Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:35 AM - Re: First short XC Flight and Slow Cruise Speed (Rex Rodebush)
2. 08:23 AM - Another opinoin (Denny Baber)
3. 08:47 AM - Re: Another opinoin (George Helton)
4. 09:14 AM - Re: Re: First short XC Flight and Slow Cruise Speed (Stuart Harner)
5. 02:22 PM - Re: Another opinoin ()
6. 02:56 PM - Re: Another opinoin (Bill Berle)
7. 05:10 PM - Easy fuel valve modification (Richard Girard)
8. 09:02 PM - Re: First short XC Flight and Slow Cruise Speed (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: First short XC Flight and Slow Cruise Speed |
Bill,
I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't care if your "measurement" is
what it should be. You should get a digital level and measure the actual wing
angle as well as the tube, stabilizer and engine mount angles. Compare these
to what Kolb recommends or what the angles on a good flying Firestar are.
There may have been changes to the frame or maybe it got "tweaked" enough that
the "measurement" is off.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482768#482768
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 |
|
I think the purpose of this list is to exchange ideas. My experience is
that co-operation works better than confrontation. If you want to be
confrontational then by all means get out and vote. But let's all try to
calm down and stick to the subject of Kolbs on the list. I really want to
hear your opinion as long as it's about Kolbs.
Respectfully,
Dennis Baber
Cape Coral, Fl
baberdk@gmail.com
Stay Curious
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: Another opinoin |
I have to agree with you Dennis. We not here to police each other. We=99
re here to try too be helpful to our fellow Kolb builders and flyers.
George H.
Firestar
Mesick, Michigan
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 29, 2018, at 11:23 AM, Denny Baber <baberdk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think the purpose of this list is to exchange ideas. My experience is th
at co-operation works better than confrontation. If you want to be confronta
tional then by all means get out and vote. But let's all try to calm down an
d stick to the subject of Kolbs on the list. I really want to hear your opin
ion as long as it's about Kolbs.
>
>
> Respectfully,
> Dennis Baber
> Cape Coral, Fl
> baberdk@gmail.com
>
> Stay Curious
>
>
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: First short XC Flight and Slow Cruise Speed |
Bill,
Let me try and add something here. I have only read the plans for a Firefly,
but as I understand it the rigging procedure should be the same for a
Firestar.
At the main spar connection on the fuselage you drill a hole through the
center of the bracket. This gives equal metal all around the hole for
maximum strength.
At the main spar connection on the root rib of the wing is a rather large
tab. The builder then mounts the wing at the rear spar connection and props
up and otherwise aligns the wing according to the plans. Once everything is
checked for proper alignment, then you drill the hole in the tab on the
wing. This locks in the alignment.
At least on my Firefly (see pictures here:
http://harnerfarm.net/serenity/building2.html ) this tab is way over sized
so that you have lots of latitude in the angle of incidence.
Going from memory here, but I don't remember anything about measuring a
distance for the location of the hole in the wing tab. There was a note
about making sure to stay at least a minimum distance from the edge of the
tab to the edge of the drilled hole. I think generally you want to stay at
least a hole diameter away from the edge of a piece. More is better.
So what Rex is saying is correct. The rigging of the wing has nothing to do
with the placement of the hole, rather the hole is placed according to the
alignment of the wing.
If the initial rigging of the wing gets messed up by a large amount, it is
easy enough to re-align the wing and drill another hole in the proper
location. If the alignment is off by a small amount, say a half a hole, the
accepted procedure is to weld the hole shut and normalize the metal in the
tab. Then do the wing rigging over so that you get the hole where it needs
to be. This correction procedure is quite easy before covering, not so much
after. But still doable without a complete recover job.
A little disclaimer here. I did not do this myself. I bought a quick build
kit and Bryan did all the rigging for me at the factory. However the
assembly manual and plans laid it all out in an easy to understand way.
I can dig out my plans and send you more detailed information if you desire.
I believe it called for leveling the fuselage using the engine mount tube as
the level point. Then you set the wing incidence based on the bottom of the
root rib. All done with angles, no length measurements involved.
If the plans you have don't have these angles listed, a call to the factory
should get you the proper numbers. An incidence angle that is way out of
whack would necessitate a correspondingly out of whack tail plane angle,
which is what you seem to have.
Have you compared the bottom of the wing to the engine mount tube? If so
what is the angular difference between the two?
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rex Rodebush
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:35 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: First short XC Flight and Slow Cruise Speed
Bill,
I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't care if your "measurement"
is what it should be. You should get a digital level and measure the actual
wing angle as well as the tube, stabilizer and engine mount angles. Compare
these to what Kolb recommends or what the angles on a good flying Firestar
are.
There may have been changes to the frame or maybe it got "tweaked" enough
that the "measurement" is off.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482768#482768
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: Another opinoin |
MEEEEE! Toooo!! Herb
n Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:23:30 -0400, Denny Baber <baberdk@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the purpose of this list is to exchange ideas. My experience is
> that co-operation works better than confrontation. If you want to be
> confrontational then by all means get out and vote. But lets all try to
> calm down and stick to the subject of Kolbs on the list. I really want
to
> hear your opinion as long as its about Kolbs.
>
> Respectfully,
> Dennis BaberCape Coral, Flbaberdk@gmail.com [1]
> Stay Curious
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] mailto:baberdk@gmail.com
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: Another opinoin |
Denny Baber <baberdk@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the purpose of this list is to exchange ideas.
Agreed 100%, exchanging ideas and politely debating the pros and cons of any idea(s)
is a wonderful thing to be able to share with my fellow pilots or Kolb enthusiasts.
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: | Easy fuel valve modification |
Take a Weatherhead 3 way valve drill through one side of the ball so that
it's now a tee rather than an ell. Now plumb so that you have a 172
standard left, right, both, off valve. If you need to use all the fuel in a
tank you can dial in that tank, suck it dry and move to the other tank
without losing the engine while making the transfer. It was not the
brightest day but it did get me home.
Rick Girard
--
=9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D
Groucho Marx
<http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
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: First short XC Flight and Slow Cruise Speed |
Bill..
Did I get your attention? None of that was said to be mean-spirited.. but I don't
believe in political correctness either.
And this isn't a p___ing match.. or to compare skill levels, but I'll answer those
questions below. Again, you (and possibly others) may look at all of this
differently. And you have "explained" whatever you have done to your plane,
multiple times, and why. And I have no issues with making sound modifications
if needed.. or even building one from scratch. "Truck parts" was a joke about
extra heavy landing gear components. Anyway, "modifications" are how many Experimentals
came to be, including the Kolbs.. in a easy to build kit form, that
works quite well, unmolested.
Your Kolb however??? Let's see.. your well explained modifications have:
Increased the weight significantly
Increased the drag significantly
Reduced the normally available lift
Muddied the flight characteristics.. A LOT!
You have opted for a thrust vector which is contrary to normal flight trim (ie
you have reduced the nose down under power aspect, which also applies to stall
recovery as well)
And your CG is contrary to any improvement in flight trim by it's rearward location.
And if I understood correctly, you carry 10 gallons of fuel, of which only 5 is
usable?? (Could be some weight savings there!) All of these things come from
mods "which are there for good reason". Sadly, ALL of the above have penalties
to the flying characteristics.. as you have duly noted.
Uh.. Bill.. if you CONTINUE your "improvements".. taking a perfectly good airplane
and turning it into mush.. it may just stop flying at an inappropriate moment..
like when you are in it. You post very well, but only disclose "oh, and
I did this too".. well down the conversation line. If you know aircraft, then
you should be working on corrections to your mods, that actually work. MY only
concern, is that in all that you have done.. there are no positive indications
(compared to a normal Kolb), with that taken directly from YOUR OWN non-flattering
flying reports. That would make ME nervous! So.. carry on. But I'm
stepping back from any further commentary. It seems to me that YOUR mods could
be "the whole problem". Indeed, I might understand a reluctance by you to
make MORE changes.. since the first ones have.. uh.. worked out so well!?!?!
(NOT!) Do what you want.. I'm just not interested in participating.. other than
to nudge you into the reality, that things are not right with your plane at
this time. But you knew that already. Nothing personal.
Me? As a kid was helping to build boats with my dad, and model airplanes by 8.
And then he got a destroyed Aeronca Chief for free. Way beyond economical repair..
trashed by a tornado slamming it upside down into a hangar. When finished,
it looked better than new.. a total rework. By 13 I knew how to gas weld,
and while not associated with the planes, to arc weld too, now I use TIG.
Been building models from scratch my whole life.. I know what makes airplanes
fly. I've done serious design studies, and applied that to super fine models,
a ELSA and multiple U/Ls too. They all worked better after the mods, or flew
better, or both. And I test flew all of them myself. My planes, and those of
my friends after mods or repair work. I even taught myself to fly. Been at EAA
meetings since I was about 10.. attended 3 or 4 fly-ins at ROCKFORD.. then
most of them at Oshkosh. I have Sport Aviation magazines from the beginning (when
they had real design articles and deep info), and have read all of them..
some several times, and many other design related books. I'm working closely
with the designer of my Bellaire making mods that include: A jump seat for the
grand-kids, a deeper airfoil, adding flaps, aluminum spars instead of wood,
composite ribs instead of built up wooden ones, a hidden bungee system on the
LG instead of the exposed J3 types as on the original. It will have a adjustable
stabilizer, and motor driven elevator trim tab. The wing tanks will be my
own design.. and both will be fully usable too! It's a real plane, and built
from PLANS... I will fabricate EVERY part. No pop rivet guns to assemble this
plane. Am I worried? No. We rebuilt the Chief, then a 1956 170, and then another
BER (beyond economical repair) 150.. also flipped over in a wind storm.
I've worked on dad's original design Exp, my own ELSA, and about a dozen U/Ls
I've owned, and EXPs and U/Ls for friends. I'm a self taught electronic engineer,
ran a consulting business for 20 years, and would evaluate the needs, design
the !
circuit,
do the prototype, use CAD to produce the PCB artwork, and I did the programming, all self taught. My designs were bullet-proof. I've also done electro pneumatic and mechanical designs and mods on industrial production equipment.. with great success. I have my own machine shop, shears, brake, lathes, mill, and all kinds of aircraft tools. You do have more hours of GA flying than I do. But none of that helps to make a bad plane fly well. My aircraft related experience includes working with wood, aluminum, steel tube, and composites. I worked avionics in the military and civilian jobs about 2.5 years. News letter editor for 4 different EAA chapters, and taught 3 people to fly ULs. My Kolb was purchased because it had been flying.. and just needed some work. But my real project is the Bellaire. See: http://www.ultralightnews.com/plansbuyerguide/bellaire-aircraftplans.html It won Grand Champion Light Plane in 2001 at the big show! Looks like a Rearwin Speedster!! A true classic beauty.. and that flies just as well.
Wishing you all the best on your plane.
Jerry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=482788#482788
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! --
|