.leadingedge-airfoils.com/ (http://www.leadingedge-airfoils.com/)
>
> Products Manufacturer Model SKU Price Engine Carburetors, Electric Dual Bing Carb Heater (http://store.leadingedgeairfoils.com/product_info.php?products_id=7619) Bing (http://store.leadingedgeairfoils.com/index.php?manufacturers_id=133) J9114 (http://store.leadingedgeairfoils.com/product_info.php?products_id=7619) $259.95 It is a bit pricey....
That ones for a liquid cooled engine... maybe a 912... I don't have any water
in my 447...
I know they exist... I just can't find one. Maybe I will have to buy the plans
and build one myself from the guy off ebay...
Check it out and see what you think.
--------
-Erik Grabowski
Kolb Firestar N197BG
CFI/CFII/LS-I
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p910#80910
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Carb Heater? |
Long time ago there was an elect carb htr made/sold by a guy in
Alaska. don't remember what eng/carb it was for. Archive?
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Coming to you via Ultraflight Radio tomorrow |
Hi,
Arty just sent me this email, and I thought that it might be of interest
to the group. I was concerned that she might feel that it would be a bit of
bragging on her part, so I can relieve her of that concern and do the
bragging for her.
Larry, Oregon
----- Original Message -----
From: "TheWanderingWench" <thewanderingwench(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 6:28 PM
Subject: Coming to you via Ultraflight Radio tomorrow
> Hi friends -
>
> as you know, I just got my Sport Pilot License, passed
> my Repairman Inspection course and got my Drifter's
> airworthiness certificate. Apparently that's a big
> deal - so I'm being interviewed tomorrow on Ultraflight
> Radio.
>
> If you're interested - and have high speed dial-up -
> ultraflightradio.com
>
> If you're interested, but busy at that time or have
> only a dial-up modem, apparently you can download it
> in the evening and then listen to it.
>
> Roy Bessinger, the host and interviewer, said he'd try
> to help me not make any major snafus on the air (it's
> broadcast live) but you know me. His interventions
> may come too late!!
>
> Arty
>
> www.LessonsFromTheEdge.com
>
> "Life's a daring adventure or nothing"
> Helen Keller
>
> "I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Carb Heater? |
All this talk of carb icing... I had carb heat in my T-Craft, of course,
but not in the 503 powered borrowed Quicksilver I was flying until
recently, nor the PPG's (and it never seemed to be a problem)... what about
the Cuyuna (I'm buying a Cuyuna powered Ultrastar)?
Of course an electric carb heater isn't an option on a plane with no
electric...
-Dana
--
--
For people who like peace and quiet: a phoneless cord.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
At 09:34 PM 12/10/2006, robert bean wrote:
>Even on a standard category airplane the logs are as important as the plane.
>(never could figure why they sometimes "disappear" just like the owner's
>manual in a used car you go to buy... WHY did they take it out?)...
Not always the owner's fault... I had a T-Craft some 20 years ago. Took it
in for annual. They did some engine work, took a jug off (I forget why),
then said a piston was cracked (I have reason to believe they dropped
it). I got a NOS piston from a surplus parts guy in the next town, they
put it back together, then found some corroded longerons.. said they didn't
want to work on it any more, and since they didn't complete the job I
didn't owe them anything. OK, I flew it back home (it wasn't that bad) so
an A&P friend could do the welding for me. I asked for the logs back, they
said they couldn't find them, and on top of that they sent me a bill. I
never got the logs back... and they never got any money.
Less than a year later, the shop was out of business.
-Dana
--
--
A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in
human history... with the possible exception of handguns and tequila.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TheWanderingWench <thewanderingwench(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | To Transition to E-LSA or Not |
A number of Kolbers have written about getting their
Sport Pilot license and converting their Kolbs to
E-SLA. I got an e-mail from a friend asking about
whether he should go the Sport Pilot route with his
Firestar. Here is my response - which might be of
interest to others who are facing the same choice.
Hi Roger,
You asked if you should consider transitioning to
Sport Pilot. If
you want the privileges of flying as a Sport Pilot,
then the answer is yes. Primary advantage is being
able to fly over congested areas - and not having to
give way to spam cans in the pattern. PLUS not having
to worry about being ramp checked and fined if you're
flying illegally...flying a "fat" single seater, (or,
after 1-31-2010, a 2-seater.)
But - if you don't care about those advantages and
you've got a legal ultralight, you might want to
continue flying as an ultralight. The disadvantage to
Light Sport is cost,
cost, cost. Here's what it cost me out-of-pocket - not
to mention the study and prep time and the stress!!
Airworthiness certificate - $ 0
BUT - the FAA out of the Hillsboro FSDO did my
inspection . If you don't have an FAA inspector close
by, you'll have to find a volunteer DAR (usually an
EAA member) or pay a DAR to do the inspection.
N-Number $15
I spent $10 to reserve the N-number I wanted, and $5
to register it.
EAA's package to transition your ultralight. $20
This takes you step-by-step through the process and I
found it well worth the money.
Now - the cost for a Sport Pilot license. (None of
this is applicable if you already have a Private Pilot
license. If so, you only need a proficiency checkride
and endorsement to fly an E-SLA.)
Study materials for the Sport Pilot license.
Gleim books for the Knowledge test and the
oral/practical: $40 ($20 each)
King Video course (for the Knowledge exam alone) $139
(I see that King has raised their cost to $239.)
Knowledge exam $90
I took the computerized exam taken at a local
community
college. LazerGrade coordinates the exam with the
college and charges the fee. You can also take it at
many FBOs. Check on-line for what's available in
your area.
Oral and flight exam $750
Brian and Carol Carpenter came to Sandy River Airport
so I could take my exam in my Drifter. If you go to
their FBO in Corning, they charge $375. BUT you'll
probably need transition training in their trainer to
take the flight exam - and I don't know what their
hourly charge is.
There are 4 DPEs in Orgon who can give you the oral
and flight exam - I don't know what they charge. Be
sure to ask about transition training time and costs
if you won't be taking the exam in your own plane.
If you transition your ultralight to an E-LSA you'll
definitely want to take a Repairman Inspection 16 hr.
course so you can do your own annuals instead of
trying to find an A & P who will do it (and who will
almost certainly charge you for it.)
Rainbow Aviation's course $375
They gave the course in Independence, OR 2 weeks ago,
and I was fortunate enough to be able to stay at a
friend's house instead of making the 1 3/4 hr. commute
each day. If you have to go to Corning, CA you'll be
adding in the cost of travel & lodging.
So my total cost for aircraft and pilot transition was
$1429...and a LOT of study prep time.
Arty
www.LessonsFromTheEdge.com
"Life's a daring adventure or nothing"
Helen Keller
"I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kmet" <jlsk1(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: To Transition to E-LSA or Not |
Arty, you mentioned that if you already Have a pilots liscense, all you need
is a" proficiency checkride & an endorsement." to fly an E-SLA" I have not
kept up with the regs that close on LSA, but I thought Private pilots could
exercise LSA privelidges, if they were already current, (BFR )? Could you
please verify I understood you correctly? Thanks, Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "TheWanderingWench" <thewanderingwench(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:51 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: To Transition to E-LSA or Not
>
>
> A number of Kolbers have written about getting their
> Sport Pilot license and converting their Kolbs to
> E-SLA. I got an e-mail from a friend asking about
> whether he should go the Sport Pilot route with his
> Firestar. Here is my response - which might be of
> interest to others who are facing the same choice.
>
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> You asked if you should consider transitioning to
> Sport Pilot. If
> you want the privileges of flying as a Sport Pilot,
> then the answer is yes. Primary advantage is being
> able to fly over congested areas - and not having to
> give way to spam cans in the pattern. PLUS not having
> to worry about being ramp checked and fined if you're
> flying illegally...flying a "fat" single seater, (or,
> after 1-31-2010, a 2-seater.)
>
> But - if you don't care about those advantages and
> you've got a legal ultralight, you might want to
> continue flying as an ultralight. The disadvantage to
> Light Sport is cost,
> cost, cost. Here's what it cost me out-of-pocket - not
> to mention the study and prep time and the stress!!
>
> Airworthiness certificate - $ 0
> BUT - the FAA out of the Hillsboro FSDO did my
> inspection . If you don't have an FAA inspector close
> by, you'll have to find a volunteer DAR (usually an
> EAA member) or pay a DAR to do the inspection.
>
> N-Number $15
> I spent $10 to reserve the N-number I wanted, and $5
> to register it.
>
> EAA's package to transition your ultralight. $20
> This takes you step-by-step through the process and I
> found it well worth the money.
>
> Now - the cost for a Sport Pilot license. (None of
> this is applicable if you already have a Private Pilot
> license. If so, you only need a proficiency checkride
> and endorsement to fly an E-SLA.)
>
> Study materials for the Sport Pilot license.
> Gleim books for the Knowledge test and the
> oral/practical: $40 ($20 each)
> King Video course (for the Knowledge exam alone) $139
> (I see that King has raised their cost to $239. )
>
> Knowledge exam $90
> I took the computerized exam taken at a local
> community
> college. LazerGrade coordinates the exam with the
> college and charges the fee. You can also take it at
> many FBOs. Check on-line for what's available in
> your area.
>
> Oral and flight exam $750
> Brian and Carol Carpenter came to Sandy River Airport
> so I could take my exam in my Drifter. If you go to
> their FBO in Corning, they charge $375. BUT you'll
> probably need transition training in their trainer to
> take the flight exam - and I don't know what their
> hourly charge is.
> There are 4 DPEs in Orgon who can give you the oral
> and flight exam - I don't know what they charge. Be
> sure to ask about transition training time and costs
> if you won't be taking the exam in your own plane.
>
> If you transition your ultralight to an E-LSA you'll
> definitely want to take a Repairman Inspection 16 hr.
> course so you can do your own annuals instead of
> trying to find an A & P who will do it (and who will
> almost certainly charge you for it.)
>
> Rainbow Aviation's course $375
> They gave the course in Independence, OR 2 weeks ago,
> and I was fortunate enough to be able to stay at a
> friend's house instead of making the 1 3/4 hr. commute
> each day. If you have to go to Corning, CA you'll be
> adding in the cost of travel & lodging.
>
> So my total cost for aircraft and pilot transition was
> $1429...and a LOT of study prep time.
>
> Arty
>
>
> www.LessonsFromTheEdge.com
>
> "Life's a daring adventure or nothing"
> Helen Keller
>
> "I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TheWanderingWench <thewanderingwench(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: To Transition to E-LSA or Not |
Let me clarify. According to the FAA inspector who
did my airworthiness certificate, many PPL's are
suprised to find out that in order to fly an E-LSA or
S-LSA using their PPL with a driver's license (instead
of a current medical) they need a proficiency
checkride and a log book endorsement. That doesn't
apply to PPLs who have a current medial - they can fly
LSAs, both Experimental and Special without the
checkride and endorsement.
Arty
--- Jim Kmet wrote:
>
>
> Arty, you mentioned that if you already Have a
> pilots liscense, all you need
> is a" proficiency checkride & an endorsement." to
> fly an E-SLA" I have not
> kept up with the regs that close on LSA, but I
> thought Private pilots could
> exercise LSA privelidges, if they were already
> current, (BFR )? Could you
> please verify I understood you correctly? Thanks,
> Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "TheWanderingWench"
>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:51 AM
> Subject: Kolb-List: To Transition to E-LSA or Not
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > A number of Kolbers have written about getting
> their
> > Sport Pilot license and converting their Kolbs to
> > E-SLA. I got an e-mail from a friend asking about
> > whether he should go the Sport Pilot route with
> his
> > Firestar. Here is my response - which might be of
> > interest to others who are facing the same choice.
> >
> >
> > Hi Roger,
> >
> > You asked if you should consider transitioning to
> > Sport Pilot. If
> > you want the privileges of flying as a Sport
> Pilot,
> > then the answer is yes. Primary advantage is being
> > able to fly over congested areas - and not having
> to
> > give way to spam cans in the pattern. PLUS not
> having
> > to worry about being ramp checked and fined if
> you're
> > flying illegally...flying a "fat" single seater,
> (or,
> > after 1-31-2010, a 2-seater.)
> >
> > But - if you don't care about those advantages and
> > you've got a legal ultralight, you might want to
> > continue flying as an ultralight. The disadvantage
> to
> > Light Sport is cost,
> > cost, cost. Here's what it cost me out-of-pocket -
> not
> > to mention the study and prep time and the
> stress!!
> >
> > Airworthiness certificate - $ 0
> > BUT - the FAA out of the Hillsboro FSDO did my
> > inspection . If you don't have an FAA inspector
> close
> > by, you'll have to find a volunteer DAR (usually
> an
> > EAA member) or pay a DAR to do the inspection.
> >
> > N-Number $15
> > I spent $10 to reserve the N-number I wanted, and
> $5
> > to register it.
> >
> > EAA's package to transition your ultralight. $20
> > This takes you step-by-step through the process
> and I
> > found it well worth the money.
> >
> > Now - the cost for a Sport Pilot license. (None
> of
> > this is applicable if you already have a Private
> Pilot
> > license. If so, you only need a proficiency
> checkride
> > and endorsement to fly an E-SLA.)
> >
> > Study materials for the Sport Pilot license.
> > Gleim books for the Knowledge test and the
> > oral/practical: $40 ($20 each)
> > King Video course (for the Knowledge exam alone)
> $139
> > (I see that King has raised their cost to $239. )
> >
> > Knowledge exam $90
> > I took the computerized exam taken at a local
> > community
> > college. LazerGrade coordinates the exam with the
> > college and charges the fee. You can also take it
> at
> > many FBOs. Check on-line for what's available in
> > your area.
> >
> > Oral and flight exam $750
> > Brian and Carol Carpenter came to Sandy River
> Airport
> > so I could take my exam in my Drifter. If you go
> to
> > their FBO in Corning, they charge $375. BUT
> you'll
> > probably need transition training in their trainer
> to
> > take the flight exam - and I don't know what their
> > hourly charge is.
> > There are 4 DPEs in Orgon who can give you the
> oral
> > and flight exam - I don't know what they charge.
> Be
> > sure to ask about transition training time and
> costs
> > if you won't be taking the exam in your own plane.
> >
> > If you transition your ultralight to an E-LSA
> you'll
> > definitely want to take a Repairman Inspection 16
> hr.
> > course so you can do your own annuals instead of
> > trying to find an A & P who will do it (and who
> will
> > almost certainly charge you for it.)
> >
> > Rainbow Aviation's course $375
> > They gave the course in Independence, OR 2 weeks
> ago,
> > and I was fortunate enough to be able to stay at a
> > friend's house instead of making the 1 3/4 hr.
> commute
> > each day. If you have to go to Corning, CA you'll
> be
> > adding in the cost of travel & lodging.
> >
> > So my total cost for aircraft and pilot transition
> was
> > $1429...and a LOT of study prep time.
> >
> > Arty
> >
> >
> > www.LessonsFromTheEdge.com
> >
> > "Life's a daring adventure or nothing"
> > Helen Keller
> >
> > "I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive
> safely at death."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Click on
> about
> provided
> www.buildersbooks.com
> Admin.
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>
>
>
>
>
www.LessonsFromTheEdge.com
"Life's a daring adventure or nothing"
Helen Keller
"I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lehman" <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Re: To Transition to E-LSA or Not |
Arty...
Would you please give us the FAR that requires the "proficiency
checkride"...
Thanx...
DVD
On 12/12/06, TheWanderingWench wrote:
>
> thewanderingwench(at)yahoo.com>
>
> Let me clarify. According to the FAA inspector who
> did my airworthiness certificate, many PPL's are
> suprised to find out that in order to fly an E-LSA or
> S-LSA using their PPL with a driver's license (instead
> of a current medical) they need a proficiency
> checkride and a log book endorsement. That doesn't
> apply to PPLs who have a current medial - they can fly
> LSAs, both Experimental and Special without the
> checkride and endorsement.
>
> Arty
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: To Transition to E-LSA or Not |
It's the same logic they've always used. To exercise the privileges of a
commercial certificate, you need a class II medical. That's good for one
year. After one year, you can continue to fly operations that require a
class III medical (e.g. Private)... essentially a class II reverts to a
class III after one year, and is good for another year as a class III,
though that's not how they word it.
Same thing here. A Private pilot with a class III medical can exercise the
privileges of a Private pilot. With no medical, he can fly operations that
don't require a medical, i.e. SP privileges... with the attendant
restrictions. It DOES seem kinda silly.
Hmmm... what if you have plenty of logged time in a LSA while flying with a
Private and a medical, do you need to get a logbook endorsement the day
your medical expires? I think your BFR is good for both, though.
-Dana
At 07:17 PM 12/12/2006, David Lehman wrote:
>Arty...
>
>Would you please give us the FAR that requires the "proficiency checkride"...
>
>Thanx...
>
>DVD
>
>
>On 12/12/06, TheWanderingWench
><thewanderingwench(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
><thewanderingwench(at)yahoo.com >
>
>Let me clarify. According to the FAA inspector who
>did my airworthiness certificate, many PPL's are
>suprised to find out that in order to fly an E-LSA or
>S-LSA using their PPL with a driver's license (instead
>of a current medical) they need a proficiency
>checkride and a log book endorsement. That doesn't
>apply to PPLs who have a current medial - they can fly
>LSAs, both Experimental and Special without the
>checkride and endorsement.
>
>Arty
>
>
><http://www.buildersbooks.com>www.buildersbooks.com
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>
--
--
My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Carb Heater? |
At 05:55 PM 12/12/2006, planecrazzzy wrote:
> I "DID" talk to somebody that had them on their carbs , they said that
> it robbed a little power , but he hadn't had the problem again....
>
> it's more or less an electric "vest" for your carbs....
>
> I guess the power loss is from warm air....?
Sure, you will have some power loss when you use carb heat; in fact that's
how you check that it's working (rpm drop) during your runup. But you
don't use it all the time, just for partial throttle operations (i.e.
descent and landing) since that's when you're susceptible to carb icing...
it's rarely a problem at cruise power or above.
-Dana
--
--
My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lehman" <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Re: To Transition to E-LSA or Not |
Dana...
Your last statement covers it, the BFR is all that is required...
David
On 12/12/06, Dana Hague wrote:
>
> It's the same logic they've always used. To exercise the privileges of a
> commercial certificate, you need a class II medical. That's good for one
> year. After one year, you can continue to fly operations that require a
> class III medical (e.g. Private)... essentially a class II reverts to a
> class III after one year, and is good for another year as a class III,
> though that's not how they word it.
>
> Same thing here. A Private pilot with a class III medical can exercise
> the privileges of a Private pilot. With no medical, he can fly operations
> that don't require a medical, i.e. SP privileges... with the attendant
> restrictions. It DOES seem kinda silly.
>
> Hmmm... what if you have plenty of logged time in a LSA while flying with
> a Private and a medical, do you need to get a logbook endorsement the day
> your medical expires? I think your BFR is good for both, though.
>
> -Dana
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
Whooppeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fired up the HKS for the first time yesterday
afternoon. I have two data points to report on.
1- The factory installation procedure for spinning up the engine sans upper
plugs in order to establish oil pressure will drain the battery to the point
that the engine will not start. The trike has an 18A battery, so I'm sure
the recommended 12A would be long flat. The manual says the ignition system
requires 9V minimum to operate, and they're not kidding. The engine would
crank, but would not fire. Have a fresh warm battery ready if you want to
fire the engine after you get the oil pressure up.
2. The engine requires choke for only a few seconds in order to run on a 60
degree F day. The little flat twin rocks, literally, so keep the RPM up a
bit.
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
Can someone explain to me why it is Rotax can't make 2-stroke bearings
and/or crankshaft components that last longer than 300 hours
(notwithstanding those that go well over that time limit)? I mean, is
it a matter of cost/materials, or is it a "no material known to man
can withstand the stresses involved" kind of thing?
-- Robert
On 12/10/06, Richard Girard wrote:
> I was presented with this philosophy about Rotax overhauls at the repairman
> maintenance class I took this summer. It opened my eyes to a new way of
> looking at the subject. The A & P who offered it has been in ultralights for
> over 20 years, is a Quicksilver dealer, and used to have a clean room for
> doing Rotax overhauls. He no longer does them and advises his clientele to
> do the following.
> Set your engine up per Rotax, warm it properly before flying, use good oil,
> perform the normal maintenance per Rotax, and keep good engine logs. Fly it
> for 400 hours, then put it up for sale, while you are still flying it, for
> half the price of a new engine. There will always be somebody looking for a
> bargain engine and you should have no problem selling it at that price
> (that's the complete engine, gearbox, carbs, exhaust, i.e. the works). Take
> that money and the cost of an overhaul (including new crank, as per Rotax)
> and buy a new engine.
> Brian used the example of a 582. New engine (check falling dollar value to
> be correct) $7,000 USD. Cost to overhaul, with new crank, $3500, or half the
> cost of a new engine. Voila', you just bought a NEW engine for the cost of
> an overhaul.
> And the guy who bought your old engine? If he treats it the same way you
> did, it goes at least another 400 hours. The average guy flies 50 hours a
> year, so he gets eight years of service from the engine at $450 a year
> (approx) or $9 an hour. AND the engine still has value at the end of that
> time.
> One of the fellows in the class runs a towing operation in FL just like the
> fellow who commented on engine longevity. When presented with this idea, he
> ran the numbers for his business that night and told me the next day he had
> just done his last engine overhaul, too.
> Now there are some important considerations to this philosophy.
> Number one is you can't scrimp or cheat. You have to embrace the philosophy
> in its totality. Two things, that are free to you are selling while the
> engine is still on your aircraft. The potential buyer gets to see it run,
> it's not under a bench covered by a blanket. It's a living, breathing,
> honest to goodness aircraft engine, not a bench weight of unknown condition.
> Number two, keep good logs. If you are familiar with TC aircraft you know
> that the logs themselves have value, even without an engine attached. Their
> value to you is that it shows you are an above average owner, in the
> ultralight universe, and this impression is passed on to your prospective
> buyer.
> As I said, I didn't invent this philosophy, I only present it for your
> consideration.
>
> Rick
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Jung" <jrjungjr(at)yahoo.com> |
Rick,
What plane did you mount the HKS on?
--------
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81256#81256
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Can someone explain to me why it is Rotax can't make 2-stroke
bearings
| and/or crankshaft components that last longer than 300 hours
|
| -- Robert
Robert:
I don't know, but will guess.
The environment the two stroke lives in might help contribute to its
shorter life that the 4 stroke. The 4 stroke crank shaft enjoys a
life in an enclosed case with pressure fed oil and relatively small
amounts of the outside environment.
The 2 stroke is trying to survive on oil that is mixed with the fuel
charge. All the intake air is routed through the crankcase. Seems
like a haphazard way to lubricate bearings, plus any inefficiency in
the air filter allows dirty atmosphere to bath the crank, connecting
rods, and their bearings.
Just a guess.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vic Peters" <vicsvinyl(at)verizon.net> |
Hey all,
I had a pro show me how to cover one of my H. Stabs.
Very very helpful. So after he left I thought I'd get the hang of
passing the iron over it again. And ofcourse dumb ass that I am, I bent
a 7/8" tube. Don't remember the temp.
The question is if it's that easy to bend a 7/8" tube what temperature
should I expect to get to on the smaller 5/16" surfaces?
Anyone?
Happy Ho Ho
Vic
912 Extra
Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering temp |
Vic, we were taught to set the iron on "wool"
When you get most of the slack out run it hard on all the little
lumps that are directly over any tubes. Then go back to the
loosest areas to complete.
If it is an ordinary clothes iron always run it backwards
with the point to the rear to avoid edge puckers.
I follow it with the other hand to feel the heat and tension.
Go 90 degrees to any furrows or linear wrinkles.
Big ones first.
BB
On 13, Dec 2006, at 12:05 PM, Vic Peters wrote:
> Hey all,
> -
> I had a pro show me how to cover one of my H. Stabs.
> Very very helpful. So after he left I thought I'd get the hang of
> passing the iron over it again. And ofcourse dumb ass that I am, I
> bent a 7/8" tube. Don't remember the temp.
> -
> The question is if it's that easy to bend a 7/8" tube what temperature
> should I expect to get to on the smaller 5/16" surfaces?
> -
> Anyone?
> Happy Ho Ho
> -
> Vic
> 912 Extra
> Maine
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering temp |
Keeping in mind that I am no expert, You should most likely talk to Jim
and Dondi Miller
Aircraft Tech Support- Jim and Dondi Miller- 614 877 3334
I just covered my Firestar and my understanding is that the max you
should shrink it is to 350 degrees. I don't believe that the fabric
reacts to a higher temp favorably. It is also my understanding that when
shrunk to the maximum it reduces the tendency of the fabric to react to
temps. Now to actually be able to shrink it to the max it cannot be
pulled excessively tight when gluing it on the framework. The book and
VCR that I have shows it just draped over the framework with the
wrinkles pulled out. I did that and I had no distortion that concerned
me when we hit it with the iron in all the heat ranges. When we finished
it the temps were in the high 90's and at 8 degrees it is still the
same. My "guess" is that done in the fashion that your "Pro" did it,
when it is cold the fabric will be tight, and when it gets hot it may
well be a little loose. The temp ranges for the fabric is 225 -
250-300-350. It is not supposed to shrink any more after 350.
For what it is worth
Larry, Oregon
From: Vic Peters
To: Kolb list
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:05 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Covering temp
Hey all,
I had a pro show me how to cover one of my H. Stabs.
Very very helpful. So after he left I thought I'd get the hang of
passing the iron over it again. And ofcourse dumb ass that I am, I bent
a 7/8" tube. Don't remember the temp.
The question is if it's that easy to bend a 7/8" tube what temperature
should I expect to get to on the smaller 5/16" surfaces?
Anyone?
Happy Ho Ho
Vic
912 Extra
Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering temp |
My "guess" is that done in the fashion that your "Pro" did it, when
it is cold the fabric will be tight, and when it gets hot it may well
be a little loose. Larry
Larry:
I may be wrong, but thought the fabric tension would relax in extreme
cold, rather than heat, if not properly heat shrunk.
Ain't got time to check it out in the book right now.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering temp |
----- Original Message -----
From: robert bean
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Covering temp
Vic, we were taught to set the iron on "wool"
You should calibrate your iron with a thermometer. I was sent some
heat sink paste to put on the iron and instructed to set the temps to
225-250-300-350 and mark each on the dial of the iron. If you are going
to iron "bumps" you would use the 225 setting. Anything higher will
loosen the poly tac.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Carb Heater? |
What I've heard (and this is really a question, not a contribution) is
that heating the carb body (via water or electric) is better than the
"GA method" because the GA method routes hot air into the carb, which
lessens the power... but that heating the carb body prevents ice from
forming but which results in minimal air heating, thus trivial loss of
power compared to the GA method.
Does this sound right?
-- Robert
On 12/12/06, planecrazzzy wrote:
>
> When I got "My" Carb Ice....it was on Take-off
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
Hi Vic,
I ordered the Kolb Covering Video from RR Aircraft Supply Co. (616) 683-2594
for $23.95.
RR is no longer in business but maybe Kolb or Aircraft Tech Support is now
selling this video.
_http://www.aircrafttechsupport.com/_ (http://www.aircrafttechsupport.com/)
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vic Peters
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:05 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Covering temp
The question is if it's that easy to bend a 7/8" tube what temperature
should I expect to get to on the smaller 5/16" surfaces?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
It's on a Northwing trike.
Rick
On 12/13/06, John Jung wrote:
>
>
> Rick,
>
> What plane did you mount the HKS on?
>
> --------
> John Jung
> Firestar II N6163J
> Surprise, AZ
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81256#81256
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | re: Electric Carb Heater? |
Robert, both approaches will reduce the volume of the air charge
reaching
the cylinders but the water heater is superior. Naturally depends on
whether
you have hot water available.
This is my homemade water heater strapped to my homemade intake
manifold.
It was an after the fact fix to both help vaporization and prevent carb
ice.
Works well.
BB
DSCN0968.JPG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
Add to that the Rotax crank is pressed together and not keyed in any way.
>From the perspective of being a machinist, well, hmmmm. The Germans and
Austrians have a long history of pressed together cranks and they are able
to make them work in their environment.
In the early days of hotrodding VW's the hot crank was a German unit with
ball bearing main and rod bearings. Worked great in road racing, not so good
when you did a burn out.
The same is probably true of the Rotax.
Another area of failure of the Rotax crank is corrosion. Engines laid up
without proper precautions develop corrosion which leads to stress cracks.
Cold seizures can be very mild in terms of visible damage to the piston and
cylinder, but the loads on the crank are very high. If the cranks slips
slightly out of register the whole engine suffers.
Last, a postulation. Rotax has been out there in the field for over 25
years, plenty of time for a lot of cranks to go through the system.
Straightening a crank is an age old fix, ask any Harley mechanic. The tools
and technique are well known. How many used cranks have been recycled as new
and the resulting problems blamed on them pesky Rotax cranks?
Rick
On 12/13/06, John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> | Can someone explain to me why it is Rotax can't make 2-stroke
> bearings
> | and/or crankshaft components that last longer than 300 hours
> |
> | -- Robert
>
>
> Robert:
>
> I don't know, but will guess.
>
> The environment the two stroke lives in might help contribute to its
> shorter life that the 4 stroke. The 4 stroke crank shaft enjoys a
> life in an enclosed case with pressure fed oil and relatively small
> amounts of the outside environment.
>
> The 2 stroke is trying to survive on oil that is mixed with the fuel
> charge. All the intake air is routed through the crankcase. Seems
> like a haphazard way to lubricate bearings, plus any inefficiency in
> the air filter allows dirty atmosphere to bath the crank, connecting
> rods, and their bearings.
>
> Just a guess.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: re: Electric Carb Heater? |
What are you running for a carb? Looks like an old one barrel Holley.
Rick
On 12/13/06, robert bean wrote:
>
> Robert, both approaches will reduce the volume of the air charge
> reaching
> the cylinders but the water heater is superior. Naturally depends on
> whether
> you have hot water available.
>
> This is my homemade water heater strapped to my homemade intake
> manifold.
> It was an after the fact fix to both help vaporization and prevent carb
> ice.
> Works well.
> BB
>
>
> DSCN0968.JPG
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: re: Electric Carb Heater? |
Bob --
Why is the water heater superior? If the water is, say, at 180
degrees, and an electrical system generates, say, 90-degrees, (or 180
if you twist the rheostat!), then why would the water heater system be
superior? (This isn't rhetorical... I really want to know! :-)
-- Robert
P.S. Gee, how often does one get to use TWO words starting with "rh"
in the same email? hehehehe
On 12/13/06, robert bean wrote:
> Robert, both approaches will reduce the volume of the air charge
> reaching
> the cylinders but the water heater is superior. Naturally depends on
> whether
> you have hot water available.
>
> This is my homemade water heater strapped to my homemade intake
> manifold.
> It was an after the fact fix to both help vaporization and prevent carb
> ice.
> Works well.
> BB
>
>
> DSCN0968.JPG
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: re: Electric Carb Heater? |
antique one barrel solex...
On 13, Dec 2006, at 2:15 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
> What are you running for a carb? Looks like an old one barrel Holley.
>
> Rick
>
> On 12/13/06, robert bean wrote:Robert, both
> approaches will reduce the volume of the air charge
>> reaching
>> the cylinders but the water heater is superior.--Naturally
depends on
>> whether
>> you have hot water available.
>>
>> This is my homemade water heater strapped to my homemade intake
>> manifold.
>> It was an after the fact fix to both help vaporization and prevent
>> carb
>> ice.
>> Works well.
>> BB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DSCN0968.JPG
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jim <jimrody(at)WI.RR.COM> |
| Subject: | Kolb Humor........ |
Dear Abby, I've never written to you before, but I really need your
advice on what could be a crucial decision. I've suspected for some time
now that my wife has been cheating on me. The usual signs... phone rings
but if I answer, the caller hangs up. My wife has been going out with
the girls a lot recently although when I ask their names she always
says, "Just some friends from work, you don't know them." I always stay
awake to look out for her taxi coming home, but she always walks down
the drive. Although I can hear a car driving off, as if she has gotten
out of the car round the corner. Why? Maybe she wasn't in a taxi? I once
picked her cell phone up just to see what time it was and she went
berserk and screamed that I should never touch her phone again and why
was I checking up on her. Anyway, I have never approached the subject
with my wife. I think deep down I just didn't want to know the truth,
but last night she went out again and I decided to really check on her.
I decided to park my Kolb MarkIII Extra trailer next to the garage and
then hide behind it so I could get a good view of the whole street when
she came home. It was at that dreadful moment, crouching behind my
plane, that I noticed a large area of de-lamination of poly-fiber on my
lower elevator. Is this something I can fix myself with my Technical
Counselor or should I take it to a A&P?
Thanks, Jim
Happy Holidays
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | robert bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: re: Electric Carb Heater? |
RHEALLY now!
Maybe my isolated opinion, but in my case the heat gets added to the
incoming air after the venturi which maintains the volumetric capacity
of the (rather small) carb.
The heat from both the aluminum intake manifold and the saddled
muff transmits through the metal to the carb base, which is where
the chunks of frost generally tend to accumulate.
I remember frost forming at the carb base of an airplane engine
running on a test stand in Los Angeles at an OAT of 70F
It can happen to YOU! :)
BB, cobjobmeistergeokolb
On 13, Dec 2006, at 2:18 PM, Robert Laird wrote:
>
> Bob --
>
> Why is the water heater superior? If the water is, say, at 180
> degrees, and an electrical system generates, say, 90-degrees, (or 180
> if you twist the rheostat!), then why would the water heater system be
> superior? (This isn't rhetorical... I really want to know! :-)
>
> -- Robert
>
> P.S. Gee, how often does one get to use TWO words starting with "rh"
> in the same email? hehehehe
>
>
> On 12/13/06, robert bean wrote:
>> Robert, both approaches will reduce the volume of the air charge
>> reaching
>> the cylinders but the water heater is superior. Naturally depends on
>> whether
>> you have hot water available.
>>
>> This is my homemade water heater strapped to my homemade intake
>> manifold.
>> It was an after the fact fix to both help vaporization and prevent
>> carb
>> ice.
>> Works well.
>> BB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> DSCN0968.JPG
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering temp |
Vic
Yes you want to calibrate your iron using a good thermometer using a
heat transfer paste, marking the iron with those calibrated temps. There
are all kinds of trick techniques to get the fabric just loose enough
when glued on to be fully tight but not too tight at 350 degrees but
that takes way too much trial and error for most of us. Just glue the
fabric on best you can then heat it up in very small increments all over
the part till it is tight then stop. The smaller parts will need to be
glued up more snugly than say the wings. The wings can be glued very
very loose because there is so much area for shrinkage. If you listen
very carefully you may be able to hear the structure starting to
complain just before it bends (at least I was told to listen for it).
You will find that there are small places where the fabric will need
additional heat to shrink out any wrinkles. If the wrinkles are in an
area where there are multiple layers of fabric it will take more heat
and those over metal may even require more than even 350 degrees. If you
find that you need more than 350 degrees over metal be very careful to
not heat it any longer than absolutely necessary. I found that the
fabric can be shrunk up tight with out any wrinkles by spending some
additional time with the iron no matter how many thumbs you had when you
glued on the fabric. This was what I found to be the most fun part of
the build.
Hope this helps
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Cottrell
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Covering temp
----- Original Message -----
From: robert bean
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Covering temp
Vic, we were taught to set the iron on "wool"
You should calibrate your iron with a thermometer. I was sent some
heat sink paste to put on the iron and instructed to set the temps to
225-250-300-350 and mark each on the dial of the iron. If you are going
to iron "bumps" you would use the 225 setting. Anything higher will
loosen the poly tac.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TheWanderingWench <thewanderingwench(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Proficiency Checkride? (Was "Transition to E-LSPA") |
Since I didn't read it myself - only heard it from the
FAA inspector - I'll check with him and get back to
you.
Arty
--- David Lehman wrote:
> Arty...
>
> Would you please give us the FAR that requires the
> "proficiency
> checkride"...
>
> Thanx...
>
> DVD
>
>
> On 12/12/06, TheWanderingWench
> wrote:
> >
> <
> > thewanderingwench(at)yahoo.com>
> >
> > Let me clarify. According to the FAA inspector
> who
> > did my airworthiness certificate, many PPL's are
> > suprised to find out that in order to fly an E-LSA
> or
> > S-LSA using their PPL with a driver's license
> (instead
> > of a current medical) they need a proficiency
> > checkride and a log book endorsement. That
> doesn't
> > apply to PPLs who have a current medial - they can
> fly
> > LSAs, both Experimental and Special without the
> > checkride and endorsement.
> >
> > Arty
> >
> >
>
www.LessonsFromTheEdge.com
"Life's a daring adventure or nothing"
Helen Keller
"I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Add to that the Rotax crank is pressed together and not keyed in any
way.
| >From the perspective of being a machinist, well, hmmmm.
|
| Rick
Rick:
Lots of applications use the pressed crank with no problems.
One would be hard pressed to get a crank shaft to slip. About the
only way would be to have a blade strike with other than a Warp Drive
or metal prop, or some other catastrophic seizure.
My Cuyuna and Rotax two strokes all had blade strikes, to total
destruction, without causing a crank to slip.
The 912 and 914 series engines use pressed cranks.
Almost all motorcycles, ATVs, jet skiis, outboard motors, two and four
stroke use pressed cranks.
Don't think slippage is one of their problems.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Humor........ |
At 02:44 PM 12/13/2006, you wrote:
>
>Dear Abby, I've never written to you before, but I really need your
>advice on what could be a crucial decision. I've suspected for some
>time now that my wife has been cheating on me. The usual signs...
>phone rings but if I answer, the caller hangs up. ..(snip)..It was
>at that dreadful moment, crouching behind my plane, that I noticed a
>large area of de-lamination of poly-fiber on my lower elevator. Is
>this something I can fix myself with my Technical Counselor or
>should I take it to a A&P?
>
>Thanks, Jim
>Happy Holidays
I feel your pain Jim ...sigh, guess I should wash my plane more often
and I wouldn't have this problem.
- like Beauford says.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Humor........ |
At 06:57 PM 12/13/2006, you wrote:
>
>Possums...you used just too much blueing!
>regards,
>Bob N.
Next time I'll use a bear trap.
I'm a modest person, with much to be modest about.
"W.C."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
I found this service instruction on the Rotax owners site. If it's been
cited before, please excuse.
http://www.rotax-owner.com/si_tb_info/serviceinfo/4ul94.pdf
Rick
Having a newborn around again after all these years has convinced me of one
thing,
this grandpa stuff ain't for whimps.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Rotax on crankshaft failures circa 1994 |
http://www.rotax-owner.com/si_tb_info/serviceinfo/1kul94.pdf
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thom Riddle <jtriddle(at)adelphia.net> |
Richard,
That is a good treatment of the subject of carb icing and I'm glad you
posted it.
BUT, the folks who wrote that are temperature math challenged. In their
table of temperature changes they have made some serious errors in
converting temperature CHANGE from C to F.
Temperature CHANGE (is not the same as actual temperature)
Their Conversion Correct Conversion
20C 68F 36F
30C 86F 54F
83C 181F 149F
140C 284F 252C
Yes, on your dual scale thermometer, 20C = 68F, 30C=86F, 83C=181F, and
140C=284F but the formula for temperature CHANGE, not temperature scale
equivalents is a simple linear relationship. A change of 10 degrees C
is equal to a change of 18 degrees F.
To convert ACTUAL temps from C to F the formula is slightly more
complex.
degrees C x 1.8 + 32 = degrees F
examples
0C (water freezing) x 1.8 + 32 = 32 F (water freezing)
100C (water boiling) x 1.8 + 32 = 212 F (water boiling)
To convert temp CHANGE in C to temperature CHANGE in F, the formula is
change in C x 1.8 = change in F
example
temp change of -20C x 1.8 = -36F
I can't even remember how many times this simple error has occurred in
official documentation from otherwise technically savvy organizations,
but it is way too many and something a technical editor should easily
find and correct before publication.
Thom in Buffalo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| The lower rpms of the Hirth engines might account for some of their
| stated 1000 hour overhaul? Herb
Herb:
Isn't operational rpm a design factor?
Running an engine too slow can be as harmful to it as over speeding.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Kolb Trailer Update |
I just did my first test fitting of my clam shell doors on my Kolb
trailer. The trailer weighs about 1000 Lbs. empty and will hopefully be
able to be pulled by my Toyota Sienna. The clam shell doors are made of
foam board then fiber glassed. The frame was a boat trailer that I added
a tube framework to and covered with pole barn steel. I wanted to have
it ready to pull it to Florida this year but it just isn't going to
happen.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
>
>.....Can someone explain to me why it is Rotax can't make 2-stroke
>bearings
> and/or crankshaft components that last longer than 300 hours
> (notwithstanding those that go well over that time limit)? I
>mean, is
> it a matter of cost/materials, or is it a "no material known to
>man
> can withstand the stresses involved" kind of thing?.....
>
Kolbers,
It has to do with the fact that roller and ball bearings are used in a low
oil environment. Ball and roller bearings do not have a large surface area
supported by an oil cushion as do slipper bearings. The ball has almost
point contact and the roller line contact so that as the load comes on and
off of them they are stressed through the center of the ball and roller.
Actual surface deformation takes place as the load comes on and off the
bearing. If the loads are low enough so that the deformation does not go
beyond the elastic limit, the bearing should hold up forever. But due to
material and surface imperfections, a bit of the ball, roller or bearing
race surface spalls and leaves a little pit. Then over time additional
material will fail next to the original pit etc until the bearing fails.
Higher loads accelerate this process.
>From Timken:
* Doubling load reduces life to one tenth. Reducing load by one half
increases life by ten,
* Doubling speed reduces life by one half. Reducing speed by one half
doubles life.
Check out:
http://www.timken.com/products/bearings/fundamen/calculate.asp
The above assumes constant load at constant rpm. But for an internal
combustion engine, the dynamic bearing load varies with crank position and
rises dramatically as rpm increases in a crank, connecting rod and piston
system. This why the engine explodes if it is over rev'ed.
I assume what engine manufacturers gamble on is that the bearings will hold
up to the selected TBO. In most cases they do and will go much further
depending upon how the engine has been treated and if the engine initially
received a very good set of bearings. So they pick a TBO time that they
believe is attainable for a high percentage of their engines. If there are
no failures in the field they may raise the TBO. No one wants the
reputation for engines that self destruct. It is better to have a re
buildable carcass.
Once you purchase your engine, you can make the choice of how you are going
to run your engine. I am not saying to never run your engine up to the
operating limit. But I am saying yes run it up there for take off, but
bring it on back a bit for cruise. It will be much easier on the bearings,
and the chances of making to TBO are increased.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Trailer Update |
Rick, Looks good. It looks like yu took Homer's and my advice about using
simple curves extended off of the top and sides of your trailer. How much do
they weigh?
steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Trailer Update |
Steve
They weigh 10-15lbs each. The heaviest part is a 3/8" X 5" X 6' plywood
part that is glued and glassed to the foam where I attach the hinge. I
set one down while I was mounting to other and a 10MPH wind was blowing
it around. I only glassed the outside of each door. Each door is a bit
fragile when open but should be stronger when both are closed and
latched. I will also be adding more foam bracing on the inside. The
caned foam "tough stuff" makes a real good foam glue.
I was right on track to get the trailer ready for Florida but the
weather turned cold around here and the resin took for ever to cure.
Thanks for you help.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Trailer Update
Rick, Looks good. It looks like yu took Homer's and my advice about
using simple curves extended off of the top and sides of your trailer.
How much do they weigh?
steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Trailer Update |
At 04:51 PM 12/14/2006, Richard & Martha Neilsen wrote:
>I just did my first test fitting of my clam shell doors on my Kolb trailer...
That's pretty cool, Rick. Does the plane extend into the clamshell portion
or is it just empty space?
It would be interesting to compare gas mileage with and without the doors.
Hoping to pick up my Ultrastar this weekend (with a trailer that needs
work). Good to get trailer ideas...
-Dana
--
--
What has four legs and an arm? A happy pit bull.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
If you are lugging the engine, yes. If the engine is not being lugged, no.
Jack Hart in his post on this subject gave an excellent analysis on the
situation, as the crank load goes up expotentially as the rpm's increase, &
the crank life is greatly extended by cruising at lower rpm's.
That is why I am still in pursuit of streamlining & cleaning up the MKIII so
that it becomes possible to attain acceptable cruise speeds at minimal 582
cruise rpm's. Right now I am able to cruise at 65-70 mph at around 5300
rpm's, and the bird is currently in the garage awaiting more streamlining so
that it will (hopefully) become even more efficient. Don't know if I will
accomplish anything or not, but the goal is to cruise at 65-70 at 5200 rpm
or less. Not to mention that at this rpm the fuel burn is just slightly
above 3 gph. And it is comparitively very quiet.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Overhaulin'
> Isn't operational rpm a design factor?
>
> Running an engine too slow can be as harmful to it as over speeding.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Hirth and Rotax a comparison |
| From: | Herb Gayheart <herbgh(at)juno.com> |
John
I agree and would ask..are Rotax engines designed to run at 75% power
to achieve TBO? For instance, that would be abt 5100 RPMs for a DCDI
503. Abt 39 hp.. The roughly equivalent Hirth is the 3702 which develops
55 hp at 5500 rpms.. Its 75 % power is at 4100 rpms.. 41 hp.
Herb
writes:
>
> | The lower rpms of the Hirth engines might account for some of
> their
> | stated 1000 hour overhaul? Herb
>
> Herb:
>
> Isn't operational rpm a design factor?
>
> Running an engine too slow can be as harmful to it as over
> speeding.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Monty Graves <mgraves(at)usmo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:engine replacement /Valley Big Twin |
speaking of engine replacements
For those that may not have seen it yet. Valley Eng, of Rolla MO. has
installed one their Big Twin 4 stroke industrial engines, featured in this
months SPORT PILOT magazine, and seen at OSK. on a Kolb Twinstar. It is
replacing single carb Rotax 503 on the Twinstar
http://www.culverprops.com/big-twin.php
I am not affiliated with the Smith's in any way, just passing some possible
useful info along
Monty
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Trailer Update |
Rick,
If you glass the inside the stiffness will increase 5 fold.
steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:engine replacement /Valley Big Twin |
|
| I am not affiliated with the Smith's in any way, just passing some
possible
| useful info along
| Monty
|
Hi Monty:
I find this quote from Valley Engineering a little hard to believe.
This is in reference to the Kolb mkII and its test flight.
"They were worried that the new location of the prop; 5"higher than
it had been before would affect trim."
I think Rick Nielsen would also question this.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:engine replacement /Valley Big Twin |
Hi Gang:
Sorry about that.
Had an incomplete quote in my previous post. Now it is fixed.
john h
| I find this quote from Valley Engineering a little hard to believe.
| This is in reference to the Kolb mkII and its test flight.
|
| "They were worried that the new location of the prop; 5"higher than
| it had been before would affect trim. The plane flew just like it
did before the engine change "
|
| I think Rick Nielsen would also question this.
|
| john h
| mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
I have been running my 447 at 5000 RPM in cruise, 450 hours. The
slower RPM should extend the TBO of the engine and so far it's
working. I have peered through the exhaust ports and it looks very
good. I'm using 50:1 synthetic Koltz oil and give it S*****m
treatments (that's a dirty word here). I think I can get many more
hours out of it.
Ralph
Original Firestar, 20 years flying it
-- "Richard Pike" wrote:
If you are lugging the engine, yes. If the engine is not being
lugged, no.
Jack Hart in his post on this subject gave an excellent analysis on
the
situation, as the crank load goes up expotentially as the rpm's
increase, &
the crank life is greatly extended by cruising at lower rpm's.
That is why I am still in pursuit of streamlining & cleaning up the
MKIII so
that it becomes possible to attain acceptable cruise speeds at
minimal 582
cruise rpm's. Right now I am able to cruise at 65-70 mph at around
5300
rpm's, and the bird is currently in the garage awaiting more
streamlining so
that it will (hopefully) become even more efficient. Don't know if I
will
accomplish anything or not, but the goal is to cruise at 65-70 at
5200 rpm
or less. Not to mention that at this rpm the fuel burn is just
slightly
above 3 gph. And it is comparitively very quiet.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Overhaulin'
> Isn't operational rpm a design factor?
>
> Running an engine too slow can be as harmful to it as over speeding.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lehman" <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
Ralph...
What's your indicated airspeed at 5K RPM?... Does it feel like the airplane
is "plowing" or "on the step" at that RPM... My original Firestar with a
503 feels more like it's "plowing" at that RPM and I think the indicated is
around 50... At 5800 RPM, I indicate 60-63 mph, but I burn a lot of
fuel... May be partly because of my draggy 850x6 tires...
DVD
On 12/15/06, Ralph wrote:
>
>
> I have been running my 447 at 5000 RPM in cruise, 450 hours. The
> slower RPM should extend the TBO of the engine and so far it's
> working. I have peered through the exhaust ports and it looks very
> good. I'm using 50:1 synthetic Koltz oil and give it S*****m
> treatments (that's a dirty word here). I think I can get many more
> hours out of it.
>
> Ralph
> Original Firestar, 20 years flying it
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:engine replacement /Valley Big Twin |
Normally there is a big difference when the thrust line is moved up or down
by 5 inches. I know this because I have done exactly that. In the case of
the Valley Big twin it may not have had much effect. The Valley Big Twin
would be a marginal engine in a MKII. Something like maybe a 503 in a MKII.
A high thrust line problem is only a problem with lots of thrust. This
engine may have also moved the CG of the MKII more aft.
I would think the Valley Big Twin might make a good engine for a Firestar
but again you want to be concerned with a high thrust line. I talked to
these guys about the same redrive for my VW. They said that they tried it
but it burned the belts and pulley. I have some concern with this type of
harmonic dampening solution. My understanding is that the belts are allowed
to slip in one direction. The problem is that wear on these parts could
allow slippage in both directions. Now maybe you can detect the additional
slippage and would start gradually if at all. Maybe you just replace the
belts every 300 hours like you replace 2 stroke cranks. I just don't know.
Time will tell. Definitely a discussion point for Gene Smith. In general I
like the idea of this engine. Hey if you fly 2 strokes you are always flying
on the edge of disaster anyway.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List:engine replacement /Valley Big Twin
>
> Hi Gang:
>
> Sorry about that.
>
> Had an incomplete quote in my previous post. Now it is fixed.
>
> john h
>
>
> | I find this quote from Valley Engineering a little hard to believe.
> | This is in reference to the Kolb mkII and its test flight.
> |
> | "They were worried that the new location of the prop; 5"higher than
> | it had been before would affect trim. The plane flew just like it
> did before the engine change "
> |
> | I think Rick Nielsen would also question this.
> |
> | john h
> | mkIII
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <kfackler(at)ameritech.net> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:engine replacement /Valley Big Twin |
> the Valley Big twin it may not have had much effect. The Valley Big Twin
> would be a marginal engine in a MKII. Something like maybe a 503 in a
MKII.
I certainly don't pretend to have your engineering expertise, Rick, but I
beg to differ on the 503 being marginal on the Mark II. Even on the hottest,
highest DA days I get 600 fpm of climb. On a modest day, it's 800 and a good
day is 1000. I can cruise all day at 5300 rpm giving 60 indicated and
burning 3.2gph. I can also cruise at either 65 or 70 if I'm willing to burn
a tad more juice. Please note that I'm flying every flight at gross weight
because I'm a rather portly fellow who weighs in at 260.
-Ken Fackler
Kolb Mark II (under a Rotax 503) / A722KWF
Rochester MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hirth and Rotax a comparison |
Anyone, anywhere, that has run a Hirth to TBO please step up and tell us
about it. I'd love to have the confidence to buy that little flat twin of
theirs for my motorglider, but the total package, i.e. fleet installs,
repair data, parts availability, service information, and service
availability, just doesn't stand up. I'm already into the A model of the MG,
I think it unwise to add the engine into it, too. This 1000 hour TBO gets
tossed around like it means something. No TBO means anything outside of
advertising horse exhaust. If you don't make it, the warranty was most
likely over long ago anyway so all you become for anyone is a data point of
the real longevity of that engine.
Rick
On 12/15/06, Herb Gayheart wrote:
>
>
> John
>
> I agree and would ask..are Rotax engines designed to run at 75% power
> to achieve TBO? For instance, that would be abt 5100 RPMs for a DCDI
> 503. Abt 39 hp.. The roughly equivalent Hirth is the 3702 which develops
> 55 hp at 5500 rpms.. Its 75 % power is at 4100 rpms.. 41 hp.
> Herb
>
> writes:
> >
> > | The lower rpms of the Hirth engines might account for some of
> > their
> > | stated 1000 hour overhaul? Herb
> >
> > Herb:
> >
> > Isn't operational rpm a design factor?
> >
> > Running an engine too slow can be as harmful to it as over
> > speeding.
> >
> > john h
> > mkIII
> >
> >
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Thompson" <eagle1(at)commspeed.net> |
Sorry to be so late in getting back to you Bob. I think you will be
pleased to know that your picture was featured on Dave's memorial
program. Eve loved it and I thought it was a fantastic piece of
photography. We all appreciate your work in putting it together.
George----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Dalton
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 5:29 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: For Dave
All,
I wanted to express a little more on the loss of Dave Pelletier and
thought about putting together a slideshow. But I decided on this
picture instead, it made me feel better.
Bob D.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
11/16/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hirth and Rotax a comparison |
I don't think you can compare the two engines. Who uses Hirths any more?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hirth and Rotax a comparison |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
>
> I don't think you can compare the two engines. Who uses Hirths any more?
>
I do......
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Dalton" <wiserguy(at)comcast.net> |
George,
Thank you for the kind words, I am happy that it was used at Dave's
memorial. Give Eve a big hug for us all.
Bob Dalton
_____
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of George Thompson
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: For Dave
Sorry to be so late in getting back to you Bob. I think you will be pleased
to know that your picture was featured on Dave's memorial program. Eve loved
it and I thought it was a fantastic piece of photography. We all appreciate
your work in putting it together.
George----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Dalton <mailto:wiserguy(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 5:29 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: For Dave
All,
I wanted to express a little more on the loss of Dave Pelletier and thought
about putting together a slideshow. But I decided on this picture instead,
it made me feel better.
Bob D.
_____
Date: 11/16/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "boyd" <by0ung(at)brigham.net> |
Larry:
I may be wrong, but thought the fabric tension would relax in extreme
cold, rather than heat, if not properly heat shrunk.
Ain't got time to check it out in the book right now.
john h
mkIII
larry / john.... I think the fabric does get looser in the cold.....
my explanation for it is the alum structure under the fabric gets cold and
contracts,,, to a greater degree than the fabric.
Boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <kfackler(at)ameritech.net> |
| Subject: | Sport Pilot license |
When I announced having successfully completed the SP checkride with a
one-liner and no exclamation points, a lotta folks hereabouts told me I
should have more whoop-te-do. Well, the permanent card came in the mail
today, so I guess that makes it official.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Better? ;-)
-Ken Fackler
Kolb Mark II / A722KWF (but soon to be n-numbered)
Rochester MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
Well folks, I bought an Ultrastar today! Some minor repairs to the trailer
that came with it and I'll haul it home tomorrow, some minor work on the
plane and it'll be ready to fly... if I have a place to fly it (airport's
closing at the end of the month, but that's another story).
Anyway, some questions about the plane if anybody can help:
I understand there are a few modifications recommended... a wing strut jury
strut, and perhaps some other things. Where can I get information about
these mods?
No information came with the plane. Some time ago somebody was offering
scanned drawings and assembly manuals on a CD I think, but I didn't save
the info... anybody know about that?
When the wings are folded, the ailerons touch the ground. I've seen pix
online of Ultrastars with the wings folded and the ailerons folded back
down against the wings, but the gap seals don't allow that much
travel. Any thoughts on that? I guess I can rework the support that holds
the wings up and make it taller.
Also, that support only goes into the wings a couple of inches. Seems like
it should go farther in; I'm concerned that the wings could slip off the
support bar if it bounces on the road. For the trip home I'll secure it
with ropes and straps, but it seems it needs a better long term solution.
Biggest hassle seems to be that the larger wheels (with hydraulic brakes)
the previous owner installed make the plane 2" too wide to fit in the
trailer (we mounted the old wheels, sans tires, so I could get it home). I
guess I gotta rework the trailer...
Any other thoughts before I fly it? I have plenty of T-Craft and
Quicksilver time so I don't anticipate any problems.
-Dana
--
--
Baby oil is NOT made by squeezing dead babies!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lehman" <david(at)davidlehman.net> |
| Subject: | Propeller Information... |
I'm running a Tennessee 66x34 prop on my original Firestar with a
503DCDI... It's like flying around in first gear... I think that the 66"
is OK, but I must need more bite (pitch)... Anyone running something
similar that can give me some pitch advice?...
Thanx...
DVD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
Yep. Replace it with a 66" Ivo 2 blade.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
dna
----- Original Message -----
From: David Lehman
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 7:34 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Propeller Information...
I'm running a Tennessee 66x34 prop on my original Firestar with a
503DCDI... It's like flying around in first gear... I think that the
66" is OK, but I must need more bite (pitch)... Anyone running
something similar that can give me some pitch advice?...
Thanx...
DVD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | possums <possums(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
At 07:34 PM 12/16/2006, you wrote:
>I'm running a Tennessee 66x34 prop on my original Firestar with a
>503DCDI... It's like flying around in first gear... I think that
>the 66" is OK, but I must need more bite (pitch)... Anyone running
>something similar that can give me some pitch advice?...
>
>Thanx...
Yes.... Abandon all hope, yearnings
who enter here. This is no place for a hobbit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
In re recent talk about tie-down ropes -- this may be more academic
than practical, but there have been recent MAJOR changes in cordage
(ropes, strings, cables, whatever) that may interest the List.
I just researched this subject for a boating magazine, and found that
the new synthetics are nothing short of amazing.
We all know nylon & dacron & polyester -- but the latter is very
seriously weakened by UV; sunlight. Don=92t trust it.
There are a lot of new fibers now, and some are FIFTEEN times
stronger than steel. A half-inch rope will theoretically hold TEN
TONS! (but don=92t stand under it)
But they=92re all different. Some are stretchy (we don=92t want that) or
very non-stretchy. Most are UV - sensitive and must be protected from
sunlight by a woven cover of nylon or dacron. No big deal.
The fibers named SPECTRA or DYNEEMA are reportedly the strongest
fibers ever created. Others are brait, vectran, lycra, twaron, PEN,
PBO, zylon, technora and others. All with different specs.
The bottom line is that there are some VERY strong ropes available
now. But of course there=92s a price. As I=92ve said, most of them are
UV
sensitive and should be protected. None of them like being knotted
very much; use splices and fittings whenever possible. And of course
they=92re expensive -- but you won=92t need a lot for your tie-down
ropes. And an adequately=strong rope may be too thin to grab hold of
and haul on.
The best place to find them is in marine stores like West Products,
or if by any chance you have access to a local sailmaker, pay them a
visit and ask some questions.
And bring your checkbook; something may be irrestible.
Russ K
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
(pitch)... Anyone running something
| similar that can give me some pitch advice?...
|
| Thanx...
|
| DVD
DVD:
Will your aircraft bump the redline, 6,500 rpm, WOT, straight and
level flight?
It should to get optimum climb and cruise performance.
This is why a ground adjustable prop is so convenient. One can dial
their prop right into the engine and aircraft, just like propping a
boat.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
Yep. Replace it with a 66" Ivo 2 blade.
Richard Pike
Richard:
Excellent advice.
However, if DVD does not pitch it correctly, might as well keep flying
the Tennessee Prop.
Bump the red line, WOT, straight and level fllight.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
All this talk of props... My Ultrastar has what I assume is the original
2-blade wood prop on the Cuyuna engine... since one of the chief complaints
about the US is the prop ground clearance, would I be better off with a 3
blade prop of smaller diameter?
-Dana
--
--
Shaw's principle:
Build a machine that a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
If the prop is presently likely to hit the ground, then you would be better
off with anything that is smaller diameter. I am presently using an Ivo 2
blade 68" prop on my MKIII, but even when it had a 2 blade 64" Ivo, it still
flew fine, just didn't accelerate or climb as well. Going to a bigger
diameter prop really helps climb, diameter is not as important for cruise.
If you can afford to give up a bit of climb, then the answer is probably
yes.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
dna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dana Hague" <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Propeller Information...
>
> All this talk of props... My Ultrastar has what I assume is the original
> 2-blade wood prop on the Cuyuna engine... since one of the chief
> complaints about the US is the prop ground clearance, would I be better
> off with a 3 blade prop of smaller diameter?
>
> -Dana
> --
> --
> Shaw's principle:
> Build a machine that a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
| If the prop is presently likely to hit the ground, then you would
be better
| off with anything that is smaller diameter.
| Richard Pike
Richard/Dana/Gang:
The Ultrastar was/is a unique little bird. Flies like a champion.
Handles like a dream. Slow flight is its forte. Takes off and lands
by its self, long as it is kept above the stall speed (on my 1984
model would fly at 25 mph indicated, stall a needle width below 25).
Prop is not going to hit the ground. Not unless one breaks a main
landing gear. Problem with prop/ground clearance is FOD. Unless one
flies off a manicured grass strip or pavement, the prop will catch
Hell. Jim Culver came up with a polyurethane leading edge that helped
a great deal. However, taller grass, weeds, sand and rocks still took
its toll on the blades.
The perfect prop for the US was a Jim Culver 50X30. An US with a
Cuyuna ULII02 would just bump the redline at WOT straight and level
flight. That combo produced 85 mph. Not bad for a little UL.
Personally, I do not think going to a smaller prop will help much when
it comes to FOD and prop damage. Most likely will degrade performance
of a great combo.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
| From: | "Dave Bigelow" <up_country(at)hotmail.com> |
David Lehman wrote:
> I'm running a Tennessee 66x34 prop on my original Firestar with a 503DCDI...
It's like flying around in first gear... I think that the 66" is OK, but I must
need more bite (pitch)... Anyone running something similar that can give me
some pitch advice?...
I've used a Powerfin 66 inch two blade prop on my FS2 quite successfully. I pitched
it for 6300 RPM maximum static. You will gain about 200 RPM at climb speed,
and if you take the aircraft to red line airspeed, you will see 6600-6700
RPM maximum, all below the engine red line of 6800 RPM.
At density altitudes near 1,000 feet, I can throttle back to 4900 RPM and maintain
about 45 mph IAS. At 60 mph cruise, it takes 5,600 RPM to maintain. An original
FS is lighter, and should take less RPM for the same speeds.
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, HKS 700E
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=82186#82186
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
russ kinne wrote:
> In re recent talk about tie-down ropes -- this may be more academic
> than practical, but there have been recent MAJOR changes in cordage
> (ropes, strings, cables, whatever) that may interest the List.
> I just researched this subject for a boating magazine, and found that
> the new synthetics are nothing short of amazing.
> We all know nylon & dacron & polyester -- but the latter is very
> seriously weakened by UV; sunlight. Dont trust it.
> There are a lot of new fibers now, and some are FIFTEEN times stronger
> than steel. A half-inch rope will theoretically hold TEN TONS! (but
> dont stand under it)
> But theyre all different. Some are stretchy (we dont want that) or
> very non-stretchy. Most are UV - sensitive and must be protected from
> sunlight by a woven cover of nylon or dacron. No big deal.
> The fibers named SPECTRA or DYNEEMA are reportedly the strongest
> fibers ever created. Others are brait, vectran, lycra, twaron, PEN,
> PBO, zylon, technora and others. All with different specs.
> The bottom line is that there are some VERY strong ropes available
> now. But of course theres a price. As Ive said, most of them are UV
> sensitive and should be protected. None of them like being knotted
> very much; use splices and fittings whenever possible. And of course
> theyre expensive -- but you wont need a lot for your tie-down ropes.
> And an adequately=strong rope may be too thin to grab hold of and haul on.
> The best place to find them is in marine stores like West Products, or
> if by any chance you have access to a local sailmaker, pay them a
> visit and ask some questions.
> And bring your checkbook; something may be irrestible.
> Russ K
Finding something that's uv-proof is a good idea, but super strength
isn't likely to do much good beyond regular ropes. I lost a Thorp T-18
to wind in Oklahoma about 14 years ago in a storm that destroyed over 20
other planes. Many of the certified planes (Cessnas, Pipers, etc) left
their ropes at the tiedowns when the tiedown rings ripped out of the
wing structures.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
At 09:55 PM 12/17/2006, Charlie England wrote:
>
>russ kinne wrote:
>>We all know nylon & dacron & polyester -- but the latter is very
>>seriously weakened by UV; sunlight. Don't trust it.
>>There are a lot of new fibers now, and some are FIFTEEN times stronger
>>than steel...
>>The fibers named SPECTRA or DYNEEMA are reportedly the strongest fibers
>>ever created. Others are brait, vectran, lycra, twaron, PEN, PBO, zylon,
>>technora and others. All with different specs....
FWIW, Dacron, Lycra and polyester are the same thing (Darcon and Lycra are
trade names). Spectra and Dyneema are two trade names for ultra high
molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene. Kevlar, Twaron, and Technora are
aramids, with Technora being slightly stretchier than the other two. The
liquid crystal polymers include PBO and Zylon (same thing) and
Vectran. Most of these are available with a woven cover to protect the
core fibers from UV.
None are "15X stronger than steel" overall, but the strength to weight
ratio is much higher than steel.
You do want some stretch; an aircraft rocking against a rigid tiedown (e.g.
chain) can hammer itself to death.
>Finding something that's uv-proof is a good idea, but super strength isn't
>likely to do much good beyond regular ropes. I lost a Thorp T-18 to wind
>in Oklahoma about 14 years ago in a storm that destroyed over 20 other
>planes. Many of the certified planes (Cessnas, Pipers, etc) left their
>ropes at the tiedowns when the tiedown rings ripped out of the wing structures.
When I had a T-Craft I wrapped the tiedown ropes around the wing strut,
using the ring only as a guide... and I bought good nylon rope, replacing
it every two years. I once had a girlfriend with her own T-Craft; some
years later she lost the plane in a windstorm when the ropes broke (cheap
rope, AND she hadn't bothered to replace them).
-Dana
--
--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with
sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. -- Galileo
Galilei
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
At 06:51 AM 12/18/2006, DANIEL WALTER wrote:
>I agree with John, Going to a smaller dia prop on the US would degrade
>performance. I have a 3 blade ultraprop on my US UL202, Can't fold the
>wings with a 3 blade and the only advantage I see is a little less noise.
>If you don't bend the gear the prop won't hit the ground.
Ah, you're right, I had forgotten about wing folding. I was less concerned
about the prop hitting the ground than grass cutting. Our airport closes
in two weeks, not sure what kind of field I'll be flying from next year.
-Dana
--
--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with
sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. -- Galileo
Galilei
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <kfackler(at)ameritech.net> |
| Subject: | Headset feature question: ANR |
Okay, on the basis that the only dumb question is the one unasked, here
goes...
When talking headsets, I know that ANR means Automatic Noise Reduction. But
does that mean it reduces the noise I hear or the noise I transmit?
-Ken Fackler
Kolb Mark II / A722KWF
Rochester MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
You will gain about 200 RPM at climb speed, and if you take the
aircraft to red line airspeed, you will see 6600-6700 RPM maximum, all
below the engine red line of 6800 RPM.
|
| Dave Bigelow
Morning Dave:
6,800 rpm is max for 5 minutes, similar to military power. 6,500 rpm
is max continuous. I prop for max continuous unless I have an in
flight adjustable prop.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry <tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
Richard Pike wrote:
> Yep. Replace it with a 66" Ivo 2 blade.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
> dna
>
>
Richard,
Would you like to expand on that advice? I have been flying in front of
a Tennessee 66" x 30 wood prop on my FireFly with a 447 since it's birth
in "97" and have found it to be the ideal prop in many ways! I did
alter the tips as I had posted before to reduce noise, but it didn't
have an adverse effect on performance, just the opposite! A friend of
mine has a FireFly with an IVO which I borrowed for a short time, didn't
find any improvement in performance at all.
Terry - FireFly #95
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
There is also a side effect of propping for max continuous rather than max
for 5 minutes rpm. In my experience, if you prop for 6800 rpm, the engine is
a quite a bit underpropped and the EGT's tend to run high at cruise. But as
you begin to crank in pitch for a lower max rpm, they will stabilize. That
turns out in my case to be a max rpm of 6400 - 6450 at full throttle in
level flight, which is within spitting range of the rule of thumb.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Propeller Information...
>
>
> You will gain about 200 RPM at climb speed, and if you take the
> aircraft to red line airspeed, you will see 6600-6700 RPM maximum, all
> below the engine red line of 6800 RPM.
> |
> | Dave Bigelow
>
> Morning Dave:
>
> 6,800 rpm is max for 5 minutes, similar to military power. 6,500 rpm
> is max continuous. I prop for max continuous unless I have an in
> flight adjustable prop.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
In my experience, if you prop for 6800 rpm, the engine is
| a quite a bit underpropped and the EGT's tend to run high at cruise.
But as
| you begin to crank in pitch for a lower max rpm, they will
stabilize. That
| turns out in my case to be a max rpm of 6400 - 6450 at full throttle
in
| level flight, which is within spitting range of the rule of thumb.
|
| Richard Pike
Richard:
How many folks have you seen chase their tails trying to get their two
strokes dialed in correctly: changing jets and spark plug heat
ranges?
Seems the engineers that make their living designing and setting up
two strokes usually know what they are doing when it comes to jets and
spark plugs. If we prop to the engine and aircraft the EGT's will be
in the green, normally, unless there are some really extreme temps we
are attempting to fly in.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset feature question: ANR |
Ken
The ANR stands for Active Noise Reduction as apposed to Passive Noise
Reduction. I also see it listed some times as ENR for Electronic Noise
reduction. The specifications usually add ANR and PNR together for their
rating. The ANR samples noise inside the head phone and creates a negative
sound wave that reduces the sound heard by the ear. Most good headsets also
have noise canceling microphones that reduce the noise that is transmitted
but that is a different headphone specification.
I have a ANR system sold by Headsets Inc. that I retro fitted to my old
headphones.
Congratulation on the Sport Pilot license
Hope that helps
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: <kfackler(at)ameritech.net>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 8:09 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Headset feature question: ANR
>
> Okay, on the basis that the only dumb question is the one unasked, here
> goes...
>
> When talking headsets, I know that ANR means Automatic Noise Reduction.
> But
> does that mean it reduces the noise I hear or the noise I transmit?
>
> -Ken Fackler
> Kolb Mark II / A722KWF
> Rochester MI
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset feature question: ANR |
ANR suppresses the noise you hear.
On 12/18/06, kfackler(at)ameritech.net wrote:
> When talking headsets, I know that ANR means Automatic Noise Reduction. But
> does that mean it reduces the noise I hear or the noise I transmit?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
I have seen way too many folks chasing their tails by changing jets and
spark plug heat ranges when the real problem was having the engine
incorrectly propped. I don't remember saying anything about changing jets or
plugs, I run exactly the jets and plugs that Rotax calls for and encourage
anyone else to do the same, because if your EGT or CHT numbers are too high
or too low, or fluctuate, then you have either an engine problem or it is
propped incorrectly, not jetted wrong.
If an engine is underpropped and over revs, the EGT's will be too high and
probably fluctuate at different throttle settings. If it is overpropped and
fails to reach proper RPM, the EGT's will be too low, the CHT's will
probably be too high plus you will probably experience other problems. More
details on prop loads and jetting here:
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg11.htm
Maybe I am missing something, but I think that what I described in my
earlier post was how to adjust the prop to the engine and the aircraft, and
when you get it right, your EGT's will not fluctuate all over the place and
you will get good performance. With stock jets and plugs.
If I adjust my prop to hit 6500-6600 rpm at full throttle in level flight,
my EGT's will spike to 1150-1175 at cruise. With stock jets and plugs. And I
will be running higher rpm's at cruise than necessary. Propped to reach 6450
full throttle, level flight, gives me an EGT that stays between 1050-1100,
and an engine that gives me excellent performance at all RPM's.
Will that work for everybody? Who knows? However, since adjusting the pitch
on an Ivo takes all of about 20 seconds, and the next flight will show if
the adjustment was a good idea or not, it seems to me kind of like feeding
crackers to a dead man - it sure ain't gonna' hurt nothin'.
Merry Christmas and Tailwinds to you and yours,
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
dna
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Propeller Information...
>
> In my experience, if you prop for 6800 rpm, the engine is
> | a quite a bit underpropped and the EGT's tend to run high at cruise.
> But as
> | you begin to crank in pitch for a lower max rpm, they will
> stabilize. That
> | turns out in my case to be a max rpm of 6400 - 6450 at full throttle
> in
> | level flight, which is within spitting range of the rule of thumb.
> |
> | Richard Pike
>
>
> Richard:
>
> How many folks have you seen chase their tails trying to get their two
> strokes dialed in correctly: changing jets and spark plug heat
> ranges?
>
> Seems the engineers that make their living designing and setting up
> two strokes usually know what they are doing when it comes to jets and
> spark plugs. If we prop to the engine and aircraft the EGT's will be
> in the green, normally, unless there are some really extreme temps we
> are attempting to fly in.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Information... |
| Maybe I am missing something, but I think that what I described in
my
| earlier post was how to adjust the prop to the engine and the
aircraft, and
| when you get it right, your EGT's will not fluctuate all over the
place and
| you will get good performance. With stock jets and plugs.
| Richard Pike
Hi Richard:
Was attempting to address those that may not be aware of proper method
of setting up an engine, aircraft, and prop combo. I know you know
how to do it.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Left/Right handedness V's control stick and knobs switching |
| From: | "David Lucas" <d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com> |
My curiosity gets the better of me. I've been flying profesionally for a long
time. Initially as a copilot and then later as Captain. In my copilot days in
the Right Seat, and during manual flight (ie. non autopilot flight) I would have
my Right hand on the controls and my Left hand on the throttles. Other switching,
radio's or systems etc, is usually done by the other pilot but if necessary
I would do it with my Left hand (my Right hand staying on the control column).
On moving to the Left seat it all changed of course, with the Left Hand
now on the controls and the right hand on the throttles and, as and if necesary,
switching the required knob.
Now I'm Right handed, so the Left seat style is very comfortable for me as the
Right hand is more accurate for those fiddly little jobs like selecting a particular
frequency, altimeter setting etc. I think 'dexterity' is the right word
for it. I even notice my Righthanded copilots leaning across to switch an item
with their Right hand (during autopilot flight) rather that using their Left
hand even though it would have been closer to the appropriate control.
I've noticed on the KOLB's and many similar types, especialy single seat or tandum,
that both options have been used, sometimes throttle control on the Right
and sometimes on the Left (assuming stick in the middle).
So my question (to satisfy my curiousity) is; What layout do you prefer given
your Left or Right handedness and why, or is it even an issue ?
I think my default position for this Right-hander would be Stick in the Left hand
and Throttle handling and other switches etc done with the Right Hand.
What do you think ?
David.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=82455#82455
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Hoover" <flht99reh(at)columbus.rr.com> |
Per a quote on the subject "q" as noted below:
"Leaving an airplane outside, even tied down, makes me nervous, and
I did it myself a long time ago. A shelter also needs some protection.
I built my open front, steel pole shed 30 years ago for about $800.
The main winds hit at a rear quarter and have to encounter an earthern
berm first which helps ramp them up and over. The ramp is hidden
within a fencerow thicket.
On a windy day scarcely a breeze can be felt standing outside the open
front."
I have a question regarding hangers. There seem to be several self hanger builders
on this site and I was wondering which direction would one have the "opened"
ends positioned"? A friend is building a metal hanger, much like a quansit
hut" that is 27 feet wide by 30 feet long, and will, at least in the begining,
leave bothe ends open. He will store his Titan in it and I will have my Firestar
facing the opposit direction (head to toe). We can locate it in any direction
and all directions, with the exception of West has open corn /soy fields.
The West direction has a hanger about 40 feet from where we would locate our new
hanger.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Ohio Ralph
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=82468#82468
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Left/Right handedness V's control stick and knobs switching |
Unless you have an awful lot of "stuff" in your airplane, probably not an
issue. I have a transponder, mode C, 720 radio, GPS, lights, strobes, the
usual stuff, and mostly it is a non-issue. Throttle is by the left hand,
stick at the right, but if it was reversed, mostly I "reach out and touch"
that stuff so seldom it doesn't matter.
Here's my layout, not pretty, but functional.
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/pg4.htm
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lucas" <d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 12:19 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Left/Right handedness V's control stick and knobs
switching
>
> My curiosity gets the better of me. I've been flying profesionally for a
> long time. Initially as a copilot and then later as Captain. In my copilot
> days in the Right Seat, and during manual flight (ie. non autopilot
> flight) I would have my Right hand on the controls and my Left hand on the
> throttles. Other switching, radio's or systems etc, is usually done by the
> other pilot but if necessary I would do it with my Left hand (my Right
> hand staying on the control column). On moving to the Left seat it all
> changed of course, with the Left Hand now on the controls and the right
> hand on the throttles and, as and if necesary, switching the required
> knob.
>
> Now I'm Right handed, so the Left seat style is very comfortable for me as
> the Right hand is more accurate for those fiddly little jobs like
> selecting a particular frequency, altimeter setting etc. I think
> 'dexterity' is the right word for it. I even notice my Righthanded
> copilots leaning across to switch an item with their Right hand (during
> autopilot flight) rather that using their Left hand even though it would
> have been closer to the appropriate control.
>
> I've noticed on the KOLB's and many similar types, especialy single seat
> or tandum, that both options have been used, sometimes throttle control on
> the Right and sometimes on the Left (assuming stick in the middle).
>
> So my question (to satisfy my curiousity) is; What layout do you prefer
> given your Left or Right handedness and why, or is it even an issue ?
>
> I think my default position for this Right-hander would be Stick in the
> Left hand and Throttle handling and other switches etc done with the Right
> Hand.
>
> What do you think ?
>
> David.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=82455#82455
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russ kinne <kinnepix(at)earthlink.net> |
Yes, the tiedown rings are often the weak link. But a friend's Cessna
went on its back when the ring-weld broke. Since I heard that I put
the rope thru the ring, then over the strut, then tie it. Should be
doubly safe.
I have broken 1/2":poly tiedown ropes by hand -- they'd been in the
sun all summer. Good to check.
On Dec 17, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Charlie England wrote:
>
>
> russ kinne wrote:
>
>> In re recent talk about tie-down ropes -- this may be more
>> academic than practical, but there have been recent MAJOR changes
>> in cordage (ropes, strings, cables, whatever) that may interest
>> the List.
>> I just researched this subject for a boating magazine, and found
>> that the new synthetics are nothing short of amazing.
>> We all know nylon & dacron & polyester -- but the latter is very
>> seriously weakened by UV; sunlight. Dont trust it.
>> There are a lot of new fibers now, and some are FIFTEEN times
>> stronger than steel. A half-inch rope will theoretically hold TEN
>> TONS! (but dont stand under it)
>> But theyre all different. Some are stretchy (we dont want that)
>> or very non-stretchy. Most are UV - sensitive and must be
>> protected from sunlight by a woven cover of nylon or dacron. No
>> big deal.
>> The fibers named SPECTRA or DYNEEMA are reportedly the strongest
>> fibers ever created. Others are brait, vectran, lycra, twaron,
>> PEN, PBO, zylon, technora and others. All with different specs.
>> The bottom line is that there are some VERY strong ropes available
>> now. But of course theres a price. As Ive said, most of them are
>> UV sensitive and should be protected. None of them like being
>> knotted very much; use splices and fittings whenever possible. And
>> of course theyre expensive -- but you wont need a lot for your
>> tie-down ropes. And an adequately=strong rope may be too thin to
>> grab hold of and haul on.
>> The best place to find them is in marine stores like West
>> Products, or if by any chance you have access to a local
>> sailmaker, pay them a visit and ask some questions. And bring your
>> checkbook; something may be irrestible.
>> Russ K
>
>
> Finding something that's uv-proof is a good idea, but super
> strength isn't likely to do much good beyond regular ropes. I lost
> a Thorp T-18 to wind in Oklahoma about 14 years ago in a storm that
> destroyed over 20 other planes. Many of the certified planes
> (Cessnas, Pipers, etc) left their ropes at the tiedowns when the
> tiedown rings ripped out of the wing structures.
>
> Charlie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
You want the hangar to take the wind, not the aircraft inside so I would
put the doors 90 degrees to the wind. I have an enclosed hangar with a
door on 1 side and I am sometimes concerned about the wind with the
ultralights sitting inside and the door open.
If I were to build my hangar again, I would put a few tie-downs in the
concrete on the floor (probably along the centerline). The lift-up kind
that fall flush when not in use. They can be used as an anchor for
winching, or tie down in windy conditions with the door open, etc.
>
> I have a question regarding hangers. There seem to be several self hanger
> builders on this site and I was wondering which direction would one have
> the "opened" ends positioned"?
>
> Ohio Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Left/Right handedness V's control stick and knobs |
switching
For things done low, e.g., in the pattern, I would rather keep my right
hand on the stick and make the changes with my left (I would prefer the
flap handle on the left side).
For things done on the ground or at altitude (i.e., cruise) I would rather
switch my left hand to the stick and change freqs, altimeter setting, etc
with my right.
Jim
N. Idaho
> So my question (to satisfy my curiousity) is; What layout do you prefer
> given your Left or Right handedness and why, or is it even an issue ?
>
> I think my default position for this Right-hander would be Stick in the
> Left hand and Throttle handling and other switches etc done with the Right
> Hand.
>
> What do you think ?
>
> David.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hanger location |
Ralph, Hope all going well for you..In answer to your question as to hanger
Direction,,Contact Wilinmton Nat Wx Service, they will have the Wind
Direction % for the year, Then you can figure which way to place it so it
will be best protected from Wind & Rain, Ect. Hope all well and it is Ok
here in E Liverpool, Have my Winter cover & heater working on My KXP Lt Sp
Exp Kolb (91) warm on cold days . Merry X May & update some time Jay Carter
East Liverpool Oh(right up here to W Va/Pa Line)...---- Original
Message -----
From: "Ralph Hoover" <flht99reh(at)columbus.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Hanger location
>
> Per a quote on the subject "q" as noted below:
>
> "Leaving an airplane outside, even tied down, makes me nervous, and
> I did it myself a long time ago. A shelter also needs some protection.
> I built my open front, steel pole shed 30 years ago for about $800.
> The main winds hit at a rear quarter and have to encounter an earthern
> berm first which helps ramp them up and over. The ramp is hidden
> within a fencerow thicket.
> On a windy day scarcely a breeze can be felt standing outside the open
> front."
>
> I have a question regarding hangers. There seem to be several self hanger
builders on this site and I was wondering which direction would one have the
"opened" ends positioned"? A friend is building a metal hanger, much like a
quansit hut" that is 27 feet wide by 30 feet long, and will, at least in the
begining, leave bothe ends open. He will store his Titan in it and I will
have my Firestar facing the opposit direction (head to toe). We can locate
it in any direction and all directions, with the exception of West has open
corn /soy fields. The West direction has a hanger about 40 feet from where
we would locate our new hanger.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Ohio Ralph
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=82468#82468
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hanger location |
Ralph Hoover wrote:
>
>Per a quote on the subject "q" as noted below:
>
>"Leaving an airplane outside, even tied down, makes me nervous, and
>I did it myself a long time ago. A shelter also needs some protection.
>I built my open front, steel pole shed 30 years ago for about $800.
>The main winds hit at a rear quarter and have to encounter an earthern
>berm first which helps ramp them up and over. The ramp is hidden
>within a fencerow thicket.
>On a windy day scarcely a breeze can be felt standing outside the open
>front."
>
>I have a question regarding hangers. There seem to be several self hanger builders
on this site and I was wondering which direction would one have the "opened"
ends positioned"? A friend is building a metal hanger, much like a quansit
hut" that is 27 feet wide by 30 feet long, and will, at least in the begining,
leave bothe ends open. He will store his Titan in it and I will have my Firestar
facing the opposit direction (head to toe). We can locate it in any direction
and all directions, with the exception of West has open corn /soy fields.
The West direction has a hanger about 40 feet from where we would locate our
new hanger.
>
>Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Ohio Ralph
>
If you leave both ends open, definitely put tiedowns inside for the
planes. If you close one end, it minimizes the risk.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is to look at the direction of your
*severe* weather, not just prevailing wind.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Deckard" <mustangsally(at)semo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hanger location |
My hanger has sliding doors, wood frame. The doors face the wind. In strong
winds I am concerned about the doors blowing in on the plane. I would rather
have the back or side on the strong wind side.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:10 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Hanger location
>
> You want the hangar to take the wind, not the aircraft inside so I would
> put the doors 90 degrees to the wind. I have an enclosed hangar with a
> door on 1 side and I am sometimes concerned about the wind with the
> ultralights sitting inside and the door open.
>
> If I were to build my hangar again, I would put a few tie-downs in the
> concrete on the floor (probably along the centerline). The lift-up kind
> that fall flush when not in use. They can be used as an anchor for
> winching, or tie down in windy conditions with the door open, etc.
>
>>
>> I have a question regarding hangers. There seem to be several self hanger
>> builders on this site and I was wondering which direction would one have
>> the "opened" ends positioned"?
>>
>> Ohio Ralph
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Adventures in prop inertia, further |
Previously I published a list of props I tested per Rotax Service
Information instruction SI 11 UL 91 E. I just chased down the 68" four blade
Powerfin prop intended for the trike (officially refered to as Meadowlark
from here after). I say chased down because UPS was trying to deliver it to
an old address and the easiest way to get it was to go pick it up.
Speaking of UPS, I show up fat dumb and happy with no tracking number on the
day after their biggest day of the year which coincidentally was also the
day the computer at the customer counter decided that black was the color of
the day and took a hiatus. Five minutes after mumbling no to the question
"do you have a tracking number?" I had my prop and was on my way out the
door. Great job by Brown.
This test also gives me some anecdotal evidence to give Larry C. an answer
about the inertia of his two blade Warp Drive mounted on a "B" box. I think
you're okay on the limit of the "B" box ( 3000 kg cm ). Here's why:
Powerfin 68" 2 blade, 4 blade hub.
Wt. 6.88 lb ( 3.12 kg )
Average time to 30 oscillations 157 sec
Inertia 2800 kg cm
Powerfin 68" 4 blade, 4 blade hub.
Wt. 10.52 lb ( 4.77 kg )
Average time to 30 oscillations 183 sec
Inertia 5800 kg cm
Here you can see the direct relationship between the mass of the propellor
and the test results. Of course the only way to really know is to test the
two blade Warp Drive, but I think some reasonable reassurance can be had
inference.
Hope this helps
Rick
*Like the weather, everyone talks about prop inertia. Okay, maybe it's only a
few gearheads, but I got real interested after seeing the technique
demonstrated while doing the weight shift and powered parachute modules for
the repairman maintenance ticket. Having had plenty of time to think about
it while driving back home from CA, I figured I had four props I could check
and see how it all fit together. So I gathered them altogether and built the
setup per Rotax Service Information instruction SI 11 UL 91 E, Available
from the Rotax owners site and paraphrased in the CPS catalog. So here are
the numbers for a 66" Ritz 2 blade wood prop, a 66" Warp Drive 3 blade
straight carbon fiber prop with CNC aluminum hub, an IVO 60" 3 blade
composite prop with quick adjust hub, and a 48" 2 blade Tennessee Propellor
wood prop. Each prop was run 3 times and the times shown are the average of
the three, although each prop's runs were all +/- 1 second. I'll go heaviest
to lightest.
Warp Drive 66" 3 blade CNC hub
Wt. 9 lb. 12 oz.
Average time to 30 oscillations, 180 seconds
Inertia 5200 Kg cm^2
IVO 60" 3 blade Quick adjust hub
Wt. 6 lb. 4 oz.
Average time to 30 oscillations, 161 seconds
Inertia 2700Kg cm^2
Ritz 66 X 28 2 blade
Wt 5 lb. 1 oz.
Average time to 30 oscillations, 190 seconds
Inertia 3000 Kg cm^2
TPI 48 X 34 2 blade
Wt. 3 lb. 3 oz.
Average time to 30 oscillations, 127 seconds
Inertia 1100Kg cm^2
So there you have it, you can definitely see the variance in inertia caused
by length and mass. The Ritz is right at the top of the allowable range for
a B gearbox, while the shorter, heavier IVO is right near it and the TPI
shorty should represent no problem. The Warp drive is well within range of
the C and E gearboxes but would be brutal on a B box.*
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adventures in prop inertia, further |
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Adventures in prop inertia, further
This test also gives me some anecdotal evidence to give Larry C. an
answer about the inertia of his two blade Warp Drive mounted on a "B"
box. I think you're okay on the limit of the "B" box ( 3000 kg cm ).
Here's why:
Thanks for the information. That makes me feel better. I had intended
to run it anyway, since it is so smooth and also appears to live up to
its press from Daryl. Daryl thought that it would give me about 10 mph
more speed, due to the design of the tips. It appears to have increased
the speed somewhere around 5 or so MPH. I did increase the tire size
from the wheel barrow tires to 8x600, which would of course cut my speed
quite a bit. Apparently the tip modification has off set the drag from
the tires and still have some speed left over. My last trip I increased
my pitch to 9 degrees, giving me about 63-6400 rpm on climb out. My
EGT's were just right, lower third of the 1100 range. I flew directly
East into a bit of a headwind at 5600 rpm with a speed of 62 average. On
my way back over the same route more or less, I was showing 69 MPH.
Larry, Ore
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hanger location |
I agree. Orient the hangar so the prevaling wind is hitting against a
solid wall of the hangar -- NOT an opening (i.e., sides or back wall).
That way the building will shield the contents from the wind and not allow
lots of wind inside or through the hangar. I think best would be to have
the wind coming into the back wall, not the sides.
Jim
>
> My hanger has sliding doors, wood frame. The doors face the wind. In
> strong
> winds I am concerned about the doors blowing in on the plane. I would
> rather
> have the back or side on the strong wind side.
> Jerry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:10 PM
> Subject: Kolb-List: Hanger location
>
>
>>
>> You want the hangar to take the wind, not the aircraft inside so I would
>> put the doors 90 degrees to the wind. I have an enclosed hangar with a
>> door on 1 side and I am sometimes concerned about the wind with the
>> ultralights sitting inside and the door open.
>>
>> If I were to build my hangar again, I would put a few tie-downs in the
>> concrete on the floor (probably along the centerline). The lift-up kind
>> that fall flush when not in use. They can be used as an anchor for
>> winching, or tie down in windy conditions with the door open, etc.
>>
>>>
>>> I have a question regarding hangers. There seem to be several self
>>> hanger
>>> builders on this site and I was wondering which direction would one
>>> have
>>> the "opened" ends positioned"?
>>>
>>> Ohio Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adventures in prop inertia, further |
Very interesting Rick.
So based on these data, can you estimate the max length 3-bladed QA IVO
prop that would be acceptable on a B box?
Thx,
Jim
>
> Warp Drive 66" 3 blade CNC hub
> Wt. 9 lb. 12 oz.
> Average time to 30 oscillations, 180 seconds
> Inertia 5200 Kg cm^2
>
>
> IVO 60" 3 blade Quick adjust hub
> Wt. 6 lb. 4 oz.
> Average time to 30 oscillations, 161 seconds
> Inertia 2700Kg cm^2
>
> Ritz 66 X 28 2 blade
> Wt 5 lb. 1 oz.
> Average time to 30 oscillations, 190 seconds
>
> Inertia 3000 Kg cm^2
>
> TPI 48 X 34 2 blade
> Wt. 3 lb. 3 oz.
> Average time to 30 oscillations, 127 seconds
> Inertia 1100Kg cm^2
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adventures in prop inertia, further |
Jim, By rough estimate 64", based on nothing more than TLAR and a one sample
statistic.:-) Merry Christmas.
Rick
On 12/20/06, Jim Dunn <jim@tru-cast.com> wrote:
>
>
> Very interesting Rick.
>
> So based on these data, can you estimate the max length 3-bladed QA IVO
> prop that would be acceptable on a B box?
>
> Thx,
> Jim
>
> >
> > Warp Drive 66" 3 blade CNC hub
> > Wt. 9 lb. 12 oz.
> > Average time to 30 oscillations, 180 seconds
> > Inertia 5200 Kg cm^2
> >
> >
> > IVO 60" 3 blade Quick adjust hub
> > Wt. 6 lb. 4 oz.
> > Average time to 30 oscillations, 161 seconds
> > Inertia 2700Kg cm^2
> >
> > Ritz 66 X 28 2 blade
> > Wt 5 lb. 1 oz.
> > Average time to 30 oscillations, 190 seconds
> >
> > Inertia 3000 Kg cm^2
> >
> > TPI 48 X 34 2 blade
> > Wt. 3 lb. 3 oz.
> > Average time to 30 oscillations, 127 seconds
> > Inertia 1100Kg cm^2
> >
> > --
> > Rick Girard
> > "Ya'll drop on in"
> > takes on a whole new meaning
> > when you live at the airport.
> >
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adventures in prop inertia, further |
| From: | "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
Richard Girard wrote: << Powerfin 68" ... Inertia 2800 kg cm >>
Rick -
Thanks for the data on prop inertia.
As we see from your post, Powerfin props have the lowest rotational
inertias compared to most (all?) the other props. This is one of their
selling points - low inertia provides less stress on the engine &
gearbox.
However, this can also be a negative. For example, I had used a
Powerfin on the Verner engine that was originally installed in my
Mark-III. It was too light. Result was insufficient "flywheel effect"
for this engine, and it was not damping out the engine power pulses
sufficiently, causing the prop redrive hub bolts to break.
Dennis Kirby
Mark-III, 912ul (now)
New Mexico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hanger location |
Why can't you install removable anchors in the concrete
now. Shouldn't be that hard if you use a hammer drill. You can rent
one and even the bits from most industrial rental places. If your
intent is only to keep it from moving you shouldn't need that much
being sheltered by the hangar itself. They could screw in and out of
the floor.
jerb
At 01:10 PM 12/19/2006, you wrote:
>
>You want the hangar to take the wind, not the aircraft inside so I would
>put the doors 90 degrees to the wind. I have an enclosed hangar with a
>door on 1 side and I am sometimes concerned about the wind with the
>ultralights sitting inside and the door open.
>
>If I were to build my hangar again, I would put a few tie-downs in the
>concrete on the floor (probably along the centerline). The lift-up kind
>that fall flush when not in use. They can be used as an anchor for
>winching, or tie down in windy conditions with the door open, etc.
>
> >
> > I have a question regarding hangers. There seem to be several self hanger
> > builders on this site and I was wondering which direction would one have
> > the "opened" ends positioned"?
> >
> > Ohio Ralph
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hanger location |
Anchors will work for light duty, but for maximum stength they should be
imbedded in the concrete and tied into the rebar. That kind of strength
wouldn't be needed very often. (e.g., 2000# winch going up to the trusses
then back down to pick up an entire aircraft.
>
> Why can't you install removable anchors in the concrete
> now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hanger location |
Yah, for max strength you're right, but not all anchors are created equal.
It'd be interesting to see some comparative tests of various concrete
anchors. I've worked with quite a few over the years, and some that I've
seen work OK in shear, but poorly in tension. Then again, some I've used
that have a tapered lower section that pulls up into an expandable sleeve
are perty husky. Some have impressed me quite a bit, and I'd be hard put to
picture one pulling out. That, of course, would depend to some extent on
the concrete itself. On that, I've seen some home mixed and poured stuff
that wasn't much better than putty. Others have been like granite, so ya
never know. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Santa Fe, NM
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Dunn" <jim@tru-cast.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Hanger location
>
> Anchors will work for light duty, but for maximum stength they should be
> imbedded in the concrete and tied into the rebar. That kind of strength
> wouldn't be needed very often. (e.g., 2000# winch going up to the trusses
> then back down to pick up an entire aircraft.
>
>>
>> Why can't you install removable anchors in the concrete
>> now.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
Just what's the deal nowadays with 2Si / Cuyuna? According to one part of
their website, they say their engines are NOT for aircraft use, on another
page they say they're used for light aircraft and PPC's, and in still
another (dated 2003) they say they want to sell the aircraft engine
business. I'm guessing it's just a liability CYA thing? Not that I need
any parts at the moment for the Cuyuna on my Ultrastar, but it's nice to
know what the deal is.
On a sorta related note, what about the Simonini Victor 1 engine? Single
cylinder, dual ignition, water cooled, 48hp and 70 lbs with accessories...
seems perfect for an Ultrastar or similar. Dunno what it costs though...
there's also their 33hp Mini 2 which weighs only 44 lbs. The Mini 2 (28hp)
is quite popular on PPG's these days.
-Dana
--
--
Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Denny Rowe" <rowedl(at)highstream.net> |
Dana,
2SI no longer sells or supports the UL/Experimental aviation market.
For parts and service for your engine see Roger Z at ZDE.
Denny Rowe, Mk-3 2SI 690L-70
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dana Hague" <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:37 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Engines
>
> Just what's the deal nowadays with 2Si / Cuyuna? According to one part of
> their website, they say their engines are NOT for aircraft use, on another
> page they say they're used for light aircraft and PPC's, and in still
> another (dated 2003) they say they want to sell the aircraft engine
> business. I'm guessing it's just a liability CYA thing? Not that I need
> any parts at the moment for the Cuyuna on my Ultrastar, but it's nice to
> know what the deal is.
>
> On a sorta related note, what about the Simonini Victor 1 engine? Single
> cylinder, dual ignition, water cooled, 48hp and 70 lbs with
> accessories... seems perfect for an Ultrastar or similar. Dunno what it
> costs though... there's also their 33hp Mini 2 which weighs only 44 lbs.
> The Mini 2 (28hp) is quite popular on PPG's these days.
>
> -Dana
> --
> --
> Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?
>
>
> --
> 12/19/2006 1:17 PM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
Hi Lar,
sorry for the long silence but my confuser blew up on me around the
first week of December and I only got back online this afternoon.
Enjoyed the last lot of pics you sent. You just HAVE to get a book out
sometime.
I have been working busily through the accumulated backlog of posts,
1543 of them, deleting merrily away when I accidentally wiped something
about a special deal at MV. Anyone have a note of what that was?
Merry Christmas to everyone on the list from a fog bound UK
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <richard(at)bcchapel.org> |
Since the FSII flew hands off so well with a bunch of dihedral, decided to try
it on the MKIII and see if it could also be made to fly hands off. You can see
from the pictures how much dihedral is in the FSII, and how much is in the MKIII,
but the results were not at all alike. Could not come up with a combination
of trim or throttle settings that would enable hands off flight. It was better
than before, but just barely, it was still impossible to pick up a low wing
with rudder. There was a small amount of turbulence, but very small. Perhaps
if I had a passenger so that it was balanced on each side, and the air was glass
smooth, or maybe if I had a full fuselage that ran up to the base of the wing
- who knows?
Anyway, my initial tests show that dihedral is of no apparent value on this MKIII,
your results may vary. None of the other flight characteristics seemed any
different. Will probably put it back like it was. The gap seal fits better that
way...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83264#83264
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1020626_large_122.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1020615_large_362.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1020312_large_189.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Xtra Speeds |
Hi Mick,
just a note to wish you both a Merry Christmas.
I am back on line after being out since early December. Just cleared 1500
posts.!
Mike Hanley has not collected the Kolb yet as he is tied up with the
Spitfire testing at Perranporth and that is of course weather dependent. It
has been awful here for weeks plus the fog of the last 4 days so expecting
no movement in the near future.
I assume that you have sent on to Mike the exhaust which you forgot to bring
to the NEC . Shame that as I have had to pay over 100 for the hire of the
van.
Be in touch in the New Year. If you can send me a workable e-mail address,
my messages to you keep getting bounced, I can write you off list.
All the best or the Festive Season
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cat36Fly(at)aol.com |
There is a MKlllx about hrs driving time north of in Md. If you are
interested I can give you directions or you could fly into MD1 (Massey Aerodrome)
in
Massey Md.
Larry Tasker
MKlllx 582
N615RT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Brake option for light Kolbs |
I'm helping a buddy build a recumbant trike and he purchased disk brakes
from Bike Nashbar for the project.
http://www.nashbar.com/
Very light, but might be good on Firestar for ground manuevering and light
braking. At $75 a pair the price certainly is attractive.
Merry Christmas everybody,
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brake option for light Kolbs |
Somehow, I forgot the picture so a PS
On 12/23/06, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> I'm helping a buddy build a recumbant trike and he purchased disk brakes
> from Bike Nashbar for the project.
>
> http://www.nashbar.com/
>
> Very light, but might be good on Firestar for ground manuevering and light
> braking. At $75 a pair the price certainly is attractive.
>
> Merry Christmas everybody,
> Rick
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Noyer <a58r(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Miz Evelyn Bryan Johnson |
Miz Evelyn's xmas card announces that she will be honored at the July
21st National Aviation Hall of Fame, along with Steve Fossett, Walter
Boyne, Sally K. Ride, and Frederick W. Smith. She is a flight
instructor who has logged more flight hours, trained more pilots, and
given more FAA exams than any other pilot, retiring at age 95!
All of us extend our congratulations to Miz Evelyn Bryan Johnson.
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Prop Spacer - Has anyone ever seen anything like this ??? |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Here is a picture of the prop spacer that goes from my Rotax 912-S to the Kiev
Hot Prop. It is made out of aluminum and the shaft is tapered to only two inches
at its narrow point.
All the spacers I have ever seen have the prop bolts go all the way through from
the prop hub to the steel engine output flange. With this spacer the entire
load is transmitted to the prop through 2 inches of aluminum. After reading
stories of high streingth bolts breaking on occasion, I am wonding how just 2
inches of aluminum could be safe to transmit 100 HP to the prop. Has anyone
ever seen a prop adapter / spacer like this ? Is this very likely to fail and
let the entire prop fly into the back of my Kolb ? Would you guys trust this
? Any thought you may have would be appreciated.
Michael A. Bigelow
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83328#83328
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbpropspacer12_19_2006_41_825.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbdetail12_20_2006_112_147.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Spacer - Has anyone ever seen anything like this ??? |
Michael, The thimble style prop extension is the standard for the
"Lyconosaurus" engines, although I've never seen one with a wasp waste like
yours. The Lycon extensions have a tapered hole through the middle, so if
yours is solid, it would be a similar cross sectional area.
Rick
On 12/23/06, JetPilot wrote:
>
>
> Here is a picture of the prop spacer that goes from my Rotax 912-S to the
> Kiev Hot Prop. It is made out of aluminum and the shaft is tapered to only
> two inches at its narrow point.
>
> All the spacers I have ever seen have the prop bolts go all the way
> through from the prop hub to the steel engine output flange. With this
> spacer the entire load is transmitted to the prop through 2 inches of
> aluminum. After reading stories of high streingth bolts breaking on
> occasion, I am wonding how just 2 inches of aluminum could be safe to
> transmit 100 HP to the prop. Has anyone ever seen a prop adapter / spacer
> like this ? Is this very likely to fail and let the entire prop fly into
> the back of my Kolb ? Would you guys trust this ? Any thought you may
> have would be appreciated.
>
> Michael A. Bigelow
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have
> !!!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83328#83328
>
>
> Attachments:
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbpropspacer12_19_2006_41_825.jpg
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbdetail12_20_2006_112_147.jpg
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
Hi,
can someone please confirm the MV weekend. I have a note of Friday May
18/ Sat 19th
Looks as though I may make it although there are many ends to be tied up
yet.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Dihedral |
| From: | "David Lucas" <d_a_lucas(at)hotmail.com> |
Richard,
Seems like your a little disapointed in the results after all the trouble of increasing
dihedral. Vis;
> it was still impossible to pick up a low wing with rudder
,
Have you ever heard of 'Canted Tabs'. Perhaps they would work in your situation.
Read all about it here;
If you do a Google search, you'll also find a few other entries on 'Canted Tabs'.
Happy Christmas,
David.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83352#83352
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
can someone please confirm the MV weekend. I have a note of Friday
May 18/ Sat 19th
Pat
Patrick/All:
MV is the weekend between Mother's Day and Memorial Day. Most of us
get there on Thurday and stay until Sunday, depending on winds and
weather. That would make the 2007 Unplanned/Unorganized Kolb Flyin,
Monument Valley, Utah, fall on 17 through 20 May 2007.
Lord willing and the creek don't rise, see ya there,
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <jcooley380(at)hughes.net> |
Merry Christmas to everyone. I wish for you and yours a safe and prosperous
New Year.
John Cooley
Lucedale, Ms.
--
11:31 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
"Lovely" fog bound Fresno, Kalifonia...>>
hate Califirnia, its cold and its damp.. thats why the lady etc....
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 12/23/2006 4:50:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
riquenkelly(at)aol.com writes:
Kolb experts,
I just subscribed. I am seriously considering purchasing a Kolb Mark III
kit or already constructed airplane. I just sold my last plane and am
itching to get back into something. I like alot of the Kolb features on the
website but I can't find one to see in person. I am in the Fl panhandle for the
holidays and live in D.C. Anybody have a Kolb near me that would be willing
to let me look?
Also interested in info on making a Mark III into a float plane.
Thanks for the help,
Rique
I am in Orlando, Fl and my Firefly on Floats is in Winter Haven. A Pretty
good drive, but you are welcome to come down. I also have a MKIII kit sitting in
the shop that is for sale.
Steve Boetto
FF 007
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cspoke" <cspoke(at)gulftel.com> |
I am located in Lillian, AL just 5 miles west of Pensacola, FL and I have a Mark
111 Xtra that I am in the process of building. If this is not too far from where
you are, you are welcome to come take a look at it.
Craig Spoke
cspoke(at)gulftel.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=83514#83514
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tail wheel rod bending |
In a message dated 12/26/2006 9:20:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, rap(at)isp.com
writes:
My tail wheel support tube is already bending and I have not even taxied the
plane yet
There is some "flexing" that looks like bending. Pick up the tail & look at
it; probably not bent.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Full enclosure |
| From: | Dwight.Kottke(at)hti.htch.com |
Hey Planecrazzy, nice pictures, especially the one with your new welder in
it. Tell us more about your new toy.
The Flying Farmer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vic Peters" <vicsvinyl(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail wheel rod bending |
Your right about the flexing tail wheel rod. Makes for suspention.
I also noticed when I sat on the tail boom (not recomended) adj.
brackets for the radiator that my rod was bent when I got up, but
straight with no weight. That weight also tends to straighten out the
built in curve of the welded steel tail section. Something I gave poor
Travis hell about (sort of). Sorry.
The only potential problem I noticed is that the forward point of the
lower vertical stabilizer was also puled away from the boom tube.
Mine was not riveted at that time but I wonder if anyone has had any
trouble with rivets in that area?
Vic
912 Extra
Me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Payment Question |
| From: | "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
Kolb Friends -
For those of you who have sold large-dollar-amount items (like airplanes
or engines), how do you work out the payment plan?
For example, let's say I found a nice, low-time 912ul engine on
Barnstormers that I wish to purchase from an individual to give to Big
Lar for Christmas so he can get Vamoose flying. I don't want to send a
check for $8,000 to a stranger until the engine I just bought is
delivered at my door. Similarly, he does not want to ship his engine to
me until he is sure I've sent his $8,000.
Is there some kind of escrow service that we can use to address this
dilemma?
I've heard of "PayPal" accounts that many folks use for purchasing stuff
on eBay, but I don't have such an account. What are the options that
would benefit both parties?
Many thanks -
Dennis Kirby
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Payment Question |
As a seller, Paypal has a $500/month max unless seller provides their SSN
for Uncle Sam. If an individual with a one-time sale, seller may not want
to do that. Also, seller may get charged 3% fee on the money they
received from PP. That's $240 they would loose unless you pay extra.
If you or a friend can't pick it up in person, I think the best bet is to
talk to the individual and determine if you trust him/her. Check ebay
feedback, research the store,etc. If you don't trust them enough to send
in your money, you probably should not bid on the item.
I will sometimes ask for a 3-day inspection on an item I purchased. If it
is not as advertised, then return it for refund; less shipping. You can
negotitate anything you want, but in the end you will have to trust the
seller first.
Jim
N. Idaho
>
>
>
> Kolb Friends -
>
> For those of you who have sold large-dollar-amount items (like airplanes
> or engines), how do you work out the payment plan?
>
> For example, let's say I found a nice, low-time 912ul engine on
> Barnstormers that I wish to purchase from an individual to give to Big
> Lar for Christmas so he can get Vamoose flying. I don't want to send a
> check for $8,000 to a stranger until the engine I just bought is
> delivered at my door. Similarly, he does not want to ship his engine to
> me until he is sure I've sent his $8,000.
>
> Is there some kind of escrow service that we can use to address this
> dilemma?
>
> I've heard of "PayPal" accounts that many folks use for purchasing stuff
> on eBay, but I don't have such an account. What are the options that
> would benefit both parties?
>
> Many thanks -
>
> Dennis Kirby
> Cedar Crest, NM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | 103 & slightly overweight |
As a new owner of a near-stock Ultrastar (which I haven't yet done a W&B
on, so I don't know where it falls), I wonder:
We all know that many (if not most) otherwise supposedly 103 legal
ultralights are a bit (or more than a bit) overweight. The question is,
has anybody ever been inspected and weighed by the FAA? Obviously if you
fly into an airshow and there's an inspector there, or the local FSDO is
doing ramp checks, and you have a 2-seater or great big gas tanks or
something else blatant, you're probably asking for trouble... but I wonder
about the plane that's otherwise legal but has a few extra coats of paint,
or wheel brakes, or instruments, or whatever, that push the weigh up to 255
lbs or 260 or 270 or so... what is the real likelihood of trouble? If you
have an accident, of course, all bets are off, but even then are they
likely to actually weigh it (or all the pieces)?
BTW, the rumor is (from a "usually reliable source") that starting in
January, the feds will be doing widespread ramp checks at airports with
significant ultralight activity.
-Dana
--
--
"If yew ain't livin' on th' edge, yer takin' up too much room!"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 103 & slightly overweight |
I fly out of a private grass strip in N. Idaho. Regarding a different
safety-related matter (not UL related), the Spokane FAA told us that they
would never come out [to a private strip] unless specifically invited. I
can't imagine that would hold for a fatal accident, but probably would for
routine regulatory enforcement.
BTW, 254 pounds is overweight. Regs say less than 254 pounds for an
Ultralight.
> We all know that many (if not most) otherwise supposedly 103 legal
> ultralights are a bit (or more than a bit) overweight. The question is,
> has anybody ever been inspected and weighed by the FAA? Obviously if you
> fly into an airshow and there's an inspector there, or the local FSDO is
> doing ramp checks, and you have a 2-seater or great big gas tanks or
> something else blatant, you're probably asking for trouble... but I wonder
> about the plane that's otherwise legal but has a few extra coats of paint,
> or wheel brakes, or instruments, or whatever, that push the weigh up to
> 255
> lbs or 260 or 270 or so... what is the real likelihood of trouble? If you
> have an accident, of course, all bets are off, but even then are they
> likely to actually weigh it (or all the pieces)?
>
> BTW, the rumor is (from a "usually reliable source") that starting in
> January, the feds will be doing widespread ramp checks at airports with
> significant ultralight activity.
>
> -Dana
> --
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 103 & slightly overweight |
At 05:50 PM 12/27/2006, FLYMICHIGAN(at)comcast.net wrote:
>In answer to your question, I have never been ramp checked, and never
>heard of any UL being weighed by the FAA unless it was involved in an accident.
Hmmm, yes, I guess the question is has anybody ever heard of an UL being
weighed by the FAA even *after* an accident? Unless, of course, they had
reason to believe the weight led to the accident.
Most of the UL accidents and incidents I've heard of, the FAA doesn't even
investigate if the police report (if there is one) makes it look like a
legal ultralight.
-Dana
--
--
"Makers of oils will assure you their lubricants will last the life of the
transmission. This may be true, but that life can be longer if you change
the oil.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Payment Question |
You're buying me an engine ?? Gee, you're a wonderful guy, but Christmas is
past, so I guess I'll just hafta wait till next year, eh ??
I've also heard that PayPal has an escrow service, but I'd be very, very
careful. PayPal is OK, I'm told, but I've had a huge amount of spam using
the PayPal name, and it makes me very nervous. Lar.
P.S. 1 of these days we gotta get together and at least say hello, since
I'm only about 65 miles away. Right now I'm up to my ears in the new job,
and pretty much working 7 days a week. No relief in sight, but the
weather's been terrible, so nothing else to do anyway.
Larry Bourne
Santa Fe, NM
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 10:38 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Payment Question
>
>
>
> Kolb Friends -
>
> For those of you who have sold large-dollar-amount items (like airplanes
> or engines), how do you work out the payment plan?
>
> For example, let's say I found a nice, low-time 912ul engine on
> Barnstormers that I wish to purchase from an individual to give to Big
> Lar for Christmas so he can get Vamoose flying. I don't want to send a
> check for $8,000 to a stranger until the engine I just bought is
> delivered at my door. Similarly, he does not want to ship his engine to
> me until he is sure I've sent his $8,000.
>
> Is there some kind of escrow service that we can use to address this
> dilemma?
>
> I've heard of "PayPal" accounts that many folks use for purchasing stuff
> on eBay, but I don't have such an account. What are the options that
> would benefit both parties?
>
> Many thanks -
>
> Dennis Kirby
> Cedar Crest, NM
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Key" <dhkey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | 103 & slightly overweight |
It's more likely that the "usually reliable source" will become and
unreliable source than there will be a increase in ramp checks.
>From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: 103 & slightly overweight
>Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 17:16:38 -0500
>
>
>As a new owner of a near-stock Ultrastar (which I haven't yet done a W&B
>on, so I don't know where it falls), I wonder:
>
>We all know that many (if not most) otherwise supposedly 103 legal
>ultralights are a bit (or more than a bit) overweight. The question is,
>has anybody ever been inspected and weighed by the FAA? Obviously if you
>fly into an airshow and there's an inspector there, or the local FSDO is
>doing ramp checks, and you have a 2-seater or great big gas tanks or
>something else blatant, you're probably asking for trouble... but I wonder
>about the plane that's otherwise legal but has a few extra coats of paint,
>or wheel brakes, or instruments, or whatever, that push the weigh up to 255
>lbs or 260 or 270 or so... what is the real likelihood of trouble? If you
>have an accident, of course, all bets are off, but even then are they
>likely to actually weigh it (or all the pieces)?
>
>BTW, the rumor is (from a "usually reliable source") that starting in
>January, the feds will be doing widespread ramp checks at airports with
>significant ultralight activity.
>
> -Dana
>--
>--
>"If yew ain't livin' on th' edge, yer takin' up too much room!"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Payment Question |
but Christmas is past, >>
Hi Lar,
but Christmas is like the Ides of March `come Ceasar but not yet gone`. You
could still be lucky.
Cheers
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron wehba" <rwehba(at)cebridge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 103 & slightly overweight |
if it looks legal ,, you probrobly won't ever get checked
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dana Hague" <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:16 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: 103 & slightly overweight
>
> As a new owner of a near-stock Ultrastar (which I haven't yet done a W&B
> on, so I don't know where it falls), I wonder:
>
> We all know that many (if not most) otherwise supposedly 103 legal
> ultralights are a bit (or more than a bit) overweight. The question is,
> has anybody ever been inspected and weighed by the FAA? Obviously if you
> fly into an airshow and there's an inspector there, or the local FSDO is
> doing ramp checks, and you have a 2-seater or great big gas tanks or
> something else blatant, you're probably asking for trouble... but I wonder
> about the plane that's otherwise legal but has a few extra coats of paint,
> or wheel brakes, or instruments, or whatever, that push the weigh up to
> 255 lbs or 260 or 270 or so... what is the real likelihood of trouble? If
> you have an accident, of course, all bets are off, but even then are they
> likely to actually weigh it (or all the pieces)?
>
> BTW, the rumor is (from a "usually reliable source") that starting in
> January, the feds will be doing widespread ramp checks at airports with
> significant ultralight activity.
>
> -Dana
> --
> --
> "If yew ain't livin' on th' edge, yer takin' up too much room!"
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 103 & slightly overweight |
|
| if it looks legal ,, you probrobly won't ever get checked
Ron:
What does legal look like?
And, do you think is really that dumb, that they do not know what
weighs less than 254 lbs?
I think everyone will probably agree, there are very, very few, if
any, legal ULs out there flying.
I am speaking of airplanes, not trikes and powered parachutes.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 103 & slightly overweight |
I guess that I might as well chip in.
It is my thoughts that after Jan there will be an increase in attention paid
to pilots as to their qualifications but the "UL's" have at least another
year after that I believe before they have to make the transition. After the
transition date then I do believe that they will begin an increase in
checks, since there should be no confusion to what is 103 and what is not.
Of course most enforcement is geared to trouble areas. If there are areas of
complaints, checks are always the next step. I do believe that the FAA is
understaffed enough to not go out looking for area to write tickets or what
ever it is that they write. I personally do not think that I will get my
shorts in a tangle over it, but I do intend to be legal by the deadline, or
I will stay out in my quiet little desert and keep a low profile.
Larry, Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 103 & slightly overweight |
| And, do you think is really that dumb, that they do not know what
| weighs less than 254 lbs?
Hi Gang:
Should have read, "And..........do you think the FAA is really that
dumb, that they do not know what weighs less than 254?"
Poor proof reading, no proof reading on my part. ;-(
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 103 & slightly overweight |
| I will stay out in my quiet little desert and keep a low profile.
|
| Larry, Oregon
Larry:
At your house, profile doesn't matter. You could fly naked and no one
but the coyotes, antelopes, dogs, birds, and Karen would know.
Larry has a great place to fly, and an airplane sure makes his travel
around the desert much easier and faster.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | riquenkelly(at)aol.com |
Larry,
I'd like to take a look. Is it your airplane? I am in Springfield, Va. I'll
be back after this weekend. Would you mind discussing it on the phone (or Kolb's
in general?) My cell number is 850-543-1134. If you don't mind I'd be
happy to give you a call if you send your number or give me a call at your convenience.
I haven't decided if I want to build or buy.
Thanks,
Rique
-----Original Message-----
From: Cat36Fly(at)aol.com
Sent: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kold in Fl
There is a MKlllx about hrs driving time north of in Md. If you are interested
I can give you directions or you could fly into MD1 (Massey Aerodrome) in Massey
Md.
Larry Tasker
MKlllx 582
N615RT
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron wehba" <rwehba(at)cebridge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 103 & slightly overweight |
good question john,,,,,,,,,,been a long day
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 103 & slightly overweight
>
>
>
> |
> | if it looks legal ,, you probrobly won't ever get checked
>
>
> Ron:
>
> What does legal look like?
>
> And, do you think is really that dumb, that they do not know what
> weighs less than 254 lbs?
>
> I think everyone will probably agree, there are very, very few, if
> any, legal ULs out there flying.
>
> I am speaking of airplanes, not trikes and powered parachutes.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 103 & slightly overweight |
-- "ron wehba" wrote:
if it looks legal ,, you probrobly won't ever get checked
Not true. The FAA isn't dumb. It isn't a 103 ultralight if it has 2
seats, has a 503 or larger engine, or carries more than 5 gallons of
fuel. The local police is already preparing for the crackdown here in
Minnesota and are being trained on what to look for. You guys that
think the FAA isn't going to do anything because they are
understaffed, better think again. I suppose it's a lot like driving a
little over the legal limit for alcohol. There are many that think
they won't get caught.
I flew my Firestar 20 years without a license guys.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar, 319 lbs
(a little over the legal limit)
Sport Pilot
N91493
________________________________________________________________________
FREE for 30 Days! - Holiday eCards from AmericanGreetings.com
http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/index.pd?c=uol5637
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | riquenkelly(at)aol.com |
Steve,
I'd like to talk to you about both planes. Can you send me your number via direct
email and I'll give you a call if that is O.K. with you?
Thanks,
Rique
-----Original Message-----
From: N27SB(at)aol.com
Sent: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kold in Fl
In a message dated 12/23/2006 4:50:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, riquenkelly(at)aol.com
writes:
Kolb experts,
I just subscribed. I am seriously considering purchasing a Kolb Mark III kit
or already constructed airplane. I just sold my last plane and am itching to
get back into something. I like alot of the Kolb features on the website but
I can't find one to see in person. I am in the Fl panhandle for the holidays
and live in D.C. Anybody have a Kolb near me that would be willing to let me
look?
Also interested in info on making a Mark III into a float plane.
Thanks for the help,
Rique
I am in Orlando, Fl and my Firefly on Floats is in Winter Haven. A Pretty good
drive, but you are welcome to come down. I also have a MKIII kit sitting in the
shop that is for sale.
Steve Boetto
FF 007
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
If you're coming to Orlando, I have a Firestar II, 503 DCDI, for sale at
Florida Flying Gator's Airpark, located near Clermont, Florida, about 25 miles
West of Orlando. It is listed on Barnstormers for $9,500. My friend has a
custom trailer for it (I bought the plane from him) for $2,500. Both are in
great shape. I'm selling because I'm buying an amphibian.
Tom Yowell
(407) 448-9974
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 103 & slightly overweight |
At 08:09 PM 12/27/2006, Ralph wrote:
>-- "ron wehba" wrote:
>
>if it looks legal ,, you probrobly won't ever get checked
>
>Not true. The FAA isn't dumb. It isn't a 103 ultralight if it has 2
>seats, has a 503 or larger engine, or carries more than 5 gallons of
>fuel...
Right, all those things are obvious... but 10 or 20 (not 50 or 100) extra
pounds are a lot less obvious (I hope) on a bird with one seat, a 5 gallon
tank, and a Cuyuna...
-Dana
--
--
A rolling stone .... kills worms
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 103 & slightly overweight |
Let's think about this, how many fat ultralight type aircraft fly
into Sun & Fun and Oshkosh each year. They were limiting those
flying in the ultralight area to 5 gallons of fuel, but that's all I
have heard of. If you screw up or do things you shouldn't they might
look at you closer. Look like an UL, act like a UL, sound like a UL,
then you must be a UL. Use a radio, sound like you know what your
doing, be courteous to other aircraft, learn proper procedures for
operating in a airport traffic pattern, you'll generally be just find.
jerb
At 04:16 PM 12/27/2006, you wrote:
>
>As a new owner of a near-stock Ultrastar (which I haven't yet done a
>W&B on, so I don't know where it falls), I wonder:
>
>We all know that many (if not most) otherwise supposedly 103 legal
>ultralights are a bit (or more than a bit) overweight. The question
>is, has anybody ever been inspected and weighed by the
>FAA? Obviously if you fly into an airshow and there's an inspector
>there, or the local FSDO is doing ramp checks, and you have a
>2-seater or great big gas tanks or something else blatant, you're
>probably asking for trouble... but I wonder about the plane that's
>otherwise legal but has a few extra coats of paint, or wheel brakes,
>or instruments, or whatever, that push the weigh up to 255 lbs or
>260 or 270 or so... what is the real likelihood of trouble? If you
>have an accident, of course, all bets are off, but even then are
>they likely to actually weigh it (or all the pieces)?
>
>BTW, the rumor is (from a "usually reliable source") that starting
>in January, the feds will be doing widespread ramp checks at
>airports with significant ultralight activity.
>
> -Dana
>--
>--
>"If yew ain't livin' on th' edge, yer takin' up too much room!"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Deckard" <mustangsally(at)semo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Payment Question |
I think Barnstormers has an escrow service.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thom Riddle <jtriddle(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Payment Question |
Last airplane I sold we used escrow.com. They are not geared up for
airplanes but they are for cars etc. It worked out fine for both the
buyer and seller.
Thom in Buffalo
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 103 & slightly overweight |
Hi John, in my case, adding floats took a marginal 103 Firefly and moved it to
Legal. I agree that it is tough to make a good flying UL and keep it under 254#.
steve
-----Original Message-----
From: jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com
Sent: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 103 & slightly overweight
|
| if it looks legal ,, you probrobly won't ever get checked
Ron:
What does legal look like?
And, do you think is really that dumb, that they do not know what
weighs less than 254 lbs?
I think everyone will probably agree, there are very, very few, if
any, legal ULs out there flying.
I am speaking of airplanes, not trikes and powered parachutes.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 103 and slightly overweight |
See http://www.romingerlegal.com/fifthcircuit/opinions/03-30728-CR0.wpd.html
and
http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl49/subttlVII/ptA/subptiv/ch463/sec46306.html
I'm no attorney, but it looks like this Louisiana guy had his Cessna
confiscated (worth between $30-$53K) for not registering it for 7 years
under 49 U.S.C. 46306(b)(5)(A). It looks like he could also have been
imprisoned for 3 years.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat ladd" <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 103 and slightly overweight |
He said that the FAA was too busy to hunt you down and weigh you,>>
Hi,
that is another plus that you enjoy by not having a certified plane. There
is no such animal on this side of the pond. Except maybe powered chutes, I
don`t know. Here there will be an annual issue of a permit to fly subject
to a check over by an inspector and every five years when your plane is
checked for its annual IT WILL BE WEIGHED.
All planes get heavier. They grow extra instruments, spats, hand held radios
change into fixtures, the GPS moves up a size, strobes get installed. Every
year if the plane is a bit close to the weight limit there is a frantic
unscrewing of things and removals of any extraneous bits and pieces to get
through the check.
There is hope that we will get a derugulated class, but I cannot see the
authorities loosening the strings to the extent of not having an annual
inspection.
Cheers
Pat.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Tail wheel strut |
Sorry for the delay, I was wrestling hay rolls for my buddy and didn't get
around to the photography until this morning.
It was a good thing to take a look at the strut since I was once again
reminded that I haven't gotten around to painting it, yet. One of those, I
want to fly right now, I'll do it up proper this winter items. And now it's
winter. Anyway.
The tubing size for the outer sleeve is 3/4" X .058, the inner is 5/8" X
.065. Frankly, it's a bit heavier than I would like and I'll probably go
back to aluminum when I do take it off. It is stout, though, and won't bend,
at least so far, under the worst "arrival" loads. :-)
Rick
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tail wheel strut |
Rick, is that a fully castering tailwheel in the photo? The TW on my
Firefly does not caster. If yours does caster, what is it and where can I
get one?
Thanks,
Jim
> Sorry for the delay, I was wrestling hay rolls for my buddy and didn't get
> around to the photography until this morning.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail wheel strut |
Hi Gang:
Couple things about tail wheel struts.
1-For my own purposes, I find the struts about twice as long as
necessary. The long strut also agrevates the problem with bending,
permanently.
2-I use 4130 tail wheel strut. However, I have it heat treated to 48
RC, which turns it into a spring. Normalized 4130 is very stiff, and
if it bends, it stays bent.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 103 and slightly overweight |
At 11:06 AM 12/28/2006, TheWanderingWench wrote:
>...In spite of Dana's post:
>"I wonder about the plane that's otherwise legal but
>has a few extra coats of paint, or wheel brakes, or
>instruments, or whatever, that push the weigh up to
>255 lbs or 260 or 270 or so..."
>well - there's just no such thing as "otherwise
>legal". It's either legal (LESS than 254 lbs., 5 gal.
>gas, etc.) or it's not.
What I meant is an aircraft that would be legal if it wasn't overweight,
i.e. no extra seat, big tank, etc... but I think you knew that.
-Dana
--
--
A rolling stone .... kills worms
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 103 and slightly overweight |
At 09:47 AM 12/28/2006, Thom Riddle wrote:
>... If he/she has a pilot's certificate of any level issued by the FAA
>then they can sanction him by suspending or revoking his certificate for
>any FAR infraction. Once it is revoked the FAA can do nothing else. So if
>an "undocumented" "pilot" continues to fly his aircraft or vehicle, they
>have no remedy...
Thom, that's not correct. The FAA can and will impose a civil penalty (can
be in the thousands of dollars) for each violation, regardless of whether
the pilot has a valid airman certificate or not. If the pilot IS licensed,
they may offer the option of a fine OR a suspension.
-Dana
--
--
A rolling stone .... kills worms
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail wheel strut |
Jim, I have the 6" full swivel from Aircraft Spruce. Travis has the 4"
version, and may have the 6", too, at TNK.
Rick
On 12/28/06, Jim Dunn <jim@tru-cast.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rick, is that a fully castering tailwheel in the photo? The TW on my
> Firefly does not caster. If yours does caster, what is it and where can I
> get one?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
> > Sorry for the delay, I was wrestling hay rolls for my buddy and didn't
> get
> > around to the photography until this morning.
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tail wheel strut |
Thanks. At Spruce I assume it's the one for 5/8" tubing and 10 degrees?
Thanks,
Jim
> Jim, I have the 6" full swivel from Aircraft Spruce. Travis has the 4"
> version, and may have the 6", too, at TNK.
>
> Rick
>
> On 12/28/06, Jim Dunn <jim@tru-cast.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Rick, is that a fully castering tailwheel in the photo? The TW on my
>> Firefly does not caster. If yours does caster, what is it and where can
>> I
>> get one?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jim
>>
>> > Sorry for the delay, I was wrestling hay rolls for my buddy and didn't
>> get
>> > around to the photography until this morning.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rick Girard
> "Ya'll drop on in"
> takes on a whole new meaning
> when you live at the airport.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail wheel strut |
That's the one.
Rick
On 12/28/06, Jim Dunn <jim@tru-cast.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks. At Spruce I assume it's the one for 5/8" tubing and 10 degrees?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
> > Jim, I have the 6" full swivel from Aircraft Spruce. Travis has the 4"
> > version, and may have the 6", too, at TNK.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > On 12/28/06, Jim Dunn <jim@tru-cast.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Rick, is that a fully castering tailwheel in the photo? The TW on my
> >> Firefly does not caster. If yours does caster, what is it and where
> can
> >> I
> >> get one?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> > Sorry for the delay, I was wrestling hay rolls for my buddy and
> didn't
> >> get
> >> > around to the photography until this morning.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rick Girard
> > "Ya'll drop on in"
> > takes on a whole new meaning
> > when you live at the airport.
> >
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Best Oil Filter for the 912 |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi All,
I just spent the last month on oil filter research for the 912s.
Here are the top picks based on fact and safety valve bypass pressures.
If you want all the whys and how comes please call me at 520-574-1080 in Tucson,
Az.
Yes, there is a difference.
I just spent 1.5 hrs. typing on another forum and lost the whole thing so I'm not
up for retyping the whole thing.
This is the Readers Digest version.
1. Purolator best
Pure One PL10241
synthetic medium and 3.3" long
2. This is a tie
Mobile-1 M1-102 synthetic medium and more than the Mahle
Mahle OC 11, this is the Rotax 825-701 It is a good filter 2.44" long
3. Sorry John H., but this filter really does fall behind these others as far
as quality and filtering effiency. I used it too, until I did the research
and now it is most definitly Pure One.
Fram Tough Guard TG3614
Standard paper type medium, 3.3" long
All bypass pressures are similar. They all start at 12 psi and the Mahle OC 11
starts at 13 psi
No, 1psi does not make a difference.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84139#84139
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Best Oil Filter for the 912 |
What's wrong with the Rotax filter?
Would like to read your research and discussion paper on oil filters
for the 912S.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Best Oil Filter for the 912 |
Roger, good to know, there are equivalents out there. According to K & N
their HP-1002 is a replacement for the L-10241. If for no other reason that
it's all ready for safety wire, I'd like to know how they compare.
I'd be interested to know your research sources. Have you seen this study?
http://minimopar.knizefamily.net/oilfilterstudy.html
Rick
On 12/28/06, Roger Lee wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I just spent the last month on oil filter research for the 912s.
>
> Here are the top picks based on fact and safety valve bypass pressures.
> If you want all the whys and how comes please call me at 520-574-1080 in
> Tucson, Az.
> Yes, there is a difference.
> I just spent 1.5 hrs. typing on another forum and lost the whole thing so
> I'm not up for retyping the whole thing.
> This is the Readers Digest version.
>
> 1. Purolator best
> Pure One PL10241
> synthetic medium and 3.3" long
>
> 2. This is a tie
> Mobile-1 M1-102 synthetic medium and more than the Mahle
> Mahle OC 11, this is the Rotax 825-701 It is a good filter 2.44"
> long
>
> 3. Sorry John H., but this filter really does fall behind these others as
> far
> as quality and filtering effiency. I used it too, until I did the
> research
> and now it is most definitly Pure One.
> Fram Tough Guard TG3614
> Standard paper type medium, 3.3" long
>
> All bypass pressures are similar. They all start at 12 psi and the Mahle
> OC 11 starts at 13 psi
> No, 1psi does not make a difference.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84139#84139
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Arty (Trost) and group,
You mentioned that you know of a guy that was fined $4000 by the FAA.
Would you happen to have a case number that we could check. We have
many pilots that are not transitioning to SP that believe the FAA
will not enforce the rule due to lack of manpower or other reasons.
They are looking for a proof of enforcement. If you could provide
some proof, it may have an impact on them.
Thanks,
Ralph Burlingame
________________________________________________________________________
FREE for 30 Days! - Holiday eCards from AmericanGreetings.com
http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/index.pd?c=uol5637
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TheWanderingWench <thewanderingwench(at)yahoo.com> |
I don't have a case number - but you should be able to
track it down. It happened in Nampa, ID within the
past 18 mo. The fine was related to a BFI flying a
legitimate ultralight trainer over congestion to get
into Nampa Airport (where many ultralights are based.)
My understanding is that this happened even though the
Nampa Airport commission had approved a flight pattern
for ultralights and have good relationships with the
ultralighters. Under Sport Pilot - you CAN fly over
congestion.
By the way - my operating limitations (issued with my
airworthiness certificate in November, 2006) specify
that I can fly over congestion for purposes of landing
and taking off. In July, that limitation was changed
(and apparently I need to ask the FAA at our FSDO to
change my operating limitations to reflect current
regs) so that a E-LSA can fly over congestion even
when not required for taking off or landing.
Ralph, I have to add that I too have my doubts that
the FAA will have the staff to enforce Sport Pilot.
My understanding is that nationwide there are fewer
than 700 pilots transitioning themselves or their
"fat" ultralights. Quicksilver is running full-page
ads in Light Sport and Ultralight Flying! urging
people to transition, saying that there are at least
4500 Quick owners who still need to transition. (Of
course, we don't know how many of those are still
flying or still have planes, not pieces!)
Arty
--- Ralph wrote:
>
>
> Arty (Trost) and group,
>
> You mentioned that you know of a guy that was fined
> $4000 by the FAA.
> Would you happen to have a case number that we could
> check. We have
> many pilots that are not transitioning to SP that
> believe the FAA
> will not enforce the rule due to lack of manpower or
> other reasons.
> They are looking for a proof of enforcement. If you
> could provide
> some proof, it may have an impact on them.
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph Burlingame
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
> FREE for 30 Days! - Holiday eCards from
> AmericanGreetings.com
>
http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/index.pd?c=uol5637
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
>
>
>
www.LessonsFromTheEdge.com
"Life's a daring adventure or nothing"
Helen Keller
"I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net> |
At 11:17 AM 12/29/2006, TheWanderingWench wrote:
>...The fine was related to a BFI flying a
>legitimate ultralight trainer over congestion to get
>into Nampa Airport (where many ultralights are based.)...
That's a bit different from the original discussion about enforcement of
overweight machines when everything else is compliant. They've pursued
congested area or open air assembly violations whenever anybody
complains. There have even been a number of recent enforcement cases
against PPG's for congested area violations (including one case where they
interpreted a busy road that a pilot crossed as a congested area).
>Ralph, I have to add that I too have my doubts that
>the FAA will have the staff to enforce Sport Pilot.
>My understanding is that nationwide there are fewer
>than 700 pilots transitioning themselves or their
>"fat" ultralights...
True, they don't have the manpower to do widespread enforcement. However,
they can (and I suspect they will) take random "potshots" to make examples
of a few, like checking every plane at a few busy ultralight fields.
I think there will be a LOT more than 700 pilots transitioning... a lot of
them are simply waiting until the last minute, or until they hear of
enforcements starting.
-Dana
--
--
A rolling stone .... kills worms
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| That's a bit different from the original discussion about
enforcement of
| overweight machines when everything else is compliant. |
| -Dana
|
Dana:
Don't believe there is any such animal as an overweight ultralight
vehicle. Soon as they hit 254 lbs, they are now aircraft/airplanes.
I flew illegally, for the first six years of my UL career, in all the
States east of the Mississippi and some west of it. Also illegally
into Canada. I was never comfortable in this position for two
reasons: 1-Was contantly breaking the law, 2-Could not get liability
insurance. However, I rationalized that since I looked like an UL and
if I flew without drawing attention to myself, which I did not do a
good job of, I would be ok.
Stop for a moment and think about the high dollar airplanes one is
mingling with at almost any local airport. Accidently ding a Cessna
Citation and pay for it the rest of your life.
1992, I realized how much more comfortable I was flying my
experiemental/homebuilt registered airplane with insurance. Did not
have to constantly look over my shoulder.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <kfackler(at)ameritech.net> |
> > My understanding is that nationwide there are fewer
> > than 700 pilots transitioning
> Two have gotten their SP this past summer and more are working on it or
> intending.
If there are only 700 transitions, we seem to have a large number of them
right here. There are three on my home field, all Kolbs, and I seem to
recall several others here who announced their recent successes including
the late Dave Pelletier. I also know one other recent SP, yet another Kolb
owner, but who isn't based at my airport.
Surely there must be more than 700?
-Ken Fackler
Kolb Mark II / A722KWF
Rochester MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Best Oil Filter for the 912 |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi John,
There is nothing wrong with the Rotax filter #825-701 which is a Mahle
OC 11. It is a good filter and used on Ducatti motorcycles. I only offered up options
based on good research. I know you have used the TG3614 for years and so
have I, but new info has made me change. The Pure One is the same physical size
as the Fram TG 3614 and it is a better filter in construction and filter medium.
There is also a difference in the plain old Fram filter and the Tough Guard.
The Tough Guard is better.
That being said the Pure One PL10241 has far more filter medium and has a very
good synthetic medium.
The top three filters on that list are really good filters and you couldn't go
wrong using any of them. These are just options. The TG3614 is just a average
filter, but still ok since we change oil so often.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84299#84299
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Best Oil Filter for the 912 |
Roger L:
Was hoping you would give us some numbers/data/tests so we could see
what the differences are in the filters that were examined and tested.
Bypass valve release pressure is very important if one is operating in
cold climates. When the engine and oil is cold, is when the oil
pressure can overpower the bypass valve and dump dirty oil and crud
back into the system.
I have looked at several comparisons, two different sites, but not
come to any conclusive evidence. Most of it is preference on the
examiners/comparers part.
john h
mkIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Best Oil Filter for the 912 |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi John,
The "safety valve bypass pressure" is important, but all the filters listed are
at 12 psi or 13 psi. The Pure One, Fram Tough Guard and the Mobile 1 start at
12 psi and they are full open at 15 psi. The Mahle starts at 13 psi and is full
open at 15.9 psi. Talking to the engineers and reading the articles 1 psi made
no real difference. The springs are not that exact and can differ slightly
even between filters with the same number. The cold morning problem should not
be an issue for most people that use the proper viscosity (usually multi viscosity
is better) and a good grade oil as in the semi and full synthetics. Poreability
is down into the low -30 to -50 F and if it's that cold I want to watch
a guy go fly and open or semi open Kolb. Most of the really cold climate guys
use some type of an engine or oil heater anyway. If your filter is that clogged
then you have a more serious problem to worry about or have done something
seriously wrong.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84357#84357
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | riquenkelly(at)aol.com |
Larry,
With the airspace it may be just as fast to drive up. Do you have an address
I could stick in the Garmin street map?
Thanks,
Rique
-----Original Message-----
From: Cat36Fly(at)aol.com
Sent: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kold in Fl
There is a MKlllx about hrs driving time north of in Md. If you are interested
I can give you directions or you could fly into MD1 (Massey Aerodrome) in Massey
Md.
Larry Tasker
MKlllx 582
N615RT
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | riquenkelly(at)aol.com |
Sorry for the mass email! my mistake.
-----Original Message-----
From: riquenkelly(at)aol.com
Sent: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kold in Fl
Larry,
With the airspace it may be just as fast to drive up. Do you have an address
I could stick in the Garmin street map?
Thanks,
Rique
-----Original Message-----
From: Cat36Fly(at)aol.com
Sent: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kold in Fl
There is a MKlllx about hrs driving time north of in Md. If you are interested
I can give you directions or you could fly into MD1 (Massey Aerodrome) in Massey
Md.
Larry Tasker
MKlllx 582
N615RT
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Payment Question |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Paypal is a big company with a good reputation. I have used them for years, and
use them a LOT, never the slightest problem. As Eugene said, if you got ripped
off, you probably did something wrong.
Phishing is done all the time - Crooks imitate banks, paypal, and all sorts of
legitimate companies. If someone rips you off by representing themselves as
Citibank, its not the fault of the bank. Just as paypal is not repsonsible for
every crook that manages to talk people out of thier money using their name.
JettPilot
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84413#84413
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rotax 912-S Users, What RPM do you look for on takeoff ? |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
I have been reading the Rotax manual and it says the RPM limit is 5500 - 5800 for
only one minute, with no limitation below 5500 RPM. Are you guys proping your
planes to takeoff and climb out below 5500 RPM at full throttle ? Or are you
seeing higher RPM's than that in the climb and pulling the power back before
you exceed one minute ? Will the engine last longer if it is setup to run under
5500 RPM no matter what the throttle setting ?
Thanks,
Micheal A. Bigelow
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84414#84414
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Best Oil Filter for the 912 |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Where do you get the purolater filter ?
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84415#84415
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell(at)fmtcblue.com> |
Things seem to be a bit slow on the list, so I thought that I would
relate my flight today. If you saw the admittedly poor quality video
that I posted to Google you can see that the area here is high Desert
with a pretty spectacular Owyhee Canyon cutting through it. My primary
purpose in life since my retirement is flying a Firestar and two
Peregrine Falcons. Sometimes the Firestar plays a pretty important part
in the other pursuit. What I am scouting for is Sage Grouse, and their
primary predator is the Golden Eagle, so the best way to find them is
about 25 feet above the ground. They loose their nerve and flush, there
by revealing their presence.
I was actually hoping to get to Boise today to get a start on my SP lic,
but the CFI already had another guy lined up, and one coming in from
Wyoming for tomorrow. Guess I will have to wait a while. So since it was
such a great day, I gassed up and rolled her out. I wanted to do a
little more scouting for places to fly the falcons. About the only thing
left to hunt is Sage Grouse, and it takes so long to get anywhere here
that the chance to cut down on the scouting time is welcome. Karen and
I drove 103 miles across unknown Desert yesterday on some pretty poor
"two track" roads looking for birds and saw nothing while managing to
burn the whole day. There is a route along the Owyhee canyon that I have
tried twice to cover and run out of time. Today I cut straight across
country in the plane and found that it was a bust as well. It used to be
a good wintering area for the Grouse, but it was burned this year (69000
acres). I didn't know how far the burn extended so this was a chance to
actually get it surveyed while having fun too. The roads were a mess
with the warm weather and the Bureau of Land Management driving it every
day going in there to replant after the burn. By spring it will be a
nice grass land that holds no game. :-/
I cut across the River and went up a side canyon that I like, called
Bogus Basin. Found that the little camera that I was carrying had dead
batteries, so settled down to some terrain flying going up a little
frozen creek to see where it went. It headed up with two really nice
ponds that were thawed and full of Ducks. I might not be able to use it
this year, but next year it will be a great place to hunt the birds. If
it gets cold enough I still may be able to access it this year. My fuel
had about reached half way so I followed a road that I thought lead to
Rome, (all roads go there don't they?) That is a little community on Hwy
95 where it crosses the Owyhee River. It would be a short cut to me
going to Bogus Basin. At Rome there is a large amount of Pheasants, and
I think that I can get permission to fly them occasionally. I checked
the fields and found at least 30 or more rooster Pheasants.
After that I headed for home, going up the Hwy. I wonder what the
drivers thought of me flying about 75 feet above the road and matching
their speed. Then buzzing the house just above the wires at about 80
plus and down on the runway. When I got back at the hanger I found that
the back tank had seemed to draw almost all of the gas from it. ( They
are teed together) I had more than 3 gals in the front tank and about
1.5 in the back tank.
I took the pickup tube out and blew it out, but could really find
nothing wrong with it. Perhaps it is pinched. I have one of the filter
pickups on the tubing, but it also has an alum. pickup tube that may
well be too long. I will check that tomorrow. My flight was 1 hour and
35 minutes. I didn't have the rear curtains on and the temps were in the
20's. My feet did get a bit cold, my face was chilled a bit at first,
but seemed to get used to it. A trip to the hot tub and a beer soon put
me right again.
Larry, Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912-S Users, What RPM do you look for on takeoff |
?
| From: | "John Hauck" <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> |
Good Morning:
I don't think Thom is flying a MKIII, so his take off rpm is not going to be the
same as what I see.
I prop my MKIII same same Thom, 5500 rpm straight and level. Gives me best take
off, climb, and cruise.
Prop it 5400 static.
Will see 5200 to 5300 rpm on climb, depending on air temp.
A few feet after the MKIII begins its takeoff roll, like 10 to 20 feet, rpm will
be pulled from 5400 down to 5300.
Flying a 912ULS slowly will not increase service life. If anything, it will shorten
it. This engine is designed to cruise at 5500 rpm max continuous. The
manufacturer would not publish these numbers if they thought it would shorten
the 912ULS's life. I normally cruise 5000 to 5200 rpm. Many flights over the
Rockies have seen wide open throttle for several hours as we climb to 15,000
feet to get across the mountains.
If you fly with an inflight adjustable prop you can takeoff at 5800 rpm, climb
for 5 minutes at 5800 rpm, then pull it back to 5500 rpm for cruise. However,
it is noisier and the MKIII rougher riding at those speeds. 5000 is much quieter.
Take care,
jhauck
mkIII
PS: Another very important point is, the 912 series engines need at least 190F
oil temp to burn off moisture and contaminants in the oil. You will not see
this by flying less than 5,000 rpm. Also, slow flight will not keep the engine
clean. When I fly local area for a while, the engine is starting to get carboned
up and dirty. Usually, after the first day or two of a long cross country
flight I can tell she is getting cleaned up by the sound, feel, and performance
of the little 912ULS. I like to keep her happy.
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84455#84455
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Laird" <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912-S Users, What RPM do you look for on takeoff |
?
I'll second what John is saying -- no surprise there since he's my 912S
mentor!
On take off, I get to about 5350 rpm... with 1-up, I cruise between 4950 and
5200 rpm, all day long, depending on how fast I want to go.
-- Robert
MkIIIc w/912S
On 12/30/06, John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> Good Morning:
>
> I don't think Thom is flying a MKIII, so his take off rpm is not going to
> be the same as what I see.
>
> I prop my MKIII same same Thom, 5500 rpm straight and level. Gives me
> best take off, climb, and cruise.
>
> Prop it 5400 static.
>
> Will see 5200 to 5300 rpm on climb, depending on air temp.
>
> A few feet after the MKIII begins its takeoff roll, like 10 to 20 feet,
> rpm will be pulled from 5400 down to 5300.
>
> Flying a 912ULS slowly will not increase service life. If anything, it
> will shorten it. This engine is designed to cruise at 5500 rpm max
> continuous. The manufacturer would not publish these numbers if they
> thought it would shorten the 912ULS's life. I normally cruise 5000 to 5200
> rpm. Many flights over the Rockies have seen wide open throttle for several
> hours as we climb to 15,000 feet to get across the mountains.
>
> If you fly with an inflight adjustable prop you can takeoff at 5800 rpm,
> climb for 5 minutes at 5800 rpm, then pull it back to 5500 rpm for
> cruise. However, it is noisier and the MKIII rougher riding at those
> speeds. 5000 is much quieter.
>
> Take care,
>
> jhauck
> mkIII
>
> PS: Another very important point is, the 912 series engines need at least
> 190F oil temp to burn off moisture and contaminants in the oil. You will
> not see this by flying less than 5,000 rpm. Also, slow flight will not keep
> the engine clean. When I fly local area for a while, the engine is starting
> to get carboned up and dirty. Usually, after the first day or two of a long
> cross country flight I can tell she is getting cleaned up by the sound,
> feel, and performance of the little 912ULS. I like to keep her happy.
>
> --------
> John Hauck
> MKIII/912ULS
> hauck's holler, alabama
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84455#84455
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Best Oil Filter for the 912 |
| From: | "JetPilot" <orcabonita(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Roger
Talking about Fram filters, I always use them in my car as they sell some High
end filters also. Did you consider or get information on the Higher End fram
filters like the Extended Guard ?
Im wondering how the more expensive Fram Extended Guard with the metal mesh, etc.
etc. would compare against the Tough Gaurd and the Purolater ?
JettPilot
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84532#84532
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Best Oil Filter for the 912 |
| From: | "Roger Lee" <ssadiver1(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Jetpilot,
Believe it or not the Fram Tough Guard was rated higher than the Extra Guard. If
I remember right the Extra Guard has TFE which was what people used to put in
stuff like Slick 50 (just teflon). Most people agree now that you should not
use that in your engines and no real evidence supports any benifits.
Some people will quote a filter as being able to filter, let's say 10 microns.
This does not really mean a whole lot unless you quantify it with an effiency
rating, i.e. 10 microns at 80%, then larger particles get through the other 20%.
Different filters have different effiency ratings. The Tough Guard has a metal
mesh screen filtration if the safety bypass were to open.
The Tough Guard and the others are good average filters, but the Pure One is better.
Better medium and effientcy rating.
Hope this helps.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=84572#84572
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Prop Pitch... |
In a message dated 12/30/2006 8:14:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
david(at)davidlehman.net writes:
I borrowed a 66" 3 blade Warp Drive prop to try on my 503 DCDI original
Firestar... I have to assemble it tonight... How many degrees of pitch should
I
start with?...
Man........I hope you have a "C" or "E" box.............
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne T. McCullough" <blackbird754(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Pitch... |
We have installed a 3 blade warp drive on a Rans S-14 clipped wing in
the last 2 weeks.....We started at 10 degrees.....66 inch prop on a C
box.......
Flew it today using Tiny Tach for reading of rpms......Climb out at 6150
rpms.....Chart shows do not exceed 6500 for a DCDI 503...
Have never had a Tiny Tach fail me for reading (most important for
setting pitch). Sweeping gauges do lie........went through 4 on my
T-bird last year....
You have to tweak each setup to get the rpms for climbout........Two
strokes must NOT get behind in the power band.....
Next, an Avid Flyer to troubleshoot.. (came in yesterday from Tyler,
Texas on a trailer)......Sometimes I hate being the president of the
club, but I cannot let my friends fly stupidly either......Now , back to
my Kolbra.....
WT in Springfield, GA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne T. McCullough" <blackbird754(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Pitch... |
I stand corrected.....The Rans uses a "B" Box....................
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart(at)onlyinternet.net> |
| Subject: | 2006 FireFly Flight Stats |
Kolbers,
Raining so I can not fly on the last day of the year. From my flight log, I
compiled the following numbers and significant FireFly mods.
# of Total Average
Year Flights Time Flight
(hrs-min)
2006 59 24:09 0:26
2005 62 25:05 0:24
2004 117 44:38 0:23
2003 101 34:52 0:21
2002+ 82 14:11 0:10
2001 109 31:45 0:17
2000@ 74 29:07 0:24
1999*% 28 14:30 0:31
--------------------------
Totals 632^ 218:17 0:21
December 01, 2006 - December 31, 2006
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-gk