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

Lord Mounts?

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Richard Pike

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

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:41 am Post subject: Lord Mounts?

Broke the 277 in today, very pleased! All the numbers were good, it makes good power, now we need to order a prop for it. (We broke it in using a tractor prop off a Fisher ultralight. Since it was a tractor prop it blew the cool air across the engine instead of at the tail) 

Question: we seem to be getting a lot of vibration into the airframe. We are still using the original Lord mounts to mount the engine plate which were intended to mount a 447. 

Do Lord mounts get stiffer and harden with age? These are now 30 years old. They look and feel OK, but... Would mounts designed for a 447 be unnecessarily hard or stiff for a 277?

Called the factory but got no answer - guess Bryan is out playing with the new green Firefly - he posted the pictures on FB yesterday.

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

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

wakataka

Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 48

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:49 am Post subject: Re: Lord Mounts?

I don't think the mounts get stiff with age. The 277 is just a vibrating little beast. You can use softer mounts but it will decrease your thrust measurably. I tried three different grades of mount when I was setting up my 277. I don't remember the numbers exactly, but I think it was on the order of 30 pounds static thrust difference between the stiffest and softest mounts. I had been told to expect a difference in thrust with different mounts but I was really surprised at how big a difference it made. The vibration was still very noticeable even with the soft mounts, so I ended up going with the middle grade. 



I eventually replaced the 277 with a Kawasaki 440 using the same mounts and it felt like turbine engine compared to that 277. But the 277 made almost as much thrust as the Kawasaki and weighed considerably less. So like everything else in aviation, it's a trade off.

_________________
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

byoungplumbing(at)gmail.c
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:46 pm Post subject: Lord Mounts?

Three dollar question!!!Â Â  Is the tractor prop balanced?Â Â   

Boyd Young 

On Jun 6, 2017 1:43 PM, "Richard Pike" <thegreybaron(at)charter.net (thegreybaron(at)charter.net)> wrote: 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Pike" <thegreybaron(at)charter.net (thegreybaron(at)charter.net)>

 

 Broke the 277 in today, very pleased! All the numbers were good, it makes good power, now we need to order a prop for it. (We broke it in using a tractor prop off a Fisher ultralight. Since it was a tractor prop it blew the cool air across the engine instead of at the tail)

 Question: we seem to be getting a lot of vibration into the airframe. We are still using the original Lord mounts to mount the engine plate which were intended to mount a 447.

 Do Lord mounts get stiffer and harden with age? These are now 30 years old. They look and feel OK, but... Would mounts designed for a 447 be unnecessarily hard or stiff for a 277?

 Called the factory but got no answer - guess Bryan is out playing with the new green Firefly - he posted the pictures on FB yesterday.

 

 --------

 Richard Pike

 Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

 Kingsport, TN 3TN0

 

 Forgiving is tough. Being forgiven is wonderful.

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469846#469846

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List

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

  FORUMS -

 eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

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

 WIKI -

 errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com

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

 b Site -

 Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

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

ceengland7(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:21 pm Post subject: Lord Mounts?

And how much vibration is from the prop blowing backward across the airframe? I'd try a balanced pusher prop before buying mounts.

-------- Original message --------

From: B Young  

Date:06/06/2017  5:46 PM  (GMT-06:00) 

To: Kolb List  

Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Lord Mounts? 

Three dollar question!!!   Is the tractor prop balanced?    

Boyd Young 

On Jun 6, 2017 1:43 PM, "Richard Pike" <thegreybaron(at)charter.net (thegreybaron(at)charter.net)> wrote: 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Richard Pike" <thegreybaron(at)charter.net (thegreybaron(at)charter.net)>

 Broke the 277 in today, very pleased! All the numbers were good, it makes good power, now we need to order a prop for it. (We broke it in using a tractor prop off a Fisher ultralight. Since it was a tractor prop it blew the cool air across the engine instead of at the tail)

 Question: we seem to be getting a lot of vibration into the airframe. We are still using the original Lord mounts to mount the engine plate which were intended to mount a 447.

 Do Lord mounts get stiffer and harden with age? These are now 30 years old. They look and feel OK, but... Would mounts designed for a 447 be unnecessarily hard or stiff for a 277?

 Called the factory but got no answer - guess Bryan is out playing with the new green Firefly - he posted the pictures on FB yesterday.

 --------

 Richard Pike

 Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

 Kingsport, TN 3TN0

 Forgiving is tough. Being forgiven is wonderful.

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469846#469846

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

 -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List

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

  FORUMS -

 eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

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

 WIKI -

 errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com

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

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

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

Richard Pike

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

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:43 am Post subject: Re: Lord Mounts?

I am pretty familiar with the Rotax 277, I used to have a Maxair Hummer with a 277, I put 750 hours on it, and it was smoother than this one is. Also, we have two props, and we balanced both of them before running the engine. We broke the engine in with the tractor, it was a 60 x 28 Tennessee prop, then took it off and switched to a 60 x 30 Arrowprop pusher, but it vibrated a lot worse and also over revved to 7,000. Go figure. I guess one man's 28" pitch and another man's 30" pitch don't necessarily have anything in common.

Anyway, we put it together today and measured for the gap seal and a few other details, here are some pictures. Ordered a 20' endoscope that will fit the usb port on the laptop, next week we inspect the inside of the wings and if all looks good we repaint them. If it doesn't look good we recover them.

P1050949 (Medium).JPG

Description:

Filesize:

323.91 KB

Viewed:

16859 Time(s)

P1050951 (Medium).JPG

Description:

Filesize:

306.89 KB

Viewed:

16859 Time(s)

P1050952 (Medium).JPG

Description:

Filesize:

199.16 KB

Viewed:

16859 Time(s)

P1050953 (Medium).JPG

Description:

Filesize:

199.87 KB

Viewed:

16859 Time(s)

P1050958 (Medium).JPG

Description:

Filesize:

367.28 KB

Viewed:

16859 Time(s)

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

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

gdhelton(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:28 pm Post subject: Lord Mounts?

Nice pictures. And I know this may sound like less then intelligent question but, you said the props were both balanced so you might check the prop tracking tip to tip and you might put a dial indicator on  the actual gearbox hub and check how much runout you have? Its just a suggestion of something that could be checked. I doubt that it's the lord mounts unless they are in really bad shape. Softer mounts would move around even more I would thing?

George H.

Firestar, #FS100

14GDH

Mesick, Michigan 

Have a great day!



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Jun 7, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Richard Pike <thegreybaron(at)charter.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 I don't think the props are the problem. We have two props, and we balanced both of them before running the engine. We broke the engine in with the tractor, it was a 60 x 28 Tennessee prop, then took it off and switched to a 60 x 30 Arrowprop pusher, but it vibrated a lot worse and also over revved to 7,000. Go figure. I guess one man's 28" pitch and another man's 30" pitch don't necessarily have anything in common.

 Anyway, we put it together today and measured for the gap seal and a few other details, here are some pictures. Ordered a 20' endoscope that will fit the usb port on the laptop, next week we inspect the inside of the wings and if all looks good we repaint them. If it doesn't look good we recover them.

 

 --------

 Richard Pike

 Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

 Kingsport, TN 3TN0

 

 Forgiving is tough. Being forgiven is wonderful.

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469880#469880

 

 

 

 

 Attachments: 

 

 http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050949_medium_137.jpg

 http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050951_medium_130.jpg

 http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050952_medium_347.jpg

 http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050953_medium_146.jpg

 http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050958_medium_808.jpg

japowell

Joined: 02 Dec 2016
Posts: 34
Location: Ohio

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Lord Mounts?

Looking good Richard. What was the final weight?

_________________
Jim P
WAR EAGLE

Richard Pike

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

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:47 pm Post subject: Re: Lord Mounts?

 	  japowell wrote: 	
		  Looking good Richard.  What was the final weight? 	




 Today while we had it all together, since we had a friend's deer weighing scale, we tried using that along with a chain hoist in my hangar to check the overall weight. So we hung the airplane from the hoist and the scale -  showed that the airplane with a 277 was the same weight as it was with a 447. 

 

Really?  But - the 277 is 20 pounds lighter! (Give the man back his scale)   



Will try some more upscale technology tomorrow (electronic scale in the garage, one wheel at a time) and hope for more accurate results.

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

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

williamtsullivan(at)att.n
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:54 pm Post subject: Lord Mounts?

Uh...  I don't suppose that friend of yours always gets the heaviest buck in the area?



do not archive.



                                                         Bill Sullivan

--------------------------------------------

On Wed, 6/7/17, Richard Pike <thegreybaron(at)charter.net> wrote:



 Subject: Re: Lord Mounts?

 To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com

 Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2017, 10:47 PM

 

 

 Pike" <thegreybaron(at)charter.net>

 

 

 japowell wrote:

 > Looking good Richard.Â  What

 was the final weight?

 

 

  Today while we had it all together,

 since we had a friend's deer weighing scale, we tried using

 that along with a chain hoist in my hangar to check the

 overall weight. So we hung the airplane from the hoist and

 the scale -Â  showed that the airplane with a 277 was

 the same weight as it was with a 447. 

 [Shocked] 

 Really?Â  But - the 277 is 20

 pounds lighter! (Give the man back his scale)Â   

 

 Will try some more upscale technology

 tomorrow (electronic scale in the garage, one wheel at a

 time) and hope for more accurate results.

 

 --------

 Richard Pike

 Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

 Kingsport, TN 3TN0

Richard Pike

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

Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: Lord Mounts?

[quote] ="gdhelton(at)gmail.com" Nice pictures. And I know this may sound like less then intelligent question but, you said the props were both balanced so you might check the prop tracking tip to tip and you might put a dial indicator on  the actual gearbox hub and check how much runout you have? <snip>

George H.

Firestar, #FS100

14GDH

Mesick, Michigan 

Have a great day! [quote] 



Very true. And the Arrowprop did have too much runout, it would have needed to be shimmed. So yes, very much a factor in the vibration. But it has become a moot point; The Arrowprop revved to 7,000 (And it was sold with a 503 as part of a 2 seat Drifter kit ?!?!?) so we couldn't use it anyway. I ordered a new two blade 62" Ivoprop this afternoon. They said it will show up in 5 weeks, which gives us time to do a meticulous job of inspecting inside the wings and repainting them, and for me to spend some time riding the back roads on my NX 250.  (Best ride I've ever had, and I've had quite a few)

Rightside1.jpg (Large).JPG

Description:

Filesize:

543.4 KB

Viewed:

16829 Time(s)

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

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

wakataka

Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 48

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: Lord Mounts?

Are those JATO bottles on either side of the tail rack? I bet that would would really help when passing semi-trucks on an uphill grade. Maybe you could mount them on the Kolb to help that 277 on a hot day.



On a serious note, that's a very nice looking bike and airplane you've got there.

_________________
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

wakataka

Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 48

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:08 pm Post subject: Re: Lord Mounts?

One more thing to consider about the vibration.  That wood airframe on the mini-max likely soaks up a whole lot more vibration than the chrome-moly cage on the kolb. 



I found the IVO to be a good match for the 277. I was getting over 200 pounds of static thrust with a 60" Ivo on my 277. I did have some cooling problems with the free-air 277 in a pusher configuration. I built several different aluminum air scoops to direct the slipstream across the cylinder head. I could never prevent the aluminum from cracking either at the mounting points or on one of the bends. I became convinced that any long-lived scoop bolted on a 277 would need to be made from composite materials. In the end I was able to richen the mixture and keep the CHT within limits without a scoop. The engine was running too rich, but it's really easy to decarbon a free-air 277.

_________________
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

Richard Pike

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

Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:07 am Post subject: Re: Lord Mounts?

 	  wakataka wrote: 	
		  Are those JATO bottles on either side of the tail rack? I bet that would would really help when passing semi-trucks on an uphill grade. Maybe you could mount them on the Kolb to help that 277 on a hot day.



On a serious note, that's a very nice looking bike and airplane you've got there. 	
 <Grin> Thanks. Those are home made panniers that hold the Frog Togs. PVC pipe & caps from Home Depot, plus a square sheet of plastic from ebay. Total investment $25.

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

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

capedavis(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:04 am Post subject: Lord Mounts?

Richard looking good ! I got a question as I am STILL building my Firefly , what is with the dihedral being so much ?as I put mine together by plans ,almost , there is very little . I am aware that you have more experience than I do that is why I'm asking , thanks CHRIS



Sent from my iPhone



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Jun 7, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Richard Pike <thegreybaron(at)charter.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 I don't think the props are the problem. We have two props, and we balanced both of them before running the engine. We broke the engine in with the tractor, it was a 60 x 28 Tennessee prop, then took it off and switched to a 60 x 30 Arrowprop pusher, but it vibrated a lot worse and also over revved to 7,000. Go figure. I guess one man's 28" pitch and another man's 30" pitch don't necessarily have anything in common.

 Anyway, we put it together today and measured for the gap seal and a few other details, here are some pictures. Ordered a 20' endoscope that will fit the usb port on the laptop, next week we inspect the inside of the wings and if all looks good we repaint them. If it doesn't look good we recover them.

 

 --------

 Richard Pike

 Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

 Kingsport, TN 3TN0

 

 Forgiving is tough. Being forgiven is wonderful.

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469880#469880

 

 

 

 

 Attachments: 

 

 http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050949_medium_137.jpg

 http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050951_medium_130.jpg

 http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050952_medium_347.jpg

 http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050953_medium_146.jpg

 http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1050958_medium_808.jpg

Richard Pike

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

Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:05 pm Post subject: Re: Lord Mounts?

[quote="capedavis(at)yahoo.com"]Richard looking good ! I got a question as I am STILL building my Firefly , what is with the dihedral being so much ?as I put mine together by plans ,almost , there is very little . I am aware that you have more experience than I do that is why I'm asking , thanks CHRIS

Sent from my iPhone [quote] 



Because that's how much we have in the Firestar II, and it will fly hands off. It's a tradeoff between being more docile when landing in a stiff cross wind (less dihedral is better) or able to fly hands off the rest of the time with no apparent loss of manueverability. (More dihedral is better)



And - the lift struts on it came premade to that length, so we used 'em.



One thing: no matter how much dihedral I put in my MKIII, I couldn't get it to fly hands off. Not saying that it can't be done, just that I couldn't do it with mine.

P1180917 (Large).JPG

Description:

Filesize:

153.49 KB

Viewed:

16739 Time(s)

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

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

gdhelton(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:52 pm Post subject: Lord Mounts?

Interesting, in the old days when we were flying things like the Eipper MX which were 2 axis aircraft augmented with wings spoilers we ran a lot of dihedral. The planes were totally controlled by the use of the rudder by side to side movement of the stick and forward/aft movement of the elevator. They flew great! But really sucked in a crosswind.

When I started building the Firestar (original) I fly now in 1986. I called Homer Kolb and asked about the lack of dihedral. He told that because of leading edge design of wing ( rib valleys) he felt that his aircraft needed very little if any dihedral. Increased dihedral does increase the the stability of any aircraft.  I listened to Homer and found the plane that I was looking for. It does have to be flown but will do amazing things. And works very well in crosswinds. Congrats on your Firestar II! A great little aircraft. 

Just a little nostalgia. Have fun out there! 

George H.

Firestar, FS100

14GDH

Mesick, Michigan 

gdhelton(at)gmail.com



Have a great day!

Do Not Archive

[quote] On Jun 9, 2017, at 5:05 PM, Richard Pike <thegreybaron(at)charter.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 [quote="capedavis(at)yahoo.com"]Richard looking good ! I got a question as I am STILL building my Firefly , what is with the dihedral being so much ?as I put mine together by plans ,almost , there is very little . I am aware that you have more experience than I do that is why I'm asking , thanks CHRIS

 Sent from my iPhone  	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Because that's how much we have in the Firestar II, and it will fly hands off. It's a tradeoff between being more docile when landing in a stiff cross wind (less dihedral is better) or able to fly hands off the rest of the time with no apparent loss of manueverability. (More dihedral is better)

 

 One thing: no matter how much dihedral I put in my MKIII, I couldn't get it to fly hands off. Not saying that it can't be done, just that I couldn't do it with mine.

 

 --------

 Richard Pike

 Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

 Kingsport, TN 3TN0

 

 Forgiving is tough. Being forgiven is wonderful.

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469927#469927

 

 

 

 

 Attachments: 

 

 http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1180917_large_317.jpg

ceengland7(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:43 pm Post subject: Lord Mounts?

For your reading pleasure,

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+does+a+wing+have+dihedral&oq=why+does+a+wing+have+dihedral&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.8918j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

On 6/9/2017 4:52 PM, George Helton wrote:

[quote] 

 Interesting, in the old days when we were flying things like the Eipper MX which were 2 axis aircraft augmented with wings spoilers we ran a lot of dihedral. The planes were totally controlled by the use of the rudder by side to side movement of the stick and forward/aft movement of the elevator. They flew great! But really sucked in a crosswind.

 When I started building the Firestar (original) I fly now in 1986. I called Homer Kolb and asked about the lack of dihedral. He told that because of leading edge design of wing ( rib valleys) he felt that his aircraft needed very little if any dihedral. Increased dihedral does increase the the stability of any aircraft.  I listened to Homer and found the plane that I was looking for. It does have to be flown but will do amazing things. And works very well in crosswinds. Congrats on your Firestar II! A great little aircraft.

 Just a little nostalgia. Have fun out there!

 George H.

 Firestar, FS100

 14GDH

 Mesick, Michigan

 gdhelton(at)gmail.com

 Have a great day!

 Do Not Archive

> On Jun 9, 2017, at 5:05 PM, Richard Pike <thegreybaron(at)charter.net> wrote:

>

> 

>

> [quote="capedavis(at)yahoo.com"]Richard looking good ! I got a question as I am STILL building my Firefly , what is with the dihedral being so much ?as I put mine together by plans ,almost , there is very little . I am aware that you have more experience than I do that is why I'm asking , thanks CHRIS

> Sent from my iPhone  	  Quote: 	

>

> Because that's how much we have in the Firestar II, and it will fly hands off. It's a tradeoff between being more docile when landing in a stiff cross wind (less dihedral is better) or able to fly hands off the rest of the time with no apparent loss of manueverability. (More dihedral is better)

>

> One thing: no matter how much dihedral I put in my MKIII, I couldn't get it to fly hands off. Not saying that it can't be done, just that I couldn't do it with mine.

>

> --------

> Richard Pike

> Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

> Kingsport, TN 3TN0

>

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus

John Hauck

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

Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:33 pm Post subject: Lord Mounts?

George H/Kolbers:



Homer told me he did not want any dihedral because he was more interested in

performance than flying hands off.



However, an early prototype with straight wings sitting on the ground in the

3 point stance looked as though the wings were drooping.  Homer did not like

that, so he put in a little dihedral to make them look better.  IIRC the US

and FS got 1" at the outboard rib and the MKIII got 1.5" at the outboard

rib.



When Homer rebuilt the 1985 Oshkosh Grand Champion Ultralight, his prototype

Firestar, he added considerable dihedral and a 503 DC.  Back in 1985, Homer

would not ship me a FS with a 447 because he felt it was too much power for

that airframe.  Folks change over the years.  I flew his FS last time I

visited with Homer at the farm.  It was a delight to fly.  Loads of

performance.  I was having so much fun I forgot about the added dihedral

until sometime later on.  So....I don't really have any opinion of increased

dihedral.  I also flew this same aircraft in 1986, at Sun and Fun, with the

377.  I was building my FS at the time.  Homer asked me if I wanted to fly

the FS.    Yes, with a big  grin on my face, and I did fly the FS.  In

fact, they had a hard time getting me to land.  Was fortunate to do a lot of

flying for Homer over the years.



Not disputing George H, but sharing what I got from Homer.



He liked the rib valleys and felt they increased performance of the Kolb

wing.  He said removing the valleys by adding sheet metal leading edges

degraded wing performance.



I sure miss Homer and the rest of the old Kolb gang.



john h

mkIII

Titus, Alabama



  I called Homer Kolb and asked about the lack of dihedral. He told that

because of leading edge design of wing ( rib valleys) he felt that his

aircraft needed very little if any dihedral.  

George H.

Firestar, FS100

14GDH

Mesick, Michigan

gdhelton(at)gmail.com

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

capedavis(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:42 pm Post subject: Lord Mounts?

Sent from my iPad



[quote] On Jun 9, 2017, at 5:05 PM, Richard Pike <thegreybaron(at)charter.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 [quote="capedavis(at)yahoo.com"]Richard looking good ! I got a question as I am STILL building my Firefly , what is with the dihedral being so much ?as I put mine together by plans ,almost , there is very little . I am aware that you have more experience than I do that is why I'm asking , thanks CHRIS

 Sent from my iPhone  	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Because that's how much we have in the Firestar II, and it will fly hands off. It's a tradeoff between being more docile when landing in a stiff cross wind (less dihedral is better) or able to fly hands off the rest of the time with no apparent loss of manueverability. (More dihedral is better)

 

 One thing: no matter how much dihedral I put in my MKIII, I couldn't get it to fly hands off. Not saying that it can't be done, just that I couldn't do it with mine.

 

 --------

 Richard Pike

 Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

 Kingsport, TN 3TN0

 

 Forgiving is tough. Being forgiven is wonderful.

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469927#469927

 

 

 

 

 Attachments: 

 

 http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1180917_large_317.jpg

capedavis(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:47 pm Post subject: Lord Mounts?

Richard , thank you  for your explanation it's an easy change to make perhaps I will Increase my dihedral how much above level is yours ? It looks like5 or 6 inches . Thanks Chris



Sent from my iPad



[quote] On Jun 9, 2017, at 5:05 PM, Richard Pike <thegreybaron(at)charter.net> wrote:

 

 

 

 [quote="capedavis(at)yahoo.com"]Richard looking good ! I got a question as I am STILL building my Firefly , what is with the dihedral being so much ?as I put mine together by plans ,almost , there is very little . I am aware that you have more experience than I do that is why I'm asking , thanks CHRIS

 Sent from my iPhone  	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Because that's how much we have in the Firestar II, and it will fly hands off. It's a tradeoff between being more docile when landing in a stiff cross wind (less dihedral is better) or able to fly hands off the rest of the time with no apparent loss of manueverability. (More dihedral is better)

 

 One thing: no matter how much dihedral I put in my MKIII, I couldn't get it to fly hands off. Not saying that it can't be done, just that I couldn't do it with mine.

 

 --------

 Richard Pike

 Kolb MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)

 Kingsport, TN 3TN0

 

 Forgiving is tough. Being forgiven is wonderful.

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469927#469927

 

 

 

 

 Attachments: 

 

 http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1180917_large_317.jpg

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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