Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-ah
September 13, 1997 - November 05, 1997
| Subject: | Location identifier for Omni airport |
Does anyone have the alphanumeric designator or latitude\longitude for Omni
airport? Located 7 mi west of Baton Rouge Metro.
Thanks
Will Uribe
WillU(at)aol.com
http://members.aol.com/WillU/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Location identifier for Omni airport |
Thanks for the information on the Omni airport. I plan on taking some dual
next weekend with D. Leblanc in his Kolb Twinstar. To find the place I just
puch in the coordinates into the navicomputer (GPS) :-)
Will Uribe
WillU(at)aol.com
Will's FireStar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSCRacing(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | first flight, fuel lines |
Hi all,
Well im not one that says a lot on this list, but i do read alot of your
input.
Just a little about me. My father and i built a firestar II and it has been
together
for a couple of years. Another kolb owner has flown it several times. This
friend
has a 600' strip where we have done alot of taxi practice. Both my father and
i
just didnt feel comfortable doing any crow hops there. Sunday we finally got
it to
a 2500' grass strip. Since i got my private liscense 3 weeks ago i was first
to try some crow hops. Well guess what i got way to high and my first crow
hop turned into my first flight. Since i just got my liscense i just added
power and went flying, which probably saved me from busting up the plane.It
didnt take long to adjust to the different attitude between the kolb and a
152. Although i didnt have much choice.
I made two landigs that night which were quite uneventful thankfully.
Now that you guys are somewhat up to date about me next is a pretty
important question. Today we went back to try some more flying. During
preflight i found the fuel line had started cracking on the inside. Looked
like the fuel started deteriorating
the fuel line. It only was up by the carbs were it drains back and leaves the
line empty. The line that usually has fuel in it all the time seems ok. We
have been useing Marathon gas since day one. We understand its not suppose to
have alcohol in it. Has anyone else this problem.
By the way we fixed it and i went flying again. Boy does this thing fly
nice. Made several takeoffs and landing, done some stalls which happened just
like the book said. This was another uneventful night. Well thats enough for
me on this keyboard for one night. Thanks for any input on these fuel lines.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: first flight, fuel lines |
<< During
preflight i found the fuel line had started cracking on the inside. Looked
like the fuel started deteriorating
the fuel line. It only was up by the carbs were it drains back and leaves
the
line empty. The line that usually has fuel in it all the time seems ok. >>
I have a Firestar KX and also was surprised to find my fuel line actually
broken in half where I had it tywrapped to the frame one day a couple months
ago. Since then, I have purchased more but have delayed putting it on
completely out of shear negligence and because the rest of it on the plane,
even though it has all turned dark brown, is still very resilent. I admit
though, that the place where it broke was not always filled with fuel and it
was under stress by the tyWrap.
I would appreciate some input on this also. I burn BP plus or 89 octane
only. So far I have never had an engine out, or a fuel line break during
flying and have flown my Firestar " ByGeorge" since 1993.
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
buyerex(at)westby.wi.frontiercomm.net, kolb(at)intrig.com, flykolb(at)epix.net,
3sln(at)gte.net, lazairLet(at)aol.com, leaf(at)kktv.com, LEE357(at)aol.com,
llehnert(at)xtalwind.net, rlemarr(at)ntstargate.promus.com,
airsky(at)ctinet.net, lewisjw2(at)juno.com, aircam(at)ct.net, djlia(at)gte.net
| From: | jerryrooks(at)juno.com (Jerry Rooks) |
I won't be using Juno any more. My correct address is JERRYROOKS(at)aol.com
Thanks for taking note. I don't want to miss any messages from you.
Jerry Rooks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ronald Carroll <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Looking for a season's end buy |
I finally found the bucks (sold my other ultralight) to buy a Kolb, and
as luck would have it the season is about over here in the Great
Northwest.
I'd appreciate hearing from anyone that may know of a Kolb for sale,
especially in the Western part of the country.
Thanks,
Ron Carroll, Independence, Oregon
ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tswartz(at)prolog.net (Terry Swartz) |
| Subject: | RE: Electrical questions |
>Terry:
>
>For what it's worth;
>* I installed the capacitor on my 912 powered MK III. As I recall, the
>function of the capacitor is to reduce noise and surges in the electrical
>system.
>* The diode in question should have been included with the starter electrical
>parts that came with your engine. Anyway, while I don't know what its purpose
>is, I DID install the device according to the instructions.
>
>Ron Christensen
>
>----------
>From: owner-kolb(at)intrig.com on behalf of Terry Swartz
>Sent: Thursday, September 04, 1997 8:00 PM
>To: kolb(at)intrig.com
>Subject: Electrical questions
>
>I've just about finished the wiring of the 912 on my M-III but I have a
>couple questions. The rotax manual shows two circuit diagrams for the 912,
>one that includes a capacitor and one that shows the capacitor optional.
>According to the manual, the capacitor is to ensure control function of the
>regulator if the battery fails. Are all of you with 912's adding the
>capacitor?
>
>The ignition switch I got from Kolb says you need a surge suppressor diode
>on the solenoid. What is that for? Is everyone putting it on?
>
>Thanks
>
>Terry
>
>
>
>
>
Ron
I did find the diode with the switch after a second look and installed
according to diagram. I looked for the cap (22000 uF) at Radio Shack and an
Electronics store, but neither had one this large. I'll try a Electrical
supply store next. How do you like your M III with the 912? How long have
you been flying it?
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
Hello Kolb Gorup,
Just joined and thought I'd give a short bio.
I have over 330 hours in a Flyer with twin Solos. I didn't build it,
bought it complete but (apparently) unflown in 1990. I have made a few
modifications such as axle assemblies and a steerable tailwheel. I love
my bird and would be happy to share any information with other "Flyer
flyers."
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, OK
mefine1(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | 25 hr inspection |
To all,
When I took apart my muffler to put some anti-sieze on the ball joints I
noticed the rubber shocks were crumbling on the inside and heat deforming.
I plan to replace them with either new ones from Kolb or rubber auto shock
donuts about the same size I found at the auto parts store.
I also decided to have my muffler ceramic coated to permanently rid it of
rust. I should have done it initially, but "cheap me" didn't. I just saw
the results of HPC's work last week and it was beautiful. They said they
would do it for $100 including the 4 brackets (or $85 or so for just the 3
main parts) so I packed it off to them.
Rotax mentions oiling the air filters. I didn't do that mainly because I
didn't know how, what kind of or how much to use. Does anyone oil theirs?
How do you clean and re-oil a filter? Is it necessary?
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (19.4 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.Com> |
| Subject: | Use the web for Airport information |
See http://www.airnav.com/cgi-bin/airport-info?LA46
In general, if you use www.avweb.com or www.landings.com, you'll answer
questions like this in seconds.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WillU(at)aol.com [SMTP:WillU(at)aol.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 1997 7:20 PM
> To: kolb(at)intrig.com
> Subject: Location identifier for Omni airport
>
> Does anyone have the alphanumeric designator or latitude\longitude for
> Omni
> airport? Located 7 mi west of Baton Rouge Metro.
>
...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Schimmel <bruce(at)schimmel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 25 hr inspection |
Wow. You asked the questions I need answers to:
1. My muffler shocks, after 22 hrs, are also deforming. Is there a better
replacement?
2. How do you oil an airfilter?
3. Muffler preservation: wasn't there a thread about oiling that with
kitchen oil?
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Cliff and Carolyn Stripling wrote:
> To all,
>
> When I took apart my muffler to put some anti-sieze on the ball joints I
> noticed the rubber shocks were crumbling on the inside and heat deforming.
> I plan to replace them with either new ones from Kolb or rubber auto shock
> donuts about the same size I found at the auto parts store.
>
> I also decided to have my muffler ceramic coated to permanently rid it of
> rust. I should have done it initially, but "cheap me" didn't. I just saw
> the results of HPC's work last week and it was beautiful. They said they
> would do it for $100 including the 4 brackets (or $85 or so for just the 3
> main parts) so I packed it off to them.
>
> Rotax mentions oiling the air filters. I didn't do that mainly because I
> didn't know how, what kind of or how much to use. Does anyone oil theirs?
> How do you clean and re-oil a filter? Is it necessary?
>
> Later,
>
> --
> Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (19.4 hrs)
> (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
> Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
>
> -
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
Bruce and all,
>3. Muffler preservation: wasn't there a thread about oiling that with
>kitchen oil?
Yep! I tried it. It worked fairly well, except that it was really messy
and blew oil all over my emphenage. I used ordinary cooking oil and should
have probably used the boiled linseed oil that dries faster. It looked like
it would have to be done regularly to keep the rust down... or at least for
awhile to build up a protective film that would stop the rust. I think I
will be glad I had the ceramic treatment done.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (19.4 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: 25 hr inspection, etc |
Muffler Shock Mounts:
I replaced mine at ~75 hours but had lost track by then how abnormal the
muffler movement had gotten ...shudda done it earlier. Next time I'll look
for something at the auto store just cuz it is close by. Of course it
is easy getting them from Kolb too.
Air Filter:
I just clean mine, no oil afterward, but this based on no advice or
experience. I clean it by just rattling it around in a dish of kerosene.
And then you once in awhile hear of somebody who doesn't even use air
filters. One I've heard of has long life, and another had destroyed an
engine in 70 hours. I guess operating environment (taxiing in blowing
dust?) is a big factor.
Cable Tangs Building/Maintenance Tip:
On tail surface structural cable tangs, chamfer the edge of the holes
that the cable thimble goes thru. I don't think I did this on my plane
at construction -- at least not enf -- and the hard stainless edge of
these little holes eventually wears a little crease into the inside of
the cable thimbles. I will have to re-do the tail cable swedging before
too long. The chamfering could be done after construction, altho this
changes (shortens) the cable length adjustment position. PS, of course
don't chamfer so dramatically that you loose reasonable edge distance
on the tangs.
Scuse the non-Kolb-list relatedness of this, but most of you probably saw
the F117 mid-air breakup on the news. Watching closely, you can see the
left wing look like it goes into flutter or at least wild oscillations
moments before ripping off. WOW!
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: first flight, fuel lines |
> important question. Today we went back to try some more flying. During
> preflight i found the fuel line had started cracking on the inside. Looked
Great job pre-flighting!! I'm always impressed with a "good pilot" when i
hear of somebody finding something hidden like this.
> like the fuel started deteriorating
> the fuel line. It only was up by the carbs were it drains back and leaves the
> line empty. The line that usually has fuel in it all the time seems ok. We
> have been useing Marathon gas since day one. We understand its not suppose to
> have alcohol in it. Has anyone else this problem.
I very seriously doubt the the fuel type has anything to do with the
deterioration of the fuel line. The only problem I've heard of w/ alcohol
is it's tendency to cause 2stroke oil to separate from the gasoline --
so a good idea to continue steering clear of this. On replacing the
fuel line, look for thick walled tubing. This is especially true on the
vacuum pulse line to the engine case as it will absorb the pump pulse
energy if it is the standard thin-wall stuff. (Also, the thin-wall
stuff is almost too small for the typical snap clamps.) Lastly, make
sure the fuel line tie-wraps are not so tight to constrict and that you
cut off the extra tie-wrap so nobody "helps you out" by tightening them.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank R Reynen <Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 25 hr inspection |
To all,
When I took apart my muffler to put some anti-sieze on the ball joints I
noticed the rubber shocks were crumbling on the inside and heat deforming.
I plan to replace them with either new ones from Kolb or rubber auto shock
donuts about the same size I found at the auto parts store.
After replacing my fourth set of exhaust bushings on the front bracket (CPS
style side-mount for 582 Rotax engine) every 25-50 hrs , I inspected the
failures closely and decided that all had sheared off at the small diameter
area which is in contact with the engine bracket. I came to the conclusion that
these rubberbushings were mounted in the wrong direction. The engine and
muffler vibrate sideways which is the weakest direction for the standard
bushing mount so I redesigned new brackets that hold the bushings
perpendicular to the muffler and placed one at the top and the second at the
side between the engine and muffler. I left the back muffler support as before
since I did not have to replace them that often. I have flown about 100 hrs
without changing any bushings and the top and sidemounted units still look as
good as originally installed.
Rotax mentions oiling the air filters. I didn't do that mainly because I
didn't know how, what kind of or how much to use. Does anyone oil theirs?
How do you clean and re-oil a filter? Is it necessary?
Some air filters are reusable but if you have the papertype do not try cleaning
but replace them. I use the N&K dual airfilter that is the cleanable type but
used them as they came in the box. CPS carries a filter service and recharging
kit that includes cleaning and reoiling instructions.
--
Frank Reynen MarkIII@407hrs
http://www.webcom.com/reynen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 25 hr inspection |
> When I took apart my muffler to put some anti-sieze on the ball joints I
> noticed the rubber shocks were crumbling on the inside and heat deforming.
> I plan to replace them with either new ones from Kolb or rubber auto shock
> donuts about the same size I found at the auto parts store.
Ya know, I kinda wondered about the life of the rubber bushings that
were set up in a mode that seemed guaranteed to saw them in
half (i.e. the 532-582 and 377-447-503 CPS type mount kits with bolt
perpendicular to muffler axis). The rocking couple of the
engine-muffler combo is my guess. Has this been a problem for most
Rotax folks? Maybe it isn't and I'm just spouting gibberish.
My Hirth solution, since we can't use the head studs (it has
none...cap screws on the heads) was to build the mount so that the
muffler was suspended from a mount integral with the engine mount
plates. There are two 4130 brackets welded on the muffler can and the
bolts and bushings are all perpendicular to the muffler can. With
over 100 hours there's no cracking, deforming or wear on the
bushings.
>
> I also decided to have my muffler ceramic coated to permanently rid it of
> rust. I should have done it initially, but "cheap me" didn't. I just saw
> the results of HPC's work last week and it was beautiful. They said they
> would do it for $100 including the 4 brackets (or $85 or so for just the 3
> main parts) so I packed it off to them.
>
Been tryin to tell ya! ; )
> Rotax mentions oiling the air filters. I didn't do that mainly because I
> didn't know how, what kind of or how much to use. Does anyone oil theirs?
> How do you clean and re-oil a filter? Is it necessary?
There is a very light oil sold by K&N at cycle shops that is spritzed
on and allowed to "capillary" through the filter element. Oil is the
thing that traps the dirt at the surface and keeps it from working
it's way to the inside of the filter. Is it necessary? I'd think it
would only be of use if you were to operate at very low levels in a
dusty environment or had occasion to use dirt roads or runways.
Otherwise, probably not. The filters will self-oil after a few hours
anyway. I cleaned my filters (soap and water, no
compressed air, air-dried, un-oiled) and noticed that the EGT went
25-50 degrees higher initially and then as the blow-back, stand-off
fuel/oil fog from the carbs treated the filters, EGT returned to
normal within 5 hours operation.
Jim Baker
Pres, USUA Club 104
Frontier Ultralight Aviators
Elmore City OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Bush" <dbush(at)gte.net> |
The thin film of oil that is put on/in the K&N filter is what does the
filtering. Without it the material is really porous and will allow some
dust into the carb intake - ie, a real abrasive material mixed with your
gas and oil. Essentially, no oil, no filtering -
I would recommend oiling.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
If you use the K&N type filter they must be oiled, the oil is what provides
the filtration. I lived in Arizona for 10 years and built volkswagen dune
buggies. Had a kid put a new engine on a buggy and he did not oil the filter
(he ran it dry from the box, and back then it came un-oiled, unlike the ones
today) and in a short time of playing in the sand he burned up his engine)
Obviously a dune buggy in the sand is much different than our airplanes, but
it's a good example of extreme conditions. So I am a firm believer of keeping
the filter clean and freshly oiled. A K&N cleaner and oil is available from
suppliers.
hope this helps
Tim Loehrke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Moved to the airport |
Sorry to be short on the updates but work is killing me again. I managed
to get the plane transported to the airport Sunday and it arrived
undamaged. We moved it in a 26ft U-Haul which worked out perfectly.
There's still a long punch list of minor things to do before it's ready to
slip the surly bonds. Hopefully I'll get all the items corrected and do
some more taxing this weekend. After that, it's between my schedule and
mother nature to pick a time to fly. I plan to have a minimum of people on
hand to witness the carnage. For safety sake, there'll be at least one
person available to call 911. I'll try to stay in radio contact this
safety person throughout the first flights as well. Maybe I can find
someone with a video camera as well.
Gotta go,
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mswihart(at)tcsn.net (Mark Swihart) |
| Subject: | TwinStar Wheel Struts & Wing Tips |
My friend and I bought TwinStar #46 last winter and due to extensive
storage damage; we decided to strip it down to the last nut and bolt even
tho the frame and engine (503) only had 77 hours on it.
The plane had been in a landing accident (pilot/2ndowner had less than 10
hours flying time and lost control after landing hit a tree stump) and the
pod had sustained damage that was patched up. (Ugly repair job)
Even though the wings did not appear to be damaged; we found hidden by the
wing covering the left & right wing tip supports that are rivoted from the
tips to ribs had broke off at the rivot itself on the rib. Stress related?
I found a curious problem when I removed the L/R landing struts and
found rub spots
where they extrude out of the tube they sit in. Is there anything I can do
to prevent this problem?
I hope to put pictures of the TwinStar's progress on my web page with in
the next few weeks.
I really enjoy this mail list! :)
Mark Swihart
TwinStar #46
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LAURIE CARROLL <lwjcarroll(at)clear.net.nz> |
| Subject: | RE: Moved to the airport. Russell Duffy |
Russell,
Best of luck with the test flight/s.....Keep it Safe.
Look forward to photos and news.
Laurie Carroll
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 25 hr inspection |
<< Rotax mentions oiling the air filters. I didn't do that mainly because I
didn't know how, what kind of or how much to use. Does anyone oil theirs?
How do you clean and re-oil a filter? Is it necessary?
>>
The filters are made by K&N. They sell a spray cleaner and then oil in
an aerosol can that you spray on the filter. I'm told that it is quite
inportant to oil the filter because the engine design assumes a certain
amount of resistence to drawing air through the filter. Put another way
they want there to be some backpressure and if there is no oil on the filter
you dont get that.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Northern/Central CA: The annual Turlock UL fly-in is this Saturday.
I'm planning on flying down early Sat, or possibly Fri evening.
"Events" start at ~10. I missed last year, but in '95 there musta
been 75-100 ULs there. Come on out if you can.
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Russell Duffy wrote:
> to get the plane transported to the airport Sunday and it arrived
> undamaged. We moved it in a 26ft U-Haul which worked out perfectly.
I was more nervous about the health of my plane on the freeway
to its first flight than I was about the first flight! So, the
rest should be easy. Best of luck! (i don't think you'll need it.)
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
HI Mick
I AM A MEMBER OF THE EAA AND ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF OUR CLUB ALSO HAS A
KOLB FLYER HE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR SOME TIME AND SO HAS HIS FLYER HE HAS
JUST MADE SOME CHANGES TO HIS SOLOS TO THE TUNE OF SOME TYPE OF GEAR
REDUCTION THIS WILL LET HIM SWING A LARGER PROP I FLEW WITH HIM SUNDAY
AND I WANT TO TELL YOU TAT IT MADE A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE YOU MAY HAVE
THIS ALREADY BUT IF YOU DON'T AND YOU NEED MORE INFO. GIVE HIM A CALL
HIS NAME IS DEL CROSS ( 409 ) 962 - 6186
HE LIVES IN GROVES, TEXAS
RICK LIBERSAT N106RL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 Cliff and Carolyn Stripling writes:
>Most of us "johnny come latelys" are not familiar with the flyer. Is
>that
>the Ultrastar model with the high tail boom that they call the
>"flyer"?
>Solo engines are also new to me. Do you have twin engines on your
>Kolb???
Thanks for the interest! I hope someone will correct me if I have my
history wrong but here's what I know:
The Flyer was Homer's first kit and the first ones shipped in 1981 (my
plans are dated '82). The 'kit' was a box of tubing and a set of plans,
nothing was pre-welded. The early models were powered by twin Chrysler
engines of ~11 HP each but were soon replaced by the much healthier Solo
engines (a whopping 16 HP each). As I recall (this is where my memory is
really fuzzy) the kit WITH engines was around $900 plus shipping! It was
succeeded by the Ultrastar in 1984. Somewhere I have a list of original
purchasers and it seems there are about 90 names on it.
Yes, it resembles the Ultrastar with a high tailboom. The engines are
directly behind the seat and are ~26" either side of centerline. Each
engine swings a 36 x 10 prop direct drive (yeah, they really scream!!).
Although the Solo 210cc is rated at 16 HP, that is at ~7500 RPM and
direct drive, I only see about 5200-5400 at full throttle, following the
power curve for the engine that equates to about 10 HP (x2 of course).
Since the engines never get up on the power curve, I cruise for long
periods (usually to keep from falling behind almost everybody else) at
full throttle, this is about 45 mph. If I'm alone and just sight-seeing,
I'll pull back to about 4500 rpm and 30-35 mph. Fuel burn is about 1.7
gph, surprising considering the inefficiency of the direct drive. Stalls
are typical Kolb (like a lamb) and come on at about 22-23 mph. Single
engine performance is ...well, kind of an "extended glide" although I
covered 7-8 miles one day and only lost 1100 ft. with one screamin' and
one idlin' when a muffler started coming loose. Made home field and still
500 AGL! Climb rate is the only big draw-back, on a good (cool/dry) day
it'll do maybe 200-250 fpm, cut that in half during the summer. Its ok as
long as you know it, plan for it and never ever count on a miracle.
The Flyer is very light, just over 200 lbs (before I started bolting
extra crap on mine). The wing looks like other Kolbs but is very
different in construction with only one full rib (at the root) per side,
false ribs from there out. Some have adapted 'pods' to the Flyer but I'm
a purist and just put on a ski-suit when it gets chilly.
Well, hope I didn't ramble on too long but sometimes its hard to know
when to stop - kinda like flying. (When is legal sunset anyway?)
Happy Landings!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb factory support |
John Jung wrote:
> >I have heard praise from other Kolb builders also, but my experience
> >with the company has not been in line with these comments.
> >Buyer beware.
> >
John Yates wrote:
> I would like you to expand on this please, i know some other people would
> like to hear what you have to say also. These are pretty harsh words so you
> better be able to back them up, or retract what you have posted. I have
> read your other post about rebuilding your FS, and from what your posting
> everything is going along just fine Is that right? Or am i missing something.
> John
Group,
I promised to expand on my comment after my cage arrived and it did
today. In general, I think that the people at Kolb are friendly and
helpful and I think they sell a great product. But here is the problem
that I had: This summer I bought a crashed Firestar II. I took it apart
and evaluated the parts needed to rebuild. By July 12th, I got a quote
from Kolb for the parts. Because I live in Wisconsin and have no heated
area to paint, I decided that I would start the project this year, only
if I could get the parts quick enough to get through painting before the
weather gets too cold. In order to do this, I needed to schedule 4 weeks
of vacation around the arrival of the parts. So I explained my situation
to Mike at Kolb and was promised that everthing except the cage would be
shipped in a week and the cage would take 4 weeks. Based on this, I
placed my order. The first shipment didn't actually ship until 4 weeks
after promised. It had been sitting on the dock ready, but forgotton
about. The cage shipped after 8 weeks, also 4 weeks longer than
promised. During the 8 weeks, I tried to pin down a ship date for the
cage several times so that I could scedule my vacation. I had no luck at
all. I felt like I was getting the run around. When Dennis went to
Oshkosh, noone at the plant could give a schedule. So I talked to Dennis
at Oshkosh and explained my problem. He said call him on the day he gets
to the plant. I did and he said he didn't know yet and if I e-mailed him
my questions he would get back to me. I did and he didn't. After a week
I called him again and he tried to put me off another day. I asked for a
ballpark estimate and got "4 weeks". Imagine my situation at work, where
I get a vacation for 4 straight weeks approved and then keep putting off
the start, and I can't even tell my boss a start date. Where I work,
production schedules are the norm and it is really hard to understand an
inability to estimate production. So for those of you that still think
"Buyer beware" is too strong, I'll take it back. But if you try to plan
anything around a ship date promised by Kolb, you may be disappointed.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Bush" <dbush(at)gte.net> |
Over the last 6 months I've had the feeling that alot that could have been
said about the FSII - and hasn't. I know of 5 crashes out in southern
California over the last 2 years, three were due to turning stalls (one
death - couldn't talk to him). On the net, have had several people note
that they either bought a crashed FSII or were rebuilding one - which I did
also after a crash - mine was due to the inability of the IVO to
reestablish it's pitch after full throttle on an aborted landing. I, and I
would hope other FSII owners would be interested in an evaluation of the
plane. Mine has a stall speed of 36-38 straight ahead, 42-44 during turns
- having flown other "ultralights" this is somewhat high to me. Also, have
found that the plane is "super" responsive, meaning difficult to control
during any turbulent wind conditions about 10-15 mph.
Lastly, do I like the plane - of course - it's a love to fly on calm days
but we don't always have calm days and I end up "hangar flying" more than I
like.
Possible area that could be revisited by the factory is the wing length,
tail size and placement and possibly the dihedral. Any comments?
Dan Bush
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cold Wx = Burr Suit |
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
>Mike, what is the coldest temp you have flown in with the snowsuit on
and
>for how long did you endure. Do you wear a full face helmet and if so do
>you have any fogging problems. I have an ultrastar and don't use it in
the.
>colder months but have thought about giving it a try. I live in the
upper
>peninsula of Michigan and there are a lot of calm bright 20 degree days
>that would be great to fly in. Just looking for some experienced info.
Wow, upper Michigan...
The coldest day I've flown was last winter. Here in Okie-land we usually
only get a few inches of snow a couple times per winter but having
nothing better to do, I went to the strip when there was still just a
covering of snow just cause I thought it would be pretty from the air. It
was 18 degrees and all suited-up I lasted 15 minutes. It was pretty and
afterwards I paced off my take-off tracks I think they were about 180 ft.
(had maybe 10 knot headwind).
Normally, if its below 40 or 45 I won't go but keep in mind, all I have
are ski pants, ski jacket and cheap (but well insulated) snow boots. I
wear an open face helmet with a wool muffler around my lower face (keep
it outa the prop!). Some of the other pilots wear 1-piece snowmobile
suits which I'm sure cut the wind better. Have also used "Hot-Hands"
chemical packs in palms of gloves and toes of boots as these areas are
first to get cold.
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, OK
mefine1(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Howard G. Penny" <penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se> |
| Subject: | RE: Kolb factory support |
Welcome to the world of homebuilt aircraft. Good luck with your restoration project.
Howard G. Penny EAA # 168877
Raleigh, NC Kolb SlingShot # SS-007
penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se Sonerai IILS # 0010
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hpenny
/* --------------------------------------------------------- */
-----Original Message-----
From: John Jung [SMTP:jrjung(at)execpc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 1997 10:56 PM
To: Kolb(at)intrig.com
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb factory support
John Jung wrote:
> >I have heard praise from other Kolb builders also, but my experience
> >with the company has not been in line with these comments.
> >Buyer beware.
> >
John Yates wrote:
> I would like you to expand on this please, i know some other people would
> like to hear what you have to say also. These are pretty harsh words so you
> better be able to back them up, or retract what you have posted. I have
> read your other post about rebuilding your FS, and from what your posting
> everything is going along just fine Is that right? Or am i missing something.
> John
Group,
I promised to expand on my comment after my cage arrived and it did
today. In general, I think that the people at Kolb are friendly and
helpful and I think they sell a great product. But here is the problem
that I had: This summer I bought a crashed Firestar II. I took it apart
and evaluated the parts needed to rebuild. By July 12th, I got a quote
from Kolb for the parts. Because I live in Wisconsin and have no heated
area to paint, I decided that I would start the project this year, only
if I could get the parts quick enough to get through painting before the
weather gets too cold. In order to do this, I needed to schedule 4 weeks
of vacation around the arrival of the parts. So I explained my situation
to Mike at Kolb and was promised that everthing except the cage would be
shipped in a week and the cage would take 4 weeks. Based on this, I
placed my order. The first shipment didn't actually ship until 4 weeks
after promised. It had been sitting on the dock ready, but forgotton
about. The cage shipped after 8 weeks, also 4 weeks longer than
promised. During the 8 weeks, I tried to pin down a ship date for the
cage several times so that I could scedule my vacation. I had no luck at
all. I felt like I was getting the run around. When Dennis went to
Oshkosh, noone at the plant could give a schedule. So I talked to Dennis
at Oshkosh and explained my problem. He said call him on the day he gets
to the plant. I did and he said he didn't know yet and if I e-mailed him
my questions he would get back to me. I did and he didn't. After a week
I called him again and he tried to put me off another day. I asked for a
ballpark estimate and got "4 weeks". Imagine my situation at work, where
I get a vacation for 4 straight weeks approved and then keep putting off
the start, and I can't even tell my boss a start date. Where I work,
production schedules are the norm and it is really hard to understand an
inability to estimate production. So for those of you that still think
"Buyer beware" is too strong, I'll take it back. But if you try to plan
anything around a ship date promised by Kolb, you may be disappointed.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM> |
| Subject: | "Buyer beware" and Matco hardware corrosion |
"Buyer Beware" :
It will put you in the right frame of mind if you can start thinking
along these lines before you begin aircraft construction:
TO YOU, the aircraft construction is a HOBBY. You will work on it in
your spare time, when real life is not present. You will not plan
your life around it. You will not let it interfere with your
profession/career. You will never neglect your spouse for the project.
You will work at a pace that makes sense, for relaxation/education.
TO KOLB COMPANY, it is the whole world. They will do their best to
balance all customers' demands and business issues, because they know
this is how they will survive. Each customer is important, but not
all customer requests can be number one priority. Survival depends
on balance. Kolb has been doing a good job at this, obviously.
Delays will happen, but everyone eventually gets what they pay for.
Kolb has been fair with me, and done everything they have promised.
A couple times things ran a week or month late, but then I reminded
myself that this is a HOBBY. Kolb, on the other hand, is very busy
(that's good for us customers in the long run!) and they are handling
the dreams of many people, not just selfish old me.
It is very important to me to have them remain profitable so my aircraft
can always be refreshed with new parts when needed.
I am glad they get real busy at times, the cashflow will keep them
interested.
"Buyer beware"?, more like "Buyer be reasonable".
Matco corrosion: I spoke with Matco yesterday. They routinely ship
their brake kits with Stainless Steel mounting hardware for customers
that specify it (for amphibious installations). They were interested
in seeing my corroding bolts and are considering a swap.
I did receive two other replies that stated they had seen the same
thing (corroding bolts). You guys better check it out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb factory support |
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, John Jung wrote:
> "Buyer beware" is too strong, I'll take it back. But if you try to plan
> anything around a ship date promised by Kolb, you may be disappointed.
> John Jung
John's comments are probably worth everybody hearing, including Kolb.
They were factual and polite, something we rarely see in criticisms any
more.
While we're on the subject, I'd like to put in $.02 for some positives
at Kolb. For starters, I believe Kolb may be the longest UL company in
the business, or at least one of a very few who've been at it from the
beginning*. Their designs are long lasting and great fliers. They provide
us a build project that is a good balance of challange, cost savings,
time requirement and superb final product. They are the only company
who has stood behind their product to the extent of intentionally
testing structural limits in flight. All of this spells "integrity",
the number one reason I chose Kolb. You can get the president and
chief design engineer (Dennis) almost any time on the phone, including
Saturday mornings --- and this with how many hundreds of customers???
I honestly do not know how they do it, and if they changed nothing
at Kolb I would still be a very happy customer and buy another plane
[someday :-) ]. As for shipping delays, most builders can accomodate
slippages by working on some other piece of their kit.
Quality can be improved (or worsened) in everything anybody does, so
constructive and factual criticism is good. I just wanted to toss in
some of the good points to be aware of as well.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
*On the issue of longevity, there must be 200-400 UL companies that have come
up over the years. I am not aware of any others that haven't changed hands
or gone under. By the way, how do you make a small fortune in the
aviation business? ...start with a big one. :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
> Over the last 6 months I've had the feeling that alot that could have been
> said about the FSII - and hasn't.
I'll say that mine is just right for me...not everybody can, or wants
to, fly a taildragger. This one has the GC so far aft of the gear
that it's really hard to lose control on the ground.
> I know of 5 crashes out in southern
> California over the last 2 years, three were due to turning stalls (one
> death - couldn't talk to him).
Keep thy airspeed lest the ground rise up and smite thee.
> On the net, have had several people note
> that they either bought a crashed FSII or were rebuilding one - which I did
> also after a crash - mine was due to the inability of the IVO to
> reestablish it's pitch after full throttle on an aborted landing.
Curious statement. I've seen engines (two 503's I think) that were
slow to spool up...and not necessarily an Ivo problem...I'd think
twice about flying something like that for long.
> I, and I
> would hope other FSII owners would be interested in an evaluation of the
> plane. Mine has a stall speed of 36-38 straight ahead, 42-44 during turns
> - having flown other "ultralights" this is somewhat high to me.
That's about what mine reads.
> Also, have
> found that the plane is "super" responsive, meaning difficult to control
> during any turbulent wind conditions about 10-15 mph.
Just the opposite....the aileron response, to me, seems "locked".....
that is, it's more like an F-16 side stick controller where the stick
reads the input force and converts it to surface movement. Except the
ailerons on my FS2 don't move that far but I get roll anyway. Sort of
a soft touch, if you will......kinda hard to describe it.
> Lastly, do I like the plane - of course - it's a love to fly on calm days
> but we don't always have calm days and I end up "hangar flying" more than I
> like.
10-15 kt winds are pretty common in OK. I just go out and fly. No
real problems. Practice makes it better/easier. Like last
night.....15 kt wind and pretty rough below 1000 ft but above that it
was smooooooth...just couldn't go south very fast...the GPS said I
was doing all of + 5 mph groundspeed at a lazy , nowhere-to-go, 40
mph indicated.
> Possible area that could be revisited by the factory is the wing length,
> tail size and placement and possibly the dihedral. Any comments?
> Dan Bush
I moved the fuel tanks to a tray that fits into the second seat
position. No CG problems on fuel use that way. But by doing that I've
lost the capability to carry any useful cargo/baggage. I'd like to
see a conformal cargo area below the fuselage cage. About 10" high
by 2-3 ft long. I may build one later.
Jim Baker
Pres, USUA Club 104
Frontier Ultralight Aviators
Elmore City OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tswartz(at)prolog.net (Terry Swartz) |
My prop bolts do not have drilled heads for safety wire. Do they need to be
safety wired? Will it pass FAA inspection without?
Expect to have my Mark III finished next week. N-26520
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.Com> |
I suggest you drill and safety wire the large bolts as I did, since my
inspector insisted upon this.
> ----------
> From: tswartz(at)prolog.net[SMTP:tswartz(at)prolog.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 7:24 AM
> To: kolb(at)intrig.com
> Subject: prop bolts
>
> My prop bolts do not have drilled heads for safety wire. Do they need
> to be
> safety wired? Will it pass FAA inspection without?
>
...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
> My prop bolts do not have drilled heads for safety wire. Do they need to
be
> safety wired? Will it pass FAA inspection without?
Terry,
This might depend on your inspector and what kind of prop you have. On my
IVO, the bolts were long enough to use lock washers and nuts on the back
side of the engine drive hub as a precaution. According to IVO, these
aren't needed but another builder (forgive me for not remembering who) said
their inspector required it. My DAR didn't comment on the prop bolts.
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
> > plane. Mine has a stall speed of 36-38 straight ahead, 42-44 during turns
> > - having flown other "ultralights" this is somewhat high to me.
These stall speeds are interesting; mine stalls 27 straight ahead and
somewhere in the 30s for turns (gotta recheck that number). The planes
are essentially the same aerodynamically, but the KXP is lighter so the
difference in stall speeds is probably weight. The post yesterday about
the 220lbs Flyer mentioned stall of ~22mph! So, this is a good reminder
of one of the benefits of keeping the weight down.
> lost the capability to carry any useful cargo/baggage. I'd like to
> see a conformal cargo area below the fuselage cage. About 10" high
> by 2-3 ft long. I may build one later.
If you're building a new plane, I'd braze on some little tabs on the
bottom of the cage -- say 3 on each side. These would stick out thru
the fabric and provide a tiedown for a soft or hard baggage pod under
the cage. Whether you ever used them or not they would not be something
you'd bump into.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Adrio Taucer <adrio(at)capitalnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FSII -STALL SPEEDS- |
Ben Ransom wrote:
> These stall speeds are interesting; mine stalls 27 straight ahead and
> somewhere in the 30s for turns (gotta recheck that number). The planes
> are essentially the same aerodynamically, but the KXP is lighter so the
> difference in stall speeds is probably weight. The post yesterday about
> the 220lbs Flyer mentioned stall of ~22mph! So, this is a good reminder
> of one of the benefits of keeping the weight down.
>
This talk of stall speeds and stall speeds in turns has me thinking
back. Does the stall speed not increase as a function of "load factor"
(all other things like weight and configuration being equal)? In that,
as your angle of bank increases so does not you load factor and thus
your stall speed also increase. For example, if your normal (level)
stall speed were 30 the stall speed in a 60 deg. bank would be 60 (load
factor at 60 deg. is 2) and so on (load factor at 70 deg. is 3 and at 80
deg. it is 6, if my memory is correct).
Just my 0.02 to help keep us all safe.
Adrio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com> |
| Subject: | FW: FSII -STALL SPEEDS- |
The stall speed and load are not linear if the airplane weight increases
10% the stall speed is increased but not 10%. Doubling the weight does
increase stall speed, but does not double it.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adrio Taucer [SMTP:adrio(at)capitalnet.com@acuityinc.com]
>Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 11:48 AM
>To: kolb(at)intrig.com
>Subject: Re: FSII -STALL SPEEDS-
>
>Ben Ransom wrote:
>> These stall speeds are interesting; mine stalls 27 straight ahead and
>> somewhere in the 30s for turns (gotta recheck that number). The planes
>> are essentially the same aerodynamically, but the KXP is lighter so the
>> difference in stall speeds is probably weight. The post yesterday about
>> the 220lbs Flyer mentioned stall of ~22mph! So, this is a good reminder
>> of one of the benefits of keeping the weight down.
>>
>This talk of stall speeds and stall speeds in turns has me thinking
>back. Does the stall speed not increase as a function of "load factor"
>(all other things like weight and configuration being equal)? In that,
>as your angle of bank increases so does not you load factor and thus
>your stall speed also increase. For example, if your normal (level)
>stall speed were 30 the stall speed in a 60 deg. bank would be 60 (load
>factor at 60 deg. is 2) and so on (load factor at 70 deg. is 3 and at 80
>deg. it is 6, if my memory is correct).
>
>Just my 0.02 to help keep us all safe.
>
>Adrio
>-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
The FAA required my prop bolts to be safety wired, I drilled the heads
myself.
Also I talked to IVO prop at Oshkosh and they hate the fact that the FAA
insists they be safety wired. IVO likes the props to be re torqued every 10
hours, less if the prop has the bushings installed (which mine does) and
every 10 hours if the blases do not have the bushings. Just check the end of
the prop where the bolt holes are. Since then I removed the safety wire and
installed lock nuts on the back. I loosten all and re-torque then tighten the
lock nuts again.
On the factory KOLBS they have no lock nuts nor safety wire (FYI).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Adrio Taucer <adrio(at)capitalnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: FSII -STALL SPEEDS- |
Jason,
I was talking about LOAD FACTOR which is different from load. The load
factor is the relationship between the force vector perpendicular to the
wings and the vertical component of that vector. The vertical component
of that vector is the one that counteracts gravity and must remain the
same magnitude but opposite direction of the one which represents the
affect of gravity on your mass (load as you called it) which is always
down, in order to maintain altitude. As you bank the aircraft you must
generate more lift (normal to the wing) in order to maintain the same
vertical component to your lift vector. Those are the figures I was
talking about when I mentioned load factor. But I, as usual, went on
too much, sorry all.
Adrio
Jason Omelchuck wrote:
>
> The stall speed and load are not linear if the airplane weight increases
> 10% the stall speed is increased but not 10%. Doubling the weight does
> increase stall speed, but does not double it.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Adrio Taucer [SMTP:adrio(at)capitalnet.com@acuityinc.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 11:48 AM
> >To: kolb(at)intrig.com
> >Subject: Re: FSII -STALL SPEEDS-
> >
> >Ben Ransom wrote:
> >> These stall speeds are interesting; mine stalls 27 straight ahead and
> >> somewhere in the 30s for turns (gotta recheck that number). The planes
> >> are essentially the same aerodynamically, but the KXP is lighter so the
> >> difference in stall speeds is probably weight. The post yesterday about
> >> the 220lbs Flyer mentioned stall of ~22mph! So, this is a good reminder
> >> of one of the benefits of keeping the weight down.
> >>
> >This talk of stall speeds and stall speeds in turns has me thinking
> >back. Does the stall speed not increase as a function of "load factor"
> >(all other things like weight and configuration being equal)? In that,
> >as your angle of bank increases so does not you load factor and thus
> >your stall speed also increase. For example, if your normal (level)
> >stall speed were 30 the stall speed in a 60 deg. bank would be 60 (load
> >factor at 60 deg. is 2) and so on (load factor at 70 deg. is 3 and at 80
> >deg. it is 6, if my memory is correct).
> >
> >Just my 0.02 to help keep us all safe.
> >
> >Adrio
> >-
> -
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
>The stall speed and load are not linear if the airplane weight increases
>10% the stall speed is increased but not 10%. Doubling the weight does
>increase stall speed, but does not double it.
To all,
I guess a lot of you have taken your Kolbs up to 3K or so feet and tested
the accelerated stall speed. Try putting it in a fast straight glide under
little power and pull back on the stick. At about 50 mph and under pull out
G forces, I find my Kolb will stall. Relax the stick a little and it begins
to fly again.
Back to the be careful to keep your speed up and your G forces down or the
"stall monster" might get you... and not always at the straight and level
(typically thought of) indicated stall speed.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (19.4 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tswartz(at)prolog.net (Terry Swartz) |
>>My prop bolts do not have drilled heads for safety wire. Do they need to be
>>safety wired? Will it pass FAA inspection without?
>>
>>Expect to have my Mark III finished next week. N-26520
>
>Terry,
>
>The inspector has a lot of latitude in determining those points. I have
>heard stories of various points that some stress and others don't. I think
>they all try to do a good job to insure that you fly as safe as possible. I
>had two inspectors. They were very helpful and found several small items on
>my project that were unsafe. Hint! Be sure to check that all of your bolts
>are tightened, that enough threads are visible, and that all castle nuts are
>cottered.
>
>Placards - some require that every thing be labeled including fuel and oil
>tanks, compass cards, colored arc range strips on guages, etc.
>
>Guages - some require a "real" panel guages instead of just gallon marks on
>the side of the tanks viewable from the pilots seat.
>
>Hours required before 2nd phase of certification - I heard of one requiring
>only 20 hours vs. the typical 40 hours.
>
>...and so on...
>
>Concerning prop bolts, my inspector noticed they were not drilled and
>therefore safety wired, but when I showed him IVO's product information and
>installation proceedure and the fact that drilled bolts were not supplied,
>he didn't say any more.
>
>Something I am considering doing is adding nuts with lock washers behind the
>prop flange plate to add a little more security for the bolts and perhaps
>reassurance for me. I have retorqued my prop bolts twice and have noticed
>no change in torque pressures (meaning final position of the properly
>torqued bolts from the previous position).
>
>My only suggestion is to have at hand every bit of information about your
>Kolb handy so that you can look it up immidiately and show him for his
>evaluation... especially construction pics (and/or video), docs, and calender.
>
>Later,
>
>--
>Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (19.4 hrs)
>(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
> Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
>
>
>
Thanks for all the responses on the prop bolts. I should have mentioned
that it is a warp drive on a 912 on a M III, but anyway, I drilled the heads
in the prop bolts tonight and they will be safety wired.
Is there any kind of a check list available for FAA inspection? Do you
really have to put gallon marks on the gas tanks? What else is there
besides the obvious?
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
BEN
I WISH THAT I WOULD HAVE DONE TABS ON THE BOTTOM YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU
MIGHT NEED THEN FOR IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING FOR NEW BUILDERS TO THINK
ABOUT .
RICK LIBERSAT
writes:
>> > plane. Mine has a stall speed of 36-38 straight ahead, 42-44
>during turns
>> > - having flown other "ultralights" this is somewhat high to me.
>
>These stall speeds are interesting; mine stalls 27 straight ahead and
>somewhere in the 30s for turns (gotta recheck that number). The
>planes
>are essentially the same aerodynamically, but the KXP is lighter so
>the
>difference in stall speeds is probably weight. The post yesterday
>about
>the 220lbs Flyer mentioned stall of ~22mph! So, this is a good
>reminder
>of one of the benefits of keeping the weight down.
>
>> lost the capability to carry any useful cargo/baggage. I'd like to
>> see a conformal cargo area below the fuselage cage. About 10" high
>> by 2-3 ft long. I may build one later.
>
>If you're building a new plane, I'd braze on some little tabs on the
>bottom of the cage -- say 3 on each side. These would stick out thru
>the fabric and provide a tiedown for a soft or hard baggage pod under
>the cage. Whether you ever used them or not they would not be
>something
>you'd bump into.
>
> --------|--------
> Ben Ransom (*)
> Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
> http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
>
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Dan Bush wrote:
> Over the last 6 months I've had the feeling that alot that could have been
> said about the FSII - and hasn't. I know of 5 crashes out in southern
> California over the last 2 years, three were due to turning stalls (one
> death - couldn't talk to him). On the net, have had several people note
> that they either bought a crashed FSII or were rebuilding one - which I did
> also after a crash - mine was due to the inability of the IVO to
> reestablish it's pitch after full throttle on an aborted landing. I, and I
> would hope other FSII owners would be interested in an evaluation of the
> plane. Mine has a stall speed of 36-38 straight ahead, 42-44 during turns
> - having flown other "ultralights" this is somewhat high to me. Also, have
> found that the plane is "super" responsive, meaning difficult to control
> during any turbulent wind conditions about 10-15 mph.
> Lastly, do I like the plane - of course - it's a love to fly on calm days
> but we don't always have calm days and I end up "hangar flying" more than I
> like.
> Possible area that could be revisited by the factory is the wing length,
> tail size and placement and possibly the dihedral. Any comments?
> Dan Bush
This is a subject that I am very interested in because I plan to
change from a Firestar KX to a II. And from the Firestar II's that I am
aware of in Wisconsin, there seems to be too high a ratio of serious
craches. I believe that pilot error cause each one but I am keeping my
mind open to problems and will be giving my II a though by cauous
evaluation when it is done. My II had a reported stall speed of 40 mph.
It had 10" removed from each wing tip and .016 aluminum over the top
forward ribs. My KX has a stall speed of 31 mph. A friend has a II that
weighs a few pounds less and his stall speed is 36 mph. As far as
flying in windy conditions, my KX is the easiest plane that I have ever
flown. I have never even had a problem and I had my share of wind
problems with other ultralights. I wouldn't go as far as suggesting
changes to Kolb, but I think that by sharing information, each of us my
gain some insight, including Kolb.
John Jung, PPASEL
Firestar KX,
9 years in ultralighting,
300+ hours in 5 planes,
rebuilding a Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.Com> |
| Subject: | Checklist for Licensing |
I got a book from Sportys called "How to license your homebuilt
aircraft" which was excellent in pointing out everything you need to do.
There are FARs that I think are applicable in:
http://www3.landings.com/cgi-bin/get_file?pass=5281192&FAR/part_91/secti
on_91.205.html&highlight=instruments
At any rate, you need to have a fuel gauge:
"(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank"
However, if you can see the tank, and see markings with the
amount of fuel, I think that qualifies.
They're generally very interested in having each fluid container
(Oil, Fuel, Coolant) labeled with type of fluid (octane for gas, etc.)
and quantity.
...
> Is there any kind of a check list available for FAA inspection? Do
> you
> really have to put gallon marks on the gas tanks? What else is there
> besides the obvious?
>
> Terry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ultralight trainer crash |
Tom Earl, ulral light instructor, was killed yesterday, 9/18, in a plane
crash near Mohawk Valley Airport, Scotia, NY. Aother person in the plane also
died in the crash.
Details are sketchy at this time.
Mike A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Howard G. Penny" <penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se> |
| Subject: | RE:Checklist for Licensing |
After reading for the last several months about the outrageous prices that
DARs are charging I decided to do my own investigation. I got a lead from
our EAA tech. counselor, presently pres. Chapter 506, to call the FSDO in
Winston Salem NC. Yes that was FSDO. The response that I got when I
called was, "Yes sir, you have called the right place. We have a packet of
information put together that will tell you most everything you need to
know and do. And when you are finished, ready to fly, we will come by and
do the inspection." Boy was I surprised. Friendly, helpful,... "am I on
candid camera".
The packet they sent me was chocked full of useful information. All the
forms needed for registration, airman's repair, etc. Included was an AC
describing what would be a good plan of testing for each hour of flying
during the 40 restricted hours. This is broken down into stages. Included
in this was a section directed specifically to ultralights. Additionally
there were articles describing what to expect during the inspection
including common problem areas.
In closing, it is refreshing to find friendly, helpful people especially in
government jobs that are overburdened. I like the fact that my tax dollars
will pay for my inspection. I was told that if I could give them about 4
weeks notice that "we would greatly appreciate it". I don't have the
packet in front of me at the moment, but when I get home this evening, I
will submit the AC numbers and a bib of the articles included in the
packet. Also I will include the name of the contact at the FSDO office.
Howard G. Penny EAA # 168877
Raleigh, NC Kolb SlingShot # SS-007
penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se Sonerai IILS # 0010
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hpenny
/* --------------------------------------------------------- */
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bentley [SMTP:Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.Com]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 8:19 AM
To: 'tswartz(at)prolog.net'; 'Kolb Builders'
Subject: Kolb-List: Checklist for Licensing
I got a book from Sportys called "How to license your homebuilt
aircraft" which was excellent in pointing out everything you need to do.
There are FARs that I think are applicable in:
http://www3.landings.com/cgi-bin/get_file?pass=5281192&FAR/part_91/secti
on_91.205.html&highlight=instruments
At any rate, you need to have a fuel gauge:
"(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank"
However, if you can see the tank, and see markings with the
amount of fuel, I think that qualifies.
They're generally very interested in having each fluid container
(Oil, Fuel, Coolant) labeled with type of fluid (octane for gas, etc.)
and quantity.
...
> Is there any kind of a check list available for FAA inspection? Do
> you
> really have to put gallon marks on the gas tanks? What else is there
> besides the obvious?
>
> Terry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gerry Weninger <gerrywe(at)sk.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Canadian Kolb Mk III For Sale |
Canadian Kolb MK III for sale, registered as an advanced ultralight C-FQRB
Professionally built and registerd in the fall of '94. 503 DCDI Rotax,
electric start, intake air silencer, aux. electric fuel pump, 3 blade GSC
prop., 80 hrs. TTSN, no damage history. Interior and exterior 10/10, always
hangered, full electrical, strobes, intercom, mounted ICOM portable radio,
portable GPS, dual EGT + CHT, VSI, altimeter, disc brakes, powder coated
paint on all metal parts, Stits fabric, 4 point harness. Flys and looks
GREAT! Reason for selling: have nearly completed RV4
Gerry Weninger
Saskatoon, SK
306-665-8774
email: gerrywe(at)sk.sympatico.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGrooms511(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE:Checklist for Licensing |
Howard;
Don't count your chickens just yet. I too contacted the local FISDO office,
and was told that would be no problem. I was told That they were coming my
way in about two weeks and could stop in and do the inspection. A week later
I tried to contact the man I had spoken to. He was out of the office for the
week. The next Monday I called again. He was on vacation for the next two
weeks. Two weeks later I called again. He was out of the office. I called
later that week. He could not be reached and nobody knew anything about my
inspection.
I spoke with a friend who works for the FAA in another capacity. He told me
that I could expect to be spoken very nice to and that any paperwork would be
sent quickly and with no problem. But he said that the DAR's were almost
always retired FAA employees, and that they made megabucks inspecting
airplanes. He couldn't wait to get enough time in to retire so he could make
the big money. The people at the FISDO offices know these guys and will throw
as much business their way that they can. He said you can expect to get the
runaround for as long as you try to get one of their people out to inspect
your plane for free. When you get tired of putting up with their BS you call
one of the DAR's and pay thru the nose.
I hope your local office isn't like that, but I can tell you that mine is. I
finally gave up, and continue to fly as aultralight.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM> |
| Subject: | FAA, inpspections |
Yup, when I called them, they rolled out the red carpet, answered my questions
and sent the BIG packet of info. Twelve months later when asked to do the
inspection that they and their paperwork promised, they were
A. Too busy with inspections of manufacturers
B. Out of money for the year
C. Understaffed
D. On vacation
E. In training for weeks at a time
F. Constantly reminding me that the DAR was available
Three of us coordinated to get some clout, that seemed to be making some
headway, but after two months one of the three broke down under the pressure
and hired the DAR. I followed. $347 shot. No apparent value-add.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | more on FAA woes |
About 9 mo. ago I called the local FAA to start on the process of
correcting UL access problems at my local fed funded airport. I
was pretty much promised a very rosy picture "...we'll have you
flying w/out hassle there by Spring(97) no problem". I let a month
slip by without bird-dogging the FAA guy after that initial phone call.
I then maybe got one more return phone call out of 10, and no progress.
My brother Mike took the "risk" of going flying during business hours
the other day. The AirportManger got his boss out and they formally
booted Mike out. I'm sort of just whining, and wondering out loud if
the FAA might be lame for me like they are for the Exp Airworthiness
inspections. (your telling me to wake up and smell the coffee, right?)
One thing I do know, is that at this point I am going to be more
agressive about it and not let there be any time gaps for loss of
momentum. It might even take registered letters, copies to local
Congressman, and going to sit on the doorstep of this FAA guy's ofc.
But i'm now fightin' mad, particularly because the AirportManager
has lied to us in order to keep "his airport" safe in his eyes.
This is one of the sleepiest airports I've ever seen, and there's
no way ULs should be unwelcome. Ok, i'll try to cool down now.
BTW, there is a farm field 15 min away that I can use. The old timer
owner welcomes me to use his field and/or keep my plane there and
doesn't want anything from me. A relationship built on trust instead
of buraucracy and litigation!!
-Ben
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Bush" <dbush(at)gte.net> |
Generally I don't have much to say about bureaucrates but it appears all
things equal - service is not one of them.
My local FAA office - like all of your turned me over (pushed) me to a DAR.
However, He made an initial visit, stopped back in a few months to view
the progress and then drove 35 miles to an out of the way field to inspect
my plane. Total cost $125.00. Though the FAA is for free, he managed to
provide several time saving tips etc.
On access to an uncontrolled airport. A group of GA pilots got to gether
and complained about the ultralights (and experimentals) at our field in
southern California. The FAA guy (not the same one), talked nicely -
finally said that as the airport was publicaly funded, we were going to
have to work out our differences as all had the right to use the field.
Our solution - simple but expensive to some. The ultraighters etc.
offerred to use hand held radio's to enter/exit the pattern so that the GA
planes didn't run up our tail. We also agreed to slightly shorter
downwind, base and final legs. It's been a year and a half with only minor
complaints by both sides.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
Hi all,
Am I excited! I just unpacked the muffler, manifold and brackets done by
(HPC - High Performance Coatings). Boy does it look shiney and bright...
something between polished alumunum and chrome. I can't wait to install it
back on the Kolb and get back into the air.
On the subject of the FAA and the "homebuilt certification inspection" and
help they gave toward that end, I would give them an A+. I guess it depends
on the office. The Dallas/Ft.Worth guys were GREAT.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (19.4 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE:Checklist for Licensing |
Cant you just call your Congressmen, have him/her light a fire under the FAA
guys so they can come over and inspect your airplane? Or will that surly
cause you to fail the inspection in retaliation for being a finger person?
Will Uribe
Will's FireStar II
BTW: Saturday morning I'm going to get some duel in a Twinstar :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Unrusty Muffler |
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
CLIFF
THE F A A HERE IN THE HOUSTON ARE 10+ TODAY THEY CALLED ME AT WORK
TO SEE HOW THEY COULD HELP ME OUT WITH MY REPAIRMAN CERT. I
DID CALL AND LEFT A MESSAGE SO THEY CALLED AND WANTED TO FAX THE PAPER
WORK TO ME THIS WOULD HAVE JUST BEEN A TEMP. ONE TILL I MAILED THE ORG.
IN . OR THE F A A ASK ME IF I WAS GOING TO MAKE THE AIR SHOW
WINGS OVER HOUSTON
I I SAID THAT I WAS
AND THEY SAID GOOD WE WILL HAVE EVERYTHING READY FOR YOU NEXT SATURDAY
AND ALL I HAVE TO DO IS COME BY THEIR STATION CLIFF HOPE YOU AND
CARLOIN CAN MAKE IT IS VERY GOOD ONE. SURE LIKE WHAT I HEAR ABOUT YOUR
MUFFLER I DID ORDER THE HUSH-A-COM AND THE SWITCHER BOX I KEEP YOU
POSTED
RICK LIBERSAT
On Fri, 19
writes:
>Hi all,
>
>Am I excited! I just unpacked the muffler, manifold and brackets done
>by
>(HPC - High Performance Coatings). Boy does it look shiney and
>bright...
>something between polished alumunum and chrome. I can't wait to
>install it
>back on the Kolb and get back into the air.
>
>On the subject of the FAA and the "homebuilt certification inspection"
>and
>help they gave toward that end, I would give them an A+. I guess it
>depends
>on the office. The Dallas/Ft.Worth guys were GREAT.
>
>Later,
>
>--
>Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (19.4 hrs)
>(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
> Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
writes:
<< Mine has a stall speed of 36-38 straight ahead, 42-44 during turns
> - having flown other "ultralights" this is somewhat high to me.
That's about what mine reads. >>
I always have my yaw string waving around in front of me to assure that my
Firestar is not flying sideways in a slow turn to kill stall and spin ,
especially at low altitudes "lest the ground come up and smite me" I learned
to fly a glider in El Paso and love my Kolb BECAUSE me engine is in the back
allowing me to use a yaw string!
GeoR
38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | close, very close |
Hi All,
I declared the SlingShot ready to fly today after fixing the last of the
outstanding issues it had. I also made about 8 runs down the first half of
the runway at increasing speeds. During the last couple I was full
throttle until just about the point of no return. It just doesn't get any
closer than that. She wants to fly, and it was perfect conditions, but it
wasn't my plan to fly today, and I didn't have anyone on-hand to spot me.
The temptation was ever-so-great though.
I've also made some headway on my starting procedure. I cranked the engine
3 times today using a total of four yanks. Perhaps I can forget the
electric starter now. Now if I could just find a decent way to fill the
gas tanks.
Eventually I'll even post some newer pictures. I realize I'm way behind
but I haven't been able to make much of a priority out of the computer work
recently.
On the DAR subject. My inspection cost $250 plus $60 in gas for the guys
Cessna 210. I'm not at all sorry that I chose that route because the guy
came exactly on MY schedule, and even flew IFR that morning to do it. I've
spent over 16K on this SlingShot, so what's another $310? Life's too short
to put up with bureaucrats.
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mdd(at)m3166mdd.ssr.hp.com |
| Subject: | Kolb Mark III experience... |
Hi All,
I have decided to build a Kolb Mark III...anyone have any experience with this
kit?
what was the build time? Can you offer any suggestions..?
Thanks..
Mark.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
To All,
I purchased 2 shorter 8 mm. hex bolts and lock washers at the local hardware
store and added them to the exhaust manifold in the 4th hole that was not
supposed to have any. It was a tight fit but now I feel better that the
manifold is supported all the way around.
I purchased new muffler shocks at the auto parts store. They were actually
made to cushion car shock attach points. I have no idea how they will hold
up compared to the ones supplied in the kit. I had to trim them in order
for them to fit, but at least in their "new condition" they look and fit fine.
I am using Pledge spray wax and an old soft undershirt to polish my Lexan.
It is working very well. I know that you should use as little of anything
as possible, but the time comes when you have to use something.
I am using Maguires Wax on the Polytone after the infrequent baths the plane
gets. I hope it is protecting as well as anything else.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (19.4 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
________________________________________________________________________________
(/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.16 #30.181) with smtp for
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Is Nose Skid Req'd on FireFly |
My Partner and I are having a discussion over whether a nose skid is
required on the FireFly.
The way the cage is made doesn't make it easy to add one. He thinks were
should add one some how. I suggested we ask other owners is there any
tendency for the FireFly to go down on it nose cone.
Help us out - please reply.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <stei0302(at)cs.fredonia.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Is Nose Skid Req'd on FireFly |
>My Partner and I are having a discussion over whether a nose skid is
>required on the FireFly.
>
>The way the cage is made doesn't make it easy to add one. He thinks were
>should add one some how. I suggested we ask other owners is there any
>tendency for the FireFly to go down on it nose cone.
>
>Help us out - please reply.
>
My answer, for what its worth, is: Yes, the FireFly wants to go over
on its nose, but I don't think you need a skid.
I put my FireFly up on its nose once, and that was enough. (I had just
finished flying a J-3, and I was very new to flying my FireFly. (Could
probably count the number of takeoffs and landings on one hand.)
Anyway, I centered the stick, and smoothly and quickly added power.
(Proper J-3 technique.) Also, at the time, my tires were a little
soft. The FireFly went right up on its nose. Besides some grass stains
on the underside of the nose cone, there was no damage. (Except to my
ego.) Ed Fisher happened to see me do this and explained a concept to
me known as "high line of thrust". :-)
Needless to say, I now start my takeoff run with full back stick and
a slower addition of power. I have never even come close to nosing
over again. (One time my wheels got stuck in a ditch. I was at a full
stop, and tried to motor out of it, and the tail started to rise, but
I cut the power before it nosed over. Kind of a teeter-totter situation.)
So, if you're careful, you'll probably never nose it over. It
WILL nose over if you let it; so don't let it. :-)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a skid, but if you really want
to add some protection, I would suggest maybe gluing a rubber pad of some
type to the front/underside of the nose cone? Probably whatever you add
will only be for paint and scratching protection anyway; I think you'd
have to really screw up to do any structural damage in a nose-over.
That's my $.02, and its worth what you paid for it. :-) Good luck
with whatever you decide to do!
-Jon-
.--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL |
| '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) |
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wild(at)nwdsrv.nw.lucent.com (Rich Wild - 13f01) |
| Subject: | Re: Is Nose Skid Req'd on FireFly |
I would recommend adding the skid. The skid costs $20.00. A new nose cone cost
$150.00. Also, the cage structure comes to a point at the nose which will tend
to dig into the ground in the event the plane noses over. The skid should
prevent this.
Rich Wild
> X-Authentication-Warning: www.intrig.com: bin set sender to
owner-kolb(at)intrig.com using -f
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 97 00:53:06 -0500 (CDT)
> X-Sender: jbidle(at)mail.airmail.net (Unverified)
> To: kolb(at)intrig.com
> From: Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net>
> Subject: Is Nose Skid Req'd on FireFly
> Cc: ghansen(at)airmail.net
> Mime-Version: 1.0
>
> My Partner and I are having a discussion over whether a nose skid is
> required on the FireFly.
>
> The way the cage is made doesn't make it easy to add one. He thinks were
> should add one some how. I suggested we ask other owners is there any
> tendency for the FireFly to go down on it nose cone.
>
> Help us out - please reply.
>
> -
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Canadian Mark III for sale |
Recently there was a Mark III listed for sale. I deleted the message by
mistake. I know someone who may be interested. Could you repeat the message
or email me ar Rallynq(at)aol.com.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Is Nose Skid Req'd on FireFly |
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Jerry Bidle wrote:
> My Partner and I are having a discussion over whether a nose skid is
> required on the FireFly.
>
> The way the cage is made doesn't make it easy to add one. He thinks were
> should add one some how. I suggested we ask other owners is there any
> tendency for the FireFly to go down on it nose cone.
>
> Help us out - please reply.
I fly a Firestar KXP so it is arguably different, but from reading Jon's
post, I think my plane acts the same w/ regard to nose-over tendency.
Proper technique and you'll not have a problem. Furthermore, the tail
is even less likely to come up when air flowing over it, meaning
that nose-overs would only be likely to happen at 2mph from adding power
too quickly. This has happened to me once in mud and once in sand.
Neither time a problem to the aircraft and now i know how to stay out
of this kind of trouble (altho i may get a reminder once/year :-).
I vote to save the weight and bother ...altho both weight and bother may
be minimal.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Carroll <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is Nose Skid Req'd on FireFly |
Jon Steiger wrote:
>
> >My Partner and I are having a discussion over whether a nose skid is
> >required on the FireFly.
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a skid, but if you really want
> to add some protection, I would suggest maybe gluing a rubber pad of some
> type to the front/underside of the nose cone?
My Falcon uses a Teflon block about 4" X 2" X 1/2" to protect the pod.
Looks good and works well.
> That's my $.02, and its worth what you paid for it. :-) Good luck
> with whatever you decide to do!
Ditto
Ron Carroll, Kolb wannabe, if there is one for sale on the 'left coast'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gerry Weninger <gerrywe(at)sk.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Canadian Kolb Mk III For Sale |
>Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:16:47 -0600
>To: Kolb Builders
>From: Gerry Weninger <gerrywe(at)sk.sympatico.ca>
>Subject: Canadian Kolb Mk III For Sale
>
>Canadian Kolb MK III for sale, registered as an advanced ultralight C-FQRB
>Professionally built and registerd in the fall of '94. 503 DCDI Rotax,
electric start, intake air silencer, aux. electric fuel pump, 3 blade GSC
prop., 80 hrs. TTSN, no damage history. Interior and exterior 10/10, always
hangered, full electrical, strobes, intercom, mounted ICOM portable radio,
portable GPS, dual EGT + CHT, VSI, altimeter, disc brakes, powder coated
paint on all metal parts, Stits fabric, 4 point harness. Flys and looks
GREAT! Reason for selling: have nearly completed RV4
>
>Gerry Weninger
>Saskatoon, SK
>306-665-8774
>email: gerrywe(at)sk.sympatico.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
| Subject: | Summary of a Builders Weekend |
It was the beginning of another weekend building effort. The fumes of
MEK, poly-tack, and poly-brush were thick. The fans were circulating
the warm Texas air in attempt to make the environment more tolerable.
Jerry was busily drilling, washing down, and taping the second wing in
preparation for covering. Gary as if in a trance, was totally
consumed in covering the first wing. Was it the excitement or the
fumes of the MEK.
Saturday produced a continuos stream of visitors. The activity was so
intense that even a lonely tarantula spider could not resist the
temptation and had to wonder in to see what all the commotion was.
Visitors were quickly assimilated into the building process. Tools
were issued, task assigned. Most never had a chance. They were
absorbed before they realized what happened. (MEK fumes works
wonders) Those that managed to escape are doomed to succumb upon their
next visit.
Gary called upon his partner to pop the wing fabric rivets. The task
quickly turned into an experiment. Using a pneumatic air riveter, what
air pressure would produce the best seated rivet? The results were
inconclusive. The bottom was completed but not without the agony of
drilling out several rivets and replacing them. When the top was ready
he again summoned his partner. This time it would be completed with
the hand riveter. As with the first surface, this would become an
experiment to determine if a quick or slow squeeze produced the best
results. Then suddenly, Oops, a small hole was in the fabric. The
rivet gun had slid off the rivet when it popped and the broken stem had
snagged the fabric. Not a word was said but Jerry immediately felt his
partners discontent. A little dab of poly-tack to lock the fabric from
fraying and fortunately it was in an area which would be covered by the
finish tape. All was forgiven.
Both partners tried to figure out the cause behind some of the rivets
protruding (sitting high) when inserted into the ribs hole. Some
wanted to ride high, others seated well. The mystery eluted them both.
If the rivet rode high when inserted they concluded there would be a
strongly likelihood the need to drill it back out. The problem seems
to arise from the rivet not seating down into the rib all the way.
Could it be caused by the hole not being perfectly centered in the rib
causing the rivet to protrude higher.
The weekend left one wing covered with only the final taping to be
completed. Late Sunday afternoon Jerry attacked the nose pod and
instrument panel. Words of wisdom were mumbled as he began the
drilling process with flying circle cutter. After near death
experience and disappointing results, it was time for another
approach. It was the scream of the Dremel which drowned out the
background of the fans. Another scream. The tool had bit in and
fiber glass flew. His partner glanced over, the expression on his
face said it all, what was new nose cone was going to cost. Only
determination drove him on to where a clearance hole would appear in
the panel for the altimeter location. One down, many to go. It was
going to be long evening.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kmead(at)up.net (Kent kathy Mead) |
| Subject: | Used Kolb Questions |
Hi All;
I am new to the list and I have a few questions that you might be able
to help me with. I just purchased an 1986 starfire with 377, the plane has a
total of 80 hours on it. I think the plane had a couple of hard landings
because in the cage area where the fuel tank sits the angled braces top to
bottom are bowed on one side and bent on the other with a small kink. Any
ideas on how to straighten them? There are no bends or cracks in the landing
gear area. Second, this plane doesn't have brakes and I would like to
install some. Any ideas? I don't need anything fancy. Also pulled the
exhaust off to paint it an found a bad piston, looks like it ran lean on one
cylinder. The motor was rebuilt 8 hours ago!! I am new to UL's so any help
would be appreciated
Thanks Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Used Kolb Questions |
Also pulled the
>exhaust off to paint it an found a bad piston, looks like it ran lean on one
>cylinder. The motor was rebuilt 8 hours ago!! I am new to UL's so any help
>would be appreciated
> Thanks Kent
>
>-
> Pull the top end off (if you have never done this before, get
someone who has, and has a reputation for knowing what to do to help you)
and look down the inside of the cylinder. You want the inside of the
cylinder to look uniformly matte silver with very fine crosshatch lines
angled from top to bottom. There may be a few small vertical lines running
up and down, as long as they are very small with no depth, they won't hurt
anything. If there are scabby looking patches on the side of the cylinder
walls,different colored from the rest of the metal, and feeling different to
the touch, that is not good. Those are portions of your piston, overheated
and semi-welded to the inside of your cylinder. If none of those nasty
things have occurred, you will only need a new piston, rings, possibly a
wrist pin , bearing, and clips.
After you put it back together, it might be worth the trouble to
check it for leaks. If the seals at either end of the crankshaft leak, it
can suck air, and lean itself out. The easiest way to check is to take it to
a SeaDoo dealer if there is no good ultralight shop around, because they
have a crankcase tester they use on the Bombardier jet skis to test for
crank seal leaks. Other two-stroke shops (snowmobiles, jetskis) may have
the tester also.The only Rotax in NE Tennessee to burn a piston in the last
five years (that I heard about anyway) was a 377 with a bad mag end seal, so
it might be worth a check.
If the engine has no air leaks around the seals, dual egts are a
good investment if you think jetting is a problem. If you never let the egt
get over 1200 degrees, or the cht get over 375 degrees, it is hard to hurt
anything.
Richard Pike
Technical Counselor EAA 442
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Bush" <dbush(at)gte.net> |
Richard makes a good point about air leaks - another common one is the
exhaust manifold - if it leaks, backpressure is reduced and the piston runs
lean.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron.b(at)cheerful.comNOSPAM" <rgbsr(at)aimnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Summary of a Builders Weekend |
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com wrote:
[SNIPPED A GREAT ANECDOTE somewhat]
>
> Gary called upon his partner to pop the wing fabric rivets. The task
> quickly turned into an experiment. Using a pneumatic air riveter, what
> air pressure would produce the best seated rivet? The results were
> inconclusive. The bottom was completed but not without the agony of
> drilling out several rivets and replacing them. When the top was ready
> he again summoned his partner. This time it would be completed with
> the hand riveter. As with the first surface, this would become an
> experiment to determine if a quick or slow squeeze produced the best
> results. Then suddenly, Oops, a small hole was in the fabric. The
> rivet gun had slid off the rivet when it popped and the broken stem had
> snagged the fabric. Not a word was said but Jerry immediately felt his
> partners discontent. A little dab of poly-tack to lock the fabric from
> fraying and fortunately it was in an area which would be covered by the
> finish tape. All was forgiven.
>
> Both partners tried to figure out the cause behind some of the rivets
> protruding (sitting high) when inserted into the ribs hole. Some
> wanted to ride high, others seated well. The mystery eluted them both.
> If the rivet rode high when inserted they concluded there would be a
> strongly likelihood the need to drill it back out. The problem seems
> to arise from the rivet not seating down into the rib all the way.
> Could it be caused by the hole not being perfectly centered in the rib
> causing the rivet to protrude higher.
>
In my experience as a Structural Mechanic in the Navy, if the rivit was
misaligned or the holes were misaligned, the rivit would not fully seat
and you would end up drilling them out and starting again.
Ensure the pieces to be riveted held together tightly enough so the rivit
shank doesn't try to expand into the "gap" left between the pieces. This
will also cause it to not be completely seated when the puller breaks at
the breakaway point. Loose rivit is what you wil eventually see here.
Careful alignment and having the pieces firmly together will generally
result in a good rivit. The best method I've seen is to get everything
aligned before any holes are drilled. Drill the hole in both pieces
together and immediately insert the rivit and set it. Sometimes that is
not possible, however. Then you can only do your best. Use CLECO's to help
hold things together.
Ron B.
Ron Blaylock - AMSC USN (retired)
TO REPLY remove the NOSPAM at the end of the 'reply to' address....
< ron.b(at)cheerful.com > Living in San Jose, California
< rblaylock(at)mail.arc.nasa.gov > Flying from Lodi, California
Trained by Ultralights of Sacramento, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | tims trailer design requests |
Sorry for the long wait, but all who sent me self addressed envelopes for my
trailer design, they went out in the mail today. Email me with questions if
you have them after receiving the information.
Hope it helps.
tim loehrke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | tims trailer design requests |
Sorry for the long wait, but all who sent me self addressed envelopes for my
trailer design, they went out in the mail today. Email me with questions if
you have them after receiving the information.
Hope it helps.
tim loehrke
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tims trailer design requests |
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
TIM
On your trailer's how do you or how would you recommend makings a MARK
3 ready for a long trip would you take the wings off ? I had a 24ft
goose neck made just for my M III and to tell you the truth I would be
worried to haul it to far ! do you
let the wing tip bows rest on the floor , I don't but have though about
it, the reason would be to get the weight off of the tail wheel and tail
boom their is a lot of bouncing going on back at the tail . what do
you think would be the best way to support the tail end while it is
being trailered . If anyone has an idea on this I'm ready to try it out
.
Rick LIBERSAT
>Sorry for the long wait, but all who sent me self addressed envelopes
>for my
>trailer design, they went out in the mail today. Email me with
>questions if
>you have them after receiving the information.
>Hope it helps.
>tim loehrke
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tims trailer design requests |
> TIM
> On your trailer's how do you or how would you recommend makings a MARK
> 3 ready for a long trip would you take the wings off ? I had a 24ft
> goose neck made just for my M III and to tell you the truth I would be
> worried to haul it to far ! do you
> let the wing tip bows rest on the floor , I don't but have though about
> it, the reason would be to get the weight off of the tail wheel and tail
> boom their is a lot of bouncing going on back at the tail . what do
> you think would be the best way to support the tail end while it is
> being trailered . If anyone has an idea on this I'm ready to try it out
Never trailer on the tailwheel. My solution for FS2 (this only works
if you've got the trailering pins and tubes installed on the plane
per Kolb plans) was to place (weld) two sustantial eye hooks in the
trailer ceiling via a dedicated steel C channel welded to the side
frames at approximately the point just forward of where the front of
the horizontal stabs end on the tail boom. Get some 4 inch wide nylon
tow strap (that big, wide yellow stuff) and obtain two carabiners
(the snap hooks used by mountain climbers) and put them on the ends
of the strap loops. Here's where it gets interesting.
Fold the tail surfaces. Pre-position the nylon strap by wrapping it
around the tail boom (can place some sort of soft-cloth buffer under
the strap or some other protective cushion for the tube paint) so
that you have two lengths of strap on each side of the boom that are
long enough to support the tail off the trailer floor when hooked up
to the ceiling eyes. Fold the wings and put plane on trailer. My
front axles are secured by two straps each side connected to the gear
leg and cargo hooks mounted in the floor. The cargo hooks should be
outboard of the tires so that any side-to-side walking while
trailering will be eliminated. Un-pin one wing and move it out so you
can get to the boom/strap location. Raise the tail and snap the
carabiners to the hook eyes in the ceiling. Replace the wing on the
trailering pin and secure.
Works great for me. The tail is restrained from rocking side to side
by the way the axles are secured and the length of the strap also
prevents sway. Fore and aft movement is nil. Tail is supported
appropriately.
Jim Baker
Pres, USUA Club 104
Frontier Ultralight Aviators
Elmore City OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: tims trailer design requests |
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, RICK M LIBERSAT wrote:
> you think would be the best way to support the tail end while it is
> being trailered . If anyone has an idea on this I'm ready to try it out
On the centerline of my trailer I have a ~2.5' post coming up to
support the fuselage tube just in front of the tail section. On this
post is a padded cradle made from sawing a section of heavy gauge 6"
diam PVC pipe in half. As I pull the tail onto the trailer, i lift the
tailwheel over the cradle, then set the fuselage down into it as the
main gear hit their own pads. I finish by tying the tube to the cradle
as well as each main gear axle to it's pad.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGrooms511(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: tims trailer design requests |
Rick;
A little advice on trailering. Yes you have to get the weight off the tail
wheel. But what a lot of people don't know is that you must also get the
weight off the tube that holds the wings. A cradle to support the wings
should be made to attatch to your dolly, thereby taking the weight off of
that tube. It is not designed to carry that much weight bouncing up and down
all the time. It will break. I know. I've got the T shirt to prove it.Not a
pretty sight when you open your trailer door and look in.
Walt.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM> |
I am finishing up my trailer right now. I agree with the gentleman who
pointed out that you must support the weight of the wings, to keep the stress
off the cross-tube that is in the tail for holding the folded wings. In fact,
I reasoned that if there was support for the wings, there'd be no need for
support of the tail boom. I figure that if I support the whole folded assembly
by the wings, the job is complete. So here is what I did and I will be testing
for the first time this saturday:
The trailer has a 1" channel track laid down its entire length for the
tailwheel to follow as you load it backwards. (I added a boat winch to pull
the plane onto the trailer.) At the front-end of the trailer, the tail-track
has a "pot-hole" formed in it (a 1.5" dip). Remember the tail spring is very
bent when the weight of the folded wings are hanging on the tail, so the wings
are maybe 3" off the trailer floor. I have installed two boat trailer rollers
on the trailer floor, near the front-end where the dip in the track is, so as
the tailwheel drops into the dip the leading edges of each wing rolls into a
roller, and the tailwheel continues on down into the dip and relieves the
pressure on the tailspring. Most of the wingtip weight rests on the roller.
The mains are then captured by ramps that fold up and become wheelchocks.
The rollers are set to contact the wings on the leading edge tube right where
the first (outboard) rib is. The plans showed how to make this first rib
stronger with angle-aluminum, now I am glad I did so. I am still a little
concerned that maybe the roller may deform the leading edge tube. I have
thought about adding two more rollers (total of four), to spread the stress,
or change to a cradle. The cradle might be best but the rollers work so nice,
with no sliding friction, very smooth loading and unloading. This weekend
will be the first road-test. I have loaded and unloaded dozens of times thru
construction and that part works GREAT! One-person, two minutes either way,
with very little physical effort required. An if the above-descirbed system
proves adequate, securing to the trailer is automatic.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | pressure testing |
Pressure testing the crankcase is a simple procedure. You need a piece of
fuel line,bicycle pump,pressure guage,T fitting. Connect the pump to the t
fitting, connect the pressure guage to the t fitting,and then connect the
fuel line to the t fitting.That is your pressure tool. Now seal off the
intake of the carb with a plug of some type and the same at the exhaust
manifold. Attach the fuel line to the pulse port and pump it up to no more
than 7 psi. It should hold pressure for a few minutes. If the presssure goes
down right away check the carb and exhaust plugs. A mixture of soap and
water sprayed on to the seals will help locate the problem area.If there are
not 2 pulse ports you may have to find another way to check the second
cylinder. Perhaps an inlet through the carb plug?
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: pressure testing |
> Pressure testing the crankcase is a simple procedure. You need a piece of
>fuel line,bicycle pump,pressure guage,T fitting. Connect the pump to the t
>fitting, connect the pressure guage to the t fitting,and then connect the
>fuel line to the t fitting.That is your pressure tool. Now seal off the
>intake of the carb with a plug of some type and the same at the exhaust
>manifold. Attach the fuel line to the pulse port and pump it up to no more
>than 7 psi. It should hold pressure for a few minutes. If the presssure goes
>down right away check the carb and exhaust plugs. A mixture of soap and
>water sprayed on to the seals will help locate the problem area.If there are
>not 2 pulse ports you may have to find another way to check the second
>cylinder. Perhaps an inlet through the carb plug?
>
>Woody
>
>- Use the spark plug hole, and make up an appropriate fitting.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
| Subject: | Re[2]: A Builders Weeknight |
The project is starting to get fun now.
I stayed until after midnight the other night and finished cutting the
instrument sub panel. One mistake, the first hole I cut for the
altimeter, I cut 1/8" to big. Oops, watch that flying hole cutter!
My partner looked at me and made a comment to the effect of "measure
twice, cut once." I new I did something wrong. It still works.
Centering it for locating the mounting holes was a bit challenging.
First I had to cut the notch out around the knob, that was fun. That
was fun. Since the hole was over size I could use my hole template
thus had to devise a way to center the instrument to locate the
mounting holes while keeping it centered and straight. I took some
insulated stranded wire and used it as a spacer around the altimeter
to center it, then marked the holes. Worked fine.
Definitely will not make the show plane category now but we weren't
intending for that any how. Actually the panel looks pretty good.
Its cut out of ABS plastic that Sky Sports sells for that purpose.
Its smooth on one side and textured on the other. Looks real nice.
Only one hole to enlarge for the EIS alarm light and transfer the
standoff locations and remaining areas which need to be cut out to the
nose cone panel. That should happen tonight. Then its mount
instruments in the panel.
One problem which has bit me is the ignition switch. As one of my
wants I preferred to have a key ignition switch. I had given a list
to my partner of things to order while I was gone on my last trip. In
scouting for one, Air Star said they had one which was small and would
work with 447. (single contact normally closed, opens in the on
position) Didn't need dual mags or start, just one set of NC
contacts. Well, since Gary had an order going to CPS, he decided to
order it from them instead. Got it and found its of the type where
you can remove the key in the ON (hot) position like an alarm control
switch. I was scared that the mag could be left in a hot state with
the key removed so for liability concerns decided to order the one
from Air Star.
Recontacted the guy at Airstar and again confirmed that they had a
small key type NC switch a for $9.95. Proceeded with the order along
key switch. Recontacted Airstar, again they acknowledged they had it
(smaller than the size of a conventional GA aircraft ignition switch)
and would ship it out. What I received was an ignition switch, large
similar in size and look of those used in GA aircraft plus it looks
like it had been mounted once as the front panel dress nut has what
appears deep plier marks cut into it. The large diameter will
possibly create a mounting clearance problem. Called them again, they
indicated that's all they have. With that I ended the call.
Reconvened my search for another switch and source.
As far as Airstar goes, my experience with them has been less than
favorable. There is a man there who I believe is the owner that can
be argumentative, combative, and difficult to work with. I like to
help support small start up operations but this guy does not seem to
be customer oriented. It seems I am not alone. Cliff has expressed
he too has had difficulty with them. Cliff has experienced a high
premature failure rate of the EGT probes Airstar sold him. When he
inquired if he could purchase a better quality probe he has not been
satisfied with the manner they dealt with resolving the issue. If the
guy could control his mood, they would probably be a good outfit to
work with but in the mean time, buyer beware.
Regards,
Jerry & Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kmead(at)up.net (Kent kathy Mead) |
Hi All
I wonder if you could use vacuum instead of pressure to check you crank
case. Easier to hold a seal I would think.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure Check |
>Hi All
> I wonder if you could use vacuum instead of pressure to check you crank
>case. Easier to hold a seal I would think.
>
>-
> If I remember right, the tester that the Bombardier dealer (SkiDoo)
had was set up to work either vacuum or pressure. But it's been a while,
really not sure.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mswihart(at)tcsn.net (Mark Swihart) |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: A Builders Weeknight |
Just curious....Wouldn't it be better to have a toggle switch instead of
keyed switch in case of of an emergency? (In case that ignition circuit had
to be instantly killed?)
Mark Swihart
TwinStar #46
Paso Robles Ultralight Assoc.
At 08:16 AM 9/26/97 cst, you wrote:
> The project is starting to get fun now.
>
>
> One problem which has bit me is the ignition switch. As one of my
> wants I preferred to have a key ignition switch. I had given a list
> to my partner of things to order while I was gone on my last trip. In
> scouting for one, Air Star said they had one which was small and would
> work with 447. (single contact normally closed, opens in the on
> position) Didn't need dual mags or start, just one set of NC
> contacts. Well, since Gary had an order going to CPS, he decided to
> order it from them instead. Got it and found its of the type where
> you can remove the key in the ON (hot) position like an alarm control
> switch. I was scared that the mag could be left in a hot state with
> the key removed so for liability concerns decided to order the one
> from Air Star.
>
> Recontacted the guy at Airstar and again confirmed that they had a
> small key type NC switch a for $9.95. Proceeded with the order along
> key switch. Recontacted Airstar, again they acknowledged they had it
> (smaller than the size of a conventional GA aircraft ignition switch)
> and would ship it out. What I received was an ignition switch, large
> similar in size and look of those used in GA aircraft plus it looks
> like it had been mounted once as the front panel dress nut has what
> appears deep plier marks cut into it. The large diameter will
> possibly create a mounting clearance problem. Called them again, they
> indicated that's all they have. With that I ended the call.
> Reconvened my search for another switch and source.
>
>
> Jerry & Gary
>
>
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <stei0302(at)cs.fredonia.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: A Builders Weeknight |
At 08:16 AM 9/26/97 cst, jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com wrote:
[...]
> Recontacted the guy at Airstar and again confirmed that they had a
>
small key type NC switch a for $9.95. Proceeded with the order along
a
> key switch. Recontacted Airstar, again they acknowledged they had
it
> (smaller than the size of a conventional GA aircraft ignition
switch)
> and would ship it out. What I received was an ignition
switch, large
> similar in size and look of those used in GA aircraft
plus it looks
> like it had been mounted once as the front panel dress
nut has what
> appears deep plier marks cut into it. The large
diameter will
> possibly create a mounting clearance problem. Called
them again, they
> indicated that's all they have. With that I ended
the call.
> Reconvened my search for another switch and source.
>
Another poster mentioned that it might be a good idea to use a toggle
switch in case of an emergency. I think that they would both
probably take the same amount of time to turn off, but I will agree, in an
emergency situation, I would rather have to turn off a toggle than a key.
(less to think about, less ways to screw up, etc.) However, it should be
easy to add a toggle in addition to the key should you so desire. (It also
makes for a neat start-up sequence... "toggle on, key, on, ignition!"
You can pretend you're launching nuclear missles or something.) ;-)
I like keys, myself... I don't have one in my plane, but they do
add a certain something to a plane. I have no rational reason for
liking them, they add weight, add complexity, cause you to leave your
keys at home when you go to the airport, but I just like 'em. They
make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. ;-)
Anyway....
You might want to check someplace like a lawnmower dealership. They
might have a simple key switch you could use. Also, a really good place
to check would probably be at a Bombadier/Ski Doo/Sea Doo dealership.
Their snowmobiles and watercraft use keyed ignition switches, and their
engines are very close relatives to ours. (Assuming you have a Rotax
engine that is... Bombadier = Rotax)
I hope this helps; good luck!
-Jon-
.--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL |
| '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) |
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tswartz(at)prolog.net (Terry Swartz) |
Scott Bently
I remember thinking that the labels looked very neat on you plane. What did
you use.
Progress: I finished the windshield and doors and will be doing weight and
balance today and will probably fire up the engine today. All that is left
is labels, drain holes, strobes, safety wire and final check from tail to nose.
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: A Builders Weeknight |
On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Jon Steiger wrote:
> easy to add a toggle in addition to the key should you so desire. (It also
> makes for a neat start-up sequence... "toggle on, key, on, ignition!"
> You can pretend you're launching nuclear missles or something.) ;-)
>
> You might want to check someplace like a lawnmower dealership. They
All in fun here Jon, but this cracks me up! We'll presume the pentagon looks
beyond Snapper dealers for their switches.
:-) -Ben
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Although this should be for just Kolb, this is too good not to share...
TriCity Airport, 29 Sept, 9 AM, IFR (VSBY less than 1/4 mile in fog,
indefinite ceiling 100')
"Tri City ground, Cessna 2543X request VFR, heading 016, climb to 7500' "
"Cessna 43X, ground, it's IFR, can't you see the rotating beacon is on?"
"No, it's too foggy"
I wonder if this guy knows about the Darwin Awards...?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kmead(at)up.net (Kent kathy Mead) |
| Subject: | Engine thrust line |
Hi All;
I just bought a used Starfire and I have a question. Shouldn't the
engine be flat on the mounts or tilted prop down a little for better ground
control? This -plane had the motor tilted up in the rear about quarter inch.
Just pulled the engine for a rebuild and was was not sure how to remount it.
Kent Mead
86 Starfire
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
To All,
The new plugs at 25 hours made the 582 purr like a kitten again and easier
to start. There seemed to be very little carbon on the cylinder tops and
(as far as I could tell looking in the exhaust ports, the rings and what I
could see of the piston/cylinder walls looked fine. At 50 hours I will have
an expert do the looking.
The "new" HPC ceramic coated muffler IS really "cool" and cooler than the
uncoated one. I thought about telling a tale of how my Kolb now climbs at
2000 fpm becuase of the better scavaging afforded by the muffler, but I knew
everyone would know it was a lie. The EGT readings (I have both cylinders
working right now) have not changed as I can tell any because of coating the
muffler and retaining more heat inside of it. For that to be the case,
exhaust must be passing through some faster than before or I would expect
some (even just a little) increase in temps. Maybe I am getting a tiny bit
more power. Nice, but not measurable, if that is the case.
It was a little bumpy today and I did so many circuits around the local
airport patterns doing landings and takeoffs and a few full development
stalls that I really got myself airsick. I was beginning to think of the
best place to throw up... on myself... out the window... My wife is flying
commercial next week. I have asked her to bring me back some of those burp
bags. Boy, I really have a time with nausea on occasions.
I noticed that if I held the stall long enough without recovery, that my
left wing would drop first. That is probably because I have the habit of
holding some left rudder most of the time and about the only thing working
in the stall was my rudder in the prop wash. I would squirrel myself around
about 90 degrees to the left as well. During those stalls my ASI jumped
around with inaccurate readings between 20 and 30 mph. I will need to
experiment more and consciously lay off the left rudder. I don't know about
other props, but the IVO really lets you know when you are approaching a
stall when under some power.
A friend of mine who has a MKIII said to check the lift stuts by feeling
them while flying. He said his vibrated more than he liked. I did that
today up to about 80 mph and did not notice any vibrations greater than the
rest of the airframe. My struts are lined with an extra tube a distance of
22" in either end of the formed aluminum. I am not using the jury struts so
I wanted to check that.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (21.1 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: pressure testing |
>> Pressure testing the crankcase is a simple procedure. You need a piece of
>>Woody
>>
>>- Use the spark plug hole, and make up an appropriate fitting.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>Just make sure the piston is in the proper position so that the air can get
into the crankcase.
Woody
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine thrust line |
>Hi All;
> I just bought a used Starfire and I have a question. Shouldn't the
>engine be flat on the mounts or tilted prop down a little for better ground
>control? This -plane had the motor tilted up in the rear about quarter inch.
>Just pulled the engine for a rebuild and was was not sure how to remount it.
>
>
>Kent Mead
>86 Starfire
>
>-
>
I think you are refering to a Firestar.Usually kolb mounts their engines
flat on the mount.This dosn't mean you can't experiment and find out what is
best for you.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>I noticed that if I held the stall long enough without recovery, that my
>left wing would drop first. That is probably because I have the habit of
>holding some left rudder most of the time and about the only thing working
>in the stall was my rudder in the prop wash. I would squirrel myself around
>about 90 degrees to the left as well.
>
>
> Do you have a yaw string? On my MKIII, if I use the rudder to keep the
yaw string going straight up the windshield, it breaks straight ahead in the
stall. Otherwise it breaks in the direction the upper end of the string is
pointing, asssuming the ailerons are neutral, because the upper end of the
string always points at the heavy foot.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
Changing the thrust line to counteract a tail heavy condition is not the
best idea. Try adding something to the nose,this will improve flying more
than changing the thrust line.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
To all,
Today, I flew up high (3.5k to 4k AGL) and stayed for the most part in cool
smooth air... nice, no nausea. I tested the longitudinal stability trimmed
straight and level and found that the oscillations returned to trim within
two oscillations from either a stick back or forward deflection.
>From straight and level trimmed, I tested putting the nose down to see if it
would recover from a dive. To a certain point it would, but at about 15
degrees or greater the dive would steepen rather than pull out by itself.
I released the controls in a stable bank with only rudder keeping the slip
string straight and ball (or BB in my case) centered. The plane very slowly
but surely deepened its bank and start into a spiral dive. The same thing
happened banked either way.
I tried to tell if my plane climbed or cruised any better whether the slip
string was straight or not. Frankly, I could tell no difference. You know,
a J3 cub has a sweet spot and if you don't keep the ball perfectly centered
the climb rate is severely impared. Apparently the Kolb could care less if
it is flying perfectly straight or not. I suspect that inputing the rudder
to keep the string straight costs about as much (or more) than you gain in
increased lift due to the drag you induce with rudder deflection.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (22.7 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
To Group:
Here is an update on my progress and a few things that I would like to
share.
Progress update.
month of vacation to get it though painting before the weather gets too
cold in Wisconsin. As of this weekend, I have one day of vacation
remaining. The wings and tail feathers are painted except for trim. The
cage is covered and has the first coat of polybrush. Total hours to date
= 281. I just about have my goal made and it feels good. I had been
worried about having to wait until spring to paint because Kolb shipped
my parts a month later then promised.
Fuselage covered with one piece of fabric.
Well almost. The rectangular part in back was a separate piece. Also,
I elected to not cover the bulkhead or the triangular area by the tanks.
They would have been extra also. But the cage has no seams except in the
back, no tapes and only gussets at the gear legs. I didn't know if I
could do it when I started, but it worked well.
Mixing paint without going to the hardware store.
I had my first two gallons of polytone shook at the hareware store for
5 minutes as recommended and still had mud (pigment) at the bottom of
the can. So I tried my own idea. It worked good a took no longer than
the trip to the store. Start with an extra gallon can, and a quart of
thinner. Pour the gallon into the empty can. Poor some of the quart of
thinner onto the mud and loosen it with a paint stick. You can also
swish the thinner around or put the cover back on and shake it. Then
pour the mix through a strainer into a third can. Repeat with some more
thinner until the bottom of the gallon is clean. It took me three times.
Then mix it all together by pouring back and forth between the gallon
cans and you are ready to paint.
How difficult is it to build a Kolb?
I think that most anyone could do it. The skills needed are not the
problem. The problem for most people, I believe, is just the amount of
time it takes.
How does a prospective builder know it they will enjoy the experience?
I think that if one has built flying model airplanes and enjoyed it,
then they will enjoy building a Kolb. For me it has been a big model
airplane with big enjoyment.
John Jung, PPASEL
Firestar 377,
9 years in ultralighting,
300+ hours in 5 planes,
rebuilding a Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
Would it be to much work to shorten the boom a foot or so?Whack it off the
back so the wing support tubes do not have to be relocated.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Too much of a good thing??? |
Woody and all,
> Would it be to much work to shorten the boom a foot or so?
When I talked to Homer Kolb, he said he would not recommend cutting off any
more than 3.5" to 4" maximum. My elevators are pretty sensitive. I have no
idea if shortening my tube by 4" contributed any to that or not. (I don't
know if there is any relationship, but when I flew U control airplanes when
I was a kid all of the stunt kits had very short fuselages. You could turn
or loop those suckers on a dime.) I also noticed that on a stock MKII that I
flew for a couple of hours the control response was identical. Maybe "all"
Kolbs have the tendency to have light and sensitive elevators (especially
when compared to the aileron control forces). Something else to consider is
that the shorter the coupling of the landing gear, the easier it is to
ground loop. There has been a time or two that I have been inattentive to
the landing roll and gotten off the center line shall we say.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (22.7 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lots of fun on a TwinStar |
Last Weekend I was in the vicinity of Baton Rouge so I had to take advantage
of some first time duel in a Kolb.
For 8 years the only airplane I had flown is my C-172, never flown a tail
dragger.
Never landed on a grass strip or trees on both sides of the runway. You will
never find that in the desert Southwest.
The first thing I noticed about the TwinStar is I was sitting way out in
front (COOL!!).
At full throttle the powerful feeling of the thrust got my attention, we were
air born in no time. After doing some stalls in the practice area I wanted
to do some touch and goes. On my first landing I felt like I was coming in
too fast on final. The airspeed indicator is on the left lift strut and no
time to see it when coming in too close to the ground. I flaring too high
and the twinstar ballooned then dropper to the ground. I put it in air and
asked Dee the instructor if we still had the landing gear.
After several T&Gs we land and noticed the landing gear was bent. I helped
Dee take it off. He took it to a machine shop and I helped him put it back
on. We were flying the next day. I was starting to get better at landing.
We had a cross wind and the trees were making vortices. Every time I would
get into the tree line the effect made me mess up.
On Thursday when Dee started the engine the carburetor filter came off and
hit the prop the filter was bent a little but the prop was OK. As we started
taxiing I remembered to push the throttle slowly so as not to dig the nose in
the ground but forgot to hold the stick back as I went to full throttle, Dee
pulled it back in time before we went over.
We had cross winds so bad that we had to crab almost 45 degrees on down wind.
On my 4th down wind T&G I started hearing a load noise like as if we had a
run away engine. My first thought was we had lost the prop. Dee took over
the controls, closed the throttle and headed straight for the runway, landed
without incident. It turned out to be the muffler had burst open, it had
already been welded and was rusty. Dee had ordered a muffler but arrived
without the hooks wedded to it so he returned it, the correct one was on
order.
Dee LeBlanc is a very professional, patient instructor and took full
responsibility for me dropping his TwinStar. I ended up getting some
valuable experience. I felt the tail wheel was not a big factor in landing
but it is different to land. Too bad I cant log it due to it being an
ultralight trainer.
I uploaded some pictures of the Twin Star to my web page.
Will Uribe
Building a FireStar II
http://members.aol.com/WillU/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kmead(at)up.net (Kent kathy Mead) |
Hi All;
Does anyone know of any two seat Kolbs in northern Michigan or northern
Wisconsin that I might get a little time in as a passenger or some flight
training. I am having a hard time finding anyone around here, Marquette Mi.
Thanks Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | SlingShot Flies !!! |
Greetings,
The SS left the ground at 2:08 this afternoon for it's first flight. I
only stayed up for a short time and climbed to about 3200 ft for most of
that flight. I don't have any real data to report so far, but what I do
know is:
1- The ASI reads quite low. I lifted off at about 35 indicated which is a
bit lower than expected since I wasn't attempting any sort of minimum
airspeed takeoff. Climb out was kept above 50 mph indicated, which was
pretty flat and the climb rate wasn't real impressive. I'm sure this
wasn't close to the optimum climb angle. First priority for the second
flight is to get a handle on the ASI error amount. I compared the GPS to
the ASI many times during the flight and the ASI was anywhere between 8 and
25 mph low. The winds at 3k ft were reported to be about 20 kts and I made
no attempt to get an accurate comparison between ASI and GPS (surface wind
was light and variable). The lowest speed I saw during the flight was 40
mph indicated and there was no feeling of being near stall. The approach
speed was kept above 50 mph indicated.
2- The prop is probably pitched too coarse. At full throttle and level,
the rpm was 6450. I'm afraid I don't remember what the climb RPM was.
Either way, I won't mess with the prop until I find out what the airspeed
really is.
3- The trim is slightly off as expected. I have to hold up elevator, and
right aileron in level cruise flight. I haven't really analyzed this to
see if it seems normal. The pressure is very light and I don't plan to
worry about it for the next several flights. I will try to see if the
rudder is really what needs correction rather than the ailerons. I didn't
notice what the ball was doing during straight and level flight.
4- Happily, the aileron force is way less than the factory Mark-III (as
promised).
5- There were no neighbors watching my landing. I know this for a fact
because the landing was great. I can't believe I nailed it that well. The
time and money I spent with Dan at Kolb was the best investment I could
have made. If you're thinking of flying one of these planes without any
previous UL type experience, send me a message and give me the chance to
talk you out of it.
Now for my inevitable question. During the letdown, I twice had the EIS
warn me about exceeding the 1200 degree EGT limit (gotta love that EIS). I
know this is a problem during decent at mid throttle levels, but don't
really know what the proper procedure is. Should you descend with cruise
power and high airspeed, pull the throttle way back near idle, or.....? I
plan to find out how to avoid this before the next flight. BTW- the temps
at 5800 cruise were 341, and 1084.
I consider this flight a total success. Now I have lots of things to test
and optimize. I have some pictures of the flight, but won't get a chance
to post them for a day or so.
See ya later, time to celebrate.
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K, (.5 hours)
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SlingShot Flies !!! |
CONGRATULATIONS RUSTY!!!
<< If you're thinking of flying one of these planes without any previous UL
type experience, send me a message and give me the chance to talk you out of
it. >>
DITTOS
Will Uribe
http://members.aol.com/WillU/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <stei0302(at)cs.fredonia.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: SlingShot Flies !!! |
[...]
>have made. If you're thinking of flying one of these planes without any
>previous UL type experience, send me a message and give me the chance to
>talk you out of it.
My only experience before flying my FireFly was in a Piper J-3 Cub.
I made it, obviously, but I had lots of good advice from people and
stuff like "high line of thrust" got burned into my brain pretty quick
after the first (and last) nose-over. :-)
Getting some time with Dan first would have been *very* helpful, but
unfortunately it just wasn't practical for me to do so. If you can
manage it, do try to get some time in a high wing pusher first!
>
>Now for my inevitable question. During the letdown, I twice had the EIS
>warn me about exceeding the 1200 degree EGT limit (gotta love that EIS). I
>know this is a problem during decent at mid throttle levels, but don't
>really know what the proper procedure is. Should you descend with cruise
>power and high airspeed, pull the throttle way back near idle, or.....? I
>plan to find out how to avoid this before the next flight. BTW- the temps
>at 5800 cruise were 341, and 1084.
I've wondered about that myself. :-) I have added some power to
drop the needle and then gone back to mid-power, and just add more power
when the needle comes back up. I've also just cut the power and let it
glide for a while... I've noticed that if I slip to the left, the EGT
cools down. (I'm assuming its the increased airflow over the muffler,
which is located on the left.) I'm not sure if that's the best way to
lower the EGT though. It seems like that might be curing the symptoms,
as opposed to the problem. (i.e. maybe its cooling the probe but the
gasses coming into the muffler are as hot as ever?)
>
>I consider this flight a total success. Now I have lots of things to test
>and optimize. I have some pictures of the flight, but won't get a chance
>to post them for a day or so.
>
Congratulations! And good luck with the rest of your flights!
-Jon-
.--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL |
| '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) |
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SlingShot Flies !!! |
>>Now for my inevitable question. During the letdown, I twice had the EIS
>>warn me about exceeding the 1200 degree EGT limit (gotta love that EIS). I
>>know this is a problem during decent at mid throttle levels, but don't
>>really know what the proper procedure is. Should you descend with cruise
>>power and high airspeed, pull the throttle way back near idle, or.....? I
>>plan to find out how to avoid this before the next flight. BTW- the temps
>>at 5800 cruise were 341, and 1084.
>
> I've wondered about that myself. :-) I have added some power to
>drop the needle and then gone back to mid-power, and just add more power
>when the needle comes back up. I've also just cut the power and let it
>glide for a while... I've noticed that if I slip to the left, the EGT
>cools down. (I'm assuming its the increased airflow over the muffler,
>which is located on the left.) I'm not sure if that's the best way to
>lower the EGT though. It seems like that might be curing the symptoms,
>as opposed to the problem. (i.e. maybe its cooling the probe but the
>gasses coming into the muffler are as hot as ever?)
>
> Ditto on the congratulations on the first flight. Great, ain't it?
About the high EGT. Since the engine is pumping more air than the throttle
is set for (nose down, engine unloaded, revs higher than typical due to no
load),
everything is leaned out. If you really like this kind of descent, pull the
choke, and give it some gas to richen it back up. But I think it would
probably dirty up the plugs after a while (no load to burn them clean?), and
somehow it just goes against the grain to waste gas and money. I like just
closing the throttle a bit more until the heat drops off.
There is also the possibility that since the engine is not really
making power against load, that the abnormally high EGT's won't hurt
anything. Perhaps someone out there who lives over really choice
forced-landing terrain will try a long, high-speed descent with the EGT up
around 1300-1400 and let us know how it works...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: SlingShot Flies !!! |
On Sun, 28 Sep 1997, Russell Duffy wrote:
> See ya later, time to celebrate.
>
CONGRATULATIONS! BTW, is this the first customer built SS?
(maybe 2si finished theirs(?) but they're commercial). Now
you can change your dreaming from rivets to flying!
My $.02 on the high egt at mid throttle glide: I've assumed that
the loads on the engine are very low and don't worry about it. I
also don't stay there for an extended time. Sometimes i've
thought maybe i'm optimizing my fuel range by backing off the
throttle until i see the egt start to come up ...but then i
get impatient and go play at all the throttle settings. One
real option to consider is a different taper needle valve.
If you pick one w/ less taper (small diam high on the needle)
it will richen the mid range. This may fix the brief high
egt during descent at the cost of too rich a cruise mixture, but
it is a simple, inexpensive option to play with.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | iemwr(at)agt.gmeds.com ( Mark W. Rinehart 230-2567 |
AGT/8896)
| Subject: | MARK III Trainer |
I'm thinking about building a Mark III as an ultralight trainer. Need some advice
on the following:
- how does the single throttle, center stick work out for student training? I
would prefer dual controls provided I could come up with a workable system (I
know John Hauk's Mk III has dual controls).
- Is it possible to N-number an ultralight AFTER it has been built? If, after
some period of time, I get tired of all the restrictions associated with an "ultralight
trainer" I may decide to N-number it and not use it for training anymore.
Can this be done?
- How difficult is it to repair a Mk III? Ultralight trainers seem to get bent
up a lot, usually due to hard landings. With the "bolt together" models you
simply replace a tube. With the Kolb I'm guessing there would probably be some
welding required.
- How long does it take to build a Mk III? This is my first airplane project but
I'm good with my hands and have some decent tools (air compressor, drill press,
etc.).
Appreciate any comments your group might have. By the way, I live in central Indiana
and am working on a BFI.
Mark Rinehart
iemwr(at)agt.gmeds.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LAURIE CARROLL <lwjcarroll(at)clear.net.nz> |
| Subject: | RE: Flight Training |
Hi Kent,
Dont know if this will help, but the EAA had photos in a recent
Experimenter issue of the UL flyin at the Pioneer Airport. There was a
two seat Kolb on the flight line. They may be able to help you if you
give them a phone call.
Laurie Carroll
EAA114949
-----Original Message-----
From: Kent kathy Mead [SMTP:kmead(at)up.net]
Sent: Monday, 29 September 1997 11:49
To: kolb(at)intrig.com
Subject: Kolb-List: Flight Training
Hi All;
Does anyone know of any two seat Kolbs in northern Michigan or
northern
Wisconsin that I might get a little time in as a passenger or some
flight
training. I am having a hard time finding anyone around here, Marquette
Mi.
Thanks Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
To all,
Today I experimented with the claim that the ailerons of the Kolb would be
effective even while in a stall. They sure are. I did not give them the
acid test of stop to stop deflection, but when used conservatively, they
worked just fine.
I am trying to build some hours now. I need to apply for my repairman's
certificate and down here they want you to fly off the 40 hours first. My
plane's annual inspection is coming up in a month or so... so I need to fly
a lot.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (24.9 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Carroll <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I can't wait til I hear the response you'll get on this one. There's
never a dull moment when reading my Kolb mail.
Ron
Cliff and Carolyn Stripling wrote:
>
> To all,
>
> Today I experimented with the claim that the ailerons of the Kolb would be
> effective even while in a stall. They sure are. I did not give them the
> acid test of stop to stop deflection, but when used conservatively, they
> worked just fine.
>
> I am trying to build some hours now. I need to apply for my repairman's
> certificate and down here they want you to fly off the 40 hours first. My
> plane's annual inspection is coming up in a month or so... so I need to fly
> a lot.
>
> Later,
>
> --
> Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (24.9 hrs)
> (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
> Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
>
> ____________________|_____________________
> ___(+^+)___
> (_)
> 8 8
>
>
> -
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
I assume Ron is referring to the resulting spin, e.g. aileron deflection
in a stall is almost as good as a rudder kick to initiate the spin.
...lest anyone has forgotten :-) Be Careful Out There
-Ben
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Ron Carroll wrote:
> I can't wait til I hear the response you'll get on this one. There's
> never a dull moment when reading my Kolb mail.
>
> Ron
>
> Cliff and Carolyn Stripling wrote:
> >
> > To all,
> >
> > Today I experimented with the claim that the ailerons of the Kolb would be
> > effective even while in a stall. They sure are. I did not give them the
> > acid test of stop to stop deflection, but when used conservatively, they
> > worked just fine.
> >
> > I am trying to build some hours now. I need to apply for my repairman's
> > certificate and down here they want you to fly off the 40 hours first. My
> > plane's annual inspection is coming up in a month or so... so I need to fly
> > a lot.
> >
> > Later,
> >
> > --
> > Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (24.9 hrs)
> > (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
> > Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
> >
> > ____________________|_____________________
> > ___(+^+)___
> > (_)
> > 8 8
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
> I am trying to build some hours now. I need to apply for my repairman's
> certificate and down here they want you to fly off the 40 hours first.
My
> plane's annual inspection is coming up in a month or so... so I need to
fly
> a lot.
> --
> Cliff & Carolyn Stripling
Funny thing about the Repairman's certificate. I just received my
temporary copy in the mail today, and I only have .5 hours on my plane.
The permanent one should be here in <120 days. It's hard to believe I
finally got a break on the rules.
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Aileron Deflection - Stall - Spin |
To all,
>I assume Ron is referring to the resulting spin, e.g. aileron deflection
>in a stall is almost as good as a rudder kick to initiate the spin.
> ...lest anyone has forgotten :-) Be Careful Out There
> -Ben
And I agree. I said conservatively (intending to meaning no abrupt or large
deflections), but I should not have added the bit about the "acid test" as
that might suggest that someone "try it" which was certainly not my
intention. I don't want to stall and crash nor do I want anyone else to either.
Sorry,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (24.9 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
wood wrote:
>
> Would it be to much work to shorten the boom a foot or so?Whack it off the
> back so the wing support tubes do not have to be relocated.
> Woody
>
It may seem that would be an easy fix to weight & balance but I
predict that it would not make a significant difference. You can do the
math in advance. Multiply the weight of the tail pieces by 12" and
divide by the weight of the plane. The answer is the movement of the CG
in inches. Why do I think I am qualified to say this? I was a Air Force
loadmaster during Vietnam. I did weight and balance daily for years.
John Jung, PPASEL
Firestar 377,
9 years in ultralighting,
300+ hours in 5 planes,
rebuilding a Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MARK III Trainer |
Mark W. Rinehart 230-2567 AGT/8896 wrote:
>
> I'm thinking about building a Mark III as an ultralight trainer. Need some advice
on the following:
> - Is it possible to N-number an ultralight AFTER it has been built? If, after
some period of time, I get tired of all the restrictions associated with an
"ultralight trainer" I may decide to N-number it and not use it for training anymore.
Can this be done?
>
Yes, it is possible, but you need to do the documentation while
building.
> - How difficult is it to repair a Mk III? Ultralight trainers seem to get bent
up a lot, usually due to hard landings. With the "bolt together" models you
simply replace a tube. With the Kolb I'm guessing there would probably be some
welding required.
>
A local instructor has used a Mark III for several years and before that
a Mark II. He has had no airframe problems, just replaced lots of gear
legs. Both planes were somewhat limited by power and gross weight. He
would not instruct students that were too heavy.
John Jung, PPASEL
Firestar 377,
9 years in ultralighting,
300+ hours in 5 planes,
rebuilding a Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
Congratulation to Dennis Souder for winning the Presidents Award to the
outstanding individual in the sport aircraft manufacturing industry at
Oshkosh.
Tim I saw you and your FireStar II picture in Kitplane under Completions,
nice FireStar :-)
Later
Will Uribe
http://members.aol.com/WillU/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
CLIFF
I GOT WITH THE F A A LAST WEEK ON THE PHONE AND ,TOLD JACK WEST ( FAA)
THAT I HAD MY TIME IN HE SAID GREAT , I'LL SEE YOU IN HOUSTON SATURDAY
,
AT THE AIR SHOW AND FOR ME TO BRING MY PAPER WORK , AND NOW I HAVE
MY REPAIRMAN CERTIFICATE .
Carolyn Stripling writes:
>To all,
>
>Today I experimented with the claim that the ailerons of the Kolb
>would be
>effective even while in a stall. They sure are. I did not give them
>the
>acid test of stop to stop deflection, but when used conservatively,
>they
>worked just fine.
>
>I am trying to build some hours now. I need to apply for my
>repairman's
>certificate and down here they want you to fly off the 40 hours first.
> My
>plane's annual inspection is coming up in a month or so... so I need
>to fly
>a lot.
>
>Later,
>
>--
>Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (24.9 hrs)
>(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
> Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
>
> ____________________|_____________________
> ___(+^+)___
> (_)
> 8 8
>
>
>
>
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Adrio Taucer <adrio(at)capitalnet.com> |
John, you are correct in your math saying that the change in C of G
(inches) would be small. However there is also an other factor which
changes as well when you move the tail closser to the wing and this also
talks against shortening the couple. The lever (moment) exerted by the
tail is shorter which means the tail needs to produce more "lift" (if
memory serves this is in a downward direction) to keep things ballanced.
Again going by memory, this would have the result of decreasing the C of
G limits as the tail would not be as effective in a stall at the former
aft C of G limit. I am working here from some old memory so perhaps
some one on the list could elaborate on this for the benefit of all of
us.
Remember avoid 1.altitude above 2.runway behind & 3.fuel on the ground:)
Adrio Taucer
John Jung wrote:
>
> wood wrote:
> >
> > Would it be to much work to shorten the boom a foot or so?Whack it off the
> > back so the wing support tubes do not have to be relocated.
> > Woody
> >
>
> It may seem that would be an easy fix to weight & balance but I
> predict that it would not make a significant difference. You can do the
> math in advance. Multiply the weight of the tail pieces by 12" and
> divide by the weight of the plane. The answer is the movement of the CG
> in inches. Why do I think I am qualified to say this? I was a Air Force
> loadmaster during Vietnam. I did weight and balance daily for years.
>
> John Jung, PPASEL
> Firestar 377,
> 9 years in ultralighting,
> 300+ hours in 5 planes,
> rebuilding a Firestar II
> -
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Repairman's Certificate |
To all,
>Eh? How's that again? No repairmans while 40 hour in effect? Sounds
>like BS. How ya gonna do the work on it during the 40? Is the
>aircraft classified differently during the 40? Don't think so.
>I'd send in the paper work. Unless I'm way off on this one.........
Jim,
These are the same thoughts I had, but in the packet of info I received from
the DFW FAA office, it specifically states that I cannot submit the
applicaton until after the 40 hours have been flown off. I also have a
letter from the FAA inspector to include with the application that states
the same thing. That was not the case about 10 years ago when I built
another plane.
Also, the 40 hour test period is spelled out pretty clearly when using an
uncertified engine in that same info packet. I have heard of some test
periods of 20 hours instead. Has the Rotax suddenly become certified? Does
anybody know the "key" to unlocking that door?
It could be that each region has some lattitude in what they allow or don't.
You would think it would be the same nation wide.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (24.9 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MARK III Trainer |
Fred Steadman wrote:
>
> Is it not possible to provide ultralight training in an airplane that
> carries an N-number?
If it is experimental, you cannot do it commercially. You can do it for
free.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Deflection - Stall - Spin |
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Cliff and Carolyn Stripling wrote:
> To all,
>
> >I assume Ron is referring to the resulting spin, e.g. aileron deflection
> >in a stall is almost as good as a rudder kick to initiate the spin.
> > ...lest anyone has forgotten :-) Be Careful Out There
> > -Ben
>
> And I agree. I said conservatively (intending to meaning no abrupt or large
> deflections), but I should not have added the bit about the "acid test" as
> that might suggest that someone "try it" which was certainly not my
> intention. I don't want to stall and crash nor do I want anyone else to either.
>
> Sorry,
>
Certainly no apology needed. I chimed in simply because i felt that
between your msg and Ron's post, the reminder about ailerons and stalls
might not be clear to all. Also, as I've said in prior "sermons", I
think becoming familiar with spin entry/exit is a good thing to do, but
would also strongly advise doing the first with an instructor.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marino, Frank J (Youngstown ARB)" <Frank.Marino(at)yng.afres.af.mil> |
| Subject: | GEAR BOX DRAIN NUT |
Does any one out there know how to get the drain plug off the gear box.
I tried to take mine off and almost stripped the nut. I tried to take it
off when the engine was warm, someone said to take it off when the
engine was hot. I haven't tried this yet.
MKIII N88FM
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marino, Frank J (Youngstown ARB)" <Frank.Marino(at)yng.afres.af.mil> |
| Subject: | FW: GEAR BOX DRAIN NUT |
>----------
>From: Marino, Frank J (Youngstown ARB)
>Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 2:13 PM
>To: 'kolb(at)intrig.com'
>Subject: GEAR BOX DRAIN NUT
>
>Does any one out there know how to get the drain plug off the gear box.
>I tried to take mine off and almost stripped the nut. I tried to take it
>off when the engine was warm, someone said to take it off when the
>engine was hot. I haven't tried this yet.
>
>MKIII N88FM
>
>Frank
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGrooms511(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Repairman's Certificate |
Gentlemen;
My memory told me that the FAR's said something about ten hours for pre
approved kits. So I dug through my pile of paperwork from the FAA and found
Advisory Circular No. 20-27D
This circular says plainly that Pre approved kits for gliders, balloons,and
ultralights, having been evaluated by the FAA,
(Of which Kolbs are one) will be limited to an assigned flight test area for
ten hours of satisfactory operation, includung at least five takeoffs and
landings.
Ask for a copy of this circular, and have it on hand to show the inspector
when he comes. Most of the FAA guys I spoke to didn't know about it, but
would accept it if you can prove it to them.
________________________________________________________________________________
kolb(at)intrig.com
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GEAR BOX DRAIN NUT |
>Does any one out there know how to get the drain plug off the gear box.
>I tried to take mine off and almost stripped the nut. I tried to take it
>off when the engine was warm, someone said to take it off when the
>engine was hot. I haven't tried this yet.
Frank and everyone else out there,
Someone told me the secret. This is after I buggered and buggered the plug
to almost round. Smack it with a hammer from the bottom a time or two and
it will come out with little difficulty. Somehow the plug becomes glued but
the "glue" can be broken with a sharp smack. I thought I was going to have
to drill it out.
Try it. It will make a believer out of you.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (27.1 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Radio Finally Working |
To all,
I finally found the weak link in my radio set up. It has something to do
with the intercom. I am going to write to the manufacturer and describe the
symptoms and see if they can fix it. I have been trying to transmit through
the headset mic which is patched throught the intercom to the ICOM A21 with
no success. Today I unpluged the mic from the intercom and used the mic on
the ICOM. Ureka! Others can now hear me. I am not alone.
Today was add patches day. I put two American flags on the rudder as well
as an EAA and a USUA patch. Heck, now I have all the bases covered.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (27.1 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | fan belt adjusting |
I just bought the tool that enables one to remove the fan to tighten the belt
on the 503. I do not have an impact wrench to remove the nut, so decided to
buy the tool. Has anyone used it and if so whats the trick, how does it
function.
Got the tool at home and the plane is at the airport and will not be able to
go look closer for a few days, so I thought I would ask here so I can adjust
it when I finally make it to the airport.
Thanks.
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Radio Finally Working |
To all,
I finally found the weak link in my radio set up. It has something to do
with the intercom. I am going to write to the manufacturer and describe the
symptoms and see if they can fix it. I have been trying to transmit through
the headset mic which is patched throught the intercom to the ICOM A21 with
no success. Today I unpluged the mic from the intercom and used the mic on
the ICOM. Ureka! Others can now hear me. I am not alone.
Today was add patches day. I put two American flags on the rudder as well
as an EAA and a USUA patch. Heck, now I have all the bases covered.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (27.1 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Schimmel <bruce(at)schimmel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fan belt adjusting |
I'm curious as to how many hrs you have on the engine. I reached in at
about 25 hours and found the fan belt deflecting according to spec. Is a
fan belt tightening an eventuality?
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 Timandjan(at)aol.com wrote:
> I just bought the tool that enables one to remove the fan to tighten the belt
> on the 503. I do not have an impact wrench to remove the nut, so decided to
> buy the tool. Has anyone used it and if so whats the trick, how does it
> function.
> Got the tool at home and the plane is at the airport and will not be able to
> go look closer for a few days, so I thought I would ask here so I can adjust
> it when I finally make it to the airport.
> Thanks.
> tim
> -
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Carroll <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Repairman's Certificate]] |
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:25:07 -0700
From: Ron Carroll <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: [Fwd: Re: Repairman's Certificate]
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:24:23 -0700
From: Ron Carroll <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Repairman's Certificate
WGrooms511(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Gentlemen;
> My memory told me that the FAR's said something about ten hours for pre
> approved kits. So I dug through my pile of paperwork from the FAA and found
> Advisory Circular No. 20-27D
> This circular says plainly that Pre approved kits for gliders, balloons,and
> ultralights, having been evaluated by the FAA,
> (Of which Kolbs are one) will be limited to an assigned flight test area for
> ten hours of satisfactory operation, includung at least five takeoffs and
> landings.
> Ask for a copy of this circular, and have it on hand to show the inspector
> when he comes. Most of the FAA guys I spoke to didn't know about it, but
> would accept it if you can prove it to them.
I'm not sure I understand the statement in AC 20-27D, because an
"ultralight" needs no inspection in the first place. If it is to be
registered as an Experimental it is not an ultralight.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Bennett <sab(at)ultranet.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Radio Finally Working |
Cliff wrote:
>>>Today was add patches day. I put two American flags on the rudder >>>as
well as an EAA and a USUA patch.
Funny you should use the word "patches". A few years ago I was yanking on
the recoil starter rope on my Mk II and the handle slipped out of my hand
(I was wearing thick gloves). It started swinging around as the rope wound
back in, and it whacked the fabric above the pilot's seat, leaving a 2 or 3
inch gash. I slapped an EAA sticker on it as a temporary fix, just to keep
the gash from opening up any further.
It's still there to this day....
-Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Radio Finally Working |
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
CLIFF
HOPE THAT YOU GET YOUR INTERCOM WORKING AND THAT THE MANUFACTURER WILL
FIX THE PROBLEM BUT IF THEY DON'T ,WILL YOU GET ANOTHER ONE ? ON MY
M III, I HAVE A FLIGHTCOM II THE WRIGHT UP SOUNDED GOOD SO I
BOUGHT IT I AM NOT AT ALL HAPPY WITH IT YOU HAVE TO TALK LOUD THE
WHOLE TIME IN ORDER TO DRIVE IT TO MAKE IT WORK !
I TALKED TO DENNIS ABOUT THEIR INTERCOM IN THEIR M III
HE PUT ME ON TO DAN I TOLD HIM THE PROBLEM I WAS HAVING , AND I ASKED
HIM ABOUT THEIRS , HE TOLD ME THAT THEY HAVE USED A FEW DIFFERENT ONES
AND THE ONE THAT THEY HAVE NOW AND I REMEMBER IT SOUNDED GREAT WHEN I
FLEW WITH DAN IS A HUSH-A-COM SO I CALLED THEM UP AND RAY THE
OWNER IS BUILDING ME ONE WITH A SWITCHER BOX FOR MY C B / NAV/COM
SHOULD HAVE IT THIS WEEK IF IT WORKS HALF AS GOOD AS DENNIS AND DAN'S
I'LL BE HAPPY AFTER I PUT IT IN WILL LET YOU HOW IT WORKS
TALK TO YOU LATER
RICK
writes:
>To all,
>
>I finally found the weak link in my radio set up. It has something to
>do
>with the intercom. I am going to write to the manufacturer and
>describe the
>symptoms and see if they can fix it. I have been trying to transmit
>through
>the headset mic which is patched throught the intercom to the ICOM A21
>with
>no success. Today I unpluged the mic from the intercom and used the
>mic on
>the ICOM. Ureka! Others can now hear me. I am not alone.
>
>Today was add patches day. I put two American flags on the rudder as
>well
>as an EAA and a USUA patch. Heck, now I have all the bases covered.
>
>Later,
>
>
>--
>Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (27.1 hrs)
>(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
> Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
>
> ____________________|_____________________
> ___(+^+)___
> (_)
> 8 8
>
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GEAR BOX DRAIN NUT |
>Does any one out there know how to get the drain plug off the gear box.
>I tried to take mine off and almost stripped the nut. I tried to take it
>off when the engine was warm, someone said to take it off when the
>engine was hot. I haven't tried this yet.
>
>MKIII N88FM
>
>Frank
>
> Try getting the gearbox good and warm, and then chill the nut with
two or three ice cubes to give it a little clearance, then try loosening it
before it warms back up.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
Technical Counselor EAA 442
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>Mick,
> To help your memory, the package they sent me in '83 shows a price for
the flyer
>at $2995 for the complete kit or, $1990 for the accessory kit and $1198
>for the airframe materials kit.
Oops, like I said 'memory was getting real foggy there'. I think my
source for the price was a fellow from Joplin who bought a kit new (mine
was built by someone in FL and I purchased in finished condition in
1990).
> I also have a nice glossy photo they
>sent as well. If you are interested in copies of this period sales
>info of your aircraft just let me know I can get you a copy of it or the
>photo.
I would very much! (Will send private e-mail - Thanx!)
>What are the plans like. Could one build an aircraft form the plans
>that came with the kit? And do you still have those plans and would
>you be willing to sell a copy?
I have plans and assembly manual, They seem fairly complete provided the
builder has a 'more-than-basic' knowledge of ..uhh mechanics, welding,
aerodynamic theory and construction . They're pretty basic but
there's also many examples flying so it can't be too hard (I guess). I
would be happy to provide a copy of the plans (would want to get Homer's
blessing - don't want to violate copyright laws) for whatever it costs to
duplicate them. I believe that there are 12 to 15 size "C" sheets and
manual is 15-20 pages 8 1/2 x 11".
(sorry about slow response - been wrenching on Solos, not reading mail!)
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <stei0302(at)cs.fredonia.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Finally Working |
[...]
>I TALKED TO DENNIS ABOUT THEIR INTERCOM IN THEIR M III
> HE PUT
ME ON TO DAN I TOLD HIM THE PROBLEM I WAS HAVING , AND I ASKED
>HIM ABOUT
THEIRS , HE TOLD ME THAT THEY HAVE USED A FEW DIFFERENT ONES
>AND THE ONE
THAT THEY HAVE NOW AND I REMEMBER IT SOUNDED GREAT WHEN I
>FLEW WITH DAN
IS A HUSH-A-COM SO I CALLED THEM UP AND RAY THE
>OWNER IS BUILDING
ME ONE WITH A SWITCHER BOX FOR MY C B / NAV/COM
>SHOULD HAVE IT
THIS WEEK IF IT WORKS HALF AS GOOD AS DENNIS AND DAN'S
>I'LL BE HAPPY
AFTER I PUT IT IN WILL LET YOU HOW IT WORKS
My CFI gives instruction in several aircraft without electical systems,
so he uses an external intercom. He swears by Hush-a-Com. He's tried some
of the other ones (Flightcom?) when his Hush-a-Coms were getting a little
ragged, and said that the minimal performance of the beat up Hush-A-Com was
better than the brand new unit. Hush-a-com is all he uses now.
I have a Comtronics which I am very happy with. I think it is called
the Dual-Com? (Allows you to monitor 2 radios and transmit on either with
an A/B switch; also has a PTT, music input, pilot and copilot headset inputs,
and pilot/copilot independent volume controls. I've only been using it
since Oshkosh '97, but so far, it has performed flawlessly, and I'm
extremely happy with it. I use it in conjunction with a comtronics headset
and an Icom A22. I can receive just fine, and as far as I know, my
transmissions are ok. I just haven't had an opportunity to check with
anyone as to the quailty of my transmissions. The only "problem" I've
had is that you have to be careful about where you put it, or you could
hit the A/B switch and your transmissions wouldn't leave the cockpit. :-)
(Or go out on the wrong radio, if you're using 2)
Well, that's my $.02.
-Jon-
.--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL |
| '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) |
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <stei0302(at)cs.fredonia.edu> |
| Subject: | Flying on skis in the winter? |
Hello,
Does anyone have any advice regarding flying in the winter on skis?
I'd like to try this, and I may have located a pair of old wooden
waterskis which I can convert for my FireFly. (Any advice as to how to
build a set of skis (wether from waterskis or any other method) would be
very much appreciated as well1! I'm still in the planning stages here.)
So far, I know that I shouldn't turn the plane on the ground while
it is standing still. I should push it forward while turning so I
don't create a lever effect and break off the skis.
I've also heard that if the skis become warm they'll stick to the
ground which would not be a good thing, given my high line of thrust. :-)
So, I'll be watching for that.
That's about all I know. Any advice anyone could give me would be great!
Thanks very much in advance!
-Jon-
.--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL |
| '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) |
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Moo-Jung Chu <mjc(at)etri.re.kr> |
| Subject: | Tri-wheel modification? |
Hi,
I'm a novice flyer with GT-500 and have 22 hrs logged.
As you know, the GT-500 has steerable nose wheel.
Is there any Kolb modified to tri-gear or is it possible?
Thanks.
mjc(at)etri.re.kr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tri-wheel modification? |
>Hi,
>
>I'm a novice flyer with GT-500 and have 22 hrs logged.
>
>As you know, the GT-500 has steerable nose wheel.
>
>Is there any Kolb modified to tri-gear or is it possible?
>
>Thanks.
>
>mjc(at)etri.re.kr
>-
> I made a nose wheel for my MKIII that would bolt on in place of the
nose slid. The purpose was so that I could go to full throttle with the
brakes locked without tipping over on the nose, and have a shorter takeoff
run. The strut was just long enough that when the airplane tipped forward,
the nose wheel would be on the ground with the wing at zero angle of attack.
It did not steer, and did not need to, the prop blast on the rudder was
sufficient. I removed it because the airplane was slightly nose heavy, and
increased familiarity with the airplane made it of little value. I did
install have the stock skid.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: fan belt adjusting |
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 Timandjan(at)aol.com wrote:
> I just bought the tool that enables one to remove the fan to tighten the belt
> on the 503. I do not have an impact wrench to remove the nut, so decided to
> buy the tool. Has anyone used it and if so whats the trick, how does it
> function.
My fan belt needed tightening at 120 hours. I got the nut off without
any special tools, removed a shim or 2, and back on. I had gotten a
replacement belt on a miscellaneous order one time, but as yet the
original belt still looks great.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tri-wheel modification? |
They say real airplanes have round engines and tail wheels!!!!.
Letter wrote:
I'm a novice flyer with GT-500 and have 22 hrs logged.
As you know, the GT-500 has steerable nose wheel.
Is there any Kolb modified to tri-gear or is it possible?
Thanks.
That's almost taboo to suggest a nose wheel on a Kolb.
In all honesty, I have flown a lot of airplanes including a lot of ultra
lights including a Rans Coyote that I owned. It handled like a terrible tail
wheel airplane. Had all the tail wheel associated tendencies. The Kolb is
nothing like that, it flies more like a conventional tricycle airplane, goes
to the great design of the kolb.
I also got my tail wheel endorsment in a cub and have a bit of time in the
J3. It never hurts to get more training in like airplanes, although, a cub
handles nothing like a cub, but taught me the principles of a tail wheel
airplane.
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tri-wheel modification? |
>Hi,
>
>I'm a novice flyer with GT-500 and have 22 hrs logged.
>
>As you know, the GT-500 has steerable nose wheel.
>
>Is there any Kolb modified to tri-gear or is it possible?
>
>Thanks.
>
>mjc(at)etri.re.kr
>-
>
I think the main drawback to kolb is that people are afraid of
taildraggers.A friend of mine recently bought a Firestar and the tail wheel
scared him to no end --- untill he flew it. After landing he agreed with me
that being a taildragger is a nonissue. The slow landing speed and long
moment arm dampen the steering problems most associated with taildraggers. I
also think taildraggers look better on the flightline sitting on all three
wheels rather than others with the nose in the air that has to be pulled
down to sit in it.
Try it before you modify it.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
If in doubt about your cg. hang it from a tree and find out for
sure.Otherwise get out your pencil,papers and bathroom scales and calculate
the prescise location. If it does turn out to be tail heavy and you need to
put 20 lbs. in the nose I think moving the 10lb or so of tail feathers a
little bit(perhaps my 1 ft. was an over estimate). There is a 4 or 5 to one
ratio between the front and back so a little movement at the back makes a
big difference at the front.This small amount of movement should not make a
difference on the aerodynamics of the flight control surfaces.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <stei0302(at)cs.fredonia.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Tri-wheel modification? |
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm a novice flyer with
GT-500 and have 22 hrs logged.
>>
>>As you know, the GT-500 has steerable
nose wheel.
>>
>>Is there any Kolb modified to tri-gear or is it
possible?
>>
[...]
> I think the main drawback to kolb is that people are
afraid of
>taildraggers.A friend of mine recently bought a Firestar and the
tail wheel
That's actually one of the things that drew me to the Kolb; the fact
that its a taildragger, and that the manufacturer didn't compromise the
design to make up for the (lack of) skill of the pilots. I also buy
manual shifts instead of automatics, so I guess I'm a little funny that
way. :-) As you said, however, these planes aren't your typical
taildaggers, so the skill level thing is a lot less of an issue than
many people might think.
>scared him to no end --- untill he flew it. After landing he agreed with
me
>that being a taildragger is a nonissue. The slow landing speed and
long
>moment arm dampen the steering problems most associated with
taildraggers. I
>also think taildraggers look better on the flightline
sitting on all three
>wheels rather than others with the nose in the air
that has to be pulled
>down to sit in it.
I agree. This is just my opinion, but tricycle gear aircraft look
sort of like the family car, or a plane that is just sitting around and
waiting to go do some work. Taildraggers, OTOH, have the look of a
tiger waiting to pounce. Even when they're sitting on the ground they
look as if they can't wait to jump back into the sky and start having
fun again. :-)
> Try it before you modify it.
Agreed. If the taildragger thing isn't an issue; (and it most probably
isn't), you'll save yourself a lot of time, frustration, and you won't have
to compromise the safety of the design.
-Jon-
.--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL |
| '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) |
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <stei0302(at)cs.fredonia.edu> |
| Subject: | RE: Flight Training |
>Hi All;
> Does anyone know of any two seat Kolbs in northern Michigan or northern
>Wisconsin that I might get a little time in as a passenger or some flight
>training. I am having a hard time finding anyone around here, Marquette Mi.
> Thanks Kent
I'm not exactly sure where he is, but there's a person by the name of
Bill Genteman who has a running ad on the back page of the Microlite
Flyers of Wisconsin's newsletter. He instructs in a Mark III. According
to this, he is at the Aero Park Airport, and the phone number is
(414) 252-4319. His phone number are (414) 246-0685 (home?) and (414) 659-8594
(office). It doesn't say what city Aero Park Airport is in, though I'm
assuming it is somewhere in Wisconsin.
Might be worth a phone call. :-)
-Jon-
.--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL |
| '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) |
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.Com> |
| Subject: | As always, information is on the web... |
http://www.airnav.com/cgi-bin/airport-info?76C
... According
> to this, he is at the Aero Park Airport, and the phone number is
> (414) 252-4319. His phone number are (414) 246-0685 (home?) and (414)
> 659-8594
> (office). It doesn't say what city Aero Park Airport is in, though I'm
>
> assuming it is somewhere in Wisconsin.
>
> Might be worth a phone call. :-)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Tailwheels & Kolbs |
There do seem to be a lot of people worried about Kolbs being
taildraggers. First on all, the Kolbs with long tails are relatively
easy to handle on takeoff and landing. To make things even easier, here
is a technique that I use on my Firestar KX (377), and should work on
any Kolb: I takeoff from three wheels and land on three. That way it's
like flying a trigear. If I don't let the tail come up on takeoff, my
run will be a little longer, 250ft instead of 200, but without
crosswind problems. And on landing, as long as there is enough runway
length, I can hold the mains off and let the tail land first. Usually
the mains touch immediately after the tail or at the same time. This
makes landing as easy as a trigear. It may take slightly more runway,
but from my experience, if I let the mains touch before the airspeed is
down enough to let the tail down, it will just bounce.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Weber (DVNS)" <bweber(at)micom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tri-wheel modification? |
4~On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, wood wrote:
> I think the main drawback to kolb is that people are afraid of
> taildraggers.A friend of mine recently bought a Firestar and the tail wheel
> scared him to no end --- untill he flew it. After landing he agreed with me
> that being a taildragger is a nonissue. The slow landing speed and long
> moment arm dampen the steering problems most associated with taildraggers. I
> also think taildraggers look better on the flightline sitting on all three
> wheels rather than others with the nose in the air that has to be pulled
> down to sit in it.
There have been several Kolbs at my field and all who have transitioned
to them say the same thing - being a taildragger is a non-issue.
(still working on my FSI)
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* MICOM Communications Corp. * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CVBreard(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tailwheels & Kolbs |
<< I takeoff from three wheels and land on three. That way it's
like flying a trigear. If I don't let the tail come up on takeoff, my
run will be a little longer, 250ft instead of 200, but without
crosswind problems. And on landing, as long as there is enough runway
length, I can hold the mains off and let the tail land first. Usually
the mains touch immediately after the tail or at the same time. This
makes landing as easy as a trigear. It may take slightly more runway,
but from my experience, if I let the mains touch before the airspeed is
down enough to let the tail down, it will just bounce. >>
Generally agree.
I've flown a number of taildraggers (Cessna 140, Piper Super Cub, Aeronca
Champ, etc) and my Firestar handles better than any of them on the ground. I
believe that the relatively minor potential of standing the Firestar on its
nose (yep, I did it once) more than offsets the inherit problems of nose
gear. (Don't those 'nose-gear' planes look a little silly sitting with their
tail on the ground and the nose up in the air??)
On takeoff, I usually hold full backpressure on the stick and come up fairly
slowly on the power (gearbox thing, you know) - by the time I'm up to full
power, I'm off the ground. And I don't believe it "costs" that much in
additional ground roll.
On landing, I too like to feel that satisfying rolling of the tailwheel on
the ground just before the mains give me a nice gentle little plop. And I
believe it takes LESS ground roll, not more (because of lower airspeed at
touchdown).
Charlie Breard
Baton Rouge, LA
Firestar For Sale
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CVBreard(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tailwheels & Kolbs |
<< I takeoff from three wheels and land on three. That way it's
like flying a trigear. If I don't let the tail come up on takeoff, my
run will be a little longer, 250ft instead of 200, but without
crosswind problems. And on landing, as long as there is enough runway
length, I can hold the mains off and let the tail land first. Usually
the mains touch immediately after the tail or at the same time. This
makes landing as easy as a trigear. It may take slightly more runway,
but from my experience, if I let the mains touch before the airspeed is
down enough to let the tail down, it will just bounce. >>
Generally agree.
I've flown a number of taildraggers (Cessna 140, Piper Super Cub, Aeronca
Champ, etc) and my Firestar handles better than any of them on the ground. I
believe that the relatively minor potential of standing the Firestar on its
nose (yep, I did it once) more than offsets the inherit problems of nose
gear. (Don't those 'nose-gear' planes look a little silly sitting with their
tail on the ground and the nose up in the air??)
On takeoff, I usually hold full backpressure on the stick and come up fairly
slowly on the power (gearbox thing, you know) - by the time I'm up to full
power, I'm off the ground. And I don't believe it "costs" that much in
additional ground roll.
On landing, I too like to feel that satisfying rolling of the tailwheel on
the ground just before the mains give me a nice gentle little plop. And I
believe it takes LESS ground roll, not more (because of lower airspeed at
touchdown).
Charlie Breard
Baton Rouge, LA
Firestar For Sale
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ron.b" <rgbsr(at)cheerful.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Flight Training |
Not sure about Kolb flight training specifically but thee is a USUA club
near Fife Lake. I see advertisements in UF! all the time for ultralight
and powered parachute training.
Check out the current advertisement section of UF!
Sorry, don't know who asked about flying in northern Michigan but I wanted
to make sure I passed this info.
Ron B.
Ron Blaylock - AMSC USN (retired)
TO REPLY change the 'rgbsr' in the 'reply to' address to 'ron.b'
< ron.b(at)cheerful.com > Living in San Jose, California
< rblaylock(at)mail.arc.nasa.gov > Flying from Lodi, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LAURIE CARROLL <lwjcarroll(at)clear.net.nz> |
Woody,
You're just joking huh?
All the reading I have done in the past what you have suggested is just
not done. It is a no-no.
You have to recheck the CG and if your aircraft has to have weight added
to the front then you do that. Some times it means you can move a
battery up front etc. But you dont cut the tail off and move it forward
a bit. That is wrong.
A better option may be to recover the tail without any Color finishing,
only going up to the required clear coats. If the whole tail has a fancy
Color scheme finish, it (Color coats) may have added alot of weight.
Of course the best thing to do is to get in touch with Kolb about the
"tail heaviness" and take their advise, I am no aircraft designer.
Laurie Carroll
-----Original Message-----
From: wood [SMTP:richard.wood(at)usa.net]
Sent: Thursday, 2 October 1997 13:22
To: kolb(at)intrig.com
Subject: Kolb-List: tail heavy
If in doubt about your cg. hang it from a tree and find out for
sure.Otherwise get out your pencil,papers and bathroom scales and
calculate
the prescise location. If it does turn out to be tail heavy and you need
to
put 20 lbs. in the nose I think moving the 10lb or so of tail feathers a
little bit(perhaps my 1 ft. was an over estimate). There is a 4 or 5 to
one
ratio between the front and back so a little movement at the back makes
a
big difference at the front.This small amount of movement should not
make a
difference on the aerodynamics of the flight control surfaces.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tri-wheel modification? |
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>
> I think the main drawback to kolb is that people are afraid of
>taildraggers.A friend of mine recently bought a Firestar and the tail
>wheel scared him to no end --- untill he flew it.
<--balance of great post snipped->
Woody only left out that Kolbs are very lightly loaded on the tailwheel,
meaning that far more mass is ahead of the mains than most 'traditional'
taildraggers. This is another major factor in having friendly ground
manners. Have you ever lifted the tail of a Cub, Champ, or even a Tierra
UL? Have you ever driven a VW on an icy road? Same principle, the more
mass behind the mains, the more the tendency to 'swap ends.' I think
Homer just knew what he was doin'!
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
Woody,
You're just joking huh?
All the reading I have done in the past what you have suggested is just not
done. It is a no-no.
You have to recheck the CG and if your aircraft has to have weight added to
the front then you do that. Some times it means you can move a battery up
front etc. But you dont cut the tail off and move it forward a bit. That is
wrong.
A better option may be to recover the tail without any Color finishing, only
going up to the required clear coats. If the whole tail has a fancy Color
scheme finish, it (Color coats) may have added alot of weight.
Of course the best thing to do is to get in touch with Kolb about the "tail
heaviness" and take their advise, I am no aircraft designer.
Laurie Carroll
-----Original Message-----
From: wood [SMTP:richard.wood(at)usa.net]
Sent: Thursday, 2 October 1997 13:22
To: kolb(at)intrig.com
Subject: Kolb-List: tail heavy
If in doubt about your cg. hang it from a tree and find out for
sure.Otherwise get out your pencil,papers and bathroom scales and calculate
the prescise location. If it does turn out to be tail heavy and you need to
put 20 lbs. in the nose I think moving the 10lb or so of tail feathers a
little bit(perhaps my 1 ft. was an over estimate). There is a 4 or 5 to one
ratio between the front and back so a little movement at the back makes a
big difference at the front.This small amount of movement should not make a
difference on the aerodynamics of the flight control surfaces.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
Hi again,
Just to prove it wasn't a fluke, I flew the SS again today. The weather
was perfect, and the flight was pretty darn ok too. I'm still just getting
the feel of the aircraft, but I confirmed that the indicated airspeed is
about 10 mph low across the scale. Stall is about 28 indicated (with
power), and the GPS confirmed my 10 mph estimate as well.
So far, there are no problems with the handling other than some normal trim
type issues. The highest airspeed I've seen so far is about 80 mph. I've
only done medium bank turns and little else. For everyone that's worried
about tailwheels, I have about 8 hours of tailwheel time now. Today's
landing was about the best I've ever made in any plane. So far, in perfect
weather, the tailwheel has not been an issue. I recall asking about adding
a nosewheel myself :-)
My biggest problem is the EGT's. Now the temp at 5800 is around 1130 and
will climb to 1200 with the slightest provocation. In fact, it's almost
impossible to keep it out of the 1200 area when descending, unless you use
idle power. It was a bit cooler today which might have contributed to the
problem, but I'll have to correct this before I fly again. Time to go
study the LEAF book.
As for the radio, I'm using a Sporty's handheld strapped to my leg with the
normal rubber-ducky antenna. During the first flight, I made reports to a
guy on the ground with a receiver who said I came in clear most of the
time. Today, I listened to unicom chatter from as far away as about 50
miles and the reception was pretty good. At this time, I don't have my
(recently maligned) FlightCom intercom installed, but I've been thinking of
rigging it up with a tape recorder so I can dictate notes throughout the
flights.
I'm also keeping a flight log on my web page with the full notes of the
test flights if anyone's interested.
See ya,
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K (1.2 hours)
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Henry <chhenry(at)plains.nodak.edu> |
>Hi again,
>
>Just to prove it wasn't a fluke, I flew the SS again today.
>
>My biggest problem is the EGT's. Now the temp at 5800 is around 1130 and
>will climb to 1200 with the slightest provocation. In fact, it's almost
>impossible to keep it out of the 1200 area when descending, unless you use
>idle power. It was a bit cooler today which might have contributed to the
>problem, but I'll have to correct this before I fly again. Time to go
>study the LEAF book.
>
For what it's worth when my 447 powered firestars egt gets too high due to
cooler weather I just move the clip on the carburetor needle down one
groove, that enriches the mid-range.
Good luck on the rest of your flights, The SS sounds like a neat bird.
Charles Henry
54 hours on FirestarI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
Hi again,
I checked into my high EGT problem last night and it appears that I have an
easy first step to try. My carb needles are in the #1 position
(lowest/leanest needle position) so I plan to try moving them both to #2
for a slightly richer midrange. Does that sound reasonable?
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
FWIW, I cut the fuselage of my FS short by 3.25 inches. I had estimated
that the tail group itself weighed 15-20 lbs and this was about the
amount I am lighter than the design weight pilot. (I'm 155 compared to
~175 avg). So, moving the tail 3+ inches forward relieved me of having
to goof around with a wierd arrangement to change the seat location.
(Altho yes, i could have just sat in front of a thick pillow.) BTW, i
had checked w/ Dennis on this and the word was 'fine'. If anything, i
figured this also might make the handling the slightest bit snappier,
which is maybe food for thought for those daydreaming about taildragger
trouble and (blech) nosewheel conversions. :-)
-Ben
On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, wood wrote:
> Woody,
>
> You're just joking huh?
>
> All the reading I have done in the past what you have suggested is just not
> done. It is a no-no.
>
> You have to recheck the CG and if your aircraft has to have weight added to
> the front then you do that. Some times it means you can move a battery up
> front etc. But you dont cut the tail off and move it forward a bit. That is
> wrong.
>
> A better option may be to recover the tail without any Color finishing, only
> going up to the required clear coats. If the whole tail has a fancy Color
> scheme finish, it (Color coats) may have added alot of weight.
>
> Of course the best thing to do is to get in touch with Kolb about the "tail
> heaviness" and take their advise, I am no aircraft designer.
>
> Laurie Carroll
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wood [SMTP:richard.wood(at)usa.net]
> Sent: Thursday, 2 October 1997 13:22
> To: kolb(at)intrig.com
> Subject: tail heavy
>
> If in doubt about your cg. hang it from a tree and find out for
> sure.Otherwise get out your pencil,papers and bathroom scales and calculate
> the prescise location. If it does turn out to be tail heavy and you need to
> put 20 lbs. in the nose I think moving the 10lb or so of tail feathers a
> little bit(perhaps my 1 ft. was an over estimate). There is a 4 or 5 to one
> ratio between the front and back so a little movement at the back makes a
> big difference at the front.This small amount of movement should not make a
> difference on the aerodynamics of the flight control surfaces.
> Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Rael <rael(at)cyberdude.com> |
| Subject: | Convenience URL for Kolb Aircraft |
While the old URL still works, you can now get to the Kolb Aircraft page by
using the following URL which forwards you to the right spot:
http://kolb.mypage.org
Thanks for visiting.
--
Mike Rael
rael(at)cyberdude.com
http://members.iex.net/~rael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Re: tail heavy] |
Ben Ransom wrote:
>
> FWIW, I cut the fuselage of my FS short by 3.25 inches. I had estimated
> that the tail group itself weighed 15-20 lbs and this was about the
> amount I am lighter than the design weight pilot. (I'm 155 compared to
> ~175 avg). So, moving the tail 3+ inches forward relieved me of having
> to goof around with a wierd arrangement to change the seat location.
> (Altho yes, i could have just sat in front of a thick pillow.) BTW, i
> had checked w/ Dennis on this and the word was 'fine'. If anything, i
> figured this also might make the handling the slightest bit snappier,
> which is maybe food for thought for those daydreaming about taildragger
> trouble and (blech) nosewheel conversions. :-)
> -Ben
>
Ben,
You could have accomplished more by
moving your seat 1/2 inch forward.
That is a very thin pillow.
3.5 X 20 = 65 / 155 = .452
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Re: tail heavy] |
On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, John Jung wrote:
> Ben Ransom wrote:
> > FWIW, I cut the fuselage of my FS short by 3.25 inches. I had estimated
> >
> Ben,
> You could have accomplished more by
> moving your seat 1/2 inch forward.
> That is a very thin pillow.
> 3.5 X 20 = 65 / 155 = .452
> John Jung
Good point. I had heard of the planes coming out aft CGish, so wanted
to keep things in my favor. (I ended up using a seat cushion as well, this
more for comfort however.) To be honest, the real dumb part of this was
that I thought I'd have an easier time with a shorter plane in my garage,
forgetting that the wings stick out further anyway. Why do I advertise
my stupid mistakes to 300 people, anyway?! :-) Maybe the best part of
cutting off that 3.2" was that I used that piece for my wing rib jig, but I
still am glad i did it for the imagined benefit of CG and shorter snappier
tail momement arm.
-Ben
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | iemwr(at)agt.gmeds.com ( Mark W. Rinehart 230-2567 |
AGT/8896)
| Subject: | Mark III Kit Lead Time |
I'm thinking about ordering the wing/tail kit for the Mark III. How long does
it take from when I place my order until I get the kit (I live in central Indiana)?
I asked KOLB the same question (via e-mail) but haven't got a reply yet.
Mark Rinehart
iemwr(at)agt.gmeds.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Delivery time, etc. |
Someone wrote:
"I'm thinking about ordering the wing/tail kit for the Mark III. How long
does it take from when I place my order until I get the kit (I live in
central Indiana)? I asked KOLB the same question (via e-mail) but haven't
got a reply yet."
I did not receive the request at our main email address: DLSOUDER(at)aol.com
Probably the request was sent to the flykolb(at)epix.net address. This is an
infrequently accessed address at another location. The best email address to
use is: DLSOUDER(at)aol.com
Answer is: For a Kit A, typically 4 - 6 weeks
Dennis Souder
President
________________________________________________________________________________
3 Oct 97 14:50:06 GMT+7
| From: | "George Harris" <george(at)HOV.ORG> |
| Subject: | Re: High EGT's/Needle position |
> From: "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net>
> To: "Kolb list"
> Subject: High EGT's
> Hi again,
>
> I checked into my high EGT problem last night and it appears that I have an
> easy first step to try. My carb needles are in the #1 position
> (lowest/leanest needle position) so I plan to try moving them both to #2
> for a slightly richer midrange. Does that sound reasonable?
>
>
Yes, very reasonable. This will cause the narrower taper of the
needle to arrive sooner in the needle jet, causing a richer condition
for a given throttle slide position. Should cool the temps down some.
Have you considered that your EGT indicators may be off? I'm not
suggesting they are. You might pull the plug on the hot cylinder and
take a look at it to see if it is really running hot. It should be a
nice chocolate brown color on the ceramic around the electrode. If it
is white or light brown, it could be running too lean. If it is
aluminum-colored....uh-oh!!
Congratulations on taking Moby from a collection of parts to a flying
machine.
(Well, it's all white, isn't it??? :) :) :) )
-----------|------------
_ | _
( . . )
( / )
---oOOo------------oOOo----
George B. Harris
AH-64 Rotorhead
AZ ARNG (Desert Hawks)
We Rent the Night
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
>
>Woody,
>
>You're just joking huh?
>
>All the reading I have done in the past what you have suggested is just not
done. It is a no-no.
>
>You have to recheck the CG and if your aircraft has to have weight added to
the front then you do that. Some times it means you can move a battery up
front etc. But you dont cut the tail off and move it forward a bit. That is
wrong.
>
>A better option may be to recover the tail without any Color finishing,
only going up to the required clear coats. If the whole tail has a fancy
Color scheme finish, it (Color coats) may have added alot of weight.
>
>Of course the best thing to do is to get in touch with Kolb about the "tail
heaviness" and take their advise, I am no aircraft designer.
>
>
My view may be unpopular and considered wrong by some but I stand behind my
opinion.A serious out of balance condition requires some extra
thinking.Moving parts around to get the cg right is okay whenever possible
and is the approved method and I agree with it.However adding 20 lb to the
nose calls for a better solution.That is a lot of extra ballast and
increases the strain on the forward cage.We do want to keep the weight
down.First thing is to determine an out of balance condition exists and is
not an out of trim condition.I wish I had the numbers for the aircraft and I
would work out the moment arms for you.I think the whole moving of the tail
would take an evening(3 hrs or less).I would feel more comfortable doing
this than always carrying an extra 20 lb in the nose.For years homebuilders
have changed the length of the engine mounts to adapt different weight
engines to their homebuilts to keep it in the cg range.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | cq experience on firestar 2 |
I now have 60 hours on my Firestar 2. At first I needed to hold forward stick
pressure to keep from climbing and to keep a level cruise. My Cg was in specs
and I talked to Dennis about modifying the front of the tail up a bit for
this problem. Before doing this I lowered both ailerons a bit which greatly
helped. It still climbed a bit so I added some scuba diving soft weights in
the nose and it made my cruise without climbing about great. It still wants
to climb a bit, but I have not added any more weight.
The other day I took a friends son flying who weighs 70 pounds. The plane
flew trimmed perfectly, perfect cruise without any climb. And with his lite
weight I noticed very little handling difference (not like with another full
grown person).
This told me that the passenger must be just a bit ahead of the center of
lift.
Just FYI.
Also, check out my airplane in the completions section of the Kitplanes,
November issue.
Tim Loehrke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mswihart(at)tcsn.net (Mark Swihart) |
As I was working on my TwinStar....I had curious thought. Is it possible
to take the wings and tailfeathers off of the plane and install them on a
MKIII?? Any comments? Dennis S.?
-Mark Swihart-
TwinStar #46
Paso Robles Ultralight Association
You can find my web kolb page (underconstruction)at:
<http://webs.tcsn.net/mswihart/kolb.htm>
"Be careful down there on Earth. It's awful close to the ground, and
somebody could get hurt."
-- Astronaut David Wolf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mswihart(at)tcsn.net (Mark Swihart) |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII with MKII |
Good Question! :) I like the design of the fuselage and having an enclosed
cockpit. Also I would like to fly in a single seat instead of a two seat
u/l.......
-Mark-
>>
>>As I was working on my TwinStar....I had curious thought. Is it possible
>>to take the wings and tailfeathers off of the plane and install them on a
>>MKIII?? Any comments? Dennis S.?
>>
>>-Mark Swihart-
>>
>
> Why would you want to?
>
> Riachard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
>
You can find my web kolb page (underconstruction)at:
<http://webs.tcsn.net/mswihart/kolb.htm>
"Be careful down there on Earth. It's awful close to the ground, and
somebody could get hurt."
-- Astronaut David Wolf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Evergreen, AL Fly-In |
Greetings,
Anybody else going to the EAA fly-in at Evergreen, AL ? It's scheduled for
next weekend the 11th and 12th. This year they advertise a separate
UL/lightplane operation area. I'll probably plan to drive up Saturday to
check it out. If anyone else from the list plans to attend, let me know
and we'll meet up if possible.
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cq experience on firestar 2 |
----------
> From: Timandjan(at)aol.com
> To: Kolb(at)intrig.com
> Subject: cq experience on firestar 2
> Date: Friday, October 03, 1997 7:20 PM
>
> I now have 60 hours on my Firestar 2. At first I needed to hold forward
stick
> pressure to keep from climbing and to keep a level cruise. My Cg was in
specs
Tim, I'm curious, where were you in the spec range? I'm around 35.5% on a
scale of 20-37 and I have to hold slight back pressure. I've always
thought of trying to use the flaperons as trim rather than flaps and that
may be worth looking into. I'll need shorter push-pull tube to do much
though. Maybe next time I fly, I'll try a notch of flaperon in cruise
flight to see what it does to my elevator trim situation. Sounds like it
should make it worse.
> Also, check out my airplane in the completions section of the Kitplanes,
> November issue.
> Tim Loehrke
I'll be looking, and submitting my own plane too :-)
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LAURIE CARROLL <lwjcarroll(at)clear.net.nz> |
| Subject: | RE: Convenience URL for Kolb Aircraft |
To All,
This was a rip off to get us to see some advertising for web pages.
Laurie Carroll.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rael [SMTP:rael(at)cyberdude.com]
Sent: Saturday, 4 October 1997 04:16
To: kolb(at)intrig.com
Subject: Kolb-List: Convenience URL for Kolb Aircraft
While the old URL still works, you can now get to the Kolb Aircraft page by
using the following URL which forwards you to the right spot:
http://kolb.mypage.org
Thanks for visiting.
--
Mike Rael
rael(at)cyberdude.com
http://members.iex.net/~rael
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: quick build Mk3 |
Russ,
Thanks for the info........I'm getting cabin fever waiting for the plane. My
partner at work and I are going to build the plane at my house. I live in
Miami Fl. We will use the 912 engine with the 16 gal gas tank. Also we will
number the plane. Thereis a great ultralight airport owned by the county
here, and a very active EAA Ultralight chapter. I know of three Mk3 owners
here, but I have not seen their planes or met the owners yet. Everything is
working out great with this e-mail group. It's sort of like rehab to be able
to talk to Kolb owners and flyers!!!
Rich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>
>As I was working on my TwinStar....I had curious thought. Is it
>possible
>to take the wings and tailfeathers off of the plane and install them
>on a
>MKIII?? Any comments? Dennis S.?
Mark,
If you do, I would be VERY interested in the Twinstar fuselage!! (Make
you a good deal on a Challenger II also!!)
-Mick (Honest Mick's used UL sales ;-) Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: quick build Mk3 |
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
<-snip other good stuff->
>Everything is
>working out great with this e-mail group. It's sort of like rehab to
>be able
>to talk to Kolb owners and flyers!!!
>
>Rich
I am thinking of starting a 12-step program to help Kolb addicts deal
with their issues regarding neglect of their lives in all other aspects.
Any takers?
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)dont.even.go.there.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
Me again,
Just wanted to pass along the good news about my EGT's. I moved the
needles to the #2 position from #1, and the cruise temps are now 310 CHT
and 1070 EGT. I made a long descent at several midrange rpm's and couldn't
get the EGT over 1120. This is excellent news to me. Thanks to all that
offered opinions.
The initial performance figures are:
cruise at 5800 rpm = 71 mph
cruise at 6000 rpm = 73 mph
climb at 55 mph and 6500 rpm (solo) = 750 fpm
I actually wandered about 10 miles from home today in a few different
directions. Did some 45 degree banked turns and pulled 2 G's from a
shallow dive. I plan to test up to 3 G's. I also confirmed that flaps
will make the nose pitch down further. Dennis, how far up can I reflex the
flaps? It's looking like I'm going to fall short of what I hoped for in
climb performance. Oh well, there's always my rotary engine dream :-)
Has anybody tried climbing with a bit of flaps to see if there's any
improvement?
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K (2.3 hours)
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Tail Wheel Endorcement |
I=27ve seen a lot of talk about how easy it is to handle the tail wheel
part of the Kolb air planes.
I started flying a Weedhopper ultralight 16 years ago and put app 300hrs
on it. Since then got my pilot=27s license and have legally flown a number
of Cessna and Piper airplanes. I have just completed a VW powered Kolb
MKIII and will be getting an inspection in 2-3 weeks.
I=27m now shopping around for someone to give me a tail wheel endorsement.
It=27s tough to find anyone with a tail dragger they will do training in
but when I have they tell me I will need 10-20 hours of instruction and it
will be app =241000. I feel I=27m being robbed. Does anyone know if there
is a way around this.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Wheel Endorcement |
Rick, Your plight is a familiar one to me. I just went though the exact
same problem before flying the SlingShot. I went to Kolb and flew with Dan
for about 5 hours at $60/hr. He's a CFI as well as an EAA flight advisor.
He gave me a legal tailwheel endorsement limited to Kolb aircraft. The
training you'll get with him is worth more than anything you'll get in a
certified plane. I didn't save any money by going there due to the expense
of travel, but it was a far better value. It's something to seriously
consider.
Good luck,
Rusty
----------
From: Rick Neilsen <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us>
Subject: Kolb-List: Tail Wheel Endorcement
Date: Sunday, October 05, 1997 10:09 AM
I'm now shopping around for someone to give me a tail wheel endorsement.
It's tough to find anyone with a tail dragger they will do training in but
when I have they tell me I will need 10-20 hours of instruction and it will
be app $1000. I feel I'm being robbed. Does anyone know if there is a way
around this.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Wheel Endorcement |
>I've seen a lot of talk about how easy it is to handle the tail wheel part
of the Kolb air planes.
> I started flying a Weedhopper ultralight 16 years ago and put app 300hrs
on it. Since then got my pilot's license and have legally flown a number of
Cessna and Piper airplanes. I have just completed a VW powered Kolb MKIII
and will be getting an inspection in 2-3 weeks.
>I'm now shopping around for someone to give me a tail wheel endorsement.
It's tough to find anyone with a tail dragger they will do training in but
when I have they tell me I will need 10-20 hours of instruction and it will
be app $1000. I feel I'm being robbed. Does anyone know if there is a way
around this.
>-
> Unless it's to make your insurance company happy, do you need a
tailwheel endorsement? Why not do this: Every EAA chapter ,local airport,
ultralight group, etc, has a "senior pilot", an old hand that everybody
trusts and respects. Perhaps it's a flight instructor, so much the better.
If you know such a person, and they trust your building and workmanship of
your Kolb, get Him/Her to fly it the first couple times. I did when I built
my J-6, and was not tailwheel qualified. Once that person is satisfied that
the airplane is sorted out to the point that it is fairly well trimmed,
temps ok, etc, get them to give you a bunch of taxi/high speed taxi time
while they ride along on the controls. FIND A BIG GRASS STRIP! If you stay
on the ground it is entirely legal, and they are not "instructing" so they
are legal, (assuming they are not a CFI) and when you feel in control, let
them out and go enjoy. There is nothing that makes it a heresy to have
another pilot give your pride and joy it's first flight. Sometimes it's the
best thing that could happen.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
Technical Counselor EAA 442
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGrooms511(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Wheel Endorcement |
Rick;
The way around the tail wheel endorsement you think you need (but you don't)
is in the FAR'S. My copy has this info on page F-54.
Section 61.31 titled: General Limitations.
Subsection G (under General limitations) titled; Tailwheel airplanes
Subsection H (under General limitaions) titled :Exceptions.
Subsection H reads; the ratings limitations to this section DO NOT APPLY TO;
(3) the holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under the
authority of an experimental or provisional type certificate.
Read it for yourself. If you don't have a copy of the FAR'S go to your local
airport.
They will have a copy you can look at.
Be happy; Don't worry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jhann Gestur Jhannsson <johanng(at)ok.is> |
| Subject: | Fw: Darwin Award Winner - 1997 |
Hi to all from Iceland.
My friend in Georgia sent me this story about the Darwin Award Winner 1997.
It is about a flyer who has never heard about ultralights - I asume - since
he used the following method to fly.
I hope you will find this story as funny as I did.
And again, thank you for the great letters, keep them coming.
Best regard,
Jhann G.
DARWIN AWARD WINNER FOR 1997 ANNOUNCED
You all know about the Darwin Awards--It's an annual honor given to the
person who did the gene pool the biggest service by killing themselves
in the most extraordinarily stupid way.
The 1995 winner was the fellow who was killed by a Coke machine which
toppled over on top of him as he was attempting to tip a free soda out of it.
In 1996 the winner was an Air Force sergeant who attached a JATO unit to his
car and crashed into a cliff several hundred feet above the roadbed.
And now, the 1997 winner: Larry Waters of Los Angeles--one of the few
Darwin winners to survive his award winning accomplishment.
Larry's boyhood dream was to fly. When he graduated from high school, he
joined the Air Force in hopes of becoming a pilot. Unfortunately, poor
eyesight disqualified him. When he was finally discharged, he had to satisfy
himself with watching jets fly over his back yard.
One day, Larry, had a bright idea. He decided to fly. He went to the local
Army-Navy surplus store and purchased 45 weather balloons and several
tanks of helium. The weather balloons, when fully inflated, would measure
more than four feet across.
Back home, Larry securely strapped the balloons to his sturdy lawn chair.
He anchored the chair to the bumper of his jeep and inflated the balloons
with the helium. He climbed on for a test while it was still only
a few feet above the ground.
Satisfied it would work, Larry packed several sandwiches and a six-pack
of Miller Lite, loaded his pellet gun--figuring he could pop
a few balloons when it was time to descend--and went back to the
floating lawn chair. He tied himself in, along with his pellet gun
and provisions. Larry's plan was to lazily float up to a height of
about 30 feet above his back yard after severing the anchor and in a
few hours come back down.
Things didn't quite work out that way.
When he cut the cord anchoring the lawn chair to his jeep, he didn't
float lazily up to 30 or so feet.
Instead he streaked into the LA sky as if shot from a cannon.
He didn't level off at 30 feet, nor did he level off at 100 feet.
Afterclimbing and climbing, he leveled off at 11,000 feet.
At that height he couldn't risk shooting any of the balloons,
lest he unbalance the load and really find himself in trouble.
So he stayed there, drifting, cold and frightened,
for more than 14 hours.
Then he really got in trouble.
He found himself drifting into the the primary approach corridor of Los
Angeles International Airport.
A United pilot first spotted Larry. He radioed the tower and described
passing a guy in a lawn chair with a gun. Radar confirmed the existence
of an object floating 11,000 feet above the airport.
LAX emergency procedures swung into full alert and a helicopter was
dispatched to investigate.
LAX is right on the ocean. Night was falling and the offshore breeze
began to flow. It carried Larry out to sea with the helicopter in hot
pursuit.
Several miles out, the helicopter caught up with Larry. Once the crew
determined that Larry was not dangerous, they attempted to close in for
a rescue but the draft from the blades would push Larry away whenever they
neared.
Finally, the helicopter ascended to a position several hundred feet above
Larry and lowered a rescue line. Larry snagged the line and was hauled
back to shore. The difficult maneuver was flawlessly executed by the
helicopter crew.
As soon as Larry was hauled to earth, he was arrested by waiting members
of the LAPD for violating LAX airspace.
As he was led away in handcuffs, a reporter dispatched to cover the
daring rescue asked why he had done it. Larry stopped, turned and replied
non-chalantly, "A man can't just sit around."
Let hear it for Larry Walters, the 1997 Darwin Award Winner!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | More Flying and stuff |
To all,
Today started badly. I took off and found the overcast cloud bases to be
about 700, but the weatherman said it would improve. I waited about an hour
and, lo and behold, he was right. It took off again and the base had lifted
to around 1200 and rising and turning broken. I climbed through the broken
layer to fly in cool, bright, and above a scattered puffy layer of baby
cummulus at about 3K feet. It was sunny and pretty. I love to fly with
cotten below me. I have been extending my flights out to the limits of my
authorized area (50n miles). I have been checking out all the airports,
lakes and points of interest. This area of the country is nice to fly in.
There are potential landing spots everywhere. On the way back in, I climbed
to 3.5K to keep a margin between me and the clouds.
I found that in smooth air I can rest both feet on my left rudder and that
is just enough to bring the yaw string to center. Sometimes I slip my toe
in between the pedals and that works well too. When the air gets bumpy I
ride the pedals in normal fashion. The Kolb suggested bungy aileron trim is
working just fine. I use an inch or so up from the bottom... when I even
think about it.
I have the overhead fuel feed so I declare 1.5 to 2 gallons unusable. So
far I can count on at least 2 hours at low cruise at around 5K rpm. That
gets me about 55+ mph. I plan to install a removable passenger seat 5
gallon tank for when I want the extra range.
I still think the 1/2 doors are the best thing I have done for the Kolb. I
will not re-install the full doors until I also re-install the rear full
enclosure for cold weather. Back flow of air from around the fuel tanks
nauseates me and the rear enclosure stops that. I hope the passenger fuel
tank does not create fumes.
I love my Garmin 12XL. It isn't fancy with moving map and data base, but it
does the job I want it to and I love it. GPS - ain't it great!
If any of you are using any kind of over the torque tube carpet or covering
for upholstery in your MKIII, check to make sure that the throttle cotter
pin head is not hooking or snaging the back side of the carpet. I
discovered today that mine was and has worn a hole in the carpet.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (29 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | tailwheel endorsment |
Unless I am mistaken, a tail wheel endorsment is required the same as a high
horsepower engine or retractable landing gear on your license. At least the
FAA asked me if I had one when they gave me my airworthiness certificate for
the Firestar 2. I know for sure that Avenco requires it for my insurance.
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Bush" <dbush(at)gte.net> |
| Subject: | Difference in EGT's |
while flying the other day I landed and the egt's immediately showed a 150
degree difference. landed as quick as I could, couldn't find anything
wrong checking for air leaks, carb and exhaust. took off again, flew about
20 min to home field.
As prior to the first landing everything was fine...couldn't figure it
out. Checked each carb...took each carb apart, checked jetting. install
carb's back and started engine...difference was not 200 degrees. Became
frustrated....was deciding to tear the whole engine apart and a friend
suggested I balance the carb's using a air flow gauge. That helped but was
still 100-125 degrees difference.
Finally, decided to check everything...mean everything. Followed the carb
cables to the cable splitter. Opened....an guess what. one of the cables
had slipped down below the slot, when moving the throttle, it did not go
back into the splitter but hung up on the side of it. when moving the
throttle, everything moved but the two carbs were not
together....Reinstalled, was about 40 degrees apart....still wasn't happy,
decided to exchange the egt probes with each other....now they showed 40
degrees difference, but for the other cylinder. there fore, no problem
now.
No comments necessary, just something to thing about if they show a drastic
change for no good reason. D.Bush
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cal <cgreen(at)centuryinter.net> |
Dennis,
I also sent you a message last week with no reply yet, it
was sent to dlsouder(at)aol.com. Anyway the message was, when I
heat taunted the rudder and elevators on my FS the lower part
of the rudder and the inside part of the elevators bowed in
about a half inch, I was useing 300 degree heat, and I doubled
checked the plans to make sure the braces were installed
right, is this normall for it to do that? It doesn't really
look to bad, but is it safe? By the way I used the method of
building the control surfaces that requires a tubing bender,
if that makes a difference. Did anyone else have this problem?
Cal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Howard G. Penny" <penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se> |
| Subject: | RE: Tail Wheel Endorcement (Bad News) |
I have watched the activity about tailwheel endorsements for some time now
and wondered what all the brouhaha was about. Sure, I strongly recommend
getting dual, but an official endorsement?! What a pile. I checked out
the FARS and low and behold, yes "Additional training required for
operating tailwheel airplanes." But unlike the information below, the only
exception I found is:
61.31 (j) (3) The training and endorsement required by this part is not
required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane
before April 15, 1991.
This section has been updated August 5, 1997
Check it out at http://www.landings.com
Well I'm ok. But what a pain for newcomers giving up the training wheel.
Howard G. Penny EAA # 168877
Raleigh, NC Kolb SlingShot # SS-007
penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se Sonerai IILS # 0010
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hpenny
/* --------------------------------------------------------- */
-----Original Message-----
From: WGrooms511(at)aol.com [SMTP:WGrooms511(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 8:16 AM
To: neilsenr(at)state.mi.us; intrig.com.kolb(at)buis; kolb(at)intrig.com
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Tail Wheel Endorcement
Rick;
The way around the tail wheel endorsement you think you need (but you
don't)
is in the FAR'S. My copy has this info on page F-54.
Section 61.31 titled: General Limitations.
Subsection G (under General limitations) titled; Tailwheel airplanes
Subsection H (under General limitaions) titled :Exceptions.
Subsection H reads; the ratings limitations to this section DO NOT APPLY
TO;
(3) the holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under the
authority of an experimental or provisional type certificate.
Read it for yourself. If you don't have a copy of the FAR'S go to your
local
airport.
They will have a copy you can look at.
Be happy; Don't worry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
> heat taunted the rudder and elevators on my FS the lower part
> of the rudder and the inside part of the elevators bowed in
> about a half inch, I was useing 300 degree heat, and I doubled
> checked the plans to make sure the braces were installed
> right, is this normall for it to do that? It doesn't really
> look to bad, but is it safe? By the way I used the method of
> building the control surfaces that requires a tubing bender,
> if that makes a difference. Did anyone else have this problem?
> Cal
Cal, FWIW, mine did the same thing on the SS. I reasoned that since the
elevators were bowed about the same amount, it wouldn't matter, and I guess
it hasn't. Watch the wingtips and inboard ribs too, they'll bow as well.
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Wheel Endorcement |
----------
> From: WGrooms511(at)aol.com
> To: neilsenr(at)state.mi.us; intrig.com.kolb(at)buis; kolb(at)intrig.com
> Subject: Re: Tail Wheel Endorcement
> Date: Sunday, October 05, 1997 5:46 PM
- outdated FAR snipped :-)
> Read it for yourself. If you don't have a copy of the FAR'S go to your
local
> airport.
> They will have a copy you can look at.
Ha, ha.... the FAA has lured you into their trap. First, the rule you
quoted does seem to say that a tailwheel endorsement isn't required for
experimentals. As I understand it, this was never the intention of the
rule, and the FAA would generally tell you that you needed one anyway. I
was all set to skip the endorsement based on the way the rule seemed to
read, then the FAA went and published the new version of part 61 on August
4th. They changed this section completely and any hope of an exemption for
experimentals is gone. Sorry.
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | bungee trim, and fuel grade ? |
Hi,
Cliff mentioned some type of bungee aileron trim. Can somebody describe
how that works?
Also, he mentioned burning mid-grade fuel. In a 503, what is the minimum
octane required? The Rotax info mentions MON and RON numbers, but I'm not
sure either of those is the same as out ratings in the US. I've been
burning 92 and 93 octane so far, but it's pretty expensive.
Thanks,
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
| Subject: | Re: cq experience on firestar 2 |
I noticed on Cliff's MK-III he had a different mounting brackets on
the leading edge of the horizontal stab. It makes it adjustable where
its incidence can be changed. He said he them from Dennis. I would
try this before cutting off any tube. You can't glue it back on very
easy once you cut it off plus I think you need to run the numbers
(Weight/Balance CG) if you feel your that tail heavy. There has to be
a reason.
I know Dennis has indicated a few inches can be cut off the tube but
tends to discourage it as it compromises stability. With all the
planes out there in the field, it would seem strange one has a major
problem.
My .02 from listening to conversations about this subject in the past.
Jerry Bidle
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: cq experience on firestar 2
Date: 10/3/97 7:24 PM
I now have 60 hours on my Firestar 2. At first I needed to hold forward stick
pressure to keep from climbing and to keep a level cruise. My Cg was in specs
and I talked to Dennis about modifying the front of the tail up a bit for
this problem. Before doing this I lowered both ailerons a bit which greatly
helped. It still climbed a bit so I added some scuba diving soft weights in
the nose and it made my cruise without climbing about great. It still wants
to climb a bit, but I have not added any more weight.
The other day I took a friends son flying who weighs 70 pounds. The plane
flew trimmed perfectly, perfect cruise without any climb. And with his lite
weight I noticed very little handling difference (not like with another full
grown person).
This told me that the passenger must be just a bit ahead of the center of
lift.
Just FYI.
Also, check out my airplane in the completions section of the Kitplanes,
November issue.
Tim Loehrke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bungee trim? |
>...some type of bungee aileron trim. Can somebody describe
>how that works?
Rusty and all,
It might not work on a SS as I am not sure how the floor pan is designed.
It is just a simple bungee loop suggested by Kolb from the right edge of the
floor pan around the stick and back to the right edge of the floor pan (in
the area under your knees). Obviously, you have to get the right length of
bungee (with hooks) so that the tension is about right to provide enough
pressure against the stick. You adjust it by slipping the bungee up or down
the stick. Higher gets you more pressure to the right and therefore more
correction against the natural tendency to bank left. I need only about an
inch or so from the bottom which is hardly any correction at all. Sometimes
I even forget to slip it up. I unhook one end of the bungee between flights
to keep the elasticity from being weakened. I fully expect that when I fly
with a passenger it will not even be needed.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (29 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: bungee trim, and fuel grade ? |
> sure either of those is the same as out ratings in the US. I've been
> burning 92 and 93 octane so far, but it's pretty expensive.
I've been predominantly burning mid-grade Shell auto ...probably
91 octane? I recall an article on fuels that recommended Shell, perhaps
mostly based on a more thorough survey by auto hotrod types where they
seemed to think it provided the most bang for the buck (pun intended).
I suppose highest octane anything might be better, but somewhat doubt
it is noticable. I've assumed that w/ electronic ignition the timing
is always going to be right on, and pre-detonation would only occur if
something else was extremely off. Main thing is clean fuel, no alcohol
and no lead, if possible. I know Rusty, you're just trying to squeeze
as much uummph as you possibly can outa that 503! :-)
-Ben
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
To all,
Today, transferring fuel with my super duper funnel and hose, I overfilled a
tank while not being attentive to how full it was getting. I didn't spill
enough that all was not caught by the rubber catch pan below the tanks. I
discovered that the foam slab I installed between the tanks is not fuel
proof. It melted quicker than ice cream on a real hot day. I will have to
find a fuel proof substitute.
Another thing I noticed. When I hand pumped up the fuel hoses in
preparation for starting the engine, I checked the connections at the engine
fuel pump. I squeezed the tubing between the pump and the carb and fuel
squirted from under the connection at the pump end. It was the same on both
carb connections. I guess what happened is that the crimp clamps don't
squeeze tight enough if you place them behind the collar ring of the
connection. They are tight enought so they can't pull off but they will
leak a little fuel behind the collar ring. I am going to look for some of
the very small screw hose clamps and place one on the hose right over the
collar ring and leave the original clamp on as well. I think I will do this
on all three connections. When I returned from flying the engine pump had
put enough pressure on the connections to pull the hose tight up against the
collar ring so no leaking was happening then.
It was pretty windy today. I tackled the gustiest strongest crosswind so
far. I felt it was just about too much for me - I estimate 15+ mph at 55 to
60 degrees. It didn't seem that bad when I took off. I made some very
interesting runway flights trying to feel the wind. Once I almost smacked it
down on the runway in a down draft. The runway is just beside a long row of
trees and it causes the wind to roll and burble across the runway. Taxiing
back to the hanger was not a problem but I could really feel the wind
pushing against the plane.
I flew up to 6500' AGL to find smooth air above broken clouds. I flew out
to about my limit of 50 n miles to Lake Texoma to locate a little airport
where a very nice UL gathering was held this spring. I took my wind breaker
to keep warm. Glad I did. The engine water temp was right about 140 degrees
and that bothered me some. When I let down I did it gradually under some
power to keep it as warm as possible.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (33.4 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
To all,
Today, transferring fuel with my super duper funnel and hose, I overfilled a
tank while not being attentive to how full it was getting. I didn't spill
enough that all was not caught by the rubber catch pan below the tanks. I
discovered that the foam slab I installed between the tanks is not fuel
proof. It melted quicker than ice cream on a real hot day. I will have to
find a fuel proof substitute.
Another thing I noticed. When I hand pumped up the fuel hoses in
preparation for starting the engine, I checked the connections at the engine
fuel pump. I squeezed the tubing between the pump and the carb and fuel
squirted from under the connection at the pump end. It was the same on both
carb connections. I guess what happened is that the crimp clamps don't
squeeze tight enough if you place them behind the collar ring of the
connection. They are tight enought so they can't pull off but they will
leak a little fuel behind the collar ring. I am going to look for some of
the very small screw hose clamps and place one on the hose right over the
collar ring and leave the original clamp on as well. I think I will do this
on all three connections. When I returned from flying the engine pump had
put enough pressure on the connections to pull the hose tight up against the
collar ring so no leaking was happening then.
It was pretty windy today. I tackled the gustiest strongest crosswind so
far. I felt it was just about too much for me - I estimate 15+ mph at 55 to
60 degrees. It didn't seem that bad when I took off. I made some very
interesting runway flights trying to feel the wind. Once I almost smacked it
down on the runway in a down draft. The runway is just beside a long row of
trees and it causes the wind to roll and burble across the runway. Taxiing
back to the hanger was not a problem but I could really feel the wind
pushing against the plane.
I flew up to 6500' AGL to find smooth air above broken clouds. I flew out
to about my limit of 50 n miles to Lake Texoma to locate a little airport
where a very nice UL gathering was held this spring. I took my wind breaker
to keep warm. Glad I did. The engine water temp was right about 140 degrees
and that bothered me some. When I let down I did it gradually under some
power to keep it as warm as possible.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (33.4 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tswartz(at)prolog.net (Terry Swartz) |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Wheel Endorcement |
Rusty
Was your indorsement from Dan ok for insurance?
I was up one hour today with Dan until it got too gusty. I expect to go
again tomorrow morning.
I've been trying to get a commitment from FAA for an inspection date but it
seems like they just can't figure it out. I also have a tenative
appointment this Friday with a DAR, and it looks like I will have to pay the
piper (300.00) if I want to fly this fall.
Terry
>
>Ha, ha.... the FAA has lured you into their trap. First, the rule you
>quoted does seem to say that a tailwheel endorsement isn't required for
>experimentals. As I understand it, this was never the intention of the
>rule, and the FAA would generally tell you that you needed one anyway. I
>was all set to skip the endorsement based on the way the rule seemed to
>read, then the FAA went and published the new version of part 61 on August
>4th. They changed this section completely and any hope of an exemption for
>experimentals is gone. Sorry.
>
>Rusty
>
>
>-
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tswartz(at)prolog.net (Terry Swartz) |
Scott
Thanks for the offer on the label maker. I was able to borrow one local.
I rented a couple of digital scales to do weight and balance.
Terry
>I used a casio label maker with clear label materials. You can borrow
>if you want. Let me know.
>
>Kolb just got some new and very nice scales you might want to borrow
>from them as well.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: bungee trim, and fuel grade ? |
Russell Duffy wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Cliff mentioned some type of bungee aileron trim. Can somebody describe
> how that works?
>
> Also, he mentioned burning mid-grade fuel. In a 503, what is the minimum
> octane required? The Rotax info mentions MON and RON numbers, but I'm not
> sure either of those is the same as out ratings in the US. I've been
> burning 92 and 93 octane so far, but it's pretty expensive.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Russell Duffy
> SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
> rad(at)pen.net
> http://www.pen.net/~rad/
>
I just checked my Operators Manual for my one year old 503, and it
said
minimum of R.O.N. 90, the same as other Rotaxes that I have owned. I use
premimun unleaded because mid-grade is only 89.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Tail Wheel Endorcement |
I heard (an seen) more planes busted with this hi-speed taxi thing.
The first things that happens is it gets off the ground, they panic
and slam it back down. Then the trailer comes and hauls away what's
left.
I was taught my old military (T6/P51) checkout instructor. We never
did any high speed taxi runs. We got in and went. He took me up, run
me through a series of done slow flight, stalls, departure stalls,
approach to landing stalls at altitude, to get me familiar with how
the plane handles and what it will act like on landing flare. Then we
went and shot landings. No problem, all in 1 hour including an
unplanned in air engine restart in a Champ.
What area are you in, some times there are other Kolb owners in the
area which give lessons in 2-place model.
my $.02 for what's it worth.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Tail Wheel Endorcement
Date: 10/5/97 4:35 PM
>I've seen a lot of talk about how easy it is to handle the tail wheel part
of the Kolb air planes.
> I started flying a Weedhopper ultralight 16 years ago and put app 300hrs
on it. Since then got my pilot's license and have legally flown a number of
Cessna and Piper airplanes. I have just completed a VW powered Kolb MKIII
and will be getting an inspection in 2-3 weeks.
>I'm now shopping around for someone to give me a tail wheel endorsement.
It's tough to find anyone with a tail dragger they will do training in but
when I have they tell me I will need 10-20 hours of instruction and it will
be app $1000. I feel I'm being robbed. Does anyone know if there is a way
around this.
>-
> Unless it's to make your insurance company happy, do you need a
tailwheel endorsement? Why not do this: Every EAA chapter ,local airport,
ultralight group, etc, has a "senior pilot", an old hand that everybody
trusts and respects. Perhaps it's a flight instructor, so much the better.
If you know such a person, and they trust your building and workmanship of
your Kolb, get Him/Her to fly it the first couple times. I did when I built
my J-6, and was not tailwheel qualified. Once that person is satisfied that
the airplane is sorted out to the point that it is fairly well trimmed,
temps ok, etc, get them to give you a bunch of taxi/high speed taxi time
while they ride along on the controls. FIND A BIG GRASS STRIP! If you stay
on the ground it is entirely legal, and they are not "instructing" so they
are legal, (assuming they are not a CFI) and when you feel in control, let
them out and go enjoy. There is nothing that makes it a heresy to have
another pilot give your pride and joy it's first flight. Sometimes it's the
best thing that could happen.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
Technical Counselor EAA 442
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Building update. |
Well I accomplished my goal to get my Firestar II built through
painting before it got too cold in Wisconsin. I did so well that I set a
new goal: To get the plane assembled for a static display at a local
fly-in this weekend. I can't wait to show it off to my friends. By this
weekend, I should have everything done except the seat, the gap seal,
and the BRS. I built the plane faster than BRS can repack a chute.
John Jung, PPASEL
Firestar 377,
9 years in ultralighting,
300+ hours in 5 planes,
rebuilding a Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: Tail Wheel Endorcement |
kolb(at)www.intrig.com
> I heard (an seen) more planes busted with this hi-speed taxi thing.
I agree!
I remember in the Navy we used to have a high speed taxi run in the F-8
Crusader training squadron. That lasted for about a year, or so, until the
"powers that be" figured out that it was a stupid thing to do. Hot brakes,
blown tires and overrunning the runway were more common than it should
have been.
>From there on out it was get in and plan to fly. That worked well. :)
I've always done the same in single seat homebuilts or in ultralights
and, to date, haven't had a problem.
This is not to say that you get in and try to fly without knowing what
to expect. Have an experienced pilot (in type or similar) give you an
idea as to how U/Ls fly as compared to "normal aircraft" and THOROUGHLY
brief the techniques required. Then go fly. Fly around for several minutes
or more just getting settled down and then head back in for the first
landing. You'll be more at ease and be somewhat familiar with the control
response which should lead to a resonable landing. :)
This is not to preclude normal taxi practice -- that required to get the
airplane to and from the parking spot and to the runway -- that's OK.
I just don't think that it's necessarily wise to do the high speed
taxi/crow hop drill.
This is just my way of looking at the problem based upon 45 years and
10,000+ hours of flying.
Regards,
Skip
1984 Ultrastar
1946 Swift
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Wheel Endorcement |
> From: Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)prolog.net>
> To: kolb(at)intrig.com
> Subject: Re: Tail Wheel Endorcement
> Date: Monday, October 06, 1997 7:25 PM
>
> Rusty
>
> Was your indorsement from Dan ok for insurance?
Actually, it was better than I ever expected. Avemco originally told me
that they would cover my liability during the first 10 hours of flight,
then they said I had to have 10 hours of tailwheel time first. When I got
my endorsement from Dan, he also filled out the EAA flight advisor
paperwork even though I had no real need for it. When I got back home and
finally received my policy from Avemco, it said I had to have 10 hours of
DUAL in a similar plane. Since I only had 6 hours of total tailwheel time
(5 in the Mark III), I called them to say this condition would never be
met. When they heard that I had received my training and EAA flight
advisor sign off from the factory instructor, they covered me with the
hours I had. Yep, it was one of my better decisions (unlike that 503
engine thing).
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: quick build Mk3 |
Mick,
I think the first step is trying to avoid the dreaded disease AIDS ........
Aircraft Induced Divorce Syndrome, after that life is good.
Rich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | high altitude flying |
Just a bit lite reading-------I keep reading about you guys that regularly go
up to 3-6500 feet, holy cow. I have been to 3000 in my Firestar 2 and thats
about where my nuckles get white. I always thought I wanted to go real high,
but every time I try it I get spooked. In fact when I fly cubs or cessnas I
rarely get above 3000. The only time I do is in the sailplanes, when the lift
takes me up for free.
Tell me what I am missing!!!.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flying Today |
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
CLIFF
Sounds like you are coming right along with getting more relaxed with
the wind . I was going to go to Galveston sunday , but bad weather
there, water spouts , rain , just to bad so I flew to the Island , then
to Cameron LA. just having a good time, don't forget what happened
to me and my run in with gas and lexan ( THE GAS WIN'S).
Rick Libersat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying |
Timandjan(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Just a bit lite reading-------I keep reading about you guys that regularly go
> up to 3-6500 feet, holy cow. I have been to 3000 in my Firestar 2 and thats
> about where my nuckles get white. I always thought I wanted to go real high,
> but every time I try it I get spooked. In fact when I fly cubs or cessnas I
> rarely get above 3000. The only time I do is in the sailplanes, when the lift
> takes me up for free.
> Tell me what I am missing!!!.
> -
You are missing the fantastic view, being able to see for 50 miles or
more in every direction, or the sun hitting the tops of cumulus clouds.
It may only be worth going high when the weather is just right, but for
me, my most memorable flights have been to high altitudes. And when I
say high, 3500' or 4500' is a crusing altitude in warm weather. High
starts at 7000'. I have been to 7500' in an Eagle XL, 10,500' in a
Falcon UL, and 17,000' in a Firestar KX with a 377. It's not more
dangerous, it's just colder. So fly high in summer and dress for winter.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Henry <chhenry(at)plains.nodak.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying |
> You are missing the fantastic view, being able to see for 50 miles or
>more in every direction, or the sun hitting the tops of cumulus clouds.
>It may only be worth going high when the weather is just right, but for
>me, my most memorable flights have been to high altitudes. And when I
>say high, 3500' or 4500' is a crusing altitude in warm weather. High
>starts at 7000'. I have been to 7500' in an Eagle XL, 10,500' in a
>Falcon UL, and 17,000' in a Firestar KX with a 377. It's not more
>dangerous, it's just colder. So fly high in summer and dress for winter.
>John Jung
>-
>
John
Do you remember what happened to the EGT readings as you went up?
I assume that thinner air would make the mixture richer and EGT should go
down as you go up. Right?
Charles Henry
a 500 foot flyer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | age-old debate: crowhops |
On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, skip staub wrote:
>
> > I heard (an seen) more planes busted with this hi-speed taxi thing.
>
> I agree!
>
> I remember in the Navy we used to have a high speed taxi run in the F-8
> Crusader training squadron. That lasted for about a year, or so, until the
> "powers that be" figured out that it was a stupid thing to do. Hot brakes,
> blown tires and overrunning the runway were more common than it should
> have been.
>
An UL will not get hot brakes, and is unlikely to overrun even short
runways or blow tires.
I'm registering my vote on crow-hops, but my definition of that procedure
centers on a ***gradual*** transition, i.e.
- assuming you already have had dual UL flight training
- knowing how to taxi allows you to learn how to taxi faster
- taxi fast until you are good enf to be bored, then do it some more
...careful always on the throttle to avoid flying speed which in
an UL will come SOONER than you expect.
- get so you can taxi at minimum flying speed, the wheels sometimes
skipping off the ground but never more than 2 feet. Again, back off
the throttle whenever you start to fly. If you blow this, i agree,
it is probably better to just go up and fly.
- in all of this you will learn what the plane feels like at slow
speed, and all changes are so gradual that you will not get any
surprises.
- eventually you will get comfortable with transitioning from take-off
to landing, all at 0 - 5' off the ground and with *gradual* control
inputs.
- next 10-20' a few times and then go fly. Make your first few landings
with 1/4 throttle so they are the same as your crow-hop experience.
Note, ya can't do the above it it is windy, and if you forget anywhere
that I said 'gradual' then you are probably better off with the other
method of learning how it feels, i.e. at the other safe altitude ( <5'
or >1500' but not in between).
This may be like computer stuff: the type/method you learned first is
always going to be the best. :-)
-Ben
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: age-old debate: crowhops |
> This may be like computer stuff: the type/method you learned first is
> always going to be the best. :-)
This may be true. I've never heard of crowhops being taught by flight instructors
in certified planes, and the FAA "should" know more about the safe methods of
training than we do. The most vulnerable time in a plane is when you're on the
ground at flying speeds. Why would you want to prolong this? In my mind, it's
asking for trouble.
Crowhops- Just say no :-)
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying |
>
> > You are missing the fantastic view, being able to see for 50 miles or
> >more in every direction, or the sun hitting the tops of cumulus clouds.
> >It may only be worth going high when the weather is just right, but for
> >me, my most memorable flights have been to high altitudes. And when I
> >say high, 3500' or 4500' is a crusing altitude in warm weather. High
> >starts at 7000'. I have been to 7500' in an Eagle XL, 10,500' in a
> >Falcon UL, and 17,000' in a Firestar KX with a 377. It's not more
> >dangerous, it's just colder. So fly high in summer and dress for winter.
> >John Jung
> >-
> >
Charles Henry wrote:
> John
> Do you remember what happened to the EGT readings as you went up?
> I assume that thinner air would make the mixture richer and EGT should go
> down as you go up. Right?
>
> Charles Henry
> a 500 foot flyer
>
Yes, I do remember. The engine ran richer and cooler as I climbed. But
it never missed.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Garrie C Arrington <bustera(at)bellsouth.net> |
Hello Group
My name is Buster and I have a slight problem with no answers so maybe
some of you can help.
Rotac engine 447 running fine until it loses 200 rpm for no reason.
Adjust throttle and engine picks back up for maybe a 40-60 sec then acts
as if it is running on one cylinder only. Next 30 sec. engine quits and
we are ground bound. Made happy landing on road.
Cylinder next to prop has no cht but appeared to be running very hot
from color of plug, exterior and interior of plug. The other cylinder
had cht and never got out of normal.
What could be wrong with this baby.
Thanks for your time
Buster
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying |
CVBreard(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> <<.... and 17,000' in a Firestar KX with a 377. It's not more
> dangerous, it's just colder. >>
>
> Sorry, John, I can't agree with that statement (except for the 'colder'
> part).
>
> 17,000' (without oxygen) can be dangerous for most of us. (Maybe you live at
> 10,000' !!).
>
> Charlie (Been through the USAF Altitude Chamber and a True Believer) Breard
> Baton Rouge, LA
Charlie,
I'll have to agree about the 17,000 feet. I never expected to get that
high and was trying to remember my altitude chamber trainning after I
got to 15,000'. 28 years was too long. I have since been shopping for an
oxygen system. How about if I say "10,000 ft is not more dangerous than
500 ft"?
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: age-old debate: crowhops |
>> This may be like computer stuff: the type/method you learned first is
>> always going to be the best. :-)
>
>This may be true. I've never heard of crowhops being taught by flight
instructors
>in certified planes, and the FAA "should" know more about the safe methods of
>training than we do. The most vulnerable time in a plane is when you're on the
>ground at flying speeds. Why would you want to prolong this? In my mind, it's
>asking for trouble.
>
>Crowhops- Just say no :-)
>
>Rusty
>
>
>
>-
>
I have been involved in this sport since 1980, my first plane was a Kolb
Flyer.At the time I had my private licence and all my time in Cessnas. There
was no Ultralight instruction.I spent 2 evenings taxiing up and down a
runnway untill I could control that Flyer.Remember this did not have a tail
wheel.By the time I flew I was confident in my ability to ground control
this craft. First flight was uneventfull. Don't compare a 20 mph craft to
some military iron.Later I became an instructor.This was before Homer came
up with his original tractor twinstar. We had no dual training.Yes it was
scary but options were limited.I taught a student to fly on an Ultrastar. By
the time I let him do a circuit he was so tired of taxiing he would do any
thing to get in the air.That meant he did not want to screw up and stay
grounded.Caution can replace instruction under certain circumstances.The
slow speed of ultralights does tend to keep things safer than trying to fast
taxi high powered fast planes.Don't compare apples and oranges.These
opinions are based on past experience when luxuries like dual trainers did
not exist.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Tailwheel endorsement |
Confession time, I think I screwed up. Went to the Landings web site
(www.landings.com) and found the latest update of FAR Part 61. Printed off
Sec. 61.31 and took it to work, because one of the other controllers has
just come back from getting his CFI re-validated, and had just gone over
this bit. His understanding on the tailwheel endorsement is that it is
necessary unless you have previously logged pilot-in-command time prior to
April 15, 1991. So my opinion the other day that I didn't think a tailwheel
endorsement was necessary was ill-advised. Sorry, will try to avoid future
stupidity.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
To all,
How about a pole out there to find out from those of you who have insured
your planes (whether just for liability or hull or both) what the premiums
are for the various companies. I checked out insurance before I first flew
only to find out that I had to have 10 hours first. I also thought the
premiums were awfully high. (On the other hand, I guess if I had an
accident, the premiums would seem pretty low then.) Anyway, I have not
purchased any yet and I probably should.
This is a quote I received.
National Aviation Underwriters (a Division of Avemco) - covered after the
first 10 hours. This quote was received 4/8/97 so premium and coverage may
have changed since then. If I remember correctly, to get these rates I had
to belong to a local EAA chapter. I could be mistaken about that though.
Bodily Injury $100K/person $1M/propdamage $1M/eachaccident $485.00
Aircraft damage $15K ($200 deductable) $1,030.00
Med Expenses $1K/person $23.00
Total Premium $1,538.00
BTW, if it is a "no-no" to discuss this subject on the internet, someone
speak up and let the group know and then please nobody respond.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (33.4 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: age-old debate: crowhops |
u>
Ben,
>> I remember in the Navy we used to have a high speed taxi run in the F-8
>An UL will not get hot brakes, and is unlikely to overrun even short
>runways or blow tires.
Hehe -- I'm well aware of that (my Ultrastar doesn't even have brakes).
The point that I was trying to make is that the fast taxi/crow hop
type flights are not a good idea for any type of aircraft be it an UL
or a high performance jet fighter.
I'm assuming (yes I know what assuming can do for you :) that the
pilot involved is qualified to fly aircraft, including some conventional
gear (tail dragger) experience. I certainly wouldn't advocate that a
non-current or non-pilot get in anything and just "go fly".
I think Russell Duffey (Rusty) said what I think MUCH better than I
said it: "The most vulnerable time in a plane is when you're
on the ground at flying speeds. Why would you want to prolong this?"
Regards,
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Re: age-old debate: crowhops -Reply |
I tend to agree that crowhops are not a good idea in a tested airplane
but.
On the first flight of my newly constructed airplane I will do many high
speed taxies and crowhops. I might bend the air frame but I=27m much less
likely to bend my self if I=27m inches off the ground when I find
something isn=27t built or adjusted just right.
Under the category of telling hundreds of people about me doing something
STUPID. I was doing a low speed taxi with the wings off last night and I
got too close to 1/8 inch tree branch and cracked my wood prop. I=27m now
=24300.00 wiser.
VW powered Kolb MKIII -Waiting for a new prop and the FAA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Henry <chhenry(at)plains.nodak.edu> |
| Subject: | VW powered MKIII |
Richard N.
Sorry to hear about the prop.
I am interested in the specs of the engine you used and what the MKIII
performance is like with the VW power.
I had more trouble with the crow hops than actually going flying.
I do believe a person should do at least 1 or 2 to verify that the machine
is rigged right though.
Charles Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Henry <chhenry(at)plains.nodak.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Quits |
>Hello Group
>My name is Buster and I have a slight problem with no answers so maybe
>some of you can help.
>Rotac engine 447 running fine until it loses 200 rpm for no reason.
>Adjust throttle and engine picks back up for maybe a 40-60 sec then acts
>as if it is running on one cylinder only. Next 30 sec. engine quits and
>we are ground bound. Made happy landing on road.
>Cylinder next to prop has no cht but appeared to be running very hot
>from color of plug, exterior and interior of plug. The other cylinder
>had cht and never got out of normal.
>What could be wrong with this baby.
>Thanks for your time
>Buster
>-
>HI Buster
If you have a single carb engine, check for an air leak on the side that
overheated. The intake manifold bolts may have come loose and a small leak
here would cause that cylinder to run lean and hot. As to why it actually
quit on that cylinder, you did not mention if the spark plug electrodes were
bridged with carbon or aluminum. I suppose it is possible that the piston
has a hole in it from overheating so you will want to check that out. Since
the engine quit entirely the overheating piston may have siezed (melted to
the sidewall of the cylinder). If it siezed you will have alluminum left on
the wall of the cylinder.
Charles Henry
____________\_/____________
|
(*)
O O
Happy Landings
Charles :)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Stripling <jstripli(at)io.com> |
| Subject: | high altitude flying |
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timandjan(at)aol.com
Just a bit lite reading-------I keep reading about you guys that regularly go
up to 3-6500 feet, holy cow. I have been to 3000 in my Firestar 2 and thats
about where my nuckles get white. I always thought I wanted to go real high,
but every time I try it I get spooked. In fact when I fly cubs or cessnas I
rarely get above 3000. The only time I do is in the sailplanes, when the lift
takes me up for free.
Tell me what I am missing!!!.
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Steiger <stei0302(at)cs.fredonia.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying |
>Timandjan(at)aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Just a bit lite reading-------I keep reading about you guys that
regularly go
>> up to 3-6500 feet, holy cow. I have been to 3000 in my Firestar 2 and thats
>> about where my nuckles get white. I always thought I wanted to go real
high,
>> but every time I try it I get spooked. In fact when I fly cubs or cessnas I
>> rarely get above 3000. The only time I do is in the sailplanes, when the
lift
>> takes me up for free.
>> Tell me what I am missing!!!.
>> -
> You are missing the fantastic view, being able to see for 50 miles or
>more in every direction, or the sun hitting the tops of cumulus clouds.
Yep, its a lot of fun! :-) The view is probably the biggest reason
for doing it. The higher you go, the better it gets. :-) If you're
like me, it'll probably also start you to thinking about how small and
insignificant one person really is. :-)
>It may only be worth going high when the weather is just right, but for
>me, my most memorable flights have been to high altitudes. And when I
>say high, 3500' or 4500' is a crusing altitude in warm weather. High
Agreed. If I'm going somewhere, I'm at at *least* 3,000, and probably
4,000; sometimes 5,000. My engine hasn't missed a beat yet, but I'm
not taking any chances. If it quits, I want all the altitude I can get.
(I fly like that in all planes, not just 2 strokes. Paranoia, I guess.) :-)
>starts at 7000'. I have been to 7500' in an Eagle XL, 10,500' in a
>Falcon UL, and 17,000' in a Firestar KX with a 377. It's not more
>dangerous, it's just colder. So fly high in summer and dress for winter.
Well, I'd take exception to "not dangerous" at 17,000', but that's
already been discussed. :-) I've had three flights which I would
consider "high". The first to 8,000 whetted my appitite; I did it
just because I was climing, and I didn't feel like stopping it; I
had nothing else to do at the time. My next flight was to 10,000, and
my highest is 13,300. (All altitudes are MSL. The field I fly out of
is 1,320' MSL.)
-Jon-
.--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL |
| '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) |
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Wheel Endorcement -Reply |
Thanks for everyones input. I will most likely make a trip to the Kolb
factory. As Dennis Souder pointed out the training the FAA requires will
be almost use less but is required. The training Kolb can give will be
exactly like the plane I will be flying other than power(hopefully) and
will cost less than what I can get locally.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hinkelmann <whink(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: quick build Mk3 |
>I think the first step is trying to avoid the dreaded disease AIDS ........
>Aircraft Induced Divorce Syndrome, after that life is good.
>
>AVOID ??? Long for and enjoy!!
MUCH more time to work on airplanes.
_____________________
William Hinkelmann
whink(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
The old addage for high speed taxis goes: It's too slow to be an airplane and
too fast to be a car. Airplanes are meant to be in the air and are safer up
there, like if it does'nt look good, always go around.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | molu(at)achilles.net (Lucien Morais) |
Hello gang:
Hope somebody can help me.
I fly a firestar 2 with a 503 Dc and have only 65 hours on it so far.
I did notice lately that it was noisier than before while flying but last
week it became worse.
While tied up on the ground and at idle speed (2000 rpm) everything is
normal but if I crank it up to 3000 rpm and higher it become real noisy.
I did balanced my propeller, and also tried another muffler,
I even took the gear box appart to see if anything was wrong inside :But all Ok
I check all the bolts and the motor mounts seem all right. ( What is the
right way for really checking them out? )
Also (on the ground) there is lots of vibration ,you can see the underside
of the skin flapping but in the air there is no vibration
But to tell you the thrutht I am not to crazy about flying it this way.
The EGT is normal not overheating or nothing.
That is all I can think for now trying to explain this problem.
Like I said I hope somebody can help me. Because the next step will be to
take the motor apart to see the inside.
Thank,s
Lucien
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
| Subject: | Re[2]: age-old debate: crowhops |
Yes Rusty, I think you hit the nail square on the head.
The high speed taxi thing is at some point its going to fly. Is the
plane ready (enough fuel) and two, is the person in the proper mind
set or will they panic. Be surprised many panic and plop it back
down. If you going to do high speed taxi and or crow hops you and the
plane had better be ready to fly. Once its in the air, and you come
up against running out of runway or it starting drifting, your better
to fly it. Lets all be careful out there.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: age-old debate: crowhops
Date: 10/7/97 6:00 PM
> This may be like computer stuff: the type/method you learned first is
> always going to be the best. :-)
This may be true. I've never heard of crowhops being taught by flight
instructors
in certified planes, and the FAA "should" know more about the safe methods of
training than we do. The most vulnerable time in a plane is when you're on the
ground at flying speeds. Why would you want to prolong this? In my mind, it's
asking for trouble.
Crowhops- Just say no :-)
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>To all,
>
>How about a pole out there to find out from those of you who have insured
>your planes (whether just for liability or hull or both) what the premiums
>are for the various companies. I checked out insurance before I first flew
>only to find out that I had to have 10 hours first. I also thought the
>premiums were awfully high. (On the other hand, I guess if I had an
>accident, the premiums would seem pretty low then.) Anyway, I have not
>purchased any yet and I probably should.
>
>This is a quote I received.
>
>National Aviation Underwriters (a Division of Avemco) - covered after the
>first 10 hours. This quote was received 4/8/97 so premium and coverage may
>have changed since then. If I remember correctly, to get these rates I had
>to belong to a local EAA chapter. I could be mistaken about that though.
>
> Bodily Injury $100K/person $1M/propdamage $1M/eachaccident $485.00
> Aircraft damage $15K ($200 deductable) $1,030.00
> Med Expenses $1K/person $23.00
> Total Premium $1,538.00
>
>BTW, if it is a "no-no" to discuss this subject on the internet, someone
>speak up and let the group know and then please nobody respond.
>
>Later,
>
>--
>Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (33.4 hrs)
>(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
> Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
>
> ____________________|_____________________
> ___(+^+)___
> (_)
> 8 8
>
>
> Got my insurance from Avemco and for less, but less coverage too.
Bodily injury 100,000each 100,000prpty 300,000acc= $275
Aircraftdamage 15,000 kolb 200 deduct 200deduct = $258
NOT in flight damage in motion not in motion -----
$533
The big difference is lower coverage, and the hull coverage is not
for in flight. It is covered while taxiing and in the hangar. Once I start
takeoff roll until it stops again on the runway or safely off it, it is
uninsured for hull damages. Something to think about.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Maybe not everyone knows this, but if you get an EAA Technical
Counselor to come and inspect your airplane project 3 times while you are
building it, Avemco will give you a discount on your premium. Normally you
get the first inspection before cover, the next after cover, and the third
when all the plumbing and hardware is in, shortly before the DAR would look
at it. There is no charge for the visit or inspection (but I do like raisins
in my brownies, thank you). The main idea is to get someone who has looked
at or built a lot of projects before to see if something is amiss, or
sometimes save a new builder from re-inventing the wheel, not knowing there
was an easier way to do things.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
Technical Counselor EAA 442
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca> |
>Hello gang:
>Hope somebody can help me.
>I fly a firestar 2 with a 503 Dc and have only 65 hours on it so far.
>I did notice lately that it was noisier than before while flying but last
>week it became worse.
>While tied up on the ground and at idle speed (2000 rpm) everything is
>normal but if I crank it up to 3000 rpm and higher it become real noisy.
>I did balanced my propeller, and also tried another muffler,
>I even took the gear box appart to see if anything was wrong inside :But all Ok
>I check all the bolts and the motor mounts seem all right. ( What is the
>right way for really checking them out? )
>
>Also (on the ground) there is lots of vibration ,you can see the underside
>of the skin flapping but in the air there is no vibration
>But to tell you the thrutht I am not to crazy about flying it this way.
>
>The EGT is normal not overheating or nothing.
>That is all I can think for now trying to explain this problem.
>Like I said I hope somebody can help me. Because the next step will be to
>take the motor apart to see the inside.
>Thank,s
>Lucien
>
>
>-
>
>
If you have a C drive your rubber donut may be too soft. I had that problem
with my 582 C drive. Do you have a three blade prop or a lighter 2 blade
prop? You may need a stiffer donut with a three blade prop. My original
donut had a shore hardness rating of only 55 and I replaced it with a 75
----- end of problems.
Kim Steiner Saskatchewan Canada
Kolb Mark 111, 582 rotax
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
Hi all,
Well, have to admit that I wasn't too optimistic about the bungee aileron trim
idea, but as usual, I was wrong. It worked great. I just can't get over it.
I've
still got some adjustment to do on the elevator trim, but it's coming along. Soon
I'll have a well trimmed plane.
Continued performance testing today and managed to get 800 fpm using a climb speed
of 55 mph. 50 mph is about the same, but feels noticeably mushy compared to 55.
These are both at 2500 rpm. I may try some flaps next time out.
Full throttle level flight yields 6700 rpm and the GPS showed 92 mph. I didn't
do
this in different directions to account for wind, but there shouldn't have been
any
headwind today in the direction I tested this. 92 is hard to believe since I don't
have the windows on yet. It could be accurate though.
Pushed the G meter to 2.25 today and it seems stronger than that. This will get
pretty scary if I continue to 3 G's as I originally planned. Speaking of scary,
I
entered a long and eventually steep dive to test higher airspeeds. I stopped the
run at an estimated 100 mph. At this speed, the canopy was deforming inward
slightly, but that was the only sign of trouble.
After only about 3 hours, I'm more comfortable with the plane and engine than I
should be. After a couple more flights, I should have the trim straightened out,
and won't really have much else to test. I've already tested beyond the normal
flight envelope. I'll have to venture out to an airport where I can do some
pattern work, since I can't do that at my airport. About the only thing left is
to
work my way up to flying in some wind.
As usual, I keep the full notes of flight experience on my web page.
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Make yourself comfortable ...this is long.
Just over 2 weeks ago I had a most unwelcome and surprising incident,
aileron flutter. I've held off posting about this as I've wanted a
chance to communicate w/ Dennis about it and also to look as carefully
at my plane as possible for anything amiss that would cause this.
In brief background, most of you probably know that the single place Kolbs
prior to current FS I&II are (were?) known to NOT have aileron flutter.
It only turned up, and predictably BTW, in testing the current FS
I&II models. The problem was corrected with aileron counter balances.
Kolb still reports that flutter in early FS's has only been seen on a very
few planes where something like a loose drag_strut-to-root_rib was found
in follow-up check. Aileron flutter has never caused damage, just a
good dash of adrenalin.
My wings and ailerons are exactly per-plans Firestar KXP, with 1 tiny
little difference: I made the 4 aileron hinges 10/7/7/7 inches long
instead of 10/6/6/6 inches. Nothing is loose. The week before the
flutter flight i had removed the slop in the right wing U joint but
hadn't gotten around to the left side and didn't feel it really needed
it badly enf. For all those who like facts, the rear of my left wing
root clicks up exactly 1/16" due to slop in that U joint -- this ain't
bad but not perfect either. By now I've even cut into the wing roots
to verify everybody is home and accounted for.
One of the bad parts about my flutter incident is that i can't accurately
report how fast I was going. I had just installed lexan side panels to
my cockpit and had not yet routed the airspeed static port to a new and
improved static location. (the new lexan side panels probably cause a
drop in pressure at the current static port location, which would probably
give me a falsely high reading). However, I do know that I was under Vne
(90mph) as this happened in level, sustained full power flight Rotax
447SC. Rough checks w/ a GPS in poor conditions indicate my IAS might
be ~5mph high at cruise speed, and 1mph high at stall.
So C'mon, What Happened?!!:
I had just departed a UL fly-in (Turlock) and came around for a high-speed
fly-by before heading home. I was indicating 85 descending and turning
final, and added throttle to keep ~85 as I leveled out and zoomed down the
runway at ~100' agl. I assume 85 really probably meant about 80 TAS.
At 3/4 runway (2000 foot strip) I started a gradual pull-up and felt
the sudden vibration. First thought: how the hell can the wheels be
shimmying now?! I immediately pulled the throttle at first notice and
was looking out to the side and saw the aileron doing very bad things.
The plane was slowing quickly w/ no throttle and my slightly back stick.
[Felt like a Reno race emergency maneuver as I think back :-) ] The
flutter stopped in just a couple seconds and I came around at a TLC speed,
landed, felt terribly embarrassed, and checked everything out thoroughly.
Nothing amiss, and I flew 2 hours home.
Possible Causes:
1. My plane is just an odd-ball. Hand-made, uncertified, you know.
2. the new side panels conform pretty darn well to the shape of
the main bulkhead. I guess airflow might be pretty clean relative
to no side panels ...maybe this aerodynamic difference matters.
3. sustained speed. I was at max full power speed for several seconds.
I've been faster before, but only briefly. (I had gone to full power
level flight for a few seconds earlier on the flight down to marvel
at how well the side panels eliminated cockpit wind ---winter flying
will be easy :-) ) For a sustained period there is plenty of time
reasonable to expect the wings to stay where you like them, there
may be some propensity to flutter at a lower speed and we will find
if we fly that speed often enf. Dennis punished the early planes
severely to find their limits. But now, i really gotta wonder how
many FS KXPs, KXs, original recipe, and ultrastars, cleaned up with
all the trimmins (high aspect high pitch prop, streamline struts,
streamlined canopy, streamlined front engine cowling) have sat in
a 10-15 second ~80mph full power run. Not enf to prove flutter
can't happen, cuz I've only done this once and I proved it can.
4. One suspicious little area on the KXP (to me) is the distance from
the last aileron hinge to the end of the aileron. On a KXP it is
22"; on all other pre-current FS and probably UStars, it is 18".
This last 22" of aileron flexes at the leading edge with very little
force. I'm suspicious that flutter could have started out here.
If it does, this may also narrow the pool of early FS and Ustars
My Plan:
1. Fix my IAS. ...does that rhyme with somethin?
2. Kolb is sending me material to add another 6" of hinge at the outer
ends. This will rule Cause #4 in or out. I'll fly it again (carefully)
to see if i can reproduce the flutter. If I cannot, i'll remove the
hinge and try again to hopefully really feel comfortable whether this
was the problem.
3. Add aileron counter-balances if #2 is unsatisfactory or if i just
can't live with the flutter gremlin.
Another option: add floats so I never have the opportunity to go fast
anyway. naaah, not yet.
Long post, so congratulations for reading this far. A word to the
wise might be just to be prepared, assume anything is possible.
Keep your hand on the throttle in *all* maneuvers. BRS's are nice.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: bungee testing |
On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Russell Duffy wrote:
> Continued performance testing today and managed to get 800 fpm using a climb
speed
> of 55 mph. 50 mph is about the same, but feels noticeably mushy compared to
55.
> These are both at 2500 rpm. I may try some flaps next time out.
^^^^^^
ahem, ...you've spent too much time in spam cans. ;-)
5200
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | molu(at)achilles.net (Lucien Morais) |
>
>If you have a C drive your rubber donut may be too soft. I had that problem
>with my 582 C drive. Do you have a three blade prop or a lighter 2 blade
>prop? You may need a stiffer donut with a three blade prop. My original
>donut had a shore hardness rating of only 55 and I replaced it with a 75
>----- end of problems.
>
>
>Kim Steiner Saskatchewan Canada
>
>Kolb Mark 111, 582 rotax
I have the B drive,with a 2 blade prop. Thanks for answering. I think I,ve
read about the C drive problem in C.O.P.A before.
Mine was all right. I even went over all the gear with a fine emery paper
before I put it back together.
Lucien
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RIVARD" <RIVA01B(at)MACOMB.CC.MI.US> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying |
Date: Wednesday, 8 October 1997 3:33pm ET
From: RIVARD@MCCVM1
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: high altitude flying
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION A TRANSPONDER WAS REQUIRED ABOVE 3000 ft.M.S.L.
ALSO ISN'T THERE A RULE THAT APPLIES AS TO ODD AND EVEN ALTITUDES AND WHAT
DIRECTION YOU ARE HEADED WHEN ABOVE 3000 ft.M.S.L.?
BOB TWINSTAR MK 2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bungee testing |
----------
> From: Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>
> To: Kolb
> Subject: Re: bungee testing
> Date: Wednesday, October 08, 1997 11:43 PM
>
> On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Russell Duffy wrote:
> > Continued performance testing today and managed to get 800 fpm using a climb
speed
> > of 55 mph. 50 mph is about the same, but feels noticeably mushy compared to
55.
> > These are both at 2500 rpm. I may try some flaps next time out.
> ^^^^^^
> ahem, ...you've spent too much time in spam cans. ;-)
>
> 5200
Thanks Ben. Actually I meant 6500.
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
Lucien,
It seems like I've read about noise like this, but I've never seen or heard it
myself. What I remember as the cause was one of the bearings in the engine. Since
I know squat about the Rotax, hopefully on of our resident experts can comment
on
this possibility. How would you test for it? How common is it? Is it caused
by
something preventable?
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Gerken GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM" <GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM> |
| Subject: | Best paper towels to use on Lexan |
I forgot, what did someone recommend as the best paper towel to use on lexan
for no scratches? I bought a roll but they are used up and I don't remember
the brand. I am using the Maguires plastic polish. thanks...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying |
> I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION A TRANSPONDER WAS REQUIRED ABOVE 3000 ft.M.S.L.
> ALSO ISN'T THERE A RULE THAT APPLIES AS TO ODD AND EVEN ALTITUDES AND WHAT
> DIRECTION YOU ARE HEADED WHEN ABOVE 3000 ft.M.S.L.?
In general, you have to have a transponder if you're above 10,000 ft MSL. There
are a few exceptions to this around mountains. Also note that you must be on an
IFR flight plan to be above 18,000 ft over most of the continental US. This won't
be a problem for most of us :-)
VFR cruising altitudes rule as you stated begins at 3000 ft. If your in level
cruise flight with a magnetic course of 0-179 degrees, you fly at odd
thousands+500ft (3500, 5500, etc.). From 180-359 degrees, fly even thousands+500
ft (4500, 6500, etc). I believe the IFR traffic uses mostly even and odd thousands
to give at least 500 ft separation. BTW- thanks for making me look this up again,
I had forgotten some of the details.
These rules are for registered aircraft. Are UL's required by regulation to follow
any of these rules?
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
----------
> From: Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net>
> To: kolb(at)intrig.com
> Subject: Insurance
> Date: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 11:39 PM
>
> To all,
>
> How about a pole out there to find out from those of you who have insured
> your planes (whether just for liability or hull or both) what the premiums
> are for the various companies. I checked out insurance before I first flew
I have coverage with Avemco that includes liability and ground coverage for
aircraft damage. My policy also excludes medical coverage for occupants of the
aircraft since I'm the only one in it, and my health insurance covers me. This
option reduced the rate by about $150/yr. I'll likely add the occupant coverage
before I carry any passengers.
Bodily injury and property damage liability:
100K per person, 500K property damage, 500K each accident = $220
Aircraft Damage (ground only):
15K value, $200 deductible (but not really since EAA will pay this) = $343
Total = 563 per year.
Note that this may be higher for me since I don't have much tailwheel time logged.
Cliff, as for being improper to discuss- the internet police will be tracing this
message to your home :-)
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald G. Blaylock" <rgbsr(at)aimnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying |
On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Russell Duffy wrote:
>
> In general, you have to have a transponder if you're above 10,000 ft MSL. There
> are a few exceptions to this around mountains. Also note that you must be on
an
> IFR flight plan to be above 18,000 ft over most of the continental US. This
won't
> be a problem for most of us :-)
[snipped the rest of the good stuff about altitudes]
I don't know of any rule that requires you to have a transponder unless
you are above 18,000 MSL or file a VFR or IFR flight plan or fly into the
class C or B circles which then requires Mode C and radio communication.
Of course it's probably a good idea to follow the even/odd altitude rules
even though it's not required for FAR 103.
I could be wrong about the transponder but I don't believe it's required
when in class G, E, or D airspace. I'm certainly not going to spend $1,500
to equip my Beaver with one. Then again, I haven't been above 2,000 ft.
MSL in an ultralight yet either.
Any other opinions or can someone site the regulation governing
transponders?
Ron B.
Ron Blaylock - AMSC USN (retired)
< ron.b(at)cheerful.com > Living in San Jose, California
< rblaylock(at)mail.arc.nasa.gov > Flying from Lodi, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Re: aileron flutter |
Ben and all,
About the time I started building my Kolb, a lot was being said about the
high speed flutter possibility and the fix, ie. counter balances. Something
I did that I think might help is to make 4 flap "X hinges". I got the idea
from the Fergeson - a copycat design of the Kolb. They prevent any wiggle
at all in the hinge connection. I think they also cause a little more force
on the stick for aileron deflection on my plane because of more friction in
the system. I also installed a few more inches of hinge including hinge
support at the very end. I also installed the counter balances because I
had built my ailerons heavier (not a good idea in retrospect) than the Kolb
plans dictated. I have had my Kolb up to about 95 mph (hard to tell with
the screwy ASI) in a full power shallow dive quite a few times with no
problems... except for the distinct feeling that the Kolb would prefer to be
flying a lot slower.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (33.4 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com> |
| Subject: | FW: aileron flutter |
Let me start off by saying I am no engineer, and the following comments
are just one possibility. As I understand it aileron flutter has the do
with the weight of the aileron which is behind the hinge point. When
you are at high airspeeds and the aileron is close to flutter and you
then add some G forces you have effectively added some weight to the
ailerons, possibly enough to cause the flutter. The speed alone may not
have caused the flutter without the pull out. I know this doesn't help
you fix your problem, but it may help you explore the effectiveness of
your fix when testing. I also believe this is why weights are so
effective, because when you pull G's the counter weight becomes heavier
as fast as the aileron becomes heavier. It has also been mentioned on
the list that someone used the stainless steel hinge from the front of
the horizontal stabilizer on their MKIII and installed it at the end of
the aileron to remove the "hinge slop". Thanks for sharing your
experiences with the group, some day I hope to get there.
Jason MKIII, 3 years into it and only 80% complete
made the mistake of buying a fixer house and the chose
the joy of adding a baby to the family (not a mistake,
but a
time consuming long term project)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Ransom [SMTP:ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu@acuityinc.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 1997 9:40 PM
>To: Kolb
>Cc: Mike Ransom; Jim Ransom
>Subject: aileron flutter
>
>Make yourself comfortable ...this is long.
>
>Just over 2 weeks ago I had a most unwelcome and surprising incident,
>aileron flutter. I've held off posting about this as I've wanted a
>chance to communicate w/ Dennis about it and also to look as carefully
>at my plane as possible for anything amiss that would cause this.
>
>In brief background, most of you probably know that the single place Kolbs
>prior to current FS I&II are (were?) known to NOT have aileron flutter.
>It only turned up, and predictably BTW, in testing the current FS
>I&II models. The problem was corrected with aileron counter balances.
>Kolb still reports that flutter in early FS's has only been seen on a very
>few planes where something like a loose drag_strut-to-root_rib was found
>in follow-up check. Aileron flutter has never caused damage, just a
>good dash of adrenalin.
>
>My wings and ailerons are exactly per-plans Firestar KXP, with 1 tiny
>little difference: I made the 4 aileron hinges 10/7/7/7 inches long
>instead of 10/6/6/6 inches. Nothing is loose. The week before the
>flutter flight i had removed the slop in the right wing U joint but
>hadn't gotten around to the left side and didn't feel it really needed
>it badly enf. For all those who like facts, the rear of my left wing
>root clicks up exactly 1/16" due to slop in that U joint -- this ain't
>bad but not perfect either. By now I've even cut into the wing roots
>to verify everybody is home and accounted for.
>
>One of the bad parts about my flutter incident is that i can't accurately
>report how fast I was going. I had just installed lexan side panels to
>my cockpit and had not yet routed the airspeed static port to a new and
>improved static location. (the new lexan side panels probably cause a
>drop in pressure at the current static port location, which would probably
>give me a falsely high reading). However, I do know that I was under Vne
>(90mph) as this happened in level, sustained full power flight Rotax
>447SC. Rough checks w/ a GPS in poor conditions indicate my IAS might
>be ~5mph high at cruise speed, and 1mph high at stall.
>
>So C'mon, What Happened?!!:
>I had just departed a UL fly-in (Turlock) and came around for a high-speed
>fly-by before heading home. I was indicating 85 descending and turning
>final, and added throttle to keep ~85 as I leveled out and zoomed down the
>runway at ~100' agl. I assume 85 really probably meant about 80 TAS.
>At 3/4 runway (2000 foot strip) I started a gradual pull-up and felt
>the sudden vibration. First thought: how the hell can the wheels be
>shimmying now?! I immediately pulled the throttle at first notice and
>was looking out to the side and saw the aileron doing very bad things.
>The plane was slowing quickly w/ no throttle and my slightly back stick.
>[Felt like a Reno race emergency maneuver as I think back :-) ] The
>flutter stopped in just a couple seconds and I came around at a TLC speed,
>landed, felt terribly embarrassed, and checked everything out thoroughly.
>Nothing amiss, and I flew 2 hours home.
>
>Possible Causes:
>1. My plane is just an odd-ball. Hand-made, uncertified, you know.
>
>2. the new side panels conform pretty darn well to the shape of
> the main bulkhead. I guess airflow might be pretty clean relative
> to no side panels ...maybe this aerodynamic difference matters.
>
>3. sustained speed. I was at max full power speed for several seconds.
> I've been faster before, but only briefly. (I had gone to full power
> level flight for a few seconds earlier on the flight down to marvel
> at how well the side panels eliminated cockpit wind ---winter flying
> will be easy :-) ) For a sustained period there is plenty of time
> reasonable to expect the wings to stay where you like them, there
> may be some propensity to flutter at a lower speed and we will find
> if we fly that speed often enf. Dennis punished the early planes
> severely to find their limits. But now, i really gotta wonder how
> many FS KXPs, KXs, original recipe, and ultrastars, cleaned up with
> all the trimmins (high aspect high pitch prop, streamline struts,
> streamlined canopy, streamlined front engine cowling) have sat in
> a 10-15 second ~80mph full power run. Not enf to prove flutter
> can't happen, cuz I've only done this once and I proved it can.
>
>4. One suspicious little area on the KXP (to me) is the distance from
> the last aileron hinge to the end of the aileron. On a KXP it is
> 22"; on all other pre-current FS and probably UStars, it is 18".
> This last 22" of aileron flexes at the leading edge with very little
> force. I'm suspicious that flutter could have started out here.
> If it does, this may also narrow the pool of early FS and Ustars
>
>My Plan:
>1. Fix my IAS. ...does that rhyme with somethin?
>2. Kolb is sending me material to add another 6" of hinge at the outer
> ends. This will rule Cause #4 in or out. I'll fly it again (carefully)
> to see if i can reproduce the flutter. If I cannot, i'll remove the
> hinge and try again to hopefully really feel comfortable whether this
> was the problem.
>3. Add aileron counter-balances if #2 is unsatisfactory or if i just
> can't live with the flutter gremlin.
>
>Another option: add floats so I never have the opportunity to go fast
>anyway. naaah, not yet.
>
>Long post, so congratulations for reading this far. A word to the
>wise might be just to be prepared, assume anything is possible.
>Keep your hand on the throttle in *all* maneuvers. BRS's are nice.
>
> --------|--------
> Ben Ransom (*)
> Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
> http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
>
>-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying |
> Any other opinions or can someone site the regulation governing
> transponders?
>
> Ron B.
I looked it up and found that I was at least partially mistaken. There is a rule
in 91.215 that requires a transponder above 10,000 ft but not for planes with no
electrical system. The electrical system exclusion is the part I didn't know
about. I guess I'm legal, but since I live at sea level, 10,000 is a long way
up.
Rusty
from 91.215:
(5) All aircraft except any aircraft which was not originally
certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently
been certified with such a system installed, balloon, or glider----
(i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of
Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500
feet above the surface; and
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying -Reply |
This may be inappropriate and for that I will apologize but....
On a flight from Michigan to Central Florida I flew along for most of the
time at 8,500 ft and enjoyed the smooth air, spectacular view, and great
ground speed. As I got into Florida a change in wind speed required me to
change my heading from 181 degrees to 178 degrees, yes I know I should
have changed my cruising altitude but I liked were I was and how much
difference can 3 degrees make. A few minutes later a radar controller that
was providing flight following got all over my case about being at the
wrong altitude. I changed to 7,500 to keep everyone happy. As I was
retriming and releaning the plane I was warned of oncoming traffic. I
watched in disbelief as a forked tailed doctor killer approached EXACTLY
at my altitude with a closure rate of over 300 mph. He passed in front me
but close enough to see two LARGE sets of eyes in the front of the other
cockpit. I suspect their seats were wet also. I came close to death but at
least I would have been legal. I never really cared for the grouping of
aircraft in our large sky into tight little bands and I like it even less
now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Howard G. Penny" <penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se> |
| Subject: | RE: high altitude flying -Reply |
Do not change altitude because of wind correction angle. They are based on
true heading.
Howard G. Penny EAA # 168877
Raleigh, NC Kolb SlingShot # SS-007 N96969 res.
penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se Sonerai IILS # 0010
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hpenny
/* --------------------------------------------------------- */
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Neilsen [SMTP:neilsenr(at)state.mi.us]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 1997 2:39 PM
To: kolb(at)intrig.com
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: high altitude flying -Reply
This may be inappropriate and for that I will apologize but....
On a flight from Michigan to Central Florida I flew along for most of the
time at 8,500 ft and enjoyed the smooth air, spectacular view, and great
ground speed. As I got into Florida a change in wind speed required me to
change my heading from 181 degrees to 178 degrees, yes I know I should have
changed my cruising altitude but I liked were I was and how much difference
can 3 degrees make. A few minutes later a radar controller that was
providing flight following got all over my case about being at the wrong
altitude. I changed to 7,500 to keep everyone happy. As I was retriming and
releaning the plane I was warned of oncoming traffic. I watched in
disbelief as a forked tailed doctor killer approached EXACTLY at my
altitude with a closure rate of over 300 mph. He passed in front me but
close enough to see two LARGE sets of eyes in the front of the other
cockpit. I suspect their seats were wet also. I came close to death but at
least I would have been legal. I never really cared for the grouping of
aircraft in our large sky into tight little bands and I like it even less
now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald G. Blaylock" <rgbsr(at)aimnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying |
On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Russell Duffy wrote:
>
> I looked it up and found that I was at least partially mistaken. There is a
rule
> in 91.215 that requires a transponder above 10,000 ft but not for planes with
no
> electrical system. The electrical system exclusion is the part I didn't know
> about. I guess I'm legal, but since I live at sea level, 10,000 is a long way
up.
>
> Rusty
>
Thanks for the below reference Rusty. Except that it doesn't apply to
ultralights and specifically says certificated aircraft in what you sited.
So those with "N" numbers may or may not require a transponder based on
whether you have an engine driven electrical system or not. I suppose my
Beaver with the Subaru engine would require a transponder at or above
10,00 MSL if it were registered.
Best regards,
Ron B.
>
> from 91.215:
>
> (5) All aircraft except any aircraft which was not originally
> certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently
> been certified with such a system installed, balloon, or glider----
> (i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of
> Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500
> feet above the surface; and
>
Ron Blaylock - AMSC USN (retired)
< ron.b(at)cheerful.com > Living in San Jose, California
< rblaylock(at)mail.arc.nasa.gov > Flying from Lodi, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald G. Blaylock" <rgbsr(at)aimnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying -Reply |
On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Richard Neilsen wrote:
The altitude is based on "course" not on "Heading". However, changing
heading can alter your course. If you are simply crabbing into the wind,
your heading may change but your course may not.
At least that's what I gather from reading the Private Pilot handbook. I
haven't read the governing FAR in a long time but I'm absolutely certain
it is the course and not the heading that requires the altitude change.
Just my thoughts. You could have also changed course with your heading
change.
Ron B.
Ron Blaylock - AMSC USN (retired)
< ron.b(at)cheerful.com > Living in San Jose, California
< rblaylock(at)mail.arc.nasa.gov > Flying from Lodi, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PROPJOCKEY <drcjones(at)mail.tstar.net> |
du>
I just checked out Ben Ransom's web page. SUPER NEAT!!! GREAT PICTURES !!
If you haven't checked it out yet, do it right away, you won't be sorry!
Ben, did you use a digital camera for the photos?
In case you don't still have his web address here it is:
> Ben Ransom
> Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu
> http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
Propjockey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Ben's web page |
On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, PROPJOCKEY wrote:
> I just checked out Ben Ransom's web page. SUPER NEAT!!! GREAT PICTURES !!
> Propjockey
once in awhile i offer bribes to get this sort of attention. ;-)
-Ben
ps: i use an original Olympus OM-1 (bought it in 1973?) with a 75-150 Olympus
zoom lens. i take the film to Longs for next day 4x6 prints and scan em
in. Thanks for the compliment!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank R Reynen <Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com> |
Lucien,
I had a similar noise develop in my 582 Rotax that went on for several hrs
before a conrod bearing burned up and stopped the engine in flight requiring
an emergency landing right after take off.
WARNING:Do not fly this plane untill you find out what is going on with that
engine. In my case it turned out to be caused by a malfunctioning oilpump/
checkvalve not feeding that cylinder the proper amount of oil.
If you are using the oilpump check that similar amounts of oil go to each
cylinder and check the CHT as it will tell you if you have lubrication
problems(your message did not indicated any CHT values)
Frank Reynen Mark-III@413hrs
http://www.webcom.com/reynen
Lucien,
It seems like I've read about noise like this, but I've never seen or heard it
myself. What I remember as the cause was one of the bearings in the engine.
Since
I know squat about the Rotax, hopefully on of our resident experts can comment
on
this possibility. How would you test for it? How common is it? Is it caused
by
something preventable?
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: aileron flutter |
Here is my two cents on the aileron flutter business. The preface is
that just about everything I know about he topic comes from Dennis at Kolb.
DO NOT fool yourself thinking that aileron flutter is a function of the
aileron being loosey-goosey on the hinges, or that additional inches of
hinges will solve the problem. As I understand it it has to do with the cente
r of gravity of the aileron itself , as distinct from the rest of the
aircraft. Tightening up the connection between the trailing edge of the wing
and the leading edge of the aileron WILL NOT solve the problem.
It is a very complex aerodynamic phenomenon. Apparently some kolbs will
flutter and some will not. The suspicion is that the greater or lesser
liklihood of flutter results from the builder to builder variation in
constructing the plane.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Russell Duffy wrote:
>
> In general, you have to have a transponder if you're above 10,000 ft MSL. There
> are a few exceptions to this around mountains. Also note that you must be on
an
> IFR flight plan to be above 18,000 ft over most of the continental US. This
won't
> be a problem for most of us :-)
>
> VFR cruising altitudes rule as you stated begins at 3000 ft. If your in level
> cruise flight with a magnetic course of 0-179 degrees, you fly at odd
> thousands+500ft (3500, 5500, etc.). From 180-359 degrees, fly even thousands+500
> ft (4500, 6500, etc). I believe the IFR traffic uses mostly even and odd thousands
> to give at least 500 ft separation. BTW- thanks for making me look this up again,
> I had forgotten some of the details.
>
> These rules are for registered aircraft. Are UL's required by regulation to
follow
> any of these rules?
>
> Rusty
>
Rusty,
Ultralights are not required to follow the rules that you mentioned
here. Ultralights do need permission for Class A airspace, 18,000 ft and
above. I haven't tried for that yet.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | amphibious /4stroke kolb |
I recently acquired a Twinstar Mkll.
I have access to a supplier of an aluminum hull, tandem seat, retractable
gear, 1000lb. gross wt. capacity, that appears quite feasible to adapt to
my Mkll. Anyone been down this road before?
How about a 4-stroke auto/motorcycle conversion for a twinstar- is
anything out there flying?
I sure would appreciate your input! Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
(/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.16 #30.203) with smtp for
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying |
>snip....I >rarely get above 3000. The only time I do is in the
>sailplanes, when the lift takes me up for free.
>Tell me what I am missing!!!.
In Texas during the summer, cooler air!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | FS II seat wanted. |
Help! My Firestar II is about done and I need a pilot seat. If
anyone has an original Firestar I/II pilot seat that they are willing to
sell, please contact me at jrjung(at)execpc.com. I want the web seat that
Kolb no longer provides and is replaced by aluminum in the plans. Is
their someone that has upgraded theirs and has the original seat laying
around?
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank R Reynen <Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Checking oil pump |
Frank,
>If you are using the oilpump check that similar amounts of oil go to each
>cylinder
Do you check this by removing the carb air cleaners and turning over the
engine (maybe spark plugs removed to make it easy) while looking into the
carb throats with carb pistons raised to see how much actual oil is being
pumped into each carb throat?
Later,
--
Hi Cliff,
That is the same procedure I usefor routine inspection. Start with removing any
residual oil in the throats and turn the engine over for 10-15 seconds to get
enough oil to see any difference .
After my 4 months winter storage I even remove the carbs to get a better look
at it.This procedure is a must if you have disturbed /removed the oilpump
/checkvalve or suction line for any reason.
Frank Reynen MarkIII@413hrs
http://www.webcom.com/reynen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | matthew nisbet <mnisbet(at)prairienet.com> |
| Subject: | Delivery time, etc. |
Someone wrote:
"I'm thinking about ordering the wing/tail kit for the Mark III. How long
does it take from when I place my order until I get the kit (I live in
central Indiana)? I asked KOLB the same question (via e-mail) but haven't
got a reply yet."
I did not receive the request at our main email address: DLSOUDER(at)aol.com
Probably the request was sent to the flykolb(at)epix.net address. This is an
infrequently accessed address at another location. The best email address to
use is: DLSOUDER(at)aol.com
Answer is: For a Kit A, typically 4 - 6 weeks
Dennis Souder
President
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | matthew nisbet <mnisbet(at)prairienet.com> |
| Subject: | Delivery time, etc. |
Someone wrote:
"I'm thinking about ordering the wing/tail kit for the Mark III. How long
does it take from when I place my order until I get the kit (I live in
central Indiana)? I asked KOLB the same question (via e-mail) but haven't
got a reply yet."
I did not receive the request at our main email address: DLSOUDER(at)aol.com
Probably the request was sent to the flykolb(at)epix.net address. This is an
infrequently accessed address at another location. The best email address to
use is: DLSOUDER(at)aol.com
Answer is: For a Kit A, typically 4 - 6 weeks
Dennis Souder
President
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | matthew nisbet <mnisbet(at)prairienet.com> |
| Subject: | Delivery time, etc. |
Someone wrote:
"I'm thinking about ordering the wing/tail kit for the Mark III. How long
does it take from when I place my order until I get the kit (I live in
central Indiana)? I asked KOLB the same question (via e-mail) but haven't
got a reply yet."
I did not receive the request at our main email address: DLSOUDER(at)aol.com
Probably the request was sent to the flykolb(at)epix.net address. This is an
infrequently accessed address at another location. The best email address to
use is: DLSOUDER(at)aol.com
Answer is: For a Kit A, typically 4 - 6 weeks
Dennis Souder
President
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: aileron flutter |
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com wrote:
> Ben, or should we address you as Test Pilot from now on.
I'm not excited about testing, altho at the same time I'm confident
i'm not doing anything beyond reasonble risk.
>
> 1. Do you have a parachute on board.
Yes.
> 2. Testing for flutter -
> First I am not an expert at this but the procedure the RV-6 builders
> use goes something like below. Verify it with others before using it.
Thanks... Russell Duffy mentioned this about the RVs also. I was a
little surprised to see a kit vendor recommending such a potentially
catastrophic test procedure. I have a lot of confidence that the speed
bleeds off very quickly in a Kolb. This is from experience and it makes
sense, being these planes are so lightly loaded (no inertia). Also, I know
that all Firestar aileron occurrances to date have produced no damage.
To give it a go in a higher wing loaded plane like an RV, where a
flutter might remove wings before the flutter itself dissapates sounds
much scarier to me, not to mention the idea of bailing out at 200mph.
However, better to find it before it finds you, or just go rent 172s.
> Myself I am not to sure I would go back and remove the hinge and try
> to make it do it again if you install the hinge and find it appears to
> have solved the affect. Most people are happy to have lived through
> the first incident and lack any desire to try to repeat it.
We'll see how I feel at the time. Just as likely I'll get flutter
again with the added hinge.
> Now I am concerned with our FireFly. It has a very long and deep
> aileron. Someone (email nickname of propwash I believe) had mentioned
I personally think your concern is reasonble, altho i've never even
seen a Firefly. I now would be concerned about potential flutter in
all non-aileron-balanced Kolbs in sustained ~80+mph flight regimes.
*** Just like the RVs, it may be appropriate for every finished kit to
be tested for it. ***
By now I'm beginning to think that it is difficult to design an aileron
big enf to be effective at 27mph and small enf to not flutter at 80mph.
I've gotten several posts advising that more hinge will do nothing
to reduce flutter potential. In general, I acknowledge that. However,
since flutter starts in my plane by some odd event during a sustained
speed run, i'm hoping to find and eliminate the odd event. The KXP
is a little unusual among Kolbs in that it has the greatest amount of
unsupported aileron at the tip (as far as I know). I'm hoping this more
flexible aileron tip is the oddity that starts the flutter. Another
related possible cause would be if the 4 hinges were evenly spaced.
They aren't (I'm assuming by design), but if they were, a flexion at
one point could excite a harmonic wobble at the hinge midpoints to set
off flutter. This of course is my PE (Pseudo-Engineer) opinion only.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry C. Wortman" <hwortman(at)datasys.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Fuel System |
What about a dual fuel system as a safety factor? Maybe have complete
but separate fuel systems for each carb. Partial power better than no
power.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: FS II seat wanted. |
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:40:44
From: Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: FS II seat wanted.
>Help! My Firestar II is about done and I need a pilot seat. If
>anyone has an original Firestar I/II pilot seat that they are willing to
>sell, please contact me at jrjung(at)execpc.com. I want the web seat that
>Kolb no longer provides and is replaced by aluminum in the plans. Is
>their someone that has upgraded theirs and has the original seat laying
>around?
>John Jung
>-
>
>
I have two original Kolb Mark 111 black web seats. I do not know if they
are the same as the Firestar seats. They were never installed. I did my
own thing and built my own seats. Send me an e-mail if interested.
Kim Steiner
Saskatchewan, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying -Reply |
>This may be inappropriate and for that I will apologize but....
>
>On a flight from Michigan to Central Florida I flew along for most of the
time at 8,500 ft and enjoyed the smooth air, spectacular view, and great
ground speed. As I got into Florida a change in wind speed required me to
change my heading from 181 degrees to 178 degrees, yes I know I should have
changed my cruising altitude but I liked were I was and how much difference
can 3 degrees make. A few minutes later a radar controller that was
providing flight following got all over my case about being at the wrong
altitude. I changed to 7,500 to keep everyone happy. As I was retriming and
releaning the plane I was warned of oncoming traffic. I watched in disbelief
as a forked tailed doctor killer approached EXACTLY at my altitude with a
closure rate of over 300 mph. He passed in front me but close enough to see
two LARGE sets of eyes in the front of the other cockpit. I suspect their
seats were wet also. I came close to death but at least I would have been
legal. I never really cared for the grouping of aircraft in our large sky
into tight little bands and I like it even less now.
>-
Having been a controller long enough to be eligible to retire, can I
put in $.02 worth? Most controllers have never been "Airwolfed" by a
Jetranger (around this part of the country, they are the state bird) or
cold-nosed by a Bonanza, and don't realize just how undesirable that
particular adrenaline rush is. If you like your particular altitude and
don't want to change it for only 1 or 2 degrees, here's what you do: The
altitude is determined by course, not heading, and if the controller
questions it, tell him/her that your course is (fill in the blank) , and
therefore you are still at the appropriate altitude. If that doesn't shut
him/her up, your options are largely determined by your sense of humor, and
how many ratings you want to risk. I prefer the "green-toothed-wood-hick"
routine, although the "Tri-Pacer-from-Hell" bit (says "Roger" to everything
and complies with nothing) is also very effective. Be sure not to actually
commit any violations, and if this blows up in your face, I know nothing.
Seriously, you'd be surprised how many times I see two VFR targets
converge, one at the legal altitude, one totally not, neither one talking to
ATC, and they surely had to scare each other badly. Now both start pushing
the IDENT button. What's the point? Don't assume that everyone else in the
sky is getting advisories, and ATC will tell them about your VFR target.
Every one else is working on the same premise.
The even-odd thing starts at 3,000' AGL, not MSL. Part 91.159
Transponders are required above 10,000', unless you have never had,
and still dont't have, an engine driven electrical system. Part 91.215
Two seaters need elt's. Single seaters don't. Part 91.207
Part 103 Ultralights don't have to comply with the even-odd thing,
or transponders, because ultralights are not required to have any particular
equipment. (BTW, that is why most ATC radar controllers are reluctant to
work ultralights. Even if you have a radio, and seem knowledgeable, how can
ATC assign headings and altitudes to a guy that is not required to have a
compass or an altimeter? That is why ultralights are always referred to in
the regs as vehicles, not aircraft. Nothing in the FAR 7110.65, the
controllers handbook, refers to vehicles, period. But I always give an
ultralight on the frequency traffic advisories, and most of the good guys will.)
Flutter: The rudder on my MKIII has a nav light on the trailing
edge. BAD IDEA. Keep the weight OFF that trailing edge. There is no slop in
the rudder hinge assembly, but until I put a Firestar type counterbalance
into the top of the front rudder tube, pointing forward, that puppy would
shake the whole airplane like a rag if I eased pressure off the rudder
pedals with my feet. As far as I know I am the one that came up with the bit
of using the stainless steel elevator front hinges on the aileron ends. But
that is no cure for bad balance. Flutter can be caused by slop. But a lack
of slop will not cure unbalanced control surfaces.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
TRI-CITY ATCT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying -Reply |
>This may be inappropriate and for that I will apologize but....
>
>On a flight from Michigan to Central Florida I flew along for most of the
time at 8,500 ft and enjoyed the smooth air, spectacular view, and great
ground speed. As I got into Florida a change in wind speed required me to
change my heading from 181 degrees to 178 degrees, yes I know I should have
changed my cruising altitude but I liked were I was and how much difference
can 3 degrees make. A few minutes later a radar controller that was
providing flight following got all over my case about being at the wrong
altitude. I changed to 7,500 to keep everyone happy. As I was retriming and
releaning the plane I was warned of oncoming traffic. I watched in disbelief
as a forked tailed doctor killer approached EXACTLY at my altitude with a
closure rate of over 300 mph. He passed in front me but close enough to see
two LARGE sets of eyes in the front of the other cockpit. I suspect their
seats were wet also. I came close to death but at least I would have been
legal. I never really cared for the grouping of aircraft in our large sky
into tight little bands and I like it even less now.
>-
Having been a controller long enough to be eligible to retire, can I
put in $.02 worth? Most controllers have never been "Airwolfed" by a
Jetranger (around this part of the country, they are the state bird) or
cold-nosed by a Bonanza, and don't realize just how undesirable that
particular adrenaline rush is. If you like your particular altitude and
don't want to change it for only 1 or 2 degrees, here's what you do: The
altitude is determined by course, not heading, and if the controller
questions it, tell him/her that your course is (fill in the blank) , and
therefore you are still at the appropriate altitude. If that doesn't shut
him/her up, your options are largely determined by your sense of humor, and
how many ratings you want to risk. I prefer the "green-toothed-wood-hick"
routine, although the "Tri-Pacer-from-Hell" bit (says "Roger" to everything
and complies with nothing) is also very effective. Be sure not to actually
commit any violations, and if this blows up in your face, I know nothing.
Seriously, you'd be surprised how many times I see two VFR targets
converge, one at the legal altitude, one totally not, neither one talking to
ATC, and they surely had to scare each other badly. Now both start pushing
the IDENT button. What's the point? Don't assume that everyone else in the
sky is getting advisories, and ATC will tell them about your VFR target.
Every one else is working on the same premise.
The even-odd thing starts at 3,000' AGL, not MSL. Part 91.159
Transponders are required above 10,000', unless you have never had,
and still dont't have, an engine driven electrical system. Part 91.215
Two seaters need elt's. Single seaters don't. Part 91.207
Part 103 Ultralights don't have to comply with the even-odd thing,
or transponders, because ultralights are not required to have any particular
equipment. (BTW, that is why most ATC radar controllers are reluctant to
work ultralights. Even if you have a radio, and seem knowledgeable, how can
ATC assign headings and altitudes to a guy that is not required to have a
compass or an altimeter? That is why ultralights are always referred to in
the regs as vehicles, not aircraft. Nothing in the FAR 7110.65, the
controllers handbook, refers to vehicles, period. But I always give an
ultralight on the frequency traffic advisories, and most of the good guys will.)
Flutter: The rudder on my MKIII has a nav light on the trailing
edge. BAD IDEA. Keep the weight OFF that trailing edge. There is no slop in
the rudder hinge assembly, but until I put a Firestar type counterbalance
into the top of the front rudder tube, pointing forward, that puppy would
shake the whole airplane like a rag if I eased pressure off the rudder
pedals with my feet. As far as I know I am the one that came up with the bit
of using the stainless steel elevator front hinges on the aileron ends. But
that is no cure for bad balance. Flutter can be caused by slop. But a lack
of slop will not cure unbalanced control surfaces.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
TRI-CITY ATCT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: amphibious /4stroke kolb |
<< I recently acquired a Twinstar Mkll.
I have access to a supplier of an aluminum hull, tandem seat, retractable
gear, 1000lb. gross wt. capacity, that appears quite feasible to adapt to
my Mkll. Anyone been down this road before?
How about a 4-stroke auto/motorcycle conversion for a twinstar- is
anything out there flying?
I sure would appreciate your input! Thanks >>
Just keep saying over and over to yourself: 750 lb. gross weight .... 750 lb.
gross weight .... 750 lb. gross weight. It has been my experience that if
you say something often enough - eventually you will start believing it.
;-)
Sound more appropriate for a Mark-III, but not even the Mark-III's 1000 lb.
GW would allow much payload with the amphib & 4-stroke installation.
Allow me to introduce Richard to the group. Richard has done some amazing
things with his UltraStar. H installed a Rotax 447 with 60" prop and
flaperons to boot!!! We nicked named his UltraStar daddy long legs. If
anyone could put pull off the above modifications it would be Richard.
Keep on dreaming Richard!
Dennis Souder
Pres Kolb Aircraft
P.S. Good to hear from you again!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Brass Collar Shims |
To all,
I did something that I doubt has any effect on flutter. I will mention it
anyway, because I like a nice tight system. Do all of you have just a
little bit of wiggle in your stick right to left due to the fact the the
bolt hole in the stick and the bolt does not fit perfectly. I made some
brass collars to use as shims that I slipped into each hole end so that when
the bolt is installed the collars fill the gap between the bolt and the hole
in the stick and make the stick rock solid left to right.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (33.4 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: High Altitude |
I thought that ultralights are supposed to follow all VFR rules and I assumed
thats the altitude/heading/requirments also. If not, its just plane a good
idea. I would hate to get run over at altitude by someone else.
my 2 cents worth.
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: age-old debate: crowhops |
<< This may be true. I've never heard of crowhops being taught by flight
instructors
in certified planes, and the FAA "should" know more about the safe methods
of
training than we do. The most vulnerable time in a plane is when you're on
the
ground at flying speeds. Why would you want to prolong this? In my mind,
it's
asking for trouble.
Crowhops- Just say no :-)
Rusty
>>
Yes, well put, that you ARE asking for trouble, and where best to have that
trouble than when you are only 2 feet off the ground at low speed. The most
dangerous part of flying is near the ground when you can get hurt. Why not
"take care of that business first". Accidents seem to almost always happen on
"firsts", first flight, first high speed, first landing at a different field,
first.....anything. Shouldn't the first thing you learn in a plane be the
most dangerous, namely how to deal with the ground?
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
by r1.boston.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.6.Beta0/2.0.kim) with ESMTP id VAAAA05633
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying -Reply |
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>This may be inappropriate and for that I will apologize but....
>
>On a flight from Michigan to Central Florida I flew along for most of
>the
>time at 8,500 ft and enjoyed the smooth air, spectacular view, and
>great
>ground speed. As I got into Florida a change in wind speed required me
>to
>change my heading from 181 degrees to 178 degrees, yes I know I should
>=
>have changed my cruising altitude but I liked were I was and how much
>=
>difference can 3 degrees make. A few minutes later a radar controller
>that
>was providing flight following got all over my case about being at the
>=
>wrong altitude. I changed to 7,500 to keep everyone happy. As I was
>retriming and releaning the plane I was warned of oncoming traffic. I
>=
>watched in disbelief as a forked tailed doctor killer approached
>EXACTLY
>at my altitude with a closure rate of over 300 mph. He passed in front
>me
>but close enough to see two LARGE sets of eyes in the front of the
>other
>cockpit. I suspect their seats were wet also. I came close to death
>but at
>least I would have been legal. I never really cared for the grouping
>of
>aircraft in our large sky into tight little bands and I like it even
>less
>now.
>-
Richard,
Just gotta ask, what (if any) comments were made between the Bonanza and
ATC following this? I strongly suspect the controller jumped on your case
because of your slow speed and small radar signature. Some controllers
seem to forget that their salary comes from all of us, not just Bonanza
drivers and commercial operators. Our club has been visited by a couple
FAA management types (for speaking purposes, not enforcement) and we were
encouraged to report any rude treatment or incorrect instructions by ATC
to upper management. Maybe it was just 'apple polishing' but I got the
feeling they really want to know about any bad experiences.
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying |
<< You are missing the fantastic view, being able to see for 50 miles or
more in every direction, or the sun hitting the tops of cumulus clouds.
It may only be worth going high when the weather is just right, but for
me, my most memorable flights have been to high altitudes. And when I
say high, 3500' or 4500' is a crusing altitude in warm weather. High
starts at 7000'. I have been to 7500' in an Eagle XL, 10,500' in a
Falcon UL, and 17,000' in a Firestar KX with a 377. It's not more
dangerous, it's just colder. So fly high in summer and dress for winter.
John Jung
- >>
I agree with both of you, it is scary and it is great!, The highest I ever
went was 8500' in an old pterodactyl in '87 but it was such an overwhelming
experience I'll never forget it. The thing that I recall the most vividly
was the quiet, solemnity, when I put the engine on idle,for short times.
There was no form of life evidence, not even a bug. No sound, or much to see,
just the cloud wisps that beckoned.
So far in my Kolb KX which I've had since '92 I've only been to 5500' AGL and
just started to get that "lonely" feeling as even the ground begins to
disappear.(Ohio).
I have been as high as 14200 in a dual glider in Las Cruzes in '79, and
just started to feel some nausea, but I did not get that utterly, completely
"lonely'" feeling as the flight was dual. Of course the lift over there is
phenomenal as the "sand bounces off the bottom of your wings" on the way up.
I understand the fear part, even though there doesn't seem to be any real
justification for it other than "lonliness" FAA says 12500 is OK for 1/2 hour
without Oxygen, as I recall.
Go ahead, try it. You'll never forget it. GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
Hi all,
I went to the Evergreen fly-in this weekend (by car) and there was only on
Kolb there. Of all things, it was a Flyer. The owner told me it was 18.5
years old and he had no idea who built it. He had built a nose cone of
sorts for it out of who knows what. This was about the scariest plane I've
ever seen. I can't believe this guy's flying it. I've got nothing against
the design, in fact, I'm intrigued by the twin engines, but it looked like
it hadn't had ANY maintenance since it was built. The guy told me he had
been in single engine mode 6 times due to failures, and that if the temp was
below 85, he could maintain altitude. I took some pictures. If anyone
wants them, I'll email them to you.
No SS flying this weekend I'm afraid. Wind gusting to 25 knots today :-(
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K (2.9 hours)
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tswartz(at)prolog.net (Terry Swartz) |
What a week it has been! Went to Kolb for some dual time in a Mark III on
Monday. Got in one hr. before it got too gusty. Went back the next day and
had perfect weather. We did take off and landings for 2 hr. straight. At
that point Dan said I was ready. Wednesday I got my BFR in a C-172 the day
after flying the M III. Seemed like the 172 would never get going and get
off the ground. Thrusday, had to play a round of golf in a Charity
tournoment, a four man scramble which our team one BTW. Friday, a DAR
inspected my M III and it passed with not even a label missing. Saturday
was a perfect day, so I moved my plane to private 1800 ft. grass strip and
started taxing. After about an hour, I was tired of that and was ready to
fly. Had to wait till my two sons got home from work. By now its 4:00 pm
and the weather is perfect so I lined it up and headed for the sky. What a
ride! That 912 will get you up in a hurry. Went up to 3000 ft. and did all
the turning exercises and stalls which I found to be a 35 IAS. Went in for
my first landing which turned out to be very smooth and uneventfull, thanks
to Dan. BTW, I strongly recommend some dual time first. I have a private
ticket and a couple hundred hr.s in a Weedhopper but a pusher with a 912 and
a high thrust line could get you in trouble. Anyway, I put 3.1 hr on the
hobbs on Sat. with 8 landings. Dennis from Kolb dropped in with the
Slingshot to see how things were going, "Thanks Dennis for all your help and
a great flying airplane." Sunday was great weather again and I got another
2.4 hrs in and 5 landings. All the landings were fine except for one that
was a little sloppy. I tried to set her down with a little too much speed
and of course it just came back up off the gound. Anyway, it's been a fun
week. My wife and kids can't wait till I get my 40 hrs in.
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: high altitude flying -Reply |
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
<-snip->
> Having been a controller long enough to be eligible to retire,
>can I
>put in $.02 worth?
<-snip->
Woops!, ...uhh sorry Richard, Please note I did say 'some' not 'all'
(actually ...hardley any). And BTW, next time me and some friends are
invited to an airshow inside controlled airspace, you won't mention this,
...will you?
-Mick (shamelessly groveling) Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Swihart <mswihart(at)tcsn.net> |
| Subject: | 503 Bing Carb boot(?) |
I hope I called this part correctly. Did a run up on my TwinStar that my
friend and I are restoring and before firing up the 503 for the first time
since '94; came across something to mention to the group.
I had tighten the two clamps on the rubber boot that attaches the Bing
carb to intake very snuggly and as
an after-thought I grabbed the carb and it started to slip off the intake
(with little force) to my surprise. I gotta couple of Q's to hit y'all with:
Is this boot suppose to do this?
Is the carb supposed to be safety wired to engine?
How often should this part be replaced?
BTW the engine runs fine. (The old oak tree wasn't going to let plane go
anywhere. :)
I also went ahead and ordered a new boot since this is probably the orignal
boot and
there is a doubt in my mind as far safety and the part's MTBF.
Mark Swihart
TwinStar #46
Paso Robles Ultralight Association
You can find my web kolb page (under construction)at:
<http://webs.tcsn.net/mswihart/kolb.htm>
"Be careful down there on Earth. It's awful close to the ground, and
somebody could get hurt."
-- Astronaut David Wolf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
<< By now its 4:00 pm
and the weather is perfect so I lined it up and headed for the sky. What a
ride! That 912 will get you up in a hurry. Went up to 3000 ft. and did all
the turning exercises and stalls which I found to be a 35 IAS. Went in for
my first landing which turned out to be very smooth and uneventfull, thanks
to Dan. >>
Terry had on tap one of the most beautiful afternoons one could ever have for
a first flight - perfectly clear and calm.
In Proverbs it says: "let your praise come from the mouth of another." Let
me toot Terry's horn for him. Terry has built one very nice Mark-III. He
also has done some very nice custom work, like adapting the VLS parachute and
added a panel to the floor board area housing all the switches and placing
them at a very easy to reach position. Terry pays lots of attention to
little details - not a surprise the inspector could find no faults. He has
also achieved one of the better paint finishes using Poly-Tone paint that I
have ever seen - very nice.
Terry also let me fly it and ... it flew just as beautifully as it looks!
Good work Terry!
Dennis Souder
Pres Kolb Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
Hi all,
I just looked in my trusty Rotax 503 operators manual at the "normal"
operating range for CHT and EGT. During climb at about 6500 rpm, I have an
EGT of around 1000 and a CHT of 370. These are both within the normal
ranges given for EGT (860-1080, 1200 max) and CHT (355-430, 480 max).
However, during cruise, the EGT is 1060 and the CHT is 290. Is this low CHT
a bad thing? Does it indicate that I'm under-propped, and producing less
power than normal at this rpm?
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K (7.0 troublefree hours so far)
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Russell Duffy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just looked in my trusty Rotax 503 operators manual at the "normal"
> operating range for CHT and EGT. During climb at about 6500 rpm, I have an
> EGT of around 1000 and a CHT of 370. These are both within the normal
> ranges given for EGT (860-1080, 1200 max) and CHT (355-430, 480 max).
> However, during cruise, the EGT is 1060 and the CHT is 290. Is this low CHT
> a bad thing? Does it indicate that I'm under-propped, and producing less
> power than normal at this rpm?
>
FWIW, my 447 is always <300 during cruise. ~250 front cyl, 280 rear.
I've assumed it is fine. As for under-propped, i guess we're all
underpropped at cruise unless using (properly) an in-flight adj prop.
Load that prop up and temps, speeds should both go up. Maybe you could
experiment by going to a slightly exagerated high pitch and seeing what
happens to CHT and IAS at cruise. (obviously climb rate will suffer.)
I see other places in the rotax op manual where they don't really update
info... i.e. all the big X's on the point ignition pages even 2 years
after converting to cdi. I think the experience base will show your
cruise temps are fine.
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>
>Did you know that there was an oil just made for ultralights? It is Liquid
Power by Manhattan Oil Co. the makers of Power Plus+ 2 Cycle Oil. Liquid
Power is 100% Synthetic Deposit Free oil. Have you noticed that build up
around your head pipe? Liquid Power is a very clean burning oil that won't
cause all that build up. The following is some info on Liquid Power. Power
Plus+ is a synthetic/castor 50-50 blend
>for those that like to use castor. I can also send you some info on it you
like.
>___________________________________________________________________________
________
>
>LIQUID POWER
>100% SYNTHETIC
>Deposit Free
>2 CYCLE OIL
>
>
>GREAT CHERRY SCENT
>
> =09
>Liquid Power is a revolutionary synthetic 2 cycle motor oil developed by
Manhattan Oil. Its superior capability of reducing friction gives the
ultimate in protection (equal to castor) and allows engines to develop more
power, translating into quicker lap times. The clean combustion of Liquid
Power is unmatched.
>
>It eliminates plug fouling and dirty deposits and allows CC=92s to be set=
to
the limit, giving an additional "Unfair Advantage"
>
>INSTRUCTIONS
>Water cooled, air cooled, water craft, motorcycles, and ultralights use at
45:1 to 50:1.
>
>NOTE: For gasoline use only.
>
>Liquid Power is made here in the USA by Manhattan Oil Co. The price is
$6.00 per bottle or $5.50 when you buy a case(12 per case).
>
>I also offer these other products from the makers of Power Plus+:
>
>=B7 20W50 Synthetic Motor Oil
>=B7 Synthetic Gear Oil 75W
>=B7 Liquid Horsepower--Octane Boost/Fuel Stabilizer
>
>Please feel free to contact me for further information or ordering.
>
>
>
>
>Todd Pounds
>jpounds(at)teclink.net
>
I encourage anyone who asks me in the NE Tenn area to use Phillips
66 Injex 2-cycle oil. No one that I know around here has ever, I say again,
ever cooked a Rotax on Injex, it is $1.35 a quart, and it is readily=
available.
I do not think castor oil is a good idea in 2-strokes. If it gets
too hot, it solidifies around the rings, sticks them in place, and promptly
cooks the piston. Castor oil does permit more power, but I do not feel it is
worth the risk.
Anybody who would spend $6 a quart on oil needs to have their head
examined.
Since I do not appreciate unsolicited ads on my e-mail, I will be
distributing your ad and my opinion of it on the kolb bbs.
Richard Pike
Technical Counselor EAA 442
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tswartz(at)prolog.net (Terry Swartz) |
Hello All
It's been lots of fun flying the Mark III, especially with days like
yesterday. Weather was prefect and I logged 7.3 hrs starting a little
before 7 AM until a little after 5 PM. Had to shut it off a little for
potty breakes and refueling. Started the day flying with a fellow in a Mark
II for a couple of hrs to three different airports north of here. Then I was
on my own in the middle of the day and spent some time flying at 5500 ft.
which was out of the thermals and just above a haze layer, but it was a
little chilly. During that flight it came across the radio that a 210
crashed landed in a field about 3 mi north east of Smoketown airport so I
flew over to have a look. Smoketown is where I fly from and is in
southeastern Pa near Lancaster. The pilot of the 210 was a 54 year old
women and a male passinger. Both had minor injuries and were treated and
released which wasn't bad considering by the marks on the gound they made a
terrible landing. It looked like they made three big bounces landing
noseover and upside down on the last bounce and minus the nose gear. The
engine quit for some reason. Haven't heard why yet.
The last flight of the day was with a fellow in an ultrastar and another
fellow in a by-wing ultralight. I got to practice some slow flight with
these two, but it was no problem flying along at 50 - 60 IAS. They had to
take me to there favorite watering hole which was a small dinner in a little
town called Whitehorse. We landed in a hayfield behind the dinner, parked
and walked in.
I now have 29.6 hrs and 64 landings on my Mark III and I enjoy flying it
more all the time. My wife and kids have been on my case to fly everytime
the weather is ok. They can't wait till I have my 40 hrs. All I need is a
couple more nice days but it looks like were in for rain this weekend.
I fully enclosed the cabin last weekend with lexon cause it's getting a
little cold. It was 32 degrees when I took off yesterday morning. I still
felt a draft coming in under the seat and discovered it was coming in the
main tube. Has anybody tried to close the tube (Alaska pipe line) somehow?
A couple questions for you 912 owners.
What is your EGT on takeoff. Mine goes up to 1575. I can't find the max EGT
in my manual anywhere but several people I asked said 1600 was ok but 1700
was meltdown. I have my EIS set at 1575 and if it reaches that temp, I
throttle back which cools it right down. I'm usually at pattern altitude
and the end of the 2000 ft. runway by then anyway and the GA pilots are
standing on the ground with their mouths hanging open!
I have the 70 inch 3 blade Warp drive prop and I started with a pitch of 12
degrees and was getting 5320 RPM on climb out @ 55 IAS. I went to 11
degrees and was getting 5350 RPM and about the same on the EGT. Lately the
RPM is geting up to 5430, maybe it's starting to break in. Does this sound
about right? It seems like RPM should be up closer to 5800 which is red
line for the 912. Level flight at 5000 RPM (75% power) gives me 81 IAS.
My 912 runs a little rough from 3600 to 3950 RPM. I try to stay out of this
range. Does anybody else notice the same thing?
Sorry this got a little long. I don't have time to write when the weather
is nice so I'm making up for it now.
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
My applause, Richard! We need more like you (& me)
Ron Carroll
Independence, Oregon
>
>Did you know that there was an oil just made for ultralights? It is Liquid
Power by Manhattan Oil Co. the makers of Power Plus+ 2 Cycle Oil. Liquid
Power is 100% Synthetic Deposit Free oil. Have you noticed that build up
around your head pipe? Liquid Power is a very clean burning oil that won't
cause all that build up. The following is some info on Liquid Power. Power
Plus+ is a synthetic/castor 50-50 blend
>for those that like to use castor. I can also send you some info on it you
like.
>___________________________________________________________________________
________
>
>LIQUID POWER
>100% SYNTHETIC
>Deposit Free
>2 CYCLE OIL
>
>
>GREAT CHERRY SCENT
>
>
>Liquid Power is a revolutionary synthetic 2 cycle motor oil developed by
Manhattan Oil. Its superior capability of reducing friction gives the
ultimate in protection (equal to castor) and allows engines to develop more
power, translating into quicker lap times. The clean combustion of Liquid
Power is unmatched.
>
>It eliminates plug fouling and dirty deposits and allows CCs to be set to
the limit, giving an additional "Unfair Advantage"
>
>INSTRUCTIONS
>Water cooled, air cooled, water craft, motorcycles, and ultralights use at
45:1 to 50:1.
>
>NOTE: For gasoline use only.
>
>Liquid Power is made here in the USA by Manhattan Oil Co. The price is
$6.00 per bottle or $5.50 when you buy a case(12 per case).
>
>I also offer these other products from the makers of Power Plus+:
>
> 20W50 Synthetic Motor Oil
> Synthetic Gear Oil 75W
> Liquid Horsepower--Octane Boost/Fuel Stabilizer
>
>Please feel free to contact me for further information or ordering.
>
>
>
>
>Todd Pounds
>jpounds(at)teclink.net
>
I encourage anyone who asks me in the NE Tenn area to use Phillips
66 Injex 2-cycle oil. No one that I know around here has ever, I say again,
ever cooked a Rotax on Injex, it is $1.35 a quart, and it is readily
available.
I do not think castor oil is a good idea in 2-strokes. If it gets
too hot, it solidifies around the rings, sticks them in place, and promptly
cooks the piston. Castor oil does permit more power, but I do not feel it is
worth the risk.
Anybody who would spend $6 a quart on oil needs to have their head
examined.
Since I do not appreciate unsolicited ads on my e-mail, I will be
distributing your ad and my opinion of it on the kolb bbs.
Richard Pike
Technical Counselor EAA 442
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tswartz(at)prolog.net (Terry Swartz) |
Is there and automotive oil filter for the Rotax 912 or must you get OEM
oil filter from Rotax?
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HGRAFF <HGRAFF(at)aol.com> |
We have the standard Kolb hydraulic brake system and wonder whether to fill it
with aircraft type fluid or fill it with automotive brake fluid. The wrong
type usually attacks the rubber pistons.
Speaking of brakes, the Mark III allows for adjustment of rudder and brake
positions to accommodate various length legged people. Is this a static, one
time adjustment, or can it be adjusted after the rudder cables are attached?
I can't think myself through how a more dynamic position adjustment would work
with fixed cable lengths, even though the clasp positioning pins seem to hint
towards this.
Herb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com> |
<< just looked in my trusty Rotax 503 operators manual at the "normal"
operating range for CHT and EGT. During climb at about 6500 rpm, I have an
EGT of around 1000 and a CHT of 370. These are both within the normal
ranges given for EGT (860-1080, 1200 max) and CHT (355-430, 480 max).
However, during cruise, the EGT is 1060 and the CHT is 290. Is this low CHT
a bad thing? Does it indicate that I'm under-propped, and producing less
power than normal at this rpm? >>
With all this egt talk, I accidently looked at mine for the first time
seriously, and noticed it at 1400 on climbout at 6600 RPM and settling back
quickly to 1250 for cruise at 5500 RPM in my 447 Rotax driving Bygeorge the
Firestar KX. I know that I have 2 extra connections to my meter (extra
thermocouple actions) due to double splicing of the leads to copper wire, and
this could screw up my accuracy.
I guess I will watch that puppy more religiously from now on as it seems
to be reading too high, although it drops off fast at idle. GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>
>
>
>Speaking of brakes, the Mark III allows for adjustment of rudder and brake
>positions to accommodate various length legged people. Is this a static, one
>time adjustment, or can it be adjusted after the rudder cables are attached?
>I can't think myself through how a more dynamic position adjustment would work
>with fixed cable lengths, even though the clasp positioning pins seem to hint
>towards this.
>
>Herb
>
> The rudder pedal assembly can be moved to any of three positions.
The flat steel strip that attaches to the end of the rudder cables and is
bolted to the rudder pedals has holes the same distance apart as the pin
holes in the fuselage cage assy. Refer to page 57 of the blue builders book,
paragraph 2, make sure the rudder pedals are in the forwardmost position.
Paragraph 4, second, third, fourth line, install the tangs so that the tangs
are bolted to the rudder pedals through the forwardmost hole in the tangs.
Now is the time to figure out how long the rudder cables need to be, then
swage the nicos. Now if you move the ruder pedal assy back by one or two pin
holes, move the tangs to the corresponding hole back, and the rudder cable
length will stay the same.
As far as brake position, can't help you, just have a single hand
brake lever.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Kmet <110440.1247(at)compuserve.com> |
Guys, Does anyone know about how much a replacement rear cockpit wrap cos=
ts
? The one that velcros on to the back side of the Mark -3 to complete the=
full enclosure . Thanx,, Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
GeoR38 wrote:
> With all this egt talk, I accidently looked at mine for the first time
> seriously, and noticed it at 1400 on climbout at 6600 RPM and settling back
> quickly to 1250 for cruise at 5500 RPM in my 447 Rotax driving Bygeorge the
> Firestar KX. I know that I have 2 extra connections to my meter (extra
> thermocouple actions) due to double splicing of the leads to copper wire, and
> this could screw up my accuracy.
> I guess I will watch that puppy more religiously from now on as it seems
> to be reading too high, although it drops off fast at idle. GeoR38
I would like to offer my reaction to this, not meaning anything about
right or wrong but food for thought: If my observed my EGT at 1400 on
climbout, I would not do another climbout until I believed that the
problem was resolved. In my 9 years of ultralighting, I have learned
about too many accidents with a common scenerio. It goes like this. The
engine quits and the pilot is injured and plane damaged in the
emergency (crash) landing. When friends try to find out what might have
caused the engine to quit, it is found out that the piolt had been
getting warning signs for a long period of time and ignored them. I
suggest that there is a time that a pilot has to stop flying until
problems are fixed, not just assume that since thae engine hasn't quit
yet, the warning must not be real.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
George
It sounds like to me that your temp. is way too high !!!! I know that
their is a temp. difference with the splice to make your E.G.T. temp.
read high or low I don't know which one but I do know that if my
E.G.T. EVER gets that high that it would not be back in the air until I
was sure WHY it is up at that temp. When you find out what made it go
to 1400 deg. please let the group know.
RICK LIBERSAT N106RL
>writes:
>
><< just looked in my trusty Rotax 503 operators manual at the "normal"
> operating range for CHT and EGT. During climb at about 6500 rpm, I
>have an
> EGT of around 1000 and a CHT of 370. These are both within the
>normal
> ranges given for EGT (860-1080, 1200 max) and CHT (355-430, 480 max).
> However, during cruise, the EGT is 1060 and the CHT is 290. Is this
>low CHT
> a bad thing? Does it indicate that I'm under-propped, and producing
>less
> power than normal at this rpm? >>
>With all this egt talk, I accidently looked at mine for the first time
>seriously, and noticed it at 1400 on climbout at 6600 RPM and settling
>back
>quickly to 1250 for cruise at 5500 RPM in my 447 Rotax driving
>Bygeorge the
>Firestar KX. I know that I have 2 extra connections to my meter (extra
>thermocouple actions) due to double splicing of the leads to copper
>wire, and
>this could screw up my accuracy.
> I guess I will watch that puppy more religiously from now on as it
>seems
>to be reading too high, although it drops off fast at idle.
>GeoR38
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
Hi,
Can someone remind me which way the quick-adjust IVO works. I swear I wrote
this down, but now I can't find it. If I turn the adjustment shaft
clockwise (looking at it from the end), does that increase or decrease
pitch? Also, how sensitive is it? Thanks.
A memory is a terrible thing to waste :-)
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K (8.0 hours)
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, GeoR38 wrote:
> With all this egt talk, I accidently looked at mine for the first time
> seriously, and noticed it at 1400 on climbout at 6600 RPM and settling back
> quickly to 1250 for cruise at 5500 RPM in my 447 Rotax driving Bygeorge the
> Firestar KX. I know that I have 2 extra connections to my meter (extra
> thermocouple actions) due to double splicing of the leads to copper wire, and
> this could screw up my accuracy.
> I guess I will watch that puppy more religiously from now on as it seems
> to be reading too high, although it drops off fast at idle. GeoR38
ACCIDENTALLY?
FIRST-TIME?
SERIOUSLY?
1400?
Good grief. Your message pretty nearly speaks for itself. The worst part
about the above is that it implies so much more trouble. I've written
and erased a lot of sorta nasty comments, but instead will simply and
seriously say this: If you were my friend I'd DRAG you to a flight
school and perhaps review several NTSB accident reports. [Flame, flame,
flame, erase,erase, erase.] It's just that your message makes it seem
you don't take this business very seriously at all. Am I missing
something?
--------|--------
Ben Ransom (*)
Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu o o
http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
<< When friends try to find out what might have
caused the engine to quit, it is found out that the piolt had been
getting warning signs for a long period of time and ignored them. I
suggest that there is a time that a pilot has to stop flying until
problems are fixed, not just assume that since thae engine hasn't quit
yet, the warning must not be real.
John Jung >>
I expect not to ignore it any longer John, thanks for the insight!!
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi George: I'm new to the group but am a well seasoned Firestar
builder/pilot. Perhaps you don't have enough pitch in your prop. Adding more
pitch will lower the EGT. I have a 447, run my GSC (GCS?) prop at 13.5
degrees, and the EGT always runs about 1050 to1100 degrees. Of course it will
get close to 1200 in a substained climb-out. Take-off RPM is between
6200-6300 RPM and the plane climbs like a homesick angel. Why run your 477
wide open if you don't need to?
Bill Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Weber (DVNS)" <bweber(at)micom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 oil filer |
On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Terry Swartz wrote:
> Is there and automotive oil filter for the Rotax 912 or must you get OEM
> oil filter from Rotax?
>
> Terry
>
This question came up in the most recent issue of Motorcycle Consumer
News in regard to using auto oil filters in motorcycle. The bottom line
was that even if you found an auto filter that would fit, you should not
use it without manufacturer approval. In addition to fitting properly,
the filter would have to have the same flow through filtering properties
and the same pressure bypass. Either item being different could end up
with either oil starvation or poor filtering of the oil.
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* MICOM Communications Corp. * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
<< With all this egt talk, I accidently looked at mine for the first time
seriously, and noticed it at 1400 on climbout at 6600 RPM and settling back
quickly to 1250 for cruise at 5500 RPM in my 447 Rotax driving Bygeorge the
Firestar KX. I know that I have 2 extra connections to my meter (extra
thermocouple actions) due to double splicing of the leads to copper wire,
and
this could screw up my accuracy.
I guess I will watch that puppy more religiously from now on as it seems
to be reading too high, although it drops off fast at idle. >>
Actually I suspect your EGT's may not be that high, or else your engine would
have siezed already. Three things to do IMMEDIATELY:
1) Don't fly until situation is resolved.
2) Where is the EGT sensor located? It has not been uncommon for some to
install it at the intersection of the Y in the manifold. This is very wrong
and will give very high readings. It should be installed 100 mm from the
face of the piston in one leg of the manifold.
3) The other thing to do is to get someone knowlegeable to inspect you spark
plugs and try to determine from them if your engine is running hot. You also
should pull the exhaust manifold and examine the piston rings and cylinder
walls.
Good luck ... er, I guess you had plenty of that already!
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Kautter <wkautter(at)gtco.com> |
| Subject: | Kolb Builders in the Baltimore Washington Area |
I just received my Wing and Tail kit and have started construction. I
would like to get to know some builders in the area to discuss problems,
techniques, etc. Please respond to my EMAIL address wkautter(at)gtco.com.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Bill Kautter
Columbia, MD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Prange" <evoice(at)acton.com> |
Can anyone recall the ROTAX recommended procedure to winterize a 582?
Doug Prange
Mark III
Lincoln, Nebraska
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry C. Wortman" <hwortman(at)datasys.net> |
What is the best source of liability insurance? I want something to
cover my assets but will probably forego any comprehensive on the plane.
It seems that there was some discussion about Avemco?? a while back. How
and where do I make contact?
Thanks Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kelly" <jtk1976(at)mail.tqci.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 912 oil filer |
After reviewing pics from SunNFun, I see a 912 powered MkIII that was
displayed in the Kolb factory area, has a Fram filter of some kind.
Perhaps Kolb can shed some light on the stock number they are using.
Regards, Jim
----------
>
> On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Terry Swartz wrote:
>
> > Is there and automotive oil filter for the Rotax 912 or must you get
OEM
> > oil filter from Rotax?
> >
> > Terry
> >
>
> This question came up in the most recent issue of Motorcycle Consumer
> News in regard to using auto oil filters in motorcycle. The bottom line
> was that even if you found an auto filter that would fit, you should not
> use it without manufacturer approval. In addition to fitting properly,
> the filter would have to have the same flow through filtering properties
> and the same pressure bypass. Either item being different could end up
> with either oil starvation or poor filtering of the oil.
>
> ***********************************************
> * Bill Weber * Keep *
> * MICOM Communications Corp. * the shiny *
> * Simi Valley, CA * side up *
> ***********************************************
>
> -
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
>What is the best source of liability insurance? I want something to
>cover my assets but will probably forego any comprehensive on the plane.
>It seems that there was some discussion about Avemco?? a while back. How
>and where do I make contact?
>Thanks Henry
You can call Avemco at 1-800-638-8440.
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PKrotje <PKrotje(at)aol.com> |
<< What is the best source of liability insurance? I want something to
>cover my assets but will probably forego any comprehensive on the plane.
>It seems that there was some discussion about Avemco?? a while back. How
>and where do I make contact?
>Thanks Henry
You can call Avemco at 1-800-638-8440.
>>
Keep in mind the catch 22 of 'ultralight' insurance:
To be covered, your vehicle must be ultralight legal, ie under 254 lbs empty.
If you have a problem and Avemco or any other company weighs the plane,
coverage will be denied and premium returned if the plane does not comply with
part 103.
Most firestars would be excluded.
Pete Krotje
EAA Tech Counselor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.Com> |
>>We have the standard Kolb hydraulic brake system and wonder
whether to fill it
> with aircraft type fluid or fill it with automotive brake fluid. The
> wrong
> type usually attacks the rubber pistons.
--------
I pulled out my Matco documentation, and it says:
"All 'O' rings in the brake and master cylinder assembly are
BUNA-N and are not comptible with automotive glycol based brake fluid.
Red aircraft fluid or other suitable petroleum or silicon based fluid
should be used.
I bum'ed a quart of red fluid from the local airport. The
factory uses automatic transmission fluid. Both seem to work.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGrooms511(at)aol.com |
Henry;
Avemco will gladly sell you liability insurance at a rate of $100 a year
for 100,000 coverge. You need to clearly understand however, that they are
insuring a LEGAL ultralight. If you have an accident and file a claim the
FIRST thing they will do is come out with a set of scales an weigh your
craft. If it weighs 254.1lbs (without a chute) they will not pay a dime of
your claim. They will tell you that you were flying an illegal aircraft, and
that your contract specifically says that they were insuring a legal
aircraft. I used to buy insurance, and shall we say "stretch the truth" as to
the weight of the airctaft. You are only fooling yourself, and throwing away
$100.
If you are flying a legal ultralight, this is one heck of a good deal. I
wouldn't be without
it.
Tail winds
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | me <lloyd(at)vermontel.com> |
Well, this is good advice, but lets go one step further. Why screw
around with your own personal wellbeing. If you "stretch the truth" on
most anything the only one who gets to feel good is you and only until
something bad happens. Then you get to worry and fret that you'll be
discovered and if you are, your screwed. Take this case.
Your lie about the weight to yourself. You spend the hundred bucks then
you whack a kid with your prop. The kid is in the hospital for weeks.
You get sued. Your insurer weighs your airplane and found you out.
They don't pay. You sell your house to pay the debt the court lays on
you, but that ain't the worst. The FAA gets into the act because you
are operating an illegal aircraft. They really screw you because they
hate liars. You're flying privileges are suspended for life. And you
can never get a license. It just ain't worth the ging of a few bucks to
try to get away with something really stupid. Fess up. Go get a real
license if you want to fly an airplane over 254 pounds without a chute
and buy a real insurance policy. If you want to fly light, pay the "C"
note and sleep well.
-----Original Message-----
From: WGrooms511(at)aol.com [SMTP:WGrooms511(at)aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 1:14 PM
To: hwortman(at)datasys.net; kolb(at)intrig.com
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Insurance
Henry;
Avemco will gladly sell you liability insurance at a rate of $100 a
year
for 100,000 coverge. You need to clearly understand however, that they
are
insuring a LEGAL ultralight. If you have an accident and file a claim
the
FIRST thing they will do is come out with a set of scales an weigh your
craft. If it weighs 254.1lbs (without a chute) they will not pay a dime
of
your claim. They will tell you that you were flying an illegal aircraft,
and
that your contract specifically says that they were insuring a legal
aircraft. I used to buy insurance, and shall we say "stretch the truth"
as to
the weight of the airctaft. You are only fooling yourself, and throwing
away
$100.
If you are flying a legal ultralight, this is one heck of a good deal. I
wouldn't be without
it.
Tail winds
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, me wrote:
> Take this case.
September 13, 1997 - November 05, 1997
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-ah