Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

full enclosures
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

jeepacro(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject: full enclosures

I'm a 160 lb pilot and was thinking motors and keeping it 103....Is anyone out there  flying the firefly with the rotax 277 and fully enclosed canopy?   



 Other than the obvious I was wondering if there was a big difference "in you're opinion" in take off roll and climb out compared to one with a 477? One big enough that you would say "I would never go with smaller motor again". 

Rob.

Denny Rowe

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 89
Location: Leechburg, PA

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:43 am Post subject: full enclosures

Rob,

A 447 will eat the 277 alive in all ways including smoothness and 

reliability.

Build light, paint light and prop light (I think IVO is the lightest) but I 

would stick with the 447.

That's my opinion, check others like Jack Hart, they may differ.

The Fly was built around the 447 and it performs with it.



Denny Rowe

Mk-3

---

herbgh

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 145

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: full enclosures

Guys  



  My gripe with the 277 installations that I have seen over the year has

to do with the way they seem to eat Carbs..  Must be the vibration.. They

seem to shake the living day lights out of the floats and slider.. Herb  



    

[quote] Rob,

 A 447 will eat the 277 alive in all ways including smoothness and 

 reliability.

 Build light, paint light and prop light (I think IVO is the 

 lightest) but I 

 would stick with the 447.

 That's my opinion, check others like Jack Hart, they may differ.

 The Fly was built around the 447 and it performs with it.

 

 Denny Rowe

 Mk-3

 ---

ulflyer(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:14 pm Post subject: full enclosures

Depending upon what you do with instrument panel, wheels and brakes, 

and paint, you should be able to make the legal weight with the 

447.  We didn't build ours to make the weight.  If I recall right, 

may be thinking of my Hawk, we had 15# in our instrument panel 

(sensitive altimeter, G-meter are both heavy).  I like the EIS - use 

it, its a good instrument.  You might look at the new Stratomaster 

instruments, they may offer good price performance.



We had heavier 6" wheel barrow wheels, Azusa expansion brakes, heavy 

again, IVO 2 blade prop and alum extension, and the front only part 

of the full enclosure.  If you use a light altimeter, the small 5" 

wheels, wood prop, and band brakes which I would do if doing over 

again, they require a minor mod but they work better, you should be 

able to come in right near the max weight limit with 447.  Keep in 

mind you have to build with light in mind.  Don't go crazy with the 

silver or the paint.  We applied a single coat of silver on all lower 

surfaces and two coats on all top surfaces.  Painted it to the point 

where the color looked good but you could still distinguish some of 

the weave in the fabric.   If you apply paint to the point where you 

get that glossy finish look, it will add a lot of weight.  Also, 

didn't Hirth have a small single cylinder available without a Aux 

power lighting coil.  The Hirth's seem to be doing better now.

jerb





At 12:19 AM 6/12/2006, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



I'm a 160 lb pilot and was thinking motors and keeping it 103....Is 

anyone out there  flying the firefly with the rotax 277 and fully 

enclosed canopy?



  Other than the obvious I was wondering if there was a big 

 difference "in you're opinion" in take off roll and climb out 

 compared to one with a 477? One big enough that you would say "I 

 would never go with smaller motor again".

Rob.

ulflyer(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:28 am Post subject: full enclosures

Unless some one has a new engine tucked away, can you get a 277 other 

than used or rebuilt (by whom using what for parts) and next can you 

get parts needed to properly maintain it?

jerb



At 12:19 AM 6/12/2006, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



I'm a 160 lb pilot and was thinking motors and keeping it 103....Is 

anyone out there  flying the firefly with the rotax 277 and fully 

enclosed canopy?



  Other than the obvious I was wondering if there was a big 

 difference "in you're opinion" in take off roll and climb out 

 compared to one with a 477? One big enough that you would say "I 

 would never go with smaller motor again".

Rob.

jbhart(at)onlyinternet.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:57 am Post subject: full enclosures

At 10:19 PM 6/11/06 -0700, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



I'm a 160 lb pilot and was thinking motors and keeping it 103....Is anyone out there  flying the firefly with the rotax 277 and fully enclosed canopy?   



 Other than the obvious I was wondering if there was a big difference "in you're opinion" in take off roll and climb out compared to one with a 477? One big enough that you would say "I would never go with smaller motor again". 


	




Rob,



I purchased a MZ34, 27 hp engine a couple of years ago.  I was going to 

mount it the winter of 2005, but found out I was going to be moving and so 

it is still in the box.  Currently, I am flying a FireFly with a Simonini 

Victor 1+ 382cc reed valve engine.  The FireFly weighs 248 pounds dry.



The reason, I want to go down in hp is that it allows one to reduce drag and 

remain within the ultra light vehicle regulations.  Since I have moved north 

I would like to add a full enclosure for winter flying and some additional 

fairings.  By doing so, the charts indicate the FireFly will still cruise 

well and the fuel flow should go down to some where around 1.5 gph.  I 

calculate that the change to the MZ34 will reduce dry weight to about 210 

pounds.  I don't expect much of a climb rate, but since I fly most of the 

time from hard surfaces that is ok.  I want the economical cruise.  One can 

always find a thermal to help get up to 2,000-3,000 feet agl.  If you want 

to hedge hop and barn storm, it is better to have more hp.  The more you 

reduce hp the more you have to fly like a sailplaner.



The new engine is an air cooled reed valve engine with a bulkhead mount.   

Hirth build a similar engine.  The engine will hang inverted behind the 

original mounting location.  The advantage is that I will still meet the 

fully exposed engine drag requirement with much less overall profile drag 

than the Victor 1+ or Rotax 447 present.  Also there is no need for a engine 

to propeller spacer.  



The engine mount has been welded up.  I am making a mockup so that I can get 

the engine controls and muffler placement figured out.  But it is low 

priority at this time.



If you are going to build, think about how to do it lighter without 

sacrificing strength.  Go very light on the paint.  I two coat silvered the 

top surfaces of the wings and tail.  I am using the four inch plastic wheels 

with home made band brakes.



May be next year I will have an answer your last statement.



Jack B. Hart FF004

Winchester, IN

jeepacro(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:57 am Post subject: full enclosures

Thank you for the info.  I was asking about the smaller motor because in the rule book it say's that with a 447 it's illegal to put a on full enclosure.  They say it would make it faster than allowed.  This is why I asked about the smaller motor.  I have the big wheels and the brakes and they are very heavy.  Also I noticed that the seat belt's were very heavy.  Anyone know of an alternative belt that would help save #?  as far as the panel I'm going with the string for the turning and bare min. for the motor.  Has anyone been ramp checked by thee FAA before?  I'm taking my plane to a well know spot for the first time I fly it and I'm wondering if I will be checked some day by the FAA for what I don't know.  Has there ever been a time when the FAA had there scales in the truck and made you put the plane on them right then and there?

--

Rob.

---- jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> wrote: 

 	  Quote: 	

 Depending upon what you do with instrument panel, wheels and brakes, 

 and paint, you should be able to make the legal weight with the 

 447.  We didn't build ours to make the weight.  If I recall right, 

 may be thinking of my Hawk, we had 15# in our instrument panel 

 (sensitive altimeter, G-meter are both heavy).  I like the EIS - use 

 it, its a good instrument.  You might look at the new Stratomaster 

 instruments, they may offer good price performance.

 We had heavier 6" wheel barrow wheels, Azusa expansion brakes, heavy 

 again, IVO 2 blade prop and alum extension, and the front only part 

 of the full enclosure.  If you use a light altimeter, the small 5" 

 wheels, wood prop, and band brakes which I would do if doing over 

 again, they require a minor mod but they work better, you should be 

 able to come in right near the max weight limit with 447.  Keep in 

 mind you have to build with light in mind.  Don't go crazy with the 

 silver or the paint.  We applied a single coat of silver on all lower 

 surfaces and two coats on all top surfaces.  Painted it to the point 

 where the color looked good but you could still distinguish some of 

 the weave in the fabric.   If you apply paint to the point where you 

 get that glossy finish look, it will add a lot of weight.  Also, 

 didn't Hirth have a small single cylinder available without a Aux 

 power lighting coil.  The Hirth's seem to be doing better now.

 jerb

 At 12:19 AM 6/12/2006, you wrote:

 >

 >

 >I'm a 160 lb pilot and was thinking motors and keeping it 103....Is 

 >anyone out there  flying the firefly with the rotax 277 and fully 

 >enclosed canopy?

 >

 >  Other than the obvious I was wondering if there was a big 

 > difference "in you're opinion" in take off roll and climb out 

 > compared to one with a 477? One big enough that you would say "I 

 > would never go with smaller motor again".

 >Rob.

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

Richard Pike

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1670
Location: Blountville, Tennessee

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:44 am Post subject: full enclosures

I flew with a 277 for 550 hours  - a Maxair Hummer - it is not quite as 

smooth as a 447, but if you hang it inverted like Maxair did, and use 

soft mounts, it is not obnoxious at all. Also. to keep it from slinging 

the carb as someone else mentioned, Maxair used a short length of thick 

walled heater hose instead of the factory Rotax rubber carb adapter, and 

it was bulletproof.

You will lose some climb compared to a 447, but a 1.5 to 1.75/ hr fuel 

burn is very attainable. And depending on how you prop it, you will not 

lose any cruise or top speed. If I was going to use a 277, I would hang 

it inverted right behind the cage, that would keep the top of the wing / 

gap seal clean, and use the exhaust system that lets the muffler hang 

down alongside the main tube. You would probably come out with an 

airplane that weighed around / less than 240 pounds. Having flown my 

Hummer at weights between 242 (Part 103) and 285 pounds empty (Part 91 

Experimental) it is amazing how much more responsive an airplane gets 

with just that small difference.

I also like Jack Hart's ideas for you in his post.

Richard Pike

MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

jeepacro(at)cox.net wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Thank you for the info.  I was asking about the smaller motor because in the rule book it say's that with a 447 it's illegal to put a on full enclosure.  They say it would make it faster than allowed.  This is why I asked about the smaller motor.  I have the big wheels and the brakes and they are very heavy.  Also I noticed that the seat belt's were very heavy.  Anyone know of an alternative belt that would help save #?  as far as the panel I'm going with the string for the turning and bare min. for the motor.  Has anyone been ramp checked by thee FAA before?  I'm taking my plane to a well know spot for the first time I fly it and I'm wondering if I will be checked some day by the FAA for what I don't know.  Has there ever been a time when the FAA had there scales in the truck and made you put the plane on them right then and there?

 --

 Rob.

 ---- jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> wrote: 

> 

>

> Depending upon what you do with instrument panel, wheels and brakes, 

> and paint, you should be able to make the legal weight with the 

> 447.  We didn't build ours to make the weight.  If I recall right, 

> may be thinking of my Hawk, we had 15# in our instrument panel 

> (sensitive altimeter, G-meter are both heavy).  I like the EIS - use 

> it, its a good instrument.  You might look at the new Stratomaster 

> instruments, they may offer good price performance.

>

> We had heavier 6" wheel barrow wheels, Azusa expansion brakes, heavy 

> again, IVO 2 blade prop and alum extension, and the front only part 

> of the full enclosure.  If you use a light altimeter, the small 5" 

> wheels, wood prop, and band brakes which I would do if doing over 

> again, they require a minor mod but they work better, you should be 

> able to come in right near the max weight limit with 447.  Keep in 

> mind you have to build with light in mind.  Don't go crazy with the 

> silver or the paint.  We applied a single coat of silver on all lower 

> surfaces and two coats on all top surfaces.  Painted it to the point 

> where the color looked good but you could still distinguish some of 

> the weave in the fabric.   If you apply paint to the point where you 

> get that glossy finish look, it will add a lot of weight.  Also, 

> didn't Hirth have a small single cylinder available without a Aux 

> power lighting coil.  The Hirth's seem to be doing better now.

> jerb

>

>

> At 12:19 AM 6/12/2006, you wrote:

>     

>> 

>>

>> I'm a 160 lb pilot and was thinking motors and keeping it 103....Is 

>> anyone out there  flying the firefly with the rotax 277 and fully 

>> enclosed canopy?

>>

>>  Other than the obvious I was wondering if there was a big 

>> difference "in you're opinion" in take off roll and climb out 

>> compared to one with a 477? One big enough that you would say "I 

>> would never go with smaller motor again".

>> Rob.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>       

>  

>  

>  

>

>

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

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

John Hauck

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

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:58 am Post subject: full enclosures

| You will lose some climb compared to a 447, but a 1.5 to 1.75/ hr 

fuel

| burn is very attainable. And depending on how you prop it, you will 

not

| lose any cruise or top speed.



| Richard Pike



Preacher Pike:



Perhaps men of the cloth can induce a 277 to perform as a 447 on a FF, 

but us mere mortals may have a little problem there.



How you gonna get that little bitty 277 to equal top speed of a 447 

powered FF???



john h

mkIII

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

ulflyer(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject: full enclosures

If your building light you can't have big heavy wheels and brakes - 

light is light.  Use the 5" wheels and band brakes, not the internal 

drum expansion brakes, there heavy.  You don't trim away the designed 

structure, but what you add beyond it does add up quickly.  As for 

the enclosure yes it can increase the speed however if that is your 

concern you can prop it for slower cruise which should give you 

better climb unless your using a puny engine.  We would cruise about 

70 at our weight.  Also we didn't use the vinyl part that covers the 

area behind the pilot (more weight) but were in more moderate 

climate.  When it starts getting below 50 where water freezes in 

Texas, we don't fly much.  Ours with 447 we would continue to feed in 

the throttle as it rolled gaining speed, it would still sit you back 

in the seat.  It had plenty of climb performance.  With a lighter 

pilot, not us 260-290 pounders,  the ground roll would be greatly 

reduced.  Just keep in mind if you go to a small engine your going to 

be running it contently near max RPM to get the power out of it - 

think wear and tear and how it impacts reliability.  You can run 

minimum instruments - for a single cylinder one combo EGT/CHT, yes 

you want a heart monitor, it clues you in what going on with the 

engine.  Things start changing your better start looking for the 

reason.  A airspeed is desirable, a good light (car/boat) compass for 

navigation so you know what direction is what, a Tiny tach for RPM 

and engine hours, and a cheap (non-sensitive) altimeter so at least 

you can be close to blending in with normal GA traffic at the proper 

altitudes.



I found that in the UL community people get some strange 

ideals.  Look at it this way, if the FAA wanted to bust people they 

could go to Sun and Fun or Oshkosh and go down the line.  If you look 

like an ultralight, don't do stupid things that will attract 

attention no body will bother you.  The FireFly is small and looks 

like and can be built to meet being an ultralight.  The FAA has 

bigger problems and fish to chase.  Just do the right things, do your 

preflights and look professional.

jerb

At 09:40 AM 6/13/2006, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Thank you for the info.  I was asking about the smaller motor 

because in the rule book it say's that with a 447 it's illegal to 

put a on full enclosure.  They say it would make it faster than 

allowed.  This is why I asked about the smaller motor.  I have the 

big wheels and the brakes and they are very heavy.  Also I noticed 

that the seat belt's were very heavy.  Anyone know of an alternative 

belt that would help save #?  as far as the panel I'm going with the 

string for the turning and bare min. for the motor.  Has anyone been 

ramp checked by thee FAA before?  I'm taking my plane to a well know 

spot for the first time I fly it and I'm wondering if I will be 

checked some day by the FAA for what I don't know.  Has there ever 

been a time when the FAA had there scales in the truck and made you 

put the plane on them right then and there?



--

Rob.

Jim Baker

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 181
Location: Sayre, PA

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject: full enclosures

X-SpamReason %%SpamReason%%: 



  Just keep in mind if you go to a small engine your going to 

 	  Quote: 	
		   be running it contently near max RPM to get the power out of it - 

 think wear and tear and how it impacts reliability.  


	




http://www.simonini-flying.com/victor1_eng.htm



Interesting solution? 63.5 lbs for a 277 and 70.5 for a 362 

(includes fluids). 



Jim Baker

580.788.2779

Elmore City, OK

slyck(at)frontiernet.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: full enclosures

On 13, Jun 2006, at 5:55 PM, jerb wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   I found that in the UL community people get some strange ideals.  Look 

 at it this way, if the FAA wanted to bust people they could go to Sun 

 and Fun or Oshkosh and go down the line.  If you look like an 

 ultralight, don't do stupid things that will attract attention no body 

 will bother you.  The FireFly is small and looks like and can be built 

 to meet being an ultralight.  The FAA has bigger problems and fish to 

 chase.  Just do the right things, do your preflights and look 

 professional.

 jerb



Sure makes sense to me.  If it is loaded down with big tires, lotsa 
	


gadgets inside,  extra gas tank......

They will look twice.  The part that has me shaking my head is the 

worry about how fast it will go.

My guess is if you are magician enough to build a 254 lb airplane that 

will haul your butt off

the ground AND goes 150 mph, the feds aren't going to be dusting off 

their sliderule to

calculate you back to the ground.  In fact that would be one of my 

goals, to be able to bust

the phoney speed limit.

-BB, still a scofflaw at heart but only for the dumb laws

do not archive

Richard Pike

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1670
Location: Blountville, Tennessee

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject: full enclosures

I thought he was saying that with a full enclosure it would break out of

the Part 103 constraints, and that was why he was going to a smaller

engine than a 447.  Did not mean to imply that a 277 would equal a 447

on the same airframe, but that with a 277 and streamlining (illegal

under Part 103 with a 447) he would not lose anything. If his legal top

speed now is 64 with a 447, (and probably more like 75 actual) he will

probably still get that much with a 277 and a full enclosure / streamlining.



I put streamline cuffs on all the exposed tubing on my Hummer (a draggy

beast) and streamlined the gear legs, added a full fairing, curved

windshield, etc, and the 277 pushed it through the air 10 mph faster

than stock, which reached the Part 103 speed limit (and the Hummers

redline). If a 277 will do that on a Hummer, you know it will do it

better on a Kolb.



After all the clean-up mods I have done on my MKIII, the 582 will still

not push it as fast full throttle as a 912 would, but it will hang in

there at around 85 top end, and my rpm at 65 mph cruise has dropped by 5

- 600 rpm's. Now if a fat MKIII can get that much improvement by

streamlining and cleaning up, certainly a skinny Firefly can.



Richard Pike

MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)



John Hauck wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 | You will lose some climb compared to a 447, but a 1.5 to 1.75/ hr 

 fuel

 | burn is very attainable. And depending on how you prop it, you will 

 not

 | lose any cruise or top speed.



 | Richard Pike



 Preacher Pike:



 Perhaps men of the cloth can induce a 277 to perform as a 447 on a FF, 

 but us mere mortals may have a little problem there.



 How you gonna get that little bitty 277 to equal top speed of a 447 

 powered FF???



 john h

 mkIII

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

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

Dave Pelletier

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 100
Location: Prescott, Arizona

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:03 am Post subject: full enclosures

---

_________________
AzDave

jeepacro(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:05 am Post subject: full enclosures

This is exactly what I was getting at.  With the 447 you cannot have a full enclosure and be a legal ultralight.  The legality is determent by advisory curricular 103.7 which is a very specific method for showing compliance with FAR part 103.  According to AC 103.7 the  firefly with a 447 will exceed the speed allowed if equipped with a full enclosure.  this brought me to my questions about the smaller motor performance with enclosure compared to the bigger motor without enclosure.  Now how many NON compliant plane are out there?  Don't answer that one.

Rob.

---- Richard Pike <richard(at)bcchapel.org> wrote: 

 	  Quote: 	

 I thought he was saying that with a full enclosure it would break out of

 the Part 103 constraints, and that was why he was going to a smaller

 engine than a 447.  Did not mean to imply that a 277 would equal a 447

 on the same airframe, but that with a 277 and streamlining (illegal

 under Part 103 with a 447) he would not lose anything. If his legal top

 speed now is 64 with a 447, (and probably more like 75 actual) he will

 probably still get that much with a 277 and a full enclosure / streamlining.

 I put streamline cuffs on all the exposed tubing on my Hummer (a draggy

 beast) and streamlined the gear legs, added a full fairing, curved

 windshield, etc, and the 277 pushed it through the air 10 mph faster

 than stock, which reached the Part 103 speed limit (and the Hummers

 redline). If a 277 will do that on a Hummer, you know it will do it

 better on a Kolb.

 After all the clean-up mods I have done on my MKIII, the 582 will still

 not push it as fast full throttle as a 912 would, but it will hang in

 there at around 85 top end, and my rpm at 65 mph cruise has dropped by 5

 - 600 rpm's. Now if a fat MKIII can get that much improvement by

 streamlining and cleaning up, certainly a skinny Firefly can.

 Richard Pike

 MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

 John Hauck wrote:

 > 

 >

 >

 > | You will lose some climb compared to a 447, but a 1.5 to 1.75/ hr 

 > fuel

 > | burn is very attainable. And depending on how you prop it, you will 

 > not

 > | lose any cruise or top speed.

 >

 > | Richard Pike

 >

 > Preacher Pike:

 >

 > Perhaps men of the cloth can induce a 277 to perform as a 447 on a FF, 

 > but us mere mortals may have a little problem there.

 >

 > How you gonna get that little bitty 277 to equal top speed of a 447 

 > powered FF???

 >

 > john h

 > mkIII 

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >  

 >  

 >  

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

Richard Pike

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1670
Location: Blountville, Tennessee

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:09 am Post subject: full enclosures

Be glad to - here is the link

http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/kolb.htm

Richard Pike

MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

Dave & Eve Pelletier wrote:

[quote] 

 <pelletier(at)cableone.net>

 ---

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

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

Kirk Smith

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 78
Location: SE Michigan

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:33 am Post subject: full enclosures

"AC 103.7 the  firefly with a 447 will exceed the speed allowed if equipped

with a full enclosure. "



Depends on prop pitch. Could get a prop with one helluva climb but no top

end.



Do not archive

tkrolfe(at)usadatanet.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:49 am Post subject: full enclosures

Richard Pike wrote:



[quote] 



 Be glad to - here is the link

 http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/kolb.htm

 Richard Pike

 MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

 Dave & Eve Pelletier wrote:



> 

> <pelletier(at)cableone.net>

> ---

Richard Pike

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 1670
Location: Blountville, Tennessee

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:37 am Post subject: full enclosures

And then you would get EGT's of incredible weirdness. Hot weirdness.

Richard Pike

MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)



Kirk Smith wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 "AC 103.7 the  firefly with a 447 will exceed the speed allowed if equipped

 with a full enclosure. "



 Depends on prop pitch. Could get a prop with one helluva climb but no top

 end.



 Do not archive

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

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

jeepacro(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:42 pm Post subject: full enclosures

You're just kidding right?  So you're suggesting I just go ahead and put the 477 with enclosure and put a climb prop on it to slow it down and I'm still legal?  Sounds like the classic 10 gallon fuel tank that say's 5 gal. on it story. Are you still mad about the big inconsiderate file /picture I sent ? I'm you're flying junkie friend man.........

Rob.



---- Kirk Smith <snuffy(at)usol.com> wrote: 

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 

 "AC 103.7 the  firefly with a 447 will exceed the speed allowed if equipped

 with a full enclosure. "

 

 Depends on prop pitch. Could get a prop with one helluva climb but no top

 end.

 

 Do not archive

Display posts from previous:

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

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