Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:31 AM - Re: Weight & Balance (Vincehallam@aol.com)
2. 01:58 AM - Re: Weight & Balance (Vincehallam@aol.com)
3. 05:58 AM - Mark III Classic for Sale (L. Ray Baker)
4. 07:24 AM - Re: Weight & Balance (Larry Bourne)
5. 07:53 AM - Re: Weight (johnjung@compusenior.com)
6. 07:55 AM - Hans - how about a BMW update? (Bob, Kathleen, & Kory Brocious)
7. 12:15 PM - Mark III Classic weight (L. Ray Baker)
8. 01:30 PM - Re: Vertical Stabilizer - Uncompensated Yaw (Jack & Louise Hart)
9. 01:37 PM - Re: Mark III Classic weight (Cy Galley)
10. 02:13 PM - Re: Vertical Stabilizer - Uncompensated Yaw (John Hauck)
11. 03:39 PM - Re: Weight & Balance (johnjung@compusenior.com)
12. 05:03 PM - question (Paul Petty)
13. 05:41 PM - Re: question (Don Gherardini)
14. 05:45 PM - Re: question (Richard Swiderski)
15. 05:54 PM - Re: question (John Hauck)
16. 06:03 PM - Fw: stupid (Paul Petty)
17. 06:19 PM - Re: Weight & Balance (Richard Pike)
18. 06:39 PM - Re: Weight (Richard Pike)
19. 07:11 PM - Latex Paint (Audrey Lewis)
20. 07:24 PM - Re: Fw: stupid (HShack@aol.com)
21. 07:58 PM - Re: question (Larry Bourne)
22. 08:08 PM - Re: Weight & Balance/ %cg (Richard Swiderski)
23. 09:13 PM - Re: Latex Paint (CaptainRon)
24. 09:13 PM - Re: Latex Paint (Don Gherardini)
25. 09:16 PM - Re: Weight & Balance (Larry Bourne)
26. 09:36 PM - Re: Latex Paint (Don Gherardini)
27. 11:29 PM - Re: Fw: stupid (Vincehallam@aol.com)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Weight & Balance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Vincehallam@aol.com
Hi
As far as i can see the only information you get is that the empty CofG
lies somewhere on that vertical line ,,Where the line hits the wing doesnt
mean much at all...
Shoot me??
Vnz
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: Weight & Balance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Vincehallam@aol.com
Guy
Ive tried to email you direct but it got rejected by DAEMON .......yes
please id like a copy of your one size fits all weight and balance spread
sheet
Vince hallam
Woodlands Torquay UK TQ 13 LZ
DO not archive
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mark III Classic for Sale |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "L. Ray Baker" <rbaker-@atlantic.net>
Due to personal circumstances I am selling my pride and joy. We are in the process
of flying off the 40 hour phase 1 tests.
KOLB Mark III N629RB Details. Pictures at <rbaker-.members.atlantic.net>
Rotax 912 with ground adjustable IVO 3 bladed prop.(14.4 hours and climbing)
Lang L-693, full swivel and steerable tailwheel.
BRS - 1050 Cannister chute.
Strobe, (Kuntzleman) mounted on horizontal stabilizer.
Landing Light
Aux Fuel pump.
Grand Rapids EIS with VSI.
Kuntzleman hotbox.
ICOM 4A radio, Pro Comm helmet, Avecom headset AC 200 PNR.
ELT, Ameri-king AK 450.
Wheel Fairings.
Paint (Poly-Tone) is white with green trim and gold stripping.
Total cost of materials, freight, taxes, airworthiness . $31K +, (I have the invoices
to prove it) Time to build 2000 hours (very slow builder) Detailed builders
log cross referenced to pictures of building process.
Currently flying off 40 hour phase 1 flight testing.
Located at Flying 10 Airport (0J8), Archer, FL (SW of Gainesville, FL)
Asking $29,000
Ray Baker
4824 NW 75th Road
Gainesville, FL 32653-1189
352-264-8148
rbaker-@atlantic.net
do not archive
This is a one time repetition of a message sent during SNF.
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: Weight & Balance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
I'd like to say "thanks a lot" to all the people who responded - both on &
off List. Several people sent me sample graphs to put my numbers into, but
Hans van Alphen's was the easiest to use. I got most of my numbers into it,
and fudged a couple, but got confused when I got to the moment arm stage,
and couldn't get past it. Duncan McBride's explanation finally made the
"click" for me, and it all made sense. Now, when I go back to the high
desert this weekend, I can do the w&b over again for myself, and know what
I'm looking at. Looks like Vamoose is pretty close to "right on the money"
just as he sits. Thanks again, everybody. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Weight & Balance
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
>
> We set the plane up on the scales to have the wing at 9 deg angle of
attack.
> Leading edge of the wing is the datum point, wheel axle is 5 1/2"
negative.
> FAA form showed it at 29% empty. Kolb form showed it at 44% empty; 39.5%
> with me in it - 195 # at 4" forward. I've emailed my A&P, and asked him
to
> send me his numbers. Gotta go to work now; we'll see if he sends them
> today. Thanks again, all. Lar.
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, CA
> Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
> www.gogittum.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Weight & Balance
>
>
> > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
> >
> > About a year ago, I asked everyone what their numbers were, and mine
> were -
> > proportionately - pretty close. I showed 287 on the right wheel, 292 on
> the
> > left, and 89 on the tailwheel, at 9 deg. angle of attack. That's real
> > heavy, I know, but keep that big hunk of engine in mind. My concern
> > is - - - - why the discrepancy ?? Which numbers do I believe, and which
> > numbers do I show the DAR ??.............and in all serious-ness, if it
IS
> > way tail heavy, a stall could well be un-recoverable. Good way to ruin
a
> > day, eh ?? My inclination is to go with the FAA worksheet, but it -
> still -
> > don't - feel -right - ! ! ! Lar.
> >
> > Larry Bourne
> > Palm Springs, CA
> > Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
> > www.gogittum.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Pike" <rwpike@charter.net>
> > To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Weight & Balance
> >
> >
> > > --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
> > >
> > > Something doesn't sound right.
> > > Why not post the #s that you are showing on your forms and let the
> listers
> > > see how it compares with theirs?
> > > Some times we fail to see the forests for the trees.
> > >
> > > Richard Pike
> > > MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
> > >
> > > Do Not Archive
> > >
> > >
> > > At 02:40 PM 4/14/03 -0700, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
> > > >
> > > >Today we did the weight & balance on Vamoose, and have come up with a
> > > >serious question/problem. We put the wheels on scales, then lifted
the
> > > >tail till a level held on the wing trailing edge tube was 7 1/2"
inches
> > > >below the leading edge tube, as per the instructions, to give a 9
deg.
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "johnjung@compusenior.com" <johnjung@compusenior.com>
Larry and Group,
I did a rough check of your weight and balance with my EXCEL program,
and I determined that you need at least 70 lbs in the seat next to you
to meet the 35% limit. First let me qualify "rough". I don't know how
much gas was in your tanks when you weighed it, and I don't have your
measurements for wheels and gas tanks. So I used standard numbers as an
estimate. Also, I don't know what kind or how many scales you used, or
if the scales were tested in any way. As someone else said, you need an
accurate scale for the tailwheel, plus with that much weight, 4
(bathroom) scales should be used under the main gear.
Is 35% important? Firestars have been allowed to use a 37% limit and I
suspect that Mark III's are flying at CG's aft of 35%. But it sure would
be nice to know how far aft Mark III's have been tested or flown. You
certainly don't need another variable on first flight.
Are there any Mark III's flying that have cg's in excess of 35%? Please
let us and Larry know.
John Jung
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: | Hans - how about a BMW update? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Bob, Kathleen, & Kory Brocious" <bbrocious@hotmail.com>
Hans,
Would you give us an update on your experience with the BMW engine? Do you have
any pictures you could share? Performance? Maintenance? etc.
Thanx, ... Bob N57MB Mark III
Bob, Kathleen, and Kory Brocious<EM>Tenacity Farm </EM>
Campbellsburg, Kentucky
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: | Mark III Classic weight |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "L. Ray Baker" <rbaker-@atlantic.net>
Big Lar,
Sorry to be so slow in responding. My weights are Port 264, Starboard 262 and
tail 73.5 for a total of 599.5. This was with empty gas tanks.
Ray Baker
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: Vertical Stabilizer - Uncompensated Yaw |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
At 04:02 PM 4/14/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
>
>> I made a one washer thickness change and raised the back of the engine. I flew
it in the pattern and I found at cruise on the downwind leg that the ball
position had changed from one-half ball out to one-fourth ball out.
>
>> Jack & Louise Hart
>
>Jack/Gang:
>
>Need some particular info on your aircraft and
>test:
>
>1) Prop rotation direction?
CCW - I believe, but it is opposite the direction of a propeller for a Rotax 447
>
>2) Direction of adverse yaw?
Ball out to the right, right rudder pedal pressure brings it back in.
>
>3) What is your cruise speed?
55 mphi
>
>4) How is this affecting your airspeed/engine
>rpm?
>
John,
I had hoped to get to the airport again and to move one more washer. I have the
airspeeds for 4,500 and 5,000 rpm recorded for one-half ball out. But I have
not been able to fly due to very high winds. Today was the last chance for
this week.
Tomorrow I will be going by Wicks and I will pick up some more washers. When I
get home next week I will set the engine back where it was at one ball out and
run all the tests in one day. It will be interesting to see the effect of
number of washers on air speed at the two above rpms. Then when the ball is washered
in, I will off set the ball with left rudder pedal pressure and see what
air speed comes up.
>If I remember correctly, you have increased
>incidence of wing and horizontal stabilizer. If
>so, we can not compare what is happening to your
>Fire Fly with a standard configured one?
John,
If you look at the incidence angles shown on:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly56.html
there is a three degree difference in incidence between the wing and the horizontal
stabilizer. I have no data to say this is different from the TNK FireFly.
If TNK FireFly is well trimmed out in pitch with equal up and down elevator
at cruise, I can not see that there will be any difference. Washering the engine
front or back will walk both the engine and ball into the correct positions.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
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: Mark III Classic weight |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
So what are the moment arms? Each distance from Leading edge of your wing
for example.
All you have to do then is multiple each weight by its arm. Add the 3
answers and divide by the total weight and this will tell you in inches how
far back the CG is from the wing leading edge. It you want a percentage
figure take that distance divide by the wings chord (width) time 100 should
give the percent.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Ray Baker" <rbaker-@atlantic.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Mark III Classic weight
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "L. Ray Baker" <rbaker-@atlantic.net>
>
> Big Lar,
>
> Sorry to be so slow in responding. My weights are Port 264, Starboard 262
and tail 73.5 for a total of 599.5. This was with empty gas tanks.
>
> Ray Baker
>
>
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: Vertical Stabilizer - Uncompensated Yaw |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Jack H/Gang:
I think what is happening when you jack up the
rear of the engine is reducing the amount of prop
wash that is hitting the left side of the vertical
stabilizer.
The reason I say this is my prop turns CCW just
like yours. Over the years the paint (which is
original 1991/92 paint) on the left side has
eroded considerably from exhaust products, oil,
dirt, etc. The right side is new looking.
I recently removed the fabric from the vertical
stabilizer for the first time. It was interesting
to find that the lower forward internal brace had
blackened the inside of the fabric on the left
side. The right side fabric did not show any
mark. The lower rear internal brace did not touch
the fabric interior left or right.
A characteristic of the Kolb aircraft is the prop
wash hits the left side of the vertical stabilizer
with a CCW prop rotation and just the opposite
with a CW rotation.
A simple fix, with some experimentation, was the
trim tab I now use. Weight of this trim tab and a
few rivets is negligible, compared to increased
the offset between wing incidence and thrust line.
Anyhow, that is the way I do it. :-)
john h
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: Weight & Balance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "johnjung@compusenior.com" <johnjung@compusenior.com>
Larry,
I noticed that you did list the distance to your front axles, so I
corrected my calculations for just that demension and now it shows you
close to 35%. Only 21 lbs are needed in the seat next to you. Or some
other small change.
I also looked over that FAA form that you mentioned and I would trust
the results that you got. It must not have been used incorrectly to get
anywhere near 29%.
John Jung
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
Ok Kolbers,
Dumb question time from the student. From witch direction to you consider a CW
or CCW rotation of a prop on a Kolb? From the nose or tail?
Thanks
pp....
N4958P
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: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
in general aviation.....you call the prop direction when standing in the
propwash.....no matter which end or the airplane its on!
Don
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: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski@advanced-connect.net>
Paul,
All props are viewed from the rear of the plane. ...Richard Swiderski
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: question
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
>
> Ok Kolbers,
> Dumb question time from the student. From witch direction to you consider
a CW or CCW rotation of a prop on a Kolb? From the nose or tail?
>
> Thanks
>
> pp....
> N4958P
>
> Do not archive
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> Dumb question time from the student. From witch direction to you consider a CW
or CCW rotation of a prop on a Kolb? From the nose or tail?
> pp....
pp/Gang:
I don't know if it is correct or not. I always
refer to prop rotation on our pushers as viewed
from the rear to front.
john h
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: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Petty
Subject: stupid
I'm still stuck on stupid.
If I mounted my engine on a kolb right now, standing behind, my engine would be
turning CCW. Would this a CW or CCW rotation.... sorry
pp
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: Weight & Balance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
Remarkably enough, that is close to the way you figured weight & balance on
a Maxair Hummer. With the keel tube level, you dropped a datum line from
the leading edge of the wing down to the keel tube, measured back so far
and marked the front limit, then measured back a bit further and marked the
rear limit.
The you duct taped a short length of 2x4 to the bottom of the keel tube so
you wouldn't bend it or cave it in, stuck a length of round tubing at 90
degrees to the tube, climbed up into the seat, had a friend steady the
wingtip, and another friend jacked up the airplane with a jack under the
round tubing.
With full fuel, it shouldn't tip forward with the jack under the front
datum, or tip backwards with the jack under the rear datum with zero fuel.
The expression on the face of the guy from the Nashville FSDO was
wonderful. But he bought it, because that was the only way the factory gave
you to calculate it, and it flew just fine.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Do Not Archive
At 09:43 PM 4/15/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: Bob Bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
>
><snip>
>-How about just putting a sheet of padded plywood under each wing
>and balancing it on tall skinny sawhorses? Ya have to admit that
>WOULD be the cg.
<snip>
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: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
At 07:53 AM 4/16/03 -0700, you wrote:
My Old Kolb data from December 1990, page 43, revision 0 says says 37%.
The builders manual, revised 7/26/94, page 101 says 35%.
I did my wt & bal to reflect the 37% because to fly it in that configuration,
I would need to lose 50 pounds, so I think I'm safe...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420p (420ldPoops)
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "johnjung@compusenior.com"
><johnjung@compusenior.com>
>
>Are there any Mark III's flying that have cg's in excess of 35%? Please
>let us and Larry know.
>
>John Jung
>
>
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 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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Audrey Lewis" <audreylewis@alltel.net>
Anyone know if there is a STC for using Latex Paint on a General Aviation Aircraft?
Audrey
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: HShack@aol.com
In a message dated 4/16/03 9:04:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ppetty@c-gate.net writes:
> If I mounted my engine on a kolb right now, standing behind, my engine would
> be turning CCW. Would this a CW or CCW rotation.... sorry
>
>
Not sure I understand the question.
You are standing behind your Kolb, looking forward at the prop. If you have
a Rotax 2 stroke engine, it's turning CCW. If you have a Rotax gearbox on
that engine, then your prop will be turning CW.
Hope this helps.
Shack
FS II
SC
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
No such thing as a dumb question, and that one's a good one. For just that
reason, when I'm talking about a vehicle, or an airplane, I'll always say
"driver's side," or "pilot's side," or "passenger's side," etc. When
ordering electric motors, I always specify rotation "from the shaft end."
Then there's no mix-ups. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski@advanced-connect.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: question
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski"
<swiderski@advanced-connect.net>
>
> Paul,
> All props are viewed from the rear of the plane. ...Richard
Swiderski
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Kolb-List: question
>
>
> > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
> >
> > Ok Kolbers,
> > Dumb question time from the student. From witch direction to you
consider
> a CW or CCW rotation of a prop on a Kolb? From the nose or tail?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > pp....
> > N4958P
> >
> > 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: Weight & Balance/ %cg |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski@advanced-connect.net>
Kolbers,
This Sun & Fun I spoke with Homer on this very topic. He said the Kolb
wing defies conventional rules regarding acceptable rear cg limits. He has
seen 39% cg's fly perfectly fine, but that would be the maximum limit, with
35-37 being better to shoot for. Richard Swiderski
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pike" <rwpike@charter.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Weight
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
>
> At 07:53 AM 4/16/03 -0700, you wrote:
>
> My Old Kolb data from December 1990, page 43, revision 0 says says 37%.
> The builders manual, revised 7/26/94, page 101 says 35%.
> I did my wt & bal to reflect the 37% because to fly it in that
configuration,
> I would need to lose 50 pounds, so I think I'm safe...
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420p (420ldPoops)
>
>
> >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "johnjung@compusenior.com"
> ><johnjung@compusenior.com>
> >
> >Are there any Mark III's flying that have cg's in excess of 35%? Please
> >let us and Larry know.
> >
> >John Jung
> >
> >
>
>
> 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 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: CaptainRon <aerialron@yahoo.com>
an STC is not needed as far as I know, as you are not
changing any items in the type certificate data sheet.
============================
> Anyone know if there is a STC for using Latex
> Paint on a General Aviation Aircraft?
>
> Audrey
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> latest messages.
> List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kolb-List.htm
> Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/kolb-list
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
=====
Building M3X
Southern Arizona
http://search.yahoo.com
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: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
NO chance Audrey......
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: Weight & Balance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
My days off got changed this week, so I'll be going Vamoose-ing tomorrow,
and work it all out for real. Meanwhile, the A&P answered my email today,
and says the cg came out at 35.541% on the Kolb worksheet. I hope that was
with me in it. He also says it's 197" from the leading edge to the
tailwheel, and he figured in 1.5 gal of oil at 24.5", but no fuel. I'll
find out for sure, and let you all know tomorrow. 21# beside me ??
That's easy..............I'll have more than that in tools, junk, soda pop,
etc. on board. Thanks again to everybody for your help. It's been an
interesting couple of days, and a good education. Lar.
Do not Archive.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <johnjung@compusenior.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Weight & Balance
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "johnjung@compusenior.com"
<johnjung@compusenior.com>
>
> Larry,
>
> I noticed that you did list the distance to your front axles, so I
> corrected my calculations for just that demension and now it shows you
> close to 35%. Only 21 lbs are needed in the seat next to you. Or some
> other small change.
>
> I also looked over that FAA form that you mentioned and I would trust
> the results that you got. It must not have been used incorrectly to get
> anywhere near 29%.
>
> John Jung
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Audrey any repair of that nature preformed on a Certificated aircraft other
than expiremental would heve to be done by an A&P, and a 337 form signed by
him.....and no approval exists that would allow House Paint on aircraft
fabric. If your question is about Expieremental......then an Owner/Builder
could legally Use it.
Don
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Vincehallam@aol.com
Hi
If the prop screws through the air like a normal right handed screw its a
right hand prop... and clockwise
Vnz
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! --
|