---------------------------------------------------------- Kolb-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 12/21/05: 46 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:37 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Jung) 2. 03:15 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Jung) 3. 06:49 AM - "Don't Want to Become a Sport Pilot" (Jack B. Hart) 4. 06:51 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Denny Rowe) 5. 07:00 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Larry Bourne) 6. 07:32 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Richard Pike) 7. 07:38 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck) 8. 07:46 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck) 9. 07:48 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck) 10. 07:48 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (lucien stavenhagen) 11. 07:51 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck) 12. 07:52 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Larry Bourne) 13. 08:01 AM - Trailering A Kolb (gtalexander@att.net) 14. 08:02 AM - STE noise (Robert Laird) 15. 08:10 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Jeremy Casey) 16. 08:21 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (ray anderson) 17. 08:21 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck) 18. 08:34 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck) 19. 08:36 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (David Key) 20. 08:38 AM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck) 21. 08:51 AM - Re: STE noise (John Hauck) 22. 08:51 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (possums) 23. 08:52 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (lucien stavenhagen) 24. 09:24 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck) 25. 09:36 AM - engines (David Key) 26. 09:39 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (possums) 27. 09:41 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (lucien stavenhagen) 28. 09:57 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (robert bean) 29. 10:48 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Hauck) 30. 11:32 AM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (lucien stavenhagen) 31. 11:37 AM - Re: engines (Mhqqqqq@aol.com) 32. 11:39 AM - fuel contamination (robert bean) 33. 12:59 PM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Jeremy Casey) 34. 01:36 PM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Cooley) 35. 02:13 PM - 912ULS Weight With Accessories (John Hauck) 36. 02:55 PM - Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (John Jung) 37. 04:17 PM - Re: fuel contamination (Jack B. Hart) 38. 04:22 PM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Jack B. Hart) 39. 04:38 PM - Re: fuel contamination (ray anderson) 40. 05:11 PM - Buggy gas (Kirk Smith) 41. 05:22 PM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Larry Bourne) 42. 05:26 PM - Re: fuel contamination (Larry Bourne) 43. 06:00 PM - Re: Trailering A Kolb (Larry Bourne) 44. 06:39 PM - Re: Re: 912UL on a Firestar II (Dennis Souder) 45. 07:00 PM - Re: fuel contamination (John Hauck) 46. 07:11 PM - Re: Trailering A Kolb (Richard Swiderski) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:37:29 AM PST US From: John Jung Subject: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung Richard and Group, Richard wrote: The all up weight of a 912 with all that it takes to fly is around 168 lbs. I'm not sure, but I think their literature is much more "optimistic". Now, this is the kind of information that, if true, will make me give up the 912 Firestar idea. I think that I have heard weights like 168 before, and ruled out the 912 because of it. But Rotax says 132 pounds, and even CPS suggests an all up weight of 140. Have any of the 912 flyers on the list ever weighed your engines? What is the truth? John Jung Firestar II N6163J Surprise, AZ ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 03:15:14 AM PST US From: John Jung Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung Jeremy and Group, Thanks for your input. The HKS is an engine that I have considered. You mentioned a "DUC" prop that was "quiet". What does DUC stand for? I have always had an interest in keeping the noise down. The wind and the noise are two of the things that I have already improved on my Firestar, to be comfortable enough to cruise at 80. But quieter is always better, as long as the engine doesn't stop all noise. John Jung Firestar II N6163J Surprise, AZ > Jeremy wrote: > Never flown a HKS, but talked extensively with 2 gents that combined > had > approx. 1000 hours on them. They were flying Earthstar Gull 2000's > (Good bit cleaner then a Kolb ;-) Anyway they were absolutely smooth > as > silk and they were so quiet they were unnerving. (A lot of the "quiet" > can be attributed to the DUC prop they used, but the motor has a very > mellow tone to it...) > > By the way...the little single seat Gull saw an average 90mph at 2.2 > gph > and 100mph at 2.3 gph...this was averaged over a lot of flying from > Texas to Florida and back, not a hop around the pattern. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:49:29 AM PST US From: "Jack B. Hart" --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jack B. Hart" Subject: "Don't Want to Become a Sport Pilot" From December 2005, Sport Pilot, Page 72. "You might want to get rid of some of the gauges, too. All you really need is a yaw string; you can feel the wind in your face and see the ground. You're an ultralight pilot; you should be one with your vehicle...Zen... enjoying seat-of-pants, grassroots flying." I believe this is terrible advice. One of the quickest ways to put FAR Part 103 at risk is to increase the kill rate for grassroots 103 pilots. Wind in your face and seeing the ground is not adequate in that many will believe what they see over what they feel. The end result is a stall and nose into the ground when turning from down wind to base. The opposite condition leads to departure stalls. If instruments are available, observed and believed, both of these conditions are preventable. One can keep a radio and gps off the vehicle by wearing it, but it is difficult to do the same for airspeed, altitude, and rate of climb indicators, and cylinder head and exhaust gas temperature indicators. To fly without any of these puts the 103 pilot at greater risk. Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN EAA 45676 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:51:41 AM PST US From: "Denny Rowe" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Denny Rowe" John J and others, My opinion is to put in a John H style fuel tank to increase your range, and a 3.47 C- gearbox with a two or three blade 72" tapered Warp Drive prop to maximize performance. No doubt you will be able to cruise in the mid seventies with that setup. An HKS with the big reduction will give even better performance on less gas further increasing your range. It is beyond me why there is not a ton of Firestars zipping around with the HKS on em, I suppose it is the price, not enough yuppies flying FSs I guess. The 912 is a great engine and its smooth but Brother Pikes friend is pushing the limits with the 582 installation, and a 912 makes me real nervous, this is only a 5 inch wing spar you have there and pushing it along at 80mph year after year? Do what you want but Homer made it clear years ago that a 503 was the top limit on a FS, I just feel that the safety margins that he and the New Kolb gave us in these fine little aircraft are best left at our disposal, "not disposed of" Denny Rowe, Mk-3 N616DR ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:00:08 AM PST US From: "Larry Bourne" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" It's been well established, John. The 168# figure, or very close to it, is accurate. The lower number is for a stripped engine. Lar. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, CA Building Kolb Mk III N78LB Vamoose www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Jung" Subject: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II > --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung > > Richard and Group, > > Richard wrote: > The all up weight of a 912 with all that it takes to fly is around 168 > lbs. I'm not sure, but I think their > literature is much more "optimistic". > > Now, this is the kind of information that, if true, will make me give > up the 912 Firestar idea. I think that I have heard weights like 168 > before, and ruled out the 912 because of it. But Rotax says 132 pounds, ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:32:51 AM PST US From: Richard Pike Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike Our 582 FSII airframe has been modified by the addition of a subframe supporting the motor mounts, in order to deal with any extra engine torque. The 582 weighs less than the 503, only the radiator and coolant adds weight, and the radiator is attached to the substructure which reinforces the rear motor mounts. The airplane structure will not notice the extra power, and the extra weight consists primarily of the subframe and attached radiator, which with coolant is which is less than 9 pounds. The airplane has never been flown two up, there is no need for it, since there is a MKIII in the hangar, so it is always operated below the gross weight that Kolb lists. We use the same airspeeds on the FSII that Kolb calls for, the airspeed indicator is redlined at 90. Personally, I think the 503 is enough engine, but that's not the point here: I am curious as to how and why you think we are pushing the limits? Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) Denny Rowe wrote: >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Denny Rowe" > > >The 912 is a great engine and its smooth but Brother Pikes friend is pushing >the limits with the 582 installation, and a 912 makes me real nervous, this >is only a 5 inch wing spar you have there and pushing it along at 80mph year >after year? >Do what you want but Homer made it clear years ago that a 503 was the top >limit on a FS, I just feel that the safety margins that he and the New Kolb >gave us in these fine little aircraft are best left at our disposal, "not >disposed of" > >Denny Rowe, Mk-3 N616DR > > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:38:30 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" to it, is | accurate. The lower number is for a stripped engine. | Lar. Lar/Gang: Based on the following chart, taken directly off the Kodiak Reasearch Rotax Web Site, I don't see 168 lbs, unless it is the 914UL: 912UL 912 ULS 914UL KW/HP 60.4 81.0 73.5 100. 85.7 115.0 Items Kg. Lbs. Kg. Lbs. Kg. Lbs. Engine with carbs 55.0 121.2 56.6 124.7 64.0 141.1 Exhaust system 4.0 8.8 4.0 8.8 4.0 8.8 Airbox - - 1.3 2.9 - - Air filter(s) 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.4 Radiator 1.0 2.2 1.0 2.2 1.0 2.2 Oil Radiator 0.5 1.1 0.5 1.1 0.5 1.1 Engine truss assembly - - - - 2.0 4.4 Rectifier / regulator 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 Electric fuel pumps - - - - 0.7 1.5 External alternator - - - - 3.0 6.6 Installed weight 60.9 134.2 63.8 140.6 75.5 166.4 Weight to power 1.008 1.657 0.868 1.406 0.881 1.447 Kg/KW Lbs/HP Kg/KW Lbs/HP Kg/KW Lbs/HP I think we can reduce total weight even more, on the 912ULS: -2.9 lbs for airbox most of us do not have installed. -8.9 lbs for Rotax exhaust system. The STE system I am using probably does not weigh nearly what the Rotax system weighs: http://www.rick-thomason.com/ste_002.htm Wish I had weighed the STE system prior to installation. I need to remove it and use some anti-seize on the slip joints (that have not leaked nary a drop of white lead from 100LL) so it won't be so difficult to disassemble in the future. At that time I will try to remember to weigh it. Lar, what are you basing your above comments on? You said well established info. My installed weight is probably pretty close to what Rotax indicates in their chart, 140 lbs, but, alas, I have never weighed it. I might add, it does fly well though, and has been for 1,098.1 hours. And the 912UL flew well for 1,135.0 hours before the 912ULS. The 582 flew well for a couple hundred hours before it seized! Check out the lbs to HP between the 912ULS and 914UL. Pretty close. Take care, john h MKIII/912ULS hauck's holler, alabama ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:46:32 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" | >this is only a 5 inch wing spar you have there and pushing it along at 80mph year | >after year? Denny R/Gang: The 5" wing spar is actually an overkill. It will be the last thing to wear out on a Kolb. Some of the mathematicians can tell us what the difference is between the 5" and the 6" wing spar. Not only is the 6" an inch larger in diameter, when one figures out the math, I believe, it is several times stronger than the 5" spar. john h MKIII/912ULS N101AB ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:48:37 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" |I am curious as to how and why you think we are pushing the limits? | | Richard Pike Morning Richard P/Gang: Only pushing the limits if you are push the limits. Neat thing about our homebuilt/experimental program. Being able to do about anything we want to. john h N101AB MKIII ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:48:49 AM PST US From: "lucien stavenhagen" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" >My installed weight is probably pretty close to what Rotax indicates >in their chart, 140 lbs, but, alas, I have never weighed it. I might >add, it does fly well though, and has been for 1,098.1 hours. And the >912UL flew well for 1,135.0 hours before the 912ULS. The 582 flew >well for a couple hundred hours before it seized! Speaking of citing evidence, I'm curious: Is this experience with a 582 the basis for the claim you made a while ago that 2-strokes were much less reliable than 4-strokes? Just curious, Thanks, LS N646F ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 07:51:04 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" Reasearch | Rotax Web Site, I don't see 168 lbs, unless it is the 914UL: Hi Gang: Sorry about that. The chart I copied of the web site looked good on my copy of my reply, but certainly did not come out on the List copy the same way. Here's a url to the chart: http://www.kodiakbs.com/4intro.htm john h ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 07:52:28 AM PST US From: "Larry Bourne" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" Seems to me it was Dennis Souder who took a 912 off a Mk III years ago and weighed the Complete Running Package, with clamps, hoses, oil, radiator, etc. Maybe the weight was 167#, but I'm very sure my memory is correct, tho' I do poke fun at it at times. Does anyone else remember this ?? Lar. Do not Archive. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, CA Building Kolb Mk III N78LB Vamoose www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" > > to it, is > > Lar/Gang: > > Based on the following chart, taken directly off the Kodiak Reasearch > Rotax Web Site, I don't see 168 lbs, unless it is the 914UL: > > > 912UL ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 08:01:21 AM PST US From: gtalexander@att.net Subject: Kolb-List: Trailering A Kolb --> Kolb-List message posted by: gtalexander@att.net Kolb Folks: Have added Richard Swiderski's trailer images to the "Trailering a Kolb" web page. Go to: http://gtalexander.home.att.net Click on "Trailering a Kolb" (Richard.... if you see anything you want changed... let me know.) Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! George Alexander http://gtalexander.home.att.net DO NOT ARCHIVE Kolb Folks: Have added Richard Swiderski's trailer images to the "Trailering a Kolb" web page. Go to: http://gtalexander.home.att.net Click on "Trailering a Kolb" (Richard.... if you see anything you want changed... let me know.) Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! George Alexander http://gtalexander.home.att.net DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 08:02:56 AM PST US From: Robert Laird Subject: Kolb-List: STE noise --> Kolb-List message posted by: Robert Laird John H. -- I, too, have the STE exhaust on my 912S/MkIIIc ... I'm using the same headset I've comfortably used for years on different UL and experimental airplanes, and I'm finding the noise level is MUCH higher in the MkIIIc... Do you know if that's because of the STE exhaust, or because the 912S engine/prop is closer to me than it was in the other aircraft, or a combination, or ???? Last time out I used ear-plugs in addition to my headset, and that was audibly comfortable, but it made the radio much harder to hear, of course. I asked Rick Thomason whether he knew if after-mufflers would work on the STE, and he said he didn't know. What do you think? -- Robert ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 08:10:45 AM PST US From: "Jeremy Casey" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" Answer below: Jeremy and Group, Thanks for your input. The HKS is an engine that I have considered. You mentioned a "DUC" prop that was "quiet". What does DUC stand for? I have always had an interest in keeping the noise down. The wind and the noise are two of the things that I have already improved on my Firestar, to be comfortable enough to cruise at 80. But quieter is always better, as long as the engine doesn't stop all noise. John Jung Firestar II N6163J Surprise, AZ DUC prop info... http://www.duc-helices.com/anglais/windspoon.htm Mark Bierle of Earthstar aircraft tested (really tested...the guy is a genius.) about 30 props on his Gull aircraft and settled on the DUC. Have heard they are pricey...but the folks I've talked to that fly them wouldn't sell them back for twice the money. And here is the message I just got from the archives from Dennis Souder regarding 912 weight... Hi Group: Has anyone actually weighed a 912 all up, ready to go ?? >I've seen various quotations from l35 - 185 lbs. If you have the engine >equipped with starter, alternator, intake + exhaust, radiator, oil cooler, >fluids, hoses etc., what is the true life weight of the thing ?? Got into >a fairly spirited discussion recently. I figured around 175 lbs. and >darned near got shot by a true believer, who claimed 145 lbs. Wasn't sure >enough to get real spirited so eased off a bit, but I sure would like to >know for sure. Big Lar. > >Correct; 163 lbs is the weight of the 912 engine and all accessories with fluids - the 912 was taken from our SlingShot and I weighed it complete with motor mount which was 167 lb. I figured the motor mount weight about 4 lbs, hence the 163 figure. The scales I used typically underreport the weight by a couple pounds, so it is at least that much and possibly a bit more. The bare engine weighs a bit under 130 lbs., but those accessories do pile on the weight. This did not include the propeller. Dennis > _____ ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 08:21:35 AM PST US From: ray anderson Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson I'll ask the dumb question. If one wants the bigger engine, HP, speed, etc., why not sell the FS and get the Kolb designed to fulfill your need without all the hastle and probable danger of some of the things suggested? Probably cheaper in the long run. UltraStar ..... TN Do not archive Denny Rowe wrote: << Do what you want but Homer made it clear years ago that a 503 was the top limit on a FS, I just feel that the safety margins that he and the New Kolb gave us in these fine little aircraft are best left at our disposal, "not disposed of" >> Denny Rowe, Mk-3 N616DR ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 08:21:35 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" ago and | weighed the Complete Running Package, with clamps, hoses, oil, radiator, | etc. | Lar. Lar/Gang: The Rotax chart does not include coolant and oil weights which are about .6 gal coolant and 3.5 qts oil. I have never weighed one, and only have the info on the Rotax chart to go by. Can not verify correct or not. However, based on info from Rotax over many years, I have no reason to believe they would intentionally reduce actual weights. john h ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 08:34:51 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" | | Speaking of citing evidence, I'm curious: Is this experience with a 582 the | basis for the claim you made a while ago that 2-strokes were much less | reliable than 4-strokes? | | Just curious, | | Thanks, | LS LS/Gang: Not hardly. Since 1984, I have owned and flown with 4 different two strokes in my three Kolbs. Cuyuna ULII02 in the US, two 447's in the FS, and the 582 in the MKIII. Did a lot of cross country flying, back in the 80's with the FS. Required two 447's to keep me going so I would not miss flyins and shows. I kept one built and ready, on the bench, to install when needed. Haven't found that necessary, to have a spare built and ready to install, during the past 2,233.1 hours of flying the 912UL and 912ULS. Also flew two strokes for Kolb Aircraft and TNK for the past 15+ years. My own personal experience and observations of others, during 22 years of building and flying Kolb aircraft, are my basis for my belief that the 912 series 4 stroke is tremendously more reliable than the Rotax and other brands of two strokes. I believe if two stroke engines have tremendously more engine failures than the 912 series four stroke, then probably the 4 stroke is more reliable than a 2 stroke. Of course, this is only my own personal experience and opinion. Nothing else to back up these feelings. john h MKIII/912ULS 2,444.0 hours ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 08:36:53 AM PST US From: "David Key" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "David Key" Reliability between 2 and 4 strokes isn't neccessarly the issue I'm most concerned with. It has been my experience that when a 2 stroke engine goes it happens in less than a second. When a 4 stroke engine goes it happens over much more time. Its the time that I'm concerned with. I fly over popluated areas with no options. DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 08:38:38 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" accessories | with | fluids - the 912 was taken from our SlingShot and I weighed it complete | with | motor mount which was 167 lb. I figured the motor mount weight about 4 | lbs, | hence the 163 figure. The scales I used typically underreport the | weight by | a couple pounds, so it is at least that much and possibly a bit more. | The | bare engine weighs a bit under 130 lbs., but those accessories do pile | on | the weight. This did not include the propeller. | | Dennis Gang: I'll buy that. Maybe one of these days I will actually get around to weighing mine, if I find that task important enough to accomplish and have the means to accomplish it at the time the engine and all its accessories are off the aircraft. john h ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 08:51:39 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: STE noise --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" | -- Robert Robert L/Gang: Yes, your system is the first STE exhaust I saw and heard at MV last May. Sounded terrible. The right exhaust pipe is oriented about 45 degrees down. This causes the exhaust pulses of the 4 cyl 4 stroke engine to hit the advancing blades at just the right angle and timing to cause an irratic blade slapping sound. I knew mine was going to do the same thing when I installed it, and it did. Sounded like crap. Was going to remove the outlet pipes and replace with straight pipes. However, my Brother Jim told me to cut the tips at 45 degree angle, which I did, and which cured the ugly sound syndrome. Those silencers are built for the Pulsar. The silencers for the pusher configuration on the web site show straight outlet pipes. As far as noise, I believe 95% of what you are hearing is prop noise caused by the prop swinging in close proximity to aircraft parts. The 3 blade Warp Drive Prop on the Kolb Sport 600 tractor aircraft is extremely quiet, almost a whisper. MKIII's are noisy in the cockpit. I am having good luck with the DRE600 active noise canceling headset. Works great compared to the David Clarks I flew with for years. I can not wear ear plugs and hear the radio. Too damn deaf. I like my new exhaust system that I am testing. Put 30+ hours on it in 5 days on the flight to Texas the first of December. This system my perform a tad better than the Titan system. No hard facts to go on except fuel burn was down a little and I was flying primarily at 5,200 to 5,300 rpm for the entire flight. john h MKIII/912ULS ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 08:51:56 AM PST US From: possums Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: possums At 10:30 AM 12/21/2005, you wrote: >--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike > >Our 582 FSII airframe has been modified by the addition of a subframe >supporting the motor mounts, in order to deal with any extra engine >torque. They are putting one of the brand new Hearth engines - 70 HP on one of ours down here> Think it is this model engine http://www.aati.com.au/hirth/3503_engines.htm But the rear frame is modified and has 6in wing spars etc. Like mine. http://www.aati.com.au/hirth/3503_engines.htm ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 08:52:48 AM PST US From: "lucien stavenhagen" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" >LS/Gang: > > Not hardly. > >Since 1984, I have owned and flown with 4 different two strokes in my >three Kolbs. Cuyuna ULII02 in the US, two 447's in the FS, and the >582 in the MKIII. Did a lot of cross country flying, back in the 80's >with the FS. Required two 447's to keep me going so I would not miss >flyins and shows. I kept one built and ready, on the bench, to >install when needed. Haven't found that necessary, to have a spare >built and ready to install, during the past 2,233.1 hours of flying >the 912UL and 912ULS. > >Also flew two strokes for Kolb Aircraft and TNK for the past 15+ >years. > >My own personal experience and observations of others, during 22 years >of building and flying Kolb aircraft, are my basis for my belief that >the 912 series 4 stroke is tremendously more reliable than the Rotax >and other brands of two strokes. > >I believe if two stroke engines have tremendously more engine failures >than the 912 series four stroke, then probably the 4 stroke is more >reliable than a 2 stroke. > >Of course, this is only my own personal experience and opinion. >Nothing else to back up these feelings. I see. Ok, thanks very much for the info. However, I know you're quite insistent (and rightly so) that others back up their claims with specific evidence so I'm sure you wouldn't mind doing the same and citing some evidence of your claim that 2-strokes are significantly less reliable than 4-strokes. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to look that evidence over a little bit? Could you please list the various failures you've had with 2-strokes in the time you've owned/flown them? I'd be particularly interested in: - which engine model it was that exhibited the failure - what the failures were exactly - what was found to be the cause of the failures. - what preventative maintenance was undertaken before and afterwards to prevent the failures from reoccuring. - installation details, such as prop, gearbox and so on. I see you flew a Cayuna and the 447, 582. I'd be curious about your 503 experience as well... Thanks! LS N646F do not archive >john h >MKIII/912ULS >2,444.0 hours > > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 09:24:33 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" | | However, I know you're quite insistent (and rightly so) that others back up | their claims with specific evidence so I'm sure you wouldn't mind doing the | same and citing some evidence of your claim that 2-strokes are | significantly less reliable than 4-strokes. LS/Gang: I've backed up my claim enough to get my point across. If you think the two stroke is as reliable, or more so, than a 4 stroke, that is fine with me. My opinion is just the opposite, and that is simply what I am expressing, my own experience and opinion. I am not trying to change your opinion, nor are you going to change mine. More than enough time has been spent expressing mine. I can assure you, the next flight to Alaska, or Monument Valley, UT, and other places will be with a 912 and not a 582 or any other two stroke. After my first flight with the 912 on my MKIII, after flying it with the 582, there was no going back. The 912 changed the complete character/nature/feel of the MKIII. I had a new airplane after more than 200 hours of flying it with the 582. I can assure you, the rest of the Kolb List is getting as bored with this debate as I am. john h MKIII/912ULS DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 09:36:08 AM PST US From: "David Key" Subject: Kolb-List: engines --> Kolb-List message posted by: "David Key" In my experience is that when a two stroke engine dies it happens in less than a second while when a 4 stroke engines dies it takes much longer. I have a ton of experience with it but mostly with Kawasaki Engines. I run a lawn maintenacnce company and it happens all the time. Every month an engine dies on one of the trailers, we always have an extra two stroke but the 4-strokes can usually make it till the end of the day. When the two strokes die we are replacing them with 4 strokes and so is the rest of the industry. I don't care about lawns when I'm flying, just want to be able to set it down in a good field which might take more than a spit second to find. >From: "lucien stavenhagen" >Reply-To: kolb-list@matronics.com >To: kolb-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II >Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:52:30 +0000 > >--> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" > > > >LS/Gang: > > > > Not hardly. > > > >Since 1984, I have owned and flown with 4 different two strokes in my > >three Kolbs. Cuyuna ULII02 in the US, two 447's in the FS, and the > >582 in the MKIII. Did a lot of cross country flying, back in the 80's > >with the FS. Required two 447's to keep me going so I would not miss > >flyins and shows. I kept one built and ready, on the bench, to > >install when needed. Haven't found that necessary, to have a spare > >built and ready to install, during the past 2,233.1 hours of flying > >the 912UL and 912ULS. > > > >Also flew two strokes for Kolb Aircraft and TNK for the past 15+ > >years. > > > >My own personal experience and observations of others, during 22 years > >of building and flying Kolb aircraft, are my basis for my belief that > >the 912 series 4 stroke is tremendously more reliable than the Rotax > >and other brands of two strokes. > > > >I believe if two stroke engines have tremendously more engine failures > >than the 912 series four stroke, then probably the 4 stroke is more > >reliable than a 2 stroke. > > > >Of course, this is only my own personal experience and opinion. > >Nothing else to back up these feelings. > >I see. Ok, thanks very much for the info. > >However, I know you're quite insistent (and rightly so) that others back up >their claims with specific evidence so I'm sure you wouldn't mind doing the >same and citing some evidence of your claim that 2-strokes are >significantly less reliable than 4-strokes. > >So, if you don't mind, I'd like to look that evidence over a little bit? > >Could you please list the various failures you've had with 2-strokes in the >time you've owned/flown them? I'd be particularly interested in: > >- which engine model it was that exhibited the failure >- what the failures were exactly >- what was found to be the cause of the failures. >- what preventative maintenance was undertaken before and afterwards to >prevent the failures from reoccuring. >- installation details, such as prop, gearbox and so on. > >I see you flew a Cayuna and the 447, 582. I'd be curious about your 503 >experience as well... > >Thanks! > >LS >N646F > >do not archive > > > >john h > >MKIII/912ULS > >2,444.0 hours > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 09:39:38 AM PST US From: possums Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: possums > >I can assure you, the rest of the Kolb List is getting as bored with >this debate as I am. > >john h >MKIII/912ULS > >DO NOT ARCHIVE Not me and Larry - right Larry? ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 09:41:18 AM PST US From: "lucien stavenhagen" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" >LS/Gang: > >I've backed up my claim enough to get my point across. > >If you think the two stroke is as reliable, or more so, than a 4 >stroke, that is fine with me. My opinion is just the opposite, and >that is simply what I am expressing, my own experience and opinion. Oh ok, thanks very much for clearing this up...... I see now, though. See, I thought you were making a fully substantiated claim that 4-strokes were "tremendously more reliable" than 2-strokes, not merely offering an opinion that's based on little if any personal experience with a supposed unreliability of the 2-stroke motor.... My mistake! I was beginning to wonder why after 6 copies of the 503 and 2 copies of the 447 over 700+ flying hours over the last 7 years or so I had had only one engine out (on the 447 due to a poor wiring job on my part) and otherwise years and years of trouble-free flying withou so much as a hiccup. I was wondering if wasn't doing something wrong..... But that would appear not to have been the case, fortunately for me! I guess I'm still good to go with my FSII! Thanks again for the clarification! LS N646F do not archive ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 09:57:03 AM PST US From: robert bean Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean Yeah! me, I'm lovin' it . (whutza 2 stroke?) cheep and lazy BB do not archive On 21, Dec 2005, at 12:36 PM, possums wrote: > --> Kolb-List message posted by: possums > > >> >> I can assure you, the rest of the Kolb List is getting as bored with >> this debate as I am. >> >> john h >> MKIII/912ULS >> >> DO NOT ARCHIVE > > Not me and Larry - right Larry? > > ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 10:48:39 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" copies of the | 447 over 700+ flying hours over the last 7 years or so I had had only one | engine out (on the 447 due to a poor wiring job on my part) and otherwise | years and years of trouble-free flying withou so much as a hiccup. I was | wondering if wasn't doing something wrong..... | | LS LS/Gang: Said I was going to drop this one, but possum and BB made me do it. 8 engines in 700+ hours and 7+ years. Am I understanding this correctly? Looks like that works out to about an engine every year or less, and less than 100 hours per engine. Doesn't seem like you gave your two strokes time to get broken in, much less hiccup. You have me beat on that one. I've been flying four strokes since April 1994, with two 912's that have accumulated 2,211.7 hours. Would still be flying the original 912UL, but got a chance to get a new 912ULS, a deal I could not turn down. Also have to admit, the 912UL hiccupped and quit on me twice because of contaminated fuel. Had I drained and checked fuel, it would have a perfect record like the 912ULS. All my fault for neglecting my job as PIC. Other than the two hiccups, I can honestly say neither engine has ever quit running except once when I got the idle jets on the 912ULS iced up on short final to Toad River, BC, 30 June 2000, or when I turn the key to the off position. Reminds me of a short period in the life of the 912UL when I couldn't shut the engine down. Seems the wires inside the "P" leads going into the ign modules corroded on the inside. One module's "P" lead seperated inside the insulation and could not ground it out to shut down that side. Took a lot of detective work to find that one. john h DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 11:32:37 AM PST US From: "lucien stavenhagen" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "lucien stavenhagen" >LS/Gang: > >Said I was going to drop this one, but possum and BB made me do it. > >8 engines in 700+ hours and 7+ years. Am I understanding this >correctly? > >Looks like that works out to about an engine every year or less, and >less than 100 hours per engine. Doesn't seem like you gave your two >strokes time to get broken in, much less hiccup. Actually, no, the Rotaxen break in pretty much fully by about 15 hours run time. As for your math, it's ok, but the conclusion is a little more complex than you're making it out to be. For most of the time, I"ve been fortunate to own two planes at once and not all of those motors were bought new. Several were run very high-time. Here's a quick rundown if you're interested (hope I havn't left any of them out): The first was an old points 503 (non-provision) that was on my first quicksilver. It's actual age/no. of hours was unknown when I bought it but it was well over 300 hours and lots of rust. I put about 100 hours on it with no problems before I finally replaced it with a new one when I rebuilt the plane (in 99' I believe). Corrosion was the main concern here. I never even checked the points! 2nd motor was the new one I put on that particular plane when I rebuilt it. It now has about 400 hours on it without failure of any kind - I put 220 of those hours on it, the several new owners of the plane since have added the rest. It still flies into my airport from time to time which is why I know this about it. Still runs great. 3rd motor was the 447 that originally came on my trike. I bought it with what I thought was about 150 hours on it, I put about another 100 hours on it before replacing it with another 447 as a safety precaution (since I didn't know its history and it was getting a little bit tired). I flew the new one for 100 hours before I had my engine-out (pilot error). At that time, I also wanted to put a faster wing on the trike which required the 503. since I also wanted the dual ignition, I went ahead and replaced that 447 with another new 503. This 447 is still flying for its new owner in a Starlite, hours are unknown at this point. 4th motor was that new 503 in the trike. I flew it about 200 hours before selling the machine last year to get my Firestar. That one is still going, getting near 300 hours or so now without problems. 5th motor is the one currently on my PPC. It's at about 160 hours now, all internal clearances were measured as still within practically new limits when it came down for resealing at 120 hours. 6th motor was the 503 that was on my Firestar II when I bought it. It ran for 454 hours total over a period of 8 years, with only a set of new rings at 396 hours. It siezed at 6 hours for the original builder due to a carburettor problem leading to a lean run. After that, it ran perfectly up until I took it off and replaced it back in June. The only reason I took it out of service was due to corrosion concerns due to its age. 7th motor is my current 503 on my FS II. Right about at 50 hours now TTSN with no problems whatsoever. Hope that's all of em? So several of the motors I've run were very high time and I still got nominal results with them. This experience jives very well with the field experience of most other Rotax 2-stroke owners (air cooled motors anyway). Surely enough running of these engines to determine whether they drop out of the sky on a regular basis or not. And they do seem to crank props pretty good. I will say, though, that of the Rotaxen, the 582 turns out to be a bit less unreliable, particularly when run hard. The crankshaft appears to be the main weakness on it, mostly it looks like it's a little underbuilt - a local has already gone through 3 cranks on his 582 in the space of about 400 hours. The water cooling has also caused some problems with cold siezures and so on. So its record isn't quite as good. But in my experience and the experience of others with the Rotaxen, the 447 and 503 are about the best 2-strokes on the market. when it comes to cranking a prop at continuous high power levels for hundreds and hundreds of hours, the Rotaxen are really the only ones with a proven track record of really being able to do it. So again, like with anything else, there're your myths and there're your facts. I can confidently say that Rotax 2-strokes dropping out of the sky on a regular basis is a myth. Acceptable reliability at cranking props, though, is a fact. FWIW, LS N646F do not archive. ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 11:37:06 AM PST US From: Mhqqqqq@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: engines --> Kolb-List message posted by: Mhqqqqq@aol.com in my experience with 2 cycle engines (starting with snowmobiles back in the 70's) the 2 cycle engine runs great when it is running lean, then dies fast. you need to give them a little extra gas to keep them cool. the gas is part of the cooling system in the 2 cycle engine. I run my egt's at 1,100 or less. I have been flying for 11 years and no engine has been damaged in that time. I had a plug wire come off and some bad gas once, a fuel line plugged so I had a few unplanned landings, but I don't fly over anything I can't glide over or land on. Mark twinstar s.e.minnesota ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 11:39:34 AM PST US From: robert bean Subject: Kolb-List: fuel contamination --> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean Kolbers, I got to thinking recently about Norm's crash and fuel contamination. The report mentioned bug guts. Wondering if, despite due care for clean fuel, He got chunks in the gas from a spot easily overlooked. The vent system. We go nuts installing redundant filters and gascolators and yet the vent sits there inviting intruders and nesters. Mine is especially out of mind, going out the belly. I do occasionally stick something up a few inches into it and blow through it. -but bugs work fast. A spider or a mud dauber (dobber for youse southerners) can fill a small tube in a short time. I think a simple remedy like a small filter tip would be a help. -suggestions? -BB ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 12:59:52 PM PST US From: "Jeremy Casey" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jeremy Casey" I can assure you, the rest of the Kolb List is getting as bored with this debate as I am. john h MKIII/912ULS DO NOT ARCHIVE We're not tired of it...we're all eagerly awaiting the SEAFOAM discussion scheduled to start next... (tongue firmly in cheek) Jeremy Casey P.S. Never had a 2 stroke quit on me, but guarantee, given inhospitable terrain and the choice to be flying any 2 stroke on the planet or a 912, I'll be thanking you for the keys to the 912 powered machine any day... Yep...another opinion based on non-factual, non-scientific, purely circumstantial evidence... ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 01:36:10 PM PST US From: "John Cooley" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Cooley" Hi Gang, I dont usually get to contribute anything worthwhile, but since I have a 912S with most everything mounted on it in the shop I decided I would weigh it and report back and hopefully contribute something useful. My engine has a beefier than stock motor mount, it is 3/8" thick and I believe the stock mount is 1/4" thick, and a custom built aluminum prop extension. The oil cooler and radiator are mounted to the engine in a fairly lightweight fashion with custom built brackets. All the radiator and oil cooler hoses are attached. The only thing that wasn't attached when I weighted the engine was the oil tank. It also includes the weight of a Titan S/S exhaust system. About the only other weights to add would be the oil tank weight (maybe 2 lbs), fluid weights and prop weight. I believe the scales to be fairly accurate and they showed a weight of 161 pounds. This should be pretty close to most applications on Kolb's. The motor mounts may be a pound more (just a guess) and the prop extension is aluminum and probably slightly lighter weight than most of the steel units used. Hope this helps some. Take care, John Cooley -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Hauck Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" accessories | with | fluids - the 912 was taken from our SlingShot and I weighed it complete | with | motor mount which was 167 lb. I figured the motor mount weight about 4 | lbs, | hence the 163 figure. The scales I used typically underreport the | weight by | a couple pounds, so it is at least that much and possibly a bit more. | The | bare engine weighs a bit under 130 lbs., but those accessories do pile | on | the weight. This did not include the propeller. | | Dennis Gang: I'll buy that. Maybe one of these days I will actually get around to weighing mine, if I find that task important enough to accomplish and have the means to accomplish it at the time the engine and all its accessories are off the aircraft. john h -- -- ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 02:13:18 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Kolb-List: 912ULS Weight With Accessories --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" of 161 | pounds. | Take care, | John Cooley Hi John C/Gang: Now I don't have to weigh my engine will all the assorted stuff attached. I believe your engine is the one you bought from John R in Rome, GA. If so, then his mounts and mine are identical. That's cause he made me a set of 3/8" mounts when I aquired my 912ULS in 2000. I can tell you, because I weighed them last night, two sets of Titan exhaust minus the #4 exhaust tube weighs 23 lbs. So the exhaust system alone weighs pretty close to 12 lbs, not counting the 4 springs. I believe the new STE system is lighter, but I do not know how much until the next time I remove the exhaust system and remember to weigh it. Might be able to get an answer from Rick Thomason, the gentleman that designed the system for Pulsars. Take care and merry Xmas everyone, john h MKIII/912ULS ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 02:55:29 PM PST US From: John Jung Subject: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung John C. and Group, Thank you, John Cooley! The numbers are not what I wanted to hear, but they pretty much back up Dennis's information to the list. I just can't see putting a 160 pound engine on my Firestar. Without any other weight information, I am going to give up on the idea. John Jung Firestar II N6163J Surprise, AZ --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Cooley" I believe the scales to be fairly accurate and they showed a weight of 161 pounds. This should be pretty close to most applications on Kolb's. ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 04:17:57 PM PST US From: "Jack B. Hart" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: fuel contamination --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jack B. Hart" At 02:39 PM 12/21/05 -0500, you wrote: >--> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean >a spot easily overlooked. The vent system. >We go nuts installing redundant filters and gascolators and yet the vent >sits there inviting intruders and nesters. Mine is especially out of >mind, >going out the belly. I do occasionally stick something up a few inches >into it and blow through it. -but bugs work fast. A spider or a mud >dauber >(dobber for youse southerners) can fill a small tube in a short time. >I think a simple remedy like a small filter tip would be a help. >-suggestions? >-BB Bob, Most bugs like to breath fresh air just like we do. If there is fuel in the system, it would be difficult for a bug to build a nest and to close off the vent tube. The heavy fuel vapor will flush all the oxygen out of the tube. This is not true for dynamic and static pressure vents. If you are uncomfortable, it is fairly simple to make a vent cover just like one used on the airspeed probe for a fuel vent. Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 04:22:37 PM PST US From: "Jack B. Hart" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jack B. Hart" At 03:55 PM 12/21/05 -0700, you wrote: >--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Jung > >John C. and Group, > >Thank you, John Cooley! The numbers are not what I wanted to hear, but >they pretty much back up Dennis's information to the list. I just can't >see putting a 160 pound engine on my Firestar. Without any other weight >information, I am going to give up on the idea. > >John Jung >Firestar II N6163J >Surprise, AZ John, If you have not already done it, you can extend range by cleaning up your Firestar II. It does not cost much in weight to fair in everything. If you don't reach the range or speed you want, you can always go back to the idea of adding hp. But you will need less of it to reach your goal. Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN do not archive ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 04:38:33 PM PST US From: ray anderson Subject: Re: Kolb-List: fuel contamination --> Kolb-List message posted by: ray anderson Never underestimate the ability of a bug to travel to unexpected places. Some years back I bought a new Suzuki 650 bike. Rode it for a week or two and kept having trouble with the carb not keeping adjustment, or so it seemed. I finally opened it up and found a large multicolored beetle type bug interfering with the metering system. It obviously got into the system in Japan at the factory. Had fascinating colors I had never seen in an American bug. UltraStar ... TN Do Not Archive "Jack B. Hart" wrote: --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jack B. Hart" At 02:39 PM 12/21/05 -0500, you wrote: >--> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean >a spot easily overlooked. The vent system. >We go nuts installing redundant filters and gascolators and yet the vent >sits there inviting intruders and nesters. Mine is especially out of >mind, >going out the belly. I do occasionally stick something up a few inches >into it and blow through it. -but bugs work fast. A spider or a mud >dauber >(dobber for youse southerners) can fill a small tube in a short time. >I think a simple remedy like a small filter tip would be a help. >-suggestions? >-BB Bob, Most bugs like to breath fresh air just like we do. If there is fuel in the system, it would be difficult for a bug to build a nest and to close off the vent tube. The heavy fuel vapor will flush all the oxygen out of the tube. This is not true for dynamic and static pressure vents. If you are uncomfortable, it is fairly simple to make a vent cover just like one used on the airspeed probe for a fuel vent. Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 05:11:49 PM PST US From: "Kirk Smith" Subject: Kolb-List: Buggy gas --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirk Smith" No bugs in the vents? http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2003/sp0305.html Do not archive ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 05:22:44 PM PST US From: "Larry Bourne" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" You pickin' on me again ?? Thought we was buds. Lazy Lar. Do not Archive. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, CA Building Kolb Mk III N78LB Vamoose www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "possums" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II > --> Kolb-List message posted by: possums > > >> >>I can assure you, the rest of the Kolb List is getting as bored with >>this debate as I am. >> >>john h >>MKIII/912ULS >> >>DO NOT ARCHIVE > > Not me and Larry - right Larry? > > > ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 05:26:42 PM PST US From: "Larry Bourne" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: fuel contamination --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" I think you're absolutely right, and it's a h... of a good idea. I'll copy it, for sure. Vamoose might even fly......some year. Do not Archive. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, CA Building Kolb Mk III N78LB Vamoose www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "robert bean" Subject: Kolb-List: fuel contamination > --> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean > > dauber > (dobber for youse southerners) can fill a small tube in a short time. > I think a simple remedy like a small filter tip would be a help. > -suggestions? > -BB > > > ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 06:00:25 PM PST US From: "Larry Bourne" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Trailering A Kolb --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" ????? Do not Archive. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, CA Building Kolb Mk III N78LB Vamoose www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Kolb-List: Trailering A Kolb > --> Kolb-List message posted by: gtalexander@att.net > > > Kolb Folks: > Have added Richard Swiderski's trailer images to the "Trailering a Kolb" > web page. > Go to: > http://gtalexander.home.att.net > Click on "Trailering a Kolb" > > (Richard.... if you see anything you want changed... let me know.) > > Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! > ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 06:39:21 PM PST US From: "Dennis Souder" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dennis Souder" Lar, Yes it was 165 or so lbs. This included everything, just as it came off a SlingShot: the rotax radiator, oil cooler, muffler, motor mount and all liquids. I forget if the prop was on when it was weighed or not. Dennis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Bourne" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" > > Seems to me it was Dennis Souder who took a 912 off a Mk III years ago and > weighed the Complete Running Package, with clamps, hoses, oil, radiator, > etc. Maybe the weight was 167#, but I'm very sure my memory is correct, > tho' I do poke fun at it at times. Does anyone else remember this ?? > Lar. Do not Archive. > > Larry Bourne > Palm Springs, CA > Building Kolb Mk III > N78LB Vamoose > www.gogittum.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Hauck" > To: > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: 912UL on a Firestar II > > > > --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" > > > > | It's been well established, John. The 168# figure, or very close > > to it, is > > | accurate. The lower number is for a stripped engine. > > | Lar. > > > > Lar/Gang: > > > > Based on the following chart, taken directly off the Kodiak Reasearch > > Rotax Web Site, I don't see 168 lbs, unless it is the 914UL: > > > > > > 912UL > > ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 07:00:53 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: fuel contamination --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" fuel in the | system, it would be difficult for a bug to build a nest and to close off the | vent tube. The heavy fuel vapor will flush all the oxygen out of the tube. | | Jack B. Hart FF004 | Winchester, IN Hi Jack H/Gang: Not particularly true in all cases. I have a vent line on a 55 gal aux diesal tank in the old Dodge/Cummins that gets plugged regularly by fanatic Alabama mud daubers. However, have never had a problem with the vent line on my MKIII that is venting combinations of 93 and 100LL fumes continously. As far as bugs in the fuel tank, a good finger strainer in the outlet helps keep them out of the fuel filter. john h MKIII/912ULS hauck's holler, alabama ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 07:11:18 PM PST US From: "Richard Swiderski" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Trailering A Kolb --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Swiderski" Wow George, you are amazing! -Richard S -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gtalexander@att.net Subject: Kolb-List: Trailering A Kolb --> Kolb-List message posted by: gtalexander@att.net Kolb Folks: Have added Richard Swiderski's trailer images to the "Trailering a Kolb" web page. Go to: http://gtalexander.home.att.net Click on "Trailering a Kolb" (Richard.... if you see anything you want changed... let me know.) Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! George Alexander http://gtalexander.home.att.net DO NOT ARCHIVE Kolb Folks: Have added Richard Swiderski's trailer images to the "Trailering a Kolb" web page. Go to: http://gtalexander.home.att.net Click on "Trailering a Kolb" (Richard.... if you see anything you want changed... let me know.) Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! George Alexander http://gtalexander.home.att.net DO NOT ARCHIVE