Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:48 AM - Re: Monument Valley 2006 (pat ladd)
2. 05:15 AM - Re: Monument Valley 2006 (Robert Laird)
3. 05:26 AM - Re: Prop noise (John Jung)
4. 06:06 AM - Trailers (lucien stavenhagen)
5. 06:41 AM - Re: Prop ClearanceProp Clearance (D Lucas)
6. 07:10 AM - Re: Trailers (robert bean)
7. 07:12 AM - Re: Trailers (Chris Mallory)
8. 08:58 AM - Re: Trailers (lucien stavenhagen)
9. 10:16 AM - 912 vs 912S question (John Jung)
10. 10:58 AM - Re: Trailers (Jim Ballenger)
11. 11:03 AM - Re: Monument Valley 2006 (pat ladd)
12. 11:24 AM - Re: 912 vs 912S question (J.D. Stewart)
13. 11:32 AM - English lessons ;-) (Jeremy Casey)
14. 11:42 AM - Re: 912 vs 912S question (Jack B. Hart)
15. 11:48 AM - Re: 912 vs 912S question (jim)
16. 12:00 PM - Re: 912 vs 912S question (J.D. Stewart)
17. 12:05 PM - Re: Trailers (Chris Mallory)
18. 12:06 PM - Re: 912 vs 912S question (Jeremy Casey)
19. 12:31 PM - Re: 912 vs 912S question (John Hauck)
20. 12:34 PM - Re: 912 vs 912S question (John Hauck)
21. 12:55 PM - Re: English lessons ;-) (pat ladd)
22. 01:04 PM - Re: 912 vs 912S question (lucien stavenhagen)
23. 01:29 PM - Re: 912 vs 912S question (John Hauck)
24. 02:30 PM - Re: Prop ClearanceProp Clearance (Michael Bigelow)
25. 02:48 PM - Re: Monument Valley 2006 (Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL)
26. 02:57 PM - mv (b young)
27. 03:16 PM - Thrust line change (Richard Pike)
28. 03:20 PM - Re: 912 vs 912S question (Kirk Smith)
29. 03:43 PM - Re: Thrust line change (John Hauck)
30. 03:46 PM - Re: 912 vs 912S question (John Hauck)
31. 03:49 PM - Re: Thrust line change (John Hauck)
32. 04:59 PM - Re: Thrust line change (robert bean)
33. 06:13 PM - Re: Thrust line change (Richard Pike)
34. 08:28 PM - Re: Thrust line change (HShack@aol.com)
35. 09:17 PM - Re: Thrust line change (Christopher Armstrong)
36. 09:31 PM - Re: Trailers (DAquaNut@AOL.COM)
37. 09:46 PM - Re: Trailers (WillUribe@aol.com)
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: Monument Valley 2006 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
I have been looking into the 2006 flying season and need to know if there
is
any interest in another Kolb Gathering at Monument Valley.>>
Hi Will,
keep the info on the list.
I shall be moving house in March, assuming the buyer doesn`t welsh on the
deal,(is that a racist remark?) again, and shall be feeling as if I reely,
reely need a holiday around May.
Pat
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: Monument Valley 2006 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Robert Laird <rlaird@cavediver.com>
Pat --
Um, I don't think the Welsh are a "race"... besides, the word is
"welch".... <g>
-- Robert
do not archive
On 12/9/05, pat ladd <pj.ladd@btinternet.com> wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
>
> I have been looking into the 2006 flying season and need to know if there
> is
> any interest in another Kolb Gathering at Monument Valley.>>
>
> Hi Will,
>
> keep the info on the list.
>
> I shall be moving house in March, assuming the buyer doesn`t welsh on the
> deal,(is that a racist remark?) again, and shall be feeling as if I reely,
> reely need a holiday around May.
>
> Pat
>
> do not archive
>
>
> --
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
Ed and Group,
I flew for more than a year with the engine raised 3/4 inch, and never
noticed any difference in flight characteristics or top speed.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
On Dec 9, 2005, at 12:56 AM, Kolb-List Digest Server wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: DAquaNut@aol.com
>
>
> John,
>
> I wonder how ,or if it changed the flight characteristics top
> speed etc
>
> Ed (in Houston).
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
Hi again all,
Speaking of trailering, and forgive me if this is an FAQ....
Among other things, I'm thinking of investing in a good enclosed trailer for
my FS II and any future Kolb I might fly.
I have a converted boat trailer that was purpose-built by the original
builder of my plane, but it's of course fully exposed and so not really
suitable for trailering any distance...
So I'm thinking about an enclosed trailer. I know I'll need to put a boom
support in it and I'd prefer a nice smooshy suspension to reduce the shock
loads on the plane during transport.
Anyone have any recommendations or know of any around?
Thanks,
LS
N646F
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: Prop ClearanceProp Clearance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "D Lucas" <d_a_lucas@hotmail.com>
On 4Dec "Richard
>I agree that 1 inch is a bit close but I had 7 inches of clearance on my 72 inch
prop
>and that was way too much of a high thrust line. Full power with a high thrust
line is not fun. ..... etc etc.
Hi group, I was just wondering, would a slight upward adustment of the engine thrust
line mitigate some of the negative aspects of a high thrust line set-up.
Not to 7 inches clearance but maybe a bit more than 2 inches Just curious.
David L
No plane (yet), just a dream.
do not archive
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
If I wanted to haul a FF I'd buy an old chevy caprice wagon, tear off
the
rear end sheet metal and stick a ramp on it. Enclose the whole thing
with aluminum hoops and shrink dacron on it. Smooth runner.
cheap too
-BB do not archive
On 9, Dec 2005, at 9:05 AM, lucien stavenhagen wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen"
> <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
>
> Hi again all,
> Speaking of trailering, and forgive me if this is an FAQ....
> Among other things, I'm thinking of investing in a good enclosed
> trailer for
> my FS II and any future Kolb I might fly.
> I have a converted boat trailer that was purpose-built by the original
> builder of my plane, but it's of course fully exposed and so not really
> suitable for trailering any distance...
>
> So I'm thinking about an enclosed trailer. I know I'll need to put a
> boom
> support in it and I'd prefer a nice smooshy suspension to reduce the
> shock
> loads on the plane during transport.
>
> Anyone have any recommendations or know of any around?
>
> Thanks,
> LS
> N646F
> do not archive
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Chris Mallory" <wcm@tampabay.rr.com>
lucien,
I have a 24 ft. Haulmark that I keep my FSII in and it's been great, a lot
of room inside. It's pretty heavy (3800 lbs) although it pulls nicely. I
would not recommend that you try to pull it with anything small however.
You also have to make a "ramp" down the center of the trailer (inside) to
keep the leading edge of the wings from being scraped when loading and
unloading due to the angle change.
I also have a small (2500 lb) ATV winch mounted in mine so all you have to
do is set the tail wheel on the ramp, hook it up and push a button.
If you decide to go that way I would be happy to show you more of what I've
done to mine to accommodate the Firestar II.
Photo enclosed.
Chris Mallory
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
Hey Chris,
Yeah I'd love to see some pictures of your trailer. I've also thought about
modifying my boat trailer, to put some kind of cover over it, but I can't
see a way to do it without making it just a total pain to get the plane in
and out of it..
So I think I'll just have to get another one....
LS
N646F
do not archive
>From: "Chris Mallory" <wcm@tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: kolb-list@matronics.com
>To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Trailers
>Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 10:11:57 -0500
>
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Chris Mallory" <wcm@tampabay.rr.com>
>
>lucien,
>
>I have a 24 ft. Haulmark that I keep my FSII in and it's been great, a lot
>of room inside. It's pretty heavy (3800 lbs) although it pulls nicely. I
>would not recommend that you try to pull it with anything small however.
>
>You also have to make a "ramp" down the center of the trailer (inside) to
>keep the leading edge of the wings from being scraped when loading and
>unloading due to the angle change.
>
>I also have a small (2500 lb) ATV winch mounted in mine so all you have to
>do is set the tail wheel on the ramp, hook it up and push a button.
>
>If you decide to go that way I would be happy to show you more of what I've
>done to mine to accommodate the Firestar II.
>
>Photo enclosed.
>
>Chris Mallory
>
>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: | 912 vs 912S question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
Group,
These 912 guys, with all there travels are making me consider moving up
from two cycle. So, I went to the Kodiak sight that John H. mentioned
to check the differences between the UL & ULS. The ULS has always
sounded good with the exception of the higher fuel burn.
Here is where I need some help. What is the correct way to estimate the
difference in fuel burn for two different engines on the same plane?
First I assumed that to fly the same speed, the same horsepower would
be needed. If I am reading the charts correctly, 5,000 rpm's on the UL
gives 74 hp and 5.6 gph. Then taking the 74 hp to the ULS chart, I find
4,400 rpm and 4.1 gph. I think that this tells me that the ULS would
burn less gas pushing the same plane the same speed. But that is not
what I think that I have heard/read from the guys on the list flying
912's.
Oh, I tried using the same torque, but the difference were even more
extreme. I had the ULS burning 2 gph at 3,200 rpm to get the 78 ft lbs
of the UL at 5,000 rpm's an 5.6 gph.
Are these charts bad or am I doing something wrong?
John Jung
Firstar II N6163J
Surprise, AZ
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Ballenger" <ulpilot@cavtel.net>
Chris
I am interested in the ramp you have put in the center of the trailer. Do
you have a picture you could send me? I had a FS KXP that I kept in the
trailer and had to take the wheels off the trailer and raise the tongue in
order to prevent from scraping the LE of the folded wings when
unloading/loading down my ramp door.
Thanks
Jim Ballenger
MK III X 582
Virginia Beach, VA
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Mallory" <wcm@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Trailers
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Chris Mallory" <wcm@tampabay.rr.com>
>
> lucien,
>
> I have a 24 ft. Haulmark that I keep my FSII in and it's been great, a lot
> of room inside. It's pretty heavy (3800 lbs) although it pulls nicely. I
> would not recommend that you try to pull it with anything small however.
>
> You also have to make a "ramp" down the center of the trailer (inside) to
> keep the leading edge of the wings from being scraped when loading and
> unloading due to the angle change.
>
> I also have a small (2500 lb) ATV winch mounted in mine so all you have to
> do is set the tail wheel on the ramp, hook it up and push a button.
>
> If you decide to go that way I would be happy to show you more of what
> I've
> done to mine to accommodate the Firestar II.
>
> Photo enclosed.
>
> Chris Mallory
>
> 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: Monument Valley 2006 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
Um, I don't think the Welsh are a "race"... besides, the word is
"welch"...>>
Hi Robert,
hmm? Well, as the Welsh border is only about 30 miles from where I live
I am not going to risk the Welsh starting their raiding into England again
just to get at me if I annoy them I will leave that question alone.
On the spelling......my Oxford Dictionary gives `Welch. Old spelling of
Welsh retained in the name Royal Wech Fusiliers.
My Longmans Contemporary English gives " welsh, welch. to avoid payment. as
in 1 `he welshed on his bet` 2 to break ones word or promise. 3 she welshed
on her promise`
USAGE. This verb is considered offensive by Welsh people.
You made me look it up though.
Cheers
Pat
--
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: | 912 vs 912S question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart@inebraska.com>
On my Titan SS, I started with a 912 for the first 6 hours, then switched
over to a 912S, so I can offer a good comparison. Same plane, same rpm
(4800~4900), I was getting 3.8gph with the 912, and am using 4.8gph with the
912S. It didn't hurt that the 912 used regular gas either, especially with
the cost of gas now.
J.D. Stewart
UltraFun AirSports, LLC
http://www.ultrafunairsports.com
Challenger e-mail list
http://challenger.inebraska.com
Titan e-mail list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Titanaircraft/
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
>
> Group,
>
> These 912 guys, with all there travels are making me consider moving up
> from two cycle. So, I went to the Kodiak sight that John H. mentioned
> to check the differences between the UL & ULS. The ULS has always
> sounded good with the exception of the higher fuel burn.
>
> Here is where I need some help. What is the correct way to estimate the
> difference in fuel burn for two different engines on the same plane?
> First I assumed that to fly the same speed, the same horsepower would
> be needed. If I am reading the charts correctly, 5,000 rpm's on the UL
> gives 74 hp and 5.6 gph. Then taking the 74 hp to the ULS chart, I find
> 4,400 rpm and 4.1 gph. I think that this tells me that the ULS would
> burn less gas pushing the same plane the same speed. But that is not
> what I think that I have heard/read from the guys on the list flying
> 912's.
>
> Oh, I tried using the same torque, but the difference were even more
> extreme. I had the ULS burning 2 gph at 3,200 rpm to get the 78 ft lbs
> of the UL at 5,000 rpm's an 5.6 gph.
>
> Are these charts bad or am I doing something wrong?
>
> John Jung
> Firstar II N6163J
> Surprise, AZ
> do not archive
>
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: | English lessons ;-) |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
<snip>
Next thing you know that bloody Brit will try to tell us that airplane
is supposed to be spelled "AEROplane"!!!
(Tongue firmly and squarely planted in my cheek ;-)
As someone once said, "The U.S. and the U.K., 2 countries separated by a
common language...
Jeremy "occasional visitor to the U.K." Casey
<snip>
My Longmans Contemporary English gives " welsh, welch. to avoid
payment. as
in 1 `he welshed on his bet` 2 to break ones word or promise. 3 she
welshed
on her promise`
USAGE. This verb is considered offensive by Welsh people.
You made me look it up though.
Cheers
Pat
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 vs 912S question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart@onlyinternet.net>
John,
Try the charts found on:
http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com/aircraft/aircraft.nsf/index?Openpage
If you print out the performance pages and run a horizontal line from the 74
HP to where it meets the curve. Then shoot a vertical line down from the
previous instersection to the fuel consumption curve.
To me it looks like both engines will develop the same HP and burn about 3.7
gph. The UL will be turning about 4,900 rpm and the ULS will be turning
4,300 rpm.
Have a look. A slow day. Six to eight inches of snow with cold and high winds.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
At 11:16 AM 12/9/05 -0700, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
>
>Group,
>
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: | 912 vs 912S question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "jim" <jim@pellien.com>
JD,
Were you using 91 or 93 octane autogas with the 912 ULS?
Jim
Jim Pellien
Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
www.MASPL.com
703-313-4818
jim@sportsplanes.com
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart@inebraska.com>
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart@inebraska.com>
>
> On my Titan SS, I started with a 912 for the first 6 hours, then switched
>over to a 912S, so I can offer a good comparison. Same plane, same rpm
>(4800~4900), I was getting 3.8gph with the 912, and am using 4.8gph with the
>912S. It didn't hurt that the 912 used regular gas either, especially with
>the cost of gas now.
>
>J.D. Stewart
>UltraFun AirSports, LLC
>http://www.ultrafunairsports.com
>Challenger e-mail list
>http://challenger.inebraska.com
>Titan e-mail list
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Titanaircraft/
>
>
>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung <jrjungjr@yahoo.com>
>>
>> Group,
>>
>> These 912 guys, with all there travels are making me consider moving up
>> from two cycle. So, I went to the Kodiak sight that John H. mentioned
>> to check the differences between the UL & ULS. The ULS has always
>> sounded good with the exception of the higher fuel burn.
>>
>> Here is where I need some help. What is the correct way to estimate the
>> difference in fuel burn for two different engines on the same plane?
>> First I assumed that to fly the same speed, the same horsepower would
>> be needed. If I am reading the charts correctly, 5,000 rpm's on the UL
>> gives 74 hp and 5.6 gph. Then taking the 74 hp to the ULS chart, I find
>> 4,400 rpm and 4.1 gph. I think that this tells me that the ULS would
>> burn less gas pushing the same plane the same speed. But that is not
>> what I think that I have heard/read from the guys on the list flying
>> 912's.
>>
>> Oh, I tried using the same torque, but the difference were even more
>> extreme. I had the ULS burning 2 gph at 3,200 rpm to get the 78 ft lbs
>> of the UL at 5,000 rpm's an 5.6 gph.
>>
>> Are these charts bad or am I doing something wrong?
>>
>> John Jung
>> Firstar II N6163J
>> Surprise, AZ
>> do not archive
>>
>
>
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.pellien.com
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 vs 912S question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart@inebraska.com>
91 is as good as it gets around here.
J.D.
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "jim" <jim@pellien.com>
>
> JD,
>
> Were you using 91 or 93 octane autogas with the 912 ULS?
>
> Jim
>
> Jim Pellien
> Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
> www.MASPL.com
> 703-313-4818
> jim@sportsplanes.com
>
>
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Chris Mallory" <wcm@tampabay.rr.com>
Jim,
I will take some pictures of the ramp set up tomorrow and send them to you.
Basicly, it's just pressure treated 2X6 or 2x8 cut to a taper on both ends
with some shelving track from Home Depot screwed to the top of it for the
tail wheel to track in. It works great.
Chris Mallory
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ballenger" <ulpilot@cavtel.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Trailers
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Ballenger" <ulpilot@cavtel.net>
>
> Chris
> I am interested in the ramp you have put in the center of the trailer. Do
> you have a picture you could send me? I had a FS KXP that I kept in the
> trailer and had to take the wheels off the trailer and raise the tongue in
> order to prevent from scraping the LE of the folded wings when
> unloading/loading down my ramp door.
> Thanks
> Jim Ballenger
> MK III X 582
> Virginia Beach, VA
>
> Do Not Archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Mallory" <wcm@tampabay.rr.com>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Trailers
>
>
>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Chris Mallory" <wcm@tampabay.rr.com>
>>
>> lucien,
>>
>> I have a 24 ft. Haulmark that I keep my FSII in and it's been great, a
>> lot
>> of room inside. It's pretty heavy (3800 lbs) although it pulls nicely. I
>> would not recommend that you try to pull it with anything small however.
>>
>> You also have to make a "ramp" down the center of the trailer (inside) to
>> keep the leading edge of the wings from being scraped when loading and
>> unloading due to the angle change.
>>
>> I also have a small (2500 lb) ATV winch mounted in mine so all you have
>> to
>> do is set the tail wheel on the ramp, hook it up and push a button.
>>
>> If you decide to go that way I would be happy to show you more of what
>> I've
>> done to mine to accommodate the Firestar II.
>>
>> Photo enclosed.
>>
>> Chris Mallory
>>
>> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 912 vs 912S question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" <n79rt@kilocharlie.us>
J.D. I think he was trying to compare speed to speed, not RPM to RPM.
The 912S turning the same RPM as the 912 should be going faster (i.e.
doing more work) hence certainly should burn more gas. Do you remember
what speed the 912 was doing at say 4900 and then compare what rpm the
912S has to turn to get the same speed (should be less RPM's...I think
the question is if it will be less GPH)
Jeremy Casey
-----Original Message-----
From: J.D. Stewart [mailto:jstewart@inebraska.com]
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 912 vs 912S question
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart@inebraska.com>
On my Titan SS, I started with a 912 for the first 6 hours, then
switched
over to a 912S, so I can offer a good comparison. Same plane, same rpm
(4800~4900), I was getting 3.8gph with the 912, and am using 4.8gph with
the
912S. It didn't hurt that the 912 used regular gas either, especially
with
the cost of gas now.
J.D. Stewart
UltraFun AirSports, LLC
http://www.ultrafunairsports.com
Challenger e-mail list
http://challenger.inebraska.com
Titan e-mail list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Titanaircraft/
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 vs 912S question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
with the
| 912S. It didn't hurt that the 912 used regular gas either,
especially with
| the cost of gas now.
|
| J.D. Stewart
JD S/John J/Gang:
Looks good to me.
my 912UL on MKIII at 5,000 rpm burned 4.0 gph
my 912ULS on the same MKIII at 5,000 rpm burns 5.0 gph
I didn't find out about the 912 using a minimum of 87 octane fuel
until the weekend I traded it in to Ronnie Smith and attended the 912
school during the same weekend. Eric Tucker gave us that info after
flying with 93 octane for 1,135 hours, when I could have been running
the cheap stuff. Plugs last half as long in the 912S as the 912,
also.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
Titus, Alabama
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 vs 912S question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
|
| Jim
Jim/All:
Minimum octane fuel for 912ULS is 91 octane. Kinda hard to find any
place I have been in lower 48, canada, and alaska, so I opt for 93
when available. When not, I got for what the FBO sells, 100LL.
john h
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: English lessons ;-) |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
supposed to be spelled "AEROplane"!!!>.
Good grief!. How else would I spell it.? One would be unable to
savour(savor?) the flavour(flavor?) of the language otherwise. Doncha
know.!
Look me up when you make your next occasional visit to the UK
Pat
do not archive
--
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 vs 912S question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
> | Were you using 91 or 93 octane autogas with the 912 ULS?
>|
>| Jim
>
>Jim/All:
>
>Minimum octane fuel for 912ULS is 91 octane. Kinda hard to find any
>place I have been in lower 48, canada, and alaska, so I opt for 93
>when available. When not, I got for what the FBO sells, 100LL.
>
>john h
Hey John,
that's interesting, I was thinking about a 912ULS for my next project if it
should ever come to pass, but now that you mention this I might want to
stick with a 912 (so I can use the cheaper 87 octane gas)...
Also, why is the plug life shorter on the S?
Thanks,
LS
N646F
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 vs 912S question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
LS/All:
If I remember correctly from Eric Tucker and the 912 School, it is
because of the higher compression ratio, 10.5 to over the 912UL 9.5 to
1. 912ULS runs hotter and is harder on plugs. That is about all the
info I have on that subject. Based on 1,098.1 hours on my 912ULS,
they are ready to come out at 100 hours. I have pushed them to 125
hours, as I did the 912 to 225 hours, just to see what they would do.
No change in performance when replaced with new plugs in either model
as far as I could determine.
john h
PS: The extra power of the 912ULS is a kick in the ass over the 912.
Nice to have that extra power, even if I have to pay more for it. ;-)
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Prop ClearanceProp Clearance |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Michael Bigelow" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Changing the angle of your thrust line can fix pitch up and pitch down
tendencies for airplanes when the engines are mounted near the center of the
fuselage horizontal axis, such as a standard plane, or an airliner with tail
mounted engines.... But on a High mounted engine like the Kolb I dont think
changing the angle of thrust would do much to compensate for a high mounted
engine. With that setup, it seems that you will get the pitch down with
power no matter what you do. This is just my guess as far as the Kolb goes.
I have never tried this on a Kolb ultralight, the only thing I have ever
done this sort of thing with is on radio controlled airplanes...
Do Not Archive
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Monument Valley 2006 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL <Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil>
I will be there, with my 12-year old boy.
I am planning to trailer my Kolb there.
(and ready to receive a ration from John H fer doing it!)
And - I am willing to see even just a STATIC display of Big Lar's Vamoose!
Dennis Kirby
Mark-III, 912ul, Powerfin
Cedar Crest, NM
Do not archive
<html xmlns:o"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<span style'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>I will be there, with my 12-year old boy.
<span style'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>I am planning to trailer my Kolb there.
<span style'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>(and ready to receive a ration from John H fer doing it!)
<span style'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>And I am willing to see even just a STATIC display
of Big Lars Vamoose!
<span style'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>
<span style'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Dennis Kirby
<span style'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Mark-III, 912ul, Powerfin
<span style'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Cedar Crest, NM
<span style'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Do not archive
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "b young" <by0ung@brigham.net>
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
"Vamoose is almost done. This year for sure."
Did I read that somewhere ?? Once or twice ?? Lar.
Do not Archive.............this time.
------------------------
larry
if you are going to get the 40 hours flown off by may you best be geting a fire
lit and warm up your motivator.
boyd
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Thrust line change |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
We have a FSII with a 582 on it that notably changes trim settings
when power settings change. We will be changing the thrust angle to
see if it helps. Will post to the list if worthwhile.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
(Thread line changed)
do not archive
At 05:29 PM 12/9/2005, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Michael Bigelow" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
>
>Changing the angle of your thrust line can fix pitch up and pitch down
>tendencies for airplanes when the engines are mounted near the center of the
>fuselage horizontal axis, such as a standard plane, or an airliner with tail
>mounted engines.... But on a High mounted engine like the Kolb I dont think
>changing the angle of thrust would do much to compensate for a high mounted
>engine. With that setup, it seems that you will get the pitch down with
>power no matter what you do. This is just my guess as far as the Kolb goes.
> I have never tried this on a Kolb ultralight, the only thing I have ever
>done this sort of thing with is on radio controlled airplanes...
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 vs 912S question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" <snuffy@usol.com>
John,
> my 912UL on MKIII at 5,000 rpm burned 4.0 gph
At what airspeed?
> my 912ULS on the same MKIII at 5,000 rpm burns 5.0 gph
At what airspeed?
Do not archive
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thrust line change |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
|We will be changing the thrust angle to
| see if it helps. | Richard Pike
Richard P/Gang:
Experimentation was done on my Firestar and MKIII with little if no
change. Not enough to really notice. Changed vertical and horizontal
orientation of engine.
Also experimented with changing the leading edge of the upper vertical
stabilizer with not enough change to warrant messing with it.
Designed and fabricated adjustable forward horizontal stabilizer
mounts. Experimented with different settings to find the "sweet spot"
for my airplane.
The one thing I try to do on my airplane is keep the engine and thrust
line as low as possible. The more power available to me, the more I
want the thrust line low. I am no aerodynamic design engineer, but I
believe the more the engine is moved from the center of mass on a
pusher, the more power it is robbing to fly the aircraft. Imagine
what a 40 inch off set would do to my MKIII if it was horizontal, and
not vertical. Actually, the thrust line on my airplane is 36.75"
inches from the top of the tail boom. I don't know where the center
of mass is on my airplane. This gives me .75" clearance between prop
tips and tail boom. Yes, the 72" prop seems to be louder in the
cockpit than the previous 70" prop I was flying. The 70" prop gave me
1.75" clearance between prop tip and tail boom. Rather have less
noise and more performance, but the pusher configuration on the Kolbs
doesn't work that way.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 vs 912S question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
|
| At what airspeed?
|
| > my 912ULS on the same MKIII at 5,000 rpm burns 5.0 gph
|
| At what airspeed?
Snuffy/Gang:
I don't know. About the same. Maybe a little faster with the 912ULS.
I'll say 80 mph for the 912UL and 88 for the 912ULS.
Time is flying by so fast I can't keep up with it. Heck, been flying
the 912ULS 6 years this Spring.
john h
MKIII/912ULS
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thrust line change |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
First line of previous should have read, "little or no" instead of
"little if no" change.
john h
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thrust line change |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
If the engine front end was jacked up to about a 45 deg angle
and you have 300 hp you might have a REAL stol airplane.
Might have to relocate the tail feathers a touch for directional
stability.
-BB do not archive
On 9, Dec 2005, at 6:16 PM, Richard Pike wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
>
> We have a FSII with a 582 on it that notably changes trim settings
> when power settings change. We will be changing the thrust angle to
> see if it helps. Will post to the list if worthwhile.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> (Thread line changed)
>
> do not archive
>
> At 05:29 PM 12/9/2005, you wrote:
>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Michael Bigelow"
>> <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
>>
>> Changing the angle of your thrust line can fix pitch up and pitch down
>> tendencies for airplanes when the engines are mounted near the center
>> of the
>> fuselage horizontal axis, such as a standard plane, or an airliner
>> with tail
>> mounted engines.... But on a High mounted engine like the Kolb I
>> dont think
>> changing the angle of thrust would do much to compensate for a high
>> mounted
>> engine. With that setup, it seems that you will get the pitch down
>> with
>> power no matter what you do. This is just my guess as far as the
>> Kolb goes.
>> I have never tried this on a Kolb ultralight, the only thing I have
>> ever
>> done this sort of thing with is on radio controlled airplanes...
>>
>> Do Not Archive
>>
>>
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thrust line change |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
Agree with all you say, and we also have the prop tips (68" prop)
less than 1" from the tube... but here's the situation - have noticed
a difference in trim change with power settings, higher power
requires more back stick, less power and the noses rises a bit, and
since we are way over powered relative to the original design
parameters - since we are using a 582 - and what was the
Firestar originally designed for - a 447? (I really don't know) ...
Anyway, here's my question:
Are we more concerned with center of mass or center of drag? And
which is more important? The thrust line relative to the center of
mass or drag? I would think drag, at high speeds and high thrust situations.
If all the thrust you have to work with is coming from a 447 or a
503, and it is relative to the center of drag instead of mass, I
wonder if you have enough thrust available to get outside of what
Homer and Dennis originally designed the Firsetar to have, and
therefore, changing the thrust line with those engines (447/503)
would not amount to much -
On the other hand, with a 582, now you have more thrust than the
designers planned for, so is it possible to adjust the handling
characteristics for those situations which are now outside the
original parameters by changing the thrust line? Don't know. But
since all it takes is two bolts 3/8" longer than original, and a
handful of flat washers, I guess we'll find out... Stay tuned, film
at eleven...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
At 06:43 PM 12/9/2005, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
>
>|We will be changing the thrust angle to
>| see if it helps. | Richard Pike
>
>Richard P/Gang:
>
>Experimentation was done on my Firestar and MKIII with little if no
>change. Not enough to really notice. Changed vertical and horizontal
>orientation of engine.
>
>Also experimented with changing the leading edge of the upper vertical
>stabilizer with not enough change to warrant messing with it.
>
>Designed and fabricated adjustable forward horizontal stabilizer
>mounts. Experimented with different settings to find the "sweet spot"
>for my airplane.
>
>The one thing I try to do on my airplane is keep the engine and thrust
>line as low as possible. The more power available to me, the more I
>want the thrust line low. I am no aerodynamic design engineer, but I
>believe the more the engine is moved from the center of mass on a
>pusher, the more power it is robbing to fly the aircraft. Imagine
>what a 40 inch off set would do to my MKIII if it was horizontal, and
>not vertical. Actually, the thrust line on my airplane is 36.75"
>inches from the top of the tail boom. I don't know where the center
>of mass is on my airplane. This gives me .75" clearance between prop
>tips and tail boom. Yes, the 72" prop seems to be louder in the
>cockpit than the previous 70" prop I was flying. The 70" prop gave me
>1.75" clearance between prop tip and tail boom. Rather have less
>noise and more performance, but the pusher configuration on the Kolbs
>doesn't work that way.
>
>john h
>MKIII/912ULS
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Thrust line change |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: HShack@aol.com
In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:13:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
richard@bcchapel.org writes:
Are we more concerned with center of mass or center of drag? And
which is more important? The thrust line relative to the center of
mass or drag? I would think drag, at high speeds and high thrust situations.
If all the thrust you have to work with is coming from a 447 or a
503, and it is relative to the center of drag instead of mass, I
wonder if you have enough thrust available to get outside of what
Homer and Dennis originally designed the Firsetar to have, and
therefore, changing the thrust line with those engines (447/503)
would not amount to much -
On the other hand, with a 582, now you have more thrust than the
designers planned for, so is it possible to adjust the handling
characteristics for those situations which are now outside the
original parameters by changing the thrust line? Don't know. But
since all it takes is two bolts 3/8" longer than original, and a
handful of flat washers, I guess we'll find out... Stay tuned, film
at eleven...
There is a seaplane that has the engine mounted very high in a pod on a pylon
[I think it may be called a "Lake"]. To offset the very high thrust line,
the engine is tilted to give up-
thrust looks like about 20 degrees [this from memory].
We too have done some experimenting with various thrust angles with little
results, but maybe we didn't go far enough. Maybe we needed to go twice as far
as we did..............
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Thrust line change |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Christopher Armstrong" <tophera@centurytel.net>
>>>To offset the very high thrust line,
>>>the engine is tilted to give up-
>>>thrust looks like about 20 degrees [this from memory].
According to Thurston ( designer of the Teal, which is the root of the Lake
design) the cruciform tail was used to place it in the propwash, and the
lift on the tail varies directly with power input to counter pitching
effects due to power changes. I think you will find that the thrust line on
these planes is lined up with the cruise attitude of the plane. Parked on
the water they will look like they are pointing upwards a fair bit but when
flying they will not.
If you did alter thrust line on your Kolb to try to get it in line with the
center of gravity , The pitching moment due to thrust is the thrust times
the moment arm to the cg, not the Aero center. (Drag adds its moment as
drag times its moment arm to the cg but it doesn't change with thrust
setting, only with speed.) To change the thrust moment arm significantly
would require so much angle to get the effect you want that it would be
terrible for prop efficiency ( not to mention result in yaw due to the
higher aoa and velocity on the prop on one side of the plane versus the
other, p-factor in cruise is a very bad thing). The engine is fairly close
to the CG front to back so you would have to tilt the engine many degrees to
reduce the thrust line moment arm significantly. If the engine was farther
back then only a bit of angle change would reduce the thrust moment arm much
more. If you raise the engine too much the plane will not have enough pitch
control to overcome the pitch due to thrust and you will not be able to
rotate or climb.
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: DAquaNut@aol.com
In a message dated 12/9/2005 1:00:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ulpilot@cavtel.net writes:
I am interested in the ramp you have put in the center of the trailer. Do
you have a picture you could send me? I had a FS KXP that I kept in the
trailer and had to take the wheels off the trailer and raise the tongue in
order to prevent from scraping the LE of the folded wings when
unloading/loading down my ramp door.
Thanks
Jim Ballenger
Jim,
I built a dolly for my Firefly that cradles the tail wheel axle . It
raises the tail wheel about a foot or so. This gives good clearance at the back
where I need it most. The dolly holds the axle to where I can push the plane
up the incline of the tilted trailer. the dolly can be made to lift the tail
to what ever height you need. You might consider the advantage of using a
dolly to gain a little height. I couldn't make it without mine.
Ed
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: WillUribe@aol.com
Greetings,
I have posted these pictures before but for the new guys I will post them
again.
_http://members.aol.com/WillUribe/hanger/_
(http://members.aol.com/WillUribe/hanger/)
Regards,
Will
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DAquaNut@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Trailers
--> Kolb-List message posted by: DAquaNut@aol.com
In a message dated 12/9/2005 1:00:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ulpilot@cavtel.net writes:
I am interested in the ramp you have put in the center of the trailer. Do
you have a picture you could send me? I had a FS KXP that I kept in the
trailer and had to take the wheels off the trailer and raise the tongue in
order to prevent from scraping the LE of the folded wings when
unloading/loading down my ramp door.
Thanks
Jim Ballenger
Jim,
I built a dolly for my Firefly that cradles the tail wheel axle . It
raises the tail wheel about a foot or so. This gives good clearance at the
back
where I need it most. The dolly holds the axle to where I can push the
plane
up the incline of the tilted trailer. the dolly can be made to lift the
tail
to what ever height you need. You might consider the advantage of using a
dolly to gain a little height. I couldn't make it without mine.
Ed
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! --
|