---------------------------------------------------------- Kolb-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 08/14/05: 33 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:15 AM - Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (David L. Bigelow) 2. 03:25 AM - Firestar adverse roll (Edward Steuber) 3. 05:37 AM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (John J. Peters) 4. 06:04 AM - Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Kirk Smith) 5. 06:25 AM - Re: Firestar adverse roll (ray anderson) 6. 07:00 AM - Two tanks (EnaudZ@aol.com) 7. 07:57 AM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Christopher Armstrong) 8. 10:48 AM - Re: Two tanks (Richard Pike) 9. 12:38 PM - Re: Lockwood's Diagnosis (N27SB@aol.com) 10. 12:42 PM - Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Jim Baker) 11. 01:26 PM - Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (John Hauck) 12. 01:27 PM - Re: Two tanks (Jim Baker) 13. 01:30 PM - Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Christopher Armstrong) 14. 01:35 PM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Jack & Louise Hart) 15. 02:06 PM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (dama) 16. 02:12 PM - Re: Hello (Icrashrc@aol.com) 17. 03:08 PM - Kolb list electric trim tab (Steve Garvelink) 18. 03:28 PM - Re: Two tanks (Richard Pike) 19. 03:39 PM - Re: Kolb list electric trim tab (John Hauck) 20. 03:55 PM - Re: Kolb list electric trim tab (Mitty) 21. 05:12 PM - Mk 11 vs Mk 111 (Thom Riddle) 22. 05:15 PM - Re: Firestar adverse roll (ElleryWeld@aol.com) 23. 05:37 PM - Re: Mk 11 vs Mk 111 (John Hauck) 24. 05:39 PM - Re: Firestar adverse roll (John Hauck) 25. 05:50 PM - trim motor (Ron Lee) 26. 06:09 PM - Re: Kolb list electric trim tab (ElleryWeld@aol.com) 27. 06:13 PM - Re: Firestar adverse roll (ElleryWeld@aol.com) 28. 06:17 PM - Re: Firestar adverse roll (ElleryWeld@aol.com) 29. 07:01 PM - 447 Status (Beauford) 30. 07:27 PM - Re: Lockwood's Diagnosis-black fuel line (Beauford) 31. 07:35 PM - Re: 447 Status (possums) 32. 08:34 PM - Re: Mk 11 vs Mk 111 (Richard Pike) 33. 08:56 PM - Ultrastar (Mitty) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:15:02 AM PST US From: "David L. Bigelow" Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 --> Kolb-List message posted by: "David L. Bigelow" >So if the first engine fails once in every 1000 flights, and the second >engine fails once in every 1000 flights together they will fail 2 times in >1000 flight, or twice as often. If the probability of each engine failing >moves to once in every 500 flights, then for 2 of them it is 2 times in >every 500 flights. One rotax 503 at 1/1000 versus two Hirths at 2/500 is 4 >times as much." I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions here. It's intuitively obvious that even with a pair of engines that may be less reliable than a particular single, the odds of a simultaneous failure are quite slim. Here's from an article by Arnold C. Anderson in his Ultralight Flying Notebook: "To give you some idea as to what redundancy does to improve reliability, let's say we have a single system that is 95% reliable, which is 5% unreliable. Two systems operated in parallel will have an unreliability of 5% squared or .05 x .05 .0025. The reliability is now 100 - .0025 or 99.9975% reliable - a marked improvement." In the real world, the two systems (engines, ignitions, etc) do share some commonality, and the actual reliability will probably be less than 99.9975%. I can't predict the reliability of the Hirth F-33 compared to a 503, but it is a dual ignition engine, and the operators I've been in contact with have hundreds of trouble free hours. Another factor with a twin installation is that during normal operation, the engines are not operated at as high an RPM as a single engine installation. This reduces stress and increases time between overhaul. Also, I'm not sure you can apply light twin statistics (constant speed props, etc) to an experimental ultralight with near centerline thrust installation. Guess I'll just have to try it and see..... :) Check's in the mail, and the engines are coming! Dave Bigelow FS2 Kamuela, HI ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 03:25:23 AM PST US From: "Edward Steuber" Subject: Kolb-List: Firestar adverse roll --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Edward Steuber" Ellery and John , I had the same problem on my Ultrastar but maybe not as bad. Problem is that the single lift strut does not allow for wing wash in or out. The left wing needs to be washed out or the trailing edge moved up. This can be accomplished by making new wing pivot attach points ( square steel ) and drilling the holes slightly off that attach to the main spar. By using the one down on the left wing and the other up on the right you can slightly change the relationship of the wash in or out of the wings. You could also redrill the rear fuselage attach points but then you would have to deal with bigger holes....Welding on critical fittings ? The only problem with my method is the wing fold may be a problem if you move the holes too far.... Good Luck ! Breakfast in Brockport this AM....May have to drive....raining here but very light ED in Western NY do not archive ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:37:47 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 From: "John J. Peters" --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John J. Peters" David , I would think thee analysis of Arnold Anderson is a lot closer to reality , of redundancy improving ones chances / odds to avoid a mishap , than doubling the chances of a problem refuses to fly with one engine . So I would conclude that with at least some kind of power from the remaining engine that the pilot could at least glide / fly to a further out , and possibly safer landing site . If you all play the lottery , and the odds are 50 million to one are not 25 million to one , they are 50 million to two . ( hence my lack of cash on hand ) $ .02 For what it's worth JJP FSII single 503 DCDI , D-Carb D-Floats ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:04:11 AM PST US From: "Kirk Smith" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Twin Engine Firestar 2 --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" . When one engine on a twin fails, you don't lose half of your excess > thrust, you typically lose 80% to 90% of your excess thrust, which means > that if you were climbing at 1200 fpm with both engines, if you configure > and fly the aircraft perfectly after an engine failure, you will likely see > around 200 fpm, which is pretty bad. How much excess thrust do you lose when the engine on a single engine airplane fails? Must be calculating form somewhere for that, that factors in motivation. Do not archive ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:25:49 AM PST US From: ray anderson Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firestar adverse roll --> Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson Try a small trim tab on the aileron. I used one on some airplane I owned in the past. Can't remember which one but it cured my problem. I hate being 87!! Edward Steuber wrote:--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Edward Steuber" Ellery and John , I had the same problem on my Ultrastar but maybe not as bad. Problem is that the single lift strut does not allow for wing wash in or out. The left wing needs to be washed out or the trailing edge moved up. This can be accomplished by making new wing pivot attach points ( square steel ) and drilling the holes slightly off that attach to the main spar. By using the one down on the left wing and the other up on the right you can slightly change the relationship of the wash in or out of the wings. You could also redrill the rear fuselage attach points but then you would have to deal with bigger holes....Welding on critical fittings ? The only problem with my method is the wing fold may be a problem if you move the holes too far.... Good Luck ! Breakfast in Brockport this AM....May have to drive....raining here but very light ED in Western NY do not archive --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:00:31 AM PST US From: EnaudZ@aol.com Subject: Kolb-List: Two tanks --> Kolb-List message posted by: EnaudZ@aol.com Hello I would like to add 2nd tank to my fs2 . when tanks are near emmty will front tank have 2-3" left in it since tail is high inflight? tanks Duane Zollinger FS2,503 290 hrs Rittman Ohio ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:57:15 AM PST US From: "Christopher Armstrong" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" Which part of my post didn't you read? I stated above this quote that the odds of both failing at the same time is 1 in 100000, calculated exactly like Anderson. Then I calculated the odds of either engine failing.... which is the section you are quoting. I give up on you guys... you just don't get math. Christopher Armstrong -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David L. Bigelow Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 --> Kolb-List message posted by: "David L. Bigelow" >So if the first engine fails once in every 1000 flights, and the second >engine fails once in every 1000 flights together they will fail 2 times in >1000 flight, or twice as often. If the probability of each engine failing >moves to once in every 500 flights, then for 2 of them it is 2 times in >every 500 flights. One rotax 503 at 1/1000 versus two Hirths at 2/500 is 4 >times as much." I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions here. It's intuitively obvious that even with a pair of engines that may be less reliable than a particular single, the odds of a simultaneous failure are quite slim. Here's from an article by Arnold C. Anderson in his Ultralight Flying Notebook: "To give you some idea as to what redundancy does to improve reliability, let's say we have a single system that is 95% reliable, which is 5% unreliable. Two systems operated in parallel will have an unreliability of 5% squared or .05 x .05 .0025. The reliability is now 100 - .0025 or 99.9975% reliable - a marked improvement." In the real world, the two systems (engines, ignitions, etc) do share some commonality, and the actual reliability will probably be less than 99.9975%. I can't predict the reliability of the Hirth F-33 compared to a 503, but it is a dual ignition engine, and the operators I've been in contact with have hundreds of trouble free hours. Another factor with a twin installation is that during normal operation, the engines are not operated at as high an RPM as a single engine installation. This reduces stress and increases time between overhaul. Also, I'm not sure you can apply light twin statistics (constant speed props, etc) to an experimental ultralight with near centerline thrust installation. Guess I'll just have to try it and see..... :) Check's in the mail, and the engines are coming! Dave Bigelow FS2 Kamuela, HI ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:48:15 AM PST US From: Richard Pike Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Two tanks --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike With the limited experience I have in our FSII, it seems that the rear tank runs dry when the front one still has a couple inches left. Maybe we need to put a shim under the front one, raise it a couple inches? Comments? Good idea? Dumb idea? Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) do not archive At 09:59 AM 8/14/05 -0400, you wrote: >--> Kolb-List message posted by: EnaudZ@aol.com > >Hello > I would like to add 2nd tank to my fs2 . > when tanks are near emmty will front tank have 2-3" left >in it since tail is high inflight? > > tanks > Duane Zollinger >FS2,503 290 hrs >Rittman Ohio > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 12:38:25 PM PST US From: N27SB@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Lockwood's Diagnosis --> Kolb-List message posted by: N27SB@aol.com In a message dated 8/12/2005 9:15:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, beauford@tampabay.rr.com writes: > Got a warning about black automotive fuel lines... don't use them with > pre-mix. They are fine for straight gas, > but swell up and delaminate internally when exposed to oil in the gas. > > Hi Beauford, I have been running the auto fuel lines for a few months with not problem but I see their point. Marine brand black fuel lines are used with premix all the time for years. I wonder how they differ from auto type if at all. Steve ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 12:42:52 PM PST US From: "Jim Baker" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Twin Engine Firestar 2 --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" > Statistically, it doesn't work that way. Multivariate entities are not > that arithmatically simple. What we're really talking about here is reliability, defined as: The probability that an item will perform a required function without failure under stated conditions for a stated period of time. > Probability of an engine failure is number of engine failures/number > of flights. > > Using the Multiplication Theorem for Independent Events > > If the events A and B are independent then > > P(AB) = P(A)* P(B). So if one engine fails 1 time in every 1000 > flights both engine will fail once every 100000 flights. SO this is > good. That's fine....except what if the engine that fails is now paired with an engine that won't. There are such things as reliability probabilities for repairable systems, systems reliability (reliability prediction), part reliability (reliability estimation), and non-repairable system reliability. Gets a bit more dicey. That said, what is the real failure rate? Lets use your assumption of one failure in every 1000 flights. I'll use, say, 2.5 hours duration per flight (yeah, I know it's just a WAG). 2500 hours per 1000 flights. US gen aviation piston single engine aircraft were estimated to have flown 17.7 million hours in 2000. That shows 7080 engine related failures per year in the general aviation, single engine universe. What was the actual mechanically related failure rate? 81, with 41 partial power non-mechanical and 36 mechanical partial power (NTSB, 2000). And yes, I know this relates primarily to four stroke gen av engines and not the subject at hand, two stroke rates. But then this really begs the question about repairable systems reliabilty, considering sometimes just who is working on these two-stroke engines, parts substitution, etc.... And that opens up an entirely new line of investigation, one for which I've never seen any data....reliability data between two- and four- cycle engines. Anyone claiming to have a good statistical handle on engine reliability had better make the case with millions of data points. Hell, I certainly can't...I'm not that smart! > But how often will one of the two engines fail? > > Here we need to use the Addition Rule > > If the event A1, A2, ..., An are pairwise mutually exclusive events > then > > P(A1+ A2+ ...+An)= P(A1)+P(A2)+ ...+P(An) > > So if the first engine fails once in every 1000 flights, and the > second engine fails once in every 1000 flights together they will fail > 2 times in 1000 flight, or twice as often. If the probability of each > engine failing moves to once in every 500 flights, then for 2 of them > it is 2 times in every 500 flights. One rotax 503 at 1/1000 versus > two Hirths at 2/500 is 4 times as much. > > So what do you think is wrong with my math? The math is suspect with the assertion that Hirth fails once every 500 hours vs Rotax at 1000 hours, an unsubstantiated and self-serving assumption. I certainly don't know the true figures. Please provide your data source. > As to the real twin engine data, do they actually fail twice as often. > Probability is that they do, and the data supports it, but the second > engine does keep the plane from crashing often enough that accident > rates due to engine failures are lower for twins. This assumes of > course that the engines have the same failure rate. If you add in a > higher failure rate for the twins engines then you are going to be > somewhat less well off then just going from a single to a twin. Let's look at some data from CASA (Australia) that muddies that view, but only for fatality accidents (1986-1996), and maybe only for Australia. Single engine fatality rate per 100,000 hours .31 Twin engine fatality rate per 100,000 hours .98 The variables? VFR/IFR, pilot skills with single engine operations in a twin, phase of flight......but still........ However the total accident rates for singles was 9.54 and 8.39 for twins, per 100,000 hours. I'd be more concerned about this stat than the reliability of twin engine systems. Then the FAA data (2000) shows accident rates for single at 7.61 per 100k and 3.92 for twin (both piston). The fatality rate is 1.27 for single and 1.35 for twins, per 100k hours. Jim Baker 580.788.2779 '71 SV, 492TC Elmore City, OK ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 01:26:10 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Twin Engine Firestar 2 --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" without | failure under stated conditions for a stated period of time. Jim B/Topher/All: Numbers are great! However, when you are flying in front of a two stroke, you won't have any idea when she is going, only that eventually she will. No way numbers are going to let me know when not to fly a two stroke. As two stroke pilots, the best we can do is be prepared for that particular time. Be proficient at actual dead stick landings. Right! Landings with a good engine shut down. Why? Because that is the way it is going to be when it occurs. You will not likely have a chance to mull all this immediate problem at hand over. Immediate decisions must be made to make that predesignated forced landing area. You only have one chance at each engine failure. Don't screw it up. I screwed up two two stroke engine failures in 15 minutes. Had I left well enough alone, I had put the MKIII down without a scratch when the 582 went belly up, I could have trailered the airplane home, done the engine repair and been back in the air. Thinking the engine was now free, ready and willing to propel me back into the air, I went for it. At 30 feet it seized again, I was behind the aircraft, and stalled it in. Result: gear legs, gear leg mount, some bent tubes, and torn fabric. Take care, john h MKIII/912ULS Titus, Alabama ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 01:27:12 PM PST US From: "Jim Baker" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Two tanks --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" > With the limited experience I have in our FSII, it seems that the rear > tank runs dry when the front one still has a couple inches left. > > Maybe we need to put a shim under the front one, raise it a couple > inches? Comments? Good idea? Dumb idea? Realistically, is anyone actually using that second seat? Just curious since I don't as it really violates the 103 rule. Can't teach anyone from the back and passengers really aren't learning to fly. Other than that, I've got both five gallon tanks at the rear seat position. Benefits are ease of fueling, not as significant a change in CG from full to empty, and frees up the aft section for carrying "stuff". Jim Baker 580.788.2779 '71 SV, 492TC Elmore City, OK ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 01:30:23 PM PST US From: "Christopher Armstrong" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Twin Engine Firestar 2 --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" The math is suspect with the assertion that Hirth fails once every 500 hours vs Rotax at 1000 hours, an unsubstantiated and self-serving assumption. I certainly don't know the true figures. Please provide your data source. Those are obviously just made up numbers, with no attempt to guess the rates real accurately, since for the most part the planes these things fly in do not have their rates recorded by anybody. That doesn't make the math suspect or wrong like you implied. My math is right, and based on information from the people who fly these things I bet my very rough guess at relative engine stoppage rates (not the actual numbers but the difference) is not too far off either. If you're going to say my math is wrong "> Statistically, it doesn't work that way. Multivariate entities are not > that arithmatically simple." mean that my math is wrong not that my guesses are bad. I will concede my guesses might be bad. As far as systems that are not independent the math for those is easy as well, but determining the degree of dependence is work for smart minds then me. Basically if the two engines share a fuel system and the largest cause of engine stoppages is due to fuel problems then you're going to find out that both engines are going to stop together much more often then just once every 100000 flights. For every system they share it will get worse. I would doubt that data from the GA twin world is applicable to this discussion. The engines are way more reliable... and no I don't have an numbers to back that up, but face it they are, and the systems that support the engine, starting with the quality of the fuel and the amount of maintenance that the planes get all the way to the skill of the pilots is just not in the same ball park. As usual, I am being told I am wrong on this list... when I am not. Oh well, I have gotten used to it and you guys will fly on happily without this useless SWAG anyway! Topher ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 01:35:52 PM PST US From: Jack & Louise Hart Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 --> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart > >"To give you some idea as to what redundancy does to improve reliability, >let's say we have a single system that is 95% reliable, which is 5% >unreliable. Two systems operated in parallel will have an unreliability of >5% squared or .05 x .05 .0025. The reliability is now 100 - .0025 or >99.9975% reliable - a marked improvement." > The last line should read - "The reliability is now (1.00 - .0025)x100 or 99.75% reliable - a marked improvement." So you gain 4.75 percent in that at least one engine will be running. The interesting info would be to determine pilot survival outcome based on the loss of one engine. Does the single engine pilot fair any worse that the twin engine pilot? Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN do not archive Jack B. Hart jbhart@ldd.net ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 02:06:24 PM PST US From: "dama" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 --> Kolb-List message posted by: "dama" How about a 3 engined Firestar...? Calculator ready. Kip http://www.springeraviation.net/ do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack & Louise Hart" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 > --> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart > > > > >"To give you some idea as to what redundancy does to improve reliability, > >let's say we have a single system that is 95% reliable, which is 5% > >unreliable. Two systems operated in parallel will have an unreliability of > >5% squared or .05 x .05 .0025. The reliability is now 100 - .0025 or > >99.9975% reliable - a marked improvement." > > > > The last line should read - "The reliability is now (1.00 - .0025)x100 or > 99.75% reliable - a marked improvement." > > So you gain 4.75 percent in that at least one engine will be running. The > interesting info would be to determine pilot survival outcome based on the > loss of one engine. Does the single engine pilot fair any worse that the > twin engine pilot? > > Jack B. Hart FF004 > Winchester, IN > > do not archive > > > Jack B. Hart > jbhart@ldd.net > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 02:12:11 PM PST US From: Icrashrc@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Hello --> Kolb-List message posted by: Icrashrc@aol.com Mitty, I fly many types of planes. From 2.5 oz. indoor electric to 15 lb aerobatic planes. You can see pics of some of my past and current fleet at http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?icrashrc Richard, East Tennessee Ultralights [ http://www.flyultralites.com/ ] is located about halfway between Knoxville and Chattanooga in Sweetwater, TN. I'll keep your invite in mind. Thanks! Scott DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 03:08:17 PM PST US From: "Steve Garvelink" Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb list electric trim tab --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Steve Garvelink" Again you guys talk about trim tabs, I think that this is still the coolest one I have seen. SRGLINK http://www.n566aj.com/max/frugal.htm ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 03:28:36 PM PST US From: Richard Pike Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Two tanks --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike Not doing part 103. FSII N582EF is part 91. The rear seat is necessary, since the owner has a small wife, and he wants to be able to take her along when the conditions are nice. (Which has been real seldom so far this summer...) Otherwise the rear seat area would make a great place for a fuel tank. So far, the only thing that has been in the back seat area is "stuff." Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) do not archive At 03:27 PM 8/14/05 -0500, you wrote: >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" > > > With the limited experience I have in our FSII, it seems that the >rear > > tank runs dry when the front one still has a couple inches left. > > > > Maybe we need to put a shim under the front one, raise it a couple > > inches? Comments? Good idea? Dumb idea? > >Realistically, is anyone actually using that second seat? Just curious >since I don't as it really violates the 103 rule. Can't teach anyone >from the back and passengers really aren't learning to fly. Other than >that, I've got both five gallon tanks at the rear seat position. Benefits >are ease of fueling, not as significant a change in CG from full to >empty, and frees up the aft section for carrying "stuff". > > >Jim Baker >580.788.2779 >'71 SV, 492TC >Elmore City, OK > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 03:39:46 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb list electric trim tab --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" the | coolest one I have seen. | | SRGLINK Steve G/All: That's a pretty busy system. What I look for in any system in my airplanes is simplicity, reliability, and longevity. As I posted yesterday, a simple aileron and elevator trim tab, popped to the trailing edge tube with soft aluminum rivets, .016 aluminum, did the job for my original Firestar. It was set and forget. Flew neutral at all airspeeds and pitch angles. john h titus, alabama ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 03:55:14 PM PST US From: Mitty Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb list electric trim tab --> Kolb-List message posted by: Mitty Love that idea....Pretty neat!It'll be on my future plane.Most definately. Do not archive --- Steve Garvelink wrote: > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Steve Garvelink" > > > Again you guys talk about trim tabs, I think that > this is still the > coolest one I have seen. > > SRGLINK > > > http://www.n566aj.com/max/frugal.htm > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 05:12:03 PM PST US From: Thom Riddle Subject: Kolb-List: Mk 11 vs Mk 111 --> Kolb-List message posted by: Thom Riddle Kolbers, Can anyone tell me the major (and minor) differences between a Twinstar Mk 11 and Mk 111(c)? Thom in Buffalo do not archive ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 05:15:23 PM PST US From: ElleryWeld@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firestar adverse roll --> Kolb-List message posted by: ElleryWeld@aol.com I am going to try the trim tab on the aleron first and see where that gets me I went 84 miles this morning starting at Day light to a fly-in in Northern Maine went through a couple small sprinkle showers, the air was great and what looked like an aluminum overcast. I Had a blast at the fly in entered the bomb drop, Poker run and the spot landing contest I didn't do as well on the Bomb drop or the poker run but after only have flown this for a few hours before the fly in I came in third place on the spot landing contest which I didnt think was to bad as I haven't taken the time to add my aleron trim tab yet But after I get done with this thats next on my agenda I am not sure how much longer I will have this bird There was an older guy at the fly-in that wanted to buy it right then I told him of my plans to The Home coming next month and he said well take care of it and I will buy it when you get back then I will just have to get me a Kolbra Kit coming shortly after that I guess Ellery Batchelder Jr. in Maine FS do not archive ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 05:37:14 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Mk 11 vs Mk 111 --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" Twinstar | Mk 11 and Mk 111(c)? | | Thom in Buffalo Hi Thom/Gang: Primary differences are tail boom and main wing spars. MKIII has 6" instead of 5". Fuselage is much better designed, wider and stronger. I don't know much about the MKII. Never had any dealings with it except what I read on this List. john h MKIII/912ULS Titus, Alabama ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 05:39:05 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firestar adverse roll --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" Northern | Maine | | Ellery Batchelder Jr. in Maine FS Ellery/All: Looks like you have already made a good start training for your "big" flight next month. Two 84 mile legs ain't bad. Doesn't take too many of those to get you to London, KY, and return. john h DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 05:50:47 PM PST US From: "Ron Lee" Subject: Kolb-List: trim motor --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Ron Lee" An electric screwdriver should work fine as a trim motor. Ron ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 06:09:19 PM PST US From: ElleryWeld@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb list electric trim tab --> Kolb-List message posted by: ElleryWeld@aol.com that sure looks like a bunch of junk just to adjust a trim tab what does it all weigh I will stick to the Cockpit adjustable elevator trim tab I have built in my firestar thanks it's Simple Easy and it cant go out of controll with a crazy electric motor, switch going bad ,or just losing power to it the choice is yours, Easy and dependable or something else to keep fixin do not archive ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 06:13:56 PM PST US From: ElleryWeld@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firestar adverse roll --> Kolb-List message posted by: ElleryWeld@aol.com That's right I am getting her all tweaked up for the trip, no sense in having something you do use to its potential Ellery do Not archive ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 06:17:39 PM PST US From: ElleryWeld@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firestar adverse roll --> Kolb-List message posted by: ElleryWeld@aol.com error on last o post That's right I am getting her all tweaked up for the trip, no sense in having something you don't use to its potential Ellery do not archive ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 07:01:06 PM PST US From: "Beauford" Subject: Kolb-List: 447 Status --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" All... Cautiously optimistic here.... Break-in appears successful, but saw high EGT's and had to pause in process to raise the needle a notch. Some improvement. After process let it cool and retorqued the heads and exhaust before flying it for 1.1 hrs over the airport. The prop is unloaded and I overdid it slightly, turning 6500 on takeoff... Ran it at varying speeds between 6600 and 5300 during the hour and saw high EGT's, but gradually improving CHT... at 6000 RPM in level flt, eventually got 365 steady on both jugs... Plug color is good. Consensus at Sebring is that 447 is most carbon-prone and crankiest to adjust of all the current Rotax engines. I believe it. Beauford FF #076 Do not archive ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 07:27:22 PM PST US From: "Beauford" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Lockwood's Diagnosis-black fuel line --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Beauford" Steve... Good to hear from you... I dunno about the marine lines, but the Lockwood guys were certainly adamant about the subject and I cannot see where they would make any money from bad-mouthing the black automotive lines... Sure enough, when I pulled off the black rubber lines and filter yesterday, the clear Fram filter had a flat chunk of black rubber about half the size of a small fingernail in it... plus a cloud of small black particles that looked like the same stuff... The debris was largely hidden in the folds of the paper element until shaken, then easy to see. I saved it to show the other Kolbers on the field. There was only about a foot of the black line ahead of that filter... Kinda got my attention... That line was installed in January 05. Two thunderstorms on the airport this PM... then blessed overcast...was smooth flying in the shade... and cool for a change. Regards, Beauford ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Lockwood's Diagnosis > --> Kolb-List message posted by: N27SB@aol.com > > In a message dated 8/12/2005 9:15:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, > beauford@tampabay.rr.com writes: > >> Got a warning about black automotive fuel lines... don't use them with >> pre-mix. They are fine for straight gas, >> but swell up and delaminate internally when exposed to oil in the gas. >> >> > > Hi Beauford, I have been running the auto fuel lines for a few months > with > not problem but I see their point. Marine brand black fuel lines are used > with > premix all the time for years. I wonder how they differ from auto type if > at > all. > > Steve > > > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 07:35:41 PM PST US From: possums Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 447 Status --> Kolb-List message posted by: possums At 10:08 PM 8/14/2005, you wrote: >Consensus at Sebring is that 447 is most carbon-prone and crankiest >to adjust of all the current Rotax engines. >I believe it. > >Beauford You better believe it. My old 503 has recently run up to 335 - 340 CHT on climb out...and I'm starting to get worried. ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 08:34:30 PM PST US From: Richard Pike Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Mk 11 vs Mk 111 --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike There are probably others who can give you a more through answer, but when I get in turbulence, I remember that the MKII has a 5" main spar and boom tube, and the MKIII has a 6" main spar and boom tube. Which has me liking my MKIII a lot... Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) At 08:10 PM 8/14/05 -0400, you wrote: >--> Kolb-List message posted by: Thom Riddle > >Kolbers, > >Can anyone tell me the major (and minor) differences between a Twinstar >Mk 11 and Mk 111(c)? > >Thom in Buffalo >do not archive > > ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 08:56:40 PM PST US From: Mitty Subject: Kolb-List: Ultrastar --> Kolb-List message posted by: Mitty Good evening fellow Kolbers and Kolbets :) Browsing through the archive and current discussions i hardly ever see a mention of Ultrastar.Is there anyone flying them still?I understand this model was discontinued by Kolb.But i realy like the high boom design. Just a though... Do not archive my thoughs :)