Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:30 AM - Kolbers in Florida (Robpen5557)
2. 08:16 AM - Re: Flight 51 Video 8/12/18 (Ralph B)
3. 08:48 AM - Re: Flight 51 Video 8/12/18 (Lanny Lambdin)
4. 01:37 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Bill)
5. 01:56 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (John Hauck)
6. 02:31 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (B Young)
7. 05:09 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Bill)
8. 05:13 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Stuart Harner)
9. 06:58 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Bill)
10. 07:30 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (John Hauck)
11. 07:51 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (George Helton)
12. 08:30 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Bill Berle)
13. 09:41 PM - Re: Stabilizer Angle (Richard Pike)
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: | Kolbers in Florida |
Looking for any Kolbers in Florida. I had contact with Al Rodenbush from Lakeland.
But, havent been able to contact him. Hope everything is okay with him.
Im planning a trip to visit my Dad in late Sept. early October. Wanted to
visit someone along the way who has a completed Kold I could look at and possiblely
see the wings fold. Im traveling from Texas through Louisiana south on
I49 to I10 all the way to Lake City where I head south on I75. Please contact
me if you or someone you know has a Kolb I could check out. I went to Oshkosh
but The only had a firefly and wearnt folding the wings.. Plus they were being
pelted with questions from all directions. So, I still would like to sit
in one, who knows ride if possible. At least see one up close and perhaps fold
the wings once. Im not adverse to going out of my way 50 or even a hundred
miles to see a Kolb.
Thank You
Robert Lobdell
Waskom, Texas
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482575#482575
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: Flight 51 Video 8/12/18 |
I have used snippets of copyrighted music and nothing happens. If I use the complete
song, youtube will mute the audio in my video.
Here are a couple of examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBBo8qRZzB0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYM8jqucal8
Here is one where I used the complete song and they didn't delete the audio:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbFkYonMPEw
--------
Ralph B
Kolb Kolbra 912uls
N20386
550 hours
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482578#482578
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: Flight 51 Video 8/12/18 |
Really beautiful country. Nice video! Thanks.
Lanny
Sent from my iPad
> On Aug 19, 2018, at 2:39 PM, Larry Cottrell <lcottrell1020@gmail.com> wrot
e:
>
> Very pretty country, thanks for taking us along. I wish more would do what
you are doing. It would be nice to see some other country. Yours is as fore
ign to me as mine is to you. :-)
>
> I am very surprised that You tube is allowing you to use current musicians
for your sound track. They cut the sound off of every one of mine.
> Keep it up!
> Larry
>
>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 11:36 AM, snowman <alredmon@centurytel.net> wrote
:
>>
>> New Video =46rom the 12th of the month in Western Washington , What Fun !
Hope you all enjoy !
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiYa2nk-BX8&feature=youtu.be
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482542#482542
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =========================
>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navi
gator?Kolb-List
>> =========================
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> =========================
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> =========================
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> =========================
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> The older I get, the less tolerant I am of those who are intolerant of oth
ers.
>
> If you forward this email, or any part of it, please remove my email addre
ss before sending.
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 |
OK we just did a second weight and balance to settle this issue. The aircraft was
specifically put in the same configuration as it has been flown. Pilot wearing
clothes, shoes, helmet, and a total of 6.5 gallons of fuel. Same digital scales.
THIS Kolb has different landing gear legs than stock! Datum was wheel axles.
Wing leading edge was 3.5" forward of datum. Main gear weights 331 and
300. Tail weight 67. Center of gravity was 18.36" aft of datun which is 21.86"
aft of leading edge. 21.86" is 34.15% of the 64" wing chord specified by Kolb.
So my CG is 34.15% which is significantly forward of the factory approved maximum
of 37%. Actual flight weight in this configuration is 698 pounds, 27 pounds
under gross weight. Empty weight, removing the weight of fuel and oil, works
out to approx. 430. Heavier engine, tires, gear legs, exhaust, battery, and
it had been painted twice.
Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
>
>That's a good system on the FF. I have also seen this accomplished using a
>small lever instead of hooks.
>
>john h
>mkIII
>Titus, Alabama
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Then there is the Firefly; we built it with this little spring loaded device
>on the front of the stick because pitch trim changes depending on how much
>fuel you have left. This is more than sufficient, you only have to move it a
>notch or two from full fuel to minimum fuel.
>
>--------
>Richard Pike
>Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal w/incredibly obnoxious Rotax 277
>Kingsport, TN 3TN0
>
>
>
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: | : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
Got me baffled.
I don't see how it could have a nose up tendency with that much weight in the front
seat.
But it is what it is.
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
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 3:35 PM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
OK we just did a second weight and balance to settle this issue. The aircraft was
specifically put in the same configuration as it has been flown. Pilot wearing
clothes, shoes, helmet, and a total of 6.5 gallons of fuel. Same digital scales.
THIS Kolb has different landing gear legs than stock! Datum was wheel axles.
Wing leading edge was 3.5" forward of datum. Main gear weights 331 and
300. Tail weight 67. Center of gravity was 18.36" aft of datun which is 21.86"
aft of leading edge. 21.86" is 34.15% of the 64" wing chord specified by Kolb.
So my CG is 34.15% which is significantly forward of the factory approved maximum
of 37%. Actual flight weight in this configuration is 698 pounds, 27 pounds
under gross weight. Empty weight, removing the weight of fuel and oil, works
out to approx. 430. Heavier engine, tires, gear legs, exhaust, battery, and
it had been painted twice.
Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
>
>That's a good system on the FF. I have also seen this accomplished using a
>small lever instead of hooks.
>
>john h
>mkIII
>Titus, Alabama
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Then there is the Firefly; we built it with this little spring loaded device
>on the front of the stick because pitch trim changes depending on how much
>fuel you have left. This is more than sufficient, you only have to move it a
>notch or two from full fuel to minimum fuel.
>
>--------
>Richard Pike
>Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal w/incredibly obnoxious Rotax 277
>Kingsport, TN 3TN0
>
>
>
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 entered your numbers on my spread sheet....
>
> You didnt give the arm for the tail wheel... So i back calculated it.
>
> I came up with your exact numbers provided the tail wheel is 191.25
> behind the mains.
>
> Boyd
>
>
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 |
Yes this measurement is approx 191 inches from the tailwheel to the main wheel
axle line under the center of the fuselage.
Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
B Young <byoungplumbing@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I entered your numbers on my spread sheet....
>>
>> You didnt give the arm for the tail wheel... So i back calculated it.
>>
>> I came up with your exact numbers provided the tail wheel is 191.25
>> behind the mains.
>>
>> Boyd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
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 |
Bill,
Very glad it is not a CG problem and that it has been definitively ruled out. Sorry
for the extra work, but the symptoms called for the effort to be expended.
So now, we know that changing the angle of the horizontal stabilizers helped with
the issue considerably even if it is "out of spec".
We have already discussed the wing center section gap seal, and that would be my
next area of experimentation. After all you can change that without making any
structural changes and it is easy to go back to what you have.
Another thought has occurred to me about your low airspeeds. A few questions:
Have you done a static full power run to make sure you are getting proper RPM's?
Or
Have you done a full power run in the air while straight and level?
Have you confirmed your tachometer with another device?
Have you confirmed your ASI (I know you changed the pitot/static setup) to verify
that you are truly getting what you are seeing?
Idea for next flight. While straight and level, go to full throttle and see what
happens. You only have to maintain it long enough to get a stable tachometer
reading and to see what forces are required at the stick.
At this point I am just tossing out random thoughts in hopes that something ticks
in your mind to say "hey, what if I did this?".
Hang in there, we're all pulling for you to figure this out.
Some people like mysteries, I rather tent to like the solutions!
Keep us informed,
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 3:35 PM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
OK we just did a second weight and balance to settle this issue. The aircraft was
specifically put in the same configuration as it has been flown. Pilot wearing
clothes, shoes, helmet, and a total of 6.5 gallons of fuel. Same digital scales.
THIS Kolb has different landing gear legs than stock! Datum was wheel axles.
Wing leading edge was 3.5" forward of datum. Main gear weights 331 and
300. Tail weight 67. Center of gravity was 18.36" aft of datun which is 21.86"
aft of leading edge. 21.86" is 34.15% of the 64" wing chord specified by Kolb.
So my CG is 34.15% which is significantly forward of the factory approved maximum
of 37%. Actual flight weight in this configuration is 698 pounds, 27 pounds
under gross weight. Empty weight, removing the weight of fuel and oil, works
out to approx. 430. Heavier engine, tires, gear legs, exhaust, battery, and
it had been painted twice.
Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
>
>That's a good system on the FF. I have also seen this accomplished
>using a small lever instead of hooks.
>
>john h
>mkIII
>Titus, Alabama
>
>
>
>--> <thegreybaron@charter.net>
>
>
>
>
>Then there is the Firefly; we built it with this little spring loaded
>device on the front of the stick because pitch trim changes depending
>on how much fuel you have left. This is more than sufficient, you only
>have to move it a notch or two from full fuel to minimum fuel.
>
>--------
>Richard Pike
>Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal w/incredibly obnoxious Rotax 277
>Kingsport, TN 3TN0
>
>
>
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 |
Full throttle on takeoff and climbout gives me 5700-5800 rpm which is max continuous
power. This yields 40-45mph climbing. I have not done extended full power
in level flight yet but based on what I have seen so far I would expect 50-52mph
and 6000 rpm. Brand new Tiny Tach installed per direct verbal installation
instructions on the phone with their tech guy. Airspeed indicator tested with
this same air probe stuck out thru the car sunroof, measured same as my car
speedometer. Unless experienced Kolbers suggest otherwise, I will put on the
short windshield as the next change. How much speed is typical improvement going
from round to streamline struts??
Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
Stuart Harner <stuart@harnerfarm.net> wrote:
>
>Bill,
>
>Very glad it is not a CG problem and that it has been definitively ruled out.
Sorry for the extra work, but the symptoms called for the effort to be expended.
>
>So now, we know that changing the angle of the horizontal stabilizers helped with
the issue considerably even if it is "out of spec".
>
>We have already discussed the wing center section gap seal, and that would be
my next area of experimentation. After all you can change that without making
any structural changes and it is easy to go back to what you have.
>
>Another thought has occurred to me about your low airspeeds. A few questions:
>
>Have you done a static full power run to make sure you are getting proper RPM's?
> Or
>Have you done a full power run in the air while straight and level?
>
>Have you confirmed your tachometer with another device?
>
>Have you confirmed your ASI (I know you changed the pitot/static setup) to verify
that you are truly getting what you are seeing?
>
>Idea for next flight. While straight and level, go to full throttle and see what
happens. You only have to maintain it long enough to get a stable tachometer
reading and to see what forces are required at the stick.
>
>At this point I am just tossing out random thoughts in hopes that something ticks
in your mind to say "hey, what if I did this?".
>
>Hang in there, we're all pulling for you to figure this out.
>
>Some people like mysteries, I rather tent to like the solutions!
>
>Keep us informed,
>
>Stuart
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
>Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 3:35 PM
>To: kolb-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
>
>
>OK we just did a second weight and balance to settle this issue. The aircraft
was specifically put in the same configuration as it has been flown. Pilot wearing
clothes, shoes, helmet, and a total of 6.5 gallons of fuel. Same digital
scales. THIS Kolb has different landing gear legs than stock! Datum was wheel
axles. Wing leading edge was 3.5" forward of datum. Main gear weights 331 and
300. Tail weight 67. Center of gravity was 18.36" aft of datun which is 21.86"
aft of leading edge. 21.86" is 34.15% of the 64" wing chord specified by Kolb.
So my CG is 34.15% which is significantly forward of the factory approved maximum
of 37%. Actual flight weight in this configuration is 698 pounds, 27 pounds
under gross weight. Empty weight, removing the weight of fuel and oil, works
out to approx. 430. Heavier engine, tires, gear legs, exhaust, battery, and
it had been painted twice.
>
>Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
>
>John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>That's a good system on the FF. I have also seen this accomplished
>>using a small lever instead of hooks.
>>
>>john h
>>mkIII
>>Titus, Alabama
>>
>>
>>
>>--> <thegreybaron@charter.net>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Then there is the Firefly; we built it with this little spring loaded
>>device on the front of the stick because pitch trim changes depending
>>on how much fuel you have left. This is more than sufficient, you only
>>have to move it a notch or two from full fuel to minimum fuel.
>>
>>--------
>>Richard Pike
>>Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>>Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal w/incredibly obnoxious Rotax 277
>>Kingsport, TN 3TN0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
To correctly prop an aircraft with ground adjustable or fixed pitch prop:
--Bump the red line (max continuous rpm) at WOT straight and level flight. That's
wide open at top speed attained.
If you are turning 5800 at climb out you are under pitched. Probably part of your
air speed problem.
ASI's are pressure/static instruments, extremely sensitive to static pressure.
What you get out of the sun roof of your ride is not what you are going to get
out of your Kolb. Inside a semi-enclosed cockpit, behind a nose cone, in a
fully enclosed cockpit, you will experience low pressure. Low pressure gives
a high false air speed reading. High pressure produces a low reading.
I would use a GPS, fly opposite headings, same altitude, same IAS. Average your
two GPS readings. This will be very close to true air speed. Whether the ASI
reads high or low, it will always indicate the same speed at stall.
Streamlined struts will reduce lift strut vibration and slightly increase air speed.
How much? You'll have to experiment to see.
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
Full throttle on takeoff and climbout gives me 5700-5800 rpm which is max continuous
power. This yields 40-45mph climbing. I have not done extended full power
in level flight yet but based on what I have seen so far I would expect 50-52mph
and 6000 rpm. Brand new Tiny Tach installed per direct verbal installation
instructions on the phone with their tech guy. Airspeed indicator tested with
this same air probe stuck out thru the car sunroof, measured same as my car
speedometer. Unless experienced Kolbers suggest otherwise, I will put on the
short windshield as the next change. How much speed is typical improvement going
from round to streamline struts??
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
Bill, those figures dont sound that bad to me. Im running a different engine of
course. My original Firestars best climb rate is right at 45/46 mph. Straight
and level 5500 rpm in calm air is 64/66 mph. That does require lots of forward
stick pressure. It likes to cruise at 4800 to 5200rpm @ 52/55 mph. Obviously
were running two completely different engines. My max. hp is 40 @ 5500rpm, thats
what I consider max. rpm even though its actually 5800. My max. torque is
49ft.lbs @ 4800.
So, airframe-wise( I dont think thats actually a word?) I think the performance
numbers are in the ballpark. It would be nice to bring the horizontal stabilizer
back where it belongs. But, its your decision. Keep tinkering. And enjoy some
flying.
Aero liftstruts? They claim 6 to 8 mph. But, that sounds alittle iffy to me? But,
I did order a set of 3:1 aero fairings for mine so Ill let you know how they
work, like maybe next week. I think I just threw some money down the drain?
George H.
Firestar, FS100, 2702 Hirth
14GDH
Mesick, Michigan
gdhelton@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 20, 2018, at 9:58 PM, Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> Full throttle on takeoff and climbout gives me 5700-5800 rpm which is max continuous
power. This yields 40-45mph climbing. I have not done extended full power
in level flight yet but based on what I have seen so far I would expect 50-52mph
and 6000 rpm. Brand new Tiny Tach installed per direct verbal installation
instructions on the phone with their tech guy. Airspeed indicator tested
with this same air probe stuck out thru the car sunroof, measured same as my
car speedometer. Unless experienced Kolbers suggest otherwise, I will put on the
short windshield as the next change. How much speed is typical improvement
going from round to streamline struts??
>
> Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
>
> Stuart Harner <stuart@harnerfarm.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> Very glad it is not a CG problem and that it has been definitively ruled out.
Sorry for the extra work, but the symptoms called for the effort to be expended.
>>
>> So now, we know that changing the angle of the horizontal stabilizers helped
with the issue considerably even if it is "out of spec".
>>
>> We have already discussed the wing center section gap seal, and that would be
my next area of experimentation. After all you can change that without making
any structural changes and it is easy to go back to what you have.
>>
>> Another thought has occurred to me about your low airspeeds. A few questions:
>>
>> Have you done a static full power run to make sure you are getting proper RPM's?
>> Or
>> Have you done a full power run in the air while straight and level?
>>
>> Have you confirmed your tachometer with another device?
>>
>> Have you confirmed your ASI (I know you changed the pitot/static setup) to verify
that you are truly getting what you are seeing?
>>
>> Idea for next flight. While straight and level, go to full throttle and see
what happens. You only have to maintain it long enough to get a stable tachometer
reading and to see what forces are required at the stick.
>>
>> At this point I am just tossing out random thoughts in hopes that something
ticks in your mind to say "hey, what if I did this?".
>>
>> Hang in there, we're all pulling for you to figure this out.
>>
>> Some people like mysteries, I rather tent to like the solutions!
>>
>> Keep us informed,
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
>> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 3:35 PM
>> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
>>
>>
>> OK we just did a second weight and balance to settle this issue. The aircraft
was specifically put in the same configuration as it has been flown. Pilot wearing
clothes, shoes, helmet, and a total of 6.5 gallons of fuel. Same digital
scales. THIS Kolb has different landing gear legs than stock! Datum was wheel
axles. Wing leading edge was 3.5" forward of datum. Main gear weights 331 and
300. Tail weight 67. Center of gravity was 18.36" aft of datun which is 21.86"
aft of leading edge. 21.86" is 34.15% of the 64" wing chord specified by Kolb.
So my CG is 34.15% which is significantly forward of the factory approved
maximum of 37%. Actual flight weight in this configuration is 698 pounds, 27
pounds under gross weight. Empty weight, removing the weight of fuel and oil,
works out to approx. 430. Heavier engine, tires, gear legs, exhaust, battery,
and it had been painted twice.
>>
>> Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on AT&T
>>
>> John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That's a good system on the FF. I have also seen this accomplished
>>> using a small lever instead of hooks.
>>>
>>> john h
>>> mkIII
>>> Titus, Alabama
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --> <thegreybaron@charter.net>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then there is the Firefly; we built it with this little spring loaded
>>> device on the front of the stick because pitch trim changes depending
>>> on how much fuel you have left. This is more than sufficient, you only
>>> have to move it a notch or two from full fuel to minimum fuel.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Richard Pike
>>> Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>>> Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal w/incredibly obnoxious Rotax 277
>>> Kingsport, TN 3TN0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
Guys thank you all again for going down this bizarre rabbit hole with me.
The aircraft flies reasonably well as it is now, with stabilizer jacked up "way
too high" and additional trim tabs on the elevator. If I lowered the stabilizer
back down then I would be going back to holding a lot of forward pressure on
the stick, which I do not need or want to do.The only other option is a very
very large trim tab ont he elevator, which would likely be 10-12% of the size
of the elevator. This is also a lot less desirable to me. A large trim tab adds
weight on the un-safe side of the elevator (for flutter issues),a nd also drags
in the weeds when you are on the ground.
Again, as it is right now I have 4 degrees of positive "decalage" angle at my current
setting. This is relatively safe and very similar to Cessnas and J-3 Cubs
and other "regular" airplanes.This tells me that the stock plans-built Kolb
has something a lot more than that, maybe 8 or 10 degrees of decalage??? Wouldn't
THAT sound excessive ?
I have not heard back from Duane at Kolb Aircraft. When we last spoke he said he
would talk with Bryan and get back to me via e-mail. I have no idea if they
have just not gotten to it yet, or whether Bryan decideed that me and my airplane
were just too crazy to get involved with :)
Forgive me for being repetitive, but for reference, at this stage we have the following
known configuration:
Wing incidence measurement is almost perfectly matched to the measurement given
to me by Duane at Kolb.
Tail boom tube length has not been shortened form a stock Firestar 2.
Fuselage tube structure is not obviously bent or patched, so the "upward angle"
of the boom tube is likely the same as a stock FS2.
Weight and balance verified at 34.15% of chord, clearly within Kolb's acceptable
range for safe filght (20-37 %).
One or two people have suggested that perhaps my exhaust coming out of the muffler
is creating anose-up pitch, because the muffler is underneath the aircraft.
I do not believe this is the case, because I have flown at low power settings,
and the nose did not fall downward (which it would have done if the muffler
"thrust" was lifting the nose).
Perhaps all the effort I put in over months of screwing around, to keep the thrust
line as low as possible, has hurt me ? If the Kolb wing and stabilizer angle
were designed for a thrust line that was farther above the aircraft , and mine
is a lot lower, then THAT would perhaps explain how there is a nose-up pitch...
because the designers at Kolb were assuming I would have a higher thrust
line that would push the nose down some ???
My thurst line (center of propeller) is 33.25 inches above the TOP of the tailboom
tube. Is this significantly LOWER than most of the other Firestars? What is
the height of the center or the prop above other Kolbers Firestar tailboom tubes?
If everybody else's thrust line is 36 or 38 inches above the tailoom tube, then
everyone else would have the engine pushing the nose down more than I do. If
Kolb designed the Firestar's wing and tail angles for a thrust oline that was
36 or 38 inches high, and I only have 33.25 inches, then at least THAT would explain
why my aircraft wanted to pitch upward and the other Kolbers don't have
that problem.
Another possibility is that having any windshield on the aircraft creates a nose-down
pitch, and since I have no windshield then that nose-down pitch is missing
on my aircraft.Again this sounds implausible, but it would explain this strange
situation.
Also, I have never flown mine without the VG's on the wing or tail. I had them
on the first flight. Any Kolbers who have installed VG's... did this cause your
aircraft to start pitching up where it did not do that without VG's???
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 8/20/18, George Helton <gdhelton@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Date: Monday, August 20, 2018, 7:51 PM
Helton <gdhelton@gmail.com>
Bill, those figures dont sound that
bad to me. Im running a different engine of course. My
original Firestars best climb rate is right at 45/46 mph.
Straight and level 5500 rpm in calm air is 64/66 mph. That
does require lots of forward stick pressure. It likes to
cruise at 4800 to 5200rpm @ 52/55 mph. Obviously were
running two completely different engines. My max. hp is 40 @
5500rpm, thats what I consider max. rpm even though
its actually 5800. My max. torque is 49ft.lbs @ 4800.
So, airframe-wise( I dont think
thats actually a word?) I think the performance numbers
are in the ballpark. It would be nice to bring the
horizontal stabilizer back where it belongs. But, its
your decision. Keep tinkering. And enjoy some flying.
Aero liftstruts? They claim 6 to 8 mph.
But, that sounds alittle iffy to me? But, I did order a set
of 3:1 aero fairings for mine so Ill let you know how
they work, like maybe next week. I think I just threw some
money down the drain?
George H.
Firestar, FS100, 2702 Hirth
14GDH
Mesick, Michigan
gdhelton@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 20, 2018, at 9:58 PM, Bill
<victorbravo@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
> --> Kolb-List message posted
by: Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Full throttle on takeoff and
climbout gives me 5700-5800 rpm which is max
continuous power. This yields 40-45mph climbing. I have not
done extended full power in level flight yet but based on
what I have seen so far I would expect 50-52mph and 6000
rpm. Brand new Tiny Tach installed per direct verbal
installation instructions on the phone with their tech
guy. Airspeed indicator tested with this same air probe
stuck out thru the car sunroof, measured same as my car
speedometer. Unless experienced Kolbers suggest otherwise, I
will put on the short windshield as the next change. How
much speed is typical improvement going from round to
streamline struts??
>
> Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm)
on AT&T
>
> Stuart Harner <stuart@harnerfarm.net>
wrote:
>
>> --> Kolb-List message
posted by: "Stuart Harner" <stuart@harnerfarm.net>
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> Very glad it is not a CG
problem and that it has been definitively ruled out. Sorry
for the extra work, but the symptoms called for the effort
to be expended.
>>
>> So now, we know that changing
the angle of the horizontal stabilizers helped with the
issue considerably even if it is "out of spec".
>>
>> We have already discussed the
wing center section gap seal, and that would be my next area
of experimentation. After all you can change that without
making any structural changes and it is easy to go back to
what you have.
>>
>> Another thought has occurred
to me about your low airspeeds. A few questions:
>>
>> Have you done a static full
power run to make sure you are getting proper RPM's?
>> Or
>> Have you done a full power run
in the air while straight and level?
>>
>> Have you confirmed your
tachometer with another device?
>>
>> Have you confirmed your ASI (I
know you changed the pitot/static setup) to verify that you
are truly getting what you are seeing?
>>
>> Idea for next flight. While
straight and level, go to full throttle and see what
happens. You only have to maintain it long enough to get a
stable tachometer reading and to see what forces are
required at the stick.
>>
>> At this point I am just
tossing out random thoughts in hopes that something ticks in
your mind to say "hey, what if I did this?".
>>
>> Hang in there, we're all
pulling for you to figure this out.
>>
>> Some people like mysteries, I
rather tent to like the solutions!
>>
>> Keep us informed,
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Bill
>> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018
3:35 PM
>> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE:
Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle
>>
>> --> Kolb-List message
posted by: Bill <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net>
>>
>> OK we just did a second weight
and balance to settle this issue. The aircraft was
specifically put in the same configuration as it has been
flown. Pilot wearing clothes, shoes, helmet, and a total of
6.5 gallons of fuel. Same digital scales. THIS Kolb has
different landing gear legs than stock! Datum was wheel
axles. Wing leading edge was 3.5" forward of datum. Main
gear weights 331 and 300. Tail weight 67. Center of
gravity was 18.36" aft of datun which is 21.86" aft of
leading edge. 21.86" is 34.15% of the 64" wing chord
specified by Kolb. So my CG is 34.15% which is significantly
forward of the factory approved maximum of 37%. Actual
flight weight in this configuration is 698 pounds, 27 pounds
under gross weight. Empty weight, removing the weight of
fuel and oil, works out to approx. 430. Heavier engine,
tires, gear legs, exhaust, battery, and it had been painted
twice.
>>
>> Sent from my Samsung
Captivate(tm) on AT&T
>>
>> John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
wrote:
>>
>>> --> Kolb-List message
posted by: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>>>
>>> That's a good system on
the FF. I have also seen this accomplished
>>> using a small lever
instead of hooks.
>>>
>>> john h
>>> mkIII
>>> Titus, Alabama
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --> Kolb-List message
posted by: "Richard Pike"
>>> --> <thegreybaron@charter.net>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then there is the Firefly;
we built it with this little spring loaded
>>> device on the front of the
stick because pitch trim changes depending
>>> on how much fuel you have
left. This is more than sufficient, you only
>>> have to move it a notch or
two from full fuel to minimum fuel.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Richard Pike
>>> Kolb MKIII N420P
(420ldPoops)
>>> Kolb Firefly Part 103
legal w/incredibly obnoxious Rotax 277
>>> Kingsport, TN 3TN0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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 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: | Re: : Kolb-List:Stabilizer Angle |
Adding VG's to the wing or the underside of the stab/elevator causes no pitch change.
--------
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kolb Firefly Part 103 legal w/incredibly obnoxious Rotax 277
Kingsport, TN 3TN0
Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482602#482602
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! --
|