Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:23 AM - First cross country for N616DR ()
2. 06:05 AM - ack! (Bob Bean)
3. 06:15 AM - Re: 2 sixties or one 72 (crad238)
4. 06:22 AM - Re: ack! (John Hauck)
5. 06:26 AM - Re: 2 sixtees or one 72 (Kirk Smith)
6. 06:35 AM - Re: ack! (Richard Pike)
7. 07:12 AM - Re: ack! (Bob Bean)
8. 07:23 AM - Big Lar Headed for Mississippi (John Hauck)
9. 07:31 AM - Re: 2 sixties or one 72 (Jack & Louise Hart)
10. 07:49 AM - Re: Landing Gear Camber ??? (BMWBikeCrz@aol.com)
11. 08:13 AM - interco? ()
12. 08:22 AM - Re: 2 sixties or one 72 (Christopher J Armstrong)
13. 09:01 AM - Re: 2 sixties or one 72 (Richard Pike)
14. 09:08 AM - Re: EVO/AIR update (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
15. 09:21 AM - Re: Landing Gear Camber ??? (John Hauck)
16. 11:21 AM - Propeller Diameter (tom sabean)
17. 12:57 PM - Re: 2 sixties or one 72 (Kirk Smith)
18. 01:12 PM - Re: Propeller Diameter (John Hauck)
19. 01:51 PM - Prospective Kolbra Owners (John Williamson)
20. 01:57 PM - Re: Tail Weel Springs (jerb)
21. 02:09 PM - Re: 2 sixties or one 72 (SGreenpg@aol.com)
22. 02:46 PM - Kolbra (Paul Petty)
23. 02:58 PM - Re: Prospective Kolbra Owners (John Hauck)
24. 03:02 PM - Re: 2 sixties or one 72 (John Hauck)
25. 03:07 PM - Re: Kolbra (John Hauck)
26. 03:11 PM - Re: Tail Weel Springs (John Hauck)
27. 03:27 PM - MATCO Wheels/Brakes for Mark III/Extra/Kolbra (John Hauck)
28. 04:16 PM - Re: 2 sixties or one 72 (Richard Swiderski)
29. 06:31 PM - Re: Propeller Diameter (HShack@aol.com)
30. 06:55 PM - Re: Propeller Diameter (John Hauck)
31. 07:01 PM - Re: interco? (Richard Harris)
32. 08:48 PM - Re: ack! (jerb)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | First cross country for N616DR |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: <rowedl@highstream.net>
Kolbers,
My friend and Hurricane driver Mike Newman and I took an 18 mile jaunt over to
Butler County airport and other points of interest last night. Between two GPSs
and comparison to his Hurricanes calibrated ASI we figured out that my ASI is
right on.
It sure was fun flying the past two nights with another UL with a radio.
Anyway, I thought I would throw out some of the numbers I have on the 690Ls performance
for those who are interested.
Empty weight: 482 lbs (since adding big tires)
Pilot weight: 185 lbs
Passenger : 100 lbs
Climb 50mph @ 5800 rpm : 800 + fpm
WOT level flight @ 6150 rpm : 85 mph
4800 rpm : 55 mph
We put 1.7 hrs on her and did four take offs and landings and burned 6.8 gallons
of gas.
The fun factor was through the roof.
Sincerely,
Denny Rowe, MK-3 N616DR, 2SI 690L-70, 68" Powerfin at 2.65 to 1 ratio.
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: Bob Bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
G'day, don't know if it's this list or not, suddenly being hit with a deluge
of virus-laden spam! -anybody else? thanks, disgusted BB do not archive
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 sixties or one 72 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: crad238 <crad238@wirefire.com>
Christopher J Armstrong wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher J Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
>
Jack
If a prop were 100% efficient, would it not move any air at all? Would it
not
advance forward with no air movement?
Do not archive.
>
> Jack wrote:
> Assuming the 72 inch prop has a pitch of 20 degrees and 100 percent
> efficiency, the propeller tip will advance 77.4 inches in one revolution
> [(d x pi) x sin(20)] and during one revolution the propeller will
> displace 182.3 cubic feet of air (d x d x pi x 77.4)/(4 x 1728).
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> G'day, don't know if it's this list or not, suddenly being hit with a deluge
> of virus-laden spam! -anybody else? thanks, disgusted BB
BB/All:
Everybody I know is getting hit with the new
virus. I use NAV installed. Have good luck with
it. It finds and quarantines the virus. I go in
and delete it. Never had a virus infection.
Knock on wood. NAV (Norton Anti Virus) Live
Update automatically keeps my virus definitions up
to date.
john h
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: 2 sixtees or one 72 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
>
> For what it is worth analysis. I have run some numbers to try and figure
out how to get better propeller performance on the FireFly. One of the
tricks, I have learned is that if a prop is too large, the forward advance
speed of the propeller at 100 percent efficiency becomes too low for good
cruise. One is moving a lot of air but with little forward velocity. If
one reduces the propeller diameter and increases the pitch, the engine can
still move the same amount of air as a larger propeller and, at the same
time, increase the forward advance speed and there by give a better cruise
speed.
>
> If one assumes equal propeller efficiencies between the 60" and 72" props,
then the thrust delivered will be directly proportional to the mass or
volume of air passing through the propellers. Further assuming all engines
have the same gear ratio and develop their max hp at the same speeds and
have similar shaped/sloped torque curves, one can calculate the differences
in propeller advance speeds to see which situation will give the best
performance.
>
> Assuming the 72 inch prop has a pitch of 20 degrees and 100 percent
efficiency, the propeller tip will advance 77.4 inches in one revolution [(d
x pi) x sin(20)] and during one revolution the propeller will displace 182.3
cubic feet of air (d x d x pi x 77.4)/(4 x 1728). If the gear ratio is 2.7
and the engine develops its power at 5,000 rpm, the 100 percent efficient
propeller will advance forward at the rate of 137.5 miles per hour
(77.4/12)x(5,000/2.7)x(60/5280).
>
> To absorb the same amount of hp, the two 60 inch propellers must move the
same amount of air or 182.3 cubic feet of air between them or 91.2 cubic
feet for each turn. The 60 inch (5 foot) propeller advance in one turn will
be 55.7 inches [(91.2/(pi x 5 x 5)] x 4 x 12. Using the same rpm and gear
ratio the propeller advance speed will be 99 miles per hour.
>
> Given both engine/prop and aircraft combinations show the same overall
drag, the 72 inch propeller will give a higher cruise speed, and the 60 inch
double propeller will give better climb.
>
> Fun on a slow day.
So, a 51 inch prop times 2 props= 4085 sq/in area. About the same as 1 72
inch prop. The 2 could be pitched higher and spun faster producing a faster
column of air of the same volume as the 72 inch prop. Assuming 100%
efficiency. So it seems that two 40 hp engines will do the same work as one
80? Think I'll tie my Minimax to a scale and see what it will pull. Then
double it. Then I need to find a Mark 3 with a 912 and 3 blade 72. Wonder
if a Mark 3 will stay afloat on 40 hp? Slow day again.......:o) Kirk
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: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
Oh yes..
AVG antivirus (free) is keeping the virus's at bay, and using Eudora with
Spamnix is keeping the spam down to about two a day.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
do not archive
At 09:13 AM 8/20/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: Bob Bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
>
>G'day, don't know if it's this list or not, suddenly being hit with a deluge
>of virus-laden spam! -anybody else? thanks, disgusted BB do not archive
>
>
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>
>
>
>
>
>>G'day, don't know if it's this list or not,
>>
--sorry guys, I think I made the mistake of making my email address
available
in a response to a yahoo list. The norton singles them out but what a pain.
-they're old ones like bugbear, etc.
Vic Gibson of California hopped his geo-powered MkIII on the 18th too.
He has a few problems, all different from mine but comparing notes.
My most satisfying observation during my abbreviated ride was the lack
of wind in the cabin with no doors. I busted my butt doing that windshield
and it worked! -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 |
|
| Subject: | Big Lar Headed for Mississippi |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Morning Gang:
Larry Bourne is headed west via Raleigh, MS.
We had a good visit, but unfortunately, the
weather did not cooperate and Miss P'fer stayed
ground bound for the duration of his visit.
We made plans for a longer stay next time, so we
can do all the things we wanted to do.
Take care,
john h
MK III
Titus, AL
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: | 2 sixties or one 72 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
At 11:45 PM 8/19/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher J Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
>
>
>you came to the conclusion that the big prop ( smaller area) will be
>better at speed and the small props (larger area) better at climb. But
>if you change the reduction ratio for a given speed range then the two
>props are better for every case, if they have more area. More area is
>more efficient cause you don't have to move the air as fast to absorb a
>given hp. That's why the two small props ( more area) only need to
>advance 55.7 inches per rotation, and the one big ( less area ) prop has
>to advance 77.4 inches. It has to move the air faster to absorb the
>power, and therefore is less efficient.
>
>Somebody point out the errors I made, probably did this too fast to get
>any of it right.
>
Topher,
I agree with everything you have written, but the problem was proposed as a comparison
between a 80 hp engine swinging a 72 inch prop, and two 40 hp engines
swinging 60 inch props. The only way I could see to compare them was to be sure
that both set ups used 80 hp was that they both move the same volume of air
at the same rate. Since the air volume flow rate was fixed by assumption and
the propeller diameters were fixed in the problem, the 60 inch propeller is going
to absorb 40 hp at the same propeller rpm no matter what the gear ratio is
for a defined pitch of 55.7 inches.
My assumption was that (55.7/12)x(5,000/2.7)x(60/5280) = 99 mph at 40 hp, but if
you reduce the gear ratio and keep engine rpm the same, the hp required goes
up too.
>For the 60" prop using some smaller reduction ratios gives
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/2.2)x(60/5280)= gives you 119 mph and a tip speed of
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/2.0)x(60/5280)= gives you 130 mph
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/1.8)x(60/5280)= gives you 145 mph
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/1.6)x(60/5280)= gives you 164 mph
If hp is a linear relationship to speed, then:
99 mph => 40 hp
119 mph => 48 hp
130 mph => 53 hp
145 mph => 59 hp
164 mph => 65 hp
Again, this has been fun.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Camber ??? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: BMWBikeCrz@aol.com
I am not so much concerned with tire wear ( they will dry rot before they
wear out ) I am concerned about handling ... In my VW racing Days I ran about 2
degrees of negative camber ... Dave
In a message dated 8/20/03 12:16:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
chieppa47@comcast.net writes:
<<
Dave,
When you say too much are you talking 5 or 6 degrees? Too much is not
good for the tires, check out the link.
http://www.yokohamatire.com/utmeasures.asp
Charles
>>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: <rowedl@highstream.net>
Kolbers,
Does anybody have a two place intercom for sale that they had good results with?
I use two standard aviation headsets and will probably be buying ANR kits for them,
any recomendations would be appreciated.
Denny Rowe Mk-3. Leechburg PA
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: | 2 sixties or one 72 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher J Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
Well yah, if ya go faster it is gonna take more power! I just wanted to
point out that the more area the better but you have to get each prop
set up for the situation or your comparison is a bit unfair. I would
guess the best way to do this would be to not require the same airflow
but see what the performance is for each prop set up the best it can be
for the airplane. I would bet the greater area prop would win every
time. ( thats what theory would suggest anyway.
Topher
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack & Louise
Hart
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 2 sixties or one 72
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
At 11:45 PM 8/19/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher J Armstrong"
<tophera@centurytel.net>
>
>
>you came to the conclusion that the big prop ( smaller area) will be
>better at speed and the small props (larger area) better at climb. But
>if you change the reduction ratio for a given speed range then the two
>props are better for every case, if they have more area. More area is
>more efficient cause you don't have to move the air as fast to absorb a
>given hp. That's why the two small props ( more area) only need to
>advance 55.7 inches per rotation, and the one big ( less area ) prop
has
>to advance 77.4 inches. It has to move the air faster to absorb the
>power, and therefore is less efficient.
>
>Somebody point out the errors I made, probably did this too fast to get
>any of it right.
>
Topher,
I agree with everything you have written, but the problem was proposed
as a comparison between a 80 hp engine swinging a 72 inch prop, and two
40 hp engines swinging 60 inch props. The only way I could see to
compare them was to be sure that both set ups used 80 hp was that they
both move the same volume of air at the same rate. Since the air volume
flow rate was fixed by assumption and the propeller diameters were fixed
in the problem, the 60 inch propeller is going to absorb 40 hp at the
same propeller rpm no matter what the gear ratio is for a defined pitch
of 55.7 inches.
My assumption was that (55.7/12)x(5,000/2.7)x(60/5280) = 99 mph at 40
hp, but if you reduce the gear ratio and keep engine rpm the same, the
hp required goes up too.
>For the 60" prop using some smaller reduction ratios gives
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/2.2)x(60/5280)= gives you 119 mph and a tip speed of
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/2.0)x(60/5280)= gives you 130 mph
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/1.8)x(60/5280)= gives you 145 mph
>(55.7/12)x(5,000/1.6)x(60/5280)= gives you 164 mph
If hp is a linear relationship to speed, then:
99 mph => 40 hp
119 mph => 48 hp
130 mph => 53 hp
145 mph => 59 hp
164 mph => 65 hp
Again, this has been fun.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
---
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 sixties or one 72 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
Mine will stay afloat (solo) at 4500 rpm, which (best I can read this tiny
graph in the Lockwood catalog) equals about 37 hp.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
do not archive
At 09:26 AM 8/20/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
>
> Wonder
>if a Mark 3 will stay afloat on 40 hp? Slow day again.......:o) Kirk
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: EVO/AIR update |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
Paul
Before you finalize your purchase of the Kolbra you may want to talk in
length about getting flaps for that airplane. Maybe John Williamson would
share his thoughts on the effectiveness of the standard flaperon setup on
the Kolbra and the O'brien brakes. It seems it seems John had some negative
comments on both.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: EVO/AIR update
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
>
> Kolbers,
> Well I'm just about ready to order Kit #1 form TNK. The bank called today
and my buddy that bought the big bike was approved! So I go tomorrow and
pick up that dough and get a check off to TNK. I'm going with the King
Kolbra. I guess waiting paid off because they dropped the price of kit 1
$1000.00 dollars. I have reassembled the HD engine and are going to start it
up tonight in preparation for tomorrows visit from Big Lar. I'm thinking
real hard at a redrive similar to his on the Vamoose. It will be good to
compare notes and ideas for the EVO. Perhaps his seeing this thing run will
give me an idea if the vibration it to great. Forging ahead!!!! Stay
tuned.........
>
> pp
> 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Camber ??? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> I am not so much concerned with tire wear ( they will dry rot before they
> wear out ) I am concerned about handling ... In my VW racing Days I ran about
2
> degrees of negative camber ... Dave
> Dave,
> When you say too much are you talking 5 or 6 degrees? Too much is not
> good for the tires, check out the link.
> http://www.yokohamatire.com/utmeasures.asp
>
> Charles
Dave/Charles/All:
The book says no camber/no toe in/toe out, when
aircraft is at max gross weight.
I like positive camber in my airplane. I think it
looks much better than negative camber. I also
like a touch of toe in. Toe out on Kolb style
main gear will cause the mains to spread apart
when taxiing.
Take care,
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 |
|
| Subject: | Propeller Diameter |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: tom sabean <sabean@ns.sympatico.ca>
Just finished going through the archives trying to determine the best
prop for a 912 on a Mark111 Xtra. I think I will go with a 3-blade IVO
but I noticed different diameters being used, anywhere from 68 to 72
inch.
Which is the best diameter to use?
Thanks,
Tom Sabean
Mark111 Xtra
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: 2 sixties or one 72 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
> Mine will stay afloat (solo) at 4500 rpm, which (best I can read this tiny
> graph in the Lockwood catalog) equals about 37 hp.
Interesting, sure give a good glide anyway. :o) Kirk
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Propeller Diameter |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> Which is the best diameter to use?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom Sabean
Tom/All:
I don't know which is best for your MK III Extra.
I have used a 72" Warp Drive which worked good for
me, but seemed to be a little noisier than the 70".
I now use a 70" 3 blade Warp Drive, which also
works great for me.
I highly recommend Warp Drive Props with nickel
steel leading edges, unless you are guaranteed to
fly in cool, clean, dry air, without the
possibility of anything falling off your airplane
or engine and going through the prop.
The Warp Drive takes a licking and keeps on
ticking. I have been flying in front of them for
10 years and over 1,600 hours, for all my flights
that have covered CONUS, Canada, and Alaska. I am
a believer.
If you check with my buddy John Williamson, he
will probably agree with me. He covers a lot of
territory pushed by a Warp Drive.
The choice is yours,
john h
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Prospective Kolbra Owners |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Williamson" <KolbraPilot@comcast.net>
The Kolbra is a great little airplane.
But there is plenty of room for improvement.
- I am changing out the Tracey O'Brien brakes for Matco dual caliper brakes.
- Changing wheels from 8:00-6 Azusa to Matco 8:00-6.
- Changing turff tires for McCreary Air Trac.
- Will build new ailerons and a set of flaps to replace the flaperons.
As you can see from the upcoming changes, the stopping ability and approach
speed and angle are trying to be improved.
I will have an update on the new Verner 133M engine, the new brakes and
wheels within the next two weeks.
The flaps and new ailerons won't happen until after TNK Fly-In.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
* * * * * * * * * *
Kolb Kolbra, Jabiru 2200, 441 hours
(Soon to be Verner 133M, Warp Drive 68", 3 blade prop)
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tail Weel Springs |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
Since the Kolb doesn't have all that much of a side profile, I would think
taxi in a cross wide would affect it all that much. Our Citabria we often
had to stab the brake repetitively while taxiing due to it wanting to
wether vane in a strong cross wind. You may be right and need a little
stronger spring but keep the springs.
I wouldn't think you should need or want to connect the rudder cables
direct to the tail wheel. You might find that when you are using a lot of
rudder upon landing, being directly connected it will likely send you
searching for runway lights. We had one builder tell another builder of a
CH601 to do that. After a couple flights he commented to me that it was
difficult to control upon landing. After looking at it I asked him a
simple question, how did the kit manufacturer say to do it. He changed it
back, no problem since. You need to be able to over ride the tail wheel
position with rudder. Example if the tail wheel was straight and you
needed to make a sharp tight turn, without the rudder it would difficult to
rotate the tail quick enough to get the wheel to swivel pass the detent
positions.
Jerb
At 10:12 AM 8/19/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha Neilsen"
><NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
>
>I have the optional full swivel tail wheel with the supplied tail wheel
>springs. On my flight to Oshkosh I landed one time where the winds were
>blowing 15-20mph on a black top runway. When I tried to turn cross wind the
>tail wheel wouldn't turn. I had to stand on a wheel brake fairly hard. I
>then had to taxi cross wind for almost a mile strait and I had to fully
>deflect the rudder AND drag a wheel brake to taxi strait. I made a mental
>note that when I got back I would order heaver compression springs for the
>tail wheel.
>
>When I was a Oshkosh I attended a forum where the speaker was saying that
>their tail wheels are direct connected for better control. He said that tail
>wheels controlled by springs are always lagging behind user input.
>
>My question is should I just direct connect the tail wheel to the rudder or
>use heaver springs?
>
>Rick Neilsen
>Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 sixties or one 72 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: SGreenpg@aol.com
I'm really not smart enough to get in on this one but if all the propeller
calculations come out close to the same one less engine in the airstream would
definitely be worth something. I vote for the single 80 hp/ 72"prop. :<)
do not archive
Steven Green
N58SG
Mark III
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
Thanks John,
I will ask about the flaps and ailerons tomorrow when I order kit 1. Was allready
planning on Matco Brakes. Big Lar has arrived and we are going to rev up the
beast this evening!
pp
do not archive
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: Prospective Kolbra Owners |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> - I am changing out the Tracey O'Brien brakes for Matco dual caliper brakes.
> - Changing wheels from 8:00-6 Azusa to Matco 8:00-6.
> - Changing turff tires for McCreary Air Trac.
> - Will build new ailerons and a set of flaps to replace the flaperons.
> John Williamson
John W/All:
Which brake is the dual caliper and what is the
axle and bearing size for the wheel?
Looks like Miss P'fer is going to have some
competition in the landing and stopping
department, but I believe it was needed for
certain Yooper airfields.
Take care,
john h
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 sixties or one 72 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> I vote for the single 80 hp/ 72"prop. :<)
> Steven Green
Steven/All:
Me too.
Craig Nelson has a beautiful, in pics that I have
he showed me, engine fairing for his Extra.
Anxious to see if this will clean up the Kolb and
maybe get a few extra miles per hour out of it.
Take care,
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> Was allready planning on Matco Brakes. Big Lar has arrived and we are going to
rev up the beast this evening!
>
> pp
pp/All:
I don't have time to give you the model number of
the MATCO's, but mine have 3/4" axles and 3/4"
tapered roller bearings. Brakes are a tremendous
increase over the old MATCO gold wheels w/5.8"
bearings and UL brakes. I am happy with mine.
Take care,
john h
PS: Miracles will never cease to happen. Big Lar
made it to Mississippi in one piece. :-)
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: Tail Weel Springs |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> Since the Kolb doesn't have all that much of a side profile, I would think
> taxi in a cross wide would affect it all that much.
> Jerb
Jerb/All:
Don't let the skinny little tail boom fool you.
On the end of that skinny sucker is a big "A"
vertical stabilizer and rudder. Cross wind in 15
to 30 MPH winds will make a believer out of you.
I think I shared with you all an attempted
approach into a grass strip in Oklahoma last May
on the way to Monument Valley. 30 to 35 MPH 90
degree cross wind. No way to straighten the
airplane to align with the strip. Had to land on
the other side of the fence in the cow lot, with
the cows. But Miss P'fer and I have been flying
with the cows for 19 years and we are right at
home with them.
Take care,
john h
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: | MATCO Wheels/Brakes for Mark III/Extra/Kolbra |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Hi Gang:
Here's the wheel and brake combo I highly
recommend, based on some serious use the last
couple years:
http://www.matcomfg.com/specs/w62.htm
There is a one inch spacer to widen the wheels
available from MATCO that makes a nice fit with
the McCreary Air Trac 800X6 tires.
This is the wheel/brake combo with the 1" spacer:
http://www.matcomfg.com/Wheel/IM29a.jpg
Take care,
john h
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 2 sixties or one 72 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderski@rocketjet.net>
Propellor Prognosticators,
My 1st Kolb, an UltraStar had a 50" prop that put out 225lbs static
thrust. I wanted more & was about embark on a duct fan conversion. I did a
lot of research and came to realize that thrust increases logrithmiclly
because area is the biggest factor in thrust & area increases in a squared
relationship. Therefore the significant advantage of duct fan was
overwhelmingly beat out by a larger diameter prop. I dropped the engine &
raised the gear legs & managed to get a 60" prop which has 44% increase in
area. I was hoping to get that much improvement in thrust also, I didn't,
(a diferent redrive with different ratio & different prop are major
variables) but I still got 30% more thrust which translated into a 30%
increase in climb rate. The top end speed increased but not nearly 30%,
don't remember exactly.
Now back to the original question, Would 2 60" props on 2 40hp engines
be better than one 72" prop on an 80hp engine (this is a Kolb list so I'm
assuming a Kolb in the real world.) the 72" prop also has 44% more area
than a 60" prop. Lets assume we will also get only a 30% increase in
thrust. Now a 72" prop clearly delivers more (30+%) thrust per hp than a
60". So how would you want to divy up your 80hp? I will put it behind the
30% more effecient setup. This is not just theory, but proven practice as
well. Take a 40hp, 60" prop setup, double its thrust & a 80hp/72" prop will
beat it hands down. Then there is the extra weight, drag, complexity, fuel
burn, & harmonic resonance to deal with & the single engine is even a better
deal.
...Richard Swiderski
(Still detoured from finishing the Turbo Suzuki 3 Cyl. It looks like even
Big Lar is going to get up before me!)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher J Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 2 sixties or one 72
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher J Armstrong"
<tophera@centurytel.net>
>
> Well yah, if ya go faster it is gonna take more power! I just wanted to
> point out that the more area the better but you have to get each prop
> set up for the situation or your comparison is a bit unfair. I would
> guess the best way to do this would be to not require the same airflow
> but see what the performance is for each prop set up the best it can be
> for the airplane. I would bet the greater area prop would win every
> time. ( thats what theory would suggest anyway.
>
> Topher
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack & Louise
> Hart
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 2 sixties or one 72
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
>
> At 11:45 PM 8/19/03 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher J Armstrong"
> <tophera@centurytel.net>
> >
> >
> >you came to the conclusion that the big prop ( smaller area) will be
> >better at speed and the small props (larger area) better at climb. But
> >if you change the reduction ratio for a given speed range then the two
> >props are better for every case, if they have more area. More area is
> >more efficient cause you don't have to move the air as fast to absorb a
> >given hp. That's why the two small props ( more area) only need to
> >advance 55.7 inches per rotation, and the one big ( less area ) prop
> has
> >to advance 77.4 inches. It has to move the air faster to absorb the
> >power, and therefore is less efficient.
> >
> >Somebody point out the errors I made, probably did this too fast to get
> >any of it right.
> >
>
> Topher,
>
> I agree with everything you have written, but the problem was proposed
> as a comparison between a 80 hp engine swinging a 72 inch prop, and two
> 40 hp engines swinging 60 inch props. The only way I could see to
> compare them was to be sure that both set ups used 80 hp was that they
> both move the same volume of air at the same rate. Since the air volume
> flow rate was fixed by assumption and the propeller diameters were fixed
> in the problem, the 60 inch propeller is going to absorb 40 hp at the
> same propeller rpm no matter what the gear ratio is for a defined pitch
> of 55.7 inches.
>
> My assumption was that (55.7/12)x(5,000/2.7)x(60/5280) = 99 mph at 40
> hp, but if you reduce the gear ratio and keep engine rpm the same, the
> hp required goes up too.
>
> >For the 60" prop using some smaller reduction ratios gives
> >(55.7/12)x(5,000/2.2)x(60/5280)= gives you 119 mph and a tip speed of
> >(55.7/12)x(5,000/2.0)x(60/5280)= gives you 130 mph
> >(55.7/12)x(5,000/1.8)x(60/5280)= gives you 145 mph
> >(55.7/12)x(5,000/1.6)x(60/5280)= gives you 164 mph
>
> If hp is a linear relationship to speed, then:
>
> 99 mph => 40 hp
> 119 mph => 48 hp
> 130 mph => 53 hp
> 145 mph => 59 hp
> 164 mph => 65 hp
>
> Again, this has been fun.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Jackson, MO
>
>
> Jack & Louise Hart
> jbhart@ldd.net
>
>
> ---
>
>
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: Propeller Diameter |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: HShack@aol.com
In a message dated 8/20/03 4:13:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jhauck@elmore.rr.com writes:
> I highly recommend Warp Drive Props with nickel
> steel leading edges, unless you are guaranteed to
> fly in cool, clean, dry air, without the
> possibility of anything falling off your airplane
> or engine and going through the prop.
>
>
Hey, Tom!! John knows what he's talking about.
The Ivo is very easy to adjust, is smoother & quieter. That aside, if you
want the best performance [both climb & cruise], go with the Warp.
Shack
FS II
SC
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: Propeller Diameter |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> Hey, Tom!! John knows what he's talking about.
>
> The Ivo is very easy to adjust, is smoother & quieter. That aside, if you
> want the best performance [both climb & cruise], go with the Warp.
>
> Shack
Shack/All:
Your comment jogged my memory.
I don't have to have an instant method to set prop
pitch. Don't need it. Once the correct pitch is
set on the Warp, I fly and leave it alone. It
stays where I put it. Sorta like fix and forget.
I have about 500 hours on this last adjustment,
when I cut an inch off the 72" prop to make it a
70". BTW: Did not take that much increase in
pitch to make up for the performance difference.
Just a tiny bit of pitch increase.
john h
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Harris" <rharris@magnolia-net.com>
Denny, Its sigtronics you want......... If you are going to do the ARN
yourself its Headsetsinc you want... check them out @
headsetsinc.com.....
Richard Harris
MK3 N912RH
Lewisville, Arkansas
DO NOT ARCHIVE
you wrote.......
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: <rowedl@highstream.net>
>
> Kolbers,
> Does anybody have a two place intercom for sale that they had good results
with?
> I use two standard aviation headsets and will probably be buying ANR kits
for them,
> any recomendations would be appreciated.
> Denny Rowe Mk-3. Leechburg PA
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
I'm using Mail Washer with Eudora which pre-screens your mail before you
download it - alerts you to potential spam and allows you to delete,
blacklist, and/or "bounce" messages. This helps reduce the amount of spam
you receive.
Cost is $20 registration fee. Works good.
jerb
At 09:35 AM 8/20/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
>
>Oh yes..
>AVG antivirus (free) is keeping the virus's at bay, and using Eudora with
>Spamnix is keeping the spam down to about two a day.
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>do not archive
>
>
>At 09:13 AM 8/20/03 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >--> Kolb-List message posted by: Bob Bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
> >
> >G'day, don't know if it's this list or not, suddenly being hit with a deluge
> >of virus-laden spam! -anybody else? thanks, disgusted BB do not archive
> >
> >
>
>
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! --
|