Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:01 AM - Re: nose heavy mk III (Vincehallam@aol.com)
2. 01:05 AM - Re: Homer (GeoR38@aol.com)
3. 01:31 AM - Re: nose heavy mk III (GeoR38@aol.com)
4. 01:39 AM - Re: history of ultralights (GeoR38@aol.com)
5. 04:03 AM - Re: nose heavy mk III (Kirk Smith)
6. 04:17 AM - FAA notice on nukes (Kirk Smith)
7. 04:51 AM - Re: EVO/AIR (Bob Bean)
8. 05:16 AM - Re: EVO/AIR (John Hauck)
9. 05:46 AM - Re: nose heavy mk III (John Hauck)
10. 06:21 AM - Kolb New Pilot Question (Doug Lawton)
11. 07:00 AM - Re: nose heavy mk III (FRED2319@aol.com)
12. 07:24 AM - Re: Kolb New Pilot Question (jerb)
13. 07:47 AM - Re: nose heavy mk III (Bob Bean)
14. 08:02 AM - Re: nose heavy mk III (Jack & Louise Hart)
15. 08:27 AM - Re: nose heavy mk III (Christopher Armstrong)
16. 09:35 AM - Re: Harley (Hans vanAlphen)
17. 09:36 AM - EVO (Paul Petty)
18. 09:38 AM - Re: EVO/AIR (Paul Petty)
19. 09:57 AM - Re: Re: Harley (Paul Petty)
20. 10:04 AM - Re: EVO (Kirk Smith)
21. 10:52 AM - Re: EVO (Paul Petty)
22. 11:03 AM - Re: nose heavy mk III (CaptainRon)
23. 11:51 AM - Re: nose heavy mk III (Beauford Tuton)
24. 12:02 PM - angle of attack (boyd young)
25. 12:02 PM - stall (boyd young)
26. 12:10 PM - Re: Kolb New Pilot Question (Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM)
27. 02:00 PM - Re: Re: Kolb New Pilot Question (Bob Bean)
28. 02:05 PM - Re: history of ultralights (woody)
29. 02:13 PM - Re: nose heavy mk III (GeoR38@aol.com)
30. 02:43 PM - Re: nose heavy mk III (Vincehallam@aol.com)
31. 02:47 PM - Re: Re: Kolb New Pilot Question--Train or Crash? (bobn)
32. 03:33 PM - Re: nose heavy mk III (Richard Pike)
33. 05:07 PM - redrive (Paul Petty)
34. 05:18 PM - Re: nose heavy mk III (Larry Bourne)
35. 06:52 PM - Re: Re: Kolb New Pilot Question--Train or Crash? (Alderson, James)
36. 07:04 PM - Re: EVO (woody)
37. 07:04 PM - Re: history of ultralights (woody)
38. 07:04 PM - Re: nose heavy mk III (woody)
39. 07:36 PM - 447 New vs Rebuild ()
40. 08:29 PM - Re: 447 New vs Rebuild (Tom Olenik)
41. 09:17 PM - Re: history of ultralights (Dennis Souder)
42. 10:11 PM - Re: nose heavy mk III (CaptainRon)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Vincehallam@aol.com
Dear Capt Ron and all
ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE HSTAB {TAILPLANE} IS A
LIFTING SURFACE???????????????? What are the maths of stabilisation now?
Perhaps the kolb is a canard after all
Vnz reteats to his bunker
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: GeoR38@aol.com
In a message dated 2/26/03 6:59:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, snuffy@usol.com
writes:
> Don't know if Homer was the first. Only been around him a few times at Kolb
> displays and talked to him once on the phone. But he seems like a very
> patient thoughtful kind of man. I think it would have been cool to have
> had
> him for a dad and learn how to build airplanes instead of forts. Just
> think,
> Homer for a Dad and John H. for a grampa........Too cool!!!!!! Snuf......
>
Now this has GOT to be a classic statement!!
George Randolph
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: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: GeoR38@aol.com
In a message dated 2/27/03 11:18:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
by0ung@brigham.net writes:
> ps how can i figure where the center of lift is ?????
>
isn't the center of lift always at the thickest part of the airfoil?
George Randolph
Firestar driver from Akron
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: history of ultralights |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: GeoR38@aol.com
In a message dated 2/27/03 1:02:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com writes:
>
> Not to stir up more debate, but more because I think its interesting, I
> thought I would pass along the timeline presented in the Ultralight Flying!
> article.
>
> Larry Mauro (author of the article) of Ultralight Flying Machines (UFM) in
> Cupertino, CA sold a kit for his Icarus II hang glider to John Moody in
> September 1973. The Icarus hang gliders were swept wing biplanes. In March
> of 1975, Moody reported to Mauro that he had achieved powered flight on a
> frozen lakebed in Wisconsin using the Icarus and an 8 HP two-cycle
> Chrysler-West Bend engine with a hand carved propeller. Apparently, take
> offs at this point were substantially assisted by running as fast as
> possible. By May 1975, Moody was flying the pattern at 300 ft agl at
> Rainbow Airport using a McCulloch go-cart engine and he did demonstration
> flights at a hang glider event in Michigan later that summer. In August
> 1976, Moody flew his powered hang glider at Oshkosh, reportedly doing wing
> overs at 300 feet agl when he went out of control, tumbling it several
> times before miraculously regaining control and landing. FAA promptly
> grounded him, but reinstated his privileges after he promised to behave.
>
> I think the Moody name is remembered because this is the point in time at
> which careers were first devoted to the development and manufacturing of
> ultralights. Depending on your definition of terms, there may have been
> others that were first, but just being first only gets you a footnote in
> the history book. Its what happens following, and as a result of, your
> achievement (or debacle in some cases) that gets you remembered. And it
> tends to be remembered whether you want it to or not.
>
> That being said, I too would love to hear the Homer Kolb story.
>
> Erich
>
very well put Erich, I agree completely.
George Randolph
do not archive
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: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE HSTAB {TAILPLANE} IS A
> LIFTING SURFACE????????????????
Group,
This statement makes me think. I know as I watch Kolbs taking off that many
times the tail comes up first so this tells me that the tail flys before the
wings do. In the manuever that John referred to about the blanking of the
horizontal stab, it makes logical sense because the wings were still flying
I think. If the forward speed was fast enough for the wings to fly then the
tail should also have been flying unless the airflow to them was very
disturbed. Heading for my foxhole..........snuf
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: | FAA notice on nukes |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
A notice on flying near nuke plants issued 2/26/2003
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/030226_nuclear_facilities.html
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Bob Bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
Paul Petty wrote:
Paul, best way to inspire someone is to tell him he can't do it.....go
for it.
-BB do not archive
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: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> I need a prop please!
>
> pp....
Paul P/Folks:
If all you need is a "club" prop for testing, I
have a two blade wooden GSC fixed pitch prop that
made one flight from Alabama to Lakeland, Florida,
in 1989. Got put down by heavy rain in a dry
ditch south of Crystal River, Florida, on the
first leg out of Lakeland on the way home. It has
rain damage on its unprotected leading edge, but
would work well as a club prop for bench stand
testing of your big humper thumper HD. It was
still balanced and ran smooth after the damage,
but was pulled off and put on the shelf when I got
home. Never took time to repair.
BTW: Even with quite a bit of leading edge damage
from the rain, the prop pushed the Firestar back
to Alabama. Was a good lesson to me. Don't fly
long cross countries with unprotected props.
Doesn't take much rain to destroy one. That
flight cost me about $25 an hour for props alone.
Money I did not have at that time.
Let me know if you want it and I will stick it in
the mail, or you can fly to Wetumpka AP and pick
it up.
Take care,
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: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> On the M3X low pressure side is up top, and to counter act it the
> elevator control is used. placing the vg's on the bottom side of the H-stabs
> will be of no ( indeed contrary to..) benafit on the M3X. The VG's have to
> be on the low pressure side,, which weird enough is topside on the M3X.
>
> Well I am getting tired of this, been beating this aero donkey all day. Ron
Ron/Gang:
Who is the jackass in this situation?
Sorta like everyone in the Company formation is
out of step but you!!!
Either you or I have dyslexia, but listen
carefully. Have you heard of anyone on this List
that flies a Mark III ever say he had to use nose
down trim to keep the nose from pitching up? I
haven't. Although I built nose up and down trim
into my own Jim Hauck designed trim system, I have
never had to use nose down trim. If you look at
your own Mark III Extra Kit you will notice that
Homer Kolb did not see any need to configure the
pitch trim system with nose down trim capability.
That means I am going to be pulling back on the
stick with or with out the assistance of some
mechanical forced trim to help take the load off
me. That means that the pressure is going to be
on the top of the horizontal stabilizer and
elevator. Got to push down on the tail of the
Mark III in order to lift the nose and counteract
the tendancy for the nose to pitch down. You
know, like a seesaw.
Snuffy said something about the tail flies first
on takeoff in a Mark III. Probably does a little,
but most of the tail lift on takeoff is created by
high thrust line. Don't have to use forward stick
on the Mark III to raise the tail on takeoff. I
usually relax on the stick until the tail comes
up, then come back on it to hold it level and wait
that split second for it to lift off.
Ron, if you think you are getting tired of this
discussion on the ass end of Mark IIIs, what do
you think about the other 300 souls on the Kolb
List?
john h
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: | Kolb New Pilot Question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Doug Lawton" <skyrider2@earthlink.net>
John,
Good point, I agree. The tires will definetly grip a paved runway better
than on grass. But it shouldn't really matter if a student will heed the #1
suggestion and only taxi and test hop in absolutely calm conditions. But s_
_ _ happens.
Fly Safely,
Doug
NE Georgia and Whitwell TN
Doug and Group,
There is one more thing that should be mentioned: grass or pavement
Landing on grass, a Kolb being a taildragger is a non-issue, but on pavement
(espessically in any crosswind), it's not as easy as a tricycle.
Taildragger is a non-issue for take-off's on either surface, IMO.
John Jung
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: | Re: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: FRED2319@aol.com
Hi Guys been following this nose heave thing and two things stand out. One if
the plane is flown as a single seat (mid range CG) there is no problem. Two
if you have a heavy pass. ( fwd. Cg. ) you may run out of up elevator. it
seems like an easy fix to add weight to aft end to move CG back into the mid
range where it flys OK. or is this to simple.
Fred
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: Kolb New Pilot Question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: jerb <ulflyer@airmail.net>
The advantage of landing on the a grass runway for the new pilot is it's
more forgiving. First place there usually wider then center alignment is
not as critical. Second, it reduces the bad effects if your directional
alignment is slightly off at time of touch down. Grass also slows the
plane faster which helps reduce the time of maintaining directional
control. You can get away with more on grass but that can bite you in the
butt later as it allows you to get sloppy and then when you land on
pavement, things can get exciting very quickly.
In the past I posted a recommend way for a new pilot to prepare by doing
practice taxi runs which should keep them out of trouble if they follow
it. Do a search and see if you can find it, if not let me know and I'll
see if I can post it again. By the way, I've seen more planes busted
trying to crow hop or unintentional flight when just "taxiing" and they
panic and slam it back down rather than just flying it. "Always" be in a
flight ready condition (seat belt on with adequate fuel on board) before
doing any taxiing, period.
jerb
At 09:17 AM 2/28/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Doug Lawton" <skyrider2@earthlink.net>
>
>John,
>
>Good point, I agree. The tires will definetly grip a paved runway better
>than on grass. But it shouldn't really matter if a student will heed the #1
>suggestion and only taxi and test hop in absolutely calm conditions. But s_
>_ _ happens.
>
>Fly Safely,
>
>Doug
>NE Georgia and Whitwell TN
>
>
>Doug and Group,
>
>There is one more thing that should be mentioned: grass or pavement
>
>Landing on grass, a Kolb being a taildragger is a non-issue, but on pavement
>(espessically in any crosswind), it's not as easy as a tricycle.
>
>Taildragger is a non-issue for take-off's on either surface, IMO.
>
>John Jung
>
>
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: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Bob Bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
Sure, just stick a lead bar in the that transverse wing support tube.
Just remember to take it back out when the fat guy gets out.-BB
-BB do not archive
FRED2319@aol.com wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: FRED2319@aol.com
>
>Hi Guys been following this nose heave thing and two things stand out. One if
>the plane is flown as a single seat (mid range CG) there is no problem. Two
>if you have a heavy pass. ( fwd. Cg. ) you may run out of up elevator. it
>seems like an easy fix to add weight to aft end to move CG back into the mid
>range where it flys OK. or is this to simple.
>
>Fred
>
>
>
>
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: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
At 12:36 AM 2/28/03 -0700, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: CaptainRon <CaptainRon@theriver.com>
>
>2/27/03 23:33Ed Chmielewski
>
>> VG's are indeed placed on the bottom of the horizontal stab,
>============================
>
>In a normally configured H-stab they would be... as the low pressure side is
>bottom side!! (but notice that Cessna placed slates on their Cardinal not
>vg's). On the M3X low pressure side is up top, and to counter act it the
>elevator control is used. placing the vg's on the bottom side of the H-stabs
>will be of no ( indeed contrary to..) benafit on the M3X. The VG's have to
>be on the low pressure side,, which weird enough is topside on the M3X.
>
>Well I am getting tired of this, been beating this aero donkey all day. :-)
>
>
Ron,
One last try. I believe where you are leading your self astray is by what you
believe to be "normal". Forget "normal" and think about function. If you want
to raise the nose and your plane is close to trim balance, you would use up
elevator or back stick. The low pressure side would be on the bottom of the horizontal
stabilizer elevator combination, and for a given air speed, this is where
the VG's would go if you want increased down force on the tail.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
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: | nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <cen33475@CenturyTel.net>
On the M3X low pressure side is up top, and to counter act it the
elevator control is used. placing the vg's on the bottom side of the H-stabs
will be of no ( indeed contrary to..) benafit on the M3X. The VG's have to
be on the low pressure side,, which weird enough is topside on the M3X.
Ron,
you're completely wrong. totally wrong. you are not right . you are the
opposite of correct. you are in error. your percentage of accuracy is
zero. you are simply outside the realm of truth.
worse yet you are not listening to the people who know tell you the answers.
if the tail on a rear tailed aircraft lifts upwards in steady level flight,
then the cg is aft of the ac and the aircraft is unstable and would be tail
heavy and unflyable without stability augmentation. your lack of
understanding on this basic principle of stability leads me to think you
should fly until you (re)complete a ground school course and understand your
aircraft better.
not that I really care about your butt, but it would be a shame to have you
smash a perfectly good plane. I sincerly hope you're just yanking our
chains as I find it hard to believe anybody is actually this dense.
Topher, the discusted, mean version!
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: "Hans vanAlphen" <hva@bellsouth.net>
Paul,
It is great to be a pioneer, I though I was, until I found that others
preceded me in Europe with the development of the BMW engine.
First of all you MUST use a reduction gear. PRSU.
The greatest concern is not vibration, but TORSIONAL vibration, it needs to
be dealt with or failure is imminent. And torsional are magnified when you
add a prop.
See how the Geo engine destroyed the Rotax C gearbox in just a few hours.
Read about torsional vibration on the geo site and here...
www.sportflight.com/kfb/torsion.htm
I do use the Rotax C gear box on the BMW boxer engine. First I used a
centrifugal clutch, the RK 400, but it failed with the inflight adjustable
Ivo prop.
Replaced it with a heavier flywheel to dampen the torsionals. So far so
good.
If I were going to design a reduction drive from scratch I would use a Gates
Poly Chain or GoodYear Eagle PD belt drive.
www.goodyearindustrialproducts.com/polyurethanebelts/eagle.html
Remember these belts have no stretch in them and you will need additional
torsional vibration insulation with a donut or sorts.
A lot to think about....... Good luck.
Hans van Alphen
Mark III Xtra
BMW powered
94 hours.
> > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
> >
> > Kolbers,
> > I am in the process of testing a Harley Davidson 1340cc 80CID engine as
a
> possible candidate for a Kolb aircraft engine......snip
> > 1. 118 lbs.
> > 2. 80 hp.
> > 3. Dry sump
> > 4. Fully self contained I.e. Alt,Ignition,Fuel delivery via CV altitude
> compensating crab
> > 5. Cost brand new $2900.00
> > 6. upgrade with ignition/heads to get 110 hp for another grand
> > 7. Sound? oh my god!
> >
> > Down side. Who knows we will have to see........
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 |
|
SPAM_PHRASE_01_02, USER_AGENT_OE, USER_IN_WHITELIST)
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
Ok Guy's
I will try and explain my madness somehow.
80 hp at what rpm?
What are you going to do for a reduction drive? DO not even consider using
a rotax gearbox... it would be utterly destroyed by the power pulses of this
engine. (half the power pulses in a 4 stroke turing the same rpm means the
each pulse is twice as large. Thats why the 4 stroke rotaxs have 4
cylinders)
is the above weight with a reduction drive?
Chris, 80 hp is the factory's estimate at the crankshaft @ 5500 rpm. For the first
test I plan to use a #40 chain drive to a 1" driveshaft from a 24 tooth sprocket
to a 48 tooth to give me a 2:1 reduction. The gizmo will be mounted on
pillow block bearings and supported separate from the engine. This is just to
see how the power "act's" with the load of a prop vs. the normal primary drive
and clutch of the motorcycle. As for an aircraft redrive we plan to mill a gear
box from billet aluminum and have the starter drive run in the lube along with
the straight mesh gears.
Power Pulses..... There's that phrase again? I'm sorry but my limited brain can't
understand. I assume that you are talking about the leverage of the connecting
rod on the crankshaft on the power stroke? Or is it because the cubic inch
displacement vs. number of cylinders?
Something you may not know about these engines. The have a compensating drive sprocket.
It's a three finger cam gizmo that has a stout spring that allows the
drive sprocket to "give" 30 or so degrees either way to absorb the "power pulses
perhaps?"
In a two-cylinder, horizontally opposed engine, the pistons are timed so that one
fires on one revolution of the crankshaft and the other fires on the next revolution
-- so one of the two pistons fires on every revolution of the crankshaft.
This seems logical and gives the engine a balanced feeling. To create this
type of engine, the crankshaft has two separate pins for the connecting rods
from the pistons. The pins are 180 degrees apart from one another.
A Harley engine has two pistons. The difference in the Harley engine is that the
crankshaft has only one pin, and both pistons connect to it. This design, combined
with the V arrangement of the cylinders, means that the pistons cannot
fire at even intervals. Instead of one piston firing every 360 degrees, a Harley
engine goes like this:
a.. A piston fires.
b.. The next piston fires at 315 degrees.
c.. There is a 405-degree gap.
d.. A piston fires.
e.. The next piston fires at 315 degrees.
f.. There is a 405-degree gap.
And the cycle continues.
At idle, you can hear the pop-pop sound followed by a pause. So its sound is pop-pop...pop-pop...pop-pop.
That is the unique sound you hear!
Oh almost forgot, the 118 lbs is engine only less starter,carb,exhaust ect....
hope this helps
I will post some pictures soon. I want to clean it up a bit before I start showing
it off hehehe...
pp....
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 |
|
REFERENCES, SPAM_PHRASE_02_03, SUBJECT_IS_LIST, USER_AGENT_OE,
USER_IN_WHITELIST)
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@C-GATE.NET>
Oh yeah Larry web site complete with sound is coming soon!!!!!!
pp
Do not archive> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kolb-List: EVO/AIR
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
REFERENCES, SPAM_PHRASE_01_02, SUBJECT_IS_LIST, USER_AGENT_OE,
USER_IN_WHITELIST)
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
Hans,
Thanks a lot! That's good info. TORSINAL now there's a new word for this
redneck. And makes perfect sense too. I guess for lack of better words, the
big thumper will just beat the redrive to pieces right?
pp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans vanAlphen" <hva@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Harley
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Hans vanAlphen" <hva@bellsouth.net>
>
> Paul,
> It is great to be a pioneer, I though I was, until I found that others
> preceded me in Europe with the development of the BMW engine.
>
> First of all you MUST use a reduction gear. PRSU.
>
> The greatest concern is not vibration, but TORSIONAL vibration, it needs
to
> be dealt with or failure is imminent. And torsional are magnified when you
> add a prop.
>
> See how the Geo engine destroyed the Rotax C gearbox in just a few hours.
> Read about torsional vibration on the geo site and here...
>
> www.sportflight.com/kfb/torsion.htm
>
> I do use the Rotax C gear box on the BMW boxer engine. First I used a
> centrifugal clutch, the RK 400, but it failed with the inflight adjustable
> Ivo prop.
> Replaced it with a heavier flywheel to dampen the torsionals. So far so
> good.
>
> If I were going to design a reduction drive from scratch I would use a
Gates
> Poly Chain or GoodYear Eagle PD belt drive.
>
> www.goodyearindustrialproducts.com/polyurethanebelts/eagle.html
>
> Remember these belts have no stretch in them and you will need additional
> torsional vibration insulation with a donut or sorts.
>
> A lot to think about....... Good luck.
>
> Hans van Alphen
> Mark III Xtra
> BMW powered
> 94 hours.
>
>
> > > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
> > >
> > > Kolbers,
> > > I am in the process of testing a Harley Davidson 1340cc 80CID engine
as
> a
> > possible candidate for a Kolb aircraft engine......snip
>
> > > 1. 118 lbs.
> > > 2. 80 hp.
> > > 3. Dry sump
> > > 4. Fully self contained I.e. Alt,Ignition,Fuel delivery via CV
altitude
> > compensating crab
> > > 5. Cost brand new $2900.00
> > > 6. upgrade with ignition/heads to get 110 hp for another grand
> > > 7. Sound? oh my god!
> > >
> > > Down side. Who knows we will have to see........
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
" At idle, you can hear the pop-pop sound followed by a pause. So its sound
is pop-pop...pop-pop...pop-pop. That is the unique sound you hear!"
I thought it went; potato......potato......potato.........;o) Snuf
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 |
|
REFERENCES, SPAM_PHRASE_01_02, SUBJECT_IS_LIST, USER_AGENT_OE,
USER_IN_WHITELIST)
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
Snuffy, That would be the older "Shovel Head" engines. The evo's run on low
carbohydrates and are lighter:-)
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: EVO
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
>
>
> " At idle, you can hear the pop-pop sound followed by a pause. So its
sound
> is pop-pop...pop-pop...pop-pop. That is the unique sound you hear!"
>
>
> I thought it went; potato......potato......potato.........;o) Snuf
>
> 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: CaptainRon <CaptainRon@theriver.com>
> Ron,
>
> One last try. I believe where you are leading your self astray is by what you
> believe to be "normal". Forget "normal" and think about function. If you
> want to raise the nose and your plane is close to trim balance, you would use
> up elevator or back stick. The low pressure side would be on the bottom of the
> horizontal stabilizer elevator combination, and for a given air speed, this is
> where the VG's would go if you want increased down force on the tail.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Jackson, MO
>
=====================
:-)
Considering all the flack that I got over this, I went back and started to
rethink that.
Well thats what this list is for (I hope). That bro that mentioned (you?)
that he went down and looked at his airframe in its flight attitude, in his
garage kinda kept me thinking about that. John H mentioned something about
the boom needing to be out of the airstream also had me thinking about the
boom's to cage insertion angle. Then the other fellow last night about vg's
to whom I replied that in the M3X the pressure point is weird also got me
thinking,, it aint supposed to be weird! Then I started thinking about the
CG pivot point etc.. It looks like the high pressure would indeed be topside
on the h-stabs in normal to forward cg.
I have to say that if someone would have answered my question 3 days ago as
to the reason for the +angle of incidence of the h-stab relative to the tail
boom, this place would have been a bit less active. And now off to the
hanger to finish the main gear so I can stand this flying donkey on its
wheels and then see it in its flight attitude, and then see what all the
fuss is about. L
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: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford Tuton" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
Geez!!!!
You're not quittin', are ya guys...?
Can't recall having seen this degree of intensity among a group of guys
analyzing "tail" since I was in high school....
Was almost ready to order a Mark III tail kit just to get that sucker laid
out on the garage floor and marvel over it for a few days...
Now....Anyone wanna talk about SEAFOAM???
Worn out Beauford,
The Aluminum Butcher of Brandon, FL
FF076
Do Not Archive
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: CaptainRon <CaptainRon@theriver.com>
>
>
> :-)
>
. And now off to the
> hanger to finish the main gear so I can stand this flying donkey on its
> wheels and then see it in its flight attitude, and then see what all the
> fuss is about. L
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "boyd young" <by0ung@brigham.net>
. Which makes me question why and for what reason did they dial in
such negative angle of attack in the factory. In mine I have already decided
to install another pair of hinges along the center line of the boom.
if i am not mistaking moving the front of the horizontal stabilizers down causes
up elevator trim... a piper supercub moves the front of the horizontal up and
down instead of a flying trim.
boyd
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "boyd young" <by0ung@brigham.net>
You always want to have your wings stall before your tail in a conventional
design. In a canard it the other way around.
I wonder if anyone has any idea why it was designed that way?
in a canard both the wing and the canard create up force...... in a conventional
aircraft the back wing creates a down force.... the reason if for stability.
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: Kolb New Pilot Question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil>
James Alderson wrote:
<< my question is, do I need training specifically in a Kolb?
How many of you didn't fly a Kolb, or a taildragger, before you flew your
Kolb? I am a low time pilot (20 hrs GA, 15 hours Ultralight Trike) and the
guys at my airport are saying I should just do some training hours >>
James, and other new Kolb pilots -
Get the training!
Don't repeat my mistake. I was over-confident with my 500+ hours of GA
airplane experience (which includes 100 hrs of Citabria time) and thought I
could handle my Mark-III for the first flight. I was wrong. Bent both gear
legs on my first landing. My Kolb handles much differently than the heavier
airplanes I've flown before, and my previous experience didn't help me.
Kolb control response is much lighter and responsive, and the drag will slow
you down WAY faster when the power is reduced than on GA planes. Despite
all the good advice I read on this List over the past 5 years that followed
the common theme to "fly the airplane all the way to the ground," my
inexperience still got the better of the situation and I let myself get too
slow over the runway and dropped it in from 8 feet. (how embarrassing!)
My plane is fixed now (another good feature about Kolbs: easy to fix!) but
I'm waiting until I get some dual in another Mark-III before I fly mine
again.
I'm planning to visit TNK in London, KY right after SnF and will fly with
their chief pilot in the company demonstrator Mark-III. Yeah, it's an
airline ticket, a hotel room and rental car, but not bending my airplane
every time I fly it is worth that price!
Dennis Kirby
Verner-powered, Powerfin-72
Cedar Crest, NM
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: Kolb New Pilot Question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Bob Bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
Subject: carrying power. First lesson I had was in an air force aero club
cessna 140. My instructor was a grizzled old civilian with whiskey on his
breath. --Great guy, and an excellent pilot/instructor. Were flying out
of Griffiss , both a SAC and ADC base. It was a strange feeling of
miniaturization on final, those black stripes they painted on the ends
were big enough to land on by themselves. He showed me how to air taxi.
drive the length of the runway (3/4 mi?) to the turnoff at 3ft AGL and
then touch down just at the turnoff. -"saves time" he said. This was 1963.
Fast forward a few years, I was trying to burn off some remaining VA $$,
taking supposed commercial lessons in one of those crappy cherokee 140's.
So we were at one of those good-sized "international" airports and I was
with a young feller instructor. -Same thing, got it close and dragged it
on the cushion for about a half mile. He got mad as hell. I plunked it at
the turnoff, drove to the parking lot and said goodby. Didn't need those
"lessons" I guess. - BB do not archive
What got me started on this is wondering why first time MkIII pilots
have a problem carrying power to the ground??????
Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil>
>
>James Alderson wrote:
><< my question is, do I need training specifically in a Kolb?
>How many of you didn't fly a Kolb, or a taildragger, before you flew your
>Kolb? I am a low time pilot (20 hrs GA, 15 hours Ultralight Trike) and the
>guys at my airport are saying I should just do some training hours >>
>
>James, and other new Kolb pilots -
>
>Get the training!
>
>Don't repeat my mistake. I was over-confident with my 500+ hours of GA
>airplane experience (which includes 100 hrs of Citabria time) and thought I
>could handle my Mark-III for the first flight. I was wrong. Bent both gear
>legs on my first landing. My Kolb handles much differently than the heavier
>airplanes I've flown before, and my previous experience didn't help me.
>Kolb control response is much lighter and responsive, and the drag will slow
>you down WAY faster when the power is reduced than on GA planes. Despite
>all the good advice I read on this List over the past 5 years that followed
>the common theme to "fly the airplane all the way to the ground," my
>inexperience still got the better of the situation and I let myself get too
>slow over the runway and dropped it in from 8 feet. (how embarrassing!)
>
>My plane is fixed now (another good feature about Kolbs: easy to fix!) but
>I'm waiting until I get some dual in another Mark-III before I fly mine
>again.
>
>I'm planning to visit TNK in London, KY right after SnF and will fly with
>their chief pilot in the company demonstrator Mark-III. Yeah, it's an
>airline ticket, a hotel room and rental car, but not bending my airplane
>every time I fly it is worth that price!
>
>Dennis Kirby
>Verner-powered, Powerfin-72
>Cedar Crest, NM
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: history of ultralights |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: woody <duesouth@govital.net>
At 02:08 PM 2/26/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>He was pretty much within the EAA mold, and his designs were fairly
>conventional. It was those bandito hang glider pioneers to whom we owe!
I would like to think that a poor farm boy that builds a plane that
weighs less than himself and designed to fly 50 ft up because he figures if
he can build a silo that tall then he can do whatever he wants in that
airspace should get more credit than a guy that sticks an engine on a
proven airframe. Just my opinion ofcourse. Never heard of Homers designs
being considered conventional except for having wings and a tail.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: GeoR38@aol.com
In a message dated 2/28/03 11:28:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
cen33475@centurytel.net writes:
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <
> cen33475@CenturyTel.net>
>
> On the M3X low pressure side is up top, and to counter act it the
> elevator control is used. placing the vg's on the bottom side of the H-stabs
>
> will be of no ( indeed contrary to..) benafit on the M3X. The VG's have to
> be on the low pressure side,, which weird enough is topside on the M3X.
>
>
> Ron,
> you're completely wrong. totally wrong. you are not right . you are the
> opposite of correct. you are in error. your percentage of accuracy is
> zero. you are simply outside the realm of truth.
>
> worse yet you are not listening to the people who know tell you the
> answers.
>
> if the tail on a rear tailed aircraft lifts upwards in steady level flight,
> then the cg is aft of the ac and the aircraft is unstable and would be tail
> heavy and unflyable without stability augmentation. your lack of
> understanding on this basic principle of stability leads me to think you
> should fly until you (re)complete a ground school course and understand
> your
> aircraft better.
>
> not that I really care about your butt, but it would be a shame to have you
> smash a perfectly good plane. I sincerly hope you're just yanking our
> chains as I find it hard to believe anybody is actually this dense.
>
>
> Topher, the discusted, mean version!
>
Hey, Topher....relax, ...ol dogs take longer to learn new tricks. I was in
the same camp with Ron for many years myself and some on this list may
remember me making a statement only within a year ago about deciding to
believe that the stability of a conventional aircraft is achieved by having a
constant down vector on the stabilizer. I've been around airplanes all my
life (my dad ran a model airplane shop in Sharon, Pa during and shortly after
the Big One in the 40s and 50s.) And I built planes since I was 3, not the 64
that dominates what is left of my life now.
In many models and real airplanes of the past, the symmetry of the airfoil of
the horizontal stabilizers varied from truly symmetrical to almost a clark y
airfoil...and, indeed, one would wonder, why put a nonsymmetrical airfoil on
a horizontal stabilizer if it wasn't supposed to be a lifting body, ie. low
pressure on top. Well, I suppose many of the ol designers didn't even know
the real reason for the stab, either, hence the non symmetrical airfoils of
old!
In the observations of models it is easy to see that they will fly free
flight with dihedral in the wings and a perfectly non incidental ( no angle
of incidence) in the stab but perfect balance of cg. Or they can get by
with no dihedral at all and a severe angle of incidence between wings and
stab....Go on folks ...just look at some models that fly without any input
from anyone.
Well, I notice that this is gettin kinda long, so let someone else finish it.
I didn't state any conclusive summary here, but this is a smart group, you
do it yourselves........please.
George Randolph
Firestar driver from Akron
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: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Vincehallam@aol.com
look closer at some of those"nonsymetrical"tail feathers youllseev they were
upside down
vnz
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: Kolb New Pilot Question--Train or Crash? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: bobn <ronoy@shentel.net>
This is about what might have been a Fat UL and training pilots in
it--story from Chapter 3, Flying Tales of The Grey Baron:
Instructors, Go Home.
About mid-1944 it appeared that WWIIs end was in sight, and Lockheed
was already thinking of civilian airplane production again. Not only
would the airlines need lots of big planes, but with the return to
civilian status, tens of thousands of pilots might just want to buy
their own small airplane. Lockheed president Robert Gross was interested
in a small plane for his commuting, being able to operate out of his
back yard. Note that his back yard was a touch bigger than the Levittown
postage stamps.
John Thorp (of homebuilt designer fame) was in charge of five
designer-draftsmen and five mechanics, who cranked out the Little Dipper
Model 33 in three months! Thorp was one of its early test pilots, often
taking off, flying in circles, and landing??all in a 300 circle.
This was still a somewhat secret military effort, with a possible use as
airborne cavalry mount for soldiers. Training would consist of a short
ground school, and little or no dual! An Army PFC with no previous
flying experience volunteered to try the program. He was briefed by a
Lockheed pilot, strapped in along with a walkie-talkie, and was talked
into the air. He made it around once and landed OK. Flushed with success
he started another hop on his own, but failed to use full throttle,
almost crashing. Communication was re-established and he flew around for
a few minutes, landing successfully. It was then agreed that the test
had been passed, and the project was feasible.
Postscript
The Little Dipper came to grief during a demo at Andrews, piloted by
an experienced but over-confident
military pilot. The colonel chopped the throttle in a steep turn at low
speed, close to the ground. It cartwheeled, doing extensive damage, but
none to the pilot. Another accident involved a female pilot, the
aviation editor of a popular national publication. She was lost near NYC
and put down in a potato patch (maybe the same field where Bill Levitt
spawned his houses?) This time the little plane went over on its back.
And finally, to demo it to the War Department, it was landed on the
grass inside the Pentagon, right under Air Force Gen. Hoyt Vandenburgs
window. He wasnt wild about the Cavalry thing; next day the contract
was canceled.
*******
Moral? Get some dual!
Bob N.
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy
do not archive
.
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: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
Not always. I used to build Free Flight models, and some of them have Clark
Y airfoils on the stab, right side up. You have to make the thing
tailheavy, and only fly within a certain speed envelope, and it will work.
Total lift goes up, because both surfaces are lifting, but they are only
stable at certain speeds.
Years ago, in the beginning days of aviation, some of the pioneers did the
same thing, but then as speeds went up, the airplane would tuck. Bummer. So
the CAA, (Forerunner of the FAA) outlawed them. You still see some
aircraft today that have them upside down, like Zenair, and that works.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldpoops)
Do Not Archive
At 05:42 PM 2/28/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: Vincehallam@aol.com
>
>look closer at some of those"nonsymetrical"tail feathers youllseev they were
>upside down
> vnz
>
>
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 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 |
|
SPAM_PHRASE_01_02, USER_AGENT_OE, USER_IN_WHITELIST)
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
Hans,Kolbers,
Thank you Hans for the torsinoal information. And the website links to both torsional
and belt drives. I have been looking for a belt drive for this project
like the one used on the Verner set up.
This will be very interesting because the basic reason for testing this engine
for a aircraft application is to see what happens when a prop is attached and
how the engine at the prop gets along!
When you take for instance a single cylinder large bore high compression engine,
like say a Honda CR500 2 cycle or a similar 4 cycle engine on a dirt bike, you
can feel the "thump" as you apply its awesome power to the rear wheel.
The "give" to "torsional" affect is played out in rear wheel spin. Imagine a hot
sticky 20" wide slick rubber tire on a Honda CR500 on hot asphalt?
Dump the clutch and something is going to break and someone is going to have a
heck of a ride! Here is another. Imagine a 5000 hp top fuel dragster direct driven,
OUCH!
The point is with any thing other than propeller driven forward motion, weather
it be through the air or submerged in water, it's clutch managed and power is
applied gently at first.
This torsional effect has really put 2 an 2 together for me because in my (deaveted
mind) I just didn't have a phrase to put to what I have suspected all along.
Any internal combustion engine operates like a "Tilt a World" ever ride one
of those as a kid? There is a point where you are neutral then you are at maximum
velocity then back to natural and so on.
Ya think I'm catching on here? Duh Hug?
Any way I'm off to the shop to fire the beast again. This time with a new carb
and some VP Motor Sport 103!!!!!!!!!
If I don't return to the list, well check out www.darwinawards.com
pp....
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
Aw, Beaufie..................an' here I thought you wuz a nice guy.
Sadistic, you are ! ! ! Harrrr Do not Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beauford Tuton" <beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: nose heavy mk III
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford Tuton"
<beauford@tampabay.rr.com>
>
> Geez!!!!
> You're not quittin', are ya guys...?
> Can't recall having seen this degree of intensity among a group of guys
> analyzing "tail" since I was in high school....
>
> Was almost ready to order a Mark III tail kit just to get that sucker laid
> out on the garage floor and marvel over it for a few days...
>
> Now....Anyone wanna talk about SEAFOAM???
>
> Worn out Beauford,
> The Aluminum Butcher of Brandon, FL
> FF076
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kolb New Pilot Question--Train or Crash? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Alderson, James" <James_Alderson@jdedwards.com>
Just so nobody is looking for my obituary in the paper, my intent was not to
ask if I should get dual time, but to ask if I truely needed any time in a 2
place Kolb before flying it. I fully and completely intend to get time in
the trusty flightstar at my field, but as we all know, not a taildragger,
and not a pusher prop.
By overwhelming "yes, if you can get it, fly a Kolb first" responses have
given me the idea that I should seek it out. I am going to do fast walk
speed taxi tests tomorrow and hopefully get a couple of hours in either an
XAir, Rans S6 taildragger or the Flightstar II.
Happy flying.
James
-----Original Message-----
From: bobn [mailto:ronoy@shentel.net]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb New Pilot Question--Train or Crash?
--> Kolb-List message posted by: bobn <ronoy@shentel.net>
This is about what might have been a Fat UL and training pilots in
it--story from Chapter 3, Flying Tales of The Grey Baron:
Instructors, Go Home.
About mid-1944 it appeared that WWIIs end was in sight, and Lockheed
was already thinking of civilian airplane production again. Not only
would the airlines need lots of big planes, but with the return to
civilian status, tens of thousands of pilots might just want to buy
their own small airplane. Lockheed president Robert Gross was interested
in a small plane for his commuting, being able to operate out of his
back yard. Note that his back yard was a touch bigger than the Levittown
postage stamps.
John Thorp (of homebuilt designer fame) was in charge of five
designer-draftsmen and five mechanics, who cranked out the Little Dipper
Model 33 in three months! Thorp was one of its early test pilots, often
taking off, flying in circles, and landing??all in a 300 circle.
This was still a somewhat secret military effort, with a possible use as
airborne cavalry mount for soldiers. Training would consist of a short
ground school, and little or no dual! An Army PFC with no previous
flying experience volunteered to try the program. He was briefed by a
Lockheed pilot, strapped in along with a walkie-talkie, and was talked
into the air. He made it around once and landed OK. Flushed with success
he started another hop on his own, but failed to use full throttle,
almost crashing. Communication was re-established and he flew around for
a few minutes, landing successfully. It was then agreed that the test
had been passed, and the project was feasible.
Postscript
The Little Dipper came to grief during a demo at Andrews, piloted by
an experienced but over-confident
military pilot. The colonel chopped the throttle in a steep turn at low
speed, close to the ground. It cartwheeled, doing extensive damage, but
none to the pilot. Another accident involved a female pilot, the
aviation editor of a popular national publication. She was lost near NYC
and put down in a potato patch (maybe the same field where Bill Levitt
spawned his houses?) This time the little plane went over on its back.
And finally, to demo it to the War Department, it was landed on the
grass inside the Pentagon, right under Air Force Gen. Hoyt Vandenburgs
window. He wasnt wild about the Cavalry thing; next day the contract
was canceled.
*******
Moral? Get some dual!
Bob N.
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy
do not archive
.
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: woody <duesouth@govital.net>
>
>Chris, 80 hp is the factory's estimate at the crankshaft @ 5500 rpm. For
>the first test I plan to use a #40 chain drive to a 1" driveshaft from a
>24 tooth sprocket to a 48 tooth to give me a 2:1 reduction.
You might want to rethink that one. Add a couple more teeth to a
sprocket. A direct 2:1 ratio may give you a weird harmonic vibration. Thats
why reduction drives always have an odd ratio. The power pulse is when the
engine fires it gives a shot of power to the crank. The clutch mechanism
you mention will probably compensate for it.
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: history of ultralights |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: woody <duesouth@govital.net>
>
>s John said earlier, it
>wasn't until friends pressed him to offer a kit that the Ultrastar was born
>around 1980.
I visited him and bought a Flyer kit around 1980 Ultrastars were a
couple years later I believe
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: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: woody <duesouth@govital.net>
A
for what reason did they dial in
>such negative angle of attack in the factory. In mine I have already decided
>to install another pair of hinges along the center line of the boom.
Will that interfere with the foldability of the tail?
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: | 447 New vs Rebuild |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: <buckeridge1@mindspring.com>
OK Guys...and Gals,
You are all smarter than me so I need an opinion. The time has come to think
about doing something with my 447. It has 600+ hours and given me remarkable
service for almost ten years. Three weeks ago the pull starter rope broke
again but this time I noticed a little oil inside the cover ... the seal is leaking.
I did a top-end on the engine a little over 200 hours ago. Cleaned off
the carbon, replaced the rings with new original size, and also replaced the
bearings. That is the only thing I've done to the engine in all this time. The
question is whether I should bite the bullet and just buy a new one or try to
get someone to rebuild the old one for me. Has anyone had experience in this
scenario? Either way it looks like a lot of money but can an engine really
be rebuilt to better than new? Do I buy new CDI and new gearbox or does that
stuff never fail? What about the crank?
Thanks,
Buck
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: | 447 New vs Rebuild |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Tom Olenik" <olenik-aviation@buyitsellitfixit.com>
Buck,
I don't envy your position. Is this a provision four 447? If so, Rotax
really screwed you. I don't know if I would give them a second chance. An
older 447 can not be rebuilt to approved standards because Rotax no longer
offers the crankshaft. The 447 crank is really a 600 hour crank, but you
have that already. The 447 is still a very low seller and definitely on the
endangered species list. Don't be surprised if it gets discontinued and the
guys buying 447's today will be abandoned by the time they need crankshafts
too.
However, if you do have a provision 8 engine, then yes, it is possible to
rebuild one to better than new condition mechanically....maybe not
cosmetically. It's not cheap, but every single component that wears in that
engine can be replaced, and when we do one at a time like that, we can put
it together with much better precision than it can be done practically on an
assembly line. With most reputable shops you also get a detailed service
record with that overhaul that states the exact tolerances that everything
was set up at. You can view a few examples of those on my web site. Such a
record can come in handy if you ever decide to sell your plane. It can
really impress a buyer if they can see exactly what the piston clearances
and such were at a specific point in the engine's life.
Tom Olenik
Olenik Aviation
http://www.buyitsellitfixit.com
877-AIR-MOTORS ...we support what we sell......except prov. 4 447 cranks
which we are really pissed at Rotax about.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
buckeridge1@mindspring.com
Subject: Kolb-List: 447 New vs Rebuild
--> Kolb-List message posted by: <buckeridge1@mindspring.com>
OK Guys...and Gals,
You are all smarter than me so I need an opinion. The time has come to
think about doing something with my 447. It has 600+ hours and given me
remarkable service for almost ten years. Three weeks ago the pull starter
rope broke again but this time I noticed a little oil inside the cover ...
the seal is leaking. I did a top-end on the engine a little over 200 hours
ago. Cleaned off the carbon, replaced the rings with new original size, and
also replaced the bearings. That is the only thing I've done to the engine
in all this time. The question is whether I should bite the bullet and just
buy a new one or try to get someone to rebuild the old one for me. Has
anyone had experience in this scenario? Either way it looks like a lot of
money but can an engine really be rebuilt to better than new? Do I buy new
CDI and new gearbox or does that stuff never fail? What about the crank?
Thanks,
Buck
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 41
| 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: history of ultralights |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb@pa.net>
John and fellow historians,
I haven't had much time of late to follow the list. But this thread caught
my attention and thought I'd toss in my recollections.
I could be wrong ... I'm old enough to not trust my memory like I used to.
But John may have a more advanced case of the contagion than myself - but
Homer did not start with hangliders. His first "ultralight" had 4 engines
(either Chrysler or Mac 101's), it had a 12 ft wingspan and as I recall,
Homer flew it very little because it was very HOT (55 mph stall as I
recall), which is about what you would expect with a 12 ft span. He later
increased the wingspan to 17 ft and removed one engine resulting in the Kolb
TriMotor. This one flew better, but it was still not a wholesome aircraft.
These 2 aircraft were high wing pushers with sort traditional aluminum wings
for the structure and skin. The next aircraft, while being similar in
configuration, was a long hop from the first two. On the next iteration,
Homer increased the span to 30+ feet and used 2 Mac 101's. This was the
"Flyer" and it flew in the late 60's as I recall. This was the first "low
and slow" aircraft and it was a fabric-covered wing. Compared to early
ultralighting, Homer's designs were traditional.
But even before the multi-engine configurations, Homer did some towing with
a glider (not a hang glider) behind a boat on the river. I recall one of
these very early flights, I was in grade school at the time and we had come
north to Pa for a visit (my parents moved from PA to FL when I was 5). The
flight was very short because a wing support wire let go at the attachment.
Homer had used hardware store eyebolts (not welded) to anchor the wires and
it simply opened up and let go.
Homer typically was more of a designer and builder than flyer of his
experimental aircraft . counting by the hours anyway. The proto "Flyer" was
flown and then collected dust for many years. During this time Homer played
with the kites. I was around and saw some of the building of the 3 engine
aircraft, but did not see it fly. But I did help to fly the hang gliders he
built, which we did around 1970. I remember because we used my 1967 VW for
some of the towing. We towed on Homer's runway. The VW made a great tow
vehicle because of the rear bumper. We would have someone sit on the rear
engine hood with his feet planted on the bumper. The towrope would have a
turn or two taken around the round portion of the bumper and then it took
very little pressure to hold the rope. The rope-holder was facing aft and
could keep a careful watch on what was happening and could instruct the
drive to speed-up, slow down or whatever.
We just hung from our armpits on two parallel aluminum tubes. You could
move forward and aft, but it wasn't particularly easy; and you could put
more pressure on one side or the other to do some shallow turns. Two
friends of Homer, John and Andy Longacre (they were brothers) flew it more
than anyone. I was one of the first to do a free flight, sans towrope -
mainly due to my ineptness at flying the thing. I was too far back on the
tubes and it climbed to high and the rope-holder released the rope because
of the steep angle of the rope. I don't recall how I recovered . luckily I
didn't stall and crash. One time, either John or Andy got too high on one
flight and could not get it down in time and flew into the pond at the end
of Homer's airstrip.
When Homer was got tired of this new toy, he went back to the flyer and
recovered it and got it flying again. About this time he was bugging me to
help him get a business started. I was still in college studying mechanical
engineering and I wasn't really interested. As I would stop by on
occasional visits he would typically mention about starting the business
thing. In the late 70's I decided to go to Oshkosh and that was the year
Homer decided to take his newly recovered Flyer. I got pretty excited about
ultralights and came close to buying a Quick or a Pterodactyl. But when we
got back Homer was all excited about the reception his Flyer had received
and when he started talking about starting a business, I listened more
carefully and eventually agreed and we incorporated in 1979 and Kolb Co. got
going in 1980. I started flying the Flyer that fall and I can still recall
that first flight with those two unmuffled Mac 101's screaming in both my
ears. I did not get to fly it for long though, Andy Longacre was also
flying it some and on one flight he did not gain altitude like he should
have and tried a turn at the end of the runway and crashed it. End of the
Flyer - Andy was not hurt at all. I was upset because now I had nothing to
fly. So that winter we built another and took it to SNF. Andy did penance
and towed the new Flyer to SNF for us. It was Andy, by the way, the came up
with the name UltraStar. We were driving back from one of the SNF shows and
we were brainstorming about a name and we were getting close to it, but it
was Andy that put the words together and UltraStar was officially named.
The Flyer gave us a start, but almost immediately we started thinking about
something else and it was only a couple years before we had the UltraStar
and it was a major success.
Hope this helps puts some things into perspective. I think my recounting of
the early chronology (before the Kolb Co years) is close - but I could be
mixed up a bit too, I'll check next time I see Homer.
I do agree with John on one major point: those were some good years!
Dennis
Message 42
| 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: nose heavy mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: CaptainRon <CaptainRon@theriver.com>
2/28/03 15:51woody
> Will that interfere with the foldability of the tail?
============================
Don't think so. Can't see why it would not fold ok with a different angle.
It should pivot ok.
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! --
|