---------------------------------------------------------- Kolb-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 04/15/07: 46 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:42:54 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Gasohol From: "Dave Bigelow" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:49:03 AM PST US From: N27SB@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Gasohol 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:32:22 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Gasohol From: "Ralph B" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:59:54 AM PST US From: Dana Hague Subject: Re: Kolb-List: re. gasohol 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:09:56 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:11:26 AM PST US From: robert bean Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:12:54 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: pictures from a kolb From: "Ralph B" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:13:51 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:30:29 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:32:11 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:39:33 AM PST US Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Ms Dixie update From: "Craig Nelson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:58:34 AM PST US From: "Jack B. Hart" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:04:09 AM PST US From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:16:33 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:14:16 AM PST US From: "Jack B. Hart" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:28:03 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:31:34 AM PST US From: "Rick Pearce" Subject: Kolb-List: 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 ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 12:01:12 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:04:40 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: A Continental A-65 on a Kolb MkIII? Why not? From: "JetPilot" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:16:14 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:20:58 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Warp Drive prop inertia concerns From: "JetPilot" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:30:47 PM PST US From: Dana Hague Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:33:41 PM PST US From: Dana Hague Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:00:07 PM PST US From: "Jack B. Hart" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:18:44 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: 912ULS octane From: "Roger Lee" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:51:09 PM PST US From: "boyd" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: re. gasohol >>>>>>>>> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:51:09 PM PST US From: "boyd" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: re. gasohol 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:53:56 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:11:36 PM PST US From: "boyd" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:22:02 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:07:35 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Old Ultrastar, Old Pilot but first ultralight, any advice? From: "Matt Hancuh" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:34:00 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Ms Dixie update From: "Paul Petty" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:45:48 PM PST US From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:19:13 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Ms Dixie update | | -------- | Paul Petty Paul: You did a great job! john h mkIII DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 05:32:57 PM PST US From: robert bean Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:38:48 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:48:23 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: pictures from a kolb From: "Ralph B" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:21:56 PM PST US From: Dana Hague Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:39:20 PM PST US From: Dana Hague Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:14:50 PM PST US From: "Gary Thacker" Subject: Kolb-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:41:21 PM PST US From: "Larry Cottrell" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:55:41 PM PST US From: "Larry Bourne" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:59:21 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Warp Drive prop inertia concerns From: "JetPilot" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:32:16 PM PST US From: DAquaNut@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Gasohol 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


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 09:56:40 PM PST US From: DAquaNut@aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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

**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 10:35:55 PM PST US From: "Larry Cottrell" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kolb-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kolb-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kolb-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kolb-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.