---------------------------------------------------------- Kolb-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 12/13/08: 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:28 AM - Re: Kolb Ultrastar: How to take-off (pj.ladd) 2. 03:53 AM - Re: xtra wingtip mods (icrashrc) 3. 05:57 AM - Re: Re: VG affect on stall (Eugene Zimmerman) 4. 06:27 AM - Re: Kolb Ultrastar: How to take-off (Jean PILLAUDIN) 5. 06:28 AM - Re: Re: xtra wingtip mods (John Hauck) 6. 06:42 AM - Re: Re: VG affect on stall (John Hauck) 7. 07:02 AM - Re: Kolb Ultrastar: How to take-off (robert bean) 8. 07:39 AM - Re: 912 enrichers (Richard Girard) 9. 08:49 AM - Re: trying a new prop (Richard Girard) 10. 09:03 AM - Re: Kolb Ultrastar: How to take-off (Jack B. Hart) 11. 09:32 AM - Re: Kolb Ultrastar: How to take-off (lucien) 12. 09:54 AM - Re: Kolb Ultrastar: How to take-off (WhiskeyVictor36@aol.com) 13. 10:06 AM - Re: Re: VG affect on stall (Eugene Zimmerman) 14. 10:20 AM - Re: Re: VG affect on stall (Eugene Zimmerman) 15. 03:19 PM - Re: Trying a new prop (Jimmy Young) 16. 04:52 PM - Re: Re: Trying a new prop (Eugene Zimmerman) 17. 07:40 PM - fired up (Larry Cottrell) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:28:30 AM PST US From: "pj.ladd" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Ultrastar: How to take-off "I always take off with the *stick centered and full back*." Hi Jean, I have not flown a Firefly but to take off `stick fully back ` is dangerous in any plane I dont know who Jack is but I am surprised that he is alive. If you take off as he suggests you will get airborne as soon as you hit flying speed. THAT IS NOT FAST ENOUGH. A slight drop in the wind or power from your engine and you will stall., just off the ground and you will at best bump heavily or at worst you will crash. You will also be stuck in ground effect until you build up some speed. It CAN be done that way but only when you have some experience. I never look at the ASI on takeoff. You do not fly small aircraft by the numbers with a co pilot calling V1, V2. Advance the throttle smoothly with the stick forward, the tail will come up in a few yards and you can ease off on the stick to balance the plane on its wheels. Smoothly push the throttle to full power. The plane will tell you when she wants to fly. Hold it like that for a couple of seconds as the speed builds and then ease the stick back and you will climb away with no trouble. You have gliding experience you will know that you do not pull into a steep climb until you have some height. Cables break and engines pack up. Good luck Pat ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 03:53:47 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: xtra wingtip mods From: "icrashrc" John, The wingspan is the same as with the stock wingtip bow. Total wingspan including the glass tip should be within a few inches of the yellow and white factory Xtra. Scott 31f? that's a heat wave! It's 14f here. [/quote] Scott/Paul: Looks good. I believe you told me what the length of the wing panel was while at the Homecoming, but I forgot. ;-) john h mkIII 31F and cold at hauck's holler.[/quote] Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219183#219183 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:57:28 AM PST US From: Eugene Zimmerman Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: VG affect on stall On Dec 12, 2008, at 5:41 PM, John Hauck wrote: > I bet if you get right down to the real nitty gritty, you will > discover there is very, very little serious flight or simulated > flight testing on any UL or experiemental homebuilt. John, I bet if you get right down to the nitty gritty you will discover that most experimental planes are never actually involved in any real experimental testing. "Experimental aircraft " is in that case a misnomer. The actual testing in most cases is not a testing of the plane, but most often the real test is a test that reveals whether a person is, or is not, a real pilot. How many Kolb "planes" ever proved to be unsatisfactory as a flying experiment? How many Kolb "pilots" ever proved to be unsatisfactory as a flying experiment? In most cases it is the pilot that is ,,,,,,,,,,, "EXPERIMENTAL" It is always true in my case anyways ,,,,,,, because the EXPERIENCE is always mine. I am always "experimental" ,,,,,,,,,,,, every once in a while my plane is also. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:27:49 AM PST US From: "Jean PILLAUDIN" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Ultrastar: How to take-off Yes you're right, but I think Jack just want to take care of nose over, and as an experienced Pilot he let his firefly accelerate before beginning to climb. Thank you for your income. Jean 2008/12/13 pj.ladd > "I always take off with the *stick centered and full back*." > > Hi Jean, > > I have not flown a Firefly but to take off `stick fully back ` is > dangerous in any plane > > I dont know who Jack is but I am surprised that he is alive. > If you take off as he suggests you will get airborne as soon as you hit > flying speed. THAT IS NOT FAST ENOUGH. A slight drop in the wind or power > from your engine and you will stall., just off the ground and you will at > best bump heavily or at worst you will crash. You will also be stuck in > ground effect until you build up some speed. > It CAN be done that way but only when you have some experience. > > I never look at the ASI on takeoff. You do not fly small aircraft by the > numbers with a co pilot calling V1, V2. Advance the throttle smoothly with > the stick forward, the tail will come up in a few yards and you can ease off > on the stick to balance the plane on its wheels. Smoothly push the throttle > to full power. The plane will tell you when she wants to fly. Hold it like > that for a couple of seconds as the speed builds and then ease the stick > back and you will climb away with no trouble. > You have gliding experience you will know that you do not pull into a > steep climb until you have some height. Cables break and engines pack up. > > Good luck > > Pat > > * > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:28:33 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: xtra wingtip mods Scott: How and where are you all going to attach and rig your aileron counter balance weights? john h mkIII ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:42:36 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: VG affect on stall > In most cases it is the pilot that is ,,,,,,,,,,, "EXPERIMENTAL" > > It is always true in my case anyways ,,,,,,, because the EXPERIENCE is > always mine. > > I am always "experimental" ,,,,,,,,,,,, every once in a while my plane > is also. Gene Z: Good point. True in my case. Was and still is a big learning curve flying these little airplanes. Up until 1990, I flew the single place Kolbs. Never had any professional instruction. Never had a check ride. Never had another pilot ride along to see if what I was doing was right or wrong. In the Army it was a constant series of check rides and standardization. I enjoy the freedom of my sport, but it can lead to some serious problems if I let it. Sometimes I don't know if I am letting it or not. This morning I am going to the airstrip to see if I caught anything. Put out two big rat traps with peanut butter. Used safety wire to secure them in place, in case I get a really big one that wants to walk off with my traps. I notices yesterday the four trays of Decon were cleaned out. I put them out and did not have a chance to check them for 48 hours. The glue traps had caught some pretty big grass hoppers, but that's all. Brother Jim has volunteered to sew me up some more seat belts and shoulder harnesses. I discovered the DRE 6000 ANR headsets are coming back. Aircraft Spruce has them for 359.00. Wiring in my old set got chewed up, plus they are getting on in age and hours. I ordered some new ones last night, but they were back ordered. I like the DRE6000 because I can plug them into the aircraft 12VDC system and not have to worry about batteries, just rats. ;-) Was 24F this morning. Must have been the nearness of the full moon last night. john h mkIII - Putting another log on the fire. ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:02:06 AM PST US From: robert bean Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Ultrastar: How to take-off > Every plane/kolb is a little different. I never really thought > about how the take off process works in my mongrelized MkIII but here is what I can put together from memory: 1. taxi to the end where the wind is hitting me in the face 2 wait until the water temp gets near a boiling 3. check all two gages 4. see if those flappy things are working on the wings. 5. advance the throttle fully, the mighty geo wheezes to full power 6. lumber at a slightly increasing rate over the undulating terrain 7. start bouncing from hummock to hummock at increasingly large increments. 8 doesn't much matter where the stick is, can't remember anyway. 9. some kinda magic makes it leave the ground. -thank goodness, I was was getting tired of all that bounding. 10. free as a bird. Hope it keeps running. I won't even go to the landing process, much too frightening for me to review. BB never had a lesson in a Kolb either, and it shows. :) ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:39:56 AM PST US From: "Richard Girard" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 912 enrichers Ted, I'm going to assume you have the stock Bing 64's on your 912 and you haven't hung a Holley double pumper on it.That butterfly you saw when you looked in the carb throat is NOT a choke, it's the throttle. In the 64 this sets the vacuum level in the carb which pulls the piston up and sets the mixture. Unlike the two stroke Bings, the throttle cable is NOT connected to the piston. In the 64 the piston is suspended from a diaphragm inside that big cover on top of the carb. What may be confusing you is that the linkage on the throttle cable should be set up so that the throttle butterfly goes full open should the cable fail. The throttle cable pulls the butterfly closed, not open. NOTE: this could be changed as the 64's on my HKS do not have this linkage setup. On the HKS the throttle is closed by the spring, just like it would be on a BMW motorcycle, but a 912 should have the aviation linkage that fails open. Rick On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:34 AM, wrote: > > > > I may be misunderstanding what John H was saying but my 912 ul 80 hp > does > > not have enrichers in the carbs. They have full butterly chokes in them. > I > > know for sure because I looked in there. Butterfly type is way better > than > > the rubber based enricher valve. > > Ted > > > Ted: > > Check to see if your choke butterfly vavles are connected to your throttle > cables. > > The Bings on the 912 series engines use a rotary valve system for > enrichener, rather than the plunger valve used by the two stroke Rotax. > There are a couple o ring seals in them that need to be checked > periodically. They could possibly leak if they go bad. > > john h > mkIII > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:49:14 AM PST US From: "Richard Girard" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: trying a new prop Jimmy, My experience with the new owners of Culver prop is that they are very good at what they do. I expect you will get some improvement but not that much. It's a heavy engine with low HP. We have a fellow in our EAA chapter who runs the Generac on a Legal Eagle. No need to worry about busting that FAR 103 55 knot limit on top speed. The 503 powered Airbike drivers have to throttle way back to fly with Chris' Legal Eagle.What you should see in static run up RPM is somewhat less than you want to see in flight. With Rotax engines that means 300 to 500 RPM less than full HP RPM. If your new prop is giving you full HP RPM in flight, you're getting all you can from that prop. If it isn't, your prop search goes on. Rick PS Just for perspective, the B-29 had props 16' in diameter that were geared to run at about 950 RPM at the prop. Of course it had a tad bit more HP than the Generac do not archive On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Richard & Martha Neilsen < NeilsenRM@comcast.net> wrote: > NeilsenRM@comcast.net> > > Jimmy > > This sounds like a good test. Of the composite props on the market the IVO > has the least thrust. That two bladed wood prop should give you alot more > thrust. > > Horse power is always important but it is thrust that moves you. A long two > bladed prop turns more HP into thrust. The problem is that there are > compromises. As you get closer to the limit of how big a prop your engine > can handle the smaller speed range your prop work in. > > If you configure your prop for best static thrust at max RPM you might over > RPM your engine or limit your cruise speed. The 41 pitch on your prop might > be just right but only testing will tell. I recently cut my prop from a 72 > inch to 71 inches to get a wider speed range which it did but it also > increased the HP necessary to maintain the same cruise. > > Let us know how it works. > > Rick Neilsen > Redrive VW powered MKIIIC > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimmy Young" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:45 PM > Subject: Kolb-List: trying a new prop > > >> >> Kolbers, >> >> I got a new prop delivered today from Valley Engineering. I hope to put >> it on Saturday and if the weather is cooperative I plan to fly. >> >> In my last post I mentioned my plane handled "superb". I need to re- >> qualify that remark...it still has marginal climb out performance with my >> new Generac engine. It's about half what my old 503 had, at best about 400 >> fpm, but probably the average is more like 300. I'd call that marginal at >> best. I currently have an IVO 72" 3 blade, set so I get about 3700 rpm on >> take-off WOT. Once I'm up to cruise altitude, it does handle and perform >> the same as it always did, with the exception of the climb rate. >> >> The new prop is a 78" 2 blade Culver Prop, pitched at 41. I'll still have >> a good 2 1/4" from the tip to the boom tube. I'm going to also change the >> spacer from a 3" to a 1 3/4" spacer, since the new prop is 2 1/4" thick at >> the hub and the IVO is only 1" thick. That should be a better set up for >> maintaining prop balance since the prop will be closer to the engine, and >> will still keep the prop tips 3 3/4" from my aileron tubes. The larger >> spacer was used to allow for the clearance required between the prop and >> the aileron tubes for the IVO, which has a lot of flex. I have a prop >> thrust tester I can use, and I plan to check the IVO on a static run up, >> record the thrust, then change out to the new prop and see what it produces >> on a static run up. >> >> I have a question to throw out there for review. If one prop produces more >> static run up thrust than another, regardless of whether it is a 2 or 3 >> blade prop, would it not therefore be a better all around performing prop >> in both climb and cruise? If the new prop, which is not ground-adjustable >> like the IVO is, allows the engine to reach 3700 RPM on a static run up >> test, which is where the max HP and torque values meet on the Generac >> engine, and if it produces more thrust at that RPM level, it seems to me it >> would out-perform the IVO in both climb out and cruise. >> >> I know no one here know much about the engine I'm using, but wouldn't >> these facts hold true for any engine/prop combination? >> >> Thanks for any input, >> >> Jimmy Young >> FS II, Houston TX >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:03:36 AM PST US From: "Jack B. Hart" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Ultrastar: How to take-off ...................... I dont know who Jack is but I am surprised that he is alive. If you take off as he suggests you will get airborne as soon as you hit flying speed. THAT IS NOT FAST ENOUGH. A slight drop in the wind or power from your engine and you will stall., just off the ground and you will at best bump heavily or at worst you will crash. You will also be stuck in ground effect until you build up some speed. It CAN be done that way but only when you have some experience. ....................... Pat, I am the "Jack" and I referred Jean to my how to transition to a FireFly page. http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/howtofly.html I have copied out My Standard Take-Off "I always take off with the stick centered and full back. This approach has several advantages. In cross winds it keeps the FireFly stuck to the runway until lift-off and it makes it easier to keep the FireFly straight down the runway. It lets you get off soft tall grass fields with out a nose over, and it can get you off the ground as quickly as possible. A nose over experience on a soft tall grass runway and water in tall grass experience brought about always using the stick back against the stop. The throttle is teased forward until the FireFly is bouncing. Throttle teasing reduces the effect of P-factor and helps you to keep up with rudder. Each time the FireFly bounces the throttle is jigged open a little more lengthening the next bounce until the FireFly flies off into ground effect. During the bouncing phase and if the tail comes up on its own when taking off from grass, you are on your way to a nose over. Jig the throttle back to get the tail to come back down or abort and try again. If there is a cross wind, one lowers the up wind wing and adds rudder to keep the FireFly straight with the runway. As the FireFly rises up in ground effect, back stick pressure is released and the throttle is advanced more aggressively. When the indicated airspeed reaches 55 mph and the FireFly continues to accelerate, the stick is slowly pulled back to maintain 55 mphi. If at any time during the climb out the engine rpm droops or you think it is drooping, push the stick forward to maintain or increase indicated air speed." ......................... At the time I wrote the avove, the FireFly was powered by a Rotax 447, and riding on the original 4 inch Azusa wheels. By chocking the wheels, I found that the tail wheel would leave the ground at 4,000 rpm with the stick in the full back position. At 4,300 rpm the FireFly was over balanced on the main gear and would have fallen on its nose if I had not looped a safety rope over the tail wheel spring. I added a gap seal between the horizontal stabilizer and elevator, but found no improvement. After mounting the Victor 1+ and VG's on the bottom of the horizontal stabilizer and lowering the thrust line there is less of a nose over problem upon throttle opening. I have not repeated the wheel chocked test. I have added it to my things to do list. My first concern to be able to safely nurse the FireFly off wet, soft, tall grass strips with out a nose over. And so I continuously practice. Now that I have infinite choice of flaperon settings, I usually set the flaperons at five degrees down. The reason to tease the throttle is to ensure that the FireFly can only lift in to ground effect. At this point, stick pressure is released and the ground effect flight is stabilized and then the throttle is advanced and climb out initiated. With this procedure, if things are not going well, all one has to do is back off the throttle and ease the FireFly down few feet. The field that am flying out of has only one runway, and it is very rare that the wind matches the runway direction. If the wind is not gusting over 20 mph, I like to fly. This makes for interesting cross wind takeoff and landing with hangars and tall trees within less that 100 yards of the runway. The advantage of using ground effect is that it moderates the cross wind effect. If one wing gets low, ground effect pressure helps to push it back up. Upon advance of the throttle, the FireFly accelerates rapidly in ground effect to a speed that gives very good control surface response. From this point one can initiate climb out with out having to worry about PF, heading, or stall. I find that I do better with above approach, in that it reduces the pilot load and minimizes multi tasking. It allows one to leave the ground at very low speed with virtually no pf effect. Next, slow speed flight is stabilized relative to the runway which is similar a glider at the beginning of an aircraft tow. This is followed by power addition to bring the ias up to best rate of climb speed. Then climb out is initiated up through the unstable air with very effective controls. It works for me. Jack B. Hart FF004 Winchester, IN ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:32:49 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb Ultrastar: How to take-off From: "lucien" pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com wrote: > "I always take off with the *stick centered and full back*." > > Hi Jean, > > I have not flown a Firefly but to take off `stick fully back ` is dangerous in any plane > > I dont know who Jack is but I am surprised that he is alive. > If you take off as he suggests you will get airborne as soon as you hit flying speed. THAT IS NOT FAST ENOUGH. A slight drop in the wind or power from your engine and you will stall., just off the ground and you will at best bump heavily or at worst you will crash. You will also be stuck in ground effect until you build up some speed. > It CAN be done that way but only when you have some experience. > Er, I don't understand how this is dangerous - this is just standard soft-field takeoff technique, at least according to my training. I did this literally all the time in my FSII when I felt like doing a soft-field takeoff (unfortunately I never flew it off grass, but soft-fields were fun anyway): - Stick full back - slowly advance throttle - keep tailwheel glued to the ground - lift off in ground effect - release back pressure as needed to remain in ground effect - when safe flying speed is acheived go fly. Works in all the other planes I've flown as well including my titan.... A standard takeoff in my FSII tho was the way John described, with neutral stick instead letting the tail come up... PS: I'm thinking now about building a firefly, so I may be back in the Kolb saddle again after a while. LS -------- LS Titan II SS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219221#219221 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 09:54:16 AM PST US From: WhiskeyVictor36@aol.com Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb Ultrastar: How to take-off In a message dated 12/13/2008 5:28:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, pj.ladd@btinternet.com writes: I have not flown a Firefly but to take off `stick fully back ` is dangerous in any plane Hi Pat, We're talking about a Kolb here, specifically a Firefly. I fly a Kolb FireStar, which is pretty much the same model, but with slightly more wing area. I always take off with the stick fully back, because otherwise you risk pushing the nose over onto the ground. I add throttle slowly at first, but as soon as it is moving, I go to full power. It accelerates very quickly and I'm off the ground in a matter of seconds. Then I relieve the back pressure just enough to maintain a normal climb. I don't know about other Kolb models, but the Firefly and FireStar accelerate so quickly that ground effect is almost meaningless, they practically jump off the ground and climb like a bat out of &%#$@. Merry Christmas Everyone, Bill Varnes Original Kolb FireStar 500 hrs + Audubon NJ Do Not Archive **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 10:06:03 AM PST US From: Eugene Zimmerman Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: VG affect on stall On Dec 12, 2008, at 5:41 PM, John Hauck wrote: > > I bet if you get right down to the real nitty gritty, you will > discover there is very, very little serious flight or simulated > flight testing on any UL or experiemental homebuilt. John, I bet if you get right down to the nitty gritty you will discover that most experimental planes are never actually involved in any real experimental testing. "Experimental aircraft " is in that case a misnomer. The actual testing in most cases is not a testing of the plane, but most often the real test is a test that reveals whether a person is, or is not, a real pilot. How many Kolb "planes" ever proved to be unsatisfactory as a flying experiment? How many Kolb "pilots" ever proved to be unsatisfactory as a flying experiment? In most cases it is the pilot that is ,,,,,,,,,,, "EXPERIMENTAL" It is always true in my case anyways ,,,,,,, because the EXPERIENCE is always mine. I am always "experimental" ,,,,,,,,,,,, every once in a while my plane is also. | _____|_____ *=======================R=======================* \ / ^ \ / ( /---\ ) \___/ / \ () () Eugene Zimmerman ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 10:20:31 AM PST US From: Eugene Zimmerman Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: VG affect on stall Oooops, Looks like I just posted a duplicate. Sorry. Gene On Dec 13, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Eugene Zimmerman wrote: > > > On Dec 12, 2008, at 5:41 PM, John Hauck wrote: > >> >> I bet if you get right down to the real nitty gritty, you will >> discover there is very, very little serious flight or simulated >> flight testing on any UL or experiemental homebuilt. > > > John, > > I bet if you get right down to the nitty gritty you will discover > that most experimental planes are never actually involved in any > real experimental testing. "Experimental aircraft " is in that case > a misnomer. > > The actual testing in most cases is not a testing of the plane, but > most often the real test is a test that reveals whether a person > is, or is not, a real pilot. > > How many Kolb "planes" ever proved to be unsatisfactory as a > flying experiment? > How many Kolb "pilots" ever proved to be unsatisfactory as a flying > experiment? > > In most cases it is the pilot that is ,,,,,,,,,,, "EXPERIMENTAL" > > It is always true in my case anyways ,,,,,,, because the EXPERIENCE > is always mine. > > I am always "experimental" ,,,,,,,,,,,, every once in a while my > plane is also. > > > | > _____|_____ > *=======================R=======================* > \ / ^ > \ / > ( /---\ ) > \___/ > / \ > () () > > Eugene Zimmerman > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 03:19:16 PM PST US From: "Jimmy Young" Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Trying a new prop Richard Gerard wrote: >>>With Rotax engines that means 300 to 500 RPM less than full HP RPM.<<< Richard, I got the new prop on today, but it was just too windy to fly. I did a static run up test with a thrust gauge, and was getting 255 lbs. with the new Culver prop. With the IVO, it was making 195 lbs. The with the new prop, the engine RPM would top out at 3300 rpm. But, with the IVO, the engine would hit 3600 rpm on a static thrust test. Since I didn't get to fly, I have nothing to compare yet regarding performance. I am at a new airport now, and it's a good airport to test stuff at because it has 2800 ft. of grass runway. The first good calm evening this week I hope to take the plane up and see what the improvements are, if any. At least the new prop is producing more thrust and I hope that translates into better climb performance. I'm leary of any speculation on my part just because of the improved thrust #'s. I guess it is better than finding out it has less thrust than the IVO though. I'll post the results after I go fly it. Jimmy Young Houston TX ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 04:52:10 PM PST US From: Eugene Zimmerman Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Trying a new prop Jimmy, With those numbers it sounds like you should experience a significant performance improvement. Please keep us posted. Gene On Dec 13, 2008, at 6:26 PM, Jimmy Young wrote: > Richard Gerard wrote: > >>>With Rotax engines that means 300 to 500 RPM less than full HP > RPM.<<< > > Richard, > > I got the new prop on today, but it was just too windy to fly. I did > a static run up test with a thrust gauge, and was getting 255 lbs. > with the new Culver prop. With the IVO, it was making 195 lbs. The > with the new prop, the engine RPM would top out at 3300 rpm. But, > with the IVO, the engine would hit 3600 rpm on a static thrust test. > Since I didn't get to fly, I have nothing to compare yet regarding > performance. > > I am at a new airport now, and it's a good airport to test stuff at > because it has 2800 ft. of grass runway. The first good calm evening > this week I hope to take the plane up and see what the improvements > are, if any. At least the new prop is producing more thrust and I > hope that translates into better climb performance. I'm leary of any > speculation on my part just because of the improved thrust #'s. I > guess it is better than finding out it has less thrust than the IVO > though. I'll post the results after I go fly it. > > Jimmy Young > Houston TX > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 07:40:19 PM PST US From: "Larry Cottrell" Subject: Kolb-List: fired up Hi, I managed to get every thing squared away today and fired up the HKS. I pumped up the oil pressure yesterday by removing sparkplugs and cranking it until the pressure came up. Then I tried to start it and found that my battery would not turn it over. I brought up the quad and used jumper cables and that wasn't enough either. I spent the evening trying to figure what was up. This morning I called Jerry Olenik to see what he could tell me. I put the prop on it and brought up the truck and hooked it to that, and it fired, but was running crappy and backfiring. Called Jerry again and we went through the electrical hook up. I went back and ran a ground wire from the battery to the starter housing to make sure that it had a good ground. (apparently extremely important) I had run a ground wire from the starter housing to the ground block. Then he assured me that not being able to turn the prop over by hand was normal. (takes two and the power required is extreme) After that I got it running, actually starts pretty easy if you have the proper power to turn it over. Then it was backfiring. Another call to Jerry, found that I had hooked up the spark plug wires wrong. The wires in each module goes to different cylinders. DUH! (the only problem with the way the way I had it hooked up is that when you turn off one mag the other cylinder didn't have any power to it) Then I found that I wasn't showing oil pressure. Another call to Jerry, he suggested things to look at. I asked how tight the plastic fittings on the oil hoses could be tightened. Turns out they are painted alum and I didn't have them tight enough. Another DUH! That solved my pressure problem, but it was still running rough and backfiring. Jerry suggested that it might be denotation due to me using 89 octane. Off Karen and I went to Jordan Valley to buy premium, over icy roads. She is getting to be one of those old ladies like on the commercial "You are driving like a bat out of Hell"! :-) When we got back I fired it up again, no back firing, runs pretty smooth. The best is that it is half the noise of a 503. I plan to submit to Jerry a HKS for dummies type book, since I am quite sure that I made every possible mistake (misteak) that was possible. Larry C ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kolb-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kolb-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kolb-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kolb-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.