Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:56 AM - Mark-III - a pretty good Airplane (KIRBY, DENNIS T GS-13 USAF AFMC AFNWC/EZS)
2. 08:07 AM - Re: Kolb-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 03/17/16 (B Young)
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: | Mark-III - a pretty good Airplane |
Kolb Friends -
I gotta agree with Mr Rowe, commenting on Hauck's post about his Miss P'fer.
I've been flying my Mark-3 for about 14 years now, and every so often, I begin
thinking how nice it might be to have an airplane that flies a little faster,
carries a bit more, or keeps me dry when I fly through rain. But then I read
John's summary of his Kolb's experience (below), and it reminds me that I'll NEVER
be able to match my Mark-3's performance with another aircraft for what my
Kolb cost me. It still meets MY primary mission (local flying and backcountry
camping), and it's probably the cheapest "real" airplane I could ever own.
I think I'll keep it for a few more years ...
Dennis Kirby
Mark-3 Classic / 912ul
in Sandia Park, New Mexico
Do not archive
==============
Dennis Rowe wrote: << Man, let me know if you ever want to sell Miss Pfer. That
was quite the sales pitch! Dennis "Skid" Rowe >>
<< It gets me in and out of tiny fields, two track trails, gravel bars, beaches
on the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic Ocean, and small dry lakes in
the dessert. It does much more than Homer Kolb and John Hauck ever dreamed
one of his little airplanes would do. It takes me where I want to go. All I
have to do is put gas in it, take off and point the nose in that direction. john
h >>
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: Kolb-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 03/17/16 |
I have a specific question which you might be able to answer: If you put
the wing
on a FireStar at the lower incidence angle of the Slingshot, and then put on
the taller gear from the Slingshot, would you get both benefits (a higher
cruise
speed from the tailboom flying straight), AND better STOL performance (from
the higher ground angle)?
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I don't think the tail boom has a lot more drag flying tail high vs
level. It is such a small angle I believe it to have a laminar flow.
Could it be possible that longer gear legs at 90 deg to the air flow would
have more drag than the tail boom at a small angle? Especially considering
the tail boom is flying in disturbed air from the fusealage/prop wash.
Check the airlines. The back quarter of the cabin area is racked up at a
greater angle than the Kolb tail boom in flight. Some of the reason is for
ground clearance when they rotate, but if the drag increase was so high
caused by the angle. They would decrease the angle and increase rotation
speed.
If you change the wing incidence, you need to change the incidence of the
horizontal tail plane. Engine mounting angle..,. At any given speed and
angle of attack there is only so much lift. Now if you change the wing
profile,,,,, you could get some benefits in some areas, but at the same
time you would loose benefits in other areas... Ex. To get a faster
cruise. You loose slow speed on take off and landing/ slower climb....
Pick what you want, but be prepared to pay.
To use John's idea of the other day,,,,, if you design a plane that will
take off and land at 25 mph, climb at 2500 fpm, cruise at 225 mph and the
engine only burn 1gph. Keeping the cost under fifty thousand......
Every pilot in the country would want one.
Boyd Young
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! --
|