Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:20 AM - How a Kolb Should Fly (Ralph B)
2. 08:08 AM - Re: How a Kolb Should Fly (Rick Neilsen)
3. 08:21 AM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Bill)
4. 09:39 AM - Re: How a Kolb Should Fly (Ralph B)
5. 10:43 AM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Bill)
6. 11:08 AM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (George Helton)
7. 11:57 AM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Bill)
8. 01:38 PM - Re: Re: How a Kolb Should Fly (John Hauck)
9. 08:52 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Bill Berle)
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: | How a Kolb Should Fly |
I made this short video this morning to show how a Kolb should fly in calm air.
My feet were neutral on the rudder pedals during this video. If your Kolb is
well trimmed, it should fly like this.
https://youtu.be/OmTtp7rqS7w
--------
Ralph B
Kolb Kolbra 912uls
N20386
550 hours
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482411#482411
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: How a Kolb Should Fly |
Ralph/All
Wow that is super but not normal. Most Kolbs are not going to fly straight
and level for more than a second or two. It is always a challenge folding
charts in flight.
Don't get me wrong Kolbs are great flying airplanes and controlling them is
easy. The require very little control pressure when properly configured but
you need to fly them constantly. Mark did a fantastic job building that
airplane!
Personally I like to have airplanes trimmed to require just a small amount
to back pressure. Did this with GA airplanes to, except when I needed to
fold charts.
Also Bill sounds very reasonable and knowable. His plane certainly isn't
rigged like most Kolbs but come on guys lighten up. Seems like it might fly
a bit slower flying so tail high but wrong or dangerous??? I certainly
don't have that level on knowledge. I'm also in the opinion that the
problem isn't out aft CG.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW Powered MKIIIC
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:24 AM Ralph B <rstar447@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I made this short video this morning to show how a Kolb should fly in calm
> air. My feet were neutral on the rudder pedals during this video. If your
> Kolb is well trimmed, it should fly like this.
>
> https://youtu.be/OmTtp7rqS7w
>
> --------
> Ralph B
>
> Kolb Kolbra 912uls
> N20386
> 550 hours
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482411#482411
>
>
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: : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
Just landed after test flight #4. Aircraft is safe and controllable with stabilizer
mount bolt 1.125" above original location. Still needs light forward stick.
But not as much as before. NOW it is within the range of a simple trim tab.
Ailerons are level with wing undersurface in flight, not trailing upward. Installed
higher quality pitot/static probe and hooked static to airspeed indicator.
Stall speed now down where it was expected, 30 mph. But level flight speed
is still in the 40-45 mph range at 5300-5500 rpm. Putting on the windshield may
solve part of this, but I still believe there is some other cause of the slow
speed. I am willing to do any and all drag reduction, that is the fun part
for an old sailplane racer. I also installed two rudder trim tabs which reduced
the need for left rudder. That will now be manageable. So at least this is all
moving in the right direction.
Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
Rex Rodebush <jrrodebush@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>When I set up my wing I called Brian at TNK. He gave me the recommended wing
and horizontal stabilizer angles in reference to the motor mounts. ie, get a
digital level, set it on the motor mounts and zero it, then check both wings at
several points and average the results. Same for the stabilizer. I would call
Brian and get the angles for your model.
>
>Where you have your stabilizer now is so far from everyone else that something
is definitely wrong.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482402#482402
>
>
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: How a Kolb Should Fly |
neilsenrm(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Ralph/All Wow that is super but not normal. Most Kolbs are not going to fly straight
and level for more than a second or two.
>
You've got that right, Rick. Only in calm air will a Kolb fly hands free for awhile
if it's rigged properly. However, once trimmed up, it will be more fun to
fly. I also have to say that a had a right roll problem once I installed the
912uls. I bought the U-joint adjusters from Kolb and it fixed that problem. I
also have to credit Mark German for building a fine Kolb aircraft. I love his
workmanship.
--------
Ralph B
Kolb Kolbra 912uls
N20386
550 hours
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482420#482420
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:Stabilizer Angle |
I cannot find any reference in the 1993 plans that gives me the wing incidence
angle. It shows "level" at 9 degrees for W&B but nothing about the angle between
wing and fuselage.
Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>Just landed after test flight #4. Aircraft is safe and controllable with stabilizer
mount bolt 1.125" above original location. Still needs light forward stick.
But not as much as before. NOW it is within the range of a simple trim tab.
Ailerons are level with wing undersurface in flight, not trailing upward. Installed
higher quality pitot/static probe and hooked static to airspeed indicator.
Stall speed now down where it was expected, 30 mph. But level flight speed
is still in the 40-45 mph range at 5300-5500 rpm. Putting on the windshield
may solve part of this, but I still believe there is some other cause of the slow
speed. I am willing to do any and all drag reduction, that is the fun part
for an old sailplane racer. I also installed two rudder trim tabs which reduced
the need for left rudder. That will now be manageable. So at least this is
all moving in the right direction.
>
>Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
>
>Rex Rodebush <jrrodebush@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>When I set up my wing I called Brian at TNK. He gave me the recommended wing
and horizontal stabilizer angles in reference to the motor mounts. ie, get a
digital level, set it on the motor mounts and zero it, then check both wings
at several points and average the results. Same for the stabilizer. I would
call Brian and get the angles for your model.
>>
>>Where you have your stabilizer now is so far from everyone else that something
is definitely wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482402#482402
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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:Stabilizer Angle |
I think youre doing fine Bill. As for speed? I wouldnt worry a lot about it right
now. Your speed actually sounds pretty good. Learn to fly her at 45 or 50 thats
good ultralighting speed. Work on your landings alittle. Im sure if you crank
up the rpm itll do 55 or 65. You might have to push forward on the stick
alittle more but, shell go faster. My little old Firestar loves cruising around
at 52 to 55 mph. Go have some fun!
George H.
Firestar, FS100, 2702 Hirth
14GDH
Mesick, Michigan
gdhelton@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 15, 2018, at 1:42 PM, Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> I cannot find any reference in the 1993 plans that gives me the wing incidence
angle. It shows "level" at 9 degrees for W&B but nothing about the angle between
wing and fuselage.
>
> Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
>
> Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Just landed after test flight #4. Aircraft is safe and controllable with stabilizer
mount bolt 1.125" above original location. Still needs light forward stick.
But not as much as before. NOW it is within the range of a simple trim tab.
Ailerons are level with wing undersurface in flight, not trailing upward.
Installed higher quality pitot/static probe and hooked static to airspeed indicator.
Stall speed now down where it was expected, 30 mph. But level flight speed
is still in the 40-45 mph range at 5300-5500 rpm. Putting on the windshield
may solve part of this, but I still believe there is some other cause of the
slow speed. I am willing to do any and all drag reduction, that is the fun part
for an old sailplane racer. I also installed two rudder trim tabs which reduced
the need for left rudder. That will now be manageable. So at least this is
all moving in the right direction.
>>
>> Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
>>
>> Rex Rodebush <jrrodebush@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> When I set up my wing I called Brian at TNK. He gave me the recommended wing
and horizontal stabilizer angles in reference to the motor mounts. ie, get
a digital level, set it on the motor mounts and zero it, then check both wings
at several points and average the results. Same for the stabilizer. I would
call Brian and get the angles for your model.
>>>
>>> Where you have your stabilizer now is so far from everyone else that something
is definitely wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482402#482402
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
Just spent 45 minutes on the phone with Duane at Kolb. Great guy! He also thinks
the stabilizer should not be that high. He will show the pictures to Bryan.
Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>I cannot find any reference in the 1993 plans that gives me the wing incidence
angle. It shows "level" at 9 degrees for W&B but nothing about the angle between
wing and fuselage.
>
>Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
>
>Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Just landed after test flight #4. Aircraft is safe and controllable with stabilizer
mount bolt 1.125" above original location. Still needs light forward stick.
But not as much as before. NOW it is within the range of a simple trim tab.
Ailerons are level with wing undersurface in flight, not trailing upward. Installed
higher quality pitot/static probe and hooked static to airspeed indicator.
Stall speed now down where it was expected, 30 mph. But level flight speed
is still in the 40-45 mph range at 5300-5500 rpm. Putting on the windshield
may solve part of this, but I still believe there is some other cause of the
slow speed. I am willing to do any and all drag reduction, that is the fun part
for an old sailplane racer. I also installed two rudder trim tabs which reduced
the need for left rudder. That will now be manageable. So at least this is
all moving in the right direction.
>>
>>Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
>>
>>Rex Rodebush <jrrodebush@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>When I set up my wing I called Brian at TNK. He gave me the recommended wing
and horizontal stabilizer angles in reference to the motor mounts. ie, get
a digital level, set it on the motor mounts and zero it, then check both wings
at several points and average the results. Same for the stabilizer. I would
call Brian and get the angles for your model.
>>>
>>>Where you have your stabilizer now is so far from everyone else that something
is definitely wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482402#482402
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: How a Kolb Should Fly |
I flew this Kolbra not long after Mark built it. I can attest it is a good
flying, well built Kolb. Had the 912 UL on it then.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
You've got that right, Rick. Only in calm air will a Kolb fly hands free for
awhile if it's rigged properly. However, once trimmed up, it will be more
fun to fly. I also have to say that a had a right roll problem once I
installed the 912uls. I bought the U-joint adjusters from Kolb and it fixed
that problem. I also have to credit Mark German for building a fine Kolb
aircraft. I love his workmanship.
--------
Ralph B
Kolb Kolbra 912uls
N20386
550 hours
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: : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
Back from the airport. This morning I got in a 30-35 minute test flight which included
four or five landings.
The stabilizer was raised to 1.125" above the original bolt hole for this flight.
As I mentioned earlier, the aircraft flew acceptably well, the stick force
was less than before. However, I understand my stabilizer is higher than almost
any other Kolb. This has everyone up in arms, including Duane at Kolb, and including
me, since I want to know what it so strange about the aircraft I am flying.
As mentioned, I spent 45 minutes on the phone with Duane today at Kolb. He gave
me the exact measurements that the wing and tail incidence is supposed to be
on a Firestar 2. The WING incidence is set bu where you drill the hole in the
main spar pin attachment at the steel fitting that rivets to the spar tube. The
measurement is supposed to be 3 inches form the bottom surface up to the center
of the hole. My aircraft is 3 and 1/16 inches HIGHER than the lower surface.
This means that my wing will be 1/16 of an inch LOWER when the pin goes through
the hole in the fuselage carry-through... which means my wing incidence
is LOWER than a perfect plans built Firestar.
By all logic this means that I should be pulling back on the stick a little, not
pushing forward.
The stock plans-built Firestar has the stabilizer bolt 3/8 of an inch above the
top of the fuselage boom tube., Mine is a LOT higher than that as we can all
see from the photos posted previously.
So we have an aircraft that:
1) Has the main wing incidence very close to a perfect plans-built specification,
and it is even 1/16 inch lower.
2) We have an aircraft that balanced at 32% of wing chord, and is allowed to go
up to 37% of chord.
3) We have an aircraft that has the full-length, un-cut tailboom tube.
4) We have an aircraft that has no warps, twists, or bends in the wings (they are
flat on the bottom, root to tip).
5) We have an aircraft that does NOT have the ailerons reflexed upward in flight
with air loads on them.
And yet the aircraft still has some amount of nose-up pitch with the stabilizer
at 3/8 inch, 3/4 inch, AND 1.125 inch above the tailboom tube. I DO NOT want
to raise it any higher, because the Kolb List and the Kolb Aircraft Company and
a bunch of experienced Kolbers are already thinking it is way too high. It looks
pretty darn high to me too.
So today I put two small aluminum trim tabs on the elevator to "fine tune" the
last little bit of trim so I can let go of the stick for two seconds. I did this
because so far all the guesses and possibilities about the stabilizer angle
and wing incidence and aileron position are apparently NOT the cause of this.
Which means if we weigh& balance it agaain and it is NOT outside of the Kolb
approved range... then you and me and everyone else is just about out of ideas.
Unless Bryan Melborn knows something the rest of the Kolbers don't know, then
everyone is out of ideas.
I had also installed two small rudder trim tabs, which are 3/4 of the way to "fixing"
the yaw trim.
Today's test flight included some final approaches with little or no power. I paid
attention to the rudder during these approaches,a nd sure enough the amount
of left rudder needed is a lot less with little or no power. So my aircraft
is not significantly "bent" or warped in the yaw directiton, the rudder trim issue
is directly related to the engine and prop wash just like everyone suspected.
So a rudder triim tab is an easy and obvious fix. Maybe someday in the future
I will put the engine on at a different angle, but that will be after I have
fun flying it for a while.
Today's test flight also was equipped with a higher quality pitot and static probe,
and it verified that the aircraft is making a lot more drag than it could
be. 45 miles an hour cruise speed (downwind in the pattern) at 5600-5700 RPM.
But I have not done any drag reduction on this aircraft yet, no fairings, no
streamline struts, no tape over the control gaps, etc. etc. So I am guessing that
I can find another 10-15 mph as I fiddle with the drag stuff.
I was supposed to meet with the guy who did the weight and balance today but he
had to postpone it till Friday. The only thing that would explain all of this
aircraft's strange behavior is if it is REALLY tail-heavy, and I do not believe
it is outside of the Kolb CG range.
Anyway, again I REALLY appreciate everyone's interest and participation in trying
to solve this puzzle. If any of the mroe highly experienced Kolb pilots want
to come fly this aircraft themselves and try to figure it out, let me know.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 8/15/18, Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Subject: Re: Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 11:56 AM
<victorbravo@sbcglobal.net>
Just spent 45 minutes on the phone with
Duane at Kolb. Great guy! He also thinks the stabilizer
should not be that high. He will show the pictures to Bryan.
Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on
AT&T
Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net>
>
>I cannot find any reference in the
1993 plans that gives me the wing incidence angle. It shows
"level" at 9 degrees for W&B but nothing about the angle
between wing and fuselage.
>
>Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm)
on AT&T
>
>Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
>>--> Kolb-List message posted
by: Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net>
>>
>>Just landed after test flight
#4. Aircraft is safe and controllable with stabilizer mount
bolt 1.125" above original location. Still needs light
forward stick. But not as much as before. NOW it is within
the range of a simple trim tab. Ailerons are level with wing
undersurface in flight, not trailing upward. Installed
higher quality pitot/static probe and hooked static to
airspeed indicator. Stall speed now down where it was
expected, 30 mph. But level flight speed is still in the
40-45 mph range at 5300-5500 rpm. Putting on the windshield
may solve part of this, but I still believe there is some
other cause of the slow speed. I am willing to do any and
all drag reduction, that is the fun part for an old
sailplane racer. I also installed two rudder trim tabs which
reduced the need for left rudder. That will now be
manageable. So at least this is all moving in the right
direction.
>>
>>Sent from my Samsung
Captivate(tm) on AT&T
>>
>>Rex Rodebush <jrrodebush@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>>>--> Kolb-List message
posted by: "Rex Rodebush" <jrrodebush@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>When I set up my wing I
called Brian at TNK. He gave me the recommended wing
and horizontal stabilizer angles in reference to the motor
mounts. ie, get a digital level, set it on the motor
mounts and zero it, then check both wings at several points
and average the results. Same for the
stabilizer. I would call Brian and get the angles for
your model.
>>>
>>>Where you have your
stabilizer now is so far from everyone else that something
is definitely wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Read this topic online
here:
>>>
>>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482402#482402
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
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! --
|