Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:08 AM - Re: Exhaust cleaning (Larry Bourne)
2. 05:47 AM - Re: Exhaust cleaning (Bruce n' Kathy)
3. 07:48 AM - Re: Exhaust cleaning (John Hauck)
4. 07:56 AM - HP Reduction, Weight Reduction & FireFly Climb Rate (Jack & Louise Hart)
5. 08:48 AM - Re: fly honda (Don Gherardini)
6. 09:57 AM - Re: fly honda (Christopher Armstrong)
7. 09:58 AM - Re: Re: Homers Bumps (Gherkins Tim-rp3420)
8. 11:43 AM - Re: fly honda (John Hauck)
9. 12:24 PM - MZ engines (CaptainRon)
10. 01:17 PM - Re: Re:HEXADYNE ENGINE (Jim Ballenger)
11. 02:26 PM - Re: fly honda (Christopher Armstrong)
12. 03:04 PM - Kolb Airfoil (John Hauck)
13. 03:40 PM - Re: Re: Homers Bumps (CRAIG M NELSON)
14. 04:26 PM - Re: Re: Homers Bumps (Paul Petty)
15. 04:36 PM - airfoil (ronnie wehba)
16. 05:51 PM - Re: fly honda (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
17. 05:52 PM - Re: Re:HEXADYNE ENGINE (Kirk Smith)
18. 06:12 PM - Plexus (Bill Vincent)
19. 06:27 PM - Re: Kolb Airfoil (Richard Pike)
20. 06:40 PM - Re: Exhaust cleaning (WhiskeyVictor36@aol.com)
21. 06:49 PM - Re: Kolb Airfoil (John Hauck)
22. 07:00 PM - Re: Re: Homers Bumps (John Williamson)
23. 07:05 PM - Re: Kolb Airfoil (Christopher Armstrong)
24. 07:11 PM - Monument Valley 2004 (John Williamson)
25. 07:27 PM - Re: Kolb Airfoil (Richard Pike)
26. 07:28 PM - Re: Monument Valley 2004 (John Hauck)
27. 07:35 PM - Re: Kolb Airfoil (John Hauck)
28. 07:57 PM - Re: Kolb Airfoil (Bob Bean)
29. 08:04 PM - Re: fly honda (CaptainRon)
30. 08:24 PM - Re: Kolb Airfoil (CRAIG M NELSON)
31. 08:39 PM - Re: fly honda (John Hauck)
32. 09:58 PM - Re: fly Corvair (Richard Pike)
33. 10:25 PM - Re: Kolb Airfoil (Denny Rowe)
34. 10:51 PM - Re: fly honda (CaptainRon)
35. 11:49 PM - Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] (Matt Dralle)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust cleaning |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
Phosphoric acid will do the job ?? Good to know. Another place to find
that is a refrigeration supply, or technician. We use it as an ice machine
cleaner..........or maybe I should say that the commercial ice machine
cleaners incorporate phosphoric acid. Same-o either way. I'll give it a
whirl - got lotsa that stuff. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, CA
Kolb Mk III - Vamoose N78LB
www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Gassmann" <a1929gassmann@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Exhaust cleaning
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Andrew Gassmann
<a1929gassmann@earthlink.net>
>
> At 07:32 PM 11/30/2003, you wrote:
> >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Chuck Davis - Comcast"
> ><davis207@comcast.net>
>
> >Go to an auto store and get a compound with phosphoric acid in it. Spray
> >in on (I would brush off any big flakes of rust first), and wait a day or
> >so. the iron oxide will be changed to Iron Phosphate. Then paint over it.
>
> Andy
>
> >The question is, what's the best way of getting all the rust off?
>
> (snipped)
>
> > Is mechanical sanding the best way to continue, or is there a chemical
> > angle I should try?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >
> >Chuck Davis
> >
> >
>
>
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: Exhaust cleaning |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Bruce n' Kathy" <n3nrr@erols.com>
Farm stores such as Tractor supply and Fleet farm in midwest
carry Milkstone remover in gallons aout 6-7 bucks it is mostly
Phosphoric acid.
We use it a alot as a household clener on stainless.
--
Bruce n' Kathy
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: Exhaust cleaning |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Hi Larry/Gang:
I use Phosphoric Acid to clean and prep aluminum and steel.
Cut it with one part acid and two to three parts water.
Apply with brush or dip. Leave it on for about 3 minutes
and rinse well with water. Extremely dirty areas can be
scrubbed with a scotch brite pad or stiff brush.
Follow the acid etch with an alodine treatment. They have
gold and neutral, your choice. The alodine will keep the
aluminum from corroding for quite a long time.
The jug said nothing about steel, and Jim Miller told me
recently that using it on steel is discouraged. However, I
have done a lot of cages and steel parts with it with good
success. Paint isn't falling off Miss P'fer after 12 years now.
Take care,
john h
Larry Bourne wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne"
> <biglar@gogittum.com>
>
> Phosphoric acid will do the job ?? Good to know.
> Another place to find that is a refrigeration supply, or
> technician. We use it as an ice machine
> cleaner..........or maybe I should say that the
> commercial ice machine cleaners incorporate phosphoric
> acid. Same-o either way. I'll give it a whirl - got
> lotsa that stuff. Lar.
>
> Larry Bourne Palm Springs, CA Kolb Mk III - Vamoose
> N78LB www.gogittum.com
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Gassmann"
> <a1929gassmann@earthlink.net> To:
> <kolb-list@matronics.com> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Exhaust
> cleaning
>
>
>
>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Andrew Gassmann
>
> <a1929gassmann@earthlink.net>
>
>> At 07:32 PM 11/30/2003, you wrote:
>>
>>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Chuck Davis -
>>> Comcast" <davis207@comcast.net>
>>
>>> Go to an auto store and get a compound with
>>> phosphoric acid in it. Spray in on (I would brush off
>>> any big flakes of rust first), and wait a day or so.
>>> the iron oxide will be changed to Iron Phosphate.
>>> Then paint over it.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>> The question is, what's the best way of getting all
>>> the rust off?
>>
>> (snipped)
>>
>>
>>> Is mechanical sanding the best way to continue, or is
>>> there a chemical angle I should try?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck Davis
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> forum is sponsored entirely through the Contributions _-> of List members. You'll
never see banner ads or any
> Forums.
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
> Browse: http://www.matronics.com/browse/kolb-list _-> Browse Digests: http://www.matronics.com/digest/kolb-list
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | HP Reduction, Weight Reduction & FireFly Climb Rate |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Thom Riddle" <jtriddle@adelphia.net>
>I was wondering if anyone has ever been able to reduce the weight of an early
FireStar down to the Part 103 >legal limit of 254#. My guess is it might take
replacing the 377 with a lighter engine, if such a thing is >available. Thanks
for any input or ideas.
>......................
>As with all things there is one aspect that is a negative. You can not climb
with hp that is not there. So >with all the fairing slick up of the FireFly so
that it cruises just as fast as before, it is not going to >climb nearly well
as it did before. I do not know, but I would anticipate the wing loading of
a FireStar is >less than for a FireFly. If, so hp reduction would have less
affect on climb rate.
FireFlyers & Kolbers,
I got to thinking about what would the effect be on climb rate due to power and
weight reduction? Years ago I purchased the "A Practical Guide to Airplane Performance
and Design" by Donald R. Crawford. I dug it out and pulled out the
following formula:
Climb Rate = [33,000 x Brake HP / Total Weight] x thrust to engine efficiency -
Sink Rate
I solved for the thrust to engine efficiency term by using data I had for the FireFly
when the Rotax 447 was mounted.
Brake HP was 38
The Climb Rate at 50 mph was 1,000 fpm
The Sink Rate was computed at 50 mph and based on a 6 to one glide ratio was 733
fpm
Total Weight was 484 pounds <- 30 pounds of fuel, 200 pounds for me, and 254 pounds
for the FireFly
Using these numbers, the thrust to engine efficiency was found to be 0.67
Then assuming that the efficiency term and Sink Rate both remain constant, new
climb rates were computed for different HP and total weights.
Assumed HP = 27 and total weight = 484 pounds => Climb Rate = 500 fpm or a 50%
reduction.
This represents the FireFly with the Victor 1+ throttled back.
Assumed HP = 27 and total weight = 435 pounds => Climb Rate = 639 fpm or a 36%
reduction.
This represents the MZ34 engine flat out with no additional weight added back to
the FireFly.
Assumed HP = 27 and total weight = 450 pounds => Climb Rate = 594 fpm or a 41%
reduction.
This represents the MZ34 engine flat out with full enclosure, cockpit controlled
propeller pitch, and additional fairings to improve cruise speed. This Climb
Rate is probably conservative. If a full cockpit enclosure and wheel strut
fairings are installed, the sink rate will decrease which will boost the climb
rate a little more.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
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: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Chris,
I installed the steel rods because I plan to take this engine thru the test
to the point of destruction, and from previous expierience, I know the
aluminum rods wont stand more than 5500 rpms, Plus the steel rods have
clevite bearing inserts, the alum do not, and both are readily available as
a stock component from honda, although for a different (older) v-twin
engine. The Inserts will make this engine cheaper to overhaul if the project
becomes feasable.
I undertsand completely about you comment on the static thrust, which is why
I lessened the pitch. You see , at that pitch (11.5 deg at the tip) the
Cuyuna/FireFly was at a compromise between best climb and best
cruise...maybe a tad closer to best cruise pitch. Also keep in mind that the
Cuyuna would spin it at 6200 max(WOT) for a 2480 prop speed and about 78
mph. The Honda at that pitch would not attain those levels..turning 4500 to
4600 if I remember right for 2250 to 2300 prop speed WOT.
Comparing inflight numbers with static is Usless?...Well not entirely,
admittedly not a dead accurate comparison, but not entirely Useless.
You see I am in the very begining of this test which will culminate in
finding out how much Horsepower can be attained from this engine before its
reliability diminishes. Currently there are modified versions of this engine
running at the 65 to 70 horsepower level in Unlimited Pulling Tractors. BUT
as they rarely put more than a few minutes on these engine at a time, this
level is likely not acceptable to an aircraft. I can tell you from personal
expierience that My son and I ran a smaller version (620cc's) for 2 years on
the pulling circuit at the 60 horse level and when we were done I pulled it
down (for the first time) and found no wear apparant on any single
component. I returned the engine back to stock (the short block WAS
basically stock) and installed it in a cub cadet mower and it has been
mowing my yard now for 4 years on the same block ,bearings, rods, pistons,
and crank as was in the puller.
I mow 4 acres BTW. I have NEVER added oil to this engine between oil
changes. It does not use a single drop. It also uses .9 gph of fuel in that
mower.
Anyway back to comparing. I believe that so far all I have accomplished is
determining that in the dead stock state of tune, running at the 4500 rpm
level static WOT load, is that you would not need to run it in a FireFly at
WOT to cruise at fly at 60 mph. I dont know what the rpm increase will be in
flight...but as I was running it at 100 or so less than max in that test, I
would assume that another 1or 200 would be likely, Possibly giving a stock
engine and a 2.2 to 1 ratio the ability to propell a FireFly at 65mph or so
with a cruise of 55 to 60 pretty easy on the engine.
Another fella has already been Flying a Firestar this summer with a 25 hp
Kohler (untill he busted the crank) and he thought the preformance was close
to the 377 it replaced.
The FireStar Might be a better test bed for these kinds of engines, Due to
their heavier weight than a FireFly. BUT...I have a FireFly....
Also I might mention this. Some of you have been asking ...WHY?....
Well there have been several whys ....
Just a short time ago, before I finished my Kolb I used to read Jack Harts
posts, folowing his endeavour to get better range out of that airplane of
his, going thru all his troubles of different engines, and trying to wring
out better fuel economy and such. I would think to myself...Jeezx Jack, why
dont you just get a different Airplane. I really did not understand, because
I had not Flown a FireFly...now I have, and its not my first airplane
either. This FireFly is my 5th airplane I have persionally built, and I have
Logged Flight time in everything from a 50 horse Cub to Beech 18s to even a
P-38 Lockheed since 1978 when I got my first rating. In all these years, I
really can NEVER remember a more enjoyable airplane to fly. (although I have
never flown another Kolb model other that a brief checkout in "Miss Peff'r")
( thanks again John). I got Hooked on "low an slow" back in 80 in a
Weedhopper and I, Like many who follow this list, Fly mostly for "Fun" If I
was interested in transportation..I would build a different airplane. I
didnt anticipate falling in love with this FireFly...it is so
nimble...fast...as John H told me before I flew it. "Dont worry, they just
have no bad habits"
None the less the FireFly's range is poor, as any that are limited to 5
gallons of fuel, and I am just not done Enjoying myself when I run short on
Fuel..So I installed a 10 gallon tank..but ...some guys cant get away with
this, and I must admit that I feel uncomfortable when going to fly-ins at
different airports. You see I know that FAA officials dont wear uniforms!
Now...They dont carry scales around with them . But they are not dummies
either..and it aint too hard to see the difference in a 5 gallon and a 10
gallon tank! Maybe if I didnt have anything that they could take away from
me, I would not care. But I would not like to loose any of my ratings.
Also , I have been a participant in this sport for over 23 years now, and
after seeing slower growth than I thought there would be, all of a sudden I
see the possibility of a steep decline.
WHAT?...with all the hoopla about Sport-pilot and such...how can I say
that.?
Men, you have heard me say it before...we are about to run-out of affordable
engines for the ultra-light crowd. Or at least the ones we are used to
using. Everybody has a budget for pleasure, some larger than others, but, as
in any market, it can be charted as a great pyramid. The number of fellas at
the top is small, with a large budjet for their pleasure. The numbers of
fells at the bottom is large..but with a small budget for theirs. If you
want growth in a market, you ALWAYS go for the largest number with the
smaller budget.
All I see in sport Pilot is a method for the Faa to increase its regulatory
strength. Getting currently "fat" ultralights regulated will be the greatest
numbers of regristrations..not the number of new sport aircraft built...they
are at the top of the pyramid. They will be much fewer. And what will the
Value of these new aircraft that dont require a medical to fly? will they
have a better resale?...I dont see how. Like an expierimental, If you didnt
build it, you cant inspect it...at this point you will have to "go to
school" so to speak to attain faa approved licensce's for maintainance and
such.OR go to an A&P.
I dont see that as easier..I see it as more complicated.
What I see in this market is likely a wider gap between the regulated...and
the non regulated happening. With the end in sight for 2 cycles, we are
going to be looking for alternatives, and I dont see any other than out
their right now for the fellas on the bottom on the Pyramid than these
industrial v-twins. They are not the ideal replacements..but. like the
snowmobile engines were when they we being adapted for our sport, they were
not either. Aircraft have "evolved" to fit the available powerplants. I
predict that the company that decided to design an aircraft that will fly on
an industrial V-twin will be the next QuickSlilver in terms of sales
success.
Its a shame Homer and Dennis are out of the Biz...they are just the kind of
fellas we need to work on this!
Pardon my long verbage men...maybe I got carried away!
Don Gherardini
FireFly 098
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
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: "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
I agree that they have some potential. The tests that you are
performing are a bit conservative. The outdrive you are using is so
ridged that you are subjecting the engine to a much more difficult test
then if you used a torsional absorbing outdrive. If you could put a
clutch on your driven gear of some other form of spike absorber as you
would on a real flight application I think that you would be giving the
engine a more accurate test for durability. Raven redrives has an
outdrive prop hub with a rubber damper built into it. You might be able
to buy one of those to use for testing. Or just put something together
from an industrial catalog. When you start using the dyno you will get
real HP numbers but again that wont test durability in the flight
configuration very well.
I would have fun desigining a plane around this engine. Need a real 254
pound low drag configuration. Firefly with a single streamlined lift
strut and a slightly longer wing and a better airfoil would be great.
Topher
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: | Re: Homers Bumps |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Gherkins Tim-rp3420 <rp3420@motorola.com>
John/ kolbers,
Just a quick note on this subject, I had already built a set of elevators per Kolbs
specs and then later built the .025 2024 T3 formed sheet rib elevators.
I compare weighed them both before I covered the elevators. The .025 sheet formed
elevator compared to Kolbs spec elevator weighed 8 ounces lighter. Times
that by two (two elevators) plus the weighed saved on the rudder as well gives
me a total of at least a pound and a half of weight savings in the tail of my
particular Firestar II model. So not only are they stronger as suggested in
your testing but they also are lighter.
The ailerons were also built in the same formed sheet fashion, I am sure I saved
well over a half pound each on them as well. That would amount to close to
three pounds (including the tail feathers) I got rid of behind my center gravity.
Tim Gherkins
Firestar II w/ 503dcdi/powerfin prop
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
Williamson
Subject: Re: Re: Kolb-List: Homers Bumps
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot@comcast.net>
I did some un-scientific testing today of three different ways of making the
aileron rib.
The normal Kolb rib, rib with gussets and a formed rib.
Constants:
- leading edge tube 6061-T6 1.25" O.D x .035"
- trailing edge tube 6061-T6 0.315" O.D x .035"
- Aluminum sheet 6061-T6 0.32"
- rivets all stainless steel
- all rivets pulled by pneumatic puller
- attachment to stand http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/attachment.JPG
- manor in which weight was applied
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/method.JPG
Results:
- Kolb design http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/kolb_rib_a.JPG
- at 511 in/lb no deformity
- at 558 in/lb long tube bent at short tube attachment
- http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/kolb_rib_b.JPG
- Gusset design - http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/gussett_rib_a.JPG
- at 288 in/lb one tube in compression started to bend
- at 446 in/lb tube failed (bent) and small dent in opposite side
gusset
- http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/gussett_rib_b.JPG
- Formed design - http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/formed_rib_a.JPG
- at 400 in/lb rib began to twist
- at 480 in/lb rib continued to twist
- http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/formed_rib_b.JPG
- rib returned to original shape when load removed
My conclusions: The formed rib is stronger than the other two. When
installed in a structure the twisting would not occur at all. The Kolb rib
is very strong and bent at the rivet hole where the two tubes are joined but
did not break. The gusset rib seemed to be a stronger rib when compared
individually to the other ribs but failed early.
I took the Kolbra flying this morning until the wind got to 25 mph and I
called it quits. So I had the rest of the day to play with this rib
comparison. Boy do I need to fly more!
Craig Nelson had some great photos of two of these rib designs. Thanks.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolb Kolbra: Jabiru 2200, 505 hours
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/
do not archive
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> Firefly
> with a single streamlined lift strut and a slightly
> longer wing and a better airfoil would be great.
>
> Topher
Topher/All:
Better than what?
More speed, less lift?
More speed, less forgiving stall characteristics?
Better slow speed and stall characteristics?
john h
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: CaptainRon <aerialron@yahoo.com>
Is there anyone on the list that flies an MZ engine. I
spoke with the fellow that owns the MZ line, seemed
amiable enough. However I have no data on the MZ 301
(80hp) model.
http://www.compactradialengines.com/mz301.html
=====
Ron
Building M3X
Southern Arizona
__________________________________
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
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:HEXADYNE ENGINE |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Ballenger" <ulpilot@cavtel.net>
Kirk
Yes he named him but I didn't write it down. Cy was easy to talk to. You
may want to call him for more information on the engine.
Jim Ballenger
Flying a FS KXP 447
Building a MK III X
Virginia Beach, VA
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re:HEXADYNE ENGINE
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
>
>
> He also said there was a MK III in Wisconsin
> > with a Hexadyne and that the owner was pleased with the performance
which
> > was better than the 582 he had on the plane.
>
> Jim,
> Did he say who the guy was? Kirk
>
> Do not archive
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
Topher/All:
Better than what?
More speed, less lift?
More speed, less forgiving stall characteristics?
Better slow speed and stall characteristics?
john h
better for a lower hp engine, while still meeting the part 103 weight
and speed requirements.
Nothing really wrong with the Kolb airfoil but better ones are
available. Higher lift to drag with better stall characteristics. I
could spend 30 minutes with a cfd program on my home computer starting
from scratch right now and come up with a better airfoil then the Kolb
airfoil. The tools available now just are so good (and free) that you
can do things that you couldn't do before. I don't suggest that if I
was building a firefly with a 477 I would change it. But for a
different engine different design goals I would.
Homers airfoil is easy to build with the long flat bottom that goes from
leading edge to trailing edge tube. If you take that consideration away
and curve the bottom of the airfoil you immediately get large drag
reduction, and if you increase the leading edge radius the stall
characteristics would be even better then they are. The two lift
struts are there specifically to get the drag of the firefly as
calculated in the charts to allow a 477 engine. If you have less hp you
wouldn't need that anymore.
I am deffinately not the least critical of the firefly, but I do think
you would make different choices for a different engine.
Topher
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: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Topher/Gang:
Would be nice to get more airspeed/less drag out of the Kolb
wing without sacrificing any of the good low speed/gentle
stall characteristics.
The airfoil on the Ultrastar/Firestar/MK III are about 85
mph wings. From there to 100 mph it takes an awful lot of
power, much more than is feasible or economical to operate.
john h
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: Homers Bumps |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "CRAIG M NELSON" <vitalfx0@msn.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: John Williamson
Subject: Re: Re: Kolb-List: Homers Bumps
John I liked the comparison!!!!!!! don't forget the ribs are also made of 2024
T3 which is structural material and is a lot moor ridged. so these numbers would
reflect that as well.
Have fun a makin those planes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Uncle Craig
MLIIIex912uls
Arizona
I did some un-scientific testing today of three different ways of making the
aileron rib.
The normal Kolb rib, rib with gussets and a formed rib.
Constants:
- leading edge tube 6061-T6 1.25" O.D x .035"
- trailing edge tube 6061-T6 0.315" O.D x .035"
- Aluminum sheet 6061-T6 0.32"
- rivets all stainless steel
- all rivets pulled by pneumatic puller
- attachment to stand http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/attachment.JPG
- manor in which weight was applied
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/method.JPG
Results:
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolb Kolbra: Jabiru 2200, 505 hours
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/
do not archive
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Homers Bumps |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Paul Petty" <ppetty@c-gate.net>
Very interesting John, My question is this. What would the maximum force be
in the worst case scenario on that section of our aircraft?
John H added gussets to the corners of his elevator at the inboard junction.
I plan to do the same and thinking of the gusset method.
It's amazing how strong the Kolb design is. I guess it's because the
flattened tube will not allow much twisting where the gusset method relies
on the gusset it's self right?
pp
Paul Petty
Ms. Dixie
Kolbra/912UL/Warp
> The normal Kolb rib, rib with gussets and a formed rib.
>
> Constants:
> - leading edge tube 6061-T6 1.25" O.D x .035"
> - trailing edge tube 6061-T6 0.315" O.D x .035"
> - Aluminum sheet 6061-T6 0.32"
> - rivets all stainless steel
> - all rivets pulled by pneumatic puller
> - attachment to stand
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/attachment.JPG
> - manor in which weight was applied
> http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/method.JPG
>
> Results:
> - Kolb design http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/kolb_rib_a.JPG
> - at 511 in/lb no deformity
> - at 558 in/lb long tube bent at short tube attachment
> - http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/kolb_rib_b.JPG
>
> - Gusset design - http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/gussett_rib_a.JPG
> - at 288 in/lb one tube in compression started to bend
> - at 446 in/lb tube failed (bent) and small dent in opposite side
> gusset
> - http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/gussett_rib_b.JPG
>
> - Formed design - http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/formed_rib_a.JPG
> - at 400 in/lb rib began to twist
> - at 480 in/lb rib continued to twist
> - http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/formed_rib_b.JPG
> - rib returned to original shape when load removed
>
> My conclusions: The formed rib is stronger than the other two. When
> installed in a structure the twisting would not occur at all. The Kolb rib
> is very strong and bent at the rivet hole where the two tubes are joined
but
> did not break. The gusset rib seemed to be a stronger rib when compared
> individually to the other ribs but failed early.
>
> I took the Kolbra flying this morning until the wind got to 25 mph and I
> called it quits. So I had the rest of the day to play with this rib
> comparison. Boy do I need to fly more!
>
> Craig Nelson had some great photos of two of these rib designs. Thanks.
>
>
> John Williamson
> Arlington, TX
>
> Kolb Kolbra: Jabiru 2200, 505 hours
> http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/
>
> 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: "ronnie wehba" <rwehba@wtxs.net>
lets see it !!
I could spend 30 minutes with a cfd program on my home computer starting
from scratch right now and come up with a better airfoil then the Kolb
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: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
Great Plains has just finished their testing on a Kohler 25 HP engine with a
reduction drive. I know it isn't a Honda but maybe there are some ideas you
can use. For those that might be interested in a US built engine they are
selling a engine/redrive package for $2945.00.
See it at http://www.greatplainsas.com/newproducts.html
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: fly honda
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
>
> Chris,
>
> I installed the steel rods because I plan to take this engine thru the
test
> to the point of destruction, and from previous expierience, I know the
> aluminum rods wont stand more than 5500 rpms, Plus the steel rods have
> clevite bearing inserts, the alum do not, and both are readily available
as
> a stock component from honda, although for a different (older) v-twin
> engine. The Inserts will make this engine cheaper to overhaul if the
project
> becomes feasable.
>
> I undertsand completely about you comment on the static thrust, which is
why
> I lessened the pitch. You see , at that pitch (11.5 deg at the tip) the
> Cuyuna/FireFly was at a compromise between best climb and best
> cruise...maybe a tad closer to best cruise pitch. Also keep in mind that
the
> Cuyuna would spin it at 6200 max(WOT) for a 2480 prop speed and about 78
> mph. The Honda at that pitch would not attain those levels..turning 4500
to
> 4600 if I remember right for 2250 to 2300 prop speed WOT.
>
> Comparing inflight numbers with static is Usless?...Well not entirely,
> admittedly not a dead accurate comparison, but not entirely Useless.
>
> You see I am in the very begining of this test which will culminate in
> finding out how much Horsepower can be attained from this engine before
its
> reliability diminishes. Currently there are modified versions of this engi
ne
> running at the 65 to 70 horsepower level in Unlimited Pulling Tractors.
BUT
> as they rarely put more than a few minutes on these engine at a time, this
> level is likely not acceptable to an aircraft. I can tell you from
personal
> expierience that My son and I ran a smaller version (620cc's) for 2 years
on
> the pulling circuit at the 60 horse level and when we were done I pulled
it
> down (for the first time) and found no wear apparant on any single
> component. I returned the engine back to stock (the short block WAS
> basically stock) and installed it in a cub cadet mower and it has been
> mowing my yard now for 4 years on the same block ,bearings, rods, pistons,
> and crank as was in the puller.
> I mow 4 acres BTW. I have NEVER added oil to this engine between oil
> changes. It does not use a single drop. It also uses .9 gph of fuel in
that
> mower.
>
> Anyway back to comparing. I believe that so far all I have accomplished
is
> determining that in the dead stock state of tune, running at the 4500 rpm
> level static WOT load, is that you would not need to run it in a FireFly
at
> WOT to cruise at fly at 60 mph. I dont know what the rpm increase will be
in
> flight...but as I was running it at 100 or so less than max in that test,
I
> would assume that another 1or 200 would be likely, Possibly giving a stock
> engine and a 2.2 to 1 ratio the ability to propell a FireFly at 65mph or
so
> with a cruise of 55 to 60 pretty easy on the engine.
> Another fella has already been Flying a Firestar this summer with a 25 hp
> Kohler (untill he busted the crank) and he thought the preformance was
close
> to the 377 it replaced.
> The FireStar Might be a better test bed for these kinds of engines, Due to
> their heavier weight than a FireFly. BUT...I have a FireFly....
>
> Also I might mention this. Some of you have been asking ...WHY?....
> Well there have been several whys ....
> Just a short time ago, before I finished my Kolb I used to read Jack Harts
> posts, folowing his endeavour to get better range out of that airplane of
> his, going thru all his troubles of different engines, and trying to wring
> out better fuel economy and such. I would think to myself...Jeezx Jack,
why
> dont you just get a different Airplane. I really did not understand,
because
> I had not Flown a FireFly...now I have, and its not my first airplane
> either. This FireFly is my 5th airplane I have persionally built, and I
have
> Logged Flight time in everything from a 50 horse Cub to Beech 18s to even
a
> P-38 Lockheed since 1978 when I got my first rating. In all these years, I
> really can NEVER remember a more enjoyable airplane to fly. (although I
have
> never flown another Kolb model other that a brief checkout in "Miss
Peff'r")
> ( thanks again John). I got Hooked on "low an slow" back in 80 in a
> Weedhopper and I, Like many who follow this list, Fly mostly for "Fun" If
I
> was interested in transportation..I would build a different airplane. I
> didnt anticipate falling in love with this FireFly...it is so
> nimble...fast...as John H told me before I flew it. "Dont worry, they just
> have no bad habits"
> None the less the FireFly's range is poor, as any that are limited to 5
> gallons of fuel, and I am just not done Enjoying myself when I run short
on
> Fuel..So I installed a 10 gallon tank..but ...some guys cant get away with
> this, and I must admit that I feel uncomfortable when going to fly-ins at
> different airports. You see I know that FAA officials dont wear uniforms!
> Now...They dont carry scales around with them . But they are not dummies
> either..and it aint too hard to see the difference in a 5 gallon and a 10
> gallon tank! Maybe if I didnt have anything that they could take away from
> me, I would not care. But I would not like to loose any of my ratings.
>
> Also , I have been a participant in this sport for over 23 years now, and
> after seeing slower growth than I thought there would be, all of a sudden
I
> see the possibility of a steep decline.
> WHAT?...with all the hoopla about Sport-pilot and such...how can I say
> that.?
>
> Men, you have heard me say it before...we are about to run-out of
affordable
> engines for the ultra-light crowd. Or at least the ones we are used to
> using. Everybody has a budget for pleasure, some larger than others, but,
as
> in any market, it can be charted as a great pyramid. The number of fellas
at
> the top is small, with a large budjet for their pleasure. The numbers of
> fells at the bottom is large..but with a small budget for theirs. If you
> want growth in a market, you ALWAYS go for the largest number with the
> smaller budget.
> All I see in sport Pilot is a method for the Faa to increase its
regulatory
> strength. Getting currently "fat" ultralights regulated will be the
greatest
> numbers of regristrations..not the number of new sport aircraft
built...they
> are at the top of the pyramid. They will be much fewer. And what will the
> Value of these new aircraft that dont require a medical to fly? will they
> have a better resale?...I dont see how. Like an expierimental, If you
didnt
> build it, you cant inspect it...at this point you will have to "go to
> school" so to speak to attain faa approved licensce's for maintainance and
> such.OR go to an A&P.
> I dont see that as easier..I see it as more complicated.
>
> What I see in this market is likely a wider gap between the
regulated...and
> the non regulated happening. With the end in sight for 2 cycles, we are
> going to be looking for alternatives, and I dont see any other than out
> their right now for the fellas on the bottom on the Pyramid than these
> industrial v-twins. They are not the ideal replacements..but. like the
> snowmobile engines were when they we being adapted for our sport, they
were
> not either. Aircraft have "evolved" to fit the available powerplants. I
> predict that the company that decided to design an aircraft that will fly
on
> an industrial V-twin will be the next QuickSlilver in terms of sales
> success.
>
> Its a shame Homer and Dennis are out of the Biz...they are just the kind
of
> fellas we need to work on this!
>
> Pardon my long verbage men...maybe I got carried away!
>
> Don Gherardini
> FireFly 098
> http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
>
>
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:HEXADYNE ENGINE |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
Kirk
> Yes he named him but I didn't write it down. Cy was easy to talk to. You
> may want to call him for more information on the engine.
Ok Jim, thanks! 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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Bill Vincent <emailbill@chartermi.net>
Hi Kolb Flyers
Last spring I had written to the list stating that Pledge "No Smear" was
no longer available and I couldn't find any other product that worked on
my Lexan enclosure. Someone suggest I buy the Plexus, anti-static
plastic cleaner.
This summer I saw the Plexus for sale at Oshkosh, bought a can and it
works really great !
So thanks for the suggestion.
Bill Vincent
Firestar II
Quinnesec, Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Do Not Archive
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Airfoil |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
Is it the airfoil, or the fat fuselage (MKIII) with the fast taper behind
the wide part?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
At 05:04 PM 12/1/03 -0600, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
>Topher/Gang:
>
>Would be nice to get more airspeed/less drag out of the Kolb
>wing without sacrificing any of the good low speed/gentle
>stall characteristics.
>
>The airfoil on the Ultrastar/Firestar/MK III are about 85
>mph wings. From there to 100 mph it takes an awful lot of
>power, much more than is feasible or economical to operate.
>
>john h
>
>
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: Exhaust cleaning |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: WhiskeyVictor36@aol.com
In a message dated 11/30/03 9:35:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
davis207@comcast.net writes:
> The bad news is the exhausting is pretty rusty and while it's off, I
> need to put a coating on it.
>
Chuck,
On my muffler and header pipe, I use a wire brush, along with #280 (Dry)
wet/dry sandpaper, to remove all the loose stuff. I do not take it down to shiny
bare metal. Wipe it clean with laquer thinner and then paint using black
Plasticoat 500 degree engine paint in an aersol can. Several coats give a nice,
low gloss finish. It will last about one year before burning off at hot spots.
The header elbow is the hottest part, but also a couple spots on the muffler
will burn off. Still, its a cheap and easy way to keep it looking nice.
Bill Varnes
Kolb FireStar
Audubon, NJ
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: Kolb Airfoil |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> Is it the airfoil, or the fat fuselage (MKIII) with the fast taper behind
> the wide part?
>
> Richard Pike
Richard/All:
As I mentioned in my previous post, all three of my
airplanes, Ultrastar, Firestar, and MK III are about 85 mph
airplanes. All had the same airfoil size and shape. Wing
panels are nearly all the same size. Around 85 was about as
fast as these airplanes wanted to fly. All three had
different fuselage configurations.
I'm just guessing, of course, because I do not have any
formulas or numbers or spooky stuff to back up my feelings,
as usual, which are based on a lot of flying and
experimenting with flying these three aircraft.
My MK III is configured different from any other standard MK
III. I know I have dead air between the leading edge of the
wing and top of the windshield. Also the rear quarter
windows. How do I know this? It is very obvious when
flying in rain. Rain drops sit there in those locations
grinning at me.
I figure if I could catch me a good size porcupine I would
have enough quills to kills some of that dead air and get my
cruise up a couple mph.
Take care,
john h
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: Homers Bumps |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot@comcast.net>
Paul and all,
Like I said, my testing was very un-scientific and only applied to one rib.
If and when I build new ailerons and flaps, I will test the current ailerons
as a single structure. I have the Homer Bumps and am quite sure the trailing
edge will support all my weight.
Remember that the air loads on the control surfaces are a lot different than
just weight added at the trailing edge.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolb Kolbra: Jabiru 2200, 506 hours
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
It really is the wing that causes a lot of the top end limitation...
since the firestar fuselage is not all that bad a shape and it comes to
a brick wall at say 95 too. Sure the MKiii fuselage is a terrible pig
but it isn't all that big, about 4 feet across. The wing is ~ 30 feet.
The Kolbs are optimized for climb so there is some form drag in cruise
that doesn't need to be there in the tail boom too.
I will post a couple of airfoil images when I get around to it... might
be amusing for some of you guys to see the pressure distributions.
Topher
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: | Monument Valley 2004 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Williamson" <kolbrapilot@comcast.net>
Kolb Flyers,
After reading and comparing the different replies about the Monument Valley experience,
I am planning on 14-17 May 2004 at Monument Valley.
I called the FSO's at Page, AZ and was told there are no facilities for camping
on the airfield and the closet place to eat is .8 miles away.
So far I have counted eleven Kolbers that have expressed interest in the trip.
The parking area is big and can hold some more airplanes. Spring 2004 flying season
is just around the corner.
I have also updated my website to reflect Sun 'n Fun 2004 and the Alaska 2004 trips.
If a route goes near your place and you want to join up for a while it will
be fun.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolb Kolbra: Jabiru 2200, 506 hours
http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot/
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: Kolb Airfoil |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
At 08:49 PM 12/1/03 -0600, you wrote:
>Porcupines a bit hard to come by here in the hills of East Tennessee.
But we got lots of possums... every road in every holler has got at least one.
Some better than others, some a bit rough.
How many u need? (Shipping may not be easy...)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
><snip>
>I figure if I could catch me a good size porcupine I would
>have enough quills to kills some of that dead air and get my
>cruise up a couple mph.
>
>Take care,
>
>john h
>
>
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: Monument Valley 2004 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> After reading and comparing the different replies about
> the Monument Valley experience, I am planning on 14-17
> May 2004 at Monument Valley.
> John Williamson Arlington, TX
John W/All:
I'll second that. Besides, I know the way to Monument
Valley from Titus, Alabama, already.
You guys in other parts of the US and Canada will have to
scout around and find us some neat places to fly to, spend a
few days, and enjoy the local area. But it has to be super
to beat out the Gouldings at Monument Valley. On top of
that, the flying in the valley is truly awesome. Also, the
surrounding areas are beautiful and so much different from
what us flat land furriners are accustomed to. I love it.
See ya'll a Monument Valley right after Sun and Fun 2004 and
just before Alaska 2004. Aaaaaaaaah! Gonna be a good
flying year.
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Airfoil |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> The Kolbs are optimized for climb so there is some form drag in cruise
> that doesn't need to be there in the tail boom too.
> Topher
Topher/All:
I agree with that. The Kolbra is much cleaner than the Mark
III for two reasons:
1) The Kolbra flies with the tail boom parallel to the line
of flight. The MK III flies tail high, dragging the length
of the tail boom through the air rather than a 6" diameter tube.
2) About half the fuselage width of the MK III.
I noticed the difference immediately my first and only
flight in the Kolbra. Felt and acted much slicker in the
air than the MK III. Big problem though. Tandem seating
does away with my left seat which I use as a desk/work
bench/hold all for stuff I like to have handy during long
flights.
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: Kolb Airfoil |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Bob Bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
I side with the wing being the majority culprit too. The fact that the
wing still has
a positive lower side angle of attack at cruise really hurts. -Not that
I care,
I never was interested in going fast anyway. But then on the other hand I
don't really care whether I climb at 500, 800, 1000 ft/min as long as I get
aviatin'. Different strokes for diff folks, there's a guy near here
dug up a
whole field to make big lumps and bumps for his kid's dirt bike, duh!
But if that's what he likes this is Amerikee, be my guest. -BB do not
archive
Christopher Armstrong wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
>
>It really is the wing that causes a lot of the top end limitation...
>since the firestar fuselage is not all that bad a shape and it comes to
>a brick wall at say 95 too. Sure the MKiii fuselage is a terrible pig
>but it isn't all that big, about 4 feet across. The wing is ~ 30 feet.
>
>The Kolbs are optimized for climb so there is some form drag in cruise
>that doesn't need to be there in the tail boom too.
>
>I will post a couple of airfoil images when I get around to it... might
>be amusing for some of you guys to see the pressure distributions.
>
>Topher
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: CaptainRon <aerialron@yahoo.com>
I was just researching a Corvair site and that motor
listed as 200 pounds and some change. I will need a
different i.e. stronger cage for that.
It seems to me that Kolb needs to make an effort to
consider other engines for their platform than the
price bloated Rotax.
========================================
--- Richard & Martha Neilsen <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha
> Neilsen" <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
>
> Great Plains has just finished their testing on a
> Kohler 25 HP engine with a
> reduction drive. I know it isn't a Honda but maybe
> there are some ideas you
> can use. For those that might be interested in a US
> built engine they are
> selling a engine/redrive package for $2945.00.
> See it at
> http://www.greatplainsas.com/newproducts.html
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: fly honda
>
>
> > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini"
> <donghe@one-eleven.net>
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > I installed the steel rods because I plan to take
> this engine thru the
> test
> > to the point of destruction, and from previous
> expierience, I know the
> > aluminum rods wont stand more than 5500 rpms, Plus
> the steel rods have
> > clevite bearing inserts, the alum do not, and both
> are readily available
> as
> > a stock component from honda, although for a
> different (older) v-twin
> > engine. The Inserts will make this engine cheaper
> to overhaul if the
> project
> > becomes feasable.
> >
> > I undertsand completely about you comment on the
> static thrust, which is
> why
> > I lessened the pitch. You see , at that pitch
> (11.5 deg at the tip) the
> > Cuyuna/FireFly was at a compromise between best
> climb and best
> > cruise...maybe a tad closer to best cruise pitch.
> Also keep in mind that
> the
> > Cuyuna would spin it at 6200 max(WOT) for a 2480
> prop speed and about 78
> > mph. The Honda at that pitch would not attain
> those levels..turning 4500
> to
> > 4600 if I remember right for 2250 to 2300 prop
> speed WOT.
> >
> > Comparing inflight numbers with static is
> Usless?...Well not entirely,
> > admittedly not a dead accurate comparison, but not
> entirely Useless.
> >
> > You see I am in the very begining of this test
> which will culminate in
> > finding out how much Horsepower can be attained
> from this engine before
> its
> > reliability diminishes. Currently there are
> modified versions of this engi
> ne
> > running at the 65 to 70 horsepower level in
> Unlimited Pulling Tractors.
> BUT
> > as they rarely put more than a few minutes on
> these engine at a time, this
> > level is likely not acceptable to an aircraft. I
> can tell you from
> personal
> > expierience that My son and I ran a smaller
> version (620cc's) for 2 years
> on
> > the pulling circuit at the 60 horse level and when
> we were done I pulled
> it
> > down (for the first time) and found no wear
> apparant on any single
> > component. I returned the engine back to stock
> (the short block WAS
> > basically stock) and installed it in a cub cadet
> mower and it has been
> > mowing my yard now for 4 years on the same block
> ,bearings, rods, pistons,
> > and crank as was in the puller.
> > I mow 4 acres BTW. I have NEVER added oil to this
> engine between oil
> > changes. It does not use a single drop. It also
> uses .9 gph of fuel in
> that
> > mower.
> >
> > Anyway back to comparing. I believe that so far
> all I have accomplished
> is
> > determining that in the dead stock state of tune,
> running at the 4500 rpm
> > level static WOT load, is that you would not need
> to run it in a FireFly
> at
> > WOT to cruise at fly at 60 mph. I dont know what
> the rpm increase will be
> in
> > flight...but as I was running it at 100 or so less
> than max in that test,
> I
> > would assume that another 1or 200 would be likely,
> Possibly giving a stock
> > engine and a 2.2 to 1 ratio the ability to propell
> a FireFly at 65mph or
> so
> > with a cruise of 55 to 60 pretty easy on the
> engine.
> > Another fella has already been Flying a Firestar
> this summer with a 25 hp
> > Kohler (untill he busted the crank) and he thought
> the preformance was
> close
> > to the 377 it replaced.
> > The FireStar Might be a better test bed for these
> kinds of engines, Due to
> > their heavier weight than a FireFly. BUT...I have
> a FireFly....
> >
> > Also I might mention this. Some of you have been
> asking ...WHY?....
> > Well there have been several whys ....
> > Just a short time ago, before I finished my Kolb I
> used to read Jack Harts
> > posts, folowing his endeavour to get better range
> out of that airplane of
> > his, going thru all his troubles of different
> engines, and trying to wring
> > out better fuel economy and such. I would think to
> myself...Jeezx Jack,
> why
> > dont you just get a different Airplane. I really
> did not understand,
> because
> > I had not Flown a FireFly...now I have, and its
> not my first airplane
> > either. This FireFly is my 5th airplane I have
> persionally built, and I
> have
> > Logged Flight time in everything from a 50 horse
> Cub to Beech 18s to even
> a
> > P-38 Lockheed since 1978 when I got my first
> rating. In all these years, I
> > really can NEVER remember a more enjoyable
> airplane to fly. (although I
> have
> > never flown another Kolb model other that a brief
> checkout in "Miss
> Peff'r")
> > ( thanks again John). I got Hooked on "low an
> slow" back in 80 in a
> > Weedhopper and I, Like many who follow this list,
> Fly mostly for "Fun" If
> I
> > was interested in transportation..I would build a
> different airplane. I
> > didnt anticipate falling in love with this
> FireFly...it is so
> > nimble...fast...as John H told me before I flew
> it. "Dont worry, they just
> > have no bad habits"
> > None the less the FireFly's range is poor, as any
> that are limited to 5
> > gallons of fuel, and I am just not done Enjoying
> myself when I run short
> on
> > Fuel..So I installed a 10 gallon tank..but ...some
> guys cant get away with
> > this, and I must admit that I feel uncomfortable
> when going to fly-ins at
> > different airports. You see I know that FAA
> officials dont wear uniforms!
> > Now...They dont carry scales around with them .
> But they are not dummies
> > either..and it aint too hard to see the difference
> in a 5 gallon and a 10
> > gallon tank! Maybe if I didnt have anything that
> they could take away from
> > me, I would not care. But I would not like to
> loose any of my ratings.
> >
> > Also , I have been a participant in this sport for
> over
=== message truncated ===
=====
Ron
Building M3X
Southern Arizona
__________________________________
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
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: Kolb Airfoil |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "CRAIG M NELSON" <vitalfx0@msn.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Pike
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Airfoil
here goes $.o2 worth
I was designing a 1/2 scale P40 composite light plane in 1980. when it came to
choosing an airfoil I consulted with the aeronautical department at ASU. was given
a book of NASA airfoils. basically there are airfoils that create high lift
and airfoils that have less drag. I had 65 hp. Polaris racing engine on my
hummer you could point it straight at the ground at full throttle and 80 mph is
all she would do. the lift to drag coefficient on some airfoils goes up exponentially
relative to speed so much so it would take double the hp to go much
faster than it was designed for.
uncole craig
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
Is it the airfoil, or the fat fuselage (MKIII) with the fast taper behind
the wide part?
>The airfoil on the Ultrastar/Firestar/MK III are about 85
>mph wings. From there to 100 mph it takes an awful lot of
>power, much more than is feasible or economical to operate.
>
>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: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Ron/All:
> I was just researching a Corvair site and that motor
> listed as 200 pounds and some change. I will need a
> different i.e. stronger cage for that.
I think the Kolb fuselage is plenty strong to carry a 200 lb
engine. Would be a matter of fabricating appropriate engine
mount and the fact that you have to fly with all the weight
you put on the airplane. I, for one, would not want to go
scooting through the air propelled by a Corvair. Well,
maybe if I had a ground crew to pick up the parts and
provide a resupply of oil for me.
> It seems to me
> that Kolb needs to make an effort to consider other
> engines for their platform than the price bloated Rotax.
I am sure Kolb has considered many different engines for
their aircraft. When one comes available I bet they jump on
it. Right now looks like it is the "price bloated Rotax",
which has proven, especially the 912 series, to be
efficient, reliable, low maintenance, and high resale. Most
home builders will never reach the 1500 hour recommended
TBO. I for one will fly mine until she gets tired, then
we'll take a look and see what needs fixing. With today's
technology for building engines and the engine oil
available, I have no doubt the 912/912S will fly well beyond
the 1500 hour TBO recently set by Rotax.
You pay for what you get, or you get what you pay for. In
the sport of flying home built airplanes, it is comforting
to know I have a reliable power plant. It is so
inconvenient to have the engine go belly up at inopportune
times.
Take care,
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
Over the years, I have occasionally run into rich spam can pilots who would
look at my various homebuilt aircraft with it's Rotax engine, and then
condescendingly ask; "Is that a snowmobile engine?" Didn't much like it.
None of us like having something we have invested a lot of time and effort
in belittled. Like the "Friends don't let friends fly 2-strokes" bumper
stickers: condescending and arrogant.
Since I still have a case full of trophies up in the attic I won racing a
180 HP Corvair Corsa turbo when I was 20 something years old, and since I
have since built another 6 of them over the last 25 years for myself and
the kids, I think I know a bit about Corvair engines.
Anyway, every Corvair engine I ever built ran great, and if I could figure
out a way to get one down to about 175 pounds, my MKIII would have one by
spring.
Better quit before I say something impolite.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
.
At 10:39 PM 12/1/03 -0600, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> I, for one, would not want to go
>scooting through the air propelled by a Corvair. Well,
>maybe if I had a ground crew to pick up the parts and
>provide a resupply of oil for me.
><snip>
>Take care,
>
>john h
>
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Airfoil |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Denny Rowe" <rowedl@highstream.net>
Different strokes for diff folks, there's a guy near here dug up a whole
field to make big lumps and bumps for his kid's dirt bike, duh!
But if that's what he likes this is Amerikee, be my guest. -BB do not
archive
Bob and gang,
"Lumps and Bumps on your dirt bike",Ahhh, riding MX is tied with flying my
Mk-3 as my second favorite things to do.
Seems kind of weird to non riders that turning laps on an MX track could be
fun, but dang do I love it.
This time of year gets the cabin fever off the charts.
Denny 'Can't wait till Spring' Rowe
do not archive
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: CaptainRon <aerialron@yahoo.com>
John having looked at my M3X bare metal cage for about
2 years now I have become fairly convinced that it can
take a lot of high pitch vibration as your rotax may
be doing. Its none scientific but my take is that deep
vibrations as those that would come from a Corvair and
maybe even an O-200 (both are none RDU'd) may cause
cracking. Its none scientific but when I look at
engine mounts for an O-200 and then I look at the
frame on my kolb I see a substantial difference in
robustness. In other words I am reasonably sure that
the current frame won't be able to take those deep
power pulses that the corvair will give out.
As for the dollar bloated Rotax, enjoy, I ain't
spending 10K on 80Hp. :-)
======================================
--- John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck
> <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
> Ron/All:
>
> > I was just researching a Corvair site and that
> motor
> > listed as 200 pounds and some change. I will need
> a
> > different i.e. stronger cage for that.
>
> I think the Kolb fuselage is plenty strong to carry
> a 200 lb
> engine. Would be a matter of fabricating
> appropriate engine
> mount and the fact that you have to fly with all the
> weight
> you put on the airplane. I, for one, would not want
> to go
> scooting through the air propelled by a Corvair.
> Well,
> maybe if I had a ground crew to pick up the parts
> and
> provide a resupply of oil for me.
>
> > It seems to me
> > that Kolb needs to make an effort to consider
> other
> > engines for their platform than the price bloated
> Rotax.
>
> I am sure Kolb has considered many different engines
> for
> their aircraft. When one comes available I bet they
> jump on
> it. Right now looks like it is the "price bloated
> Rotax",
> which has proven, especially the 912 series, to be
> efficient, reliable, low maintenance, and high
> resale. Most
> home builders will never reach the 1500 hour
> recommended
> TBO. I for one will fly mine until she gets tired,
> then
> we'll take a look and see what needs fixing. With
> today's
> technology for building engines and the engine oil
> available, I have no doubt the 912/912S will fly
> well beyond
> the 1500 hour TBO recently set by Rotax.
>
> You pay for what you get, or you get what you pay
> for. In
> the sport of flying home built airplanes, it is
> comforting
> to know I have a reliable power plant. It is so
> inconvenient to have the engine go belly up at
> inopportune
> times.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
> Click on the
> this
> generous
> _->
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kolb-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
=====
Ron
Building M3X
Southern Arizona
__________________________________
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly Posting] |
DNA: do not archive
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Lister,
Please read over the Kolb-List Usage Guidelines below. The complete
Kolb-List FAQ including these Usage Guidelines can be found at the
following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/FAQs/Kolb-List.FAQ.html
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
******************************************************************************
Kolb-List Usage Guidelines
******************************************************************************
The following details the official Usage Guidelines for the Kolb-List.
You are encouraged to read it carefully, and to abide by the rules therein.
Failure to use the Kolb-List in the manner described below may result
in the removal of the subscribers from the List.
Kolb-List Policy Statement
The purpose of the Kolb-List is to provide a forum of discussion for
things related to this particular discussion group. The List's goals
are to serve as an information resource to its members; to deliver
high-quality content; to provide moral support; to foster camaraderie
among its members; and to support safe operation. Reaching these goals
requires the participation and cooperation of each and every member of
the List. To this end, the following guidelines have been established:
- Please keep all posts related to the List at some level. Do not submit
posts concerning computer viruses, urban legends, random humor, long
lost buddies' phone numbers, etc. etc.
- THINK carefully before you write. Ask yourself if your post will be
relevant to everyone. If you have to wonder about that, DON'T send it.
- Remember that your post will be included for posterity in an archive
that is growing in size at an extraordinary rate. Try to be concise and
terse in your posts. Avoid overly wordy and lengthy posts and
responses.
- Keep your signature brief. Please include your name, email address,
aircraft type/tail number, and geographic location. A short line
about where you are in the building process is also nice. Avoid
bulky signatures with character graphics; they consume unnecessary
space in the archive.
- DON'T post requests to the List for information when that info is
easily obtainable from other widely available sources. Consult the
web page or FAQ first.
- If you want to respond to a post, DO keep the "Subject:" line of
your response the same as that of the original post. This makes it
easy to find threads in the archive.
- When responding, NEVER quote the *entire* original post in your
response. DO use lines from the original post to help "tune in" the
reader to the topic at hand, but be selective. The impact that
quoting the entire original post has on the size of the archive
can not be overstated!
- When the poster asks you to respond to him/her personally, DO NOT
then go ahead and reply to the List. Be aware that clicking the
"reply" button on your mail package does not necessarily send your
response to the original poster. You might have to actively address
your response with the original poster's email address.
- DO NOT use the List to respond to a post unless you have something
to add that is relevant and has a broad appeal. "Way to go!", "I
agree", and "Congratulations" are all responses that are better sent
to the original poster directly, rather than to the List at large.
- When responding to others' posts, avoid the feeling that you need to
comment on every last point in their posts, unless you can truly
contribute something valuable.
- Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing.
-------
[This is an automated posting.]
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! --
|