Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:03 PM - Tailwheel (K I)
2. 01:52 PM - Re: Tailwheel (1957grnchev@bluemarble.net)
3. 04:24 PM - Re: Going to a 72" prop (Charlie Mike)
4. 05:19 PM - Re: Tailwheel (Salvador Sahagun)
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 |
|
Hi List,
I have a Mark III classic with a Rotax 912 UL. I want to put on an Aviation
Products 6" tailwheel on because some of my takeoffs and landings are off
runway, gravel, dirt & grass. I currently have a 4" tailwheel made by Aviat
ion Products that weighs 2 lbs. 12.3oz. The new 6" tailwheel weighs 4 lbs.
8.1 oz.
Have any Mark III Classic owners changed to the larger / softer tailwheel?
If so, has it been an improvement over the 4-inch wheel? Is there a reason
NOT to make the change?
Kurt
Kolb Mark III Classic
Rotax 912UL
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 |
|
Two extra pounds hanging that far back will likely change your weight
and balance significantly. Tail heavy is never good! Or as they say,
"if at first you don't succeed.. tail heavy is not for you.."
On 2021-06-18 4:03 pm, K I wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> I have a Mark III classic with a Rotax 912 UL. I want to put on an
> Aviation Products 6" tailwheel on because some of my takeoffs and
> landings are off runway, gravel, dirt & grass. I currently have a 4"
> tailwheel made by Aviation Products that weighs 2 lbs. 12.3oz. The
> new 6" tailwheel weighs 4 lbs. 8.1 oz.
>
> Have any Mark III Classic owners changed to the larger / softer
> tailwheel? If so, has it been an improvement over the 4-inch wheel?
> Is there a reason NOT to make the change?
>
> Kurt
> Kolb Mark III Classic
> Rotax 912UL
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: Going to a 72" prop |
Richard Pike wrote:
> All done and flying great. Had a few teething issues:
>
> Initially started out with an extra 3/8" motor mount spacer at the rear, giving
it a bit of downthrust to counteract any possible pitch over tendencies. Flew
it four times that way, evaluating handling while trying to get the Warp Drive
prop pitched properly. (Made me really appreciate the Ivo's ultra simple prop
adjustment method!)
>
> Short version: the airplane simply felt wrong. Constantly fighting it as it kept
trying to nose up at most every throttle setting, plus on final with minimal
power, it just did not feel right.
> Removed most of the rear spacer, now it handles just like it always did, deviation
from stock thrust angle is two extra 1/16" washers on top of the rear Lord
mounts.
> Spent one afternoon playing with brass shim stock between the prop hub and the
gearbox prop flange, finally got all three blades tracking within 1/16" of each
other.
> Spent several days trying to get the prop pitched for a 6300 rpm climb and a
6500 rpm max in level flight. Finally got within 50 rpm and called it quits.
> Plugs look good, EGT gauges were lying to me. The new dual EGT gauge arrived
today, no hurry putting it in, wx is rainy today, uber windy tomorrow.
>
> Anyway, everything is now as it ought to be, it runs smoother than it ever has,
and the climb rate is typically right at 1,000'/min solo. Looks like normal
cruise is going to be about 53-5400 rpm at 65 mph. And boy is it quiet!
>
> Now I need a pretty day so I can take some pictures of that old 2-seater trike,
it's 582/w electric start, B box, BRS, and my 68" Ivo, get that thing sold
and out of the hangar. $3k if you guys know anybody looking for such.
>
> Thanks for the suggestions & advice along the way.
Richard, is this setting with the lord mounts flipped? Or standard orientation
and just spacers at the rear?
--------
Kolb Slingshot 582, C gearbox.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=502441#502441
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 |
|
I did something like that on my firestar 1. I had to take it off after one flight
and it only weighed like 3lbs
Very dangerous
Salvador
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 18, 2021, at 3:52 PM, 1957grnchev@bluemarble.net wrote:
>
>
> Two extra pounds hanging that far back will likely change your weight and balance
significantly. Tail heavy is never good! Or as they say, "if at first you
don't succeed.. tail heavy is not for you.."
>
>> On 2021-06-18 4:03 pm, K I wrote:
>> Hi List,
>> I have a Mark III classic with a Rotax 912 UL. I want to put on an
>> Aviation Products 6" tailwheel on because some of my takeoffs and
>> landings are off runway, gravel, dirt & grass. I currently have a 4"
>> tailwheel made by Aviation Products that weighs 2 lbs. 12.3oz. The
>> new 6" tailwheel weighs 4 lbs. 8.1 oz.
>> Have any Mark III Classic owners changed to the larger / softer
>> tailwheel? If so, has it been an improvement over the 4-inch wheel?
>> Is there a reason NOT to make the change?
>> Kurt
>> Kolb Mark III Classic
>> Rotax 912UL
>
>
>
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! --
|