---------------------------------------------------------- Kolb-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 02/04/09: 18 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:26 AM - Re: legs (robert bean) 2. 08:17 AM - Re: legs (jerb) 3. 08:59 AM - Re: legs (John Hauck) 4. 09:23 AM - Re: legs (The BaronVonEvil) 5. 09:50 AM - Re: legs (boyd) 6. 10:10 AM - Re: Re: New Engine at Sebring (Richard & Martha Neilsen) 7. 10:34 AM - CHT sender check, HKS (Larry Cottrell) 8. 10:47 AM - Re: Re: legs (robert bean) 9. 12:17 PM - Re: Re: legs (boyd) 10. 05:13 PM - Re: Re: legs (robert bean) 11. 05:44 PM - Re: Re: legs (Eugene Zimmerman) 12. 05:59 PM - Re: Re: legs (robert bean) 13. 06:27 PM - Re: legs (beauford) 14. 07:56 PM - Facebook Photo's (Larry Cottrell) 15. 08:01 PM - Re: Facebook Photo's (Robert Laird) 16. 08:19 PM - Re: Facebook Photo's (Larry Cottrell) 17. 08:59 PM - Re: Facebook Photo's () 18. 09:11 PM - Fw: face book (Larry Cottrell) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:26:26 AM PST US From: robert bean Subject: Re: Kolb-List: legs You are quite right, and I hope to be around for a while longer :) Just experimenting. I can always revert back to stock. It is an easy process with my bird as I don't have as much to fiddle with the center section. A couple of new holes in the spar ears and shims for the tin. Check for control rod adjustment. I won't initially change horizontal stab incidence because of a factor I shall not divulge yet. -only if it works BB On 3, Feb 2009, at 11:05 PM, jerb wrote: > > Robert - first I am not challenging you on what your proposing to > do, that is reduce your wings incidence, just trying to understand > why and what your trying to accomplish. > > I know you have been around a while so for others by changing the > wing incidence on an aircraft like a Kolb will change it's takeoff > performance, make it better or make worst. It can also impact it's > stall attitude thus the desired stance during landing operation > which thus impacts the gear configuration and vise-versa. It will > also impact the planes cruise attitude which can impact it's cruise > speed, clean and straight at cruise power setting versus a less > than optimum flight attitude at cruise resulting in greater induced > drag thus lower speed. > jerb > > > At 11 > :18 AM 2/3/2009, you wrote: >> >> I currently have aluminum gear legs on my MkIII (and a spare set on >> the shelf) >> Now I am considering changing out for the steel ones, not for any >> reason other than >> the increased stance on the ground. -not because it "looks cool" but >> because I am >> going to experiment with decreased wing incidence and it would be >> nice to have enough >> to get off the ground. >> Anyone with a spare set lying around? I would be interested. >> Otherwise I will go to TNK >> >> BTW, what is the actual height gain over the original? >> BB >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 08:17:25 AM PST US From: jerb Subject: Re: Kolb-List: legs Liked your reply Robert, sounds like some past experience and lessons learned. Knowledge can be taught or in some cases learned and confirmed from practice, (some past experience comes to mind of my mother telling me not to touch the stove because it was hot and I would get burned - yep confirmed she was right, she had knowledge). In reference to incidence and stance I got mine from practice with another aircraft. Lesson 1 - If you have the wrong stance an airplane will resist becoming airborne at lower normally flyable takeoff roll speeds. Lesson 2- if it has the correct stance but the wing has the wrong incidence, it will increase take off roll and lift off speed. Think about what would contribute to this. Robert, now we need for you to pass on your knowledge to us younger generations of lessons learned pertaining to the horizontal stabilizer. jerb At 07:25 AM 2/4/2009, you wrote: > >You are quite right, and I hope to be around for a while longer :) > >Just experimenting. I can always revert back to stock. >It is an easy process with my bird as I don't have as much to fiddle >with the center section. >A couple of new holes in the spar ears and shims for the tin. >Check for control rod adjustment. >I won't initially change horizontal stab incidence because of a >factor I shall not divulge yet. >-only if it works >BB > >On 3, Feb 2009, at 11:05 PM, jerb wrote: > >> >>Robert - first I am not challenging you on what your proposing to >>do, that is reduce your wings incidence, just trying to understand >>why and what your trying to accomplish. >> >>I know you have been around a while so for others by changing the >>wing incidence on an aircraft like a Kolb will change it's takeoff >>performance, make it better or make worst. It can also impact it's >>stall attitude thus the desired stance during landing operation >>which thus impacts the gear configuration and vise-versa. It will >>also impact the planes cruise attitude which can impact it's cruise >>speed, clean and straight at cruise power setting versus a less >>than optimum flight attitude at cruise resulting in greater induced >>drag thus lower speed. >>jerb >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>At 11 >>:18 AM 2/3/2009, you wrote: >>> >>>I currently have aluminum gear legs on my MkIII (and a spare set on >>>the shelf) >>>Now I am considering changing out for the steel ones, not for any >>>reason other than >>>the increased stance on the ground. -not because it "looks cool" but >>>because I am >>>going to experiment with decreased wing incidence and it would be >>>nice to have enough >>>to get off the ground. >>>Anyone with a spare set lying around? I would be interested. >>>Otherwise I will go to TNK >>> >>>BTW, what is the actual height gain over the original? >>>BB >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:59:14 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: legs Homer Kolb was, and still is, more interested in slow flight, than faster flight. He is still designing and building slow, high lift airplanes. Designing increased wing incidence into his airplanes, Homer was able to satisfy several of his requirements: -Design the airplane to sit in a near level attitude on the ground, and be able to take off and land in a near level attitude. His idea was to prevent low time pilots from getting into take off and landing stalls. -Fly very slow without the tail sagging excessively. In accomplishing the above, it created some problems for my kind of flying: -Cruise speed is reduced because the tail flies high, dragging the top of the tail boom through the air, increasing drag. -Discourages three point landings, increasing landing and take off distances. I would have already removed a lot of the incidence in my wings if it weren't for refitting the windshield and center section. If I did it would be very easy to increase nose height on the ground by increasing gear leg length. I'm running 24" gear legs on my "Hauck" main gear. This puts my MKIII about 4 or 5" higher than a stock MKIII. Would be pretty easy to increase them as much as required to get the job done. Using standard MKIII gear leg sockets with their low angle, turned down gear legs are required to get the nose up without getting excessive track (width between main gear). The primary reason the Sling Shot sits in a nose high attitude on the ground is because of reduced wing incidence. The tail boom flies level, reducing drag. The Kolbra has less wing incidence, flies in a similar attitude as the Sling Shot, and cruises 10 to 15 mph faster than my mkIII when both aircraft are powered with the 912ULS. Too late in the game for me to start making major changes to my MKIII. Although another 10 to 15 mph cruise would be nice on a long cross country, it ain't worth all the effort to make the changes. john h mkIII - From 18F to 31F by 1100 hours. Too cold to play outside today. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 09:23:03 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: legs From: "The BaronVonEvil" Hi All, Perhaps another way to tweak the incidence on your Kolbs is to pickup a set of the England U-Joints. They will allow you to make minor changes in the wing incidence to see if it is something that would improve your Kolb with out cutting or welding. If you see some improvement you like then you can make permanent changes to your wings or tail feathers. Best Regards Carlos G Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228462#228462 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/english_u_joint_328.jpg ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:50:20 AM PST US From: "boyd" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: legs Just experimenting. I can always revert back to stock. It is an easy process with my bird as I don't have as much to fiddle with the center section. A couple of new holes in the spar ears and shims for the tin. Check for control rod adjustment. I won't initially change horizontal stab incidence because of a factor I shall not divulge yet. -only if it works >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just my two cents worth...... Lets just say as an example: If the plane is flying in a straight and level configuration at say 60 MPH. Lets say that the bottom of the fuselage is parallel to the air flow and the wing is at 9 deg to the relative air flow. It will be producing lift equal to the weight of the aircraft and occupants. Now lets say we change the rigging of the aircraft and decrease the wing incidence in relation to the main fuselage by 5 deg. Lets put it back in the same flight configuration of straight and level and 60 mph. In order for the wing to create the same lift as before it will still have to be flying at 9 deg to the relative air flow... The change will be in the incidence of fuselage, it will have to be at a positive 5 Deg to the airflow... this will put the horizontal stabilizer at a 5 deg up pitch as well.... and will require massive amounts of up trim to fly at that attitude,,, or the leading edge will have to be dropped 5 deg to keep in the same relative air flow with the wing. If I have calculated things correctly,,, with the fuselage in a 5 deg pitch up attitude in flight,,, the tail wheel will be about 16 inches lower, relative to the nose of the aircraft while in flight... this would make it east to hit the tail wheel first during landing,, but the mains will come down hard..... OR the landing speeds would have to go up by a large margin. Also the takeoff roll would have to much faster in order to create sufficient lift at the decreased incidence. Or with longer gear legs, the amount of change will be less. If the reason for the changes is to make the plane fly faster,,,, that would only be realized if the drag of the fuselage was greatly reduced at the changed attitude. If you have other reasons for the change... there may be some justification.... if you want to change the speed, you will need to change the airfoil. Boyd young.. do not archive. ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 10:10:25 AM PST US From: "Richard & Martha Neilsen" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: New Engine at Sebring It has been a bit slow on the list lately. It was also very interesting to hear everyone's comments on this new engine. I really hope it makes it to the market At the time I posted the information on this engine I hadn't done much research. I still don't know as much about the subject as I would like but thanks to Dave's link and some web browsing I have learned a bit. This engine is based on a very successful German engine that flew in a number of airplanes. It was also licensed and built in England and another country. Why it didn't catch on is likely a matter of real cheap fuel and a aviation community that is afraid to change. Remember Lycoming and Continental are still producing engines that really haven't changed since the 1940s. If you fix something you can be sued because you have just proven for the lawyers that there was a problem. Specific fuel consumption is a term that is real hard to get a handle on. The biggest problem is determining how that relates to fuel consumption at cruise. The tables I see on the internet show a .4 SFC as a common fuel burn for diesel engines and .5 for gasoline engines. In flight in a Kolb it it is only speculation what the gal/hr would be but at a given power level but it would be less. The neat thing about a diesel engine is that they will burn the same SFC at almost all power settings. In other words a 100 HP Rotax engine has super power when you need it but you pay for it in increased fuel consumption in cruise. A diesel engine like the Gemini 100 would give you the same power when you want it but get better fuel consumption than say a 80 HP Rotax when you pull the power back to cruise. It is also likely you could pull power to a economy cruise and get close to 2 gallons per hour at say 55-65 mph in a MKIII. Again I'm dreaming. If this engine works out consider the possibilities. A TBO of 2000-3000+ hours (your fuel is a lubricant). Lower fuel weight or longer range with the same fuel. If you get low on fuel you can power back and significantly extend your range. No spark plugs, no valves, no carb icing, smooth running, greatly reduced fire danger in flight and in a crash. Same price and only 18 lbs. more weight than 912ULS. If you think the price is too high consider a VW. Rick Neilsen Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Lucas" Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:38 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: New Engine at Sebring > > quote]I have read about that engine, it seems way over complicated That > crazy setup is based on a German design around WWII, if it were a good > design, I think someone somewhere would have used it in the last 50 > years.... [/quote] > > Got to keep an open mind Mike, an 'Old' idea re-visited with 'New' > technology applied is smart thinking. I don't think any investor would put > his money into such a project if it didn't have a promising future. > > There's quite a good write up from some engineering professionals here; > > http://www.amtonline.com/print/Aircraft-Maintenance-Technology/Gemini-100/1$4434 > > Pro's and Con's to it of course but it seems they're quite open to see how > it develops. > > David. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=227499#227499 > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 10:34:10 AM PST US From: "Larry Cottrell" Subject: Kolb-List: CHT sender check, HKS I checked the CHT senders today by boiling some water and using a dial thermometer and the sender at the same time. I found that the cylinder that has been sending the highest temp is for all intents and purposes right on, and the one that was reading a bit lower is off by the amount that it was showing lower. In other words there is nothing wrong with the senders. I hope to put some more time on the engine today. Larry ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:47:21 AM PST US From: robert bean Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: legs I agree once more and that approach would be simpler but lowering the front will accomplish another feat that I, personally, wish to do. -the change in geometry will also increase dihedral. Counterproductive? Yes, in that it will reduce the lift efficiency of the wing a trifle by increasing tip loss (and vortex) But that's what old knothead here is curious about. BB I like the behavior of more dihedral because it allows you to cruise more with your feet. On 4, Feb 2009, at 12:22 PM, The BaronVonEvil wrote: > > Hi All, > > Perhaps another way to tweak the incidence on your Kolbs is to > pickup a set of the England U-Joints. They will allow you to make > minor changes in the wing incidence to see if it is something that > would improve your Kolb with out cutting or welding. > > If you see some improvement you like then you can make permanent > changes to your wings or tail feathers. > > Best Regards > > Carlos G > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228462#228462 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/english_u_joint_328.jpg > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 12:17:29 PM PST US From: "boyd" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: legs When I rebuilt my mkIII after a hard landing... I bought new lift strut fittings and I put in twice the dihedral recommended... from memory here I went from 1 1/2 to 3 inches at the end rib. I went from a bit of negative roll stability to neutral roll stability.. still not going to drive with your feet.. but it was an improvement for me. Boyd young >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree once more and that approach would be simpler but lowering the front will accomplish another feat that I, personally, wish to do. -the change in geometry will also increase dihedral. Counterproductive? Yes, in that it will reduce the lift efficiency of the wing a trifle by increasing tip loss (and vortex) But that's what old knothead here is curious about. BB I like the behavior of more dihedral because it allows you to cruise more with your feet. ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 05:13:51 PM PST US From: robert bean Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: legs Boyd, thanx for your input and I will render more thought into my future changes. The main concern would be to have a struggle with the first test flight after such "improvements" BB On 4, Feb 2009, at 3:16 PM, boyd wrote: > > When I rebuilt my mkIII after a hard landing... I bought new lift > strut > fittings and I put in twice the dihedral recommended... from > memory here > I went from 1 1/2 to 3 inches at the end rib. > I went from a bit of negative roll stability to neutral roll > stability.. > still not going to drive with your feet.. but it was an > improvement for me. > > Boyd young > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I agree once more and that approach would be simpler but lowering the > front will accomplish another > feat that I, personally, wish to do. -the change in geometry will > also increase dihedral. Counterproductive? > Yes, in that it will reduce the lift efficiency of the wing a trifle > by increasing tip loss (and vortex) > But that's what old knothead here is curious about. > BB > I like the behavior of more dihedral because it allows you to cruise > more with your feet. > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 05:44:11 PM PST US From: Eugene Zimmerman Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: legs Bob. Think about this. Anything you do on a Kolb to gain roll ability with your feet will be at the expense of your cross wind capability. Gene On Feb 4, 2009, at 1:44 PM, robert bean wrote: > > I agree once more and that approach would be simpler but lowering > the front will accomplish another > feat that I, personally, wish to do. -the change in geometry will > also increase dihedral. Counterproductive? > Yes, in that it will reduce the lift efficiency of the wing a trifle > by increasing tip loss (and vortex) > But that's what old knothead here is curious about. > BB > I like the behavior of more dihedral because it allows you to cruise > more with your feet. ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 05:59:10 PM PST US From: robert bean Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: legs Thought accepted for consideration. Legs ordered today. I woke Travis up. Now thinking about wasting some more moola on another prop. My office gets more artifacts hanging on the wall. I have a beautiful 3 blade powerfin hanging behind my head now. Hope the nail doesn't pull out of the wall. Soon to be joined by a 70" warp. Both near virgin. BB On 4, Feb 2009, at 8:43 PM, Eugene Zimmerman wrote: > Bob. > > Think about this. > Anything you do on a Kolb to gain roll ability with your feet will > be at the expense of your cross wind capability. > > Gene > > > On Feb 4, 2009, at 1:44 PM, robert bean wrote: > >> >> I agree once more and that approach would be simpler but lowering >> the front will accomplish another >> feat that I, personally, wish to do. -the change in geometry will >> also increase dihedral. Counterproductive? >> Yes, in that it will reduce the lift efficiency of the wing a >> trifle by increasing tip loss (and vortex) >> But that's what old knothead here is curious about. >> BB >> I like the behavior of more dihedral because it allows you to >> cruise more with your feet. > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 06:27:06 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: legs From: "beauford" On Dihedral... Cranked about 3 degrees into the Fly when building to induce positive (or at least neutral) roll stability. No regrets. It works. Crosswinds no problem. Worth what ye paid fer it... Beauford FF-076 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=228583#228583 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/_mg_0747_custom_417.jpg ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:56:08 PM PST US From: "Larry Cottrell" Subject: Kolb-List: Facebook Photo's Here are some more photo's of the Oregon Desert. Doing my best to get the engine broken in. Temps were low 40's, Sky clear, with a lot of haze, no noticable wind. I flew cross country to a friends place, Crystal Crane Hot Springs. Total of 141 miles, average speed of 67 MPH. I did burn a bit more gas than I thought I would. A total of 8.25 gallons.Larry C http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30192613&l=78eba&id=100205619 4 ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 08:01:33 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Facebook Photo's From: Robert Laird Cool photos, Larry! Do you ever fly lower? Ever thought of landing on a mesa? -- Robert On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Larry Cottrell wrote: > Here are some more photo's of the Oregon Desert. Doing my best to get the > engine broken in. Temps were low 40's, Sky clear, with a lot of haze, no > noticable wind. I flew cross country to a friends place, Crystal Crane Hot > Springs. Total of 141 miles, average speed of 67 MPH. I did burn a bit more > gas than I thought I would. A total of 8.25 gallons.Larry C > > http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30192613&l=78eba&id=1002056194 > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 08:19:37 PM PST US From: "Larry Cottrell" Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Facebook Photo's According to my wife, my biggest problem is that I fly too low. :-) Actually if I am not going somewhere my average height is about 100 feet, sometimes lower, but this time I had to go to 7000 just to clear the mountains. All of the terrain under the plane is not suitable for landing. That is the nice part about flying high, it all looks good and smooth. The little dirt roads are your only hope of not tearing something up, and it is generally a long way to any where you could find help. Larry C, Oregon ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Laird To: kolb-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:01 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Facebook Photo's Cool photos, Larry! Do you ever fly lower? Ever thought of landing on a mesa? -- Robert On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Larry Cottrell wrote: > Here are some more photo's of the Oregon Desert. Doing my best to get the > engine broken in. Temps were low 40's, Sky clear, with a lot of haze, no > noticable wind. I flew cross country to a friends place, Crystal Crane Hot > Springs. Total of 141 miles, average speed of 67 MPH. I did burn a bit more > gas than I thought I would. A total of 8.25 gallons.Larry C > > http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30192613&l=78eba&id=100205619 4 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 02/03/09 17:48:00 ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 08:59:01 PM PST US From: Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Facebook Photo's The little dirt roads are your only hope of not tearing something up, and it is generally a long way to any where you could find help. > Larry C, Oregon Larry: It is difficult to understand just how desolate and sparsely populated your neck of the woods is until one actually flies it in a Kolb. Can't wait to get back. john h mkIII - 21F and falling. ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 09:11:28 PM PST US From: "Larry Cottrell" Subject: Kolb-List: Fw: face book For what ever reason Face book is giving me a bad time. I think that the other link that I sent only shows one photo. There are 25 in the album. This one will take you there. Sorry, Larry C http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid 09806&l=c03c3&id=1002056194 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.