Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:54 AM - Monument Valley (Dave & Eve Pelletier)
2. 07:01 AM - Re: 110% duty cycle? (Richard Pike)
3. 07:50 AM - Re: 110% duty cycle? (Terry)
4. 08:20 AM - Re: 110% duty cycle? (Don Gherardini)
5. 09:25 AM - Re: Monument Valley (Larry Bourne)
6. 09:26 AM - Re: 110% duty cycle? (Jack & Louise Hart)
7. 10:58 AM - two strokes vs 912 (Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com)
8. 11:23 AM - Re: 110% duty cycle? (John Hauck)
9. 11:26 AM - Re: two strokes vs 912 (Jack & Louise Hart)
10. 11:27 AM - Re: Monument Valley (John Hauck)
11. 01:18 PM - E gearbox (Don Martin)
12. 02:54 PM - Re: two strokes vs 912 (John Hauck)
13. 03:01 PM - Re: E gearbox (John Hauck)
14. 05:16 PM - Re: E gearbox (Ken Korenek)
15. 05:25 PM - Re: two strokes vs 912 (Richard Pike)
16. 06:07 PM - Goulding's at Monument Valley (Larry Bourne)
17. 06:29 PM - Re: two strokes vs 912 (John Hauck)
18. 06:32 PM - Re: E gearbox (Wayne)
19. 06:40 PM - Re: Goulding's at Monument Valley (John Hauck)
20. 07:03 PM - Re: Goulding's at Monument Valley (Larry Bourne)
21. 07:16 PM - Re: Goulding's at Monument Valley (John Hauck)
22. 08:12 PM - Re: E gearbox (Cavuontop@aol.com)
23. 08:37 PM - Re: E gearbox (possums)
24. 09:08 PM - Help!! My 447 has died ()
25. 09:42 PM - Re: Help!! My 447 has died (possums)
26. 11:03 PM - Re: 110% duty cycle? (GeoR38@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: "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier@cableone.net>
WOW! Thanks to Bruce Hensel for putting together such a great album and story of
his Monument Valley trip and, Andy, sure am glad you found it and shared it
with us. I'd like to go with you guys - this album has convinced me. I think
someone (????) needs to establish a firm date, if that hasn't happened yet, and
then ask folks to commit so the "someone" can make whatever arrangements need
to be made. Dunno if it's important or not, but keep in mind that the Brian
Ranch fly in is May 24 & 25.
Arizona Dave
Do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 110% duty cycle? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
Good catch George, should have mentioned that.
Yes, the increased airflow does make the mixture leaner.
The carburetor does not keep the mixture constant because it is not
sophisticated enough. The amount of fuel flowing through the carburetor
(once you get above idle) is a function of where the needle is positioned
in the needle jet. Because the needle is tapered, the amount of fuel flow
increases as the slide is raised, until the needle is far enough up that it
is of no significance, the main jet now determines the volume of fuel flow.
But at any point along the way, air flow volume is determined by the
position of the slide and the rpm of the engine. If the throttle is set at
75%, and you are in level flight, let's say you are chugging along at 5,800
rpm. Drop the nose, unload the prop, and the rpm climbs to 6,000. Airflow
volume increases with rpm's, (the engine is a pump) but fuel flow remains
constant, the position of the slide has not changed, and the mixture is
leaned out.
This works to our advantage, because if the carb is jetted correctly for
good egt's at cruise, then when ever you start to climb, the prop load
slows the engine down a bit, and the slower pumping of airflow (less
volume) richens the mixture, which is good for cooling the pistons.
The reason the fuel flow does not change is that the suction pulling the
fuel through the jets does not change enough to compensate for the changes
in manifold pressure caused by changing prop load. And would it even change
in the desired direction if it did? Maybe if we had fuel injection? Also,
there are altitude compensating carburetors available, but I have no
concept of how they work, and no opinion of what response they would
provide to the changes in manifold pressure that probably occur as the prop
is loaded or unloaded. Would they automatically adjust the fuel mixture?
Haven't got a clue.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Do Not Archive
At 11:38 PM 1/27/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: GeoR38@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 1/27/03 9:33:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>rwpike@charter.net writes:
>
> >
> > However, if you are climbing at 5800, and then lower the nose without
> > touching the throttle, the rpm's will rise, the engine will unload, and
> the
> >
> > egt's will rise also, but the situation has not remained constant because
> > the rpm's have risen. The egt's rise because rpm's have gone up -with an
> > associated increase in airflow- without a change in fuel flow.
> > (Despite any claims to the contrary, I have yet to see a light plane prop
> > for our size aircraft that was truly constant speed. The rpm's always
> > change with load)
> >
> > Richard Pike
> > MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
> >
>But you didn't say the punchline Richard...namely that the increase in
>airflow with no increase in fuel flow constitutes leaner mixture. The only
>thing that blows my mind is ....why can you say that the fuel flow has
>remained the same....doesn't the carburator automatically keep the mixture
>the same? I thought that was the function of it.
>
>George Randolph
>
>
Help Stop Spam!
Delete all address information (especially mine) off everything you
forward, and make Blind Carbon Copy a way of life.
Thanks! And have a blessed day.
rp
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: | 110% duty cycle? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Terry" <tswartz@hydrosoft.net>
Richard,
I question the constant fuel flow statement. Since the fuel is sucked from
the carb bowl through the main jets by the venturie (sp?) principle, I think
that the fuel flow would increase with the increased air flow through the
venturie. More air flow, more suction. The idle circuit works on intake
vacuum.
Terry
But at any point along the way, air flow volume is determined by the
position of the slide and the rpm of the engine. If the throttle is set at
75%, and you are in level flight, let's say you are chugging along at 5,800
rpm. Drop the nose, unload the prop, and the rpm climbs to 6,000. Airflow
volume increases with rpm's, (the engine is a pump) but fuel flow remains
constant, the position of the slide has not changed, and the mixture is
leaned out.
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: 110% duty cycle? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Richard, You I want to say that I agree completly with your understanding of
the fact that no mechanical or vacuum operated carb does a perfect job in
maintaining a constant ratio of fuel/air at a wide range of rpms. The
varible venturi carb,,(slide), was a large improvement in this area when it
was developed, but it s not perfect. The trouble is when the rpms change,
and the manifold vacuum accordingly, the speed of the air thru the venturi
changes and the fuel pulled thru the main jet (due to the vacuum of the
venturi effect) does not remain constant. The decreasing size of the
Venturi by way of the slide going down helps to keep the velocity up at
reduced rpms, and the needle attemptes to regulate/match the fuel flow, but
it virtually impossible to keep it as close as a 2 cycle requires to
maintain a constant EGT. Then...we add pressure/altitude differences to the
problem and it becomes even more impossible. As we all know, Carburators
have been pretty well abandoned in the engine industry and replaced by
computer controlled Fuel Injection to rectify this problem.
Vacuum diaphram carbs are the closest thing you will be able to find that
will do the best job here, as they keep the venturi size regulated according
to the manifold vacuum. In other words....when at a low rpm/high load, and
the throttle is opened up (IN a butterfly or a cable slide carb)...the
Airflow slows thru the carb...and less fuel is pulled thru the jet creating
a very lean ratio. A vacuum controlled slide will not do this, for it will
keep the venturi size small enough to keep the velocity of the air high
enough to keep pulling fuel thru the jet.
Jack.....when i read some of the data you have collected on throttle setting
and temps and rpms.....the first thing that I wonder is what kind of venturi
control the carb had. Was it a manual cable operated slide?..(which I
suspect by the data) .or a vacuum controlled slide? I ask this only because
I have had similiar expierience on trying to accurately size a carb to a 2
stroke and the load and rpm range the job requires. It IS difficult ,
particularly when the rpm range required is large! Your data kind of reminds
me of that situation we had way back in attempting to design a piston ported
2 cycle powered hydraulic power supply. We ended up going with a much
smaller carb and sacrificing top end power to get a wider , more
controllable curve. The deal was kind of similiar to an aircraft prop
installation, in as the engine was under load from the start. The smaller
carb kept the mix rich enough through out the required range and prevented
the previous lean siezures we had that came from a cold start and quick
opening of the throttle causeing the fuel to just about cease to flow thru
the jet!......YEs..it was all about warranty!....couldnt release the product
untill we couild prove to the accountants that the warranty claim frequency
would be in the acceptable range for the predicted market share!
Don
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: Monument Valley |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
I thought it was agreed we'd go on May 19 & 20, and have already put it on
the calendar at work. (???) Based on a LOT of past experience running
Scuba charter trips, I think it'd be best if each person going would make
their own arrangements with Goulding's, etc. I've been in the unhappy
postion of co-ordinating groups many times, (I'm in the middle of one for
whale watching next month, and have given my friends the necessary phone
#'s, email addresses, and websites, so that they can make their own
arrangements - I'm not a babysitter) and have found repeatedly that people
will change their minds at the last minute, expect hand & foot service, get
bitter and nasty, etc., etc, and give little, if any, thanks at the end.
I'm sorry if I sound pessimistic, but for myself, I'll contact Goulding's,
and make arrangements to arrive there on May 18 & also spend the evening of
the 19th. When I do contact them, I'll let them know to expect a dozen or
more people, & 6+ airplanes, but from there, it's up to you. Erich & Boyd
came up with the idea for us, & Dave & Eve have been good enuf to supply us
with phone numbers, procedures, etc., now let's all work to BE there.
Been There Lar. Do not Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier@cableone.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Monument Valley
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave & Eve Pelletier"
<pelletier@cableone.net>
>
> WOW! Thanks to Bruce Hensel for putting together such a great album and
story of his Monument Valley trip and, Andy, sure am glad you found it and
shared it with us. I'd like to go with you guys - this album has convinced
me. I think someone (????) needs to establish a firm date, if that hasn't
happened yet, and then ask folks to commit so the "someone" can make
whatever arrangements need to be made. Dunno if it's important or not, but
keep in mind that the Brian Ranch fly in is May 24 & 25.
>
> Arizona Dave
>
> Do not archive
>
>
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: 110% duty cycle? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
At 10:25 AM 1/28/03 -0600, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
>
>Jack.....when i read some of the data you have collected on throttle setting
>and temps and rpms.....the first thing that I wonder is what kind of venturi
>control the carb had. Was it a manual cable operated slide?..(which I
>suspect by the data) .or a vacuum controlled slide?
Don,
You guessed correctly.
I am beginning to wonder if the addition of a booster bottle to the intake manifold
may help smooth an engine at the lower end. I have taxied back to the hangar
and when I put the FireFly away I have discovered gas dripping from the air
cleaner. If one runs the engine with the air cleaner off, one can see the
a mist of gas flying out of the carburetor at certain speeds. This indicates
that intake resonance and intake port closing is causing reverse flows which are
sucked back into the carburetor. This may explain why I see such high flow
rates at the lower engine speeds. The same air is passing through the venturi
three times and so the fuel flow doubles and triples at those speeds.
These bottles are used on model airplane engines, motorcycles, etc. and the claim
is that they get a boost in low rpm torque and 15% increase in fuel economy.
If you are curious, you can find more info at:
It would be another interesting experiment.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
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: | two strokes vs 912 |
01/28/2003 01:55:46 PM
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
Have to say that Ive had a smirk on my face this past week reading all this
stuff on duty cycles, EGTs, prop loading, needle jets, etc etc. Not to
mention the once-a-month debates about brands of oil and how to mix it. Not
a day goes by that Im not glad I went with the 912. Cant seem to recall
reading about many 912 engine outs. During my reading of John H's recent
post, I was singing Hallelujah, amen brother , as it seemed to recite
chapter and verse on why to have a 912 instead of a two stroke - only to
have it end up by saying that if you are not flying that many hours, go
with a two stroke. Not sure of the logic there, but I dont plan on
switching. Granted, you have to lay out a hefty sum of cash, but assuming
one has the plane and financial situation that would allow the 912, I
believe it is the only way to go. And think of all the time you can save
not having to read/write postings to the list regarding oil mixing : )
Hope Im not coming off as too smug, but maybe there are a few people out
there trying to decide on a type of plane / engine. I'll bet John isnt
considering a trade-in for a two-stroke either.
regards to all,
Erich Weaver
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 110% duty cycle? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> I am beginning to wonder if the addition of a booster bottle to the intake manifold
may help smooth an engine at the lower end.
If one runs the engine with the air cleaner off,
one can see the a mist of gas flying out of the
carburetor at certain speeds.
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Hi Fellas:
I know I don't have any fancy formulas, graphs, or
words to add to this discussion, but let me say
something anyway.
Just guessing, but I bet the exhaust system you
are using on your new engine has a power band, and
it probably is not a low speed power band. So,
maybe you need an exhaust system to match your
slow speed, low power requirements before you
start trying to recarb.
Secondly, every gasoline recip engine, 2 and 4
stroke, has what I commonly refer to say "vapor
stand off". When the engine is running it has a
little cloud of fuel vapor standing off the mouth
of the carb all by itself. In the case of the two
stroke it is a gas/oil vapor cloud. Discovered
this way back when I was a kid and played and
experimented with the little Briggs engine on the
lawn mower. Take the aircleaner off, run it at
operational rpm, about 3,600, and there will be a
little cloud of fuel vapor sitting there. Amazed
me then and also when I discovered that the little
V8 in my 35 Ford Pickup did the same thing. Don't
ask me why it does it cause I don't know, but I do
know it does.
Stuff I learned as a kid who was extremely curious
about most stuff, especially mechanical.
Just trying to help folks.
john h
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: two strokes vs 912 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
At 10:54 AM 1/28/03 -0800, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
>
Erich,
For those of us who are forced into the ultra light vehicle category, the two stroke
is about the only way to go or not go at all. There is room for the heavies
with 912s etc too.
Snow is melting and the water is starting to run, must head to the airport.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
do not archive
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
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: | Re: Monument Valley |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> I thought it was agreed we'd go on May 19 & 20, and have already put it on
> the calendar at work. (???)
> Larry Bourne
Larry/Gang:
That is my ETA, 18 May or earlier. Depends on how
long it takes to fly, wind and weather.
I will also make coordination for myself with
Goulding about flying in and camping. If no one
shows up but me, I will be covered. Where's the
mess hall?
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Martin" <kolbdriver@hotmail.com>
I'm about ready to buy engine (503) and gearbox for a Firestar II. Been
talking to Stuart over at Powerfin Props and he suggested the E gearbox with
the 3:47 to 1 ratio for max efficiency. Spoke to the folks at Kolb who
indicated that there might be a problem with this setup. They said that
because of the position of the electric start, the entire engine would have
to be raised about 2 inches which might in turn affect the thrust line,
giving the plane more of a tendency to nose over.
Has anyone on the list tried this combination? I've heard of engines on
Rans being raised up by 7-8 inches and not affecting the noseover tendency
significantly. Also, what would be needed to raise the engine? Would four
standoff supports and extra long bolts do?
Been following this list for 2 years now as I've built the Firestar and
found the info invaluable. Some of you guys come up with this answer?
Don (kolbdriver@hotmail.com)
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: | Re: two strokes vs 912 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> Cant seem to recall
> reading about many 912 engine outs. During my reading of John H's recent
> post, I was singing Hallelujah, amen brother , as it seemed to recite
> chapter and verse on why to have a 912 instead of a two stroke - only to
> have it end up by saying that if you are not flying that many hours, go
> with a two stroke. Not sure of the logic there, but I dont plan on
> switching.
> Erich Weaver
Erich/Gang:
Do we have to be logical??? :-)
So you won't feel too badly, trade in value of the
912 series engines is really good.
I'm happy with my 4 stroke. Think I'll keep it.
Amazing how the 912 changed the character of my
airplane overnight from the 582.
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
Been
> talking to Stuart over at Powerfin Props and he suggested the E gearbox with
> the 3:47 to 1 ratio for max efficiency. Spoke to the folks at Kolb who
> indicated that there might be a problem with this setup. They said that
> because of the position of the electric start, the entire engine would have
> to be raised about 2 inches which might in turn affect the thrust line,
> giving the plane more of a tendency to nose over.
> Don
Don/Gents:
I personally would not consider raising the
engine, period. The lower the thrust line the
better. Unless, of course the prop is going to
strike the tailboom. :-)
I wouldn't want to hang a heavy E gear box on a
little Firestar, or for that matter a MK III
either. B Gear box worked good on my Firestar
with a 447 and has been the mainstay coupled up to
a 503. Had a C gear box on the 582 and MK III
that worked good. But the C is a lot heavier than
the B.
Doubt there will be much difference in "max
efficiency" between the E and the B. If there is,
the lighter weight B will win out.
Again folks, my own personal
opinion......................
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Ken Korenek <ken-foi@attbi.com>
Don Martin wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Martin" <kolbdriver@hotmail.com>
> he suggested the E gearbox with
> the 3:47 to 1 ratio for max efficiency. Spoke to the folks at Kolb who
> indicated that there might be a problem with this setup.
I've got that setup and did not have to raise the engine. I did have to carve
out a little of the engine mount plate so that the starter would fit and it's
now 3/4 inch from the engine mount tube. I'll send you a picture if you want.
Contact me off list.
--
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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: two strokes vs 912 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
You can't hide money...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
At 10:54 AM 1/28/03 -0800, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
>
>
>Have to say that Ive had a smirk on my face this past week reading all this
>stuff on duty cycles, EGTs, prop loading, needle jets, etc etc. Not to
>mention the once-a-month debates about brands of oil and how to mix it. Not
>a day goes by that Im not glad I went with the 912. Cant seem to recall
>reading about many 912 engine outs. During my reading of John H's recent
>post, I was singing Hallelujah, amen brother , as it seemed to recite
>chapter and verse on why to have a 912 instead of a two stroke - only to
>have it end up by saying that if you are not flying that many hours, go
>with a two stroke. Not sure of the logic there, but I dont plan on
>switching. Granted, you have to lay out a hefty sum of cash, but assuming
>one has the plane and financial situation that would allow the 912, I
>believe it is the only way to go. And think of all the time you can save
>not having to read/write postings to the list regarding oil mixing : )
>
>Hope Im not coming off as too smug, but maybe there are a few people out
>there trying to decide on a type of plane / engine. I'll bet John isnt
>considering a trade-in for a two-stroke either.
>
>regards to all,
>
>Erich Weaver
>
>
Help Stop Spam!
Delete all address information (especially mine) off everything you
forward, and make Blind Carbon Copy a way of life.
Thanks! And have a blessed day.
rp
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 |
|
| Subject: | Goulding's at Monument Valley |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
Being as the ol' Lar is such a nice guy, here's what I learned a few minutes ago.
I called Goulding's Lodge in Monument Valley, at 1-435-727-3231, and chose
option 3, for the campground, & RV parking. I spoke with a very pleasant lady
named Bessie, and was told that campsites are not a problem, and just come on
in. If flying in, they want a copy of your airplane insurance faxed to them
before arrival at 1-435-727-3344. After landing, call them at the 727-3231
number, and they'll come and pick you up, and take you to the campground. I asked
specifically about a release of liability, and she told me that all they
want is the proof of insurance, in advance. She wasn't real concerned about number
of people or airplanes, except if you want a room, or RV spot. Then, reservations
are necessary. Rooms have either a single king size, or single queen
size, and are $135.00 per night (in May), either way. Soooooo.....................there's
a start for ya. Helpful Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
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: two strokes vs 912 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
> For those of us who are forced into the ultra light vehicle category, the two
stroke is about the only way to go or not go at all.
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack/gang:
Good point!
We are all only a physical away from an
ultralight.
Glad you brought that up.
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: "Wayne" <boyter@mcsi.net>
Don
I have a mark III that I put a 582 on with e-gear box, It does push over a
little bite, But not that much, I have tryed it both ways. You have to make
your own spacers. If you would like I can send you some pictures?
Wayne
Kolb mark III
Rotax 582
72" Three blade warp drive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Martin" <kolbdriver@hotmail.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: E gearbox
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Martin" <kolbdriver@hotmail.com>
>
> I'm about ready to buy engine (503) and gearbox for a Firestar II.
Been
> talking to Stuart over at Powerfin Props and he suggested the E gearbox
with
> the 3:47 to 1 ratio for max efficiency. Spoke to the folks at Kolb who
> indicated that there might be a problem with this setup. They said that
> because of the position of the electric start, the entire engine would
have
> to be raised about 2 inches which might in turn affect the thrust line,
> giving the plane more of a tendency to nose over.
> Has anyone on the list tried this combination? I've heard of engines
on
> Rans being raised up by 7-8 inches and not affecting the noseover tendency
> significantly. Also, what would be needed to raise the engine? Would
four
> standoff supports and extra long bolts do?
> Been following this list for 2 years now as I've built the Firestar
and
> found the info invaluable. Some of you guys come up with this answer?
> Don (kolbdriver@hotmail.com)
>
>
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: Goulding's at Monument Valley |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
I called Goulding's Lodge in Monument Valley, at
1-435-727-3231, and chose option 3, for the
campground, & RV parking.
Soooooo.....................there's a start for
ya. Helpf!
> ul Lar.
>
> Larry Bourne
Laryy/Gang:
I don't care what the rest of the Kolb gang say
about, you are alright.
Thanks for the info.
I don't have a FAX machine, but I guess I could
hand her a copy of my insurance when I get there.
If not, I'll just have to go to jail.
Looking forward to the flight to Utah and parts
West. I was out that way two years ago, roaming
around in the old Dodge and 5th wheel. Beautiful
place. Big, majestic, lots of open sparsely
populated land. I love it.
See ya'll about the 18th, 19th, 20th, or there
abouts.
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: Goulding's at Monument Valley |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
Yaaaaaaaahhhhh.......................like I say - when they're pickin' on
me, they're leavin' someone else alone. You could scan in the
insurance thing, and email it to me. I can print it out, and fax it from
work. Big Lar. Do not Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Goulding's at Monument Valley
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
>
> I called Goulding's Lodge in Monument Valley, at
> 1-435-727-3231, and chose option 3, for the
> campground, & RV parking.
> Soooooo.....................there's a start for
> ya. Helpf!
> > ul Lar.
> >
> > Larry Bourne
>
> Laryy/Gang:
>
> I don't care what the rest of the Kolb gang say
> about, you are alright.
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> I don't have a FAX machine, but I guess I could
> hand her a copy of my insurance when I get there.
> If not, I'll just have to go to jail.
>
> Looking forward to the flight to Utah and parts
> West. I was out that way two years ago, roaming
> around in the old Dodge and 5th wheel. Beautiful
> place. Big, majestic, lots of open sparsely
> populated land. I love it.
>
> See ya'll about the 18th, 19th, 20th, or there
> abouts.
>
> john h
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
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: Goulding's at Monument Valley |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@sw.rr.com>
Larry/Gang:
Will do.
Bet it is lost before I get to Monument Valley.
hehehe If it is, I will have my papers with me.
Thanks friend.
john h
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: Cavuontop@aol.com
Don:
I have over 100 hours on a Mark 3 Classic with a 582 and a 3.47:1 E
box with a 72" Powerfin Prop. The engine is raised about three inches and
gives good clearance for the prop. This was accomplished in 2 ways. 1) The
Lord mounts were inverted. 2) Two "rails" of square aluminum extrusion
about 2" x 1.25" with a 3/16 wall were placed on top of the Lord mounts
running front to back, then the stock engine mounting plate was bolted
through with longer bolts. This set up also has the added appeal of
providing a very convenient place to mount the Mikuni fuel pump.
The system was devised by Dennis Souder, was shipped by the factory,
and was tested extensively by the old Kolb Company. There is factory drawing
for it somewhere. Dennis liked it because it permitted the use of the 3.47:1
E box and worked well with a 72" Powerfin prop. I have found my set up to be
noticeably quieter than my friend's 582 with a B box. It is also very
smooth. At identical power settings of 6000 RPM I walk away from my friend
who has a B box and a 68" Ivo on his classic.
I also have the PTO end electric starter on my E box which as been
trouble free and really turns the engine over. I have not had any problems
with the higher thrust line, but I have also never flown my plane in any
other configuration. Dennis Souder thought the slight elevation if the
engine permitted more of the prop to run in better air and may have
contributed to the improved efficiency.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: possums <possums@mindspring.com>
>
>I've got that setup and did not have to raise the engine. I did have to
>carve
>out a little of the engine mount plate so that the starter would fit and it's
>now 3/4 inch from the engine mount tube. I'll send you a picture if you want.
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>*********************
>Ken W. Korenek
I agree with Ken , we have at least a dozen of these 503 E gear box set ups
and I think they work great.
Mine is not stock and you do did have to carve out a little of the engine
mount plate so that the starter would fit -
like Ken says.
BTW: I got about 450 hrs without a "decarb" and still got full compression
on both cylinders.
Going for 600 before a tear down. Weather has slowed us down here in the
last month or so.
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: | Help!! My 447 has died |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: <gdledbetter1@fuse.net>
Kolbers,
I need suggestions for a problem that is new for my 447.
I drove to the Wakulla County Airport at Panacea, FL shortly after
lunch to do some flying with Duane the Plane. Assembled the Fly
and decided to make a few trips around the patch while waiting for
Duane. Did about 3 approaches before making the landing.
Duane arrived at this time so his Firefly came out of his trailer, was
assembled and we were eager to go flying. Duane and I were ready
so I did the starter thing and pulled and pulled and pulled and
nothing happened. To make a long story short, we did many things
trying to trouble shoot the problem and believe it is spark related.
The carb float bowl had the right level of fuel when removed. The
primer was used without success. Pulled the plugs and they were
not wet. Tried to see if the plugs were firing but this seems to be an
impossible dream. We even tried that evil starting fluid with no effect.
Was getting ready to order a new solid state box until I saw that it
costs $228 so I believe well try some other solutions first and hope
that the box is not the problem.
Really could use suggestion on how to troubleshoot the electrical
system. Disconnected the kill switch wire at the engine to make sure
it wasnt shorted somewhere. If the engine had started, would have
killed it with the choke.
So, please share your experiences in this area, especially
troubleshooting tests
Gene Ledbetter
Cincinnati
Firefly 156 hours
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: Help!! My 447 has died |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: possums <possums@mindspring.com>
At 12:07 AM 1/29/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: <gdledbetter1@fuse.net>
>
>Kolbers,
>
>I need suggestions for a problem that is new for my 447.
>
>Duane arrived at this time so his Firefly came out of his trailer, was
>assembled and we were eager to go flying. Duane and I were ready
>so I did the starter thing and pulled and pulled and pulled and
>nothing happened.
>So, please share your experiences in this area, especially
>troubleshooting tests
>
>Gene Ledbetter
Dear Mr Ledbetter "Professional Retiree" .
You might check the vent line - "part # 31 = 60 cents" - on the carburetor
of your 447. It will not start if the little holes in this plastic line
are stopped up with dirt/oil. Amazing, but true.
Or if it is not fairly clean. You can pull and pull all the live long day.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 110% duty cycle? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: GeoR38@aol.com
In a message dated 1/28/03 10:02:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rwpike@charter.net writes:
> Good catch George, should have mentioned that.
> Yes, the increased airflow does make the mixture leaner.
> The carburetor does not keep the mixture constant because it is not
> sophisticated enough. The amount of fuel flowing through the carburetor
> (once you get above idle) is a function of where the needle is positioned
> in the needle jet. Because the needle is tapered, the amount of fuel flow
> increases as the slide is raised, until the needle is far enough up that it
>
> is of no significance, the main jet now determines the volume of fuel flow.
>
> But at any point along the way, air flow volume is determined by the
> position of the slide and the rpm of the engine. If the throttle is set at
> 75%, and you are in level flight, let's say you are chugging along at 5,800
>
> rpm. Drop the nose, unload the prop, and the rpm climbs to 6,000. Airflow
> volume increases with rpm's, (the engine is a pump) but fuel flow remains
> constant, the position of the slide has not changed, and the mixture is
> leaned out.
>
> This works to our advantage, because if the carb is jetted correctly for
> good egt's at cruise, then when ever you start to climb, the prop load
> slows the engine down a bit, and the slower pumping of airflow (less
> volume) richens the mixture, which is good for cooling the pistons.
>
> The reason the fuel flow does not change is that the suction pulling the
> fuel through the jets does not change enough to compensate for the changes
> in manifold pressure caused by changing prop load. And would it even change
>
> in the desired direction if it did? Maybe if we had fuel injection? Also,
> there are altitude compensating carburetors available, but I have no
> concept of how they work, and no opinion of what response they would
> provide to the changes in manifold pressure that probably occur as the prop
>
> is loaded or unloaded. Would they automatically adjust the fuel mixture?
> Haven't got a clue.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> At 11:38 PM 1/27/03 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >--> Kolb-List message posted by: GeoR38@aol.com
> >
> >In a message dated 1/27/03 9:33:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> >rwpike@charter.net writes:
> >
> >>
> >>However, if you are climbing at 5800, and then lower the nose without
> >>touching the throttle, the rpm's will rise, the engine will unload, and
> >the
> >>
> >>egt's will rise also, but the situation has not remained constant because
> >>the rpm's have risen. The egt's rise because rpm's have gone up -with an
> >>associated increase in airflow- without a change in fuel flow.
> >>(Despite any claims to the contrary, I have yet to see a light plane prop
> >>for our size aircraft that was truly constant speed. The rpm's always
> >>change with load)
> >>
> >>Richard Pike
> >>MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
> >>
> >But you didn't say the punchline Richard...namely that the increase in
> >airflow with no increase in fuel flow constitutes leaner mixture. The only
> >thing that blows my mind is ....why can you say that the fuel flow has
> >remained the same....doesn't the carburator automatically keep the mixture
> >the same? I thought that was the function of it.
> >
> >George Randolph
>
Thank you, Richard, you've attacked a question I have had since.....'85 when
my Cuyunna blasted me with silence and I went down into a soy patch...no
damage....even flew out with a freed up but galled piston....I was a little
.... er...a lot dumber then.....but was lucky. Problem was me, not the
Cuyunna....I hadn't even heard of egt yet and most pterodactyl's didn't have
one either.
George Randolph
Firestar driver from Akron O
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! --
|