Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:00 AM - Re: Rotax 503 running problem (R. Hankins)
2. 03:36 AM - Re: Re: Rotax 503 running problem (Tony Oldman)
3. 04:11 AM - Re: new video, Steen's again (Tony Oldman)
4. 04:52 AM - Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! (John Bickham)
5. 06:23 AM - Re: new video, Steen's again (frank.goodnight)
6. 06:40 AM - Slingshot question (Thom Riddle)
7. 08:05 AM - Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! (lucien)
8. 08:57 AM - Re: Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! (Ron @ KFHU)
9. 09:15 AM - Re: US tank balance (jerb)
10. 10:12 AM - "Burping" the oil in a 912 (Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC MDA/AL)
11. 10:25 AM - Re: "Burping" the oil in a 912 (Robert Laird)
12. 10:49 AM - Re: "Burping" the oil in a 912 (tlongo)
13. 10:54 AM - Re: "Burping" the oil in a 912 (lucien)
14. 10:58 AM - Re: "Burping" the oil in a 912 (John Hauck)
15. 11:16 AM - Re: Slingshot question (Denny Rowe)
16. 11:28 AM - Re: Slingshot question (Thom Riddle)
17. 11:28 AM - Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! (Jason Omelchuck)
18. 11:29 AM - Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! (Jack B. Hart)
19. 12:08 PM - Re: "Burping" the oil in a 912 (robert bean)
20. 12:40 PM - Re: "Burping" the oil in a 912 (b young)
21. 02:20 PM - 2009 Kolb Homecoming Canceled. (John Hauck)
22. 02:26 PM - Re: US tank balance (Dana Hague)
23. 04:09 PM - Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! (John Bickham)
24. 05:21 PM - Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! (JetPilot)
25. 08:01 PM - FSII N582EF basket case for sale (Richard Pike)
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: Rotax 503 running problem |
Dale:
The 503 is the workhorse 2-stroke of the ultralight world. They are known for
their ease of operation, long life, and reliability.
I don't think you will find a whole lot of active pilots (especially those who
often fly over harsh terrain) who are willing to risk their health and their airplane
by running the 503 outside of long proven parameters.
I have never experienced so much as a hiccup from my 503. I decarboned it at 119
hrs, changed oil brands and ran it to 450hrs. At that point I tore it down
and replaced every moving part because I happened to have the time and money,
not because the engine was showing signs of being tired. I measured everything.
The only component that was outside wear limits was a small portion of the
cylinder bore, just above the intake port. Even that was less than 0.001" oversize.
I probably could have gotten another couple hundred hours out of it.
The thing is, after spending several years building an airplane, one doesn't
really want to find where the failure point of the engine is. I figured 150%
of TBO was good enough.
There are many, many 503s out there that have flown past 1000hrs without an overhaul,
and literally thousands that have flown to twice TBO. Very few actually
get rebuilt at 300hrs. I guess what I'm getting at is what do you stand to
"gain" by adding more oil? It seems you are trying to solve some perceived "problem"
with the 503 that simply doesn't exist. This is probably why Lucian questioned
your experience. He wasn't saying you don't know your way around engines
in general, he was asking about the 503 in particular because anyone who
has much time flying them knows they are one of the most reliable two-strokes
out there.
My first response when reading your post was "You're running 32:1? , Why?" This
is a great little engine that performs very well. All you have to do is feed
it right and keep the gauges in the green. Treat it kindly and it will return
the favor.
--------
Roger in Oregon
1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250718#250718
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: Rotax 503 running problem |
Well said. 2 503s and no problems. First one I overhauled because there was
no reliable history with the engine, it was still performing well at 800 hrs
after the overhaul, no idea how many hours before the overhaul, the second
one only has 350 hours on it from new and going well. I have only ever run
castrol TT mineral oils at 50:1. It would seem that discussing oils is a bit
like discussing VGs ,there are a lot of opinions out there. The people
that make these things say 50:1 and I bet they have built at least a 50%
safety margin into that so I am happy to carry on with what I know works for
me, as for VGs ,while very interested in the change to performance VGs may
give I have been trying to think of when I would need them, or what
advantage they would give me and have to admit I can not think of one. The
Kolb MK111c behaves in a very predictable way and sometimes in marginal
conditions the quick stall onto the ground is not a bad thing and if the
conditions are not marginal it dos not matter . I guess if you needed to get
onto the ground real short and real slow then any advantage is a good
thing,I just have not found myself in the position yet that the MK111c was
not capable of handling . Like most things in life its all about compromise
, in order to gain something you may also loose something.
Keep it safe up there
MK111c
Downunder
original Message -----
From: "R. Hankins" <rphanks@grantspass.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:00 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Rotax 503 running problem
>
> Dale:
> The 503 is the workhorse 2-stroke of the ultralight world. They are known
> for their ease of operation, long life, and reliability.
> I don't think you will find a whole lot of active pilots (especially those
> who often fly over harsh terrain) who are willing to risk their health and
> their airplane by running the 503 outside of long proven parameters.
>
> I have never experienced so much as a hiccup from my 503. I decarboned it
> at 119 hrs, changed oil brands and ran it to 450hrs. At that point I tore
> it down and replaced every moving part because I happened to have the time
> and money, not because the engine was showing signs of being tired. I
> measured everything. The only component that was outside wear limits was
> a small portion of the cylinder bore, just above the intake port. Even
> that was less than 0.001" oversize. I probably could have gotten another
> couple hundred hours out of it. The thing is, after spending several
> years building an airplane, one doesn't really want to find where the
> failure point of the engine is. I figured 150% of TBO was good enough.
>
> There are many, many 503s out there that have flown past 1000hrs without
> an overhaul, and literally thousands that have flown to twice TBO. Very
> few actually get rebuilt at 300hrs. I guess what I'm getting at is what
> do you stand to "gain" by adding more oil? It seems you are trying to
> solve some perceived "problem" with the 503 that simply doesn't exist.
> This is probably why Lucian questioned your experience. He wasn't saying
> you don't know your way around engines in general, he was asking about the
> 503 in particular because anyone who has much time flying them knows they
> are one of the most reliable two-strokes out there.
>
> My first response when reading your post was "You're running 32:1? , Why?"
> This is a great little engine that performs very well. All you have to do
> is feed it right and keep the gauges in the green. Treat it kindly and
> it will return the favor.
>
> --------
> Roger in Oregon
> 1992 KXP 503 - N1782C
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250718#250718
>
>
>
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: new video, Steen's again |
Loved that show .Keep them coming
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Cottrell
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:32 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: new video, Steen's again
http://owyheeflyer.blogspot.com/
Just up loaded a new bunch of pictures and a video of a flight that I
made this morning to the Steen's hoping to get some clues as to where to
Elk hunt this fall. Didn't find Elk, but had a very enjoyable flight.
Going to have to put some time in on the ground, now that I know where
to go.
Larry C
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: | Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
As much as I chance to add fuel to this fire....
The light finally came on for me regarding the countless threads and strong differences
re VG's. I think I'm starting to grasp the different points of view
on this subject and the reasons for them.
To me, VG's have a place and advantages in light to no wind flying with not a lot
of crosswind component. I think it is accurate to say that most of the strongest
VG proponents have stated they are light wind condition flyers, for the
most part. In smooth conditions, real slow is good.
The other side, tends to fly long XC's in strong winds at times.
I used to be a light wind flyer and enjoyed it. The experiences of the MV-Oregon
flight really challenged me. One of the problems I had was getting the plane
to quite flying in gusting conditions while trying to land. The "four landings"
at Vernon, TX got my attention. I got exactly sync'd with the gust and
touchdown four times ie four bounces. The fellow in the FBO comment was, " I
thought you were going to land in the next county!". I couldn't get the plane
to quite flying. VG's probably would have made the problem worse in those conditions.
In my plane and my with my experience, strong crosswinds challenge
rudder authority first as I slow to land. VG's could slow you down even more
and challenge that rudder authority even more.
So now I have a better understanding of the strong differences in opinions regarding
VG's and there applications. I also have a new respect for the folks with
strong opinions and their differences based on the type of flying they prefer.
For me, I'm an aspiring XC flyer. I enjoy the long flights and especially the
company of fellow Kolb flyers. Seeing this great country from 1000 AGL and below
is a goal that I have set for myself. You have to be ready for strong wind
conditions to do that or you will be sitting at an FBO more than you are flying.
Or worse, you could find the end of a long leg with higher than forecasted
wind conditions. For that reason, VG's might not be the best option for me
and the type of flying that I want to do.
So now I agree with both sides. It is just that we might be talking about two
different approaches to flying conditions and the requirements that those conditions
require. Maybe as I age and slow down, I might be satisfied laps around
the patch or just local flights. Then I might decide to check the VG's out.
My little humble opinion.
--------
Thanks too much,
John Bickham
Mark III-C w/ 912UL
St. Francisville, LA
I know many pilots and a few true aviators. There is a distinct difference that
I have the greatest respect for.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250729#250729
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: new video, Steen's again |
Hi Larry Cottrell,
Please contact me off line
Frank goodnight
do not archive
On Jun 29, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Larry Cottrell wrote:
> http://owyheeflyer.blogspot.com/
>
> Just up loaded a new bunch of pictures and a video of a flight that
> I made this morning to the Steen's hoping to get some clues as to
> where to Elk hunt this fall. Didn't find Elk, but had a very
> enjoyable flight. Going to have to put some time in on the ground,
> now that I know where to go.
> Larry C
>
>
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: | Slingshot question |
Does the Slinghsot have a 5" diameter spar and boom tube like the Firestar or a
6" diameter like the MKIII and Kolbra?
--------
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=250740#250740
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: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
I've never actually weighed in on the VG debate, mostly because I've never tried
them so can't talk about them from an experienced viewpoint.
But I'll toss a couple thoughts out for grins. I tend to mildly be on the non-VG
side myself, if for no other reason than the planes I've flown were all test
flown and developed without them and so all the known territory on their flight
characteristics is without them too.
When you alter the performance envelope of the main wing, it changes a whole bunch
of other stuff that the rest of the plane experiences. I.e. plane stalls at
an increased AoA means the tail is a different attitude with respect to the
relative wind, etc.
Not saying this is bad, but it is a different situation than the rest of the plane
was designed (or at least tested) to deal with. This puts you in unknown territory,
which is usually not a good place to be with an airplane.
Being able to stop the wing from flying during landing is a legitimate concern,
especially out here in the mountains. In my FSII, once the tail came down, I
wanted that main wing to be flying as little as possible so that gusts had as
little chance to pick the plane back up as possible.
In my current plane, landings with less than about 20 degs of flaps can be dicey
as-is with the wing as-is. With no flaps, that sucker is still fully flying
even if I touch the tailwheel down. You just can't get the AoA of the wing high
enough in ground effect without assistance (i.e. flaps) to stop it from flying.
In fact, the only time I encountered conditions where full flaps wasn't a
good idea was a landing I made in NE in 25G40 winds about 30 degs off the right
side of the runway. Otherwise, I need all the help I can get in terms of increased
AoA in the flare and touchdown.
I can see how VG's would change this whole equation and could even introduce some
hazard on both of those planes.
So even us low-wind/low-convective activity/low-dust-devil fliers benefit from
flying planes not altered from the configs in which they were designed and tested.
Or at least, we who don't like to be test-pilots most of the time ;).
JMO,
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250754#250754
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 |
|
From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1@cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
It seems to me that the V.G. discussion is the longest discussion we have here.
:-)
I can convey my view from GenAv flying. Just about all of the large piston twins
that I have flown had them installed. I have flown the large piston twins with
and without them. Without question a C-400 series airplane or the slightly
smaller C-300 series aircraft land and take off much better with them, not to
mention one engine inop' and near stall behavior. They have no discernible negative
performance impact during cruise, so with regard to that I can't see where
a much slower Kolb would either. I only have a few thousand hours on those
twins so take it for what its worth.
On the other hand I am not sure in general why I would need them on my Kolb, however
on the few occasions I may want to fly out of say a river bed I probably
would like to have them.
Ron @ KLSB
---- lucien <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com> wrote:
============
I've never actually weighed in on the VG debate, mostly because I've never tried
them so can't talk about them from an experienced viewpoint.
But I'll toss a couple thoughts out for grins. I tend to mildly be on the non-VG
side myself, if for no other reason than the planes I've flown were all test
flown and developed without them and so all the known territory on their flight
characteristics is without them too.
When you alter the performance envelope of the main wing, it changes a whole bunch
of other stuff that the rest of the plane experiences. I.e. plane stalls at
an increased AoA means the tail is a different attitude with respect to the
relative wind, etc.
Not saying this is bad, but it is a different situation than the rest of the plane
was designed (or at least tested) to deal with. This puts you in unknown territory,
which is usually not a good place to be with an airplane.
Being able to stop the wing from flying during landing is a legitimate concern,
especially out here in the mountains. In my FSII, once the tail came down, I
wanted that main wing to be flying as little as possible so that gusts had as
little chance to pick the plane back up as possible.
In my current plane, landings with less than about 20 degs of flaps can be dicey
as-is with the wing as-is. With no flaps, that sucker is still fully flying
even if I touch the tailwheel down. You just can't get the AoA of the wing high
enough in ground effect without assistance (i.e. flaps) to stop it from flying.
In fact, the only time I encountered conditions where full flaps wasn't a
good idea was a landing I made in NE in 25G40 winds about 30 degs off the right
side of the runway. Otherwise, I need all the help I can get in terms of increased
AoA in the flare and touchdown.
I can see how VG's would change this whole equation and could even introduce some
hazard on both of those planes.
So even us low-wind/low-convective activity/low-dust-devil fliers benefit from
flying planes not altered from the configs in which they were designed and tested.
Or at least, we who don't like to be test-pilots most of the time ;).
JMO,
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250754#250754
--
kugelair.com
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: US tank balance |
Are you sure your flying wings level - be surprised how many pilots
do this and not realize it themselves until it pointed out to them
including myself.
jerb
At 08:04 PM 6/29/2009, you wrote:
>
>One thing I've noticed with the original dual tanks on my UltraStar
>is that they don't drain evenly. With the plane sitting on the
>ground they level out, but in flight the left tank tends to run
>somewhat lower than the right (they're plumbed together on the inner
>side of the valves with the outer sides tee'd together at the fuel
>strainer). Anybody else see this?
>
>I presume it's due to minor variation in air pressure at the vented
>caps, which could be alleviated by poking holes in the top of the
>tanks and running a tube between to let the air balance... thoughts?
>
>-Dana
>--
> Campaigns to bearproof all garbage containers in some national
> parka have been difficult, because as one biologist put it, "There
> is a considerable overlap between the intelligence levels of the
> smartest bears and the dumbest tourists."
>
>
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: | "Burping" the oil in a 912 |
Here's a question for our Kolb Friends flying the 912 -
When checking the oil level during preflight, how many times must we
turn the engine over in order to get an accurate oil level reading?
The common wisdom regarding checking the oil (including instructions in
the Rotax Maintenance Manual) tell of the need to "burp" the engine,
which we do by turning the prop for several revolutions prior to
checking the oil level. Doing this transfers oil from the engine case
back into the oil tank, thus giving an accurate oil level indication on
the dip stick.
Well, I did this yesterday when I went to fly my Mark-3, but managed to
1) NOT get an accurate oil level reading, resulting in 2) splattering of
overflow oil all over my prop and tail after the flight!
It seems that, as the 912 engine sits idle, oil slowly drains from the
oil tank into the engine case. The longer it sits, the more oil that
drains out. It had been six weeks since the last time I flew
(fortunately, that is not common!), so I suspect THAT is the reason the
oil level indicated so low at first. I rotated the prop at least twenty
revolutions, thinking it was enough. I then checked the oil to find
that it was still reading a bit low. So I added half a quart.
After flying, my tail was soaked with sprayed-out overflow oil. (what a
mess!) I checked my oil level, and found that it was now way too high.
Obviously, I did not get all the oil from the engine to the tank on
preflight, and I got an erroneous "low oil level" reading on the dip
stick.
So back to my question: how many revolutions must the 912 be turned?
Apparently, 20 is not enough!
Dennis Kirby
Cleanin' up my Kolb with rags and 409 in
Cedar Crest, NM
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: "Burping" the oil in a 912 |
Did you stop when it burped? Or did you simply stop at 20?
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC MDA/AL <
Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil> wrote:
> Classification: * UNCLASSIFIED***
>
> Here=92s a question for our Kolb Friends flying the 912 '
>
> When checking the oil level during preflight, how many times must we turn
> the engine over in order to get an accurate oil level reading?
>
> The common wisdom regarding checking the oil (including instructions in t
he
> Rotax Maintenance Manual) tell of the need to =93burp=94 the engine, whic
h we do
> by turning the prop for several revolutions prior to checking the oil
> level. Doing this transfers oil from the engine case back into the oil
> tank, thus giving an accurate oil level indication on the dip stick.
>
> Well, I did this yesterday when I went to fly my Mark-3, but managed to 1
)
> NOT get an accurate oil level reading, resulting in 2) splattering of
> overflow oil all over my prop and tail after the flight!
>
>
> It seems that, as the 912 engine sits idle, oil slowly drains from the oi
l
> tank into the engine case. The longer it sits, the more oil that drains
> out. It had been six weeks since the last time I flew (fortunately, that
is
> not common!), so I suspect THAT is the reason the oil level indicated so
low
> at first. I rotated the prop at least twenty revolutions, thinking it wa
s
> enough. I then checked the oil to find that it was still reading a bit
> low. So I added half a quart.
>
>
> After flying, my tail was soaked with sprayed-out overflow oil. (what a
> mess!) I checked my oil level, and found that it was now way too high.
> Obviously, I did not get all the oil from the engine to the tank on
> preflight, and I got an erroneous =93low oil level=94 reading on the dip
stick.
>
>
> So back to my question: how many revolutions must the 912 be turned?
> Apparently, 20 is not enough!
>
>
> Dennis Kirby
>
> Cleanin=92 up my Kolb with rags and 409 in
>
> Cedar Crest, NM
>
> Classification: * UNCLASSIFIED***
>
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
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: "Burping" the oil in a 912 |
Check it after each flight, and if it has been a while and you don't remember start
it and let it run for a couple of minuets then check it.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250798#250798
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: "Burping" the oil in a 912 |
[quote="Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland."]
Heres a question for our Kolb Friends flying the 912
When checking the oil level during preflight, how many times must we turn the engine
over in order to get an accurate oil level reading?
The common wisdom regarding checking the oil (including instructions in the Rotax
Maintenance Manual) tell of the need to burp the engine, which we do by turning
the prop for several revolutions prior to checking the oil level. Doing
this transfers oil from the engine case back into the oil tank, thus giving an
accurate oil level indication on the dip stick.
Well, I did this yesterday when I went to fly my Mark-3, but managed to 1) NOT
get an accurate oil level reading, resulting in 2) splattering of overflow oil
all over my prop and tail after the flight!
It seems that, as the 912 engine sits idle, oil slowly drains from the oil tank
into the engine case. The longer it sits, the more oil that drains out. It
had been six weeks since the last time I flew (fortunately, that is not common!),
so I suspect THAT is the reason the oil level indicated so low at first.
I rotated the prop at least twenty revolutions, thinking it was enough. I then
checked the oil to find that it was still reading a bit low. So I added half
a quart.
After flying, my tail was soaked with sprayed-out overflow oil. (what a mess!)
I checked my oil level, and found that it was now way too high. Obviously,
I did not get all the oil from the engine to the tank on preflight, and I got
an erroneous low oil level reading on the dip stick.
So back to my question: how many revolutions must the 912 be turned? Apparently,
20 is not enough!
Dennis Kirby
Cleanin up my Kolb with rags and 409 in
Cedar Crest, NM
> [b]
Hey Dennis,
A trick for this I initially learnt from Ronnie Smith (and subsequently found is
suggested in the oil check video on rotax-owner.com) is to turn the prop over
slowly instead of popping it through. This allows lots more blowby past the
rings as you go through the compression strokes really slow. That pushes the oil
out to the tank a lot faster.
This way I get the gurgle in I'd say about 10 blades, somewhere in there where
it used to sometimes take enough turns to make my arms tired....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250801#250801
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: "Burping" the oil in a 912 |
Dennis:
Check your oil level on post flight. The engine is warm/hot and the oil
is pushed out of the crankcase during operation.
If you want to do it during preflight, crank the engine, let it run a
couple minutes, shut down and check.
912's have a great history of not requiring oil to be added between
changes.
I usually end up adding a little too much during oil change. This ends
up on prop and tail section during flight.
They will also blow oil when you get into a severe down draft as oil is
forced up to the top of the tank where crankcase pressure forces it out
the breather tube.
A lot of oil will drain back into the crankcase if the antisiphon valve
is not the best. Over the years, I have found Rotax as well as Fram oil
filters that would leak down. The longer they sit idle, the more oil is
going to drain back.
john h
mkIII
When checking the oil level during preflight, how many times must we
turn the engine over in order to get an accurate oil level reading?
Dennis Kirby
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: Slingshot question |
Slingshots are 6 inches like the MK-3, fireflys are 5 like a Firestar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:38 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Slingshot question
>
> Does the Slinghsot have a 5" diameter spar and boom tube like the Firestar
> or a 6" diameter like the MKIII and Kolbra?
>
> --------
> 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=250740#250740
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
06:10:00
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: Slingshot question |
Thanks, Denny. That is what I thought but needed confirmation.
--------
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=250811#250811
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: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
John Bickham wrote:
> As much as I chance to add fuel to this fire....
>
> The light finally came on for me regarding the countless threads and strong differences
re VG's. I think I'm starting to grasp the different points of view
on this subject and the reasons for them.
>
> To me, VG's have a place and advantages in light to no wind flying with not a
lot of crosswind component. I think it is accurate to say that most of the strongest
VG proponents have stated they are light wind condition flyers, for the
most part. In smooth conditions, real slow is good.
>
> The other side, tends to fly long XC's in strong winds at times.
>
> I used to be a light wind flyer and enjoyed it. The experiences of the MV-Oregon
flight really challenged me. One of the problems I had was getting the plane
to quite flying in gusting conditions while trying to land. The "four landings"
at Vernon, TX got my attention. I got exactly sync'd with the gust and
touchdown four times ie four bounces. The fellow in the FBO comment was, "
I thought you were going to land in the next county!". I couldn't get the plane
to quite flying. VG's probably would have made the problem worse in those
conditions. In my plane and my with my experience, strong crosswinds challenge
rudder authority first as I slow to land. VG's could slow you down even more
and challenge that rudder authority even more.
>
> So now I have a better understanding of the strong differences in opinions regarding
VG's and there applications. I also have a new respect for the folks with
strong opinions and their differences based on the type of flying they prefer.
>
> For me, I'm an aspiring XC flyer. I enjoy the long flights and especially the
company of fellow Kolb flyers. Seeing this great country from 1000 AGL and
below is a goal that I have set for myself. You have to be ready for strong wind
conditions to do that or you will be sitting at an FBO more than you are flying.
Or worse, you could find the end of a long leg with higher than forecasted
wind conditions. For that reason, VG's might not be the best option for
me and the type of flying that I want to do.
>
> So now I agree with both sides. It is just that we might be talking about two
different approaches to flying conditions and the requirements that those conditions
require. Maybe as I age and slow down, I might be satisfied laps around
the patch or just local flights. Then I might decide to check the VG's out.
>
> My little humble opinion.
I am a low time pilot and I can get my MKIII to bounce in no wind conditions :D
When I was getting my license in a cub, I was taught to change my landing
style and use the equipment in the aircraft to deal with various conditions.
For example, in a strong crosswind, wheel land it and stick it to the ground by
keeping the tail up then use brakes to slow and throttle if needed to keep enough
rudder authority to keep it on the runway. When well below flying speed,
get the tail down so can then use the tail wheel to keep me on track.
I believe that saying having a lower stall speed will hinder your ability to land
in strong winds is sort of like saying we need a stronger landing gear because
of our airplanes problem called "Kolb quit". As John H likes to say, there
is no Kolb quit but it will stall and if stalled 5 feet above the ground, you
will hit hard.
I do not have VG's and I can keep my MKIII on the ground at 50mph and above if
I keep the tail up. I would be inclined to think that I could also keep my MKIII
on the ground at 50 mph with VG's if I kept the tail up. As I said above,
I have had a few bouncy landings in my MKIII but I do not attribute them to what
speed my plane stalls at, I attribute them to my inability ( on that paticular
landing) to keep up with what the airplane was doing and/or not adjusting
my technique for the conditions.
My $.02 worth
Jason
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250812#250812
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: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
John,
Just returned from a mid-day flight in the FireFly. Had to land in a 18 mph
gusting cross wind. Didn't do too bad of a job of it.
One of the good things about VG's is that they do make your ailerons more
effective, and so it is easier to side slip into the wind and to stay on the
runway centerline. When you are at cruise altitude and flying through
turbulent air, the VG enhanced aileron effectiveness helps one cope with out
having to boot in rudder to keep picking up a wing.
If you are having trouble getting down in cross winds, then you need more
practice. Practicing with or without VG's will produce the same result, a
better pilot. But VG's will make your plane a little more roll and side slip
responsive.
As for lighter aircraft landing at lower speeds, it is not a problem if you
keep flying it until you get it down.
There are few days here without wind.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
At 04:51 AM 6/30/09 -0700, you wrote:
>
>As much as I chance to add fuel to this fire....
>
>The light finally came on for me regarding the countless threads and strong differences
re VG's. I think I'm starting to grasp the different points of view
on this subject and the reasons for them.
>
>To me, VG's have a place and advantages in light to no wind flying with not a
lot of crosswind component. I think it is accurate to say that most of the strongest
VG proponents have stated they are light wind condition flyers, for the
most part. In smooth conditions, real slow is good.
>
>The other side, tends to fly long XC's in strong winds at times.
>
>I used to be a light wind flyer and enjoyed it. The experiences of the MV-Oregon
flight really challenged me. One of the problems I had was getting the plane
to quite flying in gusting conditions while trying to land. The "four landings"
at Vernon, TX got my attention. I got exactly sync'd with the gust and
touchdown four times ie four bounces. The fellow in the FBO comment was, " I
thought you were going to land in the next county!". I couldn't get the plane
to quite flying. VG's probably would have made the problem worse in those conditions.
In my plane and my with my experience, strong crosswinds challenge
rudder authority first as I slow to land. VG's could slow you down even more
and challenge that rudder authority even more.
>
>So now I have a better understanding of the strong differences in opinions regarding
VG's and there applications. I also have a new respect for the folks with
strong opinions and their differences based on the type of flying they prefer.
>
>For me, I'm an aspiring XC flyer. I enjoy the long flights and especially the
company of fellow Kolb flyers. Seeing this great country from 1000 AGL and below
is a goal that I have set for myself. You have to be ready for strong wind
conditions to do that or you will be sitting at an FBO more than you are flying.
Or worse, you could find the end of a long leg with higher than forecasted
wind conditions. For that reason, VG's might not be the best option for me
and the type of flying that I want to do.
>
>So now I agree with both sides. It is just that we might be talking about two
different approaches to flying conditions and the requirements that those conditions
require. Maybe as I age and slow down, I might be satisfied laps around
the patch or just local flights. Then I might decide to check the VG's out.
>
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: | Re: "Burping" the oil in a 912 |
Why don't they locate the oil tank below the engine?
My suzuki tank is 2 feet below. Gravity does a great job.
BB
On 30, Jun 2009, at 12:59 PM, Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC MDA/AL wrote:
>
>
>
> Here=92s a question for our Kolb Friends flying the 912 '
>
>
> When checking the oil level during preflight, how many times must
> we turn the engine over in order to get an accurate oil level reading?
>
> The common wisdom regarding checking the oil (including
> instructions in the Rotax Maintenance Manual) tell of the need to
> =93burp=94 the engine, which we do by turning the prop for several
> revolutions prior to checking the oil level. Doing this transfers
> oil from the engine case back into the oil tank, thus giving an
> accurate oil level indication on the dip stick.
>
> Well, I did this yesterday when I went to fly my Mark-3, but
> managed to 1) NOT get an accurate oil level reading, resulting in
> 2) splattering of overflow oil all over my prop and tail after the
> flight!
>
> It seems that, as the 912 engine sits idle, oil slowly drains from
> the oil tank into the engine case. The longer it sits, the more
> oil that drains out. It had been six weeks since the last time I
> flew (fortunately, that is not common!), so I suspect THAT is the
> reason the oil level indicated so low at first. I rotated the prop
> at least twenty revolutions, thinking it was enough. I then
> checked the oil to find that it was still reading a bit low. So I
> added half a quart.
>
> After flying, my tail was soaked with sprayed-out overflow oil.
> (what a mess!) I checked my oil level, and found that it was now
> way too high. Obviously, I did not get all the oil from the engine
> to the tank on preflight, and I got an erroneous =93low oil level=94
> reading on the dip stick.
>
> So back to my question: how many revolutions must the 912 be
> turned? Apparently, 20 is not enough!
>
> Dennis Kirby
> Cleanin=92 up my Kolb with rags and 409 in
> Cedar Crest, NM
>
>
>
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: | "Burping" the oil in a 912 |
Here's a question for our Kolb Friends flying the 912 -
When checking the oil level during preflight, how many times must we turn
the engine over in order to get an accurate oil level reading?
Dennis Kirby
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Dennis
Remove the oil cap, then rotate the prop until you can hear the blow by
gasses start to sputter, before the sputter it will be pushing back only
oil.. when the sputter starts it will be a mix of oil and air.
Cant tell you how many turns. just till you hear it..
Boyd
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: | 2009 Kolb Homecoming Canceled. |
Folks:
Travis informed me this morning, there will be no 2009 Kolb Homecoming at
TNK. This decision was based primarily on the reduced personnel size of the
company. Travis and Dennis are not in a position to take on the added
responsibility and duties of hosting, the formally, annual event.
Hopefully, if the status of the company changes in the future, they may be
able to again host the Kolb Homecoming.
Travis asked me to pass on to the Kolb List, the future of TNK is sound.
They plan on being there for a long time supplying us with Kits and Parts
for our Kolb aircraft.
Our support of this company will help insure they will be there to support
us in the future.
john h
mkIII
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: US tank balance |
At 12:12 PM 6/30/2009, jerb wrote:
>
>Are you sure your flying wings level - be surprised how many pilots do
>this and not realize it themselves until it pointed out to them including
>myself.
Good point, but no, not in this case... there's up to an inch difference in
the level even at the center where the two tanks are practically touching.
-Dana
--
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys
to teenage boys.
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: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
Jason,
Agree with the "stick it with a wheel landing" technique. Prior to the trip out
west, I was a 99% three pointer. I was forced to develop a much better "wheel
landing technique" rather quickly to survive.
Was faced with every wind variation on both take-offs and landings you can imagine
during the trip. Even got to "sucking the seat up my @#%#" on a take-off
from Grant-Milan, NM. Wind changed from strong crosswind to strong tailwind mid
runway. Think it was a dust devil off to the right. That in combination with
a DA of 9100 ft and I was concentrating real hard on just flying.
Every plane is different as they are built and modified differently. My plane
with the larger tires and longer gear legs has a higher AOA in the three point
stance. If tail lowers with just a little too much speed, she is back in the
air. Just had to adjust. Still get caught every now and then. Homer's original
design (shorter ALUM landing gear) had a flatter AOA on purpose. To keep the
lower HP two strokes from flying too soon with out enough speed.
Still learning everytime I fire her up!
--------
Thanks too much,
John Bickham
Mark III-C w/ 912UL
St. Francisville, LA
I know many pilots and a few true aviators. There is a distinct difference that
I have the greatest respect for.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250860#250860
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: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now! |
You bring up some very good points John B. about VG's and their possible disadvantages
in high wind landings. What you say makes perfect sense, I tend to agree.
I could not say for sure, because I am one of those light wind flyers you
were talking about. I think the only way we would ever know would be for
me to give John Hauk the keys to my Kolb on a windy day and see if he could land
it [Wink]
I sure would like to hear more about the weather conditions you encountered and
how you adapted to them, I have been meaning to PM you and ask you about it.
I would like to work my up to be able to fly in more weather conditions eventually.
Its been quite a while since I have seen you post here on the list, its
good to see you back.
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=250872#250872
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: | FSII N582EF basket case for sale |
Ed has decided not to try and rebuild his wrecked FSII, he is going to try and
sell it and purchase an older Firestar that is local to this area. Since he is
a flyer and not a builder, I think he is making a wise decision.
But if there anyone on the list who has an airframe that is almost ready for an
engine, instruments, and systems, then maybe he has what you need.
Here is a link to his and my web pages on the airplanes, scroll down and you can
see what his airplane used to look like and how it was made, then click on the
"Salvage" link to see the wreck and what is for sale.
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/kolb.htm
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=250896#250896
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! --
|