Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:39 AM - used 912uls (icrashrc)
2. 05:28 AM - Re: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (Jack B. Hart)
3. 05:30 AM - Re: Kolb-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 01/20/08 (tc1917)
4. 07:01 AM - Re: used 912uls (John Hauck)
5. 09:16 AM - Re: used 912uls (Richard Girard)
6. 09:17 AM - Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (JetPilot)
7. 09:25 AM - Re: Credit for page 8 photo (Richard Girard)
8. 09:43 AM - Re: Here is what VG's did to my airspeed. (Vic Peters)
9. 10:13 AM - Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (lucien)
10. 11:21 AM - Re: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (Richard Girard)
11. 11:57 AM - Re: Credit for page 8 photo (John Hauck)
12. 01:10 PM - Re: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (The Kuffels)
13. 01:34 PM - Re: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (Jack B. Hart)
14. 01:43 PM - FireFly Photos (Jack B. Hart)
15. 03:10 PM - Re: FireFly Photos (John Hauck)
16. 03:27 PM - Re: FireFly Photos (gary aman)
17. 08:54 PM - Re: FireFly Photos (DAquaNut@aol.com)
18. 10:52 PM - Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (JetPilot)
19. 11:11 PM - Re: used 912uls (JetPilot)
20. 11:41 PM - Re: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) (Ed Chmielewski)
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 |
|
I've stumbled across a used 912uls. The owner tells me the engine has less than
50 hours on it. Is there any way to tell from the serial number that
A. it is a uls and not a ul
B. the age of the engine (i was told it's a 2004 vintage)
C. that the gearbox is the standard ratio.
I plan on looking closely down the exhaust and intake as well as pulling a few
spark plugs. A close look at any fluids is also obviously on my list.
Any and all suggestions that may help keep me from getting shafted would be appreciated.
Thank you,
--------
Scott
www.ill-EagleAviation.com
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159512#159512
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: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
At 09:23 PM 1/20/08 -0800, you wrote:
>
>The one thing you are very wrong about is you saying that turning steeply will
not put additional load on the plane and not increase stall speed. It does not
matter weather you turn with power, or with altitude, it takes energy AND increased
load on the wings to change the direction of the plane. There is just
no way around it, going up, down or sideways, to change the direction of the
plane, you must create additional lift on the wings to change the direction
of the plane, which will increase the stall speed. To teach otherwise is possibly
dangerous to someone that might take it to literally.
>
Mike,
Just think about it. The engine is out and you are flying at best glide speed.
Since you are gliding the wings are not generating enough lift to support the
aircraft. If you enter a gliding turn at the same speed the load on the wings
remains constant and you lose altitude t a faster rate than before because
the lift is not perpendicular to the ground. As Tom as said the only danger is
to tighten the turn with rudder until you stall the inboard wing and intiate
a spin, but if the speed is constant the wing load remains constant until the
spin starts.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 01/20/08 |
in reply to the person who wondered about my reply: "nope".
I have to apologize because I was answering another email and I apparently
sent the reply to the wrong sector. I was asked if I had a belt reduction
unit and I replied "nope". Sorry for the confusion. Just pushed the wrong
button. I am in the process or selling a couple of props. I still have a
beautiful WARP left: 68" off a 582 with E box. Almost brand new. Sold 582
and updated to 912UL. Had to buy a new one, again. Want $750 but make
offer.
Ted Cowan, Alabama.
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've stumbled across a used 912uls.
>
> --------
> Scott
Morning Scott:
Obvious way to see if it is a 912ULS is green valve covers. 912UL has black
valve covers. Of course, valve covers can be painted or swapped, so the
best way is run the serial number of the engine. I'd contact a Rotax
Service Center for that info, Ronnie Smith at South Mississippi Light
Aircraft, Lockwood, or others.
Don't know if the 2004 model 912ULS was produced with the high torque
starter and slipper clutch, but this info can also be obtained from a Rotax
Service Center when running the serial number.
Other than that, I can't think of any other way to verify by outward
appearance.
Probably be a good idea to have a written agreement to the effect that if
the engine is not as advertised, you will get a full and speedy refund of
your money.
Items that should come with the engine (items in a new engine package) are
oil tank, voltage regulator/rectifier, operators manual, installation
manual, and, of course, the little tool bag with a couple wrenches and a
"crank shaft fixing pin" used to lock the crankshaft for certain serious
maintenance procedures.
Good luck with your new engine.
john h
mkIII
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 |
|
Scott, I agree with John, plus trying to ascertain if the engine was
overheated. See if your Rotax service center can Rockwell hardness test the
heads. If they test soft, run away like your feet were aflame. Four new
heads for the 912 are now almost $10,000, and that doesn't include
installation.
I'd also recommend you remove the oil filter, cut it open and check for
metallic debris.
An oil analysis would be a good investment, too.
Rotax engines are built like fine jewelry and it takes very little in the
way of mistreatment to do major damage. As an example, the engine we worked
on with Eric Tucker had been run for 10 seconds without oil pressure and had
a nice big hole in the case where a rod made a hasty departure. The owner
had hooked the oil lines up backward.
Last, make the owner pay for all evaluation work. If he balks, be very
suspicious.
Rick
On Jan 21, 2008 8:59 AM, John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I've stumbled across a used 912uls.
> >
> > --------
> > Scott
>
>
> Morning Scott:
>
> Obvious way to see if it is a 912ULS is green valve covers. 912UL has
> black
> valve covers. Of course, valve covers can be painted or swapped, so the
> best way is run the serial number of the engine. I'd contact a Rotax
> Service Center for that info, Ronnie Smith at South Mississippi Light
> Aircraft, Lockwood, or others.
>
> Don't know if the 2004 model 912ULS was produced with the high torque
> starter and slipper clutch, but this info can also be obtained from a
> Rotax
> Service Center when running the serial number.
>
> Other than that, I can't think of any other way to verify by outward
> appearance.
>
> Probably be a good idea to have a written agreement to the effect that if
> the engine is not as advertised, you will get a full and speedy refund of
> your money.
>
> Items that should come with the engine (items in a new engine package) are
> oil tank, voltage regulator/rectifier, operators manual, installation
> manual, and, of course, the little tool bag with a couple wrenches and a
> "crank shaft fixing pin" used to lock the crankshaft for certain serious
> maintenance procedures.
>
> Good luck with your new engine.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
[quote="jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne"]At 09:23 PM 1/20/08 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
> Since you are gliding the wings are not generating enough lift to support the
aircraft.
>
>
Hi Jack,
It does not matter if the plane is decending in a glide, or in level flight, there
the same amount of load on the wings. Or in other words, a stable glide or
level powered flight = same 1 G load on the wings.
>
>
> If you enter a gliding turn at the same speed the load on the wings remains constant
and you lose altitude t a faster rate than before because the lift is
not perpendicular to the ground. As Tom as said the only danger is to tighten
the turn with rudder until you stall the inboard wing and intiate a spin, but
if the speed is constant the wing load remains constant until the spin starts.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
You can use that technique, and not load the airplane up much in a turn, but if
you maintain only 1 G in the turn, your descent angle and descent rate will increase
as long as you are in a 1 G banked condition, you wont be able to maintain
just 1 G loading for long before you have to either level out or start pulling
more G's. In all likelyhood, you would start to put some extra loading
on the wings during the turn even if you dont realize you are doing it.
Either way, when you level out, you will have a descent rate greater than what
you started with, which will take more wing loading to arrest, AND you will be
wasting more alitude by letting the nose fall and getting fast in the turn and
then using that energy to stop the extra descent rate you now have going.
But bottom line is, sooner or later, to change the direction of the plane, you
will have to put extra loading on the wings, there is no way around it. It takes
energy and lift to change the direction of a moving airplane no matter how
you fly the turn.
I do understand Toms point, which is to do a turn without loading up the plane
to much, use the rudder correctly, and you will minimize the impact of the turn
on stall speed. But in the end you never get something for nothing, and will
have to put extra load on the wings to accomplish this, weather do you it durring
the turn, or put the extra load on the wings while pulling out at the bottom,
there has to be more than 1 G on the wings at some point to accomplish
this.
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=159571#159571
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: Credit for page 8 photo |
Thanks Larry, but kidding or not you're right about giving credit where due.
If nothing else, it might encourage someone to submit something knowing
he'll get credit in print for his submission. Besides that, it'll fill a
small space in the newsletter and every little bit helps. :-)
Rick
On Jan 21, 2008 12:08 AM, Larry Cottrell <lcottrell@fmtcblue.com> wrote:
> I do hope that you realized that my post on this subject was tongue in
> cheek. However the other pilot was Gary Halley, not Richard.
> Larry C
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Richard Girard <jindoguy@gmail.com>
> *To:* kolb-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:58 PM
> *Subject:* Kolb-List: Credit for page 8 photo
>
> Okay, Karen Cottrell was the photographer and the pilots, from left to
> right were John Hauck, John Williamson, and Richard Nielsen. Working from
> memory here, guys, but I would like to get it right.
> If you belong to an EAA chapter kindly pass my email address along to your
> chapter's newsletter editor and I'll add him / her to my exchange list.
>
> Rick
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> ------------------------------
> Release Date: 1/20/2008 2:15 PM
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: Here is what VG's did to my airspeed. |
You seem to be mistaking your altitude with RPM which reads 3500.
Jp wrote
" You can see engine RPM of 2200, and a 100 FPM sink rate, and if you
look outside, you can see the plane is still level, and under control.
I did "
Vic
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: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
>
> Mike,
>
> Just think about it. The engine is out and you are flying at best glide speed.
Since you are gliding the wings are not generating enough lift to support
the aircraft. If you enter a gliding turn at the same speed the load on the wings
remains constant and you lose altitude t a faster rate than before because
the lift is not perpendicular to the ground. As Tom as said the only danger
is to tighten the turn with rudder until you stall the inboard wing and intiate
a spin, but if the speed is constant the wing load remains constant until the
spin starts.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
On thing we should reemphasize here is that stall is determined by angle of attack,
not airspeed. True, we think in terms of airspeed when it comes to stall,
because we're often discussing the limits of lift available from the wing in
lower energy situations like low airspeeds with the engine power reduced (or absent)
such as during landing.
So, Jack is quite right here. If the loading on the wing remains constant, there
won't (need to) be any change in the AOA. In fact, no matter what lift or airspeed
conditions prevail, if the wing is below the critical AOA, it is not stalled.
If it is above the critical AOA, it will be stalled.
Again, under landing conditions, our airspeed is typically low enough that we're
near the maximum available lift from the wing to keep the airplane at the desired
sink rate (in turn meaning that we're flying very close to the critical
AOA). In a turn, of course, the vertical lift vector is reduced in magnitude,
so the amount of actual lift required to maintain the same sink rate goes up.
You have 2 choices in that situation - either generate more lift from the wing
to maintain the same sink rate or keep the generated lift the same and simply
accept the resulting higher sink rate induced with the turn.
If you're high enough, the latter choice is perfectly acceptable. Putting it another
way, going into a turn at a low airspeed does NOT mean that you're going
to stall. As long as you don't exceed the critical AOA, the wing won't stall
no matter what the airspeed or angle of bank is.
However, if you're too low and can't afford a higher sink rate, then you have to
either conserve energy or add more back - shallower bank in the turn to keep
the vertical component of lift higher to prevent loss of too much altitude or
adding power while in the turn to increase lift without exceeding the critical
AOA.
FWIW, all this is why we go out and practice steep turns, descending/ascending
turns, slow flight and minimum controllable airspeed on a regular basis, so that
we maintain a feel for maintaining our angle of attack in as many conditions
as possible.
LS
--------
LS
FS II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159589#159589
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: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Jack, I've been flying with the invisible engine for 35 years. It's the only
one that never ever fails. When the mechanical engines goes kaput, the
invisible engine takes over. It works by way of two forms of energy. Kinetic
energy, your movement through the air, and potential energy, the altitude
you have available before the gentle touchdown or the impact. The speed
required to keep flying at a given bank angle doesn't give a whit which
engine is driving the plane. Increased bank angle requires more speed. A
perfectly coordinated turn at too slow an airspeed will move toward an
incipient spin just as well as a badly coordinated turn.
Rick Girard
On Jan 21, 2008 7:31 AM, Jack B. Hart <jbhart@onlyinternet.net> wrote:
>
> At 09:23 PM 1/20/08 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> >The one thing you are very wrong about is you saying that turning steeply
> will not put additional load on the plane and not increase stall speed. It
> does not matter weather you turn with power, or with altitude, it takes
> energy AND increased load on the wings to change the direction of the plane.
> There is just no way around it, going up, down or sideways, to change the
> direction of the plane, you must create additional lift on the wings to
> change the direction of the plane, which will increase the stall speed. To
> teach otherwise is possibly dangerous to someone that might take it to
> literally.
> >
>
> Mike,
>
> Just think about it. The engine is out and you are flying at best glide
> speed. Since you are gliding the wings are not generating enough lift to
> support the aircraft. If you enter a gliding turn at the same speed the
> load on the wings remains constant and you lose altitude t a faster rate
> than before because the lift is not perpendicular to the ground. As Tom as
> said the only danger is to tighten the turn with rudder until you stall the
> inboard wing and intiate a spin, but if the speed is constant the wing load
> remains constant until the spin starts.
>
> Jack B. Hart FF004
> Winchester, IN
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Credit for page 8 photo |
Rick:
There is a lot more to the photo than "three guys in a loose star
burst".
This photo was taken in May 2005, during our first flyin at the Alvord
Desert in Oregon.
John W, Gary H, and I, flew from Monument Valley to a set of GPS
coordinates in the SE corner of Oregon, to rendezvous with Larry and
Karen Cottrell, their two dogs, a cat, and a Perigrine Falcon. Roger
Hankin and his nephew, and Wayne (crs his name) was also there.
Highlight of the flyin was a 3,000 ft AGL bomb drop with a bowling ball.
;-)
john h
mkIII
Thanks Larry, but kidding or not you're right about giving credit
where due. If nothing else, it might encourage someone to submit
something knowing he'll get credit in print for his submission. Besides
that, it'll fill a small space in the newsletter and every little bit
helps. :-)
Rick
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: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Mike,
Sigh. I said this was another saga. In fact, this point is
number 1 in the series of articles I keep threatening to write
entitled "The FAA Is Trying To Kill Me". The source of the worry
that "increased bank angle means increased stall speed" is the
diagram in the AIM, copied in every student pilot ground school
book, showing increased bank angle equals increased load factor
equals increased stall speed. The flaw in this diagram is
insufficient emphasis that it only applies *if you maintain
constant altitude*. Look at the vectors in the diagram. The
total load increases to keep the vertical component constant
(i.e. constant altitude).
Now all this is before we are established on final so we are not
talking about very low altitude maneuvering. And, for all
practical purposes, keep bank angles below 90 degrees, better yet
below 60 degrees to avoid aerobatic flight. With constant (here
zero) power if you maintain a constant airspeed then you are
maintaining a constant 1 g load on the wing no matter what your
bank angle.
With wings level you are descending at a stable rate, trading the
potential energy of altitude for the energy needed to overcome
your drag. Roll into a stable bank angle and your rate of decent
will increase but then stabilize again. The change is not
instantaneous because your roll is smooth (right?) and because of
something called inertia.
Rolling level again is the same process in reverse. You end up
at the same wings level rate of decent as before. And if you've
maintained a constant airspeed throughout, the load on the wings
has stayed at 1 g throughout and the margin between your airspeed
and stall speed has not changed.
While it is true there is an additional transient load caused by
changes in decent rate, it's magnitude is a secondary effect,
particularly if your rolls are smooth, and your margin above
stall is essentially unchanged. And the same situation applies
to one or more changes in bank angle during the turn.
Safety statistics say the misconception that increasing bank
angle always means increasing stall speed kills a lot more people
than holding a constant airspeed turing a turn. For example,
look at turn-to-final spin fatalities. As a student pilot I kept
trying to sneak the airplane around to final with excess rudder.
Fortunately I had a very alert instructor who kept me from
premature spin practice. Still, it took quite a while to figure
out why I was afraid to steepen my bank angle and how to properly
and safely increase my turn rate.
But forget theory and logic, go out and try it yourself. At
altitude and constant power set up your normal glide speed.
Smoothly enter, wait and then exit turns of increasing bank while
staying obsessed with maintaining your glide speed. You will get
increasing but stable rates of decent with increasing bank but
nary a stall buffet.
Tom Kuffel
Whitefish, MT
Building Original FireStar
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: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
..................
Jack, I've been flying with the invisible engine for 35 years. It's the only
one that never ever fails. When the mechanical engines goes kaput, the
invisible engine takes over. It works by way of two forms of energy. Kinetic
energy, your movement through the air, and potential energy, the altitude
you have available before the gentle touchdown or the impact. The speed
required to keep flying at a given bank angle doesn't give a whit which
engine is driving the plane. Increased bank angle requires more speed. A
perfectly coordinated turn at too slow an airspeed will move toward an
incipient spin just as well as a badly coordinated turn.
.................
Rick,
I agree with what you have said. If you fly at constant best glide speed it
limits your rate of bank and you will never stall or spin, and you have the
longest, except for a straight line, glide path from were the engine quit to
the flare and touch down. This is converting the potential energy or
altitude into kinetic energy at an almost uniform or constant rate. One of
the most difficult things I had to learn flying sailplanes and when I
thought I was too low to make it back to the airport was to push the stick
forward and to maintain best glide.
Flying a sailplane was good training, in that, if something did not feel
right, you learned to always let the stick go forward a little while you
were figuring out what was going on.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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 |
|
FireFlyer's & Kolbers,
A nephew took some photos of the FireFly during any annual 4th of July fly
by. They are the best I have of the FireFly in flight. I thought you may
like to see them. I put them up at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly137.html
If you click on the smaller images it will take you to a larger detailed
image that are up to 205kb in size. I cropped them to keep the size down.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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: FireFly Photos |
> A nephew took some photos of the FireFly
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack:
Those are some great photos of your FF.
You look like you are enjoying yourself.
john h
mkIII
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: FireFly Photos |
Jack,
Nice pictures.How much did you raise the horizontal stab leading edge?
FireFlyer's & Kolbers,
A nephew took some photos of the FireFly during any annual 4th of July fly
by. They are the best I have of the FireFly in flight. I thought you may
like to see them. I put them up at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly137.html
If you click on the smaller images it will take you to a larger detailed
image that are up to 205kb in size. I cropped them to keep the size down.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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: FireFly Photos |
Jack,
Nice pics of the fly! What is the difference in weight with the simonini
instead of the 447 Rotax? Do you have to have an electric starter. How many
hours do you have on the simonini ? I am contemplating putting a 37 HP 1/2
vw from Scott Cassler on my Fire fly, but I am nor sure how to get in
contact with the fellow mentioned on the list who is currently flying with one
on
his Firefly?
Ed Diebel
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
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: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Tom,
Your advice on how to fly the turn without loading up the plane to much is a very
good technique to avoid a stall spin while in the turn. It is exactly what
I would do in that situation.
My point here is purely technical. If you are banked lets say at a very reasonable
45 degrees at 1 G loading on the wings, you will be falling into the turn
at a pretty good rate. IF you never load the plane to more than one G during
a 45 degree turn, or after the turn, your descent rate would be so high that
it would be fatal to hit the ground at that rate. What is happening is that
you are doing your pullout so smoothly, you are probably not aware of the increased
G loading, which is exactly the way you should do it. But in the end,
you are putting more than the 1 G load on the wing either during the turn, or
during the pull out to arrest your descent, even if its so smooth and gradual
that you are not aware of it.
Like I said, this is purely a technical point. Your technique sounds good to
me. Engine shut off is something everyone should practice while you are ready
for it and over a long runway, rather than practice for the first time when
the engine fails. A cold hard facts of ultralights and experimental airplanes
is that our engines are far more likely to fail than Certified aircraft. We
should all be proficient in real engine out landings.
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=159711#159711
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 |
|
jindoguy(at)gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> As an example, the engine we worked on with Eric Tucker had been run for 10 seconds
without oil pressure and had a nice big hole in the case where a rod made
a hasty departure. The owner had hooked the oil lines up backward.
> Last, make the owner pay for all evaluation work. If he balks, be very suspicious.
>
> Rick
>
10 seconds without oil pressure is just at the limits for the 912-s after an oil
change, but still in limits. I don't believe for a second that a rod went through
the case in just 10 seconds of being started without an oil supply. According
to the Rotax manual, 10 seconds is where you shut down the engine if you
don't get an oil pressure rise.
Someone either got their 3rd hand story wrong, or downright lied about what happened
there. Either way, if you knew much about the Rotax 912 engine, you should
have known this instead of passing along and putting into writing a BS story
that is so obviously wrong.
As far as the tests on the engine, if I were selling the engine, I would not pay
to have hardness tested, oil tested, etc. etc. Especially if the price were
good, I would tell you to go take a hike and sell to a buyer that was not such
a pain in the butt to deal with. Nothing worse than to do business with
someone that makes unreasonable demands.
Just like buying an airplane, if you want to get the engine inspected, it is customary
for the BUYER to pay the mechanic to do the inspection. If I were the
seller, would not pay for inspections, just to have the buyer change his mind
and leave me with the inspection bill.
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=159712#159712
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: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky) |
Hi Tom,
I'm afraid the FAA isn't 'trying to kill' us. The diagram you
reference does emphasize 'constant altitude'.
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Kuffels" <kuffel@cyberport.net>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Dead Stick Approaches ( Holes in the sky)
>
> Mike,
>
(Snip)
With constant (here
> zero) power if you maintain a constant airspeed then you are maintaining a
> constant 1 g load on the wing no matter what your bank angle.
Not true. Think about it. To maintain a 1-G load at different bank angles,
airspeed must change.
>
(Snip)
> Rolling level again is the same process in reverse. You end up at the
> same wings level rate of decent as before. And if you've maintained a
> constant airspeed throughout, the load on the wings has stayed at 1 g
> throughout and the margin between your airspeed and stall speed has not
> changed.
This sounds like 'seat-of-the-pants' flying - and logic.
> While it is true there is an additional transient load caused by changes
> in decent rate, it's magnitude is a secondary effect, particularly if your
> rolls are smooth, and your margin above stall is essentially unchanged.
> And the same situation applies to one or more changes in bank angle during
> the turn.
What you're describing defies physics. One airspeed is not necessarily safe
at all bank angles.
> Safety statistics say the misconception that increasing bank angle always
> means increasing stall speed kills a lot more people than holding a
> constant airspeed turing a turn.
Just the opposite is true. Increasing airspeed with increasing bank angle
keeps the stall safety margin the same, and trying to hold an arbitrary
airspeed with increasing bank angle may just make one a statistic.
(Snip)
>
> But forget theory and logic,
No thanks, theory and logic seem to work fine. Don't forget the laws of
physics, too.
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
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! --
|