Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:00 AM - Re: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? (PATRICK LADD)
2. 06:11 AM - Re: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? (PATRICK LADD)
3. 06:42 AM - Re: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
4. 06:50 AM - Re: Fabric? ------ my Firestar is for sale (Eugene Zimmerman)
5. 07:01 AM - Re: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? (John Hauck)
6. 07:10 AM - Re: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? (ray anderson)
7. 07:40 AM - best L/D speed (boyd young)
8. 09:34 AM - Re: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? (PATRICK LADD)
9. 10:07 AM - Re: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? (PATRICK LADD)
10. 10:28 AM - Re: Don't knock 'em (JACK HART)
11. 10:33 AM - Re: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? (PATRICK LADD)
12. 10:48 AM - Re: Don't knock 'em (John Hauck)
13. 01:56 PM - Re: Fabric? ------ my Firestar is for sale (George Bass)
14. 05:27 PM - 912 engine trouble (H MITCHELL)
15. 06:19 PM - Re: Fabric? ------ my Firestar is for sale (Eugene Zimmerman)
16. 06:22 PM - Re: 912 engine trouble (Giovanni Day)
17. 06:29 PM - Re: 912 engine trouble (Rusty)
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: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
I doubt you'll see 80
mph and anywhere near 3.5 gph in a MK III with a 582. What you describe
sounds more like a MK III with a 912.>>
Thanks for your comments. I think I must have stated the facts in a garbled
fashion.
I am fitting a Jabiru which in my mind equates with a 912 so.....we shall
see.
Cheers
Pat
pj.ladd@btinternet.com
Do not archive
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: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
no one would now buy a Quicksilverany more than they would buy a Model T
Ford. Expectations have moved onPat I'm sure there are more than a handful
of people over on the Quicksilver list>>
Hi,
I just knew I would get into trouble with that remark. Sorry any Quicksilver
lovers out there.
I agree, they were fun. I solo`d on one and thought it the bees knees but
aspirations HAVE changed. Once it was enough to get airborne and wallow
around the cow pasture at 35 mph.If the engine ran that long. Now we expect
to do long cross countries without mortgaging our entire holiday. We no
longer expect engines to stop. They sometimes still do of course but its
fairly unusual.
In theory everyone hankers for the `good ole days` but they still go out and
buy the best bang for the buck.
In the good ole days` we couldn`t get off the ground with the equipment
which we now consider essential. Thats evolution, man!
Cheers
Pat
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: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
Patrick
I will be very surprised if you see a 80 MPH actual cruise with a Jabiru
engine. Our Kolbs need a reduction drive to produce
the thrust necessary for a 80 HP engine to push these airplanes that fast at
cruise. I flew my VW powered MKIIIc for three years with a direct drive
prop. I had a poorly sized prop but I could only get 65 MPH out of it. Full
throttle and a bit of a dive it would go 80. Even at 65 MPH I was burning
better than 5 gallons per hour. When I replaced the direct drive engine with
a the same size VW reduction drive engine with a 1.6 to 1 ratio I increased
the cruise to 75 MPH at the same RPMs and my fuel burn dropped to 4 gallons
per hour. The
Jabiru is lighter and certainly is a fine reliable engine but it
like the VW it needs a reduction drive to get the performance we expect out
of a Kolb. Granted you can increase the throttle setting so that you may see
80 MPH in you MKIIIextra but you will pay with a much higher fuel burn.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582?
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
>
> I doubt you'll see 80
> mph and anywhere near 3.5 gph in a MK III with a 582. What you describe
> sounds more like a MK III with a 912.>>
>
> Thanks for your comments. I think I must have stated the facts in a
> garbled
> fashion.
> I am fitting a Jabiru which in my mind equates with a 912 so.....we shall
> see.
>
> Cheers
>
> Pat
>
> pj.ladd@btinternet.com
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fabric? ------ my Firestar is for sale |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman@dejazzd.com>
Terry,
I have very busy of late, being this is the fall harvest season.
My work interferes with my flying much more that I like to.
Covering this plane will be my winter spare time project. It is not an
urgent project for me to finish as I already have more planes than I
have time to fly.
I'll really hate to see it go but if you or anyone knows of someone
looking for a Firestar, my trusty yellow bird is for sale.
R 503 dual carb, duel cdi, in flight adj.IVO, modified to include flaps
as per Mark III, brakes, modified fiberglass landing gear, and I even
have a nice pair of wheel pants I'll throw in.
First $7500. get it.
And no, I did not decide on colors for my project just yet.
Gene
do not archive
>>>
>>>Gene,
>>>The number is: 1-877-877-3334
>>>
>>>Terry
>>
>
> Gene,
>
> Yeah, up until the weather went south this last week. How about you?!!
> Ready to cover the new project are you? Will be interested in seeing the results!
Made your color choices yet?
>
> Terry
>
> 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: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
shall
| see.
Good Morning Pat/Gang:
I must be very careful. I have just gotten up and am now starting on
my first cup of coffee. Extremely dangerous commenting in this
condition.
You probably need to do some more research on Jabiru's and Kolbs.
They do not equate to the 912, primarily because they are direct drive
and the 912 uses a gear reduction drive. An expert in the field of
Kolbras and Subaru's is John Williamson. Perhaps he will share with
you his experience flying that combo. I personally have flown many
cross country hours with John W and his Jabiru powered Kolbra.
Compared to the 912 powered MKIII there was no comparison except in
cruise speed. The Kobra, by the way, is a much cleaner aircraft than
the MKIIIc and the MKIIIx. I can attest to that, again from personal
experience. Flying with John W over the Rocky Mountains this year,
John's Kolbra was powered with the 912ULS. This time John's Kolbra
ate my old 912ULS powered MKIIIc up in take off, climb, and cruise.
Flying Kolbs is not necessarily what one thinks, but what it does.
Take care,
john h
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson <rsanoa@yahoo.com>
Too many seem to feel that every one with aspirations to fly in something they
have built with their own hands, have $20,000 - $35,000 to plunk down for the
pleasure and privilege. Not so. !! There is still a place out there for the beginner
to get started in a low priced ultralight; yes, the simple bare bones tube
and rag covering. Many who have built and flown ultralights since the beginning,
just for fun, still can't afford the 100hp. $10,000 engines some of you
richer folks buy and trade at the drop of a hat. More power to you if you have
that kind of money. Most of the beginners don't. Most scrape and save to get
started with a 25-40 hp. 2 cycle, and are just as thrilled and excited when it
gets them into the air at a mighty 25-55 m.p.h., as some of you feel when your
100hp rockets you into the air for your thousand mile trips. I think some of
you are forgetting your own humble beginnings, and the thrill and satisfaction
knowing you can putter around not too far from hom
e on
1-1/2 gals. of fuel and don't care whether you are 1 mile or 25 miles from home.
You are in the air flying with something you built with your hands. That's
the ultimate thrill. I've built and flown 7 homebuilts, and after many, many
years, am now content with my 35 hp. Cuyuna and the 1984 UltraStar. I had my fun
earlier with a variety of "store boughts", including my retractable gear Mooney,
with coast to coast flights, but the restrictions of retirement (and old
age) make me content with the "obsolete" 35 h.p. UltraStar. The bottom line is
this. There is and always will be a market and place for the beginner ( and
the guy who lives on a "WalMarket" salary), and his affordable true ultralight.
Don't knock 'em.
PATRICK LADD <pj.ladd@btinternet.com> wrote: --> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK
LADD"
no one would now buy a Quicksilverany more than they would buy a Model T
Ford. Expectations have moved onPat I'm sure there are more than a handful
of people over on the Quicksilver list>>
Hi,
I just knew I would get into trouble with that remark. Sorry any Quicksilver
lovers out there.
I agree, they were fun. I solo`d on one and thought it the bees knees but
aspirations HAVE changed. Once it was enough to get airborne and wallow
around the cow pasture at 35 mph.If the engine ran that long. Now we expect
to do long cross countries without mortgaging our entire holiday. We no
longer expect engines to stop. They sometimes still do of course but its
fairly unusual.
In theory everyone hankers for the `good ole days` but they still go out and
buy the best bang for the buck.
In the good ole days` we couldn`t get off the ground with the equipment
which we now consider essential. Thats evolution, man!
Cheers
Pat
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 |
|
"David Paule" <dpaule@frii.com>
0.00 THE_BEST_RATE BODY: The best Rates
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "boyd young" <by0ung@brigham.net>
Now, if you wish, you can draw another arc. This one - any yes, certainly, you
can use another color. In fact, I recommend it - is the rate of climb from the
blue line minus the rate of sink from the red line. This line is called the "excess
power available" curve. If your graph looks at all like mine, the shape
of this curve is a smooth parabola. Its peak value is at about 50 mph, for good
all-around performance. It's not centered on the L/D point.
sorry i have been away for a few days.......
yes i have drawn your graph..... my curves may not be exact but i get the idea....
in your paragraph above i rest my point of view. at a speed well above
the ( best l/d or best rate of climb vy ) is a point of excess power i
have not a problem with that. my point is the best rate of climb is still at
best L/D the prop efficiencies difference at L/d verses point of excess power
did not move the best rate of climb from L/D to point of excess power. the
amount of efficency diference curve of the two speeds did not overcome the extra
drag curve.
using your example of L/D of 42 lets say the prop efficenciey was 25% and
at point of excess power 50 the prop efficency was 100%. the prop efficency
curve would overcome the drag and the best rate of climb would move upwards
with the difference in the prop efficency...... but in reality the prop efficency
difference between 42 and 50 is only going to be a few percentage points
and not enough to overcome the extra drag. thus the best L/D stays the same.
maybe i have not totaly grasped what you are trying to get accross and if so i
am sorry. and if i have not been totaly clear again i am sorry that i have not
been able to verbilize my thoughts clearly.
boyd
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
Don't knock 'em.>>
Hi Ray,
would knock `em for the world but the fact remains that most people ,if they
can, gradually creep up market.
Cars, lawn mowers, barbeques and planes,dishwashers etc..
Cheers
Pat
pj.ladd@btinternet.com
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: | Re: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
Jabirus do not equate to the 912,>>
Hi John, thanks for the input. The question is to some extent acedemic as
the Jabiru is the only 4 stroke cleared for use with the Kolb over here. To
get clearance for a 912 would take some money and a lot of time and I should
not be flying in `05.
Strange the ways of beaurocracy. Pollus is only allowed to fit a 582.
Get back to your coffee.
Cheers
Pat
pj.ladd@btinternet.com
Do not archive
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: Don't knock 'em |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: JACK HART <jbhart@ldd.net>
Pat,
You may be correct for those who hold a pilot certificate. But AC103-7 outlines
the USA
world of flying for the rest of us who for some reason haven't or can't obtain
a pilot
certificate.
If one abides by the rules to meet AC103-7 one has little room for "creep up".
This does
not prevent one from making improvements to ultra light vehicle performance that
changes an ultra light vehicle into a more versatile machine and to have features
comparable to ga aircraft. I have been flying and changing my Kolb FireFly for
about
five years. Most of these changes have to do with pilot energy reduction by making
control response more predictable and responsive. At this time the FireFly is
a delight
to fly at any time of the day and has no bad habits.
Every time I fly, I feel so fortunate that the FAA "got it right" when they brought
out
AC103-7. No pilot certificate, N number, annual or various hour inspections, etc.
required. It does not get much better than this. All one has to do is be responsible,
and to watch that your ultra light vehicle does not "creep up" into the realm of
the
undocumented experimental.
You hit a nerve.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: PATRICK LADD <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582?
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
Don't knock 'em.>>
Hi Ray,
would knock `em for the world but the fact remains that most people ,if they
can, gradually creep up market.
Cars, lawn mowers, barbeques and planes,dishwashers etc..
Cheers
Pat
pj.ladd@btinternet.com
Do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel consumption of a MK3 with Rotax 582? |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
I will be very surprised if you see a 80 MPH actual cruise with a Jabiru
engine.>>
Hi,
thanks for the advice.
Seems that I am to some extent the guinea pig over here.
Cheers
Pat
pj.ladd@btinternet
Do not archive
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Don't knock 'em |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
when they brought out
| AC103-7. No pilot certificate, N number, annual or various hour
inspections, etc.
| required. It does not get much better than this. All one has to do
is be responsible,
| and to watch that your ultra light vehicle does not "creep up" into
the realm of the
| undocumented experimental.
|
| You hit a nerve.
|
| Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack H/Gang:
I agree with you whole heartedly. Those are the same feelings I have.
I could not believe I was flying, 20 years ago, in my own home built
airplane with no one looking over my shoulder and no one to report to,
or ask permission from. It was entirely freedom of flight.
My airplanes and power plants have changed a lot since the days of my
Ultrastar, but my attitude toward UL and Lt Plane aviation has not.
One of the contributing factors for flying the cross country flights
that I do is to show the rest of the world that we are competent
pilots and fly litttle airplanes that can do just as much and
sometimes more than their high priced "real" airplanes.
When the time comes to revert to smaller, slower airplanes because of
a problem passing Class III medical, if I still have the desire to
fly, it will be right back to where I started my civilian aviation.
Nothing better than to be able to go over to the farm, push out the
Ultrastar or Firestar or MKIIIc, and take off of that little grass
strip. We are fortunate, indeed, to have the liberties we have to
build and fly our airplanes.
Thanks again, Jack,
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: Fabric? ------ my Firestar is for sale |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "George Bass" <gtb@commspeed.net>
Gene;
It's guys like you that make guys like
me keep following the list.
Someday I hope to own one like yours.
Good luck with the sale.
George Bass
P. O. Box 770
Camp Verde, AZ
86322
USUA #30899
---
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: | 912 engine trouble |
Seal-Send-Time: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 20:25:55 -0500
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "H MITCHELL" <mitchmnd@msn.com>
Hello list,
It was a beautiful day so I rolled her out early, did full preflight and strapped
in. Engine started fine. I warmed it up but could not get her to idle. It was
running rough at 1,800 rpm. I thought it was running rough during my last flight.
I cancelled today's flight and started testing.
I took the bowls off and checked jets. They were all clear. When it was restarted
it didn't run any better but it appeared to be running on only three cylinders.
'Removed the plugs and found that #1 cylinder plugs were sooty and oily. Numbers
2,3 and 4 looked great. Cleaning (solvent/glass bead blasting) the plugs did
not help the third test run.
The oil level was high so ~1 pint was drained which brought it to center of range
on the (new style) dip stick.
Ran a combustion chamber pressure leak down. She held 80 psi with no leakage past
the rings or valves.
Ran a fairly good compression check. #1 measured ~125 psi. #3 was ~140 psi.
Removed the valve cover to see if there was any evidence of valve guide seal leakage.
Everything looked o.k.
Stopped on the way home and bought a new set of plugs and will try them tomorrow.
Other than calling Lockwood Monday AM I'm not sure what to do next if the new
plugs don't work.
Any suggestions?
Duane the plane Mitchell, Tallahassee, FL Mk3c/912 18 hrs
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: Fabric? ------ my Firestar is for sale |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman@dejazzd.com>
Thanks George,
Camp Verde, AZ would be a great place to fly in a Kolb Firestar.
I hope you get the privilege soon too.
Gene
do not archive
George Bass wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "George Bass" <gtb@commspeed.net>
>
> Gene;
>
> It's guys like you that make guys like
> me keep following the list.
>
> Someday I hope to own one like yours.
>
> Good luck with the sale.
>
> George Bass
> P. O. Box 770
> Camp Verde, AZ
> 86322
>
> USUA #30899
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | 912 engine trouble |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Giovanni Day" <gde01@bellsouth.net>
Duane,
Did you check for fire on all cylinders? How dose it act with a normal
mag check? Is it smooth at above 1800? Check the pickup coil tolerances.
Also switch the ignition unit plugs (A to B) and see if the problem
changes cylinders. I had an ignition problem on my used 912 when I first
got it. I had to do a lot of research to track it down. Call me if you
like.
Giovanni
MKIII/912 80566
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "H MITCHELL" <mitchmnd@msn.com>
Hello list,
It was a beautiful day so I rolled her out early, did full preflight and
strapped in. Engine started fine. I warmed it up but could not get her
to idle. It was running rough at 1,800 rpm. I thought it was running
rough during my last flight. I cancelled today's flight and started
testing.
I took the bowls off and checked jets. They were all clear. When it was
restarted it didn't run any better but it appeared to be running on only
three cylinders.
'Removed the plugs and found that #1 cylinder plugs were sooty and oily.
Numbers 2,3 and 4 looked great. Cleaning (solvent/glass bead blasting)
the plugs did not help the third test run.
The oil level was high so ~1 pint was drained which brought it to center
of range on the (new style) dip stick.
Ran a combustion chamber pressure leak down. She held 80 psi with no
leakage past the rings or valves.
Ran a fairly good compression check. #1 measured ~125 psi. #3 was ~140
psi.
Removed the valve cover to see if there was any evidence of valve guide
seal leakage. Everything looked o.k.
Stopped on the way home and bought a new set of plugs and will try them
tomorrow. Other than calling Lockwood Monday AM I'm not sure what to do
next if the new plugs don't work.
Any suggestions?
Duane the plane Mitchell, Tallahassee, FL Mk3c/912 18 hrs
Do not archive
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: | 912 engine trouble |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Rusty" <13brv3c@bellsouth.net>
Greetings,
It sounds like you've verified everything but spark. You may not be getting
high voltage to that plug. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the
912 ignition system to suggest a troubleshooting method.
Good luck,
Rusty
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! --
|