Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

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

Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Mic

Joined: 22 Jul 2011
Posts: 12
Location: Ashland, Oregon

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:34 pm Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

I just watched the MK3X YouTube video posted 2 weeks ago by ultralight news.  



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6LjOighew8



Having not flown in either aircraft, my opinions are solely based on observation watching videos.  My first impression of the wide, shark-like nose of the Xtra was that it provided a significant amount of additional airfoil and would impact ground effect and possibly in-flight pitch characteristics.  A Kolb pilot also brought this to my attention recently as well.



So, I would appreciate hearing from those of you with experience flying both of these aircraft.  How do the flight characteristics differ?



Thank you all for your input.

_________________
Mic
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
â€” Carl Sagan

"Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire."
â€” W.B. Yeats

Richard Pike

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

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:12 pm Post subject: Re: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

Extra W/912 felt like a truck compared to my MKIII Classic W/582, mods, & vg's. Aside from that - just the same. <grin>

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

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

slyck(at)frontiernet.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:48 am Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

I doubt the nose has a noticeable effect on landing.  Not enough surface area.There is a difference at cruise though which is why they changed the wing incidence.



My hybrid MkIII has a longer nose too and a really broad windshield.  I still intend

to lower my incidence too....   -eventually.



BB,  always another project.

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius 



On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Mic wrote:

[quote]--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Mic" <miceire(at)gmail.com (miceire(at)gmail.com)>

I just watched the MK3X YouTube video posted 2 weeks ago by ultralight news.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6LjOighew8

Having not flown in either aircraft, my opinions are solely based on observation watching videos.  My first impression of the wide, shark-like nose of the Xtra was that it provided a significant amount of additional airfoil and would impact ground effect and possibly in-flight pitch characteristics.  A Kolb pilot also brought this to my attention recently as well.

So, I would appreciate hearing from those of you with experience flying both of these aircraft.  How do the flight characteristics differ?

Thank you all for your input.

--------

Mic

&quot;It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.&quot;

â€” Carl Sagan

&quot;Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.&quot;

â€” W.B. Yeats

Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350168#350168





          - The Kolb-List Email Forum -

--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List

              - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

--> http://forums.matronics.com

            - List Contribution Web Site -

  Thank you for your generous support!

                              -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

--> http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 [b]

rickofudall

Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 1392
Location: Udall, KS, USA

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:13 am Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

Although I am still fighting the good fight trying to get Ken Holle's Mk IIIX to not behave like a lawn dart, which, I believe, is particular to this airplane only and not Mk IIIX's in general, I do have one data point. Some review first. The wing incidence on this aircraft has been set at 2.8 degrees relative to the engine mount, the low end of the factory recommended setting of 2.8 to 3.4 degrees. It has a full swivel tail wheel with a 4" diameter wheel and the tail wheel strut has been shortened to about 8". It has the welded tubing main gear.

 Set up as it is the aircraft can only do wheel landings and they are at a relatively higher speed than my MK IIIC with straight leg, aluminum gear (but it couldn't do a full stall landing either). I can, with great care, get a three point wheel on landing out of the IIIX, but it takes only a little too much back pressure on the stick to touch down tail wheel first.

 In flight the other thing I notice is that even with the lowest wing incidence setting the nose cone caves in under dynamic pressure. Somewhere along the trail of getting this aircraft rehabilitated I'll add some composite ribs to the nose cone to alleviate this. Builders might want to consider doing this as a preemptive measure before the windscreen and doors are in place and it is an easy reach to get to the inside of the nose cone.

 



Rick Girard



On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:45 AM, End User <slyck(at)frontiernet.net (slyck(at)frontiernet.net)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    I doubt the nose has a noticeable effect on landing.  Not enough surface area.There is a difference at cruise though which is why they changed the wing incidence.

My hybrid MkIII has a longer nose too and a really broad windshield.  I still intend

 to lower my incidence too....   -eventually.

BB,  always another project.



"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius  



 On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Mic wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Mic" <miceire(at)gmail.com (miceire(at)gmail.com)>

 



I just watched the MK3X YouTube video posted 2 weeks ago by ultralight news.  

 



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6LjOighew8

 



Having not flown in either aircraft, my opinions are solely based on observation watching videos.  My first impression of the wide, shark-like nose of the Xtra was that it provided a significant amount of additional airfoil and would impact ground effect and possibly in-flight pitch characteristics.  A Kolb pilot also brought this to my attention recently as well.

 



So, I would appreciate hearing from those of you with experience flying both of these aircraft.  How do the flight characteristics differ?

 



Thank you all for your input.

 



--------

Mic

 &quot;It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.&quot;



 â€” Carl Sagan

&quot;Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.&quot;

 

â€” W.B. Yeats

 



 



Read this topic online here:



 

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=350168#350168

 



 



 



          - The Kolb-List Email Forum -

 

--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List

 

              - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

http://forums.matronics.com

             - List Contribution Web Site -

  Thank you for your generous support!

                               -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 



 



 



	


  	  Quote: 	
		  



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

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	




	




-- 

Zulu Delta

Mk IIIC

Thanks, Homer GBYM

It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.

   - Groucho Marx



 

  [quote][b]

_________________
The smallest miracle right in front of you is enough to make you happy....

Mike Welch

Joined: 13 Feb 2011
Posts: 272

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:39 am Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

Rick, list guys,



  When I was in the process of installing that Xtra nosecone, I anticipated that it would 'cave in'(depress).  Even though I had it clecoed

firmly in place during my test fitting, I could easily depress the flat area with one finger.



  Knowing it would act like you describe, I added four lengthwise reinforcement ribs.  (1/4" wide X 3/4" tall X 24" long)   This greatly 

solved the problem, and I'm sure it won't deform under the airstream an excessive amount.

  I also found I needed to do the same thing to the lower inside surface, too.  It didn't give the impression it was going to deform as much as the 

upper surface, but it certainly acted as though it would "some".  I added the lengthwise ribs to it, too, and now they both are much more

rigid.  



  BTW, why did you elect to set the wings at 2.8 degrees, rather than 3.4 (which is what they told me to set them at)?  If you had it to 

do over, would you have aimed for 3.4, or do you think it would it have not made that much of a difference?



Mike Welch





On Aug 22, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Richard Girard wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Although I am still fighting the good fight trying to get Ken Holle's Mk IIIX to not behave like a lawn dart, which, I believe, is particular to this airplane only and not Mk IIIX's in general, I do have one data point.

 Some review first. The wing incidence on this aircraft has been set at 2.8 degrees relative to the engine mount, the low end of the factory recommended setting of 2.8 to 3.4 degrees. It has a full swivel tail wheel with a 4" diameter wheel and the tail wheel strut has been shortened to about 8". It has the welded tubing main gear.

 Set up as it is the aircraft can only do wheel landings and they are at a relatively higher speed than my MK IIIC with straight leg, aluminum gear (but it couldn't do a full stall landing either). I can, with great care, get a three point wheel on landing out of the IIIX, but it takes only a little too much back pressure on the stick to touch down tail wheel first.

 In flight the other thing I notice is that even with the lowest wing incidence setting the nose cone caves in under dynamic pressure. Somewhere along the trail of getting this aircraft rehabilitated I'll add some composite ribs to the nose cone to alleviate this. Builders might want to consider doing this as a preemptive measure before the windscreen and doors are in place and it is an easy reach to get to the inside of the nose cone.

 

 Rick Girard

rickofudall

Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 1392
Location: Udall, KS, USA

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:13 am Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

Mike I moved them to the lower setting because I measured the lower surface of the fuselage and found that at 3.4 degrees it would still be flying at a negative angle in cruise flight. 2.8 degrees gets the fiberglass nose cone flying at a positive angle. 

Rick

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com (mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   --> Kolb-List message posted by: Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com (mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com)>

 Rick, list guys,

   When I was in the process of installing that Xtra nosecone, I anticipated that it would 'cave in'(depress).  Even though I had it clecoed

 firmly in place during my test fitting, I could easily depress the flat area with one finger.

   Knowing it would act like you describe, I added four lengthwise reinforcement ribs.  (1/4" wide X 3/4" tall X 24" long)   This greatly

 solved the problem, and I'm sure it won't deform under the airstream an excessive amount.

   I also found I needed to do the same thing to the lower inside surface, too.  It didn't give the impression it was going to deform as much as the

 upper surface, but it certainly acted as though it would "some".  I added the lengthwise ribs to it, too, and now they both are much more

 rigid.

   BTW, why did you elect to set the wings at 2.8 degrees, rather than 3.4 (which is what they told me to set them at)?  If you had it to

 do over, would you have aimed for 3.4, or do you think it would it have not made that much of a difference?

 Mike Welch

 On Aug 22, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Richard Girard wrote:

 > Although I am still fighting the good fight trying to get Ken Holle's Mk IIIX to not behave like a lawn dart, which, I believe, is particular to this airplane only and not Mk IIIX's in general, I do have one data point.

  > Some review first. The wing incidence on this aircraft has been set at 2.8 degrees relative to the engine mount, the low end of the factory recommended setting of 2.8 to 3.4 degrees. It has a full swivel tail wheel with a 4" diameter wheel and the tail wheel strut has been shortened to about 8". It has the welded tubing main gear.

  > Set up as it is the aircraft can only do wheel landings and they are at a relatively higher speed than my MK IIIC with straight leg, aluminum gear (but it couldn't do a full stall landing either). I can, with great care, get a three point wheel on landing out of the IIIX, but it takes only a little too much back pressure on the stick to touch down tail wheel first.

  > In flight the other thing I notice is that even with the lowest wing incidence setting the nose cone caves in under dynamic pressure. Somewhere along the trail of getting this aircraft rehabilitated I'll add some composite ribs to the nose cone to alleviate this. Builders might want to consider doing this as a preemptive measure before the windscreen and doors are in place and it is an easy reach to get to the inside of the nose cone.

  >

 > Rick Girard

 >

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

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

 ===========

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

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

 ===========

-- 

Zulu Delta

Mk IIIC

Thanks, Homer GBYM

It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.

   - Groucho Marx

  [quote][b]

_________________
The smallest miracle right in front of you is enough to make you happy....

Mike Welch

Joined: 13 Feb 2011
Posts: 272

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:44 am Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 Mike I moved them to the lower setting because I measured the lower surface of the fuselage and found that at 3.4 degrees it would still be flying at a negative angle in cruise flight. 2.8 degrees gets the fiberglass nose cone flying at a positive angle.

 

 Rick


	


Rick,



  I guess you know what you mean, but it seems 'counter-intuitive' to me, how lowering the main wing's incidence raises the nose a bit. 



  I suppose we are speaking about NOT changing the hor. stabilizer's -4.8 setting, right? You're leaving it alone,yes, in both measuring points; 

wing's at +2.8 deg & +3.4 deg?



  If we're not changing the hor. stab, I don't quite see how the underside of the fuselage 'incidence' improves.  Are you including adjusting the h. s. up and 

down, when analyzing that fuselage's underside angle?  Isn't the hor stab. the ONLY setting that affects the fuselage's incidence?



   Are we leaving the hor. stab. set at the factory OEM setting?    Thanks for the insights!



Mike Welch

slyck(at)frontiernet.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:48 am Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

You are flying the wing.  All else is "incidental" baggage.

The more you can get everything else in line with that wing the  

better off you are.

If ,in flight, the bottom of the fuselage is flat with the line of  

flight then you have a

net down force on the nose.  It will still fly (like mine) but a big  

waste of energy.

The MkIII, like most planes in the same category, were originally  

built to go 65 mph.

At that speed things like drag and extraneous forces aren't a big  

deal.  -any faster

and they become noticeable.

If you have a trailer with heavy springs just throw an extra 1000 lbs  

of sandbags

in with your Kolb.  I promise it will ride much smoother.  

BB

On Aug 22, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Michael Welch wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>

>

> Mike I moved them to the lower setting because I measured the  

> lower surface of the fuselage and found that at 3.4 degrees it  

> would still be flying at a negative angle in cruise flight. 2.8  

> degrees gets the fiberglass nose cone flying at a positive angle.

>

> Rick

 Rick,

   I guess you know what you mean, but it seems 'counter-intuitive'  

 to me, how lowering the main wing's incidence raises the nose a bit.

   I suppose we are speaking about NOT changing the hor.  

 stabilizer's -4.8 setting, right? You're leaving it alone,yes, in  

 both measuring points;

 wing's at +2.8 deg & +3.4 deg?

   If we're not changing the hor. stab, I don't quite see how the  

 underside of the fuselage 'incidence' improves.  Are you including  

 adjusting the h. s. up and

 down, when analyzing that fuselage's underside angle?  Isn't the  

 hor stab. the ONLY setting that affects the fuselage's incidence?

    Are we leaving the hor. stab. set at the factory OEM setting?     

 Thanks for the insights!

 Mike Welch

rickofudall

Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 1392
Location: Udall, KS, USA

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:02 am Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

Mike, I had to go dig out the last measurements I took. Relative to the engine mount the boom is at 7 degrees. That was fixed (set) by the cage weldment. The horizontal stabilizer is set right down the centerline of the boom. 



Rick



On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM, End User <slyck(at)frontiernet.net (slyck(at)frontiernet.net)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   --> Kolb-List message posted by: End User <slyck(at)frontiernet.net (slyck(at)frontiernet.net)>

 

 You are flying the wing.  All else is "incidental" baggage.

 

 The more you can get everything else in line with that wing the better off you are.

 If ,in flight, the bottom of the fuselage is flat with the line of flight then you have a

 net down force on the nose.  It will still fly (like mine) but a big waste of energy.

 

 The MkIII, like most planes in the same category, were originally built to go 65 mph.

 At that speed things like drag and extraneous forces aren't a big deal.  -any faster

 and they become noticeable.

 

 If you have a trailer with heavy springs just throw an extra 1000 lbs of sandbags

 in with your Kolb.  I promise it will ride much smoother.  

 BB



 

 On Aug 22, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Michael Welch wrote:

 

  	  Quote: 	
		   --> Kolb-List message posted by: Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com (mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com)>

 

  	  Quote: 	
		   

 Mike I moved them to the lower setting because I measured the lower surface of the fuselage and found that at 3.4 degrees it would still be flying at a negative angle in cruise flight. 2.8 degrees gets the fiberglass nose cone flying at a positive angle.

  

 Rick

 	
 

 Rick,

 

   I guess you know what you mean, but it seems 'counter-intuitive' to me, how lowering the main wing's incidence raises the nose a bit.

 

   I suppose we are speaking about NOT changing the hor. stabilizer's -4.8 setting, right? You're leaving it alone,yes, in both measuring points;

 wing's at +2.8 deg & +3.4 deg?

 

   If we're not changing the hor. stab, I don't quite see how the underside of the fuselage 'incidence' improves.  Are you including adjusting the h. s. up and

 down, when analyzing that fuselage's underside angle?  Isn't the hor stab. the ONLY setting that affects the fuselage's incidence?

 

    Are we leaving the hor. stab. set at the factory OEM setting?    Thanks for the insights!

 

 Mike Welch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 	
 

 

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

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

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

 http://forums.matronics.com

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

 le, List Admin.

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

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

 

 

 

 



	




-- 

Zulu Delta

Mk IIIC

Thanks, Homer GBYM

It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.

   - Groucho Marx



 

  [quote][b]

_________________
The smallest miracle right in front of you is enough to make you happy....

Mike Welch

Joined: 13 Feb 2011
Posts: 272

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:30 am Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

 	  Quote: 	
		  

Rick,



  In my vigilant attempt to know as much as I can, especially when it comes to getting the wings set correctly,

I went out and measured my plane.  I don't mean to kick a dead horse, while fun as that may be, your settings and readings

are quite a bit different than I would expect, and also different than my own digital readings., and from I understand,

also different than Kolb Co. suggests.

  Here's what I just came up with on my plane just now;

1)  engine mount zero, (factory established starting point)

2)  boom tube is supposed to read -6.0, (mine does exactly!)

3)  hor. stab. should be -4.8.  (Mine reads either -4.8, or -4.2 at it's highest hole)

4)  main wings are set at +3.4. ( I can get lots of readings, but they pretty much average out to +3.4)

 

  These reading were discussed with Bryan Melborne, and he said they were EXACTLY what I should have.  These figures 

are virtually identical to an Xtra pilot who has recently started flying his plane.

  To delve deeper into your concern about the incidence of the underside of the fuselage, I went ahead and made a couple

of additional readings while I had my digital level out.  With my plane still propped up, in the -6.0 deg boom tube position,

the centerline, undeside of my fuselage, below where your legs would be, reads +.2 degrees.  It has a very slight arch up toward the

front, but basically it's just a smidgeon positive (and that's with the tail way the heck up in the air!!!)



	




 	  Quote: 	
		    Then I measured the centerline of the bottom of the nosecone.  +5.2   to + 5.3 degrees.  It, too, has that rising arch, inline with the fuselage

arch.  

  Now, I am curious why your (Ken's plane) readings are so off from mine.  Whether MkIII or MkIII Xtra, the underside of the

fuselage's are virtually unaltered from the original MkIII shape.

  If I lower the tail end of the plane, back down to the floor,  which I haven't done yet, but can, the underside of my fuselage 

and nose cone are about 3-4 degs for the fuselage, and I'd bet 7-8 degrees for the nosecone.   

  From the angles you describe, including that -7.0 degree hor stabilizer position, no wonder the plane feels like a lawn dart.

I know I don't have the hundreds of hours flying the MkIII like you other guys have, but from the sound of things, that plane is rigged

to non-factory specs.  IMO, unless I'm missing something.



  



	
    Mike Welch



 	  Quote: 	
		  On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Richard Girard wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Mike, I had to go dig out the last measurements I took. Relative to the engine mount the boom is at 7 degrees. That was fixed (set) by the cage weldment. The horizontal stabilizer is set right down the centerline of the boom.

rickofudall

Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 1392
Location: Udall, KS, USA

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:57 am Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

Mike, For one thing, you're reversing the effect of more negative angle of the horizontal stabilizer. Think of how a stabilator works, the more the leading edge is down, the more nose up on the wing.Two, the angle of the bottom of that portion of the fuselage forward of the struts WAS changed from that of the Mk III (C or whatever). It was decreased in an effort to get less separation on the bottom panel behind the struts.

 



Rick



On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com (mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 	  Quote: 	
		  



 

Rick,



  In my vigilant attempt to know as much as I can, especially when it comes to getting the wings set correctly,

 I went out and measured my plane.  I don't mean to kick a dead horse, while fun as that may be, your settings and readings

are quite a bit different than I would expect, and also different than my own digital readings., and from I understand,

 also different than Kolb Co. suggests.

  Here's what I just came up with on my plane just now;

 



1)  engine mount zero, (factory established starting point)

2)  boom tube is supposed to read -6.0, (mine does exactly!)

 3)  hor. stab. should be -4.8.  (Mine reads either -4.8, or -4.2 at it's highest hole)

4)  main wings are set at +3.4. ( I can get lots of readings, but they pretty much average out to +3.4)

  

  These reading were discussed with Bryan Melborne, and he said they were EXACTLY what I should have.  These figures 

are virtually identical to an Xtra pilot who has recently started flying his plane.

 



  To delve deeper into your concern about the incidence of the underside of the fuselage, I went ahead and made a couple

of additional readings while I had my digital level out.  With my plane still propped up, in the -6.0 deg boom tube position,

 the centerline, undeside of my fuselage, below where your legs would be, reads +.2 degrees.  It has a very slight arch up toward the

front, but basically it's just a smidgeon positive (and that's with the tail way the heck up in the air!!!)

 

	




 	  Quote: 	
		    Then I measured the centerline of the bottom of the nosecone.  +5.2   to + 5.3 degrees.  It, too, has that rising arch, inline with the fuselage

 arch.  

  Now, I am curious why your (Ken's plane) readings are so off from mine.  Whether MkIII or MkIII Xtra, the underside of the

 fuselage's are virtually unaltered from the original MkIII shape.

  If I lower the tail end of the plane, back down to the floor,  which I haven't done yet, but can, the underside of my fuselage 

 and nose cone are about 3-4 degs for the fuselage, and I'd bet 7-8 degrees for the nosecone.   

  From the angles you describe, including that -7.0 degree hor stabilizer position, no wonder the plane feels like a lawn dart.

 I know I don't have the hundreds of hours flying the MkIII like you other guys have, but from the sound of things, that plane is rigged

to non-factory specs.  IMO, unless I'm missing something.

 

  



	
    Mike Welch



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Richard Girard wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  Mike, I had to go dig out the last measurements I took. Relative to the engine mount the boom is at 7 degrees. That was fixed (set) by the cage weldment. The horizontal stabilizer is set right down the centerline of the boom.  



	








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

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	
	




-- 

Zulu Delta

Mk IIIC

Thanks, Homer GBYM

It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.

   - Groucho Marx



 

  [quote][b]

_________________
The smallest miracle right in front of you is enough to make you happy....

Mike Welch

Joined: 13 Feb 2011
Posts: 272

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:17 pm Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

On Aug 22, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Richard Girard wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Mike, For one thing, you're reversing the effect of more negative angle of the horizontal stabilizer.  I'm finally getting what you are referring to. 	




 	  Quote: 	
		  Think of how a stabilator works, the more the leading edge is down, the more nose up on the wing.  Yes, I see where you are starting from in your statements.Two, the angle of the bottom of that portion of the fuselage forward of the struts WAS changed from that of the Mk III (C or whatever). It was decreased in an effort to get less separation on the bottom panel behind the struts.  I wasn't aware of that.  Oh.

 



Rick



	




Rick,

   Now that I see where you were starting from in your desire to raise the nose, I understand.  Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Mike W

 [quote][b]

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:27 am Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

When I was in the process of installing that Xtra nosecone, I anticipated 

that it would 'cave in'(depress)>>



Mike,



you may have thought  that but in practice it doesn`t. If you are happier 

with the added ribs (and weight) that's fine but they not needed.. Someone 

mentioned the aerodynamic properties of the nose. as far as is possible to 

tell from flying the Xtra does generate a bit of lift from the nose if you 

fly sideways or slip. It is just about noticeable and no problem.



Pat

pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:36 am Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

Richard,

 sounds as though you have a real pig  there.

 My Xtra does none of those things.

 The nose does not collapse, It does not want to  dive into the ground, It will threepoint perfectly well. Something very basic  wrong by the sound of it.

  

 My only grouse is the speed. With 2600 rpm from the  Jabi I only get around 70 mph. I had expected 80 at least. I have no wheel spats  which may have added a couple more mph but a) I am up against our MAUW rule and  b) they fill up with mud in the winter.

  

 Pat

   [quote][b]

Thom Riddle

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

Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:05 am Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

..My only grouse is the speed. With 2600 rpm from the Jabi I only get around 70 mph. I had expected 80 at least...

  



Pat,

What prop do you have on your Jabiru. I believe the few Jab powered MkIIIX here in the US are running 58" dia. x Sensenich props with about 40" pitch (I think) and they report cruise speeds above 80 mph but at higher rpm than 2600. Which is about the same cruise speed I see on my Slingshot with 64" diameter x 32" pitch. Due to the much larger diameter on mine, I expect mine is a good bit louder, which is why I rarely cruise at over about 2650 rpm, frequently slower when I'm not in a hurry.

  

Thom in Buffalo

  



On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Pat Ladd <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com (pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com)> wrote:

  [quote]       Richard,

 sounds as though you have a real pig  there.

 My Xtra does none of those things.

 The nose does not collapse, It does not want to  dive into the ground, It will threepoint perfectly well. Something very basic  wrong by the sound of it.

  

 . I have no wheel spats  which may have added a couple more mph but a) I am up against our MAUW rule and  b) they fill up with mud in the winter.

  

 Pat

    	  Quote: 	
		  



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

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	




[b]

_________________
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)

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

rickofudall

Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 1392
Location: Udall, KS, USA

Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:06 am Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

Pat, I'm well into the third of a three part article of all the things I've had to fix on this airplane. I believe I know what is causing the lawn dart syndrome and I'm well into the fix as I type. As soon as it's tested and the third part is finished, I'll publish them here. Probably under the heading, "For God's Sake, Don't Do This" or "How to Screw Up a Perfectly Good Airplane Without Really Trying". 



Rick



On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Thom Riddle <riddletr(at)gmail.com (riddletr(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   ...My only grouse is the speed. With 2600 rpm from the Jabi I only get around 70 mph. I had expected 80 at least...

   



Pat,

What prop do you have on your Jabiru. I believe the few Jab powered MkIIIX here in the US are running 58" dia. x Sensenich props with about 40" pitch (I think) and they report cruise speeds above 80 mph but at higher rpm than 2600. Which is about the same cruise speed I see on my Slingshot with 64" diameter x 32" pitch. Due to the much larger diameter on mine, I expect mine is a good bit louder, which is why I rarely cruise at over about 2650 rpm, frequently slower when I'm not in a hurry.

   

Thom in Buffalo

  



On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Pat Ladd <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com (pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com)> wrote:

   

 	  Quote: 	
		         Richard,

 sounds as though you have a real pig  there.

 My Xtra does none of those things.

 The nose does not collapse, It does not want to  dive into the ground, It will threepoint perfectly well. Something very basic  wrong by the sound of it.

  

 

. I have no wheel spats  which may have added a couple more mph but a) I am up against our MAUW rule and  b) they fill up with mud in the winter.



  

 Pat

    	  Quote: 	
		  



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

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	




	




   	  Quote: 	
		  



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

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	




	




-- 

Zulu Delta

Mk IIIC

Thanks, Homer GBYM

It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.

   - Groucho Marx



 

  [quote][b]

_________________
The smallest miracle right in front of you is enough to make you happy....

Thom Riddle

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

Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:54 am Post subject: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

Rick,

I'm sure all Kolbers will be interested in your article. You should be able to get Sport Aviation (and/or others) to publish it for the benefit of all builders or would-be-builders.

  

Thom in Buffalo

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com (aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

  [quote]Pat, I'm well into the third of a three part article of all the things I've had to fix on this airplane. I believe I know what is causing the lawn dart syndrome and I'm well into the fix as I type. As soon as it's tested and the third part is finished, I'll publish them here. Probably under the heading, "For God's Sake, Don't Do This" or "How to Screw Up a Perfectly Good Airplane Without Really Trying".   



Rick



On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Thom Riddle <riddletr(at)gmail.com (riddletr(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

  

 	  Quote: 	
		   ...My only grouse is the speed. With 2600 rpm from the Jabi I only get around 70 mph. I had expected 80 at least...

     



Pat,

What prop do you have on your Jabiru. I believe the few Jab powered MkIIIX here in the US are running 58" dia. x Sensenich props with about 40" pitch (I think) and they report cruise speeds above 80 mph but at higher rpm than 2600. Which is about the same cruise speed I see on my Slingshot with 64" diameter x 32" pitch. Due to the much larger diameter on mine, I expect mine is a good bit louder, which is why I rarely cruise at over about 2650 rpm, frequently slower when I'm not in a hurry.

     

Thom in Buffalo



  



On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Pat Ladd <pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com (pj.ladd(at)btinternet.com)> wrote:

     



 	  Quote: 	
		         Richard,

 sounds as though you have a real pig  there.

 My Xtra does none of those things.

 The nose does not collapse, It does not want to  dive into the ground, It will threepoint perfectly well. Something very basic  wrong by the sound of it.

  

 

. I have no wheel spats  which may have added a couple more mph but a) I am up against our MAUW rule and  b) they fill up with mud in the winter.

  

 Pat

    	  Quote: 	
		  



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

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	




	




   	  Quote: 	
		  



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

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	




	




-- 

Zulu Delta

Mk IIIC

Thanks, Homer GBYM

It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.

     - Groucho Marx



 



   	  Quote: 	
		  



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

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	




[b]

_________________
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)

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

Mic

Joined: 22 Jul 2011
Posts: 12
Location: Ashland, Oregon

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:30 pm Post subject: Re: Kolb MIIIX vs. Classic

Thank you one and all for your input and a very interesting discussion. It is much appreciated.

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