---------------------------------------------------------- Kolb-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 06/09/17: 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 07:07 AM - Re: Lord Mounts? (Richard Pike) 2. 09:04 AM - Re: Re: Lord Mounts? (chris davis) 3. 02:05 PM - Re: Lord Mounts? (Richard Pike) 4. 02:52 PM - Re: Re: Lord Mounts? (George Helton) 5. 04:43 PM - Re: Re: Lord Mounts? (Charlie England) 6. 05:33 PM - Re: Re: Lord Mounts? (John Hauck) 7. 05:42 PM - Re: Re: Lord Mounts? (chris davis) 8. 05:47 PM - Re: Re: Lord Mounts? (chris davis) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 07:07:34 AM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Lord Mounts? From: "Richard Pike" wakataka wrote: > Are those JATO bottles on either side of the tail rack? I bet that would would really help when passing semi-trucks on an uphill grade. Maybe you could mount them on the Kolb to help that 277 on a hot day. > > On a serious note, that's a very nice looking bike and airplane you've got there. Thanks. Those are home made panniers that hold the Frog Togs. PVC pipe & caps from Home Depot, plus a square sheet of plastic from ebay. Total investment $25. -------- Richard Pike Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) Kingsport, TN 3TN0 Forgiving is tough. Being forgiven is wonderful. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469919#469919 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 09:04:24 AM PST US Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Lord Mounts? From: chris davis Richard looking good ! I got a question as I am STILL building my Firefly , what is with the dihedral being so much ?as I put mine together by plans ,almost , there is very little . I am aware that you have more experience than I do that is why I'm asking , thanks CHRIS Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 7, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Richard Pike wrote: > > > I don't think the props are the problem. We have two props, and we balanced both of them before running the engine. We broke the engine in with the tractor, it was a 60 x 28 Tennessee prop, then took it off and switched to a 60 x 30 Arrowprop pusher, but it vibrated a lot worse and also over revved to 7,000. Go figure. I guess one man's 28" pitch and another man's 30" pitch don't necessarily have anything in common. > Anyway, we put it together today and measured for the gap seal and a few other details, here are some pictures. Ordered a 20' endoscope that will fit the usb port on the laptop, next week we inspect the inside of the wings and if all looks good we repaint them. If it doesn't look good we recover them. > > -------- > Richard Pike > Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) > Kingsport, TN 3TN0 > > Forgiving is tough. Being forgiven is wonderful. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469880#469880 > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050949_medium_137.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050951_medium_130.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050952_medium_347.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050953_medium_146.jpg > http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050958_medium_808.jpg > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 02:05:51 PM PST US Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Lord Mounts? From: "Richard Pike" [quote="capedavis(at)yahoo.com"]Richard looking good ! I got a question as I am STILL building my Firefly , what is with the dihedral being so much ?as I put mine together by plans ,almost , there is very little . I am aware that you have more experience than I do that is why I'm asking , thanks CHRIS Sent from my iPhone [quote] Because that's how much we have in the Firestar II, and it will fly hands off. It's a tradeoff between being more docile when landing in a stiff cross wind (less dihedral is better) or able to fly hands off the rest of the time with no apparent loss of manueverability. (More dihedral is better) One thing: no matter how much dihedral I put in my MKIII, I couldn't get it to fly hands off. Not saying that it can't be done, just that I couldn't do it with mine. -------- Richard Pike Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) Kingsport, TN 3TN0 Forgiving is tough. Being forgiven is wonderful. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469927#469927 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1180917_large_317.jpg ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 02:52:46 PM PST US From: George Helton Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Lord Mounts? Interesting, in the old days when we were flying things like the Eipper MX which were 2 axis aircraft augmented with wings spoilers we ran a lot of dihedral. The planes were totally controlled by the use of the rudder by side to side movement of the stick and forward/aft movement of the elevator. They flew great! But really sucked in a crosswind. When I started building the Firestar (original) I fly now in 1986. I called Homer Kolb and asked about the lack of dihedral. He told that because of leading edge design of wing ( rib valleys) he felt that his aircraft needed very little if any dihedral. Increased dihedral does increase the the stability of any aircraft. I listened to Homer and found the plane that I was looking for. It does have to be flown but will do amazing things. And works very well in crosswinds. Congrats on your Firestar II! A great little aircraft. Just a little nostalgia. Have fun out there! George H. Firestar, FS100 14GDH Mesick, Michigan gdhelton@gmail.com Have a great day! Do Not Archive > On Jun 9, 2017, at 5:05 PM, Richard Pike wrote: > > > [quote="capedavis(at)yahoo.com"]Richard looking good ! I got a question as I am STILL building my Firefly , what is with the dihedral being so much ?as I put mine together by plans ,almost , there is very little . I am aware that you have more experience than I do that is why I'm asking , thanks CHRIS > Sent from my iPhone [quote] > > Because that's how much we have in the Firestar II, and it will fly hands off. It's a tradeoff between being more docile when landing in a stiff cross wind (less dihedral is better) or able to fly hands off the rest of the time with no apparent loss of manueverability. (More dihedral is better) > > One thing: no matter how much dihedral I put in my MKIII, I couldn't get it to fly hands off. Not saying that it can't be done, just that I couldn't do it with mine. > > -------- > Richard Pike > Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) > Kingsport, TN 3TN0 > > Forgiving is tough. Being forgiven is wonderful. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469927#469927 > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1180917_large_317.jpg > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 04:43:49 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Lord Mounts? From: Charlie England For your reading pleasure, https://www.google.com/search?q=why+does+a+wing+have+dihedral&oq=why+does+a+wing+have+dihedral&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.8918j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 On 6/9/2017 4:52 PM, George Helton wrote: > > Interesting, in the old days when we were flying things like the Eipper MX which were 2 axis aircraft augmented with wings spoilers we ran a lot of dihedral. The planes were totally controlled by the use of the rudder by side to side movement of the stick and forward/aft movement of the elevator. They flew great! But really sucked in a crosswind. > When I started building the Firestar (original) I fly now in 1986. I called Homer Kolb and asked about the lack of dihedral. He told that because of leading edge design of wing ( rib valleys) he felt that his aircraft needed very little if any dihedral. Increased dihedral does increase the the stability of any aircraft. I listened to Homer and found the plane that I was looking for. It does have to be flown but will do amazing things. And works very well in crosswinds. Congrats on your Firestar II! A great little aircraft. > Just a little nostalgia. Have fun out there! > George H. > Firestar, FS100 > 14GDH > Mesick, Michigan > gdhelton@gmail.com > > Have a great day! > Do Not Archive >> On Jun 9, 2017, at 5:05 PM, Richard Pike wrote: >> >> >> [quote="capedavis(at)yahoo.com"]Richard looking good ! I got a question as I am STILL building my Firefly , what is with the dihedral being so much ?as I put mine together by plans ,almost , there is very little . I am aware that you have more experience than I do that is why I'm asking , thanks CHRIS >> Sent from my iPhone [quote] >> >> Because that's how much we have in the Firestar II, and it will fly hands off. It's a tradeoff between being more docile when landing in a stiff cross wind (less dihedral is better) or able to fly hands off the rest of the time with no apparent loss of manueverability. (More dihedral is better) >> >> One thing: no matter how much dihedral I put in my MKIII, I couldn't get it to fly hands off. Not saying that it can't be done, just that I couldn't do it with mine. >> >> -------- >> Richard Pike >> Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) >> Kingsport, TN 3TN0 >> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 05:33:43 PM PST US From: "John Hauck" Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: Lord Mounts? George H/Kolbers: Homer told me he did not want any dihedral because he was more interested in performance than flying hands off. However, an early prototype with straight wings sitting on the ground in the 3 point stance looked as though the wings were drooping. Homer did not like that, so he put in a little dihedral to make them look better. IIRC the US and FS got 1" at the outboard rib and the MKIII got 1.5" at the outboard rib. When Homer rebuilt the 1985 Oshkosh Grand Champion Ultralight, his prototype Firestar, he added considerable dihedral and a 503 DC. Back in 1985, Homer would not ship me a FS with a 447 because he felt it was too much power for that airframe. Folks change over the years. I flew his FS last time I visited with Homer at the farm. It was a delight to fly. Loads of performance. I was having so much fun I forgot about the added dihedral until sometime later on. So....I don't really have any opinion of increased dihedral. I also flew this same aircraft in 1986, at Sun and Fun, with the 377. I was building my FS at the time. Homer asked me if I wanted to fly the FS. ;-) Yes, with a big grin on my face, and I did fly the FS. In fact, they had a hard time getting me to land. Was fortunate to do a lot of flying for Homer over the years. Not disputing George H, but sharing what I got from Homer. He liked the rib valleys and felt they increased performance of the Kolb wing. He said removing the valleys by adding sheet metal leading edges degraded wing performance. I sure miss Homer and the rest of the old Kolb gang. john h mkIII Titus, Alabama I called Homer Kolb and asked about the lack of dihedral. He told that because of leading edge design of wing ( rib valleys) he felt that his aircraft needed very little if any dihedral. George H. Firestar, FS100 14GDH Mesick, Michigan gdhelton@gmail.com ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 05:42:51 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Lord Mounts? From: chris davis Sent from my iPad > On Jun 9, 2017, at 5:05 PM, Richard Pike wrote: > > > [quote="capedavis(at)yahoo.com"]Richard looking good ! I got a question as I am STILL building my Firefly , what is with the dihedral being so much ?as I put mine together by plans ,almost , there is very little . I am aware that you have more experience than I do that is why I'm asking , thanks CHRIS > Sent from my iPhone [quote] > > Because that's how much we have in the Firestar II, and it will fly hands off. It's a tradeoff between being more docile when landing in a stiff cross wind (less dihedral is better) or able to fly hands off the rest of the time with no apparent loss of manueverability. (More dihedral is better) > > One thing: no matter how much dihedral I put in my MKIII, I couldn't get it to fly hands off. Not saying that it can't be done, just that I couldn't do it with mine. > > -------- > Richard Pike > Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) > Kingsport, TN 3TN0 > > Forgiving is tough. Being forgiven is wonderful. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469927#469927 > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1180917_large_317.jpg > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 05:47:23 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Lord Mounts? From: chris davis Richard , thank you for your explanation it's an easy change to make perhaps I will Increase my dihedral how much above level is yours ? It looks like5 or 6 inches . Thanks Chris Sent from my iPad > On Jun 9, 2017, at 5:05 PM, Richard Pike wrote: > > > [quote="capedavis(at)yahoo.com"]Richard looking good ! I got a question as I am STILL building my Firefly , what is with the dihedral being so much ?as I put mine together by plans ,almost , there is very little . I am aware that you have more experience than I do that is why I'm asking , thanks CHRIS > Sent from my iPhone [quote] > > Because that's how much we have in the Firestar II, and it will fly hands off. It's a tradeoff between being more docile when landing in a stiff cross wind (less dihedral is better) or able to fly hands off the rest of the time with no apparent loss of manueverability. (More dihedral is better) > > One thing: no matter how much dihedral I put in my MKIII, I couldn't get it to fly hands off. Not saying that it can't be done, just that I couldn't do it with mine. > > -------- > Richard Pike > Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) > Kingsport, TN 3TN0 > > Forgiving is tough. Being forgiven is wonderful. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469927#469927 > > > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1180917_large_317.jpg > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.