Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:35 AM - Re: Kolb Mark III with 912ULS weights and speeds (Richard Girard)
2. 03:18 AM - Re: Re: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge (pat ladd)
3. 06:09 AM - Re: Re: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge (N27SB@aol.com)
4. 06:38 AM - What ever floats yer boat... (herbgh@juno.com)
5. 08:10 AM - Re: What ever floats yer boat... (N27SB@aol.com)
6. 08:15 AM - Rotax 912 Torque Spec Error (Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL)
7. 08:45 AM - Re: Rotax 912 Torque Spec Error (Jeff Nelson)
8. 09:39 AM - Re: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge (Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL)
9. 09:59 AM - One More Movie From TNK Homecoming 2007 (John Williamson)
10. 10:05 AM - Re: Re: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge (John Hauck)
11. 11:42 AM - Re: TNK Homecoming & my first Kolb (grantr)
12. 12:43 PM - New CRs - 4 Oct 07 (Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL)
13. 12:54 PM - Re: Rotax 912 Torque Spec Error (JetPilot)
14. 01:10 PM - Re: New CRs - 4 Oct 07 (Bob Noyer)
15. 02:08 PM - Re: Re: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge (Larry Cottrell)
16. 05:49 PM - Re: Re: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge (neilsenrm@comcast.net)
17. 06:14 PM - I Passed! (R. Hankins)
18. 06:24 PM - Carb ice & Cuyuna? (Dana Hague)
19. 07:34 PM - Re: I Passed! kxp (Malcolmbru@aol.com)
20. 07:53 PM - Re: Re: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge (Mike Matuszczak)
21. 08:06 PM - Re: Rotax 912 Torque Spec Error (Richard Girard)
22. 08:10 PM - Re: Re: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge (John Hauck)
23. 10:26 PM - Re: Rotax 912 Torque Spec Error (Roger Lee)
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: Kolb Mark III with 912ULS weights and speeds |
Dan, Not having a 912 on a MkIII, I was hesitant to tell you what Rick just
did. One other thing you should know. I have seen others given advice on
this forum to "just make the maximum weight what ever you want", or words to
that effect. The trouble with that is that in your operating limitations
under paragraph 6 you will be asked to put these words in your aircraft's
logbook. "I certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been
completed and the aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of
speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed, has no hazardous
operating characteristics or design features, and is safe for operation. The
flight test was completed under all the following conditions: "Maximum
operating weight, maximum demonstrated airspeed and maximum demonstrated
stall speed" This is what ends your phase 1 testing and allows you to use
your aircraft as a two place and outside of your test area.
So whatever you put in your weight and balance as Maximum Take Off Weight
(MTOW) you'd better be ready to pile sand bags (the cheap way, although it's
bulky), or lead shot bags (real pricey) into the passenger seat and fly it
that way.
This is why you build light, because every pound of engine and whizbang
gotta havums you put in the airplane subtracts from your useful load. Add
enough and you may find yourself with a single passenger two seat aircraft,
or a two place aircraft with a 50 mile range.
Rick
On 10/3/07, Richard & Martha Neilsen <NeilsenRM@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Dan
>
> I haven't seen a response to your questions. The real answer is they are
> different on every airplane. Remember these aren't production airplanes. The
> weight for example will vary for the same model and engine by 150 lbs. or
> more. You need to weigh your own plane and do the weight and balance
> calculations.The only way to get the flying speeds is to fly it. If your
> DAR doesn't understand this get another one fast.
>
> Sorry
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* DBforfun@aol.com
> *To:* kolb-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:13 AM
> *Subject:* Kolb-List: Kolb Mark III with 912ULS weights and speeds
>
>
> I am in the process of licensing my Kolb LSA and removing the 2 stroke
> and installing a new 912ULS.
>
> For those running a 100 hp on a Mark III what are you using for gross
> weight?
>
> What is your empty weight?
>
> What are your flying speeds?
>
> cruise?
>
> stall?
>
> landing approach?
>
> VX?
>
> VY?
>
> Thanks in advance for all your help.
>
> Dan
>
>
> t
>
>
> ------------------------------
> See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge |
I know it is difficult for VG'ers, but over the years and hours, I have
not found a requirement for VGs on Homer's airplanes. >>
Hi ,
Depends on `requirement`. To fly the way Homer intended I am sure that
VG`s are not required. The plane is obviously great and fills most
peoples requirements without them. Just look at JH`s flights for
starters. John is obviously a master of the plane and I am sure there
are many others
However in the UK for the Extra to qualify as a `microlight` (not exctly
the same as your Ultralight) you MUST have the VG`s fitted or the
stalling speed will be too high. In the face of the testing that was
done to establish this it is foolish to maintain that VG`s make no
difference. If that was the case there would be no Xtra flying in the
UK.
Hope to be back flying myself soon. All paperwork issued. Test Pilot
booked for 19th Oct. Hope the weather holds. Its great today, blue sky,
no wind. I may do some taxying later to try to get my hand in again.
Must make sure that I do not accidentally taxy too fast ........?
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: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge |
In a message dated 10/3/2007 10:38:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
orcabonita@hotmail.com writes:
I did not know you were flying other airplanes Steve, what were you flying
before the Kolb ?
Mike
Long EZ N27SB. 90 Kts in the pattern, 70 Kts on Final with the nose high
and everything hanging out. It is about as far away from a Firefly you can get.
steve
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: | What ever floats yer boat... |
ONe similarity Steve---they both will float!! :-) Herb
do not archive
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:08:52 EDT N27SB@aol.com writes:
In a message dated 10/3/2007 10:38:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
orcabonita@hotmail.com writes:
I did not know you were flying other airplanes Steve, what were you
flying before the Kolb ?
Mike
Long EZ N27SB. 90 Kts in the pattern, 70 Kts on Final with the nose
high and everything hanging out. It is about as far away from a Firefly
you can get.
steve
See what's new ="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage.
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: What ever floats yer boat... |
In a message dated 10/4/2007 9:39:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
herbgh@juno.com writes:
ONe similarity Steve---they both will float!! :-) Herb
Except the Firefly is reusable after a water landing
Steve
Firefly 007/Floats
do not archive
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: | Rotax 912 Torque Spec Error |
Fellow 912 Drivers -
I discovered an error in the official Rotax manuals that specify the
torque value for the lock-nuts that secure the exhaust system. These
are the copper M8 lock-nuts - two at each exhaust port.
The Rotax 912 Installation Manual (sec 10.1) clearly states that these
nuts should be torqued to 177 inch-pounds. While doing maintenance
today, I was reinstalling the exhaust system on my 912ul, and tightened
these lock-nuts to the specified value.
Afterward, I noticed that the two studs were distorted - they were no
longer pointed straight out of the cylinder head, but skewed a bit from
being overtightened.
I called Lockwood, and the tech guy there looked up the torque value
from the Rotax 912 Illustrated Parts Manual. The number listed there
was 105 ft-lb. I had WAY overtightened those nuts! Looks like I'll be
ordering a pair of new exhaust studs. Fortunately, this was a cheap
lesson for me - they cost only $3.50 each. But it mad me mad that, in
my attempt to do the right thing, the Rotax manual provided wrong
information.
So the lessons here worth passing on to you all are: 1) The torque value
for the exhaust system nuts listed in the Installation Manual is WRONG,
and 2) Refer to the Illustrated Parts Manual for all torques for your
Rotax engine.
I hope this helps someone avoid the mistake I made. Happy flying ...
Dennis Kirby
Mark-III Classic, 912ul, in
Cedar Crest, NM
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: | Rotax 912 Torque Spec Error |
177 inch pounds is only 14.74 Ft-lbs was it listed in the book as In-lbs o
r Ft-lbs?
Do not archive> Subject: Kolb-List: Rotax 912 Torque Spec Error > Date: Thu
, 4 Oct 2007 09:07:48 -0600> From: Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil> To: kolb-l
DA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil>> > > > > Fellow 912 Drivers -> > I di
scovered an error in the official Rotax manuals that specify the> torque va
lue for the lock-nuts that secure the exhaust system. These> are the copper
M8 lock-nuts - two at each exhaust port.> > The Rotax 912 Installation Man
ual (sec 10.1) clearly states that these> nuts should be torqued to 177 inc
h-pounds. While doing maintenance> today, I was reinstalling the exhaust sy
stem on my 912ul, and tightened> these lock-nuts to the specified value. >
> Afterward, I noticed that the two studs were distorted - they were no> lo
nger pointed straight out of the cylinder head, but skewed a bit from> bein
g overtightened.> > I called Lockwood, and the tech guy there looked up the
torque value> from the Rotax 912 Illustrated Parts Manual. The number list
ed there> was 105 ft-lb. I had WAY overtightened those nuts! Looks like I'l
l be> ordering a pair of new exhaust studs. Fortunately, this was a cheap>
lesson for me - they cost only $3.50 each. But it mad me mad that, in> my a
ttempt to do the right thing, the Rotax manual provided wrong> information.
> > So the lessons here worth passing on to you all are: 1) The torque valu
e> for the exhaust system nuts listed in the Installation Manual is WRONG,>
and 2) Refer to the Illustrated Parts Manual for all torques for your> Rot
ax engine.> > I hope this helps someone avoid the mistake I made. Happy fly
ing ...> > Dennis Kirby> Mark-III Classic, 912ul, in> Cedar Crest, NM> > >
============> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!- Play Star Shuffle:- the word scramble
challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oc
t
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: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge |
Rick Neilsen wrote: << The challenge showed me a few things.
John is a great pilot which allowed him to fly his plane as slow as
Richard Pike in spite of the weight differences. What was significant to
me was that the claimed benefit of the VG just wasn't there. >>
John and Richard's Mark-IIIs are very different from each other. This
makes it difficult to compare specific flight characteristics
attributable to the vortex generators.
It seems to me that a more "objective" comparison of VGs versus no-VGs
would be to have one pilot fly the SAME AIRPLANE with and without VGs.
Then see what he thinks. I nominate Hauck as our test pilot.
I purchased a set of the LandShorter VGs, but have not yet installed
them on my Mark-III. How's this for a plan: Next May, and the 6th
annual Monument Valley fly-in, I'll let John fly my plane with a clean
wing. Then, we'll install the VGs (it should only take an hour or two,
especially with all the available help), and let John fly it again.
It'll be interesting to see if he notices any difference. Not trying to
convince John that he should install these on Miss P'Fer - just looking
to see if he detects any slow flight performance improvements on this
Mark-III.
I've been enjoying this thread ...
Dennis Kirby
New Mexico
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: | One More Movie From TNK Homecoming 2007 |
The last movie I have been able to put together is of JT's FireStarII.
I would very much like to get a copy of any video you shot of the Kolbra at the
Homecoming. Email me off list and we can work out a deal.
I also updated my website with a few new photos.
--------
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolbra, 912ULS
http://home.tx.rr.com/kolbrapilot
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138090#138090
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/jt_at_tnk_2007_443.wmv
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: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge |
I nominate Hauck as our test pilot.
>
> Dennis Kirby
Thanks, but no thanks.
You are more than qualified to fly your own test and make your own
decisions.
I can assure you, I have no desire or requirement to fly any slower than I
was flying off Richard Pike's wing last Saturday afternoon. That flight
convinced me there was no appreciable difference in slow flight capability
between the two mkIII's.
I have no slow flight control problems in my mkIII that need fixing.
The only time I suffer from "Kolb quit" is when I get below the stall speed.
;-)
By now, you all are probably, I hope, getting the message that I am not
interested in VG's. Should I ever have another airplane that does not fly
as well as Kolb aircraft, I might investigate the possibility of VG's saving
the day.
john h
mkIII
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: TNK Homecoming & my first Kolb |
That is a nice plane you got from Avid.
I almost bought it but it just wasn't going to workout for me. I need a 2 seat
plane.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138111#138111
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: | New CRs - 4 Oct 07 |
Team - Looks like Lockheed-Martin has found a bunch of stuff to fix
lately while they've got the turret ball opened up for service ... four
new CRs received ATP this week:
CR-1775, "Allow BC/FC Engagement to Manual State Transition"
(a BC/FC-Software CR)
Currently, BMC4I software does not allow BC/FC to transition into the
"Manual" state during an engagement sequence. So when BC/FC encounters
an occasional failure during any of their engagement states, the system
cannot be easily reset. By modifying the BMC4I Software Requirement
Spec (SRS) to allow BC/FC to transition from an "Engagement" state to a
"Manual" state, the BC/FC system can then be cleanly shut down, either
manually (by the operator), or automatically.
CR-1776, "Turret Solar Avoidance Hardware Fixes"
(a BC/FC CR)
Certain areas and components of the turret ball may be damaged by
exposure to incoming solar radiation due to out-gassing contamination
and overexposure of the Optical Inspection System cameras. This CR
describes items to be repaired and the repair methods which will reduce
risk of damage to the system during HPSI testing.
CR-1777, "Turret Ball Tuned-Mass-Dampers"
(a BC/FC CR)
Flight testing has revealed certain dynamic wavefront disturbances that
are attributable to harmonic vibrations within the BC/FC beam train -
specifically, within the Beam Expander. These vibrations contribute to
jitter and degraded optical performance. This CR installs several (up
to 38) Tuned Mass Dampers (TMDs, which serve as vibration suppression
devices) in the turret assembly to minimize vibration in this part of
the optical path.
CR-1778, "Secondary Mirror Tip/Twang"
(a BC/FC CR)
Flight testing has (also) revealed that excessive vibrations in the
Secondary Mirror during flight is causing the mirror to momentarily move
to its extreme limit ("twang") in the tip and tilt axis. This results
in a control loop failure, which triggers a termination of the
engagement sequence. This CR revises the operating clearance of the
torsional stops in the Secondary Mirror tip/tilt axis, in order to
eliminate twanging of the mirror.
You can find the CRs here:
HYPERLINK
"file:///\\\\ABLSERVER11\\SPO_General\\Meetings\\Boards\\Change_Board\\C
Rs1600-1799\\CR1775PC0.doc"S:\Meetings\Boards\Change_Board\CRs1600-1799\
CR1775PC0.doc
HYPERLINK
"file:///\\\\ABLSERVER11\\SPO_General\\Meetings\\Boards\\Change_Board\\C
Rs1600-1799\\CR1776PC0.doc"S:\Meetings\Boards\Change_Board\CRs1600-1799\
CR1776PC0.doc
HYPERLINK
"file:///\\\\ABLSERVER11\\SPO_General\\Meetings\\Boards\\Change_Board\\C
Rs1600-1799\\CR1777PC0.doc"S:\Meetings\Boards\Change_Board\CRs1600-1799\
CR1777PC0.doc
HYPERLINK
"file:///\\\\ABLSERVER11\\SPO_General\\Meetings\\Boards\\Change_Board\\C
Rs1600-1799\\CR1778PC0.doc"S:\Meetings\Boards\Change_Board\CRs1600-1799\
CR1778PC0.doc
Dennis Kirby
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: Rotax 912 Torque Spec Error |
177 inch pounds is way to much torque for a bolt that size.... The fact that it
goes into aluminum make it worse [Shocked] Lucky its just a bent stud rather
than it being stripped out of the cylinder head.
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=138127#138127
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: New CRs - 4 Oct 07 |
Dennis,
That most certainly makes my sleep a lot better!
regards,
Bob N. FireFly 070 Old Kolb
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/
do not archive
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: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge |
> <Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil>
>
>
> Rick Neilsen wrote: << The challenge showed me a few things.
> John is a great pilot which allowed him to fly his plane as slow as
> Richard Pike in spite of the weight differences. What was significant to
> me was that the claimed benefit of the VG just wasn't there. >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am curious as to why you believe there was no benefit to the VG's? It
seems to me that if Richard had pulled his flaps he could have flown slower,
or am I missing something there? I consider John a friend of mine and a
exceptional pilot. A bit hard headed on occasion, but then that includes all
of us Alpha types. That John was able to fly his plane at that speed and
configuration is not a surprise to me at all, However you are overlooking
two other factors. Richards lack of a radio causing him to fly blind in a
formation, ( which I understand he has not done before) and the fact that it
was not necessary for him to deploy flaps to fly at a speed which required
that John use them.
If you "have nots" don't want more stability in turns, slow flight,
increased cushion at landing, less bounces, and you are as good a pilot (of
which I have little doubt) as John, then don't put the things on! Just spare
me the rationalization. :-)
Larry, Oregon
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge |
Hey Larry
Good to hear from you. It was great talking to at Monument Valley.
I will respond to this one LAST time. Would all you VG guys please read my post
again before you post. John's plane is a good 20% heaver than Richard's this
does increase John's stall speed. I think John's heaver gross weight fairly well
balances his use of flaps. OK lets say JUST for argument's sake John's increased
weight didn't lower his stall speed at all. His use of flaps doesn't reduce
his stall speed by the amount everyone CLAIMS the VGs do. To hear some of
you talk you would think VGs would give everyone a 10 MPH stall speed.
In the clip you attached I said that VGs didn't give Richard the "claimed" advantage
I didn't say no advantage.
I'm with John's point of view on this one VGs don't appear to give enough benefit
on a Kolb that would make me want to put them on my plane. I have a open mind
on this and would change my mind if I could see a significat differance. I
was there and I just didn't see it.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell@fmtcblue.com>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rick Neilsen wrote: << The challenge showed me a few things.
> > John is a great pilot which allowed him to fly his plane as slow as
> > Richard Pike in spite of the weight differences. What was significant to
> > me was that the claimed benefit of the VG just wasn't there. >>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------
> I am curious as to why you believe there was no benefit to the VG's? It
> seems to me that if Richard had pulled his flaps he could have flown slower,
> or am I missing something there? I consider John a friend of mine and a
> exceptional pilot. A bit hard headed on occasion, but then that includes all
> of us Alpha types. That John was able to fly his plane at that speed and
> configuration is not a surprise to me at all, However you are overlooking
> two other factors. Richards lack of a radio causing him to fly blind in a
> formation, ( which I understand he has not done before) and the fact that it
> was not necessary for him to deploy flaps to fly at a speed which required
> that John use them.
>
> If you "have nots" don't want more stability in turns, slow flight,
> increased cushion at landing, less bounces, and you are as good a pilot (of
> which I have little doubt) as John, then don't put the things on! Just spare
> me the rationalization. :-)
> Larry, Oregon
>
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>Hey Larry</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Good to hear from you. It was great talking to at Monument Valley.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I will respond to this one LAST time. Would all you VG guys please read
my post again before you post. John's plane is a good 20% heaver than Richard's
this does increase John's stall speed. I think John's
heaver gross weight fairly well balances his use of flaps. OK lets say JUST
for argument's sake John's increased weight didn't lower his stall speed at
all. His use of flaps doesn't reduce his stall speed by the amount everyone
CLAIMS the VGs do. To hear some of you talk you would think VGs would give everyone
a 10 MPH stall speed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In the clip you attached I said that VGs didn't give Richard the "claimed"
advantage I didn't say no advantage. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm with John's point of view on this one VGs don't appear to give enough
benefit on a Kolb that would make me want to put them on my plane. I
have a open mind on this and would change my mind if I could see a significat
differance. I was there and I just didn't see it.</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: "Larry Cottrell"
<lcottrell@fmtcblue.com> <BR><BR>> --> Kolb-List message posted
by: "Larry Cottrell" <LCOTTRELL@FMTCBLUE.COM><BR>> <BR>> > -->
Kolb-List message posted by: "Kirby Dennis Contr MDA/AL" <BR>> > <DENNIS.KIRBY@KIRTLAND.AF.MIL><BR>>
> <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>> > Rick Neilsen wrote: << The challenge showed me a few things.
<BR>> > John is a great pilot which allowed him to fly his plane as
slow as <BR>> > Richard Pike in spite of the weight differences. What was
significant to <BR>> > me was that the claimed benefit of the VG just
wasn't there. >> <BR>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>> ------------------------------------------------------
<BR>> I am curious as to why
you be
lieve there was no benefit to the VG's? It <BR>> seems to me that if Richard
had pulled his flaps he could have flown slower, <BR>> or am I missing something
there? I consider John a friend of mine and a <BR>> exceptional pilot.
A bit hard headed on occasion, but then that includes all <BR>> of us Alpha
types. That John was able to fly his plane at that speed and <BR>> configuration
is not a surprise to me at all, However you are overlooking <BR>>
two other factors. Richards lack of a radio causing him to fly blind in a <BR>>
formation, ( which I understand he has not done before) and the fact that
it <BR>> was not necessary for him to deploy flaps to fly at a speed which
required <BR>> that John use them. <BR>> <BR>> If you "have nots" don't
want more stability in turns, slow flight, <BR>> increased cushion at
landing, less bounces, and you are as good a pilot (of <BR>> which I have little
doubt) as John, then don't put the things on! J
ust sp
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I just returned from the airport. My Firestar KXP is now an airworthy and official
experimental light sport aircraft. The DAR was thorough, but found no squawks
on the plane an only one date missing on the paperwork. I'm glad I spent
the money on the EAA transition kit. It was helpful. I gave him $250 and
he gave me a pink slip and five hourws to fly off within 50 miles of the field.
I took it around the pattern twice to celebrate before a rain squall prompted me
to fold and head home. It was nice to be "Experimental 1782 Charlie" instead
of "yellow ultralight".
The DAR said the FAA is recieving over two hundred N number applications a day
right now. He has inspected more than 20 planes my neck of the woods and has
several more on the schedule for this weekend. The FAA inspector in Portland
(on the other side of the state from me) said he is inspecting ten planes a week
or more.
Later,
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1862C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138185#138185
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: | Carb ice & Cuyuna? |
Had some difficulty this evening which sounds like carb ice but I'd like
any other thoughts.
This is my Ultrastar, with the Cuyuna ULII-02 engine, single Mikuni
carb. Takeoff was fine, full power (6200 rpm), and I stayed in the pattern
and throttled back to 4500 on downwind. After not too long, I thought I
heard some roughness in the engine so I pushed the throttle forward, but
that had no effect other than making the engine bog and sound as if it
would quit. Retart the throttle and it continued to run, and naturally I
landed immediately.
On the ground, the intake manifold was dripping wet.
Started the engine, and again it developed full power. I let it run at
4500 for awhile, then shut down and pulled the air filter, no sign of ice
as far as I could see. Took off again, same thing, though this time after
a bit of playing with the throttle I was able to get full power again.
Temps were in the upper 60's and very humid; as I was flying the fog was
rolling in off the water (the airport is 8 miles from the coast). No data
for my field, but at an airport in the coast 13 miles away the temperature
dropped through the 64 dewpoint while I was airborne.
-Dana
--
--
"I'm a lawyer." "Honest?" "No, the usual kind."
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: I Passed! kxp |
Roger
I had a kxp and I loved it with a little bit of luck that plane may
fly 20 moor years while one not registered will probably be scraped for parts
. Malcolm Michigan
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: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge |
Best $100. I've spent on my FSII. Not for the enhanced performance but
for the added safety!!!
MEM FSII 450hrs
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: neilsenrm@comcast.net
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge
Hey Larry
Good to hear from you. It was great talking to at Monument Valley.
I will respond to this one LAST time. Would all you VG guys please
read my post again before you post. John's plane is a good 20% heaver
than Richard's this does increase John's stall speed. I think John's
heaver gross weight fairly well balances his use of flaps. OK lets say
JUST for argument's sake John's increased weight didn't lower his stall
speed at all. His use of flaps doesn't reduce his stall speed by the
amount everyone CLAIMS the VGs do. To hear some of you talk you would
think VGs would give everyone a 10 MPH stall speed.
In the clip you attached I said that VGs didn't give Richard the
"claimed" advantage I didn't say no advantage.
I'm with John's point of view on this one VGs don't appear to give
enough benefit on a Kolb that would make me want to put them on my
plane. I have a open mind on this and would change my mind if I could
see a significat differance. I was there and I just didn't see it.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Larry Cottrell" <lcottrell@fmtcblue.com>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rick Neilsen wrote: << The challenge showed me a few things.
> > John is a great pilot which allowed him to fly his plane as slow
as
> > Richard Pike in spite of the weight differences. What was
significant to
> > me was that the claimed benefit of the VG just wasn't there. >>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> ------------------------------------------------------
> I am curious as to why you be lieve there was no benefit to the
VG's? It
> seems to me that if Richard had pulled his flaps he could have
flown slower,
> or am I missing something there? I consider John a friend of mine
and a
> exceptional pilot. A bit hard headed on occasion, but then that
includes all
> of us Alpha types. That John was able to fly his plane at that
speed and
> configuration is not a surprise to me at all, However you are
overlooking
> two other factors. Richards lack of a radio causing him to fly
blind in a
> formation, ( which I understand he has not done before) and the
fact that it
> was not necessary for him to deploy flaps to fly at a speed which
required
> that John use them.
>
> If you "have nots" don't want more stability in turns, slow
flight,
> increased cushion at landing, less bounces, and you are as good a
pilot (of
> which I have little doubt) as John, then don't put the things on!
J ust sp
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: Rotax 912 Torque Spec Error |
Dennis, Second biggest thing stressed by Eric, was always check that you
have the latest version of the manual. R.O.A.N. sent out a notice in late
July that all 912 installation manuals had been superceded.
"Rotax has announced the REPLACEMENT of the following 912 Series
Installation manuals:
- Installation Manual Rotax 912 A, Edition 0, Rev 2
- Installation Manual Rotax 912 F, Edition 0, Rev 3
- Installation Manual Rotax 912 S, Edition 0, Rev 2
- Installation Manual Rotax 912 UL, Edition 2, Rev 2
These manuals ARE NO LONGER VALID and have been REPLACED by:
- Installation Manual Rotax 912 Series, May 01/2007, Edition 1, Rev0. (Rotax
Part No. 898642)"
I downloaded the new installation manual and it gives the same spec as the
old one, 12 to 20 Nm (106-177in lb) and both refer to SI-05-97, the relevant
part, I believe is:
"It should be noted that this is maximum torque value, and in all cases
flange nuts
should never be torqued such that the exhaust flange makes contact with the
cylinder
head. If necessary a lesser torque value may be used down to a minimum value
of
12 Nm (110 in.lb.) Maintenance personnel should always insure that the
exhaust
flange nuts are tightened to the maximum torque possible, not exceeding 20
Nm (180
in.lb.), while still respecting the need for clearance between the flange
and the
cylinder head."
Hope this helps.
Rick
On 10/4/07, Jeff Nelson <jenelson1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 177 inch pounds is only 14.74 Ft-lbs was it listed in the book as In-lbs
> or Ft-lbs?
>
> Do not archive
>
> > Subject: Kolb-List: Rotax 912 Torque Spec Error
> > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:07:48 -0600
> > From: Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil
> > To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> >
> Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Fellow 912 Drivers -
> >
> > I discovered an error in the official Rotax manuals that specify the
> > torque value for the lock-nuts that secure the exhaust system. These
> > are the copper M8 lock-nuts - two at each exhaust port.
> >
> > The Rotax 912 Installation Manual (sec 10.1) clearly states that these
> > nuts should be torqued to 177 inch-pounds. While doing maintenance
> > today, I was reinstalling the exhaust system on my 912ul, and tightened
> > these lock-nuts to the specified value.
> >
> > Afterward, I noticed that the two studs were distorted - they were no
> > longer pointed straight out of the cylinder head, but skewed a bit from
> > being overtightened.
> >
> > I called Lockwood, and the tech guy there looked up the torque value
> > from the Rotax 912 Illustrated Parts Manual. The number listed there
> > was 105 ft-lb. I had WAY overtightened those nuts! Looks like I'll be
> > ordering a pair of new exhaust studs. Fortunately, this was a cheap
> > lesson for me - they cost only $3.50 each. But it mad me mad that, in
> > my attempt to do the right thing, the Rotax manual provided wrong
> > information.
> >
> > So the lessons here worth passing on to you all are: 1) The torque value
> > for the exhaust system nuts listed in the Installation Manual is WRONG,
> > and 2) Refer to the Illustrated Parts Manual for all torques for your
> > Rotax engine.
> >
> > I hope this helps someone avoid the mistake I made. Happy flying ...
> >
> > Dennis Kirby
> > Mark-III Classic, 912ul, in
> > Cedar C-==================================
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble
> challenge with star power. Play Now!<http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: Grand Vortex Generator Challenge |
Hi Mike:
I am the last person I know that would want to drag out the "great VG
debate".
However, could you expand on your statement below, please? Telling me
you put them on for added safety leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
Did you get the added safety you were looking for, and how did that
happen?
Thanks,
john h
mkIII
Best $100. I've spent on my FSII. Not for the enhanced performance
but for the added safety!!!
MEM FSII 450hrs
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912 Torque Spec Error |
These things can happen, but I would encourage everyone to download the most current
manuals on line and sign up for automatic notification of manual changes
through ROAN. The torque values of a number of nuts and bolts were changed a
while back in a manual revision.
There is a new Heavy maint. and Installation manual out.
There is a new SB out as of today.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138236#138236
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! --
|