Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:57 AM - Re: Re: MK III Engine Options (Herb)
2. 06:34 AM - Re: MK III Engine Options (henry.voris)
3. 07:03 AM - Re: Re: MK III Engine Options (Richard Girard)
4. 07:39 AM - Re: Re: MK III Engine Options (John Hauck)
5. 08:04 AM - Re: Re: MK III Engine Options (Richard Girard)
6. 08:07 AM - Engines (Gary Aman)
7. 08:33 AM - Engines (Gary Aman)
8. 08:55 AM - Re: Re: MK III Engine Options (John Hauck)
9. 09:00 AM - Re: Part 103 legal Firestar? (william sullivan)
10. 09:07 AM - Fw: Part 103 legal Firestar? (Robert Laird)
11. 09:21 AM - Re: Re: MK III Engine Options (Rick Neilsen)
12. 09:39 AM - Re: MK III Engine Options (Frankd)
13. 02:36 PM - Re: Re: MK III Engine Options (Samuel Ragland)
14. 02:47 PM - Re: Re: MK III Engine Options (Samuel Ragland)
15. 02:53 PM - Re: Re: MK III Engine Options (John Hauck)
16. 03:51 PM - Re: Re: MK III Engine Options (Samuel Ragland)
17. 03:58 PM - Re: Re: MK III Engine Options (Richard Girard)
18. 04:58 PM - Re: Re: MK III Engine Options (Samuel Ragland)
19. 06:21 PM - Re: MK III Engine Options (ron.dace(at)yahoo.com)
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 Engine Options |
you tube pics of Mike Richardson in his MkIII with BMW engine.... Last
I knew he would sell it with or without the engine...
I think that is the most telling thing..."with or without"....most
people shy away from non standard engine installations on Kolbs.. and
for that matter most other planes... no matter how well they are
engineered...and Mike did a super job...excellent build and very good
adaptation on the engine...Herb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KGLy1FCWVU
> Engine seekers,
>
> Have any of you considered the engine from a Honda ST1100 motorcycle?
> It's a V4 and runs sweeter than any BMW I've owned. I put 129,000
> miles on my 2000 ST, and I've got about 180,000 miles on Beemers, both
> R model airheads an K model bricks. The R is better than the K but the
> ST. is sweeter than either of them.
>
> And you can buy one used for five hundred bucks!! Great engine, ask
> Don Gheradini, the Honda Motors engineer who built the FlagFly I flew.
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "ron.dace(at)yahoo.com"
> Date:02/21/2015 9:37 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
>
> <ron.dace@yahoo.com>
>
> @sfrIII - Corvair is a lot of engine. Do you know if there are other
> MK III's flying with one?
>
> @John Hauck - I would love to have a 912 and will keep that option
> open as my research continues. That was the engine that was
> originally on the my Mk III airframe. The owner/builder couldn't sell
> the plane intact so he parted it out and sold the engine first.
>
> --------
> "But all the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools. And
> it's a long road out of Eden." - Eagles
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438565#438565
>
>
> ~,gM4Gqz.'8*[.+-fZ+`axr^jzZ(j|n)b'!j'+ry'C
> {
> ,x(ZP!jrrj|-&j',r5h%lm 'ojj+*[.+-08IaT1
> jgrz{Zi^&lZ+ky+k&j',r+k&j',rhB{ky.+jY^.+-i0fr((nbxm-&j',rr&*''k{w/tml
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 Engine Options |
If considering a Jabiru mill, you might want to know of the Australian FAA (CASA)
concerns about them...
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102353
--------
Henry
Firefly Five-Charlie-Bravo
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438570#438570
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 Engine Options |
Sfrill, Great looking engine, but you need to consider its weight. Putting
a 200 lb.+ engine in a MkIIIX reduces it to a single passenger airplane.
I've flown the IIIX at 1280 lb. Very poor performance. My peronal
recommendation is to not fly it at greater than 1100 lb. You also need to
consider the strength of the rear portion of the fuselage truss. The MkIII
was designed as a +4g airframe. Doubling the design engine weight seriously
compromises the aircraft's designed strength margin.
Rick Girard
do not archive
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 5:06 PM, sfrIII <sfr3@speedyquick.net> wrote:
>
> Hi all! Sam here in Idaho. I am currently building a MKIII Extra.
> My engine of choice is a converted Corvair Engine that I built for a
> different project. There are several pros and cons but the main reason
> for using a Corvair is price.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438562#438562
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/corvair_engine1_171.jpg
>
>
--
Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
-Andre Gide
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: MK III Engine Options |
Rick:
What engine were you flying on the 1280 lb MKIIIX?
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Girard
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
Sfrill, Great looking engine, but you need to consider its weight.
Putting a 200 lb.+ engine in a MkIIIX reduces it to a single passenger
airplane. I've flown the IIIX at 1280 lb. Very poor performance. My
peronal recommendation is to not fly it at greater than 1100 lb. You
also need to consider the strength of the rear portion of the fuselage
truss. The MkIII was designed as a +4g airframe. Doubling the design
engine weight seriously compromises the aircraft's designed strength
margin.
Rick Girard
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 Engine Options |
John, The engine on the "Plane from Hell" was a 582-99.
Rick
do not archive
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 9:37 AM, John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
> Rick:
>
>
> What engine were you flying on the 1280 lb MKIIIX?
>
>
> john h
>
> mkIII
>
> Titus, Alabama
>
>
> *From:* owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Richard Girard
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:03 AM
> *To:* kolb-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
>
>
> Sfrill, Great looking engine, but you need to consider its weight. Putting
> a 200 lb.+ engine in a MkIIIX reduces it to a single passenger airplane.
> I've flown the IIIX at 1280 lb. Very poor performance. My peronal
> recommendation is to not fly it at greater than 1100 lb. You also need to
> consider the strength of the rear portion of the fuselage truss. The MkIII
> was designed as a +4g airframe. Doubling the design engine weight seriously
> compromises the aircraft's designed strength margin.
>
>
> Rick Girard
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
-Andre Gide
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 |
|
With history and performance in mind the Rotax has it. For unequaled expense and
basic cost it also has it. Gear box issues starter and sprague clutch and fuel
pumps have been Rotax's problems and my friends have spent thousands repairing
them on the S models especially
On the Kolbs, a flat four is most practical,in cowled aircraft,the Viking Hondas
are a great alternative at fractions on the cost. The D motor and the new
V 4 are unproven but promising. I could maintain a 470 continental for less
than a 912 uls.
Sent from my iPhone
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 |
|
Only 2 of us in our group are flying Jabiru's. One , a 3300 has fought heat and
carb issues in a 601xlb. My own 2200 early serial#1295 solid lifter has been
pretty good so far, nothing but routine maintainence caps rotors plugs but it
only has 930 hrs so not much history,but I believe a lot of engine issues are
owner induced. Just my 2 cents worth
Sent from my iPhone
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 Engine Options |
That's what I thought.
Also an early model MKIIIx.
I have experienced good performance with my MKIII loaded to 1200+ lbs.
This is normal takeoff weight when I am flying long cross country
flights and sleeping under the wing.
I climbed out of Dixon, WY, last September, elevation 6549 ASL, to
15,000+, straight across the Rockies to Fort Collins/Loveland, Colorado.
MKIII performed well as usual. No handling problems. It has performed
that way since the early days powered with the 582.
The "Plane from Hell" was one of a kind.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Girard
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
John, The engine on the "Plane from Hell" was a 582-99.
Rick
do not archive
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 9:37 AM, John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
wrote:
Rick:
What engine were you flying on the 1280 lb MKIIIX?
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Girard
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
Sfrill, Great looking engine, but you need to consider its weight.
Putting a 200 lb.+ engine in a MkIIIX reduces it to a single passenger
airplane. I've flown the IIIX at 1280 lb. Very poor performance. My
peronal recommendation is to not fly it at greater than 1100 lb. You
also need to consider the strength of the rear portion of the fuselage
truss. The MkIII was designed as a +4g airframe. Doubling the design
engine weight seriously compromises the aircraft's designed strength
margin.
Rick Girard
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
-Andre Gide
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: Part 103 legal Firestar? |
Richard: i have an original 5 rib Firestar with a 447. Wrecked at least a couple
of times- once rolled over when a tie down broke, and the other time when I
rolled it on landing. I am very confident it can be completed as a 103. Mine
has a main fuselage tube that is a foot shorter than what I was told is normal,
and because I have a BRS, my weight allowance is 278. The chute doesn't actually
weigh that, so it gives a couple of pounds to play with. Somebody on the
List has one where he left the nose cone off, and all of the heavy instruments.
No brakes, and I don't know what he has for wheels. I have seen video of it
flying. Following Jack Hart's guidelines, I think you could come in well under
the weight limit. If I ever get to throw some money at mine, I think I can come
in around 270.
Bill Sullivan
Windsor Locks, Ct.
Original FS, 447
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 2/20/15, Richard Pike <thegreybaron@charter.net> wrote:
Subject: Kolb-List: Part 103 legal Firestar?
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Date: Friday, February 20, 2015, 11:54 PM
"Richard Pike" <thegreybaron@charter.net>
Spent quite a while looking through the archives tonight,
and it is starting to look sort of doubtful, but I thought
I'd ask anyway: does anybody, anywhere, know of a Firestar
of any vintage that ever actually made the 254 pound weight
limit?
The reason is that a local pilot has a very early model with
a wrecked cage and a good everything else that can be had at
a good price, and I am considering starting a new
project...
Thanks.
--------
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0
"Living for your own pleasure is the least
pleasurable thing a man can do. If his neighbors don't kill
him in disgust he will die slowly of boredom and
powerlessness." - Joy Davidman
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438543#438543
Forum -
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt
Dralle, List Admin.
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: | Part 103 legal Firestar? |
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:59 AM, william sullivan <williamtsullivan@att.net
> wrote:
> The chute doesn't actually weigh that, so it gives a couple of pounds to
> play with.
That's actually a misunderstanding of the rule... the allowance is only for
the actual weight of the chute & mechanism (not to exceed the limit), not a
raising of the weight limit.
Of course, the chances of a ramp-check where weight is checked is so close
to zero that for most of us it truly is zero, that "making weight" is
something most of us have, at one time or the other, ignored completely.
-- R
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: MK III Engine Options |
Ron/all
There are a lot of good engines out there but are they suitable for a Kolb.
The Rotax 912 series is the benchmark. It is really tough to find one that
weighs as light as a 912. The VW at the time I chose my engine was the only
engine close to power and weight. Even with the VW it is 10 + lbs heaver.
Advertised weights and HP are frequently misrepresented.
There are a bunch of issues that need to be considered before tackling a
new engine on any airplane and even more on a light plane like a Kolb. Just
a few are : Direct drive vs reduction drive, what RPM is best for the
engine, does anyone make a working redrive for the engine (ask Larry Borne)
, weight, how well will the engine hold up at 60-80% power, do you need to
design and fabricate a engine mount, do you need to design and fabricate a
exhaust system, what prop brand type diameter number of blades pitch (this
is almost impossible to do right the first or more times), are the engine
harmonics suitable for driving a prop, are you going to put a used engine
on a airplane, what are parts availability like (motor cycle manufactures
quit supplying parts fairly quick), will you ever be able to sell the plane
with that engine on it (did you modify the air frame to mount the engine).
Do you think Kolb is going to help you with a questionable one off engine?
Send them big bucks or spend less and buy a 912.
The VW engine is out of production for a bunch of years but you can still
buy (with no end in sight) any part you want and there are inexpensive
racing parts readily available. You can rebuild a VW for the cost of a 912
gasket set.
Just food for thought
Rick Neilsen
1st Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:35 PM, undoctor <undoctor@ptd.net> wrote:
> Engine seekers,
>
> Have any of you considered the engine from a Honda ST1100 motorcycle?
> It's a V4 and runs sweeter than any BMW I've owned. I put 129,000 miles
> on my 2000 ST, and I've got about 180,000 miles on Beemers, both R model
> airheads an K model bricks. The R is better than the K but the ST. is
> sweeter than either of them.
>
> And you can buy one used for five hundred bucks!! Great engine, ask Don
> Gheradini, the Honda Motors engineer who built the FlagFly I flew.
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "ron.dace(at)yahoo.com"
> Date:02/21/2015 9:37 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
>
> ron.dace@yahoo.com>
>
> @sfrIII - Corvair is a lot of engine. Do you know if there are other MK
> III's flying with one?
>
> @John Hauck - I would love to have a 912 and will keep that option open as
> my research continues. That was the engine that was originally on the my
> Mk III airframe. The owner/builder couldn't sell the plane intact so he
> parted it out and sold the engine first.
>
> --------
> "But all the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools. And it's
> a long road out of Eden." - Eagles
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438565#438565
>
>
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: | Re: MK III Engine Options |
Hi Ron/Kolbers,
I have a MkIII Xtra with a Jab 2200.
I got a deal on the engine at $8000 with a prince prop and grand rapids EIS.
The things that mattered to me were:-
a/ Reliability. I liked the fact that the jab is direct drive , 4 stroke, simple
aircooled.
b/ Weight. I was looking for best power to weight and did not want to go lower
than 80HP.
c/ Price. I was on a budget and could not pass up on this deal.
I had to get a engine mount from Titan aircraft to mount the Jab for about $800.
After flying my plane for about 3 years now, here are my observations. (Mine
alone and different for every plane, I'm sure)
1/ This is a wonderful "single person" aircraft. Add another 200Lb person and
I think it flys marginally and landing is best with some power but I need to use
full back stick to achieve flare. A slightly rear Cg works well in my Kolb.
I would now LOVE to have 100Hp and have a margin of performance for a 2 person
situation. I generally fly alone so I'm happy with what I have.
2/ The engine needed work to get to run reliably , changing the needle and carb
settings and I did have overheating issues that I solved using a shroud in front
of the mags that directed the airflow into the baffles.
3/The jab2200 uses 100LL but sips about 3.5gals/hr. I love this. But I realize
that anything up to 5 or 6 gals/hr is no issue for me. My bladder time is shorter
than the time aloft with 10gals standard kolb tanks and for me the cost
is not an issue. Flying faster would offset the fuel burn. mine flys at 70-75
mph on cruise.
What would I do next time:- I would pay the $$ for a Rotax 912ul, 100HP, 4 stroke,
new or from a reputable used source.
a/ There is history of reliability. (I would ONLY fly 4 stroke, never two stroke.
My preference)
b/ The Kolb is built for this engine and you know it works and don't have to do
"work-Arounds" to get it installed. Its a great combination for DUAL person
performance and no heating issues. (If using other engines like BMW or Convair
I'd verify the frame can take the weight and torque.)
c/ The fuel burn is decent on lower octane.
My advise is to go try get a ride in either model you like, its worth the effort
for a decision that you will live with for awhile.
Building and flying these aircraft is a set of compromises that you can pick to
make it what you want... Good luck.
FrankD
N1014S
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438582#438582
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: MK III Engine Options |
Hi Ron,
I have looked Hi and Low for an EXTRA
powered with a Corvair.
People assume that this engine is very heavy.
In reality, a running aircraft converted Corvair
is only 30 LBS. heavier than a 912.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ron.dace(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 7:37 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
--> <ron.dace@yahoo.com>
@sfrIII - Corvair is a lot of engine. Do you know if there are other MK
III's flying with one?
@John Hauck - I would love to have a 912 and will keep that option open as
my research continues. That was the engine that was originally on the my Mk
III airframe. The owner/builder couldn't sell the plane intact so he parted
it out and sold the engine first.
--------
"But all the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools. And it's a
long road out of Eden." - Eagles
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438565#438565
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: MK III Engine Options |
Hi Rick,
Thanks for your information. I was in contact with "Kolb" for several
months and provided my intended engine choice and its specs for
weight and other things.
They said it would work so I paid them and am now building.
Thanks Sam
do not archive
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Girard
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
Sfrill, Great looking engine, but you need to consider its weight.
Putting a 200 lb.+ engine in a MkIIIX reduces it to a single passenger
airplane. I've flown the IIIX at 1280 lb. Very poor performance. My
peronal recommendation is to not fly it at greater than 1100 lb. You
also need to consider the strength of the rear portion of the fuselage
truss. The MkIII was designed as a +4g airframe. Doubling the design
engine weight seriously compromises the aircraft's designed strength
margin.
Rick Girard
do not archive
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 5:06 PM, sfrIII <sfr3@speedyquick.net> wrote:
Hi all! Sam here in Idaho. I am currently building a MKIII Extra.
My engine of choice is a converted Corvair Engine that I built for a
different project. There are several pros and cons but the main reason
for using a Corvair is price.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438562#438562
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/corvair_engine1_171.jpg
<http://forums.matronics.com/files/corvair_engine1_171.jpg>
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
FORUMS -
_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
-Andre Gide
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 Engine Options |
How does frontal area of the Corvair compare with the 912?
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Samuel Ragland
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
Hi Ron,
I have looked Hi and Low for an EXTRA
powered with a Corvair.
People assume that this engine is very heavy.
In reality, a running aircraft converted Corvair
is only 30 LBS. heavier than a 912.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ron.dace(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 7:37 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
--> <ron.dace@yahoo.com>
@sfrIII - Corvair is a lot of engine. Do you know if there are other MK
III's flying with one?
@John Hauck - I would love to have a 912 and will keep that option open as
my research continues. That was the engine that was originally on the my Mk
III airframe. The owner/builder couldn't sell the plane intact so he parted
it out and sold the engine first.
--------
"But all the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools. And it's a
long road out of Eden." - Eagles
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438565#438565
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: MK III Engine Options |
Hi John,
I found this photo of a running Corvair on a Peitenpol.
I don't think it is any larger than the 912.
Thanks, Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Hauck
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:54 PM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
How does frontal area of the Corvair compare with the 912?
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Samuel Ragland
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
Hi Ron,
I have looked Hi and Low for an EXTRA
powered with a Corvair.
People assume that this engine is very heavy.
In reality, a running aircraft converted Corvair
is only 30 LBS. heavier than a 912.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ron.dace(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 7:37 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
--> <ron.dace@yahoo.com>
@sfrIII - Corvair is a lot of engine. Do you know if there are other MK
III's flying with one?
@John Hauck - I would love to have a 912 and will keep that option open as
my research continues. That was the engine that was originally on the my Mk
III airframe. The owner/builder couldn't sell the plane intact so he parted
it out and sold the engine first.
--------
"But all the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools. And it's a
long road out of Eden." - Eagles
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438565#438565
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: MK III Engine Options |
Samuel, William Wynn is the defacto expert on the Corvair engine, is he
not? His web site lists the all up wet flying weight of the Corvair at
somewhere between 212 to 225 lb. That is not 30 lb. more than the Rotax
912, that's 62 to 75 lb.
I worked on a MkIIIX for a customer and shaved every pound possible off the
aircraft and couldn't get the weight below 620 lb and it was powered by a
582-99 that's over 100 lb. lighter than the weight listed by Mr. Wynn.
Rick
do not archive
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Samuel Ragland <sfr3@speedyquick.net>
wrote:
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> I have looked Hi and Low for an EXTRA
> powered with a Corvair.
>
> People assume that this engine is very heavy.
> In reality, a running aircraft converted Corvair
> is only 30 LBS. heavier than a 912.
>
> Sam
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> ron.dace(at)yahoo.com
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 7:37 PM
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
>
> --> <ron.dace@yahoo.com>
>
> @sfrIII - Corvair is a lot of engine. Do you know if there are other MK
> III's flying with one?
>
> @John Hauck - I would love to have a 912 and will keep that option open as
> my research continues. That was the engine that was originally on the my
> Mk
> III airframe. The owner/builder couldn't sell the plane intact so he
> parted
> it out and sold the engine first.
>
> --------
> "But all the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools. And it's a
> long road out of Eden." - Eagles
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438565#438565
>
>
--
Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
-Andre Gide
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: MK III Engine Options |
Hi Rick,
Your absolutely correct. In revue of William's site, I found
that my comparison should have been with a VW installation.
I guess the girl friend will have to ride in the nose cone!!
Sorry about that,
Sam
do not archive
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Girard
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
Samuel, William Wynn is the defacto expert on the Corvair engine, is he
not? His web site lists the all up wet flying weight of the Corvair at
somewhere between 212 to 225 lb. That is not 30 lb. more than the Rotax
912, that's 62 to 75 lb.
I worked on a MkIIIX for a customer and shaved every pound possible off
the aircraft and couldn't get the weight below 620 lb and it was powered
by a 582-99 that's over 100 lb. lighter than the weight listed by Mr.
Wynn.
Rick
do not archive
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Samuel Ragland <sfr3@speedyquick.net>
wrote:
Hi Ron,
I have looked Hi and Low for an EXTRA
powered with a Corvair.
People assume that this engine is very heavy.
In reality, a running aircraft converted Corvair
is only 30 LBS. heavier than a 912.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ron.dace(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 7:37 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options
--> <ron.dace@yahoo.com>
@sfrIII - Corvair is a lot of engine. Do you know if there are other MK
III's flying with one?
@John Hauck - I would love to have a 912 and will keep that option open
as
my research continues. That was the engine that was originally on the
my Mk
III airframe. The owner/builder couldn't sell the plane intact so he
parted
it out and sold the engine first.
--------
"But all the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools. And
it's a
long road out of Eden." - Eagles
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438565#438565
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
FORUMS -
_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
-Andre Gide
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: MK III Engine Options |
Thanks for all of the good feedback. I am going to need a 100hp engine to get
my 6'4" 250lb carcass off the ground particularly if there is any hope of carrying
a passenger. What I have concluded so far:
912s - although expensive, probably the best option, no air frame mods required,
good resale potential, known quantity probably the highest market penetration.
(that is what I was trying to discern with my original post)
VW w/re-drive - less expensive, overheating is a possible issue, would have to
mod the air frame (additional cost with potential resale impact), there are a
limited number currently flying on a MK III.
Speaking of resale, it is always an issue with an experimental / kit built airplane.
The original owner of the air frame couldn't sell it with the motor intact
and get any where near the build cost. Parting it out was a better option.
While some of the other options are intriguing and a good solution for some, maybe
they aren't a good fit for me.
--------
"But all the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools. And it's a long
road out of Eden." - Eagles
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438597#438597
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! --
|