Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:23 AM - Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Dave Bigelow)
2. 04:53 AM - Re: Tie Down Suggestions (Rick Pearce)
3. 05:02 AM - Dirt in the exhaust (Edward Steuber)
4. 05:13 AM - Re: Re: MkIII, suzuki G10 (robert bean)
5. 05:17 AM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Eugene Zimmerman)
6. 06:11 AM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Richard Pike)
7. 06:12 AM - Re: Re: MkIII, suzuki G10 (Michael Sharp)
8. 06:39 AM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (robert bean)
9. 06:52 AM - Re: Microlight Championships (TheWanderingWench)
10. 07:12 AM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Richard Pike)
11. 07:29 AM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (David Lehman)
12. 07:57 AM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Jim Baker)
13. 08:13 AM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (Jim Hauck)
14. 08:27 AM - Re: Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 (pat ladd)
15. 02:15 PM - Emailing: PICT0024 (pat ladd)
16. 02:36 PM - Re: Emailing: PICT0024 (John Hauck)
17. 02:48 PM - Re: Emailing: PICT0024 (Ron)
18. 03:43 PM - Re: Emailing: PICT0024 (Dave & Eve Pelletier)
19. 06:30 PM - 912's and 100LL (John Hauck)
20. 08:33 PM - Re: 912's and 100LL (Richard Pike)
21. 08:44 PM - Re: 912's and 100LL (John Hauck)
22. 10:55 PM - Aug Fly-In (WADE LAWICKI)
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: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave Bigelow" <up_country@hotmail.com>
Thanks for all the positive feedback and brainstorming. Here's my take on two
of the ideas presented:
Turning one engine around and using belt drives to drive concentric drive shafts
to counter-rotating props is an elegant solution, and I'm sure it would work.
The thing that bothers me about this method goes back to the original design
criterion, that being to fly on one engine when the other "craps" out. If one
of those belts fails (and they do), it would most likely go through both of
the counter-rotating props and take them both out. Perhaps the belts could be
enclosed or guarded somehow.
Changing the prop direction on one engine by reversing the engine might cut the
interferance. You would have to modify the timing plate inside the flywheel
so the ignition advance would be correct for the change in rotation. Right now,
the sparks come at some number of degrees before top dead center, and if you
just reversed the direction of rotation, the sparks would come at the same number
of degrees after top dead center. The engine might run with that degree
of retardation, but wouldn't have much power.
Every solution I can come up with seems to bring a whole new set of problems.
I think I just have to look in the mirror and tell the guy there, "You blew a
lot of work and money on that one - move on!"
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=43694#43694
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: Tie Down Suggestions |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Rick Pearce" <rap@isp.com>
I saw a home made version of the claw made with 3/16"stainless steel air
craft cable. Had a center ring with three 1 foot runners with collars with
rings weld to them. Works on same principal as the claw pull up on the
center just puts the angle driven rods in a bind.
Rick Pearce Mark3 amphib
do not archieve
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:25 PM
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
>
> This this link out, it will take you to Sporty's
> Pilot Shop they sell the Claw Die Down lit -
> weighs 8#, comes with the 3 claw mechanisms,
> hammer, stakes, rope,carrying bag. I had heard
> these work good, but haven't used one myself. I
> would think they should be able to ship it
> priority express or mail where you have them fairly quick.
> jerb
>
> http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?Product_ID=10258&DID=19
>
> At 09:20 AM 6/14/2006, you wrote:
> >--> Kolb-List message posted by:
> >TheWanderingWench <thewanderingwench@yahoo.com>
> >
> >Hi folks,
> >
> >I just joined the list - after having an incredible
> >adventure joining the Monument Valley Kolber's a few
> >weeks ago. Met many wonderful folks, who didn't seem
> >to care at all that I had flown in (from Oregon) in a
> >single seat Maxair Drifter instead of in a Kolb. They
> >treated me like I was human anyway! :>)
> >
> >On the flight, I lost my fantastically light titanium
> >tie downs. I can't get another pair now, and I'm
> >leaving for the EAA Airshow at Arlington, WA in a few
> >weeks, so need to get some soon.
> >
> >Do any of you have a set of tie downs that you like?
> >Suggestions and contact information for obtaining tie
> >downs would be appreciated. Weight and size are a
> >factor for me, since everything has to be strapped
> >down and I already am carrying all my camping gear,
> >extra parts, etc. (I don't have a ground crew when I
> >fly.)
> >
> >Thanks -
> >
> >Arty Trost
> >Sandy, Oregon
> >
> >
> >
> >www.LessonsFromTheEdge.com"Life's a daring
> >adventureor
> >nothing" Helen Keller"I
> >refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Dirt in the exhaust |
Thanks to everyone that replied about the dirt in the exhaust....With
all the comments weighed carefully , I am going to pull the exhaust and
see what may have happened...I'll let you all know what I find !
Ed in Western NY
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MkIII, suzuki G10 |
I agree with the 4 cylinder being inappropriate for the FSII.
-and even the 3 cylinder would look a bit conspicuous sticking up tall.
There is a lay down sideways version available that would have
a better cosmetic effect.
You have to consider though, that you could carry 5 gallons of gas
instead of 10 for a savings of 30 lbs.
-BB, southern weather up here now but thankfully at the perimeter
of the deluge.
On 28, Jun 2006, at 11:43 PM, HShack@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/28/2006 2:10:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> orcabonita@hotmail.com writes:
>> The Suzuki engine seems like a really great alternative for the
>> Kolbs.- They are cheap to get, parts are cheap and plentiful, and
>> fuel consumption is very low.- It will be neat to see how they work
>> out on the MK-3's and how their reliability is.--
>>
>> If the 4 cylinder weighs only 15 pounds more than the 3 cylinder
>> engine, I would think that the 4 cylinder would be better even for
>> the Firestar.- A lot more power and a lot less vibration for only
15
>> pounds seems like a real bargain to me.
>>
>> Mike-
> -
> Geez, about 4 years ago I checked out the 3 cyl. to go on my FS II &
> determined it was just too heavy.- The 4 cyl. must run close to 150+
> lbs.- Besides the weight, at somewhere around 70 hp, youd hacw to
beef
> up the cage.
> -
> -
> -
> Howard Shackleford
> FS II
> SC
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: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62@earthlink.net>
Reversing the rotation on a two-stroke is not as simple as just
changing the ignition timing.
Sure, a two-stroke can be caused to run backwards but making equal
power in the opposite direction will require changing the cylinder
ports to the opposite side also.
Because normally the crankshaft acts as a rotator of the fuel/air
charge in the crankcase providing a supercharger effect to throw the
fuel/air charge towards the open intake port side of the cylinder.
Changing the rotation will cause the fuel/air charge to be thrown
towards the opposite side of the crankcase away from the intake port
side. This greatly hinders the ability of the engine to "breathe"
properly.
On Jun 29, 2006, at 5:21 AM, Dave Bigelow wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave Bigelow"
> <up_country@hotmail.com>
>
> Thanks for all the positive feedback and brainstorming. Here's my
> take on two of the ideas presented:
>
> Turning one engine around and using belt drives to drive concentric
> drive shafts to counter-rotating props is an elegant solution, and
> I'm sure it would work. The thing that bothers me about this
> method goes back to the original design criterion, that being to
> fly on one engine when the other "craps" out. If one of those
> belts fails (and they do), it would most likely go through both of
> the counter-rotating props and take them both out. Perhaps the
> belts could be enclosed or guarded somehow.
>
> Changing the prop direction on one engine by reversing the engine
> might cut the interferance. You would have to modify the timing
> plate inside the flywheel so the ignition advance would be correct
> for the change in rotation. Right now, the sparks come at some
> number of degrees before top dead center, and if you just reversed
> the direction of rotation, the sparks would come at the same number
> of degrees after top dead center. The engine might run with that
> degree of retardation, but wouldn't have much power.
>
> Every solution I can come up with seems to bring a whole new set of
> problems. I think I just have to look in the mirror and tell the
> guy there, "You blew a lot of work and money on that one - move on!"
>
> --------
> Dave Bigelow
> Kamuela, Hawaii
> FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=43694#43694
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
One more idea before you decide to throw in the towel - The Rotax A
drive gearbox relied on an adapter plate to mate the gearbox to the
engine. If you could mate a gearbox to the Hirth, then you would get
your prop turning the other way.
Or just substitute a Rotax 277 with gearbox for one of the Hirths? The
277 makes 28 hp.
(Easy for me to say, since you are the one spending the money...)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Dave Bigelow wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave Bigelow" <up_country@hotmail.com>
>
> Thanks for all the positive feedback and brainstorming. Here's my take on two
of the ideas presented:
>
> Turning one engine around and using belt drives to drive concentric drive shafts
to counter-rotating props is an elegant solution, and I'm sure it would work.
The thing that bothers me about this method goes back to the original design
criterion, that being to fly on one engine when the other "craps" out. If
one of those belts fails (and they do), it would most likely go through both
of the counter-rotating props and take them both out. Perhaps the belts could
be enclosed or guarded somehow.
>
> Changing the prop direction on one engine by reversing the engine might cut the
interferance. You would have to modify the timing plate inside the flywheel
so the ignition advance would be correct for the change in rotation. Right
now, the sparks come at some number of degrees before top dead center, and if
you just reversed the direction of rotation, the sparks would come at the same
number of degrees after top dead center. The engine might run with that degree
of retardation, but wouldn't have much power.
>
> Every solution I can come up with seems to bring a whole new set of problems.
I think I just have to look in the mirror and tell the guy there, "You blew
a lot of work and money on that one - move on!"
>
> --------
> Dave Bigelow
> Kamuela, Hawaii
> FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=43694#43694
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: MkIII, suzuki G10 |
I'm in the middle of the conversion, Zuki 1.3L 4cyl. The engine block less intake,
exhaust and flywheel weighs in at 118# I'm figuring that the all in weight
is going to be about 175# give or take...
Mike
HShack@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/28/2006 2:10:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, orcabonita@hotmail.com
writes:
The Suzuki engine seems like a really great alternative for the Kolbs. They
are cheap to get, parts are cheap and plentiful, and fuel consumption is very
low. It will be neat to see how they work out on the MK-3's and how their reliability
is.
If the 4 cylinder weighs only 15 pounds more than the 3 cylinder engine, I would
think that the 4 cylinder would be better even for the Firestar. A lot more
power and a lot less vibration for only 15 pounds seems like a real bargain to
me.
Mike
Geez, about 4 years ago I checked out the 3 cyl. to go on my FS II & determined
it was just too heavy. The 4 cyl. must run close to 150+ lbs. Besides the
weight, at somewhere around 70 hp, youd hacw to beef up the cage.
Howard Shackleford
FS II
SC
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
Push-pull?????
do not archive
On 29, Jun 2006, at 9:08 AM, Richard Pike wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
>
> One more idea before you decide to throw in the towel - The Rotax A
> drive gearbox relied on an adapter plate to mate the gearbox to the
> engine. If you could mate a gearbox to the Hirth, then you would get
> your prop turning the other way.
> Or just substitute a Rotax 277 with gearbox for one of the Hirths? The
> 277 makes 28 hp.
> (Easy for me to say, since you are the one spending the money...)
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> Dave Bigelow wrote:
>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave Bigelow"
>> <up_country@hotmail.com>
>>
>> Thanks for all the positive feedback and brainstorming. Here's my
>> take on two of the ideas presented:
>>
>> Turning one engine around and using belt drives to drive concentric
>> drive shafts to counter-rotating props is an elegant solution, and
>> I'm sure it would work. The thing that bothers me about this method
>> goes back to the original design criterion, that being to fly on one
>> engine when the other "craps" out. If one of those belts fails (and
>> they do), it would most likely go through both of the
>> counter-rotating props and take them both out. Perhaps the belts
>> could be enclosed or guarded somehow.
>>
>> Changing the prop direction on one engine by reversing the engine
>> might cut the interferance. You would have to modify the timing
>> plate inside the flywheel so the ignition advance would be correct
>> for the change in rotation. Right now, the sparks come at some
>> number of degrees before top dead center, and if you just reversed
>> the direction of rotation, the sparks would come at the same number
>> of degrees after top dead center. The engine might run with that
>> degree of retardation, but wouldn't have much power.
>>
>> Every solution I can come up with seems to bring a whole new set of
>> problems. I think I just have to look in the mirror and tell the guy
>> there, "You blew a lot of work and money on that one - move on!"
>>
>> --------
>> Dave Bigelow
>> Kamuela, Hawaii
>> FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=43694#43694
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Microlight Championships |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: TheWanderingWench <thewanderingwench@yahoo.com>
Rob -
Go to www.usua.org for all the details. I've never
participated but have several friends who have, and
they say you really get hooked.
Arty
--- jeepacro@cox.net wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: <jeepacro@cox.net>
>
> Hi all, I was reading the Ulralightflying
> magazine today and saw that the US National Micro
> light championship competitors will perform task and
> contests that are designed according to world class
> specs. What are the task's and contests? Has
> anyone on the list participated? Did you like it?
> Thanks in advance
> --
> Rob.
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
www.LessonsFromTheEdge.com
"Life's a daring adventure or nothing"
Helen Keller
"I refuse to tip toe through life just to arrive safely at death."
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
No - On the Kolblist website you can see he has two 28 hp engines
mounted side by side a couple feet apart. Replace one of the Hirth
engines with a geared Rotax 277, and then one prop turns one way, the
other prop turns the other. Or put a gearbox on one of the Hirths, and
then that prop turns the opposite direction from the other engine. (Belt
drive, the prop turns the same rotation as the engine, but with gearbox,
the prop turns opposite from engine rotation) He keeps his same basic
setup, but eliminates the problem caused by both props turning the same way.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
robert bean wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
>
> Push-pull?????
>
> do not archive
> On 29, Jun 2006, at 9:08 AM, Richard Pike wrote:
>
>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
>>
>> One more idea before you decide to throw in the towel - The Rotax A
>> drive gearbox relied on an adapter plate to mate the gearbox to the
>> engine. If you could mate a gearbox to the Hirth, then you would get
>> your prop turning the other way.
>> Or just substitute a Rotax 277 with gearbox for one of the Hirths?
>> The 277 makes 28 hp.
>> (Easy for me to say, since you are the one spending the money...)
>>
>> Richard Pike
>> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>>
>> Dave Bigelow wrote:
>>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave Bigelow"
>>> <up_country@hotmail.com>
>>>
>>> Thanks for all the positive feedback and brainstorming. Here's my
>>> take on two of the ideas presented:
>>>
>>> Turning one engine around and using belt drives to drive concentric
>>> drive shafts to counter-rotating props is an elegant solution, and
>>> I'm sure it would work. The thing that bothers me about this method
>>> goes back to the original design criterion, that being to fly on one
>>> engine when the other "craps" out. If one of those belts fails (and
>>> they do), it would most likely go through both of the
>>> counter-rotating props and take them both out. Perhaps the belts
>>> could be enclosed or guarded somehow.
>>>
>>> Changing the prop direction on one engine by reversing the engine
>>> might cut the interferance. You would have to modify the timing
>>> plate inside the flywheel so the ignition advance would be correct
>>> for the change in rotation. Right now, the sparks come at some
>>> number of degrees before top dead center, and if you just reversed
>>> the direction of rotation, the sparks would come at the same number
>>> of degrees after top dead center. The engine might run with that
>>> degree of retardation, but wouldn't have much power.
>>>
>>> Every solution I can come up with seems to bring a whole new set of
>>> problems. I think I just have to look in the mirror and tell the
>>> guy there, "You blew a lot of work and money on that one - move on!"
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Dave Bigelow
>>> Kamuela, Hawaii
>>> FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=43694#43694
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
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: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
Or fly a Kolb Flyer...
On 6/29/06, Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org> wrote:
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
>
> No - On the Kolblist website you can see he has two 28 hp engines
> mounted side by side a couple feet apart. Replace one of the Hirth
> engines with a geared Rotax 277, and then one prop turns one way, the
> other prop turns the other. Or put a gearbox on one of the Hirths, and
> then that prop turns the opposite direction from the other engine. (Belt
> drive, the prop turns the same rotation as the engine, but with gearbox,
> the prop turns opposite from engine rotation) He keeps his same basic
> setup, but eliminates the problem caused by both props turning the same
> way.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> robert bean wrote:
> > --> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
> >
> > Push-pull?????
> >
> > do not archive
> > On 29, Jun 2006, at 9:08 AM, Richard Pike wrote:
> >
> >> --> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
> >>
> >> One more idea before you decide to throw in the towel - The Rotax A
> >> drive gearbox relied on an adapter plate to mate the gearbox to the
> >> engine. If you could mate a gearbox to the Hirth, then you would get
> >> your prop turning the other way.
> >> Or just substitute a Rotax 277 with gearbox for one of the Hirths?
> >> The 277 makes 28 hp.
> >> (Easy for me to say, since you are the one spending the money...)
> >>
> >> Richard Pike
> >> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
> >>
> >> Dave Bigelow wrote:
> >>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave Bigelow"
> >>> <up_country@hotmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for all the positive feedback and brainstorming. Here's my
> >>> take on two of the ideas presented:
> >>>
> >>> Turning one engine around and using belt drives to drive concentric
> >>> drive shafts to counter-rotating props is an elegant solution, and
> >>> I'm sure it would work. The thing that bothers me about this method
> >>> goes back to the original design criterion, that being to fly on one
> >>> engine when the other "craps" out. If one of those belts fails (and
> >>> they do), it would most likely go through both of the
> >>> counter-rotating props and take them both out. Perhaps the belts
> >>> could be enclosed or guarded somehow.
> >>>
> >>> Changing the prop direction on one engine by reversing the engine
> >>> might cut the interferance. You would have to modify the timing
> >>> plate inside the flywheel so the ignition advance would be correct
> >>> for the change in rotation. Right now, the sparks come at some
> >>> number of degrees before top dead center, and if you just reversed
> >>> the direction of rotation, the sparks would come at the same number
> >>> of degrees after top dead center. The engine might run with that
> >>> degree of retardation, but wouldn't have much power.
> >>>
> >>> Every solution I can come up with seems to bring a whole new set of
> >>> problems. I think I just have to look in the mirror and tell the
> >>> guy there, "You blew a lot of work and money on that one - move on!"
> >>>
> >>> --------
> >>> Dave Bigelow
> >>> Kamuela, Hawaii
> >>> FS2, Rotax 503 DCDI
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Read this topic online here:
> >>>
> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=43694#43694
>
--
"Attitude is everything ~ pick a good one"...
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
If one of those belts fails (and they do), it would most likely go
through both of the counter-rotating props and take them both
out. Perhaps the belts could be enclosed or guarded somehow.
Belts? Belts??? We doan need no steenking belts!!! Wonder
what the ratio of that big ring gear would be driving another
gear? A whole other set of problems now......backlash/chatter
among them. Unless one were to soft couple the driven gear on
the shaft.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
Who says you have to mount the engines on top of the wings? The creator
of the Kolb Flying Machine who has a bunch of multi-engine experience in
ultralights always mounts his multi-engines below the wing. Must be a
big reason why he does this.
Ed, may pay for you to spend a dime and call Homer and have a chat with
him about multi-engines.
He may save you a bunch of grief and dollars
Jim Hauck
Do not archive
>
>
>
>
=========================
==========
>
=========================
==========
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: Twin Engine Firestar 2 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
eliminates the problem caused by both props turning the same way.>>
Hi,
didn`t the Wright Bros, whom some say flew first, just cross the drive
belts.
Cheers
Pat
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: | Emailing: PICT0024 |
Hi all,
I expect that I have got this wrong and sent the whole shebang instead
of the couple of pics which I intended to send. Nevertheless in there
somewhere are one or two pics of me and the new Xtra.
If the whole lot has been sent then there are pics of Wendy in Mick
Moulai`s machine as well..
I expect someone will tell me how do do it properly.
Cheers
Pat
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: | Re: Emailing: PICT0024 |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Nevertheless in there somewhere are one or two pics of me and the
new Xtra.
Pat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat:
Will it fly?
Good looking bird!
john h
mkIII
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Emailing: PICT0024 |
All I see is just one picture, which is nice. Do you have more, I'd like to
see all of them including the inside of your cage and the instrument pod.
Ron
Arizona
_____
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of pat ladd
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:12 PM
Hi all,
I expect that I have got this wrong and sent the whole shebang instead of
the couple of pics which I intended to send. Nevertheless in there
somewhere are one or two pics of me and the new Xtra.
If the whole lot has been sent then there are pics of Wendy in Mick Moulai`s
machine as well..
I expect someone will tell me how do do it properly.
Cheers
Pat
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: | Re: Emailing: PICT0024 |
Congratulations...she's a fine looking bird.
AzDave
----- Original Message -----
From: pat ladd
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:12 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Emailing: PICT0024
Hi all,
I expect that I have got this wrong and sent the whole shebang
instead of the couple of pics which I intended to send. Nevertheless
in there somewhere are one or two pics of me and the new Xtra.
If the whole lot has been sent then there are pics of Wendy in Mick
Moulai`s machine as well..
I expect someone will tell me how do do it properly.
Cheers
Pat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Hi Folks:
Did an oil change day before I left for Monument Valley. After 65
hours time for another oil change. That was 65 hours with a steady
diet of 100LL except for 15 or 20 gal of auto fuel at MV and again at
Larry Cottrell's. About 300 gals of 100LL.
When I did the oil change I also took the oil tank apart and cleaned
it out. Was amazed at the amount of lead in the bottom of the tank
and suspended in the oil. A couple fuel stops and my fresh oil had
already turned that sickly grey color of lead. I run Valvoline 20W50
Durablend, semi-synthetic oil when I fly cross countries because the
organic oil suspends lead much better than full synthetic. Don't do a
lot of local flying anymore, so Durablend is what I have been running
most of the time.
When I am home a lot where I can run a steady diet of 91 octane or
higher, I use Shell Rotella Full Synthetic 5W40. Manufactured
primarily for diesels, I run organic Rotella in my diesels and gas
engines. Full Synthetic Rotella is available at Wal-Mart and is
nearly half the price of Mobil I full synthetic.
I also get the Durablend at Wal-Mart along with a TG 5614 Fram oil
filter.
Was fun flying around the local area with nothing on board but 5 gal
fuel and me. No wind and a short time prior to dark. Amazing
airplane when it is light. Too bad I can not build a light mkIII.
hehehe
john h
mkIII
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's and 100LL |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <richard@bcchapel.org>
No problem, you can fly mine anytime you want to.
It is not as light as it might be, but it feels like it is.
And I would be honored.
(And I understand about the "building lighter airplanes" thing. I have
been working on getting my old J-6 airworthy again so my buddy's widow
can sell it, and wondering, "Why did I put all this extra junk in it?")
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
do not archive
John Hauck wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> <snip> Too bad I can not build a light mkIII.
> hehehe
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: 912's and 100LL |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Appreciate the offer.
I did get to fly in your mkIII several years ago.
Richard has a unique airstrip, as a lot of us Kolbers enjoy. The large power transmission
lines and towers certainly get ones attention taking off and landing.
Not to mention the down hill T/O and up hill landing.
john h
mkIII
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=43870#43870
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 |
|
Group,
Fly-In Aug 12-13 Near middle Tn. overnight camping, all welcome.
still have not met alot of you guys E-mail me or check funflite.com for location.
Wade
FS2 #1030
do not archive
---------------------------------
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! --
|