Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:12 AM - Re: Postmortem - List Melt Down Thursday 01/12/12... (Eugene Zimmerman)
2. 08:18 AM - Re: Postmortem - List Melt Down Thursday 01/12/12... (Richard Girard)
3. 09:17 AM - Re: email test (Arksey@aol.com)
4. 09:23 AM - Re: Re: email test (william sullivan)
5. 12:33 PM - Re: Mk III max takeoff weight (Watkinsdw)
6. 02:20 PM - Re: Re: Mk III max takeoff weight (Richard Girard)
7. 03:23 PM - Re: Kolb list Malware ? (russ kinne)
8. 09:00 PM - Re: Re: Mk III max takeoff weight (Rick Neilsen)
9. 09:44 PM - Re: Re: Mk III max takeoff weight (John Hauck)
10. 11:36 PM - He assumed I knew what I was doing... (henry.voris)
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: Postmortem - List Melt Down Thursday 01/12/12... |
Matt,
Thank you for the Kolb list fix.
Keep up the good work. It is much appreciated.
Gene Z
On Jan 12, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>
> Dear listers,
>
> My apologies. I thought that I had caught the auto-responder from "ctura(at)politecnica.it"
first thing this morning and had unsubscribed the email address
from the List. I wasn't seeing anymore posts coming in my email throughout
the morning and felt proud of myself for having caught the outbreak early.
>
> Then about 5pm I thought it seemed kind of strange that I hadn't been getting
my normal amount of List mail from the Kolb and other lists throughout the day.
I went back and looked at my logs and realized that I had removed *MY* email
address from all the lists instead of ctura(at)politecnica.it"! What a dork!
Hey, I've had the flu all week!
>
> Anyway, I've removed the correct address from the List and have gone back and
cleaned all of the archives, digest, listbrowse and web forums of all the bogus
email so, other than your respective email boxes, things should be back to
"normal".
>
> What was going on is that the email address "ctura(at)politecnica.it" was subscribed
to the Kolb-List, but the account had been closed early this morning.
Every time a post was made to the Kolb-List, the auto responder at politecnica.it
would send another email back to the list saying the account was closed.
Then the auto-responder would see its own message coming back from the List and
dutifully send another response. Every time someone posted another message
to the list with "STOP ALL THESE MESSAGES" (or whatever), it would start another
thread of responses from the auto-responder, exponentially increasing the
number of messages being forwarded and send. This would go on until, I guess,
the world exploded. The Mayans were right, the end of the world did arrive in
2012. 327 email messages was all it took to knock the earth off its axis...
<smirk> "politecnica.it"'s auto-responder is broken; it should only send a single
copy of "this user doesn't exist" to a given so!
> urce email address. Had it functioned this way, there would have been only one
message to the List and people would have mostly not noticed.
>
> Sorry for the hassle.
>
> Matt Dralle
> Matronics Email List Admin
>
>
>
> Matt G Dralle | Matronics | 581 Jeannie Way | Livermore | CA | 94550
> 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
> http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Postmortem - List Melt Down Thursday 01/12/12... |
Only a minor annoyance, thanks for taking care of it. Hope you get to
feeling better soon.
Rick Girard
do not archive
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear listers,
>
> My apologies. I thought that I had caught the auto-responder from
> "ctura(at)politecnica.it" first thing this morning and had unsubscribed
> the email address from the List. I wasn't seeing anymore posts coming in
> my email throughout the morning and felt proud of myself for having caught
> the outbreak early.
>
> Then about 5pm I thought it seemed kind of strange that I hadn't been
> getting my normal amount of List mail from the Kolb and other lists
> throughout the day. I went back and looked at my logs and realized that I
> had removed *MY* email address from all the lists instead of ctura(at)
> politecnica.it"! What a dork! Hey, I've had the flu all week!
>
> Anyway, I've removed the correct address from the List and have gone back
> and cleaned all of the archives, digest, listbrowse and web forums of all
> the bogus email so, other than your respective email boxes, things should
> be back to "normal".
>
> What was going on is that the email address "ctura(at)politecnica.it" was
> subscribed to the Kolb-List, but the account had been closed early this
> morning. Every time a post was made to the Kolb-List, the auto responder
> at politecnica.it would send another email back to the list saying the
> account was closed. Then the auto-responder would see its own message
> coming back from the List and dutifully send another response. Every time
> someone posted another message to the list with "STOP ALL THESE MESSAGES"
> (or whatever), it would start another thread of responses from the
> auto-responder, exponentially increasing the number of messages being
> forwarded and send. This would go on until, I guess, the world exploded.
> The Mayans were right, the end of the world did arrive in 2012. 327 email
> messages was all it took to knock the earth off its axis... <smirk> "
> politecnica.it"'s auto-responder is broken; it should only send a single
> copy of "this user doesn't exist" to a given so!
> urce email address. Had it functioned this way, there would have been
> only one message to the List and people would have mostly not noticed.
>
> Sorry for the hassle.
>
> Matt Dralle
> Matronics Email List Admin
>
>
> Matt G Dralle | Matronics | 581 Jeannie Way | Livermore | CA | 94550
> 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
> http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
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 |
|
testing to see if Kolb list is working.....jim
Jim Swan Kolb Firestar ll, 503 Rotax , 6147 Wilcox Rd., Eaton Rapids, Mi
48827 ph 517-663-8488 GPS GPS FOR MY RUNWAY N 42 deg 28.581 W084deg 44.825
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: email test |
- It works.
--- On Fri, 1/13/12, Arksey@aol.com <Arksey@aol.com> wrote:
From: Arksey@aol.com <Arksey@aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: email test
=0A=0A =0A =0A=0Atesting to see if Kolb list is working.....jim =0A-=0AJi
m Swan Kolb =0AFirestar ll, 503 Rotax , 6147 Wilcox Rd., Eaton Rapids, Mi 4
8827 ph 517-663-8488 =0AGPS GPS FOR MY RUNWAY N 42 deg 28.581 W084deg =0A44
===================0A=0A
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mk III max takeoff weight |
OK, this something I've been wondering about.
My Mk IIIC has gross weight listed in the log book and the ID plate as 1050.
Eventually, I'd like to add an amphib system. Empty weight is 590 lbs., and a Full
Lotus system plus 10 to 15 gallons of fuel starts to add up fast.
I weigh in at about 195. I think the 912S will handle a bit more, but wonder how
to avoid making a really expensive single place Kolb.
(My wife would kinda like to come along...)
How do I increase the official GW? Any other suggestions on this fantasy?
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363639#363639
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mk III max takeoff weight |
Dave, I actually asked this very question of my local FAA guy at the FSDO.
The answer is pretty simple, you redo all your testing at the new gross
weight, make a logbook entry to that effect and you're done.
Rick Girard
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Watkinsdw <david.watkins0@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK, this something I've been wondering about.
> My Mk IIIC has gross weight listed in the log book and the ID plate as
> 1050.
> Eventually, I'd like to add an amphib system. Empty weight is 590 lbs.,
> and a Full Lotus system plus 10 to 15 gallons of fuel starts to add up fast.
> I weigh in at about 195. I think the 912S will handle a bit more, but
> wonder how to avoid making a really expensive single place Kolb.
> (My wife would kinda like to come along...)
> How do I increase the official GW? Any other suggestions on this fantasy?
> Dave
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363639#363639
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
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: Kolb list Malware ? |
Ron
I have the same problem, apparently stopped for now. Dunno what it is.
Russ K
On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:35 PM, Ron @ KFHU wrote:
>
>
> ---- John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ============
>
> Block him.
> He also gave in his auto reply his new email, to which I told him to delete his
email address,
>
>
> Ron & KFHU
> ==============
>
>
> Gene Z/Kolbers:
>
> First thing I did when I started getting the emails was forward a copy to
> Matt. No reply from him, so sent the second msg. Still no contact with
> Matt.
>
> Darn things are eating up my email service.
>
> john h
> mkIII
> Titus, Alabama
>
>
>
> From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eugene Zimmerman
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:00 PM
> To: Kolb list; Matt Dralle
> Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb list Malware ?
>
> Today I'm getting hundreds of messages from
>
> From:
> ctura@politecnica.it
> Subject:
> [Autoreply] Re: Re: Kolb-List:
>
>
> --------.
> Anyone else have this problem?
>
>
> Matt,
>
> I'm forwarding several of them to you directly including full headers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> kugelair.com
>
>
>
>
>
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: Mk III max takeoff weight |
Dave
You have done well to keep the empty weight down to 590. I understand you
want to increase the gross weight. Engine power isn't the limiting factor
and the FAA isn't either. The important part is the air frame. The factory
publishes the gross weight as 1000lbs. They do allow some margin extra and
I for one have increased my MKIIIC to1050lbs. I also make a point of flying
only in smooth air when near the 1050lbs. limit. At least one of our group
has registered and flown at 1200lbs but he did beef up the wings to be able
to safely do this. Does your plane have all those modifications? That pilot
is also the test pilot on that plane every time he flies at those weights.
Do you KNOW what is the limit is in your plane? Do you want to test this
with your wife on board? Do you have a ballistic chute? What is the cost of
a air frame failure?
Food for thought.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Richard Girard <aslsa.rng@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dave, I actually asked this very question of my local FAA guy at the FSDO.
> The answer is pretty simple, you redo all your testing at the new gross
> weight, make a logbook entry to that effect and you're done.
>
> Rick Girard
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Watkinsdw <david.watkins0@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> OK, this something I've been wondering about.
>> My Mk IIIC has gross weight listed in the log book and the ID plate as
>> 1050.
>> Eventually, I'd like to add an amphib system. Empty weight is 590 lbs.,
>> and a Full Lotus system plus 10 to 15 gallons of fuel starts to add up fast.
>> I weigh in at about 195. I think the 912S will handle a bit more, but
>> wonder how to avoid making a really expensive single place Kolb.
>> (My wife would kinda like to come along...)
>> How do I increase the official GW? Any other suggestions on this fantasy?
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363639#363639
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Zulu Delta
> Mk IIIC
> Thanks, Homer GBYM
>
> It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
> - Groucho Marx
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mk III max takeoff weight |
At least one of our group has registered and flown at 1200lbs but he did
beef up the wings to be able to safely do this. Does your plane have all
those modifications? That pilot is also the test pilot on that plane every
time he flies atthoseweights.
Rick Neilsen
Rick N/Kolbers:
If that test pilot makes it until 15 March 2012, he will have flown more
than a quarter million miles and 3,100.0 plus hours during the past 20
years. Almost 2,000.0 hours and 160,000 miles of that cross country, at or
close to max gross weight of 1,200 lbs.
He may be out of the test phase by now.
The old MKIII still has a ways to go to catch his 1992 Dodge/Cummins with
388,000 plus miles and 6,500.0+ hours in 20 years.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | He assumed I knew what I was doing... |
13jan12
Gentlemen,
My pal Lance asked, So Do you wanna put the big piston in the front or the rear?
I assumed he was kidding He assumed I knew what I was doing A train-wreck of assumptions.
Deliberating shortly, we figured the larger piston would run hotter
and should live closest to the fan.
After a couple of hours of swearing, doing-it-again, and fumbling around we got
the thundering 447 back together Im sure we got most of those dang needle bearings
back in the wristpins
Back on the plane, the engine fired right up and ran strong But the cylinder closest
to the PTO (#2) was running a bit hotter than the cylinder closest to the
alternator (#1). At 5,000 RPM and above, the temperature difference (both CHT
and EGT) exceeded the difference allowed by the factory (36 CHT and 45 EGT).
I have attached a spreadsheet that reflects the temperatures at different RPMs.
I got back to Lance and he said that he had not been kidding about two sizes of
pistons I was sick.
Purchased a dandy little bore-scope from Aircraft Spruce and with more swearing
and fumbling about I could see what I have (done)
Cylinder #1, Closest to the alternator, 67.46, green dot
Cylinder #2, Closest to the PTO, 67.45, red dot
Cylinder #2 is hotter that shoots my theory about the bigger piston running hotter
Also the top of piston #2 has accumulated a coating of carbon in only 5 hours of
operation, while piston #1 is much cleaner. (Photos attached) I have run only
AV-2 two-stroke oil in an effort to minimize carbon build up Im somewhat disappointed.
In reviewing the spreadsheet It appears that each piston is operating within the
temperature limits set by the factory for operation. The problem is the temperature
difference between cylinder #1 and #2.
Before installing the digital engine monitor, I only knew the temperatures on one
cylinder I would have never have seen this problem and would probably be having
a great time out flying, right now.
When Rotax sets limits for the difference of temperature allowable between cylinders,
Im pretty sure they are figuring on both pistons being the same size (Krauts
are like that) A larger than normal temperature difference in an engine
with matching pistons could indicate a problem However, in an engine with different
sized pistons, perhaps this temperature difference should simply be expected.
Comments?
--------
Henry
Firefly Five-Charlie-Bravo
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363707#363707
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cht_egt_run_13jan12_269.xls
http://forums.matronics.com//files/piston_2_pto_6745_red_dot_188.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/piston_1_alt_6746_green_dot_459.jpg
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! --
|