Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:23 AM - Re: Flight Manual for Kolb Mk III ()
2. 04:33 AM - Re: Ignition switch (Richard Pike)
3. 04:44 AM - Re: Ignition switch ()
4. 04:45 AM - Re: Re: Suzuki G-10 Auto Conversion (Jim Ballenger)
5. 06:13 AM - 503 RPM (Ron or Mary)
6. 06:45 AM - Re: 503 RPM (John Cooley)
7. 07:05 AM - Tools (John Cooley)
8. 09:00 AM - Re: 503 RPM ()
9. 09:09 AM - Re: Re: Suzuki G-10 Auto Conversion (Richard Swiderski)
10. 10:54 AM - Suzuki G-10 (Bob Bean)
11. 01:43 PM - What a Difference 100 Hours Makes (Jack & Louise Hart)
12. 02:26 PM - Aileron Rods (Johann G.)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flight Manual for Kolb Mk III |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: <rowedl@highstream.net>
John,
Just lable everything in the cockpit such as throttle full & idle, enricher
on & off, trim up & down, flaps off- half - full, etc, and also lable all
instruments including the operating range marks on the ASI, you do not need
a flight manual.
Also make sure you do a complete weight and balance sheet, including fore
and aft cg conditions for lightest and heaviest allowable load, emty and
full tanks.
Denny Rowe
N616DR , PA
----- Original Message -----
From: John Raeburn <raeburn@snowhill.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Flight Manual for Kolb Mk III
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Raeburn <raeburn@snowhill.com>
>
> I am in the process of changing the classification of my aircraft from
> "Ultralight" to "Experimental". I have applied for and received the "N"
> number. I'm getting ready to apply for the Airworthiness certificate.
> FAR 91.9 states that I need a "FLIGHT MANUAL".
>
> Does anyone have a Flight manual that I can use as a reference so that I
can
> make one up for my aircraft!
>
>
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: Ignition switch |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
Look at pages 32 & 33 on this CPS page, I think that might help.
http://www.800-airwolf.com/articles.htm
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Do Not Archive
At 12:29 AM 6/29/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: DAquaNut@aol.com
>
>
> Group,
>
> Let me try one more time....... Can anyone tell me which wires I
> need
>to hook my ignition OR kill switch up to? cant seem to find the information
>in the Kolb building manual.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed ( in Houston)
>
>
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: Ignition switch |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: <rowedl@highstream.net>
Ed,
Give Tom Olinick a call or e-mail, he will be able to answer your question,
I fly a Single ignition 503 on my Loehle, and have a 2SI on the Mk-3 so I
can't help you out.
Denny
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <DAquaNut@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ignition switch
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: DAquaNut@aol.com
>
>
> Group,
>
> Let me try one more time....... Can anyone tell me which wires I
need
> to hook my ignition OR kill switch up to? cant seem to find the
information
> in the Kolb building manual.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed ( in Houston)
>
>
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: Suzuki G-10 Auto Conversion |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Ballenger" <ulpilot@cavtel.net>
Richard
You certainly have my attention with the work you are doing on the turbo
Suzuki engine. I am building a MK III X and I have not yet fully decided
what power plant to use. Please keep us informed of your progress. With a
fuel burn of 2 gph with more torque with less rpm and fuel injection, this
engine is certainly something to consider. Did you have difficulty with
buying or building an engine mount? What do you think the total cost to
install will come to?
Thanks
Jim Ballenger
Flying a FS KXP 447
Building a MK III X
Virginia Beach, VA
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski@rocketjet.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Suzuki G-10 Auto Conversion
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski"
<swiderski@rocketjet.net>
>
>
> Kolbers,
> I've been re-doing my website, http://www.geocities.com/ib2polish , &
> thought a portion of its text would be of interest to those who might be
> thinking of "going out of the box" as far as using alternative engines is
> concerned. If you want to see the torque curve, go to MY KOLB; then to
> ENGINE; then to ABOUT ENGINE. It over lays the Suzuki's curve with some
> Rotax curves. below is an excerpt.
>
> Richard Swiderski
> SlingShot/ almost TuboSuzuki / Florida
>
> ENGINE DATA
>
> Naturally Aspirated:
> This engine is ideally suited for aircraft use. Its most outstanding
> attribute is its torqu curve. It is virtually flat throughout its
operating
> range. The Suzuki's 4-stroke, 3 cylinder, one-liter engine is called
their
> model G-10. Naturally Aspirated (NA), the G-10 at 3500rpm has 60ft-lb &
at
> 5800rpm it 55 ft-lb. The question everyone is asking is, "Can it replace
my
> Rotax 582 two-stroke?" Since HP = Torque X RPM / 5252, we can compare
the
> useful power of both engines very nicely. So as not to be comparing
apples
> to oranges, we'll use % of maximum operating rpm. At 100% throttle: The
> Rotax 582 has 6400rpm/52.5ft-lb/64hp; & the NA G-10 has
> 5800rpm/55ft-lb/61hp. At 75%: The 582 has 4800rpm/45ft-lb/41hp; & the NA
> G-10 has 4350rpm/60ft-lb/50hp. At 60%: The 582 has 3840rpm/38ft-lb/28hp;
&
> the NA G-10 has 3480rpm/62ft-lb/41hp. The bottom line is: The G-10 has a
> 32% more power @ 60% throttle; 18% more power @ 75% throttle; and 5% less
> power @ 100% throttle. So att full throttle, the 582 will slightly
outclimb
> the G-10 but at cruise, the 582 is left in the wake! The above formula
> works amazingly well. If you take my computations & compare them to the
> factory you will see they match perfectly. At 2gph in cruise, The G-10
has
> less than 1/2 the fuel consumption of the 582. On a 4 hr trip that
amounts
> to at least 48 lbs of fuel, which more than compensates for the slight
> increase in engine weight.
> As per issue 37 of CONTACT! magazine, Steve Parkman had a NA G-10 in
a
> Jenny replica. Because of the prop diameter his engine was limited to
> 4800rpm. He dyno'ed the motor in 3 configurations & got 51 hp @ 4800 with
a
> carburator and 53 hp @ 4800 with Throttle Body injection. He got 64 hp
with
> port injection, but did not specify @ what rpm (probably at 5800).
>
> TurboCharged:
> The G-10 Turbo is were things really get exciting! I have not
found
> any published performance curves for the turbo version. All manuals agree
> that it has a peak torque of 107 ft-lb at 3500rpm. For max HP I've seen:
> 70hp; 80hp; & "Not Available". The HP ratings don't jive. As we seen
> above, torque & HP are mathematically interchangable. So we know for
sure,
> that at 3500rpm & 107ft-lb of torque, it is producing 71hp. From another
> approach, we know the NA port injected version gets at least 64hp at
5800rpm
> & the turbo G-10 has 8.7 lbs boost @ 5800rpm which is 59% above one
> atmosphere, and 1.59 X 64 = 102hp. The conversion aftermarket rates this
> engine from100-115hp. If we use the rule of thumb that an engine's peak
> torque is close to its max HP, then it would make about 107hp. If we
> extraplolate off the NA G-10 torque curve we get the following for the
Turbo
> G-10: 60% = 5800rpm/95ft-lb/105hp; 75% = 4350rpm/104ft-lb/86hp; 100%
5800rpm/95ft-lb/105hp. If we compare this to the $12,500 912S we get: 60%
3480rpm/84ft-lb/59hp; 75% = 4350rpm/91ft-lb/75hp; and 100%
5800rpm/89.2ft-lb/99hp.
> Translation: This obscure little engine outperforms the premier,
> "100hp" Rotax 912S by 17% @ 60% throttle; 13% @ 75% throttle; and 6% @
100%
> throttle. Obviously, the standard "80hp" 912 is not even in the same
> league. This Turbo G-10 is a torky little beast! But that's not all...
The
> Turbo G-10 can do this at a comparable weight (170 lb vs the true all up
> weight of 168 lb for the 912); it has better fuel economy; can cruise at a
> lower/more comfortable rpm; and best of all, you can go to your local
> AutoZone and rebuild it for $500. You can not bore a 912 jug. Guess how
> much money one of those four Rotax jugs cost? Hint: More than a G-10
> rebuild.
> What about reliability? How does it compare? Well its a no brainer
> (In my opinion) compared
> to the two-strokes. There are hundreds of G10's flying, many with over
300
> hours. I know personally of one with over 500 hrs used as a trainer. The
> owner loves it & said all he does is check the oil & turn the key. If you
> compare the Turbo G-10 to the 912S, well there are maybe ten of the
Suzuki's
> flying, and many hundreds of the 912S's. The 912's certainly have a good
> record and a long history. However, if the "it takes a beating & keeps on
> ticking" track record of the hundreds of thousands of G-10's in abused
> auto's (that routinely get 150,000 miles, and whose turnpike speeds are
> comparable to aircraft rpms) are any indication, then an 800-1000 hour TBO
> is quite reasonable. 500 hours is 5-10 years of flying for most of us,
and
> if just changing the oil and plugs during that time is all that's needed,
> then for the cheap price of an overhaul, even a 500 hr TBO would be
> acceptable.
>
>
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: "Ron or Mary" <whyme@vci.net>
My Rotax manual says that I should run 6800 rpm on take off and climb and
6500 rpm for cruise. This seem pretty high to me. What do any of you turn
your engines for take off and cruise. I have a 503 DCDI=0D
=0D
Ron Payne
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Cooley" <johnc@datasync.com>
Hi Ron & Gang,
My 503 DCDI with a 3 blade Powerfin is set to turn 6350 on max climb out and
I usually cruise in the 5500 to 5800 range.
Later,
John Cooley
FS II 503 DCDI, Twinstar Mark II 503 DCDI and MK III project in the shop
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list@matronics.com
Subject: Kolb-List: 503 RPM
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Ron or Mary" <whyme@vci.net>
My Rotax manual says that I should run 6800 rpm on take off and climb and
6500 rpm for cruise. This seem pretty high to me. What do any of you turn
your engines for take off and cruise. I have a 503 DCDI=0D
=0D
Ron Payne
.
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: "John Cooley" <johnc@datasync.com>
HI Gang,
I would like to share some info with the list that might help some builders
out. I built my first Kolb, a Firestar II, with a manual pull rivet gun and
thought that it wasn't too bad of a job. I had seen others recommend the air
rivet guns but I didn't feel they were really needed. I have been in the
process of rebuilding a Mark II Twinstar and have purchased a air rivet gun
in the past few months. Yesterday I installed the hinges on the wings using
the air rivet gun and was amazed at how much faster it went. It is time
consuming hand pulling all of those rivets ( 248 or there abouts) and I did
it in a few minutes with the gun and wasn't tired when I got through. They
only cost about 40 dollars or so on sale and are a real time saver.
Later,
John Cooley
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: <johann-g@talnet.is>
Hello Ron.
My Rotax 503 DCDI is turning at 6500 in the climb, and I like to cruise at
aroung 5200-5500 at a speed of 75 mph. I am using a three blade IVO prop.
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
Johann G.
Iceland.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:14:52 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
"Ron or Mary" <whyme@vci.net> wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Ron or Mary" <whyme@vci.net>
>
> My Rotax manual says that I should run 6800 rpm on take off and climb and
> 6500 rpm for cruise. This seem pretty high to me. What do any of you turn
> your engines for take off and cruise. I have a 503 DCDI=0D
> =0D
> Ron Payne
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Suzuki G-10 Auto Conversion |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski@rocketjet.net>
Jim & All,
The naturally aspirated G-10's are getting from 1.5 - 2.2gph at cruise.
The turbo version could also cruise at that power level & fuel burn but if
you are normal, you'll be tempted to cruise at its 60-75% power, in which
case the fuel burn must go up as well. The beauty of the turbo is you can
have economy with light weight or you can have the brute power if you want
it.
My mounts started out complicated, but ended up very simple, using 2 AL
angles. It will be on the website soon.
Cost in my situation is more than it needed to be. If I did it again,
it would be cheaper. I learned everything the hard way. For the non turbo:
Good used engine $300-$500 + Redrive $2400 + light weight accessories &
miscellaneou $500 = about $3500.
Turbo engines are scarce to find. If I did it over (you can read the
story at the site) I'd get a good used Geo Metro engine as per above plus:
rebuild it with turbo rods & pistons ($1000), use an aftermarket turbo
($600) & Tracy Crook's aircraft electronic engine management system ($875),
have head reworked to recieve port injection ($250) & you'd be in the ball
park at about $6000 for a new condition turbo engine that out performs a
912S & that you can rebuild later for $500.
To go this route assumes you are competent in rebuilding an engine &
fabricating some of its accessories. In doing this I have learned many
things & acquired skills I didn't have. Its been a great experience & I
can't wait to reap the benefits. The reason I built the website is to
encourage other's to experiment out of the box & benefit from some of the
things I stumbled upon.
Richard Swiderski
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ballenger" <ulpilot@cavtel.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Suzuki G-10 Auto Conversion
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Ballenger" <ulpilot@cavtel.net>
>
> Richard
> You certainly have my attention with the work you are doing on the turbo
> Suzuki engine. I am building a MK III X and I have not yet fully decided
> what power plant to use. Please keep us informed of your progress. With
a
> fuel burn of 2 gph with more torque with less rpm and fuel injection, this
> engine is certainly something to consider. Did you have difficulty with
> buying or building an engine mount? What do you think the total cost to
> install will come to?
> Thanks
> Jim Ballenger
> Flying a FS KXP 447
> Building a MK III X
> Virginia Beach, VA
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski@rocketjet.net>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Suzuki G-10 Auto Conversion
>
>
> > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski"
> <swiderski@rocketjet.net>
> >
> >
> > Kolbers,
> > I've been re-doing my website, http://www.geocities.com/ib2polish ,
&
> > thought a portion of its text would be of interest to those who might be
> > thinking of "going out of the box" as far as using alternative engines
is
> > concerned. If you want to see the torque curve, go to MY KOLB; then to
> > ENGINE; then to ABOUT ENGINE. It over lays the Suzuki's curve with some
> > Rotax curves. below is an excerpt.
> >
> > Richard Swiderski
> > SlingShot/ almost TuboSuzuki / Florida
> >
> > ENGINE DATA
> >
> > Naturally Aspirated:
> > This engine is ideally suited for aircraft use. Its most outstanding
> > attribute is its torqu curve. It is virtually flat throughout its
> operating
> > range. The Suzuki's 4-stroke, 3 cylinder, one-liter engine is called
> their
> > model G-10. Naturally Aspirated (NA), the G-10 at 3500rpm has 60ft-lb &
> at
> > 5800rpm it 55 ft-lb. The question everyone is asking is, "Can it
replace
> my
> > Rotax 582 two-stroke?" Since HP = Torque X RPM / 5252, we can compare
> the
> > useful power of both engines very nicely. So as not to be comparing
> apples
> > to oranges, we'll use % of maximum operating rpm. At 100% throttle:
The
> > Rotax 582 has 6400rpm/52.5ft-lb/64hp; & the NA G-10 has
> > 5800rpm/55ft-lb/61hp. At 75%: The 582 has 4800rpm/45ft-lb/41hp; & the
NA
> > G-10 has 4350rpm/60ft-lb/50hp. At 60%: The 582 has
3840rpm/38ft-lb/28hp;
> &
> > the NA G-10 has 3480rpm/62ft-lb/41hp. The bottom line is: The G-10 has
a
> > 32% more power @ 60% throttle; 18% more power @ 75% throttle; and 5%
less
> > power @ 100% throttle. So att full throttle, the 582 will slightly
> outclimb
> > the G-10 but at cruise, the 582 is left in the wake! The above formula
> > works amazingly well. If you take my computations & compare them to the
> > factory you will see they match perfectly. At 2gph in cruise, The G-10
> has
> > less than 1/2 the fuel consumption of the 582. On a 4 hr trip that
> amounts
> > to at least 48 lbs of fuel, which more than compensates for the slight
> > increase in engine weight.
> > As per issue 37 of CONTACT! magazine, Steve Parkman had a NA G-10
in
> a
> > Jenny replica. Because of the prop diameter his engine was limited to
> > 4800rpm. He dyno'ed the motor in 3 configurations & got 51 hp @ 4800
with
> a
> > carburator and 53 hp @ 4800 with Throttle Body injection. He got 64 hp
> with
> > port injection, but did not specify @ what rpm (probably at 5800).
> >
> > TurboCharged:
> > The G-10 Turbo is were things really get exciting! I have not
> found
> > any published performance curves for the turbo version. All manuals
agree
> > that it has a peak torque of 107 ft-lb at 3500rpm. For max HP I've
seen:
> > 70hp; 80hp; & "Not Available". The HP ratings don't jive. As we seen
> > above, torque & HP are mathematically interchangable. So we know for
> sure,
> > that at 3500rpm & 107ft-lb of torque, it is producing 71hp. From
another
> > approach, we know the NA port injected version gets at least 64hp at
> 5800rpm
> > & the turbo G-10 has 8.7 lbs boost @ 5800rpm which is 59% above one
> > atmosphere, and 1.59 X 64 = 102hp. The conversion aftermarket rates
this
> > engine from100-115hp. If we use the rule of thumb that an engine's peak
> > torque is close to its max HP, then it would make about 107hp. If we
> > extraplolate off the NA G-10 torque curve we get the following for the
> Turbo
> > G-10: 60% = 5800rpm/95ft-lb/105hp; 75% = 4350rpm/104ft-lb/86hp; 100%
> 5800rpm/95ft-lb/105hp. If we compare this to the $12,500 912S we get: 60%
> 3480rpm/84ft-lb/59hp; 75% = 4350rpm/91ft-lb/75hp; and 100%
> 5800rpm/89.2ft-lb/99hp.
> > Translation: This obscure little engine outperforms the premier,
> > "100hp" Rotax 912S by 17% @ 60% throttle; 13% @ 75% throttle; and 6% @
> 100%
> > throttle. Obviously, the standard "80hp" 912 is not even in the same
> > league. This Turbo G-10 is a torky little beast! But that's not all...
> The
> > Turbo G-10 can do this at a comparable weight (170 lb vs the true all
up
> > weight of 168 lb for the 912); it has better fuel economy; can cruise at
a
> > lower/more comfortable rpm; and best of all, you can go to your local
> > AutoZone and rebuild it for $500. You can not bore a 912 jug. Guess
how
> > much money one of those four Rotax jugs cost? Hint: More than a G-10
> > rebuild.
> > What about reliability? How does it compare? Well its a no
brainer
> > (In my opinion) compared
> > to the two-strokes. There are hundreds of G10's flying, many with over
> 300
> > hours. I know personally of one with over 500 hrs used as a trainer.
The
> > owner loves it & said all he does is check the oil & turn the key. If
you
> > compare the Turbo G-10 to the 912S, well there are maybe ten of the
> Suzuki's
> > flying, and many hundreds of the 912S's. The 912's certainly have a
good
> > record and a long history. However, if the "it takes a beating & keeps
on
> > ticking" track record of the hundreds of thousands of G-10's in abused
> > auto's (that routinely get 150,000 miles, and whose turnpike speeds are
> > comparable to aircraft rpms) are any indication, then an 800-1000 hour
TBO
> > is quite reasonable. 500 hours is 5-10 years of flying for most of us,
> and
> > if just changing the oil and plugs during that time is all that's
needed,
>
> > then for the cheap price of an overhaul, even a 500 hr TBO would be
> > acceptable.
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Bob Bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
If you like being creative, can weld, design systems, and above all....
don't mind flying a year later than with an out-of the box powerplant,
give it a shot. It's a fine little engine. Otherwise one might be tempted
to go with the convenience of something like a Verner. -BB do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | What a Difference 100 Hours Makes |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
FireFlyer's
When the FireFly first flew it was not a fun little ultra light vehicle to fly.
One had to hold forward and right stick to keep it in level flight. Flying
it in the middle of the day through thermals was much like a carnival ride, and
the ailerons were so heavy it would make your shoulder sore after fifteen minutes.
With no brakes, it could be very exciting on the ground. But changes
were made to make it more fun to fly, and to reduce the energy required to fly
it.
1. Brakes took care of the ground handling problems.
2. Lifting the horizontal stabilizer balanced the craft out in pitch.
3. Proper wheel camber reduced cross wind sensitivity on the ground.
4. Nine inch chord ailerons and reworked aileron linkage produced a nimble roll
rate.
5. Vortex generators improved low speed aileron response and reduced stall speed.
6. Seat converted to a true sling seat for more pilot tail bone comfort.
7. In cockpit pitch and roll trims reduced cross country pilot work load and provided
greater enjoyment.
8. Replaced the Rotax 447 with a Victor 1+ for improved fuel economy, sound reduction
& electric start.
9. Strut & fuselage fairings reduced wind & prop noise.
All of this has taken about three and one half years, and there is more to be done.
But the next one hundred hours are going to be much more fun. I am still
working on getting the engine and propeller combination matched. I have not
been able to obtain Simonini's advertised fuel flow rate, but I am getting closer.
I am slowly reducing the pitch of a 62 inch IVO prop and the fuel flow
rates are improving. The last flight to my EAA Chapter Meeting at 50 mphi the
Victor 1+ produced 2.1 gph. Today with the engine topping out at 6,000 rpm,
and the FireFly is cruising at 50 mphi on 1.9 gph at 4,800 rpm. The best I could
get out of the Rotax 447 at 50 mphi was 2.6 gph.
There are still some things to do, such as, more drag reduction, install a lighter
flaperon mechanism on the left side, add a booster bottle to get better low
rpm engine economy and to get rid of low engine speed carburetor dribble. When
I think back to those first flights, it is difficult to believe that today
one can fly the FireFly in banging thermals, and land it in gusty twenty mph
cross winds, and enjoy every second of it. Life is good.
Do not archive
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Johann G." <johann@gi.is>
Hello list members,
I have noticed that the aileron rods on my Firestar are attached to the T
connection at the rear side, with the bolts inserted at the front with the
nut at the rear.
This installation makes the rod on the right side rub against the nut for
attaching tail-boom to cage.
Also when folding the wings back, the inboard rib rubs against the nuts on
the aileron attachment.
Has anyone bolted the aileron rods on the front side of the T connections?
Would it make any difference which side it is attached? The drawing requests
that you attach the rod at the rear. My aileron torque tube must be much
shorter than the drawings call for because the aileron rods are in line with
the bolt attachment for the cage. According to the drawing, the rods should
be about 3-4 aft of the attachment.
Hope you Firestar builders/flyers can advise on this.
Best regards,
Johann G.
Iceland.
www.gi.si/fis <http://www.gi.si/fis>
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! --
|