Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:57 AM - Re: Re: Mark III weight and balance (Franklin Geiser)
2. 05:35 AM - Re: Mark III weight and balance (Richard Pike)
3. 05:44 AM - Re: Re: Mark III weight and balance (Franklin Geiser)
4. 09:35 AM - Re: Re: Mark III weight and balance (Jay Dub)
5. 10:14 AM - Re: Re: Mark III weight and balance (Franklin Geiser)
6. 05:20 PM - Re: Re: Reducing power on take off versus thrust line. (william sullivan)
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: Mark III weight and balance |
My "yellow book" is a small book of builders plans, no w&b info.
I've got a blue book though that doesn't have any forms, but does tell me
that 25-35% is the range at 9 degrees, and 66" is the average chord, so I
just worked off of that.
My measurements for the main arm and tail arm are pretty much identical to
yours (I figured the tail wheel was 1/2" farther back)
Have you ever measured weights fully loaded, with the pilot and all?
Rather than estimating moments for the pilot/gas/parachute, I just went the
route of weighing the entire craft with me in it.
I did also weigh it without me, and did some reverse calculations to come
up with the pilot/passenger arm measurement, and I decided that it's
actually a positive 0.15" for myself instead of the -5" that you used.
That's a change of about 3% forward with no passenger, and nearly 10% with
a passenger also - not saying that yours is wrong at all, but if I used
that number, I wouldn't have nearly as much weight on the floor either.
I was bumping up against the top limit of my scales, so I couldn't weigh
with a passenger also. I do have a pair of 660lb scales on order though,
and will get some actual measurements with those this weekend. Some of my
measurements didn't quite work out right, so I have some concerns about the
quality of my scales (nice shipping scales I was able to borrow, but needed
to use two per wheel as they maxed out at 150lb)
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:19 PM Richard Pike <thegreybaron@charter.net>
wrote:
>
> Something doesn't sound right. I have done a lot of mods to my MKIII but
> nothing to move the weight fore or aft much, I have a 582 and need no
> ballast.
> I assume you are using the Kolb forms on page 41, 42 & 43 of "The Yellow
> Book"? If not, PM me, I'll email them to you. FWIW, here is my W&B:
>
> --------
> Richard Pike
> Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
> 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=503443#503443
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/mkiii_wandb_166.jpg
>
>
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: Mark III weight and balance |
Here are the forms:
You don't have to actually sit in the airplane or have your pax sit in it; figure
out where the bellybutton is going to be and compute the weight from the datum
to that point.
--------
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
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=503458#503458
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dwg41_144.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dwg42_137.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dwg43_240.jpg
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: Mark III weight and balance |
Thanks for the pages!
I understand that the navel is generally thought to be the cg of the seated
person, but that's got to vary by person/build/weight as well. Seems to me
that simply weighing all together takes out that variable (though of course
you don't want to weigh the craft again for every new passenger, so an
average is probably a good idea)
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:37 AM Richard Pike <thegreybaron@charter.net>
wrote:
>
> Here are the forms:
> You don't have to actually sit in the airplane or have your pax sit in it;
> figure out where the bellybutton is going to be and compute the weight from
> the datum to that point.
>
> --------
> Richard Pike
> Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
> 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=503458#503458
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dwg41_144.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dwg42_137.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dwg43_240.jpg
>
>
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: Mark III weight and balance |
On thing I haven't seen mentioned, does the original poster have the aircraft setup
according to level flight? What I mean is most tailwheel airplanes need
to have the tail raised to a certain position for level flight when using the
scales to determine w&b. If the scale is on the floor instead of raised up, it
would show more weight on the tail which would make it seem more ballast is
needed up front. That leveling process should be spelled out on the w&b sheet
in the drawings. If the OP doesn't have the drawing maybe someone can take a
photo of that page. Just a thought.
Jaydub
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: Mark III weight and balance |
Yeah, I've got a block under the tailwheel to bring the bottom of the wing
up to 9 degrees, as specified in the manual.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:40 PM Jay Dub <bearhawk@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> On thing I haven't seen mentioned, does the original poster have the
> aircraft setup according to level flight? What I mean is most tailwheel
> airplanes need to have the tail raised to a certain position for level
> flight when using the scales to determine w&b. If the scale is on the
> floor instead of raised up, it would show more weight on the tail which
> would make it seem more ballast is needed up front. That leveling process
> should be spelled out on the w&b sheet in the drawings. If the OP doesn't
> have the drawing maybe someone can take a photo of that page. Just a
> thought.
>
> Jaydub
>
>
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: Reducing power on take off versus thrust line. |
My comment referred to picking up the prop end of the engine- the end clos
est to the tail.
Bill Sullivan
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 12:37:22 AM EDT, lane jones <lanejones@
outlook.com> wrote:
<!--#yiv7441769593 _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}#yi
v7441769593 #yiv7441769593 p.yiv7441769593MsoNormal, #yiv7441769593 li.yiv7
441769593MsoNormal, #yiv7441769593 div.yiv7441769593MsoNormal {margin:0in;m
argin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", "serif
";}#yiv7441769593 a:link, #yiv7441769593 span.yiv7441769593MsoHyperlink {co
lor:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7441769593 a:visited, #yiv744176959
3 span.yiv7441769593MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:unde
rline;}#yiv7441769593 span.yiv7441769593EmailStyle17 {font-family:"Calibri"
, "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;}#yiv7441769593 .yiv7441769593MsoChpDefault {f
ont-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";} _filtered {}#yiv7441769593 div.yiv7441
769593WordSection1 {}-->
I think maybe it would be a good idea to define front and rear of engine.
=C2- It sounds to me like everyone doesn=99t have the same understa
nding.=C2-
Lane Jones
Kolb Mark III xtra 912 rotax
=C2-
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@m
atronics.com]On Behalf Of william sullivan
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2021 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Reducing power on take off versus thrust line.
=C2-
If you pick up the rear, it will push the nose down. Imagine picking up the
rear about 2 feet.
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021, 01:48:07 AM EDT, chic <gcechini@msn.com> wrote
:
=C2-
=C2-
=C2-
Okay, so I am a little confused here..... If I raise (just) the rear of the
engine on my Firestar 2 for more prop clearance off the boom tube, am I ad
ding positively or negatively to the thrust line?
=C2-
=C2-
=C2-
=C2-
Read this topic online here:
=C2-
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=503414#503414
=C2-
=C2-
=C2-
=C2-
=C2-
=C2-
http://www.matronics.com/Nav=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- - MAT
RONICS WEB FORUMS -
</di-->>http://forp; =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- - NEW MATRON
ICS LIST WIKI -http://wiki.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.c
=C2-
=C2-
=C2-
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! --
|