Kolibri's Korner -- a "blog" by a new RAF owner


FW and Gyros
Just replaced my RAF 2.2 starter after some 500+ hours.
NAPA #17242, which is for the 1990s Subaru Legacy with automatic transmission. (It matters.)
This corresponds with my my RAF Parts pdf showing #16887.
About $95.

The starter for the manual transmission is noticeably different, so take your core in to compare and confirm.

Just went up for a few laps around the pattern, after lots of flying my FW this weekend.
Am blessed to have both kinds of aircraft!



FW and Gyros
Just replaced the pairs of wheel bearings in each main wheel.
They are 99502H, used commonly in many ag applications and easily available.
For example, Amazon sells them by the 10-pack for $29.95.

10 Sealed Bearing 99502H-2RS 5/8 x 1 3/8 x 7/16 inch Ball Bearings

They seem rather small for the application, so I'd recommend changing them often, especially if you do any rough-field work.
They brinell deform pretty easily.

While I was at it, I replaced the RAF OEM coarse thread wheel bolts with AN5-34A bolts, and AN nyloc axle nuts.



Comm Rotor Gyro, ASEL
This is "brought over" from the AR-1 thread which devolved into a discussion about ground effect and strayed considerably from the OP, in my opinion. It seems more appropriate to carry it here to "Kolibri's Korner", since this appears to be a "Kolibri-only" issue. This way people can more easily disregard this if they wish.

Your post 173, Kolibri:

"Because the formula is for fixed-wing, not a rotor. The result would be analogous to "bumblebees cannot fly" after plugging in their wing area and horsepower, not accounting for wingtip vortices, unsteady state aerodynamics, etc.""

Interesting. Is that your analogy or that of a credible aeronautical engineer? Can you cite a credible aerodynamic source that says the formula is different? And if you can, can you ALSO show ground effect applies to rotors as well as fixed wing, since you're asserting there's both a difference in the formula but similarity in the effect? The formula, which you assert (without proof) is only for fixed-wings, appears to be independent of wing SPAN, wing SPEED, and even relative wind in the horizontal. It IS dependent on the ratio of height over chord. This all SUGGESTS it is no different for a rotor but I'm open to there being a difference - if you can substantiate it.

"Within the aviation community I enjoy, there is such a thing as pilot's honor. It would never occur to me to question that, without strong evidence. I am not a liar, and nobody's opinion (especially yours) of me is so valued that it merits self-betrayal of my principles."

Yet on this forum you've questioned other people's honor, opinion, etc. even though they're pilots. Does that mean you don't have this honor?

And as for lying, that requires willful intent to deceive. I'm not sure you're aware how incorrect you are, so I've never actually said you're a liar. Though, I think we would agree that if you WERE aware of your being mistaken then, as your quote says, your actions would no longer be honest.

"But shame on me",
Yes, EdL, shame on you.

Here we have another tool you've used frequently: taking others out of context. The rest of the statement was "I've allowed myself to get sucked in by trolling by someone who clearly has some emotional need to prove they're right..." Indeed - shame on me, as I say. I'll totally own that one.

Back to ground effect, you have yet to provide anything other than your own personal feelings that lift contributes to the effect. In fact, all you've done is throw up dirt, to include misquoting WaspAir, who took exception to talking about a "cushion of air" because the effect is from a decrease in induced drag, which may FEEL like a "cushion of air" about the same as taking off your parking brake while driving may FEEL like your engine is performing better. I agree with him: to talk about a "cushion of air" for gyros misleads one to believe the effect is due to additional lift, which your literature search has all but effectively excluded. In fact, I'd contend the calculator referenced above disproves it by NOT having variables for speed, wing length, or anything but wing shape, height/chord, and AoA. If you could substantiate your "feeling" after now over a month and over 164MB of collected data (can we agree you collected over 164MB of stuff?), you would have. "Somebody I know talked to somebody they know"...is laughable. You wouldn't accept that if I or someone else said "well, someone I know said someone they know, who's a renowned aerodynamics engineer, said lift is NOT involved for gyros" - nor should you.



FW and Gyros
I've been noticing a high percentage of FW pilots with a leisurely attitude during takeoff, not climbing out at Vx or Vy, but being only 200' AGL at runway's end.
Also, I see a lot of midfield departures, intentionally forsaking 1000+ feet of runway.
While such casualness will usually work out, it's asking for trouble in the long run.

Even when flying my gyro, my takeoff procedure is to reach Vx during ground effect, and then climb out at 55 mph.


FW and Gyros
Am up to 526 hours in my RAF, and will be offering it for sale by this Fall.
Price will be in mid-$30k. PM me if interested for interim details.


FW and Gyros
I recently polished up the "glass" on my RAF with Meguiar's Mirror Glaze (fine), and the improvement in visibility was remarkable.
Used a cordless hand drill (slow rpm) and thick foam pad, buffing clean with microfiber cloth, then wiping with Plexus.

It's a highly recommended use of an hour or two. It feels like a new gyro from inside.



FW and Gyros
plastic gas can caveat: They can easily build up a static electrical charge, and spark off from movement.

I recently was speaking with a friend who drug one across his tailgate (with plastic liner), and it made a 1/4" long and very loud POP!

Use a static discharge line, or ground yourself out by touching something safely away from the can.