Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:42 AM - Re: Gasohol (Dave Bigelow)
2. 04:49 AM - Re: Re: Gasohol (N27SB@aol.com)
3. 05:32 AM - Re: Gasohol (Ralph B)
4. 05:59 AM - Re: re. gasohol (Dana Hague)
5. 06:09 AM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (John Hauck)
6. 06:11 AM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (robert bean)
7. 06:12 AM - Re: pictures from a kolb (Ralph B)
8. 06:13 AM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? ()
9. 06:30 AM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (John Hauck)
10. 06:32 AM - Re: Re: pictures from a kolb (John Hauck)
11. 07:39 AM - Re: Re: Ms Dixie update (Craig Nelson)
12. 07:58 AM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (Jack B. Hart)
13. 08:04 AM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
14. 08:16 AM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (John Hauck)
15. 10:14 AM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (Jack B. Hart)
16. 11:28 AM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (John Hauck)
17. 11:31 AM - 912ULS octane (Rick Pearce)
18. 12:01 PM - Re: 912ULS octane (John Hauck)
19. 12:04 PM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (JetPilot)
20. 12:16 PM - Re: 912ULS octane (John Hauck)
21. 12:20 PM - Re: Warp Drive prop inertia concerns (JetPilot)
22. 12:30 PM - Re: 912ULS octane (Dana Hague)
23. 12:33 PM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (Dana Hague)
24. 01:00 PM - Re: Re: Warp Drive prop inertia concerns (Jack B. Hart)
25. 01:18 PM - Re: 912ULS octane (Roger Lee)
26. 01:51 PM - Re: re. gasohol (boyd)
27. 01:51 PM - Re: re. gasohol (boyd)
28. 01:53 PM - Re: 912ULS octane (Charlie England)
29. 02:11 PM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (boyd)
30. 02:22 PM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (John Hauck)
31. 03:07 PM - Old Ultrastar, Old Pilot but first ultralight, any advice? (Matt Hancuh)
32. 03:34 PM - Re: Ms Dixie update (Paul Petty)
33. 03:45 PM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
34. 05:19 PM - Re: Re: Ms Dixie update (John Hauck)
35. 05:32 PM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (robert bean)
36. 05:38 PM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (Charlie England)
37. 06:48 PM - Re: pictures from a kolb (Ralph B)
38. 07:21 PM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (Dana Hague)
39. 07:39 PM - Re: Old Ultrastar, Old Pilot but first ultralight, any advice? (Dana Hague)
40. 08:14 PM - Firestar II trailer.....thumbs (Gary Thacker)
41. 08:41 PM - Re: Firestar II trailer.....thumbs (Larry Cottrell)
42. 08:55 PM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (Larry Bourne)
43. 08:59 PM - Re: Warp Drive prop inertia concerns (JetPilot)
44. 09:32 PM - Re: Re: Gasohol (DAquaNut@aol.com)
45. 09:56 PM - Re: Re: Warp Drive prop inertia concerns (DAquaNut@aol.com)
46. 10:35 PM - Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? (Larry Cottrell)
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 |
|
Here in Hawaii, E-10 was mandated by the legislature last year. There is no ethanol
free gas available at this time. This mixture has damaged a number of marine
engines and small engines for several reasons.
Boats with fiberglass fuel tanks have had major problems. The ethanol apparently
softens the resin. The resin residue has gunked up and damaged engines. Also,
small pieces of fiberglass break off from the softened resin, and clog the
filters and carbs.
In a moist enviornment, the ethanol absorbs water until it is saturated. A gunky
mixture of ethanol and water precipitates out and clogs carbs. Some of the
small engine operators (like yard services) have been adding Sea Foam, and have
reported it solves the clogged carb problem. Also, ethanol is corrisive, and
can damage fuel system parts that are not designed for an ethanol mixture.
There is a bill in the legislature this year that would make 92 octane ethanol
free gas available. The theory is that the high octane gas would serve any engine
that needs ethanol free fuel.
I spoke to a Bing representative, and asked him if Bing carbs are OK to use with
ethanol. He told me all of their products manufactured in the past few years
will not be damaged by ethanol. In general, I believe it is best to use straight
gas in both the two and four stroke engines we use, if you can get it.
--------
Dave Bigelow
Kamuela, Hawaii
FS2, HKS 700E
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107010#107010
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 |
|
In a message dated 4/15/2007 5:43:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
up_country@hotmail.com writes:
Here in Hawaii, E-10 was mandated by the legislature last year. There is no
ethanol free gas available at this time. This mixture has damaged a number
of marine engines and small engines for several reasons.
Hi Dave, Have you checked at the local airport? I thought that aircraft
that were STC'd for Mogas were not allowed ethanol and you could get straight
gas at the FBO.
Boats with fiberglass fuel tanks have had major problems. The
ethanol apparently softens resin. The resin residue has gunked up
and
damaged engines. Also, small pieces of fiberglass break off from the
softened resin, and clog the filters and carbs.
The FRP industry has already responded to this issue in the form of Ethanol
resistant resins. Recently I have located several options. It appears that
newer tanks with the right resin should be OK. Major boat companies are still
building integral tanks with the new resins.
My major concern is the effects that the gasohol has on the Rotax.
Steve
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
John, I would think if ethanol posed a real problem we would have seen it by now
in cars. The stations have had ethanol for over 10 years. I use it when flying
on trips where that's all I can get besides 100LL.
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
20 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107023#107023
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 |
|
At 11:49 PM 4/14/2007, boyd wrote:
>Like john mentions an engine not run up to temps is more likely to have
>condensation and moisture left in the system than an engine run at proper
>temps. As to the alcohol or no alcohol in the gas should not make any
>difference..... any time you burn a hydrocarbon in an engine it will
>produce varing amounts of carbon c carbon monoxide co and carbon
>dioxide co2 and h2o as byproducts, so all the moisture in an engine
>does not come from the alcohol,,,, it comes from the gas... the alcohol
>in the engine will prevent water buildup in the fuel system including the
>fuel tank and carb bowls.
The problem is not the water produced by burning hydrocarbons, but the fact
that the alcohol absorbs water. In small quantities it's not a problem; as
you say it absorbs any water buildup in the tank (up to a point), but if
that water comes back out of solution it can lead to corrosion in the
internal parts (crankcase and bearings) before it ever gets into the
cylinders to be burned.
-Dana
--
--
My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.
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: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
| Weight for power, I think is the best reason. You'll have the weight
of the
| heaviest VW conversion with the power of a 582. | Rick
Gang:
Kolbs don't perform well with direct drive engines. Rick Neilsen and
John W have had experience with these set ups.
john h
mkIII
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: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
I'm a day late because I've been using the digest but here's my
opinion on the A-65:
The ONLY drawback is the weight. A sturdy engine mounting would have
to be
created. Hard landings (and sudden stops) may overstress the cage
compression
design limits.
Definitely stay with the -8 (blanked accessory case plate, no pads
for starter or generator)
Continental also made -8 versions of the C-85 and C-90 that formula
one racers still use.
A65s prop start very easily.
65 is a conservative rating. At 2600 rpm it will match any rotax.
Mine used to swing a 74" metal MacCauley and climbed out briskly at
2300.
They were rated at 2300 redline which was an ultra conservative
number. They also sold
a version of the same engine with a few extra oil squirt holes and 4
ring pistons
rated at 80 hp, obviously called the A-80. I used the same ones in
mine.
BB, back working on my Kolb, light snow on the lawn this morning
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: pictures from a kolb |
Here are a few pics ....
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
20 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107030#107030
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/fly_over__120.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cockpit_shot__369.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/over_the_lake__195.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/big_beautiful_lake__118.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/nine_mile_creek__557.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/coming_in_to_maple__173.jpg
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: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
> Kolbs don't perform well with direct drive engines. Rick Neilsen and
> John W have had experience with these set ups.
Why is that? Understand, I'm not challenging your comment, I'm just curious.
-Ken Fackler
Kolb Mark II / N722KM
Rochester MI
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: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
curious.
|
| -Ken Fackler
Morning Ken:
I don't know. Probably restricted prop size.
john h
mkIII
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: pictures from a kolb |
|
| Ralph
Morning Ralph:
Great photos taken from one of the older flying Firestars.
I like the one on short final with the reflection of the instrument
panel in the windshield.
Also like your cockpit temp gauge. Did you also have a temp prob
outside the cockpit?
john h
mkIII
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: Ms Dixie update |
Paul
I'm impressed!! It's exciting to see the lexan in place it fills the
vision. I have been working on my doors and have messed up two sheets of
the stuff. Expensive mistakes. Tim and I found a place here in Arizona
where we got a 4x8 sheet of 1/16 in. material for $46.00
Uncle craigDon't archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Petty
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 8:03 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Ms Dixie update
Lexan, Whoo haaaaa!
What fun this is!>>>> will go at it agin tomorrow!
http://groups.msn.com/AerialWorld/kolbra012.msnw?Page=7
do not archive
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
Final assembly!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=106952#106952
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review,
retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action
in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the
sender and delete the material from any computer.
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: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
Tom,
What is important here is torque delivered to the propeller. Searching the
web, I found the following:
The A-65 delivers 148 ft-lbs at 2,300 rpm and the engine weighs in at 170 lbs.
The Rotax 912 delivers 79 hp and 75.9 ft-lbs at 5,500 rpm and weighs 134
lbs. By interpolation of Rotax data and with the 2.273 gear box, the Rotax
will produce 2,300 propeller rpm and 148 ft-lbs of torque at 5,280 engine
rpm at 84% open throttle.
The A-65 has a 36 pound or less weight disadvantage. Some of this could be
resolved by using a light wood propeller.
More snow!
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
do not archive
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
Yes I have said many times that direct drive engines don't perform well on
Kolbs but I guess I need to amend it a bit. Engines that are designed
correctly for direct drive might do well if they aren't too heavy.
Continental and Lycoming engines are designed to produce their rated power
down in the RPM range where it can swing a large efficient prop without
having the prop tips going supersonic.
I have discussed using the small Lycoming and Continental engines a few
times with Kolb and their opinion was NO they are just way too heavy.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not?
>
>
> of the
>
>
> Gang:
>
> Kolbs don't perform well with direct drive engines. Rick Neilsen and
> John W have had experience with these set ups.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
>
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: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
could be
| resolved by using a light wood propeller.
|
| More snow!
|
| Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack:
Numbers are great! But.........they do not always equate to the
"real" world.
Based on flight comparison, that is side by side flying with my mkIII
and John W's Jabiru powered direct drive 80 hp Kolbra, the Kolbra was
really puny, except in cruise flight, and the 912 powered mkIII and
the Jab powered Kolbra were about equal.
Now, side by side performance comparison with John W's new 912ULS
powered Kolbra and my 912ULS powered mkIII. John W blew me away in
take off, climb, and cruise.
Early on there was a Subaru powered mkIII that could barely fly with
the direct drive configuration.
john h
mkIII
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: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
At 10:16 AM 4/15/07 -0500, you wrote:
......................................
>Numbers are great! But.........they do not always equate to the
"real" world.
>
..................................................................
John and Kolbers,
So what is the real world? The point is if you use a 4,000 foot hard surface
runway why not use a low torque, light weight, high rev'ing engine with a
small propeller? You can get to and from with the same cruise and the same
gph rate.
The point is that if one can run identical propellers at the same setting,
the performance of the A-65 minus the 36 pound weight increase will be equal
to the 912 up to the point of 84% open throttle. The propeller does not
care if it is gear or pulley or direct driven.
One of the great things about this list is that people are flying engines
other than Rotax. This shows the skill of builders and the strength of
Homer Kolbs and Dennis Souder's efforts that Kolbs are not limited to Rotax
engines. What is important is the fact that we safely fly over and under
weight Kolb knock offs with a variety of engines, reduction units, and
propellers. That is what "experimental" is all about.
If Tom can get his A-65 safely mounted, his MkIII should fly very well. Not
everyone wants or can afford a Rotax. This does not mean that Rotax is a
bad engine, it isn't. It just means that viable alternative engines are
available.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
| One of the great things about this list is that people are flying
engines
| other than Rotax. This shows the skill of builders and the strength
of
| Homer Kolbs and Dennis Souder's efforts that Kolbs are not limited
to Rotax
| engines. What is important is the fact that we safely fly over and
under
| weight Kolb knock offs with a variety of engines, reduction units,
and
| propellers. That is what "experimental" is all about.
|
| Jack B. Hart FF004
Hi Jack:
I'm sorry. I left the most important part out of my last post, which
turned out to be a comparison between John W and my airplanes. My
intention was not to push Rotax, although I will not hesitate to tell
you how much I like the engine I fly with.
What I wanted to say was Kolbs do not fly well with direct drive
engines. They do much better with engines, not necessarily Rotax,
that are equipped with reduction drives. Kolbs are super STOL type
aircraft. If you power them other than a reduction drive, you take
away from this capability. The first aircraft that comes to mind that
flies with a reduction drive is the old Helio Curior, a super STOL
aircraft. Part of that spetacular package is the powerful engine that
turn a big prop through a reduction drive to slow it down.
Kolbs were not designed to fly off 4,000 ft paved runways. Rather
more at home on air strips like my little strip, Gantt International
Airport, that started off life in the cow pasture on 600 feet of
unimproved rough sod. Kolbs will land on sand bars in the Tallapoosa
River in Alabama or the Sag River in the Arctic North Slope of Alaska.
Kolbs fly well when they are loaded up to their max gross weight.
Some of us even push that a bit and they still fly well. I was not
knocking anyone who was experimenting with their Kolb or other
homebuilt. I have done and still do a lot of experimenting with my
airplane, and airplanes I have built in the past.
I will say that flying with an engine that is not reliable,
underpowered, and barely flying on the edge, is hazardous to ones
health. I for one do not like that kind of flight and would much
rather have an aircraft that is more comfortable to fly and well above
the danger zone.
I know you are terribly interested in low weight and low fuel burn.
I'd love to have the low fuel burn, but get a lot more enjoyment out
of performance than economy.
When I share my experiences, I am also sharing my desires. I think
that is natural for a person to do that. Don't get me wrong. I am
not trying to convince you or anyone else to build, equip, and fly
like me. If you want to, great! Then we can comfortably fly
together.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
Winds are 23 mph gusting to 33. Not conducive to good flight testing.
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 |
|
I need some education the Rotax manual says to use RON 95 or
EN228 premium for fuel or 100LL The highest octane I can find in my area
is 91 or 100LL. What do RON or EN228 mean? Rick Pearce MK3 912ULS
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: 912ULS octane |
I need some education the Rotax manual says to use RON 95 or
EN228 premium for fuel or 100LL The highest octane I can find in my
area is 91 or 100LL. What do RON or EN228 mean? Rick Pearce MK3 912ULS
Hi Rick:
Forget all that and go with 91 octane minimum for the 912ULS. That is
91 octane, the US rating for antki-knock.
The 912UL operates on a minimum of 87 octane, as do all the Rotax 2
strokes except the 618, which is out of production. How about the
532, Richard P? Does it operate on 87 or 91 minimum?
I just looked in my 912ULS Operators Manual. They used to list two
different numbers that had to be added together and divided by two to
get the correct US octane rating for the 912ULS, which was 91 octane.
I think those old numbers were 95 + 87 / 2 = 91.
john h
mkIII
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: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne wrote:
>
>
> The point is that if one can run identical propellers at the same setting,
> the performance of the A-65 minus the 36 pound weight increase will be equal
> to the 912 up to the point of 84% open throttle. The propeller does not
> care if it is gear or pulley or direct driven.
>
>
This is not quite true, if he uses a metal prop that was designed to cruise and
be efficient at 100 MPH, it might not do very well in a slower cruising Kolb.
A wood prop would probably be even worse, and less efficient. 36 pounds is
not that much extra, IF IT HOLDS TRUE when all is said and done.
What would worry me is the prop, having lower power with heavy weight will make
it a poorly performing airplane. Having lower power, high weight, with an inefficient
prop will make the plane almost not worth flying.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107098#107098
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: 912ULS octane |
|
Gang:
Should have added, and I forgot, one of those was RON and one MON.
Both ratings were not US type ratings for anti-knock.
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: Warp Drive prop inertia concerns |
John W,
Why are you only running 68 inch prop ? I would think the 70 or even 72 would
perform better on a 912 ULS ...
I also have nickel leading edges on my prop also, I plan on flying through some
rain, and they are needed for that, no way do I want go through trying to put
and keep leading edge tape on the prop, it sounds like a real pain in the arse
from what I have read about it. I am not to worried about the inertia of the
prop, there are so many warp drive props in use on 912's and it has never been
an issue. I would rather have a prop that will take some abuse and stay
together than a lighter one that is in limits, and that I have to worry about
comming apart.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107104#107104
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS octane |
At 02:29 PM 4/14/2007, Rick Pearce wrote:
> I need some education the Rotax manual says to use RON 95 or
> EN228 premium for fuel or 100LL The highest octane I can find in my area
> is 91 or 100LL. What do RON or EN228 mean?
I don't know what EN228 is, but RON is "Research Octane Number", one of the
primary measurements used for a fuel's antiknock rating. RON is the
typical number seen in Europe. There is also the "Motor Octane -Number",
which is the same as the Aviation Lean rating, and which is usually about
8-10 points lower. The number displayed on U.S. gas pumps is the average
of the two ((R+M)2), which averages 4-5 points lower than RON. Thus 91
octane pump gas is equivalent to RON 95.
-Dana
--
--
My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.
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: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
At 02:27 PM 4/15/2007, John Hauck wrote:
>What I wanted to say was Kolbs do not fly well with direct drive
>engines. They do much better with engines, not necessarily Rotax,
>that are equipped with reduction drives...
There's nothing magical about the presence (or absence) of a reduction drive.
If you have two engines of the same horsepower and same weight, but one has
a direct drive prop turning at, say, 2500 rpm, and the other one has a 2:1
reduction with the engine turning 5000 rpm, the performance will be identical.
That said, one way to get more power out of a given engine is to turn it
faster. This was less feasible in the 1930's and 1940's when the A-65, for
example, was designed, but modern metallurgy has come a long way, so we can
cruise nowadays at rpm's that would have been way above redline in an older
engine. This is why a 65hp Rotax engine weighs considerably less than a
65hp Continental. However, turning a small prop fast is less efficient, so
we have reduction drives. If the reduction drive assembly weighs less then
the bare engine's weight difference, you get better performance.
Sign... my Ultrastar sits in my fabric garage, as the rain and winds batter
my half rebuilt trailer...
-Dana
--
--
My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Warp Drive prop inertia concerns |
At 12:20 PM 4/15/07 -0700, you wrote:
>
I would rather have a prop that will take some abuse and stay together than a lighter
one that is in limits, and that I have to worry about comming apart.
>
Mike,
Doesn't this void the engine warrenty?
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS octane |
Hi Guys,
My new 912 100hp manual states 91 oct. or higher. I looked in the 912 80 hp and
because it is a lower compression it gave 87 oct ok.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107113#107113
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
>>>>>>>>>
Boyd:
I think a major consideration is everything that is pulled through the
carb goes through the crankcase in a two stroke before it gets to the
upper end of the engine.
Will this be a major factor in determining moisture/corrosion of
bearings on the crank shaft?
john h
mkIII
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
John
I think that the major factor in determining moisture/corrosion on the crank
shaft would be
1 frequency of use... in an engine that is used only infrequently will
allow the oil protecting the metal parts to drain off leaving it exposed to
whatever is in the environment.
2 temp of the engine when shut down. If it is shut down cold the
possibility of condensation is much greater,
3 the type of oil... synthetics drain off the metal parts faster than
mineral oil. And could also reduce proper lubrication on start up. [ if
infrequently used] ( I've been using mineral / synthetics blend...you get
the best of both worlds)
4 the humidity of the air where the engine is stored... would affect
1,2,and 3 above.
In a 2 stroke the biggest worry for me would be keeping the dust and dirt
out by the use of a good filter,, the moisture would be of little concern
if operated correctly. The heat in the engine will keep the moisture boiled
out. The oil in the fuel should coat and protect everything from the
moisture. Even in a 4 stroke,, the moisture from humidity /combustion
process will end up in the bottom end... just at a smaller percent.
Remember you are using blow by to force the oil back to the oil tank. And
all the same precautions concerning moisture apply.
If putting any engine away for any length of time,,, it would be very
beneficial to use some type of fogging / storage oil just before shutdown.
The fogging oil is designed to stick to the parts without draining off and
protecting the engine parts.
I read in a magazine where a gentleman would turn the prop over once or
twice a month over a years time till he sold the engine/plane ,,, his
thought process was to keep things moving..... but turning it over without
getting the oil up to temp and pressure,, caused the rings to scrap all the
remaining oil off the cylinder walls and the bearings went dry... when the
engine was finally fired up it had very poor performance, the teardown
showed a multitude of moisture related problems... moral of the story was
run it properly or store it properly,, anything else will cause problems.
Boyd
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The problem is not the water produced by burning hydrocarbons, but the fact
that the alcohol absorbs water. In small quantities it's not a problem; as
you say it absorbs any water buildup in the tank (up to a point), but if
that water comes back out of solution it can lead to corrosion in the
internal parts (crankcase and bearings) before it ever gets into the
cylinders to be burned.
-Dana
Dana..
Any alcohol in the tank will not reach outside the tank to find extra
moisture to absorb... it will only work on what is already in the tank....
thus if you fill the tank when done flying and force all the high humidity
air from the tank before it has a chance to condensate on the tank walls and
enter into the gasohol mix you will minimize the problem....
Still in my opinion,, the greatest amount of problems associated with
alcohol in the gas is the corrosion to storage tanks and seals used in the
system. NOT corrosion problems in the combustion process.
Boyd
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912ULS octane |
John Hauck wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I need some education the Rotax manual says to use RON 95 or
> EN228 premium for fuel or 100LL The highest octane I can find in my
> area is 91 or 100LL. What do RON or EN228 mean? Rick Pearce MK3 912ULS
>
> Hi Rick:
>
> Forget all that and go with 91 octane minimum for the 912ULS. That is
> 91 octane, the US rating for antki-knock.
>
> The 912UL operates on a minimum of 87 octane, as do all the Rotax 2
> strokes except the 618, which is out of production. How about the
> 532, Richard P? Does it operate on 87 or 91 minimum?
>
> I just looked in my 912ULS Operators Manual. They used to list two
> different numbers that had to be added together and divided by two to
> get the correct US octane rating for the 912ULS, which was 91 octane.
>
> I think those old numbers were 95 + 87 / 2 = 91.
>
> john h
> mkIII
Wikipedia is a wonderful thing:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
Charlie
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
Gang:
Kolbs don't perform well with direct drive engines. Rick Neilsen and
John W have had experience with these set ups.
john h
mkIII
John I think the problems that have been noticed by rick and john w is
direct drive on high revving engines requiring a small diameter prop. The
a65 would be a slow turning engine and could turn a much larger diameter
prop and would work well that way, the big disadvantage would be hp to
weight ratio.
Boyd
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
The
| a65 would be a slow turning engine and could turn a much larger
diameter
| prop and would work well that way, the big disadvantage would be
hp to
| weight ratio.
|
| Boyd
On a Kolb the prop diameter would be limited.
Agree the VW was designed to turn more rpm. But the Jab is an
aircraft engine from the get go, not a converted auto engine.
john h
mkIII
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Old Ultrastar, Old Pilot but first ultralight, any advice? |
The Ultrastar was built by someone else,(Bruce Borg) from one of the 80-83 kits,
and it's powered by a ULII02 that runs very well in the opinion of someone that's
got no other experience but this engine.
The airframe is in very good condition and so are the wings and tail. The aircraft
has a cannister BRS that was repacked 08/04
I've got about 800 hours in Pipers and Cessnas, the last 100 hours or so, over
the last few years, have been spent flying a PA-11 and a PA-12.
The field that I intend to fly out of is the sod field that surrounds my house,
which allows me to point into the wind at all times with from 520 to 600 ft of
runway in front of me.
I've been doing some taxi tests to get used to the different swing of the nose
(since it's a pusher) and the pilot position. All advice is welcome, the two questions
I have off the bat are...
1) I've got 3 small holes in the fabric, two caused by transport (rudder cables
rubbed the elevator) and one in the bottom of the wing. All 3 holes are about
the size of a pencil eraser. I need to patch these I suppose, so what's the
smart way to do that?
2) Along with the purchase I've got half a bottle of penzoil outdoor. I'll need
more oil, is it only penzoil outdoor that I want or will many 2cycle oils do?
Thanks for the time and the information, don't worry about being tactful, I've
been with the same woman for 20 years, I know I don't know nuthin'.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107147#107147
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ms Dixie update |
Thanks Craig,
After two band-aids on two fingers the Lexan is cut and fitted. Have to postpone
the move to the airport another week. But we are geting there.
http://groups.msn.com/AerialWorld/kolbra012.msnw?Page=4
Page 4 and 5 are the latest... Been a long day!
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
Final assembly!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107151#107151
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
John
The Jabiru engine is a aircraft engine but it runs at a higher RPM than most
aircraft engines. Stuart at Power Fin once commented that they, Jabiru, just
didn't understand props. Aircraft engines need to turn their rated power in
the very low 2000 range to be able to efficiently handle a 70-72 inch prop
which is almost necessary to fly a big Kolb very well. Granted with enough
power you can get the same thrust but then you have more weight and use more
fuel.
Even the big WWII engines (Merlin and some of the big radial engines) used
reduction drives to efficiently power the huge props they used. Big slow
turning props produce much more thrust than a small fast turning prop.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not?
>
> The
> diameter
> hp to
>
>
> On a Kolb the prop diameter would be limited.
>
> Agree the VW was designed to turn more rpm. But the Jab is an
> aircraft engine from the get go, not a converted auto engine.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ms Dixie update |
|
| --------
| Paul Petty
Paul:
You did a great job!
john h
mkIII
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
I guess we won't know until someone actually does it. :)
Since it wouldn't be on a type certificated airplane there would be
some weight saving options:
clunky mags replaced with electronic ignition
lighter exhaust system
fuel injection (Lar has a spare ready)
A few advantages: no oil cooler, no filter, no water/radiator.
No hoses to leak except fuel
The A-65 was approved for several diameter props, metal and wood.
I can't see any reason not to use a light composite.
Unless I'm missing something, a Warpdrive prop spun by any engine,
redrive or not,
at 23-2600 rpm should yield the same gittup and go.
Sensenich made the most efficient wood.
Parts are still available but I would have that old crankshaft
magnafluxed.
You may have to enclose the engine to get the right air cooling effect
or try to duplicate the J3 Cub scoopers.
Use oil drilled con rods for the higher RPMs
A-50, A-65, A-75, C-75 (not the same engine folks), C-85 all used the
same stroke crank.
Some tapered, some flanged. -A rare few were hollow nosed for prop
control (erk!)
Replace or remachine the oil pump, they were marginal to start with
Good luck, BB
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
John Hauck wrote:
>
> The
> diameter
> hp to
>
>
> On a Kolb the prop diameter would be limited.
>
> Agree the VW was designed to turn more rpm. But the Jab is an
> aircraft engine from the get go, not a converted auto engine.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
Can I take a shot at this?
Here's one of the better explanations I've seen:
http://www.geocities.com/vjaqua/
Click on 'Propellers'.
Vance Jaqua was a pretty smart guy & could explain things where non-tech
people could understand tech subjects.
It really is all about prop diameter ('disk loading', or 'mass flow').
The Jab or direct drive Sub turns *the prop* too fast (typically
3000-3400 rpm) at rated power to turn a 6' diameter prop like the Rotax;
it must use a smaller dia prop so its efficiency, at low speed is poorer
than a typical a/c engine or a geared Rotax, engine.
The link above has a chart showing various efficiency curves of hp per
sq ft of prop area for various speeds. If you think about the two
extremes, 160 hp can lift a 2 seat helicopter straight up by having a
25-30 ft diameter 'propeller'(a 160hp C-172 staggers into the air), &
there aren't any low speed a/c using a pure jet, because of the tiny
disk area per hp.
If a geared Rotax and a direct drive Continental have the same HP at the
same *prop* rpm, they will have the same torque at the prop and they can
swing the same diameter/pitch prop. The only performance difference
would be due to difference in weight.
Charlie
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pictures from a kolb |
John, before I got the plane registered I flew with a temp gauge that had the probe
outside the cockpit indicating outside temp. I have since taken it off.
I'm glad you liked the pics. I put a couple hundred miles on my Goldwing today.
The field was too soft to fly from (typical springtime in Minnesota).
Have a safe flight to Sun-N-Fun ..
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar
20 years flying it
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107188#107188
Message 38
| 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: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
At 08:32 PM 4/15/2007, robert bean wrote:
>Since it wouldn't be on a type certificated airplane there would be
>some weight saving options:
>clunky mags replaced with electronic ignition
>lighter exhaust system
>fuel injection...
>
>You may have to enclose the engine to get the right air cooling effect
>or try to duplicate the J3 Cub scoopers.
Hmmm, there's a thought... cooling could be an issue in a pusher
installation like a Kolb, especially on the ground.
Somehow, though, the idea of a fuel injected, electronic ignition A-65 just
seems wrong... :)
-Dana
do not archive
--
--
My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.
Message 39
| 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: Old Ultrastar, Old Pilot but first ultralight, any advice? |
At 06:07 PM 4/15/2007, Matt Hancuh wrote:
>
>...I've got about 800 hours in Pipers and Cessnas, the last 100 hours or
>so, over the last few years, have been spent flying a PA-11 and a PA-12.
>
>1) I've got 3 small holes in the fabric, two caused by transport (rudder
>cables rubbed the elevator) and one in the bottom of the wing. All 3 holes
>are about the size of a pencil eraser. I need to patch these I suppose,
>so what's the smart way to do that?
The proper way, of course, is to do a proper fabric patch according to the
Stits procedures (assuming it's covered with Stits (now called
Poly-Fiber)), but for a hole that small you can probably get away with a
simple tape patch, at least temporarily.
>2) Along with the purchase I've got half a bottle of penzoil outdoor. I'll
>need more oil, is it only penzoil outdoor that I want or will many 2cycle
>oils do?
2-stroke oils are a subject that generates as many opinions as pilots. My
take is that most oils are OK, but that it's best not to switch brands (or
at least not too often), and that Pennzoil is one of the best (if not the
best) of the non synthetic oils... and what Rotax recommends (I know yours
is not a Rotax).
Like you, I recently bought an Ultrastar, and like you, have yet to fly
it. The previous owner always used Pennzoil air-cooled oil and I'll
continue to do the same.
I would also suggest that you get at least a little time in a 2-seat
ultralight before flying your US. A Kolb would be best, but even some time
in a Quicksilver or such would get you used to the low speeds and high drag
of an ultralight. My GA background is also similar to yours (~600 hours in
airplanes, about half of that that in the T-Craft I used to own), but I
feel a LOT more comfortable getting ready to fly my US after putting in
about 5 hours in a borrowed Quicksilver last fall.
-Dana
do not archive
--
--
My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.
Message 40
| 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: | Firestar II trailer.....thumbs |
What would you guys suggest as the minimum interior trailer length for my 97
Firestar II?
Gary
Souderton,PA
_________________________________________________________________
Download Messenger. Join the im Initiative. Help make a difference today.
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_APR07
Message 41
| 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: Firestar II trailer.....thumbs |
25 feet and as wide as you can legally own. There is no such thing as too
much room. I always used mine to carry camping stuff, and wished that I had
built it bigger and longer. Carrying a quad along with the plane would be
really nice. A nice little self contained work area and storage area could
be really handy. When I built my trailer I set the box inside of the wheels
reasoning that the wheel wells would limit storage anyway. If I had it to do
over I would have made it that much bigger.
Larry, Oregon
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Thacker" <gbthacker@hotmail.com>
> What would you guys suggest as the minimum interior trailer length for my
> 97 Firestar II?
>
>
> Gary
>
> Souderton,PA
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Download Messenger. Join the im Initiative. Help make a difference today.
> http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_APR07
>
>
>
Message 42
| 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: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
My understanding is that the A-65 isn't all that heavy - IF you
use lightweight accessories. I understand that an 0-200, stripped, is about
180 pounds, and I'd *guess* the A-65 would be slightly less. Power won't be
enormous, but should be acceptable - it'll have that 65 hp and full
torque at the same prop rpm as any other 65 hp engine. *You'll need to
check the thrust bearing, to make sure it's configured for a pusher
application.* Total weight, in my eyes, would be the kicker. A while back
I asked a similar question and got blasted about total engine weight. I
doubt that would be a problem. If the pilot is heavy, an A-65 is going to
suffer a bit with its' marginal power, but if the pilot is light to average
the thing should fly fine. With a passenger, I dunno. As I asked in my
previous question - what's the practical difference between a 200 lb engine
with a 200 lb pilot, and a 160 lb engine with a 240 lb pilot ?? Fuel
Injected, electronic ignition A-65 ?? Not traditional, but if it
works..........?? Talk to Klaus Savier at Lightspeed
Aviation. Lar.
On 4/15/07, Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> At 08:32 PM 4/15/2007, robert bean wrote:
>
> >Since it wouldn't be on a type certificated airplane there would be
> >some weight saving options:
> >clunky mags replaced with electronic ignition
> >lighter exhaust system
> >fuel injection...
> >
> >You may have to enclose the engine to get the right air cooling effect
> >or try to duplicate the J3 Cub scoopers.
>
> Hmmm, there's a thought... cooling could be an issue in a pusher
> installation like a Kolb, especially on the ground.
>
> Somehow, though, the idea of a fuel injected, electronic ignition A-65
> just
> seems wrong... :)
>
> -Dana
>
> do not archive
>
>
> --
> --
> My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.
>
>
Message 43
| 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: Warp Drive prop inertia concerns |
jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne wrote:
>
>
> Mike,
>
> Doesn't this void the engine warrenty?
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
>
>
I have not measured the inertia of the warp drive prop, nor do I know what it is.
It would be interesting to know, but I suspect it is in limits. If not,
its probably pretty close. I would like to know the number, but in the end I
am still going to use my Warp drive prop.
There are many many warp drive props running on Rotax 912's, probably more hours
with the warp drive than any other type of prop with no problems reported.
What does that tell you ? It tells me not to worry about it.
Now in a pusher configuration, there is always the possiblity of an engine part
going through the prop. Would you run a very light prop that would probably
throw a blade if a muffler part went through it, ripping the engine from its
mounts, just because you are worried about the engine warrenty ? That is a very
real concern, it happens.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=107209#107209
Message 44
| 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 |
|
In a message dated 4/14/2007 8:04:56 PM Central Standard Time,
jhauck@elmore.rr.com writes:
> My biggest concern operating a 2 stroke on ethanol laced fuel is
> moisture in the crank case, rusting main ball bearings. Might also
> attack the cast iron piston rings.
>
> I don't know, just thinking out loud.
>
> john h
> mkIII
John,
I feel the same way as I live where the humidity is seldom les than 70%.
Did you ever use fogging preservation oil in your early 2-strokes, and do you
think that is a good idea. All I know is my manual said to run preservation
oil through the carb on my 447. I have heard others say yes and no. At this
time Im not sure what to do ,but I am leaning toward following Rotax's advice,
except it seems to be hard on the plugs and I have to replace them sooner. .I
plan on doing a proper Decarb and inspection at 50 hours. What is the longest
you have run a 447 without a decarbon and not had trouble?
Ed Diebel<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See
what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
Message 45
| 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: Warp Drive prop inertia concerns |
In a message dated 4/15/2007 10:59:48 PM Central Standard Time,
orcabonita@hotmail.com writes:
> Would you run a very light prop that would probably throw a blade if a
> muffler part went through it, ripping the engine from its mounts, just because
> you are worried about the engine warrenty ? That is a very real concern, it
> happens.
>
> Mike
>
>
Has this senario actually happened, or, are you just afraid it
is going to happen. Is there documentation that these props throw blades with
no apparent cause? Do you have your muffler springs safetied along with
silicon in them? How about the newer clamps that replace the springs and cant break
and go through the prop?
Ed Diebel
<BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 46
| 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: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? |
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Bourne
it'll have that 65 hp and full torque at the same prop rpm as any
other 65 hp engine. the pilot is heavy, an A-65 is going to suffer a
bit with its' marginal power, but if the pilot is light to average the
thing should fly fine. With a passenger, I dunno. As I asked in my
previous question - what's the practical difference between a 200 lb
engine with a 200 lb pilot, and a 160 lb engine with a 240 lb pilot ??
Larry if you recall the Mark III that I had with the 582 on it, I
considered it marginal enough that I did not enjoy flying it at all. Add
even more weight to it and the best that you could say is that it flies,
or lumbers which ever. You will definitely be committing aviation, but
it will be a misdemeanor at best.
Larry, Oregon
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! --
|