Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:19 AM - Re: Re: Hauck Ramblings On Kolb aircraft. ()
2. 07:23 AM - slow flying MkIII's (Mike Welch)
3. 08:42 AM - Re: slow flying MkIII's (John Hauck)
4. 10:20 AM - Re: slow flying MkIII's (Mike Welch)
5. 10:22 AM - Re: slow flying MkIIIs compared to fast flying MkIIIs (Mike Welch)
6. 10:35 AM - safety pins (clrprop)
7. 10:41 AM - Re: Cuyuna engine failure (Mrikio)
8. 11:12 AM - Re: slow flying MkIII's (John Hauck)
9. 12:23 PM - Re: slow flying MkIII's (Mike Welch)
10. 12:39 PM - Safety pins (Lanny Fetterman)
11. 01:02 PM - Re: slow flying MkIII's (Jason Omelchuck)
12. 01:26 PM - Re: safety pins (clrprop)
13. 02:24 PM - Re: Anyone going to Oshkosh? (Richard Neilsen)
14. 03:54 PM - Re: slow flying MkIII's (John Bickham)
15. 05:00 PM - Re: Re: slow flying MkIII's (John Hauck)
16. 05:11 PM - Re: Re: slow flying MkIII's (robert bean)
17. 06:17 PM - Re: Anyone going to Oshkosh? (chris davis)
18. 06:46 PM - Re: safety pins (Ralph B)
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: Hauck Ramblings On Kolb aircraft. |
Yes I would agree ASI readings are nor always reliable. I do have to admit
that I never get too bothered with the indicated air speed, sometimes it
agrees with the GPS and some times it dosnt .The MK111c is under 500 pounds
so that helps , Also the numbers quoted are at ,or close to sea level with a
3 blade wood prop {GSC . I seem to recall a 13 dec pitch when I set it
up }503 has 350 hrs ,I have decarb twice with no sticky rings or other
problems found , a little black goo starting to weep from the exhaust
manifold, { due for another look at }have always used a simple mineral 2
cycl oil, last 503 ran past 500hrs on the same oil and was still going well
when last heard of . The performance is very good given the airframe engine
combination. The fuel burn is about 5 US gal per hr, this can be reduced to
4 gals if rpm is reduced to the 5700 range . Just does not feel right ,
wrong side of performance curve . Very economical at 5200 and very quiet but
a struggle to maintain altitude, very good for extended glides, just need to
watch the temps and give the odd burst of power to keep them in the right
range . All in all not really a good combination for long go places flying,
has been very good for local sightseeing
and giving rides , you tend to get a bit weary of the noise after 100 mls
but since the South Island of New Zealand is not much wider than that and
the Canterbury plains are only extend about 100mls in either direction thats
not much of a worry. Has proved to be good for mountain flying with good
performance out of gullys and OK on steep up hill strips . Have never used
a landing strip over 1500 ft above sea level . Max altitute I have had the
MK111c to is 7000 ft, really fast getting there on thermals and felt like it
took half a day to get back down .
Regards
downunder Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thom Riddle" <riddletr@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 8:09 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Hauck Ramblings On Kolb aircraft.
>
> Another variable, sometimes a pretty big one, is the accuracy of the
> airspeed indicator and location of pitot and static source. I don't know
> how many of the quoted numbers are TAS vs IAS. In most of the experimental
> airplanes I've owned, and even the SLSA I owned, the ASIs are notoriously
> inaccurate. That is why I take the little extra trouble to find the wind
> direction and makes runs directly upwind and then down wind to get the
> average GPS groundspeed, which is TAS.
>
> --------
> Thom Riddle
> Buffalo, NY (9G0)
> Kolb Slingshot SS-021
> Jabiru 2200A #1574
> Tennessee Prop 64x32
>
>
> I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how
> to do it.
> - Pablo Picasso
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299772#299772
>
>
>
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: | slow flying MkIII's |
Jason=2C
Regarding your MkIII flying slower than other MkIIIs=2C I am sure you kno
w it has an "attributable" cause. By that I mean=2C there is a definite=2C
definable=2C specific reason.....not
some nebulous unknown.
For a comparison of one MkIII against another near identical MkIII=2C wit
h virtually the same power input=3B
if someone else's MkIII flies faster than yours=2C then the only other poss
iblities are drag and propeller efficiency.
Your plane may have all kinds of unique differences than someone else's MkI
II=2C and these will undoubtedly cause your plane to perform different (ass
uming the same power input)
A couple of things NOT offered so far are your wing's incidences=2C compa
red to your horizontal stabilizers incidence.
The greater the difference between your main wing's incidences and your t
ailfeathers incidences=2C the more you main wings will "plow" through the a
ir. (meaning---serious drag!!!!)
When I did quite a bit of MkIII incidence research last year=2C I found s
ome significant disparities between some of the MkIII's wings' incidences.
Example=3B one guy "reports" as much as 2.5 degrees difference between hi
s MkIIIX and the other MkIIIXs' wings vs hor stabs. That's a lot!!
Obviously=2C if in fact he is correct about his 2.5 degree difference wit
h the other's angles=2C then his plane will fly VERY different than theirs
will (either faster or slower).
BTW=2C when I say "drag"=2C it can come in the form of MANY ways. Weight
differences will vary drag=2C wing incidences=2C quality of workmanship=2C
etc. All these things=2C and more=2C can affect drag.
Dana was correct when he reported " to double your airspeed=2C it will ta
ke 8 times the power. You can see why John H's experience makes such sense
......from the power of a Rotax 582 to a Rotax 912ULS=2C not a lot of chang
e in airspeed. So=2C the next big question is=3B
How efficient is your propeller at converting that 100HP? A "climb" prop w
ill ALWAYS run out of pitch for higher airspeeds=2C compared to a "cruise p
rop!! Maybe your solution is as simple as adjusting your prop's pitch to t
ake a bigger bite at the air. ???
Have you used a digital level and read your airplane's angles compared to
other MkIIIs=2C and the factory recommended settings? (I can show you wha
t I came up with=2C if you need me to.)
There's not a lot of unexplainable reasons why your plane may not be as f
ast as other
MkIIIs. (Actually=2C there aren't ANY unexplainable reasons) Your answer(
s) will be either
A)drag=2C or
B) how your propeller is adjusted to transfer it's power to the air.
Am I forgetting anything?
Just my thoughts......
Mike Welch
MkIII CX
PS. I'm just back from my Alabama/Florida week-long vacation. Sheesh!!!
Between the Kolblist and Aeroelectric---over 200 emails in a week!!! Toug
h to catch up on!
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search=2C chat and e-mail from your inb
ox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:O
N:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
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: slow flying MkIII's |
Mike:
How about the high thrust line pusher configuration of our Kolbs?
especially the heavier models?
How does this affect Kolbs' performance?
How does this affect incidence of wing and horizontal stabilizer?
How does adjustment of flaps and ailerons affect pitch trim?
How's the best way to pitch a ground adjustable prop for optimum
climb and cruise?
john h
mkIII
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Welch
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:17 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: slow flying MkIII's
Jason,
Regarding your MkIII flying slower than other MkIIIs, I am sure you
know it has an "attributable" cause. By that I mean, there is a
definite, definable, specific reason.....not
some nebulous unknown.
For a comparison of one MkIII against another near identical MkIII,
with virtually the same power input;
if someone else's MkIII flies faster than yours, then the only other
possiblities are drag and propeller efficiency.
Your plane may have all kinds of unique differences than someone
else's MkIII, and these will undoubtedly cause your plane to perform
different (assuming the same power input)
A couple of things NOT offered so far are your wing's incidences,
compared to your horizontal stabilizers incidence.
The greater the difference between your main wing's incidences and
your tailfeathers incidences, the more you main wings will "plow"
through the air. (meaning---serious drag!!!!)
When I did quite a bit of MkIII incidence research last year, I
found some significant disparities between some of the MkIII's wings'
incidences. Example; one guy "reports" as much as 2.5 degrees
difference between his MkIIIX and the other MkIIIXs' wings vs hor stabs.
That's a lot!!
Obviously, if in fact he is correct about his 2.5 degree difference
with the other's angles, then his plane will fly VERY different than
theirs will (either faster or slower).
BTW, when I say "drag", it can come in the form of MANY ways.
Weight differences will vary drag, wing incidences, quality of
workmanship, etc. All these things, and more, can affect drag.
Dana was correct when he reported " to double your airspeed, it will
take 8 times the power. You can see why John H's experience makes such
sense......from the power of a Rotax 582 to a Rotax 912ULS, not a lot of
change in airspeed. So, the next big question is;
How efficient is your propeller at converting that 100HP? A "climb"
prop will ALWAYS run out of pitch for higher airspeeds, compared to a
"cruise prop!! Maybe your solution is as simple as adjusting your
prop's pitch to take a bigger bite at the air. ???
Have you used a digital level and read your airplane's angles
compared to other MkIIIs, and the factory recommended settings? (I can
show you what I came up with, if you need me to.)
There's not a lot of unexplainable reasons why your plane may not be
as fast as other
MkIIIs. (Actually, there aren't ANY unexplainable reasons) Your
answer(s) will be either
A)drag, or
B) how your propeller is adjusted to transfer it's power to the air.
Am I forgetting anything?
Just my thoughts......
Mike Welch
MkIII CX
PS. I'm just back from my Alabama/Florida week-long vacation.
Sheesh!!! Between the Kolblist and Aeroelectric---over 200 emails in a
week!!! Tough to catch up on!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your
inbox. Learn more.
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: | slow flying MkIII's |
Hi John=2C
I hope you're healing okay. Sorry to hear about your injuries.
It would be easier to make comments inside your response=2C so.......
Mike:
How about the high thrust line pusher configuration of our Kolbs? especial
ly the heavier models?
How does this affect Kolbs' performance?
We're talking about one MkIII against all other MkIIIs=2C so a high pusher
configuration isn't really in question (I would think).
How does this affect incidence of wing and horizontal stabilizer?
A high thrust line would likely want to push the nose down=2C I'd guess.
But still=2C with two Kolb MkIIIs=2C both with their engines in the same p
ositions=2C a high thrust line most likely won't make one perform different
from the other....if all other things were absolutley identical.
How does adjustment of flaps and ailerons affect pitch trim?
This would be one of those things I was referring to that would affect dr
ag.
Of course=2C the adjustment of flaps and ailerons can create unneccessary
drag=2C making one MkIII fly slower than another.
How's the best way to pitch a ground adjustable prop for optimum
climb and cruise?
By flight testing it. He could read it's present angle. Re-adjust it fo
r a steeper pitch. Go try it out. Re-adjust=2C etc=2C etc. At some point
=2C he's going to have to make a decision on the setting he liked the best.
Some MkIII's may climb out like a rocket=2C but they give up some faster
cruising speeds to do so. Possibly an in-flight adjustable pitch prop migh
t help in this regard.
Speaking of props=3B
Back when I was buying my engine (GEO w/ Raven Redrive) he recommended th
e Ivo In-flight adjustable. Not having much experience=2C I went with his
recommendation. Maybe it was a good idea. Maybe not. I haven't flown wit
h it yet=2C so I don't know.
I have read lots of reports/opinions about other brands of props. Most p
eople seem to recommend Warp Drive.
I have also heard that props in the "Less than 200 mph" range don't reall
y need to be adjustable. Maybe so.
I suppose if I were shopping for a prop today=2C maybe I'd choose another
brand. Too late=2C tho=2C I already have one. Not enough money to make t
he change.
John=2C
Were you possibly misunderstanding my response to Jason? Did you think I
meant ALL MkIIIs were slow? If this is what you thought=2C you misunderst
ood me. I think MkIIIs (all models) fly just fine!!!! 75 mph to 80 mph cr
uise is pretty darn good in my book!!!!
I was simply making the observation that there are very few reasons why o
ne virtually identical plane doesn't fly exactly like another.
Usually=2C these reasons are not too hard to figure out=2C either. Drag=2C
or prop efficiency. Not too many reasons for two identical planes to not
fly the same.
Hope you heal quickly!
Mike Welch
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Welch
Sent: Thursday=2C June 03=2C 2010 9:17 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: slow flying MkIII's
Jason=2C
Regarding your MkIII flying slower than other MkIIIs=2C I am sure you kno
w it has an "attributable" cause. By that I mean=2C there is a definite=2C
definable=2C specific reason.....not
some nebulous unknown.
For a comparison of one MkIII against another near identical MkIII=2C wit
h virtually the same power input=3B
if someone else's MkIII flies faster than yours=2C then the only other poss
iblities are drag and propeller efficiency.
Your plane may have all kinds of unique differences than someone else's MkI
II=2C and these will undoubtedly cause your plane to perform different (ass
uming the same power input)
A couple of things NOT offered so far are your wing's incidences=2C compa
red to your horizontal stabilizers incidence.
The greater the difference between your main wing's incidences and your t
ailfeathers incidences=2C the more you main wings will "plow" through the a
ir. (meaning---serious drag!!!!)
When I did quite a bit of MkIII incidence research last year=2C I found s
ome significant disparities between some of the MkIII's wings' incidences.
Example=3B one guy "reports" as much as 2.5 degrees difference between hi
s MkIIIX and the other MkIIIXs' wings vs hor stabs. That's a lot!!
Obviously=2C if in fact he is correct about his 2.5 degree difference wit
h the other's angles=2C then his plane will fly VERY different than theirs
will (either faster or slower).
BTW=2C when I say "drag"=2C it can come in the form of MANY ways. Weight
differences will vary drag=2C wing incidences=2C quality of workmanship=2C
etc. All these things=2C and more=2C can affect drag.
Dana was correct when he reported " to double your airspeed=2C it will ta
ke 8 times the power. You can see why John H's experience makes such sense
......from the power of a Rotax 582 to a Rotax 912ULS=2C not a lot of chang
e in airspeed. So=2C the next big question is=3B
How efficient is your propeller at converting that 100HP? A "climb" prop w
ill ALWAYS run out of pitch for higher airspeeds=2C compared to a "cruise p
rop!! Maybe your solution is as simple as adjusting your prop's pitch to t
ake a bigger bite at the air. ???
Have you used a digital level and read your airplane's angles compared to
other MkIIIs=2C and the factory recommended settings? (I can show you wha
t I came up with=2C if you need me to.)
There's not a lot of unexplainable reasons why your plane may not be as f
ast as other
MkIIIs. (Actually=2C there aren't ANY unexplainable reasons) Your answer(
s) will be either
A)drag=2C or
B) how your propeller is adjusted to transfer it's power to the air.
Am I forgetting anything?
Just my thoughts......
Mike Welch
MkIII CX
PS. I'm just back from my Alabama/Florida week-long vacation. Sheesh!!!
Between the Kolblist and Aeroelectric---over 200 emails in a week!!! Toug
h to catch up on!
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search=2C chat and e-mail from your inb
ox. Learn more.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?Kolb-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search=2C chat and e-mail from your inbox
.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:O
N:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
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: | slow flying MkIIIs compared to fast flying MkIIIs |
Hi John=2C everyone=2C
I fixed the subject title=2C so that no one gets the wrong impression. T
he "slow flying MkIIIs" were meant to be compared to the "fast flying MkIII
s".
I hope I cleared up the confusion.
Mike Welch
From: jhauck@elmore.rr.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: slow flying MkIII's
Mike:
How about the high thrust line pusher configuration of our Kolbs? especial
ly the heavier models?
How does this affect Kolbs' performance?
How does this affect incidence of wing and horizontal stabilizer?
How does adjustment of flaps and ailerons affect pitch trim?
How's the best way to pitch a ground adjustable prop for optimum
climb and cruise?
john h
mkIII
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Welch
Sent: Thursday=2C June 03=2C 2010 9:17 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: slow flying MkIII's
Jason=2C
Regarding your MkIII flying slower than other MkIIIs=2C I am sure you kno
w it has an "attributable" cause. By that I mean=2C there is a definite=2C
definable=2C specific reason.....not
some nebulous unknown.
For a comparison of one MkIII against another near identical MkIII=2C wit
h virtually the same power input=3B
if someone else's MkIII flies faster than yours=2C then the only other poss
iblities are drag and propeller efficiency.
Your plane may have all kinds of unique differences than someone else's MkI
II=2C and these will undoubtedly cause your plane to perform different (ass
uming the same power input)
A couple of things NOT offered so far are your wing's incidences=2C compa
red to your horizontal stabilizers incidence.
The greater the difference between your main wing's incidences and your t
ailfeathers incidences=2C the more you main wings will "plow" through the a
ir. (meaning---serious drag!!!!)
When I did quite a bit of MkIII incidence research last year=2C I found s
ome significant disparities between some of the MkIII's wings' incidences.
Example=3B one guy "reports" as much as 2.5 degrees difference between hi
s MkIIIX and the other MkIIIXs' wings vs hor stabs. That's a lot!!
Obviously=2C if in fact he is correct about his 2.5 degree difference wit
h the other's angles=2C then his plane will fly VERY different than theirs
will (either faster or slower).
BTW=2C when I say "drag"=2C it can come in the form of MANY ways. Weight
differences will vary drag=2C wing incidences=2C quality of workmanship=2C
etc. All these things=2C and more=2C can affect drag.
Dana was correct when he reported " to double your airspeed=2C it will ta
ke 8 times the power. You can see why John H's experience makes such sense
......from the power of a Rotax 582 to a Rotax 912ULS=2C not a lot of chang
e in airspeed. So=2C the next big question is=3B
How efficient is your propeller at converting that 100HP? A "climb" prop w
ill ALWAYS run out of pitch for higher airspeeds=2C compared to a "cruise p
rop!! Maybe your solution is as simple as adjusting your prop's pitch to t
ake a bigger bite at the air. ???
Have you used a digital level and read your airplane's angles compared to
other MkIIIs=2C and the factory recommended settings? (I can show you wha
t I came up with=2C if you need me to.)
There's not a lot of unexplainable reasons why your plane may not be as f
ast as other
MkIIIs. (Actually=2C there aren't ANY unexplainable reasons) Your answer(
s) will be either
A)drag=2C or
B) how your propeller is adjusted to transfer it's power to the air.
Am I forgetting anything?
Just my thoughts......
Mike Welch
MkIII CX
PS. I'm just back from my Alabama/Florida week-long vacation. Sheesh!!!
Between the Kolblist and Aeroelectric---over 200 emails in a week!!! Toug
h to catch up on!
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search=2C chat and e-mail from your inb
ox. Learn more.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?Kolb-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your
inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:O
N:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
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 |
|
I just got these pins in the mail. Different from what I have on the plane now.
Are they OK to use?
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/hapages/cowlingpins.php
Mark IIIC
SC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299886#299886
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: Cuyuna engine failure |
THAT LOOKS PAINFUL!!! :( :( :( :(
GET WELL :D :D
The 912 would be a little much for the Ultrastar [Shocked]
Thats why Im working on the Generac....
--------
Mark R
Kolb Modified US Cuyuna UL2 60+hrs
Kolb Twinstar,503,12hrs
Phantom, Kaw 440 250hrs
SE-5A UL 3 hrs
Eipper Quick, Chrysler power Bee 8hrs
PA28-140...350hrs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299887#299887
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: slow flying MkIII's |
Mike/Folks:
When we build airplanes in our basements, we end up with a lot of
different airplanes with the same model designation. Ain't no two
alike. Too many variables.
MKIIIs hit a brick wall about 95 mph. At that point additional thrust
is consumed by the power it requires to overcome the high thrust line.
You can't change that unless you go tractor or reposotion thrust line to
the center of mass. Thus, similar cruise and top speed by low to high
powered engines.
Adjustment/tuning of flaps and ailerons has a dramatic affect on pitch.
Nose down adverse pitch is considerable because of the high thrust line.
I wrote about a good method of pitching a ground adjustable prop for
best climb and cruise recently. Wide open throttle (WOT), straight and
level flight, just bump the red line for max continuous rpm. This
produces optimum climb and cruise in a Kolb.
I am anxious to read your flight report of your inflight adjustable
prop.
In fact, I am anxious to hear your flight reports. You will gain a much
better understanding of Kolb aircraft after you actually fly one.
I understand your post.
Not all mkIII's are slow.
I was curious what your response to my questions would be.
There is a lot more to it than props and drag.
No two Kolbs are built identically.
Using my method of pitching the prop, you don't give up climb for
cruise, or cruise for climb. m If you over pitch or under pitch, you
will end up chasing your tail.
Interesting to note:
Using this method to pitch prop on two stroke powered Kolbs, a new two
stroke out of the box with factory tuning and proper expansion chamber
will fly with EGT and CHT in the green, throughout its performance band.
Us old farts that have been flying Kolbs for a while have not been
sitting on our hands all these years. I was 44 years old when I built
and flew my first Kolb aircraft. That 26 years and many experiments and
test ago. We pretty much know what we can expect from our Kolbs.
john h
mkIII
Hi John,
I hope you're healing okay. Sorry to hear about your injuries.
It would be easier to make comments inside your response, so.......
Mike:
How about the high thrust line pusher configuration of our Kolbs?
especially the heavier models?
How does this affect Kolbs' performance?
We're talking about one MkIII against all other MkIIIs, so a high
pusher configuration isn't really in question (I would think).
How does this affect incidence of wing and horizontal stabilizer?
A high thrust line would likely want to push the nose down, I'd
guess. But still, with two Kolb MkIIIs, both with their engines in the
same positions, a high thrust line most likely won't make one perform
different from the other....if all other things were absolutley
identical.
How does adjustment of flaps and ailerons affect pitch trim?
This would be one of those things I was referring to that would
affect drag.
Of course, the adjustment of flaps and ailerons can create
unneccessary
drag, making one MkIII fly slower than another.
How's the best way to pitch a ground adjustable prop for optimum
climb and cruise?
By flight testing it. He could read it's present angle. Re-adjust
it for a steeper pitch. Go try it out. Re-adjust, etc, etc. At some
point, he's going to have to make a decision on the setting he liked the
best. Some MkIII's may climb out like a rocket, but they give up some
faster cruising speeds to do so. Possibly an in-flight adjustable pitch
prop might help in this regard.
Speaking of props;
Back when I was buying my engine (GEO w/ Raven Redrive) he
recommended the Ivo In-flight adjustable. Not having much experience, I
went with his recommendation. Maybe it was a good idea. Maybe not. I
haven't flown with it yet, so I don't know.
I have read lots of reports/opinions about other brands of props.
Most people seem to recommend Warp Drive.
I have also heard that props in the "Less than 200 mph" range don't
really need to be adjustable. Maybe so.
I suppose if I were shopping for a prop today, maybe I'd choose
another brand. Too late, tho, I already have one. Not enough money to
make the change.
John,
Were you possibly misunderstanding my response to Jason? Did you
think I meant ALL MkIIIs were slow? If this is what you thought, you
misunderstood me. I think MkIIIs (all models) fly just fine!!!! 75 mph
to 80 mph cruise is pretty darn good in my book!!!!
I was simply making the observation that there are very few reasons
why one virtually identical plane doesn't fly exactly like another.
Usually, these reasons are not too hard to figure out, either. Drag,
or prop efficiency. Not too many reasons for two identical planes to
not fly the same.
Hope you heal quickly!
Mike Welch
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Welch
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:17 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: slow flying MkIII's
Jason,
Regarding your MkIII flying slower than other MkIIIs, I am sure
you know it has an "attributable" cause. By that I mean, there is a
definite, definable, specific reason.....not
some nebulous unknown.
For a comparison of one MkIII against another near identical
MkIII, with virtually the same power input;
if someone else's MkIII flies faster than yours, then the only other
possiblities are drag and propeller efficiency.
Your plane may have all kinds of unique differences than someone
else's MkIII, and these will undoubtedly cause your plane to perform
different (assuming the same power input)
A couple of things NOT offered so far are your wing's incidences,
compared to your horizontal stabilizers incidence.
The greater the difference between your main wing's incidences and
your tailfeathers incidences, the more you main wings will "plow"
through the air. (meaning---serious drag!!!!)
When I did quite a bit of MkIII incidence research last year, I
found some significant disparities between some of the MkIII's wings'
incidences. Example; one guy "reports" as much as 2.5 degrees
difference between his MkIIIX and the other MkIIIXs' wings vs hor stabs.
That's a lot!!
Obviously, if in fact he is correct about his 2.5 degree
difference with the other's angles, then his plane will fly VERY
different than theirs will (either faster or slower).
BTW, when I say "drag", it can come in the form of MANY ways.
Weight differences will vary drag, wing incidences, quality of
workmanship, etc. All these things, and more, can affect drag.
Dana was correct when he reported " to double your airspeed, it
will take 8 times the power. You can see why John H's experience makes
such sense......from the power of a Rotax 582 to a Rotax 912ULS, not a
lot of change in airspeed. So, the next big question is;
How efficient is your propeller at converting that 100HP? A "climb"
prop will ALWAYS run out of pitch for higher airspeeds, compared to a
"cruise prop!! Maybe your solution is as simple as adjusting your
prop's pitch to take a bigger bite at the air. ???
Have you used a digital level and read your airplane's angles
compared to other MkIIIs, and the factory recommended settings? (I can
show you what I came up with, if you need me to.)
There's not a lot of unexplainable reasons why your plane may not
be as fast as other
MkIIIs. (Actually, there aren't ANY unexplainable reasons) Your
answer(s) will be either
A)drag, or
B) how your propeller is adjusted to transfer it's power to the air.
Am I forgetting anything?
Just my thoughts......
Mike Welch
MkIII CX
PS. I'm just back from my Alabama/Florida week-long vacation.
Sheesh!!! Between the Kolblist and Aeroelectric---over 200 emails in a
week!!! Tough to catch up on!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from
your inbox. Learn more.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
ronics.com
ww.matronics.com/contribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your
inbox. Get started.
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: | slow flying MkIII's |
John=2C
Mike/Folks:
When we build airplanes in our basements=2C we end up with a lot of differe
nt airplanes with the same model designation. Ain't no two alike. Too man
y variables.
Yep!
MKIIIs hit a brick wall about 95 mph. At that point additional thrust is c
onsumed by the power it requires to overcome the high thrust line. You can
't change that unless you go tractor or reposotion thrust line to the cente
r of mass. Thus=2C similar cruise and top speed by low to high powered eng
ines.
Ah=2C but then we're not talking about Kolb MkIIIs=2C anymore. No fair cha
nging the subject.
Adjustment/tuning of flaps and ailerons has a dramatic affect on pitch. No
se down adverse pitch is considerable because of the high thrust line.
All forms of drag.
I wrote about a good method of pitching a ground adjustable prop for best c
limb and cruise recently. Wide open throttle (WOT)=2C straight and level f
light=2C just bump the red line for max continuous rpm. This produces opti
mum climb and cruise in a Kolb.
I think Jason might benefit from this method. It may give him that extra s
peed he's looking for.
I am anxious to read your flight report of your inflight adjustable prop.
Yeah=2C you and me both!! Being just a builder lost it's luster long ago.
In fact=2C I am anxious to hear your flight reports. You will gain a much
better understanding of Kolb aircraft after you actually fly one.
Understatement.
I understand your post.
Good. I hate to be misunderstood.
Not all mkIII's are slow.
Obviously NOT!
I was curious what your response to my questions would be.
Hard to be totally accurate via email. No personal input. Sometimes you c
an't get a clarification before you have to respond.
There is a lot more to it than props and drag.
Nope=2C props and drag. That's all. All the particular things you mention
ed
are to affect props and drag (when talking about two identical airplanes)
Since the subject is=3B ALL mKIIIs flying compared to Jason's MkIII=2C unle
ss some goofball has changed his MkIII radically (Heads up=2C looking aroun
d)=2C they should all fly the same=2C or very close to the same. If one Mk
III flies radically different=2C then the answer will be found in prop effi
ciency (which can be simply adjustment) or reducing drag. And drag comes
in the form of a million ways......workmanship=2C adjustments=2C engine fa
irings=2C incidences=2C parasitic drag=2C on and on.........drag.
No two Kolbs are built identically.
Neither are women. Men=2C however=2C are all the same. Am I right=2C ladi
es?
Using my method of pitching the prop=2C you don't give up climb for cruise
=2C or cruise for climb. If you over pitch or under pitch=2C you will end
up chasing your tail. ( I think this is what Jason should check on)
I think what you are describing is "an optimum pitched prop". I think Jaso
n may not have his prop pitched this way. That's what I was talking about.
Interesting to note:
Using this method to pitch prop on two stroke powered Kolbs=2C a new two s
troke out of the box with factory tuning and proper expansion chamber will
fly with EGT and CHT in the green=2C throughout its performance band.
Us old farts that have been flying Kolbs for a while have not been sitting
on our hands all these years. I was 44 years old when I built and flew my
first Kolb aircraft. That 26 years and many experiments and test ago. We
pretty much know what we can expect from our Kolbs.
Can't argue with experience....unless you're a fool. :-) Mike
john h
mkIII
Hi John=2C
I hope you're healing okay. Sorry to hear about your injuries.
It would be easier to make comments inside your response=2C so.......
Mike:
How about the high thrust line pusher configuration of our Kolbs? especial
ly the heavier models?
How does this affect Kolbs' performance?
We're talking about one MkIII against all other MkIIIs=2C so a high pusher
configuration isn't really in question (I would think).
How does this affect incidence of wing and horizontal stabilizer?
A high thrust line would likely want to push the nose down=2C I'd guess.
But still=2C with two Kolb MkIIIs=2C both with their engines in the same p
ositions=2C a high thrust line most likely won't make one perform different
from the other....if all other things were absolutley identical.
How does adjustment of flaps and ailerons affect pitch trim?
This would be one of those things I was referring to that would affect dr
ag.
Of course=2C the adjustment of flaps and ailerons can create unneccessary
drag=2C making one MkIII fly slower than another.
How's the best way to pitch a ground adjustable prop for optimum
climb and cruise?
By flight testing it. He could read it's present angle. Re-adjust it fo
r a steeper pitch. Go try it out. Re-adjust=2C etc=2C etc. At some point
=2C he's going to have to make a decision on the setting he liked the best.
Some MkIII's may climb out like a rocket=2C but they give up some faster
cruising speeds to do so. Possibly an in-flight adjustable pitch prop migh
t help in this regard.
Speaking of props=3B
Back when I was buying my engine (GEO w/ Raven Redrive) he recommended th
e Ivo In-flight adjustable. Not having much experience=2C I went with his
recommendation. Maybe it was a good idea. Maybe not. I haven't flown wit
h it yet=2C so I don't know.
I have read lots of reports/opinions about other brands of props. Most p
eople seem to recommend Warp Drive.
I have also heard that props in the "Less than 200 mph" range don't reall
y need to be adjustable. Maybe so.
I suppose if I were shopping for a prop today=2C maybe I'd choose another
brand. Too late=2C tho=2C I already have one. Not enough money to make t
he change.
John=2C
Were you possibly misunderstanding my response to Jason? Did you think I
meant ALL MkIIIs were slow? If this is what you thought=2C you misunderst
ood me. I think MkIIIs (all models) fly just fine!!!! 75 mph to 80 mph cr
uise is pretty darn good in my book!!!!
I was simply making the observation that there are very few reasons why o
ne virtually identical plane doesn't fly exactly like another.
Usually=2C these reasons are not too hard to figure out=2C either. Drag=2C
or prop efficiency. Not too many reasons for two identical planes to not
fly the same.
Hope you heal quickly!
Mike Welch
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Welch
Sent: Thursday=2C June 03=2C 2010 9:17 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: slow flying MkIII's
Jason=2C
Regarding your MkIII flying slower than other MkIIIs=2C I am sure you kno
w it has an "attributable" cause. By that I mean=2C there is a definite=2C
definable=2C specific reason.....not
some nebulous unknown.
For a comparison of one MkIII against another near identical MkIII=2C wit
h virtually the same power input=3B
if someone else's MkIII flies faster than yours=2C then the only other poss
iblities are drag and propeller efficiency.
Your plane may have all kinds of unique differences than someone else's MkI
II=2C and these will undoubtedly cause your plane to perform different (ass
uming the same power input)
A couple of things NOT offered so far are your wing's incidences=2C compa
red to your horizontal stabilizers incidence.
The greater the difference between your main wing's incidences and your t
ailfeathers incidences=2C the more you main wings will "plow" through the a
ir. (meaning---serious drag!!!!)
When I did quite a bit of MkIII incidence research last year=2C I found s
ome significant disparities between some of the MkIII's wings' incidences.
Example=3B one guy "reports" as much as 2.5 degrees difference between hi
s MkIIIX and the other MkIIIXs' wings vs hor stabs. That's a lot!!
Obviously=2C if in fact he is correct about his 2.5 degree difference wit
h the other's angles=2C then his plane will fly VERY different than theirs
will (either faster or slower).
BTW=2C when I say "drag"=2C it can come in the form of MANY ways. Weight
differences will vary drag=2C wing incidences=2C quality of workmanship=2C
etc. All these things=2C and more=2C can affect drag.
Dana was correct when he reported " to double your airspeed=2C it will ta
ke 8 times the power. You can see why John H's experience makes such sense
......from the power of a Rotax 582 to a Rotax 912ULS=2C not a lot of chang
e in airspeed. So=2C the next big question is=3B
How efficient is your propeller at converting that 100HP? A "climb" prop w
ill ALWAYS run out of pitch for higher airspeeds=2C compared to a "cruise p
rop!! Maybe your solution is as simple as adjusting your prop's pitch to t
ake a bigger bite at the air. ???
Have you used a digital level and read your airplane's angles compared to
other MkIIIs=2C and the factory recommended settings? (I can show you wha
t I came up with=2C if you need me to.)
There's not a lot of unexplainable reasons why your plane may not be as f
ast as other
MkIIIs. (Actually=2C there aren't ANY unexplainable reasons) Your answer(
s) will be either
A)drag=2C or
B) how your propeller is adjusted to transfer it's power to the air.
Am I forgetting anything?
Just my thoughts......
Mike Welch
MkIII CX
PS. I'm just back from my Alabama/Florida week-long vacation. Sheesh!!!
Between the Kolblist and Aeroelectric---over 200 emails in a week!!! Toug
h to catch up on!
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search=2C chat and e-mail from your inb
ox. Learn more.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?Kolb-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
ronics.com
ww.matronics.com/contribution
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search=2C chat and e-mail from your inbox
. Get started.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?Kolb-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hot
mail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=P
ID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
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 |
|
That`s the same kind I have been using for the last ten years. So far
so good. FSII N598LF
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: slow flying MkIII's |
Hello John,
What I read you as saying is your engine never will see the 5800 Max RPM (max for
5 min) under normal conditions (only if you are descending). The max RPM you
would ever see would be 5500 RPM and that would be at WOT in level flight.
Jason
[quote="John Hauck"]
I wrote about a good method of pitching a ground adjustable prop for best climb
and cruise recently. Wide open throttle (WOT), straight and level flight,
just bump the red line for max continuous rpm. This produces optimum climb
and cruise in a Kolb.
[quote]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299909#299909
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Thanks Lanny!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299916#299916
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: Anyone going to Oshkosh? |
At this point I'm planning to fly to Oshkosh again this year.
Check out George Alexander's web site. He has a bunch of photos and
descriptions on just about every different trailer stile made for out Kolbs.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:02 AM, dutrac <dlrans@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just thought I would check around and see who all was planning to go to
> Oshkosh this year. It seems like it should be a long way off, but actually
> it is already less than 2 months away.
>
> I'm kicking around the idea of taking my MKII along if I can come up with a
> trailer of some sort. I thought about building one out of a boat trailer,
> but we'll have to see how that goes. No doubt some of you have trailered or
> flew in. How did that go? I would be interested to know your experiences in
> doing so.
>
> Any thoughts on a good trailer design?
>
> Duane
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299690#299690
>
>
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: slow flying MkIII's |
Just to add to the little discussion on Mark IIIC speeds and their different speeds.
First thing that I wonder about is rear cage covering. Is it a reasonable assumption
that the faster machines may have the fuselage covered ala Ms P'fer. Does
this help reduce drag and provide cleaner are for the prop to bite on?
My personal opinion based on my experience we will never know what makes one Kolb
model faster than another. To explain.... Some of you might know that I bent
my Kolb headed to MV in 2004. Landed in short hayfield because of dumb pilot
decision making.
Took the opportunity to make modifications that would make her a real XC machine.
Increased fuel capacity from 14 gallons to 22 gallons. Made my own landing
gear and put on the 8.50 x 6.0 tires. Trying to imitate success. The only
other thing I did was make some new tube and fiberglass seats which ended up being
lighter weight than my first attempt.
Eventually put all back together and much too my surprise, the plane flew more
than 10 mph faster. Same engine, same prop/pitch setting. Mike B talked about
a sweet spot at a certain rpm. Prior to the mods, my sweetspot was 4800 rpm
and about 62 mph. After the rebuild, the sweetspot shifted to 5100 rpm and
75 mph. I can't keep up with dem 100 hp 912's but I'm close and don't have to
use as much or as expensive premium gas.
Just one more change that has to do with the fabric covered fueslage. First build
was one continuous piece. This caused fabric drumming which may have increased
the vibration, drag, and dirty air to prop. Second covering after mods,
I used John Williamson's method of individual pieces rolled up to next joint
and start new section with overlap to next tube.
The only other possibility is that when I hit the ground hard, I knocked the plane
"into" trim???? Lucky I didn't break a leg or hand or worse [Twisted Evil]
!!!
Fly 'em. A few mph ain't nothing but about 5 minutes on a 150 mile XC leg!!!
--------
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=299936#299936
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: slow flying MkIII's |
> What I read you as saying is your engine never will see the 5800 Max RPM
(max for 5 min) under normal conditions (only if you are descending). The
max RPM you would ever see would be 5500 RPM and that would be at WOT in
level flight.
>
> Jason
>
> [quote="John Hauck"]
> I wrote about a good method of pitching a ground adjustable prop for best
> climb and cruise recently. Wide open throttle (WOT), straight and level
> flight, just bump the red line for max continuous rpm. This produces
> optimum climb and cruise in a Kolb.
> [quote]
Jason/Ya'll:
That is correct.
With ground adjustable prop I pitch for max continuous rpm which is 5,500
for both 912UL and 912ULS.
The 912UL and ULS can be operated continuously at WOT as long as it does not
exceed 5,500 rpm.
I am not concerned with max power for 5 minutes unless I have an in-flight
adjustable prop.
I have to settle for 95 hp instead of 100. Never know the difference.
Climb is exhilarating.
I never descend WOT, usually cruise power of 5,000, and normally do not
exceed 5,500.
john h
mkIII
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: slow flying MkIII's |
I think that aft covering makes some difference. We need some responses from fast
Kolbs (MkIIIs) that manage to
do without. Personally, considering the kind of flying I do, a change would be
a waste of effort.
BB, lots of pipes in the breeze.
On 3, Jun 2010, at 6:53 PM, John Bickham wrote:
>
> Just to add to the little discussion on Mark IIIC speeds and their different
speeds.
>
> First thing that I wonder about is rear cage covering. Is it a reasonable assumption
that the faster machines may have the fuselage covered ala Ms P'fer.
Does this help reduce drag and provide cleaner are for the prop to bite on?
>
> My personal opinion based on my experience we will never know what makes one
Kolb model faster than another. To explain.... Some of you might know that I
bent my Kolb headed to MV in 2004. Landed in short hayfield because of dumb
pilot decision making.
>
> Took the opportunity to make modifications that would make her a real XC machine.
Increased fuel capacity from 14 gallons to 22 gallons. Made my own landing
gear and put on the 8.50 x 6.0 tires. Trying to imitate success. The only
other thing I did was make some new tube and fiberglass seats which ended up
being lighter weight than my first attempt.
>
> Eventually put all back together and much too my surprise, the plane flew more
than 10 mph faster. Same engine, same prop/pitch setting. Mike B talked about
a sweet spot at a certain rpm. Prior to the mods, my sweetspot was 4800 rpm
and about 62 mph. After the rebuild, the sweetspot shifted to 5100 rpm and
75 mph. I can't keep up with dem 100 hp 912's but I'm close and don't have
to use as much or as expensive premium gas.
>
> Just one more change that has to do with the fabric covered fueslage. First
build was one continuous piece. This caused fabric drumming which may have increased
the vibration, drag, and dirty air to prop. Second covering after mods,
I used John Williamson's method of individual pieces rolled up to next joint
and start new section with overlap to next tube.
>
> The only other possibility is that when I hit the ground hard, I knocked the
plane "into" trim???? Lucky I didn't break a leg or hand or worse [Twisted Evil]
!!!
>
> Fly 'em. A few mph ain't nothing but about 5 minutes on a 150 mile XC leg!!!
>
> --------
> 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=299936#299936
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Anyone going to Oshkosh? |
Duane,My wfe and muyself will be there we hope to make the opening night "
Chicago"how and will be there 4or 5 nights campd in the Handicaped section
of CampScollar please excuse my-spelling!=0A---- On your other qu
estion . I built a trailer out of an old tandem axle Boat trailer using 1/2
inch steel hoops and =0Aboat shrink wrap I used lesser springs and shock a
bsorbers as the 20 foot boat trailer was designed for- over 4000 lbs and
my KXP weighed less than 500lbs including my tool box , fuel, stands etc bu
t it worked for 5 years for me and the guy that bought it and towed it 1100
miles back-to Mich.- hope this helps. chrisChris Davis=0AKXP 503 492 h
rs=0AGlider Pilot=0ADisabled from crash building Firefly =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A___
_____________________________=0AFrom: Richard Neilsen <neilsenrm@gmail.com>
=0ATo: kolb-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Thu, June 3, 2010 5:24:28 PM=0ASubje
ct: Re: Kolb-List: Anyone going to Oshkosh?=0A=0A=0AAt this point I'm plann
ing to fly to Oshkosh again this year. =0A=0ACheck out George Alexander's w
eb site. He has a bunch of photos and descriptions on just about every diff
erent trailer stile made for out Kolbs.=0A=0ARick Neilsen=0ARedrive VW Powe
red MKIIIC-=0A=0AOn Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:02 AM, dutrac <dlrans@gmail.co
=0A>=0A>Just thought I would check around and see who all was planning to g
o to Oshkosh this year. It seems like it should be a long way off, but actu
ally it is already less than 2 months away.=0A>=0A>I'm kicking around the i
dea of taking my MKII along if I can come up with a trailer of some sort. I
thought about building one out of a boat trailer, but we'll have to see ho
w that goes. No doubt some of you have trailered or flew in. How did that g
o? I would be interested to know your experiences in doing so.=0A>=0A>Any t
houghts on a good trailer design?=0A>=0A>Duane=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Read this
topic online here:=0A>=0A>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=29
9690#299690=0A>t Un/Subscription,=0A>www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List=0A>ronics.c
om/" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com=0A>Matt Dralle, List Adm
=======================
=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
You might also consider using stainless steel safety rings. I've been using them
for 23 years. I got mine from a marine dealer. They are great for folding up
the plane, because they are easy to put on and take off. Be careful on using
those clip types as they can "unclip" if they are used close to the ground where
grass can catch on them.
Ralph
--------
Ralph B
Original Firestar 447
N91493 E-AB
1000 hours
23 years flying it
Kolbra 912UL
N20386
2 years flying it
120 hrs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=299962#299962
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! --
|