Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:22 AM - Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed (Tony Oldman)
2. 02:27 AM - Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed (pat ladd)
3. 02:47 AM - Re: Re: Kolb Firefly (pat ladd)
4. 03:40 AM - twinstar (tc1917)
5. 03:43 AM - Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed (Tony Oldman)
6. 05:53 AM - Re: Builders Plans (planecrazzzy)
7. 06:16 AM - Re: Federal Funding (planecrazzzy)
8. 07:09 AM - Re: Builders Plans (Vic Peters)
9. 07:56 AM - Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged (icrashrc)
10. 08:15 AM - Re: Re: Kolb Firefly (flymichigan@comcast.net)
11. 08:17 AM - Re: Builders Plans (icrashrc)
12. 09:25 AM - Re: Kolb Firefly (planecrazzzy)
13. 11:51 AM - Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged (JetPilot)
14. 11:55 AM - Re: Federal Funding (JetPilot)
15. 12:11 PM - Re: Re: Federal Funding...now xpndr cert. (Bob Noyer)
16. 01:04 PM - saturday's breakfast flight (robert bean)
17. 01:15 PM - Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged (Paul Petty)
18. 01:33 PM - Re: Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged (neilsenrm@comcast.net)
19. 01:34 PM - Re: Builders Plans (Paul Petty)
20. 01:45 PM - Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged (Paul Petty)
21. 01:47 PM - Re: Builders Plans (neilsenrm@comcast.net)
22. 02:05 PM - Re: Noise canceling earbuds update (neilsenrm@comcast.net)
23. 02:05 PM - Ms Dixie update2 (Paul Petty)
24. 02:09 PM - Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed (JetPilot)
25. 02:17 PM - Re: Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged (neilsenrm@comcast.net)
26. 02:31 PM - Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged (Paul Petty)
27. 04:39 PM - Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged (John Hauck)
28. 04:52 PM - Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed (John Hauck)
29. 06:11 PM - Re: Kolb Firefly (Don G)
30. 07:57 PM - Re: Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed (Richard Pike)
31. 08:03 PM - Prop Comparison (neilsenrm@comcast.net)
32. 08:53 PM - Re: Prop Comparison (lucien)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
Only running a 503 so that has kept the weight down. Aircraft is used
mostly at sea level so performance is still good.
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: Denny Rowe
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Mark 3 classic landing speed
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Oldman
.MK111 445 pounds emty and max take off of 1050 pounds
Chears Tony
Now thats a light Mk-3
Denny Rowe, Mk-3 470 pounds
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/07/2007 3:35 p.m.
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: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
Here in NewZealand it would appear our Ultralight rules are different
than you guys. With these weights I am still well within our limits. >>
Hi Tony,
it would be interesting to compare how your rules differ from the USA
and the UK rules. Where are you in Kiwiland?
Cheers
Pat
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: Kolb Firefly |
Just make sure both of you tell the same story >>
Hi Paul,
I just love your American atitude to the rules. Here, in general, rules are
complied with and are considered to be there for a reason. In the States the
rules seem to be seen as something to be circumvented if at all possible.
Guess it is just an entirely different perspective.
Your argument about `Fat Ultralights` wouldn`t get off the ground here. You
either comply with the rules and you are a ultralight or you don`t and you
are not. If you are not then all the rest falls into place and the least of
your troubles will be that no insurance company would pay out in the case of
an accident.
Thats not to say that the rules don`t get bent a little here and there.....
I wish we had a little more of your attitude over here. We are really
turning into a `nanny State` and we shalll need a certificate and a crash
helmet to get out of bed soon
Cheers
Pat
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 |
|
I just wanted to give the list a heads up on my newest creation or
recreation. My wife Bev and I have almost completed the restoration of an
original Kolb Twinstar with the drop down nose cone. It should be completed
and ready for sale within two weeks. This should give the new owner time to
get an n-number, register it and put the engine of his desire on it in
plenty of time for the inspection. (wouldnt the HKS be just about perfect
for this!) Everything has been checked and repainted (cables especially).
It had a 503 on it but we are selling it as 'parts'. I am just completing
the recovering of the wings with stits. It will have silver poly spray and
it is the certified cloth for durability (stright from Poly-fiber). The
wing is going to be painted insig. white unless someone steps up real quick
and wants something else. Being poly tone paint, you could repaint it with
any design you chose or stay with the beautiful dark blue fuse and white
wings and nose. Has new tires and outside brake drums. Just wanted to give
the heads up. A truely classic two seater. Ted Cowan, 334-480-0822. Will
send pics off list if you are REALLY interested. Going to go for about
$6,000 OBO.
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: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
On the coast middle of the South Island { Timaru } a city of about 3500.
I operate from the local airport and fly mostly inaudio.The airport has
some commercial activity and also carries out flight training with the
local aero club and gliding club.No landing fees if you are a club
member,no tower. Nearest international airport 100 miles away at
Christchurch so we get pretty well left alone. Like most places there
are the people that would like to see Ultralights {microlights here } go
fly some other place.
We all live in hope that those that try and make it difficult { mostly
the rule makers} for us will wake up to the fact we ALL enjoy the same
passion and just want to fly.
It is pleasing to see that the number of Ultralight kickers are on the
decline .We have a great country that offers great views from the air.
Our rules are basic for now. Max weight 1234 lbs, only one pax, maintain
straight and level at 35 mph . Training to be carried out by RAANZ
approved instructor,{ Recreational aircraft association NewZealand }
different ratings for different control systems and a special rating for
pax with a minimum PIC time. Flight test every two years with medical
{much the same medical as you would need to drive a heavy truck } Rules
have started to become more structured and in line with GA aircraft in
that you now need a log book for daily flights one for the prop and
another for the engine. You can still carry out your own maintenance but
the aircraft needs a permit to fly inspection every 12 months .
We do have some no fly zones if flying inaudio.
The Kolb is a great aircraft ,its easy to manage has no vices, has great
visibility is excellent on short grass strips.I think that our MK111 is
the only one flying in NewZealand. There are a few MK2s.Also have a 7/8
scale Sopwith camel . The camel has a 503 in it but I have a 5 cyl
radial that fits into it. It has been flown on the radial some time ago.
The radial is a Webster Whirlwind. Hope I am not boring any one with
this chatter. I just love having my feet off the ground .Also ride a
1961 AJS and have recently restored a Triumph spitfire am now working on
a 1935 Morris sports car.Have too many hobbies and not enough time.Keep
it safe up there.
Cheers
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: pat ladd
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Mark 3 classic landing speed
Here in NewZealand it would appear our Ultralight rules are different
than you guys. With these weights I am still well within our limits. >>
Hi Tony,
it would be interesting to compare how your rules differ from the USA
and the UK rules. Where are you in Kiwiland?
Cheers
Pat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/07/2007 3:35 p.m.
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: Builders Plans |
THAT'S FUNNY !!!
Maybe yer lookin for the print on "Fiberglass & Resin"....
( That would be under "Nosecone" )
Well , one good thing , somebody's always here to explain stuff....
They've already built'em and Love them....
My Prints where pretty simple....But then again , I work with prints
Building / Welding stuff.....
Gotta Fly...
Mike & "Jaz" in MN Firestar II / N381PM
.
.
.
.
--------
.
.
.
.
.
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122139#122139
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/plane_at_northern_lights_airpark_007_170.jpg
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: Federal Funding |
Something that wasn't mentioned about Red Wing Airport....
There are 3M "Jets" that Fly out of there.....I SURE that has something
to do with not wanting UL's buzzing around....
I'm sure there has been "Situations"
I'm flying there Thursday morning to get my Transponder Cert.
$75 for the Transponder & $75 for the Alt Encoder (cheapest I've Found)
Gotta Fly...
Mike & "Jaz" in MN - FSII / N381PM
.
.
.
.
--------
.
.
.
.
.
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122143#122143
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: Builders Plans |
Your right, Rick 2. The plans contradict themselves page to page.
Good thing you've got Donnie,Travis & this list, use em!
Vic
MKIIIExra
912ul
Maine
do not archive
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: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
Send the pictures to me @ icrashrc at aol dot com and i'll be happy to post them
on my website.
--------
Scott
www.ill-EagleAviation.com
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122156#122156
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: Kolb Firefly |
I find all this talk about enforcement a little strange. The FAA has never seemed
to care about overweight ultralights and I have seen no evidence that they
will start after January. The only noise of enforcement that I have heard, has
come from people who have a financial interest in SP, and those pilots that
buy in to their rhetoric. I have spoken off the record with a two FAA officials,
and they have not received any mandate to step up enforcement.
Here's my take.......
If it looks like an ultrralight, has one seat, 5gal tank, and has a 447 or smaller,
the FAA will consider it an ultralight....That is, until you piss off the
neighbors, or have an accident that forces the FAA's hand. For instance, if
you have an engine out and land in a school yard full of kids, they are apt to
nail you to the wall.
I think sport pilot is a great solution for guys with two seats, but I intend to
keep flying my firestar 1 as an ultralight,
As far as the sign at your local airport, that sounds like a place that is already
hostile towards the kind of planes we fly, and they are looking for any excuse
to get rid of us. I avoid airports that are not ultralight friendly. If
they don't want me there, I don't want to be there.
Bryan Dever
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: Builders Plans |
I read thru the plans more than once when I first received kit one. I put dividers
in the book to separate different sections. Wing, tail feathers, etc.
The plans are laid out so that every section [wing, tail feathers, etc.] have 3
parts. There's a building log, Mechanical drawings, then the build process itself.
The build part of the book is not only incomplete but is actually wrong in many
places. The mechanical drawings will answer most questions left by the other
places in the book. The rest of the questions can be answered on the Kolb list
or in the archives. You may also be able to find what you need via the pictures
and log on my or other builders websites.
--------
Scott
www.ill-EagleAviation.com
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122165#122165
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: Kolb Firefly |
As I said in a different post conserning Red Wing Airport....
There are 3M corporate "Jets" that fly out of there.....
I'm Sure their have been "Situations"....
Alot of UL pilots are busy talking on 123.45 because they don't
know OR care that there are freq ( 122.75 , 122.85) for plane to plane
and by doing this their UNAWARE of the airport freq and Airport traffic...
I think 3M has alot to do with that sign.....
.
.
Gotta Fly...
Mike & "Jaz" in MN - FSII / N381PM
.
.
PS Heading to Red Wing Airport tomorrow morning to have my
Transponder & Alt Encoder Certified ( $75 each-Cheapest I've found )
.
.
.
.
[quote
As far as the sign at your local airport, that sounds like a place that is already
hostile towards the kind of planes we fly, and they are looking for any excuse
to get rid of us. I avoid airports that are not ultralight friendly. If
they don't want me there, I don't want to be there.
Bryan Dever[/quote]
--------
.
.
.
.
.
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122178#122178
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: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
I have to agree with John H on the Warp drive, worst you would have had to do is
replace a blade after landing at your home field. If a powerfin stayed together,
the warp would have had a nick, thats it.
I started flying my MK III with a Kiev Prop, it is very smooth, beautiful, and
efficient, but it is so light it worries me every time I fly it. I finally just
coughed up the 1500 bucks and bought a new Warp Drive. The plane may be a
bit slower with it, im not sure, but I dont worry about my prop comming apart
at the slightest provocation anymore.
I read somewhere that if you have a pusher engine, something will eventually go
through the prop, its just a matter of when, not if... So I have a new condition
Kiev Prop 70 inch prop for sale if anyone is interested.
Mike Bigelow
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122205#122205
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: Federal Funding |
planecrazzzy wrote:
>
>
> I'm flying there Thursday morning to get my Transponder Cert.
>
> $75 for the Transponder & $75 for the Alt Encoder (cheapest I've Found)
>
> Gotta Fly...
> Mike & "Jaz" in MN - FSII / N381PM
> .
> .
> .
> .
Where did you find a transponder for 75 bucks ?
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122206#122206
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: Federal Funding...now xpndr cert. |
Certified...not purchased!
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
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: | saturday's breakfast flight |
all, experimenting with picasa. These are our 80 mile round trip to
Middlesex Valley airport (4N2)
It was my first ride actually tapping both tanks to check out the
plumbing.
Used the GPS too. Both worked.
All this sunny 75F weather is hard to take.
http://picasaweb.google.com/blitzsplyk/NewAlbum7407333PM
BB, do not archive
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
Hi Guys,
I havent posted this to the list before i dont think. But I may have after I got
over the embarrasment maybe not. But for the Warp drive prop camp here is my
story. I built ms Dixie to "ready to cover" stage and ran the 912UL and John
H's prop that I bought from him/warp drive and one day on a engine start up test
my right wing front attach point pin fell out and the wing folded back into
the Warp drive prop. I failed to put the "saftey" clips in the attach pins thinking
NO WAY they would vibrate out sitting on the ground. WRONG. End result
was a damaged wing trailing edge and a wing that had to be repaired. the 912
had just barley made it to low idel maybe 600-1000 rpm when this happened. Now
how many have had a wing go into a spinning prop? it was way more than an oil
cap.
As for the Warp? one tiny nick in the leading edge and one tiny scratch in number
2 blade. Sent it to Warp and they replaced the nickle edge on the nicked blade
and polished the scratched blade, balanced it sent it back with a clean bill
of health. I cant speak for other props but i can for a Warp Drive!
If any want pics of the bent trailing edge where the 70"er hit the splice joint
in the TE ask back copy. It's quite impressive!
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122228#122228
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: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
I have a Powerfin prop also. A few years ago I had a 9/16 * 3 inch bolt go thru
the prop in flight. As most good pilots do, I landed at the next available airstrip.
I found some damage but decided to try for home which was almost four
hunderd miles. I have heard of smaller items causing worse damage on Powerfin
props. I also saw all three blades wiped clean off at the hub after a solid strike
on a non Kolb fusalage(sp) boom tube.
As with everything aviation there are trade offs. The Powerfin prop will give more
thrust than a warpdrive, has alot less inertia and will break off if it srikes
something substatial instead of causing gearbox or engine problems. I think
even a warpdrive pilot would do a prcautionary landing after a propstrike.
How rugged do you want the prop to be? Can you live with the trade offs?
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
>
> > (John Hauck) I'm using a Powerfin. (I know what you're probably
> > thinking, John - that if it were a Warp, it would've just cut that ol'
> > oil cap in half and kept on spinning without a blink.)
>
>
> Dennis:
>
> You are correct.
>
> Had you been flying with a Warp Drive Prop, you would still be flying your Magic
> Bike.
>
> Some years ago I put an 18 inch piece of 1.5 inch exhaust pipe through my Warp
> Drive. Pipe hit the leading edge of one blade. Was climbing out at full
> throttle when the pipe let go. Put a small ding in the leading edge and
> produced a new vibration. Flew 10 miles to Wetumpka Airport. Landed, checked
> the prop, and for other damage, got back in the mkIII and flew 11.2 sm to Gantt
> IAP.
>
> Another short story on my first off field landing in Alaska, 1994. Cut more
> alder brush with the Warp Drive than a John Deere A with a 6 foot bush hog. No
> damage to the prop blades, although they did turn green. Alder is a plant
> similar to mature cotton. Very hard stalk and branches about as big as you
> little finger.
>
> Don't know for sure, but I'd bet a months retirement pay you could have flown
> back to Sandia East or Double Eagle with a Warp Drive with no problems.
>
> Laminated and wooden props will not take the abuse a solid carbon fiber Warp
> Drive Blade will and keep on flying. That is why I fly with nothing but Warp
> Drive.
>
> john h
>
> PS: Now is a good time to upgrade. Daryl will give you $100.00 trade in for
> your old prop.
>
> --------
> John Hauck
> MKIII/912ULS
> hauck's holler, alabama
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122073#122073
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>I have a Powerfin prop also. A few years ago I had a 9/16 * 3 inch bolt
go thru the prop in flight. As most good pilots do, I landed at the next
available airstrip. I found some damage but decided to try for home which was
almost four hunderd miles. I have heard of smaller items causing worse damage
on Powerfin props. I also saw all three blades wiped clean off at the
hub after a solid strike on a non Kolb fusalage(sp) boom tube.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As with everything aviation there are trade offs. The Powerfin prop will give
more thrust than a warpdrive, has alot less inertia and will break off
if it srikes something substatial instead of causing gearbox or engine
problems. I think even a warpdrive pilot would do a prcautionary landing after
a propstrike. How rugged do you want the prop to be? Can you live with the
trade offs?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rick Neilsen</DIV>
<DIV>Redrive VW powered MKIIIC</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "John Hauck"
<jhauck@elmore.rr.com> <BR><BR>> --> Kolb-List message posted by:
"John Hauck" <JHAUCK@ELMORE.RR.COM><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > (John Hauck)
I'm using a Powerfin. (I know what you're probably <BR>> > thinking,
John - that if it were a Warp, it would've just cut that ol' <BR>> > oil
cap in half and kept on spinning without a blink.) <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Dennis: <BR>> <BR>> You are correct. <BR>> <BR>> Had you been flying
with a Warp Drive Prop, you would still be flying your Magic <BR>> Bike.
<BR>> <BR>> Some years ago I put an 18 inch piece of 1.5 inch exhaust
pipe through my Warp <BR>> Drive. Pipe hit the leading edge of one blade. Was
climbing out at full <BR>> throttle when the pipe let go. Put a small ding
in the leading edge and <BR>> produced a new vi
bratio
n. Flew 10 miles to Wetumpka Airport. Landed, checked <BR>> the prop, and for
other damage, got back in the mkIII and flew 11.2 sm to Gantt <BR>> IAP.
<BR>> <BR>> Another short story on my first off field landing in Alaska,
1994. Cut more <BR>> alder brush with the Warp Drive than a John Deere A with
a 6 foot bush hog. No <BR>> damage to the prop blades, although they did
turn green. Alder is a plant <BR>> similar to mature cotton. Very hard stalk
and branches about as big as you <BR>> little finger. <BR>> <BR>>
Don't know for sure, but I'd bet a months retirement pay you could have flown
<BR>> back to Sandia East or Double Eagle with a Warp Drive with no problems.
<BR>> <BR>> Laminated and wooden props will not take the abuse a solid
carbon fiber Warp <BR>> Drive Blade will and keep on flying. That is why
I fly with nothing but Warp <BR>> Drive. <BR>> <BR>> john h <BR>>
<BR>> PS: Now is a good time to upgrade. Daryl wi
ll giv
= --&g
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Builders Plans |
Rick,
I commonly refer to my plans as the "Comic Book" they look cool but i feel your
pain! And wait till you get...refer to page so and so and it's blank! I think
the world of the Gang at TNK. I deal with customer service with a ton of vendors
and suppliers in my work and I can tell you this, You will not find better
people than Travis,Donnie and Brian anywhere!
Relax, note areas that you are not sure about and make refrance to what you are
missing and i can assure you they will have answers! Here is another tip. See
if you can find some older "blue prints" from the old kolb. They were very helpful
to me as to the "Concept" of Holmers design.
And be sure to worry the shit out of John Hauck and dont cry when he bites your
head off and hands it to you on a paper plate! hehe
Love you John! Welcome to the Club Rick you will do fine!
PS. are you building the "new" mark 3 X that they had at sun-n-fun? and are your
the guys that did the 300 mph pass over the TNK factory field in 2003/4?
take care
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122231#122231
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: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
and will break off if it srikes something substatial instead of causing gearbox
or engine problems
I can Rick N.
I dont want anything flying or breaking of my airplane and causing harm to anyone...
no offence.
respectfuly
do not archive
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122239#122239
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: Builders Plans |
Rick
Are you getting the MKIIIX with flaps or flaperons? Check the archives for considerable
discussion of the differences and advantages.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Rick2" <cktman@hughes.net>
>
> I am new to this forum and will be picking up my plane kit this Thursday, July
> 5th. I am going to build the M3x and install a VW engine. The Kolb people are
> working with me on the engine mounts with the help of Rick Neilson. I will talk
> more on the engine situation as things progress.
>
> My main concern for now is the plans. Donnie, from Kolb, gave me my set of
> plans early while they got the kit together. This is not my first plane I will
> be building, in fact it's the third. The first was a Cozy, wide body Long Ezy,
> which was strickly a plans built aircraft ( not a kit ). The second was a
> Glastar. Now the third will be the M3X, that is if I can figure out the plans.
> I have never seen such a poor excuse for plans as I have been given on this
> aircraft. They are the most confusing piles of paper I have ever seen. They
> leave me with a feeling of real concern as to weather the plans can be
> constructed correctly or not. When I told Donnie about my concerns, he told me
> that I would catch on. Really nice guy's there at Kolb and I sure don't want
to
> hurt ther feelings as they will bind over backwards to help anyone. Just what
am
> I missing here?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Rick Lewis
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122093#122093
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>Rick</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Are you getting the MKIIIX with flaps or flaperons? Check the archives for
considerable discussion of the differences and advantages. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rick Neilsen</DIV>
<DIV>Redrive VW powered MKIIIC</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Rick2" <cktman@hughes.net>
<BR><BR>> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Rick2"
<CKTMAN@HUGHES.NET><BR>> <BR>> I am new to this forum and will be picking
up my plane kit this Thursday, July <BR>> 5th. I am going to build the M3x
and install a VW engine. The Kolb people are <BR>> working with me on the
engine mounts with the help of Rick Neilson. I will talk <BR>> more on the
engine situation as things progress. <BR>> <BR>> My main concern for now
is the plans. Donnie, from Kolb, gave me my set of <BR>> plans early while
they got the kit together. This is not my first plane I will <BR>> be building,
in fact it's the third. The first was a Cozy, wide body Long Ezy, <BR>>
which was strickly a plans built aircraft ( not a kit ). The second was a
<BR>> Glastar. Now the third will be the M3X, tha
t is i
ics Li
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Noise canceling earbuds update |
Richard
I have been flying for about a year with Sony ear buds under my active noise canceling
headphones. I have a matched pair for my passenger who doesn't get active
noise canceling. I connect them to my intercom and disconnect the headphone
ear peices. That way I can hear music but the intercom cuts the music when there
is radio traffic and it adds a welcome additional level of noise reduction.
The ear buds have sound quality superior to the headphone speakers. Your active
ear buds may do a even better job at about the same price.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Richard Pike" <richard@bcchapel.org>
Flew the MKIII for while this morning, tried out the noise canceling earbuds, and
there was a plus and a minus.
The plus was that they really do cancel out the noise. Turning the ANR switch off
and on shows that the ANR function removes the deeper rumble of the prop, and
part of the engine noise. It makes the engine noise seem smaller and further
away, if that makes any sense.
For comparison, tried various combinations, just the Flightcoms without the earbuds,
the earbuds without the Flightcoms, the earbuds with the ANR turned off,
etc., the earbuds knock out about as much noise as the Flightcom headset, but
each has a different quality. Once you put the headsets over the ears with the
earbuds in, it cuts down the total noise a lot more, as you would expect. I
think it is about the same effect you would get if you put in a pair of tapered
soft foam hearing protectors, and then put on your headsets. Once you have both
the earbuds and the headsets on, turning on the ANR cuts the prop noise out
of the mix, and also makes the engine a bit quieter. And since I had my .mp3
player along, plugging it in and adding some Moody Blues to the mix was also
a plus... The total amount of aircraft noise making it to my ears was low enough
that you could listen to music without having to turn it up much.
The minus was that I could not hear the tower, approach or ATIS. Didn't have any
friends to yak at, but I suspect that 122.75 wouldn't work either. The earbuds
did not allow what was coming out of the Flightcom speakers to make it into
my ears. So I think what I will do next is make an adapter plug and jack so that
I can unplug the headset/speaker side of the Flightcoms, leave the mic plugged
in, and plug the earbuds into the aircraft jack where the Flightcoms normally
go and try that. Use the earbuds for aircraft radio audio and see what happens.
If I can figure out how to make it work at all, it ought to be quite good.
Whoops, better make that adapter with a Y-setup, or the mp3 player will get left
out. Can't be having that, ya know...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
<html><body>
<DIV>Richard</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have been flying for about a year with Sony ear buds under my active noise
canceling headphones. I have a matched pair for my passenger who doesn't get
active noise canceling. I connect them to my intercom and disconnect the headphone
ear peices. That way I can hear music but the intercom cuts the music when
there is radio traffic and it adds a welcome additional level of noise reduction.
The ear buds have sound quality superior to the headphone speakers. Your
active ear buds may do a even better job at about the same price.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rick Neilsen</DIV>
<DIV>Redrive VW powered MKIIIC</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Richard Pike"
<richard@bcchapel.org> <BR>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5700.6" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV>Flew the MKIII for while this morning, tried out the noise canceling earbuds,
and there was a plus and a minus.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The plus was that they really do cancel out the noise. Turning the ANR switch
off and on shows that the ANR function removes the deeper rumble of the prop,
and part of the engine noise. It makes the engine noise seem smaller
and further away, if that makes any sense.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For comparison, tried various combinations, just the Flightcoms without the
earbuds, the earbuds without the Flightcoms, the earbuds with the ANR turned
off, etc., the earbuds knock out about as much noise as the Flightcom headset,
but each has a different quality. Once you put the headsets over the ears
with the earbuds in, it cuts down the total noise a lot more, as you would
expect. I think it is about the same effect you would get if you put in a pair
of tapered soft foam hearing protectors, and then put on your headsets. Once
you have both the earbuds and the headsets on, turning on the ANR cuts the prop
noise out of the mix, and also makes the engine a bit quieter. And since I had
my .mp3 player along, plugging it in and adding some Moody Blues to the mix
was also a plus... The total amount of aircraft noise making it to my ears
was low enough that you could listen to music without having to turn it up
much.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The minus was that I could not hear the tower, approach or ATIS. Didn't
have any friends to yak at, but I suspect that 122.75 wouldn't work either.
The earbuds did not allow what was coming out of the Flightcom speakers to make
it into my ears. So I think what I will do next is make an adapter plug and
jack so that I can unplug the headset/speaker side of the Flightcoms, leave the
mic plugged in, and plug the earbuds into the aircraft jack where the
Flightcoms normally go and try that. Use the earbuds for aircraft radio audio and
see what happens. If I can figure out how to make it work at all, it
ought to be quite good.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Whoops, better make that adapter with a Y-setup, or the mp3 player will get
left out. Can't be having that, ya know...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Richard Pike</DIV>
<DIV>MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)</DIV><PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier" size=2
color000000?>
</B></FONT></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: | Ms Dixie update2 |
Sheesh guys Ms. Dixie update1 post grew to 2600 views so lets start over ok?
Went to LUL this morning at 5:30am to beat the heat. After last sundays first test
flight to work on the 2 Major in-flight problems. 1. was RPM's on the EIS.
Sure enough the "tach R/PR" was factory set at 0 and is supposed to be set at
1 for the 912 4cyl. That would explain Charleys 85 mph indacated air speed at
1400 rpm LOL. Second was why the AIS was sitting on 60 mph after we got back
to the hangar and full stop. After she cooled off the ASI dropped to zero??????
Well found out what was causing that today.... When I got to the Hangar this
morning the ASI was reading 60 mph! Who had been flying our airplane? after
i pulled the nose cone i found the static port line to the static circut had been
kinked and collapsed due to the heat and the thinwall of the tubing as a result
of not enough radius. DOPE!
What a first test flight to lose RPM and ASI!!!
My only credit has to go to Charley!
Damn good seat of the pants flying!
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122245#122245
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/p7040042_656.jpg
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: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
Im still learning, but I have a MK - III Xtra with a 912 S. I used to approach
at 60 mph, idle power, and flare and bleed the last bit of speed. Since putting
VG's on, it is very confortable to approach at 50 and no need to goose the
power in the flare, it keeps flying until stalling at 28 indicated. I could
fly the approach at 40, aileron control is good right until the stall, but it
is just better to be carrying a little extra speed on approach for normal conditions.
For very short field, I would use flaps and drag it in at a very low speed, and
chop the power right at the runway, but I would NOT make this normal practice.
I would suggest that you learn to land without power, because one day that engine
will quit on you when you pull the power back, and you want to be high enough
to make the field when that happens. My technique is to stay high, and pull
the power to idle for a 60 MPH glide to the runway. That way if the motor
quits, it will still be a normal landing for me. No getting caught to low to
make the runway no matter what happens.
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122246#122246
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: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
Paul
No offence taken or intended from me. Just passing along my thoughts. Also have
to mention Powerfin sometimes on this list just so people know there is a alternitive
to warpdrive.
Some of us don't need to cut pipe, weeds or cement blocks with their props.
Do not archive do not archive .......
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Paul Petty" <paulpetty@myway.com>
>
> and will break off if it srikes something substatial instead of causing gearbox
> or engine problems
>
> I can Rick N.
>
> I dont want anything flying or breaking of my airplane and causing harm to
> anyone... no offence.
>
> respectfuly
>
> do not archive
>
> --------
> Paul Petty
> Kolbra #12
> Ms Dixie
> 912 UL 70" warp
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122239#122239
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>Paul</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>No offence taken or intended from me. Just passing along my thoughts. Also
have to mention Powerfin sometimes on this list just so people know there is
a alternitive to warpdrive. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Some of us don't need to cut pipe, weeds or cement blocks with their props.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Do not archive do not archive .......</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rick Neilsen</DIV>
<DIV>Redrive VW powered MKIIIC</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
=====
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
HAHA Rick! Some of us don't need to cut pipe, weeds or cement blocks with their
props.
Some of
--------
Paul Petty
Kolbra #12
Ms Dixie
912 UL 70" warp
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122252#122252
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Magic Bike" gets Damaged |
> The Powerfin prop will give more thrust than a warpdrive, has alot less inertia
and will break off if it srikes something substatial instead of causing gearbox
or engine problems. I think even a warpdrive pilot would do a prcautionary
landing after a propstrike. How rugged do you want the prop to be? Can you live
with the trade offs?
>
> Rick Neilsen
>
Hi Rick:
Curious about the Powerfin producing more thrust than a Warp Drive. Where did
you discover that info?
What is the major advantage of less inertia? My Warp Drive is well within the
safe operating parameters of Rotax for my 912ULS.
I want my prop to be rugged enough to get me home, no matter what the circumstances.
During an extreme emergency situation, my least concerns are whether I
am damaging the prop, gear box, or engine. I want something to get me to a safe
landing spot so I can get "me" back on the ground. I can always repair or
replace the mechanical stuff.
I have had good luck with the Warp Drive. Seen it demonstrate its toughness and
its performance. I can back that statement up with many, many hours of very
realiable performance over some very long distances and over some mighty hostile
terrain and ice water.
Whether or not that other prop produces more thrust than my Warp Drive, I don't
care. I get all the thrust I can handle with what I have. ;-)
Take care,
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122269#122269
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: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
Tim W:
No such thing as "perfect landings". Survivable is more like it. ;-)
Approach speed really doesn't matter as long as you have enough that you do not
run out of inertia at the bottom when you do a "little" flare.
10 mph over stall works pretty good for me, but I can screw one up at any speed.
The main thing for me to remember is LOOK DOWN TOWARDS THE END OF THE RUNWAY AND
NOT AT THE GROUND TO SHOOT THE LANDING.
If it is a wheels landing, make sure you plant the nose and hold it down. If the
tail drops a little when the mains touch, it will balloon and get really interesting.
Full stall 3 point landing needs to be done with the mains a few inches off the
ground. When it stalls, it is going to drop. The lower the mains to the ground
when it drops the easier the landing.
I know, I know, you guys with VG's don't have to worry about dropping because the
VG's do not allow that type action. ;-)
If I get out there and play with the airplane, spend a lot of time doing "stuff",
different stuff, shoot a buncha landings, eventually, all this work will come
together and I'll start telling the airplane what to do instead of it telling
me what to do.
Also, I use my flaps all the time. Very seldom do I not use them for landing.
Occassionally, use them for getting out of rough, soft, short, high altitude
strips.
Take care,
--------
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler, alabama
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122271#122271
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: Kolb Firefly |
Alot of fellas are of course asking this same question, and as for your critera
of value, that of course depends soley on the target market you plan to sell
into.
I understand all the "positives" stated here for registering, and cannot argue
with a single one, that is if you intend to sell to a LICENSED pilot.
I also have been in this hobby since prior to part 103 and as a dealer for the
aircraft that spawned in the begining, the ability to fly one with no license,
not have to get inspections and pay all the expenses that go with a FAA registered
aircraft were the top of the sales pitch, and the Top of the buyers interests.
The Kolb FireFly is an aircraft that has been demonstrated that in CAN be built
Part 103 compliant, unlike alot of other single seaters that cannot be built
any other way than what we call a "Fat" today. I might project that those "other"
Fat's and obviously training exempted 2 seaters have been the ones living
on borrowed time for years and they probably need to get registered. Thay are
not the subject of this question. A Kolb FireFly is.
If a FireFly today weighs 275 lbs empty and has no N-number, it is illegal.
If a Firefly weighs 275 empty in 2009 and has no N-number, it is still illegal.
It will violate the exact same rule. It will not be breaking a "NEW" rule. (
discounting the float and chute rules, of course)
Here are the questions I think need to be answered accurately before a conclusion
can be drawn about weather or not we will increase the value of our ultralites
by 600 bucks by transitioning them to E-LSA, or will they suddenly be a worthless
pile of tube and fabric.
Will the market for 103 eligible aircraft cease to exist after 2008?
There are No changes to part 103 and Part 103 eligible air vehicles are defined
as NOT regulated.
(Remember that the entire meaning of part 103 is the description of what the FAA
defines as NOT an aircraft, but an unregulated air vehicle)
Are most participants in 103 craft today flying them because they just like 254
lb aircraft, or because they dont want to get a pilot license and keep it up.?
How much of the potential market will want to buy an aircraft that is regulated
by the FAA, and requires all the yearly expense's that will allow them to keep
flying?
Will the FAA suddenly begin to start sending officers into the feild with scales
to determine what a aircraft weighs?
Will the FAA begin to train representatives on the details of all the single seat
craft marketed in the past as "ultralites"...hmmm..25 years or so back, that
could in fact be built under 254 lbs empty, and teach the reps which ones really
didnt have a chance? So they can identify them by sight, and not with a
set of scales.
Some of these questions can be answered pretty obviously, but others cannot. Particularly
the questions about how the target market will split.
Those are really the keys to the answer, and I wish I knew for sure.
I would say this in retrospect. Register it or not, the Financial Hit a builder
of a FireFly might or might not take will be likely alot less than the cost of
building...less the resale value of any Experimental, Ultralite, HotRod, race
car or other Homebuilt toy. So dont fret on it too much!
--------
Don G.
Central Illinois
Kitfox IV Speedster
Luscombe 8A
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122279#122279
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: Mark 3 classic landing speed |
Perhaps the MKIII Xtra has different elevators and stabilizers than the
MKIII Classic that give it more control authority, don't know, but here's
what I do know - If I am carrying a full size passenger in my MKIII Classic
and shoot the approach at 45 or less, I better not have any flaps down,
because there is not enough control authority at that speed to flare. Guess
how I know this? Adding back stick just before touchdown changes nothing.
Navy carrier arrival, big time. Solo is ok, two up, make the approach at 60.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 5:08 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Mark 3 classic landing speed
>
> Im still learning, but I have a MK - III Xtra with a 912 S. I used to
> approach at 60 mph, idle power, and flare and bleed the last bit of speed.
> Since putting VG's on, it is very confortable to approach at 50 and no
> need to goose the power in the flare, it keeps flying until stalling at 28
> indicated. I could fly the approach at 40, aileron control is good right
> until the stall, but it is just better to be carrying a little extra speed
> on approach for normal conditions.
><snip>>
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 |
|
John
Steve Bennet at Great Plains Aircraft told me he did a test of Warpdrive, Ivo and
Powerfin props a few years ago. He tried to make it as close to a apples to
apples test as he could. The report I got was that Powerfin produced the most
thrust followed by Warpdrive then by a larger margin Ivo. He also found that
Warpdrive had the most inerita by a wide margin then Ivo then fairly close was
Powerfin. Again I'm only telling you what I was told from what I consider a reliable
source. I don't have any more details than this.
Like you I have only flown one of these props and the Powerfin has server me well.
It also has taken some abuse and got me home. I origionally selected the Powerfin
prop because it had good thrust performance and maybe more importantly
its low inerita. My old VW redrive was incompatible with heavy props. The new
redrive appears to tolerate heaver props. Not everyone has the same engine/gearbox
as you so others might want or need a lighter prop or more thrust. I'm not
tring to talk you into changing props or anyone else. I'm just trying to provide
a balance to the prop selection process.
I did fly a wood prop on my direct drive VW powered MKIIIC and turned one prop
into tooth picks when the prop struck a tree branch were it was about 1/8 inch
dia. For that reason I will never own a pusher with a wood prop.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
>
> > The Powerfin prop will give more thrust than a warpdrive, has alot less
> inertia and will break off if it srikes something substatial instead of causing
> gearbox or engine problems. I think even a warpdrive pilot would do a
> prcautionary landing after a propstrike. How rugged do you want the prop to be?
> Can you live with the trade offs?
> >
> > Rick Neilsen
> >
>
>
>
> Hi Rick:
>
> Curious about the Powerfin producing more thrust than a Warp Drive. Where did
> you discover that info?
>
> What is the major advantage of less inertia? My Warp Drive is well within the
> safe operating parameters of Rotax for my 912ULS.
>
> I want my prop to be rugged enough to get me home, no matter what the
> circumstances. During an extreme emergency situation, my least concerns are
> whether I am damaging the prop, gear box, or engine. I want something to get
me
> to a safe landing spot so I can get "me" back on the ground. I can always
> repair or replace the mechanical stuff.
>
> I have had good luck with the Warp Drive. Seen it demonstrate its toughness and
> its performance. I can back that statement up with many, many hours of very
> realiable performance over some very long distances and over some mighty hostile
> terrain and ice water.
>
> Whether or not that other prop produces more thrust than my Warp Drive, I don't
> care. I get all the thrust I can handle with what I have. ;-)
>
> Take care,
>
> --------
> John Hauck
> MKIII/912ULS
> hauck's holler, alabama
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122269#122269
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>John</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Steve Bennet at Great Plains Aircraft told me he did a test of Warpdrive,
Ivo and Powerfin props a few years ago. He tried to make it as close to a apples
to apples test as he could. The report I got was that Powerfin produced the
most thrust followed by Warpdrive then by a larger margin Ivo. He also found
that Warpdrive had the most inerita by a wide margin then Ivo then fairly close
was Powerfin. Again I'm only telling you what I was told from what I consider
a reliable source. I don't have any more details than this.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Like you I have only flown one of these props and the Powerfin has server
me well. It also has taken some abuse and got me home. I origionally selected
the Powerfin prop because it had good thrust performance and maybe more importantly
its low inerita. My old VW redrive was incompatible with heavy props. The
new redrive appears to tolerate heaver props. Not everyone has the same engine/gearbox
as you so others might want or need a lighter prop or more thrust.
I'm not tring to talk you into changing props or anyone else. I'm just trying
to provide a balance to the prop selection process.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I did fly a wood prop on my direct drive VW powered MKIIIC and turned
one prop into tooth picks when the prop struck a tree branch were it was
about 1/8 inch dia. For that reason I will never own a pusher with a wood prop.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rick Neilsen</DIV>
<DIV>Redrive VW powered MKIIIC</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "John Hauck"
<jhauck@elmore.rr.com> <BR><BR>> --> Kolb-List message posted by:
"John Hauck" <JHAUCK@ELMORE.RR.COM><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > The Powerfin
prop will give more thrust than a warpdrive, has alot less <BR>> inertia
and will break off if it srikes something substatial instead of causing <BR>>
gearbox or engine problems. I think even a warpdrive pilot would do a <BR>>
prcautionary landing after a propstrike. How rugged do you want the prop
to be? <BR>> Can you live with the trade offs? <BR>> > <BR>> >
Rick Neilsen <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Hi Rick: <BR>>
<BR>> Curious about the Powerfin producing more thrust than a Warp Drive.
Where did <BR>> you discover that info? <BR>> <BR>> What is the major
advantage of less inertia? My Warp Drive is well w
ithin
the <BR>> safe operating parameters of Rotax for my 912ULS. <BR>> <BR>>
I want my prop to be rugged enough to get me home, no matter what the <BR>>
circumstances. During an extreme emergency situation, my least concerns are
<BR>> whether I am damaging the prop, gear box, or engine. I want something
to get me <BR>> to a safe landing spot so I can get "me" back on the ground.
I can always <BR>> repair or replace the mechanical stuff. <BR>> <BR>>
I have had good luck with the Warp Drive. Seen it demonstrate its toughness
and <BR>> its performance. I can back that statement up with many, many
hours of very <BR>> realiable performance over some very long distances and
over some mighty hostile <BR>> terrain and ice water. <BR>> <BR>> Whether
or not that other prop produces more thrust than my Warp Drive, I don't
<BR>> care. I get all the thrust I can handle with what I have. ;-) <BR>>
<BR>> Take care, <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR
>>
=====
=============== <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Prop Comparison |
Just FWIW,
I've flown all these props and my general finding about them is about the same
- powerfin F model gives the best thrust, warp drive really close, IVO behind
the others.
Not rocket science on why, either. The Powerfin F model has the most blade area
for a given length, but is also thicker. So, that blade will generate more lift,
but at a lower AOA. This makes it not so good on a faster plane, since it
"unloads" more at higher airspeeds.
This was definitely true on my FS II, my powerfin 68" 3 blade outclimbed the warp
drive 68" by a small bit, but unloaded pretty good in the air. The warp drive,
though, gives the best overall performance, good thrust but doesn't unload
as bad in the air.
It has a little less blade area, so blades run at a little higher AOA..
The IVO gives slightly less thrust than the other two, but works great in 2 blades
on a fast plane (60mph or more). I'm not 100% sure why this is, though I suspect
the blades change pitch in the air, maybe increase in pitch a little once
you get up to speed.
I have the adjustable pitch medium IVO on my titan and, well, that's the best thing
since sliced bread for me prop-wise ;)...
But the warp drive is the best prop overall on my FS II....
As for MOI, the warp drive is the highest, followed by the IVO and the powerfin
is the lightest. The 912 gearbox, though, supports a pretty high MOI, if I recall
my reading in the manuals correctly. I saw a figure around 10,000 kg/in I
think... almost twice the figure for the 2-stroke C box.... So you can spin quite
a monster on the 912...
The main advantage to lower MOI is throttle response. It's quick in any event on
the 912, but a low MOI prop like the powerfin vs a heavy one like the warp drive
makes a BIG difference here on a 2-stroke...
LS
[quote="neilsenrm(at)comcast.net"]John
Steve Bennet at Great Plains Aircraft told me he did a test of Warpdrive, Ivo
and Powerfin props a few years ago. He tried to make it as close to a apples to
apples test as he could. The report I got was that Powerfin produced the most
thrust followed by Warpdrive then by a larger margin Ivo. He also found that
Warpdrive had the most inerita by a wide margin then Ivo then fairly close was
Powerfin. Again I'm only telling you what I was told from what I consider a
reliable source. I don't have any more details than this.
Like you I have only flown one of these props and the Powerfin has server me well.
It also has taken some abuse and got me home. I origionally selected the
Powerfin prop because it had good thrust performance and maybe more importantly
its low inerita. My old VW redrive was incompatible with heavy props. The new
redrive appears to tolerate heaver props. Not everyone has the same engine/gearbox
as you so others might want or need a lighter prop or more thrust. I'm
not tring to talk you into changing props or anyone else. I'm just trying to provide
a balance to the prop selection process.
I did fly a wood prop on my direct drive VW powered MKIIIC and turned one prop
into tooth picks when the prop struck a tree branch were it was about 1/8 inch
dia. For that reason I will never own a pusher with a wood prop.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
[quote]-------------- Original message --------------
From: "John Hauck"
>
>
> > The Powerfin prop will give more thrust than a warpdrive, has alot less
> inertia and will break off if it srikes something substatial instead of causing
> gearbox or engine problems. I think even a warpdrive pilot would do a
> prcautionary landing after a propstrike. How rugged do you want the prop to
be?
> Can you live with the trade offs?
> >
> > Rick Neilsen
> >
>
>
>
> Hi Rick:
>
> Curious about the Powerfin producing more thrust than a Warp Drive. Where did
> you discover that info?
>
> What is the major advantage of less inertia? My Warp Drive is well w ithin
the
> safe operating parameters of Rotax for my 912ULS.
>
> I want my prop to be rugged enough to get me home, no matter what the
> circumstances. During an extreme emergency situation, my least concerns are
> whether I am damaging the prop, gear box, or engine. I want something to get
me
> to a safe landing spot so I can get "me" back on the ground. I can always
> repair or replace the mechanical stuff.
>
> I have had good luck with the Warp Drive. Seen it demonstrate its toughness
and
> its performance. I can back that statement up with many, many hours of very
> realiable performance over some very long distances and over some mighty hostile
> terrain and ice water.
>
> Whether or not that other prop produces more thrust than my Warp Drive, I don't
> care. I get all the thrust I can handle with what I have. ;-)
>
> Take care,
>
> -------- > ====== ===============
>
>
> [b]
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=122309#122309
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! --
|