Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:14 AM - Re: Mark IIIC won't turn right in straight and level (Mike Welch)
2. 10:50 AM - Re: Re: FireFly prop & others (Charlie England)
3. 11:42 AM - Re: Mark IIIC won't turn right in straight and level (Richard Pike)
4. 12:53 PM - Re: Mark IIIC won't turn right in straight and level (JetPilot)
5. 01:28 PM - Re: Re: FireFly prop & others (Ron)
6. 01:47 PM - Re: Re: Mark IIIC won't turn right in straight and level (Richard Girard)
7. 02:15 PM - Re: Re: FireFly prop & others (Richard Girard)
8. 03:39 PM - Re: Re: FireFly prop & others (possums)
9. 03:44 PM - Re: Re: FireFly prop & others (Dennis Souder)
10. 05:56 PM - Re: Re: FireFly prop & others (Jack B. Hart)
11. 06:18 PM - Re: Re: FireFly prop & others (Ron)
12. 08:14 PM - Re: Re: FireFly prop & others (Dana Hague)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mark IIIC won't turn right in straight and level |
John,
There didn't seem to be too many responses to your dilemma, so I thought
I would make a suggestion. Verify the following:
Take a look at the pivot hinges for the ailerons. Are
they bOTH oriented in the same direction? Meaning....the pivoting action
of the hinge, are they both UP, or both down??
Just an idea, Mike in SW Utah (who didn't
make it to MV, I'm sorry to say!!
>From: "John Bickham" <gearbender@bellsouth.net>
>To: kolb-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: Mark IIIC won't turn right in straight and level
>Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:12:53 -0700
>
>
>Need help with this one.
>
>A local friend of mine purchased a Kolb Mark IIIC. I think the previous
>owner was the former partners of the TNK. I'm terrible with names but I
>remember he was a big old boy. I think I remember him flying this plane at
>the first TNK homecoming I went to.
>
>Anyway, this Mark IIIC will not turn right in straight and level cruise.
>The stick moves easily to the left but takes two hands to move it a even a
>little bit to the right. If you put the plane in a climb or a descent, it
>unloads the problem and allows the stick to move to the right.
>
>I've looked it over and see no obvious problem. I noticed that the center
>line of the elevator hinge on the left side is not exactly centered with
>the pivot bolt. Off about a 1/8" I suggested getting that aligned and
>tightening the cables a bit.
>
>If anyone has faced this problem or has suggestions, it would be greatly
>appreciated.
>
>--------
>Thanks too much,
>
>John Bickham
>Mark III-C
>"Using my Repairman Certificate"
>St. Francisville, LA
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113488#113488
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? Youll love Windows Live
Hotmail.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FireFly prop & others |
Actually, they aren't that efficient; they are just better than turbines
without the bypass. They would be a lot more efficient if you could put
a 2 blade prop on them, but a 2-blade big enough to absorb that much hp
would probably have a larger diameter than the plane & weigh more than
the plane, too.
The entire *system* is efficient, but that's because of extremely low
drag, extreme span-loading of the wings, flying at extreme altitude, etc.
Charlie
Jim Dunn wrote:
>
> Then why is a high-bipass turbofan so efficient? These are found on
> 747-767 and are just a whole bunch of ducted short propeller blades.
>
>
> At 11:01 PM 5/15/2007, Eugene Zimmerman wrote:
>>
> Similarly, the close together the prop blades are (i.e. 3
> blade vs. 2 blade) the more interference.
> -Dana
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mark IIIC won't turn right in straight and level |
Not a clue.
So here's some questions to get things started.
Does it fly pretty much straight and level without effort, does it only take
minimal pressure to keep it flying straight?
If so, what sort of rigging does it have to make it fly straight? What are
it's current rigging adjustments?
Does it have a tendency to turn left anyway?
What is the prop rotation?
Does if turn equally well either way power off?
Does it turn equally well either way in a full power climb?
Does it always break off to one side in a stall?
Are the flaps rigged the same, or is there differential in their droop or
angle?
Not sure what I am looking for, just fishing.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Bickham" <gearbender@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:12 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Mark IIIC won't turn right in straight and level
>
> Need help with this one.
>
> A local friend of mine purchased a Kolb Mark IIIC. I think the previous
> owner was the former partners of the TNK. I'm terrible with names but I
> remember he was a big old boy. I think I remember him flying this plane
> at the first TNK homecoming I went to.
>
> Anyway, this Mark IIIC will not turn right in straight and level cruise.
> The stick moves easily to the left but takes two hands to move it a even a
> little bit to the right. If you put the plane in a climb or a descent, it
> unloads the problem and allows the stick to move to the right.
>
> I've looked it over and see no obvious problem. I noticed that the center
> line of the elevator hinge on the left side is not exactly centered with
> the pivot bolt. Off about a 1/8" I suggested getting that aligned and
> tightening the cables a bit.
>
> If anyone has faced this problem or has suggestions, it would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> --------
> Thanks too much,
>
> John Bickham
> Mark III-C
> "Using my Repairman Certificate"
> St. Francisville, LA
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113488#113488
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mark IIIC won't turn right in straight and level |
What you describe sounds strange, but if description of the proplem is very accurate,
this sounds like a control system jamming problem to me. Espeically given
that the stick frees up when you climb or descend, it sounds like it may be
taking some load off the control system allowing it to move. I would check
to make sure that the bushings that the aileron control tube go through are well
greased and free. On the ground, have two people put a little up force on
BOTH ailerons at the same time, then see if the stick moves left and right freely.
Then have them put some down force and see if you feel any binding in the
stick. Then check every part of the aileron control system that could possibly
jam under load.
The elevator problem you describe should not cause a roll jam as you describe,
it is most likely un related.
Attached is a picture of the area I am talking about, this loads up with a lot
of downforce in flight, and needs to be well greased through the holes in the
bushing. Good luck and let us know what you find.
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=113867#113867
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbdetail1_671.jpg
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: FireFly prop & others |
I think the point he is trying to make and legitimately so is that; if a two blade
prop was so efficient you would have a 2 blade fan section. Obviously a multi
fan is more efficient considering the space allocated and the parameters in
which it operates. Its an important distinction to make. As someone else pointed
out in a perfect world many things would be different.
In an imperfect world you create perfection through adaptation for the task you
need to perform. One of those things is a multi blade prop. I can see where theoretically
a two blade is superior however in real life it is almost never the
case. In real life almost always a 3 blade prop is superior performance wise
to a two blade prop and a 4 blade prop is most times superior to 3 blade prop.
Its hard to win against a theoretical argument, the only way to "win" is to
do a real world comparison when all the real factors that exist including bugs
and paint chipped off the leading edge come into play.
I will install a 4 blade prop on my M3X and then I will try a 2 blade prop I will
be surprised if I get better performance at *any* flight regime with the 2
blader.
Ron
=======================
---- JetPilot <orcabonita@hotmail.com> wrote:
============
jim wrote:
>
>
> Then why is a high-bipass turbofan so efficient? These are found on
> 747-767 and are just a whole bunch of ducted short propeller blades.
>
> -Dana
A high bybpas turbofan is NOT efficient. If you look at a jet compared to a prop
plane, there is no comparison in in efficiency, the prop wins every time. Where
did you get the idea that a turbofan is so efficient , by comparing it to
a turbojet, which is even less efficient [Laughing]
It is well known that a 2 blade prop is more efficient than a 3 blade. The problem
is that there is not always room for a long 2 blade prop, or noise is more
of an issue etc. etc. But the 2 blade is more efficient.
If someone outclimbed someone else with a 3 blade prop, making the assumption that
it was because of having a 3 bladed prop is just dumb. Ever think it could
have been variations in the airplane, pilot technique, or a hundred other possible
factors ???
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=113164#113164
--
kugelair.com
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mark IIIC won't turn right in straight and level |
Since the description of the solution, climbing or descending, didn't
mention actually unloading the system, i.e. pulling negative or positive
G's, but rather movement of the stick, I'm guessing the problem lies in the
mixer mechanism at the bottom of the stick. I agree with Mike, it sounds
like a mechanical jamming. If you have access to a stethescope you might try
listening to all the areas mentioned to check for any slight clicking or
grinding sounds as you move the stick.
Rick
On 5/20/07, JetPilot <orcabonita@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> What you describe sounds strange, but if description of the proplem is
> very accurate, this sounds like a control system jamming problem to
> me. Espeically given that the stick frees up when you climb or descend, it
> sounds like it may be taking some load off the control system allowing it to
> move. I would check to make sure that the bushings that the aileron control
> tube go through are well greased and free. On the ground, have two people
> put a little up force on BOTH ailerons at the same time, then see if the
> stick moves left and right freely. Then have them put some down force and
> see if you feel any binding in the stick. Then check every part of the
> aileron control system that could possibly jam under load.
>
> The elevator problem you describe should not cause a roll jam as you
> describe, it is most likely un related.
>
> Attached is a picture of the area I am talking about, this loads up with a
> lot of downforce in flight, and needs to be well greased through the holes
> in the bushing. Good luck and let us know what you find.
>
> 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=113867#113867
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/ultralightmikekolbdetail1_671.jpg
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: FireFly prop & others |
Consider the original Supermarine Spitfire Mk 1, #5054, had a two blade
prop. By the Mk IX it was running a four blade prop and by the Mk XIV, with
the RR Griffon engine replacing the Merlin, it was running a five blade. The
difference in speed between the Mk I and the Mk XIV was almost 100 MPH. The
difference in HP was a bit over 800 between the two and the extra three
blades were required to soak it up.
Rick
On 5/20/07, Ron <captainron1@cox.net> wrote:
>
> I think the point he is trying to make and legitimately so is that; if a
> two blade prop was so efficient you would have a 2 blade fan section.
> Obviously a multi fan is more efficient considering the space allocated and
> the parameters in which it operates. Its an important distinction to make.
> As someone else pointed out in a perfect world many things would be
> different.
>
> In an imperfect world you create perfection through adaptation for the
> task you need to perform. One of those things is a multi blade prop. I can
> see where theoretically a two blade is superior however in real life it is
> almost never the case. In real life almost always a 3 blade prop is superior
> performance wise to a two blade prop and a 4 blade prop is most times
> superior to 3 blade prop. Its hard to win against a theoretical argument,
> the only way to "win" is to do a real world comparison when all the real
> factors that exist including bugs and paint chipped off the leading edge
> come into play.
>
> I will install a 4 blade prop on my M3X and then I will try a 2 blade prop
> I will be surprised if I get better performance at *any* flight regime with
> the 2 blader.
>
> Ron
>
> =======================
> ---- JetPilot <orcabonita@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ============
>
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Then why is a high-bipass turbofan so efficient? These are found on
> > 747-767 and are just a whole bunch of ducted short propeller blades.
> >
> > -Dana
>
>
> A high bybpas turbofan is NOT efficient. If you look at a jet compared to
> a prop plane, there is no comparison in in efficiency, the prop wins every
> time. Where did you get the idea that a turbofan is so efficient , by
> comparing it to a turbojet, which is even less efficient [Laughing]
>
> It is well known that a 2 blade prop is more efficient than a 3 blade. The
> problem is that there is not always room for a long 2 blade prop, or noise
> is more of an issue etc. etc. But the 2 blade is more efficient.
>
> If someone outclimbed someone else with a 3 blade prop, making the
> assumption that it was because of having a 3 bladed prop is just dumb. Ever
> think it could have been variations in the airplane, pilot technique, or a
> hundred other possible factors ???
>
> Mike
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you
> could
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: FireFly prop & others |
At 04:27 PM 5/20/2007, you wrote:
>I think the point he is trying to make and legitimately so is that;
>if a two blade prop was so efficient you would have a 2 blade fan
>section. Obviously a multi fan is more efficient considering the
>space allocated and the parameters in which it operates. Its an
>important distinction to make. As someone else pointed out in a
>perfect world many things would be different.
>
>In an imperfect world you create perfection through adaptation for
>the task you need to perform. One of those things is a multi blade
>prop. I can see where theoretically a two blade is superior however
>in real life it is almost never the case. In real life almost always
>a 3 blade prop is superior performance wise to a two blade prop and
>a 4 blade prop is most times superior to 3 blade prop. Its hard to
>win against a theoretical argument, the only way to "win" is to do a
>real world comparison when all the real factors that exist including
>bugs and paint chipped off the leading edge come into play.
>
>I will install a 4 blade prop on my M3X and then I will try a 2
>blade prop I will be surprised if I get better performance at *any*
>flight regime with the 2 blader.
>
>Ron
We tried a 6 blade - double 3 blade - prop on one of ours that had enough
house power to turn it and it didn't do worth a crap.
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: FireFly prop & others |
Hi Ron and Kolbers,
Over the many years at TOK I experimented with many different 2 and 3 blade
propellers on the FF, FS, TS, M2, M3, SS and Laser. It is my recollection
that a 2-blade would be faster than a 3-blade every time. The only reason
we would run a 3-blade was for their typically smoother operation. I used
the same aircraft for speed runs using a stopwatch to measure the speed over
our 3,000 ft runway. This was done in zero-to- minimal wind conditions -
usually late evenings - and I would average the run in both directions.
This gave very repeatable results. This was my experience - I'll let
others debate the theory.
Dennis
_____
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: FireFly prop & others
I think the point he is trying to make and legitimately so is that; if a two
blade prop was so efficient you would have a 2 blade fan section. Obviously
a multi fan is more efficient considering the space allocated and the
parameters in which it operates. Its an important distinction to make. As
someone else pointed out in a perfect world many things would be different.
In an imperfect world you create perfection through adaptation for the task
you need to perform. One of those things is a multi blade prop. I can see
where theoretically a two blade is superior however in real life it is
almost never the case. In real life almost always a 3 blade prop is superior
performance wise to a two blade prop and a 4 blade prop is most times
superior to 3 blade prop. Its hard to win against a theoretical argument,
the only way to "win" is to do a real world comparison when all the real
factors that exist including bugs and paint chipped off the leading edge
come into play.
I will install a 4 blade prop on my M3X and then I will try a 2 blade prop I
will be surprised if I get better performance at *any* flight regime with
the 2 blader.
Ron
=======================
---- JetPilot <orcabonita@hotmail.com> wrote:
============
jim wrote:
>
>
> Then why is a high-bipass turbofan so efficient? These are found on
> 747-767 and are just a whole bunch of ducted short propeller blades.
>
> -Dana
A high bybpas turbofan is NOT efficient. If you look at a jet compared to a
prop plane, there is no comparison in in efficiency, the prop wins every
time. Where did you get the idea that a turbofan is so efficient , by
comparing it to a turbojet, which is even less efficient [Laughing]
It is well known that a 2 blade prop is more efficient than a 3 blade. The
problem is that there is not always room for a long 2 blade prop, or noise
is more of an issue etc. etc. But the 2 blade is more efficient.
If someone outclimbed someone else with a 3 blade prop, making the
assumption that it was because of having a 3 bladed prop is just dumb. Ever
think it could have been variations in the airplane, pilot technique, or a
hundred other possible factors ???
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you
could
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: FireFly prop & others |
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb@pa.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Over the many years at TOK I experimented with many different 2 and 3 blade propellers
on the FF, FS, TS, M2, M3, SS and Laser. It is my recollection that a
2-blade would be faster than a 3-blade every time. The only reason we would
run a 3-blade was for their typically smoother operation. I used the same aircraft
for speed runs using a stopwatch to measure the speed over our 3,000 ft
runway. This was done in zero-to- minimal wind conditions usually late evenings
- and I would average the run in both directions. This gave very repeatable
results. This was my experience - Ill let others debate the theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Kolbers,
If you keep the same propeller diameter and switch from a two to three blades and
set the engine to top out at the same rpm, the two blade will cruise faster
due to greater pitch. The three blade will climb better.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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: FireFly prop & others |
Yes we will get to a point of diminishing returns, however with more blades you
will need to optimize the diameter of the blades (smaller) etc.. The only drag
increase that I can off hand think of is parasitic drag etc... However its of
minor significance and the multi blade better radial efficiency during flight
should more than compensate for it.
Ron (Arizona)
===========================
---- possums <possums@bellsouth.net> wrote:
============
At 04:27 PM 5/20/2007, you wrote:
>I think the point he is trying to make and legitimately so is that;
>if a two blade prop was so efficient you would have a 2 blade fan
>section. Obviously a multi fan is more efficient considering the
>space allocated and the parameters in which it operates. Its an
>important distinction to make. As someone else pointed out in a
>perfect world many things would be different.
>
>In an imperfect world you create perfection through adaptation for
>the task you need to perform. One of those things is a multi blade
>prop. I can see where theoretically a two blade is superior however
>in real life it is almost never the case. In real life almost always
>a 3 blade prop is superior performance wise to a two blade prop and
>a 4 blade prop is most times superior to 3 blade prop. Its hard to
>win against a theoretical argument, the only way to "win" is to do a
>real world comparison when all the real factors that exist including
>bugs and paint chipped off the leading edge come into play.
>
>I will install a 4 blade prop on my M3X and then I will try a 2
>blade prop I will be surprised if I get better performance at *any*
>flight regime with the 2 blader.
>
>Ron
We tried a 6 blade - double 3 blade - prop on one of ours that had enough
house power to turn it and it didn't do worth a crap.
--
kugelair.com
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: FireFly prop & others |
At 05:15 PM 5/20/2007, Richard Girard wrote:
>Consider the original Supermarine Spitfire Mk 1, #5054, had a two blade
>prop. By the Mk IX it was running a four blade prop and by the Mk XIV,
>with the RR Griffon engine replacing the Merlin, it was running a five
>blade. The difference in speed between the Mk I and the Mk XIV was almost
>100 MPH. The difference in HP was a bit over 800 between the two and the
>extra three blades were required to soak it up.
True, but consider the reason... it wasn't practical to make the landing
gear long enough to put on a sufficiently large prop of less blades to
absorb all the available power. Even the early Spitfires had very limited
prop ground clearance, so that pilots had to be very careful not to let the
tail get too high while on the ground.
-Dana
--
--
Okay, who put a "stop payment" on my reality check?
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! --
|