---------------------------------------------------------- Kolb-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 06/20/05: 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 07:08 AM - Re: Subaru Engine (Richard & Martha Neilsen) 2. 09:23 AM - Fly-in at Homer's (Terry Frantz) 3. 11:22 AM - Re: Rotax 503 Failure Poll (PATRICK LADD) 4. 12:32 PM - Re: Rotax 503 Failure Poll (Wayne @ Engravers.net) 5. 01:32 PM - Kiev prop (N27SB@aol.com) 6. 02:13 PM - Ferrying the FireFly from Perryville, MO to Winchester, IN (Jack & Louise Hart) 7. 03:32 PM - Rotax 503 Failure Poll, Changed to 582 and Prop Failure (John Hauck) 8. 03:34 PM - Re: Kiev prop (John Hauck) 9. 07:04 PM - glide windmilling or prop stopped, was: Rotax 503 Failure Poll (Charlie England) 10. 07:27 PM - Re: glide windmilling or prop stopped, was: Rotax (Richard Pike) 11. 07:38 PM - Re: glide windmilling or prop stopped, was: Rotax 503 Failure Poll (John Hauck) 12. 07:41 PM - Re: glide windmilling or prop stopped, was: Rotax 503 Failure Poll (John Hauck) 13. 07:51 PM - Re: Kiev prop (N27SB@aol.com) 14. 08:10 PM - Re: Rotax 503 Failure Poll (Vince Nicely) 15. 08:24 PM - Re: Kiev prop (John Hauck) 16. 09:01 PM - Leading Edge Tape (John Williamson) 17. 09:18 PM - Re: Leading Edge Tape (John Hauck) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 07:08:28 AM PST US From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Subaru Engine --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" Ron I looked at Subaru engines when I was considering engines for my MKIIIc. My view of the engine is that it is one of the best automotive engines available for aircraft use. I talked to a guy that put a direct drive Subaru on his MKIIIc. He said he was happy with the setup but he sold the airplane and the first thing the buyer did was put a rotax on it. Sometimes builders overlook the negatives of their creations? I really considered the engine but it just seemed to be too heavy. My VW is heaver than the 912 Rotaxes and that has caused me some issues with weight and balance but I'm happy with the setup. I don't remember the installed weight of the Subaru but it seem like it is 30-50 lbs more than the VW and that just seemed to be too much for any of the big Kolbs. My $.02 worth Rick Neilsen Redrive VW powered MKIIIc ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron" Subject: Kolb-List: Subaru Engine > --> Kolb-List message posted by: Ron > >> Are there any Kolbers with a Subaru motor on an M3. If there are I'd >> like any feedback that you may have. I found a great deal on an RDU >> for the Subaru, the motor itself is inexpensive and I am told that it >> will fit the Rotax mount on an Mark III Xtra. > > Ron > Sierra Vista Arizona > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 09:23:25 AM PST US From: Terry Frantz Subject: Kolb-List: Fly-in at Homer's --> Kolb-List message posted by: Terry Frantz Gene, Thank you! I believe there were 18 planes parked there including Homer's. It was a good day! Great idea about the card. Wish I had thought of that before Saturday. In lieu of that I would ask everyone who was there to send a personal thank you to Homer and Clara. I did this last year. I know they would enjoy the feedback. Their e-mail address is: homerclara@yahoo.com Their mailing address is: 580 Wall St. Phonexville, PA 19460 Take the time, drop a line of thanks, Terry - FireFly #95 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 11:22:53 AM PST US From: "PATRICK LADD" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Rotax 503 Failure Poll --> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" It seems to me that an engine that idles at 2000 rpm actually produces thrust. Mine will creep on pavement if I'm not holding brake>> Hi Steve, with the prop turning it will always produce thrust. For arguments sake enough to propel you at 10 mph .However when some other force, in this case gravity, propels the plane at 50 mph you will already be going faster than the prop can propel you and it will therefore act as a brake as the turning prop `gets in the way`. With the prop stopped just that blade is `in the way`, not the disc. I think thats right. The more I think about it the more confused I get. You are dead right about being hard to judge glide ratio. Its hard to judge speed. Most of us here fly at around 1000 to 1500 ft agl and if it goes quiet suddenly there`s a second or two of total disbelief, then you stuff the nose down, then you find a field, not that one there are electricity lines, not that one, there are cows, not that one the crops are 4 feet high. By then unless you are very cool you are at 500 ft and hurtling earthwards. You ease the nose up, get the speed back, get the flaps down, sod the flaps, there`s the hedge, arrive in the field with a bump, or two, brakes on, dont stand her on her nose, why dont I have a tricycle undercart? Stop just before the far hedge. Sit and shake. Get out and shake some more. Then you begin to think how incredibly well you have coped with that emergency. Wow! Am I a great pilot or what? Heh, Heh. Cheers Pat -- ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 12:32:16 PM PST US From: "Wayne @ Engravers.net" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Rotax 503 Failure Poll --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Wayne @ Engravers.net" I've had three engine outs with me 582. One was right over the airport as I was teaching a student how to do engine out landings, another was from carb ice over a frozen reservoir lake. The third was a forced shut down of the engine when it became unbalanced because one blade lost it's stainless steel leading edge. Of all the hundreds of landings I've made over the years those three were the smoothest, best touch downs ever. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "PATRICK LADD" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Rotax 503 Failure Poll > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" > > It seems to me that an engine that idles at 2000 rpm actually produces > thrust. Mine will creep on pavement if I'm not holding brake>> > > Hi Steve, > with the prop turning it will always produce thrust. For arguments sake > enough to propel you at 10 mph .However when some other force, in this > case > gravity, propels the plane at 50 mph you will already be going faster than > the prop can propel you and it will therefore act as a brake as the > turning > prop `gets in the way`. With the prop stopped just that blade is `in the > way`, not the disc. > I think thats right. The more I think about it the more confused I get. > You are dead right about being hard to judge glide ratio. Its hard to > judge > speed. Most of us here fly at around 1000 to 1500 ft agl and if it goes > quiet suddenly there`s a second or two of total disbelief, then you stuff > the nose down, then you find a field, not that one there are electricity > lines, not that one, there are cows, not that one the crops are 4 feet > high. > By then unless you are very cool you are at 500 ft and hurtling > earthwards. > You ease the nose up, get the speed back, get the flaps down, sod the > flaps, > there`s the hedge, arrive in the field with a bump, or two, brakes on, > dont > stand her on her nose, why dont I have a tricycle undercart? Stop just > before the far hedge. Sit and shake. Get out and shake some more. > Then you begin to think how incredibly well you have coped with that > emergency. Wow! Am I a great pilot or what? Heh, Heh. > > Cheers > > Pat > > > -- > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 01:32:59 PM PST US From: N27SB@aol.com Subject: Kolb-List: Kiev prop --> Kolb-List message posted by: N27SB@aol.com To All interested in Kiev props, I have now flown about 5 hours on the Three blade 63.5" Kiev prop. At first I was a little confused because it appeared that it was harder to get off the water with the Kiev Vs the Ivo 2 blade. Well I figured it out, The Kiev produces a LOT more thrust. The problem was that because there is more thrust the plane is forced harder on the floats forward of the step due to the high thrust line of the Firefly design, so with the same back pressure that I was used to with the Ivo I was not properly trimming the attitude of the floats for minimum resistance on the water. By doubling the back pressure and getting the floats to the proper attitude the Firefire almost leaps off the water. The prop is much smoother and quieter and seems to be unaffected by water. Steve B FF#007 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 02:13:18 PM PST US From: Jack & Louise Hart Subject: Kolb-List: Ferrying the FireFly from Perryville, MO to Winchester, IN --> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart FireFlyers & Kolbers, I have enclosed the latest two entries from my flight log. I was not able to fly the FireFly the whole way. Adverse wind conditions slowed progress so that we were into the second day when I believe a bearing failure occurred on the power end of the Victor 1+ crankshaft. Overall it was a tremendous experience, I would recommend it to anyone. Met a lot of great people and came close to several who were not at all pleased with grass roots aviation. But the snobs were few in number and my wife and I had a great time. This trip proved that one can plan for the trip and then one must modify the plan as the trip progresses. Just don't worry about what is too far ahead. Just keep going. I surprised my self in that I had flown over six hours in one day and could have gone more. The best part is the FireFly is here and only two miles away. Even if it is not flyable at the moment it is better here than not here. Does that make sense? Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN My flight log notes follow: June 18, 2005 - Flights 525, 526, 527, 528, 529 & 530 - 6 hours 17 minutes - 177:08t, Victor 1+ 97:08. Left Perryville at 8 am into a clear cool morning sky and headed for Mt Vernon. Could not climb to altitude because ground speed fell below 30 mph and so I had to settle for about 1,000 feet agl. Since I had not flown the FireFly since May 7, I watched the timer and the gps estimated time of arrival and I realized I was not going to be able to make the 63 miles to Mt Vernon. So much for planning. I had planned for no more than 65 mile hops but it was not going to work out so I had move to plan B. I diverted to Benton, Illinois to make use of a more favorable wind. Upon landing I celled Louise and told her to continue to Mt Vernon, and I would get gas at Benton and meet her there. I walked over to a fellow working on a mower and asked about getting gas. He said the dreaded words "We don't have any." The earliest he would have gas would be Monday. I calculated my fuel flow rate, and I went back to him and said I need a minimum of a half gallon and I can make it to Mt Vernon. He said he would see if we could get some out the tank. By pulling the hose off the reel and with him holding the nozzle in the tank, I walked the hose and we got 3/4 a gallon. As we were rolling the hose back in, he looked at me and said "That is not much of an airplane", and I said "It is a whole lot of fun." I burned 4.7 gallons getting to Mt Vernon. Louise walked fuel cans through the FBO so that I could refuel. My radio battery went dead, so I took it off my leg and put it in the luggage compartment. A couple of fellows chatted at me about the local EAA Chapter activities. They thought I was brave to try and fly an ultralight to Indiana. The main runway was closed so I had to use a cross runway to land, but upon leaving I used a parallel taxiway because it was headed in the direction towards Effingham, Illinois. The thermals were starting to be more pronounced and since I could not climb without loosing ground speed, I just had to put up with them. On final to Effingham, a plane taxied out and back taxied. It was evident he did not see me so I "S" turned and slowed up so that I would have enough runway space to land over the top. Very friendly people at the airport. They opened the security gate and let Louise drive in to deliver gas. One of the fellows there was a father of the pilot that back taxied. He said he could not understand why his son did not see me because he said he could see my nose light before he could see me. The next hop was to be to Paris, Illinois, but it was a 63 mile hop and so I elected to land at Casey, Illinois. When I approached there was all kinds of activity. It was their "Airport Day". Louise was there, and she had stopped at McDonalds and got me a hamburger for lunch. Because I was using more gas than I planned, I decided to fuel up with 100 LL. I got out my reserve oil supply. It comes in plastic packets which you have to tear open and squeeze like a tooth paste tube to get the oil into the tank. I got it into position to squeeze and dropped the complete packet into the tank. Louise got me some empty fuel cans and hand transfer pump from the pickup. I pumped the tank dry, took the tank out turned it on its side and shook the packet to the opening and got it out. It could have been embarrassing if it had not been for a bunch of older than me guys standing around talking experimental aircraft and the crazy things that had happened to them. Flew on to Paris, Illinois. Things were going better in that I arrived before Louise. In fact she was not sure where the airport was and then she saw me cross above the road a head of her. I had to land in a strong cross wind with lots of trees and gaps close to the runway, so I got the FireFly down as quick as I could. This gave me a long taxi to the ramp. Before I could get there another fellow made a downwind approach and did a touch and go. While refueling the same plane made three more touch and goes. I taxied out to the ramp and he landed and did not take the early ramp for the parallel runway and was going to taxi on down to my end. The dreaded GA confrontation! I taxied out onto the runway toward him and rotated 360 to get back to the ramp, turned onto the parallel runway and took off. Sometimes smaller is better. Flew on toward Crawfordsville, Indiana. The clouds were closing and getting lower and with the sun getting lower in the west and flying northeast it looked dark and threatening. But the country side was beautiful with bright spots on the ground where the sun came through. I had to fly no more than 1,000 feet agl because at 1,500 feet I was in the bottom of the clouds. Thermal activity was abating but I could get on thermal streets and pick up four or five miles ground speed. After crossing the Wabash River the trees start and there are more trees than open land. From a distance and being so low, the trees looked continuous and I did not like the idea of going over them. When I got closer I discovered open spots and so I flew from spot to spot but always in the general direction of the airport. Then I could see a bright spot that contained a red barn, and I realized that was at the airport. After landing and taxiing up to the FBO, I shut the engine down. A young fellow came out and asked if I had had a good day. I said yes but I thought it had just ended. Could he put the FireFly up for the night. He said they had a courtesy hangar, and I could pick up my plane at eight the next morning. A courtesy car would take and pick me up from town. Louise drove up and we pushed the FireFly into the hangar. I felt good, but I figured Louise had put in a much rougher day than I did. To Airport----|Vector-|--Air--|--Time--|--Ground--|--Fuel---|--Fuel---| --------------|-(deg)-|-Miles-|(Hr:Min)|Speed(mph)|Used(gal)|Rate(gph)| Benton--------|--79---|--51.2-|---1:18-|--39.4----|---3.2---|--2.46---| Mt Vernon-----|--10---|--22.1-|---0:38-|--34.9----|---1.5---|--2.37---| Effingham-----|--18---|--54.2-|---1:33-|--35.0----|---3.9---|--2.52---| Casey---------|--60---|--32.5-|---0:49-|--39.8----|---2.1---|--2.57---| Paris---------|--32---|--32.5-|---0:51-|--38.2----|---2.4---|--2.82---| Crawfordsville|--64---|--43.9-|---1:08-|--38.7----|---3.0---|--2.65---| Total/Average-|-------|-236.4-|---6:17-|--37.5----|--16.1---|--2.56---| What a fun day. June 19, 2005 - Flight 531 - 56 minutes - 178:04t, Victor 1+ 98:04 - burned 2.2 gallons of fuel for and average burn rate of 2.59 gph over all. Spent the previous night in a Super 8 motel. The Indy Grand Prix Race was the next day so the room was very expensive. Got to the airport at 8 am. Pulled the FireFly out of the hangar and refueled. Got off the ground by 8:30. Good flight to Indianapolis Executive Airport on the north side of Indianapolis. Taxied up to the FBO and tried to shut down the engine, but the ground wire to the switches had broken. Turned the fuel valve off, set the brake and got out to hold the FireFly while I advanced the throttle to speed up using all the gas in the float bowl. My grand daughter, son and his wife met me. I got there a head of Louise. Right then problems cropped up. They chased us off the apron in front of the FBO where it would be easy to carry fuel to the FireFly and sent us to the refueling area. Louise showed up and I tried to get them to let her drive in with the pickup but they refused to open the gate and chased us further down the apron. Then they brought a gas truck over to open the gate so the pickup could come in. After refueling, I primed the engine and pulled the propeller through two times as usual and everything was smooth and normal. I got my gear on and strapped myself in. On start up I heard a scrapping noise and I closed the throttle to bring the engine to a slow idle, but I could not shut the engine down by grounding the mags, so I turned on the enrichener to kill the engine. I got out and banged on things to see what was loose and found not a thing. Tried to turn the propeller and the engine was frozen. I believe a bearing ball on the power out put end of the engine failed, lodged and tore up the cage. Traveled to my son's house and ate a Father's Day lunch, and called U-Haul and rented a 26 foot enclosed truck with six pads. Picked it up at 1:30pm and we headed back to the airport. My son helped me to remove the wings. The line boys let me drive the truck in and we loaded the FireFly into the truck. The FireFly traveled the last 100 miles no more than five feet off the ground. Called my son-in-law and he came out to help get the FireFly out of the truck, into the hangar and to remount the wings. Then all of us went out for ice cream and called it a day. Jack & Louise Hart jbhart@ldd.net ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 03:32:05 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Kolb-List: Rotax 503 Failure Poll, Changed to 582 and Prop Failure --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" | ice over a frozen reservoir lake. The third was a forced shut down of the | engine when it became unbalanced because one blade lost it's stainless steel | leading edge. | Wayne Hi Wayne: Would you please expand on carb ice experience, symptoms, engine performance and lack there of, and what you discovered and how you determined you actually had carb ice. Did you have time to inspect the carb throat? Was it the idle circuit, power circuit, or both. Do you think it was moisture in the fuel or in the atmosphere? The reason I asked is based on the infrequency of actual carb ice with two strokes and the Bing carb, and lack of frequency of carb ice with the Rotax 4 strokes. I have gotten carb ice once with the 912S. Never with a two stroke. The 912S carb iced up the idle jet. Lost the engine on short final going into Toad River Airstrip, BC, in 2000. 912S would not run, period, below 3,000 rpm. Above 3,000 it purred like a kitten. Got it back to the tie down area, walked across the Alaska Highway to make a phone call, came back 30 minutes later, cranked the 912S and it idled perfectly at 1,500 rpm. By that time the ice had melted. Had no visible signs of ice or moisture on the outside of the carb, that I can remember. Conditions were ripe for carb ice. Had very recently rained in the valley. Altitude probably 3,000 ASL, temp 40 to 45F, small, wet clouds hanging in the valley. I installed a carb heat system prior to my 2001 flight north. Recently removed it, hoping to get a little more power out of the 912S. Don't think it made a lot of difference, if any, but did get rid of a lot of hoses, clamps and air filter covers. Reference the SS leading edge seperating from the prop. What brand of prop was it? size? previous damage? etc??? Thanks, john h titus, alabama MKIII/912S ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 03:34:14 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kiev prop --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" | much smoother and quieter and seems to be unaffected by water. | | Steve B Hi Steve/Gang: What kind of material is the leading edge of the Kiev? I have a problem, although minor with my present Warp Drive, with rain errosion inside the nickle steel leading edge. It is carbon fiber, but the rain is tougher than it is without the steel leading edge protection. john h titus, alabama MKIII/912S ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:04:23 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Kolb-List: glide windmilling or prop stopped, was: Rotax 503 Failure Poll --> Kolb-List message posted by: Charlie England PATRICK LADD wrote: >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "PATRICK LADD" > >It seems to me that an engine that idles at 2000 rpm actually produces >thrust. Mine will creep on pavement if I'm not holding brake>> > >Hi Steve, >with the prop turning it will always produce thrust. For arguments sake >enough to propel you at 10 mph .However when some other force, in this case >gravity, propels the plane at 50 mph you will already be going faster than >the prop can propel you and it will therefore act as a brake as the turning >prop `gets in the way`. With the prop stopped just that blade is `in the >way`, not the disc. >I think thats right. The more I think about it the more confused I get. >You are dead right about being hard to judge glide ratio. > >snipped> >Cheers > >Pat > This is a regular discussion topic for flyers of bigger planes. Among RV'rs, it's widely known that a constant speed prop has much higher drag windmilling than stopped. Guys flying fixed pitch props don't see the effect. The difference is that c/s props go to fine (low speed or climb) pitch at idle or with the engine stopped & act more or less like small helicoptor blades in autorotation. The fixed pitch props obviously stay at cruise (coarse) pitch & don't cause nearly as much drag when windmilling. It's like leaving your car in high gear or downshifting to low while going down a hill. The f/p guys who have tested usually can't tell the difference between idle & prop stopped. It's going to be hard to relate this directly to an ultralite type a/c because there's so much more inherent drag in the airframe (probably masking the effect of the prop) and with pushers, the air is *really* dirtied up before it goes through the prop. Also, even though the u/l prop stays in fine pitch, there usually isn't that much difference between normal approach speeds & cruise, as there is in a fast homebuilt. To really know the effect, you'd need a 'sensitive' altimeter, a stopwatch, extremely still air, enough time to do both tests under the same conditions (don't forget to start with the same amount of fuel, etc) & the willingness to shut down the engine for the prop-stopped half of the test. Did I muddy the waters even more? Charlie ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:27:45 PM PST US From: Richard Pike 503 Failure Poll Subject: Re: Kolb-List: glide windmilling or prop stopped, was: Rotax 503 Failure Poll --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike 503 Failure Poll Let me muddy the waters some more. Let's say you are using a 2 blade 68" prop, and it requires X amount of pitch to function at the proper balance of thrust and RPM. Now you go to a 3 blade 66" prop - you would like to keep the prop as long as possible, but that extra blade adds load, so you need to go a bit shorter to absorb the same amount of horsepower - but because you are now using three blades, you are probably using less pitch for the three blade than you did for the two blade. Or to simplify the whole thing - a three blade prop for a given engine will probably be using a finer pitch than a two blade prop for that engine. (Unless that three blade prop is notably shorter than the two blade it replaced) Therefore - a three blade prop should always cause more drag than a two blade over and above the inherent drag caused by an extra blade, simply because those blades will be at a finer pitch. Or not? Comments? And on a related note - back in 1985 when I was flying a Maxair Hummer - legal ultralight - with a Rotax 277 and a 56X32 two blade wood Tennessee Propeller : at idle with the prop windmilling, the prop acted enough like a speed brake that you couldn't get it over 60 mph with full forward stick. Kill the engine and let the prop stop, push the stick forward and you could quickly go right to red line. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) At 09:03 PM 6/20/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> Kolb-List message posted by: Charlie England > >This is a regular discussion topic for flyers of bigger planes. Among >RV'rs, it's widely known that a constant speed prop has much higher drag >windmilling than stopped. Guys flying fixed pitch props don't see the >effect. The difference is that c/s props go to fine (low speed or climb) >pitch at idle or with the engine stopped & act more or less like small >helicoptor blades in autorotation. The fixed pitch props obviously stay >at cruise (coarse) pitch & don't cause nearly as much drag when >windmilling. It's like leaving your car in high gear or downshifting to >low while going down a hill. The f/p guys who have tested usually can't >tell the difference between idle & prop stopped. > >It's going to be hard to relate this directly to an ultralite type a/c >because there's so much more inherent drag in the airframe (probably >masking the effect of the prop) and with pushers, the air is *really* >dirtied up before it goes through the prop. Also, even though the u/l >prop stays in fine pitch, there usually isn't that much difference >between normal approach speeds & cruise, as there is in a fast >homebuilt. To really know the effect, you'd need a 'sensitive' >altimeter, a stopwatch, extremely still air, enough time to do both >tests under the same conditions (don't forget to start with the same >amount of fuel, etc) & the willingness to shut down the engine for the >prop-stopped half of the test. > >Did I muddy the waters even more? > >Charlie > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 07:38:23 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: glide windmilling or prop stopped, was: Rotax 503 Failure Poll --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" To really know the effect, you'd need a 'sensitive' | altimeter, a stopwatch, extremely still air, enough time to do both | tests under the same conditions (don't forget to start with the same | amount of fuel, etc) & the willingness to shut down the engine for the | prop-stopped half of the test. | | Did I muddy the waters even more? | | Charlie Hi Charlie/Gang: The difference in any of the Kolb model aircraft I have flown over the years, between dead stick and idle speed, is quite dramatic. Glide is greatly increased. It is quite evident to most pilots of Kolb aircraft. Seems there are one or two that do not readily perceive this difference. Why? I do not know. Expensive instrumentation, calm air, and all the rest are not a requirement to see and feel the difference. There are still a lot of Kolb pilots that do their first engine off landing as the result of a lost engine. For my own purposes, I find it much more beneficial to practice intentional dead stick flight and landings until I am very comfortable with the maneuver. Then.......when the real thing come along unexpectedly, it isn't nearly as eye opening as the pilot that has not practiced. For those of us that have the luxury of a "self commencer" or "electric starter", it is quite easy and safe to practice engine off/dead stick flight without landing. Easy to restart and regain altitude to repeat the exercise. I tried this early own in my brand new 1987 Firestar. Was the first airplane I could get an air restart by pulling the starter rope inside the cockpit. Worked great after a short engine off flight of about 1,500 feet altitude. Was so much fun I repeated the maneuver from about 4,500 feet, gliding engine off to 1,500 feet for a restart. No such luck. Could not get enough pull on the rope to get the 447 to restart. 3,000 feet of altitude had cooled the engine off beyond my capability to do an air restart. I did have enough forethought to practice above a very large, flat hay field though, experiencing my first engine off landing in my brand new Firestar, unintentional BTW. For what it is worth, my own humble opinion, john h titus, alabama MKIII/912S ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 07:41:25 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: glide windmilling or prop stopped, was: Rotax 503 Failure Poll --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" Hummer - | legal ultralight - with a Rotax 277 and a 56X32 two blade wood Tennessee | Propeller : at idle with the prop windmilling, the prop acted enough like a | speed brake that you couldn't get it over 60 mph with full forward stick. | Kill the engine and let the prop stop, push the stick forward and you could | quickly go right to red line. | | Richard Pike Hi Richard/All: Original FS with Jim Culver 60X32 fixed pitch wood prop, two blade, performed much the same as your Hummer. john h MKIII/912S Titus, Alabama, USA ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:51:32 PM PST US From: N27SB@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kiev prop --> Kolb-List message posted by: N27SB@aol.com Hi John, nice to see you back, the leading edge is inlaid brass. Much like the Warp it does not cover the entire leading edge. After about 60 take offs (rain is not a factor here) I see no deterioration inside the brass and not a blemish or even a mark on the brass. I would suspect that hours of flight in rain would have a similar effect on the unprotected leading edge. Sounds like a dumb question but did you ever install the clear leading edge material that Warp supplies inside the nickel arch? In my application I really dump the water to it at times so I may have to come up with something if I start to see a break down. Flying the little Firefly with choppy winds aloft is a piece of cake compared to a Kentucky Trail Ride. :-) Steve B FF #007 ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 08:10:41 PM PST US From: "Vince Nicely" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Rotax 503 Failure Poll --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Vince Nicely" David, Sorry it has taken me so long to form a reply to your question. Yes, I have had two in-flight engine failures with a Rotax 503 DCDI engine on my Kolb Firestar II. Let me rush to say both failures were my fault, not the engine's fault. The airplane glides with glide ratio of 7 or 8 to 1 and handles fine without power. Below I will give a little detail for those interested. When I started flying my Firestar 10 years ago, I was new to this type airplane and to two-stroke engines and was a fairly new pilot. I learned some things from my experiences. For the first failure, I decided to try some different spark plugs that had been recommend by another user. I bought and installed the plugs and ground-ran the engine to full power. Everything looked great. Went to the end of the 3500 foot paved runway and took off. Just as I passed over the other end of the runway at 500 ft AGL, the engine went to idle. I knew that I could turn back with less than 200 ft altitude loss from earlier tests, so I quickly reversed course. Now, I was over the end of the runway and quickly realized I was too high! I might over shoot the other end. Some serious S-turns burned some altitude and I landed and stopped just short of the end of the runway. So, from 500 ft AGL I was able to reverse course and had to use S-turns to get down in 3500 ft. The engine never quit. So, I then tied the tail to the ground and ran the engine at full power. Just about the time I would have crossed the runway end, the engine went to idle again. I did this repeatedly. Because spark plugs were the change, I installed a new set of the standard plugs and continued testing. Engine ran fine at full power for longer than the indicated time. Threw away the trial plugs. There was no evidence of a seizure, the temperatures were well with in the book range and with new plugs it ran fine. I do not know why it failed, only that it was reproducible. The second failure was a seizure of the engine at about 1500 ft AGL just as I was about to cross a mountain ridge and enter a region over forest. Fortunately, I had fields and even a grass runway within gliding distance. The Firestar II flies fine without power, so I turned to the new heading, radioed to my friends that I had a problem and set up an approach to where I intended to land. My skills were such that I realized at about 100 ft AGL that I was probably not going to make the grass strip I had in mind, so I diverted course slightly to avoid some obstructions and landed in a grassy field with long grass. Landed near full stall and the plane slowed quickly in the deep grass, but it did not pitch-pole. So, how did I manage to seize the engine? In another note, I plan to give some more detail on why I am confident of the conclusion I give here, but let me give the answer. I had changed the main jets to leaner ones outside the recommendations of the Rotax charts. I had done this change 8 years ago and had added over 200 hours on the engine between the jet change and the engine failure. On the day of the failure, I held the airplane in a full-throttle climb longer than I usually do, and at the end I got silence. Lessons I have taken from these experiences: 1) When I have an engine failure, I do what I have practiced. So, continual practice of good emergency procedures is important to me. In the first example, I knew it was OK to turn back for I had practiced it. In the second failure, there were some better approach procedures I could have used. In a bi-annual flight review just a couple of weeks prior to the failure the instructor had made some suggestions for improved methods of selecting landing sites and approaches. However, eventhough I later decided the new procedures would have been better than what I did, I used the procedures I had practiced rather than the new procedures I had not yet practiced. While I landed OK, my ego would have fared better had it been a little more on plan. 2) It is probably best to use the recommended parts and settings. However, if you, like me, have an overpowering urge to try other things, perhaps you will want to consider the need to test extensively. I believe I need to run the engine on the ground in the same mode I will run it in the air to test any changes I make. Otherwise, I need to stay over the runway and test all the flight conditions I intend to access. In both cases mentioned here, I did ground tests, but they did not adequately simulate the conditions encountered in flight. 3) My Firestar II glides just fine ( has an estimated glide ratio of 7 or 8 to 1 in typical flight condition) and I believe will take good care of me if I do not stall it to far above ground. It spins easily if stalled and recovers fine only if you are high enough (wonder how I know?). I would not want to try stretching a glide when near the ground, but thought it better to make a final course correction and take a less preferred landing site. Vince Nicely FireStar II ----- Original Message ----- > Has anyone on the list ever had a Rotax 503 quit in flight? Just asking as a point of interest. If so, was it a dual ignition model, do you know why it quit, and how did you and your Kolb glider do in the ensuing dead stick landing? > > Dave Bigelow > FS2, 503 DCDI > Kamuela, Hawaii ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 08:24:24 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kiev prop --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" Sounds like a | dumb question but did you ever install the clear leading edge material that | Warp supplies inside the nickel arch? Steve B/All: No, never used the tape. Don't like it, for some reason. Back a few years ago at Ft Wolters, TX, maintenance folks used a clear plastic tape to protect the tiny tail rotor blades of the Hughes TH-55 helicopter. Seems the tail rotor turned very high rpm. Like 5,400 sticks in my mind, but it has been 37 years ago. Sand errosion in Texas was taking its toll on the SS leading edges. Tape was used to prolong the life of the blades. If the tape came off one blade a severe high frequency vibration would follow. Really get a young aviator's attention when out in the AO on a solo flight. Kentucky trail riding is good form of exercise to make a good Kolb pilot. ;-) john h DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 09:01:38 PM PST US From: "John Williamson" Subject: Kolb-List: Leading Edge Tape --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Williamson" Hi Folks, I have used the Warp Drive props with the nickel leading edge protection on the Jabiru and the Rotax 912S. Haven't had any damage to the nickel leading edge material. On both props, I installed the urethane tape supplied by Warp Drive inboard of the nickel leading edge material. So far the tape has absorbed all the nicks and dings that could have damaged the props. The material sticks extremely well. Does anybody know how to remove the tape without damaging the blades? I'm thinking of replacing the tape with some new ones from Warp Drive. I start flying tomorrow morning on a three day trip down to the Big Bend National Park area here in Texas. This is the first trip to do some planned primitive camping (no food or bathroom near the campsite)! This is the last area in Texas that I haven't flown over in the Kolbra. John Williamson Arlington, TX Kolb Kolbra, Rotax 912ULS, 820 hours http://home.comcast.net/~kolbrapilot no not archive ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 09:18:33 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Leading Edge Tape --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" Bend | National Park area here in Texas. This is the first trip to do some planned | primitive camping (no food or bathroom near the campsite)! This is the last | area in Texas that I haven't flown over in the Kolbra. | | John Williamson John W/Gang: Do not know how John W will survive without milk and donuts for breakfast, unless he is going on a starvation diet for this trip. Is there an airstrip in Big Ben National Park? Wish I was flying with you. The Big Bend National Park area is the one part of Texas I have not flown. Will make a good flight along the Rio Grande up to Presidio, TX. You can always wade across the Rio Grande and get a taco in Mexico. ;-) Have a fun, safe flight. Got to get ready for the UP/Oshkosh flight next month. Times a wasting! john h DO NOT ARCHIVE