Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:50 AM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Charlie England)
2. 05:06 AM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (racerjerry)
3. 05:46 AM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (John Hauck)
4. 07:29 AM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Bill Berle)
5. 08:49 AM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Rex Rodebush)
6. 09:26 AM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Jerry-TS-MkII)
7. 09:30 AM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (John Hauck)
8. 09:51 AM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Bill Berle)
9. 10:17 AM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (John Hauck)
10. 10:22 AM - Call Me (John Hauck)
11. 10:56 AM - Re: Call Me (Bill Berle)
12. 02:38 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Stuart Harner)
13. 04:06 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Bill Berle)
14. 04:21 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Robert Laird)
15. 08:05 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Jerry-TS-MkII)
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: : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
Hi Bill,
I'm afraid we're all just spitballing now, hoping something will
stick to the wall=2E Having said that=2E=2E=2E
I think you mentioned flyi
ng without the windshield=2E Have you considered installing it for a test f
light? I have no idea whether it generates any downforce on the nose; did y
ou ask Kolb?
Is thrust angle the same as the rotax? Same height?
At what
speed does it fly hands-off? If you need to push in cruise and pull to flai
r, there should be some speed in between requiring neutral pressure=2E
For
a w&b 'sanity check', what does your engine weigh, compared to the expecte
d Rotax, is it in the same location, and what does that muffler weigh? It o
bviously is pretty far aft of standard=2E Did y'all adjust your measurement
s for the extended gear legs?
Again, just spitballing; maybe it will push
you into thinking of something none of us has considered=2E
=81=A3Charl
ie=8B
On Aug 15, 2018, 11:54 PM, at 11:54 PM, Bill Berle <victorbrav
o@sbcglobal=2Enet> wrote:
torbravo@sbcglobal=2Enet>
>
>Back from the airport=2E This morning I got in
a 30-35 minute test flight
>which included four or five landings=2E
>
>The
stabilizer was raised to 1=2E125" above the original bolt hole for
>this f
light=2E As I mentioned earlier, the aircraft flew acceptably well,
>the st
ick force was less than before=2E However, I understand my
>stabilizer is h
igher than almost any other Kolb=2E This has everyone up
>in arms, includin
g Duane at Kolb, and including me, since I want to
>know what it so strange
about the aircraft I am flying=2E
>
>As mentioned, I spent 45 minutes on t
he phone with Duane today at Kolb=2E
>He gave me the exact measurements tha
t the wing and tail incidence is
>supposed to be on a Firestar 2=2E The WIN
G incidence is set bu where you
>drill the hole in the main spar pin attach
ment at the steel fitting
>that rivets to the spar tube=2E The measurement
is supposed to be 3
>inches form the bottom surface up to the center of the
hole=2E My
>aircraft is 3 and 1/16 inches HIGHER than the lower surface
=2E This
>means that my wing will be 1/16 of an inch LOWER when the pin goe
s
>through the hole in the fuselage carry-through=2E=2E=2E which means my w
ing
>incidence is LOWER than a perfect plans built Firestar=2E
>
>By all l
ogic this means that I should be pulling back on the stick a
>little, not p
ushing forward=2E
>
>The stock plans-built Firestar has the stabilizer bolt
3/8 of an inch
>above the top of the fuselage boom tube=2E, Mine is a LOT
higher than
>that as we can all see from the photos posted previously=2E
>
>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=2E
>2) We have an aircraft that balanced at 32% of wing chord, and is
>allowe
d to go up to 37% of chord=2E
>3) We have an aircraft that has the full-le
ngth, un-cut tailboom tube=2E
>4) We have an aircraft that has no warps, t
wists, or bends in the wings
>(they are flat on the bottom, root to tip)=2E
>5) We have an aircraft that does NOT have the ailerons reflexed upward
>
in flight with air loads on them=2E
>
>And yet the aircraft still has some
amount of nose-up pitch with the
>stabilizer at 3/8 inch, 3/4 inch, AND 1
=2E125 inch above the tailboom
>tube=2E I DO NOT want to raise it any highe
r, because the Kolb List and
>the Kolb Aircraft Company and a bunch of expe
rienced Kolbers are
>already thinking it is way too high=2E It looks pretty
darn high to me
>too=2E
>
>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=2E I did this because so far all the guesses an
d possibilities
>about the stabilizer angle and wing incidence and aileron
position are
>apparently NOT the cause of this=2E Which means if we weigh&
balance it
>agaain and it is NOT outside of the Kolb approved range=2E=2E
=2E then you and
>me and everyone else is just about out of ideas=2E Unless
Bryan Melborn
>knows something the rest of the Kolbers don't know, then ev
eryone is
>out of ideas=2E
>
>I had also installed two small rudder trim ta
bs, which are 3/4 of the
>way to "fixing" the yaw trim=2E
>
>Today's test
flight included some final approaches with little or no
>power=2E I paid at
tention 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=2E So my aircr
aft is not significantly "bent" or warped in the yaw
>directiton, the rudde
r trim issue is directly related to the engine and
>prop wash just like eve
ryone suspected=2E So a rudder triim tab is an
>easy and obvious fix=2E May
be someday in the future I will put the engine
>on at a different angle, bu
t that will be after I have fun flying it
>for a while=2E
>
>Today's test f
light 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
=2E 45 miles an hour cruise speed (downwind in the
>pattern) at 5600-5700 R
PM=2E But I have not done any drag reduction on
>this aircraft yet, no fair
ings, no streamline struts, no tape over the
>control gaps, etc=2E etc=2E S
o I am guessing that I can find another 10-15
>mph as I fiddle with the dra
g stuff=2E
>
>I was supposed to meet with the guy who did the weight and ba
lance
>today but he had to postpone it till Friday=2E The only thing that w
ould
>explain all of this aircraft's strange behavior is if it is REALLY
>t
ail-heavy, and I do not believe it is outside of the Kolb CG range=2E
>
>An
yway, again I REALLY appreciate everyone's interest and participation
>in t
rying to solve this puzzle=2E If any of the mroe highly experienced
>Kolb p
ilots want to come fly this aircraft themselves and try to figure
>it out,
let me know=2E
>
>
>Bill Berle
>www=2Eezflaphandle=2Ecom=C2- - safety &
performance upgrade for light aircraft
>www=2Egrantstar=2Enet =C2- =C2
- =C2- =C2- =C2- - winning proposals for non-profit and
>for-profit
entities
>
>--------------------------------------------
>On Wed, 8/15/18,
Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal=2Enet> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List:Stabi
lizer Angle
> To: kolb-list@matronics=2Ecom
> Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2
018, 11:56 AM
>
> <victorbravo@sbc
global=2Enet>
>
> Just spent 45 minutes on the phone with
> Duane at Kolb
=2E Great guy! He also thinks the stabilizer
> should not be that high=2E H
e will show the pictures to Bryan=2E
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung Captivate
(tm) on
> AT&T
>
> Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal=2Enet>
> wrote:
>
> >--> K
olb-List message posted by:
> Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal=2Enet>
> >
> >I c
annot find any reference in the
> 1993 plans that gives me the wing inciden
ce angle=2E It shows
> "level" at 9 degrees for W&B but nothing about the a
ngle
> between wing and fuselage=2E
> >
> >Sent from my Samsung Captivate(t
m)
> on AT&T
> >
> >Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal=2Enet>
> wrote:
> >
> >>-->
Kolb-List message posted
> by: Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal=2Enet>
> >>
> >
>Just landed after test flight
> #4=2E Aircraft is safe and controllable wi
th stabilizer mount
> bolt 1=2E125" above original location=2E Still needs
light
> forward stick=2E But not as much as before=2E NOW it is within
> th
e range of a simple trim tab=2E Ailerons are level with wing
> undersurface
in flight, not trailing upward=2E Installed
> higher quality pitot/static
probe and hooked static to
> airspeed indicator=2E Stall speed now down whe
re it was
> expected, 30 mph=2E But level flight speed is still in the
> 40
-45 mph range at 5300-5500 rpm=2E Putting on the windshield
> may solve par
t of this, but I still believe there is some
> other cause of the slow spee
d=2E I am willing to do any and
> all drag reduction, that is the fun part
for an old
> sailplane racer=2E I also installed two rudder trim tabs which
> reduced the need for left rudder=2E That will now be
> manageable=2E So
at least this is all moving in the right
> direction=2E
> >>
> >>Sent from
my Samsung
> Captivate(tm) on AT&T
> >>
> >>Rex Rodebush <jrrodebush@gmail
=2Ecom>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>--> Kolb-List message
> posted by: "Rex Rodebush
" <jrrodebush@gmail=2Ecom>
> >>>
> >>>When I set up my wing I
> called Bria
n at TNK=2E=C2- He gave me the recommended wing
> and horizontal stabiliz
er angles in reference to the motor
> mounts=2E=C2- ie, get a digital lev
el, set it on the motor
> mounts and zero it, then check both wings at seve
ral points
> and average the results=2E=C2- Same for the
> stabilizer=2E
=C2- I would call Brian and get the angles for
> your model=2E=C2-
> >
>>
> >>>Where you have your
> stabilizer now is so far from everyone else t
hat something
> is definitely wrong=2E
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Read th
is topic online
> here:
> >>>
> >>>http://forums=2Ematronics=2Ecom/viewtopi
c=2Ephp?p=482402#482402
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
>
Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
>
=C2- =C2- - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> =C2- =C2
- - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> =C2- - List Contrib
ution Web Site -
> support!
> =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2
- =C2-
> =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin=2E
>
>
>
>
>
========
>
ist utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
d, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
>
========
>
--> http://forums=2Ematronics=2Ecom
the Matronics Email List Wiki!
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin=2E
ics=2Ecom/contribution
==================
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:Stabilizer Angle |
Bill, Did you redo your weight & balance?
I wish you would post the figures here so we could verify.
Kolb states the average wing chord is 64 inches (p74) for Firestar II.
I found a simplified method that reduces calculation error potential when doing
W&B on the Kolb: Use the MAIN WHEEL centerline as your datum point. In this
manner, Only the tail weight moment arm needs to be computed.
"H" (in inches) is then calculated by: Total Moments (tail only) / Total Weight).
Afterwards, the distance from Main Wheel Centerline to Wing Leading Edge is added
back in.
Then % CG is found by (H x 100) / 64
My CG was 33.04 % with shortened tail boom. Your engine is a helluva' lot heavier
than my 447.
I hope this helps.
Jerry King
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482435#482435
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: | : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
I've flown Larry Cottrell's FS2 many times. Larry's FS2 is powered with
an HKS. Flies pretty damn good and cruises well over 65 mph. Wish I
had paid more attention to the gauges. Well...I didn't fly it wide open
anyhow. It has no adverse habits, big tires, etc. By all means, Bill
B's FS2 should fly the same way if he built it to plans.
If Bill B's FS2 is set up according to plans, it would fly the same way
with or without windshield. However, if he is flying the FS2 without a
gap seal, that alone will kill airspeed and make the aircraft fly like a
turd. It will perform awful and handle awful. That may be his problem.
I really have no idea unless I had hands on to determine what's going
on.
Kolbs are what they are, draggy. Not a whole lot one can do to get them
streamlined and decrease some of that drag. Streamlined drag struts and
gear legs will help a tiny, tiny bit. Not much one can do about
dragging that big tail boom through the air sideways. That is what it
is doing because it flies tail high. One of the reasons the Kolbra and
SS are a little cleaner and fly faster is less incidence, tail boom
flying straighter through the airstream, not at an angle.
Bill B's got a problem that is out of the norm. Changing the attitude
of the engine won't help. I went through that exercise 30 years ago
with my FS. It didn't help. I have experimented and tested every way I
can to get a little more cruise speed out of my Kolbs. My FS and US
both flew 75+ mph. My MKIII flies 95 mph. Only thing I've done to
streamline the MKIII is streamlined lift struts. It is a heavy
airplane. Why do my airplanes fly faster than others? I do not know
for sure, but have a good idea it is how tight I shrink my fabric on all
surfaces. I like it tight and I make it tight.
Bill B needs to make sure he pulls the anchor in before he takes off.
;-)
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
Hi Bill,
I'm afraid we're all just spitballing now, hoping something will stick
to the wall. Having said that...
I think you mentioned flying without the windshield. Have you considered
installing it for a test flight? I have no idea whether it generates any
downforce on the nose; did you ask Kolb?
Is thrust angle the same as the rotax? Same height?
At what speed does it fly hands-off? If you need to push in cruise and
pull to flair, there should be some speed in between requiring neutral
pressure.
For a w&b 'sanity check', what does your engine weigh, compared to the
expected Rotax, is it in the same location, and what does that muffler
weigh? It obviously is pretty far aft of standard. Did y'all adjust your
measurements for the extended gear legs?
Again, just spitballing; maybe it will push you into thinking of
something none of us has considered.
Charlie
On Aug 15, 2018, at 11:54 PM, Bill Berle <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
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!
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List">http://www.matr>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
_____
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: | : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
To answer the recent questions...
Excellent idea about the wheel locations. That would have definitely skewed the
equations a little. But we did in fact use the actual location of the main wheels,
because the gear legs are very different than stock on tis aircraft. We
put little pieces of tape on the ground under all three wheels and used the actual
tape measure distances. So we did the weight and balance specifically to
the measurements of this aircraft.
My HKS engine manual says the weight is 121 pounds including starter, alternator,
gearbox, and OEM exhgaut/muffler system. My custom aluminum muffler weighs
about the same as the stock steel can, but my muffler is definitely further behind
the CG than the standard installation.
The engine angle is the same as whatever is welded into the Kolb mounts. There
are no wedges or shims in my mounting system to alter the thrust line. I went
to great lengths to have my thrust line as low as possible, so I did not have
any pitch-forward problems. I managed to keep the gearbox turned "downward". I
have a 65 inch diameter propeller, wihch has 7/8 of an inch clearance above the
tailboom tube. So this puts the center of the thrust line 33.25 inches above
the top surface of the tailboom tube. I do recall asking Bryan Melborn at Kolb
about this distance, and he said that he would not want to be flyng a Kolb
with the thrust line more than 36 inches above the tailboom. So I probably should
be in the acceptable range.
I do have 3/4 of a gap seal between the wings. What I mean by that is that I have
an aluminum "airfoil" shaped leading edgee piece that slides on from the front,a
nd extends back to just behind the thickest part of the wing. This aluminum
piece ends right at where the main spar pins are installed. THEN I have a
fabric cover that Velcro's btween the wings from there to the rear carry-through
where the wing fold U-joints are. The front of this fabric cover overlaps and
Velcro's to the back of the aluminum piece. So there is not a huge hole where
the air can flow upward between the wings. But there is nothing on the TOP
of the wing behind the aluminum leading edge fairing and in front of the engine.
Maybe 18 inches of wing chord with no cover on the TOP. All of the gap on
the bottom is covered back to the wing fold U-joints.
Duane at Kolb asked me to verify that this is a Firestar 2. It is definitely a
FS2, with the 7 rib wing and the "rear seat" area.
Anyway, as soon as we can go through the W&B calculations again I will copy and
post them here so you guys can see them.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
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 |
Bill,
Rather than using the 3" measurement for the wing angle I think it would perhaps
be worthwhile to find out the actual wing angle and stabilizer angle referenced
from the motor mounts. If Kolb can't give that to you maybe someone with
a good flying Firestar could give you the numbers.
(My Xtra had a wing angle procedure by leveling and measuring distances. Which
I did. When I got Brian's actual recommended wing angle it was not the same.
I reset to Brian's recommendations and my Xtra has flown great.)
Another thought. If the center of thrust has been changed (you said you lowered
it), maybe that would affect the ideal wing angle? Maybe others have done that
with no problems.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482439#482439
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 |
Bill,
I remember a Mitchell B-10 that had the clear center section blow out. It's a swept-back
flying wing. The loss of forward lift caused a non-recoverable pitch
down (with the wing mounted elevons not having much authority).
In your case, with increased airflow ahead of the prop, that will have a significant
input. And with the trailing area being open, it could be causing a pitch
up condition to some degree.
No canopy? That should certainly change your cruise, but without one, the airflow
is highly disrupted, heading towards the tail. None of your tail feathers
will work as well, flying in dirty air.
You guys all talk about CG as if it's set in stone. MOVING IT, WILL change flight
characteristics, and how it trims out. But complaining however will not change
stick pressure! And I'd bet every other airplane you've flown, had an adjustable
trim tab, not fixed, on the elevator. Rudder, sure, but elevator trim
should be change-able in flight.
And for the guy who says a datum point must be at the mains, the datum point can
be Muncie Indiana, as long as the measurements are correct, and the weights
are recorded, and the (simple) math is done without mistakes. The datum could
be at the tail wheel.. or anywhere!
Sounds like you are getting closer.. but I'd still have a camera looking at your
wing covering in flight. Should it choose to depart.. the trim issues become
very less important.
Hope you get it dialed in.. but do share the real CG recalculations! Helping a
guy once to his 2nd R/C airplane flight, after a few tweaks, I happened to recheck
the balance, and the tail dropped BIG TIME. He left some 6" side cuts inside
the fuse after trimming a pushrod, and then picked it up to load, and they
went all the way to the tail. It would have been instant crash w/o a bit of
luck and discovery.
Spitballing? It's not easy trimming a plane, while IN IT. To me, this seems like
one of the most intelligent and involved conversations I've seen on this forum.
LOTS of good ideas and inputs. Kudos to all who have signed in!
Jerry
TS MK II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482444#482444
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: | : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
Extremely difficult to trouble shoot an aircraft that one is not familiar with,
especially a Kolb. That being said, I would think it would also be difficult
for that person to accurately describe and correct those problems. In this case
we have no idea what the "real" root problem is, but there is definitely something
wrong with BB's Kolb. That we know for sure, without flying it.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Berle
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
To answer the recent questions...
Bill Berle
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: | : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
Someone on the homebuilt airplanes internet group postulated that the "allowable
CG range" may mean the range where the aircraft is controll-able, not necessarily
trim-able.
Some of the more experieced Kolbers who have flkown Kolb aircraft at the rear edge
of the CG range... was the aircraft able to be trimmed for level flight at
those rearward CG's ???? Or was it n ecessary to hold stick pressure?
That would answer a LOT of all these questions.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/16/18, John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Date: Thursday, August 16, 2018, 9:30 AM
Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Extremely difficult to trouble shoot an
aircraft that one is not familiar with, especially a
Kolb. That being said, I would think it would also be
difficult for that person to accurately describe and correct
those problems. In this case we have no idea what the
"real" root problem is, but there is definitely something
wrong with BB's Kolb. That we know for sure, without
flying it.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Bill Berle
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 9:29
AM
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer
Angle
Bill Berle <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net>
To answer the recent questions...
Bill Berle
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.
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: | : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
In my experience Kolbs don't have cg problems if built according to plans. Kolb
cg is wide and forgiving. I think I shared with the List my experience flying
my MKIII with a 12+ lb Maule Tundra Tail Wheel. Made one of my flights to
Alaska with it plus all the other gear and fuel I carry behind the cg. I have
never had a cg problem, even configured that way.
If you can fly your Kolb with the cg from one extreme to the other, I would think
you could correct any adverse pitch trim with a trim tab. In a MKIII it takes
considerable nose up trim to unload the stick when at take off and cruise
power. Anyone who has done long cross country flights knows it is very difficult
and uncomfortable to fly with adverse trim. Holding pressure on a stick doesn't
take long to take the fun out of flying cross country. I learned a long
time ago local flying I seldom noticed a little adverse trim, but on a cross
country it didn't take long to realize it when my arm got tired.
Wish my buddy John Williamson was still here. When John flew off his 40 hours
he actually used weights to go beyond forward and aft cg limits. I remember him
telling me the only way he could get out of a stall on his last aft cg test
was full power. If he had lost power he would have busted his ass. He also
added weight incrementally to the nose until the Kolbra wouldn't take off. I
don't have his numbers and have no idea if they still exist.
BB still has an unidentified problem if his FS2 only flies 40-45 mph at the rpm
he stated in a previous msg, I think he said 5200 to 5300 rpm.
In addition, he should not have to raise the horz stab above what the plans and
building instructions state.
Keep looking until you find your problem.
BB still hasn't explored the possibility his ailerons may be set too high. In
flight those ailerons naturally want to droop a little. If it was my airplane
and my problem, I would have already experimented with the ailerons and got off
this nonsense of inboard wing stall first. But it ain't my airplane and I
haven't seen it or flown it.
When one thinks of all the Kolbs out there flying with no problems, makes me wonder
what the Hell is wrong with BB's Kolb to make it act like it does, whatever
that is. I don't have a clue.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Berle
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:40 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
Someone on the homebuilt airplanes internet group postulated that the "allowable
CG range" may mean the range where the aircraft is controll-able, not necessarily
trim-able.
Some of the more experieced Kolbers who have flkown Kolb aircraft at the rear edge
of the CG range... was the aircraft able to be trimmed for level flight at
those rearward CG's ???? Or was it n ecessary to hold stick pressure?
That would answer a LOT of all these questions.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/16/18, John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Date: Thursday, August 16, 2018, 9:30 AM
Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Extremely difficult to trouble shoot an
aircraft that one is not familiar with, especially a
Kolb. That being said, I would think it would also be
difficult for that person to accurately describe and correct
those problems. In this case we have no idea what the
"real" root problem is, but there is definitely something
wrong with BB's Kolb. That we know for sure, without
flying it.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Bill Berle
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 9:29
AM
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer
Angle
Bill Berle <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net>
To answer the recent questions...
Bill Berle
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.
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 |
|
I've helped a few people over the years with their Kolbs. Occasionally I
even get calls from Kolb Aircraft, and have for many years, wanting my
limited knowledge of, or opinion on a Kolb problem. I don't mind Kolbers
calling me and discussing a problem. Most time it is easier than trying to
do it by email.
334-567-6280/334-315-2621
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
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 |
|
Will try to do so later today or this evening. I have a job interview in a couple
of hours that I need to get ready for.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/16/18, John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
Subject: Kolb-List: Call Me
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Date: Thursday, August 16, 2018, 10:21 AM
Call Me
I've helped a few people over the years
with their Kolbs. Occasionally
I even get calls from
Kolb Aircraft, and have for many years, wanting my
limited knowledge of, or opinion on a Kolb problem. I
don't mind Kolbers calling me and discussing a
problem. Most time it is easier than trying to do it by
email.
334-567-6280/334-315-2621
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: | : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
Bill,
I had a little problem visualizing your description but as I understand it your Center Gap Cover is complete on the bottom and only about half on the top. This is exactly opposite of what the factory shows in the plans (at least for the Firefly). Take a look here: http://harnerfarm.net/serenity/assembly.html about half way down the page you will see a front view of the center wing gap seal. I don't have it on the website but I do have a photo of the top of this seal in flight and it is bowed upward quite a lot so there is a lot of air pressure in that area.
If I understand it right, you basically have a hole in the top of your wing from
just aft of the thickest part all the way back to the engine. Even though the
air can't flow through because of the covering on the bottom side it would seem
that this will cause a lot of turbulence and drag just ahead of the engine.
I don't know if that will cause a nose up condition but I am betting it is causing
a loss of airspeed and all power settings.
Let me know if you would like to see the back side of the center wing cover and
I will post one to my web site so it doesn't take up space on the list.
Also, I do not know if you have the gap seal between the wing and the aileron.
I used the Kolb supplied 3M Clear Book Binding Tape that came with the kit. Others
just go ahead and use covering fabric and paint accordingly. To me this
was easier. I did not put any on the elevator gap but may try it some time. I
do know a lot of people say that the plane handles so much better with the aileron
gap seals installed. If you don't have them, this could be a contributing
factor to at least the aileron "heaviness" that you describe as well as adding
to the overall drag.
Side note: I don't think anyone said you HAD to use the main gear as a datum point,
just that it was easy. I like using the tip of the nose, keeps all the numbers
on the same side of the equation. You can simply put a mark on the floor
and use that if you wish. However I don't think you have a calculation problem.
There may be a CG problem but unfortunately you can't know that for sure without
doing the calculations. From all of your posts I don't think you need instructions
on how to do it but I do think that the behavior of the airplane calls
for a re-do just for process of elimination if nothing else. You would be
surprised at the number of people that get stymied by W&B. I think most of them
get hung up at + and - numbers caused by the datum not being at the front of
the aircraft. But that is my WAG.
It would be a shame to be chasing rigging problems if in fact there is a balance
problem. It could be as simple as a miss-read scale or measurement. Ever transpose
two numbers when reading a ruler upside down? Happens to me a lot. What
if a 67 became a 76? That would make the CG numbers out of whack! If re-doing
the calculations confirms they are accurate, then I would try to double check
the source of the numbers on the sheet. "Measure twice, cut once". I have a lot
of scraps to prove that old adage!
Keep at it and don't ever stop asking "why?".
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Berle
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
To answer the recent questions...
<SNIP>
I do have 3/4 of a gap seal between the wings. What I mean by that is that I have
an aluminum "airfoil" shaped leading edgee piece that slides on from the front,a
nd extends back to just behind the thickest part of the wing. This aluminum
piece ends right at where the main spar pins are installed. THEN I have a
fabric cover that Velcro's btween the wings from there to the rear carry-through
where the wing fold U-joints are. The front of this fabric cover overlaps and
Velcro's to the back of the aluminum piece. So there is not a huge hole where
the air can flow upward between the wings. But there is nothing on the TOP
of the wing behind the aluminum leading edge fairing and in front of the engine.
Maybe 18 inches of wing chord with no cover on the TOP. All of the gap on
the bottom is covered back to the wing fold U-joints.
<SNIP>
Message 13
| 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: | : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
THANK YOU Stuart ! And thanks to all of the people who are spending their time
helping me pull out what little is left of my hair to figure this out.
I have to agree that EVERYTHING up to this stage is pointing toward tail-heaviness.
So I am making an arrangement to go through the numbers agaain.
As I said, if the airplane is significantly out of the Kolb-specified range then
I will be eating a alot of s**t on the Kolb List ! If it is NOT out of the Kolb
CG range then I promise I won't make any one else eat that same s**t because
you are all trying to help.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/16/18, Stuart Harner <stuart@harnerfarm.net> wrote:
Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Date: Thursday, August 16, 2018, 2:36 PM
Harner" <stuart@harnerfarm.net>
Bill,
I had a little problem visualizing your
description but as I understand it your Center Gap Cover is
complete on the bottom and only about half on the top. This
is exactly opposite of what the factory shows in the plans
(at least for the Firefly). Take a look here: http://harnerfarm.net/serenity/assembly.html
about half way down the page you will see a front view
of the center wing gap seal. I don't have it on the website
but I do have a photo of the top of this seal in flight and
it is bowed upward quite a lot so there is a lot of air
pressure in that area.
If I understand it right, you basically
have a hole in the top of your wing from just aft of the
thickest part all the way back to the engine. Even though
the air can't flow through because of the covering on the
bottom side it would seem that this will cause a lot of
turbulence and drag just ahead of the engine.
I don't know if that will cause a nose
up condition but I am betting it is causing a loss of
airspeed and all power settings.
Let me know if you would like to see
the back side of the center wing cover and I will post one
to my web site so it doesn't take up space on the list.
Also, I do not know if you have the gap
seal between the wing and the aileron. I used the Kolb
supplied 3M Clear Book Binding Tape that came with the
kit. Others just go ahead and use covering fabric and paint
accordingly. To me this was easier. I did not put any on the
elevator gap but may try it some time. I do know a lot of
people say that the plane handles so much better with the
aileron gap seals installed. If you don't have them, this
could be a contributing factor to at least the aileron
"heaviness" that you describe as well as adding to the
overall drag.
Side note: I don't think anyone said
you HAD to use the main gear as a datum point, just that it
was easy. I like using the tip of the nose, keeps all the
numbers on the same side of the equation. You can simply put
a mark on the floor and use that if you wish. However I
don't think you have a calculation problem. There may be a
CG problem but unfortunately you can't know that for sure
without doing the calculations. From all of your posts I
don't think you need instructions on how to do it but I do
think that the behavior of the airplane calls for a re-do
just for process of elimination if nothing else. You would
be surprised at the number of people that get stymied by
W&B. I think most of them get hung up at + and -
numbers caused by the datum not being at the front of the
aircraft. But that is my WAG.
It would be a shame to be chasing
rigging problems if in fact there is a balance problem. It
could be as simple as a miss-read scale or measurement. Ever
transpose two numbers when reading a ruler upside down?
Happens to me a lot. What if a 67 became a 76? That would
make the CG numbers out of whack! If re-doing the
calculations confirms they are accurate, then I would try to
double check the source of the numbers on the sheet.
"Measure twice, cut once". I have a lot of scraps to prove
that old adage!
Keep at it and don't ever stop asking
"why?".
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Bill Berle
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 9:29
AM
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer
Angle
Bill Berle <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net>
To answer the recent questions...
<SNIP>
I do have 3/4 of a gap seal between the
wings. What I mean by that is that I have an aluminum
"airfoil" shaped leading edgee piece that slides on from the
front,a nd extends back to just behind the thickest part of
the wing. This aluminum piece ends right at where the main
spar pins are installed. THEN I have a fabric cover that
Velcro's btween the wings from there to the rear
carry-through where the wing fold U-joints are. The front of
this fabric cover overlaps and Velcro's to the back of the
aluminum piece. So there is not a huge hole where the air
can flow upward between the wings. But there is nothing on
the TOP of the wing behind the aluminum leading edge fairing
and in front of the engine. Maybe 18 inches of wing
chord with no cover on the TOP. All of the gap on the bottom
is covered back to the wing fold U-joints.
<SNIP>
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.
Message 14
| 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 |
"Eating crow" would have been a bit more poetic (you know, with the
reference to a bird)! ;-)
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 6:07 PM Bill Berle <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
> THANK YOU Stuart ! And thanks to all of the people who are spending their
> time helping me pull out what little is left of my hair to figure this out.
>
> I have to agree that EVERYTHING up to this stage is pointing toward
> tail-heaviness. So I am making an arrangement to go through the numbers
> agaain.
>
> As I said, if the airplane is significantly out of the Kolb-specified
> range then I will be eating a alot of s**t on the Kolb List ! If it is NOT
> out of the Kolb CG range then I promise I won't make any one else eat that
> same s**t because you are all trying to help.
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and
> for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 8/16/18, Stuart Harner <stuart@harnerfarm.net> wrote:
>
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, August 16, 2018, 2:36 PM
>
> Harner" <stuart@harnerfarm.net>
>
> Bill,
>
> I had a little problem visualizing your
> description but as I understand it your Center Gap Cover is
> complete on the bottom and only about half on the top. This
> is exactly opposite of what the factory shows in the plans
> (at least for the Firefly). Take a look here:
> http://harnerfarm.net/serenity/assembly.html
> about half way down the page you will see a front view
> of the center wing gap seal. I don't have it on the website
> but I do have a photo of the top of this seal in flight and
> it is bowed upward quite a lot so there is a lot of air
> pressure in that area.
>
> If I understand it right, you basically
> have a hole in the top of your wing from just aft of the
> thickest part all the way back to the engine. Even though
> the air can't flow through because of the covering on the
> bottom side it would seem that this will cause a lot of
> turbulence and drag just ahead of the engine.
>
> I don't know if that will cause a nose
> up condition but I am betting it is causing a loss of
> airspeed and all power settings.
>
> Let me know if you would like to see
> the back side of the center wing cover and I will post one
> to my web site so it doesn't take up space on the list.
>
> Also, I do not know if you have the gap
> seal between the wing and the aileron. I used the Kolb
> supplied 3M Clear Book Binding Tape that came with the
> kit. Others just go ahead and use covering fabric and paint
> accordingly. To me this was easier. I did not put any on the
> elevator gap but may try it some time. I do know a lot of
> people say that the plane handles so much better with the
> aileron gap seals installed. If you don't have them, this
> could be a contributing factor to at least the aileron
> "heaviness" that you describe as well as adding to the
> overall drag.
>
> Side note: I don't think anyone said
> you HAD to use the main gear as a datum point, just that it
> was easy. I like using the tip of the nose, keeps all the
> numbers on the same side of the equation. You can simply put
> a mark on the floor and use that if you wish. However I
> don't think you have a calculation problem. There may be a
> CG problem but unfortunately you can't know that for sure
> without doing the calculations. From all of your posts I
> don't think you need instructions on how to do it but I do
> think that the behavior of the airplane calls for a re-do
> just for process of elimination if nothing else. You would
> be surprised at the number of people that get stymied by
> W&B. I think most of them get hung up at + and -
> numbers caused by the datum not being at the front of the
> aircraft. But that is my WAG.
>
> It would be a shame to be chasing
> rigging problems if in fact there is a balance problem. It
> could be as simple as a miss-read scale or measurement. Ever
> transpose two numbers when reading a ruler upside down?
> Happens to me a lot. What if a 67 became a 76? That would
> make the CG numbers out of whack! If re-doing the
> calculations confirms they are accurate, then I would try to
> double check the source of the numbers on the sheet.
> "Measure twice, cut once". I have a lot of scraps to prove
> that old adage!
>
> Keep at it and don't ever stop asking
> "why?".
>
> Stuart
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Bill Berle
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 9:29
> AM
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer
> Angle
>
> Bill Berle <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net>
>
> To answer the recent questions...
>
> <SNIP>
>
> I do have 3/4 of a gap seal between the
> wings. What I mean by that is that I have an aluminum
> "airfoil" shaped leading edgee piece that slides on from the
> front,a nd extends back to just behind the thickest part of
> the wing. This aluminum piece ends right at where the main
> spar pins are installed. THEN I have a fabric cover that
> Velcro's btween the wings from there to the rear
> carry-through where the wing fold U-joints are. The front of
> this fabric cover overlaps and Velcro's to the back of the
> aluminum piece. So there is not a huge hole where the air
> can flow upward between the wings. But there is nothing on
> the TOP of the wing behind the aluminum leading edge fairing
> and in front of the engine. Maybe 18 inches of wing
> chord with no cover on the TOP. All of the gap on the bottom
> is covered back to the wing fold U-joints.
>
> <SNIP>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
Message 15
| 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 came across a very handy tool.. thought I would share it. And actually I would
love to hear the results from anyone with a flying Kolb, if they plug in the
numbers.
It's handy for weight and balance, but also evaluates stability and other factors.
https://chrusion.com/BJ7/SuperCalc7.html
Jerry
TS MK II
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482475#482475
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! --
|