Kolb-List Digest Archive

Tue 06/30/09


Total Messages Posted: 25



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
    Time: 01:00:59 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Rotax 503 running problem
    From: "R. Hankins" <rphanks@grantspass.com>
    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
    Time: 03:36:40 AM PST US
    From: "Tony Oldman" <aoldman@xtra.co.nz>
    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
    Time: 04:11:12 AM PST US
    From: "Tony Oldman" <aoldman@xtra.co.nz>
    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
    Time: 04:52:18 AM PST US
    Subject: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now!
    From: "John Bickham" <gearbender@bellsouth.net>
    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
    Time: 06:23:49 AM PST US
    From: "frank.goodnight" <frank.goodnight@att.net>
    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
    Time: 06:40:44 AM PST US
    Subject: Slingshot question
    From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr@gmail.com>
    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
    Time: 08:05:26 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now!
    From: "lucien" <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
    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
    Time: 08:57:05 AM PST US
    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
    Time: 09:15:34 AM PST US
    From: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
    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
    Time: 10:12:43 AM PST US
    Subject: "Burping" the oil in a 912
    From: "Kirby, Dennis CTR USAF AFMC MDA/AL" <Dennis.Kirby@kirtland.af.mil>
    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
    Time: 10:25:12 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: "Burping" the oil in a 912
    From: Robert Laird <rlaird@cavediver.com>
    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
    Time: 10:49:38 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: "Burping" the oil in a 912
    From: "tlongo" <tlongo@tampabay.rr.com>
    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
    Time: 10:54:05 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: "Burping" the oil in a 912
    From: "lucien" <lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
    [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
    Time: 10:58:20 AM PST US
    From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
    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
    Time: 11:16:32 AM PST US
    From: "Denny Rowe" <rowedenny@windstream.net>
    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
    Time: 11:28:49 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Slingshot question
    From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr@gmail.com>
    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
    Time: 11:28:58 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now!
    From: "Jason Omelchuck" <jason@trek-tech.com>
    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
    Time: 11:29:20 AM PST US
    From: "Jack B. Hart" <jbhart@onlyinternet.net>
    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
    Time: 12:08:15 PM PST US
    From: robert bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
    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
    Time: 12:40:43 PM PST US
    From: "b young" <by0ung@brigham.net>
    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
    Time: 02:20:19 PM PST US
    From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
    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
    Time: 02:26:59 PM PST US
    From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net>
    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
    Time: 04:09:51 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now!
    From: "John Bickham" <gearbender@bellsouth.net>
    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
    Time: 05:21:47 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Thanks - Appreciate differences in VG discussion now!
    From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@hotmail.com>
    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 -------- &quot;NO FEAR&quot; - 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
    Time: 08:01:26 PM PST US
    Subject: FSII N582EF basket case for sale
    From: "Richard Pike" <richard@bcchapel.org>
    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

  • Post A New Message
  •   kolb-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kolb-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/kolb-list
  • Browse Kolb-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/kolb-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --