Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:27 AM - Re: engines (Larry Bourne)
2. 04:50 AM - Re: engines (Kirk Smith)
3. 05:03 AM - Re: Second Chanz Chute (Airgriff2@aol.com)
4. 05:36 AM - Re: Re: Second Chanz Chute (John Hauck)
5. 07:16 AM - Re: Re: Second Chanz Chute (Richard Pike)
6. 07:57 AM - Re: Re: Second Chanz Chute (Kirk Smith)
7. 08:14 AM - Re: engines n uppness (Jeremy Casey)
8. 08:43 AM - Re: engines (Rick & Martha Neilsen)
9. 09:29 AM - Re: engines (Christopher Armstrong)
10. 09:33 AM - Re: engines n uppness (Jack & Louise Hart)
11. 11:09 AM - Re: engines n uppness (Jeremy Casey)
12. 11:18 AM - Mark 3 project sold... (Jeremy Casey)
13. 11:21 AM - Re: engines n uppness (Kevin Jones)
14. 12:12 PM - Re: Verner comments (vincenicely)
15. 12:21 PM - Re: Verner comments (Jeremy Casey)
16. 12:52 PM - Re: engines (John Hauck)
17. 01:18 PM - Re: engines n uppness (Jack & Louise Hart)
18. 02:33 PM - Second Chantz (Airgriff2@aol.com)
19. 02:49 PM - Re: Second Chantz (John Hauck)
20. 04:25 PM - Re: Second Chantz (Bill Peterson Landscape)
21. 04:31 PM - Re: Mark 3 project sold... (Richard Harris)
22. 04:39 PM - Gascolator (tom sabean)
23. 06:00 PM - Re: Re: Second Chanz Chute (George Murphy)
24. 06:13 PM - Re: Second Chanz Chute (Ken Korenek)
25. 06:21 PM - Re: Second Chantz (John Hauck)
26. 06:23 PM - Re: Gascolator (John Hauck)
27. 06:42 PM - Re: Re: Second Chanz Chute (John Hauck)
28. 06:44 PM - Re: leading edge folding (George Murphy)
29. 07:30 PM - Re: Second Chantz (Christopher Armstrong)
30. 07:36 PM - Re: Second Chantz (Richard Swiderski)
31. 07:42 PM - Re: Second Chantz (John Hauck)
32. 07:43 PM - Re: Second Chantz (John Hauck)
33. 07:50 PM - Cable connector (Timandjan@aol.com)
34. 07:52 PM - Re: Gascolator (Timandjan@aol.com)
35. 08:05 PM - Re: Gascolator (Richard Pike)
36. 08:06 PM - Re: Second Chantz (possums)
37. 08:21 PM - Re: engines n uppness (Larry Bourne)
38. 08:29 PM - Re: Mark 3 project sold... (Larry Bourne)
39. 08:43 PM - Re: Second Chantz (ul15rhb@juno.com)
40. 09:55 PM - Re: Cable connector (HShack@aol.com)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
For interest value only, since the Harley engines were mentioned the same
day.............and someone might just decide they want one. Do
not Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "woody" <duesouth@govital.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: engines
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: woody <duesouth@govital.net>
>
> At 09:12 AM 12/16/02 -0800, you wrote:
> >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
> >
> >Just by co-incidence...............I was re-reading page 56 of the July,
'02
> >Sport Aviation magazine this morning, and there's an item about a fella
> >named Mike Lecka, of Fayetteville, NC, who's installing an 80 hp/88 ci
> >Harley Twin Cam Model B engine into a small plane. Gives his email as
> >harleykitplane1@aol.com . Hmmmm...............80 hp out of 175 lb
isn't
> >all THAT bad. Lar. Do not Archive.
>
>
> Yes but at what cost? Corvair is about 205 lb and 110 hp.
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
A few years ago there was an article in Kitplanes magazine, I think it was
kitplanes anyway. It was about a Yamaha Virago installation on a Newport
Replica. The guy replaced the tranny yoke with a prop flange and spun the
prop right off the tranny in third gear I believe it was. It flew, but
marginally. I had an old wrecked Virago and got curious then. The engine
was damaged but complete. I pulled it out of the wreck and weighed it on
the bathroom scales. 190- 200 lbs. I then proceeded to tear the tranny
gears, and clutch out. When done it tipped the scales in the mid 130 lb
range. I think that engine puts out in the 40 to 50 hp range. Got an old
Honda GL1000 out in the barn and that is a sweet engine, 80 hp, but I bet
the tranny in that weighs 100lbs. Snuffy
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chanz Chute |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Airgriff2@aol.com
When Second Chanz went out of business, all the owners were sort of just hung
out there without much support. What I was wondering is , am I one of only a
handfull who are using their system yet ,or are there others? My MK3 was
the prototype for their soft pack set up in the gap seal. John Dunham had my
unit on display at Sun & Fun. I have been flying with mine since 95. Every 3
yrs I take it to a rigger, who inspects the chute and repacks it. Should I
have any concern as to whether or not the rocket will work? I guess what I'm
asking is, should I be relying on this older system, leave it in as a back up
that "may work", or take it out and scrap it?
With all the knowledge and experience of list members, I will see what your
responce is and decide from there.
Fly Safe
Bob Griffin
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chanz Chute |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> Should I
> have any concern as to whether or not the rocket will work?
> Bob Griffin
Bob/Gang:
Is your system solid fuel or air deployed?
john h
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chanz Chute |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@preferred.com>
I am still using mine, and as long as the nitrogen cylinder's pressure
gauge stays where it has been since I bought it, I can't see why it
wouldn't still be ready to go. I will be having mine repacked this year also.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
At 08:01 AM 12/17/02 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: Airgriff2@aol.com
>
>When Second Chanz went out of business, all the owners were sort of just hung
>out there without much support. What I was wondering is , am I one of only a
>handfull who are using their system yet ,or are there others? My MK3 was
>the prototype for their soft pack set up in the gap seal. John Dunham had my
>unit on display at Sun & Fun. I have been flying with mine since 95. Every 3
>yrs I take it to a rigger, who inspects the chute and repacks it. Should I
>have any concern as to whether or not the rocket will work? I guess what I'm
>asking is, should I be relying on this older system, leave it in as a back up
>that "may work", or take it out and scrap it?
> With all the knowledge and experience of list members, I will see what your
>responce is and decide from there.
>Fly Safe
>Bob Griffin
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chanz Chute |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
Who repacks them? I also have a Second Chanz with the Nitrogen cylinder .
Seems like we should be able to recharge the cylinder also, though mine
still reads the same as new.
>
> I am still using mine, and as long as the nitrogen cylinder's pressure
> gauge stays where it has been since I bought it, I can't see why it
> wouldn't still be ready to go. I will be having mine repacked this year
also.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | engines n uppness |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey@ldl.net>
> George,
>
> Let's be fair about this. The 447 dressed with carburetor, cooling
fan and
> shrouds, and exhaust system weighs considerable more than 65 pounds.
>
> I am pleased that someone loves Rotax engines, because this love
enabled me
> to sell my 447. I am very happy to go to a replacement engine that
weighs
> the same as the dressed 447, which includes electric starter and
battery,
> uses much less gas, puts out more power, and a muffler so quiet that I
do
> not have to turn on my ANR headset, idles below 2000 rpm without
complaint
> or vibration, and follows the throttle without hesitation and holds a
> constant rpm setting in level flight. This is progress. If the 447
had
> acted this way, I would not have changed.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Jackson, MO
>
>
> Jack &Louise Hart
>
Hey Jack! I never said the 447 was the ultimate engine...only that it
compared rediculessly great compared with the early aviation engines. If
yours puts out more power at the same weight, uses less gas to do it,
uses a
better muffler (not a resonator that pulls more hp?) , idles at less
than
2000 rpm, then I need to look into it too, provided it has a good track
record. My 447 also follows the throttle without hesitation and holds a
constant rpm in level flight. As far as the weight is concerned, you're
probably correct as I was just guessing from '92 when I built it and I
was
much stronger then. :-) What engine do you use on your firestar?
George Randolph
Firestar driver from Akron, Oh
<snip>
One that seized very early in it's life due to some "teething" problems
with a new installation. I don't want to sound critical of Jack cause
he is an exception...by all appearances he is a guy who loves to
experiment more than fly and obviously has the technological know-how to
diagnose problems and come up with solutions and MORE IMPORTANTLY has
the time and patience to do it. Buuuuuutttttt I say this for the
"newbies" out there that are considering a project and thinking about
going against the "herd" and putting an "alternative engine" on their
planes...you WILL take considerably longer to build the plane and it
WILL take considerably longer to get it right. If you want to fly,
DON'T be a trailblazer. If you enjoy tinkering and experimenting more
than flying, then get you an alternative engine and have at it.
Look at our list "punching bag" Big Lar...if he wasn't so darned
creative, he'd have been flying a long time ago... ;-)
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey@ldl.net
P.S. If my 503 had been any quicker to accelerate/decelerate when I
moved the throttle...it would have had to read my mind to get a head
start on me...
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Rick & Martha Neilsen" <neilsenrm@cs.com>
It's fun to talk about all the possible engines that would do a better,
cheaper job of powering our airplanes. It seems like an easy thing to mount
a high power light weight engine on a airplane and go flying but it's not.
We have all seen engines promised that will knock Rotax out of the market,
most never make it to the point of sale. Some actually get sold but don't
deliver as promised.
There are three things every one seems to focus on power, weight and price.
There are many, MANY other things that have to be considered and or dealt
with to mount a automotive or motor cycle engine on a airplane. I have made
two complete attempts to put a VW on a Kolb MKIII and have had a certain
level of success on each attempt. The first attempt was with a direct drive
VW which resulted good in a single passenger MKIII. On the second attempt
with a reduction drive VW I now have a good two passenger MKIII. I don't
have Rotax even close to worried. I have learned a lot but still don't have
the perfect setup for the VW. I guess what I'm saying is don't pick a new
engine to put on your Kolb to save money.
I have been lucky in that I was able to sell my 1st engine and prop on E-Bay
for just about what it cost me. On my current engine I spent all last summer
swapping reduction drives with Gene Smith (My reduction Drive builder)
trying to get a better engine, drive ratio, prop fit for more of a speed
range. This cost me only shipping, phone calls and my time. I'm back to the
original ratio and not sure were to go from here.
Don't give up on your dreams but be realistic. Good aircraft engine design
isn't easy or cheep or there would be a bunch of new engines out there
scaring hell out of Rotax.
My $.02 worth
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIII
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of woody
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: engines
--> Kolb-List message posted by: woody <duesouth@govital.net>
At 09:12 AM 12/16/02 -0800, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
>
>Just by co-incidence...............I was re-reading page 56 of the July,
'02
>Sport Aviation magazine this morning, and there's an item about a fella
>named Mike Lecka, of Fayetteville, NC, who's installing an 80 hp/88 ci
>Harley Twin Cam Model B engine into a small plane. Gives his email as
>harleykitplane1@aol.com . Hmmmm...............80 hp out of 175 lb isn't
>all THAT bad. Lar. Do not Archive.
Yes but at what cost? Corvair is about 205 lb and 110 hp.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475@CenturyTel.net>
Having been working with powersport aviation for 5 years developing an
aircraft engine I can tell you that it isnt easy and it is expensive. Our
product is 215 hp so it is quite a bit more in every way then an engine for
a kolb but developing a sound solution at 50 or 100 hp will be no cake walk
either. THe main thing that is difficult is that for aviation engines
weight is such a significant factorm that unless it is one of the prime
considerations through out the design of the engine the resultant package
will be so heavy as to make all the effort in the world a waste of time.
The rotax 2 strokes are not bad engines and have a great compromise between
weight and reliability. If Rotax would put a good fuel injection system on
them you would probably never hear of engine seasures... Still dont know why
they havven't done that. till someone with lots and lots of money starts
an engine from scratch I think they are going to be the best solution for
us. Mark Bierle's radial cam engine and the engine being developed for the
skyscooter both have great promise, but do they have the financial backing
they need to get them out the door, and take a decent chunck of the fairly
small market so that they can be long term players in the business? to do
that is around a half million dollar outlay of capital. That isnt a WAG
either. it is based on direct experiance at doing this.
by the way anybody with some money you want to invest in an aviation
business can send it my way! You want to know how to make a million in
aviation? Start with 2 million.
Topher
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | engines n uppness |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
>
>One that seized very early in it's life due to some "teething" problems
>with a new installation. I don't want to sound critical of Jack cause
>he is an exception...by all appearances he is a guy who loves to
>experiment more than fly and obviously has the technological know-how to
>diagnose problems and come up with solutions and MORE IMPORTANTLY has
>the time and patience to do it. Buuuuuutttttt I say this for the
>"newbies" out there that are considering a project and thinking about
>going against the "herd" and putting an "alternative engine" on their
>planes...you WILL take considerably longer to build the plane and it
>WILL take considerably longer to get it right. If you want to fly,
>DON'T be a trailblazer. If you enjoy tinkering and experimenting more
>than flying, then get you an alternative engine and have at it.
>
>Look at our list "punching bag" Big Lar...if he wasn't so darned
>creative, he'd have been flying a long time ago... ;-)
>
>Jeremy Casey
>jrcasey@ldl.net
>
Jeremy,
You are correct about the time required, but not about the enjoyment. The purpose
of "tinkering and experimenting" is to increase flying enjoyment. I call
the FireFly upgrade process wart removal, and over the years I have been removing
one wart at a time. I built the FireFly to the plans and I discovered first
that brakes were a requirement to make me feel comfortable taxiing around other
planes. Then I discovered that the ailerons were too heavy for middle of
the day or/and cross country flight so I went from 15 to 9 inch chord ailerons
and changed push rod location to balance out aileron forces. Added vortex generators
to reduce roll twitchyness, and to give better low speed lift after
a nose over on grass. Added in cockpit trims for roll and pitch to reduce the
energy required to fly. Added strobes and bright nose light to let others know
that a stealthy FireFly was in the pattern. At this point I had a FireFly
that was a delight to fly, but for only short periods of time due to one last
huge wart - high fuel consumption rates.
I know that Part 103 was not implemented with the idea of flying ultra light vehicles
flying across country. But if one can meet Part 103 requirements and still
fly across country what would be the harm? I wanted to increase the enjoyment
by being able to fly more than an hour and fifteen minutes with out worrying
about running out of gas. This lead to the engine change and it looks like
it is going to work out well, but it is much too early to tell.
For the most part, I believe in small incremental change because it lets you continue
(enjoy) to fly during the whole process of improvement or experimentation
and greatly reduces the chance for unexpected events. Each time you get it
to fly a little better with less energy on your part the more enjoyable the flight
becomes. Right now I have only one more change to make and that is to add
fairings to the struts and aileron push rod tubes. This should improve range
and speed a little.
I was a "newbie" just three/four years ago, but I do have an advantage that I am
a retired "newbie" and this FireFly has been a lot of fun. I started the web
site so that my children who live several states away could be kept abreast
of the FireFly progress. Because of this mailing list, it has been a way to show
how one FireFly builder has done it. Has it been worth all the effort? Yes!
I don't miss the sore shoulder from heavy ailerons and non electric start,
and the I like the quietness and low fuel consumption rates of the new engine.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | engines n uppness |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey@ldl.net>
>
Jeremy,
You are correct about the time required, but not about the enjoyment.
The purpose of "tinkering and experimenting" is to increase flying
enjoyment. I call the FireFly upgrade process wart removal, and over
the years I have been removing one wart at a time. I built the FireFly
to the plans and I discovered first that brakes were a requirement to
make me feel comfortable taxiing around other planes. Then I discovered
that the ailerons were too heavy for middle of the day or/and cross
country flight so I went from 15 to 9 inch chord ailerons and changed
push rod location to balance out aileron forces. Added vortex
generators to reduce roll twitchyness, and to give better low speed lift
after a nose over on grass. Added in cockpit trims for roll and pitch
to reduce the energy required to fly. Added strobes and bright nose
light to let others know that a stealthy FireFly was in the pattern. At
this point I had a FireFly that was a delight to fly, but for only short
period!
s of time due to one last huge wart - high fuel consumption rates.
I know that Part 103 was not implemented with the idea of flying ultra
light vehicles flying across country. But if one can meet Part 103
requirements and still fly across country what would be the harm? I
wanted to increase the enjoyment by being able to fly more than an hour
and fifteen minutes with out worrying about running out of gas. This
lead to the engine change and it looks like it is going to work out
well, but it is much too early to tell.
For the most part, I believe in small incremental change because it lets
you continue (enjoy) to fly during the whole process of improvement or
experimentation and greatly reduces the chance for unexpected events.
Each time you get it to fly a little better with less energy on your
part the more enjoyable the flight becomes. Right now I have only one
more change to make and that is to add fairings to the struts and
aileron push rod tubes. This should improve range and speed a little.
I was a "newbie" just three/four years ago, but I do have an advantage
that I am a retired "newbie" and this FireFly has been a lot of fun. I
started the web site so that my children who live several states away
could be kept abreast of the FireFly progress. Because of this mailing
list, it has been a way to show how one FireFly builder has done it.
Has it been worth all the effort? Yes! I don't miss the sore shoulder
from heavy ailerons and non electric start, and the I like the quietness
and low fuel consumption rates of the new engine.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
<SNIP>
Fair enough...I understand the enjoyment thing...kinda misspoke that
one. Main point I was trying to get across was the time issue. I
haven't read every word of your website, but I figured you were blessed
with a retirement... ;-) (I want one too!!!) cause I know the effort
that went into what you've done to that Firefly was at least as costly
in time as it was in money and know-how. I made 3 simple (?) changes to
my Mark 3 project (new seats, Full Lotus float mounts, and larger fuel
tank) and I spent more time designing and fab'ing those changes than
building the rest of the plane...
Bottom line... if you want to fly, then build it to the plans, go with a
"someone's been there already" engine and keep the "creativity" to a
minimum. THEN..... put your "creative" juices to work making
improvements (like Rev. Pike, Jack, and countless others...) otherwise
if you try to add every little idea as your building it...you'll never
finish it (at least not till retirement ;-) )
Off Soapbox...
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey@ldl.net
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mark 3 project sold... |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey@ldl.net>
I thought I'd drop a note to let the few that know me and my little M3
project know that it will soon have a new owner. After the birth of my
second child and the realization that time was now at an ultra-premium
and I would be watching this child graduate high school before I
finished my Kolb, I have sold it to someone that will finish it and put
it to good use. I am definitely a "flyer" more than a "builder" and
would rather spend the 2 or 3 hours a week that are free, flying instead
of building. I have made a deal on a RANS S7 that will be my little red
wagon for awhile and hope to see some of you fellas at some fly-ins
soon. (Will definitely be at Sun-n-Fun)
I am going to hang around on this list (if for no other reason, to see
if Big Lar ever finishes his... ;-0 )
Fly safe...
Jeremy Casey
BCD Drafting, Inc.
jrcasey@ldl.net
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines n uppness |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kevin Jones" <kevin-jones@snet.net>
I missed what went before. What engine did you get that's so much better
than the 447?
kj
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey@ldl.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: engines n uppness
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey@ldl.net>
>
>
> > George,
> >
> > Let's be fair about this. The 447 dressed with carburetor, cooling
> fan and
> > shrouds, and exhaust system weighs considerable more than 65 pounds.
> >
> > I am pleased that someone loves Rotax engines, because this love
> enabled me
> > to sell my 447. I am very happy to go to a replacement engine that
> weighs
> > the same as the dressed 447, which includes electric starter and
> battery,
> > uses much less gas, puts out more power, and a muffler so quiet that I
> do
> > not have to turn on my ANR headset, idles below 2000 rpm without
> complaint
> > or vibration, and follows the throttle without hesitation and holds a
> > constant rpm setting in level flight. This is progress. If the 447
> had
> > acted this way, I would not have changed.
> >
> > Jack B. Hart FF004
> > Jackson, MO
> >
> >
> > Jack &Louise Hart
> >
> Hey Jack! I never said the 447 was the ultimate engine...only that it
> compared rediculessly great compared with the early aviation engines. If
>
> yours puts out more power at the same weight, uses less gas to do it,
> uses a
> better muffler (not a resonator that pulls more hp?) , idles at less
> than
> 2000 rpm, then I need to look into it too, provided it has a good track
>
> record. My 447 also follows the throttle without hesitation and holds a
> constant rpm in level flight. As far as the weight is concerned, you're
>
> probably correct as I was just guessing from '92 when I built it and I
> was
> much stronger then. :-) What engine do you use on your firestar?
>
> George Randolph
> Firestar driver from Akron, Oh
>
> <snip>
>
> One that seized very early in it's life due to some "teething" problems
> with a new installation. I don't want to sound critical of Jack cause
> he is an exception...by all appearances he is a guy who loves to
> experiment more than fly and obviously has the technological know-how to
> diagnose problems and come up with solutions and MORE IMPORTANTLY has
> the time and patience to do it. Buuuuuutttttt I say this for the
> "newbies" out there that are considering a project and thinking about
> going against the "herd" and putting an "alternative engine" on their
> planes...you WILL take considerably longer to build the plane and it
> WILL take considerably longer to get it right. If you want to fly,
> DON'T be a trailblazer. If you enjoy tinkering and experimenting more
> than flying, then get you an alternative engine and have at it.
>
> Look at our list "punching bag" Big Lar...if he wasn't so darned
> creative, he'd have been flying a long time ago... ;-)
>
> Jeremy Casey
> jrcasey@ldl.net
>
> P.S. If my 503 had been any quicker to accelerate/decelerate when I
> moved the throttle...it would have had to read my mind to get a head
> start on me...
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Verner comments |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "vincenicely" <vincenicely@chartertn.net>
Hi Gang,
A recent post said: If you cruise the 582 at 5800 rpm you are not using 75%
power, its more
like 92%. Reference torque/horsepower chart for 582
I often see comments on this list that relate to power used or comparing
engine performances, and I have a comment and question. The comment may be
misguided, so the question will be for those with better knowledge to help
me get this right.
I have the impression that the power generated by an engine on an airplane
is that required to turn the propellor and is given by the load the
propellor transmits to the engine. Thus, if a 582 engine will turn the
propellor at 6500 rpm, say flying straight and level, and then will turn the
propellor at 5800 rpm in similar flight, the engine's ultimate power curve
in the brochure is useless. So, we need to know how the propellor transmits
load to the engine to estimate what the power generation of the engine is.
This makes all generalizations a little chancy, but if I intrepret some of
the books I have correctly we can get some information.
The power used by a propellor depends upon several factors including the
propellor's rpm to the 3rd power, the angle of attack of the blade and other
factors. So, for the 582, for example, the power drawn by the blade at 5800
rpm compared to 6500 rpm is (5800/6500)
3=0.71 if every thing else were
equal. Thus, we are talking 71% power at 5800 rpm on a 582. However, that
is not quite right because the airplane's speed will change with the changed
rpm and the angle of attack of the blade on the air will change. Thus, the
power is somewhere near 70%, but not exactly that.
Speaking of brochures, some of the older catalogs (I don't have any new
ones) show a power curve for the engine and then superimposed a "power
required of propellor" curve. For example, the 2000 CPS catalog has such
curves on page 24 for the Rotax 582. As I read those curves, the Rotax 582
set up to use the full 64 horsepower at 6500 RPM would draw about 47
horspower at 5800 RPM for 73% power. That is far below the ultimate
capability of the engine at 5800 RPM but is what is required by the
application of the power to a propellor set to draw max power at 6500 RPM
and under some test circumstances that might not be the same as on your
airplane going 60 MPH.
Interestingly enough, the thrust generated by the propellor has a different
relationship to its rotational speed, i.e., it is related to the square of
the rotational speed if everything else is equal. So, to make comparisons
of the performance in terms of horsepower used or thrust generated is very
difficult when the testing is on airplanes with different propellor angles
at different rpms and at different airspeeds even if on the same airplane.
If you throw in the different drag profiles of the airplanes, matters get
even more complicated.
Why bring this up? If the comments above are valid, then we might mislead
ourselves and others by drawing conclusions that are invalid. If my
understanding is deficient and there are good ways to make these comparisons
in the field either with one airplane or different airplanes, perhaps some
knowledgable person can tell use how to do that.
do not archive
Vince Nicely
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey@ldl.net>
Vince,
It has been my understanding that "xx% power" is measured using
manifold pressure (In airplane apps... now Rotax engines having
originally been used in snowmobiles and the like might be different).
I'll have to dig through the books to find that one. Be rest assured,
the engine manufacturers will use whatever method makes them look
best...
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey@ldl.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of vincenicely
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Verner comments
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "vincenicely"
<vincenicely@chartertn.net>
Hi Gang,
A recent post said: If you cruise the 582 at 5800 rpm you are not using
75%
power, its more
like 92%. Reference torque/horsepower chart for 582
I often see comments on this list that relate to power used or comparing
engine performances, and I have a comment and question. The comment may
be
misguided, so the question will be for those with better knowledge to
help
me get this right.
I have the impression that the power generated by an engine on an
airplane
is that required to turn the propellor and is given by the load the
propellor transmits to the engine. Thus, if a 582 engine will turn the
propellor at 6500 rpm, say flying straight and level, and then will turn
the
propellor at 5800 rpm in similar flight, the engine's ultimate power
curve
in the brochure is useless. So, we need to know how the propellor
transmits
load to the engine to estimate what the power generation of the engine
is.
This makes all generalizations a little chancy, but if I intrepret some
of
the books I have correctly we can get some information.
The power used by a propellor depends upon several factors including the
propellor's rpm to the 3rd power, the angle of attack of the blade and
other
factors. So, for the 582, for example, the power drawn by the blade at
5800
rpm compared to 6500 rpm is (5800/6500)
3=0.71 if every thing else were
equal. Thus, we are talking 71% power at 5800 rpm on a 582. However,
that
is not quite right because the airplane's speed will change with the
changed
rpm and the angle of attack of the blade on the air will change. Thus,
the
power is somewhere near 70%, but not exactly that.
Speaking of brochures, some of the older catalogs (I don't have any new
ones) show a power curve for the engine and then superimposed a "power
required of propellor" curve. For example, the 2000 CPS catalog has
such
curves on page 24 for the Rotax 582. As I read those curves, the Rotax
582
set up to use the full 64 horsepower at 6500 RPM would draw about 47
horspower at 5800 RPM for 73% power. That is far below the ultimate
capability of the engine at 5800 RPM but is what is required by the
application of the power to a propellor set to draw max power at 6500
RPM
and under some test circumstances that might not be the same as on your
airplane going 60 MPH.
Interestingly enough, the thrust generated by the propellor has a
different
relationship to its rotational speed, i.e., it is related to the square
of
the rotational speed if everything else is equal. So, to make
comparisons
of the performance in terms of horsepower used or thrust generated is
very
difficult when the testing is on airplanes with different propellor
angles
at different rpms and at different airspeeds even if on the same
airplane.
If you throw in the different drag profiles of the airplanes, matters
get
even more complicated.
Why bring this up? If the comments above are valid, then we might
mislead
ourselves and others by drawing conclusions that are invalid. If my
understanding is deficient and there are good ways to make these
comparisons
in the field either with one airplane or different airplanes, perhaps
some
knowledgable person can tell use how to do that.
do not archive
Vince Nicely
=
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> If Rotax would put a good fuel injection system on
> them you would probably never hear of engine seasures... Still dont know why
> they havven't done that.
> Topher
Topher/Gents:
The outboard motor industry went fuel injection on
their two strokes. Still have the same problems
we suffer with ours. Sticking rings, scored and
seized pistons, wrist pin bearings, crank shaft
bearings.
Brings up the old question to me: "Well, why does
my old 1965 Johson 18 hp outboard still run like
Hell everytime I asked it to, and my weed eater,
and hair dryer, powered tooth brush? They never
seize. Run cheap two stroke oil in them. No
maintenance."
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines n uppness |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
At 02:20 PM 12/17/02 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kevin Jones" <kevin-jones@snet.net>
>
>I missed what went before. What engine did you get that's so much better
>than the 447?
>kj
Kevin,
Check out Simonini jump and Victor 1+ on:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly.html
Some of the latest comments at:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=37686797?KEYS=victor_1?LISTNAME=Kolb?HITNUMBER=1?SERIAL=13061416843?SHOWBUTTONS=YES
You will be able to find other comments by searching the Kolb archives using a
"Victor 1" search at:
http://www.matronics.com/search/
Also, you cans see the effort to get this engine mounted on a FireFly starting
at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly63.html
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
do not archive
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Airgriff2@aol.com
John & gang. The unit I am using and have questions about has a
solid fuel rocket
Bob Griffin
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chantz |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> John & gang. The unit I am using and have questions about has a
> solid fuel rocket
> Bob Griffin
Bob/Gents:
Yep, I also have one, solid fuel, manufactured in
1992. It is on the sun porch in a box gathering
dust.
No way to do a "go/no go" test on them. Not much
comfort in that.
john h
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chantz |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Bill Peterson Landscape" <b1bookie@purenet.net>
Airgriff2@aol.com writes:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Airgriff2@aol.com
>
> John & gang. The unit I am using and have questions about has a
> solid fuel rocket
> Bob Griffin
>
> Bob.........several months ago I reported that a friend of mine at the airport
had his plane parked next to several other planes when his solid fuel rocket
went off deploying the parachute. It sounded like a shot gun, and luckly no
one was in the direction of deployment. This could have gone off while he was
flying and would probably have killed him as the plane was a Quicksilver where
the cable gets close to the prop. This was a Second Chantz. I don't know if
anyone else on the list has knowledge of this happening to any one else but
I wanted to imform you of the possible problem. Hope this helps........Bill
>
>
>
>
Bill Peterson
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 project sold... |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Harris" <rharris@magnolia-net.com>
Good on you Jeremy, Not that you sold your Kolb, but that you are going to
spend that time with those kids. You can fly now and build later, maybe
the kids can help when they get old enough. Then you and Big Lar can start
fyling your Kolbs at the same time...
Richard Harris
MK3 N912RH
Lewisville, Arkansas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey@ldl.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Mark 3 project sold...
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey@ldl.net>
>
> I thought I'd drop a note to let the few that know me and my little M3
> project know that it will soon have a new owner. After the birth of my
> second child and the realization that time was now at an ultra-premium
> and I would be watching this child graduate high school before I
> finished my Kolb, I have sold it to someone that will finish it and put
> it to good use. I am definitely a "flyer" more than a "builder" and
> would rather spend the 2 or 3 hours a week that are free, flying instead
> of building. I have made a deal on a RANS S7 that will be my little red
> wagon for awhile and hope to see some of you fellas at some fly-ins
> soon. (Will definitely be at Sun-n-Fun)
>
> I am going to hang around on this list (if for no other reason, to see
> if Big Lar ever finishes his... ;-0 )
>
> Fly safe...
>
> Jeremy Casey
> BCD Drafting, Inc.
> jrcasey@ldl.net
> do not archive
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: tom sabean <sabean@ns.sympatico.ca>
Followed the gascolator thread from last week with interest as I am in
the process of installing the fuel system on my Mk111Xtra. Was wondering
how effective it would be when using a top fed system as per the Kolb
plans.
Any comments?
Thanks
Tom Sabean
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chanz Chute |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "George Murphy" <geomurphy@mindspring.com>
A good friend of mine deployed a Second Chance Chute a number of years ago
when his Firestar's leading edge of his wing folded up. It deployed alright
but his bridal cable snapped. My friend did not have that second chance ---
he died in the crash that day. Scrap it before someone tries to use it.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Airgriff2@aol.com
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Second Chanz Chute
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Airgriff2@aol.com
When Second Chanz went out of business, all the owners were sort of just
hung
out there without much support. What I was wondering is , am I one of only a
handfull who are using their system yet ,or are there others? My MK3 was
the prototype for their soft pack set up in the gap seal. John Dunham had my
unit on display at Sun & Fun. I have been flying with mine since 95. Every 3
yrs I take it to a rigger, who inspects the chute and repacks it. Should I
have any concern as to whether or not the rocket will work? I guess what I'm
asking is, should I be relying on this older system, leave it in as a back
up
that "may work", or take it out and scrap it?
With all the knowledge and experience of list members, I will see what
your
responce is and decide from there.
Fly Safe
Bob Griffin
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chanz Chute |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Ken Korenek <ken-foi@attbi.com>
George Murphy wrote:
> --
> when his Firestar's leading edge of his wing folded up.
George,
Can you give any details as to why the leading edge folded up?
--
Do Not Archive
*********************
Ken W. Korenek
ken-foi@attbi.com
Kolb FireStar II, "My Mistress"
Rotax 503, Oil Injected
3 Blade Powerfin
http://home.attbi.com/~KolbraPilot/TX_files/image019.jpg
Six Chuter SR7-XL "Red Baron"
Powered Parachute
Rotax 582, Oil Injected
3 Blade PowerFin
http://home.attbi.com/~KolbraPilot/TX_files/image021.jpg
4906 Oak Springs Drive
Arlington, Texas 76016
817-572-6832 voice
817-572-6842 fax
817-657-6500 cell
817-483-8054 home
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chantz |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> > Bob.........several months ago I reported that a friend of mine at the airport
had his plane parked next to several other planes when his solid fuel rocket
went off deploying the parachute.
> Bill Peterson
Bil/Gents:
There is no way for a solid fuel rocket to ignite
unless someone has tampered with it, especially if
the safety pin is in the hole where it belongs.
There is a simple percussion igniter that won't
ignite unless the firing pin hits it. Same same
the percussion cap on a bullet.
Ballistic recovery systems don't fire on their on
accord any more than a center fire revolver or
center fire rifle.
That's my opinion for what it is worth, again not
much, but it is mine. :-)
john h
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> Followed the gascolator thread from last week with interest as I am in
> the process of installing the fuel system on my Mk111Xtra. Was wondering
> how effective it would be when using a top fed system as per the Kolb
> plans.
> Any comments?
>
> Thanks
> Tom Sabean
Tom/Gents:
A lot more effective than that little plastic
filter.
I have had two engine outs because of water once
and trash the second time. My fault for not
draining and checking fuel prior to takeoff after
fueling from a remote source.
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chanz Chute |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> A good friend of mine deployed a Second Chance Chute a number of years ago
> when his Firestar's leading edge of his wing folded up. Scrap it before someone
tries to use it.
George Murphy
George/Gents:
If that was Aubrey Radford, his parachute, as I
understand it, was not equipped with a SS cable,
but a kevlar bridal. When the canopy deployed
successfully, the kevlar bridal routed itself
under the end of the engine mount that still had
the sharp edges when it was sheared. Kevlar is
extremely tough, but sharp steel and a lot of
weight create a tremendous impact on opening
shock. The kevlar bridal was cut and seperated.
Aubrey died in May or June 1990, two or three
months after I had my second save with my Jim
Handbury Hand Deployed Recovery System. This
system also used a kevlar bridal which compressed
the square steel wing/fuselage carry through,
ripped through small steel fuselage tubes and wing
structure. I also had a very similar routine when
deployed from my Ultrastar, same kevlar cable used
twice.
Aubrey flew hard aerobatics with the assistance of
aileron spades which in turn pushed the 5 main rib
wing to failure. He knew about my incident, but
chose to ignore the warning. I haven't, and it
has been nearly 13 years ago this March.
The Second Chantz recovery system uses a 3/8" SS
cable for the initially which is attached to a
kevlar bridal, the suspension lines and the
canopy. The current BRS system is same same.
If you have a recovery system, train yourself to
use it. When the time comes, don't forget you
have it. There will be no time to sit and think
about what to do next. Ask Dallas Sheppard. It
gets real busy real quick up there in those
situations.
The above is the best I can remember. If I am
wrong, please correct me.
john h
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | leading edge folding |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "George Murphy" <geomurphy@mindspring.com>
The people that witnessed the crash stated that the leading edge folded back
after he came out of a dive and pulled up sharply. I guess the wing was
never intended for that type of maneuver. It was just overstressed and came
apart.
GMurphy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ken Korenek
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Second Chanz Chute
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Ken Korenek <ken-foi@attbi.com>
George Murphy wrote:
> --
> when his Firestar's leading edge of his wing folded up.
George,
Can you give any details as to why the leading edge folded up?
--
Do Not Archive
*********************
Ken W. Korenek
ken-foi@attbi.com
Kolb FireStar II, "My Mistress"
Rotax 503, Oil Injected
3 Blade Powerfin
http://home.attbi.com/~KolbraPilot/TX_files/image019.jpg
Six Chuter SR7-XL "Red Baron"
Powered Parachute
Rotax 582, Oil Injected
3 Blade PowerFin
http://home.attbi.com/~KolbraPilot/TX_files/image021.jpg
4906 Oak Springs Drive
Arlington, Texas 76016
817-572-6832 voice
817-572-6842 fax
817-657-6500 cell
817-483-8054 home
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475@CenturyTel.net>
There is no way for a solid fuel rocket to ignite
unless someone has tampered with it, especially if
the safety pin is in the hole where it belongs.
There is a simple percussion igniter that won't
ignite unless the firing pin hits it. Same same
the percussion cap on a bullet.
Ballistic recovery systems don't fire on their on
accord any more than a center fire revolver or
center fire rifle
I had one of the first BRS systems back in 83. it was electrically fired,
not a firing pin type,and blasted out a slug whoose inertia pulled out the
chute. I know of one unintentional deployment, which resulted in the slug
being sent through a table, a persons thigh and calf and off the floor. my
system was replaced with a modified version free of charge shortly after
that, and then they came out with the solid rocket version. the old slug
versions were never a good idea by comparison, and the electrically fired
system was just plan dangerous.
topher
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chantz |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski@advanced-connect.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> > John & gang. The unit I am using and have questions about has a
> > solid fuel rocket
> > Bob Griffin
>
> Bob/Gents:
>
> Yep, I also have one, solid fuel, manufactured in
> 1992. It is on the sun porch in a box gathering
> dust.
>
> No way to do a "go/no go" test on them. Not much
> comfort in that.
>
> john h
>
> I was told by a vendor that tha rocket motors have a virtually 100% fire
rate even after sitting for years past the expiration date on a barn shelf.
Personally, I can not verify a single motor mafunctionaing. They were built
by the military to operate in to scenarios. Anyone elses hear this talk?
Richard Swiderski
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chantz |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
the old slug
> versions were never a good idea by comparison, and the electrically fired
> system was just plan dangerous.
>
> topher
topher/Gents:
Don't remember the electrically fired systems. I
didn't get interested in ULs until about Aug
1983. Could not afford a ballistic recovery
system back then.
Hard to believe that folks actually marketed a
system with electrical firing system. Imagine
they were also susceptible to stray radio
transmissions, even high powered spark ignitions.
Extremely dangerous.
john h
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chantz |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
Topher/Gang:
Forgot to ask who manufactured your electric
system?
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Timandjan@aol.com
I am building a heater box and need to afffix a push pull tube. What would
work perfect for me is the little u channel piece the Firestar uses to attach
the throttle cable to the throttle lever. The small piece that has a set
screw uses to clamp down into the cable.
Anybody have a extra one of these of know where I can get one??
Thanks
Tim
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Timandjan@aol.com
In a message dated 12/17/02 8:40:05 PM, sabean@ns.sympatico.ca writes:
<<--> Kolb-List message posted by: tom sabean <sabean@ns.sympatico.ca>
Followed the gascolator thread from last week with interest as I am in
the process of installing the fuel system on my Mk111Xtra. Was wondering
how effective it would be when using a top fed system as per the Kolb
plans.
Any comments?
Thanks
Tom Sabean>>
The only problem is that one can never get anything drained from the bottom
of the tank if the pickup is not on the very bottom. I used the original
method from the bottom with gromits and also added a gascolator which is
below the tanks. This way the tank always drains from the very bottom and
then goes into the gascolator which I drain with a curtis drain valve from
the bottom. Gets rid of any water.
Tim
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@preferred.com>
Why would it make any difference? The purpose of a gascolator is to give
the heavier water a place to settle and let the lighter gas continue on
down the pipe. The ideal place for a gascolator is the lowest point on the
fuel line between the tank and the carb (per Tony Bingelis) but anyplace to
let the water drop out is probably going to help.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
At 08:38 PM 12/17/02 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: tom sabean <sabean@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
>Followed the gascolator thread from last week with interest as I am in
>the process of installing the fuel system on my Mk111Xtra. Was wondering
>how effective it would be when using a top fed system as per the Kolb
>plans.
>Any comments?
>
>Thanks
>Tom Sabean
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chantz |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: possums <possums@mindspring.com>
At 10:46 PM 12/17/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski"
><swiderski@advanced-connect.net>
>
> >
> > I was told by a vendor that tha rocket motors have a virtually 100% fire
>rate even after sitting for years past the expiration date on a barn shelf.
>Personally, I can not verify a single motor mafunctionaing. They were built
>by the military to operate in to scenarios. Anyone elses hear this talk?
>
>Richard Swiderski
I fired one that was about 6 years old and had been sitting in a lake
for 24 hours - just to see what would happen.
It worked fine - BRS.
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines n uppness |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
Boy, I'm glad to hear this..................I thought I was just plain lazy
! ! ! That's OK...............when they're pickin' on me, they're leaving
someone else alone. Lazy Lar. Do not Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
> WILL take considerably longer to get it right. If you want to fly,
> DON'T be a trailblazer. If you enjoy tinkering and experimenting more
> than flying, then get you an alternative engine and have at it.
>
> Look at our list "punching bag" Big Lar...if he wasn't so darned
> creative, he'd have been flying a long time ago... ;-)
>
> Jeremy Casey
> jrcasey@ldl.net
>
> P.S. If my 503 had been any quicker to accelerate/decelerate when I
> moved the throttle...it would have had to read my mind to get a head
> start on me...
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 project sold... |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
Hafta agree with you.............I'm about built out & would rather be
flying, but gotta finish now. Maybe I'll catch up with a few more of you
guys this year. SnF is a definite "For Sure." Do not
Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey@ldl.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Mark 3 project sold...
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey@ldl.net>
>
> I thought I'd drop a note to let the few that know me and my little M3
> project know that it will soon have a new owner. After the birth of my
> second child and the realization that time was now at an ultra-premium
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Second Chantz |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ul15rhb@juno.com
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:41:51 -0600 John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com> writes:
>
> topher/Gents:
>
> Don't remember the electrically fired systems. I
> didn't get interested in ULs until about Aug
> 1983. Could not afford a ballistic recovery
> system back then.
>
> Hard to believe that folks actually marketed a
> system with electrical firing system. Imagine
> they were also susceptible to stray radio
> transmissions, even high powered spark ignitions.
> Extremely dangerous.
>
> john h
John and others,
Many of the early ones had electronic detonation and had a tendency to
detonate with static electricity.
Ralph
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cable connector |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: HShack@aol.com
In a message dated 12/17/02 10:51:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Timandjan@aol.com writes:
> I am building a heater box and need to afffix a push pull tube. What would
> work perfect for me is the little u channel piece the Firestar uses to
> attach
> the throttle cable to the throttle lever. The small piece that has a set
> screw uses to clamp down into the cable.
>
> Anybody have a extra one of these of know where I can get one??
>
>
From The New Kolb. Also, I was in a go-cart shop yesterday & they had some.
Shack
FS II
SC
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|