---------------------------------------------------------- Kolb-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 02/22/15: 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:57:33 AM PST US From: Herb Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 > > > > @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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:34:51 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options From: "henry.voris" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:03:36 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options From: Richard Girard 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:39:32 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:04:15 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options From: Richard Girard 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:07:46 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Engines From: Gary Aman 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:33:42 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Engines From: Gary Aman 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:55:03 AM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:00:04 AM PST US From: william sullivan Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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 wrote: Subject: Kolb-List: Part 103 legal Firestar? To: kolb-list@matronics.com Date: Friday, February 20, 2015, 11:54 PM "Richard Pike" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:07:15 AM PST US Subject: Fwd: Kolb-List: Part 103 legal Firestar? From: Robert Laird On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:59 AM, william sullivan 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:21:37 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options From: Rick Neilsen 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:39:20 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options From: "Frankd" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:36:31 PM PST US From: "Samuel Ragland" 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 --> @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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:47:26 PM PST US From: "Samuel Ragland" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 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 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 -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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:53:52 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" 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 --> @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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:51:42 PM PST US From: "Samuel Ragland" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 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 --> @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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:58:45 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options From: Richard Girard 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 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 > > --> > > @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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:58:29 PM PST US From: "Samuel Ragland" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: 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 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 --> @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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:21:07 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MK III Engine Options From: "ron.dace(at)yahoo.com" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message kolb-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Kolb-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/kolb-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/kolb-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.