Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:18 AM - Auto Response (Dennis Long)
2. 04:38 AM - MKIII wing incidence (Thom Riddle)
3. 04:45 AM - Re: MKIII wing incidence (william sullivan)
4. 05:03 AM - Re: MKIII wing incidence (Thom Riddle)
5. 08:51 AM - Re: MKIII wing incidence (Dennis Rowe)
6. 09:01 AM - Re: MKIII wing incidence (Thom Riddle)
7. 09:17 AM - Re-registration (Nick Cassara)
8. 10:39 AM - Re: MKIII wing incidence (Mike Welch)
9. 02:41 PM - Re: MKIII wing incidence (Dennis Rowe)
10. 04:04 PM - Re: MKIII wing incidence (Richard Girard)
11. 05:05 PM - Re: MKIII wing incidence (Jack B. Hart)
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 |
|
I am UNAVAILABLE. I'll respond after the sixth of August.
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: | MKIII wing incidence |
Bob Bean, asked me to post this for him, since he no longer posts to this forum,
but thought it might be of interest to other MKIII pilots.
MKIII owners: I have for years intended to change the incidence on my wings and
tail. I drilled new holes in the spar attach ears probably three years ago
but, somehow never got around to it. -until this year. The reason for doing it
pertains more to my individual plane than a stock MkIII because of my wide windshield
design.
I felt a conflict of airflow between it and the wing angle, much like what happened
with early versions of the Xtra. -Too much down pressure on the nose.
I drilled the new wing holes about 5/8" above the originals which works out to
about 1.326 degrees. I bought the adjustable tail brackets from Kolb but
modified them substantially. They were angled to allow wing fold using any of
the holes but this makes the HS stick out too far at the lower settings.
I cut the ears off to the same width and drilled new holes for two settings.
I used a combination of calculation and guesswork to figure what range I would
need. I went with the highest holes which yields about -3.5 degrees from the
engine mount,
figuring the tail boom is -6 degrees. Good thing, because with those holes I can
still fold the tail without pulling any bolts.
I had crow hopped it a couple days ago and parked it without real flight. Today
was perfect flying weather so I did a test flight. Naturally I was hoping
not to
encounter any "lawn dart" characteristics and I was either a very clever guy or
blessed with dumb luck, take yer choice, because it was perfect first time up.
I had previously been flying with one notch up on the trim, but for this occasion
I lowered it to zero. -Just right. Neutral stick at normal cruise and
slight back pressure for full throttle straight and level. All other trim stayed
the same. There is a noticeable increase in dihedral but I didn't get to
doing any rudder experimentation to see how much it is affected.
The plane feels as if it has been freed up from an invisible restraint. Hard to
describe but I was quite pleased. It appears to cruise about 5 mph
faster at normal settings. I didn't look close to check full throttle speed, just
how muck stick it took. -Full throttle speed doesn't matter to me
because I don't use it for other than climb.
I couldn't say whether a standard configured MKIII would gain from the same changes
but you would definitely need the tall steel legs to compensate.
Also, because of my center section design, the angle could be changed without any
extra work.
Reminder: Previous written by Bob Bean, I'm merely posting it for him and I have
no further information on it than you now do. However, since many may not be
familiar with Bob's customized MKIII, I've attached an old photo so you can see
what his airplane's nose and center section look like.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Don't worry about old age... it doesn't last very long.
- Anonymous
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405333#405333
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/bean_mkiii_and_allegro__bethany_209.jpg
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: MKIII wing incidence |
- Thom- Why doesn't Bob post to the forum any more?- Information such a
s this is quite valuable.- Please encourage him to post more frequently,
or post through you.=0A=0Ado not archive =0A=0A---------
-------------------------
-------------------------
---------- Bill Sullivan=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________
________________=0A From: Thom Riddle <riddletr@gmail.com>=0ATo: kolb-list@
matronics.com =0ASent: Friday, July 26, 2013 7:38 AM=0ASubject: Kolb-List:
" <riddletr@gmail.com>=0A=0ABob Bean, asked me to post this for him, since
he no longer posts to this forum, but thought it might be of interest to ot
her MKIII pilots.=0A=0AMKIII owners:- I have for years intended to change
the incidence on my wings and tail.- I drilled new holes in the spar att
ach ears probably three years ago=0Abut,- somehow never got around to it.
-until this year.- The reason for doing it pertains more to my individua
l plane than a stock MkIII because of my wide windshield design.=0AI felt a
conflict of airflow between it and the wing angle, much like what happened
with early versions of the Xtra.- -Too much down pressure on the nose.
=0A=0AI drilled the new wing holes about 5/8" above the originals which wor
ks out to about 1.326 degrees.- I bought the adjustable tail brackets fro
m Kolb but=0Amodified them substantially.- They were angled to allow wing
fold using any of the holes but this makes the HS stick out too far at the
lower settings.=0AI cut the ears off to the same width and drilled new hol
es for two settings.=0AI used a combination of calculation and guesswork to
figure what range I would need.- I went with the highest holes which yie
lds about -3.5 degrees from the engine mount,=0Afiguring the tail boom is -
6 degrees.- Good thing, because with those holes I can still fold the tai
l without pulling any bolts.=0A=0AI had crow hopped it a couple days ago an
d parked it without real flight.- Today was perfect flying weather so I d
id a- test flight.- Naturally I was hoping not to=0Aencounter any "lawn
dart" characteristics and I was either a very clever guy or blessed with d
umb luck, take yer choice, because it- was perfect first time up.=0A=0AI
had previously been flying with one notch up on the trim, but for this occa
sion I lowered it to zero.- -Just right.- Neutral stick at normal cruis
e and=0Aslight back pressure for full throttle straight and level.- All o
ther trim stayed the same.- There is a noticeable increase in dihedral bu
t I didn't get to=0Adoing any rudder experimentation to see how much it is
affected.=0A=0AThe plane feels as if it has been freed up from an invisible
restraint.- Hard to describe but I was quite pleased.- It appears to c
ruise about 5 mph=0Afaster at normal settings.- I didn't look close to ch
eck full throttle speed, just how muck stick it took.- -Full throttle spe
ed doesn't matter to me=0Abecause I don't use it for other than climb.=0A
=0AI couldn't say whether a standard configured MKIII would gain from the s
ame changes but you would definitely need the tall steel legs to compensate
.=0AAlso, because of my center section design, the angle could be changed w
ithout any extra work.=0A=0AReminder: Previous written by Bob Bean, I'm mer
ely posting it for him and I have no further information on it than you now
do. However, since many may not be familiar with Bob's customized MKIII, I
've attached an old photo so you can see what his airplane's nose and cente
r section look like.=0A=0A--------=0AThom Riddle=0ABuffalo, NY (9G0)=0A=0A
=0A=0ADon't worry about old age... it doesn't last very long. =0A- Anonymou
s=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.c
om/viewtopic.php?p=405333#405333=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AAttachments: =0A=0Ahttp://
forums.matronics.com//files/bean_mkiii_and_allegro__bethany_209.jpg=0A=0A
===============
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: MKIII wing incidence |
re: Why doesn't Bob post to the forum any more?
Bob is the busiest retired guy I know. His many and varied interests keep him otherwise
occupied. He even built his own house! He is a craftsman with competencies
in so many things that it boggles my mind. I don't recall EVER having at
any age, as much energy as he has at 72.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Don't worry about old age... it doesn't last very long.
- Anonymous
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405335#405335
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: MKIII wing incidence |
Thom,
Could you get pics from BB of his front horizontal stab mounts?
Due to the stock windshield bow, thus mod would be pretty tough in a stock Mk 3.
Dennis "Skid" Rowe
Mk3, 690L-70, Leechburg, PA
On Jul 26, 2013, at 7:38 AM, "Thom Riddle" <riddletr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bob Bean, asked me to post this for him, since he no longer posts to this forum,
but thought it might be of interest to other MKIII pilots.
>
> MKIII owners: I have for years intended to change the incidence on my wings
and tail. I drilled new holes in the spar attach ears probably three years ago
> but, somehow never got around to it. -until this year. The reason for doing
it pertains more to my individual plane than a stock MkIII because of my wide
windshield design.
> I felt a conflict of airflow between it and the wing angle, much like what happened
with early versions of the Xtra. -Too much down pressure on the nose.
>
> I drilled the new wing holes about 5/8" above the originals which works out to
about 1.326 degrees. I bought the adjustable tail brackets from Kolb but
> modified them substantially. They were angled to allow wing fold using any of
the holes but this makes the HS stick out too far at the lower settings.
> I cut the ears off to the same width and drilled new holes for two settings.
> I used a combination of calculation and guesswork to figure what range I would
need. I went with the highest holes which yields about -3.5 degrees from the
engine mount,
> figuring the tail boom is -6 degrees. Good thing, because with those holes I
can still fold the tail without pulling any bolts.
>
> I had crow hopped it a couple days ago and parked it without real flight. Today
was perfect flying weather so I did a test flight. Naturally I was hoping
not to
> encounter any "lawn dart" characteristics and I was either a very clever guy
or blessed with dumb luck, take yer choice, because it was perfect first time
up.
>
> I had previously been flying with one notch up on the trim, but for this occasion
I lowered it to zero. -Just right. Neutral stick at normal cruise and
> slight back pressure for full throttle straight and level. All other trim stayed
the same. There is a noticeable increase in dihedral but I didn't get to
> doing any rudder experimentation to see how much it is affected.
>
> The plane feels as if it has been freed up from an invisible restraint. Hard
to describe but I was quite pleased. It appears to cruise about 5 mph
> faster at normal settings. I didn't look close to check full throttle speed,
just how muck stick it took. -Full throttle speed doesn't matter to me
> because I don't use it for other than climb.
>
> I couldn't say whether a standard configured MKIII would gain from the same changes
but you would definitely need the tall steel legs to compensate.
> Also, because of my center section design, the angle could be changed without
any extra work.
>
> Reminder: Previous written by Bob Bean, I'm merely posting it for him and I have
no further information on it than you now do. However, since many may not
be familiar with Bob's customized MKIII, I've attached an old photo so you can
see what his airplane's nose and center section look like.
>
> --------
> Thom Riddle
> Buffalo, NY (9G0)
>
>
>
> Don't worry about old age... it doesn't last very long.
> - Anonymous
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405333#405333
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/bean_mkiii_and_allegro__bethany_209.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: MKIII wing incidence |
I can ask him. I'm going to get out of the middle of this conversation and try
to get BB to respond.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Don't worry about old age... it doesn't last very long.
- Anonymous
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405347#405347
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 |
|
Kolbers,
For what it is worth..I re-registered on July 16, a few days after the card
show up in the mail. The new card showed up with a July 31, 2016 expiration
date.
Nick Cassara
Palmer, AK
N607AK
Do not Archive
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: MKIII wing incidence |
Dennis,
Pardon me if I cut into your conversation to Thom (since both Bob Bean
and I have made the "new incidence change.)
Bob Bean had some kind of fender-bender several years ago, and made
his own replacement nosecone. If appears to
be a hybrid from the original round nosed MkIIIC and the wedge shaped X.
(Mine is a pure TNK part)
In keeping with all the other changes I made to my OEM MkIII C, I
added the newer, taller, steel gear legs. This necessitated
an incidence change to the main wings from the "high angle" to the new
lower angle, found on the new Xtras with the taller steel
gear legs. Bob Bean was making the changes I already made a couple of
years ago.
As I remember correctly, the Kolb instructions told us to drill a hole
"UP" 7/8" from the bottom of the tab. (or 5/8". or 3/4"=85whatever it
said)
Again, from a fading memory, it's been a long time since I did
that=85.this would give an effective angle of attack to the MkIIIC main
wings of around
+9 degrees, give or take a degree ( I think=85.) But! If you are
going to add the tall steel gear legs, that high angle of attack doesn't
work nicely
with 3-point landings because if you have such a 'very high' angle of
attack, you will find yourself being launched into the air just as the
tail end
drops too far.
Therefore, to counteract this problem, Bryan Melbourne lowered the
incidence of the wings, which also required a lower horizontal
stabilizer
angle, too. Plus, the wide Xtra nose figured into the deal, but we'd
need Bryan to chime in tell explain all the details.
To achieve the "new lower wings' incidence, a builder would then drill
the tab hole that same 7/8" distance=85..only this time he down came
from
the TOP of the tab, not up from the bottom. I think this gives about an
1" to an 1 1/4" distance between the holes. At any rate, now, by
inserting a bolt through
the UPPER hole, you will be lowering the wings a fair amount. As it
turns out, the final intended angle (from Bryan @ TNK Co) is +3.4
degrees (instead of that
+9 degrees for regular geared MkIIICs of Xtras).
Later, in discussing this angle change with Bryan, he said we were
looking for "2.8 to 3.4 degrees". When I did mine, I came up with 3.4
exactly, 'cause that's what
I was told. If I remember correctly, our buddy Scott Thompson came up
with near +2.8. I think this is why I called and talked to Bryan.
Evidently it was "a range"
we were allowed, centered around +3.0.
With all this main wing incidence changing, you have to also take into
account the rear horizontal surfaces. The leading edge of the H.S. must
come down
a couple of degrees, in order to work well with the "reduced angle main
wings". What that angle measurement is exactly we don't know yet, and
we are waiting for the
Bean to get back to us. He believes he nailed it on the first try. I'm
anxious to know what the digital angle reading is. I asked him if he
could also take a reading
of his main wings, too, while he was at it, to help me establish a sort
of basic logical platform to deal with.
NOTE: All angles, readings, etc. are assumed to be read with an
initial setting of the MkIII boom tube propped up to "6" degrees (or -6
degrees) EXACTLY.
It is whatever makes the motor mount "0.0"!! BTW, I think the hor. stab
is supposed to come in at -4.8 degrees. That is where I have mine set
at. I have 3
other holes to choose from, 1 upper, 2 lower.
My plane is almost finished, but medical issues and finances are
slowing me down at the moment.
Here is a photo of when I attached the Xtra nosecone to my completely
rebuilt MkIIIC front end. (first photo) I used exact measurements from
a OEM Xtra fuselage
to modify my MkIIIC fuselage. (Pat Ladd's wrecked frame) The stick on
top was to show a different member the intended angle he should achieve.
He was going
to do the MkIIIC to MkIIIX change, too, but I haven't heard from him in
a year and a half.
Oh yeah. You are correct, Dennis. Yes, the wing incidence change
will require you to make a new, (probably custom) wing gap seal. I did
mine out of fiberglass,
under which is housed the ballistic chute in the front compartment. (see
second and third photo)
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
Mike Welch
By the way, you can see the increased dihedral from all the "normal"
MkIIIs. When you use your old struts, like we did, and you lower the
leading edge, you
end up increasing the dihedral to about double the O.E. setting.. =46rom
what I've heard, this is a good thing. (It ends up being close to 3.0
degrees)
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: MKIII wing incidence |
Mike,
Thanks for all the background info.
I put the long steel legs on my stock 1991 vintage Mk 3 a few years ago, (th
anks for the good deal RG). I love the taller legs and have had no issues wi
th handling, would never go back to the aluminum ones.
To much mods to fuselage to drop the wing incidence, but the extra five mph w
ould be sweet.
Do not archive
Dennis "Skid" Rowe
Mk3, 690L-70, Leechburg, PA
On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> Pardon me if I cut into your conversation to Thom (since both Bob Bean a
nd I have made the "new incidence change.)
>
> Bob Bean had some kind of fender-bender several years ago, and made his o
wn replacement nosecone. If appears to
> be a hybrid from the original round nosed MkIIIC and the wedge shaped X. (
Mine is a pure TNK part)
>
> In keeping with all the other changes I made to my OEM MkIII C, I added t
he newer, taller, steel gear legs. This necessitated
> an incidence change to the main wings from the "high angle" to the new low
er angle, found on the new Xtras with the taller steel
> gear legs. Bob Bean was making the changes I already made a couple of yea
rs ago.
>
> As I remember correctly, the Kolb instructions told us to drill a hole "
UP" 7/8" from the bottom of the tab. (or 5/8". or 3/4"whatever it s
aid)
> Again, from a fading memory, it's been a long time since I did that
.this would give an effective angle of attack to the MkIIIC main wings of ar
ound
> +9 degrees, give or take a degree ( I think.) But! If you are g
oing to add the tall steel gear legs, that high angle of attack doesn't work
nicely
> with 3-point landings because if you have such a 'very high' angle of atta
ck, you will find yourself being launched into the air just as the tail end
> drops too far.
> Therefore, to counteract this problem, Bryan Melbourne lowered the incid
ence of the wings, which also required a lower horizontal stabilizer
> angle, too. Plus, the wide Xtra nose figured into the deal, but we'd need
Bryan to chime in tell explain all the details.
>
> To achieve the "new lower wings' incidence, a builder would then drill t
he tab hole that same 7/8" distance..only this time he down came fr
om
> the TOP of the tab, not up from the bottom. I think this gives about an 1
" to an 1 1/4" distance between the holes. At any rate, now, by inserting a
bolt through
> the UPPER hole, you will be lowering the wings a fair amount. As it turns
out, the final intended angle (from Bryan @ TNK Co) is +3.4 degrees (instea
d of that
> +9 degrees for regular geared MkIIICs of Xtras).
>
> Later, in discussing this angle change with Bryan, he said we were looki
ng for "2.8 to 3.4 degrees". When I did mine, I came up with 3.4 exactly, '
cause that's what
> I was told. If I remember correctly, our buddy Scott Thompson came up wit
h near +2.8. I think this is why I called and talked to Bryan. Evidently i
t was "a range"
> we were allowed, centered around +3.0.
>
> With all this main wing incidence changing, you have to also take into a
ccount the rear horizontal surfaces. The leading edge of the H.S. must come
down
> a couple of degrees, in order to work well with the "reduced angle main wi
ngs". What that angle measurement is exactly we don't know yet, and we are w
aiting for the
> Bean to get back to us. He believes he nailed it on the first try. I'm a
nxious to know what the digital angle reading is. I asked him if he could a
lso take a reading
> of his main wings, too, while he was at it, to help me establish a sort of
basic logical platform to deal with.
>
> NOTE: All angles, readings, etc. are assumed to be read with an initial
setting of the MkIII boom tube propped up to "6" degrees (or -6 degrees) EX
ACTLY.
> It is whatever makes the motor mount "0.0"!! BTW, I think the hor. stab i
s supposed to come in at -4.8 degrees. That is where I have mine set at. I
have 3
> other holes to choose from, 1 upper, 2 lower.
>
> My plane is almost finished, but medical issues and finances are slowing
me down at the moment.
>
> Here is a photo of when I attached the Xtra nosecone to my completely re
built MkIIIC front end. (first photo) I used exact measurements from a OEM X
tra fuselage
> to modify my MkIIIC fuselage. (Pat Ladd's wrecked frame) The stick on t
op was to show a different member the intended angle he should achieve. He w
as going
> to do the MkIIIC to MkIIIX change, too, but I haven't heard from him in a
year and a half.
>
> Oh yeah. You are correct, Dennis. Yes, the wing incidence change will r
equire you to make a new, (probably custom) wing gap seal. I did mine out o
f fiberglass,
> under which is housed the ballistic chute in the front compartment. (see s
econd and third photo)
>
> We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
>
> Mike Welch
>
> By the way, you can see the increased dihedral from all the "normal" MkIII
s. When you use your old struts, like we did, and you lower the leading edg
e, you
> end up increasing the dihedral to about double the O.E. setting.. =46rom w
hat I've heard, this is a good thing. (It ends up being close to 3.0 degree
s)
>
> <DSC00753.jpeg>
> <DSC01413.jpeg>
> <DSC01405.jpeg>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: MKIII wing incidence |
Dennis, With a stock Mk III (C) nose cone I'm not sure you would see any
speed increase at all. I won't stake money on it, but I don't think so and
here's why;
The speed increase of the Mk IIIX was due, primarily from decreasing the
angle between the forward and aft fuselage panels. On the bottom panels
this created a condition where the nose of the "X" was flying at a negative
angle of attack. Decreasing the wing incidence raised this back to a
positive angle.
For the horizontal stabilizer, the change from "C" to "X" puts it right
down the center line of the boom tube. As Bob noted this spreads the attach
point further apart and puts a fore to aft kink in the elevator hinge line.
On Ken Holle's airplane it was so pronounced you could feel the elevator
bind as it came in level with the stabilizer and pop free on either side.
Like Bob I tried reworking the stock 3 hole brackets but could not get that
to work especially well either so I welded up new brackets with the holes
drilled as close to the boom as possible and still get the bolts in and
that fixed it.
When making this change there's also the issue of what to do with the old
bracket holes. The solution is to make cover plates from a piece of boom
tube and rivet them on over the old holes. The previous owner of Ken's
aircraft had drilled so many holes the boom looked like a piece of Swiss
cheese. See the pics.
Anyway, IMHO putting the longer steel gear legs on a "C" does not mean the
wing incidence must be changed. It is, rather, the other way around.
Changing the wing incidence requires the steel gear legs. If anything a
stock "C" with the steel gear legs should be able to land slower because
you can pull back farther when landing without hitting on the tail wheel
first.
Rick Girard
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Dennis Rowe <rowedenny@windstream.net>wrot
e:
> Mike,
> Thanks for all the background info.
> I put the long steel legs on my stock 1991 vintage Mk 3 a few years ago,
> (thanks for the good deal RG). I love the taller legs and have had no
> issues with handling, would never go back to the aluminum ones.
> To much mods to fuselage to drop the wing incidence, but the extra five
> mph would be sweet.
> Do not archive
>
>
> Dennis "Skid" Rowe
> Mk3, 690L-70, Leechburg, PA
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dennis,
>
> Pardon me if I cut into your conversation to Thom (since both Bob Bean
> and I have made the "new incidence change.)
>
> Bob Bean had some kind of fender-bender several years ago, and made his
> own replacement nosecone. If appears to
> be a hybrid from the original round nosed MkIIIC and the wedge shaped X.
> (Mine is a pure TNK part)
>
> In keeping with all the other changes I made to my OEM MkIII C, I added
> the newer, taller, steel gear legs. This necessitated
> an incidence change to the main wings from the "high angle" to the new
> lower angle, found on the new Xtras with the taller steel
> gear legs. Bob Bean was making the changes I already made a couple of
> years ago.
>
> As I remember correctly, the Kolb instructions told us to drill a hole
> "UP" 7/8" from the bottom of the tab. (or 5/8". or 3/4"=85whatever it sa
id)
> Again, from a fading memory, it's been a long time since I did that=85.th
is
> would give an effective angle of attack to the MkIIIC main wings of aroun
d
> +9 degrees, give or take a degree ( I think=85.) But! If you are going
to
> add the tall steel gear legs, that high angle of attack doesn't work nice
ly
> with 3-point landings because if you have such a 'very high' angle of
> attack, you will find yourself being launched into the air just as the ta
il
> end
> drops too far.
> Therefore, to counteract this problem, Bryan Melbourne lowered the
> incidence of the wings, which also required a lower horizontal stabilizer
> angle, too. Plus, the wide Xtra nose figured into the deal, but we'd nee
d
> Bryan to chime in tell explain all the details.
>
> To achieve the "new lower wings' incidence, a builder would then drill
> the tab hole that same 7/8" distance=85..*only this time he down came fro
m *
> *the TOP of the tab, not up from the bottom*. I think this gives about
> an 1" to an 1 1/4" distance between the holes. At any rate, now, by
> inserting a bolt through
> the UPPER hole, you will be lowering the wings a fair amount. As it turn
s
> out, the final intended angle (from Bryan @ TNK Co) is +3.4 degrees
> (instead of that
> +9 degrees for regular geared MkIIICs of Xtras).
>
> Later, in discussing this angle change with Bryan, he said we were
> looking for "2.8 to 3.4 degrees". When I did mine, I came up with 3.4
> exactly, 'cause that's what
> I was told. If I remember correctly, our buddy Scott Thompson came up
> with near +2.8. I think this is why I called and talked to Bryan.
> Evidently it was "a range"
> we were allowed, centered around +3.0.
>
> With all this main wing incidence changing, you have to also take into
> account the rear horizontal surfaces. The leading edge of the H.S. must
> come down
> a couple of degrees, in order to work well with the "reduced angle main
> wings". What that angle measurement is exactly we don't know yet, and we
> are waiting for the
> Bean to get back to us. He believes he nailed it on the first try. I'm
> anxious to know what the digital angle reading is. I asked him if he cou
ld
> also take a reading
> of his main wings, too, while he was at it, to help me establish a sort o
f
> basic logical platform to deal with.
>
> NOTE: All angles, readings, etc. are assumed to be read with an initia
l
> setting of the MkIII boom tube propped up to "6" degrees (or -6 degrees)
> EXACTLY.
> It is whatever makes the motor mount "0.0"!! BTW, I think the hor.
> stab is supposed to come in at -4.8 degrees. That is where I have mine s
et
> at. I have 3
> other holes to choose from, 1 upper, 2 lower.
>
> My plane is almost finished, but medical issues and finances are slowin
g
> me down at the moment.
>
> Here is a photo of when I attached the Xtra nosecone to my completely
> rebuilt MkIIIC front end. (first photo) I used *exact *measurements from
> a OEM Xtra fuselage
> to modify my MkIIIC fuselage. (Pat Ladd's wrecked frame) The stick on
> top was to show a different member the intended angle he should achieve.
> He was going
> to do the MkIIIC to MkIIIX change, too, but I haven't heard from him in
a
> year and a half.
>
> Oh yeah. You are correct, Dennis. Yes, the wing incidence change will
> require you to make a new, (probably custom) wing gap seal. I did mine o
ut
> of fiberglass,
> under which is housed the ballistic chute in the front compartment. (see
> second and third photo)
>
> We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
>
> Mike Welch
>
> By the way, you can see the increased dihedral from all the "normal"
> MkIIIs. When you use your old struts, like we did, and you lower the
> leading edge, you
> end up increasing the dihedral to about double the O.E. setting.. From
> what I've heard, this is a good thing. (It ends up being close to 3.0
> degrees)
>
> <DSC00753.jpeg>
>
> <DSC01413.jpeg>
>
> <DSC01405.jpeg>
>
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
--
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 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: MKIII wing incidence |
At 04:38 AM 7/26/2013 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Bob Bean, asked me to post this for him, since he no longer posts to this
forum, but thought it might be of interest to other MKIII pilots.
>
..................
>I drilled the new wing holes about 5/8" above the originals which works out
to about 1.326 degrees. I bought the adjustable tail brackets from Kolb but
modified them substantially. They were angled to allow wing fold using any
of the holes but this makes the HS stick out too far at the lower settings.
>
>The plane feels as if it has been freed up from an invisible restraint.
Hard to describe but I was quite pleased. It appears to cruise about 5 mph
faster at normal settings. I didn't look close to check full throttle
speed, just how muck stick it took.
>
Bob,
You may want to adjust the thrust vector by trial washer elevating the front
and/or back of the engine to the mounting plate. If you are all ready getting
a plus five mph at cruise it may be a useless endeavor. But it may get you a
little bit more cruise speed.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Winchester, IN
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! --
|