Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-ad
March 05, 1997 - April 22, 1997
could get everything powder coated at a reasonable price. The time,
effort and hassle you save makes it a no-brainer. There are some parts
you might want to do yourself. I did the fuselage tube because I didn't
quite trust their handling. I will also do the lift struts because they
weren't ready when I had the other stuff done. There is generally a
minimum charge and these parts are easy to do. The irregular steel stuff
and the cage is a real hassle unless you are a pro with all the right
equipment. Ask for a thin coating, as many parts need to fit inside other
parts. Especially on the cage, have them mask the inside of the ring
holding the fuselage tube and the area where the aileron torque tube
slides through its support. Still, you will end up doing some sanding,
but you would anyway just using primer. A moto-tool works well for those
operations.
>
> My questions are :
>
> The manual says to prime and paint all steel parts. Is the finish paint really
> necessary at this point ?? Is primer enough. Is primer enough to protect the
> parts of the rudder assembly that will soon be buried in aluminum? What
> about the stainless steel parts... should they be primed?
Just the primer is fine for non-showing stuff if you use the epoxy primer.
>
> How do you handle the inside of the tubes? Try to spray primer in? What about
> the stainless steel parts... should they be primed?
I put oil on the inside of the tubes. There is some special oil for this,
I've heard, but I just used 30W motor oil. Stainless parts do not need
priming or painting.
>
> Jumping way ahead. I've wondered how the fabric on the inside of the
> cage is handled. If you have the cage powder coated prior to overing,
> is it all masked before painting the inside covering??
Choose your powder coating to match the color you choose for the fabric.
With thousands of colors available, I had no problem matching the Stits
color I had chosen (maroon). I did a quick check and all the Stits colors
I looked at on the sample you get had a match in the powder coating samples.
Then you don't have to mask anything. I have painted the tail feathers
with powder coated parts attached. It matches nicely.
>
> I've been lurking in the shadows of this group for sometime and have learned
a
> bunch. Hope to be active in the future.
Good luck with your project.
***************************************************************
* Bill Weber (bweber(at)micom.com) * Keep the *
* MICOM Communications * shiny side *
* Simi Valley, CA * up. *
***************************************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
In my view you really can't do enough to corrision proof your plane.
I think powdercoating the small steel parts is a very good idea. It looks
great and you will never have to worry about rust.
I helped a friend recover his ultrastar a while back. It had been
stored in a good trailer for 10 years. When we took the covering off I was
shocked at the dissimilar metal corrosion on the rivets. The rivet tops were
rusty brown and there was a ring of white oxidation on the adjoining
aluminum. Dennis said it was crazy, but when I built my mark 3 I dipped each
rivet in epoxy primer and pulled it wet. I sprayed all of the aluminum parts
with epoxy primer. Don't underestimate the cumulative effects of corrosion,
especially if you plan to have your plane a long time.
The same thinking inspired me to put drain gromets on the trailing edge
of my wings to drain condensation and to put plastic inspection rings in too.
I haven't cut out any of the inspection rings out yet, when the time comes
to look inside the wing I'll be able to do it with no trouble and I won't
have to put a patch on the wing. The amount of additional work is negligible
and it could save a whole lot of time down the road.
Just my 2 cents.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mycbtguy(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | getting off of the list |
I apologize if the wrong person or persons recieve this request but I would
like to be removed from tho Kolb mailing list. If the recipient(s) of this
could help me I would appreciate it.
Thank you,
MYCBTGUY(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russell Duffy <rad(at)pen.net> |
Wally Hofmann wrote:
> The manual says to prime and paint all steel parts. Is the finish paint really
> necessary at this point ?? Is primer enough. Is primer enough to protect the
> parts of the rudder assembly that will soon be buried in aluminum?
Primer is all you need at this point, but I would be careful what primer
you use. The safest bet is Stits Epoxy primer since it's known to not
have any problems with the covering glue later. It's expensive, but
excellent primer. If you want to use some other kind, spray a test area
and let it dry for a couple days. Then put MEK on it to see if it
softens. If it does, don't use it.
You will find that some places where the tube fits in another tube will
be so tight, that you'll have to remove the primer to make it fit. In
every case where I put a steel tube inside or outside another tube, I
put a light coat of grease on the steel to keep it from rusting.
Recently, I switched to LPS-3 instead of grease.
> How do you handle the inside of the tubes? Try to spray primer in? What about
> the stainless steel parts... should they be primed?
I don't plan to prime any stainless or aluminum parts, unless it's just
for looks. On the steel tubes, I sloshed out the tube with acetone or
MEK, then mixed up some primer without thinning it for spray
application. I taped up one end of the tube in question, then poured
some primer inside. I held my gloved hand over the other end and tipped
and turned it around until the inside was completely coated. Pour out
the excess. BTW, this was a big mess :-)
> Jumping way ahead. I've wondered how the fabric on the inside of the
> cage is handled. If you have the cage powder coated prior to overing,
> is it all masked before painting the inside covering??
I don't think most people paint the inside of the covering. If you want
to, I'd suggest making it the same color as the frame so you can just
spray them both without masking. Remember that paint has some weight to
it, don't get too carried away.
You mentioned powder coating. I wasn't planning to get my cage coated
at first, but one of the other guys on the list (Ben), who I shouldn't
name (Ransom ) pestered me into it. Actually, he strongly recomended
it, and I finally realized that it would be worth the money. The
coating Kolb had put on the cage is beautiful. Best money I've spent so
far. I wish I could have powder coated everything.
My SlingShot is still a work in progress, so I can't give you any long
term promise of how well this will hold up. It'll certainly get the
test of humidity here in Florida. I doubt you have to worry about that
much in Arizona.
Welcome to building.
--
Russell Duffy
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Low frequency vibration |
On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Charles Henry wrote:
> My Firestar I with a 447 engine and 3 blade Ivo prop has a distinct low
> frequency vibration that I would guess is about 30-40 Hz., also you can hear
> a sound like the "whop" of a helicoopter at a distance.
> Has anyone else noticed this?
> I have 5 inches clearance from the prop to the trailing edge of the wing and
> have the pitch set to give 6200 rpm static.
Mike Stratman (CPS: Rotax Care and Feeding ) says this sometimes comes
from the prop going by the exhaust outlet, especially if the number of
blades is close to the reduction drive ratio. I guess standard 447
reduction is 2.58, so i don't know if this is close enf. Anyway, if
it is possible to rotate the hub on the engine PTO, you might try that
to see if this phase shift eliminates the problem. In general, it
would under any situation be cause to check the prop for cracks, etc,
and bolt torque. good luck
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
UCD Mechanical Engineering Dept. o o
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Wally Hofmann wrote:
> As a brand new FireFly builder (.0001% done 659% to go)I thought I could avoid
> the painting phase for some time. Now the manual says to prime all steel parts
> prior to starting the rudder assembly... I've pretty much decided against
> powder coating (wrong decision??).
i already see good info here from Bill and Rusty. I wish i had powder
coated for the time savings in preparing the steel for epoxy spraying.
This cost me 40 hours over 2 weeks and was not very fun at all.
Powder coating all the steel should cost somewhere just over $200.
Don't bother with any of the AL pieces big or small because they are
very easy to prepare. For AL, you just use an etching/wash product
available at auto paint suppliers, then epoxy prime. Note, i always
say this so it is boring to most, but be aware that spraying color coat
on epoxy primed surfaces must be done while the epoxy is still tacky OR
after it is cured and scuff sanded.
I used Randolph epoxy primer on everything. It worked well (no problems
with dissolving from MEK or covering process) and was much
less expensive than Stits. I think i bought it from Aircraft Spruce.
1 quart was barely enf for everything, which would especially be true
if you get all the steel powder coated.
>
> How do you handle the inside of the tubes? Try to spray primer in? What about
> the stainless steel parts... should they be primed?
most of the steel is sealed by way of being welded to more steel. Open steel
parts could be primed although i've also heard of just sloshing linseed oil
inside. Sloshing primer inside assumes you get the inside clean enf for it
to stick.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
UCD Mechanical Engineering Dept. o o
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Low frequency vibration |
>To All
>
>My Firestar I with a 447 engine and 3 blade Ivo prop has a distinct low
>frequency vibration that I would guess is about 30-40 Hz., also you can hear
>a sound like the "whop" of a helicoopter at a distance.
>Has anyone else noticed this?
>I have 5 inches clearance from the prop to the trailing edge of the wing and
>have the pitch set to give 6200 rpm static.
>
>I assume that the "whop" sound is from the close proximity of the prop and
>airframe. Could the airframe be resonant at the frequency of the
>interference pulses?
>Dennis at Kolb did not have an answer.
>
>I plan to try changing the prop to two blade with increased pitch to see if
>that changes the vibration.
>
>The engine does not seem to be missing and makes lots of power as the climb
>rate is good. The engine and airframe has 30 hours on it and this has
>been going on since new. The vibration is not severe but can be felt
>through the seat.
>
>Thanks
>
>
Ivo makes a 2.5 inch prop extension, it will move your prop 2.5 inches
farther away from the trailing edge of the wings. It reduced the noise
within my cabin. I used it to move my three blade Warp drive prop farther
back. I used it on a Mark111 with a C drive. You may want to check with
someone knowledgeable before you use it on a B drive. I do not know if a B
drive would be able to handle the extra strain that a prop extension would
add to it.
Kim Steiner (I am a 45 year old Man)
Saskatchewan Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
I too am curious about the # of UltraStars flying, and in how they're doing.
I bought mine used in '93. It was built in '84 also. It sat in my garage
for over a year after purchase while I tended a newborn daughter, but then I
began to work on it.
It's been a little on the frustrating side, mostly due to engine problems,
or maybe mostly due to not having the time to work on things. It had to get
a new engine (used, with ring job actually). I needed to move the seat full
forward to take care of a very aft CG. Not so great, since I'm 6'3"--I have
to sit fairly scrunched up and the seat doesn't provide enuf back support,
so I tend to get sore stomach muscles on long flights. Perhaps worse, the
stick hits the seat because of the seat location, restricting left roll
rate. Had to build my own stick with some curvature to it. The plane won't
roll into the garage, even off the trailer, because of the high profile when
the wings are folded, so I have to actually remove and replace the wings
completely every time I go flying--more overhead/more time.
My opinion is that the UltraStar is a great plane, but that the newer
designs are just better. Aside from the great performance, I chose a used
UltraStar for the great visibility and for the price and lack of time to
build. I figure the main point of the flying for me is to be up there and
be seeing things, so the visibility was a top criteria in choosing the
model. Neither Kolb nor anyone else have improved in that regard--the
UltraStar is perhaps the ultimate for pilot visibility.
I think it's pretty well regarded that the landing gear is the achillies
heel of the UltraStar. Not only is the ground clearance minimal, but there
is nothing beneath it to stop the ground vortex that sucks up grit into the
prop. My brother has had great results with a Warp prop, but I chose to
stick with wood because of the vortex problem and the higher probability of
breaking the prop some day. I did get one with a urethane leading edge and
think that's an extra $45 well spent.
The other problem with the gear is the lack of suspension system other than
using big soft tires. I broke the gear on one side early on by stalling the
right wing from about 3' up. Came down hard all on one side. All my
landings since then have been better--so far. Miraculously, didn't break
the prop when the gear broke. There is a bolt-on adaptor for using the
FireStar landing gear, which I haven't seen, so no comment here except that
it sounds like a great idea. I've seen several other landing gear
improvements in magazine articles, some adding sprung suspension, and
others simply extending and beefing up the gear. I would strongly caution
against the latter, as the frame itself is very narrow in the area of the
main gear, and could easily bend/break if the gear doesn't fail first. In
fact, my frame had been bent and repaired by a previous owner before I
bought it. I've built a set of temporary gear like the original, using it
until I get a chance to build build another of my own design. I'd buy the
FireStar adaptation, but am interested in the design and building experience.
Patty also mentioned enclosures. My opinion on this is that yes, this would
be a great idea for winter flying (absolutely essential for colder
climates), but that I prefer really hangin' out there in the summer. You
need a good set of clothes--both warm and something that doesn't flap a lot.
50 mph and more really just isn't as comfortable, so I actually prefer to
putt around at about 45 mph most of the time. One of my favorite things to
do is to fly at about 400' AGL down creek channels with good emergency
landing fields adjacent to them, or do "crop dusting" above real "landable"
fields like mowed alfalfa. But I digress...
Lack of enclosure has one effect that might not be obvious at first: There
is very little side area, resulting in the capability to fly very sideways
in a slip. Effectivly, you have to "correct" a little bit of bank with a
lot of rudder. The "pro" to this is that you can fly sideways fairly
efficiently during crosswind landings; the "con" is that slips are not as
effective in losing altitude when you're high on approach. What I generally
do when I'm high is to simply increase airspeed to the point of a less
efficient glide ratio, ie. I sorta dive it in.
Enclosures are nice tho. I got to fly my brother's (Ben Ransom) Firestar,
and man, is that a *nice* airplane. Quieter, smoother, faster, climbier (!)
and a lot more comfortable. Engine noise is reduced due to quieter
engine/muffler, but also due to engine location, and probably the fabric
in-between. The windscreen was really not so bad for visibility, tho my
experience during lessons (in a Beaver) was that a windscreen was bad news
when flying into the sun late in the day.
As far as being a "blast from the past", the UltraStar is still a lot better
plane than most ultralights. I think if you can get a good used one, you're
way ahead of a dacron & cables machine (I've been in 2 Quicksilvers--just
*no* comparison to a Kolb!)
And re: vibration: funny you should mention that. I didn't used to have
any, but now I do! Still have to research that. I ballanced the prop very
precicely, but only on the center hole, not the bolt pattern. I also had
trouble with breaking muffler mounts so welded up something that braced it
in 2 planes (as in two planes 90 degrees from each other). I think maybe
the increased stiffness is changing the harmonics of the engine in it's
mounts. I get my vibration from about 4800 to 5300 RPM, and it's a very low
frequency vibration, like an interference between two harmonics or something.
>Hi,
> I have been on the mailing list for about a month to date and have not
>seen any mention of any of the earlier Kolb models. Were they so well
>designed that there are no bugs to iron out so Homer designed the Fire star
>and Mk lll series to quell his run of perfection?
> Really, I have a few questions for owners of Ultrastars.
> 1) Has anyone found a composit prop to fit? 50" long.
> 2) Is there a problem with harmonic viberation at cruise speed?
> 3) What about a pilot enclosure for winter flying?
> 4) Has anyone used skis on their Ultrastar?
>
> I built my Ultrastar in 1984 and took it to the Oskosh flyin in 1991. When
>I regestered at the barn, they parked me in the antique line and during the
>evening take off and landing fest, the announcer refered to me as the mowing
>machine (the prop has about 5" clearance from the ground.) In just seven
>years, my ride went from shiny new to a blast from the past. It really
>doesn't matter, because it is still great fun flying it at age 13.
>
>
>
.....................................................................
Mike Ransom internet: mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu (916) 754-6167
Programmer/Analyst, Dept of Agronomy & Range Science
University of California, Davis, U.S.A.
.....................................................................
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | shpeas(at)juno.com (Sherri l Craig) |
Hi everybody:
My name is Peter Craig. I've just completed the horizontal stab's of my
Mark III and am ready to get the steel parts powder coated. I'm wondering
if I should specify any particular type of epoxy or process or is it
necessary to get some MEK and try it on some samples?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Bennett <sab(at)ultranet.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Low frequency vibration |
I'll second Kim Steiner's suggestion about the IVO extension. I have a Mk
II with a 503 and a 3-bladed Ivoprop. Before I added the extension there
was sufficient clearance to the trailing edge (about 5 inches) but I could
definitely feel some prop cavitation above certain RPMs. The noise
increased dramatically, and it was a harsher noise. The prop extension
made a very significant reduction in cabin noise, and I'm told that the
flyover noise is lower and has less "growl" than before.
Regarding vibration - I don't think there's a resonance with the exhaust.
That's one reason they have odd reduction ratios - at 2.58 engine revs to
one prop rev, the prop won't sync up with the exhaust pulses. I was able
to get rid of a low frequency vibration by doing a careful prop balance!
The Ivo blades weren't significantly different, but they were different
enough to make a difference. At first, I just weighed the blades on a
super-accurate scale and adjusted the lightest blades to weigh the same as
the heaviest. But that didn't work, and in fact it actually worsened the
vibration. Then it occurred to me that the static weight of the whole
blade wasn't as important as the mass distribution along the length of the
blade. A 10 pound weight on the hub will balance against a 1 pound weight
at the end of a 10-inch rod, but they won't match on the scale!
So I made a simple balance-beam scale to find the total moment arm of each
blade:
I took a piece of 3-foot long 2"x2" pressure-treated deck baluster (had one
handy). Drilled a 3/16" hole 1 foot from an end, and slipped in a long
smooth bolt for a pivot. Screwed a piece of 6"x6" plywood to the near end,
drilled a few holes and mounted the prop blade to the plywood, with the
blade sticking straight out parallel to the baluster. Attached some
weights (anything - I actually used the Ivo extension!) to the far end of
the baluster until the thing was roughly balanced about the pivot bolt.
Sandwiched two pieces of AL plate with a block of wood in a vise to form
two parallel "blades". Rested the pivot bolt on the blades. Then I took a
thimble-sized plastic cup half-filled with sand and rested it on the far
end of the baluster, near the weights. By adding and removing small
amounts of sand, you can get the blade balanced exactly with the weights.
Compare each blade until you find the heaviest, then weight the lighter
one(s) until they balance with the amount of sand needed for the heaviest
one.
How do you add weight to an Ivo blade? With a 1/8" hex wrench, remove the
cap screw holding the cam to the torque tube. The torque tube is hollow.
Get an assortment of piano wire, and insert various thicknesses into the
tube to add the weight you need. Note that you must cut the wire short
enough to go all the way into the tube, i.e. remember to leave room for the
cap screw. And make sure it's pushed all the way in when balancing it on
the scale. It's a good idea to remove the cap screws from all blades
before balancing them. Makes it much easier to do trial-and-error.
Worked for me - the ride is silky smooth...
-Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Daniel D. Bush" <dbush(at)gte.net> |
For those with Flaperons - have two questions 1) what degree of flaps to
you get 2) what are the length of your flaperons. Full width or ?.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic@dfw> |
To All...
The 3rd flight test was done partially staying in the pattern doing touch
and go's, at 3000' altitude doing a few things, then back in the pattern
for a couple of touch and go's before landing. My radio is on the blink (in
the transmit mode but I can hear great) so I am having to fly pretty
defensively while in the airport pattern. Mine is not a controlled field,
but there is a fair amount of traffic most of the time.
My plan was to:
1. Test the tapeing off (with duct tape) of 2" of the top of each radiator
as regards my water temp. During climb out to 1000' the temp went up to
about 160 degrees F. The subsequent climb from 1000' to 3000' the temp
climbed to about 175 degrees. All climbs were made full power and at 65
mph. I noticed that my rpm during maximum power climb was about 6200. When
I leveled out 3000' the temp reduced to about 145 degrees. That is still
too cool but during the climb the temp reached the upper limit. When I
returned I put on another 2" width of tape on one radiator. That is now 6"
covered. On the next flight I will make a more shallow climb at a faster
speed (still at full power) to keep the temp below 175 so that when I reach
altitude they will be hopefully near 160 degrees in level flight.
Installing a thermostat would possibly be a lot easier.
2. Practice in the pattern my control on landings and fly-bys. It helped a
lot to recognize more what speed I can fly safely and still have control yet
be able to land when and where I want to. The wind was not strong but a bit
gusty and variable in direction (pretty much runway heading) so it gave me
some good practice trying to hold the Kolb just off the runway, straight and
level. I need to do a lot more of that practice.
3. I wanted to measure the feel of force needed for the ailerons vs. the
elevators. There is a lot of difference and the faster you are going the
more the difference. The elevators and especially the rudder are very light
at any speed. I had made a little adjustment (only 1 turn of the rod end)
of the flaps between 1st and 2nd flights and I noticed very little
improvement on the 3rd flight except to say that the plane has very little
tendency now to bank left. When I returned, I installed the bungee aileron
trim suggested by Kolb. When it is in the lowest position the effect is
virtually zero. On my next flight I will see if I like it.
4. I wanted to do steeper turns this time, but just didn't get around to
it. I did do some dutch roll practice trying to keep my controls
co-ordinated and my yaw string straight.
5. I tried various rpm settings trying to notice any unusual sounds or
vibrations or harmonics that I have heard others report lately. I am not an
experienced Rotax pilot so I am not sure if I am overlooking a sound that
might be obvious to someone experienced, but I can say that nothing sounded
or felt "odd". I will say that on inspection of the stainless steel
inspection tapes between the prop blades when I returned that two had broken
and one was about to break. I retorqued the IVO prop bolts but didn't feel
any looseness, over tightness or differential in any of the 6 bolts. I will
replace the tapes and watch them carefully.
I have a draggy left brake due to out of round (or off center placement by
me in the first place) of the drum. I have readjusted (loosened) the 4 AN3
bolts that support the caliper and shoes so that they hopefully will float a
little better inside the drum, I cleaned the inside surface of the drum with
some emory cloth and tightened the axle nut 1/8 of a turn. It clack, clack,
clacked down the taxiway and made the whole plane bob at certain speeds with
the drag of the brake in one spot. I hope as the shoes wear a little the
dragging will go away. I may relax the brake cables a little more to help.
That's about it. My landing was nothing to write home about. It was more
of a 3 pointer rather than a fly on that I would like to be doing.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (2.3 hrs)
(972) 247-9821 Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <steiger(at)ait.fredonia.edu> |
This is probably a stupid question on my part, but does your Icom
transmit OK when you're not in the aircraft? (i.e. are you sure the
Icom isn't defective?) Kinda obvious, I know, but I thought I'd
ask just in case... :)
I'm planning to do a similar thing with my FireFly. I'll use an Icom
of some type (haven't figured out which one I should get yet) with a
helmet/headset and a PTT switch. I haven't thought about where to mount
the antenna yet. I am hoping to keep it "seperate" of the aircraft so it
won't count as a part of the 254lb limit. I don't even know how much of an
electrical system I have... I've got the Kuntzleman(sp?) box which is
powering my digital tach, but I don't know if it can be used for something
like an Icom. I may just have to use batteries. (I'm still trying to
figure out wether I should spring for the extremely expensive ni-cad
pack and charger, or just go the alkaline route. I'm not sure which would
cost more in the long run... If I can hook it up to my 447, I would think
that alkaline would be the way to go, since I wouldn't actually be
using the batteries much...
We had a few warm (50 - 60 degrees F) days here and I got a little
spring fever... ;) Ordered myself a bunch of ultralight catalogs so
I can get that 4-point harness and a new altimeter. We've got 6" of
snow outside now though. :P Argh! Lets skip past this part and
get to the nice weather! (And no jibes from you lucky people in the
south!) ;)
-Jon-
Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information Technology
.- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ -.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ |
| '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <steiger(at)ait.fredonia.edu> |
>For those with Flaperons - have two questions 1) what degree of flaps to
>you get 2) what are the length of your flaperons. Full width or ?.
>
I assume you are referring to the FireFly? (I think that's the only
Kolb with flaperons...)
If so, yes, they do cover the full length of the wing. They taper in a
bit by the engine though, to keep them out of the way of the propeller.
As far as the degree, I'm not sure. Its not much though. I don't know
for certain because I haven't been able to get my FF out of its trailer
yet!! (Stupid winter!) :)
I've often wondered though, if a greater range of flap travel was
desired, can this be changed without a detrimental effect on the aircraft?
I realize that the FF is capable of some very short takeoffs and landings,
but everyone I've talked to says the FF flaperons are almost useless,
and I bet it would be nice to have the option of more flaps in certain
situations...
I can't think of why extending the flaperon travel would hurt anything,
but I have this nagging thought that goes something like, "If it was
safe to extend the flaperon travel, Kolb would have done it that way in
the first place."
What do you think? Seems silly to have "flaps" if they are (for all
practical purposes) non-functional... (Or are they there for AC103-7?)
-Jon-
Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information Technology
.- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ -.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ |
| '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | reynen(at)ix.netcom.com (Christina Reynen) |
| Subject: | Full Lotus floats |
Update: 3-6-97
A while ago I posted a question regarding the broken plywood boards
found sandwiched between the front caps and the fabric float body.
Since I received no replies, I gathered that this was not a regular
item people now about and decided to call Full Lotus for info.
As it turned out ,Full Lotus has shipped floats for years with this
board installed and I was told to simply replace it after waterproofing
or install Aluminum boards which they switched to since early last
year.
They recommended a .125"thick sheet weighing 7.5# ea.
I decided to install .090" sheets 16X36" and after cutting and bending
several lips on the backside and adding two breaklines approx. 4" from
the sides to conform to the curvature of the step and increase the
stiffness, used 1/8X1/4" aluminum fabric rivets to attach the sheet by
the lips to the inside and the backside of the cap
The Full Lotus method of attaching the boards was rather crudely done
with tiewraps that had all broken sometime ago letting the broken
plywood pieces move around freely.
I had noticed some time ago that the plane would not take off at the
normal rate at full load and sometimes bogged down just prior to
liftoff and since I had the normal air pressure in the bladders I was
puzzled by this behaviour but did not know anybody else in my area
flying these floats.
I will report again after installation and flying( after May 1) how
this works.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic@dfw> |
| Subject: | IVO Service Bulletin #2 |
>
> I will say that on inspection of the stainless steel
>>inspection tapes between the prop blades when I returned that two had broken
>>and one was about to break. I retorqued the IVO prop bolts but didn't feel
>>any looseness, over tightness or differential in any of the 6 bolts. I will
>>replace the tapes and watch them carefully.
>
>
>Cliff:
>
>Would you explain the inspection tapes you refer to?
This a bulletin #2 (7/8/96) that IVO company issued. I will just type some
of the content.
Subject: Kolb-List: Ivoprop-UL model & 3:1 gearboxes or direct drive engines or
3
cylinder engines. (Mine is the 2.58 box, but I decided to put them on anyway.)
Purpose: To detect blade movement inside the hub due to misinstallation and
or harmonic resonance between prop and power plant. To prevent further
flight if this sutuation is detected and develops in unsafe condition
(aluminum bushings inside blades becoming loose, breaking bolts, blades, etc.)
Introduction: Above mentioned combinations pruduce high level of torsional
pulses during their firing cycle which several times exceeds their normal
torque and also torque reversal pulses. If the prop is mounted loose and or
gets in a harmonic resonance with the engine the blades could move inside
the hub back and forth in a plane of prop rotation.
What to do... This is long and goes into calibration of torque wrenches and
talks about direct drive engine prop placement, then placement of the tape
strips and testing afterward.
If you do decide to put these tapes on your IVO, be careful pressing them
down so as not to cut your fingers on the sharp edges.
If anyone is interested IVO can be contacted at (310) 602-1451 or fax 1374.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (2.3 hrs)
(972) 247-9821 Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Christina Reynen <reynen(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Subject: MkIII with Full Lotus floats |
I had noticed some time ago that my Mark III floatplane would not take
off at the
normal rate at full load and sometimes bogged down just prior to
liftoff. Since I had the normal air pressure in the bladders I was
puzzled by this behavior.
A month or so ago I posted a question here regarding the broken plywood
boards I
found sandwiched between the front caps and the fabric float body.
Since I received no replies, I gathered that this was not a regular
item people know about and decided to call Full Lotus for info.
As it turned out, Full Lotus has shipped floats for years with these
boards installed and I was told to simply replace it after
waterproofing,
or install aluminum boards to which they had switched early last
year.
They recommended a .125"thick sheet weighing 7.5# ea.
I decided to install .090" sheets, 16X36", and after cutting and bending
several lips on the backside I added two breaklines approx. 4" from
the sides to conform to the curvature of the step and increase the
stiffness. I used 1/8X1/4" aluminum fabric rivets to attach the sheet
by
the lips to the inside and the backside of the cap.
The Full Lotus method of attaching the boards was rather crudely done
with tiewraps that had all broken sometime ago letting the broken
plywood pieces move around freely.
I will report again after installation and flying (after May 1) how
this works.
Frank Reynen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FSKolbJT(at)aol.com |
Forwarded message:
Subj: RE: Kolb stuff
Date: 97-03-09 17:29:33 EST
From: FSKolbJT
Tony Spicer,
The gearbox ratio is 2.58, the weght is _____ . you know its an
ULTRALIGHT.go with the options you need,anything else is just more weight. As
for Sun'NFun YES
There's a large article in Sport Pilot & Ultralights February 97 issue on my
Firestar I call Wildfire.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | "What's happenin" |
To All...
On the last flight I lost 1/2 of my EGT meter. I thought at the time "Oh,
shoot, I going to crash", but the Rotax kept right on humming. It is funny
how you think that just because an instrument fails that automatically...
the engine will too. I have run the problem down to needing a new sender
unit (I think?).
Quite a few people think that my main problem with the radio is the fact
that my "ducky" antenna is not grounded to the frame where it exits the
fiberglass cowling. I grounded it today, but have yet to test it. I will
report how it goes.
I put a 3/4" "C" clip (I know there is a more correct name) in the gap of
the aileron torque tube. I don't know if there is a gap on all MKIII's, but
there is one on mine. It is just enough to allow the clip to slip in just
behind the gap at the front end. It takes up the slack when you activate
the elevators so that the torque tube is not pushed forward and backward.
It is not noticeable when flying, but I wanted to eliminate any play in my
controls.
Same goes for ailerons (not between the ailerons themselves, but rather
between the aileron system and the stick). There is a bit of play of the
control stick where it connects with the torque tube. The bolt and castle
nut that connects the two is a bit undersized for the holes in the parts. I
can either try to shim around the bolt somehow, find a bolt with a tiny bit
more diameter, or tighten the connection more. One way or the other I will
take the play out.
I am looking for a used GPS. The price of some of the new units (like the
Garmin 38) have fallen to the $140 range and you can find used (like the
Garmin 40) for around $90. I want to find out for sure what my "true"
speeds are vs. what my ASI indicated is. Does anyone out there know, is the
internal antenna of the Garmin (like 38 and 40) suitable for the Kolb
cockpit. What I really need is a 45 model (selling now used for around $125
to $140 with an antenna that can be removed and placed remotely. Anybody
have a 45 at a reasonable price (or know anyone who does)?
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (2.3 hrs)
(972) 247-9821 Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wally Hofmann" <whofmann(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | more paint questions... |
Thanks to all who helped with my novice painting questions. Since the consensus
was heavily in favor of power coating, I've decided to have the parts power
coated. I found a good (?) operation that will do it for $60.
Does anyone know what shade of yellow Kolb used on the FireStar ?? Was it Ag
Cat Yellow?
Is it dumb to have things power coated and then paint them to match the rest of
the plane?
on to another area...
any hints on drilling out pop rivets ? Twice now I've had the pin break out of
the rivet before it was fully squashed. I've drilled them out but seem to make
a mess of the holes and ended up making new parts. It seems like this may be a
frequent problem?
thanks,
Wally Hofmann
Wickenburg, Arizona
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "What's happenin" |
Stripling) writes:
<< On the last flight I lost 1/2 of my EGT meter. I thought at the time "Oh,
shoot, I going to crash", but the Rotax kept right on humming. It is funny
how you think that just because an instrument fails that automatically...
the engine will too. I have run the problem down to needing a new sender
unit (I think?).
>>
Don't be too sure it's the sender. My EGT did the same and the problem is in
the instrument. Try switching the leads and see if the other side fails and
the first side strats working again. If so then it is the probe. If the
same side is still dead, it's the instrument.
Pete Krotje
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: more paint questions... |
Hofmann) writes:
<< ny hints on drilling out pop rivets ? Twice now I've had the pin break
out of
the rivet before it was fully squashed. I've drilled them out but seem to
make
a mess of the holes and ended up making new parts. It seems like this may
be a
frequent problem?
>>
Try drilling just partially thru the heads (almost all the way) then take a
1/8 pin punch and drive the rivet thru. The head will break off and you will
not have drilled into the hole yet. This works good on rivets that are into
steel. Be careful on aluminium that you don't deform the parts with the
punch.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Weber (DVNS)" <bweber(at)micom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more paint questions... |
On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Wally Hofmann wrote:
> any hints on drilling out pop rivets ? Twice now I've had the pin break out
of
> the rivet before it was fully squashed. I've drilled them out but seem to make
> a mess of the holes and ended up making new parts. It seems like this may be
a
> frequent problem?
Pick up some 5/32" pop rivets. Then when you have to drill one out and it
doesn't come out clean, just use the oversize rivet. Then you won't have
to remake anything. Might pick up some 3/16" rivets, too. Just in case. :)
***************************************************************
* Bill Weber (bweber(at)micom.com) * Keep the *
* MICOM Communications * shiny side *
* Simi Valley, CA * up. *
***************************************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: oversize rivets... |
On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Bill Weber (DVNS) wrote:
> > the rivet before it was fully squashed. I've drilled them out but seem to
make
> > a mess of the holes and ended up making new parts. It seems like this may
be a
> > frequent problem?
>
> Pick up some 5/32" pop rivets. Then when you have to drill one out and it
> doesn't come out clean, just use the oversize rivet. Then you won't have
> to remake anything. Might pick up some 3/16" rivets, too. Just in case. :)
Depends on the part, as drilling oversize holes changes the structural
integrity. I goofed slightly on riveting one of my wing ribs to the spar
and needed to drill out just 4 rivets and nudge the rib rotation just
a teeny bit. I asked Dennis about 5/32 rivets and, to my surprise (and
anguish), he didn't seem too comfortable about the idea. My brother got
me some oversize "cherry max" type rivets, i think the diameter was .135".
(5/32=0.160") Admittedly, this was on the wing spar which is one of
the most precious elements, but still, we need to be cautious about
making bigger holes than called for in the structure.
For drilling out rivets, I've found Pete's advice to help with a punch
usually works if just drilling doesn't.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
UCD Mechanical Engineering Dept. o o
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron B." <rgbsr(at)aimnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more paint questions... |
Drilling out requires a very fine touch. Whilst being an aviation
metalsmith in the navy, we would drill or sand/file the head of the
rivit almost off then use a correctly sized pin punch to pop the
rest of the rivet out. Sometimes had to use needle nose pliers or
a little more filing to get parts of the shank out of the hole.
But, a pin punch works great once the head is filed down or drilled.
Best regards,
Ron B.
On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Wally Hofmann wrote:
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 07:25:35 -0800 (PST)
> From: Wally Hofmann <whofmann(at)hotmail.com>
> To: kolb(at)intrig.com
> Subject: more paint questions...
>
> Thanks to all who helped with my novice painting questions. Since the consensus
> was heavily in favor of power coating, I've decided to have the parts power
> coated. I found a good (?) operation that will do it for $60.
>
> Does anyone know what shade of yellow Kolb used on the FireStar ?? Was it Ag
> Cat Yellow?
>
> Is it dumb to have things power coated and then paint them to match the rest
of
> the plane?
>
> on to another area...
>
> any hints on drilling out pop rivets ? Twice now I've had the pin break out
of
> the rivet before it was fully squashed. I've drilled them out but seem to make
> a mess of the holes and ended up making new parts. It seems like this may be
a
> frequent problem?
>
> thanks,
>
> Wally Hofmann
> Wickenburg, Arizona
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
"You are but one medical away from an ultralight!" [ Mr. S. Larghi ]
< rgbsr(at)aimnet.com > Living in beautiful Santa Clara, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.COM> |
| Subject: | Wing Gap Seal Holddown |
I've come up with a far better method than the "spring" default for
securing the trailing edge of the wing gap seal.
see:
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/gaphold.jpg
First, the square tube is covered at the ends with the "cloth" side of
sticky velcro (white in the picture.) Then the "hook" side of some "not
sticky" velcro strip (a thinner, black strip in the picture) is secured
to the gap seal with rivets through an aluminum plate. The "not sticky"
stuff, designed to be sewn onto fabric, was delivered by mistake with my
upholstry kit.
This eliminates the problem that would occur if the spring came lose,
will not scratch the paint on the square tube, and is very easy to put
on and take off.
If you haven't seen them before, there are pictures of the gap seal on
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgapover.jpg
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgapside.jpg
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgaprear.jpg
My appointment with the FAA to examine the completed plane is tomorrow.
The folks at the Kolb factory were very nice, and let me use their
hanger and airstrip for the examination and instruction. A picture of
us offloading the plane is on:
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/dlvrkolb.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FSKolbJT(at)aol.com |
Scott
The article on my FS II is in Sport Pilot & Ultralights the February
1997 volume 13, number 2. It can be purchased at the local book store or
you could contact
Sport Pilot & Ultralights at P.O. Box 16149 North Hollywood, Ca 91615 or
phone Tel. (818) 760-8983
John FS II
(WILDFIRE)
see you at
Sun' Fun
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russell Duffy <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | SlingShot Update |
Hi folks,
A good thing happened today, I got to see my plane standing in the
garage with the wings perfectly aligned and attached! Pulling out those
sawhorses was way more rewarding than covering :-)
I started the rigging last weekend and had the spar attachments drilled
Sunday. Spent the last 2 days fitting the lift struts and bolting the
drag strut fittings. I ended up buying a digital level at Lowes (on
sale, no less) to do the alignment and it worked perfectly. I have a
very accurate analog level as well, but the position of the bubble is
always subject to some interpretation. The digital readout takes away
the guesswork (and won't let you cheat).
I'm very satisfied with the alignment and the wing construction in
general. When I had them aligned for drilling, the level read 0.0
degrees and ANY point along the wings. This confirms that there are no
twists in the wing panels. Even after the wings were supporting
themselves, there was no more than .1 degrees difference between any 2
points. This is probably due to play in the u-joints and pins. This
was one of the construction points that I was most concerned about. I'm
glad it's over, and happy with the results. I'll have some pictures up
in a few days hopefully.
--
Russell Duffy
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | No more stick wobble! |
To All...
I already described how I eliminated the fore aft play with the 3/4" "C"
clip in the slot of the aileron torque tube. The left right play was
eliminated by using collars (as shims) inside both sides of the stick pivot
connection. The opening of mine was larger than the AN4 drilled bolt that
goes through it. I purchased a brass tube (1/4" ID I believe) just large
enough for the bolt to slip through and then sanded down the outside surface
with my grinding wheel by spinning the tube until the wall was thin enough
to fit inside the hole. I wire brushed it to make the surface smooth and
slipped about 3/8" worth into each side of the control stick pivot hole.
The bolt now fits tighter so that when I move the stick left or right it
immediately moves the controls - no more loose play. When flying you don't
notice, but I wanted a tight smooth control system with no play anywhere.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (2.3 hrs)
(972) 247-9821 Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.COM> |
| Subject: | N628SB now certified Airworthy by FAA |
The FAA inspector went over my Mark III yesterday, then issued an
airworthiness certificate. This should be my last encounter with the
FAA involving the airplane unless I change the configuration or flight
restrictions, or get in trouble.
I can now legally fly it, and will do so as soon as the weather
improves. I'm hoping for Sunday.
The inspector found a few things to fix:
1) Drain holes in wings
2) Labeling of oil and coolant quantities and specifications
3) Placarding and labeling of Ballast requirements and Ballast
itself. He said the ballast must be painted red.
4) Placarding of restriction on aerobatics.
5) ELT must be added before passengers are taken beyond 25nm radius
test area, after test period is complete. Of course passengers are
prohibited during test period.
My test period is only 20 hours, not the 40 hours I had been lead to
believe.
As always, pictures on http://members.aol.com/scottbntly, and a few
unindexed pictures on http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Muffler mount & rust. |
To All,
I have noticed that two of the three rubber mount bolts have loosened up
enough to be able to twist the bolt/nut unit with my fingers. I added two
more washers to each to allow for more compression of the donuts in the
shock mount.
A wrong decision on my part was not painting the muffler with a high
temperature protective product like many have done. I can already see
rusting through the origional paint.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (2.3 hrs)
(972) 247-9821 Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Shamblin <shamblin(at)hc1.hci.net> |
| Subject: | Re: N628SB now certified Airworthy by FAA |
congratulations!!! bill shamblin
On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, Scott Bentley wrote:
> The FAA inspector went over my Mark III yesterday, then issued an
> airworthiness certificate. This should be my last encounter with the
> FAA involving the airplane unless I change the configuration or flight
> restrictions, or get in trouble.
>
> I can now legally fly it, and will do so as soon as the weather
> improves. I'm hoping for Sunday.
>
> The inspector found a few things to fix:
>
> 1) Drain holes in wings
> 2) Labeling of oil and coolant quantities and specifications
> 3) Placarding and labeling of Ballast requirements and Ballast
> itself. He said the ballast must be painted red.
> 4) Placarding of restriction on aerobatics.
> 5) ELT must be added before passengers are taken beyond 25nm radius
> test area, after test period is complete. Of course passengers are
> prohibited during test period.
>
> My test period is only 20 hours, not the 40 hours I had been lead to
> believe.
>
> As always, pictures on http://members.aol.com/scottbntly, and a few
> unindexed pictures on http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CCHIEPPA(at)umassd.edu |
Hi All,
I am having a small problem with the Kolb Archive Site, all I get
is a blank page. Is the site off line or is the problem with my Tex. only
server ?
Thanks Charles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Archive Site |
>
>Hi All,
> I am having a small problem with the Kolb Archive Site, all I get
>is a blank page. Is the site off line or is the problem with my Tex. only
>server ?
> Thanks Charles
Charles & all,
Yes. I just checked. Everything is there from March/96 through Feb/97.
The address from memory is I think:
http://www.intrig.com/kolb/list/
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (2.3 hrs)
(972) 247-9821 Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlene Clark <charjls(at)olympus.net> (by way of Charlene Clark <charjls(at)olympus.net>) |
| Subject: | wanted: kolbFSII |
Wanted: fairly new Kolb FSII with dual ignitions, preferable dual carb,
would be great with floats. I intend to fly off saltwater with floats.
Would prefer plane on or near the West Coast as I live in Sequim,
Washington. Plane that has been saltwater proofed during construction would
be ideal.
Email me at the above and I will call you. I am serious.
________________________________________________________________________________
(Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA12903
| From: | "The Fehlings" <lfehling(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | My Kolb Mk II to be shown on an upcoming Real TV. |
March 16, 1997
Hello Friends,
After 2.5 years of enjoyable puttering, my Mark II was signed off and
uneventfully test flown in June 1993. Flew it from PA to Oshkosh (and
back) that summer, probably the most fun flying I've ever had.
No problems of any kind for about 75 hours, until the right main wheel
sheared the retaining cotter pin and departed from the axle shortly after a
routine takeoff. We were notified of our new landing gear configuration
over the Unicom frequency, and after circling the field a few times my 11
year old son and I set the plane down on the paved runway. Fortunately, a
friend of mine had his video camera and recorded the event at my request.
More fortunately, though, to be flying a Kolb, as the landing was fairly
uneventful (though noisy when the axle slid along the pavement). We
recovered the wheel, filed the burrs off the axle, remounted the wheel, and
taxied back to the hangar. My son and I celebrated our feat with a pair of
tall chocolate milks, and many pats on the back from fellow EAA chapter
members.
The folks at Real TV, a show that specializes in video clips from near-
and total disasters, will be airing this footage soon, although I do not as
yet know the time or date. As soon as I know I will pass it along.
Incidentally, the problem arose from allowing too much side-to-side play
when mounting the wheel on the axle, about one quarter inch was all it
took. The wheel would hammer the cotter pin when the axle flexed during
taxiing, and was not noticeable during normal preflights. (This was the
brake-less installation.) My Mark II now has the Kolb brakes, where the
wheel is retained by a rather husky nut and pin. I would strongly
recommend that you check your aircraft's gear if the only thing holding
your wheels on is a cotter pin (with washer as shown on the plans). The
landing would have been quite messy had we not had a smooth, paved surface
to alight upon. Still flying the bird, by the way, and have flown bunches
of Young Eagles in it. Have turned down several offers to buy it! Love
those Kolbs.
Fly safely,
Fred Fehling
fehling(at)greenepa.net
Or... RD #5, Box 246
Waynesburg, PA 15370
[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.choppoint.org/guestbook.html
________________________________________________________________________________
(Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAB12903;
| From: | "The Fehlings" <lfehling(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: My Kolb Mk II to be shown on an upcoming Real TV. |
----------
> From: The Fehlings <lfehling(at)alltel.net>
> To: kolb(at)intrig.com
> Subject: My Kolb Mk II to be shown on an upcoming Real TV.
> Date: Sunday, March 16, 1997 8:34 PM
>
> March 16, 1997
> Hello Friends,
> After 2.5 years of enjoyable puttering, my Mark II was signed off and
> uneventfully test flown in June 1993. Flew it from PA to Oshkosh (and
> back) that summer, probably the most fun flying I've ever had.
> No problems of any kind for about 75 hours, until the right main wheel
> sheared the retaining cotter pin and departed from the axle shortly after
a
> routine takeoff. We were notified of our new landing gear configuration
> over the Unicom frequency, and after circling the field a few times my 11
> year old son and I set the plane down on the paved runway. Fortunately,
a
> friend of mine had his video camera and recorded the event at my request.
> More fortunately, though, to be flying a Kolb, as the landing was fairly
> uneventful (though noisy when the axle slid along the pavement). We
> recovered the wheel, filed the burrs off the axle, remounted the wheel,
and
> taxied back to the hangar. My son and I celebrated our feat with a pair
of
> tall chocolate milks, and many pats on the back from fellow EAA chapter
> members.
> The folks at Real TV, a show that specializes in video clips from near-
> and total disasters, will be airing this footage soon, although I do not
as
> yet know the time or date. As soon as I know I will pass it along.
> Incidentally, the problem arose from allowing too much side-to-side play
> when mounting the wheel on the axle, about one quarter inch was all it
> took. The wheel would hammer the cotter pin when the axle flexed during
> taxiing, and was not noticeable during normal preflights. (This was the
> brake-less installation.) My Mark II now has the Kolb brakes, where the
> wheel is retained by a rather husky nut and pin. I would strongly
> recommend that you check your aircraft's gear if the only thing holding
> your wheels on is a cotter pin (with washer as shown on the plans). The
> landing would have been quite messy had we not had a smooth, paved
surface
> to alight upon. Still flying the bird, by the way, and have flown bunches
> of Young Eagles in it. Have turned down several offers to buy it! Love
> those Kolbs.
> Fly safely,
>
> Fred Fehling
> new e-mail address as of Mar. 18 will
be...
> Or... RD #5, Box 246 fehling(at)greenepa.net
> Waynesburg, PA 15370
[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.choppoint.org/guestbook.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Anthony Hinkelmann <hink(at)mindspring.com> |
Rebuilding a FS-2 adding floats. anyone with info on mounting floats
on same please reply. the floats are 10 ft long and are the flat bottom
"Duck Foot" type. Presently mounting the balance point of the floats on
the expected CG point of the airplane. will have to adapt to a trike
stance to keep the tail out of the mud.
Was involved in the classic "Stall/Spin crash. airplane demolished from
gear fittings forward. Rebuilding with a forward structure a little
more "Crash Worthy". Will be adding a little more forward weight but
will be able to watch the Airplane Crash a little longer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Neilsen <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Pictures on Web Site |
I have posted some pictures of my VW powered MKIII at my web
site that may be of some interest. I haven't figured how to index
the pictures from the site yet so you will need to view them
directly.
The addresses are:
HTTP://www2.netcom.com/~neilsenr/front.jpg This is front view
of the VW installation.
HTTP://www2.netcom.com/~neilsenr/rear.jpg This is a review of
the VW installation.
HTTP://www2.netcom.com/~neilsenr/panel.jpg This is a view of
the instrument panel.
HTTP://www2.netcom.com/~neilsenr/fuelfil.jpg This is a view of
the fuel filling system using a vented boat fuel cap.
HTTP://www2.netcom.com/~neilsenr/cap.jpg This is a view of the
fuel cap and the enclosed rear fuselage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com> |
| Subject: | FW: Pictures on Web Site |
I am not very computer smart, but when I try and view these using
netscape all I get is a small Icon in the upper left hand corner of the
screen, which does not do anything when I click on it. The rear view of
the engine I am able to view OK but it is the only one.
>----------
>From: Rick Neilsen[SMTP:neilsenr(at)state.mi.us@acuityinc.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 17, 1997 6:02 PM
>To: intrig.com.kolb(at)buis; kolb(at)intrig.com
>Subject: Pictures on Web Site
>
>I have posted some pictures of my VW powered MKIII at my web
>site that may be of some interest. I haven't figured how to index
>the pictures from the site yet so you will need to view them
>directly.
>
>The addresses are:
>HTTP://www2.netcom.com/~neilsenr/front.jpg This is front view
>of the VW installation.
>
>HTTP://www2.netcom.com/~neilsenr/rear.jpg This is a review of
>the VW installation.
>
>HTTP://www2.netcom.com/~neilsenr/panel.jpg This is a view of
>the instrument panel.
>
>HTTP://www2.netcom.com/~neilsenr/fuelfil.jpg This is a view of
>the fuel filling system using a vented boat fuel cap.
>
>HTTP://www2.netcom.com/~neilsenr/cap.jpg This is a view of the
>fuel cap and the enclosed rear fuselage.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Neilsen <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Pictures on the Web- Not working |
I posted that there are pictures on the web but most
aren't work. the following is the only one that is:
HTTP://www2.netcom.com/~neilsenr/rear.jpg This is
a review of the VW installation.
I will reload the other pictures tonight and test all of
them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tommie Templeton <tommie(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Pictures on Web Site |
I also have tried to view the photos, but only the one view from the
prop side(rear)is the readable.
Tommie T
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | manderson(at)top.monad.net |
| Subject: | Firestar II Glide Ratio, Oil Injection |
I flew my Kolb Firestar II (503 w/ IVO) for the first time last fall. I got in
about 12 great hours before this rather miserable winter settled in on New
Hampshire. The Firestar performed very nicely. Although I had thought I would
be flying this winter, the combination of cold and wind has been very
discouraging. I'm certainly looking forward to Spring, though I think it will
be a little late this year.
Now that I'm done building, I thinking of some modifications that I might make
to the Firestar to improve the efficiency. I know I don't really need to
improve the efficiency, but I thought it might be fun. Anyway, here are some of
the things I am considering. I'd like to get some input, and stimulate some
info exchange on the net.
1. What is the glide ratio of the standard FS II?
2. What will streamlined lift struts do for me in terms of glide, MPH or
whatever?
3. What will streamlined landing gear fairings and wheel farings do. Are
wheelpants a lot of trouble.
4. What will happen if I enclose the top of the rear fuse cage. Dennis thinks
it may cause a little prob interference. What if I leave the 6 inch wide
portion at the back open. (I have the full enclosure).
Does anyone have any thoughts or experience on the effect of any or all of these
mods. It seems like the FS could be a fairly clean design. I would like to
stay in the air with the minimum HP (lowest revs) on my 503.
One other thing - I have oil injection. I heard thirdhand that Pennzoil may not
be a good choice below 32F as it is too thick for the tiny oil lines. Anyone
have any thoughts or problems with oil injection. By the way, when I went to
repaint by muffler at 20 hr, I looked into the cylinder through the exhaust
ports and the cylinder and head looked shiny new - unbelieveably.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
This question is like asking which airplane is the best, but for you pilots
with 2cycle engines with high time, what kind of oil have you used. I have
always used the pennzoil 2 cycle for air cooled engines at 50:1, but
recently, a friend in a new 503 started with the synthetic oil (available in
the magazines and the name I can't remember) and after 110 hours the rings
are still nice and free. I am using the oil injection which I am sure will
help, but what kind of luck is everybody having. I just got Kolbs new
newsletter and read the 2 stroke testimonials of those pilots with lots of
hours and was wondering what other pilots with high time engines have uses.
thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)bitstream.net> |
Timandjan(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> This question is like asking which airplane is the best, but for you pilots
> with 2cycle engines with high time, what kind of oil have you used. I have
> always used the pennzoil 2 cycle for air cooled engines at 50:1, but
> recently, a friend in a new 503 started with the synthetic oil (available in
> the magazines and the name I can't remember) and after 110 hours the rings
> are still nice and free. I am using the oil injection which I am sure will
> help, but what kind of luck is everybody having. I just got Kolbs new
> newsletter and read the 2 stroke testimonials of those pilots with lots of
> hours and was wondering what other pilots with high time engines have uses.
> thanks
I have a 1986 FireStar with 310 hours. I originally used Valvoline oil,
but after 200 hrs. the bottom ring stuck on the rear cylinder. At that
time, I was also using a 175 main jet for winter flying. I'm in
Minnesota at about 1500' above sea level, so the 175 jet was too rich (I
didn't know it at the time). Just before the ring stuck, I took a 300
mile trip (in the winter ... it was warm .... 40 degrees), and used
Valvoline outboard 2 cycle oil because I couldn't find the snowmobile
oil. I made a safe landing on a frozen lake (another story) and spent
the night out there. I now use the nominal 165 main jet for winter, a
162 for spring and fall, and a 160 for summer. Anyway, I had the Rotax
377 rebuilt with new oversized pistons, rings, and cageless bearings. I
broke it in using Valvoline snowmobile oil for the first 50 hrs, and
then switched to Klotz all synthetic snowmobile oil. The engine has 110
hrs since the rebuild and, I'm very pleased with the reliablity so far.
The engine seems to start better and runs smoother. I used to check my
spark plugs often, but quit because they are so clean. I use unleaded
premium gas with a 50:1 mix. I've heard of others at my local airpark,
using Klotz and after 200 hrs taking apart the engine with no
appreciable wear or carbon buildup. I believe this is the way to go for
the Rotax.
Ralph Burlingame
Minneapolis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | may106(at)psu.edu (Mike Yukish) |
At 9:19 PM 3/18/97, Ralph Burlingame wrote:
[snip]
Just before the ring stuck, I took a 300
>mile trip (in the winter ... it was warm .... 40 degrees), and used
>Valvoline outboard 2 cycle oil because I couldn't find the snowmobile
>oil. I made a safe landing on a frozen lake (another story) and spent
>the night out there.
[snip]
OK, lets hear it!
***********************************
Mike Yukish
may106(at)psu.edu
http://elvis.arl.psu.edu/~may106/yuke.html
(814) 863-7143
Applied Research Lab
PO Box 30
State College, PA 16804
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>This question is like asking which airplane is the best, but for you pilots
>with 2cycle engines with high time, what kind of oil have you used. I have
>always used the pennzoil 2 cycle for air cooled engines at 50:1, but
>recently, a friend in a new 503 started with the synthetic oil (available in
>the magazines and the name I can't remember) and after 110 hours the rings
>are still nice and free. I am using the oil injection which I am sure will
>help, but what kind of luck is everybody having. I just got Kolbs new
>newsletter and read the 2 stroke testimonials of those pilots with lots of
>hours and was wondering what other pilots with high time engines have uses.
>thanks
>
> I can recommend the Phillips 66 Injex 2-cycle oil very highly. I had a
Maxair Hummer up until last fall and it had 565 hours on the Rotax 277. At
475 hours it was necessary to pull the engine down to replace the pto end
oil seal and the inside of the engine was in excellent shape. When new the
engine was broken in and run on Amsoil at 75:1 (Amsoil says to use 100:1,
that makes the bearings rattle!) and at 200 hours the ring gap had
increased to where it was necessary to replace the rings. At 475 hours
using Phillips 2-stroke oil the ring end gap was still tight, and the
piston and cylinder still looked excellent,but I don't remember the specs.
Our EAA chapter president has a Maxair Drifter with a single ignition
Rotax 503 and he has about 1200 hours on it, does all the maintainance the
"Rotax Aircraft Engines Scheduled Maintenance Plan" (CPS part# 451) calls
for, uses Phillips Injex oil and every 500 hours he overhauls it no matter
how good it is running (maybe that's why it has never quit on him?) He has
noticed that if you run your engine too cold, evidinced by the egt's being
950 or less all the time, the rings will carbon up and stick in about 50-75
hours. If you keep the egt's up where they belong this does not happen. I
suspect this is a function of excess carbon from excess fuel as much as oil
brand.
Richard Pike
Technical Counselor EAA Chapter 442
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <steiger(at)ait.fredonia.edu> |
(posted to the Kolb list and CC'd to FLY-UL since I think its an
applicable, widespread issue)
The recent oil thread reminded me of another oil-related issue...
The person I bought my FireFly from said that the industry-standard
50:1 ratio is wrong. According to him (and others at that flightpark)
the correct ratio is 55:1, but since a lot of people aren't that great
with math, the oil/engine companies specify 50:1. (A whole lot easier
to figure out.)
Is there any truth to this? These guys seemed to know what they were
talking about. I don't mind the "extra work" of mixing 55:1 if that
is what my engine really wants. (My engine is a 447, but I suppose it
would apply to others as well)
-Jon-
Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information Technology
.- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ -.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ |
| '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, Jon Steiger wrote:
> The person I bought my FireFly from said that the industry-standard
> 50:1 ratio is wrong. According to him (and others at that flightpark)
> the correct ratio is 55:1, but since a lot of people aren't that great
> with math, the oil/engine companies specify 50:1. (A whole lot easier
> to figure out.)
I've never heard of this and to me it sounds like an old pilot's tale,
partly because it is hard to imagine how the heck anyone could pick
that kind of info out of an oil vendor. They are more likely to brag
that you could run at 75 or 100:1 on their oil.
This small a difference (55-50 = 10% = only 1.3 oz of oil in a 5 gal mix)
could not be nearly as important as running at the right fuel/air mixture
and doing proper maintenance. It is likely that we are sometimes off
by this much even when we mix for 50:1 with reasonable care. Or, what
about the guys you see who fuel up at an airport, then dump in their
oil and fire up the engine without stirring at all? Yikes.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.COM> |
| Subject: | N628SB flew for first time yesterday |
Despite some problems with crosswinds, and an elevated exhaust gas
temperature, my Kolb Mark III performed well today with Kolb Factory
Test Pilot Dan Kurkjian at the controls. With my upcoming vacation and
delays with instruction due to Sun-n-fun preparation at Kolb, it may be
a few more weeks until it spends significant time in the air, but I'm
encouraged and looking forward to flying it myself.
We found a static runnup RPM around 5750, and EGT over 1500. I would
appreciate the experience of anyone else with a 912 on what they
consider a maximum EGT.
There are three pictures
The taxi testing...
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/taxitest.jpg
In flight (you'll have to look real close...)
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/inflght.jpg
Checking out the Exhaust Gas Temperature
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/egas.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Neilsen (Richard Neilsen) (Richard Neilsen) <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | VW Powered MKIII |
I sent this to someone else some time ago but I'm
getting questions about my VW installation and
maybe this will answer most of the questions. Also I
got the pictures fixed on my web site and indexed
them. The index can be viewed at
http://www2.netcom.com/~neilsenr/my_pages.html
Also I'm not quite to the weight and balance stage I did
move the battery to the nose cone. Dennis says this
should be about right but they didn't move anything to
put the 912 on the factory MKIII and it flies fine.
Electrical system yes: I put a 20 amp alternator on
that is made for the Diehl accessory case. I modified
(lightened) the case as it was designed as part of the
engine mount.
Fuel pump: I installed the stock VW mechanical pump
and a backup electric pump.
Ignition System: I put a Compu-Fire Distributor less
Electronic ignition system on and used the VW 009
distributor as the timing source. Note this system
draws 12amps at times so I will not have enough juice
for a transponder.
Prop: I have a 60 X 28 prop installed.
I borrowed a prototype VW mount from Dennis
Souder at Kolb and had a modified one made locally. I
lowered the mount, moved the engine forward and
lengthened the overall length to accept the Diehl
accessory case. Everything seem just about right. I
haven't changed the oil yet but I think I will be able to
get to the drain assembly with out removing the
engine(it will be close).
Exhaust: I tacked together a custom exhaust that I
later sent to a welding shop to have it done right. The
system has the pipes from the front cylinders(flywheel
end) exit down then back under the cylinders then
down. The rear pipes exit down and tie together with
the front pipes. I wanted a 4 into 1 extractor system
but just couldn't seem to make it work without getting
too heavy.
Carburetor: I installed a pair of 44mm Webers with
aluminum manifolds.
Note Dennis Souder tried to talk me out of using the
VW and for the matter anything that wasn't Rotax
because of the climb performance concern. We will
see???
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allan W. Blackburn" <trader(at)startext.net> |
I would be interested in how you would raise this EGT temp. I have moved
the needle down as far as it will go and the engine still runs (for the
last 300 hrs) hardly ever above an EGT of 1000 even on climb out. I
purchased a new CHT/EGT guage and sent the old in for repairs, but it was
reading okay. I have no trouble at the lower temperature. Sensor point is
in the middle of the Y of the exhaust manifold as reguired, but it used to
be located only on the rear exhaust at whatever the proper inches was
(3.7/8) or something like that. Temperature wise it made no difference.
> He has
>noticed that if you run your engine too cold, evidinced by the egt's being
>950 or less all the time, the rings will carbon up and stick in about 50-75
>hours. If you keep the egt's up where they belong this does not happen. I
>suspect this is a function of excess carbon from excess fuel as much as oil
>brand.
> Richard Pike
> Technical Counselor EAA Chapter 442
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
Allan W. Blackburn
| ! /\!
trader(at)mail.startext.net | ! /\ / \ /
awblackburn(at)juno.com | /\ / \ / -- /
| / \/ \/ \/
Commodity Trade Analyst |___________^________^__
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
EGT is very sensitive to EGT probe placement. That is why the new style
exhaust manifolds have threaded bosses for egt probes. As I understand it
the field service people couldn't get any meaningfull information about EGT
when the customer self-installed the probe. Now that everybody has the probe
in the same place the playing field is level and it is possible to get more
better info from a diagnostic standpoint.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
Has anybody heard of a oil called Dura lube which is now sold under
another name. It was another name flight with the big guys and they
lost thus are now selling under another name, like Champ or Champion
something like that. It's not the Dura-Lube oil additive like Slick
50, this company sells 2-cycle oil which works very well from what I
been told. Producing very high times on Rotaxs with overhauls or
piston cleaning maintenance.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: oil
Date: 3/20/97 12:05 PM
EGT is very sensitive to EGT probe placement. That is why the new style
exhaust manifolds have threaded bosses for egt probes. As I understand it
the field service people couldn't get any meaningfull information about EGT
when the customer self-installed the probe. Now that everybody has the probe
in the same place the playing field is level and it is possible to get more
better info from a diagnostic standpoint.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Daniel D. Bush" <dbush(at)gte.net> |
Have noticed a lot of questions regarding 2 cycle oil the past week or
so. Most seem interested in the "cleanliness", which I believe is
related to decarbing the engine every 50 or 60 hours. Nobody wants to
pull an engine off a couple of times a year BUT if your going to use a 2
stroke, plan on it - or the engine's going to bite you in the -ss one
fine day when you least expect it. I know lots (6-7) of people with
500-2000 hours flying time and most decarb the engine on a routine
basis. The length of time varies but generally between 60-100 hours,
with the first one done at 50 as specified by rotax. This gives you a
good chance to see what your oil and gas mixture is doing. Looking
through the exhaust port is fine but it doesn't let you know if the ring
is free all the way around, at least not to a newcomer.
Don't like to sound like a spoil sport but have seen quite a few engine
out's by fellows who state "I have the cleanest oil around, haven't
needed to decarb the engine at all". This is generally from those with
less than 150 hours.
May I suggest two things - practice engine out's (with the engine really
off - your stall speed goes up and you have a slightly different glide
ratio) and maintain you engine. Cosmetics are nice but a great paint
job on a ball of aluminum doesn't look that good.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russell Duffy <rad(at)pen.net> |
Hi,
Since my first 2-stroke won't fire for another couple of month, can
someone give me an general idea of what's involved in decarboning a 503
engine? How much to you have to take apart, can the average builder do
this, how long does it take, etc.
Also, on the subject of oil, I've heard a number of different types
mentioned, but never the same one twice. Could it be that any reputable
brand will do fine as long as you take care of the engine otherwise.
Remember, I don't know anything so be civil :-)
SlingShot is coming along fairly well. Projected flight is more like
June now though. I just posted all the rigging pictures the other day,
and now my scanner went belly-up. More reason to go after a digital
camera I guess.
--
Russell Duffy
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: decarboning? |
Phil Lockwood the Rotax authorized repair guy in Fla. Says that if you use
Penzoil and Amoco premium at 50:1 you can go 100 hrs before the
decarbonization. That was all I ever used in my mark 2 and it worked fairly
well.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
Has anybody heard of a 2-cycle oil originally sold under the Duralube
name. I understand they originally used the Duralube name and later
got into a name fight with one of the larger companies when the larger
company decided to use the name. They being smaller lost.
I understand it is now selling under another name, like Champ or
Champion or something like that. It's not the Dura-Lube oil additive
like Slick 50, this company sells 2-cycle oil which works very well
from what I have been told. The person which suggested it claims it
produces very high times on Rotaxs between overhauls or piston
cleaning maintenance. He claims he never has to decarbon his engines
but has also learned that higher RMP helps keeps the engine clean.
His claims seem to have some merit to them as he flys his planes all
over the US and backs it up with the hours.
Reply from another person:
If its the Dura-lub sold in 1990-1994 out of Long Beach, Calif. Used
it for a couple of hundred hours, found it a good lubricate but very -
very dirty, (deposits). But the deposits were soft and easy to
remove.
Still, if you didn't decarb at 50 hours, you had a stuck ring.
Reply to above:
Yes, this may be the same company. Seems like I recall him saying
they were in the Long Beach area. Anyone else have any info or
experience with the oil or the exact name being used now. I am
looking for a source in my area. Looks like I am going to have to
track him back down to confirm the name.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlene Clark <charjls(at)olympus.net> |
I am going to pick up my new Kolb Firestar II in Scottsdale. I will be
going as soon as we get some of the traveling details sorted out. Has
anyone moved a plane NOT in an enclosed trailer and used just tarps? Is
this possible? If not, I would appreciate any input on the subject. I
need to get the plane from Arizona to Seattle area without damage.
With that in mind, if anyone knows about any trailer in the Arizona area
for sale--California will work also--please let me know
Dean Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com> |
| Subject: | FW: Kolb trailer |
Other people have posted on the list that you should NOT cover the
aircraft with any tarps as they will chafe the fabric on the aircraft
even if tied securely.
>----------
>From: Charlene Clark[SMTP:charjls(at)olympus.net@acuityinc.com]
>Sent: Friday, March 21, 1997 9:05 AM
>To: kolb(at)intrig.com
>Subject: Kolb trailer
>
>I am going to pick up my new Kolb Firestar II in Scottsdale. I will be
>going as soon as we get some of the traveling details sorted out. Has
>anyone moved a plane NOT in an enclosed trailer and used just tarps? Is
>this possible? If not, I would appreciate any input on the subject. I
>need to get the plane from Arizona to Seattle area without damage.
>
>With that in mind, if anyone knows about any trailer in the Arizona area
>for sale--California will work also--please let me know
>
>Dean Henry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Weber (DVNS)" <bweber(at)micom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb trailer |
On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Charlene Clark wrote:
> I am going to pick up my new Kolb Firestar II in Scottsdale. I will be
> going as soon as we get some of the traveling details sorted out. Has
> anyone moved a plane NOT in an enclosed trailer and used just tarps? Is
> this possible? If not, I would appreciate any input on the subject. I
> need to get the plane from Arizona to Seattle area without damage.
Quite a few people transport their Kolb's on an open trailer. Converted
boat trailers seem to be popular for this. If you can keep it in a garage
or other enclosed area, it would be the way to go. However, do NOT use a
tarp while transporting. The wind blast will cause it to flutter and rub
against the plane, ruining the paint and possibly wearing through the
fabric. I wouldn't even cover it with a tarp while storing it in the open
for the same reason. A form-fitting cloth cover similar to sail covers on
other UL's might be ok (but not while transporting).
***************************************************************
* Bill Weber (bweber(at)micom.com) * Keep the *
* MICOM Communications * shiny side *
* Simi Valley, CA * up. *
***************************************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <steiger(at)ait.fredonia.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb trailer |
>I am going to pick up my new Kolb Firestar II in Scottsdale. I will be
>going as soon as we get some of the traveling details sorted out. Has
>anyone moved a plane NOT in an enclosed trailer and used just tarps? Is
>this possible? If not, I would appreciate any input on the subject. I
>need to get the plane from Arizona to Seattle area without damage.
>
>With that in mind, if anyone knows about any trailer in the Arizona area
>for sale--California will work also--please let me know
>
I just recently went through the same decision process that you're
likely in the middle of now... I bought a FireFly that was in Texas
(I'm in New York). I considered all the options, but in the end I
bought a HaulMark enclosed trailer.
The major concerns I would have about open trailering are:
- rocks and stuff kicked up by other vehicles may very well pierce
the fabric.
- The ultralight is very light and the wings create a large surface,
so I should think that it would be extremely vulerable to wind
gusts.
- Rain/hail, etc. can damage an ultralight when its sitting still, but
what about when its moving at traffic speeds?
- As others have mentioned, tarps are generally not recommended due
to the chafing. Also, you'd want to be sure to secure any piece that
could move and cause chafing.
The enclosed trailer worked great for me. I could travel at 70mph
and I didn't have to worry about any of the above stuff. (Well, I did
secure all the loose stuff that could vibrate and chafe). With an open
trailer, you may find that you're top speed is somewhere in the neighborhood
of 45-50mph.
If you don't have access to an enclosed trailer, what many people have
done is to rent a truck (i.e. U-Haul, etc). If you decide to rent a truck,
something to be aware of is that the ride will probably be a lot stiffer
than that of a good trailer, so you're ultralight will take more of a
pounding. A lot of those trucks have the "air-ride" systems, etc. I don't
know how well they work though. I was seriously considering renting a
truck, but the cost for my trip (including the plane tickets, etc) would have
been somewhere around 1/4 of the cost of a new trailer, at the end of which
I would have my plane, but nothing else. This way, I can use it again and
again (which I'll need to do anyway) and it is currently serving as my
hangar.
Just my $.02...
-Jon-
Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information Technology
.- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ -.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ |
| '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb trailer |
I had a forced landing in a field in my mark two and didn't put a scratch on
the plane. But I got a bunch of dings trailering it back to the airport. If
you use tarps make sure they are well secured, any flapping will rub the
fabric or punch holes. I would get sheets of 2" foam and use them all over.
I also found that the steel tube that supports the wings when they are
folded bent down from the bumpy ride. Good luck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Kmets" <lksj(at)vivanet.com> |
| Subject: | My 1st Contribution |
Hi,,, My name is Jim Kmet ,,& I"m a Kolbaholic.... I started a MK-3 in
Jan.95 & finished it Nov. 96 . I`ve been monitoring this newsletter since
2-97 ,& thanks to all of you,,I have put in another 30 or so hrs. of work
on my plane.There`s alot of great info here folks.
A couple of points & questions ;; I am using the rotax
503. I know I`ll need x-tra exhaust springs someday,, Are they the long,
or short ones???
Jon Steiger,, do I understand you are in N. Y.
?? I am too . 716 a/c ? My E-mail address is lksj(at)vivanet.com
The only mod I made was to the seat back mounting ,I didn`t
like the way you laced the upper seat rod with nylon rope. I
made 2 u - brackets from .040 chromoly flat stock, & bent them to x-tend
around the 1'' wing attach steel sq. tube that joins the wings. They
extend 1 & 1/2 " b-low the sq. tube & are drilled 1" down from the sq.
tube to take a 1/4 bolt from front to back. They are each centered above
each seat & are connected by a cable that runs from The seat back tube at
the pilots left shoulder,,up to the 1/4" bolt then back down to the right
shoulder/ tube Kinda like an inverted V . The passenger side has another
cable,as well. This ,to me, looked alot better than cutting fabric & lacing
per plans. Its also retrofittable to finished planes .1 other mod
I made was to the wing fold process. I too, am not thin enuf to get between
the wing & fuse during folding. At 1st, I took a pc. of 1/2" x 24" rod, &
tapered the ends down to 3/8"? to fit inside the wing mounted attach
brackets. This rod simply passed thru the fuse mtd. tube that was already
there & all was held by the hitch pins . This worked great, but ground
clearance lessened by 1" or more. Then Iwelded up 2 L shaped brackets with
a long enuf 3/8 rod to insert into the wingfitting. This is tough to
describe; but it raised the rear folded wing ground clearance by 5'' .
N520KS
has it`s FAA Inspection on 4/07 97, & due to my next day departure to
SUN/ N / FUN ,, Will have i`ts !st test flight the following week.
Happy Landings to all ,,,,,,Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HFritze(at)redstone.net (Henry Fritze) |
| Subject: | Oils and decarboning |
My first 503 DC (regular ignition) went 307 hours before a big-end rod
bearing failure. I used Chevron outboard premix 50:1. I didn't de-carbon
in that time and the rings were clean and free. I believe any TCW-2 or
-3 two stroke oil as recommended by Rotax will give the same service
provided the engine is jetted properly (not too rich). I did check my
rings for freedom thru the intake and exhaust ports about every 50
hours. Squirt some oil on them and rock the crank back and forth and
look for oil squish. At the time of failure, Rotax was recommending 500
hours overhaul. Since then, they've dropped it to 250.
For the gentleman who was worried about operation with the EGT
apparently too low (1000 degrees), if its operated for 300 hours this
way, its probably jetted properly. I would suspect the EGT indication.
Lastly, when I took my FS II to the airport (50 miles) I trailered it
backward on an open trailer. I had problems keeping the rudder from
buffeting. If I were to do extensive open trailering I would at least
have a wind deflector at the front of the trailer in the form of a curve
or vee shape. A closed trailer would be the nicest of all if you can
afford it. Trailering is always harder on the airplane than is flying.
Cheers, Hank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russell Duffy <rad(at)pen.net> |
Greetings again from the 2-stroke novice,
I gather that stuck rings are the eventual result of not keeping your
engine free of carbon buildup. What is the first sign of a stuck ring?
Do you find yourself suddenly making an immediate unscheduled landing,
or is it a more gradual event?
Thanks again,
--
Russell Duffy
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
This topic is addressed exhautively by Mike Stratman in the Care and Feeding
. . . series. But the short of it is this: When rings are gunked up they
aren't free to move around and make a tight seal with the cylinder. If there
is no tight seal you get scoring on the walls of the cylinder and increased
head temps. The Rotax engine is intended to run in a fairly narrow temp
range. Get out of that range and if the piston gets too hot it will get too
big for the cylinder and just jam in mid stroke, also known as a seizure.
That, bye the way, is why you hear stories of guys having inflight
failures, then after they land the engine starts right up. The overheated
piston cools off and frees itself up, but only after it has trashed the
cylinder. I bought a 582 out of a fatal wreck once and had a chance to
ponder this situation first hand. They pilot apparently had an inflight
seizure, landed and looked at his plane for a while, didn't see anything
externally wrong, and then elected to take off again. The engine seized
again on take off and he bought the farm. Looking at the engine was very
instructive. It had a single egt probe, properly placed on the manifold for
the rear cylinder. There was no scoring on the rear cylinder. But the front
cylinder was a mess. Obviously, the pilot had been reading normal egts off
his rear cylinder and didn't think he had a problem. However if he had been
able to make a comparison between the two he would have known something was
up. In my view this is a good refutation of the opinion that goes "A single
egt probe at the center of the Rotax manifold is fine because you don't care
so much about raw egt numbers as you do about observing a significant
change."
Two useful propositions come from this: 1) dual egts and dual chts are
essential on a 2 stroke aircraft engine. 2) NEVER fly your 2 stroke engine if
you have had an unexplained engine stopage without first pulling the exhaust
manfold to see if you had a seizure.
Just my opinion.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil and rings |
On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com wrote:
> Has anybody heard of a 2-cycle oil originally sold under the Duralube
> name. I understand they originally used the Duralube name and later
> got into a name fight with one of the larger companies when the larger
> company decided to use the name. They being smaller lost.
I use Duralube, bought a 5 gal jug (~$80) about a year ago and I've not
called them since as I still have a couple gals left. I've got 2 phone
numbers for them: (818) 960-0555 and (818) 795-7628. The first number
is a dealer where I ordered from, the second is the number on the jug
itself. I changed from Penzoil to Duralube based on the recommendation
of Robert Comperini, who btw, is the manager for the fly-ul listserver.
Robert is an ultralight instructor and PP in the Lancaster,CA area
and has built up a pretty good amount of time on Rotax engines. I don't
remember the specifics, but he had done a tear down after use of Penzoil,
perhaps even after engine problems and found an ugly mess of carbon
build up. He then switched to Duralube as I guess a lot of motorcycle
racers like it under fairly abusive engine conditions. Several hundred
hours later he finds the insides of his engines looking clean, and
something like 12 of 15 ULers at his club are among the Duralube faithful.
As for me, my engine had the 1st 40 hours on Penzoil, the next 20 or so
on AV-2 (says aircraft on the label and has a price tag to match), and
the last 55 hours on Duralube (total 115 hrs since new). Cyl walls and
piston skirts on the exhaust side still look new. I've looked for carbon
at 50 and 90 hours. At 50 hrs I pulled the heads and scraped it off the
piston crowns using a shop vac to suck the carbon dust away from making
a mess in the ring grooves. I'm right now trying to jocky my plans over
the next few weeks to decide when I should do it the "real" way; i.e. pull
the heads, cyls, and pistons off. I've got a local friend who did this
just ahead of me if I need any advice in the middle. He said buying the
plastic wrist pin dummies (tool) is necessary and the cir-clip tool would
be nice ($60). I'm reading thru the CPS articles this weekend to see what
else i don't know, and for starters see that I should do a compression
chk beforehand to see what shape my engine is in before and after.
Carbon buildup at 50 hours was maybe at the tolerence limit specified
in the rotax manual and so that was cleaned off. It looks about at that
thickness again now ...not sure. But I'm getting the impression that the
real villain is not carbon on the piston crowns, but carbon in the ring
groove, preventing them from flexing and staying next to the cyl walls.
At 110 hours I pulled the exh manifold and checked for stuck rings and
I'd have to say i think the lower rings aren't quite as free as they
were in the first 50 hours.
I'm also thinking I'll change my EGT probe at the upcoming teardown. I'm
hoping to change from a single probe at the Y of the two ports to 2
EGTs at the rotax recemmended distance (~4") from the cyl wall. I'm
hoping to stick with a single EGT gauge but with a switch to view the
forward egt ...this just to not have to add another instrument to my
instrument panel (i already like the layout). With only one EGT probe
at the Y you have to assume that 1300+ degrees is normal. I can't
get used to looking at a number so much higher than the 1200 max for
rotax recommended probe placement. As well, it remains totaly unclear
what proper EGT should read at the Y for cruise power settings. Yes,
I will weld the existing probe hole at the Y closed.
enf for now.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
UCD Mechanical Engineering Dept. o o
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
(916) 752-1834
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Yoram Peled <ypeled(at)shani.net> |
------------53FA629C4E861
Dear colleagues,
I have Kolb Mark III with Rotex 912 engine
(the only one in Israel). My home built stainless-steel muffler began to
suffer from cracks after 20 hours!
I would like to buy a new muffler with complete set of housing, Etc. Please
help me to find and buy the most recommended muffler.
Thanks,
Yoram Peled
Israel
------------53FA629C4E861
BEGIN:VCARD
FN:Yoram Peled
N:Peled;Yoram
EMAIL;INTERNET:ypeled(at)shani.net
END:VCARD
------------53FA629C4E861--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Yoram Peled <ypeled(at)shani.net> |
Dear colleagues,
I have Kolb Mark III with Rotex 912 engine (the only one in Israel). My
home built stainless-steel muffler began to suffer from cracks after 20
hours!
I would like to buy a new muffler with complete set of housing, Etc.
Please help me to find and buy the most recommended muffler.
Thanks
Yoram Peled
Israel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rabbruzz(at)unlinfo.unl.edu (Ray Abbruzzese) |
>I would be interested in how you would raise this EGT temp. I have moved
>the needle down as far as it will go and the engine still runs (for the
>last 300 hrs) hardly ever above an EGT of 1000 even on climb out. I
>purchased a new CHT/EGT guage and sent the old in for repairs, but it was
>reading okay. I have no trouble at the lower temperature. Sensor point is
>in the middle of the Y of the exhaust manifold as reguired, but it used to
>be located only on the rear exhaust at whatever the proper inches was
>(3.7/8) or something like that. Temperature wise it made no difference.
>
>Allan W. Blackburn
> | ! /\!
>trader(at)mail.startext.net | ! /\ / \ /
>awblackburn(at)juno.com | /\ / \ / -- /
> | / \/ \/ \/
>Commodity Trade Analyst |___________^________^__
>
You mention the needle but that only takes care of the mid-range. Have you
tried using a smaller main jet? 1000 on climb out sounds low at the high end
(full power) where the main jet kicks in. I would try using the smaller main
jet.
See you in the sky !
Ray Abbruzzese E-Mail at: rabbruzz(at)unlinfo.unl.edu
Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Standard Disclaimer: These are my opinions and you all know about opinions
(they are like butts, everybody has one). I could be wrong and I probably
am. Just please do not sue me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | manderson(at)top.monad.net |
| Subject: | EGT and prop pitch |
When I first set up my Firestar II with 503 and IVO I couldn't get the EGT (as
per the Electronic EIS System) to read over 1000 or so at any RPM. I called
Green Sky, LEAF, Kolb and everyone else and also posted in this group but no one
could suggest a solution. They basically said that at my near sea level
elevation the engine should be set up as it came in the box, ie., at the Factory
jetting. I tried some leaner main jets anyway, but it didn't help.
As part of my pre-flight taxing and break in, I borrowed a strobe to check the
RPM against that provided by the EIS. I found I was getting a full throttle RPM
of only about 5700 RPM. I had connected the EIS tack input to the gray tack
output of the Rotax instead of to the black-yellow coil wire as recommended in
the EIS manual. When I connected the EIS properly it gave exactly the same RPM
as the strobe! By the way, a Westburg tack I also tried was about 500 RPM too
high.
Anyway, I took some pitch out of the IVO so the Rotax would go about 6300 RPM
static (I might be a little off cause this is from memory) and the EGT
immediately climbed into the mid 1100 range.
On my first flight the red warning light on the EIS went off due to high EGT
readings of about 1215 (digital is too accurate) when I throttled back to
4500-5000 range (removed load from the engine). The red light caught my
attention immediately and I added throttle (which I didn't want). My first
flight was a very distracting 15 minutes of adjusting the throttle to keep the
light off while trying to figure out how to fly the planeand slow it down and
also wonder if I could get it back on the ground, which was eventually
successfully accomplished.
I put about one turn more pitch into the IVO, which decreased max static RPM to
about 6200 with full throttle climbout RPM at about 6300 and this put the EGT
max in the 1150-1175 range. The EGT is very sensitive to the loading of the
engine.
I recommend reading the article by Roland Riemers in the Feb issue of Ultralight
Flying. He found by testing that by reducing his maximum static RPM from 6400 to
6200 he lost only a couple percent thrust while gaining 14% in the midrange
where we do most of our flying.
I plan to put just a little more pitch in the IVO to lower max static just a
little more, and drop the EGT to about 1100 - 1150 max. This should be kinder
to the engine and give me a little more cruise power.
Lessons here are that prop loading can tune the EGT, (and that EGT is very
sensitive to prop loading) and that the EIS gage is very accurate when connected
properly, and that the blinking red light gets your attention in a hurry! I
would recommend using recommended maximum alarm levels with this gage rather
than "cautious" lower levels if you wish to avoid very distracting false alarms.
Joe Kohler, Alstead, NH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Christensen" <SPECTRUMINTERNATIONAL(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Mark III Flight Instruction |
Hello everyone;
I'm about 45 days away from the initial flight of my Mark III, and I would
like to have some serious discussions about flight training with someone in
Southern California where I live. Any takers??
Ron Christensen
Placentia, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlene Clark <charjls(at)olympus.net> |
Thanks for the input regarding trailering. Does anyone know anything
about commercial shipping? That could be an option also.
Additionally, since this plane does not conform to ultralight standards
I will need to get experimental aircraft insurance. Of course I will
have to have my license, but this seems the most sensible course of
action. What companies provide such insurance?
Dean Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb trailer |
On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Charlene Clark wrote:
> I am going to pick up my new Kolb Firestar II in Scottsdale. I will be
> going as soon as we get some of the traveling details sorted out. Has
> anyone moved a plane NOT in an enclosed trailer and used just tarps? Is
> this possible? If not, I would appreciate any input on the subject. I
> need to get the plane from Arizona to Seattle area without damage.
>
> With that in mind, if anyone knows about any trailer in the Arizona area
> for sale--California will work also--please let me know
>
> Dean Henry
Dean,
I transport my Firestar KXP on an open trailer. You can see a brief
picture and explanation of what I did to modify the boat trailer at:
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom/trailer.html.
Before I built my Firestar, I came very close to buying a FS in Las Vegas.
So, at that time I was all primed to transport it back home. The seller
was ready to throw in a big trailer cheap, but upon seeing it and his
supposed scheme for tying the plane down, I didn't even want it. So, I
figured on renting a truck at the time and still think this would be a
good way to do it, leaving you time at home to properly design and modify
a boat trailer.
For trucking, you'd need to plan on the folded wings and tail sticking
out the back, leaving the truck door open. So, you'd have to come up
with a cradle for the fuselage boom. Another good option is to remove
the wings (2 bolts), tie them inside to the walls of the truck, and only
have the tail sticking out the back. For this, a 16' truck would allow
all of the 14' wings to be on the inside. (It is not at all trivial to
remove the fuselage tube from the fuselage cage.)
Best of luck.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Dean wrote:
> Thanks for the input regarding trailering. Does anyone know anything
> about commercial shipping? That could be an option also.
I asked a couple hypothetical questions on this once ...e.g. how much
to ship 400 lbs, 24' long? Answer: ha ha ha ha
Me: No, c'mon, really! Answer: $800+ if you do all the boxing.
p.s. if i were retired, I'd love to ferry it to you myself! :-)
>
> Additionally, since this plane does not conform to ultralight standards
> I will need to get experimental aircraft insurance. Of course I will
> have to have my license, but this seems the most sensible course of
> action. What companies provide such insurance?
And as well, you will then have to get the plane FAA inspected and
registered. Don't plan on doing this without the original builder's
involvement. I don't know specifics, but I believe it will be a
tremendous bureaucratic hassle for you, the new owner, to get it
registered compared to having the 51% builder do this. (sorry, maybe
you already know this stuff.) Avemco is probably the biggest insurance
carrier.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com> |
It would seem the best way to get the airplane home in one piece is rent
a enclosed trailer/truck, or disassemble it and crate the wings and tail
surfaces. If you did this you could probably bring it home in the back
of a pickup truck. As far as the Experimental insurance goes, I think it
will be hard to get experimental insurance for a plane that does not
have an N number and registered experimental. From the sounds of your
message it sounds like this aircraft has not been registered. If it is
not registered experimental to do so would require you to disassemble
the aircraft to about the level of a Kolb quick build kit and (working
with your local FAA) rebuild it so that you have constructed 51% of the
aircraft. With this documentation you would then be able to register
your aircraft as experimental and get a repairman's certificate. If the
plane is not currently registered experimental and "does not conform to
ultralight standards" then, it is an unregistered airplane, and when
flown is illegal. I had a friend who purchased a heavy ultralight and
his approach the whole thing was to fly it as an ultralight (which I
have read on this list is cheaper to insure than an experimental
aircraft) never TO ANYONE admit that it might weigh more than it should,
when a weight and balance was performed keep no written record. Fly
smart and courteously and keep a very low profile. He has many happy
hours in his "ultralight", and has even been approached by a FAA guy at
a UL fly in and they had a weight discussion but that was it.
I am not condoning flying illegal aircraft, I am merely telling a
story of a friend and the way he choose to deal with the possibility of
it not being a legal ultralight.
The last and most important thing I have to say is get training in an
ultralight. Even if you get a pilots license, get some time in a
ultralight. they fly very differently than GA aircraft and many a pilot
with a license has crashed because they were unfamiliar with the unique
handling qualities of very light aircraft.
>----------
>From: Charlene Clark[SMTP:charjls(at)olympus.net@acuityinc.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 24, 1997 8:04 AM
>To: kolb(at)intrig.com
>Subject: insurance
>
>Thanks for the input regarding trailering. Does anyone know anything
>about commercial shipping? That could be an option also.
>
>Additionally, since this plane does not conform to ultralight standards
>I will need to get experimental aircraft insurance. Of course I will
>have to have my license, but this seems the most sensible course of
>action. What companies provide such insurance?
>
>Dean Henry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb trailer |
There was a trailer for on the United States Classified for
UltraLights. It was a Wells Cargo 24ft x 7ft. for $3995 Contact is
Pat Hirst at Allentown PA @ 610-791-2755. Had 400 miles on it. Wells
Cargo are normally covered and nice units. Actually this sounded
good. Buy it, use it and sell it. Just lock it to your vehicle and
lock it down well once you got it. It was posted March 14th so it may
be sold.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb trailer
Date: 3/21/97 11:33 AM
I am going to pick up my new Kolb Firestar II in Scottsdale. I will be
going as soon as we get some of the traveling details sorted out. Has
anyone moved a plane NOT in an enclosed trailer and used just tarps? Is
this possible? If not, I would appreciate any input on the subject. I
need to get the plane from Arizona to Seattle area without damage.
With that in mind, if anyone knows about any trailer in the Arizona area
for sale--California will work also--please let me know
Dean Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <steiger(at)ait.fredonia.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: N-Numbering. Was: Re: FW: insurance |
>It would seem the best way to get the airplane home in one piece is rent
>a enclosed trailer/truck, or disassemble it and crate the wings and tail
>surfaces. If you did this you could probably bring it home in the back
>of a pickup truck. As far as the Experimental insurance goes, I think it
>will be hard to get experimental insurance for a plane that does not
>have an N number and registered experimental. From the sounds of your
>message it sounds like this aircraft has not been registered. If it is
>not registered experimental to do so would require you to disassemble
>the aircraft to about the level of a Kolb quick build kit and (working
>with your local FAA) rebuild it so that you have constructed 51% of the
>aircraft. With this documentation you would then be able to register
>your aircraft as experimental and get a repairman's certificate. If the
>plane is not currently registered experimental and "does not conform to
>ultralight standards" then, it is an unregistered airplane, and when
>flown is illegal.
I could be wrong about this, but can't you register your ultralight
as an experimental aircraft even if you didn't build it? It is my
understanding that the 51% rule has to do with annual inspections. That
is, you can still register an ultralight you did not build, but you have
to have the annual done by an A&P, as opposed to doing it yourself.
Right? Wrong?
-Jon-
Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information Technology
.- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ -.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ |
| '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <steiger(at)ait.fredonia.edu> |
| Subject: | FireFly throttle lever |
The throttle in my FF (T shaped with a little bend in it, presumably so
it will fit under a full enclosure?) digs into my left leg when I'm in the
seat. Does anyone else have this problem? How did you correct it? The
throttle doesn't look that complex. I thought of turning it around, or
even making a new lever. Since I want to stay legal, clearance under the
full enclosure isn't a concern for me, since I don't use it. (it might be
in several years if I ever N-number the FF, but that wouldn't be for a long
time anyway)
Any suggestions or warnings about changing the throttle?
Thanks in advance!
-Jon-
Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information Technology
.- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ -.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ |
| '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <steiger(at)ait.fredonia.edu> |
>Thanks for the input regarding trailering. Does anyone know anything
>about commercial shipping? That could be an option also.
>
Yep, that is an option. I was a little too paranoid for that though. :)
>Additionally, since this plane does not conform to ultralight standards
>I will need to get experimental aircraft insurance. Of course I will
>have to have my license, but this seems the most sensible course of
>action. What companies provide such insurance?
Avemco probably has something. I'm not sure about this, but if you're an
EAA member, you may be able to get cheaper insurance or discounts through
them...
-Jon-
Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information Technology
.- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ -.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ |
| '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: N-Numbering. Was: Re: FW: insurance |
Wrong
To be registered as experimental 51% of the aircraft must be
manufactured by an individual for their own education or enjoyment ( I
don't remember exactly how the FAA states it but it is something like
that). After the aircraft is done the builder is the manufacturer, and
being the manufacturer can apply for a repairman's certificate to work
on it. It is true if you are not the builder an A&P must do all the
work and annuals. Also being the manufacturer opens you up to all the
liability of a manufacturer. If you sell your experimental aircraft to
someone who sells it to someone else 5 years later....... and somewhere
along the line someone crashes, the builder (manufacturer) may be sued.
This is why some people sell their plane in parts or not at all, is the
$10,000 plane worth 18 years of liability?
>----------
>From: Jon Steiger[SMTP:steiger(at)ait.fredonia.edu@acuityinc.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 24, 1997 11:46 AM
>To: kolb(at)intrig.com
>Subject: N-Numbering. Was: Re: FW: insurance
>
>>It would seem the best way to get the airplane home in one piece is rent
>>a enclosed trailer/truck, or disassemble it and crate the wings and tail
>>surfaces. If you did this you could probably bring it home in the back
>>of a pickup truck. As far as the Experimental insurance goes, I think it
>>will be hard to get experimental insurance for a plane that does not
>>have an N number and registered experimental. From the sounds of your
>>message it sounds like this aircraft has not been registered. If it is
>>not registered experimental to do so would require you to disassemble
>>the aircraft to about the level of a Kolb quick build kit and (working
>>with your local FAA) rebuild it so that you have constructed 51% of the
>>aircraft. With this documentation you would then be able to register
>>your aircraft as experimental and get a repairman's certificate. If the
>>plane is not currently registered experimental and "does not conform to
>>ultralight standards" then, it is an unregistered airplane, and when
>>flown is illegal.
>
>
> I could be wrong about this, but can't you register your ultralight
>as an experimental aircraft even if you didn't build it? It is my
>understanding that the 51% rule has to do with annual inspections. That
>is, you can still register an ultralight you did not build, but you have
>to have the annual done by an A&P, as opposed to doing it yourself.
>
> Right? Wrong?
>
>
> -Jon-
>
> Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information Technology
> .- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ -.
> | DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ |
> | '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R |
> `---------------------------------------------------------------------'
> I do not speak for SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | segarcts <segarcts(at)qtm.net> |
Can anybody tell me tell me which way the weep hole in the fuel pump should
be positioned??
Charlie Segar
Email:segarcts(at)qtm.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | evoice(at)acton.com (Doug Prange) |
| Subject: | Safety Wiring Exhaust Springs |
I plan to do the engine break-in next weekend and need advice on properly
safety wiring the exhaust springs on my 582.
Should the safety wire be secured only to the welded loops on the exhaust
(with the wire and hi-temp silicone running inside the springs) or is it
necessary to also attach the safety wire to the spring?
For those who have had first hand experience with springs breaking, do they
generally break on the ends and if this is the case does the silicone keep
the ends from flying into the prop if the ends aren't somehow secured with
safety wire?
Doug Prange
MARK III Builder ~98%
Lincoln, Nebraska
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Anthony Hinkelmann <hink(at)mindspring.com> |
On the subject of trailering a Kolb. I built a Firestar II and had a
fellow pilot who builds trailers for a living build me a 5 1/2 ft wide,
31 ft long dual axle trailer. he floored it with 2X8's built me some
ramps and metal stops to hold my wheels. I used turnbuckles hooked to
the inside shafts of the wheels to hold it down and built a 2X4 tee on a
hinge to hold the tail boom level. I folded the wings out and made it
ready to fly before I would roll it off the trailer. Sure made it a lot
easier and kept me off the ground and out of the grass. I attached some
pulleys to the trailer and had a couple of tow hooks I put on the gear
legs to make loading a little easier. Did not use it to unload, but
with one person you had to use it to load. Again I loaded it folded out
and facing forward. I would lift the tee under the tail boom and bungee
it to the tee. I next folded the tail feathers and used a pieces of pipe
insulation and bungees to keep the elevators, rudder and cables from
chafing. I have a Ivo 3 bladed prop and bolted a piece of padded angle
steel to the engine to keep the prop from cutting into the wing. I next
put a rope that had pipe insulation on it around the tube just behind
the cage and where it would rest on the two inboard ribs, then folded
the wings and bungeed the leading edge extensions together.
The trailer towed great, I took it to sun&fun twice about a 10 hour
drive at 70 to 75 MPH. I would whiz by semi's and they would whiz by me
with no effect. Drove down to the Keys, Mobile, Panama City, you name
it. had more trailer time on the airplane than flight time.
The only problem I had was when I tried to cover the plane while
trailering. trailer gave me a place to sleep. Its great.
Trailer cost me about $1,200 From Bobbie Ethridge in Byron Georgia.
Can find a # if anyone is interested. also have some pictures. Looked
for and old pontoon boat trailer and couldn't touch anything for under
$1,500 stripped. I tow it with a 6cyl Jeep Cherokee, Pulls easy.
Is there any interest in the group of Kolb Builders getting together at
Sun&Fun? Noon Monday at the Kolb display??
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Safety Wiring Exhaust Springs |
Run the safety wire from loop to loop on the muffler inside the spring. I
never bothered with the silicone because it just made it more difficult to
take it apart. Plus it makes a funny smell the first time you start the
plane up as the solvents cook out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
Kolk Builders - If your at Sun & Fun let's all meet at 12 noon
on Monday at the Kolb display in the Ultralight area.
See ya all there!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed & Kathy Lubitz" <elubitz(at)ionline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety Wiring Exhaust Springs |
Hi;
I noticed your reply with reference to silicone on the muffler springs. The
silicone helps absorb many of the high frequency vibrations and also will
help in keeping the spring pieces and the wire attached to the muffler when
the spring begins to fracture. Also if one spring fails you should
seriously consider replacing them all as the rest are probably not too far
behind the failed one.
If you don't like the smell don't stand behind the prop. And if it is a
tractor live with it for the first couple of minutes.
Ed Lubitz
----------
: From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
: To: evoice(at)acton.com
: Cc: kolb(at)intrig.com
: Subject: Re: Safety Wiring Exhaust Springs
: Date: March 25, 1997 09:04 AM
:
: Run the safety wire from loop to loop on the muffler inside the spring.
I
: never bothered with the silicone because it just made it more difficult
to
: take it apart. Plus it makes a funny smell the first time you start the
: plane up as the solvents cook out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Yoram Peled <ypeled(at)shani.net> |
Dear colleagues,
I have a Kolb Mark III with Rotex 912 engine (the only one in Israel).
My
home built stainless-steel muffler began to suffer from cracks after 20
hours!
I would like to buy a new muffler with complete set of housing, Etc.
Please help me to find and buy the most recommended muffler.
Thanks,
Yoram Peled
Israel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
BaughnJW.DFAN.USAFA(at)usafa.af.mil, Bill Leddy ,
bardin(at)cwo.com, Israel Aharon ,
Jim Ransom
Hi everyone,
I've added some new pictures of 1997 flying to my web site at
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom/1997/1997.html
Enjoy. And if you're still building, hope this is motivating. (If
you're not building or flying, eat your heart out! :-) )
P.S. On muffler mount springs, I run 2 pieces of safety wire on
each spring. On each end of each spring, I go thru the spring attach
point, down the middle of the spring to halfway, then back on the
outside to the attach point.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russell Duffy <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Kolb Response (or lack thereof) |
Hi,
Anyone seen any form of life from Kolb these days? I've been sending
messages and calling to get hardware that's missing from my kit with no
success. Today, my most recent message to Dennis came back as
undeliverable because his aol mailbox is "full". Tomorrow will be 3
weeks since my first message to them. I know they're no doubt busy
getting ready for Sun-N-Fun, but somehow I'm not comforted by this.
--
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM> |
| Subject: | Kolb, lack of response |
Yup, they must be very busy 'cause I offered to buy a 4-thousand-dollar
Rotax from them a couple weeks ago if they could tell me the price with
carbs swapped out for dual bings with HAC, and still no reply. This is
the first time I've experienced such a delay, normally Dennis and the crew
are world-class. I am sure things will get back to normal soon. Hang in
there and work on stuff that fits (or paint something, there's always some
painting left to do!).
My status: 99% complete if you can ignore the engine, two more days of
painting left to go (see, I told you).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Response (or lack thereof) |
I had heard a rumor that Barbara at Kolb had some major health issue.
That maybe distracting thing for the moment if its true. Their a
pretty tight nit group.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb Response (or lack thereof)
Date: 3/25/97 3:28 PM
Hi,
Anyone seen any form of life from Kolb these days? I've been sending
messages and calling to get hardware that's missing from my kit with no
success. Today, my most recent message to Dennis came back as
undeliverable because his aol mailbox is "full". Tomorrow will be 3
weeks since my first message to them. I know they're no doubt busy
getting ready for Sun-N-Fun, but somehow I'm not comforted by this.
--
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <steiger(at)ait.fredonia.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Response (or lack thereof) |
>Hi,
>
>Anyone seen any form of life from Kolb these days? I've been sending
>messages and calling to get hardware that's missing from my kit with no
>success. Today, my most recent message to Dennis came back as
>undeliverable because his aol mailbox is "full". Tomorrow will be 3
>weeks since my first message to them. I know they're no doubt busy
>getting ready for Sun-N-Fun, but somehow I'm not comforted by this.
>
>
Dennis' e-mail address has changed. Its possible that he is no longer
using the AOL account. Try "flykolb(at)epix.net"
-Jon-
Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information Technology
.- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ -.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ |
| '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | muffler silicone |
what is everybody using as the silicone on the ehxaust springs, the orange
high heat kind? Also has anybody experienced leaking exhaust manifolds, do
you use a gasket cement. My engine is still new and i torqued the bolts to
their specs so am not sure if they will leak. My previous several Rotaxes on
other planes seemed to leak.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fred Steadman <fstead(at)fastlane.net> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: Humor, Aviation, 1 each, thrice forworded] |
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:24:03 -0600
From: Fred Steadman <fstead(at)fastlane.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Humor, Aviation, 1 each, twice forworded
>Date: Mon, 17 Mar 97 23:26:21 UT
>From: "William McCormick" <AWingnut(at)msn.com>
>To: "Patrick & Jennifer McCormick"
>Subject: A Redneck...
>
>
>
> YOU MAY BE A REDRECK PILOT IF...................
>
> Your stall warning plays Dixie.
> Your cross country flight plan uses flea markets as check points.
> You think sectional charts should show trailer parks.
> You've thought of using moonshine as avgas.
> You have mud flaps on your wheel pants.
> Your toothpick keeps poking your mike.
> You've thought about just taxiing around the airport drinking beer.
> You wouldn't be caught dead in a Grumman "Yankee".
> You use a Purina feed sack for a wind sock.
> The side of your airplane has a sign advertising your septic tank
> service.
> You constantly confuse Beechcraft with Beechnut.
> You think GPS stands for Going Perfectly Straight.
> You refer to flying in formation as "We've got us a convoy".
> Your matched set of luggage is 3 grocery sacks from Piggly Wiggly.
> You have a black airplane with a big #3 on the side.
> You fuel your airplane from a mason jar.
> You've got a gun rack hanging on the passenger window.
> You have more than one roll of duct tape holding your cowling
> together.
> Your preflight includes removing all the clover, grass and wheat from
> the landing gear.
> You figure the weight of mud and manure on your airplane into the
> CG calculations.
> You siphon gas out of your tractor to put in your airplane.
> You've never really actually landed at an airport, although you've been
> flying for years.
> You've ground looped a Cub after hitting a cow.
> You consider anything above 100 feet AGL as "High Altitude".
> There are parts on your airplane labeled "John Deere".
> You've never really actually seen a sectional, but have all the Texaco
> road maps for your area (but they're 20 years old).
> You answer all calls from female controllers with "That's a big
> ten-four little Darlin'."
> There's exhaust residue on the right side of your aircraft and tabacco
> stains on the left.
> You have to buzz the strip to chase off all the sheep and goats.
> You use your parachute to cover your plane.
> You've landed on the main street of your town for a cup of coffee.
> You fly to family reunions to meet girls.
> You've won the "Bob Wire" award at a spot landing contest.
> The tread pattern on your main gear tires doesn't match. Or, there
> is no tread pattern on your main gear tires.
> Your best com radio has 90 channels.
> You have fuzzy dice hanging from the magnetic compass.
> You have a bale of hay and a hound in the baggage compartment.
> Your instructor's day job was at the community sale barn.
> You've got matching bumper stickers on your vertical fin.
> There are grass stains on your propeller tips.
> There is a brown-stained styrofoam cup strategically stored in
> the glove box.
> The FAA still thinks your mailing address is your parent's house.
> You think ZULU time means something to do with Africa.
> Your hangar collapses and more than four dogs are injured.
> Your airplane has a sticker that says, "I'd rather be fishing".
> You navigate with your ADF tuned to country music stations.
> You think "Ultrilite" is a new beer from Budweiser.
> Just before impact, you are heard saying "Hey, y'all, watch this!"
>
> Enjoy Patrick Happy St Patrick's Day
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: muffler silicone |
>what is everybody using as the silicone on the ehxaust springs, the orange
>high heat kind? Also has anybody experienced leaking exhaust manifolds, do
>you use a gasket cement. My engine is still new and i torqued the bolts to
>their specs so am not sure if they will leak. My previous several Rotaxes on
>other planes seemed to leak.
>
>
Install a short stud in the fourth hole and install a nut on it. You will
have four points of support on each cylinder. You may have to grind the
welding a bit before installing the nut.
I use standard black automotive silicone.
Kim Steiner
Saskatchewan Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Henderson <george(at)eatel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Response (or lack thereof) |
>Hi,
>
>Anyone seen any form of life from Kolb these days? I've been sending
>messages and calling to get hardware that's missing from my kit with no
>success. Today, my most recent message to Dennis came back as
>undeliverable because his aol mailbox is "full". Tomorrow will be 3
>weeks since my first message to them. I know they're no doubt busy
>getting ready for Sun-N-Fun, but somehow I'm not comforted by this.
>
>
>--
>Russell Duffy
>SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
>rad(at)pen.net
>http://www.pen.net/~rad/
>
>
>
>Hello,
I talked to Dennis Saturday morning on the phone. No indication of
any problems. Said I would be able to meet him at Sun & Fun. To just ask for
Dennis.
BTW your pictures have been helpful in my FireFly project. Thanks a
lot.
George Henderson, Jr.
FireFly Builder
george(at)eatel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HB!HB1!MHansen(at)hbi.attmail.com (Hansen, Mark) |
| Subject: | Re: Safety Wiring Exhaust Springs |
Cavuontop(at)aol.com (internet!aol.com!Cavuontop),
elubitz(at)ionline.net (Ed & Kathy Lubitz)
If it's a tractor do you need to worry about it. It won't go through the
prop
and I don't think it will hurt any fabric. ( if your going 60 & it falls off
it will
also be going 60)
----------
From: Ed & Kathy Lubitz
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Safety Wiring Exhaust Springs
Date: Tuesday, March 25, 1997 11:31AM
Hi;
I noticed your reply with reference to silicone on the muffler springs. The
silicone helps absorb many of the high frequency vibrations and also will
help in keeping the spring pieces and the wire attached to the muffler when
the spring begins to fracture. if it is a
tractor live with it for the first couple of minutes.
Ed Lubitz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed & Kathy Lubitz" <elubitz(at)ionline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: muffler silicone |
Hi;
The high heat is way too expensive to gob on generously so I usually use
the ordinary window or bathroom silicone on the springs. I also find a
generous coat of anti-seize on the flexible joints seems to work. With
reference to the exhaust flanges leaking; the best method seems to be to
face the steel exhaust part of the flange on a belt sander just enough to
provide a flat surface to bolt against the engine. Also the fact that the
shroud is also in this equation does not make the seal any tighter
Ed Lubitz
elubitz(at)ionline.net
http://www.ionline.net/~elubitz
----------
: From: Timandjan(at)aol.com
: To: Kolb(at)www.intrig.com
: Subject: muffler silicone
: Date: March 25, 1997 07:00 PM
:
: what is everybody using as the silicone on the ehxaust springs, the
orange
: high heat kind? Also has anybody experienced leaking exhaust manifolds,
do
: you use a gasket cement. My engine is still new and i torqued the bolts
to
: their specs so am not sure if they will leak. My previous several Rotaxes
on
: other planes seemed to leak.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: muffler silicone |
I never felt the need to install the additional stud. I ran a 503 for
quite a while with the stack arrangement and never saw any evidence of
exhaust leak. I used a trick I learned from an A&P. Get this stuff called
anti-seize, the same stuff they recomend for the ball joints, and smear it
all over the exhaust manifold studs, smear it on both sides of the gasket and
smear it on the flat part of the manifold. What you want to make sure is
that the stud and the nut don't corrode and then stick, which could be a real
mess.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Safety Wiring Exhaust Springs |
Just a comment on your notion that if a spring comes off it won't hurt
the fabric. While this story doesn't involve springs it may be sufficiently
related to be instructive.
A friend had his 503 muffler jet hot coated. Apparently the jet hot
process involves a bead blast and they normally plug up the end of a muffler.
Well, somehow some beads got in my friend's muffler. He knew they should
come out so after he got it back he sat in front of the TV one night and
shook the muffler around trying to shake the beads out. After a couple of
hours he had most of them out, but not all of them. But the muffler looked
so good and he want to fly so bad that that on Saturday morning he bolted it
back together and went flying for an hour. When he got back down on the
ground he noticed that the leading edge of the prop was chewed up and it
looked like somebody had shot BBs through this ailerons. Most of the
remaining beads had come out and hit the prop, which then batted them
straight through the aileron fabric. And there were still a few beads left
inside.
He sent the muffler back to Jet Hot and they drilled it, got the beads
out, and recoated it for free.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Stripling <jeff(at)luke.intranet.intrig.com> |
| Subject: | Proper email address... |
Some of you have been sending email intended for the list
to:
owner-kolb(at)intrig.com
Perhaps you are replying to another email. Anyway, this will
not work. You must forward the email to:
kolb(at)intrig.com
owner-kolb goes to me only as the owner of the list.
Sorry for the confusion.
Jeff
--
Jeff Stripling | Intrigue Software
stripling(at)intrig.com | www.intrig.com
(817) 847-6973 | "I fear no technology"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | evoice(at)acton.com (Doug Prange) |
I plan to break in my 582 this coming weekend and have a question regarding
the gas oil mixture.
I have installed the oil injection system and have read in the ROTAX Engine
Manual that for the first tank of gas a 100/1 ratio is recommended to make
sure oil is completely throughout the system.
I have therefore premixed the five gallons of gas that I will use at
break-in at 50/1 which when mixed with the oil injection should result in a
100/1 mix.
Has anyone else done anything similar or by following this procedure do I
stand the chance of really screwing up anything?
Doug Prange
Lincoln, Nebraska
P.S. Thanks for the advice on safety wiring the exhaust springs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ALLENB007(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Feedback on Mark III as trainer |
Guys,
I have just completed obtaining my BFI and am looking for the proper trainer.
I'm writing to ask for feedback on how the Mark III has done as a trainer
and also if any modifications have been done to the controls to make them a
little more "trainer friendly".
I am just completing (rather a very good friend of mine is just completing)
building a firefly---I am the proverbial "gopher" but am learning a lot about
the quality of Kolb from this. I'm considering Kolb, Hawk and Flightstar as
three manufacturers for conducting training in and would really appreciate
Mark III owners feedback.
Thanks
AllenB007(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
My advice is to tie your plane down really well. When I broke in my 503 I
was afraid it was going to get loose. These things put out alot of thrust.
I used a stop watch to make sure I ran it fro the right amopunt of time.
This is also a chance to check you maximun static thrust.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russell Duffy <rad(at)pen.net> |
Doug Prange wrote:
> I have installed the oil injection system and have read in the ROTAX Engine
> Manual that for the first tank of gas a 100/1 ratio is recommended to make
> sure oil is completely throughout the system.
>
> I have therefore premixed the five gallons of gas that I will use at
> break-in at 50/1 which when mixed with the oil injection should result in a
> 100/1 mix.
You're a couple months ahead of me (meaning I'm no expert), but what you
described here doesn't sound correct. It's my understanding that you're
supposed to use 100/1 fuel/oil pre-mix in addition to the normal oil
injection of about 50/1 during the first run. This will give you an
overall ratio of 33/1 (more oil than normally used). By pre-mixing your
fuel at 50/1 in addition to the oil injection of 50/1, you will get a
final ratio of 25/1 (not 100/1).
No doubt, someone with actual experience will make this clearer to both
of us. You may have made a really good move to ask the question. Good
luck.
--
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Feedback on Mark III as trainer |
>Guys,
>
>I have just completed obtaining my BFI and am looking for the proper trainer.
> I'm writing to ask for feedback on how the Mark III has done as a trainer
>and also if any modifications have been done to the controls to make them a
>little more "trainer friendly".
>
>I am just completing (rather a very good friend of mine is just completing)
>building a firefly---I am the proverbial "gopher" but am learning a lot about
>the quality of Kolb from this. I'm considering Kolb, Hawk and Flightstar as
>three manufacturers for conducting training in and would really appreciate
>Mark III owners feedback.
>
>Thanks
>
>AllenB007(at)aol.com
>
> My MKIII has dual throttles, if that's what you mean. It seems to be a
worthwhile change.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | reynen(at)ix.netcom.com (Christina Reynen) |
You wrote:
>
>I plan to break in my 582 this coming weekend and have a question
regarding
>the gas oil mixture.
>
>I have installed the oil injection system and have read in the ROTAX
Engine
>Manual that for the first tank of gas a 100/1 ratio is recommended to
make
>sure oil is completely throughout the system.
>
>I have therefore premixed the five gallons of gas that I will use at
>break-in at 50/1 which when mixed with the oil injection should result
in a
>100/1 mix.
>
>Has anyone else done anything similar or by following this procedure
do I
>stand the chance of really screwing up anything?
>
Doug;
you have your math backwards!
If you mix your gas with 50:1 oil and run your injection pump at 50:1
you will feed your engine an equivalent of 25:1 and not 100:1!
I do not think you will screw anything up but why not follow the Rotax
instructions to the letter and remix your gas to 100:1 by doubling the
amount of gas without adding additional oil.
BTW make sure that both sides of the injection pump work by removing
one sparkplug in each cylinder and with wide open trottle run the
starter for 10 seconds to see if both oilsupply lines feed equal
amounts of oil into the intake manifolds as viewed through the open
carb throats.This has actually happened to my 582 after replacing a
checkvalve and I did not find this untill after I ruined a crankshaft
bearing.
Good luck
Frank Reynen MarkIII @368 hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Shamblin <shamblin(at)hc1.hci.net> |
you sound, if i am hearing right, like you think 100/1 has more oil than
50/1 which is backwards.
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Doug Prange wrote:
> I plan to break in my 582 this coming weekend and have a question regarding
> the gas oil mixture.
>
> I have installed the oil injection system and have read in the ROTAX Engine
> Manual that for the first tank of gas a 100/1 ratio is recommended to make
> sure oil is completely throughout the system.
>
> I have therefore premixed the five gallons of gas that I will use at
> break-in at 50/1 which when mixed with the oil injection should result in a
> 100/1 mix.
>
> Has anyone else done anything similar or by following this procedure do I
> stand the chance of really screwing up anything?
>
> Doug Prange
> Lincoln, Nebraska
>
> P.S. Thanks for the advice on safety wiring the exhaust springs.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Schimmel <bruce(at)schimmel.com> |
I'm about to break in my 503, and also read about the 100:1 recommended.
Now am I missing something, or what? Does this mean that I have to
disconnect the oil injection system in order to halve the amount of oil
per unit gas? Why would you want less oil for a breakin? Forgive my
ignorance if I've got this bass-ackwards, but I'd appreciate some
guidance.
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Doug Prange wrote:
> I plan to break in my 582 this coming weekend and have a question regarding
> the gas oil mixture.
>
> I have installed the oil injection system and have read in the ROTAX Engine
> Manual that for the first tank of gas a 100/1 ratio is recommended to make
> sure oil is completely throughout the system.
>
> I have therefore premixed the five gallons of gas that I will use at
> break-in at 50/1 which when mixed with the oil injection should result in a
> 100/1 mix.
>
> Has anyone else done anything similar or by following this procedure do I
> stand the chance of really screwing up anything?
>
> Doug Prange
> Lincoln, Nebraska
>
> P.S. Thanks for the advice on safety wiring the exhaust springs.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fred Steadman <fstead(at)fastlane.net> |
>Why would you want less oil for a breakin? Forgive my
>ignorance if I've got this bass-ackwards, but I'd appreciate some
>guidance.
Doug,
Just a guess. Break in is essentially a period of high wear when the
rings and cylinder walls "seat", or wear together to create a smooth
mate with good sealing.
In automobile engines we used to run a thinner than normal "break in"
oil for the first few hundred miles. I don't know if any manufacturer
recommends that now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | evoice(at)acton.com (Doug Prange) |
Thanks for the correction. My numbers were incorrect in my last question
regarding the proper mix of gas to oil.
I do have a 50:1 mix in the tank and am using the oil injection system which
makes a 25:1 to the engine if everything is working properly.
I need to go back to the manual tonight to get straight on the 100:1 ROTAX
refers to during the break-in.
Doug Prange
Lincoln,Nebraska
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Mattsen <dmattsen(at)isd.net> |
Doug Wrote:
>I have therefore premixed the five gallons of gas that I will use at break-in
at 50/1 which when mixed with the oil injection should result in a 100/1 mix.
Doug:
Different ways of doing it, some people who don't use the oil injection
system at all have just broken the engine in with a 50/1 fuel/oil ratio
with good success. Since you don't know what ratio the oil injection
system will supply (it varies with throttle opening), you could
disconnect the oil injection cable, fill your fuel tank with a 50/1
ratio and then break the engine in that way?
Once completed, reconnect and verify that you have a workable oil
injection
system, in a method like what Frank Reynen suggested, which I've quoted
below. Frank was right in his earlier post, mixing the fuel as you have
described will result in a fuel mixture with PLENTY oil. I've read in
manuals and various articles that the oil injection system will supply a
ratio near 100/1 at idle, and as rich as 40/1 at wide open throttle,
dependant upon on how accurately the cable is adjusted. This combined
with the 100/1 ratio you're providing in the fuel tank should provide
ample oil.
> make sure that both sides of the injection pump work by removing
> one sparkplug in each cylinder and with wide open trottle run the
> starter for 10 seconds to see if both oil supply lines feed equal
> amounts of oil into the intake manifolds as viewed through the open
> carb throats.
DAN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Fwd: Gas/Oil mix |
Guys I don't have my 582 operators manual in front of me, and that is the
bible as far as I am concerned. But what I recall reading is that for the
break in they want you to run gas/oil mixed 100:1 ON TOP the oil that is
injected into the system. My understanding is that the 100:1 mix is in lieu
of the normal nonpremixed fuel that you would normall have in your tank.
They want you to have extra oil in the system for the break in.
To put it another way. I think they want you to fill you oil resverior
and run the oil injection as normal. AND for the break in period they want
to to run 100;1 premix instead of the normal unmixed fuel.
BTW i think any one running a 582 should have a copy of the 582 repair
manual. It is frightfully expensive but very worthwhile. There is much info
in it that you won't find in the operator's manual that came in the box with
the engine.
Forwarded message:
Subj: Re: Gas/Oil mix
Date: 97-03-27 09:53:57 EST
From: Cavuontop
Guys I don't have my 582 operators manual in front of me, and that is the
bible as far as I am concerned. But what I recall reading is that for the
breaking they want you to run gas/oil mixed 100:1 ON TOP the oil that is
injected into the system. My understanding is that the 100:1 mix is in lieu
of the normal nonpremixed fuel that you would normall have in your tank.
They want you to have extra oil in the system for the break in.
To put it another way. I think they want you to fill you oil resverior
and run the oil injection as normal. AND for the break in period they want
to to run 100;1 premix instead of the normal unmixed fuel.
BTW i think any one running a 582 should have a copy of the 582 repair
manual. It is frightfully expensive but very worthwhile. There is much info
in it that you won't find in the operator's manual that came in the box with
the engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Prange <dprange(at)acton.com> |
I spoke with ROTAX and LEAF this morning to clarify my concerns regarding
the reference to 100:1 mix in the ROTAX ENGINE MANUAL.
This is the way I interpreted the conversations and applies ONLY if an oil
injection system is installed.
To insure adequate lubrication in the event the oil injection system is not
working properly (this can be determined by the oil consumption from the oil
tank) a mix of 100:1 is recommended in the first tank of fuel run thru the
engine.
Although 100:1 is lower than the recommended normal 50:1 mix, it does
provide adequate protection so you don't fry the engine if the oil injection
line is crimped or another problem with the oil injection system exists.
A good suggestion would be to monitor the oil consumption on an ongoing basis.
Keep in mind this is the way I interpreted the conversations. If you follow
my suggestions and ruin something don't blame me.
Sorry for the incorrect numbers I used yesterday for the ratios.
4 out of 3 of us in my family are dyslexic
I'm emailing from work.
Please respond, if you have one, to evoice(at)acton.com
Doug Prange
Lincoln, Nebraska
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Anthony Hinkelmann <hink(at)mindspring.com> |
Mixed 100:1 to run engine for the first time. Oil did not seem to want
to come through the tubes into the cyl. Shut the engine down many
times, finally said "Damn the Oil, Full Speed Ahead". the oil started
flowing and have had no problem @ 160 hrs. rotax 503.
Modifing my FS-2 after near fatal crash (Was heard shouting "Hey Ya'll
Look at This"), and yes I do think anything above 100ft is too high.
Using the wings,tail feathers and most of the cage, (The stuff that
ain't bent too bad). Just because an airplane flys sideways don't always
mean it's in a slip.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jhann Gestur Jhannsson <johanng(at)ok.is> |
| Subject: | Hirth 2703 or 2704 |
Hallo Kolb flyers.
I am a KOLB pioneer in ICELAND and have been receiving the KOLB mail for a
few weeks, and it is very good to have accsess to all this knowledge about
the Kolb aircraft and the Rotax powerplants, which seems to be the most
used engine for ultralights in the USA.
I am building my second FIRESTAR II, and used the Rotax 503 DCDI on my first
aircraft, but would like to know if anyone has installed the Hirth engine on
a Firestar II, and how it performs?
Also would like to know the main difference between the Hirth 2703 and 2704
engines, which type would be better for the Firestar II?
I will be using the IVO Prop 3-blade.
Will I need the 2 1/2" spacer from IVO PROP?
Look forward to see your reply.
Johann G. Johannsson
ICELAND.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russell Duffy <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | SlingShot Update |
Greetings,
I got a message from Dennis and hopefully all will be well with my
missing stuff soon. I haven't quite run out of things to do yet. As on
WAG mentioned, there's always painting :-)
I recently installed the floor pans and seats, and finally got a chance
to try it out officially. Even wedged my wife in the back seat (she was
in charge of the engine noises). Overall, this is starting to be more
fun that the other parts of the building process. (photos pending)
Next is fitting the nose cone and figuring out where I'm going to put
all these instruments I bought. I'm thinking of making a bracket that
will hold the GPS on the floor straddling the rudder cables, and in
front of the down position of the stick. This seems like it might be
the best place I can find, though there are some minor conflicts. I'm
also planning to put the throttle on a bracket that will be mounted at
the front right corner of the seat. This will be much more comfortable
than the original left side position (forgive me, I'm left handed).
All in all, if the gear legs show up soon, I'll have a couple more weeks
to finish up the "making things fit" stage, then it's back to the "isn't
this rewarding" covering of the fuselage and wings. As you can tell
from my new signature, I've got an N number now. Currently hoping for
first flight around June 1st.
--
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Schimmel <bruce(at)schimmel.com> |
| Subject: | Control Stick Problems |
I'd like to ask FS owners (and anyone who might know) if your yoke, when
pushed to extremes, shows an interaction between the elevator and the
ailerons. Try it out. If you push to the left (for example), which would
put the left aileron completely up and then push forward, the left
ailerson moves down. I can't imagine that this has in practical
considerations -- maybe -- but then again cannot figure out how anything I
might have done would have caused this to happen. It seems intrinsic to
the physics of the bracket to which the yoke and the controls tubes and
elelvators wires are attached.
Please let me know what your craft does.
thanks. gettin excited now, about to break in the 503!!!
Bruce Schimmel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russell Duffy <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: oil injection |
Frank Reynen wrote:
> BTW make sure that both sides of the injection pump work by removing
> one sparkplug in each cylinder and with wide open trottle run the
> starter for 10 seconds to see if both oilsupply lines feed equal
> amounts of oil into the intake manifolds as viewed through the open
> carb throats.This has actually happened to my 582 after replacing a
> checkvalve and I did not find this untill after I ruined a crankshaft
> bearing.
This is pretty scary. I've agonized over whether to use the oil
injection on my 503. I understand that failures in the system are rare,
but it only takes one. There is a strong argument against the oil
injection for just this reason. On the other hand, I've heard that the
engine will run cleaner with injection due to the reduction of oil at
idle. Can anybody say first-hand that oil injection really reduces plug
fouling and carbon buildup? Even after having purchased the oil
reservoir, I'm thinking of not using it.
--
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)bitstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick Problems |
Bruce Schimmel wrote:
>
> I'd like to ask FS owners (and anyone who might know) if your yoke, when
> pushed to extremes, shows an interaction between the elevator and the
> ailerons. Try it out. If you push to the left (for example), which would
> put the left aileron completely up and then push forward, the left
> ailerson moves down. I can't imagine that this has in practical
> considerations -- maybe -- but then again cannot figure out how anything I
> might have done would have caused this to happen. It seems intrinsic to
> the physics of the bracket to which the yoke and the controls tubes and
> elelvators wires are attached.
> Please let me know what your craft does.
> thanks. gettin excited now, about to break in the 503!!!
> Bruce Schimmel
Bruce:
The only thing I can figure out by what you described is that the end of
your control stick is hitting your windshield when you move it forward.
This seems a little simplistic, and you would've seen this if it were
the case, but the ailerons cannot move without lateral movement of the
stick.
There is another situation, however, that you should be aware of:
movement of the aileron control horn in the opposite direction when it's
close to bottoming out(the horn and pushrod are straight). I've seen
this amomaly on another FireStar that I test flew (the owner remedied
the problem before flight, of course).
If the movement of the stick causes any binding whatsoever when the
stick is moved from one extreme to the other, laterally, you may have
this problem (you will see this only at the very extreme lateral range
of the stick, ie far right or far left stick). The solution is to limit
the vertical control movement at the rocker arm below the fuselage tube.
This will NOT limit the aileron control in flight, since there is plenty
of stick movement for banking.
Under NO circumstances should you attempt to fly your FireStar until
you've figured out what this probem is.
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re-enforcement tubes |
If starting to build the Mark III, be aware there is some inconsistency in
applying the 3/4 x .058 reinforcement tubes in the rudder and elevators.
The materials set only included 24" of this material, and some portions of
the plans indicate to use 12" pieces for each of the elevator sections.
Well, when you are about to build the rudder, you'll be plum out of this
tubing and need to get some more.
Elsewhere there is info to not use the full 12" pieces for the elevators, and
hence you will have the piece left needed for the rudder.
Herb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russell Duffy <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Control Stick Problems |
Bruce Schimmel wrote:
>
> I'd like to ask FS owners (and anyone who might know) if your yoke, when
> pushed to extremes, shows an interaction between the elevator and the
> ailerons. Try it out. If you push to the left (for example), which would
> put the left aileron completely up and then push forward, the left
> ailerson moves down. I can't imagine that this has in practical
> considerations -- maybe -- but then again cannot figure out how anything I
> might have done would have caused this to happen. It seems intrinsic to
> the physics of the bracket to which the yoke and the controls tubes and
> elelvators wires are attached.
> Please let me know what your craft does.
> thanks. gettin excited now, about to break in the 503!!!
> Bruce Schimmel
Bruce,
I believe my SlingShot will do the same thing. At the extremes of stick
movement, there is quite a conflict in the elevator and aileron
controls. Worst case seems to be trying to move the ailerons at full
down elevator. This produces little more than a bending of the aileron
tube from side to side with very little rotation. This concerns me a
bit, but I know that these extremes will never be approached in flight.
All my controls are rigged, but so far, haven't been assembled at the
same time. That's why I can't directly answer your original question.
--
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | reynen(at)ix.netcom.com (Christina Reynen) |
| Subject: | Re: oil injection |
You wrote:
>
>>This is pretty scary. I've agonized over whether to use the oil
>injection on my 503. I understand that failures in the system are
rare,
>but it only takes one. There is a strong argument against the oil
>injection for just this reason. On the other hand, I've heard that
the
>engine will run cleaner with injection due to the reduction of oil at
>idle. Can anybody say first-hand that oil injection really reduces
plug
>fouling and carbon buildup? Even after having purchased the oil
>reservoir, I'm thinking of not using it.
>
>--
>Russell Duffy
>SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
>rad(at)pen.net
>http://www.pen.net/~rad/
>
Hi Russell
I did not mean to scare anybody out of using the oilinjection system
with my comment and I am EXTREMELY CONFIDENT in the reliability of the
unit once it is properly functioning.You have to carefully check its
function when new and after the oil circuit has been disturbed for
whatever reason which includes running the unit dry.I still use it with
great confidence and recommend using it if the engine has it installed.
And yes, I think that the reduced oilflow at idle speed helps to reduce
carbon buildup.My engine ran undisturbed for the full 300 hrs before
the recommended overhaul including decarboning the piston tops and
rings (using AV-2 exclusively).
Frank Reynen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
I agonized over whether to use oil injection when I made the decision to go
to the 582 from the 503. The system is super simple. Absent a piece of yuck
plugging the little plastic tubes (does anyone fill their reservior through a
strainer?) the system is pretty much bullet proof. The oil injection pump is
turned by the rotary valve shaft. Look at the diagrams in the repair manual.
Its pretty simple.
Another good reason to use the oil injection has to do with the octane
rating of fuel. The manual says don't use fuel with less than 92 octane. As
I recall amoco unleaded premium is 93. We all know that if fuel sits around
for a while the volitile stuff evaporates off leaving fuel with lower
octane. I don't know the reasons for it, but I am told that premixed fuel
declines in octane even faster than straight stuff. As I understand it lower
octane numbers result in higher egts and chts because it burns differently.
In short, its a good thing for your gas and oil to be mixed at the last
possible second.
One of the many things I do at sun'fun is to go around to all of the
Rotax authorized rebuild guys and talk to them. There are only about half a
dozen. I ask them all the same questions and see what kind of different
answers I get. one of my favorite questions is "So what is the most common
cause of the blown engines you see?". I heard some very interesting stories.
Allmost all of them have to do with deviations from suggested practice.
Last time I did this one guy offered me a freshly rebuilt 582 for sale that
had previously been owned by a famous highly modified Mark 3 owner who has
flown all over. He had seized the engine after about 10 hours. I was
shocked when the rebuilder told me that the guy had been running a mix of two
thirds pennzoil and one third marvel mystery oil. Apparently he thought he
would get better lubrication. Anyway, the engine seized in a hurry.
I think the moral to the story is go by the book. The only problem is
the operators manual that comes in the engine box isn't half as good as the
repair manual for which they chrge an exhobitant price. Anyway, it's hard to
go by the book if they don't give it to you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Anthony Hinkelmann <hink(at)mindspring.com> |
The best way to check your flight controls is by sitting in the
airplane and moving the controls. It is impossible to move the stick in
certain positions unless you normally walk on your knuckles. Also your
legs get in the way when you try to rotate the stick 360 degrees. Just
because the stick can be pushed beyond its normal range of motion is no
reason for concern.** as long as there is no binding **
The FS-2 is very responsive and the only time you would use full
deflection of your ailerons would be in a stall, then your elevators
should be neutral.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russell Duffy <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flight controls |
Anthony Hinkelmann wrote:
> The FS-2 is very responsive and the only time you would use
> full deflection of your ailerons would be in a stall, then your
> elevators should be neutral.
Don't you have this reversed? In a stall, maybe full down elevator, but
ailerons aren't usually used in a stalled condition unless aerobatics
are what your aiming for :-)
--
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Non-twisted Tail Feathers |
It is easy to built in a slight twist during the construction of rudder and
elevators.
This comes about because root and tip ribs are of different length.
So, if you just lay out the assembly on a flat table, the short ribs at the
tip will have a greater angle downwards, than the longer ones at the root.
This builds in the twist, unless you block up the short tip area a little
during construction to compensate.
Herb
________________________________________________________________________________
The recent mod to apply Trim Tabs to the elevator and rudder involves giant
sized paddles, with the rudder having a 30 degree bent. (!)
The mod looks like an unsightly after thought, and Lexan is recommended to
try making them less visible.
Has anybody instead tried to offset the fixed portion of the rudder, and if
so could report on the amount and results.
Obviously, the amount will depend on engine size.
Some flight reports listing experience with/without trim/offset would be most
appreciated. This would need to be for level flight, cruise, hands and feet
off?
A piece of yarn, taped in a suitable spot to be observed, would tell if you
are flying straight under that condition.
Herb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Anthony Hinkelmann <hink(at)mindspring.com> |
Need 4130 steel, aluminum tubing,cable,rivits,hardware,etc. I found a
"Low Profile" "Low Price" operation in Pa. -- Really hate to give out
the info because they usually run a couple of weeks behind in filling
orders and would hate to delay my orders any longer, BUT-----
The Dillsburg Aeroplane Works
Charles T. Vogelsong
114 Sawmill Road
Dillsburg, Pa 17019
717 432-4589
=09
You wont get next day service but you will save $. If you need the part
yesterday and want to pay two or three times the price call someone
else.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Anthony Hinkelmann <hink(at)mindspring.com> |
This may sound over simple but, has anyone thought of tweaking the
springs on the rudder petal return springs? Seems an alternative to
modifying the stabilizer or nailing something to the rudder.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 HGRAFF(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> The recent mod to apply Trim Tabs to the elevator and rudder involves giant
> sized paddles, with the rudder having a 30 degree bent. (!)
>Has anybody instead tried to offset the fixed portion of the rudder, and if
>so could report on the amount and results.
Okay, i gotta come clean.
1. a couple weeks ago we were talking about yaw trim. I said my plane
wants to go right on full power climbout due to torque and P-factor.
Well, i realized later that day that I lied: the P-factor would actually
contribute to pulling my plane LEFT. So, all the right pull i get is
from prop torque (e.g. the spiraling of air off the prop).
2. When I mounted my vert stabilizer, I agonized a respectable amount
of time whether to build in any offset, and called Kolb to ask. They
said none needed, none advised. I will have to go back and look at my
notes, but I believe i put in a 1/8" starboard offset to the front
mount of my vert stabilizer. Believe me, there was a little war going
on in my brain between my SWAG that some offset was necessary, and
Dennis' advice that none was needed. At least I did not want to err on
the side of having Left offset, considering the lower half of the prop
spiral is pushing the tail left. I cruise straight ahead w/out rudder
input (look ma, no feet), no problem, so I ended up pretty good on this.
I'll look back in my notes to see what offset i really did end up using.
Note: P-factor is the difference in thrust between the right and left
sides of the prop, which happens when a plane is at high angle of attack.
E.G. consider the plane flying at 0 angle of attack: the right and left
sides of the prop are at, say, 9 degrees angle from vertical. If you
change the angle of attack of the airplane UP 6 degrees, the right side
of the prop is effectively now at 15 degrees (9+6) from vertical, and
the left is only at 3 (9-6). Numbers are different depending on lots
of other stuff, but this is basically what happens with a rotax powered
(clockwise rotating prop) plane, tractor or pusher.
For those who didn't want the uninvited P-factor lecture, here's a joke:
What did one UL pilot say to another as they approached foul weather?
"Looks pretty bad up there, let's 360 and get outa here!"
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Raw materials |
Its no secret that Dilsburg is the place where Kolb buys most of its raw
materials.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
When I first flew my MKIII it yawed right and rolled left. Called Dennis
to ask him and he said"Good, that is normal, add trim tabs." The trim tab
on the rudder is 12"long and sticks out 1 1/2". In flight the rudder is
deflected to the left enough that it is readily seen from the cockpit. The
right aileron has an adjustable lexan trim tab 12" long and 1 1/2" wide to
push the right aileron up and hold the wing down. If you tweak the trim tab
until the airplane flies level and then carefully adjust your flap linkage
until the flaps and ailerons all line up evenly, the airplane will sustain
altitude at a lower throttle setting since the wing is more efficient. If
the flaps and ailerons are allowed to reflex up in flight, the airplane
will act very tailheavy. Trim the ailerons and flaps until they look
parallel to the bottom of the wing in flight and it flies better.
Richard Pike
Technical Advisor EAA 442
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Schimmel <bruce(at)schimmel.com> |
Regarding the tabs, did anyone notice that the plans for the rudder are
reverse, that is, the single piece which comes back, to which the tab is
attached is on the left side, but is actually on the right side. I do
wonder if one is suppose to attach the rudder tab to the left (as
indicated) or to the right (which makes most sense).
Comments?
Thanks. Bruce Schimmel, about to break in the 503 for his brand
new FS.
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 HGRAFF(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> The recent mod to apply Trim Tabs to the elevator and rudder involves giant
> sized paddles, with the rudder having a 30 degree bent. (!)
>
> The mod looks like an unsightly after thought, and Lexan is recommended to
> try making them less visible.
>
> Has anybody instead tried to offset the fixed portion of the rudder, and if
> so could report on the amount and results.
>
> Obviously, the amount will depend on engine size.
>
> Some flight reports listing experience with/without trim/offset would be most
> appreciated. This would need to be for level flight, cruise, hands and feet
> off?
>
> A piece of yarn, taped in a suitable spot to be observed, would tell if you
> are flying straight under that condition.
>
> Herb
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Raw materials |
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 Cavuontop(at)aol.com wrote:
> Its no secret that Dilsburg is the place where Kolb buys most of its raw
> materials.
It was to me ...altho' I haven't asked.
I'm very glad to have that source now. (so, thanks Anthony)
Currently, if I want raw materials I have to take a lot of time to
drive 20 miles, wait in line, pay atrocious prices, etc, whine, whine.
For example, a couple weeks ago I went over there (ABC Metals) and their
price on a 12' stick of 5/16" x .035 AL was $17.50!!! I could've bought
less but they wanted a $6 cutting fee!!! At that, they made a mistake
and gave me .065, so i took it back the next week and got a scolding for
not returning w/in 5 days. That was the last straw; I will NEVER go back
to that dump.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom and Martha Warren" <mtnest(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Raw materials/Dillsburg |
Ben,
I might add that when you order, there are no credit card purchases that
I know of. They will take your order and send you the materials with an
invoice. As long as you pay promptly they will continue to take your
business. BTW, as I understand it, Mr. Vogelsong is a long time EAA member
and aircraft builder himself. I find his prices better than most and
quality of materials excellent.
Tom Warren
>
> > Its no secret that Dilsburg is the place where Kolb buys most of its
raw
> > materials.
>
> It was to me ...altho' I haven't asked.
>
> I'm very glad to have that source now. (so, thanks Anthony)
> < snip>
--------|--------
> Ben Ransom (*)
> Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
> http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <steiger(at)ait.fredonia.edu> |
| Subject: | Hanging compass from lexan... Why? |
As most of you probably know, I bought my FireFly secondhand.
The builder used an "in-dash" type compass, but he drilled a hole
in the lexan windscreen and hung it there. You can see this (from a
distance) in the couple of pics I have at:
http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/WWW/firefly.html
Anyway, I'm not really happy with this solution. I'd like to have the
compass in the panel, where it belongs. It puts a bit of stress on the
lexan, and I immagine it must bounce around pretty good in flight and
while taxiing... I've got a couple of places on the panel where it
*might* fit (I haven't taken any accurate measurements), but I'm wondering
if there is a reason to not have it in the panel.
Can other instruments create magnetic interference and throw off the
compass? Currently, I have the following in my panel: altimeter,
airspeed, combined EGT/CHT, and a TinyTach tachometer/hourmeter.
In one possible location, the compass would be beside the EGT/CHT,
and in the other, it would be between the EGT/CHT and the altimeter.
Any comments or suggestions?
Thanks very much in advance!
-Jon-
Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information Technology
.- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ -.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ |
| '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Russell Duffy <rad(at)pen.net> |
Hi,
Has anyone ever considered making the rudder springs act as trim? It
seems like you could make the tube which holds the springs to have
several holes. If you need to hold right rudder all the time to stay
straight, make the right spring tighter than the left. At this point,
this is just a wacky idea that I had.
--
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron B." <rgbsr(at)aimnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hanging compass from lexan... Why? |
John,
By all means relocate the compass to the panel. The compass in my
plane is on the panel.
Go out somewhere on the airfield to draw a compass rose. Use a good
hand held compass (remove the iron belt buckle) and create all the
major points around the compass. A compass rose is simply a large
circle with all the major magnetic headings marked on it. Generally
large enough to fit your main wheels centered over the center of
the circle and your nose wheel somewhere near the outer edge of the
circle. Mark the outer edge with compass headings.
Take your aircraft out to the large "compass rose" you just made and
face it in the direction of each of the major points you created before
and note the difference, if any, of the compass on the aircraft. This
is your deviation from magnetic heading. (I hope I got deviation and
variation straight in this example.)
Of course it might help to start your engine and run all your gauges
normally while performing this calibration so any magnetic induction by
the gauges and wiring will be in affect as if you were flying the
aircraft, er... vehicle.
Most good compasses have adjustments you can make to compensate the
compass for normal deviations. Point your compass on a "true" north/
south heading pointing north. Then turn the aircraft 180 degrees and
not how far out it is in the opposite direction. Turn the north/south
adjusting screw 1/2 the distance between the deviation. Reverse the
process several times until you get the closest reading.
Don't forget to calculate the variation when using "true" north/south
readings.
Compass reading +- deviation = magnetic heading
+- variation = true heading (add east when going from compass to true.)
If compasss reads 150 degrees
and deviation is 2 east
Magnetic heading is 152 degrees
if variation is 7 degrees east
True heading is then 159 degrees.
A mnenomic (sp?) that I learned to perform this calculation is:
Can = compass reading
Dead = deviation +-
Men = magnetic heading
Vote = variation +-
= true heading
At = add
Elections = east
Hope this helps if you need that type of accuracy.
Best regards,
Ron B.
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Jon Steiger wrote:
> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 21:18:21 -0500
> From: Jon Steiger <steiger(at)ait.fredonia.edu>
> To: kolb(at)intrig.com
> Subject: Hanging compass from lexan... Why?
>
>
> As most of you probably know, I bought my FireFly secondhand.
>
> The builder used an "in-dash" type compass, but he drilled a hole
> in the lexan windscreen and hung it there. You can see this (from a
> distance) in the couple of pics I have at:
>
> http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/WWW/firefly.html
>
> Anyway, I'm not really happy with this solution. I'd like to have the
> compass in the panel, where it belongs. It puts a bit of stress on the
> lexan, and I immagine it must bounce around pretty good in flight and
> while taxiing... I've got a couple of places on the panel where it
> *might* fit (I haven't taken any accurate measurements), but I'm wondering
> if there is a reason to not have it in the panel.
>
> Can other instruments create magnetic interference and throw off the
> compass? Currently, I have the following in my panel: altimeter,
> airspeed, combined EGT/CHT, and a TinyTach tachometer/hourmeter.
>
> In one possible location, the compass would be beside the EGT/CHT,
> and in the other, it would be between the EGT/CHT and the altimeter.
>
> Any comments or suggestions?
>
> Thanks very much in advance!
>
>
> -Jon-
>
> Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information Technology
> .- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ -.
> | DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ |
> | '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R |
> `---------------------------------------------------------------------'
> I do not speak for SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
>
>
"You are but one medical away from an ultralight!" [ Mr. S. Larghi ]
< rgbsr(at)aimnet.com > Living in beautiful Santa Clara, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | evoice(at)acton.com (Doug Prange) |
The break-in of my 582 was completed this morning.
Just a couple small problems.
1.) I couldn't get it started until my neighbor read one of the parts of the
engine manual that I had highlighted but forgot in all the excitement.
Full choke with idle throttle and it popped right off.
2.) I had to shut down three or four times to flatten the IVO prop so full
throttle RPM reached 6200.
Other than that everything went great.
I tied the tailpost via a nylon rope to a tree in the front yard and also
had nylon rope tied from each gear leg to a steak in the ground just in case.
It was very exciting to start up for the first time.
I have installed an EIS system which was very helpful.(I highly recommend
this instrument)
The only limit that was exceeded was the water temp. (I set the limit at 175F)
The first flight should be sometime next month.
I'll keep you posted.
Doug Prange
Lincoln, Nebraska
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Doug Prange mentioned adjusting his Ivoprop to get max rpm at 6200.
Several of us have begun checking Ivoprops to see if all the blades are at
the same pitch, (I had a brand new one that was WAAAYYY off between blades)
and it is not unusual for the different blades to be at slightly different
pitch. I made up a double bubble level to insure that all three blades were
the same, and profiled the high cams with a Mototool , one of the other
guys used shim stock
to raise the low ones. Same difference, get em' all the same and
performance and smoothness really increases.
Richard Pike
Technical Advisor EAA Chapter 442
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Oil Mix for break in |
There has been a thread going on about how to mix the fuel for the break-in
of the engine. Here is what the 582 repair manual says at section 7.24.5 on
the subject:
"For safety reasons it is recomended to fill the fuel tank the first time
not with pure gasoline, but with a gasoline/oil mixture of 100:1, to warrant
proper engine lubrication."
They want MORE oil in the engine for the break in, not less. This assumes,
of course, that you are using the oil injection. The 582 has a reputation
for being a tight engine, especially when it is new. It is the exact
opposite of a GA engine where they want you to run mineral oil for the first
few hours so that the cylinders wear in.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Yoram Peled <ypeled(at)shani.net> |
Hi,
I have a Kolb Mark III with Rotax 912 engine (the only one in Israel).
My
home built stainless-steel muffler began to suffer from cracks after 20
hours!
I would like to buy a new muffler with complete set of housing, Etc.
Please help me to find and buy the most recommended muffler.
Yoram Peled
Israel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
Could you go into a little more detail on the subject of getting all of the
blades on an IVO in synch. I have a three bladed IVO with the quick adjust.
I'm also short on tools for that sort of thing. I have a level and that's
about it. Maybe I could borrow one of those warp drive protractors. Anyway
I'd like to know more about this. I thought all of the Ivo blade were
identical beacuse they came out of the same mold.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Ivoprop bubble level |
The way I check the angle of the Ivoprop blades is with a homemade bubble
leveler. What you want is something to fit over the tip end of the prop
that will let you check the angle of each blade with an adjustable bubble
level while making sure that each blade is level or at the same relative
angle as the other two while it is being checked. What I have made is a
device that hooks over the tip of the prop and has one bubble level
parallel with the prop blade, then the device has an arm that sticks out
back from the prop with another bubble level on it to compare pitch angles.
It won't tell you how many degrees you have, only if they are the same or
different. If I knew how to put a picture of the thing on a web page, you
could look at how I made mine and copy it in a minute, but I can't, and
trying to explain exactly how to duplicate mine is not really necessary,and
would be hopeless.
Basic concept. You need to have a vertical straight edge to it to align
with the squared end of the Ivoprop, or if you draw a vertical line on your
brand X prop an inch or so from it's rounded tip, you can use it on
anything. String levels are small and cheap, put one atop this device
parallel with the prop, 90 degrees to the aformentioned vertical straight
edge,and rigidly mounted. Have a short arm sticking back horizontally from
the prop. If you are using a Rotax,b-box pusher, you will be standing
behind the left flap, and the flat bottom of the blade will be right in
front of you at the tip, and this arm will be pointing straight back and
almost parallel with the main tube. Now take a rubber band and strap
another string level to this arm. Make sure that when you hang this rig
over the leading edge of the prop, it is laying against the flat side of
the prop, and it snugs up tight. Adjust the prop in its rotation until the
rigid parallel bubble shows level. Then tweak the level held by the rubber
band until the bubble lays between the lines. Remove the device from the
prop, rotate the prop to the next blade, slip your checker on it, level the
blade using the rigid bubble and see if the bubble on the arm is between
the lines. Third blade same way.
Make sure your cams are snug on the rods. I ground off my high cams a bit
until the bubble was identical all three blades. That decreased pitch a bit
and I had to restack Ivo shims to reduce rpm, bubbles wern't identical
anymore, ground cams off a hair more, perfect. Flying Buddy used shim stock
under his low cams, that might be easier. If you decide to grind yours and
screw up, CPS sells new cams for $3.95 each...
Richard Pike
Technical Advisor EAA Chapter 442
MKIII N420p (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
> Subj: Re: Trim Tabs
> Date: 97-03-29 03:54:40 EST
> From: rad(at)pen.net (Russell Duffy)
> Sender: owner-kolb(at)intrig.com
> Reply-to: rad(at)pen.net
> To: kolb(at)intrig.com
>
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone ever considered making the rudder springs act as trim? It
> seems like you could make the tube which holds the springs to have
> several holes. If you need to hold right rudder all the time to stay
> straight, make the right spring tighter than the left. At this point,
> this is just a wacky idea that I had.
>
Not that wacky at all, should work for minor adjustment, if the basic rigging
is not that much out, and you don't want to add tabs. You might get some
asymetrical rudder pedal positioning, (which could also be caused by heavy
trim tabbing), unless
other compensations are made.
Herb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 HGRAFF(at)aol.com wrote:
> Thanks for the reponse, it is most appreciated, and congratulations on the
> good SWAG! I presume you do not use any rudder trim tabs.
Correct, and it flies straight except for pull to right during full power
max climb.
>
> If you could verify the 1/8 starboard offset from your records, and also
> identify your engine and aircraft type, it will surely help us making a
> decent SWAG as well in this matter.
> Herb
Hi Herb,
I dbl checked over the wknd, and it is a shy 1/8" offset to the
starboard side for the front of my vert stabilizer. I point this out with
reservation, as it is a departure from alignment per plans, and alignment
means an awful lot toward a good airplane. I may get away with this
partly because it is a negligible amount. As I said before, my primary
intent was to assure that I was avoiding any port side alignment error.
(I felt when I was marking this alignment point during constuction that
I could only be sure of an accuracy of +- 1/16".) Another thing I did
and that you might consider: I built the forward mount brackets 1/16"
wider than required, allowing me to put a shim on either side when I
riveted on the front of the vert stab. This gives you a little adjustment
if you need it.
Mine is a Firestar KXP, Rotax 447 SC, Warp 66" high aspect prop. My fuse
tube is 3 1/2" shorter than plans (13' ?).
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HFritze(at)redstone.net (Henry Fritze) |
The Kolb trim tab letter shows the rudder trim tab bent the wrong way
for a Rotax gear drive engine.
On the FS II, if you trim both the aileron and rudder the tabs don't
have to be so large, just the distance between ribs and about 2 inches
wide.
On the Mark III you can use differential flaps for the aileron trim
tabs.
I have a FS II with flaps. I was able to trim for cruise using only flap
differential and a shortened right rudder return spring (1" - about 7
pounds). It also helps to shim the rear of the engine up. I used about 2
degrees of shimming (three/four thick washers).
For a temporary trim tab use thin (.016) soft aluminum and double it.
Bend the edges where it attaches to the control surface so you can duct
tape it on both sides. Put the rudder tab low on the rudder (right
before the bend) to get it out of the prop wash or you'll have to use a
lot of left rudder on take-off.
Hope this helps. Hank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HFritze(at)redstone.net (Henry Fritze) |
The Kolb trim tab letter shows the rudder trim tab bent the wrong way
for a Rotax gear drive engine.
On the FS II, if you trim both the aileron and rudder the tabs don't
have to be so large, just the distance between ribs and about 2 inches
wide.
On the Mark III you can use differential flaps for the aileron trim
tabs.
I have a FS II with flaps. I was able to trim for cruise using only flap
differential and a shortened right rudder return spring (1" - about 7
pounds). It also helps to shim the rear of the engine up. I used about 2
degrees of shimming (three/four thick washers).
For a temporary trim tab use thin (.016) soft aluminum and double it.
Bend the edges where it attaches to the control surface so you can duct
tape it on both sides. Put the rudder tab low on the rudder (right
before the bend) to get it out of the prop wash or you'll have to use a
lot of left rudder on take-off.
Hope this helps. Hank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CCHIEPPA(at)umassd.edu |
Hello All,
I have a few questions concerning AMS Oils! As these are
synthetic I would like to chat with a first hand user of the gear box 75-90W
oil and or the AMS injection oil for 2 cycle engines.
Thanks Charles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Cottrell <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
| Subject: | adjustable props |
Hi,
I just bought a used IVO prop from Kolb. It is the one that they
reccommend as the best power for a 447 firestar, 68 inches,two blade
adjustable. I talked with Dennis at Kolb and he was unable to give me any
ideas about where to start with the adjustment. Anybody care to give me
some pointers?
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM> |
| Subject: | Rotax service manual |
OK, so you've convinced me that I want the Rotax service manual, to help
operate the 582 with greatest success. You say it is expensive. How much
is it and what is it called. All I found in the LEAF catalog was something
that costs $5.00. That can't be it. Who has the best price? What is it
called? Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)bitstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: adjustable props |
Larry Cottrell wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I just bought a used IVO prop from Kolb. It is the one that they
> reccommend as the best power for a 447 firestar, 68 inches,two blade
> adjustable. I talked with Dennis at Kolb and he was unable to give me any
> ideas about where to start with the adjustment. Anybody care to give me
> some pointers?
> Larry
Larry:
Since the recommended static RPM for the 447 is 6350 RPM, you would
simply adjust the prop pitch for that RPM. To do this, use an automobile
tow rope (the nylon type) to tie down your tail. Wrap one end around the
tail wheel rod, and the other between the wheel and the ground of your
car (it's best to have it down low). First start out with the maximum
pitch of your prop and run up your engine at max power (have one hand on
the throttle, and the other close to the kill switch when you are doing
this test). Check the tach, and it will be below 6000 RPM. Shut the
engine off, and adjust for a lower pitch setting. Try it again, and the
RPM's should go up. You want to keep doing this (lowering the
pitch)until you reach about 6350 RPM. Remember, the maximum RPM of your
engine will be governed by the pitch of your prop.
I have mine set for about 6100 RPM static, and I get a nice cruise, too,
while sacrificing a little climb thrust. I have a 66" prop on a 377,
while you have the 68" on a 447, so you may want to set the static RPM's
like mine, since you have a larger diameter prop which would give you a
better climb anyway.
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brian schmid <mtflyr(at)montana.com> |
Dear Kolb enthusiasts,
I have a unique service for anyone or organization interested in
the preservation of aviation history. I am a fine art portrait artist
that specializes in creating custom, life size action portraits of
people for people.
For a number of years, my focus was in another area, but recently, I
have had the opportunity to shift this focus to the arena that has
always been my first love, aviation. I am now actively pursuing offering
my services to all aspects of the aviation community. I would like to
show you my web page at
http://www.montana.com/supersports/FLYAD.HTM
to see if you and/or your organization might be interested in my
services.
I would like to thank you for your time and I look forward to your
comments.
B. Schmid
P.S. If I have inadvertently sent you this information before,please
accept my apologies. I have, however, made significant changes to the
page and would welcome you to visit again. Also, if applicable, I would
be interested in exchanging links.
________________________________________________________________________________
Does anyone know how many gallons of stits poly-spray and poly-tone I'll need
to paint my Firestar II ? Thanks-
John Bruzan
Email: Bruzan3(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Shearer <gshearer(at)whale.st.usm.edu> |
| Subject: | Mark III questions |
I'm seriously thinking about building a Mark III and would appreciate
some help from the group first. Here is what I want to do with it:
- fly with my wife around the local area.
- fly an occasional 100 - 200 mile cross country
- do a little bit of solo flying
Here are my questions:
- Can I fit comfortably ? 6'3", 240 lb.
- Would it be comfortable with me (big!) + a passenger?
- How is it in mild/moderate turbulence?
- How noisy is it? Need headsets to prevent headaches?
- How about using a Rotax 912 (4-stroke) for longer TBO,
better reliability and quieter operation?
I'd also very much appreciate any comments from Mark III flyers about
how you like your plane, any problems, etc.
Thanks much,
Glen
gshearer(at)whale.st.usm.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Mark III questions |
I think the mark 3 will do your mission. 100 to 200 is a long trip in a
pane that cruises at 70 mph. I think the 582 is plenty of engine for the
Mark 3. Plus when yu figure that your up front cost is lower and the rebuild
cost alot lower the shorter TBO is no big deal. Building one with the 582 is
easier anyway.
You really should get some time in one before you buy though. Its alot
of work. I spent two years building a Mark 2, only to find that what I
really wanted was a mark 3. Do yourself a favor get a few hours, not a 10
minute gee whiz test hop, in one before you put down your money.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mark III questions |
>I'm seriously thinking about building a Mark III and would appreciate
>some help from the group first. Here is what I want to do with it:
>
>- fly with my wife around the local area.
>- fly an occasional 100 - 200 mile cross country
>- do a little bit of solo flying
>
>Here are my questions:
>
>- Can I fit comfortably ? 6'3", 240 lb.
>- Would it be comfortable with me (big!) + a passenger?
>- How is it in mild/moderate turbulence?
>- How noisy is it? Need headsets to prevent headaches?
>- How about using a Rotax 912 (4-stroke) for longer TBO,
> better reliability and quieter operation?
>
>I'd also very much appreciate any comments from Mark III flyers about
>how you like your plane, any problems, etc.
>
>Thanks much,
>Glen
>gshearer(at)whale.st.usm.edu
>
> Can't help much about the size/comfort, Im 5'10" and the wife is short,
find one you can sit in and try it on.
As far as turbulence, the MKIII flys like a BIG ultralight, not a small
airplane. If you are going 65-70 and it's trashy-thermally it acts like an
airplane with a light wing load that's going too fast, because that's what
it is. This noon the thermals were pegging the vario at 1500 up and I was
lazing along at 45-50 mph and just enjoying the ride, good control
authority, no stress. 60 mph would not have been much fun, 70 would have
been abusive.
Went on a 65 mile out-and-back nonstop yesterday, comfortable,
uneventfull. Once again, it's a slow airplane with a light wing loading. It
floats around in busy air, it doesn't punch through. It has excellent
control authority. The elevators are very quick, the rudder is light, and
the ailerons are heavy and comparitively slow. (Has any one tried spades?
Do they help?)
It is noisy. You will need headsets and an intercom.
Longer TBO? The average pilot/owner never wears a Rotax out, he ignores
proper maintainance and screws it up. But with the weight you mentioned, 80
hp would be nice, but not really necessary. Rotax 2-strokes are reliable,
but you either like them or you don't. I like them. I smile when I see the
guy with the half VW engine and the sticker that says "Friends don't let
friends fly
two-strokes" , knowing that the company that said that is out of business.
I like the MKIII very well. It flys exactly like I want with a 65 Rotax
using 3.3 gph at 55 mph, and I plan to retire both from work and building
airplanes with this one.
Richard Pike
Technical Advisor EAA Chapter 442
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
So hows this, just finished my Firestar 2, just in time to leave for Sun in
Fun. Thats the luck, will probably have great wetaher this weekend. Called
the FAA today and they can't be here to inspect (to N Number) til the last of
the month. Thats the problem living in north louisisna, they gotta come from
Baton Rouge.
Oh well.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Mattsen <dmattsen(at)isd.net> |
Congrats on getting your plane completed. However I don't believe you
could have flown legally at SnF anyway. Doesn't the FAA still require
you to fly a certain amount of time off near your home base b-4 you can
venture out? It used to be 40 hrs., but maybe if you compliment the
inspector alot it'll get reduced.
Have fun creating wake turbulence with your new machine.
DAN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Cottrell <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
| Subject: | Re: adjustable props |
Ralph Burlingame wrote:
>
> Larry Cottrell wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I just bought a used IVO prop from Kolb. It is the one that they
> > reccommend as the best power for a 447 firestar, 68 inches,two blade
> > adjustable. I talked with Dennis at Kolb and he was unable to give me any
> > ideas about where to start with the adjustment. Anybody care to give me
> > some pointers?
> > Larry
>
> Larry:
>
> Since the recommended static RPM for the 447 is 6350 RPM, you would
> simply adjust the prop pitch for that RPM. To do this, use an automobile
> tow rope (the nylon type) to tie down your tail. Wrap one end around the
> tail wheel rod, and the other between the wheel and the ground of your
> car (it's best to have it down low). First start out with the maximum
> pitch of your prop and run up your engine at max power (have one hand on
> the throttle, and the other close to the kill switch when you are doing
> this test). Check the tach, and it will be below 6000 RPM. Shut the
> engine off, and adjust for a lower pitch setting. Try it again, and the
> RPM's should go up. You want to keep doing this (lowering the
> pitch)until you reach about 6350 RPM. Remember, the maximum RPM of your
> engine will be governed by the pitch of your prop.
>
> I have mine set for about 6100 RPM static, and I get a nice cruise, too,
> while sacrificing a little climb thrust. I have a 66" prop on a 377,
> while you have the 68" on a 447, so you may want to set the static RPM's
> like mine, since you have a larger diameter prop which would give you a
> better climb anyway.
>
> Ralph
Thanks so much for your response, I'm pretty new at this stuff and a
little intimidated I guess.
Thanks again,
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Cottrell <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
Hi,
Thanks for all the help that I recieved. I tied it to my car, on
pavement so I didn't damage the paint too much and after only two tries
got the rpm set to 6350. I was surprised to find that I had to decrease
the pitch to achieve the rpm that I needed. I was really pleased with the
smoothness of the IVO prop. The wooden one that was on it had a lot of
vibration with it. I'm glad that I broke the other one.
Thanks again
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brandon <majortom(at)campus.mci.net> |
| Subject: | New Engine for Ultralites |
Does anyone know anything about an engine called the MOTAVIA
by Ultratec, at http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/motavia/index.htm
This looks like a terrific engine. Something to replace the 2-stroke
Rotaxes.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cal <calvin(at)peoples.net> |
Did any of you guys recently order a engine kit from kolb, and last
week received two engines and no muffler/engine mount kit? Well I received
two muffler/engine mount kits and no engine.
Cal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
> Did any of you guys recently order a engine kit from kolb, and last
>week received two engines and no muffler/engine mount kit? Well I received
>two muffler/engine mount kits and no engine.
>Cal
>
>If I had just gotten a free engine in the mail, you don't think I'd send it
back do you? (well, really I would, us Christians are like that. But it
would cross my mind.)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | X-winds, brakes, slips and weight |
I had an "interesting" time landing yesterday on a narrow grass strip in a
strong cross wind. This grass strip is a great location for me, but it's
cross-ways to the prevailing wind. With a landing speed of 30-35 mph and a
cross wind of 8 (or so) you can see the problem.
I could see I was going to have a problem as soon as I took off. (My
starting point was in a bit of a wind shadow.) The flight plan was to shoot
landings, but I could tell right away that I only wanted to do one more
landing that day! So, after a 45 minute flight, I returned to make some
practice runs at the field and found that at 30' AGL I could not line up the
plane with the field even with full rudder.
FORTUNATELY, I have a nice hydrolic braking system on my plane, which I knew
I was going to need, as I would be touching down pointing about 5 degrees to
the left, even at full right rudder. I touched down on the right edge of
the field, went straight for about 30 feet, then began to weathervane as I
lost rudder authority. I'm not sure if I would have been better off relying
on tailwheel steering or brake steering, but the plan was to use the brakes.
Dealing with an upwind wingtip lifting probably distracted me a bit, but it
seemed that the braking was unavoidably lifting the tail off the ground. I
should have, and may have (out of instinct) had the stick back in my lap,
but I can't really say--it happened pretty fast, you know?
Anyway I ended up with the left wheel in the first furrow of the tomato
field, with about 2" prop clearance from the nearest dirt clod. All's well
that ends well. As you can immagine, some lessons were learned. (#1: learn
your limits, #2: aileron into wind, stick back on touchdown, etc.)
I think I probably wouldn't have been able to handle it without the brakes.
The brake system is an "extra" that puts my plane over the FAR 103 weight
limit. I really feel like FAR-103 ought to give an allowance for brakes
just as they do for parachutes. You really don't need them except for
emergencies, and I feel like they really allow me to more safely co-exist
with the more expensive aircraft at the "real" airport.
Finally a note on slips in an Ultrastar: I've noted previously how slips in
the Ultrastar result more in sideways flying than an increased rate of
descent. I noted in my log book after an earlier flight in the day that
"x-wind landings are a piece of cake" (because of the ability to fly
sideways). But I had a trade-off when the wind got stronger: with more
control of descent rate, I might have chosen an alternate strip that was
very short, but into the wind. Anyway, the other lesson is "practice,
practice, practice." (And I would have *had* more practice if we were
allowed to shoot landings at the airport--we've got an anti-ultralight
airport manager at the Davis airport.)
Anybody have any tips on hitting your spot on landings? Remember with
Ultrastar, one of my problems is that there's no windshield (or anything
else) in front to improve my visual reference on approach angle, etc. I was
thinking of adding a little wand with a bit of yarn at tip to the front of
plane to improve things in this regard.
.....................................................................
Mike Ransom internet: mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu (916) 754-6167
Programmer/Analyst, Dept of Agronomy & Range Science
University of California, Davis, U.S.A.
.....................................................................
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Feedback on Mark III as trainer |
| From: | shpeas(at)juno.com (Sherri l Craig) |
I'm building a MkIII and am wondering how you built in the second
throttle. I'd be interested in this modification if you don't mind
sharing how you configured your MkIII this way.
Peter & Sherri Craig
shpeas(at)juno.com
On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:43:26 Richard Pike writes:
>>Guys,
>>
>>I have just completed obtaining my BFI and am looking for the proper
>trainer.
>> I'm writing to ask for feedback on how the Mark III has done as a
>trainer
>>and also if any modifications have been done to the controls to make
>them a
>>little more "trainer friendly".
>>
>>I am just completing (rather a very good friend of mine is just
>completing)
>>building a firefly---I am the proverbial "gopher" but am learning a
>lot about
>>the quality of Kolb from this. I'm considering Kolb, Hawk and
>Flightstar as
>>three manufacturers for conducting training in and would really
>appreciate
>>Mark III owners feedback.
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>AllenB007(at)aol.com
>>
>> My MKIII has dual throttles, if that's what you mean. It
>seems to be a
>worthwhile change.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
[1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network]
| From: | Josh Daisey <flyboy2(at)concentric.net> |
Hi
My name is Josh Daisey and I am in the process of rebuilding a Twin
star. I have almost everything complete except I am having problems
with the nose faring. I have the front that flips down to allow easy
entry and exit. If any one has any suggestions pleas e-mail me.
Thanks
Josh
flyboy2(at)concentric.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Dual throttles for the MKIII |
Dual throttles on my MKIII is a bit complicated. The general idea
uses the same principle as on Honda motorcycle throttles: one cable pulls
one way, the other cable pulls the other. What you will do in the Kolb is
make a "Loop" of cable around the cockpit. On the pilot's side of the
cockpit below the left doorsill you mount a throttle quadrant similar to the
one in the CPS catalog on page 226, type A, single handle. Weld tabs onto
the fuselage tubes while under construction, with blind nuts on the
backsides, and you can attach the quadrant after the fabric is on. On the
passenger side of the fuselage you mount a tybe B single lever quadrant
below the doorsill. Put the quadrants right where your hand will naturally
be. Several inches in front and in back of both of these units you weld in a
short bit of tubing with a reduced end on it for a cable housing retainer,
just like the one below the flap handle that the choke cable goes in. Now
with one quadrant (the pilots) using an external lever (arm below the pivot)
and the other (the passengers) using an internal lever(arm above the pivot)
if you make a cable loop around the cockpit, under the floor in front,
behind the seats in back, when the pilot's throttle lever is pushed forward,
the passengers lever will go forward. When the pilot's lever is pulled back,
the passengers lever will go back. This keeps both levers synchronized. Also
you need cable adjusters inline to rig tension, motorcycle junkyards can
supply inline cable adjusters for a buck or so, or they are in the CPS
catalog also.
The actual cable to the engine is paired off the lever arm of the
pilot side quadrant (this requires another cable retainer welded on,
alongside the one for the "loop") and should be installed so that any
failure of the cable loop system does not affect it. I used nylon lined
housing and premium 1/16" smooth bicycle shift cable for my loop and the
extra drag is not objectionable. Also the bicycle cable solders well. The
CPS cable is probably the same.
If you are still with me, the next question is "How do you attach
two cables to the end of a throttle lever arm at once and have them pivot?"
Aircraft Spruce catalog, page 113, SA362-2 fork end, two per lever arm, one
facing each way, 3/16" clevis pin through the pivot hole. For the one on the
pilot's side that pulls the loop and the real throttle cable at once, I
butted a nico up against the end of the fork and swedged the loop cable to
the "real" cable, the "real" one going to the engine.
You need to solder "stop swages" to the end of the cables, use the
ones on the CPS catalog page 219, . Here's how to get an end that won't pull
off. The swage has one end that is flat and one that is countersunk. Poke
the cable in through the flat cut end and let it stick out the countersunk
end . Take a sharp tool and frizz the cable so that it gets ratty. Try to
pull it out without soldering, it should now be too big to fit back through.
If it is, solder it carefully and it will stay.
Richard Pike
Technical Advisor EAA Chapter 442
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neill Clayton-Smith <ncs(at)orca.overthe.net> |
| Subject: | Kolb pilots close to Wilmington,DE |
Hi,
I just moved to DE and would be interested in talking to anyone flying
in this area. I would also like to get to look at any planes being
built in the area.
Is the Kolb factory close? I am not familiar with this area, but PA is
pretty close
Neill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neill Clayton-Smith <ncs(at)orca.overthe.net> |
HI,
I believe for the pilots licence that you have to get a certain number
of hours in the plane that you wish to fly. Since I would like to end
up flying a Kolb that would mean I need to get training by an FAA
registered instructor in a Kolb? If this is the case can I complete all
my flight training in a Kolb? Are there any FAA registered instructors
teaching in Kolbs? Are there any close or in Delaware.
Thanks
L8R
Neill.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com> |
| Subject: | FW: Pilots license |
There is no requirements for hours in this type of aircraft. Usually
only big or fast airplanes require a type rating. If you can find an
instructor who will do it, you can take lessons in your own airplane but
only after the initial "40" hours is flown off. Since a person cannot
rent an experimental aircraft out for training the only way to get
"legal" time in a kolb is one that is operated as an ultralight
instruction, of course this time cannot be put in your log book because
you are not flying an airplane in the eyes of the FAA. All this aside,
even though the time does not "count" get some training in a Kolb before
you fly one, statistics show it will might save your life or will
probably save you some money in damages.
>----------
>From: Neill Clayton-Smith[SMTP:ncs(at)orca.overthe.net@acuityinc.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 10, 1997 3:32 PM
>To: 'Kolb'
>Subject: Pilots licence
>
>HI,
>
>I believe for the pilots licence that you have to get a certain number of
>hours in the plane that you wish to fly. Since I would like to end up flying
>a Kolb that would mean I need to get training by an FAA registered instructor
>in a Kolb? If this is the case can I complete all my flight training in a
>Kolb? Are there any FAA registered instructors teaching in Kolbs? Are there
>any close or in Delaware.
>
>Thanks
>L8R
>Neill.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | evoice(at)acton.com (Doug Prange) |
| Subject: | IVO Serial Numbers |
I'm filling out the necessary paperwork for the FAA inspection and have a
question regarding the serial number(s) on my three bladed IVO prop.
Each blade has a different number reverse molded on the back side close to
the hub.
Are these the numbers to use as serial numbers and if the three blades are
supposed to be a set it would seem they should all have the same number?
Doug Prange
Lincoln, Nebraska
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <steiger(at)ait.fredonia.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: IVO Serial Numbers |
>
>I'm filling out the necessary paperwork for the FAA inspection and have a
>question regarding the serial number(s) on my three bladed IVO prop.
>
>Each blade has a different number reverse molded on the back side close to
>the hub.
>
>Are these the numbers to use as serial numbers and if the three blades are
>supposed to be a set it would seem they should all have the same number?
>
I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think the IVO can be set up as a
two or three blade prop just by moving the blades around. Also, if you
break a blade, you only replace the blade as opposed to the whole prop.
So it would make sense that each blade has a seperate ser #, since there
is no guarantee that the blades will stay together.
If you need a serial number for the prop, maybe there is one on the
hub?
-Jon-
Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information Technology
.- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ -.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ |
| '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IVO Serial Numbers |
>
>I'm filling out the necessary paperwork for the FAA inspection and have a
>question regarding the serial number(s) on my three bladed IVO prop.
>
>Each blade has a different number reverse molded on the back side close to
>the hub.
>
>Are these the numbers to use as serial numbers and if the three blades are
>supposed to be a set it would seem they should all have the same number?
>
>Doug Prange
>Lincoln, Nebraska
>
>It is a way that Ivo has of seeing if the blades are compatible in terms of
pitch, balance, etc. The information is inscrutable to mere mortals...
r pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IVO Serial Numbers |
>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 22:46:54 -0400
>To: evoice(at)acton.com (Doug Prange)
>From: richard pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
>Subject: Re: IVO Serial Numbers
>Cc: kolb(at)www.intrig.com
>
>>
>>I'm filling out the necessary paperwork for the FAA inspection and have a
>>question regarding the serial number(s) on my three bladed IVO prop.
>>
>>Each blade has a different number reverse molded on the back side close to
>>the hub.
>>
>>Are these the numbers to use as serial numbers and if the three blades are
>>supposed to be a set it would seem they should all have the same number?
>>
>>Doug Prange
>>Lincoln, Nebraska
>>
>>It is a way that Ivo has of seeing if the blades are compatible in terms
of pitch, balance, etc. The information is inscrutable to mere mortals...
> r pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IVO Serial Numbers |
>
>I'm filling out the necessary paperwork for the FAA inspection and have a
>question regarding the serial number(s) on my three bladed IVO prop.
>
>Each blade has a different number reverse molded on the back side close to
>the hub.
>
>Are these the numbers to use as serial numbers and if the three blades are
>supposed to be a set it would seem they should all have the same number?
>
>Doug Prange
>Lincoln, Nebraska
>
>It is a way that Ivo has of seeing if the blades are compatible in terms of
pitch, balance, etc. The information is inscrutable to mere mortals...
r pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kathonn(at)RCS.RANG.K12.VA.US (Kurt Thonnings) |
Hello Everybody!
My name is Kurt Thonnings. I teach Middle School Tech Ed in Lexington, VA.
I first got my private ticket back in '89 and have 80 hrs. Haven't flown
in a long while now, primarily because of money. . . it's a teacher with a
family thing :(
I've been reading this newsgroup for a couple months now after searching
the internet and finding pictures of some kolbs. Of all the ultralights
I've seen, the kolb seems to be one of the more simple, beautiful, natural
looking aircraft.
I have a few questions for all of you:
*How does one with very little money pay for a kit?
*Anyone close enough to Lexington, VA willing to give me a ride in one?
*What's the longest distance any of you have flown in any of the kolbs?
*Why should I get a Kolb over other ultralights?
Thanks! Looking forward to hearing all of your responses!
Kurt Thonnings
Rockbridge Middle School
Technology Teacher
540-348-5445
kathonn(at)RCS.RANG.K12.VA.US
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
just got back from sun in fun, great as usuall, hope to break in my 503 on my
firestar 2 and maybe do some taxi testing this weekend. I got some more great
ideas at the flyin. The Kolb Firestar that is painted like a monarch
butterfly was there as were many others. Dennis and his crew were great to
talk to as usuall. One thing I got was a set of full 4 point harness for the
firestar 2. A guy next to Kolb (set up at the show) makes them and placed one
on a quick build firefly on display, and when I asked Kold about them they
directed me to him, he is custom building me some belts, in fact in talking
to other builders there, I was able to get him several other buyers. They are
real nice, just like Hooker Harnesses, but a much better price. He told me he
is trying to work a deal with Kolb so they offer them. I have his address if
anybody is interested. I feel much better with a full 4 point belt.
Also, Kolb had a new slingshot there with 2 cuyanna(sp) engines trying 2
props. They had just set up the plane and were not flying it but it was neat
to look at.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)bitstream.net> |
Kurt Thonnings wrote:
>
> Hello Everybody!
>
> My name is Kurt Thonnings. I teach Middle School Tech Ed in Lexington, VA.
> I first got my private ticket back in '89 and have 80 hrs. Haven't flown
> in a long while now, primarily because of money. . . it's a teacher with a
> family thing :(
>
> I've been reading this newsgroup for a couple months now after searching
> the internet and finding pictures of some kolbs. Of all the ultralights
> I've seen, the kolb seems to be one of the more simple, beautiful, natural
> looking aircraft.
>
> I have a few questions for all of you:
>
> *How does one with very little money pay for a kit?
>
> *Anyone close enough to Lexington, VA willing to give me a ride in one?
>
> *What's the longest distance any of you have flown in any of the kolbs?
>
> *Why should I get a Kolb over other ultralights?
>
> Thanks! Looking forward to hearing all of your responses!
>
> Kurt Thonnings
> Rockbridge Middle School
> Technology Teacher
> 540-348-5445
> kathonn(at)RCS.RANG.K12.VA.US
Kurt:
1) Answering your first question: Kolb used to offer their aircraft in 3
kits. This is the way I bought mine. The most expensive one was $2500,
as I recall. I don't know if they still offer the kits ... you will have
to check. I got two bank loans to pay for mine. Their phone no. is:
610-948-4136.
2) To get a ride in one, check with Kolb again and they will provide you
with a list of builders in your area (at least they used to).
3) There now have been many long-distance flights in Kolb aircraft. The
two most well noted are the flights of John Hauck and of Rick Trader who
both circumnavigated the continental United States. I know John flew
over 17,000 miles on his trip using a modified Mark III with a Rotax 912
engine. Rick, I believe, used an early TwinStar with a Rotax 582
(correct me guys if I'm wrong).
4) The Kolbs are very well designed planes, they are relatively easy to
fly, the average person can build one without having built before (I
did), they have folding wings so you can store them in your garage, and
they are riveted (instead of bolted) together which should last quite a
long time (mine is 10 years old). Personally, I like the idea of
aluminum and fabric, rather than wood and fabric. Lastly, the Kolbs are
very strong with that 5 or 6 inch diameter steel reinforced aluminum
tube as the main spar in the wings. Dennis Souder, the companies
president, tested one of their earlier UltraStars to in-flight
destruction a few years ago. The left wing folded back after the drag
strut bent out of column. To do this, he did many loops and pulled back
hard giving him a 5g press in the seat each time. They were trying to
find the "weak link" in the system at that time. Well they did! It
turned out to be the drag strut. The G-meters installed on board read
5-1/2 g's when it broke. All Kolbs were fitted with reinforced steel
drag stut braces after that, and the strut was beefed up too. The Kolbs
should be good for over 6g's now. How many aircraft manufacturers that
you know of, have actually tested their designs in "real life"
conditions like that? Rick Traders aircraft was 47% over the designed
gross limit of his TwinStar during his flight through some very heavy
turbulence in the mountains. Strong planes indeed.
I hope I answered your questions Kurt.
Ralph B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Cottrell <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
Hi,
I live in the foothills of the cascades and every place that I have to
fly is pretty tight. I am also 250 lbs so the stall rate on my Firestar 2
seems to run about 40 mph. It really isn't a problem I just have to carry
a little more landing speed. Is flaps on a firestar a possibility or
should I just leave well enough alone?
Thanks
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
----------
> From: Timandjan(at)aol.com
> real nice, just like Hooker Harnesses, but a much better price. He told
me he
> is trying to work a deal with Kolb so they offer them. I have his address
if
> anybody is interested. I feel much better with a full 4 point belt.
I'd like to have their address and the price if you don't mind posting it.
I'll be getting to belts soon for the SlingShot.
> Also, Kolb had a new slingshot there with 2 cuyanna(sp) engines trying 2
> props. They had just set up the plane and were not flying it but it was
neat
> to look at.
Dennis told me about this before the show. He said they've flown it on one
engine and it flew fine. Sounds really cool- anybody want a new 503 :-)
This does bring about a legal question though. Do you need to have a
multi-engine rating to fly it?
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Sun n' Fun Crash |
Anybody know anything about an ultralight crash reported at Sun n' Fun?
________________________________________________________________________________
Does anyone know any more than I've seen on TV about the unfortunate fatal of
Jim Lee at Sun & Fun just a few days ago. I think it involved a MarkIII and
Jim was alone shooting touch & goes. TV said something about oil leak
causing smoke and plane came in hard at a trailer park. Jim was a much loved
person around here and was a real spark plug as well as a "good" pilot of
several years. I understand, though, he was "testing" something. ....
Anybody??
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi everyone!, I'm just trying this system out.
________________________________________________________________________________
<< Also, Kolb had a new slingshot there with 2 cuyanna(sp) engines trying 2
props. They had just set up the plane and were not flying it but it was neat
to look at. >>
I saw two magazine articles on the 2Sis Twinpack. The first one has a
drawing of the engine mounted on the Slingshot, page 14, of the EAAs April
issue of Sport Aviation. The second magazine articles is in Kitplanes, May
issue, page 56 has a picture of the twinpack. I wander if it can be mounted
on a FireStar II?
Cuyuna has merged with AMW and are now called 2 Stroke International (2Si)
e-mail address is engines(at)2si.com
Type to you later
Will Uribe
Will's FireStar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | seat belt phone number |
The belts are made from a guy that has a dealership in Roland Oklahoma.
Venture Aerodrome Rt 1 Box 1163 Roland Ok 74954.
The friendly girl that took my order and handeled the paperwork said she can
be reached at (501) 648-4987, and her dads number is (918) 427-6490. This
number might be the shop etc.
I told her that I was gonna tell everybody about their belts, so feel free to
tell her you heard about them from me. Tim Loehrke (prounced lurky)
They have many colors of web to choose from, and I paid $80.00 for the front
seat belt.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CCHIEPPA(at)umassd.edu |
Hi All,
I have a few questions concerning AMS oils. As these are synthetic I would
like to chat with a user of the Injection Oil made by AMS and or the gear
box 75-90 W oil. Is there a user out on the Net ?
On a sad note I read the report from NTSB.GOV/AVIATION/MONTHS.HTM
which states that on April 8, 1997 about 12:00 eastern daylight time,
a Basinski, Kolb MK3, N128BB, registered to Lakeland Ultralight Inc. ect.
the report later states that the Airplane appeared to lose foward speed
while in a climb at 100 to 200 feet. The left wing dropped down between 45
to 90 degrees, the airplane entered a spin to the left, colliding with a
house trailer and the ground.
Lets be careful out there !
Charles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Reply to Kurt Thonnings |
| From: | bharrison(at)juno.com (Bruce E Harrison) |
Dear Kurt:
I had trouble responding to your e-mail. My program said there was
something unusual about your address, so I am just posting this to the
general Kolb group.
In reading the replies you've received so far, I noticed that each of the
Kolb owners practically ignored the negatives of owning a Kolb and only
rattled on and on about the positives. They sounded like commercials, I
tell you. In order to give you a balanced picture of Kolb ownership, I'm
going to give you an exhaustive list of my complaints about my FS-II.
This should help you make an informed decision.
Squawk List:
1) The bottom of the wings get muddy when flying from wet, short, muddy ,
grass strips.
Enjoy.
Bruce Harrison @juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
To avoid confusion here is the text of the NTSB preliminary report:
Accident occurred APR-08-97 at WINTER HAVEN, FL
Aircraft: Basinski KOLB MK3, registration: N128BB
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
On April 8, 1997, about 1200 eastern daylight time, a Basinski, Kolb MK3,
N128BB,
registered to Lakeland Ultralight Inc., operating as a 14 CFR Part 91
personal flight, crashed
while maneuvering in the vicinity of Winter Haven's Gilbert Field, Winter
Haven, Florida. Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The
airplane was destroyed.
The commercial pilot was fatally injured. The flight originated from Lake
Jessie abeam Browns
Seaplane Base, Winter Haven, Florida, about 1 minute before the accident.
Witnesses located
at Browns Seaplane Base, and boaters located on Lake Jessie, at Winter Haven,
observed the
airplane making touch-and-go landings to the lake. The airplane took off to
the north and turned
to the west. Blue and white colored smoke was observed coming from the
vicinity of the engine.
The airplane appeared to lose forward airspeed while in a climb at about 100
to 200 feet. The
left wing dropped down between 45 to 90 degrees, the airplane entered a spin
to the left,
colliding with a house trailer and the ground.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Reply to Kurt Thonnings |
Harrison) writes:
<< Squawk List:
1) The bottom of the wings get muddy when flying from wet, short, muddy ,
grass strips. >>
I have that same problem on my Mark III!
Sounds like wheel pants and with mud flaps might need to be a standard item
in all Kolb kits in the future.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Shamblin <shamblin(at)hc1.hci.net> |
on fly-ul list folks said he had a amphip mono float and seemed to have
had some oil line trouble. there were suggestions he was trying to get to
a lake near the trailer park. also suggestions this may be another sad
reminder that when an engine quits we should fly the plane and not try to
restart the engine.
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 GeoR38(at)aol.com wrote:
> Does anyone know any more than I've seen on TV about the unfortunate fatal of
> Jim Lee at Sun & Fun just a few days ago. I think it involved a MarkIII and
> Jim was alone shooting touch & goes. TV said something about oil leak
> causing smoke and plane came in hard at a trailer park. Jim was a much loved
> person around here and was a real spark plug as well as a "good" pilot of
> several years. I understand, though, he was "testing" something. ....
> Anybody??
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Shamblin <shamblin(at)hc1.hci.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Reply to Kurt Thonnings |
well, i notice folks have not talked about the long build times compared
to similar price/performance planes.
On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Bruce E Harrison wrote:
> Dear Kurt:
>
> I had trouble responding to your e-mail. My program said there was
> something unusual about your address, so I am just posting this to the
> general Kolb group.
>
> In reading the replies you've received so far, I noticed that each of the
> Kolb owners practically ignored the negatives of owning a Kolb and only
> rattled on and on about the positives. They sounded like commercials, I
> tell you. In order to give you a balanced picture of Kolb ownership, I'm
> going to give you an exhaustive list of my complaints about my FS-II.
> This should help you make an informed decision.
>
> Squawk List:
>
> 1) The bottom of the wings get muddy when flying from wet, short, muddy ,
> grass strips.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Enjoy.
>
> Bruce Harrison @juno.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Daniel D. Bush" <dbush(at)gte.net> |
I agree - my underside wings get all muddy when landing/taking off from
wet ground. Not only that - the upper sides get wet when it rains!!
Maybe someone could come up with a large umbrella that another plane
could tow ahead of me when I fly through mist, etc.
________________________________________________________________________________
(Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA251
| From: | Don Wilma <"dfwilma(at)cport.com"(at)mail.cport.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for Information about Kolb Mark III on floats. |
What is the all up weight with Lotus floats.
Any other information on Mark III on floats.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tommie Templeton <tommie(at)apex.net> |
Does anyone know the pilots name? I have a very good friend who flies
and does float plane instruction out of Jack Browns seaplane base.
His name is James Combee. Please let me know as soon as possible.
Many Many Thanks,
Tommie T
________________________________________________________________________________
<< On April 8, 1997, about 1200 eastern daylight time, a Basinski, Kolb MK3,
N128BB, >>
What is a Basinski Kolb Mk3????
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Twin Engine Homebuilt Pilot Rules |
In answer to Russell Duffy's question about needing multi-engine license
to fly a twin engine Slingshot. As far as the FAA is concerned, a
homebuilt experimental pilot needs only a single engine private rating,
period. Land, sea, skis, 1 or a dozen engines seems to make no
difference. So in theory, my 70 hour private single engine land pilot
better half (aka wife) can legally fly our twin engine Defiant
homebuilt. Our insurance company, on the other hand, has a completely
different view of the matter: twin rating, 200 hours Pilot In Command,
50 hours twin PIC and 10 hours make and model PIC before she can be
covered.
Tom Kuffel, kuffel(at)cyberport.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
----------
> From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
>
> What is a Basinski Kolb Mk3????
Basinski is probably the last name of the original builder. When you register
the plane with the FAA as experimental, the builder is considered the
manufacturer and the FAA makes sure your name appears. Often, Kolb's name
doesn't appear at all. My plane will officially be a "Duffy, Russell A.
SlingShot" according to the last paperwork I received.
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ALLENB007(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | BFI Training rates, costs, etc. |
Instructors,
I am preparing to begin instructing and would like information from the group
of instructors as to rates you charge, how everything is broken down, i.e.
ground school, in flight rates, tach time, testing, etc. I would appreciate
any and all information you could give me. Be assured that I will keep all
inquires strictly confidential. You may send this info privately or on the
group mail line.
Thanks in advance for your help and response,
AllenB007(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | ELT's and fuel senders |
Hi,
A couple odd questions:
For those of you that have ELT's, where did you put your antenna? I have one
of the AmeriKing units and was thinking about mounting the antenna inside the
aircraft. I could either put it on the fuel tank floor (between the tanks near
the side of the floor), or on a bracket that I'll mount on the fuselage tube
just behind the rear tank. The info with the unit says the external antenna
must be used to be in compliance with the TSO. I would be using the external
antenna, but it would be mounted inside the fabric fuselage. As an
experimental, am I even required to care about TSO specs?
The FAA requires you to be able to determine the fuel remaining in each tank.
I'll be using the 2 jugs that Kolb provides with the pickup tubes from the top.
The tanks will be Y-ed together so they should always feed evenly. Do you
think the FAA would let me get away with having just one sender, or would they
require two? Has anybody put a standard float-arm type sender in one of these
jugs? It looks like it'll be a tight fit. It seems like you could have a
sender that was just a float on a vertical tube where the float level changed
the resistance, but I've never seen one. I have seen the capacitance senders
but they're pretty expensive. Anybody got any good simple (FAA approved) ideas
that I'm overlooking.
PS- just updated the web pictures.
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | reynen(at)ix.netcom.com (Christina Reynen) |
| Subject: | Fwd: Looking for Information about Kolb Mark III on floats. |
Don wrote:
What is the all up weight with Lotus floats.
Any other information on Mark III on floats.
Hi Don;
I have an amphibiuos set of Lotus floats bolted to my Mark III and
before I can be specific about weights balance and other related info,
I need to know if you plan to use your own mounting kit and whether you
plan to use the amphib kit.
Frank Reynen,Kolb Mark III @369 hrs on Lotus floats.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Twin Engine Homebuilt Pilot Rules |
>In answer to Russell Duffy's question about needing multi-engine license
>to fly a twin engine Slingshot. As far as the FAA is concerned, a
>homebuilt experimental pilot needs only a single engine private rating,
>period. Land, sea, skis, 1 or a dozen engines seems to make no
>difference. So in theory, my 70 hour private single engine land pilot
>better half (aka wife) can legally fly our twin engine Defiant
>homebuilt. Our insurance company, on the other hand, has a completely
>different view of the matter: twin rating, 200 hours Pilot In Command,
>50 hours twin PIC and 10 hours make and model PIC before she can be
>covered.
>
>Tom Kuffel, kuffel(at)cyberport.net
>
>I wouldn't bet the farm on the part about only needing a single engine rating.
R Pike
MKIII N420P
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT's and fuel senders |
>Hi,
>
>A couple odd questions:
>
>For those of you that have ELT's, where did you put your antenna? I have one
>of the AmeriKing units and was thinking about mounting the antenna inside the
>aircraft. I could either put it on the fuel tank floor (between the tanks near
>the side of the floor), or on a bracket that I'll mount on the fuselage tube
>just behind the rear tank. The info with the unit says the external antenna
>must be used to be in compliance with the TSO. I would be using the external
>antenna, but it would be mounted inside the fabric fuselage. As an
>experimental, am I even required to care about TSO specs?
>
>The FAA requires you to be able to determine the fuel remaining in each tank.
>I'll be using the 2 jugs that Kolb provides with the pickup tubes from the top.
> The tanks will be Y-ed together so they should always feed evenly. Do you
>think the FAA would let me get away with having just one sender, or would they
>require two? Has anybody put a standard float-arm type sender in one of these
>jugs? It looks like it'll be a tight fit. It seems like you could have a
>sender that was just a float on a vertical tube where the float level changed
>the resistance, but I've never seen one. I have seen the capacitance senders
>but they're pretty expensive. Anybody got any good simple (FAA approved) ideas
>that I'm overlooking.
>
>
>PS- just updated the web pictures.
>
>Russell Duffy
>SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
>rad(at)pen.net
>http://www.pen.net/~rad/
>
>Take a couple of scraps of Lexan and splice them into the fabric
between/behind your seats. Look over your shoulder/under your armpit.
R Pike
MKIII N420P
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT's and fuel senders |
> Take a couple of scraps of Lexan and splice them into the fabric
> between/behind your seats. Look over your shoulder/under your armpit.
> R Pike
> MKIII N420P
Thanks for the thought, but it won't work in the SlingShot unless I can splice
some Lexan into my passengers :-) When someone is sitting in the back seat,
you can't see the tanks. In the factory SS, they mounted a convex mirror in
such a way that they could see the tanks. I understand this isn't exactly an
ideal situation.
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Shamblin <shamblin(at)hc1.hci.net> |
the FAA post calls my last post into much question. sorry. bill
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Bill Shamblin wrote:
> on fly-ul list folks said he had a amphip mono float and seemed to have
> had some oil line trouble. there were suggestions he was trying to get to
> a lake near the trailer park. also suggestions this may be another sad
> reminder that when an engine quits we should fly the plane and not try to
> restart the engine.
>
> On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 GeoR38(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know any more than I've seen on TV about the unfortunate fatal
of
> > Jim Lee at Sun & Fun just a few days ago. I think it involved a MarkIII and
> > Jim was alone shooting touch & goes. TV said something about oil leak
> > causing smoke and plane came in hard at a trailer park. Jim was a much loved
> > person around here and was a real spark plug as well as a "good" pilot of
> > several years. I understand, though, he was "testing" something. ....
> > Anybody??
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Orth" <orthbill@sovernet> |
Would appreciate dimensions, capacities any info on trailor suppliers,
components,personal tips on building or buying trailor for Firefly. Thanks,
address--billorth(at)sover.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
<< What is a Basinski Kolb Mk3???? >>
When you register a homebuilt aircraft YOU are the manufacturer. The way the
FAA has dealt with the problem of what to call the plane has been to put the
builder's last name ahead of the kit type name.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: KOLB fuel gauge |
Hi Rusty,
I was wondering if there is any place to run a +- vertical fuel
line in view that could act as a site gauge. Maybe you've already
investigated this. I guess the down side is that you'd have to put a
hole in the bottom of both tanks to feed the site gauge. Assuming this
true, i think it could be done reliably by using something other than
the standard rubber grommet. It might take a little looking around to
find a good sealed fitting to use.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Orth" <orthbill@sovernet> |
| Subject: | Request for info on Kolb firefly trailor |
My E mail address in first message is incorrect. Proper address is
orthbill(at)sover.net thanks. Bill Orth
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | thomas.tw.lloyd(at)ae.ge.com |
| Subject: | Re: KOLB fuel gauge |
Think about installing a small metal tube through the fuel tank cap (epoxy)
that reaches the tank bottom. Cut off bottom of tube at 45 degrees so the
tank bottom can't stopper it. From the tube that you installed at the top
of the tank, run a clear tube forward to a vertical location that is
convenient to view and has enough vertical range to calibrate the upper and
lower limit of the tank contents, then back to the cap. Leave enough
excess tubing to be able to easily remove the cap for filling. Install a
second metal tube through the tank cap to which the return from the fuel
level indicator is attached. Carry a very small syringe to purge the
indicator line of air each time you refuel. Attach an indicator card of
behind the view gauge tube so that you can easily view the what is in the
line. Attach both the tube and the card behind it so that they cannot move
vertically. Calibrate the indicator by first, leveling the aircraft as in
cruise flight and second, by marking the tube (not the card behind) at
different fill levels from Zero to full in gallon increments.
Although this method will work, it is not very accurate in climb or
descend.
If you use a small clear fuel indicator tube, say 1/8", it will slow the
indicator response to turbulence and other minor, short term, climb and
dive perturbations, giving you a reasonably accurate fuel level indicator
Good luck!
Tom Lloyd
tomlloyd(at)bigfoot.com
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: KOLB fuel gauge
Date: 4/14/97 1:15 PM
Hi Rusty,
I was wondering if there is any place to run a +- vertical fuel
line in view that could act as a site gauge. Maybe you've already
investigated this. I guess the down side is that you'd have to put a
hole in the bottom of both tanks to feed the site gauge. Assuming this
true, i think it could be done reliably by using something other than
the standard rubber grommet. It might take a little looking around to
find a good sealed fitting to use.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | thomas.tw.lloyd(at)ae.ge.com |
Hey! Guys and gals out there. Does anyone have any information on the
2si-Twinpack or the Slingshot powered by this engine. It sounds very
intriguing. Two engines on the same thrust line with enough power in just
one (40 hp) to keep your butt out of the dirt in the event of a failure.
The sum of 80 hp from two engines driving counter rotating props sounds
just right for a lot of light planes. Maybe perfect for the Slingshot.
However, as an engineer involved with the making of jet engine parts -
compressor airfoils, I have some concerns. It takes a lot of testing to
make sure that the risks of flying would actually be reduced by using this
engine. Here are just some of the thoughts that come to my mind while
considering this very interesting option.
1. What testing has been completed that demonstrates that the
vibration on prop two caused by disturbed air from prop one will not cause
catastrophic blade failure. You don't see any counter-rotors used in the
industry at this time, although they have been experimented with for years.
Well, OK, there is one Russian Bomber but, it sees very limited use.
2. What testing has been completed that demonstrates that if either
the front or back engine stops, that the detrimental effects will not cause
catastrophic failure in a short time.
3. Further, what happens to one engine if the prop on the other fails.
Will the pieces from one breaking prop destroy the other.
Aeromechanical vibration from disturbances in the upstream air are among
the biggest concerns for jet engine designers of fans and compressors.
Propellers are, after all, just fans with fewer blades.
I'm not trying to pee on anyone's parade. In fact the 2si-Twinpack engine
really does make me salivate. Lets just be cautious when we know we are
fooling around in an area of engineering that is known to be full of very
significant problems that have been known to cause major failures.
Lets experiment with good testing practice, not pilots lives with untried
products.
More needs to be known before I jump! If you know anything pass it on.
Tom Lloyd
Shrewsbury, Vermont.
tomlloyd(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Reply to Kurt Thonnings |
Similar price, but not performance. Kolbs are the best flyers out
there. Their only disadvantage is they take a little longer to build
but fly better and hold there value. See what it costs you to buy a
used one.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Reply to Kurt Thonnings
Date: 4/12/97 7:39 PM
well, i notice folks have not talked about the long build times compared
to similar price/performance planes.
On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Bruce E Harrison wrote:
> Dear Kurt:
>
> I had trouble responding to your e-mail. My program said there was
> something unusual about your address, so I am just posting this to the
> general Kolb group.
>
> In reading the replies you've received so far, I noticed that each of the
> Kolb owners practically ignored the negatives of owning a Kolb and only
> rattled on and on about the positives. They sounded like commercials, I
> tell you. In order to give you a balanced picture of Kolb ownership, I'm
> going to give you an exhaustive list of my complaints about my FS-II.
> This should help you make an informed decision.
>
> Squawk List:
>
> 1) The bottom of the wings get muddy when flying from wet, short, muddy ,
> grass strips.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Enjoy.
>
> Bruce Harrison @juno.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: long build time? |
On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com wrote:
> Similar price, but not performance. Kolbs are the best flyers out
> there. Their only disadvantage is they take a little longer to build
> but fly better and hold there value. See what it costs you to buy a
> used one.
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
>> Subject: Re: Reply to Kurt Thonnings
>> Author: Bill Shamblin at MAILGATE
>> Date: 4/12/97 7:39 PM
>>
>>
>> well, i notice folks have not talked about the long build times compared
>> to similar price/performance planes.
Well, yes, long build time could be considered a disadvantage. But not to
me. Building your own plane is an experience that a *very small* percentage
of mammals get to experience. From building your own, you end up with much
more than an "airplane"; it is a lifetime experience and accomplishment that
is hard to beat. And at that, it is short and simple enf compared to other
homebuild options, that you can accomplish it without divorce or bankruptcy
...usually. :-)
Don't fall into the trap that "instant gratification takes too long".
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Nagy <NAGY(at)genesis.cc.duq.edu> |
| Subject: | Kolb Twinstar 1985 |
I just purchased a Twinstar, two seat, open cockpit plane powered by
a Rotax 503 Single Carb with Magneto/point ignition.
The plane was flown by the builder and has a TT of about 30 hours.
I have never flown the plane but have access to a Ultra Light BFI
to get checked out in the plane. I have my PP License from the 60's (TT
less than 80 hours)and recently got a BiAnnual Flight Review from a CFI.
I am writing for two reasons.
1. To meet other Twinstar owners/flyers and gain the benefit of their
experience and advice about the Twinstar.
2. Although the plane is Registered with an N number it was never
inspected or awarded a Air Worthiness Certificate. The builder has agreed
to help complete the process after the fact that I bought it but I am
left with finishing details i.e. Instrument Panel, Weight & Balance Sheet
and placards.
My first question involves vibration Isolation of the instrument
panel from the frame. I have heard that the vibrations in UL's can wreck
several hundred dollars of instruments in a few hours. I am considering a
vertical panel mounted forward of the stick with the bottom mounted on
the keel tube and the top braced by strut ending between the rudder pedals.
Any experience with an open cockpit instrument panel and the
degree that frame vibration is a problem for instruments on the Twinstar?
I plan to use small rubber motor mounts between the panel and the
airframe. Has anyone gone to a spring suspension for instruments?
Thanks in advance,
Dave Nagy
Pittsburgh, PA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: KOLB fuel gauge |
Every fuel guage that I have seen in the general aviation biz, with the
possible exception of a cork with piece of coat hanger poking through the cap
on a friend's cub, isn't worth diddly.
I have a friend with a chalenger who has a capacitance guage from CPS.
It's never worked right. The fuel tanks on a mark 3 are visible, why not
just put some magic marker lines on your tank, or a simple sight tube?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bkearbey" <bkearbey(at)ben.bcoe.butte.k12.ca.us> |
Well Hello Everyone!
You said not to stop writing in here when my Father and I
finished our Kolb, so I will give everyone an update.
We finally finished the 40 hours on the craft. Last Saturday,
My father and I headed for a cross country trip. We took off from
Oroville, then to Colusa, Angwin (to visit my brother for a few at
college), Woodland, and then back to Oroville. The whole flight took
about 3 hours. It was a lot of fun and the Kolb performed
flawlessly. I hope to get checked out in it soon seeing that I got
my PPL.
We love the plane and it has performed well. I have seen a lot
of talk about fuel gauges ect. My father and I installed a fuel
gauge from CPS. It is an electric one. We installed the sender in
one of the tanks and put the gauge on the floor pan between the two
seats. It seems to be a great place for it. It is out of the way
yet easily seen.
TTYL,
Brandon Kearbey
|
Kolb | - - - -
Mark III [][]-| - - - -
N52BK .====== | - - - ___ "HERB"
Completed . /| | / | Brandon Kearbey
. / | / | bkearbey@ben.
. \_______/ |-----------/-----| bcoe.butte.k12.
(_____________//----------------\^ ca.us
/ o
( )
Http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1041
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jlbaker(at)telepath.com (Jim Baker) |
| Subject: | Re: ELT's and fuel senders |
>
>
>The FAA requires you to be able to determine the fuel remaining in each tank.
>I'll be using the 2 jugs that Kolb provides with the pickup tubes from the top.
A tip for a firm fitting grommet. I used a couple of thick wall alum tubes
to pass thru the grommet. The ends were machined to be like the bulbed ends
of fuel filters, fittings, etc. To get a nice tight fit in the grommet I
brazed a small ring (alum welding) on the tube (kinda like what a
compression fitting looks like on a copper fitting...for that matter could
have used copper tube, too). The grommet is placed over the tube and above
the ring. The assembly is pushed into the tank hole. Then pull the tube ring
up into the grommet from the inside of the tank and use a snapper plastic
hose clamp to keep it from retreating. Voila...nice tight fitting that won't
pull out of the tank.
> The tanks will be Y-ed together so they should always feed evenly.
A question of my own for ya'll....I'm too lazy to do the experiment (and I
have the same sort of setup). If one tank runs out before the other
(theoretical)...say one is half full and the other empty....will you still
draw fuel? Is this a "Duh" question, or what?
>Do you
>think the FAA would let me get away with having just one sender, or would they
>require two? Has anybody put a standard float-arm type sender in one of these
>jugs? It looks like it'll be a tight fit. It seems like you could have a
>sender that was just a float on a vertical tube where the float level changed
>the resistance, but I've never seen one. I have seen the capacitance senders
>but they're pretty expensive. Anybody got any good simple (FAA approved) ideas
>that I'm overlooking.
Get yourself a rearview mirror. I use one on my FS 2 to indirectly see the
tank. Course I'm not dealing with N numbering, so......
Might better get the capacitance model. One probe in each tank and can be
totalized to read fuel remaining. If you have/should have gotten an EIS,
you could run it on that unit. Skysports...1-800-AIR-Stuf
Jim Baker
Elmore City OK
>
>
>PS- just updated the web pictures.
>
>Russell Duffy
>SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
>rad(at)pen.net
>http://www.pen.net/~rad/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Russell" <jr(at)rometool.com> |
I have designed and built a tilt trailer with a hand crank winch
at front of trailer. kolb goes on nose first. One man load unload.
I have not weighed the tounge weight , but I am guessing about
150 pounds. Trailer tracks great. I am currently working on detailed
CAD drawings. Anyone interested contact. jr(at)rometool.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.COM> |
I spoke to Dan at Kolb about this. He said that the plane involved was
heavily modified, with Titan wings and tail, and many other
modifications.
He said the accident occurred because the pilot tried to turn back to
the takeoff area (lake in this case), but did not have sufficient
airspeed/altitude to do so. He said the pilot had a chute, but did not
use it.
Note that you are getting this, at least, third hand. I think comments
closer to the source might be useful.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Shamblin [SMTP:shamblin(at)hc1.hci.net]
>Sent: Monday, April 14, 1997 2:15 AM
>To: GeoR38(at)aol.com; Kolb(at)intrig.com
>Subject: Re: fatal
>
>the FAA post calls my last post into much question. sorry. bill
>
>On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Bill Shamblin wrote:
>
>> on fly-ul list folks said he had a amphip mono float and seemed to have
>> had some oil line trouble. there were suggestions he was trying to get to
>> a lake near the trailer park. also suggestions this may be another sad
>> reminder that when an engine quits we should fly the plane and not try to
>> restart the engine.
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 GeoR38(at)aol.com wrote:
>>
>> > Does anyone know any more than I've seen on TV about the unfortunate
>>fatal of
>> > Jim Lee at Sun & Fun just a few days ago. I think it involved a MarkIII
>>and
>> > Jim was alone shooting touch & goes. TV said something about oil leak
>> > causing smoke and plane came in hard at a trailer park. Jim was a much
>>loved
>> > person around here and was a real spark plug as well as a "good" pilot of
>> > several years. I understand, though, he was "testing" something. ....
>> > Anybody??
>> >
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Scott Bentley wrote:
> I spoke to Dan at Kolb about this. He said that the plane involved was
> heavily modified, with Titan wings and tail, and many other
> modifications.
>
> He said the accident occurred because the pilot tried to turn back to
> the takeoff area (lake in this case), but did not have sufficient
> airspeed/altitude to do so. He said the pilot had a chute, but did not
> use it.
Even if second or third hand, it seems like 90% of the accident reports
have the same moral: do not turn back, accept some damage and crash land
straight ahead.
Sure is tragic that we keep loosing our own kind on this one. i myself
take this as notice to rehearse some low altitude engine outs the next
time i fly. Mike (Ransom) and I were talking about it last night, and
as he said, rehearsal is a lot more likely to burn this concept into
our brains for the possible emergency than a plain ol' mental note.
ps. i think it is also useful to get up high and see how long it takes
for the plane to get into a stall, spiral, or dive while looking at
something behind you like the gas tank. With the light pitch loads on
Kolbs, it doesn't take long at all, and this exercise might help us
remember to *FLY_THE_AIRPLANE* instead of thinking about any other
in-flight problem.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wally Hofmann" <whofmann(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | digital levels ... worth it? |
Are the digital levels recommended by Kolb worth the expense. It seems like an
excellent way to get the alignment correct.
Is the longer (4 foot) model preferable ?
Anybody have a good source.
My FireFly is taking shape (slowly)
Thanks for the help
Wally Hofmann
Wickenburg, Arizona
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT's and fuel senders |
>>
>>
>>The FAA requires you to be able to determine the fuel remaining in each tank.
>>I'll be using the 2 jugs that Kolb provides with the pickup tubes from the
top.
>
>A tip for a firm fitting grommet. I used a couple of thick wall alum tubes
>to pass thru the grommet. The ends were machined to be like the bulbed ends
>of fuel filters, fittings, etc. To get a nice tight fit in the grommet I
>brazed a small ring (alum welding) on the tube (kinda like what a
>compression fitting looks like on a copper fitting...for that matter could
>have used copper tube, too). The grommet is placed over the tube and above
>the ring. The assembly is pushed into the tank hole. Then pull the tube ring
>up into the grommet from the inside of the tank and use a snapper plastic
>hose clamp to keep it from retreating. Voila...nice tight fitting that won't
>pull out of the tank.
>
>> The tanks will be Y-ed together so they should always feed evenly.
>
>A question of my own for ya'll....I'm too lazy to do the experiment (and I
>have the same sort of setup). If one tank runs out before the other
>(theoretical)...say one is half full and the other empty....will you still
>draw fuel? Is this a "Duh" question, or what?
>
>
>>Do you
>>think the FAA would let me get away with having just one sender, or would they
>>require two? Has anybody put a standard float-arm type sender in one of these
>>jugs? It looks like it'll be a tight fit. It seems like you could have a
>>sender that was just a float on a vertical tube where the float level changed
>>the resistance, but I've never seen one. I have seen the capacitance senders
>>but they're pretty expensive. Anybody got any good simple (FAA approved)
ideas
>>that I'm overlooking.
>
>Get yourself a rearview mirror. I use one on my FS 2 to indirectly see the
>tank. Course I'm not dealing with N numbering, so......
>
>Might better get the capacitance model. One probe in each tank and can be
>totalized to read fuel remaining. If you have/should have gotten an EIS,
>you could run it on that unit. Skysports...1-800-AIR-Stuf
>
>Jim Baker
>Elmore City OK
>>
>>
>>PS- just updated the web pictures.
>>
>>Russell Duffy
>>SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
>>rad(at)pen.net
>>http://www.pen.net/~rad/
>>
>>
>>Reference the part about Y-ing the tanks together and what happens if one
runs out and the other is half full: whatever goes up the fuel line, it
won't be premix...(you may have heard the term "sucking wind?")...:-)
R Pike
Technical Advisor EAA 442
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT's and fuel senders |
----------
> From: Jim Baker <jlbaker(at)telepath.com>
> A tip for a firm fitting grommet. I used a couple of thick wall alum tubes
> to pass thru the grommet. The ends were machined to be like the bulbed ends
> of fuel filters, fittings, etc. To get a nice tight fit in the grommet I
> brazed a small ring (alum welding) on the tube (kinda like what a
> compression fitting looks like on a copper fitting...for that matter could
> have used copper tube, too). The grommet is placed over the tube and above
> the ring. The assembly is pushed into the tank hole. Then pull the tube ring
> up into the grommet from the inside of the tank and use a snapper plastic
> hose clamp to keep it from retreating. Voila...nice tight fitting that won't
> pull out of the tank.
This is great. Sounds worthy of the next newsletter.
> A question of my own for ya'll....I'm too lazy to do the experiment (and I
> have the same sort of setup). If one tank runs out before the other
> (theoretical)...say one is half full and the other empty....will you still
> draw fuel? Is this a "Duh" question, or what?
>From my highly technical experiments in the sink, I'd say it's gonna get real
quiet if this condition occurs :-)
> Get yourself a rearview mirror. I use one on my FS 2 to indirectly see the
> tank. Course I'm not dealing with N numbering, so......
Kolb gets away with something like this I believe.
> Might better get the capacitance model. One probe in each tank and can be
> totalized to read fuel remaining. If you have/should have gotten an EIS,
> you could run it on that unit. Skysports...1-800-AIR-Stuf
I do have an EIS and wondered if the capacitance senders would work. Nice to
know. I'm still thinking of just using a 12 gal boat tank in the rear seat
area for the first 40+ hours. I'm not sure anyone will ever want to fly in
that seat, and I can always change it with some paperwork later. Still don't
know, but too busy at work to worry about it now (good thing because I STILL
don't have my landing gear legs and missing hardware).
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Twinstar 1985 |
On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Dave Nagy wrote:
[clipped]
> My first question involves vibration Isolation of the instrument
> panel from the frame. I have heard that the vibrations in UL's can wreck
> several hundred dollars of instruments in a few hours. I am considering a
> vertical panel mounted forward of the stick with the bottom mounted on
> the keel tube and the top braced by strut ending between the rudder pedals.
The standard kolb uses a fiberglass nose pod riveted to the steel frame.
There are no rubber shocks for the nose pod, and instruments generally
are shipped without shock mounting except for maybe a thin gasket like
piece. My analog instruments are fine after 2 years and I have not heard
of other ULers with vibration/shock related problems either.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o Firestar KXP
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Anthony Hinkelmann <hink(at)mindspring.com> |
I had my butt saved by having a 5 way harness in my FS-2. I also felt
secure in rough air, that I was going to stay with the plane, and the
BRS.
Bought mine from JEG'S auto racing equipment 1-800-345-4545 you will
pay between $65 - $179 for a good set ( Cheap Insurance and piece of
mind). I also have my harness connected to the bridal of my BRS. I want
to stick with the plane but if it all goes to Hell I want to be with the
chute. Worst case it will make it easier to locate the body.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Turning back--just say no! (was: fatal) |
...
>Even if second or third hand, it seems like 90% of the accident reports
>have the same moral: do not turn back, accept some damage and crash land
>straight ahead.
>
>Sure is tragic that we keep loosing our own kind on this one. i myself
>take this as notice to rehearse some low altitude engine outs the next
>time i fly. Mike (Ransom) and I were talking about it last night, and
>as he said, rehearsal is a lot more likely to burn this concept into
>our brains for the possible emergency than a plain ol' mental note.
>
>ps. i think it is also useful to get up high and see how long it takes
>for the plane to get into a stall, spiral, or dive while looking at
>something behind you like the gas tank. With the light pitch loads on
>Kolbs, it doesn't take long at all, and this exercise might help us
>remember to *FLY_THE_AIRPLANE* instead of thinking about any other
>in-flight problem.
...
I'm not sure if it was in this mail list or the U/L one, but there was a
thread a while ago about the problems with, and the temptation of turning
back to the airstrip in the event of an engine problem on take-off. I
think a couple of points are very worthwile to re-iterate:
1. Remember that you have to make a total of 360 degrees of turns, in 2
directions, to even return for a downwind landing. (eg. 270 to left + 90
to right)
2. Make a habit on climbout of watching for your safe turnaround
altitude--a great suggestion posted by someone involved in glider flying.
He mentioned that his instuctor liked him to call out "200 feet!" as they
climbed past 200' AGL on the tow. For us, it would be *more than 200*.
3. For *all* airplanes, it works out that your minimum altitude lost per
degrees turn is in a coordinated turn of 45 degrees bank. (A little less
in reality due to the energy loss of initiating and recovering the bank.)
Your stall speed will be a higher, so keep your speed up. In practical
terms, it feels like you are making a really quick turn in a quite steep
descent. In terms of speed, your best glide ratio is down there near, but
*definitely above* your stall speed. You will pay a decidedly worse
altitude penalty for being a little slower instead of faster than your
optimum, so err on the high side.
4. Know (well) how much altitude it takes you to make 90, 180, 270, and 360
degree turns. (This is from the instructor I had.) Practice it--at
altitude, then in practice runs at emergency spots. Then if your engine
quits at, say 500 feet (ie. not just take-off) you will be able to more
quickly and accurately estimate, "I'll need a little better than 100 feet
for this turn, maybe 100 more for the straight section, and 100 more to
line up with the landing spot." Or, "If I make a tight 360, I'll only use
up 200 feet, I better stretch out the downwind part a little and/or flatten
out the turns to get to spot x that's 300' below me.
Basically, you can see that this is all going to happen and require some
calculation anyway. If you're that low, you *very* likely will be better
off going in upwind, straight and level at someplace marginal than trying
to "save it" at a "better" landing spot. Better to rip off your landing
gear than catch a wingtip and total your plane or kill yourself.
Finally, re-assure yourself that you can get away with a lot coming in
straight and level at 25 mph--or less if there's a headwind. To me, this
is the only thing that makes flying on a 2-stroke engine acceptable. To
me, this is what makes flying ultralights safe. To me, putting a 2-stroke
on a faster airplane is asking for trouble.
Engine outs and (often associated) low-altitude stalls look to me to be the
two biggest killers of ultralight pilots. I too plan to go back to review
and practice my emergency procedures and flight preparation routines.
.....................................................................
Mike Ransom internet: mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu (916) 754-6167
Programmer/Analyst, Dept of Agronomy & Range Science
University of California, Davis, U.S.A.
.....................................................................
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: long build time? |
<< Well, yes, long build time could be considered a disadvantage. But not to
me. Building your own plane is an experience that a *very small* percentage
of mammals get to experience. From building your own, you end up with much
more than an "airplane"; it is a lifetime experience and accomplishment that
is hard to beat. And at that, it is short and simple enf compared to other
homebuild options, that you can accomplish it without divorce or bankruptcy
...usually. :-)
Don't fall into the trap that "instant gratification takes too long".
--------|--------
Ben Ransom >>
DITTOS, DITTOS, DITTOS
Thank you Ben for answering the question. Why are you building an
airplane?
Will Uribe
http://members.aol.com/WillU/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: digital levels ... worth it? |
> From: Wally Hofmann <whofmann(at)hotmail.com>
> Are the digital levels recommended by Kolb worth the expense. It seems like
an
> excellent way to get the alignment correct.
>
> Is the longer (4 foot) model preferable ?
>
> Anybody have a good source.
I just used a digital level to do the rigging on my SlingShot and it worked
great. I don't believe the 4 ft model will do you any good over the shorter
one because it needs to be able to span between the leading and trailing edge
tubes. This is about 50 inches on the SS. You'll have to see if 4 ft would
reach on the FireFly. I tie-rapped the level to a piece of square aluminum
tube. My level was purchased at Lowes for about $80.
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | foxfibre(at)pop.primenet.com |
| Subject: | initial tail assembly question |
The Kolb people seem to be out... maybe someone in this group can
help with this beginners question.
I'm ready to do the initial assembly of the tail on my FireFly. The
manual says not to do any riveting yet ... and that final alignment
of the tail with the fuselage will be done after installing the
fuselage tube?
At this point should I drill out the fuselage tube for the
tailpost ring and the brackets that attach to the front of the
vertical stabilizers ? What about the 'L' hinges that attach the
front of the horizontal stabilizers?
It seems like I should hold off until later to allow for alignment?
Or should I get everything square with the world on the tail and then
just rotate the fuselage tube in the cage to get alignment ?
Thanks for the help.
Wally Hofmann
Wickenburg, Arizona
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | thomas.tw.lloyd(at)ae.ge.com |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Info Request. |
Thoughts in response to Peter Volum's comments:
In my opinion the issue is only safety. When you put two engines and props
on the same drive line, running in opposite directions and at different
speeds (they can never be perfectly matched), with the aft prop excited two
or three times per revolution by the airflow interuption caused by the prop
in front, you are going to have some new problems to solve that don't
normally come up. Further, very few people on the planet have ever worked
these problems. They just don't exist on single engine applications.
The additional cost for fuel and maintenance over a 912 is far outweighed
by the difference in engine price. Even when extended over a/c lifetime.
The 2s-twinpack is less than half a 912.
It is likely, but not confirmed by any documented testing that Iknow of,
that the chance of having both engines of a Twinpack fail at the same time
is less than that of a 912 failure. This presumes that each Twinpack
engine has a different fuel tank. Common fuel tanks fail two engines at
once - water, dirt, JetA contamination, whatever.
It also presumes that prop failure issues are resolved.
Aside from fuel problems, the issues for me are, in order of priority:
1. Aeromechanical or mechanical vibration caused prop, mount, bearing
or driveshaft failure.
2. Engine part life for one of the Twinpack engines evaluated on its
own.
3. Spark plug/ignition life - Twinpack uses 1 plug per cylinder.
4. Life difference of the Twinpack engines in the configuration used
on the aircraft of intended use. One engine faces forward, the
other aft. The cooling air was designed to flow in only one
direction. This arrangement could cause very serious cooling
problems, even engine sezier.
5. What impact does engine RPM synchronization have of life. What is
optimum and how do pilots achieve it.
Other questions that come to mind are:
1. What prop is best for a particular a/c application?
2. What is method used to synchronize RPM on light planes where
instrumentation is minimal.
3. Are there any RPM settings that are to be avoided due to natural
frequencies within the operating range?
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: Info Request.
Date: 4/15/97 2:25 PM
Like you, I'm intrigued by the prospect of having a redundant engine for
safety. I'm building a Mk III on which I was planning to mount a Rotax 912,
but the size of the check that will require keeps me up at nights. On the
other hand, I find the prospect of betting the safety of my butt on the
reliability of a single two stroke unacceptable. Virtually all the UL
engine-caused accident reports I've read about have been due to in-flight 2
stroke failures.
I hope that by the time I'm ready to send for my engine(s), there will be more
actual use information available on this set-up.
Apart from the safety aspect, I'm also curious about how noise level and fuel
consumption compare with those generated by a 912 setup.
Peter Volum
Ibimiami(at)msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb(at)intrig.com On Behalf Of thomas.tw.lloyd(at)ae.ge.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 1997 5:34 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Info Request.
Hey! Guys and gals out there. Does anyone have any information on the
2si-Twinpack or the Slingshot powered by this engine. It sounds very
intriguing. Two engines on the same thrust line with enough power in
just
one (40 hp) to keep your butt out of the dirt in the event of a failure.
The sum of 80 hp from two engines driving counter rotating props sounds
just right for a lot of light planes. Maybe perfect for the Slingshot.
However, as an engineer involved with the making of jet engine parts -
compressor airfoils, I have some concerns. It takes a lot of testing to
make sure that the risks of flying would actually be reduced by using
this
engine. Here are just some of the thoughts that come to my mind while
considering this very interesting option.
1. What testing has been completed that demonstrates that the
vibration on prop two caused by disturbed air from prop one will not
cause
catastrophic blade failure. You don't see any counter-rotors used in the
industry at this time, although they have been experimented with for
years.
Well, OK, there is one Russian Bomber but, it sees very limited use.
2. What testing has been completed that demonstrates that if either
the front or back engine stops, that the detrimental effects will not
cause
catastrophic failure in a short time.
3. Further, what happens to one engine if the prop on the other
fails.
Will the pieces from one breaking prop destroy the other.
Aeromechanical vibration from disturbances in the upstream air are among
the biggest concerns for jet engine designers of fans and compressors.
Propellers are, after all, just fans with fewer blades.
I'm not trying to pee on anyone's parade. In fact the 2si-Twinpack
engine
really does make me salivate. Lets just be cautious when we know we are
fooling around in an area of engineering that is known to be full of very
significant problems that have been known to cause major failures.
Lets experiment with good testing practice, not pilots lives with untried
products.
More needs to be known before I jump! If you know anything pass it on.
Tom Lloyd
Shrewsbury, Vermont.
tomlloyd(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | thomas.tw.lloyd(at)ae.ge.com |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Info Request. |
Thoughts in response to Peter Volum's comments:
In my opinion the issue is only safety. When you put two engines and props
on the same drive line, running in opposite directions and at different
speeds (they can never be perfectly matched), with the aft prop excited two
or three times per revolution by the airflow interuption caused by the prop
in front, you are going to have some new problems to solve that don't
normally come up. Further, very few people on the planet have ever worked
these problems. They just don't exist on single engine applications.
The additional cost for fuel and maintenance over a 912 is far outweighed
by the difference in engine price. Even when extended over a/c lifetime.
The 2s-twinpack is less than half a 912.
It is likely, but not confirmed by any documented testing that Iknow of,
that the chance of having both engines of a Twinpack fail at the same time
is less than that of a 912 failure. This presumes that each Twinpack
engine has a different fuel tank. Common fuel tanks fail two engines at
once - water, dirt, JetA contamination, whatever.
It also presumes that prop failure issues are resolved.
Aside from fuel problems, the issues for me are, in order of priority:
1. Aeromechanical or mechanical vibration caused prop, mount, bearing
or driveshaft failure.
2. Engine part life for one of the Twinpack engines evaluated on its
own.
3. Spark plug/ignition life - Twinpack uses 1 plug per cylinder.
4. Life difference of the Twinpack engines in the configuration used
on the aircraft of intended use. One engine faces forward, the
other aft. The cooling air was designed to flow in only one
direction. This arrangement could cause very serious cooling
problems, even engine sezier.
5. What impact does engine RPM synchronization have of life. What is
optimum and how do pilots achieve it.
Other questions that come to mind are:
1. What prop is best for a particular a/c application?
2. What is method used to synchronize RPM on light planes where
instrumentation is minimal.
3. Are there any RPM settings that are to be avoided due to natural
frequencies within the operating range?
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: Info Request.
Date: 4/15/97 2:25 PM
Like you, I'm intrigued by the prospect of having a redundant engine for
safety. I'm building a Mk III on which I was planning to mount a Rotax 912,
but the size of the check that will require keeps me up at nights. On the
other hand, I find the prospect of betting the safety of my butt on the
reliability of a single two stroke unacceptable. Virtually all the UL
engine-caused accident reports I've read about have been due to in-flight 2
stroke failures.
I hope that by the time I'm ready to send for my engine(s), there will be more
actual use information available on this set-up.
Apart from the safety aspect, I'm also curious about how noise level and fuel
consumption compare with those generated by a 912 setup.
Peter Volum
Ibimiami(at)msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb(at)intrig.com On Behalf Of thomas.tw.lloyd(at)ae.ge.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 1997 5:34 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Info Request.
Hey! Guys and gals out there. Does anyone have any information on the
2si-Twinpack or the Slingshot powered by this engine. It sounds very
intriguing. Two engines on the same thrust line with enough power in
just
one (40 hp) to keep your butt out of the dirt in the event of a failure.
The sum of 80 hp from two engines driving counter rotating props sounds
just right for a lot of light planes. Maybe perfect for the Slingshot.
However, as an engineer involved with the making of jet engine parts -
compressor airfoils, I have some concerns. It takes a lot of testing to
make sure that the risks of flying would actually be reduced by using
this
engine. Here are just some of the thoughts that come to my mind while
considering this very interesting option.
1. What testing has been completed that demonstrates that the
vibration on prop two caused by disturbed air from prop one will not
cause
catastrophic blade failure. You don't see any counter-rotors used in the
industry at this time, although they have been experimented with for
years.
Well, OK, there is one Russian Bomber but, it sees very limited use.
2. What testing has been completed that demonstrates that if either
the front or back engine stops, that the detrimental effects will not
cause
catastrophic failure in a short time.
3. Further, what happens to one engine if the prop on the other
fails.
Will the pieces from one breaking prop destroy the other.
Aeromechanical vibration from disturbances in the upstream air are among
the biggest concerns for jet engine designers of fans and compressors.
Propellers are, after all, just fans with fewer blades.
I'm not trying to pee on anyone's parade. In fact the 2si-Twinpack
engine
really does make me salivate. Lets just be cautious when we know we are
fooling around in an area of engineering that is known to be full of very
significant problems that have been known to cause major failures.
Lets experiment with good testing practice, not pilots lives with untried
products.
More needs to be known before I jump! If you know anything pass it on.
Tom Lloyd
Shrewsbury, Vermont.
tomlloyd(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | thomas.tw.lloyd(at)ae.ge.com |
| Subject: | Re[2]: ELT's and fuel senders |
Please, Don't use copper fuel lines. Some gasolines contain enough sulfer
co build up copper-sulfate on the inside and may eventially cause fuel
starvation. Aluminum and steel are better.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: ELT's and fuel senders
Date: 4/16/97 2:52 AM
>>
>>
>>The FAA requires you to be able to determine the fuel remaining in each tank.
>>I'll be using the 2 jugs that Kolb provides with the pickup tubes from the
top.
>
>A tip for a firm fitting grommet. I used a couple of thick wall alum tubes
>to pass thru the grommet. The ends were machined to be like the bulbed ends
>of fuel filters, fittings, etc. To get a nice tight fit in the grommet I
>brazed a small ring (alum welding) on the tube (kinda like what a
>compression fitting looks like on a copper fitting...for that matter could
>have used copper tube, too). The grommet is placed over the tube and above
>the ring. The assembly is pushed into the tank hole. Then pull the tube ring
>up into the grommet from the inside of the tank and use a snapper plastic
>hose clamp to keep it from retreating. Voila...nice tight fitting that won't
>pull out of the tank.
>
>> The tanks will be Y-ed together so they should always feed evenly.
>
>A question of my own for ya'll....I'm too lazy to do the experiment (and I
>have the same sort of setup). If one tank runs out before the other
>(theoretical)...say one is half full and the other empty....will you still
>draw fuel? Is this a "Duh" question, or what?
>
>
>>Do you
>>think the FAA would let me get away with having just one sender, or would they
>>require two? Has anybody put a standard float-arm type sender in one of these
>>jugs? It looks like it'll be a tight fit. It seems like you could have a
>>sender that was just a float on a vertical tube where the float level changed
>>the resistance, but I've never seen one. I have seen the capacitance senders
>>but they're pretty expensive. Anybody got any good simple (FAA approved)
ideas
>>that I'm overlooking.
>
>Get yourself a rearview mirror. I use one on my FS 2 to indirectly see the
>tank. Course I'm not dealing with N numbering, so......
>
>Might better get the capacitance model. One probe in each tank and can be
>totalized to read fuel remaining. If you have/should have gotten an EIS,
>you could run it on that unit. Skysports...1-800-AIR-Stuf
>
>Jim Baker
>Elmore City OK
>>
>>
>>PS- just updated the web pictures.
>>
>>Russell Duffy
>>SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
>>rad(at)pen.net
>>http://www.pen.net/~rad/
>>
>>
>>Reference the part about Y-ing the tanks together and what happens if one
runs out and the other is half full: whatever goes up the fuel line, it
won't be premix...(you may have heard the term "sucking wind?")...:-)
R Pike
Technical Advisor EAA 442
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Turning back--just say no! (was: fatal) |
...
>Even if second or third hand, it seems like 90% of the accident reports
>have the same moral: do not turn back, accept some damage and crash land
>straight ahead.
>
>Sure is tragic that we keep loosing our own kind on this one. i myself
>take this as notice to rehearse some low altitude engine outs the next
>time i fly. Mike (Ransom) and I were talking about it last night, and
>as he said, rehearsal is a lot more likely to burn this concept into
>our brains for the possible emergency than a plain ol' mental note.
>
>ps. i think it is also useful to get up high and see how long it takes
>for the plane to get into a stall, spiral, or dive while looking at
>something behind you like the gas tank. With the light pitch loads on
>Kolbs, it doesn't take long at all, and this exercise might help us
>remember to *FLY_THE_AIRPLANE* instead of thinking about any other
>in-flight problem.
...
I'm not sure if it was in this mail list or the U/L one, but there was a
thread a while ago about the problems with (and the temptation of) turning
back to the airstrip in the event of an engine problem on take-off. I
think a couple of points are very worthwile to re-iterate:
1. Remember that you have to make a total of 360 degrees of turns, in 2
directions, to even return for a downwind landing. (eg. 270 to left + 90
to right)
2. Make a habit on climbout of watching for your safe turnaround
altitude--a great suggestion posted by someone involved in glider flying.
He mentioned that his instructor liked him to call out "200 feet!" as they
climbed past 200' AGL on the tow. For us, it would be *more than 200*.
3. For *all* airplanes, it works out that your minimum altitude lost per
degrees turned is in a coordinated turn of 45 degrees bank. (A little less
in reality due to the energy loss of initiating and recovering from the
bank.) Your stall speed will be higher, so keep your speed up. In
practical terms, it feels like you are making a really quick turn in a
quite steep descent. In terms of speed, your best glide ratio is down
there near, but *definitely above* your stall speed. You will pay a
decidedly worse altitude penalty for being a little slower instead of
faster than your optimum, so err on the high side.
4. Know (well) how much altitude it takes you to make 90, 180, 270, and 360
degree turns. (This from the instructor I had.) Practice it--at altitude,
then in practice runs at emergency spots. Then if your engine quits at,
say 500 feet you will be able to more quickly and accurately estimate,
"I'll need a little better than 100 feet for this turn, maybe 100 more for
the straight section, and 100 more to line up with the landing spot." Or,
"If I make a tight 360, I'll only use up 200 feet, I better stretch out the
downwind part a little and/or flatten out the turns to get to spot x that's
300' below me.
Basically, you can see that this is all going to happen fast and require
some calculation anyway. If you're that low, and you don't already have
your spot pretty well in mind before the engine out, you *very* likely will
be better off just going in upwind, straight and level, at someplace
marginal, than trying to "save it" at a "better" landing spot. Better to
rip off your landing gear than catch a wingtip or do the big stall/spin.
Finally, re-assure yourself that you can get away with *a lot* coming in
straight and level at 25 mph--even less if there's a headwind. To me, this
is the only thing that makes flying on a 2-stroke engine acceptable. To
me, this is what makes flying ultralights safe. To me, putting a 2-stroke
on a faster airplane is asking for trouble.
Engine outs and (often associated) low-altitude stalls look to me to be the
two biggest killers of ultralight pilots. I too plan to go back to review
and practice my emergency procedures and flight preparation routines.
.....................................................................
Mike Ransom internet: mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu (916) 754-6167
Programmer/Analyst, Dept of Agronomy & Range Science
University of California, Davis, U.S.A.
.....................................................................
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM> |
| Subject: | 2si Engines, twin engines, etc |
I was thinking, consider this: Let's say the odds of a well-engineered
2-stroke engine installation quitting during flight are 1 in 1000, just for
the sake of argument. Now you put two of them on your plane, what are the
odds that ONE of them is going to quit on a particular flight? Does the number
drop to 1 in 500? I think so. The odds that BOTH fail are increased somewhat.
If I was trying to get more reliabilty, I would concentrate my efforts on the
SYMPTOMS that cause engine-outs (like poor maintenance practices, running out
of fuel or oil, carburetor icing, failure of single-ignition systems, ...).
I have not seen the 2si twin engine solution and I am sure it is a fine
product, and I am not an expert, and I am not trying to convince anyone to
buy or not buy it, BUT whatever engine(s) you trust your life to will work
only as well as the installation and maintenance allows.
Practice good maintenance AND emergency engine-out landings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Neilsen <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | 2si Engines, twin engines, etc -Reply |
If my memory serves me correctly I remember a
Eagle Ultralight that used a twin pack arrangement for
a while, the engines were gocart engines. I think they
were Mcculloch engines that were stressed to the
limit and one would quit every 3-4 flights and come
limping home part of the time. The twin pack (which
looks just like the 2si package) seemed to work well
but the engine problems may have masked any other
operational problems. The next engine offered by the
Eagle was a single Cyuna engine that looks
remarkably like the engine that is part of the twin pack
that you guys are talking about. At the time the Cyuna
was much more reliable than the old twin pack but still
not as reliable as the Chotia in my Weedhopper. Later
Rotax started selling a 277 that literly blew the rest of
the engine manufactures out of the market due to its
great reliability. It seems that if you put two sort of
reliable engines together you may end up with
something that is unreliable as a package.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | thomas.tw.lloyd(at)ae.ge.com |
| Subject: | Re: 2si Engines, twin engines, etc |
ODDS OF THE (1) ENGINE QUITTING IS PROBABLY NOT AS GOOD AS 1/1000. HOWEVER
TBO IS BASED ON EXPERIENCE. A 912 IS 1600HRS NOW, 2SI IS NOT LIKELY TO BE OVER
300HRS. SINCE, THESE FIGURES ALWAYS HAVE A SAFETY FACTOR INCLUDED, WE COULD
GUESS THAT IF WE DOUBLED THE TBO WE WOULD LIKELY HAVE A FAILURE,NOT
NECESSARILY CATASTROPHIC. SO, IF WE PICKET 1.5xTBO IN HRS WE WOULD PROBABLY BE
NEAR THE MEAN TIME BETWEEN FAILURES (MTBF). OR 1.5TBO=MTBF AND
1/MTBF=FAILURE RATE
FOLLOWING THIS THINKING A LITTLE FURTHER FOR ONE SIDE OF A 2SI, WE GET
1/450 AS FAILURE ODDS FOR ONE OF THE TWO ENGINES THAT MAKE UP A 2SI-TWINPACK.
THE ODDS OF BOTH SIDES FAILING AT THE SAME TIME IS THEN
1/450 X 1/450 = 1/202500 OR ROUGHLY 1/200000
HOWEVER, CONTAMINATED FUEL OR FAILURE OF PROP ONE TAKING OUT PROP TWO IS PART
OF THE EQUATION AND, THEREFORE, THE ODDS OF BOTH FAILING TOGETHER WOULD DROP
SIGNIFICANTLY FROM ~ 1/200000 TO SAY 1/100000
WHO KNOWS THIS IS ALL HYPOTHETICAL. MORE IMPORTANTLY, A REAL LIFE STUDY NEEDS
TO BE DONE ON THIS NEW PRODUCT.
I was thinking, consider this: Let's say the odds of a well-engineered
2-stroke engine installation quitting during flight are 1 in 1000, just for
the sake of argument. Now you put two of them on your plane, what are the
odds that ONE of them is going to quit on a particular flight?
Does the number drop to 1 in 500? I think so.
The odds that BOTH fail are increased somewhat.
If I was trying to get more reliabilty, I would concentrate my efforts on the
SYMPTOMS that cause engine-outs (like poor maintenance practices, running out
of fuel or oil, carburetor icing, failure of single-ignition systems, ...).
I have not seen the 2si twin engine solution and I am sure it is a fine
product, and I am not an expert, and I am not trying to convince anyone to
buy or not buy it, BUT whatever engine(s) you trust your life to will work
only as well as the installation and maintenance allows.
Practice good maintenance AND emergency engine-out landings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
| Subject: | Re: Turning back--just say no! (was: fatal) |
I am missing something here, if you make a 360 degree turn on climb
out back to the runway isn't that like the old saying "lets make a 360
and get the heck out of here"...The most you should have to make is a
180 degree turn, unless you intend to fly the entire pattern which
when low on attitude you going to cut corners real quick. Last I knew
when at attitude, the FAA suggests spiraling over the selected landing
point, a change from what I was originally taught.
You right on target of establishing before hand what altitude your
plane requires to make it back to the runway, if you don't have it
look for a survivable point ahead of you. Better to bend the plane
than yourself.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Turning back--just say no! (was: fatal)
Date: 4/16/97 1:44 AM
...
>Even if second or third hand, it seems like 90% of the accident reports
>have the same moral: do not turn back, accept some damage and crash land
>straight ahead.
>
>Sure is tragic that we keep loosing our own kind on this one. i myself
>take this as notice to rehearse some low altitude engine outs the next
>time i fly. Mike (Ransom) and I were talking about it last night, and
>as he said, rehearsal is a lot more likely to burn this concept into
>our brains for the possible emergency than a plain ol' mental note.
>
>ps. i think it is also useful to get up high and see how long it takes
>for the plane to get into a stall, spiral, or dive while looking at
>something behind you like the gas tank. With the light pitch loads on
>Kolbs, it doesn't take long at all, and this exercise might help us
>remember to *FLY_THE_AIRPLANE* instead of thinking about any other
>in-flight problem.
...
I'm not sure if it was in this mail list or the U/L one, but there was a
thread a while ago about the problems with, and the temptation of turning
back to the airstrip in the event of an engine problem on take-off. I
think a couple of points are very worthwile to re-iterate:
1. Remember that you have to make a total of 360 degrees of turns, in 2
directions, to even return for a downwind landing. (eg. 270 to left + 90
to right)
2. Make a habit on climbout of watching for your safe turnaround
altitude--a great suggestion posted by someone involved in glider flying.
He mentioned that his instuctor liked him to call out "200 feet!" as they
climbed past 200' AGL on the tow. For us, it would be *more than 200*.
3. For *all* airplanes, it works out that your minimum altitude lost per
degrees turn is in a coordinated turn of 45 degrees bank. (A little less
in reality due to the energy loss of initiating and recovering the bank.)
Your stall speed will be a higher, so keep your speed up. In practical
terms, it feels like you are making a really quick turn in a quite steep
descent. In terms of speed, your best glide ratio is down there near, but
*definitely above* your stall speed. You will pay a decidedly worse
altitude penalty for being a little slower instead of faster than your
optimum, so err on the high side.
4. Know (well) how much altitude it takes you to make 90, 180, 270, and 360
degree turns. (This is from the instructor I had.) Practice it--at
altitude, then in practice runs at emergency spots. Then if your engine
quits at, say 500 feet (ie. not just take-off) you will be able to more
quickly and accurately estimate, "I'll need a little better than 100 feet
for this turn, maybe 100 more for the straight section, and 100 more to
line up with the landing spot." Or, "If I make a tight 360, I'll only use
up 200 feet, I better stretch out the downwind part a little and/or flatten
out the turns to get to spot x that's 300' below me.
Basically, you can see that this is all going to happen and require some
calculation anyway. If you're that low, you *very* likely will be better
off going in upwind, straight and level at someplace marginal than trying
to "save it" at a "better" landing spot. Better to rip off your landing
gear than catch a wingtip and total your plane or kill yourself.
Finally, re-assure yourself that you can get away with a lot coming in
straight and level at 25 mph--or less if there's a headwind. To me, this
is the only thing that makes flying on a 2-stroke engine acceptable. To
me, this is what makes flying ultralights safe. To me, putting a 2-stroke
on a faster airplane is asking for trouble.
Engine outs and (often associated) low-altitude stalls look to me to be the
two biggest killers of ultralight pilots. I too plan to go back to review
and practice my emergency procedures and flight preparation routines.
.....................................................................
Mike Ransom internet: mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu (916) 754-6167
Programmer/Analyst, Dept of Agronomy & Range Science
University of California, Davis, U.S.A.
.....................................................................
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <steiger(at)ait.fredonia.edu> |
> I had my butt saved by having a 5 way harness in my FS-2. I also felt
secure in rough air, that I was going to stay with the plane, and the BRS.
> Bought mine from JEG'S auto racing equipment 1-800-345-4545 you will
pay
between $65 - $179 for a good set ( Cheap Insurance and piece of mind). I
also have my harness connected to the bridal of my BRS. I want to stick
with the plane but if it all goes to Hell I want to be with the chute. Worst
case it will make it easier to locate the body.
>
I just looked through my Summit catalog (I'll check JEGS when I get
home) and I was surprised to see how cheap harnesses were! (compared
to aviation). They looked to be good quality and were 3" (as opposed to
the usual ultralight 2") width.
How did you install the harness in your FS? I was going to order a
harness from CPS which has loops as mounting points (as opposed to metal
pieces that you'd have to bolt somewhere). I'd expect an automotive
harness to have the bolt hardware. Are they available with loops?
Another problem that I noticed was the question of where to connect
the "submarine" strap. (That is supposed to go between your legs and
hook into the floor.) On my FireFly, the wires for the controls go
right under the seat, and I couldn't see any place to hook up that
strap. (I was going to go with a 4 point instead)
-Jon-
Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information Technology
.- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ -.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ |
| '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Turning back--just say no! (was: fatal) |
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com wrote:
> I am missing something here, if you make a 360 degree turn on climb
> out back to the runway isn't that like the old saying "lets make a 360
> and get the heck out of here"...The most you should have to make is a
> 180 degree turn, unless you intend to fly the entire pattern which
180 will put you parallel to the runway (ouch), not on it. Draw a picture,
departing from a runway and it goes like this: 45 left, 270 to the
right, and then a 45 to the left. This can be improved upon if you
angle somewhat to one side after take-off. I.E. in theory if you
drifted far enf you could reduce it to one 180 deg turn to the runway.
At best, and in practice, a (just say no) turn-back might be a 225 in
one direction, then 45 in the opposite to line up and land. IMHO I
think this is the scenario we should learn how much it costs in altitude.
(drawing the picture helps see what we're up against.)
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM> |
| Subject: | "Redundant" engines, 2si product, etc... |
I have received a couple direct replies to my earlier comments and need
to make myself more clear.
I know nothing about the 2si product except what I learned from this forum.
I am not trying to be an expert.
I am not trying to persuade anyone.
(Hopefully this is stated more clearly): IF a particular type of engine
had a failure rate of once every X number of hours, AND a certain
application used TWO of the engines, the average time between failures
would be ONE-HALF-OF X HOURS. I am not saying both engines would fail, but
your experience would be twice as many engine-outs as it would be if your
aircraft had only one of the engines.
If you double the number of engines, you double the number of possible
engine problems you may experience. The bright side you are looking for is
that each occurance may seem less important because you have another engine
running after the first one quits (assuming one is enough to sustain flight
safely).
I think two engines is a great idea, almost as good as one really dependable
one.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: crash @ Sun and Fun or thereabouts |
There has been a fatal at Sun & Fun in an airplane that I think is a MarkIII.
The pilot's name is Jim Lee, a popular entreprenuer up here in Eastern Ohio/
western Pa. I can't seem to get any information about the circumstances. The
TV said there was smoke duuing takeoff while practicing touch and goes,
another talked of an oil leak, and another said the parachute failed to open.
Does anyone know any more?
GeorgeR
Firestar KX driver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Madeleine Volum" <MVolum(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | RE: 2si Engines, twin engines, etc |
If the odds of one failing are one in 1000, the odds of both failing together
would be one in one million (unless the failure of one causes the second to
fail). Provided one of these engines alone can maintain flight, it stands to
reason that a twin job would be an extremely safe and redundant arrangement.
I was planning to mount a Rotax 912 on the Mk III I'm building, but now I'm
not so sure. When the time comes, I intend to look very closely at this
economical and possibly even safer alternative.
Peter Volum
Ibimiami(at)msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb(at)intrig.com On Behalf Of Jim Gerken
GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 1:08 PM
To: kolb(at)intrig.com
Subject: Kolb-List: 2si Engines, twin engines, etc
I was thinking, consider this: Let's say the odds of a well-engineered
2-stroke engine installation quitting during flight are 1 in 1000, just for
the sake of argument. Now you put two of them on your plane, what are the
odds that ONE of them is going to quit on a particular flight? Does the
number
drop to 1 in 500? I think so. The odds that BOTH fail are increased
somewhat.
If I was trying to get more reliabilty, I would concentrate my efforts on the
SYMPTOMS that cause engine-outs (like poor maintenance practices, running out
of fuel or oil, carburetor icing, failure of single-ignition systems, ...).
I have not seen the 2si twin engine solution and I am sure it is a fine
product, and I am not an expert, and I am not trying to convince anyone to
buy or not buy it, BUT whatever engine(s) you trust your life to will work
only as well as the installation and maintenance allows.
Practice good maintenance AND emergency engine-out landings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
| Subject: | Re: digital levels ... worth it? |
There are 3 models out there. An older model which the digital
torreppodo could be removed and used by its self or swapped between 2
and 4 foot frames. Then they came out with a new model but it lacked
the feature of being able to remove the digital unit.
If you wanted the short one you had to by it. If you wanted a 2 ft
you had to buy that unit which also contained a digital unit. Was
kind of expensive since one you paid for another digial level unit on
each frame size.
Appartely market pressure caused them to rethink their ways, they now
have another model level which the topeddo can be removed and swapped
between frames. No, it doesn't fit the frames of the first
generation.
There is a difference in feature between the first and second/third
generation. If I recall right the abilty to zero out a angle is not
available. They claimed that this was due to the increased accuracy.
I decided I wanted that feature and tracked down a couple sources in
Wisconsin that sells the old units at a much more attractive price
than most other places. They made me a good deal on 2 ft. unit and a
4 ft. frame and shipped it to me.
I'm not sure which unit would be better for setting prop pitch. The
newer one has better accuracy but lacks the zeroing feature might be
useful.
I was looking over the set up my friend is using to set up his wings.
He has the fuselage setting directly on floor, and leveled, not on the
gear. Each wing rest on a wooden frame attached to a saw horse, 1 saw
horse per wing. Two boards (inexpensive 1x3 stock) running in a
vertical direction are attached to each end of the saw horse. (What
did we do before dry wall screws) A wood cross member of the same
stock is placed on its side edge up/down and anachored to the two
vertical boards to achieve the proper height as required. This cross
board supports the wings spars. From there the wing may be shimmed a
small amount to set the dieheal and incindince. A string running the
span of the wing (refer to the builders manual) is used to determine
the sweep. One lined up carefully drill holes in the front spar
mounting brackets, then go have a beer....No beer before drilling da
holes....This method looked like it worked very well.
You can use levels or a transit. How much does it cost to rent a
transit for a day?
( ) Wing o <-----rear spar
====================
==================== <----set top of cross board to proper height
!! !!
!! !!
--------------
!! Saw !!
!! Horse !!
!! !!
----------------------------------------------------------
--------Wing--------------Fuselage------------Wing--------
+
!!
++
! ! <-- saw horse ------------------> another saw horse
! !
! !
The other thing I was talking to a few builder/flyers are Sun & Fun.
I made a comment that I didn't like the BIG piece of lexan hung on the
rudder to correct the trim on airplanes. Its big, got to cause a lot
of drag plus it sticks out there for people to bump into. We decided
there it would be better to off set the Horzitional Stab slightly at
the edging edge. (Don't ask me which way, OK guys help me out here)
When you drill the mount for it to the fuselauge tube, allow space for
a couple of washers between the Stab frame and the mounting brackets
on each side. Now this will allow you to shim it off center by a
couple of washers. I heard that 1/16-1/8" should do the job.
By the way I believe Avery Enterprises in Fort-Worth Texas has a sale
on digital levels right now.
Happy building.
Jerry Bidle
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: digital levels ... worth it?
MAILGATE
Date: 4/15/97 11:31 PM
Are the digital levels recommended by Kolb worth the
expense. It seems like an excellent way to get the
alignment correct.
Is the longer (4 foot) model preferable ?
Anybody have a good source.
My FireFly is taking shape (slowly)
Thanks for the help
Wally Hofmann
Wickenburg, Arizona
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FFZB25A(at)prodigy.com (MR KEN COLES) |
| Subject: | i have a kolb mark II for sale nice shap |
i have a kolb mark ii with a rotax 503 dual carb dual ignition, only
53 hours on it with a lot of options such as, ballistic chute, cb,
dave clark headsets and intercom, all gauges 11 of them total, matco
wheels and hydralic brakes, large tires, wing tip nav lights and
strobes, dual fuel tanks, back up electric fuel pump, battery ,
voltage regulator, portable navcom, push to talk button, hangared
always, fabric and paint in perfect shape must sell $9,500 located in
pa call ken at 717 489-7620 days or 717 489-7140 nights ready to fly
nothing wrong with it at all nice plane it is a side by side two
seater.
ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
| Subject: | (resent corrected sp.) digital levels ... worth it? |
There are 3 models out there. An older model which the digital
torpedo could be removed and used by its self or swapped between 2 and
4 foot frames. Then they came out with a new model but it lacked the
feature of being able to remove the digital unit.
If you wanted the short one you had to by it. If you wanted a 2 ft
you had to buy that unit which also contained a digital unit. Was
kind of expensive since one you paid for another digital level unit on
each frame size.
Apparently market pressure caused them to rethink their ways, they now
have another model level which the torpedo can be removed and swapped
between frames. No, it doesn't fit the frames of the first
generation.
There is a difference in feature between the first and second/third
generation. If I recall right the ability to zero out a angle is not
available. They claimed that this was due to the increased accuracy.
I decided I wanted that feature and tracked down a couple sources in
Wisconsin that sells the old units at a much more attractive price
than most other places. They made me a good deal on 2 ft. unit and a
4 ft. frame and shipped it to me.
I'm not sure which unit would be better for setting prop pitch. The
newer one has better accuracy but lacks the zeroing feature might be
useful.
I was looking over the set up my friend is using to set up his wings.
He has the fuselage setting directly on floor, and leveled, not on the
gear. Each wing rest on a wooden frame attached to a saw horse, 1 saw
horse per wing. Two boards (inexpensive 1x3 stock) running in a
vertical direction are attached to each end of the saw horse. (What
did we do before dry wall screws) A wood cross member of the same
stock is placed on its side edge up/down and anchored to the two
vertical boards to achieve the proper height as required. This cross
board supports the wings spars. From there the wing may be shimmed a
small amount to set the dihedral and incidence. A string running the
span of the wing (refer to the builders manual) is used to determine
the sweep. One lined up carefully drill holes in the front spar
mounting brackets, then go have a beer....No beer before drilling da
holes....This method looked like it worked very well.
You can use levels or a transit. How much does it cost to rent a
transit for a day?
( ) Wing o <-----rear spar
====================
==================== <----set top of cross board to proper height
!! !!
!! !!
--------------
!! Saw !!
!! Horse !!
!! !!
----------------------------------------------------------
--------Wing--------------Fuselage------------Wing--------
+
!!
++
! ! <-- saw horse ------------------> another saw horse
! !
! !
The other thing I was talking to a few builder/flyers are Sun & Fun.
I made a comment that I didn't like the BIG piece of lexan hung on the
rudder to correct the trim on airplanes. Its big, got to cause a lot
of drag plus it sticks out there for people to bump into. We decided
there it would be better to off set the Horizontal Stab slightly at
the edging edge. (Don't ask me which way, OK guys help me out here)
When you drill the mount for it to the fuselage tube, allow space for
a couple of washers between the Stab frame and the mounting brackets
on each side. Now this will allow you to shim it off center by a
couple of washers. I heard that 1/16-1/8" should do the job.
By the way I believe Avery Enterprises in Fort-Worth Texas has a sale
on digital levels right now.
Happy building.
Jerry Bidle
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: digital levels ... worth it?
Date: 4/15/97 11:31 PM
Are the digital levels recommended by Kolb worth the expense. It seems like an
excellent way to get the alignment correct.
Is the longer (4 foot) model preferable ?
Anybody have a good source.
My FireFly is taking shape (slowly)
Thanks for the help
Wally Hofmann
Wickenburg, Arizona
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: 2si Engines, twin engines, etc -Reply |
>If my memory serves me correctly I remember a
>Eagle Ultralight that used a twin pack arrangement for
>a while, the engines were gocart engines. I think they
>were Mcculloch engines that were stressed to the
>limit and one would quit every 3-4 flights and come
>limping home part of the time. The twin pack (which
>looks just like the 2si package) seemed to work well
>but the engine problems may have masked any other
>operational problems. (snip)
>
I remember the Eagle twin pack. It had two Chrysler / westbend engines of
about 7 hp each. They had centrifugal clutches that were connected to a
common prop shaft. When one engine quite the other one was not able to pull
the single prop. The second engine would bog out just after the first one
stopped. This setup provided for a very high failure rate.
That is how the one that I saw was set up. There may have been others with
a different configuration.
The 2si looks interesting. I would be conserned about viberations as
mentioned in a previous post.
Kim (BKS)
Saskatchewan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | skip staub <skip(at)netline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: Info Request. |
Hello Tom,
> 4. Life difference of the Twinpack engines in the configuration
used
> on the aircraft of intended use. One engine faces forward,
the
> other aft. The cooling air was designed to flow in only one
> direction. This arrangement could cause very serious cooling
> problems, even engine sezier.
While at Sun-n-Fun I asked Homer Kolb about the cooling air for the "Twinpack"
and he advised that the backward facing engine simply uses a fan that has
reversed vanes.
Your concern about possible stress caused by contrarotating props is
understood. We should also understand that we are not working with extremely
highly stressed parts as you are with the high performance jet engines that
you're working with. :)
As of Sun-n-Fun the "Twinpack" hasn't flown with both engines operating. I
(and you:) will be looking forward to the test program. I hope it works!
>I find the prospect of betting the safety of my butt on the
>reliability of a single two stroke unacceptable. Virtually all the UL
>engine-caused accident reports I've read about have been due to in-flight 2
>stroke failures.
In defense of the two stroke engines: Modern 2 strokes are a far cry from
the 2 cycle engines of even 30 or 40 years ago. Look at the modern 2 stroke
outboard motors -- totally dependable even though operated at high power
and in a harsh enviornment such as salt water. It's usually not the engines,
it's the maintenance and the fuel systems that are usually to blame for
failures.
Regards,
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Daniel D. Bush" <dbush(at)gte.net> |
There's a Cessna out there that uses two engines in tandem - mostly used
as a spotter for fires but it's been in service 10+ years and to my
knowledge, no more problems than any other plane. In regards to air
flow, should not be a major problem - if you've a tractor type -
Hurrcaine or similar the air comes one way - if you have a pusher - ours
it come the other way. Only problem is the possible temp of the air
coming off the front engine passing over the rear engine but I really
think that is looking for a problem and not realistic.
Dan B., S. Cal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | receiving double |
I am still getting 2 emails from the Kolb list, is everybody else? How do we
address it so I only receive 1 mail from the list.
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jlbaker(at)telepath.com (Jim Baker) |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: ELT's and fuel senders |
Dang....I knew I'd get called on this....of course you're right. It was one
of those things I'd read about and then forgotten. Thanks for setting me and
other straight.
Jim Baker
> Please, Don't use copper fuel lines. Some gasolines contain enough
sulfer
> co build up copper-sulfate on the inside and may eventially cause fuel
> starvation. Aluminum and steel are better.
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: Re: ELT's and fuel senders
>Author: richard pike at smtplink_lynn
>Date: 4/16/97 2:52 AM
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>The FAA requires you to be able to determine the fuel remaining in each
tank.
>>>I'll be using the 2 jugs that Kolb provides with the pickup tubes from the
>top.
>>
>>A tip for a firm fitting grommet. I used a couple of thick wall alum tubes
>>to pass thru the grommet. The ends were machined to be like the bulbed ends
>>of fuel filters, fittings, etc. To get a nice tight fit in the grommet I
>>brazed a small ring (alum welding) on the tube (kinda like what a
>>compression fitting looks like on a copper fitting...for that matter could
>>have used copper tube, too). The grommet is placed over the tube and above
>>the ring. The assembly is pushed into the tank hole. Then pull the tube ring
>>up into the grommet from the inside of the tank and use a snapper plastic
>>hose clamp to keep it from retreating. Voila...nice tight fitting that won't
>>pull out of the tank.
>>
>>> The tanks will be Y-ed together so they should always feed evenly.
>>
>>A question of my own for ya'll....I'm too lazy to do the experiment (and I
>>have the same sort of setup). If one tank runs out before the other
>>(theoretical)...say one is half full and the other empty....will you still
>>draw fuel? Is this a "Duh" question, or what?
>>
>>
>>>Do you
>>>think the FAA would let me get away with having just one sender, or would
they
>>>require two? Has anybody put a standard float-arm type sender in one of
these
>>>jugs? It looks like it'll be a tight fit. It seems like you could have a
>>>sender that was just a float on a vertical tube where the float level
changed
>>>the resistance, but I've never seen one. I have seen the capacitance
senders
>>>but they're pretty expensive. Anybody got any good simple (FAA approved)
>ideas
>>>that I'm overlooking.
>>
>>Get yourself a rearview mirror. I use one on my FS 2 to indirectly see the
>>tank. Course I'm not dealing with N numbering, so......
>>
>>Might better get the capacitance model. One probe in each tank and can be
>>totalized to read fuel remaining. If you have/should have gotten an EIS,
>>you could run it on that unit. Skysports...1-800-AIR-Stuf
>>
>>Jim Baker
>>Elmore City OK
>>>
>>>
>>>PS- just updated the web pictures.
>>>
>>>Russell Duffy
>>>SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
>>>rad(at)pen.net
>>>http://www.pen.net/~rad/
>>>
>>>
>>>Reference the part about Y-ing the tanks together and what happens if one
>runs out and the other is half full: whatever goes up the fuel line, it
>won't be premix...(you may have heard the term "sucking wind?")...:-)
> R Pike
> Technical Advisor EAA 442
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wayne Welsh <flight(at)idirect.com> |
Hello Everyone:
I am in the midst of decision making on purchasing a used Kold Mark 2.
I would like to know what is the difference between the Mark 2 and 3 and
what opinions you have of the Mark 2. Any advise or opinions would be
greatly appreciated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Barton <Kbarton(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | New builder firestar ll |
I would like all the information for building the Firestar ll and any
info or suggestions that might help me. I have the wings and tail built and
am waiting on the fuselage kit.I live in Delray Beach Fl. and would like to
know of anyone in Fl.close having a Kolb that can give me a checkout or
ride in their plane when I finish mine.
Thank You
Kbarton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: KOLB TRAILER |
With my Firefly about framed out I am working on the same problem. You
probably know that we can buy a factory-built car hauler trailer but they are
way over weight and over priced for my needs. My current thinking is to
start with an aluminum boat trailer with rubber torsion suspension. The
enclosure will be based on a 3" box steel framed aluminum car shelter which
is manufactured in my locale. These are designed to with stand 200 MPH
winds. The manufacturer is interested in the project and willing to work
with me on a streamlined front end, ramp/tailgate and windows. The target
gross weight will be 1,000 Lbs to acommodate my beloved Nissan long cab.
Anyone interested in this effort can contact me at MitchMnd @ AOL.com
(Tallahassee FL)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rabbruzz(at)unlinfo.unl.edu (Ray Abbruzzese) |
| Subject: | Re: Info Request. |
Tom Lloyd wrote:
> Hey! Guys and gals out there. Does anyone have any information on the
> 2si-Twinpack or the Slingshot powered by this engine. It sounds very
> intriguing. Two engines on the same thrust line with enough power in
just
> one (40 hp) to keep your butt out of the dirt in the event of a failure.
> The sum of 80 hp from two engines driving counter rotating props sounds
> just right for a lot of light planes. Maybe perfect for the Slingshot.
>
SNIP
> Lets experiment with good testing practice, not pilots lives with untried
> products.
>
> More needs to be known before I jump! If you know anything pass it on.
>
> Tom Lloyd
> Shrewsbury, Vermont.
> tomlloyd(at)bigfoot.com
>
>
I talked with Dennis about the set up at S 'n' F. He said that 2si bought
the Slingshot as the test bed for the twin pack and that the testing
continues. He said that right now they are still trying to get the engines
running correctly. They can get one engine running at optimum but it seems
to throw off the other engine. Then, when they get the second engine back to
optimum, it seems to throw the first one off. They are continuing to chase
this problem.
>From my own experiences with Kolb, I KNOW that Dennis will not release or
sell any design (or design change) that has not met some VERY demanding
standards. When (and IF) they ever get the problems fixed and offer it for
sale, I would be very comfortable buying it from Kolb.
I agree that more needs to be known about the set up before it is ready for
sale and I feel Kolb is trying to find the answers.
No, I do not work for Kolb or 2si and I have no financial interest in either
company. I DO think that Kolbs are the VERY BEST ULs on the market, IMHO. 8^)
See you in the sky !!!
See you in the sky !
Ray Abbruzzese E-Mail at: rabbruzz(at)unlinfo.unl.edu
Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Standard Disclaimer: These are my opinions and you all know about opinions
(they are like butts, everybody has one). I could be wrong and I probably
am. Just please do not sue me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Weber (DVNS)" <bweber(at)micom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: KOLB TRAILER |
On another note, what are some ideas for locking down a trailer? I will
be parking mine at the airfield. I would like some good protection
against both theft and wind.
***************************************************************
* Bill Weber (bweber(at)micom.com) * Keep the *
* MICOM Communications * shiny side *
* Simi Valley, CA * up. *
***************************************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: KOLB TRAILER |
On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Bill Weber (DVNS) wrote:
> On another note, what are some ideas for locking down a trailer? I will
> be parking mine at the airfield. I would like some good protection
> against both theft and wind.
i lock my modified boat trailer to my driveway. i simply dug a hole
and buried a big chain in with some cement. I loop the chain thru the
front of the frame w/ a big lock. I'm sure somebody could still get thru
this, but it will deter most. I guess airport managers would frown on
us digging a hole in their parking areas. :-/
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Anthony Hinkelmann <hink(at)mindspring.com> |
3 inch belt the way to go. fastened the crack strap to the back of the
seat then tie wrapped it to the front and side of the control cables.
connected the lap part through the landing gear tubes. Had to extend
the shoulder belts to connect them to the rear of the cage. They went
straight back from the shoulder.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Steiger [SMTP:steiger(at)ait.fredonia.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 5:18 PM
To: kolb(at)intrig.com
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Harness
> I had my butt saved by having a 5 way harness in my FS-2. I also felt
secure in rough air, that I was going to stay with the plane, and the
BRS.
> Bought mine from JEG'S auto racing equipment 1-800-345-4545 you will
pay
between $65 - $179 for a good set ( Cheap Insurance and piece of mind).
I
also have my harness connected to the bridal of my BRS. I want to stick
with the plane but if it all goes to Hell I want to be with the chute.
Worst
case it will make it easier to locate the body.
>
I just looked through my Summit catalog (I'll check JEGS when I get
home) and I was surprised to see how cheap harnesses were! (compared
to aviation). They looked to be good quality and were 3" (as opposed to
the usual ultralight 2") width.
How did you install the harness in your FS? I was going to order a
harness from CPS which has loops as mounting points (as opposed to metal
pieces that you'd have to bolt somewhere). I'd expect an automotive
harness to have the bolt hardware. Are they available with loops?
Another problem that I noticed was the question of where to connect
the "submarine" strap. (That is supposed to go between your legs and
hook into the floor.) On my FireFly, the wires for the controls go
right under the seat, and I couldn't see any place to hook up that
strap. (I was going to go with a 4 point instead)
-Jon-
Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information
Technology
.- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/
-.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ
|
| '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R
|
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my
own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Anthony Hinkelmann <hink(at)mindspring.com> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Hinkelmann [SMTP:hink(at)mindspring.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 1997 11:38 AM
To: 'Bill Orth'
Subject: Kolb-List: RE:
I have a trailer built by a fellow pilot in Byron Georgia. I showed
him a picture of a FS-2 and gave him the dimensions that I wanted. I
wanted to trailer my FS-2 facing into the wind, not bass ackwards. He
built a neat trailer 5 1/2 ft wide, I bolted a 2X4 on each side to keep
the wheels on the trailer. It is 30 ft long with dual axles. It is
floored with 2X8's and he built ramps and steel brackets to hold my main
gear down. Probably have more trailer time on my airplane than air
time, pulls great and with the dual axles is gentile on my plane. Cost
( 2 yrs ago) $1,200. Could not touch a stripped down pontoon boat
trailer for under $1,500.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Orth [SMTP:orthbill@sovernet]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 1997 9:58 AM
To: kolb(at)intrig.com
Subject:=09
Would appreciate dimensions, capacities any info on trailor suppliers,
components,personal tips on building or buying trailor for Firefly.
Thanks,
address--billorth(at)sover.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: KOLB TRAILER |
>On another note, what are some ideas for locking down a trailer? I will
>be parking mine at the airfield. I would like some good protection
>against both theft and wind.
>
>***************************************************************
>* Bill Weber (bweber(at)micom.com) * Keep the *
>* MICOM Communications * shiny side *
>* Simi Valley, CA * up. *
>***************************************************************
>
>
I had a fully enclosed trailer for a Kolb Ultrastar that I owned a few years
ago. I parked it in a field that was exposed to high winds. I made four
screw in anchors that were just over 3 feet long. I used 1/2 inch EMT
conduit (any pipe that has a 3/4 inch diameter will work). I went to the
local bargain store and purchased four dog chain anchors. The "D" handles
were cut off. The bottom corkscrew ends were slid over and welded to the
ends of the 1/2 inch pipes. I drilled holes in the other end of the
anchors and bolted chains from them to the corners of the trailer. I
screwed the anchors into the ground with a pipe wrench.
Anyone trying to steal the trailer would have to have a pipe wrench and a
few other wrenches to undo the anchors. It would be more theft proof if
the chains had been welded to the anchors and the trailer bolts could have
their nuts located inside the trailer (I assume your trailer has a lockable
door on it).
Some farm supply stores have similar anchors at reasonable prices. They
have a larger screw end on them and it is designed a bit differently.
Kim (BKS)
Saskatchewan Canada
Kolb Mark111
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: KOLB TRAILER |
>>On another note, what are some ideas for locking down a trailer? I will
>>be parking mine at the airfield. I would like some good protection
>>against both theft and wind.
>>
>>***************************************************************
>>* Bill Weber (bweber(at)micom.com) * Keep the *
>>* MICOM Communications * shiny side *
>>* Simi Valley, CA * up. *
>>***************************************************************
>>
>>
>
>I had a fully enclosed trailer for a Kolb Ultrastar that I owned a few years
>ago. I parked it in a field that was exposed to high winds. I made four
>screw in anchors that were just over 3 feet long. I used 1/2 inch EMT
>conduit (any pipe that has a 3/4 inch diameter will work). I went to the
>local bargain store and purchased four dog chain anchors. The "D" handles
>were cut off. The bottom corkscrew ends were slid over and welded to the
>ends of the 1/2 inch pipes. I drilled holes in the other end of the
>anchors and bolted chains from them to the corners of the trailer. I
>screwed the anchors into the ground with a pipe wrench.
>
>Anyone trying to steal the trailer would have to have a pipe wrench and a
>few other wrenches to undo the anchors. It would be more theft proof if
>the chains had been welded to the anchors and the trailer bolts could have
>their nuts located inside the trailer (I assume your trailer has a lockable
>door on it).
>
>Some farm supply stores have similar anchors at reasonable prices. They
>have a larger screw end on them and it is designed a bit differently.
>
>Kim (BKS)
>
>Saskatchewan Canada
>
>Kolb Mark111
>
>
>
I blew it on the description of the pipe used for the trailer anchors. It
should have read "1/2 inch rigid conduit." EMT is a light weight
electrical tubing used by the electrical trade. Rigid conduit is also a
tubing used by the electrical trade. It is much heavier and is galvanized
to prevent rust. Any heavy weight tubing should work.
Kim
________________________________________________________________________________
by cc.usu.edu (PMDF V5.0-5 #11556) id <01IHW8D2HI9S90T57K(at)cc.usu.edu> for
| From: | Jonathan Barraclough <slnl0(at)cc.usu.edu> |
Hello everyone! I just finished going over the Kolb info pack and video
for the 50th time and I am just plain thrilled that I finally found the
plane I've been searching for. I'm still undecided as to the Firefly or
the Firestar II.
A question:
What would the total weight be of a Firestar II in a custom Kolb
trailer? I need to know to see if my car will be able to pull it. My
car states a 1500 lb. towing capacity. Is that enough?
Thanks all!
Can't wait to purchase the first kit!!!!
Jonathan Barraclough
slnl0(at)cc.usu.edu
Just as an aside... Anyone know of any good used Firestar II's or
someone willing to build some of my kit (of course I'll pay for the
help)?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cal <calvin(at)peoples.net> |
I'm building a canopy for my FS II and does anybody know of a good
way to cut .090 thick lexan? I tried scoring one side like you would do
cuting a regular piece of glass, and that seems to work pretty good, but if
someone has a better way I'd appreciate hearing from ya.
Cal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Drilling Hardened Steel Gear Legs |
Hello all,
Just received my gear legs and missing hardware a couple days ago and spent 5
hours today trying to drill a 5/16 hole in one of the confounded things.
There's a 1/4" starter hole in one side of the cage tube where the leg inserts.
In a couple hours, I managed to drill a 1/4 hole completely through on the
right leg. I figured I'd whip out my new 5/16 bit and just finish the hole to
the proper size, but the leg had other thoughts. My new bit, and another one
that I had, are both toast now. I tried going slow, fast, using cutting oil,
trying to re-sharpen my bits, a round file (which got dulled), and cursing
(helped me but not the hole). When I bought the bit, I got the $3 one and not
the $7 one. I figure I'll go to the hardware store tomorrow and get several of
the most expensive bits I can find, and try again. If anybody has any good
advice for drilling this stuff, I'd love to hear it.
Thank,
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cal <calvin(at)peoples.net> |
Russell,
I used cobalt drill bits, there harder than hss drills, a little more
expensive but it does the job.
Cal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | firestar 2 weight |
I am engraving the plackard for my forestar 2 and doing my weight and balence
this week, does anybody know what the max. gros weight of the Firestar 2 is.
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Stripling <jeff> |
| Subject: | Fwd request for assistance... |
Forwarded to the list (the software doesn't like the subject of 'help'):
> From: Timandjan(at)aol.com
>
> I started my 503 this weekend, I pulled the bold to get the oil to the pump
> and got a even flow, however I still have air in the supply lines (the small
> clear ones) that go to the intake manifold. Are you supposed to leave the
> plug out and pull the engine through here to get rid of the air in the lines.
> I figured that once the pump got going it would pump until it pushed all the
> air out.
> help
> tim.
>
--
Jeff Stripling | Intrigue Software
stripling(at)intrig.com | www.intrig.com
(817) 847-6973 | "I fear no technology"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Drilling success! |
Thanks to all the response I got on my drilling problems. I went out and
bought some cobalt bits ($9 for 5/16). Used slow drill speed, high pressure,
and some cutting oil, and things went fine. It still wasn't easy, but it's
over. I even rolled the plane out of the garage for the first time. Pity the
neighbors when it comes time to break in the 503 engine :-)
On the subject of my fuel level Dilemma, I ordered a 12 gallon boat tank that
will fit perfectly in the rear seat location. Ideally, I'll get the FAA to
accept the "convertible" concept and be able to switch back and forth between
boat tank w/o 2nd seat, and jugs w/ 2nd seat. Otherwise, I'll either forget
about the 2nd seat altogether, or do the paperwork to change it with the FAA
later. I know there's nothing really wrong with the standard fuel tanks, but I
just don't like them.
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | evoice(at)acton.com (Doug Prange) |
| Subject: | Weight & Balance |
Performed the weight and balance this weekend on my Mark III.
Total empty weight: 493 (I know it's fat but it looks good and I like it)
Left main with 9 degree angle of attack 213
Right main 216
Tail 64
empty cg 52.18528
215lb pilot and full 17 gallon tank: 33.26871
cg limits are from 20 to 37%
I'll turn in all paperwork to the FAA tomorrow and wait for the inspection.
Since the office is here in town it shouldn't take long.
Doug Prange
Lincoln, Nebraska
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Stripling <jeff> |
testing new mailer... please ignore
--
Jeff Stripling | Intrigue Software
stripling(at)intrig.com | www.intrig.com
(817) 847-6973 | "I fear no technology"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | reynen(at)ix.netcom.com (Christina Reynen) |
| Subject: | Fwd: Fwd request for assistance... |
> From: Timandjan(at)aol.com
>
> I started my 503 this weekend, I pulled the bold to get the oil to
the pump
> and got a even flow, however I still have air in the supply lines
(the small
> clear ones) that go to the intake manifold. Are you supposed to leave
the
> plug out and pull the engine through here to get rid of the air in
the lines.
> I figured that once the pump got going it would pump until it pushed
all the
> air out.
> help
> tim.
>
The Plug screw in the top of the oilpump is only used to get the supply
line filled with oil and once this is accomplished screw it right back
in tight.Your oil tank is mounted above the pump intake??Double check
that your inlet connection is tight.
It will take more time to remove all the air from the small lines
downstream from the pump and that is were the extra 100:1 oil in the
gas comes in.
You should continue to run your engine with the extra oil/gas mixture
on idle or start the run-in procedure and before long all airbubbles
will have disappeared.
If this is not the case, and you continue to see air in the small lines
that could be an indication of the pump/checkvalves not operating
properly on one or both sides and you should repeat the initial
priming procedure.If this still does not work,the next thing is to
crack loose the banjo bolt that holds the checkvalves to the pump and
with one sparkplug removed from each cylinder and wide open trottle
pull the engine through for 5-10 sec and check for oil leaking from the
checkvalve connections.
If oil comes out the loose connection(s) the pump is working and you
can tighten the bolt(s)and continue to run the motor in idle untill all
air is removed from the lines.If the problem still persists your
checkvalve(s) are likely defective and need replacing.
Good luck!
Frank Reynen MarkIII @370 hrs (with oilpump on 582)
--
Jeff Stripling | Intrigue Software
stripling(at)intrig.com | www.intrig.com
(817) 847-6973 | "I fear no technology"
________________________________________________________________________________
<< I'm building a canopy for my FS II and does anybody know of a good
way to cut .090 thick lexan? I tried scoring one side like you would do
cuting a regular piece of glass, and that seems to work pretty good, but if
someone has a better way I'd appreciate hearing from ya.
Cal >>
A good way is to use a dremel tool or an air powered cut off disc tool with a
thin cut off disk. Cover your cut line with tape before cutting. Makes a
nice clean cut.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nolton Beale <nbeale(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more paint questions... |
On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Wally Hofmann wrote:
> any hints on drilling out pop rivets ? Twice now I've had the pin break
out of
> the rivet before it was fully squashed. I've drilled them out but seem to
make
> a mess of the holes and ended up making new parts. It seems like this may
be a
> frequent problem?
Pick up some 5/32" pop rivets. Then when you have to drill one out and it
doesn't come out clean, just use the oversize rivet. Then you won't have
to remake anything. Might pick up some 3/16" rivets, too. Just in case. :)
***************************************************************
* Bill Weber (bweber(at)micom.com) * Keep the *
* MICOM Communications * shiny side *
* Simi Valley, CA * up. *
***************************************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com> |
| Subject: | FW: Weight & Balance |
Doug:
could you please tell us how you airplane is configured, for those of us
out there fretting over how much our plane will weigh with all the
options we "need"
What engine?
Parachute?
Lots of paint?
Custom add on's (17 gal fuel tank)?
Instruments?
>----------
>From: evoice(at)acton.com@acuityinc.com[SMTP:evoice(at)acton.com@acuityinc.com]
>Sent: Sunday, April 20, 1997 7:46 PM
>To: kolb(at)intrig.com
>Subject: Weight & Balance
>
>Performed the weight and balance this weekend on my Mark III.
>
>Total empty weight: 493 (I know it's fat but it looks good and I like it)
>
>Left main with 9 degree angle of attack 213
>
>Right main 216
>
>Tail 64
>
>empty cg 52.18528
>
>215lb pilot and full 17 gallon tank: 33.26871
>
>cg limits are from 20 to 37%
>
>I'll turn in all paperwork to the FAA tomorrow and wait for the inspection.
>Since the office is here in town it shouldn't take long.
>
>Doug Prange
>Lincoln, Nebraska
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: more paint questions... |
Here is an alternative answer to your question. When I drilled the holes for
my mark 3 I used #30 drills. #30s are .0128, or 3/1000 larger than 1/8,
which is .0125. I found that the rivets went in smoother with the #30 and I
didn't have to jockey them around as much to get them in the drilled hole.
If you have to drilll a rivet out use the smaller 1/8 drill and it doesn't
bugger things up as much.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: rivets, hole size |
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Nolton Beale wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Wally Hofmann wrote:
>
> > any hints on drilling out pop rivets ? Twice now I've had the pin break
> out of
> > the rivet before it was fully squashed. I've drilled them out but seem to
> make
> > a mess of the holes and ended up making new parts. It seems like this may
> be a
> > frequent problem?
>
> Pick up some 5/32" pop rivets. Then when you have to drill one out and it
> doesn't come out clean, just use the oversize rivet. Then you won't have
> to remake anything. Might pick up some 3/16" rivets, too. Just in case. :)
>
> ***************************************************************
> * Bill Weber (bweber(at)micom.com) * Keep the *
> * MICOM Communications * shiny side *
> * Simi Valley, CA * up. *
> ***************************************************************
Hoping not to belabor the point, but just to again throw my $.02 in on
this subject: I wouldn't be interested in flying a Kolb where any old
rivet hole is one (or 2?!!) sizes up. The plane wasn't designed that way,
and it can make a difference. Now I wonder, how many list lurkers will
or should be wondering about this when they consider buying a used Kolb.
If the steel rivet stem messes up the process of drilling out the rivet,
try tapping/pressing the bad stem down thru, or filing off the rivet head
and then pressing the bad stem down thru. Also I'd consider getting a
new bag of rivets if you seem to have much of this kind of trouble.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Re: RE: KOLB TRAILER |
Anybody thought any about dock anchors. I just got thinking about them,
they might even work better. Once screwed in the ground they would be
difficult to pull out.
I once used farm fleet type augers. The problem I had was getting them to
screw into rocky gravel soil. I ended up digging a hole most of the way
and screwing them the rest of the way. These were the ones about 4-5 foot
long with a 4" dia. blade.
Don't use dog tie down stakes unless you weld them onto a much longer and
stronger piece of rod, they'll pull out to easy plus their weak where they
crimp them to hold the ring. I did find some at Northern which didn't have
the crimp and are much stronger for use as a travel tie down kit. They
were in the recreational vehicle section. The ones with the crimp twist
off at the crimp when you try to screw them in the ground.
For you welding types, how about some old car springs. Take an old spring,
cut it into 2 or 3 pieces, I end should be tapered to provide a auger screw
thread like point. Weld them to a good piece of pipe and they aren't going
anywhere once screwed in. I have an aircraft tie kit which I bought that
has screw in anchors that resemble springs, work great.
Jerry
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: RE: KOLB TRAILER
Date: 4/19/97 10:56 AM
>>On another note, what are some ideas for locking down a trailer? I will
>>be parking mine at the airfield. I would like some good protection
>>against both theft and wind.
>>
>>***************************************************************
>>* Bill Weber (bweber(at)micom.com) * Keep the *
>>* MICOM Communications * shiny side *
>>* Simi Valley, CA * up. *
>>***************************************************************
>>
>>
>
>I had a fully enclosed trailer for a Kolb Ultrastar that I owned a few years
>ago. I parked it in a field that was exposed to high winds. I made four
>screw in anchors that were just over 3 feet long. I used 1/2 inch EMT
>conduit (any pipe that has a 3/4 inch diameter will work). I went to the
>local bargain store and purchased four dog chain anchors. The "D" handles
>were cut off. The bottom corkscrew ends were slid over and welded to the
>ends of the 1/2 inch pipes. I drilled holes in the other end of the
>anchors and bolted chains from them to the corners of the trailer. I
>screwed the anchors into the ground with a pipe wrench.
>
>Anyone trying to steal the trailer would have to have a pipe wrench and a
>few other wrenches to undo the anchors. It would be more theft proof if
>the chains had been welded to the anchors and the trailer bolts could have
>their nuts located inside the trailer (I assume your trailer has a lockable
>door on it).
>
>Some farm supply stores have similar anchors at reasonable prices. They
>have a larger screw end on them and it is designed a bit differently.
>
>Kim (BKS)
>
>Saskatchewan Canada
>
>Kolb Mark111
>
>
>
I blew it on the description of the pipe used for the trailer anchors. It
should have read "1/2 inch rigid conduit." EMT is a light weight
electrical tubing used by the electrical trade. Rigid conduit is also a
tubing used by the electrical trade. It is much heavier and is galvanized
to prevent rust. Any heavy weight tubing should work.
Kim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bharrison(at)juno.com (Bruce E Harrison) |
Hello all:
I wanted to pick up on the thread from a while back about practicing
engine-outs. I have taken it a step further and am practicing
full-fledged engine outs concluding with intentional groundloops.
WARNING: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME UNTIL YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH YOUR
PLANE.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: This maneuver is not recommended for
everyone. I am not a daredevil. On the contrary, I want to have every chance of
handling an emergency in a calm, professional manner. Thus, I am
practicing the worst case scenario of an engine failure and forced
landing into a very small field.
Here's what I have learned so far:
Practicing engine outs with the engine at idle is good, but it doesn't
prepare you for the stress and psychological shock the first time "old faithful"
quits on you. The last few weeks I have intentionally shut off
the engine and practiced judging glide, etc. over an adequately long
strip. It really is different when all you hear is the whistling of air
through the airframe.
I tried some in-the-air restarts using the starter cord, and had some
unsettling results. When you let go of the stick to grab the starter
handle, you'll find out the true "trim" of your airplane. Mine pitches
up when the engine is shut off, so I had to grab the stick with my knees
and try to pull the starter. The first time I pulled, I didn't get a very
good "pull" on it. I had to let go of the handle, grab the stick, level
the wings, and try again. Altitude is being lost all the way of course.
When I let go of the handle, the starter rope recoiled and wrapped
around one of the cage tubes. The second time I pulled I thought the engine had
frozen as there was no "give." At this time of course I was glad
I was practicing right over the field. After an uneventful landing I
realized what had happened. So, forewarned is forearmed, FS pilots. Make
sure that cord doesn't have enough slack to get hung up somewhere. Always
have plenty of altitude and a good sized airfield to practice this stuff.
Now, on to practicing short field landings. A few of us practice by
landing in a friend's back yard. The approach is very tight, requiring a
series of turns to avoid trees, careful speed control, and nerve. If done
correctly, you can touch down at stall speed and have a very short rollout. However,
if you come in too high or hot it almost demands a controlled
ground loop. I have found it very controllable and safe to continue the
rollout until speed is down to 25 mph or so, then kick the rudder and
execute a sliding stop. On grass, the Kolb does not show any tendency to
want to tip up on a wingtip. Speed is just steadily scrubbed off as the
tail comes around and the tires slide sideways on the grass. This
practice has given me a pretty good feel for the amount of room I would
need for a maximum effort, short field engine out landing. It is truly
amazing how small an area is required to get down safely.
I hope this information will help some of you and will stimulate some comments.
Is it crazy to practice this kind of thing? Should you ever shut
off your engine for practice? Should you intentionally practice
groundloops? Have at it!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)bitstream.net> |
| Subject: | Drilling out rivets |
Nolton Beale wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Wally Hofmann wrote:
>
> > any hints on drilling out pop rivets ? Twice now I've had the pin break
> out of
> > the rivet before it was fully squashed. I've drilled them out but seem to
> make
> > a mess of the holes and ended up making new parts. It seems like this may
> be a
> > frequent problem?
>
> Pick up some 5/32" pop rivets. Then when you have to drill one out and it
> doesn't come out clean, just use the oversize rivet. Then you won't have
> to remake anything. Might pick up some 3/16" rivets, too. Just in case. :)
>
> ***************************************************************
> * Bill Weber (bweber(at)micom.com) * Keep the *
> * MICOM Communications * shiny side *
> * Simi Valley, CA * up. *
> ***************************************************************
You will also want to use a new drill bit frequently. Try not to use too
much pressure when drilling, or the rivet head will spin and enlarge the
hole. Once the head is drilled, you can punch out the remainder. The
sharp drill bit and low drilling pressure are the key to removing them
without damage.
Ralph B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
| Subject: | The 2si TwinPack |
Some misc details and thoughts on the 2si twin pack and twins in general:
Two-stroke twins make good sense for several reasons ... and I hasten to
add that the first ultralight produced by Kolb was a twin; the Kolb Flyer
had 2 solo engines. There was a Kolb Flyer at SNF which was flown every
day! The two stroke's high hp to weight ratio helps alleviate the
traditional twin problem of insufficient power with one engine. Since 2
strokes in general lack the dependability of 4 strokes, putting two of these
powerful lightweight engines on one airplane just seems to make good sense.
We at Kolb were quite flattered that Nick Jones chose the SlingShot to
show
case the 2si TwinPack. We were frustrated beyond words that we could not
fly it at SNF; but we had been flown it enough to be very encouraged that
this will be viable powerplant.
The SlingShot was able to take-off and fly one engine with the other
engine and prop stopped. It had about 200-300 ft/min. climb with a 180 lb.
pilot. The one engine only had a 60" prop which was not optimum for climb,
plus the prop had too much pitch which did not allow the engine to reach
full power. It is anticipated that it will do better when a more
appropriate size prop is installed.
If you can (at least) maintain altitude on one engine, then it is less
important about the increased probability of one engine quitting (after all
there are now 2 engines which can quit). Perhaps it would be helpful to
state the converse: if you can't fly on one engine, then you have twice the
change of coming out of the air. But, if one engine quits and you can
continue your flight on the remaining engine, then you can alter course (or
whatever) to place yourself in a more favorable positions in case the second
engine might also quit. Statistically the chance of loosing both engines at
once or in a short period of time is practically nil ... except for fuel
concerns such as running out of fuel.
Fuel contamination concerns can be reduced because each engine can have
its
own tank. If you wanted to get carried away, you could arrange for a
transfer pump to transfer all the fuel from one tank to the other. In the
best case scenario, the tanks would be half full when refueling, in which
case you would put all your existing fuel into the one tank. Then the new
fuel would be isolated to one engine system; if the new fuel was
contaminated, the other tank would still be good because you have been
running on that fuel all along. To make this work in all cases, one tank
would need to have more capacity than the other tank. This would also
eliminate the problem of both engines running out of fuel at the same time -
one would run out of fuel well before the other.
Other advantages not mentioned so far: There is practically no engine
torque and P-factor is greatly reduced. This is a big advantage for a small
light aircraft (such as the SS) with so much power, hitting the throttle
with one 80 hp engine (such as the 912) does produce noticeable torque on
the airframe; plus it takes a fair amout of trim to keep it flying straight.
Both of these are significantly reduced with the twin pack with its
counter-rotating propellers. You have an 80 hp engine package which can
easily be hand started. If you had 80 hp in one engine - it would be much
more difficult to start by hand. The 460 start very easily with the recoil
starter. This also makes it possible to eliminate the electrical system if
desired - something you can't do with an electric starter.
One other concern mentioned was something coming off an engine and going
into one prop which could take out both props. This is a concern and would
best be dealt with by using Warp drive props which are almost bullet proof.
I anxiously await further testing and am very optimistic that the 2si twin
pack will be a viable practical power plant for those desiring increased
dependability.
The TwinPack-Rotax 912 comparisons are all favorable for the TwinPack,
except for fuel consumption, this will be a bigger problem for those wanting
to fly long distances cross country. However, for shorter distances and
more casual flyers, fuel consumption is not a major concern as it is only
cost and not range that suffers - and lots of cost is saved with the
TwinPack package.
On a slightly different topic, we are installing the new 2si lightweight
460 on our FireFly and will be testing this combination as well. 2si is to
be congratulated for listening to the needs of the UL community in
developing a very lightweight 35 hp package for those of us desiring to keep
our UL's legal.
Sincerely,
Dennis L. Souder
Pres Kolb Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Someone asked earlier about how much a MKIII gains by adding
goodies.My MKIII weighs 495 empty. It has the standard steel wheels, cable
operated drum brakes, Rotax 532 with the single 10"x12"x1 1/2" radiator.
Electric start and the smallest 12 volt motorcycle battery Sam's wholesale
had, nav lights, landing lights (9 ozs ea. with brackets, '64 Corvair high
beams, mounted on the front of the main spar,shine through a flat lexan
panel between two bottom half ribs) 720 channel terra radio, terra
xponder/mode C , and a Second chantz ballistic parachute. It uses two red
plastic boat tanks for fuel (yes they will fit, but you have to do some
rewelding of the tank mounts in the cage) and set up at an angle it holds 13
3/4 gallons fuel. It has the factory doors and the lexan rear windows (I
didn't like the flexible wrap around rear window, but it is NOISY).
It has wheel fenders and an Ivoprop.
Downhill on a 5 degree slope and a 5 knot headwind takeoff run is about
500'. Climbout is 500-600fpm at 6500rpm. Cruise is 55-60 at 5900-6000 rpm.
Minimum rpm to maintain altitude is 5800 rpm.
Solo takeoff run down the same slightly sloped runway is 200-250'.
Climb rate is 900-1100 fpm. Minimum cruise is 5000rpm for 53 mph. Top end at
6600 rpm is 73 mph. Stall is at 28 mph.
Flight characteristics are light elevators, normal rudder, heavy
ailerons. It is not a fast airplane. This is probably due to a constant
angle of attack of about 9 degrees wing incidence to the relative wind in
level flight. (Just like the weight and balance diagrams show, 9 degrees is
the apparent angle of the wing relative to the horizon in level flight.)
I wish it was faster, but have no great hopes. It flies nice though.
Richard Pike
Technical Counselor EAA442
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
by cc.usu.edu (PMDF V5.0-5 #11556) id <01IHZF2K87JS8ZML00(at)cc.usu.edu> for
| From: | Jonathan Barraclough <slnl0(at)cc.usu.edu> |
Thanks for everyone's interest in my posting! Kinda makes me mad that
I can't actually afford to start purchasing the kits right now. I'll be
graduating in Electrical Engineering in August and going into the Air
Force immediately following that. I anticipate being stationed in
either Ohio, California or Boston. I will find out within the next
month or so exactly where. I plan on using the Firestar II to help get
hours toward my private (Air Force has a great deal on getting a GA
license!)
I would like to have someone help me build about as much as the quick
build option that Kolb offers. (Engineering leaves little spare time
and I'm itchin to get in the air). I'd kinda like to cover it myself
though.
In response to Anthony Hinkleman>>> Yes I'd love to see some pictures
of your trailer. Do you have them in computer format??
Thanks again for your responses!!
Jonathan Barraclough
slnl0(at)cc.usu.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM> |
| Subject: | Oil in Rotax 582 |
What brands/type of injection oils are people using in the 582? I've done a
little research and the idea of a blend of 50/50 synthetic and petroleum-based
really makes sense for our dykes-ringed 582. The only brand of blended oil
I've found is the AV-2, which is actually LESS money per gallon (in 5 gal)
than the stock Bombardier injection oil (straight petroleum) I can buy at
the snowmobile and watercraft dealer near my home. The problem I see is I
can buy it only from CPS, and then shipping costs make it add up to $22 / gal.
Pure synthetic offers the best lubrication but lacks and anti-corrosion
protection for those rainy months we can't fly. Pure Petroleum is OK, but
certain kinds build up carbon faster. The blend is a great idea.
Comments? Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
OK I'll bite.
> Should you ever shut off your engine for practice?
I won't. With proper care, you could fly hundreds of hours without any real
engine problems. Just knowing that your glide will be less than at idle
should be enough. After all, the wind is always a variable that you can't
memorize. When it comes right down to it, you're going to have to make a
judgment based on existing conditions, and all the "perfect condition" practice
in the world won't necessarily help. I do agree that it will be traumatic the
first time it gets quiet, but it would be almost as bad to cause it myself.
Also, keep in mind that I'll be flying from GA airports where this type of
intentional emergency might get me in trouble.
> Should you intentionally practice groundloops?
No way, but I'll sure tell people that's what I was doing the first time it
happens :-)
Both of these situations make me think of the everlasting debate over
practicing spins in GA planes. Way back when they used to require spin
training, more people were getting killed in the training than in accidental
spins, so the FAA decided to teach spin avoidance instead. I think this was a
good idea. I've developed a very healthy respect for stall/spin conditions.
OK, really let me have it now :-)
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cal <calvin(at)peoples.net> |
Thanks for all the advise on cutting lexan, I ended up cutting it
with a router, it left a nice clean edge. When I tried to drill a hole in
the lexan it cracked, it was only a scrap piece, I was using a bullet drill
bit, a regular bit seems to work just fine. Thanks again for the help.
Cal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fred Steadman <fstead(at)fastlane.net> |
Russell Duffy writes:
>
> Both of these situations make me think of the everlasting debate over
> practicing spins in GA planes. Way back when they used to require spin
> training, more people were getting killed in the training than in accidental
> spins, so the FAA decided to teach spin avoidance instead. I think this was
a
> good idea. I've developed a very healthy respect for stall/spin conditions.
>
> OK, really let me have it now :-)
> Rusty
I'm not going to let you have it, but I do disagree with you about
spins. I thought the FAA deleted the pre-solo spin requirement to
further the myth that flying is just like driving.
I'll say this. I have done spins in GA aircraft, and for the most part
they are no big deal. Light twins are an exception, as is the Piper
Tommahawk. I've spun a Tommahawk and I'll never do it again.
Throughout my primary training, I was being asked to practice and
demonstrate stalls, sometime solo. I was scared to death of them, and
except for the fact that a Cessna 150 has to be held into one, would
have been dog meat if one had ever developed from stall practice.
After I got my license and began to fool around with simple aerobatics a
little, I was introduced to the spin as a sportsman maneauver. Stalls
and slow flight have not bothered me since, but I am still careful to
maintain airspeed and co-ordinated flight at pattern altitude and below.
I firmly believe my primary training would have been easier and more fun
(less fear) had I been introduced to the spin early in the process.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)bitstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil in Rotax 582 |
Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM wrote:
>
> What brands/type of injection oils are people using in the 582? I've done a
> little research and the idea of a blend of 50/50 synthetic and petroleum-based
> really makes sense for our dykes-ringed 582. The only brand of blended oil
> I've found is the AV-2, which is actually LESS money per gallon (in 5 gal)
> than the stock Bombardier injection oil (straight petroleum) I can buy at
> the snowmobile and watercraft dealer near my home. The problem I see is I
> can buy it only from CPS, and then shipping costs make it add up to $22 / gal.
> Pure synthetic offers the best lubrication but lacks and anti-corrosion
> protection for those rainy months we can't fly. Pure Petroleum is OK, but
> certain kinds build up carbon faster. The blend is a great idea.
> Comments? Thanks!
Jim:
Klotz snowmobile all synthetic 2 cycle oil does provide anti-corrosion
for protection. After 119 hours, I opened my 377 Rotax up to take a
look. The thing is "whistle-clean" and can see the honing marks on the
cylinders.
Ralph B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HB!HB1!MHansen(at)hbi.attmail.com (Hansen, Mark) |
Good point. This is why I am a member of this list. To get input and
keep me thinking on the right and wrong way to do things. I'm not
saying that shutting off the power is a bad thing, BUT what Russell
said makes me think it may not be the best way to go. If doing it
for practice and you stall. I would hate to put a $10,000 pile of junk
on a trailer to get it back to the hanger. When all you needed was
a little push to keep you plane flying.
----------
From: Russell Duffy
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: A new topic
Date: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 5:30PM
OK I'll bite.
> Should you ever shut off your engine for practice?
I won't. With proper care, you could fly hundreds of hours without any real
engine problems. Just knowing that your glide will be less than at idle
should be enough. After all, the wind is always a variable that you can't
memorize. When it comes right down to it, you're going to have to make a
judgment based on existing conditions, and all the "perfect condition"
practice
in the world won't necessarily help. I do agree that it will be traumatic
the
first time it gets quiet, but it would be almost as bad to cause it myself.
Also, keep in mind that I'll be flying from GA airports where this type of
intentional emergency might get me in trouble.
> Should you intentionally practice groundloops?
March 05, 1997 - April 22, 1997
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-ad