Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:32 AM - Re: Re: MK 111 rebuild (Patrick Ladd)
2. 04:57 AM - Re: Re: MK 111 rebuild (Eddie)
3. 06:54 AM - Re: Re: MK 111 rebuild (Patrick Ladd)
4. 07:14 AM - Re: Kolb-List Digest: 3 Mgs - 04/10/15 (b young)
5. 07:31 AM - Re: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 3 Mgs - 04/10/15 (Dennis Rowe)
6. 12:12 PM - Re: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 3 Mgs - 04/10/15 (Dan Walter)
7. 12:31 PM - Tail Heavy (K I)
8. 02:31 PM - Re: Tail Heavy (Rick Neilsen)
9. 04:56 PM - Re: Tail Heavy (B Young)
10. 05:09 PM - Re: Tail Heavy (John Hauck)
11. 05:14 PM - Rebuilding/modifying my main gear (John Hauck)
12. 07:03 PM - Re: MK 111 rebuild (pipercolt)
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 111 rebuild |
<<Before I would relocate the battery from the CG to the nose I would test
fly the airplane. >>
John,
surely the C of G would have been calculated with the battery in position,
in flying position before the plane was taken into the air on her first
flight. I needed some lead in the nose to bring the C of G between the
specified limits on my Xtra. Nothing to do with flying characteristics. If
the battery can be moved to produce the correct C of G without adding extra
weight somewhere, thats a bonus.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hauck
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 1:38 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: MK 111 rebuild
With a steel leg terminating at the midpoint of the gear leg
socket, one has effectively constructed a shear at the
weakest point of the socket.
I haven't paid that much attention to the old solid steel
legs. Did not realize they were designed short.
Before I would relocate the battery from the CG to the nose
I would test fly the airplane. Now that is what I would do
if I had an itch to put a heavy battery way up there. Heck,
we have had folks haul lead in the nose.
Nose down pitch at cruise and full power is the biggest
annoyance of a MKIII. Normally, they do not have a CG
problem. Adverse pitch down is caused by the high thrust
line of the pusher configuration. Can be dealt with by
forced trim and aileron adjustment.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
pipercolt
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 7:02 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MK 111 rebuild
<bob.pipercolt@yahoo.com>
Well John, that does make sense. I live just about 50
airmiles South of your unintended landing at the falls. I
think I will install them as they are. I fly off a 2000'
grass strip and PLAN on any off field landings. Has anyone
moved the battery to the nose section of the plane? I know
that is a long way to run the positive cable but It sure
would help with the CG.
Thanks
Bob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=440610#440610
=
Photoshare, and much much more:
=
=
=
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 111 rebuild |
Hi all long time no post from me but still read the list regularly. Like pa
t's extra my mk111 classic has lead in the nosecone it is one if the things
I am thinking of changing .I figure the battery sits behind the seat at ju
st about the cg and if I put it in the nose I can take the same weight of l
ead out of there only a few kilos saved but better out the aircraft than in
it .people with more experience and knowledge than me are welcome to point
out any pitfalls in my thoughts on this
Eddie
-----Original Message-----
From: "Patrick Ladd" <patrickjladd@hotmail.com>
Sent: =8E11/=8E04/=8E2015 10:31
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: MK 111 rebuild
<<Before I would relocate the battery from the CG to the nose I would test
fly the airplane. >>
John,
surely the C of G would have been calculated with the battery in position,
in flying position before the plane was taken into the air on her first
flight. I needed some lead in the nose to bring the C of G between the
specified limits on my Xtra. Nothing to do with flying characteristics. If
the battery can be moved to produce the correct C of G without adding extra
weight somewhere, thats a bonus.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hauck
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 1:38 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: MK 111 rebuild
With a steel leg terminating at the midpoint of the gear leg
socket, one has effectively constructed a shear at the
weakest point of the socket.
I haven't paid that much attention to the old solid steel
legs. Did not realize they were designed short.
Before I would relocate the battery from the CG to the nose
I would test fly the airplane. Now that is what I would do
if I had an itch to put a heavy battery way up there. Heck,
we have had folks haul lead in the nose.
Nose down pitch at cruise and full power is the biggest
annoyance of a MKIII. Normally, they do not have a CG
problem. Adverse pitch down is caused by the high thrust
line of the pusher configuration. Can be dealt with by
forced trim and aileron adjustment.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
pipercolt
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 7:02 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MK 111 rebuild
<bob.pipercolt@yahoo.com>
Well John, that does make sense. I live just about 50
airmiles South of your unintended landing at the falls. I
think I will install them as they are. I fly off a 2000'
grass strip and PLAN on any off field landings. Has anyone
moved the battery to the nose section of the plane? I know
that is a long way to run the positive cable but It sure
would help with the CG.
Thanks
Bob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=440610#440610
=
Photoshare, and much much more:
=
=
=
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 111 rebuild |
Hi Eddie. just thoughts. i did some experimentation with battery
position (and battery come to that) Find something substantial to fix
the battery to, and then do the sums. You need something more than a bit
of ply to hold the battery in place in a heavy landing, or maybe even in
strong turbulence. Better to maybe move the battery forward to a secure
location and then fine balance with a small amount of lead. Incidentally
I used a racing motorbike battery (Called a RED TOP over here) It had
bags of power whereas my first battery went flat if the engine didn`t
catch on the first few turns
Incidentally I used sheet lead cut to about 3 or 4 inch squares, put
them in a stack and drilled two holes right through. I clamped them
together with a metal bar across the top drilled to suit the holes in
the lead. With a suitable large plate at the other end and a couple of
bolts that was it. You can easily add or subtract a single piece of lead
when you get to fine tuning.
Cheers
Pat
From: Eddie
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 12:54 PM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: MK 111 rebuild
Hi all long time no post from me but still read the list regularly. Like
pat's extra my mk111 classic has lead in the nosecone it is one if the
things I am thinking of changing .I figure the battery sits behind the
seat at just about the cg and if I put it in the nose I can take the
same weight of lead out of there only a few kilos saved but better out
the aircraft than in it .people with more experience and knowledge than
me are welcome to point out any pitfalls in my thoughts on this
Eddie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
From: Patrick Ladd
Sent: =8E11/=8E04/=8E2015 10:31
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: MK 111 rebuild
<<Before I would relocate the battery from the CG to the nose I would
test
fly the airplane. >>
John,
surely the C of G would have been calculated with the battery in
position,
in flying position before the plane was taken into the air on her first
flight. I needed some lead in the nose to bring the C of G between the
specified limits on my Xtra. Nothing to do with flying characteristics.
If
the battery can be moved to produce the correct C of G without adding
extra
weight somewhere, thats a bonus.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hauck
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 1:38 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: MK 111 rebuild
With a steel leg terminating at the midpoint of the gear leg
socket, one has effectively constructed a shear at the
weakest point of the socket.
I haven't paid that much attention to the old solid steel
legs. Did not realize they were designed short.
Before I would relocate the battery from the CG to the nose
I would test fly the airplane. Now that is what I would do
if I had an itch to put a heavy battery way up there. Heck,
we have had folks haul lead in the nose.
Nose down pitch at cruise and full power is the biggest
annoyance of a MKIII. Normally, they do not have a CG
problem. Adverse pitch down is caused by the high thrust
line of the pusher configuration. Can be dealt with by
forced trim and aileron adjustment.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
pipercolt
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 7:02 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: MK 111 rebuild
<bob.pipercolt@yahoo.com>
Well John, that does make sense. I live just about 50
airmiles South of your unintended landing at the falls. I
think I will install them as they are. I fly off a 2000'
grass strip and PLAN on any off field landings. Has anyone
moved the battery to the nose section of the plane? I know
that is a long way to run the positive cable but It sure
would help with the CG.
Thanks
Bob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=440610#440610
=
Photoshare, and much much mo - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
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: Kolb-List Digest: 3 Mgs - 04/10/15 |
I had my battery up front in my mk III for a while then moved it back...
it just seemed to fly better with the cg back.... especially with a
passenger.
boyd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well John, that does make sense. I live just about 50 airmiles South of your
unintended
landing at the falls. I think I will install them as they are. I fly
off a 2000' grass strip and PLAN on any off field landings. Has anyone moved
the
battery to the nose section of the plane? I know that is a long way to run
the positive cable but It sure would help with the CG.
Thanks
Bob
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
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: Kolb-List Digest: 3 Mgs - 04/10/15 |
If John H has a huge tail wheel, 26 gallon of fuel, and a 912S with a three blade
72" warp drive prop all behind his C/G, and his scrawny little butt in front
of the C/G and doesn't need his battery in the nose to balance his Mark3, why
does any Mark3 need nose ballast?
Dennis "Skid" Rowe
Mk3, Rotax 670,
Leechburg, PA
> On Apr 11, 2015, at 10:12 AM, b young <byoungplumbing@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I had my battery up front in my mk III for a while then moved it back... it
just seemed to fly better with the cg back.... especially with a passenger.
>
> boyd
>
>
>
> Well John, that does make sense. I live just about 50 airmiles South of your
unintended
> landing at the falls. I think I will install them as they are. I fly
> off a 2000' grass strip and PLAN on any off field landings. Has anyone moved
the
> battery to the nose section of the plane? I know that is a long way to run
> the positive cable but It sure would help with the CG.
> Thanks
> Bob
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
>
>
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: Kolb-List Digest: 3 Mgs - 04/10/15 |
I started my Ultrastar out with 3 wieghts in the nose to get it balanced. I
took out 1, it flew great. Took out 2, it flew great. Took out 3, it flew
great. Never gave it another thought.
Dan Walter
Ercoupe
do not archive do we still do this?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Rowe" <rowedenny@windstream.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 3 Mgs - 04/10/15
>
> If John H has a huge tail wheel, 26 gallon of fuel, and a 912S with a
> three blade 72" warp drive prop all behind his C/G, and his scrawny little
> butt in front of the C/G and doesn't need his battery in the nose to
> balance his Mark3, why does any Mark3 need nose ballast?
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 |
|
=0A
=0A
Greetings Group=2C=0A
=0A
After buying an older Mark III that needed a LOT of fixing=2C=0A
I finally took it out this year for some Fast Taxi testing and a couple of
crow=0A
hops. I found it was better to fly the pattern than it was to crow hop it.
The one=0A
thing I have been having difficulty with is it tends to be tail-heavy at ab
out=0A
80mph ias. As I come in for landing=2C I can reduce some of the pressure on
the=0A
forward stick due to the diminishing air speed. Boyd Y. and I changed the
=0A
adjustment position of the flaps in hopes this would help it cruse =93hands
free=94=0A
or relatively stable flight. Currently when I let off the forward pressure
on=0A
the stick=2C it starts to climb right away. I have read some previous posti
ngs by=0A
John H. regarding =93nose heavy=94. His writings indicate the Kolb designed
to fly=0A
as they are and do not require aggressive trimming. =0A
=0A
If anyone has had a similar experience with the Mark III=0A
appearing to fly tail heavy=2C and you have been able to resolve the issue
=2C let=0A
me know what you did.=0A
=0A
Thanks=2C=0A
=0A
Kurt=0A
=0A
Mark III C=0A
=0A
Sandy=2C Utah=0A
=0A
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 |
|
Kurt
There is tail heavy more accurately called beyond the aft CG limits and
there is a rigging or trim issue that makes the plane pitch up. You need to
know what the problem is before you can resolve the issue.
Kolbs have a long fuselage and large tail surfaces so they aren't sensitive
to CG (Center of Gravity) changes. Do you know where the CG is for your
plane? If you don't you need to know this. My VW powered MKIIC needed the
battery in the nose cone to get the CG where it needed to be.
Once you have determined that the CG is in the recommended range check that
the horizontal stabilizer is mounted according to factory recommendations.
I assume you have adjusted the elevator trim lever and maybe the trim
spring tension. Reducing the tension will reduce the pitch up condition
also assuming it is tight. With every thing else rigged right you get the
best performance with the elevator trimmed to set about even with the
horizontal stabilizer with a light solo pilot but don't worry about that
yet. Check the wing angle of attack for factory recommendations. There is
one angle of attack for long gear legs and one for the stock legs with
corresponding changes for the horizontal stabilizer. Changes to the flaps
and ailerons rigging will have small changes to pitch. I normally like to
see flaps and ailerons rigged even with the bottom on the wing.
This will give you something to check on.
As always worth what you paid for it.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 3:31 PM, K I <wrk2win4u@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> Greetings Group,
>
> After buying an older Mark III that needed a LOT of fixing, I finally too
k
> it out this year for some Fast Taxi testing and a couple of crow hops. I
> found it was better to fly the pattern than it was to crow hop it. The on
e
> thing I have been having difficulty with is it tends to be tail-heavy at
> about 80mph ias. As I come in for landing, I can reduce some of the
> pressure on the forward stick due to the diminishing air speed. Boyd Y. a
nd
> I changed the adjustment position of the flaps in hopes this would help i
t
> cruse =9Chands free=9D or relatively stable flight. Currently
when I let off
> the forward pressure on the stick, it starts to climb right away. I have
> read some previous postings by John H. regarding =9Cnose heavy
=9D. His writings
> indicate the Kolb designed to fly as they are and do not require aggressi
ve
> trimming.
>
> If anyone has had a similar experience with the Mark III appearing to fly
> tail heavy, and you have been able to resolve the issue, let me know what
> you did.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kurt
>
> Mark III C
>
> Sandy, Utah
>
> *
>
===========
onics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
Can someone smarter than me explain adjusting aileron and flaps to
eliminate having to push forward on the stick to fly level. (Out of trim
feels tall heavy) VS Being tail heavy on the scales....
Boyd Y
On Apr 11, 2015 1:33 PM, "K I" <wrk2win4u@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> Greetings Group,
>
> After buying an older Mark III that needed a LOT of fixing, I finally too
k
> it out this year for some Fast Taxi testing and a couple of crow hops. I
> found it was better to fly the pattern than it was to crow hop it. The on
e
> thing I have been having difficulty with is it tends to be tail-heavy at
> about 80mph ias. As I come in for landing, I can reduce some of the
> pressure on the forward stick due to the diminishing air speed. Boyd Y. a
nd
> I changed the adjustment position of the flaps in hopes this would help i
t
> cruse =9Chands free=9D or relatively stable flight. Currently
when I let off
> the forward pressure on the stick, it starts to climb right away. I have
> read some previous postings by John H. regarding =9Cnose heavy
=9D. His writings
> indicate the Kolb designed to fly as they are and do not require aggressi
ve
> trimming.
>
> If anyone has had a similar experience with the Mark III appearing to fly
> tail heavy, and you have been able to resolve the issue, let me know what
> you did.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kurt
>
> Mark III C
>
> Sandy, Utah
>
> *
>
===========
onics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
During flight, pull the flaps on. That will trim the nose down.
If flaps and/or ailerons are reflexed, that pulls the nose up.
If flaps and ailerons are trimmed level with the bottom of the wing on
the ground, they will be slightly drooped in flight. Air coming over
the wings pushed them down.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Young
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Tail Heavy
Can someone smarter than me explain adjusting aileron and flaps to
eliminate having to push forward on the stick to fly level. (Out of trim
feels tall heavy) VS Being tail heavy on the scales....
Boyd Y
On Apr 11, 2015 1:33 PM, "K I" <wrk2win4u@msn.com> wrote:
Greetings Group,
After buying an older Mark III that needed a LOT of fixing, I finally
took it out this year for some Fast Taxi testing and a couple of crow
hops. I found it was better to fly the pattern than it was to crow hop
it. The one thing I have been having difficulty with is it tends to be
tail-heavy at about 80mph ias. As I come in for landing, I can reduce
some of the pressure on the forward stick due to the diminishing air
speed. Boyd Y. and I changed the adjustment position of the flaps in
hopes this would help it cruse =9Chands free=9D or
relatively stable flight. Currently when I let off the forward pressure
on the stick, it starts to climb right away. I have read some previous
postings by John H. regarding =9Cnose heavy=9D. His writings
indicate the Kolb designed to fly as they are and do not require
aggressive trimming.
If anyone has had a similar experience with the Mark III appearing to
fly tail heavy, and you have been able to resolve the issue, let me know
what you did.
Thanks,
Kurt
Mark III C
Sandy, Utah
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: | Rebuilding/modifying my main gear |
Couple weeks ago carried my main gear and gear legs to London, KY, to let
the Kolb boys do some work on them.
After some hard landings, some extremely hard, a bent a drag strut on the
left main gear. Brother Jim suggested adding a 4130 sheet web to help keep
the braces in column during my klutzy landings. Even after all these years
I still have the ability to screw up pretty badly.
Attached are a few before during and after photos of the gear and a few of
the Kolb Gang.
Brian and Helen met me in Chattanooga, TN, this morning with my new looking
main gear. Thanks to all the guys at Kolb for your help.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
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 111 rebuild |
Hi All
I just looked in my airframe logbook and it says that if it is flown solo, the
pilot must weigh at least 195 lbs. That is with the pizza cutter tail wheel. I
am removing that one and installing one that weighs about twice as much. I have
not run the numbers yet but I am guessing that the pilot will have to be well
over 200 lbs to stay within limits. As far as the battery goes, on my snowmobile
forum there is a lot of talk of light weight batteries that work well if
it isn't real cold out.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=440688#440688
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! --
|