Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:54 AM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (Richard Girard)
2. 04:09 AM - New B Gearbox for sale (Richard Girard)
3. 04:11 AM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (Dana Hague)
4. 05:47 AM - Re: Douglas Fly-In slideshow/video (grantr)
5. 06:06 AM - Re: Rate of climb (grantr)
6. 06:16 AM - Re: Douglas Fly-In slideshow/video (cristalclear13)
7. 06:24 AM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (John Hauck)
8. 06:34 AM - Re: Rate of climb (Mike Welch)
9. 06:47 AM - Re: Static rpm - warp drive/912ULS (lucien)
10. 07:23 AM - Re: Re: Static rpm - warp drive/912ULS (John Hauck)
11. 07:46 AM - Re: Static rpm - warp drive/912ULS (lucien)
12. 07:58 AM - Re: Alaska 2009 (jimhefner)
13. 08:10 AM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (Vic)
14. 08:28 AM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (russ kinne)
15. 08:49 AM - Re: Static rpm - warp drive/912ULS (JetPilot)
16. 08:57 AM - Re: Static rpm - warp drive/912ULS (lucien)
17. 09:44 AM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks ()
18. 09:49 AM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks ()
19. 12:45 PM - Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft (Jon LaVasseur)
20. 01:04 PM - Re: 'Vertical' CG (Ed Chmielewski)
21. 01:09 PM - Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft (herb)
22. 01:47 PM - Re: Rate of climb (Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC MDA/AL)
23. 02:03 PM - Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft ()
24. 02:10 PM - Re: Re: Rate of climb ()
25. 02:56 PM - Re: Re: 'Vertical' CG (Richard Girard)
26. 03:05 PM - Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft (Dana Hague)
27. 03:19 PM - Re: Re: 'Vertical' CG (Dana Hague)
28. 03:30 PM - Re: Re: 'Vertical' CG (John Hauck)
29. 03:55 PM - Re: Re: 'Vertical' CG (Jim Hauck)
30. 04:35 PM - Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft (Larry Cottrell)
31. 05:08 PM - Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft (russ kinne)
32. 05:25 PM - Re: Re: 'Vertical' CG (russ kinne)
33. 05:30 PM - Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft (John Hauck)
34. 05:37 PM - Re: Re: 'Vertical' CG (Jim Hauck)
35. 06:08 PM - Re: Re: 'Vertical' CG (russ kinne)
36. 06:19 PM - Re: Re: 'Vertical' CG (robert bean)
37. 06:33 PM - Re: Re: 'Vertical' CG (russ kinne)
38. 06:59 PM - Re: 'Vertical' CG (grantr)
39. 07:14 PM - Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft (ces308)
40. 08:36 PM - Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft (Larry Cottrell)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fjuel rtanks |
John, While pilots rarely, if ever, calculate the vertical CG position, it
is a component of aircraft ground handling. This is one of the reasons why
GA pilots, particularly those flying high wing aircraft with tanks in the
wings, are taught proper positioning of the controls during taxi operations.
Rick
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM, John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've wondered why you have
>
>> yours so high? It must reduce the power needed to get fuel to the engine,
>> but must also raise the CG. Are there any noticeable handling differences
>> between yours and a 'stock'
>> Mark III?
>> Russ
>>
>
>
> Russ:
>
> My fuel tank is high because where it was located was empty, open space in
> the standard mkIII. 25 gals fits that space perfect. Homer left this space
> open to have 360 deg visibility. My neck won't twist that far around.
>
> Getting fuel to the engine with less power had nothing to do with the
> location of the tank.
>
> I don't understand "raising the CG". There are no noticeable handling
> differences between my mkIII and a stock mkIII.
>
> Location of the tank did not affect fore and aft, or lateral cg.
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
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: | New B Gearbox for sale |
I have a new B gearbox with 2.0 to 1 gears that is not going to be used for
the project for which I bought it. Never mounted. New cost at CPS $944.
First $600 takes it.
Rick
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: Fjuel rtanks |
At 06:51 AM 3/11/2009, Richard Girard wrote:
>John, While pilots rarely, if ever, calculate the vertical CG position, it
>is a component of aircraft ground handling. This is one of the reasons why
>GA pilots, particularly those flying high wing aircraft with tanks in the
>wings, are taught proper positioning of the controls during taxi operations.
Proper positioning of the controls during taxi is to prevent the wind from
lifting a wing and tipping the aircraft over; it has nothing to do with
vertical CG. Oh, the higher the CG the more "tippy" an aircraft might be
once it starts to go over, but crosswind taxi technique should be used
regardless of the vertical CG location of whether you're flying a high wing
or low wing. About the only time when the vertical CG location needs to be
considered, unless it's in some extreme position where it could conceivably
affect dynamic stability (not likely), is when the designer is locating the
landing gear.
-Dana
--
I love my country, but I fear my government.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Douglas Fly-In slideshow/video |
Crystal,
How does your airplane behave in a stall? Does it drop the nose and resume flying
or do you have to give it a bit of forward stick to break the stall? Does your
stick ever get lite and want to falls back in you lap?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pudkDMJWcs&feature=channel_page&fmt=18
In the video at around 7:35 I do some stalls. You can see the nose drops off fairly
sharp and the plane resumes flying. It doesn't take the forward stick to
do this. If the plane is tail heavy it may tend to want to stay stalled requiring
a bit of forward stick to break the stall. In a stall a tail heavy plane
will sometimes drop the tail which will cause the stick to go back in your lap
as the airflow pushes the elevator up. Good thing with our airplanes is that
adding power can save you since it pushes the nose down. A Cessna would be different
since adding power pulls the nose up.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234184#234184
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rate of climb |
Mark III Classic: Gross weight full fuel on takeoff 735 pounds powered by a Rotax
503 DCDI Climb is from 600 to 660 fpm solo. I would guess 1/3 that for 2 people.
My average full power climb rate according to the gps during takeoff was 658 feet
per minute at an average ground speed of 43.5 miles per hour.
Temperature was about 69 degrees( weather channel says 73o during 3 pm however
my house outside thermometer had a overall high of 69.8 for the day.) and the
field elevation is around 460 MSL
My average speed on my trip during cruise was 54 mph.
Grant
Here are some more numbers from my gps from 11/9/2008.
My average full power climb rate according to the gps during takeoff was 617 feet
per minute at an average ground speed of 41.7 miles per hour. Indicated climb
out of 60mph. The plane stalls at 41 indicated.
Gross weight full fuel on takeoff 735 pounds
Temperature was 64 degrees during 4 pm with 9 mph winds gusting to 15 at 280o.
I was using runway 23 so it was a good crosswind.
field elevation around 460msl
My gps took 56 measurements in 5250 feet.
I did a more detailed analysis of my climb rate and the average is 617 feet per
minute out of 56 rate calculations :
750.00
720.00
750.00 50 agl 519 msl
720.00
740.00
745.71
742.50
733.33
744.00
763.64
750.00
715.71
701.25
673.33 202 agl 671 msl
651.00
651.43
636.52
619.20
620.00
622.76
624.00
611.25
600.00
591.43 345 agl 814 msl
590.27
592.31
588.00
583.90
581.43
583.26
577.33
577.83
575.74
573.06
563.53
560.77
563.77
569.45
572.14
567.93
568.00
564.19
563.44
565.85
568.66
566.09
559.44
555.62
554.59
554.21
553.08
547.50
544.39
539.29
533.72
530.34 at 769 agl 1238 msl
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234190#234190
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: Douglas Fly-In slideshow/video |
grantr wrote:
> Crystal,
>
> How does your airplane behave in a stall? Does it drop the nose and resume flying
or do you have to give it a bit of forward stick to break the stall? Does
your stick ever get lite and want to falls back in you lap?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pudkDMJWcs&feature=channel_page&fmt=18
> In the video at around 7:35 I do some stalls. You can see the nose drops off
fairly sharp and the plane resumes flying. It doesn't take the forward stick to
do this. If the plane is tail heavy it may tend to want to stay stalled requiring
a bit of forward stick to break the stall. In a stall a tail heavy plane
will sometimes drop the tail which will cause the stick to go back in your
lap as the airflow pushes the elevator up. Good thing with our airplanes is that
adding power can save you since it pushes the nose down. A Cessna would be
different since adding power pulls the nose up.
Grant,
I don't remember to that detail...I just always stick forward in a stall - automatic
reaction. Maybe after I replace my exhaust gaskets I'll go out and play
around with it and let you know.
I do know that on a power-on stall with a totally full load I felt some buffeting
before an oncoming stall. I was flying with my Dad and noticed we weren't
getting much climb so I pulled back just a little more and a few moments later
it felt like I hit some turbulence but it was a still day. Realized not much
later it was the buffeting before a stall...luckily my automatic reaction to
turbulence is also to put my nose down. If I fly with that much weight anymore
I just plan on having a stinky climb rate, but mostly I just avoid having that
much weight.
--------
Cristal Waters
Kolb Mark II Twinstar
Rotax 503 DCSI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234191#234191
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: Fjuel rtanks |
First I have ever heard vertical CG, either in rotary or fixed wing trainin
g. Must have been dozing during that part of class.
I position controls on the ground depending on wind, power, and braking. W
ith a lot of weight on tailwheel, main gear moved forward, and wider track,
I don't have to worry a lot about precise positioning of controls on the g
round, unless the wind is really howling.
Since I am primarily a Kolb pilot, do you think I need to be concerned with
vertical cg?
john h
mkIII
John, While pilots rarely, if ever, calculate the vertical CG position, i
t is a component of aircraft ground handling. This is one of the reasons wh
y GA pilots, particularly those flying high wing aircraft with tanks in the
wings, are taught proper positioning of the controls during taxi operation
s.
Rick
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: Rate of climb |
Grant=2C
Wow! Such detail!
Thanks to you and the other guys that took the time to share your plane's
performance. This is valuable information. I'm getting a pretty good ide
a of the vertical speed capabilities of the different engines on a MkIII (a
nd some other Kolb models).
Mike
MkIIICX
Painted=2C Turbo GEO=2C mounted and getting final touches (like radiator..d
one=2C intercooler...underway=2C etc)
> Mark III Classic: Gross weight full fuel on takeoff 735 pounds powered by
a Rotax 503 DCDI Climb is from 600 to 660 fpm solo. I would guess 1/3 that
for 2 people.
>
>
> My average full power climb rate according to the gps during takeoff was
658 feet per minute at an average ground speed of 43.5 miles per hour.
>
> Temperature was about 69 degrees( weather channel says 73o during 3 pm ho
wever my house outside thermometer had a overall high of 69.8 for the day.)
and the field elevation is around 460 MSL
>
> My average speed on my trip during cruise was 54 mph.
>
> Grant
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail=AE is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_70faster_03200
9
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: Static rpm - warp drive/912ULS |
JetPilot wrote:
> I like my Warp Drive prop a lot, I get a static RPM of about 5200, which is about
the same in climb. Your titan is a little faster, but I think the 5350
RPM you have now is a good safe place to start. It might be a little high for
your fast Titan, but if so you will know it long before you over rev the engine.
Take it up, see what the RPM is at cruise, and then adjust from there if
need be. I am looking forward to hearing your report on the prop.
>
> Mike
Ok, thanks Mike. Winds wont let me try it today. I might add another degree and
see what I get in static. I usually climb out at about 80mph for safety reason
even tho Vy is about 65, so as John said I may need a little more pitch.
One other question as I'm still learning my way around the 912. Is redline 5800?
The documentation says max continuous is 5500 but "takeoff rpm" is 5800. Says
you can run at this for 5 mins.
So sounds like 5800 is really the redline but you can still run for a short period
at or below that, is that right?
We may have a couple other locals who may go to MV too, so we might have a Posse
for the trip....
Thanks,
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234197#234197
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: Static rpm - warp drive/912ULS |
> One other question as I'm still learning my way around the 912. Is
redline 5800? The documentation says max continuous is 5500 but "takeoff
rpm" is 5800. Says you can run at this for 5 mins.
>
> So sounds like 5800 is really the redline but you can still run for a
> short period at or below that, is that right?
>
> We may have a couple other locals who may go to MV too, so we might have a
> Posse for the trip....
>
> Thanks,
>
> LS
All 912 series engines are redlined at 5,800 rpm for a maximum of 5 minutes.
Maximum continuous cruise rpm is 5,500 rpm. This is the red line for max
continuous cruise.
If you are equipped with an inflight adjustable prop, you could use 5,800
rpm for 5 minutes max, then pull in pitch to run 5,500 rpm or less. The 912
series engines are designed to operate at 5,500 rpm, even if that means you
are flying at WOT, as long as temps are kept in the green. It ain't gonna
hurt the engine. Turning it too slow under load is much harder on it.
I prop my ground adjustable Warp Drive Prop to attain 5,500 rpm, WOT
straight and level flight. If I do this, then I get the best climb and
cruise available with this prop.
If I should prop for 5,800 rpm max, I would have fantastic climb and poor
cruise speed.
If I over load the engine with too much pitch, won't pull 5,500 rpm WOT in
straight and level flight, I am loading the engine more than necessary, not
climbing as well.
I run into a problem flying West from a sea level base. I prop for sea
level. By the time I get to MV, the field elevation is 5,200 feet. My
engine won't pull 5,500 rpm straight and level WOT. However, I take that
into consideration when I fly at higher elevations and it works out ok.
I flew Rick Neilsen out of MV, and Larry Cottrell. Both of these guys are
not fly weights. I think the VSI was indicating 500 to 800 fpm climb. I
don't know how accurate the VSI is. Never checked it, but it gives me an
idea of how well my airplane is performing. If there is a big change in
performance, then I am aware of it. The other day my mkIII was pegging the
VSI at 2,000 fpm with me and 60 lbs of fuel.
I encourage you and your posse to decend upon us at MV. This will be number
7. We have met a lot of folks at MV. Look forward to seeing them each
year. Try to get there on Thursday or Friday, and stay until Sunday, if you
can. I think you will get a lot more out of the flyin by being able to
relax and spend time with this group of Kolb enthusiast.
I prop my Warp Drive for 5,400 rpm static. On take off, as soon as the
aircraft starts rolling and getting cleaner air through the prop, rpm is
pulled down to 5,300 rpm. Usually, 5,300 rpm is what it climbs at around 60
mph.
A unique characteristic of the taper tip Warp Drive prop is its capability
to change pitch slightly. Upon reaching cruise altitude and speed, I can
reduce power to 5,000 rpm, normal cruise rpm for me, and the Warp Drive will
maintain this cruise speed.
Take care,
john h
mkIII
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Static rpm - warp drive/912ULS |
John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> I encourage you and your posse to decend upon us at MV. This will be number
> 7. We have met a lot of folks at MV. Look forward to seeing them each
> year. Try to get there on Thursday or Friday, and stay until Sunday, if you
> can. I think you will get a lot more out of the flyin by being able to
> relax and spend time with this group of Kolb enthusiast.
>
Well that's the idea ;). Dennis Kirby and I are already kicking the idea around.
He's in a mark III and a couple of the other locals in the Albuquerque area
have expressed interest. Perhaps the intrepid trikers down in Belin could be persuaded
as well. Those guys are among my heros as well as they go all over the
place in their trikes.
>
> I prop my Warp Drive for 5,400 rpm static. On take off, as soon as the
> aircraft starts rolling and getting cleaner air through the prop, rpm is
> pulled down to 5,300 rpm. Usually, 5,300 rpm is what it climbs at around 60
> mph.
>
> A unique characteristic of the taper tip Warp Drive prop is its capability
> to change pitch slightly. Upon reaching cruise altitude and speed, I can
> reduce power to 5,000 rpm, normal cruise rpm for me, and the Warp Drive will
> maintain this cruise speed.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
> mkIII
Ok, thanks for the info. You're one of the true go-to guys on the 912 for sure.
I was previously doing around 5300 to 5400 on climbout with the IVO and keeping
it at at least 5000 to 5100 in cruise. So hopefully I wasn't overloading it (JD
trained me on this when he transitioned me to the plane but I may have absorbed
the information wrong).
It's funny because i ran this exact same prop on my 503 on my old FS II. It was
my first Warp Drive and it was a great prop. Sure miss that plane, but I'm also
sure Bob is having a ball with it.
Already with the runups I did last night, the WD is quieter than the IVO by a bunch
and the engine idles noticeably happier probably due to the slightly less
rotating mass.
Going to request vacation from the bossman next week....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234206#234206
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 |
|
Thanks John, I'll try make it if I can get away from my taxi duties for a few
days... still no progress on the driving front... :(
--------
Jim Hefner
Tucson, AZ
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234208#234208
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: Fjuel rtanks |
Speaking of tanks, do store bought and or custom fuel tanks have to have
internal baffles?
Vic
xtra 912
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fjuel rtanks |
John
You're right on. And with all your time in Kolbs, whatever you're
doing is right too. No need to worry about theoretical problems.
You position the controls properly on the ground, according to wind
speed, direction, etc, and every pilot should.
But lots don't, as you see all the time. A higher CG, produced by a
higher fuel tank, would make the plane more prone to hit a wingtip IF
you hotrodded around & made very sharp turns at fast taxi speeds. But
it must also speed up your roll rate a little in the air. I was just
curious if you noticed any roll-rate difference when you fly a
different Kolb.
Russ
do not archive
On Mar 11, 2009, at 9:24 AM, John Hauck wrote:
> First I have ever heard vertical CG, either in rotary or fixed wing
> training. Must have been dozing during that part of class.
>
> I position controls on the ground depending on wind, power, and
> braking. With a lot of weight on tailwheel, main gear moved
> forward, and wider track, I don't have to worry a lot about precise
> positioning of controls on the ground, unless the wind is really
> howling.
>
> Since I am primarily a Kolb pilot, do you think I need to be
> concerned with vertical cg?
>
> john h
> mkIII
>
>
> John, While pilots rarely, if ever, calculate the vertical CG
> position, it is a component of aircraft ground handling. This is
> one of the reasons why GA pilots, particularly those flying high
> wing aircraft with tanks in the wings, are taught proper
> positioning of the controls during taxi operations.
>
> Rick
>
>
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: Static rpm - warp drive/912ULS |
I set my prop based on John Haucks advice, which makes perfect sense, to adjust
the pitch so that the engine is running at 5500 RPM wide open throttle, at max
level flight speed. My RPM's are just a hair slower than Johns, I see around
5200 RPM on climbout, and about the same static.
I tried setting the 912-S for a 5800 RPM climbout, the climb performance was improved
a bit, but cruise was HORRIBLE !! The plane was slow and needed to have
a bunch of RPM just to maintain a slow cruise. I only flew it like that a couple
times before I changed the pitch to where it is now. I'm just as happy not
to ever run my Rotax 912-S above 5500 RPM, I want my engine to last a long
time, and there is very little more power to be gained by that extra 300 RPM.
5800 RPM cant be great for the engine also long term, there is a reason Rotax
limits this RPM to 5 minutes. Most engines will last longer if you don't push
them to their absolute limits.
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=234214#234214
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: Static rpm - warp drive/912ULS |
JetPilot wrote:
> I set my prop based on John Haucks advice, which makes perfect sense, to adjust
the pitch so that the engine is running at 5500 RPM wide open throttle, at
max level flight speed. My RPM's are just a hair slower than Johns, I see around
5200 RPM on climbout, and about the same static.
>
> I tried setting the 912-S for a 5800 RPM climbout, the climb performance was
improved a bit, but cruise was HORRIBLE !! The plane was slow and needed to have
a bunch of RPM just to maintain a slow cruise. I only flew it like that a
couple times before I changed the pitch to where it is now. I'm just as happy
not to ever run my Rotax 912-S above 5500 RPM, I want my engine to last a long
time, and there is very little more power to be gained by that extra 300 RPM.
5800 RPM cant be great for the engine also long term, there is a reason Rotax
limits this RPM to 5 minutes. Most engines will last longer if you don't push
them to their absolute limits.
>
> Mike
Ok, thanks Mike...
Yeah this was one of the problems I was having with the IVO - ironically at only
66", it was a little overpropped and would start to unload too much once I got
over about 80mph. So I had to load it down too much for takeoff to keep it
from overspeeding in cruise or flatten it out to get a good 5300 to 5400 scream
on takeoff. But set that way it would easily try to overspeed at WOT in the
air....
So far, I can't say enough nice about the construction of the HPL hub and the extension.
It's all such a nice precision fit onto the flange that it's basically
cake to put on. I had the whole thing installed in about 1/2 hour.
Can't wait to fly it now.... but Ill have to due to hurricane winds....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234215#234215
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: Fjuel rtanks |
---- Vic <vicsv@myfairpoint.net> wrote:
> Speaking of tanks, do store bought and or custom fuel tanks have to have
> internal baffles?
>
> Vic
> xtra 912
Vic:
Guess a lot depends on the size of the tank.
My 25 gal tank is cross baffled.
The 18 gal tank in my FS was cross baffled.
Serves to purposes, maybe more. One: Keeps the fuel more or less in place. Two:
Increases the strength of the fuel tank.
Can you think of anything else? I can't.
john h
mkIII
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: Fjuel rtanks |
I was just
> curious if you noticed any roll-rate difference when you fly a
> different Kolb.
> Russ
I don't notice any difference in roll rates, except between the long wing and short
wing Kolbs. The Sling Shot and the Fire Fly (with shortened aileron cord)
have quick roll rates compared to the long wings.
On the ground, I don't have a problem with my mkIII. I ground looped it, unintentional,
initial arrival at the UL strip, Oskosh, and kept both mains on the
ground. Lost a tailwheel spring between Joliet, IL, and OSH. Didn't know it
until after I finished ground looping, got out and found the spring was missing.
Had a good ole OSH cross wind, dry grass, big ole ground loop before I knew
it. Taxiied over to the fence, got out, never said a word to anyone. For all
I know the spectators thought it was an intentional maneuver. ;-)
john h
mkIII
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft |
Dear Flying Friends,=0A-=0ATax time is here again and I just thought a re
minder about fuel tax would be a good idea.=0A-=0AIf you use mogas in you
r plane, the federal folks will issue a tax credit which means that each do
llar of credit reduces your income tax by one dollar.- You just fill out
form #4136 and enter the amount on line 68 of your 1040 tax return.=0A-
=0AIf you live in Minnesota, the state will refund you $.15 for each gallon
you have burned in your plane.- The Minnesota form is "PDR-1 AV."- Fil
l our PDR-1 AV and send it in with the ACTUAL receipts and the nice folks i
n St. Paul will send you money back.- Be sure you have your form in by Ap
ril 15, 2009.- Other states probably have similar refunds.=0A-=0AHope t
his is helpful to someone=0A-=0AJon L.=0A=0A=0A
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: 'Vertical' CG |
Hi Rick,
I've neither heard of 'vertical' CG, nor found anything in any
manuals. How would one calculate it, and where does this term come
from? CG is just that, a point around which the aircraft rotates in any
axis. Some aircraft are more prone to being displaced during low-speed
taxi, but the most susceptible would have to be light weight coupled
with lots of exposed surface area, which means a Kolb or other
ultralight. Control displacement during taxi in a wind is the same for
high- or low-wing aircraft, but varies if nosedragger or conventional
gear.
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Fjuel rtanks
John, While pilots rarely, if ever, calculate the vertical CG
position, it is a component of aircraft ground handling. This is one of
the reasons why GA pilots, particularly those flying high wing aircraft
with tanks in the wings, are taught proper positioning of the controls
during taxi operations.
Rick
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM, John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
wrote:
I've wondered why you have
yours so high? It must reduce the power needed to get fuel to the
engine, but must also raise the CG. Are there any noticeable handling
differences between yours and a 'stock'
Mark III?
Russ
Russ:
My fuel tank is high because where it was located was empty, open
space in the standard mkIII. 25 gals fits that space perfect. Homer
left this space open to have 360 deg visibility. My neck won't twist
that far around.
Getting fuel to the engine with less power had nothing to do with
the location of the tank.
I don't understand "raising the CG". There are no noticeable
handling differences between my mkIII and a stock mkIII.
Location of the tank did not affect fore and aft, or lateral cg.
john h
mkIII
==========
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft |
then they might get the idea that we have an airplane on which we
could owe tax of some sort!! :-) Herb
At 02:43 PM 3/11/2009, you wrote:
>Dear Flying Friends,
>
>
>Tax time is here again and I just thought a reminder about fuel tax
>would be a good idea.
>
>
>If you use mogas in your plane, the federal folks will issue a tax
>credit which means that each dollar of credit reduces your income
>tax by one dollar. You just fill out form #4136 and enter the
>amount on line 68 of your 1040 tax return.
>
>
>If you live in Minnesota, the state will refund you $.15 for each
>gallon you have burned in your plane. The Minnesota form is "PDR-1
>AV." Fill our PDR-1 AV and send it in with the ACTUAL receipts and
>the nice folks in St. Paul will send you money back. Be sure you
>have your form in by April 15, 2009. Other states probably have
>similar refunds.
>
>
>Hope this is helpful to someone
>
>
>Jon L.
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rate of climb |
Mike: Here are my "real life" numbers.
Mark-III "Classic"
Empty wt - 560 lbs
Field elevation (this is important, for comparing) - 6500' msl
Engine - 912ul (80 hp)
Climb rate (solo) - 700 fpm
RPM - 5200 (wide open throttle)
Indicated Airspeed - 55 mph
I like to think my Kolb would yield higher climb rates at lower
elevations, but the lowest-elevation airfield I've ever been to was
4830' msl. Man, I bet my Kolb would do GREAT in Florida!
Dennis Kirby
New Mexico
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft |
Jon:
Be looking for you at MV this year!!!
If you can not make it, send cookies. ;-)
Private joke among the MV gang...
john h
mkIII
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rate of climb |
> I like to think my Kolb would yield higher climb rates at lower
> elevations, but the lowest-elevation airfield I've ever been to was
> 4830' msl. Man, I bet my Kolb would do GREAT in Florida!
>
>
>
> Dennis Kirby
>
You would think you had a sky rocket, Dennis!!!
Engine produces a lot more power, and the air lifts a lot more.
john h
mkIII
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 'Vertical' CG |
Since the effect of having 300lb of fuel weight 7' above the roll center of
the aircraft (while on the ground the roll center is between the tires and
at the surface) was mentioned repeatedly to me by my instructor, and on my
check ride by the DPE, it seems I was meant to know about it and take heed.
No, you won't find it in flight manuals, those decisions were made for you
by the designers and engineers and you can't change them like you can fore
and aft weight changes in relation to the aerodynamic center.
By experience I can tell you that on the ground a "K" model 172 with long
range tanks handles differently in a crosswind than a "P" model with
standard tanks (20 gallons and 120 lb. difference). The extra weight and the
difference in landing gear track makes the "K" model more sensitive to gusts
while taxiing, even though there are no other differences between the
aircraft. Yes, the extra mass has more inertia, but given that both aircraft
have the same size ailerons and the pilot has to have more force to stop the
movement of the greater mass once it's started, the only way to get it is
more aileron deflection.
By analogy consider the roll characteristics of an Alfa Romeo Spider and a
GMC Yukon. What happens to either vehicle when they are hit by a 40 mph side
wind as when driving out of the wind shadow of a hedge row along side the
highway? Which has the more severe response?
Every object in an aircraft has a center of mass and a moment arm from the
roll, pitch and yaw axis. How those masses are arranged will effect the
handling of the aircraft whether on the ground or in the air. Whether it is
critical to the aircraft depends on the aircraft's mission.
For instance, how many competetive aerobatic aircraft have you seen lately
that are not a shoulder wing design? If you want fast roll response you put
the center of mass of the wings on the roll axis of the aircraft.
Now, the question is, does moving the fuel tank upward have an effect on the
aircraft's ground handling?
Yes, you've changed the moment arm through which a mass acts.
Will you notice it?
I don't know.
Will it be critical?
I don't know.
I do know that to say categorically it has no effect is ridiculous on its
face.
Rick
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Ed Chmielewski <edchmiel@mindspring.com>wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> I've neither heard of 'vertical' CG, nor found anything in any
> manuals. How would one calculate it, and where does this term come from?
> CG is just that, a point around which the aircraft rotates in any axis. Some
> aircraft are more prone to being displaced during low-speed taxi, but
> the most susceptible would have to be light weight coupled with lots of
> exposed surface area, which means a Kolb or other ultralight. Control
> displacement during taxi in a wind is the same for high- or low-wing
> aircraft, but varies if nosedragger or conventional gear.
>
> Ed in JXN
> MkII/503
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Richard Girard <aslsa.rng@gmail.com>
> *To:* kolb-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:51 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: Re: Fjuel rtanks
>
> John, While pilots rarely, if ever, calculate the vertical CG position, it
> is a component of aircraft ground handling. This is one of the reasons why
> GA pilots, particularly those flying high wing aircraft with tanks in the
> wings, are taught proper positioning of the controls during taxi operations.
>
> Rick
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM, John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I've wondered why you have
>>
>>> yours so high? It must reduce the power needed to get fuel to the
>>> engine, but must also raise the CG. Are there any noticeable handling
>>> differences between yours and a 'stock'
>>> Mark III?
>>> Russ
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Russ:
>>
>> My fuel tank is high because where it was located was empty, open space in
>> the standard mkIII. 25 gals fits that space perfect. Homer left this space
>> open to have 360 deg visibility. My neck won't twist that far around.
>>
>> Getting fuel to the engine with less power had nothing to do with the
>> location of the tank.
>>
>> I don't understand "raising the CG". There are no noticeable handling
>> differences between my mkIII and a stock mkIII.
>>
>> Location of the tank did not affect fore and aft, or lateral cg.
>>
>> john h
>> mkIII
>>
>> ==========
>> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *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*
>
> *
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft |
As much as I delight in getting _anything_ back from the crooks in
Washington, I don't see anything in the form or its instructions that
indicates that sport aviation is a non taxable use of mogas.
-Dana
At 03:43 PM 3/11/2009, Jon LaVasseur wrote:
>Dear Flying Friends,
>
>
>Tax time is here again and I just thought a reminder about fuel tax would
>be a good idea.
>
>
>If you use mogas in your plane, the federal folks will issue a tax credit
>which means that each dollar of credit reduces your income tax by one
>dollar. You just fill out form #4136 and enter the amount on line 68 of
>your 1040 tax return.
>
>
>If you live in Minnesota, the state will refund you $.15 for each gallon
>you have burned in your plane. The Minnesota form is "PDR-1 AV." Fill
>our PDR-1 AV and send it in with the ACTUAL receipts and the nice folks in
>St. Paul will send you money back. Be sure you have your form in by April
>15, 2009. Other states probably have similar refunds.
>
>
>Hope this is helpful to someone
>
>
>Jon L.
>
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
--
A seminar on Time Travel will be held two weeks ago.
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 'Vertical' CG |
At 05:55 PM 3/11/2009, Richard Girard wrote:
>By experience I can tell you that on the ground a "K" model 172 with long
>range tanks handles differently in a crosswind than a "P" model with
>standard tanks (20 gallons and 120 lb. difference). The extra weight and
>the difference in landing gear track makes the "K" model more sensitive to
>gusts while taxiing, even though there are no other differences between
>the aircraft. Yes, the extra mass has more inertia, but given that both
>aircraft have the same size ailerons and the pilot has to have more force
>to stop the movement of the greater mass once it's started, the only way
>to get it is more aileron deflection.
I don't know what the landing gear differences are, but what you're talking
about is more a function of roll moment of inertia (presumably because the
tanks extend farther outboard?) then vertical CG location.
If a wind gust lifts a wing, the aircraft with more roll inertia won't roll
as far, so it takes the same amount of aileron to return it to neutral, if
the pilot reacts in the same amount of time.
If, however, the pilot reacts not after the same amount of time, but after
the bank angle reaches a certain point, then it WILL take more aileron
deflection (or more time) to return to neutral.
>By analogy consider the roll characteristics of an Alfa Romeo Spider and a
>GMC Yukon. What happens to either vehicle when they are hit by a 40 mph
>side wind as when driving out of the wind shadow of a hedge row along side
>the highway? Which has the more severe response?
The SUV, but because it has more side area, not because it's heavier.
>Now, the question is, does moving the fuel tank upward have an effect on
>the aircraft's ground handling?
>Yes, you've changed the moment arm through which a mass acts.
Yes, if you make a sharp turn when turning fast... same as the difference
between the sports car and the SUV in a sharp turn (that IS due to the
higher CG; a separate issue from wind effects). It doesn't effect how you
use your controls for crosswind taxiing; if anything it _reduces_ or slows
the immediate felt effect of a gust (but may require more correction if you
let it go farther).
-Dana
--
A seminar on Time Travel will be held two weeks ago.
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 'Vertical' CG |
Hey Rick:
Way over my head.
Do we have a problem with "vertical CG" on our Kolbs? I don't think I have
ever encountered the phenomenon.
john h
mkIII
I do know that to say categorically it has no effect is ridiculous on it
s face.
Rick
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 'Vertical' CG |
Y'all;
Now let me see this from that, All this vertical CG mess.
Seems to me we are strictly hypothetical in what a vertical CG does.
In referring to Bro John's MKIII, of where his fuel tank is located and the
effect of a vertical CG, seems to me is not relevant at all.
Comparing a Cessna with the fuel tanks in the wings to The MKIII Classic
with the fuel tank located on the center line is totally out of kilter. The
fact is that John's fuel tank is located below the wing level and inboard of
the cage. A Cessna has its fuel tanks outboard of the fuselage and at wing
level. I can see where the fuel tanks being located outboard of the fuselage
would make a difference in ground control, but not with the fuel tank
located on the center line below the wings.
If the fuel tank was located above the wing some distance and outboard on
the center of the fuselage, then I could see where the weight of fuel would
effect ground handling.
So if vertical CG is so dang important, How do you compensate for it when
you have a full tank of fuel or an almost empty tank.
Maybe I ain't edumacated enough to figger this out:)
Jim Hauck
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft |
Jon,
Are either you or your wife's cookies going to be in MV this year?
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon LaVasseur
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:43 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft
Dear Flying Friends,
Tax time is here again and I just thought a reminder about fuel tax
would be a good idea.
If you use mogas in your plane, the federal folks will issue a tax
credit which means that each dollar of credit reduces your income tax by
one dollar. You just fill out form #4136 and enter the amount on line
68 of your 1040 tax return.
If you live in Minnesota, the state will refund you $.15 for each
gallon you have burned in your plane. The Minnesota form is "PDR-1 AV."
Fill our PDR-1 AV and send it in with the ACTUAL receipts and the nice
folks in St. Paul will send you money back. Be sure you have your form
in by April 15, 2009. Other states probably have similar refunds.
Hope this is helpful to someone
Jon L.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
03/11/09 08:28:00
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft |
Dana
FWIW, long ago while swordfish-spotting out of Westerly, I got quite
a good bunch of $$ out of the RI croox/collectors by sending in my
avgas receipts -- was then 10c a gallon. CT then had no such refund
of avgas, bought for 'road use' but not used for 'road use'. I do
realize this wasn't really 'sport aviation' but the tax buffos prolly
didn't realize the difference.
Guess it couldn't last. Too sensible.
Russ
do not archive
On Mar 11, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Dana Hague wrote:
> As much as I delight in getting _anything_ back from the crooks in
> Washington, I don't see anything in the form or its instructions
> that indicates that sport aviation is a non taxable use of mogas.
>
> -Dana
>
> At 03:43 PM 3/11/2009, Jon LaVasseur wrote:
>
>> Dear Flying Friends,
>>
>>
>>
>> Tax time is here again and I just thought a reminder about fuel
>> tax would be a good idea.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you use mogas in your plane, the federal folks will issue a tax
>> credit which means that each dollar of credit reduces your income
>> tax by one dollar. You just fill out form #4136 and enter the
>> amount on line 68 of your 1040 tax return.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you live in Minnesota, the state will refund you $.15 for each
>> gallon you have burned in your plane. The Minnesota form is
>> "PDR-1 AV." Fill our PDR-1 AV and send it in with the ACTUAL
>> receipts and the nice folks in St. Paul will send you money back.
>> Be sure you have your form in by April 15, 2009. Other states
>> probably have similar refunds.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope this is helpful to someone
>>
>>
>>
>> Jon L.
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> - List Contribution Web Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>
> --
> A seminar on Time Travel will be held two weeks ago.
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 'Vertical' CG |
Hoo boy, hope I haven't started another long-winded debate.
The location of the vertical CG is (i think) of small import in
flying Kolbs. But it must exist, and be there.
Imagine if you will, having a 300-lb lead weight mounted between your
tires. Then also imagine the same 300-lb weight in the center
section of the wing. or above it..
Would you expect a difference in the rate of roll while in the air?
Yes, I think so.
And on the ground, fast-taxiing and swerving? yes again, of course.
Anyone who's flown a Cessna on wheels and then floats is well aware
of this difference. But I think the tank placement on a Kolb makes so
slight a difference it's maybe not even noticeable. A most forgiving
and flexible wing/plane design.
We all should be grateful to Homer and his #1 test-pilot!
Anyway.
Russ Kinne
do not archive
On Mar 11, 2009, at 6:53 PM, Jim Hauck wrote:
>
> Y'all;
>
> Now let me see this from that, All this vertical CG mess.
>
> Seems to me we are strictly hypothetical in what a vertical CG does.
>
> In referring to Bro John's MKIII, of where his fuel tank is located
> and the effect of a vertical CG, seems to me is not relevant at all.
>
> Comparing a Cessna with the fuel tanks in the wings to The MKIII
> Classic with the fuel tank located on the center line is totally
> out of kilter. The fact is that John's fuel tank is located below
> the wing level and inboard of the cage. A Cessna has its fuel tanks
> outboard of the fuselage and at wing level. I can see where the
> fuel tanks being located outboard of the fuselage would make a
> difference in ground control, but not with the fuel tank located on
> the center line below the wings.
>
> If the fuel tank was located above the wing some distance and
> outboard on the center of the fuselage, then I could see where the
> weight of fuel would effect ground handling.
>
> So if vertical CG is so dang important, How do you compensate for
> it when you have a full tank of fuel or an almost empty tank.
>
> Maybe I ain't edumacated enough to figger this out:)
>
> Jim Hauck
>
>
Message 33
| 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: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft |
Larry C:
Great minds think alike. ;-)
john h
mkIII
Jon,
Are either you or your wife's cookies going to be in MV this year?
Larry
Message 34
| 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: 'Vertical' CG |
Russ;
Naw you ain't opened no can of worms.
But If I remember the center of gravity is the center of mass as applied to
a none moving object or a moving object, but in this case it is a none
moving critter. So in reality, John's center of gravity is at the lower
portion of his fuel tank and should just fine.
Jim Hauck
Message 35
| 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: 'Vertical' CG |
Jim,
Thanx reply. But the CG is the point that the aircraft rotates around
-- unless i'm nuts (possible) that's the same, moving or not. The
aircraft rotates in, any axis, around the CG. Only way to change the
CG is to move weights around. Fuel tanks & passenger seats are often
located on or near the CG, so no major changes when they're full or
empty. But you know all this.
And I'm sure no problem with John's or any other(?) Kolb .
Russ
On Mar 11, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Jim Hauck wrote:
>
> Russ;
>
> Naw you ain't opened no can of worms.
>
> But If I remember the center of gravity is the center of mass as
> applied to a none moving object or a moving object, but in this
> case it is a none moving critter. So in reality, John's center of
> gravity is at the lower portion of his fuel tank and should just fine.
>
> Jim Hauck
>
>
Message 36
| 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: 'Vertical' CG |
Russ, maybe my Kolb needs a lead filled keel?
BB
do not archive
On 11, Mar 2009, at 9:06 PM, russ kinne wrote:
>
> Jim,
> Thanx reply. But the CG is the point that the aircraft rotates
> around -- unless i'm nuts (possible) that's the same, moving or
> not. The aircraft rotates in, any axis, around the CG. Only way to
> change the CG is to move weights around. Fuel tanks & passenger
> seats are often located on or near the CG, so no major changes
> when they're full or empty. But you know all this.
> And I'm sure no problem with John's or any other(?) Kolb .
> Russ
>
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Jim Hauck wrote:
>
>>
>> Russ;
>>
>> Naw you ain't opened no can of worms.
>>
>> But If I remember the center of gravity is the center of mass as
>> applied to a none moving object or a moving object, but in this
>> case it is a none moving critter. So in reality, John's center of
>> gravity is at the lower portion of his fuel tank and should just
>> fine.
>>
>> Jim Hauck
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 37
| 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: 'Vertical' CG |
Maybe depends on how much lead there is in the pilot's keel??
do not archive!
On Mar 11, 2009, at 9:19 PM, robert bean wrote
>
> Russ, maybe my Kolb needs a lead filled keel?
> BB
> do not archive
> On 11, Mar 2009, at 9:06 PM, russ kinne wrote:
>
>>
>> Jim,
>> Thanx reply. But the CG is the point that the aircraft rotates
>> around -- unless i'm nuts (possible) that's the same, moving or
>> not. The aircraft rotates in, any axis, around the CG. Only way to
>> change the CG is to move weights around. Fuel tanks & passenger
>> seats are often located on or near the CG, so no major changes
>> when they're full or empty. But you know all this.
>> And I'm sure no problem with John's or any other(?) Kolb .
>> Russ
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Jim Hauck wrote:
>>
>>> <jimh474@embarqmail.com>
>>>
>>> Russ;
>>>
>>> Naw you ain't opened no can of worms.
>>>
>>> But If I remember the center of gravity is the center of mass as
>>> applied to a none moving object or a moving object, but in this
>>> case it is a none moving critter. So in reality, John's center of
>>> gravity is at the lower portion of his fuel tank and should just
>>> fine.
>>>
>>> Jim Hauck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 38
| 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: 'Vertical' CG |
Gyro planes are sensitive to vertical cg vs thrustline. It really effects the stability
of them. They really need centerline thrust to be considered stable.
Many of the old ones like the original air commands and the RAFs have high thrustlines.
The gyros can be flipped forward in flight due to an effect know as
a power push over. That is where the thrust is so offset above the vertical cg
that it pushes the nose of the gyroplane down thus getting air on top of the
rotor and thats the end of that flight and pilot. Think of the vertical cg location
as the pivot point as the thrust pushes the nose over.
high thrust lines coupled with no horizontal stabs have contributed to many gyroplane
fatal crashes. Even with the addition of H stab they are still not stable
but better than without.
I dont think fixed wing has a problem with vertical cg. If our thrust line gets
to high we offset it with tail incidence. Plus our tail is a lot further back
than a gyro.
The newer center line thrust gyros have some ground handling issue due to the mass being so high up. Check out http://www.rotorflightdynamicsinc.com Dominator or ultrawhite. Its actually a low thrustline design which is very stable in flight. On the ground though it can be easily rolled over.
Airplane generally sit low so I dont see it as an issue there.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234295#234295
Message 39
| 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: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft |
It's true! In Michigan we got .16 a gallon back from the state ...you had to send
the original receipt with a form the state gave you then they send you a check!
Feds gave back .14 at tax time for the year.Just put in what you claimed
for the state. It's the road tax you are getting back...don't get caught putting
it in your car though...
chris ambrose
m3x-jab
N327CS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234299#234299
Message 40
| 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: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft |
I'm surprised that Boyd didn't chip in as well.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hauck
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft
Larry C:
Great minds think alike. ;-)
john h
mkIII
Jon,
Are either you or your wife's cookies going to be in MV this
year?
Larry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
03/11/09 08:28:00
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! --
|