Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Firestar II to Firefly

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Firestar II to Firefly
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

abum(at)airadv.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:24 am Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

I just sold my Firestar II with a 503 DCDIafter  flying it for 108 hours. I loved my plane, but did not want to get a Sport  Pilot license and now I plan  to buy a Firefly with a 447.  I am  wondering what to expect as far as differences in handling, take off speed and  distance, cruise and stall. Are new Kolb specs in the ballbark? I have  never had an UL with flaperons.  When do you Firefly pilots use your  flaperons?  Just for landing or also for take offs.  Has any one used  VG's on the Firefly?  Al Bumhoffer, Elkton, MI

  

 Do Not Archive

   [quote][b]

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:55 pm Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

I just sold my Firestar II with a 503 DCDI after flying it for 108 hours. I 

loved my plane, but did not want to get a Sport Pilot license and now I plan 

 to buy a Firefly with a 447.  I am wondering what to expect as far as 

differences in handling, take off speed and distance, cruise and stall. Are 

new Kolb specs in the ballpark? I have never had an UL with flaperons.  When 

do you Firefly pilots use your flaperons?  Just for landing or also for take 

offs.  Has any one used VG's on the Firefly?  Al Bumhoffer, Elkton, MI

  



Al,



I have flown a FireFly since September, 1999 and I have never flown a 

FireStar II, so I cannot offer a direct comparison.  The Kolb specs are in 

the ball park.  I use the flaperons on takeoff from grass.  I have a 

continuously variable flaperon control that lets me set any setting I want.  

I have found that five degrees lets the FireFly lift off in the three point 

stance with the stick in the neutral position.  I use the flaperons on when 

landing on and taking off from grass strips.  I never use them on hard 

surface runways.  



I do have VG's mounted on the wing and under the horizontal stabilizer.  

They calmed nervous and twitchy FireFly.  The FireFly will lift off and land 

a few mph slower than before installing them.  The horizontal stabilizer 

VG's were added to increase back stick effectiveness.  With the VG's on the 

wing, the FireFly would not stall.  It performed a parachuteal descent or 

mush rather than break cleanly.  Since adding the horizontal stabilizer VG's 

and a gap seal, the FireFly will once again stall.  The engine reduction 

unit is rotated to the left to counteract forward slip at cruise (no rudder 

trim).  With more propeller wash air flowing over the left wing the FireFly 

so the right wing stalls and the FireFly falls off or rolls to the right.  

Upon testing, at 5,000 rpm the FireFly would not stall at 20 degree up 

elevator (full stick back).  At 4,500 rpm the right wing gave warnings that 

it did not like what was going on but the FireFly bored straight on.  When 

I reduced the rpm to 4,000 rpm, and the stick approached 20 degrees up 

elevator, the right wing complained and finally unloaded and the FireFly 

fell off to the right.



Years ago when I investigated flaperon usage, I was not able to raise the 

nose in an approach descent at 50 mphi.  Recently there was discussion 

of the Kolb List about VG's on the horizontal stabilizer, and I realized I 

had not revisited this since I added the gap seal and VG's to the 

horizontal stabilizer.  From my flight log:



"July 16, 2007 - Flight 656 - 29 minutes 55 seconds, 226:37 tt, Victor 1+ 

146:47 burned 0.82 gallons for an overall fuel burn of (at) 1.64 gph???.  Flew 

to check out the effect of horizontal stabilizer VG's and gap seal on 

elevator authority and flaperon position and stall.  Flew early in the 

morning so there were no thermals.  Started out at 2,000 feet agl.  No 

problems lifting the nose at 40, 45, & 50 mphi with flaperons fully 

extended.  Maximum elevator deflection to raise the nose was slightly over 

ten degrees. ............." 



I have on my short list a reminder to vary the flaperon settings and to 

check out stall, and forward and side slips.  Waiting for a quiet, cool, 

and clear morning.



I hope this helps you out.  If you would like to subject your self to some 

abuse, you can check out my FireFly web site at:



http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly.html



Would I fly without the VG's on the wings and the horizontal stabilizer? 

- NO!



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

With the VG's on the 

wing, the FireFly would not stall.  It performed a parachuteal descent or 

mush rather than break cleanly.  Since adding the horizontal stabilizer VG's



and a gap seal, the FireFly will once again stall.   



Jack B. Hart FF004

 

Hi Jack H:



Help me out here a lilttle.



If I understand the above statement correctly, you could not make your FF

stall with VGs installed.  It mushed rather than broke cleanly.



Now it breaks cleanly and does not mush?  



What is the advantage of that?



I bet it will stall with VGs.



john h

mkIII

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

At 05:07 PM 8/12/07 -0500, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Hi Jack H:



Help me out here a lilttle.



If I understand the above statement correctly, you could not make your FF

stall with VGs installed.  It mushed rather than broke cleanly.



Now it breaks cleanly and does not mush?  



What is the advantage of that?



I bet it will stall with VGs.




	


John,



With VG's on the wings only and the thrust line centered, one could pull the 

stick back against the stop and the FireFly would mush straight ahead.  No 

tendency for a wing to drop and no need to kick a rudder pedal to pick up a 

dropping wing in quiet air.  You could displace the stick slightly off 

center in roll and the plane would turn with out dropping a wing.  I don't 

remember the wing complaining that it was near stall, it just mushed.  

Basically you are flying on the back side of the lift curve.



This is an indication that there was not enough elevator control to raise 

the nose to the point that the wing would stop flying.  Mushing may seem to 

be a good thing, but I would rather the wing complain a little to warn me 

that it is about to stop flying.  The advantage is that you get a definite 

warning where as you may not notice you are already mushing and dropping out 

of the sky.

  

One of the things that happens when you add VG's to the wings, is that the 

air remains attached to the upper wing surface for a greater distance from 

the leading edge.  This means that the center of lift is going to move more 

toward the rear too.  Since the center of lift is behind the cg, it will require 

more tail down force to raise the nose.  By adding the VG's to the bottom of 

the horizontal stabilizer and a gap seal, it gives the added tail down force 

required to get it to stall.



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:58 am Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

it gives the added tail down force required to get it to stall.>>



Hi Jack,



what an interesting idea that you actually WANT the plane to stall. 

Manufacturers always use the fact that a plane will not stall as a selling 

point. Certainly having a plane that stalls gently, or just nods and 

continues flying is what most pilots look for.

I am sold on the VG`s as without them my Extra would not have produced a low 

enough stalling speed to qualify as an ultralight here in the UK.



Have a read your post correctly?



Pat

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:58 am Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

At 09:58 AM 8/13/07 +0100, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



 it gives the added tail down force required to get it to stall.>>



Hi Jack,



what an interesting idea that you actually WANT the plane to stall. 

Manufacturers always use the fact that a plane will not stall as a selling 

point. Certainly having a plane that stalls gently, or just nods and 

continues flying is what most pilots look for.

I am sold on the VG`s as without them my Extra would not have produced a low 

enough stalling speed to qualify as an ultralight here in the UK.



Have a read your post correctly?


	


Pat,



I flew gliders/sailplanes for several years.  This was one of the things 

that lead me to the FireFly. I like to sit up front for the view.  The next 

best thing is and if you are going to have an engine, is to have all the 

noise behind you.  But the neat thing about gliding is the fact that there 

is no engine noise or vibration that masks what is going on as the aircraft 

slips through the air.  Since you are trying to stay up as long as possible, 

one must stay in a thermal as long as possible.  This is done by slow flight 

in a tight bank.  You keep your eyes out side and keep pulling back on the 

stick until the wing starts to burble and then relax pressure to keep the 

wing at maximum lift and just above stall as you climb.



The only reason the FireFly broke cleanly is because I forced it to.  The 

right wing complained long before the stick reached the stop.  IF one 

continued to hold the stick centered and back against the stop, the FireFly 

would go into a spin.  All one has to do is let the stick go forward and the 

FireFly starts flying again with very little altitude loss.  I consider your 

statement "Certainly having a plane that stalls gently, or just nods and 

continues flying is what most pilots look for." and apt description for my 

FireFly.



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN

captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:38 am Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

Well Pat, its a question of how far away from the stall he runs out of elevator authority. If he can get another 3 or 5 mph before a stall then I doubt he would want to give up on that, and in ground effect it can be as much as 10 mph of less speed. So I would certainly want my airplane to give me all the performance it has. In a short field environment you really do want your LD max at its optimum, otherwise you lost margins for safe flight, either in climb (VX) or landing (VFE). Could mean the difference between bent gear, or hung up in a tree, or just a close call.



Ron

====================

---- pat ladd <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com> wrote: 



=============




 it gives the added tail down force required to get it to stall.>>



Hi Jack,



what an interesting idea that you actually WANT the plane to stall. 

Manufacturers always use the fact that a plane will not stall as a selling 

point. Certainly having a plane that stalls gently, or just nods and 

continues flying is what most pilots look for.

I am sold on the VG`s as without them my Extra would not have produced a low 

enough stalling speed to qualify as an ultralight here in the UK.



Have a read your post correctly?



Pat

--

kugelair.com

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:53 am Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

This is done by slow flight in a tight bank. >>



Hi Jack,



All pilots would benefit by some gliding IMHO.  A 45 degree bank, 5knots 

above the stall with 9 or 10 other gliders formating on you within a 200 

yard circle is very character building. That plus the knowledge that a 

farmers field is waiting for you below....



Cheers



Pat

1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:50 am Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

See below...



Hi Jack H:



Help me out here a lilttle.



If I understand the above statement correctly, you could not make your

FF

stall with VGs installed.  It mushed rather than broke cleanly.



Now it breaks cleanly and does not mush?  



What is the advantage of that?



I bet it will stall with VGs.



john h

mkIII

<SNIP>

John,

I have had same experience with the VG's...different airframe

though...same fix and same results.



Explanation...



Original configuration, if plane was slowed and the stick brought back

slowly it, would slow, slow, slow...and then eventually stall.  Then

added VG's to the main wing...now you could slow down and start pulling

the stick back...it would slow, slow, slow (approx. 7 MPH slower than

before) but if you were gentle with the deceleration, you would hit the

elevator rear stop before you got so much as a "buffet" of an impending

stall. In other words with the considerably slower airspeed the elevator

was not able to generate enough downforce to raise the nose enough to

stall the wing...this was coupled with the fact that the VG's allowed

the wing to go to a higher angle of attack before stalling anyway.

Slower speed = less elevator authority + wing capable of higher AOA than

before = an "elevator limited plane", similar to a Ercoupe.

The "bad" thing about that is this...you have a plane that while not

"stalled" is actually dropping like a rock.  Just like the day out at

Joneslite in Smiths Station, Al. when you demonstrated the Kolb "mush"

to me where we were not really "stalled" (at least never got a drop out

of it) but had a rate of descent that would have been ugly on

Short,short,short final.  Same situation with main wing only VG's on my

plane...if you actually used the new and improved super-slow speed

capabilities on landing and a steep approach you were going to not have

enough elevator authority to get the nose up real quick to arrest the

descent and arrive "politely"...



Added the VG's under the horizontal stab and the elevator effectiveness

improved to the point that even with the super slower new stall speed I

was again able to still pull the nose up high enough to stall it (the

elevator was again strong enough to overpower the wings desire to fly).

This translated into some amazing new STOL ability...slower approaches +

total control to arrest the descent rate from a steep approach = SHORT

landings...   



The main wing only VG's are great for making a stall-proof

airplane...physically not being able to pull the stick back and get a

stall could be a real safety plus...thousands of Ercoupes can't be

wrong. (to be totally honest you could snatch the stick back at a higher

speed and get an accelerated stall or pull hard in a steep bank and get

it to break...but no typical approach control input would do it...)  But

to get good gentle landings I had to basically keep the same approach

speed as before VG's because even though I could fly slower, I couldn't

FLARE any slower than before...add the VG's under the horizontal stab

and you're back to an airplane that will stall if you tell it to...it

will just be slower than before when it does...



Clear as mud?



Jeremy Casey

Hoping to finish up a Kolb "Superfly" by this fall...then the RANS S7

can rest a bit...

ez(at)embarqmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:55 am Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

Jeremy,

Inquiring minds want to know.

What is a Superfly?

How is Super  different than Ultra?



On Aug 15, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Jeremy Casey wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Jeremy Casey

 Hoping to finish up a Kolb "Superfly" by this fall...then the RANS S7

 can rest a bit...

1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

Jeremy,

Inquiring minds want to know.

What is a Superfly?

How is Super  different than Ultra?



<snip>



Cage from a Firestar KXP that got trashed from being outside not tied

down during a pop-up afternoon thunderstorm (wings and tail feathers

busted up, cage fine)



Build 22' wings (ala Slinghot/Firefly), 7 ribs, bunch of bracing (ala

Slingshot) really stout drag strut...single lift strut like all the

Kolbs except the Firefly...



Add 9" chord ailerons like a Slingshot uses...fab the flaperon mechanism

like the Firefly/SS/Firestar2 and get rid of the original Firestar

aileron mechanism...



Fab a support to mount a 10 Challenger tank 



Build a set of tail feathers but cut the boom tube down to Slingshot

length.



Rig it with the lower angle of attack (and decalage of course) of the

Slingshot and add Slingshot-like gear legs to get the deck angle right

to get a 3 point landing out of it with the lower wing AOA.



Weld up a flip-over canopy frame (ala Slingshot).



Mount the 503 sitting under the workbench...



You basically have a single seat Slingshot.  It will only have 52HP but

also should be about 100 pounds lighter than a 582 Slingshot.



Will have same wing area, flaperons, and tail dimensions and tail

rigging of a Slingshot (just little lower wing loading from being

lighter).  With the lighter weight and the 52 HP of the 503 it will

actually have a better power/weight ratio than a 582 Slingshot...that

combined with the lower wing loading should mean better takeoff and

climb than a 582 Slingshot (which is awesome...)



Sound fun?   



Jeremy Casey

Richard Pike

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1671
Location: Blountville, Tennessee

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

Sounds like fun. If I were doing it, I would use the 6" tube for the main 

spar tube like the MKIII & Kolbra use.



Richard Pike

MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

---

_________________
Richard Pike
Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Kingsport, TN 3TN0

Forgiving is tough, being forgiven is wonderful, and God's grace really is amazing.

Thom Riddle

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1597
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA (9G0)

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:51 am Post subject: Re: Firestar II to Firefly

Jeremy,



Your superfly project sounds like fun for sure. One question: Why do you refer to the Rotax 503 dual carb engine as 52HP? 



I suspect you are just repeating what you've heard/read from many aircraft kit sales organizations. I've seen this myself countless times. However, all the official Rotax Engine websites, including Kodiak list this engine's max horsepower at 37 kilowatts which equates to 49.6 HP using the American standard of 550 ft-lb/sec. method. 



FWIW, there are other types of "horsepower" including the following:



37 KW = 49.61 HP (550 ft-lb/sec)

37 KW = 50.31 HP (metric)

37 KW = 49.60 HP (electric)

37 KW = 49.60 HP (water)

37 KW =   3.77 HP (boiler)



There is only one type/measure of kilowatts which is a pretty good reason to specify power in those units.



The reason I'm saying this is that since the actual HP of the 503 is 49.6 and not 52, your lb/hp calculations are off by nearly 5%. Still sounds like a fun project, even with 2.4 HP less than you thought.

_________________
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)

Don't worry about old age... it doesn't last very long.
- Anonymous

gaman(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:46 am Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

Jeremy is more than likely using the saddle horse co-efficient of power,not the Budwieser Beer wagon draft horse type,which of course was obvious to us non-engineer types By the way,did anyone else get a little .004 kick on their condescension meter? Nah,it's probably the rainy weather .The humility has been really high this week. 

                                              com> wrote:[quote] --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Thom Riddle" 



Jeremy,



Your superfly project sounds like fun for sure. One question:  Why do you refer to the Rotax 503 dual carb engine as 52HP? 



I suspect you are just repeating what you've heard/read from many aircraft kit sales organizations. I've seen this myself countless times. However, all the official Rotax Engine websites, including Kodiak list this engine's max horsepower at 37 kilowatts which equates to 49.6 HP using the American standard of 550 ft-lb/sec. method. 



FWIW, there are other types of "horsepower" including the following:



37 KW = 49.61 HP (550 ft-lb/sec)

37 KW = 50.31 HP (metric)

37 KW = 49.60 HP (electric)

37 KW = 49.60 HP (water)

37 KW =   3.77 HP (boiler)



There is only one type/measure of kilowatts which is a pretty good reason to specify power in those units.



The reason I'm saying this is that since the actual HP of the 503 is 49.6 and not 52, your lb/hp calculations are off by nearly 5%. Still sounds like a fun project, even with 2.4 HP less than you thought.



--------

Thom [quote][b]

Thom Riddle

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1597
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA (9G0)

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:48 am Post subject: Re: Firestar II to Firefly

Gary,



No offense taken, though it appears you might have been trying. If you knew me, I doubt you would have said anything about "condescension" or used the word "humility" in a sarcastic manner. 



All I was doing is sharing some facts, which is part of the charter for this list and the primary reason I think most of us participate. I have learned so much from the guys on this list that have shared what they know that I don't or didn't before their sharing. I figure giving back a little from what I know that others may not, is the proper thing to do, and plan on continuing to do so when I think it appropriate.



If you (and others perhaps?) wish to continue thinking that the 503 engine is a 52 HP engine when the factory says otherwise, go right ahead. Doesn't bother me in the least. 



Happy aviating!



do not archive

_________________
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)

Don't worry about old age... it doesn't last very long.
- Anonymous

ez(at)embarqmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:09 am Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

On Aug 15, 2007, at 9:23 PM, Jeremy Casey wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Sound fun?   


	




Yeah,

But for even more fun ,,,,,,,,,,,,, use a  582 engine with more power  

and less weight.



The 582 with a B box is 3.2 lb. lighter than the 503 and has 14.8  

more horses.





http://www.kodiakbs.com/PDF/2strokeweight.PDF

1planeguy(at)kilocharlie.
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

 	  Quote: 	
		   Sound fun?   


	




Yeah,

But for even more fun ,,,,,,,,,,,,, use a  582 engine with more power  

and less weight.



The 582 with a B box is 3.2 lb. lighter than the 503 and has 14.8  

more horses.



<snip>



true...true.



When I bought the damaged plane that became the basis for this little

project it came with a 447, but a 503 DCDI became available and I like

the dual ignition...so it will go on and the 447 will hibernate under

the bench full of oil in all the appropriate places.  I'll have to live

with 49.6HP for now 



Jeremy

Thom Riddle

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1597
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA (9G0)

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:24 am Post subject: Re: Firestar II to Firefly

Jeremy,



49.6 hp on a single seat "Superfly" should be plenty. I'd like to see that machine fly some day. That was not sarcasm, BTW, it was an expression of honest desire to see this airplane. Neat idea. 



do not archive

_________________
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)

Don't worry about old age... it doesn't last very long.
- Anonymous

gaman(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

You're right Thom, I don't know you well enough to be pok'in fun at you.My apologies .I get it all the time from the grandkids,big answers to small questions.I'll try to resist in the future.

Thom Riddle <riddletr(at)gmail.com> wrote:[quote] --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Thom Riddle" 



Gary,



No offense taken, though it appears you might have been trying. If you knew me, I doubt you would have said anything about "condescension" or used the word "humility" in a sarcastic manner. 



All I was doing is sharing some facts, which is part of the charter for this list and the primary reason I think most of us participate. I have learned so much from the guys on this list that have shared what they know that I don't or didn't before their sharing. I figure giving back a little from what I know that others [quote][b]

possums(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:25 am Post subject: Firestar II to Firefly

At 09:23 PM 8/15/2007, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Cage from a Firestar KXP that got trashed from being outside not tied

 down during a pop-up afternoon thunderstorm (wings and tail feathers

 busted up, cage fine) 	


 Same thing here .... crashed in the lake - Firestar KXP but: I rebuilt the cage,

 rebuilt the wings, bought a new engine, (I really like my new 503 - 732+ hrs) ..got the 

 same nose cone, stick - .....But I figure it's taking up the same space/time continuum

 So I don't need to buy a "carbon credit".

 My Great Grandfather left me his hammer (he was a carpenter from Ireland) ....But the "head " was

 "eioj" Iron and rusted really bad, so I had to replaced it. And the handle was broken..so I had to replace it too..   

 But...I figure it's taking up the same space and it's an antique - except for the parts.



  	  Quote: 	
		  Build 22' wings (ala Slinghot/Firefly), 7 ribs, bunch of bracing (ala

 Slingshot) really stout drag strut.. 	


 Me too - except 8 ribs and 26' 9" wings ...tip to tip. bunch of bracing (ala

 Slingshot) really stout drag strut..like you said. + angle bracing per Hauck.

 You should change your wing tips?.It would save you about 18 inches.

 AND THIS IS JUST MY OPINION - It will cost you at LOT  to go to 22' wings.

 Work on the tips and add a little wing, it's nice to stall at 30 -mph with VGs.

 They work, and that's the truth!



  http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/



 

  



 

  	  Quote: 	
		  .single lift strut like all the

 Kolbs except the Firefly... 	


 Me too - the doubles only "slows you down" 8 mph 

 unless you're doing loops - you don't need them.



 

  	  Quote: 	
		  Add 9" chord ailerons like a Slingshot uses...fab the flaperon mechanism

 like the Firefly/SS/Firestar2 and get rid of the original Firestar

 aileron mechanism...

 Fab a support to mount a 10 Challenger tank 

 Build a set of tail feathers but cut the boom tube down to Slingshot

 length.

 Rig it with the lower angle of attack (and decalage of course) of the

 Slingshot and add Slingshot-like gear legs to get the deck angle right

 to get a 3 point landing out of it with the lower wing AOA.



 Weld up a flip-over canopy frame (ala Slingshot).



 Mount the 503 sitting under the workbench...



 You basically have a single seat Slingshot.  It will only have 52HP but

 also should be about 100 pounds lighter than a 582 Slingshot.



 Will have same wing area, flaperons, and tail dimensions and tail

 rigging of a Slingshot (just little lower wing loading from being

 lighter).  With the lighter weight and the 52 HP of the 503 it will

 actually have a better power/weight ratio than a 582 Slingshot...that

 combined with the lower wing loading should mean better takeoff and

 climb than a 582 Slingshot (which is awesome...)



 Sound fun?   



 Jeremy Casey

1_Wing_tip.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

48.03 KB

Viewed:

382 Time(s)

3_Drawing_2.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

30.79 KB

Viewed:

373 Time(s)

Wingbow_front.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

26.09 KB

Viewed:

384 Time(s)

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum