Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:09 AM - Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
2. 07:23 AM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (Vic)
3. 08:03 AM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks ()
4. 08:03 AM - Re: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft (boyd)
5. 08:44 AM - Trailer (Kolb) Dolly discounted (Dave Kulp)
6. 08:46 AM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (Jim Hauck)
7. 08:57 AM - Re: Trailer (Kolb) Dolly discounted (robert bean)
8. 09:51 AM - Re: 'Vertical' CG (JetPilot)
9. 11:06 AM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
10. 11:28 AM - Re: Re: 'Vertical' CG (Robert Laird)
11. 11:33 AM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (Robert Laird)
12. 12:26 PM - Re: Wing Center Section (Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC MDA/AL)
13. 12:26 PM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (Richard & Martha Neilsen)
14. 12:34 PM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (Robert Laird)
15. 12:42 PM - Re: Fjuel rtanks (jb92563)
16. 12:52 PM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (robert bean)
17. 01:04 PM - oldest in-flight video? (Thom Riddle)
18. 01:53 PM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (John Hauck)
19. 02:09 PM - BRS CANISTER or VLS ?? Which one would suit Mark III Xtra?? (faisalasif)
20. 02:10 PM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (Mike Welch)
21. 02:33 PM - Re: oldest in-flight video? (robert bean)
22. 03:13 PM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (Jim Hauck)
23. 03:18 PM - Re: Trailering a Kolb (George Alexander)
24. 03:22 PM - Re: BRS CANISTER or VLS ?? Which one would suit Mark III Xtra?? (Dana Hague)
25. 03:27 PM - Re: Re: Fjuel rtanks (Dana Hague)
26. 03:31 PM - Fuel tanks (Mike Welch)
27. 03:38 PM - Re: oldest in-flight video? (Dana Hague)
28. 03:53 PM - Re: Fuel tanks (John Hauck)
29. 04:02 PM - Re: Fuel tanks (Jim Hauck)
30. 04:02 PM - Re: Re: 'Vertical' CG (Ed Chmielewski)
31. 04:12 PM - Re: Fuel tanks (John Hauck)
32. 05:25 PM - Re: Re: 'Vertical' CG (LEE CREECH)
33. 07:30 PM - Re: Re: 'Vertical' CG (robert bean)
34. 07:57 PM - Re: Re: 'Vertical' CG (LEE CREECH)
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: Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft |
Larry/John
Can't speak for Boyd but them cookies were great! I'm building a new
house starting the 2nd week of April so MV looks doubtful.
Do not archive
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Cottrell
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Fjuel rtanks |
John
I should have been more specific. I found (boat) bow tanks for a couple
hundred that look
like they would fit pretty well up top behind heads as mine doesn't turn
around that far either.
I can barely reach the flap handle.
Just your oppinion, would an 19 gal wedge shaped tank HAVE to be
baffled? I don't know yet if it is.
Vic
Xtra 912
3.5hrs legal insruction
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 |
> Just your oppinion, would an 19 gal wedge shaped tank HAVE to be baffled? I don't
know yet if it is.
>
> Vic
Vic:
I don't know that I can answer that. I don't know how much a "baffleless" tank
would affect flight and handling characteristics.
If it were my airplane, I'd spend the bucks, have an aluminum tank built to order
with baffles.
john h
mkIII
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: | Fuel tax credit for MOGAS burned in aircraft |
I've been waiting for someone to complain about me hording the cookies..
Honest,,, I picked them up and locked them in my trunk to keep the camp
ground dog at bay while my wife and myself went on the monument tour.
Remember the bright side,,, when they came out of my trunk, they were nice
and warm, just like out of the oven.
Boyd young
Do not archive
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 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: | Trailer (Kolb) Dolly discounted |
Good morning all,
I want to give a heads-up to anyone who may be interested about a sale
on trailer dollys from Northern Tool. There's been talk and kidding
about moving our Kolbs by hand on the ground, getting old, etc. The
dolly I have now I got with my US and the wheels are solid wagon-type
wheels spaced very close together. As a consequence, the dolly tends
to want to roll on its side when doing a sharp turn.
Northern Tool has an _email subscribers only sale_ for a trailer dolly
with 10" pneumatic wheels with a wider, more stable spacing. It's marked
down from $60 to $40, plus shipping. It comes with a ball for moving
trailers, but it looks like it will be a simple job to remove the ball
and replace it with the tailwheel cradle that's on my dolly. I may even
try to find a way to alter the cradle so I can "scoop" the tailwheel,
rather than lift the tail into the cradle. What's that about getting old?
I'm not sure if it will work if you're not presently a subscriber, but
you may want to go to northerntool.com and subscribe for their email
promos, because this sale price is good until 3/17.
Getting my FF prepped for flying weather here in PA and find myself
frequently whispering thanks as I work, to Don, the genius builder, for
putting together such a fine - and beautiful - FireFly. His workmanship
is meticulous. A huge thank you, Don!!
Dave Kulp
Bethlehem, PA
FireFly 098
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: Fjuel rtanks |
I do believe that any tank over 10 gallons has to be baffled.
Jim Hauck
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: Trailer (Kolb) Dolly discounted |
Dave, Harbor Freight has the same thing. Sometimes on sale for less.
I have one hooked to my tail right now.
BB
On 12, Mar 2009, at 11:43 AM, Dave Kulp wrote:
> Good morning all,
>
> I want to give a heads-up to anyone who may be interested about a
> sale on trailer dollys from Northern Tool. There's been talk and
> kidding about moving our Kolbs by hand on the ground, getting old,
> etc. The dolly I have now I got with my US and the wheels are
> solid wagon-type wheels spaced very close together. As a
> consequence, the dolly tends to want to roll on its side when
> doing a sharp turn.
>
> Northern Tool has an email subscribers only sale for a trailer
> dolly with 10" pneumatic wheels with a wider, more stable spacing.
> It's marked down from $60 to $40, plus shipping. It comes with a
> ball for moving trailers, but it looks like it will be a simple job
> to remove the ball and replace it with the tailwheel cradle that's
> on my dolly. I may even try to find a way to alter the cradle so I
> can "scoop" the tailwheel, rather than lift the tail into the
> cradle. What's that about getting old?
>
> I'm not sure if it will work if you're not presently a subscriber,
> but you may want to go to northerntool.com and subscribe for their
> email promos, because this sale price is good until 3/17.
>
> Getting my FF prepped for flying weather here in PA and find myself
> frequently whispering thanks as I work, to Don, the genius builder,
> for putting together such a fine - and beautiful - FireFly. His
> workmanship is meticulous. A huge thank you, Don!!
>
> Dave Kulp
> Bethlehem, PA
> FireFly 098
>
>
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: 'Vertical' CG |
Interesting Info Grant,
Which is exactly why I will never be flying a Gyro Plane [Wink] The performance
is pretty incredible but having to depend on moving rotors to keep me from
falling like a rock just does not sound fun...
I know John H spent many hours hanging in the air by rotors and lived through it,
but there is a big difference between a helicopter developed by Bell Helicopters
and flown for millions of hours, and a home made gyrocopter designed and
tested by people with limited resources and funds !
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=234344#234344
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: Fjuel rtanks |
Vic
Would you share with us what you found? I'm still looking for a larger
tank that I can put in my MKIIIC. I have been told the New Kolb tanks
will not fit. If a alternative tank looked good and priced right I would
consider one. If the tank didn't have baffles I would install a small
header tank 1-2 gallons below it. The header tank would supply a
constant flow of fuel in spite of any sloshing of fuel in a unbaffled
main tank.
Again worth what you paid for it.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Vic
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Fjuel rtanks
John
I should have been more specific. I found (boat) bow tanks for a
couple hundred that look
like they would fit pretty well up top behind heads as mine doesn't
turn around that far either.
I can barely reach the flap handle.
Just your oppinion, would an 19 gal wedge shaped tank HAVE to be
baffled? I don't know yet if it is.
Vic
Xtra 912
3.5hrs legal insruction
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: 'Vertical' CG |
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:50 AM, JetPilot <orcabonita@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...home made gyrocopter designed and tested by people with limited
> resources and funds !....
>
Yeah, sort of like a home made Kolb MkIII, built and tested by people with
limited resources and funds !.... Oooo, that's scary! ;-)
-- R
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: Fjuel rtanks |
Rick --
TNK 6 gallon tanks do fit in the MkIII Classic... They did in mine, at
least.
-- Robert
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Richard & Martha Neilsen <
NeilsenRM@comcast.net> wrote:
> Vic
>
> Would you share with us what you found? I'm still looking for a larger tank
> that I can put in my MKIIIC. I have been told the New Kolb tanks will not
> fit. If a alternative tank looked good and priced right I would consider
> one. If the tank didn't have baffles I would install a small header tank 1-2
> gallons below it. The header tank would supply a constant flow of fuel in
> spite of any sloshing of fuel in a unbaffled main tank.
>
> Again worth what you paid for it.
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Vic <vicsv@myfairpoint.net>
> *To:* kolb-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:23 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: Re: Fjuel rtanks
>
> John
> I should have been more specific. I found (boat) bow tanks for a couple
> hundred that look
> like they would fit pretty well up top behind heads as mine doesn't turn
> around that far either.
> I can barely reach the flap handle.
> Just your oppinion, would an 19 gal wedge shaped tank HAVE to be baffled? I
> don't know yet if it is.
>
> Vic
> Xtra 912
> 3.5hrs legal insruction
>
>
> *
>
> 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 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wing Center Section |
"icrashrc" wrote: << We made the shape we wanted over the plane, then
made our center section, then made a mold over the center section. There
hasn't been a part pulled from the mold yet. If we decide to offer a few
for sale then that would be next. Scott >>
Scott, and All -
Nice work on your center section.
I have always suspected that this junction on the stock Mark-3 - where
he top of the windshield meets the gap seal - was a MAJOR source of
aerodynamic drag.
I noticed that on the Mark-3 XTra, there is a nifty little fairing that
attaches at this spot, smoothing out the airflow coming up from the
windshield and over the top of the gap seal. When I called Travis at
New Kolb if I could order one, he told me that it only fits on the Xtra,
not the "Classic." Bummer. I have zero composite/fiberglass building
skills.
And so ... Scott - if you do decide to make more than one of these
little beauties, I for one will be happy to buy one from you!
Dennis Kirby
Cedar Crest, NM
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 |
Robert
I wasn't clear. I was thinking about their large aluminum tank that they
make for the Xtra. The 6 gallon tanks will be my next tanks if I don't
find something bigger that isn't too expensive.
Do not archive
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Laird
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Fjuel rtanks
Rick --
TNK 6 gallon tanks do fit in the MkIII Classic... They did in mine,
at least.
-- Robert
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Richard & Martha Neilsen
<NeilsenRM@comcast.net> wrote:
Vic
Would you share with us what you found? I'm still looking for a
larger tank that I can put in my MKIIIC. I have been told the New Kolb
tanks will not fit. If a alternative tank looked good and priced right I
would consider one. If the tank didn't have baffles I would install a
small header tank 1-2 gallons below it. The header tank would supply a
constant flow of fuel in spite of any sloshing of fuel in a unbaffled
main tank.
Again worth what you paid for it.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Vic
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Fjuel rtanks
John
I should have been more specific. I found (boat) bow tanks for a
couple hundred that look
like they would fit pretty well up top behind heads as mine
doesn't turn around that far either.
I can barely reach the flap handle.
Just your oppinion, would an 19 gal wedge shaped tank HAVE to be
baffled? I don't know yet if it is.
Vic
Xtra 912
3.5hrs legal insruction
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
a>http://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
Ah! Well, if you find something, please post it here. I'm not too thrilled
with the ultra-thin-walled 6 gallon tanks. I haven't had any problems with
them, but it wouldn't take much to puncture them. Ask me how I know. :-(
-- Robert
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Richard & Martha Neilsen <
NeilsenRM@comcast.net> wrote:
> Robert
>
> I wasn't clear. I was thinking about their large aluminum tank that they
> make for the Xtra. The 6 gallon tanks will be my next tanks if I don't find
> something bigger that isn't too expensive.
>
> Do not archive
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Robert Laird <rlaird@cavediver.com>
> *To:* kolb-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:31 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: Re: Fjuel rtanks
>
> Rick --
>
> TNK 6 gallon tanks do fit in the MkIII Classic... They did in mine, at
> least.
>
> -- Robert
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Richard & Martha Neilsen <
> NeilsenRM@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Vic
>>
>> Would you share with us what you found? I'm still looking for a larger
>> tank that I can put in my MKIIIC. I have been told the New Kolb tanks will
>> not fit. If a alternative tank looked good and priced right I would consider
>> one. If the tank didn't have baffles I would install a small header tank 1-2
>> gallons below it. The header tank would supply a constant flow of fuel in
>> spite of any sloshing of fuel in a unbaffled main tank.
>>
>> Again worth what you paid for it.
>>
>> Rick Neilsen
>> Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Vic <vicsv@myfairpoint.net>
>> *To:* kolb-list@matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:23 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: Re: Fjuel rtanks
>>
>> John
>> I should have been more specific. I found (boat) bow tanks for a couple
>> hundred that look
>> like they would fit pretty well up top behind heads as mine doesn't turn
>> around that far either.
>> I can barely reach the flap handle.
>> Just your oppinion, would an 19 gal wedge shaped tank HAVE to be
>> baffled? I don't know yet if it is.
>>
>> Vic
>> Xtra 912
>> 3.5hrs legal insruction
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> 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*
>>
>> *
>>
>> get="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>> a> <http://forums.matronics.com>http://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>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 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: Fjuel rtanks |
Why do tanks have baffles?
To prevent a shift in balance and to keep the fuel moving slowly in the tank during
maneuvers, and reduce foaming/bubbles and currents.
If you don't think these things would be a problem then baffles are not critical.
Baffles don't hurt anything if they come with the tank already.
--------
Ray
Kolb UltraStar (Cuyuna UL-202)
Moni MotorGlider
Schreder HP-11 Glider
Grob 109 Motorglider
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234371#234371
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: Fjuel rtanks |
I too share a concern about the plastic tanks. They won't fail while
you are cruising but during
a hard landing the impact could cause a split at the bottom. --which
is why I don't like inviting trouble with a hole drilled for bottom
feed.
Mine are old and if I replace them it will be with a high tank, but
then I have to keep in mind
my age and anticipated flying future. I do have other hobbies.
BB
On 12, Mar 2009, at 3:33 PM, Robert Laird wrote:
> Ah! Well, if you find something, please post it here. I'm not too
> thrilled with the ultra-thin-walled 6 gallon tanks. I haven't had
> any problems with them, but it wouldn't take much to puncture
> them. Ask me how I know. :-(
>
> -- Robert
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Richard & Martha Neilsen
> <NeilsenRM@comcast.net> wrote:
> Robert
>
> I wasn't clear. I was thinking about their large aluminum tank that
> they make for the Xtra. The 6 gallon tanks will be my next tanks if
> I don't find something bigger that isn't too expensive.
>
> Do not archive
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Laird
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Fjuel rtanks
>
> Rick --
>
> TNK 6 gallon tanks do fit in the MkIII Classic... They did in
> mine, at least.
>
> -- Robert
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Richard & Martha Neilsen
> <NeilsenRM@comcast.net> wrote:
> Vic
>
> Would you share with us what you found? I'm still looking for a
> larger tank that I can put in my MKIIIC. I have been told the New
> Kolb tanks will not fit. If a alternative tank looked good and
> priced right I would consider one. If the tank didn't have baffles
> I would install a small header tank 1-2 gallons below it. The
> header tank would supply a constant flow of fuel in spite of any
> sloshing of fuel in a unbaffled main tank.
>
> Again worth what you paid for it.
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Vic
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Fjuel rtanks
>
> John
> I should have been more specific. I found (boat) bow tanks for a
> couple hundred that look
> like they would fit pretty well up top behind heads as mine doesn't
> turn around that far either.
> I can barely reach the flap handle.
> Just your oppinion, would an 19 gal wedge shaped tank HAVE to be
> baffled? I don't know yet if it is.
>
> Vic
> Xtra 912
> 3.5hrs legal insruction
>
>
> 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
>
> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> a>http://forums.matronics.com
> _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
>
> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> a>http://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
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: | oldest in-flight video? |
Not Kolb related.... 'cuz it was made before Homer was born. Watch the whole thing
because the last half contains perhaps the oldest in-flight video.
http://www.europafilmtreasures.eu/PY/322/fiche_technique.htm?ID=322
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY
http://riddletr.googlepages.com/sportpilot-cfi
http://riddletr.googlepages.com/a%26pmechanix
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system
that works.
- John Gaule
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234373#234373
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 |
Rick N:
I think the major problem with a larger unbaffled tank is shift of weight m
ore than a problem with fuel starvation.
I may be wrong, but that is my theory.
john h
mkIII
The header tank would supply a constant flow of fuel in spite of any sl
oshing of fuel in a unbaffled main tank.
Rick Neilsen
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: | BRS CANISTER or VLS ?? Which one would suit Mark III Xtra?? |
BRS Canister is the oldest model and has been used on Mark III Xtra yet on BRS
website, they say that:
VLS is "Built specifically for aircraft with limited interior space, the VLS (Vertical
Launch System) installs on top of the wing or fuselage. Upward firing
works well with pusher designed aircraft."
Mark III Xtra is a Pusher Aircraft?
your kind comments / recommendations?
Thanking in advance for your kind responses.
Faisal.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234376#234376
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: Fjuel rtanks |
Rick=2C
A couple of minutes ago I got home from having some heli-arcing done from
a welder I just met. This guy is awesome when it comes to aluminum weldin
g. His quality is excellent=2C and he specializes in aluminum.
I had him remount the intake and outlet tubes on my intercooler=2C plus h
eli-arc all the pieces that make up the TBI intake assembly. Almost 1 1/2
hours of welding....$80. He has welded aluminum for over 25 years.
The point is: If you need someone to make an aluminum tank for you...he
could be your guy. I have a MkIII fuselage=2C same as yours=2C and could f
urnish the dimensions he'd need.
Also=2C I have found an aluminum supplier that's about 100 miles from me (n
ear Valley Engineering in Missouri)=2C that carries 2024T6 sheets.(any thic
kness)
This offer to build tanks is also to The New Kolb Company=2C if they don'
t have an official custom tank builder. I'm NOT trying to take away busine
ss from TNK. If they have tanks that suit your needs=2C by all means go th
rough them.
But=2C if someone is looking for a great aluminum welder=2C I just found
one.
As usual=2C just let me know if I can help.
Mike Welch
MkIII
From: NeilsenRM@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Fjuel rtanks
Vic
Would you share with us what you found? I'm still looking for a larger tank
that I can put in my MKIIIC. I have been told the New Kolb tanks will not
fit. If a alternative tank looked good and priced right I would consider on
e. If the tank didn't have baffles I would install a small header tank 1-2
gallons below it. The header tank would supply a constant flow of fuel in s
pite of any sloshing of fuel in a unbaffled main tank.
Again worth what you paid for it.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIIIC
----- Original Message -----
From: Vic
Sent: Thursday=2C March 12=2C 2009 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Fjuel rtanks
John
I should have been more specific. I found (boat) bow tanks for a couple hun
dred that look
like they would fit pretty well up top behind heads as mine doesn't turn ar
ound that far either.
I can barely reach the flap handle.
Just your oppinion=2C would an 19 gal wedge shaped tank HAVE to be baffled?
I don't know yet if it is.
Vic
Xtra 912
3.5hrs legal insruction
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
_________________________________________________________________
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 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: oldest in-flight video? |
Controlling pitch looked like a busy task.
On 12, Mar 2009, at 4:03 PM, Thom Riddle wrote:
>
> Not Kolb related.... 'cuz it was made before Homer was born. Watch
> the whole thing because the last half contains perhaps the oldest
> in-flight video.
>
> http://www.europafilmtreasures.eu/PY/322/fiche_technique.htm?ID=322
>
> --------
> Thom Riddle
> Buffalo, NY
> http://riddletr.googlepages.com/sportpilot-cfi
> http://riddletr.googlepages.com/a%26pmechanix
>
> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved
> from a simple system that works.
> - John Gaule
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234373#234373
>
>
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: Fjuel rtanks |
Mike;
I wouldn't use 2024 aluminum for a fuel tank. Use 5052 aluminum. 2024
corrodes real easy and with today's fuel you would be looking at severe
corrosion problems with 2024.
5052 is a marine grade aluminum and is very resistant to corrosion.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Jim H
(I have been welding aluminum for 60 years and still no expert)
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: Trailering a Kolb |
George Alexander wrote:
> Added material on Gary Aman's trailer for his MK IIIC to the others on the web
site.
>
> Click on http://gtalexander.home.att.net
> and then click on "Trailering a Kolb"
>
>
Updated the section on Gary's trailer to show his Dolly/Boom & Wing support.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
--------
George Alexander
FS II R503 N709FS
http://gtalexander.home.att.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234383#234383
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: BRS CANISTER or VLS ?? Which one would suit Mark III |
Xtra??
At 05:08 PM 3/12/2009, faisalasif wrote:
>Mark III Xtra is a Pusher Aircraft?
Yes, all of the Kolb aircraft (except the new Laser) are pushers.
-Dana
--
Capital punishment: people in the Capitol need to be punished...
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: Fjuel rtanks |
At 06:12 PM 3/12/2009, Jim Hauck wrote:
>Mike;
>
>I wouldn't use 2024 aluminum for a fuel tank. Use 5052 aluminum. 2024
>corrodes real easy and with today's fuel you would be looking at severe
>corrosion problems with 2024.
>
>5052 is a marine grade aluminum and is very resistant to corrosion.
Also 2024 is not generally considered a weldable alloy.
-Dana
--
Capital punishment: people in the Capitol need to be punished...
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 |
|
Jim=2C
(please note corrected spelling of the subject)
Jim=2C
Exellent point re: 5052. I hadn't done any research for the proper alumi
num alloy to use. I had just recently purchased some 2024T6 from these fol
ks=2C and was simply passing that information along that they carried 2024.
My apologies for making it look like I was suggesting 2024 for tanks. Yo
u are correct that the best aluminum alloy for fuel tanks is 5052.
Since Jim points out 5052 is the best alloy=2C anybody care to advise the
best thickness. My guess would be about .0625. Anyone have a tank and kn
ow what thickness you used?
Mike Welch
MkIII
From: jimh474@embarqmail.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Fjuel rtanks
Mike=3B
I wouldn't use 2024 aluminum for a fuel tank. Use 5052 aluminum. 2024 corro
des real easy and with today's fuel you would be looking at severe corrosio
n problems with 2024.
5052 is a marine grade aluminum and is very resistant to corrosion.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Jim H
(I have been welding aluminum for 60 years and still no expert)
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99 Contacts: Organize your contact list.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-
cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009
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: oldest in-flight video? |
Wow!
do not archive
At 04:03 PM 3/12/2009, Thom Riddle wrote:
>
>Not Kolb related.... 'cuz it was made before Homer was born. Watch the
>whole thing because the last half contains perhaps the oldest in-flight video.
>
>http://www.europafilmtreasures.eu/PY/322/fiche_technique.htm?ID=322
--
Capital punishment: people in the Capitol need to be punished...
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 |
|
.050"
john h
ISince Jim points out 5052 is the best alloy, anybody care to advise the be
st thickness. My guess would be about .0625. Anyone have a tank and know
what thickness you used?
Mike Welch
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 |
|
Mike;
I use .050, 5052 on all aluminum tanks that I weld up. John's 25 gallon
tank is .050. and cross baffled.
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: 'Vertical' CG |
Rick,
Please don't put words in my mouth. No one said 'categorically
it has no effect'. To an engineer, perhaps. To a pilot, it's a moot
point. Fore-and-aft CG change is of primary concern to aircraft, then
lateral, then last (and I would conjecture least) vertical. (We are
still discussing aircraft, not SUV's.) Never heard of an aircraft going
out-of-control due to displaced vertical CG. You're correct in the
engineering sense, but waaay too concerned about something that's not
even touched on in general aviation texts.
I will hand it to you, I could not detect the handling
difference in models of 172's, so perhaps 3,000 hrs. of dual given
hasn't properly prepared me. Never had a check airman bring it up in
the CFI, CFI-AI, MEI, or ATP oral or checkrides. I should get my money
back. And I must've been sleeping through all the and initial and
recurrent training at FlightSafety Int'l. and SimCom in the Cessna
400-series, King Air 200, 300, 350, Merlin IIIB, Piper Cheyenne I & II,
Citation I, II, V, Bravo, obtained over 30-odd years and 15,000+ hours.
The only vertical component available to me is the seat height, and my
comfort trumps the slight concern over handling effect. So vertical
component is (A) never discussed, (B) something we have little-to-no
control over, and (C) of concern in only the most arcane sense.
Vertical CG certainly exists, but is of concern when we have
some control over it. With my RC planes, I can move components to
change it, but in full-size aircraft it's fixed. If it's so windy that
control becomes a concern, I don't fly.
I'll respond BC in the future so's not to further bore our Kolb
brothers and sisters.
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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
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:
<jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
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.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
==== get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
a>http://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
Hi Gang:
Highly recommend sloshing the tank after fabrication. Will eliminate futur
e headaches.
Jim welded up an 18 gal tank for my FS. That was 1987. We did not know ab
out sloshing the tank. Water tested, pressure tested, thought we had it, b
ut down the road it sprung a leak in the most in accessible place.
1991, Jim welded up a 25 gal tank for my mkIII. Water tested, pressure tes
ted, sloshed, and never looked back. That was nearly 2,900 flight hours, a
nd three crashes ago. This tank just keeps on ticking.
john h
mkIII
.050"
john h
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 |
If I may add a humble point: the vertical CG affects the pitch axis=2C too
=2C doesn't it? I've always assumed that the high CG of my Firestar II (re
sulting mainly from the engine way up there) is a major factor in its tende
ncy to nose over if not handled carefully in some situations.
Lee
From: edchmiel@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: 'Vertical' CG
Rick=2C
Please don't put words in my mouth. No one said 'categorically it
has no effect'. To an engineer=2C perhaps. To a pilot=2C it's a moot poin
t. Fore-and-aft CG change is of primary concern to aircraft=2C then latera
l=2C then last (and I would conjecture least) vertical. (We are still discu
ssing aircraft=2C not SUV's.) Never heard of an aircraft going out-of-contr
ol due to displaced vertical CG. You're correct in the engineering sense
=2C but waaay too concerned about something that's not even touched on in g
eneral aviation texts.
I will hand it to you=2C I could not detect the handling difference
in models of 172's=2C so perhaps 3=2C000 hrs. of dual given hasn't properl
y prepared me. Never had a check airman bring it up in the CFI=2C CFI-AI
=2C MEI=2C or ATP oral or checkrides. I should get my money back. And I m
ust've been sleeping through all the and initial and recurrent training at
FlightSafety Int'l. and SimCom in the Cessna 400-series=2C King Air 200=2C
300=2C 350=2C Merlin IIIB=2C Piper Cheyenne I & II=2C Citation I=2C II=2C V
=2C Bravo=2C obtained over 30-odd years and 15=2C000+ hours. The only ver
tical component available to me is the seat height=2C and my comfort trumps
the slight concern over handling effect. So vertical component is (A) nev
er discussed=2C (B) something we have little-to-no control over=2C and (C)
of concern in only the most arcane sense.
Vertical CG certainly exists=2C but is of concern when we have some
control over it. With my RC planes=2C I can move components to change it
=2C but in full-size aircraft it's fixed. If it's so windy that control be
comes a concern=2C I don't fly.
I'll respond BC in the future so's not to further bore our Kolb bro
thers and sisters.
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
Sent: Wednesday=2C March 11=2C 2009 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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=2C and on
my check ride by the DPE=2C it seems I was meant to know about it and take
heed.
No=2C you won't find it in flight manuals=2C those decisions were made for
you by the designers and engineers and you can't change them like you can f
ore 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 r
ange tanks handles differently in a crosswind than a "P" model with standar
d tanks (20 gallons and 120 lb. difference). The extra weight and the diffe
rence in landing gear track makes the "K" model more sensitive to gusts whi
le taxiing=2C even though there are no other differences between the aircra
ft. Yes=2C the extra mass has more inertia=2C but given that both aircraft
have the same size ailerons and the pilot has to have more force to stop th
e movement of the greater mass once it's started=2C 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 sid
e 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=2C pitch and yaw axis. How those masses are arranged will effect the h
andling 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=2C how many competetive aerobatic aircraft have you seen latel
y that are not a shoulder wing design? If you want fast roll response you p
ut the center of mass of the wings on the roll axis of the aircraft.
Now=2C the question is=2C does moving the fuel tank upward have an effect o
n the aircraft's ground handling?
Yes=2C 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 f
ace.
Rick
On Wed=2C Mar 11=2C 2009 at 2:56 PM=2C Ed Chmielewski <edchmiel@mindspring.
com> wrote:
Hi Rick=2C
I've neither heard of 'vertical' CG=2C nor found anything in any ma
nuals. How would one calculate it=2C and where does this term come from?
CG is just that=2C a point around which the aircraft rotates in any axis. S
ome aircraft are more prone to being displaced during low-speed taxi=2C but
the most susceptible would have to be light weight coupled with lots of ex
posed surface area=2C which means a Kolb or other ultralight. Control displ
acement during taxi in a wind is the same for high- or low-wing aircraft=2C
but varies if nosedragger or conventional gear.
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
Sent: Wednesday=2C March 11=2C 2009 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Fjuel rtanks
John=2C While pilots rarely=2C if ever=2C calculate the vertical CG positio
n=2C it is a component of aircraft ground handling. This is one of the reas
ons why GA pilots=2C particularly those flying high wing aircraft with tank
s in the wings=2C are taught proper positioning of the controls during taxi
operations.
Rick
On Tue=2C Mar 10=2C 2009 at 7:58 PM=2C John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wr
ote:
I've wondered why you have
yours so high? It must reduce the power needed to get fuel to the engine
=2C but must also raise the CG. Are there any noticeable handling differen
ces between yours and a 'stock'
Mark III?
Russ
Russ:
My fuel tank is high because where it was located was empty=2C open space i
n the standard mkIII. 25 gals fits that space perfect. Homer left this sp
ace 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 locat
ion of the tank.
I don't understand "raising the CG". There are no noticeable handling diff
erences between my mkIII and a stock mkIII.
Location of the tank did not affect fore and aft=2C or lateral cg.
john h
mkIII
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
http://forums.matronics.com
le=2C 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
==== get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List a>
http://forums.matronics.com _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
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99 Groups: Create an online spot for your favorite groups to m
eet.
http://windowslive.com/online/groups?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_groups_032009
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: 'Vertical' CG |
That is more directly a function of center of thrust, referenced to
either the wing or center of drag whichever
most concerns you. Any vertical CG effect caused by the engine
location would have little influence on the
nose down with power tendency. -which, BTW,I pretty much
automatically compensated for by the
time I had an hour on my MkIII.
It turns out to be a beneficial effect for me anyway during landing.
Old antique, high wing tractor taildraggers exhibit
quite a nose up pitch with power added at the last second, sometimes
to your detriment.
The Kolb properly points you in the right direction :)
BB
On 12, Mar 2009, at 8:24 PM, LEE CREECH wrote:
> If I may add a humble point: the vertical CG affects the pitch
> axis, too, doesn't it? I've always assumed that the high CG of my
> Firestar II (resulting mainly from the engine way up there) is a
> major factor in its tendency to nose over if not handled carefully
> in some situations.
>
> Lee
>
>
> From: edchmiel@mindspring.com
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: 'Vertical' CG
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:08 -0400
>
> Rick,
>
> Please don't put words in my mouth. No one said
> 'categorically it has no effect'. To an engineer, perhaps. To a
> pilot, it's a moot point. Fore-and-aft CG change is of primary
> concern to aircraft, then lateral, then last (and I would
> conjecture least) vertical. (We are still discussing aircraft, not
> SUV's.) Never heard of an aircraft going out-of-control due to
> displaced vertical CG. You're correct in the engineering sense,
> but waaay too concerned about something that's not even touched on
> in general aviation texts.
> I will hand it to you, I could not detect the handling
> difference in models of 172's, so perhaps 3,000 hrs. of dual given
> hasn't properly prepared me. Never had a check airman bring it up
> in the CFI, CFI-AI, MEI, or ATP oral or checkrides. I should get
> my money back. And I must've been sleeping through all the and
> initial and recurrent training at FlightSafety Int'l. and SimCom in
> the Cessna 400-series, King Air 200, 300, 350, Merlin IIIB, Piper
> Cheyenne I & II, Citation I, II, V, Bravo, obtained over 30-odd
> years and 15,000+ hours. The only vertical component available to
> me is the seat height, and my comfort trumps the slight concern
> over handling effect. So vertical component is (A) never
> discussed, (B) something we have little-to-no control over, and (C)
> of concern in only the most arcane sense.
> Vertical CG certainly exists, but is of concern when we
> have some control over it. With my RC planes, I can move
> components to change it, but in full-size aircraft it's fixed. If
> it's so windy that control becomes a concern, I don't fly.
> I'll respond BC in the future so's not to further bore our
> Kolb brothers and sisters.
>
> Ed in JXN
> MkII/503
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Girard
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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
> 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
> ==== get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> a>http://forums.matronics.com _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
>
>
> Windows Live=99 Groups: Create an online spot for your favorite
> groups to meet. Check it out.
>
>
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 |
I was actually thinking of the time I was taxiing down a rather steep hill
(shortcut from runway to barn) at about 1 mph with the engine idling=2C whe
n the world slowly rotated around me and the plane put its nose on the grou
nd. From then on I went the long way around.
Lee
From: slyck@frontiernet.net
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: 'Vertical' CG
That is more directly a function of center of thrust=2C referenced to eithe
r the wing or center of drag whichever
most concerns you. Any vertical CG effect caused by the engine location wo
uld have little influence on the
nose down with power tendency. -which=2C BTW=2CI pretty much automatically
compensated for by the
time I had an hour on my MkIII.
It turns out to be a beneficial effect for me anyway during landing. Old a
ntique=2C high wing tractor taildraggers exhibit
quite a nose up pitch with power added at the last second=2C sometimes to y
our detriment.
The Kolb properly points you in the right direction :)
BB
On 12=2C Mar 2009=2C at 8:24 PM=2C LEE CREECH wrote:
If I may add a humble point: the vertical CG affects the pitch axis=2C too
=2C doesn't it? I've always assumed that the high CG of my Firestar II (re
sulting mainly from the engine way up there) is a major factor in its tende
ncy to nose over if not handled carefully in some situations.
Lee
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99 Groups: Create an online spot for your favorite groups to m
eet.
http://windowslive.com/online/groups?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_groups_032009
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! --
|