Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:11 AM - Re: max EGT (Richard Pike)
2. 07:16 AM - Re: Towing The Kolb (Dave & Eve Pelletier)
3. 09:01 AM - Prop Effency (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
4. 09:46 AM - Re: max EGT (Eugene Zimmerman)
5. 11:16 AM - Re: Prop Effency (Richard Pike)
6. 11:20 AM - Re: Mark III Classic vs. Mark III Xtra (Chris Wolf)
7. 11:23 AM - Re: Re: Towing The Kolb (Chris Wolf)
8. 11:29 AM - Re: Towing The Kolb (Chris Wolf)
9. 12:49 PM - Re: Looking For A Plane To Trailer (pat ladd)
10. 12:52 PM - Videos (possums)
11. 01:30 PM - Re: Prop Effency (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
12. 01:39 PM - Re: Prop Effency (John Hauck)
13. 02:14 PM - Re: Prop Effency (John Hauck)
14. 02:35 PM - plans (ron wehba)
15. 02:41 PM - Re: Looking For A Plane To Trailer (Dave & Eve Pelletier)
16. 02:55 PM - Re: Looking For A Plane To Trailer (robert bean)
17. 04:25 PM - Re: Looking For A Plane To Trailer (Chris Wolf)
18. 04:29 PM - Re: Looking For A Plane To Trailer (Chris Wolf)
19. 04:32 PM - Re: Looking For A Plane To Trailer (Chris Wolf)
20. 04:34 PM - Re: Looking For A Plane To Trailer (Gene Ledbetter)
21. 05:17 PM - Re: Looking For A Plane To Trailer (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
22. 07:45 PM - Plane To Trailer (ElleryWeld@AOL.COM)
23. 09:51 PM - Re: First solo yesterday (jimhefner)
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 |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Pike" <richard@bcchapel.org>
I think that would be why your fuel burn was so high and the performance was
so weak. IMO, a 68" three blade on a 582 is way too much prop for good
efficiency. To get the engine to run right, you have to take a lot of pitch
out of the blades, and you end up with a climb prop (in effect) even though
it is in flight adjustable. I am using a 2 blade 68" Ivo, so imagine how
much more pitch I am running compared to your 3 blade 68" at an equivilent
rpm. If you had used your in flight adjust to try and add enough pitch to
get it to cruise well, then surely you would be using 5 gallons per hour,
because your prop load at an equal pitch to what I am using would be 33%
higher.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell@fmtcblue.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: max EGT
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell@fmtcblue.com>
<snip>
>
> The Mark III had a three blade IVO in-flight adjustable 68 inch.
<snip>
> Larry, Oregon
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Towing The Kolb |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier@cableone.net>
> I have two areas of concern. The first is wind. Ever have any problems
> with wind side gusts? I suppose an enclosed trailer, long enough to
> contain a 24' Kolb, would be heavy enough that the weight of the plane
> would be immaterial.
My trailer is very light. Been in all kinds of wind gusts and it's never
been a problem with my RV. Now there are times I've pulled it with my
Cherokee or Ranger and I've felt the gusts - sort of a tail wagging the dog
situation. Don't know that I've ever been in any real bad ones with the
vehicles and it's never been much of a problem, just gotta stay on top of
it. Been in really serious dust storms and gusts with the RV/trailer combo
but the RV is heavy enough to handle the trailer with no problem at all.
> My second concern is finding RV campgrounds able to accommodate such a
> long
> setup.
Can't help you on that one. I rarely stay in campgrounds and can't remember
staying in one with the trailer. I usually get to where I'm going in one
day and stay at the fields, dry lakes, etc., where I'm flying. On a couple
of occasions when I had the trailer I found gas stations/convenience stores
that let me stay in the back.
AzDave
Do Not Archive
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
Richard
I changed the Subject
Prop efficiency is at least partly related to how fast the prop has to
accelerate the air it is moving to get thrust. A small prop has to
accelerate the air allot more to get its thrust and gets a smaller
percentage of the input power changed into thrust. A large prop moves more
air so it will need to accelerate the air less and gets more thrust for the
same power. Now a prop with more blades is less efficient than one with less
but is less pronounced than the, large verses small prop differences.
You are right that as you increase the volume of air that you move with a
prop for the same power the speed range that the prop produces thrust gets
smaller. At some point when increasing the prop area diameter, blade cord,
and number of blades you have to pitch for climb or cruise. The advantage of
a in flight adjustable prop is that doesn't have to stay at one setting it
can get more thrust in both climb and cruise.
I don't think that the high fuel consumption is a result of the additional
prop blade in this case unless he is cruising allot faster.
I base my claims on observations I have made on my airplane with two
identical engines one turning a two bladed 60 inch prop at 3200 RPM and the
other turning a three bladed 72 inch prop at 2000 RPM with a 1.61 to one
reduction. The thrust is almost double for the larger prop. The trade off is
that I have had to pitch for cruise. The up side is that I get more cruise
speed 75MPH vs 65MPH and much better climb in spite of lower climb engine
RPMs. My fuel consumption and the engine temps are a bit less with the
larger slower turning prop flying faster.
Last night in the cool 45 degree air I was able to keep my big VW cool at
higher power levels than I can normally sustain. I did some low level flying
like we have to do going into Oshkosh (well maybe a bit lower) but last
night the air was smooth and I was able to fly 85-90 MPH at 3600-3700RPM on
the engine. Popping up over woods and tree lines at these power levels and
speed is breathtaking. I suspect I was seeing power close to what you guys
with the 100HP Rotes get wow what a kick. I'm tempted to do some better
cooling work on the engine and maybe move the oil cooler to get more air
flow. Well maybe not, It keeps me from over stressing my engine???
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pike" <richard@bcchapel.org>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: max EGT
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Pike" <richard@bcchapel.org>
>
> I think that would be why your fuel burn was so high and the performance
> was so weak. IMO, a 68" three blade on a 582 is way too much prop for good
> efficiency. To get the engine to run right, you have to take a lot of
> pitch out of the blades, and you end up with a climb prop (in effect) even
> though it is in flight adjustable. I am using a 2 blade 68" Ivo, so
> imagine how much more pitch I am running compared to your 3 blade 68" at
> an equivilent rpm. If you had used your in flight adjust to try and add
> enough pitch to get it to cruise well, then surely you would be using 5
> gallons per hour, because your prop load at an equal pitch to what I am
> using would be 33% higher.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Eugene Zimmerman <etzim62@earthlink.net>
I agree with Richard.
The advise of Reverend Pike could enhance the efficiency of your
cruise ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as well as the enjoyment of your destination. <g>
On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Richard Pike wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Pike" <richard@bcchapel.org>
>
> I think that would be why your fuel burn was so high and the
> performance was so weak. IMO, a 68" three blade on a 582 is way too
> much prop for good efficiency. To get the engine to run right, you
> have to take a lot of pitch out of the blades, and you end up with
> a climb prop (in effect) even though it is in flight adjustable. I
> am using a 2 blade 68" Ivo, so imagine how much more pitch I am
> running compared to your 3 blade 68" at an equivilent rpm. If you
> had used your in flight adjust to try and add enough pitch to get
> it to cruise well, then surely you would be using 5 gallons per
> hour, because your prop load at an equal pitch to what I am using
> would be 33% higher.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Cottrell"
> <lcottrell@fmtcblue.com>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: max EGT
>
>
>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Cottrell"
>> <lcottrell@fmtcblue.com>
> <snip>
>>
>> The Mark III had a three blade IVO in-flight adjustable 68 inch.
> <snip>
>> Larry, Oregon
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Prop Effency |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Pike" <richard@bcchapel.org>
I mostly agree with you but I think there are a couple factors involved.
Since you are using a VW and he & I a small displacement 2 stroke 582, you
have a huge torque advantage when it comes to turning a larger prop. And
from your post, it sounds like you have a great engine combination.
I was thinking about this whole deal a couple hours ago while out mowing the
airstrip, (last time this year!) and back before my current 582, I had a 532
on my MKIII. I had bought it from a guy in our EAA chapter who had it on a
Zenair CH701. Zenair has persuaded him to put a 72" two blade Ivo on that
poor 532, and while it certainly accelerated and took off quick, he was
always flying it around at 6,200 rpm and only about 60 mph, because in order
to get the engine to turn up, he had to take all the pitch out of it. And he
burned over 5 gph. It was like the ultimate climb prop, but that was it's
only useful function.
Now what if it had been an inflight adjustable prop? I think as soon as he
would have cranked in more pitch, the engine would simply have slowed down,
and the airplane would probably not have speeded up any, if at all, because
there is no way the engine could have pulled that much prop with any sort of
normal amount of pitch in it. Now obviously this is an extreme example, but
I think that is what happens when you put a 3 blade 68" prop on a 582, and
then attempt to compensate for too much prop by changing pitch, it is still
too much prop. You can't get the speed, but you do increase prop load, and
correspondingly high fuel burn.
When I owned that same 532, Ivo told me to use a 64" 3 blade prop, and it
was too much prop. As John and I bantered about yesterday, a 532 is very
pipey, and with the 3 blade 64" pitched to give any sort of decent cruise,
the 532 given half a chance, would fall off the pipe. The only way it worked
right was to have shallow pitch, and then I had to cruise at 5,800 rpm at
about 60 mph. I took away one blade and it worked great as a 2 blade 64"
Went to a 2 blade 66", and it still worked great. Sold the 532 and got a 582
and it works great with a 2 blade 68". Good acceleration & climb, good speed
spread, and low rpm cruise.
I am not any great aerodynamicist, (probably didn't even spell it right) but
between a lot of trial and error, and thinking about the results, this is
how I think it works. Obviously subject to change, correction and
instruction.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:59 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Prop Effency
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha Neilsen"
> <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
>
> Richard
>
> I changed the Subject
>
> Prop efficiency is at least partly related to how fast the prop has to
> accelerate the air it is moving to get thrust. A small prop has to
> accelerate the air allot more to get its thrust and gets a smaller
> percentage of the input power changed into thrust. A large prop moves more
> air so it will need to accelerate the air less and gets more thrust for
> the same power. Now a prop with more blades is less efficient than one
> with less but is less pronounced than the, large verses small prop
> differences.
>
> You are right that as you increase the volume of air that you move with a
> prop for the same power the speed range that the prop produces thrust gets
> smaller. At some point when increasing the prop area diameter, blade cord,
> and number of blades you have to pitch for climb or cruise. The advantage
> of a in flight adjustable prop is that doesn't have to stay at one setting
> it can get more thrust in both climb and cruise.
>
> I don't think that the high fuel consumption is a result of the additional
> prop blade in this case unless he is cruising allot faster.
>
> I base my claims on observations I have made on my airplane with two
> identical engines one turning a two bladed 60 inch prop at 3200 RPM and
> the other turning a three bladed 72 inch prop at 2000 RPM with a 1.61 to
> one reduction. The thrust is almost double for the larger prop. The trade
> off is that I have had to pitch for cruise. The up side is that I get more
> cruise speed 75MPH vs 65MPH and much better climb in spite of lower climb
> engine RPMs. My fuel consumption and the engine temps are a bit less with
> the larger slower turning prop flying faster.
>
> Last night in the cool 45 degree air I was able to keep my big VW cool at
> higher power levels than I can normally sustain. I did some low level
> flying like we have to do going into Oshkosh (well maybe a bit lower) but
> last night the air was smooth and I was able to fly 85-90 MPH at
> 3600-3700RPM on the engine. Popping up over woods and tree lines at these
> power levels and speed is breathtaking. I suspect I was seeing power close
> to what you guys with the 100HP Rotes get wow what a kick. I'm tempted to
> do some better cooling work on the engine and maybe move the oil cooler to
> get more air flow. Well maybe not, It keeps me from over stressing my
> engine???
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Pike" <richard@bcchapel.org>
> To: <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 10:09 AM
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: max EGT
>
>
>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Pike" <richard@bcchapel.org>
>>
>> I think that would be why your fuel burn was so high and the performance
>> was so weak. IMO, a 68" three blade on a 582 is way too much prop for
>> good efficiency. To get the engine to run right, you have to take a lot
>> of pitch out of the blades, and you end up with a climb prop (in effect)
>> even though it is in flight adjustable. I am using a 2 blade 68" Ivo, so
>> imagine how much more pitch I am running compared to your 3 blade 68" at
>> an equivilent rpm. If you had used your in flight adjust to try and add
>> enough pitch to get it to cruise well, then surely you would be using 5
>> gallons per hour, because your prop load at an equal pitch to what I am
>> using would be 33% higher.
>>
>> Richard Pike
>> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>
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: Mark III Classic vs. Mark III Xtra |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Chris Wolf <cwolf41@comcast.net>
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:47:22 -0400, Todd Fredricks wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: Todd Fredricks <flyingfox@copper.net>
>
>Here is my two bits:
>
>I am 6'3" and weigh 250 pounds.
My long-lost twin brother!
>I have sat in both the Classic and Mark IIIX.
>The Classic is 'cozy'. Once in you have plenty of head room but your feet
>are definitely tight and I mean that to the point where I didn't feel as if
>I had the space for good free controllability of the rudder pedals.
>
>The Mark IIIX is very roomy and once you are in it you have plenty of room.
>The problem is getting in and out of the thing. I found that trying to
>squeeze through the door openings was a little difficult. Difficult to the
>point that I felt like I was not entirely happy with the whole process and
>started looking at other airplanes. Kolb brought a Mark IIIX to OSH this
>year and I will be honest, I was disappointed when I sat in it because I
>really had my hopes up and it was just friggin hard to get through that
>door.
I guess I need to go sit in both aircraft, and see for myself. But I hear
what you're saying, and it sounds like the Xtra would be a good idea for a
guy like me. Definitely must check this out.
>The jury is not out. I have a build start date of 2008 because of some other
>"wife-generated-home-improvement-mandates" that will eliminate all my shop
>space with furniture storage (why we even need furniture I have no idea, but
>I have learned not to go there.) so I will continue to trek off to Oshkosh
>and sit sit sit in everything until I get it really figured out.
What do you need furniture for, if you have an airplane? ;-)
However the solution to your problem is quite simple; build another shop!
>What I wish is that Kolb made a tandem with more room up front. I couldn't
>even get into the front seat of the Kolbra and I want doors on both sides of
>the airplane that I can remove.
Aren't the Kolb doors removable now?
>The RANs S-18 came pretty close to perfect but I hate the tail, the wings
>don't fold and the airplane is no longer supported by the company as far as
>I know.
>
>There is a real need in the world for an airplane made for the genetically
>challenged like us.
Yeah, I think most planes are designed by guys who are 5'8" and weigh 170
pounds.
>I think they do have one out there with a big enough
>cockpit... ...its called a 757 and they are kind of pricey and I am certain
>that the wing folding is not an option.
Paul Allan, Microsoft multimillionaire and owner of the Portland
Trailblazers, has a 757 that he keeps at Boeing Field, near Seattle. He
uses it to haul his friends and basketball team around. He also has a very
large hangar to keep it in, so folding wings is probably not a priority for
him.
>I am seriously considering an AirCam, but that means the price of two Mark
>IIIX in one machine. If not for the ingress, egress issue the IIIX would be
>about perfect.
That is exactly the sort of information I was looking for. And the fact
that you are my size, makes the information doubly useful. Thanks very
much!
Chris Wolf
cwolf41@comcast.net
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: Towing The Kolb |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Chris Wolf <cwolf41@comcast.net>
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:29:27 -0700, Larry Bourne wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Larry Bourne" <biglar@gogittum.com>
>
>I'm sure you were only kidding about the boat, but just in case - I wanted
>to do the same thing - seriously - and in many states you can get away with
>it, tho' I think you need a commercial driver's license, and must conform to
>the max length rules. Trouble is, with you in the Northwest, Oregon flat
>out does not permit it, and will force you to park it and leave one trailer
>sit. To the north, British Columbia is the same way. Lar.
Guess the only way out is through Idaho. ;-)
I was just kidding about the boat. That last twenty feet has to be
reserved for my portable barbecue.
Chris Wolf
cwolf41@comcast.net
Do Not Archive
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Towing The Kolb |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Chris Wolf <cwolf41@comcast.net>
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:16:41 -0700, Dave Pelletier wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier@cableone.net>
>
>> I have two areas of concern. The first is wind. Ever have any problems
>> with wind side gusts? I suppose an enclosed trailer, long enough to
>> contain a 24' Kolb, would be heavy enough that the weight of the plane
>> would be immaterial.
>My trailer is very light. Been in all kinds of wind gusts and it's never
>been a problem with my RV. Now there are times I've pulled it with my
>Cherokee or Ranger and I've felt the gusts - sort of a tail wagging the dog
>situation. Don't know that I've ever been in any real bad ones with the
>vehicles and it's never been much of a problem, just gotta stay on top of
>it. Been in really serious dust storms and gusts with the RV/trailer combo
>but the RV is heavy enough to handle the trailer with no problem at all.
Glad to hear that.
>> My second concern is finding RV campgrounds able to accommodate such a
>> long setup.
>Can't help you on that one. I rarely stay in campgrounds and can't remember
>staying in one with the trailer. I usually get to where I'm going in one
>day and stay at the fields, dry lakes, etc., where I'm flying.
That's pretty much how I'd planned it. But I figured I'd occasionally need
to stay in an RV campground. But it sounds like that's not much of a
problem either, with a lot of big rigs hauling toy trailers.
>On a couple
>of occasions when I had the trailer I found gas stations/convenience stores
>that let me stay in the back.
Actually that's very helpful information. Thanks!
Chris Wolf
cwolf41@comcast.net
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: Looking For A Plane To Trailer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
Hi Chris,
the Kolb wingfold certainly makes for a narrow set up but have a good look
at the amount of clearance between the leading edge and the ground. It is
pretty close.
I don`t know how regular trailers deal with the tilt as the plane is pushed
up a sloping tailgate. Although I am woefully short of practical experience
in this area when the ground is rough I am very, very careful of the leading
edge.
Good luck
Cheers
Pat
--
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 |
|
It's cold & raining down here - so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfwum67Hb_4
do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Prop Effency |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
Richard
I only know what I have experienced and what I have been told by people that
I think should know. I agree with you that a large prop depending on how
large will get you into a situation where it is a good climb prop or a good
cruise prop. I suppose you can get a prop the is just too large for
everything. I have prop with a cruise pitch setting. The redrive guys tell
me that I should see 3600-3800 in climb and 3200 in cruise I get a good
cruise speed (74MPH) at 3200 but I only get 3400 in climb(50MPH).
You indicated I have allot of torque in my engine and I do but it is the
reduction ratio that can make a low torque high RPM engine into a high
torque low RPM prop drive.
When I bought my prop Stuart at PowerFin said that the prop I have is the
perfect prop for a 582 on a Kolb. My prop is a F model three bladed 72 inch
PowerFin. This model prop has a wide cord so this is a big prop. I don't
remember what reduction ratio this would be the best prop for but Rotax does
sell some optional ratios for their engines that are in the 3-4 to one area
and this must be what he was talking about. There are just too many
variables in this area for most of us and to get the best of everything with
out allot of experimentation. The guys that make my redrive sell engine
packages for those Newport replicas and they swing a 8 foot prop so that
they look right. What they didn't expect was the large performance gains
they got. Again the Newport engines are using better than 3 to one
reduction ratio.
I still think the air adjustable prop would work just about perfect in
situations were you have a good climb prop but need more pitch for cruise.
They biggest problem I could see would be cranking in too much pitch. The
difference between climb and cruise pitch on Kolbs isn't much. From my
experimentation with my ground adjustable a small change can have a big
effect.
But what do I know?????
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pike" <richard@bcchapel.org>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Prop Effency
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Pike" <richard@bcchapel.org>
>
> I mostly agree with you but I think there are a couple factors involved.
> Since you are using a VW and he & I a small displacement 2 stroke 582, you
> have a huge torque advantage when it comes to turning a larger prop. And
> from your post, it sounds like you have a great engine combination.
>
> I was thinking about this whole deal a couple hours ago while out mowing
> the airstrip, (last time this year!) and back before my current 582, I had
> a 532 on my MKIII. I had bought it from a guy in our EAA chapter who had
> it on a Zenair CH701. Zenair has persuaded him to put a 72" two blade Ivo
> on that poor 532, and while it certainly accelerated and took off quick,
> he was always flying it around at 6,200 rpm and only about 60 mph, because
> in order to get the engine to turn up, he had to take all the pitch out of
> it. And he burned over 5 gph. It was like the ultimate climb prop, but
> that was it's only useful function.
>
> Now what if it had been an inflight adjustable prop? I think as soon as he
> would have cranked in more pitch, the engine would simply have slowed
> down, and the airplane would probably not have speeded up any, if at all,
> because there is no way the engine could have pulled that much prop with
> any sort of normal amount of pitch in it. Now obviously this is an extreme
> example, but I think that is what happens when you put a 3 blade 68" prop
> on a 582, and then attempt to compensate for too much prop by changing
> pitch, it is still too much prop. You can't get the speed, but you do
> increase prop load, and correspondingly high fuel burn.
>
> When I owned that same 532, Ivo told me to use a 64" 3 blade prop, and it
> was too much prop. As John and I bantered about yesterday, a 532 is very
> pipey, and with the 3 blade 64" pitched to give any sort of decent cruise,
> the 532 given half a chance, would fall off the pipe. The only way it
> worked right was to have shallow pitch, and then I had to cruise at 5,800
> rpm at about 60 mph. I took away one blade and it worked great as a 2
> blade 64" Went to a 2 blade 66", and it still worked great. Sold the 532
> and got a 582 and it works great with a 2 blade 68". Good acceleration &
> climb, good speed spread, and low rpm cruise.
>
> I am not any great aerodynamicist, (probably didn't even spell it right)
> but between a lot of trial and error, and thinking about the results, this
> is how I think it works. Obviously subject to change, correction and
> instruction.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
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: Prop Effency |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
cool at
| higher power levels than I can normally sustain. I did some low
level flying
| like we have to do going into Oshkosh (well maybe a bit lower) but
last
| night the air was smooth and I was able to fly 85-90 MPH at
3600-3700RPM on
| the engine. Popping up over woods and tree lines at these power
levels and
| speed is breathtaking. I suspect I was seeing power close to what
you guys
| with the 100HP Rotes get wow what a kick. I'm tempted to do some
better
| cooling work on the engine and maybe move the oil cooler to get more
air
| flow. Well maybe not, It keeps me from over stressing my engine???
|
| Rick Neilsen
Rick:
Shoot! Do some better cooling work and have fun with your VW powered
mkIII.
Welcome to what it is all about..........
Can you imagine flying coast to coast like that? Sometimes, it is the
only way to stay awake and enjoy the ride.
john h
mkIII
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: Prop Effency |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Richard:
Never had a problem with two blade wood, three blade wood, or three
blade Warp Drive props.
Prop them all the same way, WOT straight and level, bump the red line
for max continuous duty, which is 6,500 rpm for Rotax two strokes and
5,500 rpm for Rotax four strokes.
Still get the best combination of cruise and climb. Of course, my
cruise and climb ain't the same as your cruise and climb. Anything
over 80 is gravey. Anything less than 80 mph ground speed is
depressing.
The mkIII is an 85 mph cruise airplane. Anything over that and you
are wasting horses. 90 mph and you hit that invisible wall.
I sure have a lot of fun between take off roll and 90 mph though. ;-)
BTW Fuel burn for my 582 at 5,800 rpm and 80 mph was 5 to 5,5 gph.
Fuel burn on my 912UL at 5,000 rpm and 85 mph was 4 gph.
Fuel burn on my 912ULS at 5,000 rpm and 88 mph was 5 gph. Noticed I
said "was" because that engine is gone and I have not flown the new
912ULS. Maybe it will get better fuel burn.
As another added note, Jim Ballenger flew my old 912ULS on his MKIIIx.
He is one happy camper after pulling off the 582 which mysteriously
seized on takeoff on his last flight with that engine.
Take care,
john h
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 |
|
Hi, guys I finally got the ultrastar plans scanned onto a disc in a tiff
format. If anyone wants a cd burned email me at rwehba@cebridge.net
as always""for study purposes only""
you can also find the building manual under files and print it out.
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: | Re: Looking For A Plane To Trailer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier@cableone.net>
Chris & Pat
> I don`t know how regular trailers deal with the tilt as the plane is
> pushed up a sloping tailgate. Although I am woefully short of practical
> experience in this area when the ground is rough I am very, very careful
> of the leading edge.
>
I have quite a bit of experience with this and you're correct Pat, the
sloping tailgate is a problem. I bought a heavy duty trailer jack that
telescopes up and down and welded it on the trailer tongue. I also cut off
the handle and welded on a 5/8" nut. When I'm ready to take out the plane,
I let down the tailgate and telescope the jack down as far as I can. Then I
use my 18v drill with a 5/8" socket to raise the tongue. The telescoping
feature allows me to get the jack plate pretty close to the ground before I
have to start cranking. I can raise the tongue plenty high enough to
minimize the angle between the tailgate and the floor so the wings won't hit
when folded.
The brand name of the jack was "Bulldog" and I got it at a place that sells
mostly horse trailers.
We are having an open house this weekend and i can take some pictures if
you'd like.
AzDave
Do Not Archive
> --
>
>
>
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: Looking For A Plane To Trailer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
Unless you are working with a fairly flat apron area you will have to
create a device at the tailwheel that raises the rearend up at least
three feet to avoid blemishing the wings.
BB
On 16, Oct 2006, at 3:48 PM, pat ladd wrote:
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> the Kolb wingfold certainly makes for a narrow set up but have a good
> look at the amount of clearance between the leading edge and the
> ground. It is pretty close.
>
> I don`t know how regular trailers deal with the tilt as the plane is
> pushed up a sloping tailgate. Although I am woefully short of
> practical experience in this area when the ground is rough I am very,
> very careful of the leading edge.
>
> Good luck
>
> Cheers
>
> Pat
>
>
> --
>
>
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: | Re: Looking For A Plane To Trailer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Chris Wolf <cwolf41@comcast.net>
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:48:27 +0100, Pat Ladd wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "pat ladd" <pj.ladd@btinternet.com>
>
>Hi Chris,
>
>the Kolb wingfold certainly makes for a narrow set up but have a good look
>at the amount of clearance between the leading edge and the ground. It is
>pretty close.
Yeah, about 3-4", or so I've been told, when the plane is sitting level.
Have to watch that. Wouldn't take much to damage it.
>I don`t know how regular trailers deal with the tilt as the plane is pushed
>up a sloping tailgate. Although I am woefully short of practical experience
>in this area when the ground is rough I am very, very careful of the leading
>edge.
>
>Good luck
>
>Cheers
Thanks, Pat. I think I would build some sort of little rolling support
that I could slip around the fuselage pipe, just ahead of the tail, to
raise the leading edges clear of the ground. Unless somebody has already
come up with a better idea. Which wouldn't surprise me.
What we really need is a "kneeling trailer" that lowers the bed of the
trailer down to the ground, so there is no slope. ;-)
Chris Wolf
cwolf41@comcast.net
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: Looking For A Plane To Trailer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Chris Wolf <cwolf41@comcast.net>
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:42:14 -0700, Dave Pelletier wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier@cableone.net>
>
>Chris & Pat
>
>> I don`t know how regular trailers deal with the tilt as the plane is
>> pushed up a sloping tailgate. Although I am woefully short of practical
>> experience in this area when the ground is rough I am very, very careful
>> of the leading edge.
>>
>I have quite a bit of experience with this and you're correct Pat, the
>sloping tailgate is a problem. I bought a heavy duty trailer jack that
>telescopes up and down and welded it on the trailer tongue. I also cut off
>the handle and welded on a 5/8" nut. When I'm ready to take out the plane,
>I let down the tailgate and telescope the jack down as far as I can. Then I
>use my 18v drill with a 5/8" socket to raise the tongue. The telescoping
>feature allows me to get the jack plate pretty close to the ground before I
>have to start cranking. I can raise the tongue plenty high enough to
>minimize the angle between the tailgate and the floor so the wings won't hit
>when folded.
>
>The brand name of the jack was "Bulldog" and I got it at a place that sells
>mostly horse trailers.
>
>We are having an open house this weekend and i can take some pictures if
>you'd like.
I'd like very much to see them, Dave. Thanks!
Chris Wolf
cwolf41@comcast.net
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking For A Plane To Trailer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Chris Wolf <cwolf41@comcast.net>
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:55:23 -0400, Robert Bean wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
>
>Unless you are working with a fairly flat apron area you will have to
>create a device at the tailwheel that raises the rearend up at least
>three feet to avoid blemishing the wings.
Three feet? That much? Hmm. Didn't realize it would take that much.
Guess it would be a good idea to get a trailer as low as possible.
Chris Wolf
cwolf41@comcast.net
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: Looking For A Plane To Trailer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Gene Ledbetter" <gdledbetter@aol.com>
I've been fllying my firefly out of a trailer for 5 years and it is very easy to
scrape the leading edge of the wings if the front of the trailer is not raised
high enough. Ask me how I know.
I put 4 X 4s under the tongue jack to maximize the tongue lift and this has worked
for me. You just need to be very careful the first time you load and unload
to make sure you have clearance.
Gene Ledbetter
Firefly 447 360 hrs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68311#68311
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: Looking For A Plane To Trailer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" <NeilsenRM@comcast.net>
I have seen photos of a Kolb trailer where it is designed to kneel. There
are also a few of us that have carts like you are talking about for holding
the wings. I have a custom trailer with a cart that I'm building that I'm
planning to pull with my Toyota mini van that I will share with you when it
is finished.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Wolf" <cwolf41@comcast.net>
> Thanks, Pat. I think I would build some sort of little rolling support
> that I could slip around the fuselage pipe, just ahead of the tail, to
> raise the leading edges clear of the ground. Unless somebody has already
> come up with a better idea. Which wouldn't surprise me.
>
> What we really need is a "kneeling trailer" that lowers the bed of the
> trailer down to the ground, so there is no slope. ;-)
>
> Chris Wolf
> cwolf41@comcast.net
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Plane To Trailer |
You can look at My trailer I can push the firestar half way in then lift the
tail of the plane up with the wing tips and finish loading it without tilting
the trailer up there are Pictures of this in the Photo Share for you to look
at
Ellery In a Custom Firestar
do not archive
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: First solo yesterday |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "jimhefner" <hefner_jim@msn.com>
Henry Voris sent this in an email and asked me to post to the list... enjoy!
email: voris_henry@yahoo.com
For the past year or so I've lurked on the list. But I've just soloed in a FireFly
and I thought I would share my experience for others who may be lurking and
thinking about flying.
Often you hear people speaking of perfect flights and greased landings on their
solos... For some reason I don't seem to do things like that. My solo flight
was a progression of errors and bone head moves that I survived as a tribute to
the excellent design of my plane and superb training.
It was a beautiful windless autumn Arizona morning. I started with some high speed
taxi practice. On the third run I developed a major oscillation. Swinging
wildly first left, then to the right. Loosing control I left the runway at a right
angle and shot across the desert until my wheels stopped in a drainage ditch
at the foot of a berm. The nose went down, thumped the berm. The plane bounced
back on to it's tail wheel. Great... I haven't gotten off the ground and
I logged my first groundloop...
Dragging the plane back to the runway I come to the conclusion that high speed
taxi practice is one of the most dangerous things you can do with your airplane.
Racing down the runway at near take off speeds in a squirrelly 250lb. aircraft
is just gonna have to wait until I can fly it better.
First I gotta get off the pavement. The gravel taxi-way is much more forgiving.
I line up at the end of the taxi-way, start to wind her up and we roll. As the
oscillation starts and I dump the rest of the power on and work the left peddle.
We're drifting to the right side of the taxi-way but we're basically heading
in the right direction, even if there are a few bushes flashing past. Just
then I'm startled as the tail leaps off the ground (Did I mention that it's my
first day in a taildragger...). Now I'm sitting in a totally new attitude. It
feels very nosedown, not at all the reassuring way it was when I would sit in
the plane in the hanger making airplane noises...
I pull back on the stick, the nose comes up and we're flying. With an jerk reaction
my left hand (throttle) comes back and the sound of the prop drops, the nose
rises, and at 50 ft. we start to sink... I figure it out and push the throttle
to the wall. The fan cuts in and at 30ft. we start climbing again...
At 100ft. I remember how profoundly acrophobic I am. My training was in a C-150
and an Rans S-14. Both aircraft were fully enclosed (and came with an instructor
who knew how to fly...). The Firefly gives open cockpit a whole new meaning
(the factory calls it "Unparallel Visibility") and it was terrifying.
At 150ft. I come to the conclusion there was no way I would ever be able to land
this thing. I was in a world of trouble...
I could see from my side vision I was drifting closer to two 500ft. stacks a half
a mile past the end of the runway. At this point I made about my only right
decision of the entire flight... I stuck to my pre flight plan... I turned to
the left, pointed the nose up and picked up a thousand feet of altitude to get
away from anything I could run into... I got to a practice area and flew back
and forth, round and round, turns over a point, cut back the power to feel it
sink... I got up the nerve to look over the side. But I couldn't bring myself
to stall it.
After an hour I had come to that point that compels most new pilots to make that
dreaded first landing... I had to pee...
Turning towards the airport I managed to scoot around on the seat cushion so that
it pushed the trim tab handle full forward (I believe that this move also shut
off one of the two ignition switches which are located near by.(saved by redundancy))...
Panic at the helm.
I get the trim pulled back and enter the pattern. Flying the pattern is reassuring...
Maybe I'll make it... Naa, not a chance... I turn to final, everything
looks good. I put in a notch of flaps, pull back on the power a bit and we drop
like a stone. Belatedly, I give her some power to make the end of the field.
I round-out hot and late... I get a good enough bounce off the runway that I'm
gonna log two landings.
My post flight reveled I had managed to turn down my headset so that I heard no
one and no one heard me. Also, it was at this inspection I discovered I had turned
off one of the two ignition switches and I had picked up a small branch
in my tail rigging (at take off, I'm sure).
I learned a lot (but no enough), I'm gonna make some changes and I'm gonna fly
tomorrow... That's why an airplane is better than a girlfriend. No matter how
poorly you fly it, it won't make you wait a week to fly it again...
Thanks to:
Homer, for a great plane.
Cal Bugbee, for building a great plane.
Jim Hefner, the last owner who has devoted many hours to help me fly.
HL Cooper, the instructor who taught me to "manage it..."
And all the old geezers who have filled me with their good advice.
Aloha Nui,
Henry from Maui
PS I'm on the road in Arizona and I can get to the internet only every third day
or so so don't get sore if I don't respond right away.
--------
Jim Hefner
Kolbless in Tucson :(
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68398#68398
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! --
|