Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:20 AM - Re: Re: Mk III max takeoff weight (Pat Ladd)
2. 05:35 AM - Re: Mk III max takeoff weight (Watkinsdw)
3. 05:52 AM - Re: Re: Mk III max takeoff weight (Michael Welch)
4. 05:52 AM - Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... (John Hauck)
5. 06:20 AM - Re: Re: Mk III max takeoff weight (John Hauck)
6. 06:26 AM - Re: Re: Mk III max takeoff weight (Dana Hague)
7. 06:52 AM - Warp Drive prop (william sullivan)
8. 07:05 AM - Re: Re: Mk III max takeoff weight (Rick Neilsen)
9. 07:05 AM - Re: Re: Mk III max takeoff weight (Herb Gayheart)
10. 07:37 AM - Re: Re: Mk III max takeoff weight (Dana Hague)
11. 08:59 AM - Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... (Ducati SS)
12. 09:32 AM - Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... (Beauford)
13. 09:37 AM - Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... (Richard Girard)
14. 09:42 AM - Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... (Richard Girard)
15. 10:04 AM - Re: Re: Mk III max takeoff weight (Richard Girard)
16. 10:04 AM - Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... (Ron @ KFHU)
17. 10:07 AM - Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... (Dana Hague)
18. 10:11 AM - Re: Re: Mk III max takeoff weight (Ron @ KFHU)
19. 10:14 AM - Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... (b young)
20. 10:20 AM - Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... (b young)
21. 10:22 AM - Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... (Ducati SS)
22. 10:38 AM - Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... (Herb Gayheart)
23. 03:28 PM - Re: Warp Drive prop (Ellery Batchelder Jr)
24. 03:39 PM - Rotax provision (Ozarkflyer)
25. 04:27 PM - Re: Rotax provision (Richard Girard)
26. 04:51 PM - Testing gross weight (Richard Girard)
27. 05:01 PM - Re: Rotax provision (Ozarkflyer)
28. 05:34 PM - Re: Re: Rotax provision (Herb Gayheart)
29. 05:47 PM - Re: Warp Drive prop (Herb Gayheart)
30. 07:30 PM - changes in EAA? (Malcolm Brubaker)
31. 07:41 PM - Re: Warp Drive prop (Richard Girard)
32. 07:49 PM - Re: Warp Drive prop (Ellery Batchelder Jr)
33. 07:55 PM - Re: Re: Rotax provision (Richard Girard)
34. 10:50 PM - Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... (henry.voris)
35. 11:31 PM - Re: Warp Drive prop (Bob)
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: Mk III max takeoff weight |
but wonder how to avoid making a really expensive single place Kolb.
(My wife would kinda like to come along...)
Looks as if you are planning a really expensive one place, or maybe two
place grave.
You will need a lot of beefing up backed up by a lot of knowledge. Never
mind the legality think of airframe stresses.
Pat
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: Mk III max takeoff weight |
Thanks, guys,
I'd be interested in knowing what airframe changes would make it safer.
I've see Mk III's at S&F with floats, and would like to be able to take advantage
of all the lakes and rivers in S. FL.
Maybe Bryan is my best source for technical advice on this.
I do have a BRS and would like to keep the wife. We're going on 25 years, and I'm
almost off probation!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363716#363716
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: Mk III max takeoff weight |
Dave,
I've passed the 40 year mark, and I'm pretty sure you never get off probation.
Mike Welch
On Jan 14, 2012, at 7:33 AM, Watkinsdw wrote:
>
> Thanks, guys,
> I'd be interested in knowing what airframe changes would make it safer.
> I've see Mk III's at S&F with floats, and would like to be able to take advantage
of all the lakes and rivers in S. FL.
> Maybe Bryan is my best source for technical advice on this.
> I do have a BRS and would like to keep the wife. We're going on 25 years, and
I'm almost off probation!
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363716#363716
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | He assumed I knew what I was doing... |
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
Henry V/Kolbers:
This is the difference in size between your two pistons:
0.0004 inch
I doubt 4/10,000 inch will make a whole lot of difference. The 447 is not a watch.
Austrian standards are not that tight on 447 engines. Most of the temp
difference is probably difference in port size and shape, and other differences
in air and fuel flow. They don't do a good job of matching them with the cast
iron sleeves.
What are the difference in size of bore of the cylinders? Are they within 4/10,000
inch?
How accurate and repeatable is your instrumentation? I've seen Kolbers ruin their
flying experience because they couldn't get a couple of Westach gauges to
agree. Spent more time trying to get everything to match precisely than getting
out there and having fun flying.
If it was mine, I'd take the warmer temps from the hotter cyl for operating limits,
fly and enjoy.
I was told by an old time engine builder, that matched the ports and balanced my
pistons, pins, and rings, on my 447's, "a little carbon is needed on the tops
of the pistons to help lower operating temps of the piston." Carbon acts as
an insulator.
BTW: I had good luck with my 447's. I had two, one on the Firestar and one on
the bench ready to go. Balancing and matching ports made the 447 produce more
power and reduced vibration.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama - 20F at hauck's holler this morning. Ain't going flying today.
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 |
I'd be interested in knowing what airframe changes would make it safer.
David Watkins
David W/Kolbers:
I think Rick N was referring to me when he spoke of a test pilot and a 1200
lb max gross weight MKIII.
To answer your question, we didn't do anything to the airframe to beef it
up. My MKIII airframe was built at the old Kolb Factory in January and
February 1991, by me and Brother Jim Hauck. We did make some changes to the
airframe and other components, but not to increase max gross weight
capability. Each was blessed each morning when Homer Kolb came to work.
Many of these changes were incorporated in the MKIII kits. This was during
the time the first 12 MKIII airframes were being built and prior to shipment
of the first MKIII Kit, Number 1, to Rudy Doctor. My airframe is Number 11.
Most of you MKIII builders and flyers don't know that a lot of the
components and changes to the original MKIII Kit were designed and
fabricated by my Brother Jim Hauck, with a little help from his little
Brother, me.
I did add additional lateral bracing to the wings, and reinforced the noses
of all 10 ribs and the tails of the first four outboard ribs on each wing
panel. This was done in anticipation of winds and weather I would encounter
on my 1994 flight around CONUS and up to the North Slope of Alaska. The
changes to the ribs were per a plans sheet by Dennis Souder to reinforce the
outboard wing rib of all kits to help prevent damage during wing folding and
handling.
Other mods, moving main gear forward, etc., had nothing to do with
increasing the gross weight capability of my MKIII. The standard MKIII is
overbuilt (my opinion).
We did little things like increase bolt sizes from 5/16" to 3/8" for the
inboard main spar attachment to the fuselage. Not much else.
I don't recommend anyone change the gross weight of the MKIII without
coordinating with Kolb Aircraft and other proper procedures with the FAA.
Again, my MKIII was built and changes blessed by Homer Kolb, placarded for
1,200 lbs max gross weight, which is indicated on my Airworthiness
Certificate. It has been thoroughly tested and proved to be a tremendous
little airplane. I had no idea Miss P'fer ("P" fer plane) would ever
accomplish the flights she has made the last 20 years. She sits patiently
in the old sagging T hanger at Gantt International Airport, ready and
willing to go anywhere I am courageous enough to point her.
I think if you contact Bryan, he will tell you your MKIII will be able to
haul floats and a passenger. It has been done in the past.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
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 |
At 11:58 PM 1/13/2012, Rick Neilsen wrote:
>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...
There's a simple relationship (at least in theory) between gross weight and
load factor. If, for example, the aircraft was designed to the utility
category limit load factor of 4.4g positive, increasing the gross weight
from 1000 to 1200 lbs reduced your load factor to 3.66, or a bit less than
the normal category limit of 3.8. Fly the airplane gently in smooth air
and you'll have no problem... but you _are_ pushing the limit of parameters
that were created for a reason.
Many aircraft are certificated to normal category with full load and
utility category with a reduced load.
Now, I don't know what actual load factor the MKIII was designed
to (anybody?). In reality, there will likely be one point of the
structure that is the weakest link and other areas may well be
stronger. Beefing up that weak link may allow it to carry more load, until
some other weak link fails. To know for sure requires knowledge of the
actual design numbers. You might, for example, beef up the one critical
point to be 20% stronger only to have something else fail at only 10% over
the max. Or the plane may already be overbuilt; planes often are, to take
advantage of readily available materials instead of using the smallest
possible size. John's example shows that 1200# is possible for one
particular well built and well maintained aircraft.
Performance issues are another story. Add weight and climb gets worse,
stall speed and fuel consumption increase, etc. A friend of mine put
floats (of course there's a drag issue there too) on a 503 powered FSII,
and what had been a plane with sparkling performance turned into one that
flew, in his words, "like a cinder block".
-Dana
--
A tree: first you chop it down, then you chop it up.
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 |
|
- Ellery- Did anyone ever find out about the prop that came apart?- Las
t I remember, there was a discussion as to whether or not it was a stock fa
ctory Warp Drive.
-------------------------
-------------------- Bill Sullivan
-------------------------
-------------------- Windsor Locks,
Ct.
-------------------------
-------------------- FS 447, Warp D
rive prop
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 |
John I didn't mean to infer that your plane is unsafe but by definition you
are still the test pilot. I felt very comfortable flying in it with you
except for maybe one of those high banked turns around a monument
at Monument Valley.
The point is our planes were design to fly with a maximum gross weight of
1000lbs with a safety margin. The designer tried to have a margin to allow
for some poor workman ship, age, long term air frame stress, corrosion etc.
I talked at length with Dennis Souder the structural engineer for the
MKIIIC and he would not budge on the 1000lb. limit. He indicated there is
more safety margin on the MKIII than any other Kolb but..... I have also
read crash investigation reports where intended structural improvements
actually weaken the air frame or moved the stress to a place that wasn't up
to the task. John seems to have built his plane in a way the survives but?
Some airplanes have hour limits before they need to be rebuilt, is that
from structural failures of is it calculated?
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
> 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 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 |
Interesting stuff , John....
My MkIII was built in Montana or the Dakotas,,there bouts, by a
couple of fellows.. It had golf cart size tires and heavy steel gear
legs...that were not very well tempered... It weighted 490 some odd
pounds...with a 532 and three blade IVO... Herb
At 08:17 AM 1/14/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>I'd be interested in knowing what airframe changes would make it safer.
>
>David Watkins
>
>
>David W/Kolbers:
>
>I think Rick N was referring to me when he spoke of a test pilot and a 1200
>lb max gross weight MKIII.
>
>To answer your question, we didn't do anything to the airframe to beef it
>up. My MKIII airframe was built at the old Kolb Factory in January and
>February 1991, by me and Brother Jim Hauck. We did make some changes to the
>airframe and other components, but not to increase max gross weight
>capability. Each was blessed each morning when Homer Kolb came to work.
>Many of these changes were incorporated in the MKIII kits. This was during
>the time the first 12 MKIII airframes were being built and prior to shipment
>of the first MKIII Kit, Number 1, to Rudy Doctor. My airframe is Number 11.
>
>
>Most of you MKIII builders and flyers don't know that a lot of the
>components and changes to the original MKIII Kit were designed and
>fabricated by my Brother Jim Hauck, with a little help from his little
>Brother, me.
>
>I did add additional lateral bracing to the wings, and reinforced the noses
>of all 10 ribs and the tails of the first four outboard ribs on each wing
>panel. This was done in anticipation of winds and weather I would encounter
>on my 1994 flight around CONUS and up to the North Slope of Alaska. The
>changes to the ribs were per a plans sheet by Dennis Souder to reinforce the
>outboard wing rib of all kits to help prevent damage during wing folding and
>handling.
>
>Other mods, moving main gear forward, etc., had nothing to do with
>increasing the gross weight capability of my MKIII. The standard MKIII is
>overbuilt (my opinion).
>
>We did little things like increase bolt sizes from 5/16" to 3/8" for the
>inboard main spar attachment to the fuselage. Not much else.
>
>I don't recommend anyone change the gross weight of the MKIII without
>coordinating with Kolb Aircraft and other proper procedures with the FAA.
>
>Again, my MKIII was built and changes blessed by Homer Kolb, placarded for
>1,200 lbs max gross weight, which is indicated on my Airworthiness
>Certificate. It has been thoroughly tested and proved to be a tremendous
>little airplane. I had no idea Miss P'fer ("P" fer plane) would ever
>accomplish the flights she has made the last 20 years. She sits patiently
>in the old sagging T hanger at Gantt International Airport, ready and
>willing to go anywhere I am courageous enough to point her.
>
>I think if you contact Bryan, he will tell you your MKIII will be able to
>haul floats and a passenger. It has been done in the past.
>
>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: | Re: Mk III max takeoff weight |
At 10:02 AM 1/14/2012, Rick Neilsen wrote:
>Some airplanes have hour limits before they need to be rebuilt, is that
>from structural failures of is it calculated?
Metal fatigues, and the fatigue behavior is predictable. This can be used
to set life limits, for a specific number of load/unload cycles. The
numbers, of course, are adjusted if problems are found during
inspections. Light planes rarely reach the number of cycles that airliners
do.
-Dana
--
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the
target.
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: He assumed I knew what I was doing... |
Did you swap EGT probes? if so was the PTO reading still high? During reassembly
did you align the cylinder intake manifold surfaces, check the intake manifold
with a straight edge, do a post repair pressure test? Remember unlike a 4
stroke a 2 stroke can leak unmetered air almost anywhere but the exhaust port.
a small bit of old base gasket left behind can cause a lean condition.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363741#363741
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | He assumed I knew what I was doing... |
Brother Voris:
Your temps, as shown in your nifty spread sheet, show deltas on both EGT and CHT
which closely resemble mine, but
the overall range of yours, is a little cooler. My engine has had two green dot
pistons installed about 130 hours ago and I just had it torn down and inspected
last month out of suspicion that the crankcase seals were leaking. Nothing
significant was found, although one wrist pin was replaced as an "option" since
it displayed minor wear. Both con rod top ends and wrist pins showed some
bluing which reflected the high temps for which the 447 is well known.
For what it's worth, the rear (PTO end) cylinder on mine has always run around
25 to 30 hotter on CHT and 40 to 60 degrees hotter on EGT. I worried about that
for a while... played games with minor adjustments of the angle of the Bing
on the manifold, repeatedly checking fan belt/shroud, tinkered with jetting and
needle, etc. Finally decided
to hell with it and just flew it. The CHT's were in the 380 to 405 range at WOT
and the EGT's ran 1040 to 1100
at 5800 cruise.
Since the teardown inspection, head temps and EGTs have jumped up and I can't figure
out why. At WOT climb after about 45 seconds the rear cylinder is climbing
through the red line at 425 and the front is right behind it at about 415...
I have to throttle back and level off or they would continue to increase.
The EGT's are also higher and now show 1100 and 1150 at 5,800 cruise with the
heads hanging around 400. The plugs are both a nice brown color. I have run
it a total of about three hours since the teardown am about ready to re-torque
the heads.
Other than the new wrist pin and all of the gaskets and seals, nothing was changed
in the engine. The work was done by an experienced, certified shop in which
I have confidence. The jets and needle in the Bing are stock sizes and show
no wear. The IVO is loaded to the same 6000 RPM static as before. I went so
far as to replace all four of the EIS sensor probes to make sure they were giving
accurate data... They are. I am baffled by the increased temps.
Overall, Henry, yours looks to be running cooler than mine. Personally, I would
settle for your temps and just go fly it, watching the plug color for anything
strange.
My engine, on the other hand, definitely has a newly developed higher temp problem
which requires attention... In the absence of any better idea, I am going
to start with further searches for leaks in the manifolds and then move into
the Bing jetting and setting business...
If anyone on the List has experienced similar high temp fun & games with a 447
and successfully whipped the problem, (or blew/burned it up, but executed a successful
autopsy) I would appreciate hearing from you.
Baffled beauford in Brandon
FF-076
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Kolb-List: He assumed I knew what I was doing...
Cylinder #1, Closest to the alternator, 67.46, green dot
Cylinder #2, Closest to the PTO, 67.45, red dot
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.
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
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: He assumed I knew what I was doing... |
One simple, easy, and cheap thing you can do is check the condition and
resistance of the spark plug wires, caps, and the condition of the plugs
themselves. Rotax two stroke ignitions are notoriously weak and small
differences in the condition of the components can effect ignition
efficiency.
Rick Girard
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 1:34 AM, henry.voris <henry_voris@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 13jan12
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> My pal Lance asked, =93So=85 Do you wanna put the big piston in the front
or
> the rear?=94
> I assumed he was kidding=85 He assumed I knew what I was doing=85 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=85 I=92m sure we got most of thos
e dang
> needle bearings back in the wristpins=85
>
> Back on the plane, the engine fired right up and ran strong=85 But the
> cylinder closest to the PTO (#2) was running a bit hotter than the cylind
er
> 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=BA CHT and 45=BA EGT). I have attached a spreadsheet that ref
lects
> the temperatures at different RPMs.
>
> I got back to Lance and he said that he had not been kidding about two
> sizes of pistons=85 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)=85
> Cylinder #1, Closest to the alternator, 67.46, green dot
> Cylinder #2, Closest to the PTO, 67.45, red dot
>
> Cylinder #2 is hotter=85 that shoots my theory about the bigger piston
> running hotter=85
>
> 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 u
p=85
> I=92m somewhat disappointed.
>
> In reviewing the spreadsheet=85 It appears that each piston is operating
> within the temperature limits set by the factory for operation. The probl
em
> is the temperature difference between cylinder #1 and #2.
>
> Before installing the digital engine monitor, I only knew the temperature
s
> on one cylinder=85 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 betwee
n
> cylinders, I=92m pretty sure they are figuring on both pistons being the
same
> size=85 (Krauts are like that=85) A larger than normal temperature differ
ence
> in an engine with matching pistons could indicate a problem=85 However, i
n 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
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
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 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: He assumed I knew what I was doing... |
Beauford, Do you have spark plug ring temp senders? If so, polish them up
with Scotchbrite and do the surface of the head where the sender seats,
making sure any debris doesn't go down the plug hole, of course. The
senders work on resistance so any corrosion on them or the head will affect
their readings. Just a thought.
Rick Girard
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Beauford <beauford173@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Brother Voris:
>
> Your temps, as shown in your nifty spread sheet, show deltas on both EGT
> and CHT which closely resemble mine, but
> the overall range of yours, is a little cooler. My engine has had two
> green dot pistons installed about 130 hours ago and I just had it torn do
wn
> and inspected last month out of suspicion that the crankcase seals were
> leaking. Nothing significant was found, although one wrist pin was
> replaced as an "option" since it displayed minor wear. Both con rod top
> ends and wrist pins showed some bluing which reflected the high temps for
> which the 447 is well known.
>
> For what it's worth, the rear (PTO end) cylinder on mine has always run
> around 25 to 30 hotter on CHT and 40 to 60 degrees hotter on EGT. I
> worried about that for a while... played games with minor adjustments of
> the angle of the Bing on the manifold, repeatedly checking fan belt/shrou
d,
> tinkered with jetting and needle, etc. Finally decided
> to hell with it and just flew it. The CHT's were in the 380 to 405 range
> at WOT and the EGT's ran 1040 to 1100
> at 5800 cruise.
>
> Since the teardown inspection, head temps and EGTs have jumped up and I
> can't figure out why. At WOT climb after about 45 seconds the rear
> cylinder is climbing through the red line at 425 and the front is right
> behind it at about 415... I have to throttle back and level off or they
> would continue to increase. The EGT's are also higher and now show 1100
> and 1150 at 5,800 cruise with the heads hanging around 400. The plugs ar
e
> both a nice brown color. I have run it a total of about three hours sinc
e
> the teardown am about ready to re-torque the heads.
>
> Other than the new wrist pin and all of the gaskets and seals, nothing wa
s
> changed in the engine. The work was done by an experienced, certified sh
op
> in which I have confidence. The jets and needle in the Bing are stock
> sizes and show no wear. The IVO is loaded to the same 6000 RPM static as
> before. I went so far as to replace all four of the EIS sensor probes to
> make sure they were giving accurate data... They are. I am baffled by t
he
> increased temps.
>
> Overall, Henry, yours looks to be running cooler than mine. Personally,
I
> would settle for your temps and just go fly it, watching the plug color f
or
> anything strange.
>
> My engine, on the other hand, definitely has a newly developed higher tem
p
> problem which requires attention... In the absence of any better idea,
I
> am going to start with further searches for leaks in the manifolds and th
en
> move into the Bing jetting and setting business...
>
> If anyone on the List has experienced similar high temp fun & games with
a
> 447 and successfully whipped the problem, (or blew/burned it up, but
> executed a successful autopsy) I would appreciate hearing from you.
>
> Baffled beauford in Brandon
> FF-076
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: He assumed I knew what I was doing...
>
>
> Cylinder #1, Closest to the alternator, 67.46, green dot
> Cylinder #2, Closest to the PTO, 67.45, red dot
>
> In reviewing the spreadsheet It appears that each piston is oper
ating
> within the temperature limits set by the factory for operation. The probl
em
> is the temperature difference between cylinder #1 and #2.
> When Rotax sets limits for the difference of temperature allowable betwee
n
> cylinders, I=99m pretty sure they are figuring on both pistons bein
g the
> same size (Krauts are like that) A larger than normal t
emperature
> 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
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
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 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: Mk III max takeoff weight |
I've always found that the Kolb guys do the right thing in their designs,
and if that is true in limit loads, too, then the designer would have used
a safety factor of 1.5 (pretty much an aircraft industry standard) so the
ultimate load would be 6 g's.
Limit loads are defined as loads that can be applied that result in no
deformation of the structure. Even if the limit load is reduced to 3 and a
fraction, unless you are going out and doing snap rolls at max gross your
chances of hitting it are slim and nil.
Then there is the fact that Va, maneuvering speed goes up with load, not
down.
Rick, as far as safety goes, if the spar carry through is designed for 4g's
with a 110 to 140 lb. engine, it's much less safe putting a 200 lb.+ VW
with redrive on the aircraft than just increasing max gross to 1200 lb.
I've tested the Mk IIIX to 1108lb, so far, and if the wind stays in the low
teens this afternoon I'll have tested it to 1200 lb. by this evening. I
worry a lot more about the degradation of climb rate at that weight than I
do about limit load.
Rick Girard
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Dana Hague <d-m-hague@comcast.net> wrote:
> At 10:02 AM 1/14/2012, Rick Neilsen wrote:
>
> Some airplanes have hour limits before they need to be rebuilt, is that
> from structural failures of is it calculated?
>
>
> Metal fatigues, and the fatigue behavior is predictable. This can be used
> to set life limits, for a specific number of load/unload cycles. The
> numbers, of course, are adjusted if problems are found during inspections.
> Light planes rarely reach the number of cycles that airliners do.
>
> -Dana
> --
> To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit
> the target.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
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 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 |
|
| From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1@cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... |
The temps are directly related to air/fuel burn and its efficiency, How that mixture
is being measured and ignited between the cylinders is what controls the
temperature. One carb, two carbs, mixture ratios etc... . Too many variables
and scenarios to have a canned answer to the question. Play with the mixtures
see what happens if you have two carbs, if not I think what you got is what you
got.
Ron Mason
============================
---- "henry.voris" <henry_voris@yahoo.com> wrote:
============
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
--
kugelair.com
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: He assumed I knew what I was doing... |
At 12:40 PM 1/14/2012, Richard Girard wrote:
>Beauford, Do you have spark plug ring temp senders? If so, polish them up
>with Scotchbrite and do the surface of the head where the sender seats,
>making sure any debris doesn't go down the plug hole, of course. The
>senders work on resistance so any corrosion on them or the head will
>affect their readings. Just a thought.
The typical self powered spark plug ring sensor is a thermocouple, not a
resistance device.
-Dana
--
Don't ever think you know what's right for the other person. He might start
thinking he knows what's right for you.
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 |
|
| From: | "Ron @ KFHU" <captainron1@cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mk III max takeoff weight |
It may have had more to do with the Rotax 65hp 582 than anything else.... ?
Ron Mason
KFHU
==================
---- Rick Neilsen <neilsenrm@gmail.com> wrote:
============
John I didn't mean to infer that your plane is unsafe but by definition you
are still the test pilot. I felt very comfortable flying in it with you
except for maybe one of those high banked turns around a monument
at Monument Valley.
The point is our planes were design to fly with a maximum gross weight of
1000lbs with a safety margin. The designer tried to have a margin to allow
for some poor workman ship, age, long term air frame stress, corrosion etc.
I talked at length with Dennis Souder the structural engineer for the
MKIIIC and he would not budge on the 1000lb. limit. He indicated there is
more safety margin on the MKIII than any other Kolb but..... I have also
read crash investigation reports where intended structural improvements
actually weaken the air frame or moved the stress to a place that wasn't up
to the task. John seems to have built his plane in a way the survives but?
Some airplanes have hour limits before they need to be rebuilt, is that
from structural failures of is it calculated?
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
> 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
>
>
--
kugelair.com
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... |
Since the teardown inspection, head temps and EGTs have jumped up and I
can't figure out why. At WOT climb after about 45 seconds the rear cylinder
is climbing through the red line at 425 and the front is right behind it at
about 415... I have to throttle back and level off or they would continue to
increase. The EGT's are also higher and now show 1100 and 1150 at 5,800
cruise with the heads hanging around 400. The plugs are both a nice brown
color. I have run it a total of about three hours since the teardown am
about ready to re-torque the heads.
Other than the new wrist pin and all of the gaskets and seals, nothing was
changed in the engine. The work was done by an experienced, certified shop
in which I have confidence. The jets and needle in the Bing are stock sizes
and show no wear. The IVO is loaded to the same 6000 RPM static as before.
I went so far as to replace all four of the EIS sensor probes to make sure
they were giving accurate data... They are. I am baffled by the increased
temps.
Baffled beauford in Brandon
FF-076
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
did you cross hatch the cylinder walls, and install new rings.... if so the
higher temps may be there till things seat in. if you did not change
rings... i am clueless.
boyd
do not archive.
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... |
The senders work on resistance so any corrosion on them or the head will
affect their readings. Just a thought.
-Dana
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Dana
guess i thought they were a thermocouple. depending on which metals
are used thermocouples create a small electrical voltage at different
temps... devices that work on resistance when the temps change, i
believe are thermistors.
boyd y
do not archive
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... |
I would strongly recommend a pressure/ vac. test during condition inspection, anytime
you have unexplained variations in EGTs , and post repair. Even a good
mechanic can make a mistake or install a defective part. A seal may become nicked
on assembly, a bit of debris may be left on a mating surface or a small void
in sealer may occur. Personally I do not even accept the allowed 1 psi per
minute drop, the tighter they are the better they start and run. A pressure test
will uncover problems with seals, crankcase seal, gaskets and porous castings.
A 4 stroke with a leaky crank seal or case makes a mess but a 2 stroke dies
a horrible death.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363753#363753
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... |
J type thermocouples....the egt sensors are K type... They generate a
small current/voltage...and are very sensitive to
resistive connections...I generally make my own cht thermocouples...Herb
http://www.omega.com/thermocouples.html
At 12:17 PM 1/14/2012, you wrote:
>The senders work on resistance so any corrosion on them or the head
>will affect their readings. Just a thought.
>-Dana
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>
>Dana
> guess i thought they were a thermocouple. depending on which
> metals are used thermocouples create a small electrical voltage at
> different temps... devices that work on resistance when the
> temps change, i believe are thermistors.
>
>boyd y
>
>do not archive
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Warp Drive prop |
Yes the NTSB report was finally finished up about 3 weeks ago it is a Warp
drive Prop and I have been talking to a lawyer
I am out an airplane and could have been out of life because of that Prop W
ho do they think they are using the public as
a test bed for there props why wasn't there ever a service bulletin out on
there props to prevent this from happening again this is not
the first time this has happened to one of there props from what the FAA h
as told me
Ellery Batchelder Jr.
-----Original Message-----
From: william sullivan <williamtsullivan@att.net>
Sent: Sat, Jan 14, 2012 9:52 am
Subject: Kolb-List: Warp Drive prop
Ellery- Did anyone ever find out about the prop that came apart? Last I
remember, there was a discussion as to whether or not it was a stock factor
y Warp Drive.
Bill Sullivan
Windsor Locks, Ct.
FS 447, Warp Drive prop
-= - The Kolb-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
-
-========================
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-
-========================
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
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 |
|
What are the different provisions in reference to Rotax engines and what do they
mean?
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363778#363778
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax provision |
The provisions are mounting holes for gearboxes. A provision 8 has 8 tapped
holes on the PTO end of the case to mount gearbox and can mount any current
B, C, or E gearbox. A provision 4 engine can only mount an A gearbox (no
longer made, but all internal components, if I remember correctly, are
common to the B gearbox. A provision 0 engine must use a belt drive where
all mounting is done from the engine mount plate (or something similar).
Rick Girard
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Ozarkflyer <lragan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> What are the different provisions in reference to Rotax engines and what
> do they mean?
>
> --------
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363778#363778
>
>
--
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 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Testing gross weight |
Finished the weight testing of the aircraft this afternoon. I started with
one 80 lb. bag and worked up to three for a gross weight of 1201 lb. I flew
one take off and a full stop landing with each and then one more flight
with three bags to 3000' AGL to test the approach stall at that weight.
Take off roll on grass was roughly 1000'. At the end of the runway I had
300' of altitude. After that climb rate dropped to 300 to 400 feet per
minute with the engine turning at 6400 rpm. I also evaluated cruise speed
at that gross weight. At 5800 rpm the airplane can maintain level flight at
60 mph IAS. The stall occurred at 46 mph with a distinct break without wing
drop. I held the aircraft in stalling attitude for approximately five
seconds. According to my variometer the descent rate was 1500 fpm or more
(that's the end of its scale). Recovery required only relaxing the back
pressure on the stick and she resumed flying. The rest of the flight was a
pretty leisurely descent with the engine turning 4500 rpm to keep its heat
up (it was 52 degrees at flight time). I shot the approach at 65 to 70
until I was into ground affect then let it settle at 60 until round out. So
it can be done, but I wouldn't want to do it if the air temperature was
much over 70 or the thermals were normal Kansas strength.
Rick Girard
--
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 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax provision |
Are any of the engines belt driven other than the provision 0?
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363787#363787
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax provision |
Almost any engine can have a belt drive reduction unit...all
Rotax...save the 912 series... Herb
At 06:58 PM 1/14/2012, you wrote:
>
>Are any of the engines belt driven other than the provision 0?
>
>--------
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363787#363787
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Warp Drive prop |
May be old news?
http://www.ultralightnews.com/
http://www.ultralightnews.ca/advisories1/warpdrivefailure.htm
Herb
At 05:25 PM 1/14/2012, you wrote:
>Yes the NTSB report was finally finished up about 3 weeks ago it is
>a Warp drive Prop and I have been talking to a lawyer
>I am out an airplane and could have been out of life because of that
>Prop Who do they think they are using the public as
>a test bed for there props why wasn't there ever a service bulletin
>out on there props to prevent this from happening again this is not
>the first time this has happened to one of there props from what
>the FAA has told me
>
>
>Ellery Batchelder Jr.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: william sullivan <williamtsullivan@att.net>
>To: kolb list <kolb-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Sat, Jan 14, 2012 9:52 am
>Subject: Kolb-List: Warp Drive prop
>
> Ellery- Did anyone ever find out about the prop that came
> apart? Last I remember, there was a discussion as to whether or
> not it was a stock factory Warp Drive.
>
> Bill Sullivan
> Windsor Locks, Ct.
> FS 447, Warp Drive prop
>
>
>get=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
>p://forums.matronics.com
>blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hey Folks:
The EAA canned a bunch of people today. Some reports suggest 35 were
let go. A press release is full of wall-street corporate gobblygook
about "capturing opportunities in its long term strategic plan" and
that sort of thing. I'm pretty certain that we will continue to see
the EAA look more and more like the NBAA and AOPA. More of the stuff
that I really could care less about, and fewer of the people and
airplanes that make my world go around.
Oh well, nothing new, really.
Malcolm & Jeanne Brubaker
Michigan Sport Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
Great Sails - Sailmaker
for Ultralight & Light Sport
(989)513-3022
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Warp Drive prop |
Ellery, Do you have the NTSB report #?
Rick Girard
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Ellery Batchelder Jr <elleryweld@aol.com>wrote:
> Yes the NTSB report was finally finished up about 3 weeks ago it is a Warp
> drive Prop and I have been talking to a lawyer
> I am out an airplane and could have been out of life because of that Prop
> Who do they think they are using the public as
> a test bed for there props why wasn't there ever a service bulletin out on
> there props to prevent this from happening again this is not
> the first time this has happened to one of there props from what the FAA
> has told me
>
>
> *Ellery Batchelder Jr.*
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: william sullivan <williamtsullivan@att.net>
> To: kolb list <kolb-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sat, Jan 14, 2012 9:52 am
> Subject: Kolb-List: Warp Drive prop
>
> Ellery- Did anyone ever find out about the prop that came apart?
> Last I remember, there was a discussion as to whether or not it was a stock
> factory Warp Drive.
>
> Bill Sullivan
> Windsor Locks, Ct.
> FS 447, Warp Drive prop
>
> *
>
> get=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
> p://forums.matronics.com
> 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 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Warp Drive prop |
ERA11LA150
Ellery Batchelder Jr.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Girard <aslsa.rng@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 14, 2012 10:42 pm
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Warp Drive prop
Ellery, Do you have the NTSB report #?
Rick Girard
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Ellery Batchelder Jr <elleryweld@aol.com>
wrote:
Yes the NTSB report was finally finished up about 3 weeks ago it is a Warp
drive Prop and I have been talking to a lawyer
I am out an airplane and could have been out of life because of that Prop W
ho do they think they are using the public as
a test bed for there props why wasn't there ever a service bulletin out on
there props to prevent this from happening again this is not
the first time this has happened to one of there props from what the FAA h
as told me
Ellery Batchelder Jr.
-----Original Message-----
From: william sullivan <williamtsullivan@att.net>
Sent: Sat, Jan 14, 2012 9:52 am
Subject: Kolb-List: Warp Drive prop
Ellery- Did anyone ever find out about the prop that came apart? Last I
remember, there was a discussion as to whether or not it was a stock factor
y Warp Drive.
Bill Sullivan
Windsor Locks, Ct.
FS 447, Warp Drive prop
get=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
://forums.matronics.com
lank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
p://forums.matronics.com
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
-= - The Kolb-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
-
-========================
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-
-========================
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax provision |
As Herb said any Rotax can be fitted with a belt drive and they do offer
the option of being made, either production or custom, in more varieties of
reduction ratio than the gearboxes.
Attached are breakdowns of the A and B gearbox. The A has an adapter, part
# 41 in the drawing, while the B has this cast into the body of the gearbox
case.
Rick Girard
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Ozarkflyer <lragan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are any of the engines belt driven other than the provision 0?
>
> --------
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363787#363787
>
>
--
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 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: He assumed I knew what I was doing... |
14jan12
Thanks guys... FYI... I posted this same message on the Rotax List and have received
zero responses so far. Kolb List rules...
John... Thanks... That's the type of information I was looking for. I have been
inclined to just fly it, because both cylinders were running fine, just at different
temps.
You asked about my instrumentation... As part of this rebuild I installed the EIS
2000... When 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.
I plan to take the warmer temperatures from the hotter cylinder to set my operating
limits.
I too like the 447. After having it all apart, I'm impressed with its simplicity
and ruggedness. Even when it was tired, it would always start and run strong.
Ducati SS... No I have not (yet) swapped the EGT probes... During assembly I used
an official Rotax tool to align the cylinders... But it bolted into the holes
for the exhaust manifold, as I recall...
Thanks for the word on pressure testing. If I'm still unhappy after running this
for awhile pressure testing will be next on my list.
Brother Beauford... Sorry to hear about your engine running hot again... I remember
you were not happy when you first had the green dots installed... Hopefully
Boyd is right and it'll cool down after the rings settle in. Good problem to
have, because that means the fix is... you gotta fly it more.
You said you set your red line for CHT at 425... I noted with interest that the
Rotax Operators Manual from Sept. 01, 2010 (page 37) increases the normal operating
range for CHT... 374 to 446, with max at 500.
Ron... as you said, "Too many variables..." That's why I like the 447... one ignition
system, one carb. John and Brother Beauford have told me what I wanted
to hear... The engine is running good... Go fly it. And the new EIS 2000 will
give me the ability to keep a close eye on it. Thanks.
Boyd... Thanks for the great thermocouple site...
Aloha,
--------
Henry
Firefly Five-Charlie-Bravo
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=363807#363807
Message 35
| 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: Warp Drive prop |
The =9CFull Narrative=9D doesn=99t go into much
detail, but the fact that all three blades showed chordwise cracks as an
apparent combination of fatigue and static overload I would think would
be a real concern. The lab report didn=99t say so, but one
would assume that is the precursor for the delams and eventual shedding
of parts. The report has one phrase about =9Cbending forward
under airload.=9D??? Some of the Warp hubs had the crack problem
a few years back, but I think most people consider the blades pretty
much bullet proof. So seems to me you end up with two primary likely
scenarios.....you got three bum blades.....or, more likely, something in
this particular configuration caused higher inplane loads than normal
and led to the chordwise cracks. In the certified world there would be
a bunch of expensive rotor dynamics manpower and computers calculating
coupled modal frequency placement followed by an order of magnitude more
expensive strain gaged flight test.
One would hope that if there are other instances of
=9Ctransverse=9D cracks in the trailing edges of similar
blades, then that information would be quickly shared regarding types of
aircraft and engine, time in service, etc. ...
Bob
From: Ellery Batchelder Jr
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Warp Drive prop
ERA11LA150
Ellery Batchelder Jr.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Girard <aslsa.rng@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 14, 2012 10:42 pm
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Warp Drive prop
Ellery, Do you have the NTSB report #?
Rick Girard
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Ellery Batchelder Jr
<elleryweld@aol.com> wrote:
Yes the NTSB report was finally finished up about 3 weeks ago it is a
Warp drive Prop and I have been talking to a lawyer
I am out an airplane and could have been out of life because of that
Prop Who do they think they are using the public as
a test bed for there props why wasn't there ever a service bulletin
out on there props to prevent this from happening again this is not
the first time this has happened to one of there props from what the
FAA has told me
Ellery Batchelder Jr.
-----Original Message-----
From: william sullivan <williamtsullivan@att.net>
To: kolb list <kolb-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 14, 2012 9:52 am
Subject: Kolb-List: Warp Drive prop
Ellery- Did anyone ever find out about the prop that came
apart? Last I remember, there was a discussion as to whether or not it
was a stock factory Warp Drive.
Bill Sullivan
Windsor Locks, Ct.
FS 447, Warp Drive
prop
get=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_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
get=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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! --
|