Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-al
January 27, 1998 - February 26, 1998
My Dad is an AI and does annual inspections on all sorts of aircraft.
A fellow with a PA-11 came in one day to drop off the plane for an
annual (more like a half-decade check....hadn't been flown for quite
a while) and commented that it wanted to fly right wing low. It did
seem to tip that way even on the ground so he knew it wasn't rigging.
Pop walked over to the wing and told everybody to be quiet. Took
about 3 or 4 minutes before we heard it......a (this is all in a
fabric wing) "thrummm, dump, thrummm, dump, thrumm, dump". Mouse
running over fabric and jumping over the ribs. Pop started to tap on
the fabric at the wing tip and sure enough it had a dull thump at the
tip instead of a nice fabric ring. Out comes the pocket knife and
slit the fabric from LE to TE......out comes almost 3 bushel of oats,
corn, hair, hay.....and the next day the mouse trap with the mouse.
Jim Baker
Pres, USUA Club 104
Frontier Ultralight Aviators
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
Subject: | Re: Exemption trivia...... |
> =->Two point to anyone who can identify which FAA ultralight exemption
> =->allows an additional 96 pounds to the basic 254.
> =->
> =->It's not floats and its certainly not chute. What is it?
> =->
> 6 pound detinator and 90 pounds of C-4 -Self destruct system-
Rats...just occured to me that I posted to two lists and didn't post
the answer here. It's Exemption 5001 and allows 96# of adaptive
equipment for handicapped pilots.
Cheers,
Jim Baker
Pres, USUA Club 104
Frontier Ultralight Aviators
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Timandjan <Timandjan(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Flying story from the south |
Nothing exciting but a story nothing less for you pilots up north.
Ok from someone in Louisiana. I flew an hour on both Saturday and Sunday,
Saturday making touch and goes at the airport, it was kind a busy, several
planes in the pattern as well as sky divers, on final on one landing, a load
of 14 sky divers were over the airport jumping from a king air. It makes for
great viewing from my hangar, skydiving activity goes on all weekend and every
once and a while we see a goof, off field landing, emergency chute pulled,
etc., and for flying, it makes you keep on your toes. They are not supposed to
fly over the runways and in the pattern areas, but when it's windy they seem
to be all over.
And as for Sunday, well it was cold for me, my EIS outside air temperature
said 56 on the ground. I flew up to a friends grass strip about 20 miles
north, and he just re covered his Firestar 2 and cleaned up the plane after
flying it for 150 hours and never adding any trim color. He said he was tired
of everybody looking at mine and passing over his, so he tore it down and re
did the finish.
Well I landed in the West end of his runway and felt a squish as I hit some
water, one problem we have here in Louisiana. I wiped the mud from my plane
and we both headed out to fly together. He said the East end of the runway is
drier so we both headed that way, (the wind was a direct cross wind either way
so it didn't matter) and we both found a bigger mud puddle and when I turned
around to head off mud was slung all over my plane inside and out. We flew in
formation back to the airport and landed and I spent an hour cleaning the mud
from the plane.
Just another day of great flying
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Interference drag reduction |
> After finding Mike Arnold's Web page http://www.crl.com./~marnold/
>I am wondering if anyone is working on drag reduction of the MAJOR
interference
Jim,
I think things like the windscreen-wing interference you mention would be
major sore spots to a .88 sq ft frontal area speedster, but are not so major
on our planes. I've come to the opinion (just a guess) that the wing itself
is maybe 70% of the drag on a Kolb. Reducing drag on little things around
the cockpit are not likely to be as helpful as we might hope. However,
like weight, every little bit hurts or helps, and I would still pursue
improvements such as what you mention. We probably all have something in
common in wanting a Kolb in the first place because we don't have the high
drag from all the structural cables typical of ULs.
BTW, Yolo County airport is 8miles from my house and I've seen his plane.
It is as awesome looking as you probably imagine. I saw him working on it
the first time after he had just put in a new engine. The first one croaked
on him, why i do not know, and he glided a surprisingly long distance from
~4k AGL all the way to the airport simply cuz the plane is slick enf to
make that not a big problem. :-) I'd love to hang out there but the county
swung a nifty trick with the FAA 10 years ago and outlawed ULs. Just had to
thro in a little whining -- another perfectly good airport going to waste.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
test again, discard, sorry.
Jim Gerken
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Food for thought. |
Group,
Below is an article that I wrote for an ultralight club that I
belonged to in 1996. It isn't a flying story, but it is at least
something to think about and/or discuss.
Engine Failure after Takeoff
takeoff, Id like to go through a likely scenario. First, I am talking
about a plane with a high thrust line like a Firestar. The stick is
held back during climb to compensate for the high thrust line and full
power. When the engine quits, the plane immediately starts to slow
down. The next thing that should happen is that the pilot jams the
stick all the way forward and levels the wings with coordinated use of
rudder and ailerons. The airspeed is monitored and the stick held all
the way forward until the airspeed is at or above stall speed + 30% and
increasing. The pitch can then be adjusted to maintain that speed. Now
the plane is flown to the landing site that was planned before takeoff
and the airspeed is monitored and controlled. Some say that turns
should be avoided. I say, turn if you want, just allow some extra
airspeed for the increase in stall speed that a turn causes. The
important thing is to maintain control of the plane and the best way to
do that is to maintain enough airspeed.
Now lets go back to where the engine quit and see what can go wrong.
If there is any delay in going to full forward stick or if the stick is
not put far enough forward, the plane could slow to stall speed before
the nose is low enough to maintain glide. The momentum is all we have
to substantially change the pitch to nose down. The prop blast is no
longer on the elevator, so it responds slower than we are used to. It
is possible for an ultralight to stall just a couple seconds after the
engine quits in this situation. Believe me when I tell you that this is
not an unlikely situation. So lets say that were down to stall speed.
In a high performance ultralight like the Firestar, one wing might stall
first and it could feel like the plane is starting to turn that way. If
the pilot fails to recognize the stall and reacts by using ailerons to
keep the wings level, the stall is aggravated and a spin results. At
this point, his options arent very good.
So how could the pilot have avoided the spin? First by monitoring the
airspeed and seeing that a stall is likely. Or by just knowing that a
stall is likely in this situation. Then if a wing starts to drop, the
rudder is used to keep the wings level. Ailerons should be neutral.
The wings will still stall, but the spin can be avoided. The stall will
cause a loss of altitude, but the nose will lower and the plane will
start flying again as long as enough altitude remains. A stall and
recovery like this might need 30 to 100 feet of altitude. How does a
pilot recognize a stall and instinctively use rudder to counteract a
spin? By practicing stalls at a safe altitude.
This has been my own view of how to handle an engine failure after
takeoff. I hope that none of you ever have to experience this, but if
it does happen to you, I hope that you are as prepared as possible. For
more information on this subject, I recommend reading the article titled
"How to Control...Panic!", in the October 1996 issue of Ultralight
Flying. In the same issue, Jack McCornack has a very worth-while
article on engine failure after takeoff. If you dont subscribe to
Ultralight Flying, I suggest that you give it a try. One article like
"How to Control...Panic!" is worth the cost of an annual subscription.
John Jung
377 Firestar (For Sale)
503 Firestar II N6163J (soon to be inspected)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Engine Failure after Takeoff |
Group,
I was looking for flying stories that I have written in the past and
I found this. It is an article that I wrote for an ultralight club that
I
belonged to in 1996. It isn't a flying story, but it is at least
something
to think about and/or discuss.
Engine Failure after Takeoff
after
takeoff, I'd like to go through a likely scenario. First, I am talking
about a plane with a high thrust line like a Firestar. The stick is
held back during climb to compensate for the high thrust line and full
power. When the engine quits, the plane immediately starts to slow
down. The next thing that should happen is that the pilot jams the
stick all the way forward and levels the wings with coordinated use of
rudder and ailerons. The airspeed is monitored and the stick held all
the way forward until the airspeed is at or above stall speed + 30% and
increasing. The pitch can then be adjusted to maintain that speed. Now
the plane is flown to the landing site that was planned before takeoff
and the airspeed is monitored and controlled. Some say that turns
should be avoided. I say, turn if you want, just allow some extra
airspeed for the increase in stall speed that a turn causes. The
important thing is to maintain control of the plane and the best way to
do that is to maintain enough airspeed.
Now let's go back to where the engine quit and see what can go
wrong.
If there is any delay in going to full forward stick or if the stick is
not put far enough forward, the plane could slow to stall speed before
the nose is low enough to maintain glide. The momentum is all we have
to substantially change the pitch to nose down. The prop blast is no
longer on the elevator, so it responds slower than we are used to. It
is possible for an ultralight to stall just a couple seconds after the
engine quits in this situation. Believe me when I tell you that this is
not an unlikely situation. So lets say that we're down to stall speed.
In a high performance ultralight like the Firestar, one wing might stall
first and it could feel like the plane is starting to turn that way. If
the pilot fails to recognize the stall and reacts by using ailerons to
keep the wings level, the stall is aggravated and a spin results. At
this point, his options aren't very good.
So how could the pilot have avoided the spin? First by
monitoring the
airspeed and seeing that a stall is likely. Or by just knowing that a
stall is likely in this situation. Then if a wing starts to drop, the
rudder is used to keep the wings level. Ailerons should be neutral.
The wings will still stall, but the spin can be avoided. The stall will
cause a loss of altitude, but the nose will lower and the plane will
start flying again as long as enough altitude remains. A stall and
recovery like this might need 30 to 100 feet of altitude. How does a
pilot recognize a stall and instinctively use rudder to counteract a
spin? By practicing stalls at a safe altitude.
This has been my own view of how to handle an engine failure
after
takeoff. I hope that none of you ever have to experience this, but if
it does happen to you, I hope that you are as prepared as possible. For
more information on this subject, I recommend reading the article titled
"How to Control...Panic!", in the October 1996 issue of Ultralight
Flying. In the same issue, Jack McCornack has a very worth-while
article on engine failure after takeoff. If you don't subscribe to
Ultralight Flying, I suggest that you give it a try. One article like
"How to Control...Panic!" is worth the cost of an annual subscription.
John Jung
377 Firestar (For Sale)
503 Firestar II N6163J (soon to be inspected)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
Subject: | Re: Engine Failure after Takeoff |
> It isn't a flying story, but it is at least
> something
> to think about and/or discuss.
>
> Engine Failure after Takeoff
As a probably worthless addition here, I offer the following
statistics from the June 90 Kitplanes article on two-stroke engines.
I thought the numbers were interesting, if not instructive.
Where the engine failed:
Ground 9.1%
Takeoff/climbout 12.9%
Cruise 65.9%
Climb 5.3%
Descent 3.8%
Landing 3%
75% were self serviced engines
25% were dealer serviced
Failure mode....
internal failures are 49% with seizures accounting for 66%
ignition at 24% with spark plugs the major cause
fuel system at 22% traced to carb and contaminated fuel
The sample was of 75 engines of all manufacture.
Hours to failure was 16% for 20 hrs, 28% for 40 hrs, 11% for 60 hrs,
nad remained steady at 8% till 160 hrs and then dropped to 2% up to
the max sample time of 300 hrs.
Hmmmmm.......
Jim Baker
Pres, USUA Club 104
Frontier Ultralight Aviators
________________________________________________________________________________
by r1.boston.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.6.Beta0/2.0.kim) with ESMTP id NAAAA29839
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Rod,
I just opened my Feb issues of ULTRALIGHT FLYING and read your letter. I
had to respond. Well I had air bubbles for 10 years of flying my original
FireStar, so here's proof they do no harm. I did, however, get rid of
them. All I did was this: I took off the old input and output plastic
clamps on the Mikuni fuel pump and wrapped a few inches of black
electrical tape around the area where I installed an automotive fuel
clamp (screw-type) to the fuel line. The tape will keep the clamp from
"biting" into the plastic fuel line, and this was why I didn't use them.
I had air bubbles before I installed the clamps and none afterward. I
didn't notice any difference in engine performance. I also use automotive
fuel line for the pulse line with screw clamps. This pulse line was
already attached when I had air bubbles. Evidently, the plastic clamps do
not clamp tight enough to keep air out. You could use heat-shrink instead
of the tape, which would be neater. I hope this info helps you out.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar in Minnesota
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill Weber (DVNS)" <bweber(at)micom.com> |
Subject: | Propeller Efficiency |
A friend in my club showed me an article in the January issue of Sport
Aviation explaining how to dramatically increase the efficiency of an
airfoil in a very simple way. The author (who has patented this method)
installed very thin (.015") self-adhesive tape (mylar?) with holes in it
along the thickest portion of the propeller and wing. This basically
produces an airfoil with "dimples" along the high point. These dimples
act as spoilers to prevent the air from separating from the airfoil as it
flows over the propeller and wing. This air separation is the primary
cause of drag and noise. The more separation of flow, the less efficient
the airfoil.
His experiments reported increases in top speed of 6 to 10 mph in planes
of different types. Of course, these were GA planes so the effect might
not be as dramatic in ours and he dimpled the wings as well as the prop.
Another effect was that the propeller noise was reduced to about half the previous
level, which is something we are
definitely interested in.
The idea is so simple and sound, I wonder why nobody thought of it
before. I don't think dimpling the wings would be worth it in our cases,
but on the prop it is definitely worth looking into!
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* MICOM Communications Corp. * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
Subject: | RE: Wing Fuel Tanks |
> PVC isn't totally inert to gas and over time the PVC will get brittle and/or
> leak. IMO PVC aesthetically shouts No-Way.
Ben is absolutely right. Ketones and high volatile content
hydrocarbons are not compatible with PVC. Only high density
polyethelyne (HDPE) is recommended.
Jim Baker
Pres, USUA Club 104
Frontier Ultralight Aviators
________________________________________________________________________________
by r2.boston.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.6.Beta0/2.0.kim) with ESMTP id BAAAA11613
Subject: | Re: Interference drag reduction |
From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
JIM
THE M III YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WAS FROM CANADA I HAVE THE GUY'S CARD
AND WILL SEND YOU THE PHONE # WITH A PICTURE OF IT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT THE SAME M III , WAS THIS M III TAN IN COLOR ?
RICK
writes:
> After finding Mike Arnold's Web page http://www.crl.com./~marnold/
>I am wondering if anyone is working on drag reduction of the MAJOR
>interference
>area on the Mkiii (and maybe the Firestars too), the top of the
>windshield
>where it meets the wing shape. I have photos of a Mkiii on floats
>with a
>completely different gap seal. The photo was taken at Oshkosh last
>year, I
>think the plane was from Canada. The gap seal sorta blended the wings
>downward
>to a rounded cabin-top, which met up with the windsheild perfectly.
>Does
>anyone recognize this plane from my description? Is anyone else out
>there
>working on this? Any idea if it works to cut drag?
> I know the Kolb will never set speed records, but if I can pick up
>8-10mph
>cruise with a custom-built wing gap seal I would spend a couple months
>on it.
>Reduced power setting and lower fuel consumption are my real goals
>here.
>Check out Mike's page if you get time. It amazes me, 213 mph on a
>Rotax 582!
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
>test again, discard, sorry.
>
>Jim Gerken
>-
Jim,
What is it you are testing? If it will reduce drag, increase speed, or
reduce EGT's, maybe you should let us in on it! :-)
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
The following was sent to me and I thought I'd re-post it to the list. I
couldn't help, maybe someome else can.
>>
>>Mick, I ran across your web page while I was searching for a Kolb
>Flyer. I
>>am interested in locating an unassembled Kolb Flyer and I was
>wondering if you
>>where aware of anyone that may have one. I appreciate any
>information you
>>have to offer. Thanks.
>>
>>Gregg Schmillen
>>email: DaSchmil(at)aol.com
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Aircraft as Homeless Shelters |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>..... Out comes the pocket knife and
>slit the fabric from LE to TE......out comes almost 3 bushel of oats,
>corn, hair, hay.....and the next day the mouse trap with the mouse.
>
>Jim Baker
>Pres, USUA Club 104
>Frontier Ultralight Aviators
>
Three years ago, I had to temporarily relocate to Wichita for about 9
months to make a living. This really cuts into your 'hangar time' and
when spring rolled around, a sparrow decided that the right wing on my
Flyer (with un-covered root ribs) would be a good place to build its
nest. It was of course since the plane had not moved since before winter.
On one of my rare visits to the hangar, I noticed the unusually humungous
amount of bird poop and dried grass on my seat and found the nest in the
wing. I removed it, cleaned-up the seat and didn't think any more about
it until the next visit maybe a month later. This time it was 10 times
worse, the nest had been rebuilt in exactly the same place and it looked
liked the builder had raised at least one new generation of little
poopers to boot. It took half a day and a lot of scrubbing and swearing
to clean-up the mess. I have since explained to my wife that it is
necessary to fly as often as possible ...in the interest of safety.
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Interference drag reduction |
I believe the major source of drag on the MKIII is the
windshield/wing intersection. If you take the doors off, it causes a lot of
high speed turbulence to come in from either side trying to get up under the
center section. With the doors on, and no rear cover, you get a lot of wind
hitting you in the back of the neck.
Part of this winters mods will involve dropping the top of the
windshield down several inches to let the air go under the wing center
section, and hopefully enhance inflow to the lower half of the prop arc.
Will post this spring and let you know if it makes a difference.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Marino, Frank J (Youngstown ARB)" <Frank.Marino(at)yng.afres.af.mil> |
Subject: | RE: Re[2]: Wing Fuel Tanks |
I don't think using the entire wing tube for fuel is a good idea, Ron
has the right idea about fuel flowing to the wing tip on turns. If you
were going to use the tube for fuel probably you would want to use the
first five or six feet and keep the fuel to the inboard side of the
wings. Besides that is a lot of weight to put in the wings that may not
be designed for.
FRANK J. MARINO
Chief Loadmaster 773 AS
>----------
>From: Ron Christensen[SMTP:SPECTRUMINTERNATIONAL(at)classic.msn.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 12:42 AM
>To: jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com; Richard Pike
>Cc: kolb(at)www.intrig.com
>Subject: RE: Re[2]: Wing Fuel Tanks
>
>I would worry about the gas moving to the "down end" of the tube tanks during
>an uncoordinated turn, causing a serious off balance condition. Remember,
>gas
>weighs about 6 pounds/gal. Are the ailerons are powerful enough to roll the
>airplane back to a wing level condition if several pounds (say 15 to 20 lb.)
>of fuel are a few feet off the CG??? In a perfectly coordinated turn,
>theoretically, the fuel would NOT slosh to the "down end" of the tube tank,
>however I would not count on being able to avoid the off CG condition.
>
>Other thoughts anyone??
>
>Ron Christensen
>MKIII 1/2
>N313DR
>
>----------
>From: owner-kolb(at)intrig.com on behalf of Richard Pike
>Sent: Friday, January 23, 1998 6:56 PM
>To: jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com
>Cc: kolb(at)www.intrig.com
>Subject: Re: Re[2]: Wing Fuel Tanks
>
>At 04:12 PM 1/23/98 cst, you wrote:
>>
>> While building I had joked about putting tubes of large diameter PVC
>> pipe in the wing spar tubes (once their drilled) as Aux fuel tanks.
>>
>> Any comments:
>>
>> Yeah, use lots of sealer where the lift strut bolts go thru...
> Actually , if you could figure out a way to pad them from all the rivits,
>and just made them from the root rib to the lift strut bolt, it is probably
>a good idea. The formula for the volume of a cylinder is Volume
>pi x radius squared x height. If you used a 5" pipe 72" long, that is 1472
>cubic inches a side. One gallon of gas takes up 231 cubic inches, or just
>over 6 gallons a side. Not bad. Let us know how it works.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P(42oldpoops)
>>
>
>-
>
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard neilsen" <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us> |
Subject: | Interference drag reduction -Reply |
It is my understanding that drag is primarily created by the turbulence
coming off the back of a unstreamlined object. With that idea I pursed
drag reduction on my MKIII in the following areas. It seems that the gap
between the wing and the flaps/ailerons would create a considerable amount
of drag along the full length of the wing. I installed a Mylar seal flush
with the bottom of the wing and flap/aileron. This makes for a smooth
unbroken surface from the leading edge to trailing edge on the bottom of
the wing. No I didn't lose the foldability of my wing and no it doesn't
restrict the control surface movement. I'm also considering a thicker
Mylar stock on the topside of this gap that would be attached only on the
wing side and lay on top of the flap/aileron. During construction of the
flaps and ailerons I also changed the trailing edge to a trailing edge
material sold by Aircraft Spruce which makes for a very streamlined
trailing edge. Yes I did have to add those 300 lb balance weights that you
guys talk about but mine weigh only 2lb total.
There are other areas such as the gear legs, wheels, strut attach points
etc. that need attention also. I read that article on the dimple tape for
props and top wing surfaces, it sounds interesting but?
That's my $.02
Rick Neilsen VW powered MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Marino, Frank J (Youngstown ARB)" <Frank.Marino(at)yng.afres.af.mil> |
Subject: | RE: Interference drag reduction -Reply |
I have been reading all the mail about drag, it seems to me that
ultra-light type aircraft were built to fly slow. with the landing gear,
ballistic chute, the engine, and other things sticking out in the
airflow along with the unstreamlined designed of these aircraft I don't
see how you cannot have drag. You might reduce some of the drag but is
it worth it. That is my 01 cent worth. OK GeoR38 lets hear it from you
and your sub sonic FS.
FRANK J. MARINO
Chief Loadmaster 773 AS
>----------
>From: Richard neilsen[SMTP:neilsenr(at)state.mi.us]
>Sent: Friday, January 30, 1998 10:43 AM
>To: kolb(at)intrig.com
>Subject: Interference drag reduction -Reply
>
>It is my understanding that drag is primarily created by the turbulence
>coming off the back of a unstreamlined object. With that idea I pursed drag
>reduction on my MKIII in the following areas. It seems that the gap between
>the wing and the flaps/ailerons would create a considerable amount of drag
>along the full length of the wing. I installed a Mylar seal flush with the
>bottom of the wing and flap/aileron. This makes for a smooth unbroken surface
>from the leading edge to trailing edge on the bottom of the wing. No I didn't
>lose the foldability of my wing and no it doesn't restrict the control
>surface movement. I'm also considering a thicker Mylar stock on the topside
>of this gap that would be attached only on the wing side and lay on top of
>the flap/aileron. During construction of the flaps and ailerons I also
>changed the trailing edge to a trailing edge material sold by Aircraft Spruce
>which makes for a very streamlined trailing edge. Yes I did have to add those
>300 lb balance weights that you guys talk about but mine weigh only 2lb
>total.
>
>There are other areas such as the gear legs, wheels, strut attach points etc.
>that need attention also. I read that article on the dimple tape for props
>and top wing surfaces, it sounds interesting but?
>
>That's my $.02
>Rick Neilsen VW powered MKIII
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | RE: Interference drag reduction -Reply |
>I have been reading all the mail about drag, it seems to me that
>ultra-light type aircraft were built to fly slow. with the landing gear,
>ballistic chute, the engine, and other things sticking out in the
>airflow along with the unstreamlined designed of these aircraft I don't
>see how you cannot have drag. You might reduce some of the drag but is
>it worth it. That is my 01 cent worth. OK GeoR38 lets hear it from you
>and your sub sonic FS.
>
>
>FRANK J. MARINO
>Chief Loadmaster 773 AS
>
> Back in '85 I took it upon myself to streamline my Hummer. Normal
cruise was around 45-50 with a Rotax277. Redline was around 62 if I remember
right, and with full throttle, it would hit about 58.
Bought a roll of aluminum flashing and cut it into strips which I
then folded over to streamline the back sides of the landing gear down
tubes, landing gear legs, cross braces, kingposts, etc.
Stuck it to the tubes with double stick carpet tape, and then
covered the outside edges with aluminum tape like the parts shops sell to
cover rust spots on clunkers.
At full throttle, it would hit almost 70, (flown VERY carefully in
calm air), glide was noticably better, and at normal cruise it ran a couple
hundred RPM slower.
After awhile it had gotten kinda dinged up, and I learned that
getting the aluminum tape and the double stick carpet tape off was one of
life's more annoying chores.
I suspect that it helps a draggy airplane that has a lot of struts
much more than a clean one like a Firestar. But it didn't cost much, it was
interesting, and except for cleaning off the old tape mess, it was worth the
trouble.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
Subject: | Kolb: Misc., and Why reduce drag? |
Misc info:
Windshield to gap seal weatherstrip...
Ron told me he was interested in sealing the area between the windshield and
the wing. I wrote back to him and told him about a GREAT solution to this one
that I found at Menard's Building Center. The product is by Stanley, for
sealing the bottom of overhead garage doors.
It is black closed-cell foam stuff shaped like a 135 degree angle, with 2 "
legs. It comes in a roll and is conveniently curved. I bought a
roll because it looked close to what I needed. After holding it up there for a
while in a dozen different ways, it practically found its own home. I have
rivetted thru it with a lexan backup plate, to the bottom levan and aluminum of
the stock Mkiii gap seal. When you slide on the gap seal this weatherstrip
slides back tight against the top of the windshield. It is quite big, with the
full 2" leg pressing against the windsheild outside, so it seals it just
perfectly. It looks like it was made for the job, a quite nice finished look!
Check it out.
Removal of adhesive residue...
I have been using Manco Poly tape and as you guys probably remember I am
switching to the book binding tape on the wing-aileron gapseals. TO REMOVE the
old tape, I tryed just peeling it off, and I tryed with heat. Heat helps but
it is slow. (I know, some of you are saying "I told you so, the tape will
leave residue.") Believe it or not, the ANGLE you peel it makes a difference
to how much left behind adhesive you get. TO REMOVE THE RESIDUE, I used PPG
DX-330 wax and grease remover. It made short work of the problem and caused no
damage to the Poly Tone paint.
Interference drag reduction- "why do it?" someone appended...
Our wonderful slow-flying great-climbing Kolbs should never exceed their Vne,
but they CAN fly more efficiently. A good reason to continue to fight drag
even if you don't want to travel faster is greater range. If you can reduce
drag, you can lower RPM to fly at the same speed. This means more time and
distance before needing fuel.
Cabin heat...
I will get close to finishing the cabin heat system this weekend. It is an
engine coolant-based system with a 12 volt blower. I searched a long time for
a heater core and they were all so big & heavy. Finally I found an aluminum
radiator from a small motocross bike, similar to a scaled-down Rotax radiator,
for 30 bucks (used) at a local shop. It weighs like one pound. The blower is
12-volt automotive heater parts.
The blower weighs about 4 pounds. I am shrouding it all together now, and it
will barely fit in the nose cone. It takes 25 feet of 1/2" heater hose
(insulated for heat conservation) to get it plumbed to the bottom cross-loop of
the Rotax twin rad system, and maybe a valve in there somewhere, not sure yet.
This will add about 7.5 pounds or so up front so I will be able to remove a
6-pound required ballast I have bolted in under the floor pan (it was required
for my weight solo). I will be adding a coolant-pressure gauge at the same
time to keep an eye on the pressure ( in case I spring a leak or slow down the
flow too much somewhere). A three position electrical switch will control the
blower. .
Thanks to everyone for all the geat ideas...
Jim Gerken
Mkiii in winter re-build
Minnesota
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com |
Subject: | Re: Kolb: cabin heater |
cc:
From: Frank R Reynen
Date: 01/30/98 11:12:57 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: (Document link not converted) Re: Kolb: cabin heater
Jim Gerken wrote,
..
Cabin heat...
I will get close to finishing the cabin heat system this weekend. It is an
engine coolant-based system with a 12 volt blower. I searched a long time
for
a heater core and they were all so big & heavy. Finally I found an
aluminum
radiator from a small motocross bike, similar to a scaled-down Rotax
radiator,
for 30 bucks (used) at a local shop. It weighs like one pound. The blower
is
12-volt automotive heater parts.
The blower weighs about 4 pounds. I am shrouding it all together now, and
it
will barely fit in the nose cone. It takes 25 feet of 1/2" heater hose
(insulated for heat conservation) to get it plumbed to the bottom
cross-loop of
the Rotax twin rad system, and maybe a valve in there somewhere, not sure
yet.
This will add about 7.5 pounds or so up front so I will be able to remove a
6-pound required ballast I have bolted in under the floor pan (it was
required
for my weight solo). I will be adding a coolant-pressure gauge at the same
time to keep an eye on the pressure ( in case I spring a leak or slow down
the
flow too much somewhere). A three position electrical switch will control
the
blower. .
Thanks to everyone for all the geat ideas...
Jim, are you sure this is going to work? I didnot see anything posted on
this before.
It seems to me that the pressure differential from the bottom cross hose to
the point of return (not mentioned) but close to the waterpump is not big
enough to get much waterflow and also the bottom hose has the coolest water
temperature in the system.The hottest water is in the top hose exiting the
cylinderhead and you use the resistance of the radiator to build some
pressure differential and return the water at the pumphose connected to the
radiator for best effect.
Frank Reynen MkIII@430 hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Interference drag reduction -Reply |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
I agree with Frank. When I first started flying my original FireStar
years ago, I had all kinds of people giving me tips on what I could do to
make it fly faster. I kept telling them "it's an ultralight and I'm not
interested in going any faster". Well times have changed. After doing
many x-country flights, it would be nice to go faster. I've finally
decided that if I really want a faster plane, then get one. I won't
bother making the FireStar a blazing machine because it will never be
one. I think either a Titan or a SlingShot may fit the bill. What's great
about an ultralight is being able to get in AND out of small fields that
you can only dream about in a GA plane. This keeps a lot of options open
in an emergency. It would be nice, though, to have the best of both
worlds.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
writes:
>I have been reading all the mail about drag, it seems to me that
>ultra-light type aircraft were built to fly slow. with the landing
>gear, ballistic chute, the engine, and other things sticking out in the
>airflow along with the unstreamlined designed of these aircraft I
>don't see how you cannot have drag. You might reduce some of the drag
but is
>it worth it. That is my 01 cent worth. OK GeoR38 lets hear it from
>you and your sub sonic FS.
>
>
>FRANK J. MARINO
>Chief Loadmaster 773 AS
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
Subject: | Re: Interference drag reduction |
Richard and all,
With the doors on, and no rear cover, you get a lot of wind
>hitting you in the back of the neck.
With half doors on and no rear cover you don't get wind in the back of the
neck. I feel that drag is reduced some. It might be even a little faster
that way but hard to measure. I have yet to try no doors. I really like
the half doors... no wind in the face and no need for goggles from the wind
coming in around the sides.
>Part of this winters mods will involve dropping the top of the
>windshield down several inches to let the air go under the wing center
>section, and hopefully enhance inflow to the lower half of the prop arc.
>Will post this spring and let you know if it makes a difference.
I think you are on to something here. It might also increase lift by
allowing some air flow under the center section as well as a better flow of
air into the prop. I built the main windshield removable and have given some
thought to making a shorty center windshield to match the curve of the half
doors.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (37.3 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Interference drag reduction -Reply |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Woody,
My 1986 "original" FireStar is a 5-rib wing with a 377 Rotax engine. The
original FireStar was optimized for Part 103 developed by the Kolb
Company in 1985. Right now with my rug on the floor, my nice seat
cushion, and strobe system it weighs in at 261 lbs. If I take these items
out, I can make the weight restriction easily. The new FireStars cannot
make this claim because they have stronger (heavier) cages and 7-rib
wings.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
writes:
>Explain for us "newbies" how it is that a Firestar is an ultralight.
>
>
>
>Ralph H Burlingame wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Frank. When I first started flying my original FireStar
>> years ago, I had all kinds of people giving me tips on what I could
>do to make it fly faster. I kept telling them "it's an ultralight and
I'm
>not interested in going any faster". Well times have changed. After
>doing many x-country flights, it would be nice to go faster. I've
finally
>decided that if I really want a faster plane, then get one. I won't
>bother making the FireStar a blazing machine because it will never
>be one. I think either a Titan or a SlingShot may fit the bill. What's
>great about an ultralight is being able to get in AND out of small
fields
>that you can only dream about in a GA plane. This keeps a lot of options
>open in an emergency. It would be nice, though, to have the best of both
>>worlds.
>>
>> Ralph Burlingame
>> Original FireStar
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | bolts and clevis pins |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
To all,
A friend of mine has a question about the 1/4" clevis pin on the lower
part of the lift strut. If he uses an A/N bolt in place of the clevis
pin, will it have the same strength? Comments please.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
Hi all,
I've always had trouble hearing the radio in my SlingShot because the engine
is too loud. It's not electrical noise. In fact I hear none of that, even
though I've taken no precautions to shield the ignition, etc. The other day
I was in "Wings" which is a pilot shop in Pensacola. I asked about "better
than original" ear seals for my 6 year old FlightCom headsets, and looked at
several replacement gel seals. Since I couldn't remember what mine looked
like, I went home and was shocked to find that my headset seals were all
shriveled up. They're under cloth covers which make them appear to be
healthy, but in fact, they aren't. The ones I have (had) are gel seals, but
even though they aren't leaking, they seem to be low on liquid. I don't
know if they've always been like this, or got this way over time. The shop
told me that the best seals were the David Clark gel seals, so I decided to
give it a shot. Today was the first flight with the new seals, and I'm
happy to report that the SS is a much quieter plane now. I can hear the
radio with no problems at all now. The difference is quite remarkable.
I guess the point of this message is to let you know that seals don't all
appear to be the same quality, and they seem to deteriorate over time. You
might want to take a look at yours. This would be especially true if you
wear glasses since that presents a sealing challenge.
In other news, I'll be attending the first flight of my old RV-6 project in
the morning. Liftoff is scheduled for 9:00 am sharp (forgive him, he's a
retired AF Colonel ). In about a month, I'll have RV rides aplenty, and
aerobatic instruction :-) By the time my RV-8 is done, I should be an ace
RV driver.
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
RV-8 under construction (Mazda rotary powered ???)
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: bolts and clevis pins |
Ralph H Burlingame wrote:
>
> To all,
>
> A friend of mine has a question about the 1/4" clevis pin on the lower
> part of the lift strut. If he uses an A/N bolt in place of the clevis
> pin, will it have the same strength? Comments please.
>
I used to have a Falcon UL that used 1/4" A/N bolts on the struts. I
don't know what clevis pins are made from. Somebody must know.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
Subject: | Re[2]: Wing Fuel Tanks |
When I started this thread about wing tanks in the spars I was just
thinking out loud in words. Day dreaming from after effects of
smelling fumes while my partner was covering. This has blown into
becoming a Super Tanker. Gee, I was only looking for a gallon or two
on each side at most. Just enough to extend range for safety.
I still recall having read a thread of some claiming they had tested
PVC but I myself would be concerned about it. But we have learned a
few things out of all this like fuel migration in the tank can impact
the flight characteristics. I also learned a little more about
plastic materials and where some information on this can be obtained
over the net.
Some time you just have to ask stupid questions to learn things.
There's a lot of knowledge hidden away out there in those work shops.
Thanks Guys
OK who's next
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: Wing Fuel Tanks
Date: 1/29/98 2:58 PM
Getting in on this a little late but...
PVC isn't totally inert to gas and over time the PVC will get brittle and/or
leak. IMO PVC aesthetically shouts No-Way. As for looong wing tanks, there
are noted accidents in the old days of fuel in such tanks getting thrown
to the outside by centrifugal force during a spin, the result being
inability to stop the spin -- bummer :-/. I doubt if you could make a large
enf spar tank for this to be a real problem, but it should be thought out if
the spar tank idea were pursued further. Ron's potential "down end" weight
problem could be bad too I'd think. I think inaccessibility of the tank for
repair/replacent/cleaning are problems too, especially noting that a tank
inside the spar would have to be protected from all the rivet stubs. I'd
rather just build and mount a separate pair of small tanks in the first wing
rib section, mounted just behind the spar. But then there are vent spillage
problems to consider in the folded mode, this just a minor, fixable problem
tho.
-Ben "party pooper" Ransom
PS: don't think i didn't at least look inside those spars and scratch my
head just a little myself :-)
At 05:42 AM 1/27/98 UT, you wrote:
>I would worry about the gas moving to the "down end" of the tube tanks
during
>an uncoordinated turn, causing a serious off balance condition. Remember,
gas
>weighs about 6 pounds/gal. Are the ailerons are powerful enough to roll
the
>airplane back to a wing level condition if several pounds (say 15 to 20 lb.)
>of fuel are a few feet off the CG??? In a perfectly coordinated turn,
>theoretically, the fuel would NOT slosh to the "down end" of the tube tank,
>however I would not count on being able to avoid the off CG condition.
>
>Other thoughts anyone??
>Ron Christensen
>MKIII 1/2
>N313DR
>
>----------
>From: owner-kolb(at)intrig.com on behalf of Richard Pike
>Sent: Friday, January 23, 1998 6:56 PM
>To: jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com
>Cc: kolb(at)www.intrig.com
>Subject: Re: Re[2]: Wing Fuel Tanks
>
>At 04:12 PM 1/23/98 cst, you wrote:
>>
>> While building I had joked about putting tubes of large diameter PVC
>> pipe in the wing spar tubes (once their drilled) as Aux fuel tanks.
>>
>> Any comments:
>>
>> Yeah, use lots of sealer where the lift strut bolts go thru...
> Actually , if you could figure out a way to pad them from all the rivits,
>and just made them from the root rib to the lift strut bolt, it is probably
>a good idea. The formula for the volume of a cylinder is Volume
>pi x radius squared x height. If you used a 5" pipe 72" long, that is 1472
>cubic inches a side. One gallon of gas takes up 231 cubic inches, or just
>over 6 gallons a side. Not bad. Let us know how it works.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P(42oldpoops)
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
Subject: | Re: Food for thought. |
Interesting write up.
I strongly discourage turns back to the runway. It will get you every time. We
have a charred spot on our field from the last guy this summer that tried that
exact maneuver. It didn't work any better for him either. He now has a new
pair of wings with feathers or at least I hope so.
The problem of turning back isn't the turn, its altitude and then the pilot
starts running short he tries to extend his glide and then stalls while in the
turn, the wing drops and rotation starts. Better to pick a good spot ahead and
go for it. You might bend the airplane but walking away much better than
burning as in his case.
OK guys jump in here.
We had a MK-3 in the area go down at an airport about a year ago after an engine
failure. What I understand what got them was when the engine came back to life.
They had dropped the nose much like you describe to do but when it restarted
they had left the throttle full open position. The high thrust line pushed the
nose over and since they were not very high they had little time to react and
were drove into the ground. I think one guy was killed and the other hurt quite
bad.
I don't how for sure how I would perform under the same situation but being made
aware of these characteristics and thinking them out, and practicing at a safe
altitude can save your bacon.
Jerry Bidle
Group,
Below is an article that I wrote for an ultralight club that I
belonged to in 1996. It isn't a flying story, but it is at least
something to think about and/or discuss.
Engine Failure after Takeoff
For those of you that have not had an ultralight engine quit after
takeoff, Id like to go through a likely scenario. First, I am talking
about a plane with a high thrust line like a Firestar. The stick is
held back during climb to compensate for the high thrust line and full
power. When the engine quits, the plane immediately starts to slow
down. The next thing that should happen is that the pilot jams the
stick all the way forward and levels the wings with coordinated use of
rudder and ailerons. The airspeed is monitored and the stick held all
the way forward until the airspeed is at or above stall speed + 30% and
increasing. The pitch can then be adjusted to maintain that speed. Now
the plane is flown to the landing site that was planned before takeoff
and the airspeed is monitored and controlled. Some say that turns
should be avoided. I say, turn if you want, just allow some extra
airspeed for the increase in stall speed that a turn causes. The
important thing is to maintain control of the plane and the best way to
do that is to maintain enough airspeed.
Now lets go back to where the engine quit and see what can go wrong.
If there is any delay in going to full forward stick or if the stick is
not put far enough forward, the plane could slow to stall speed before
the nose is low enough to maintain glide. The momentum is all we have
to substantially change the pitch to nose down. The prop blast is no
longer on the elevator, so it responds slower than we are used to. It
is possible for an ultralight to stall just a couple seconds after the
engine quits in this situation. Believe me when I tell you that this is
not an unlikely situation. So lets say that were down to stall speed.
In a high performance ultralight like the Firestar, one wing might stall
first and it could feel like the plane is starting to turn that way. If
the pilot fails to recognize the stall and reacts by using ailerons to
keep the wings level, the stall is aggravated and a spin results. At
this point, his options arent very good.
So how could the pilot have avoided the spin? First by monitoring the
airspeed and seeing that a stall is likely. Or by just knowing that a
stall is likely in this situation. Then if a wing starts to drop, the
rudder is used to keep the wings level. Ailerons should be neutral.
The wings will still stall, but the spin can be avoided. The stall will
cause a loss of altitude, but the nose will lower and the plane will
start flying again as long as enough altitude remains. A stall and
recovery like this might need 30 to 100 feet of altitude. How does a
pilot recognize a stall and instinctively use rudder to counteract a
spin? By practicing stalls at a safe altitude.
This has been my own view of how to handle an engine failure after
takeoff. I hope that none of you ever have to experience this, but if
it does happen to you, I hope that you are as prepared as possible. For
more information on this subject, I recommend reading the article titled
"How to Control...Panic!", in the October 1996 issue of Ultralight
Flying. In the same issue, Jack McCornack has a very worth-while
article on engine failure after takeoff. If you dont subscribe to
Ultralight Flying, I suggest that you give it a try. One article like
"How to Control...Panic!" is worth the cost of an annual subscription.
John Jung
377 Firestar (For Sale)
503 Firestar II N6163J (soon to be inspected)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
Subject: | Re: Propeller Efficiency |
I had to try this. I ran over to the tool box and got the ball peen hammer and
.....
I sure hope it works. How big should the dimples be. I think might have made
them a little to big and deep. I sure hope it works or my partners going to be
awfully upset. I tried it on his airplane first.
Actually there is a tape I seen at Sun & Fun that looks like a zig-zap that the
glider people use which is supposed to help. Their starting to put it on
compose airplanes.
I wonder what the differences are?
Jerry
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Propeller Efficiency
Date: 1/29/98 3:00 PM
A friend in my club showed me an article in the January issue of Sport
Aviation explaining how to dramatically increase the efficiency of an
airfoil in a very simple way. The author (who has patented this method)
installed very thin (.015") self-adhesive tape (mylar?) with holes in it
along the thickest portion of the propeller and wing. This basically
produces an airfoil with "dimples" along the high point. These dimples act
as spoilers to prevent the air from separating from the airfoil as it
flows over the propeller and wing. This air separation is the primary
cause of drag and noise. The more separation of flow, the less efficient
the airfoil.
His experiments reported increases in top speed of 6 to 10 mph in planes
of different types. Of course, these were GA planes so the effect might
not be as dramatic in ours and he dimpled the wings as well as the prop.
Another effect was that the propeller noise was reduced to about half the
previous level, which is something we are
definitely interested in.
The idea is so simple and sound, I wonder why nobody thought of it
before. I don't think dimpling the wings would be worth it in our cases,
but on the prop it is definitely worth looking into!
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* MICOM Communications Corp. * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
Subject: | Re: Computer Blues |
Richard,
Did you get hit by one of the hardware destructive viruses. It would
be odd that it smoked and then give you a prompt about formatting your
hard drive. That sounds funny. There's one out there that will
supposedly fry your processor. It causes it to perform some operation
over and over which makes it heat up and fries it.
To Do List: Block, filter, and screen all messages from Richard.
Whether you actually had a virus or not, you are now tainted. No
matter what you do you can't prove to "them" that your OK. There
might be, however the slightest, a chance you have a virus lurking
about on a diskette which could resurface. This could some how end up
infecting the processor of the computer controlled engine and brakes
of the school bus thus possibly killing a whole bunch of kids. Sorry,
no body will stick there neck out and risk it on you. Your all washed
up. The only recourse for your is to fly, I mean buy a calculator.
Am I bored?
Jerry
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Computer Blues
Date: 1/29/98 2:58 PM
If anyone tried to send me anything over the last three days, it is
gone. I downloaded my e-mail yesterday after having the computer in the shop all
weekend, and then lost the system totally. Tried to maintain airspeed, but
smelled smoke inside the case. Crashed and burned. Then the inevitable...
WARNING, ALL DATA ON NON-REMOVABLE DISK DRIVE C: WILL BE LOST!
Proceed with Format (Y/N) ?
This has not been a very productive day, but it was an expensive one...
If it was important, send it again.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | Re: Interference drag reduction -Reply |
Encouraging, Ralph. The plans and building manual that came with my
Original Firestar (FS-015) states that the empty weight is 264 pounds.
I'm not sure how much paint they base this on, or how much you have on
your's. Also, how about brakes?
My concern, of course, is whether or not I will need to register it.
I'd rather not because of my age (65)we never know from one medical to
the next if we will retain our privledge. Without the 'Big-N' I can fly
forever.
Ron Carroll
Original Firestar FS-015
Independence, Oregon (7S5)
>Woody,
>
>My 1986 "original" FireStar is a 5-rib wing with a 377 Rotax engine.
The
>original FireStar was optimized for Part 103 developed by the Kolb
>Company in 1985. Right now with my rug on the floor, my nice seat
>cushion, and strobe system it weighs in at 261 lbs. If I take these
items
>out, I can make the weight restriction easily. The new FireStars cannot
>make this claim because they have stronger (heavier) cages and 7-rib
>wings.
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original FireStar
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Propeller Efficiency |
At 06:21 PM 1/30/98 cst, you wrote:
>
>I had to try this. I ran over to the tool box and got the ball peen hammer
and
>.....
>
>I sure hope it works. How big should the dimples be. I think might have made
>them a little to big and deep. I sure hope it works or my partners going
to be
>awfully upset. I tried it on his airplane first.
>
>Actually there is a tape I seen at Sun & Fun that looks like a zig-zap that
the
>glider people use which is supposed to help. Their starting to put it on
>compose airplanes.
>
>I wonder what the differences are?
>
>Jerry
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: Propeller Efficiency
>Author: "Bill Weber (DVNS)" at MAILGATE
>Date: 1/29/98 3:00 PM
>
>
>A friend in my club showed me an article in the January issue of Sport
>Aviation explaining how to dramatically increase the efficiency of an
>airfoil in a very simple way. The author (who has patented this method)
>installed very thin (.015") self-adhesive tape (mylar?) with holes in it
>along the thickest portion of the propeller and wing. This basically
>produces an airfoil with "dimples" along the high point. These dimples act
>as spoilers to prevent the air from separating from the airfoil as it
>flows over the propeller and wing. This air separation is the primary
>cause of drag and noise. The more separation of flow, the less efficient
>the airfoil.
>
>His experiments reported increases in top speed of 6 to 10 mph in planes
>of different types. Of course, these were GA planes so the effect might
>not be as dramatic in ours and he dimpled the wings as well as the prop.
>Another effect was that the propeller noise was reduced to about half the
>previous level, which is something we are
>definitely interested in.
>
>The idea is so simple and sound, I wonder why nobody thought of it
>before. I don't think dimpling the wings would be worth it in our cases,
>but on the prop it is definitely worth looking into!
>
>***********************************************
>* Bill Weber * Keep *
>* MICOM Communications Corp. * the shiny *
>* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
>***********************************************
>-
>
Greg, one of the other controllers at work is a sailplane freak, and
when he saw the article about the dimple tape, he remarked that you can get
a similar effect by using paint to lay a zig zag spoiler stripe on your
prop. The idea is to create tiny spoilers just like the dimples do, but the
technique is a little different. Here's how you do it:
Paint your prop white with a paint that you can easily remove later.
Get some really dirty motor oil and wipe it on the prop. Run the engine up
to speed and start a takeoff roll, so that the airplane gets up to speed,
then chop the power and land. (You need a longer runway than mine!) Quickly
go back to the prop, and the leading edge will be clear back to the point at
which the airflow starts to dis-attach itself from the prop. Mark the prop
in a way that you can tell later where this separation point is after you
get rid of the white paint. Clean all the dirty oil off your airplane. Get
the prop paint-ready clean.
Take pinking shears and cut some masking tape lengthwise and lay it
on the leading edge of the prop so that the zig zags go down the oil
separation line. Spray two thin coats of clear paint (compatible with what
ever finish you have on your prop) on the rear half of the upper blade
surface. Peel the tape, rebalance the prop. Try it out and wonder if it was
worth the trouble.
Let me know if Greg was pulling my leg or if this works good.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Computer Blues |
>Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:08:39 -0500
>To: jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com
>From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
>Subject: Re: Computer Blues
>
>At 05:44 PM 1/30/98 cst, you wrote:
>> Richard,
>>
>> Did you get hit by one of the hardware destructive viruses. It would
>> be odd that it smoked and then give you a prompt about formatting your
>> hard drive. That sounds funny. There's one out there that will
>> supposedly fry your processor. It causes it to perform some operation
>> over and over which makes it heat up and fries it.
>>
>> To Do List: Block, filter, and screen all messages from Richard.
>>
>> Whether you actually had a virus or not, you are now tainted. No
>> matter what you do you can't prove to "them" that your OK. There
>> might be, however the slightest, a chance you have a virus lurking
>> about on a diskette which could resurface. This could some how end up
>> infecting the processor of the computer controlled engine and brakes
>> of the school bus thus possibly killing a whole bunch of kids. Sorry,
>> no body will stick there neck out and risk it on you. Your all washed
>> up. The only recourse for your is to fly, I mean buy a calculator.
>>
>> Am I bored?
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>>
>>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>>Subject: Computer Blues
>>Author: Richard Pike at MAILGATE
>>Date: 1/29/98 2:58 PM
>>
>>
>>If anyone tried to send me anything over the last three days, it is
>>gone. I downloaded my e-mail yesterday after having the computer in the
shop all
>>weekend, and then lost the system totally. Tried to maintain airspeed, but
>>smelled smoke inside the case. Crashed and burned. Then the inevitable...
>>WARNING, ALL DATA ON NON-REMOVABLE DISK DRIVE C: WILL BE LOST!
>>Proceed with Format (Y/N) ?
>>
>>This has not been a very productive day, but it was an expensive one...
>>
>>If it was important, send it again.
>>Richard Pike
>>MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>>
>> Actually, my discription was more graphic than accurate. For weeks
my A drive accessed every time I entered or exited any program anywhere. Had
to keep a blank floppy in it just to keep the computer from complaining.
Tried everything, nobody could figure it out. Since it worked OK in DOS,
someone suggested uninstalling and then reinstalling Windows.
> So I uninstalled Windows. Reinstalled Windows. And that was all
that was there.
> Where did the programs go? No one knows. Letters, EAA documents,
Templates...
> The smoke I thought I smelled was my just getting burned by Bill
Gates yet again. So I formatted the thing and started over.
> Any body recommend a good way to back up the whole hard drive?
> Anybody using O/S 2 and liking it? (I hate Windows!)
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
I am still getting 2 of the same emails from the kolb group, is anybody else?
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: double email |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
>I am still getting 2 of the same emails from the kolb group, is
>anybody else?
>-
Not me Tim,
I occasionally have a day when I get NO messages from the group. Is this
common or is it my service going "tango-uniform" once in awhile?
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: bolts and clevis pins |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
>Ralph H Burlingame wrote:
>>
>> To all,
>>
>> A friend of mine has a question about the 1/4" clevis pin on the
>lower
>> part of the lift strut. If he uses an A/N bolt in place of the
>clevis
>> pin, will it have the same strength? Comments please.
>>
>I used to have a Falcon UL that used 1/4" A/N bolts on the struts. I
>don't know what clevis pins are made from. Somebody must know.
>John Jung
>-
Quoting my trusty "Standard Aircraft Handbook" 4th Edition, here is the
description for;
AN3 to AN20 Bolt, Hex Head.
Material: Nickel steel (S.A.E. 2330). Process: heat-treat harden and
cadmium plate.
and;
AN392 to AN406 Pin, Flat Head.
Material: Steel. Process: heat-treat harden and cadmium plate.
-End quote-
I was surprised to see no alloy designation for the pin. Apparently any
old steel is good enough. Surely there is a minimum shear strength but my
handbook doesn't list that. Ralph, tell your bud not to worry about using
a bolt.
The lower strut "pins" on my Twinstar are actually hex head bolts that
have had the threaded portion cut-off and holes drilled for the safety
pins. The upper (wing) end has regular clevis pins. Hmmm.......
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Computer Blues |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>> Any body recommend a good way to back up the whole hard
>drive?
>> Anybody using O/S 2 and liking it? (I hate Windows!)
>> Richard Pike
>> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>>
Richard,
With the price of really huge hard-drives getting lower than the price of
tape and "Zip" type back-up drives, I've been thinking of installing a
second hard drive to use for back-ups only. Actually, "backing-up" in the
traditional sense wouldn't even be necessary if the second drive were at
least as large as the primary, you could just copy everything from the
primary to the secondary every week or so (skipping the compression
which is time consuming).
Of course this would be an exercise in restraint. (Wonder how long it
takes to fill-up (2) 2 gig hard drives with 95% useless BS?)
If you really want to get fancy, you can install a second hard drive and
then buy a special controller board that "mirrors" two hard drives. These
are becoming common in network servers and are even "hot-swappable"
meaning if one drive crashes, it will automatically switch to the good
one, you can even sh**-can the bad drive, plug-in a fresh one and keep
right on goin' without even a re-boot (at least according to the ads!).
The best part is Gates don't make it!
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
P.S. - Don't mind Jerry, I'll talk to ya heck, I get all kinds of files
and messages from all kinds of "high-risk" sources and have nev
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Interference drag reduction -Reply |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Hey Ron,
One thing I didn't mention was that I also cut off all of the steel plugs
and the "duck-tail" section of the cage. I verified this with Kolb before
I did this. The rear section of my cage is left uncovered, so this saves
weight too. My other reasons at the time were: 1) I wanted to see behind
me 2) less drag 3) I wanted to be able to get the main tank in and out
4) I wanted to be able to see the tank in flight 5) I wanted to be able
to inspect the bellcranks easier.
If you recall, the early TwinStars were exactly the same way and I really
liked that style. I've seen so many guys, since, that have had to rip all
that covering off anyway and re-do it because it will wear right through
those side ribs in time with gas spills, which is inevitable.
I have two coats of poly-brush and two coats of poly-tone white. I used
the paint with the UV block in it. The trim is cuby green. I do not have
brakes, but have strobe lights.
I also turned my tank around the opposite way from the plans. It's easier
to fill from the front.
Ralph
writes:
>Encouraging, Ralph. The plans and building manual that came with my
>Original Firestar (FS-015) states that the empty weight is 264 pounds.
>I'm not sure how much paint they base this on, or how much you have on
>your's. Also, how about brakes?
>
>My concern, of course, is whether or not I will need to register it.
>I'd rather not because of my age (65)we never know from one medical to
>the next if we will retain our privledge. Without the 'Big-N' I can
>fly
>forever.
>
>Ron Carroll
>Original Firestar FS-015
>Independence, Oregon (7S5)
>
>
>>Woody,
>>
>>My 1986 "original" FireStar is a 5-rib wing with a 377 Rotax engine.
>The
>>original FireStar was optimized for Part 103 developed by the Kolb
>>Company in 1985. Right now with my rug on the floor, my nice seat
>>cushion, and strobe system it weighs in at 261 lbs. If I take these
>items
>>out, I can make the weight restriction easily. The new FireStars
>cannot
>>make this claim because they have stronger (heavier) cages and 7-rib
>>wings.
>>
>>Ralph Burlingame
>>Original FireStar
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RE: bolts vs clevis pins |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Thank You Mick for taking the time to look up that material on A/N bolts.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: bolts and clevis pins |
From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
RALPH
I would think that the 1/4 " bolt would be the same as the clevis pin as
long as the threads would be on the outside of the lift strut tang. I
have gone to this method and feel safer ,the pin and the bolt are both
in shear so it looks as if they would be the same .
I use the bolt's at both ends of the strut and on the inboard wing rib
it's more trouble but one less thing to worry about
Rick
writes:
>To all,
>
>A friend of mine has a question about the 1/4" clevis pin on the lower
>part of the lift strut. If he uses an A/N bolt in place of the clevis
>pin, will it have the same strength? Comments please.
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original FireStar
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Interference drag reduction -Reply |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>Hey Ron,
>
>One thing I didn't mention was that I also cut off all of the steel
>plugs and the "duck-tail" section of the cage. I verified this with
>Kolb before I did this. ....
Jees Ralph,
I've been spending a LOT of time installing the steel plugs and stringers
to the cage of my Twinstar in an effort to make it more like a Mk II.
Maybe we should have just traded airplanes! :-)
As for the fabric wearing-thru, a friend with a 'real' Mk II had the same
problem but attributed it more to dirt getting lodged between the tubes
and fabric on the inside of the fuselage. After a few years, the fabric
was quite weak along most all the intersections of tube & fabric. He
re-covered the fuselage inside and out. He now has a very nice, smooth
looking interior but can't inspect for cracked tubes or welds very easy.
My thought is to use 2" tape on the inside of the tubing and trim it just
short of the welds for inspection. This should keep most of the grit from
getting between fabric and tube and still allow inspection of the welds.
I'd appreciate any other Ideas.
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: double email |
Timandjan(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> I am still getting 2 of the same emails from the kolb group, is anybody else?
> -
Check to see who the duplicate mail was sent to. If on is Kolb and the
other is you, then the sender probably responded to "all". If this is
not the case, it may be your e-mail service.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mark Swihart <mswihart(at)tcsn.net> |
Subject: | Kolb: Ripped Wing & Web Page Update |
<19980131.210253.7975.1.ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
I updated my web page go to <http://www.tcsn.net/mswihart/kolb.htm>
for those of you interested in the TwinStar my pardner and I are
restoring. I added two pages:
<http://www.tcsn.net/mswihart/twinstar1.htm> with the latest work done
on the frame. I also included a photo of the strobe bolted to the muffler
bracket. It will be moved to the vert stab.
<http://www.tcsn.net/mswihart/cobra.htm> Photo I took of my pardner's
cobra wing that is sun rotted with rip in it. It was was enlarged with
the help of a penknife. The rotten dacron breaks apart like paper.
-Mark-
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Interference drag reduction -Reply |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Mick,
I had a friend with a Mark II that also reinforced the fabric with 2"
finishing tape when he redid his cage covering. I have another friend
with an original FireStar that covered just the lower half of the cage by
welding in a horizontal piece of chromoly slanting downwards from front
to rear. He cut off the "ducktail" section and it looks more like a
FireFly. On mine, I covered from the gear legs up to the horizontal
member in back of the seat. I think it looks ok, but others don't share
the same opinion. It does make the fuse tube "look" longer. Functionally,
I am very satisfied with it because I can inspect things better and I
take the 5g tank out every spring and clean it. It would be a chore with
the covering back there. Another advantage is that you have "handles" to
move your plane around.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
>writes:
>>Hey Ron,
>>
>>One thing I didn't mention was that I also cut off all of the steel
>>plugs and the "duck-tail" section of the cage. I verified this with
>>Kolb before I did this. ....
>
>Jees Ralph,
>
>I've been spending a LOT of time installing the steel plugs and
>stringers to the cage of my Twinstar in an effort to make it more like
>a Mk II. Maybe we should have just traded airplanes! :-)
>
>As for the fabric wearing-thru, a friend with a 'real' Mk II had the
>same problem but attributed it more to dirt getting lodged between the
>tubes and fabric on the inside of the fuselage. After a few years, the
>fabric was quite weak along most all the intersections of tube &
>fabric. He re-covered the fuselage inside and out. He now has a very
>nice, smooth looking interior but can't inspect for cracked tubes or
>welds very easy. My thought is to use 2" tape on the inside of the
>tubing and trim it just short of the welds for inspection. This should
>keep most of the grit from getting between fabric and tube and still
>allow inspection of the welds. I'd appreciate any other Ideas.
>
>
>-Mick Fine
>Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
>Tulsa, Oklahoma
>mefine1(at)juno.com
>For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Woody Weaver <mts0140(at)ibm.net> |
Is anyone building or flying a Firefly with an engine other than the
Rotax 447? It would be interesting to hear about your experiences.
Thanks,
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
Subject: | Re: Re[2]: Wing Fuel Tanks |
> I still recall having read a thread of some claiming they had tested
> PVC but I myself would be concerned about it.
Those that still think that PVC is appropriate for fuel
storage.....
http://www.bibby-sterilin.co.uk/cat/azlon/intro.htm
take a look at the properties.
Jim Baker
Pres, USUA Club 104
Frontier Ultralight Aviators
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Paul VonLindern <paulv(at)digisys.net> |
This is to all the MKIII owners out there.
My partner and I are considering purchasing a MKIII in the
near future, but are uncertain as to which engine to buy. We
are looking at the Rotax 582 or 618. I've been subscribing
to the list for quit awhile now and don't recall seeing
many of you talking about the 618. From what I've read about
each one I am not sure if the cost difference is worth what
little performance difference there is. We're leaning
towards the 582 but don't want to make the selection without
input from people who already use one or the other.
Please send some input to help us decide.
Thank You
Paul VonLindern
(Hopefully the dream will become reality soon)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
Subject: | Fw: Isn't Math Great! |
-----Original Message-----
From: CHerr23763(at)aol.com <CHerr23763(at)aol.com>
; Cbhouse(at)aol.com ; Micahalex(at)aol.com
; Nanwells(at)aol.com ; Tezpa(at)IBM.net
; R.DUFF(at)POST.OFFICE.WORLDNET.ATT.NET
; MaryNDaveW(at)aol.com
; vettnut(at)cybertron.com ;
hawg5(at)surfsouth.com ; RRLeaverton(at)compuserve.com
; greenley(at)juno.com ;
ed.kristie.olsen(at)iname.com ; Puiltzer(at)aol.com
; Keefepffwb(at)aol.com ;
hgwm02c(at)prodigy.com ; Squawman(at)juno.com
Date: Sunday, February 01, 1998 8:03 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Fwd: Isn't Math Great!
SMTPSVC;
From: "John R. Boyd" <johnrboyd(at)email.msn.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Isn't Math Great!
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:30:10 -0500
The Age Game
Here's some fun for you. Try it, you'll be amazed.
No CHEATING by scrolling down first! It only takes
30 seconds. Work this out as you read. Don't read
the bottom until you have worked it out!
1. First of all, pick the number of days a week that
you would like to go out.
2. Multiply this number by 2.
3. Add 5.
4. Multiply it by 50.
5. If you have already had your birthday this year,
add 1748. If you haven't, add 1747.
6. Last step: subtract the four digit year that you
were born.
See below
Results: You should now have a three digit
number, the first digit of this was
your original number (i.e., how many
times you want to go out each week).
The second two digits are your age!
It really works. This is the only year
(1998) it will ever work, so spread the
joy around by mailing this to those you
know.
Regards,
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
Subject: | Fw: Isn't Math Great! |
-----Original Message-----
From: Lindy <lindy(at)snowhill.com>
Date: Sunday, February 01, 1998 4:08 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Fw: Isn't Math Great!
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: CHerr23763(at)aol.com <CHerr23763(at)aol.com>
>To: Kenwilliams(at)postoffice.worldnet.att.net
>
>Cc: Lindy(at)Snowhill.com ; elosmond(at)juno.com
>; Cbhouse(at)aol.com ; Micahalex(at)aol.com
>; Nanwells(at)aol.com ; Tezpa(at)IBM.net
>; R.DUFF(at)POST.OFFICE.WORLDNET.ATT.NET
>; MaryNDaveW(at)aol.com
>; vettnut(at)cybertron.com ;
>hawg5(at)surfsouth.com ; RRLeaverton(at)compuserve.com
>; greenley(at)juno.com ;
>ed.kristie.olsen(at)iname.com ; Puiltzer(at)aol.com
>; Keefepffwb(at)aol.com ;
>hgwm02c(at)prodigy.com ; Squawman(at)juno.com
>
>Date: Sunday, February 01, 1998 8:03 AM
>Subject: Fwd: Isn't Math Great!
>
>
>
SMTPSVC;
From: "John R. Boyd" <johnrboyd(at)email.msn.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Isn't Math Great!
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:30:10 -0500
The Age Game
Here's some fun for you. Try it, you'll be amazed.
No CHEATING by scrolling down first! It only takes
30 seconds. Work this out as you read. Don't read
the bottom until you have worked it out!
1. First of all, pick the number of days a week that
you would like to go out.
2. Multiply this number by 2.
3. Add 5.
4. Multiply it by 50.
5. If you have already had your birthday this year,
add 1748. If you haven't, add 1747.
6. Last step: subtract the four digit year that you
were born.
See below
Results: You should now have a three digit
number, the first digit of this was
your original number (i.e., how many
times you want to go out each week).
The second two digits are your age!
It really works. This is the only year
(1998) it will ever work, so spread the
joy around by mailing this to those you
know.
Regards,
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
Subject: | Re[2]: Computer Blues |
Hey,
We're just having some fun with Richard. Well still read his messages.
Jerry
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Computer Blues
Date: 1/31/98 8:09 PM
writes:
>> Any body recommend a good way to back up the whole hard
>drive?
>> Anybody using O/S 2 and liking it? (I hate Windows!)
>> Richard Pike
>> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>>
Richard,
With the price of really huge hard-drives getting lower than the price of
tape and "Zip" type back-up drives, I've been thinking of installing a
second hard drive to use for back-ups only. Actually, "backing-up" in the
traditional sense wouldn't even be necessary if the second drive were at
least as large as the primary, you could just copy everything from the
primary to the secondary every week or so (skipping the compression
which is time consuming).
Of course this would be an exercise in restraint. (Wonder how long it
takes to fill-up (2) 2 gig hard drives with 95% useless BS?)
If you really want to get fancy, you can install a second hard drive and
then buy a special controller board that "mirrors" two hard drives. These
are becoming common in network servers and are even "hot-swappable"
meaning if one drive crashes, it will automatically switch to the good
one, you can even sh**-can the bad drive, plug-in a fresh one and keep
right on goin' without even a re-boot (at least according to the ads!).
The best part is Gates don't make it!
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
P.S. - Don't mind Jerry, I'll talk to ya heck, I get all kinds of files
and messages from all kinds of "high-risk" sources and have nev
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>This is to all the MKIII owners out there.
>
>My partner and I are considering purchasing a MKIII in the
>near future, but are uncertain as to which engine to buy. We
>are looking at the Rotax 582 or 618. I've been subscribing
>to the list for quit awhile now and don't recall seeing
>many of you talking about the 618. From what I've read about
>each one I am not sure if the cost difference is worth what
>little performance difference there is. We're leaning
>towards the 582 but don't want to make the selection without
>input from people who already use one or the other.
>Please send some input to help us decide.
>
>Thank You
>
>Paul VonLindern
>(Hopefully the dream will become reality soon)
>
>- As someone who is using a 64 HP 532, the biggest pluses of the 618
would have to be a shorter takeoff run, and a better climb out , and lower
inflight noise due to cruising under load at a lower rpm.
If you build very light and are light persons, and the pax are
light, the 582 should do fine.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca> |
>This is to all the MKIII owners out there.
>
>My partner and I are considering purchasing a MKIII in the
>near future, but are uncertain as to which engine to buy. We
>are looking at the Rotax 582 or 618. I've been subscribing.............
I have a Mark 111 with a 582 that is about 5 years old. If I was doing it
all over I would get the 618. My biggest problem is when I try to take off
in deep snow with skis and a passenger on board. Two full sized people will
not get off the ground when the wind is calm and the snow is deep. I get
about a 500 foot per minute climb rate when I have a full sized passenger
and about 900 feet per minute climb rate when I fly alone.
I ordered my Mark 111 with a C drive and 3 to 1 gears. I have been told
that a 2.62 to 1 ratio will produce a better climb rate. I have a 66 inch
three blade Warp Drive prop.
Anyone have a set of 2.62 to 1 gears to trade me?
Kim Steiner
Saskatchewan, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Marino, Frank J (Youngstown ARB)" <Frank.Marino(at)yng.afres.af.mil> |
Subject: | RE: Food for thought. |
As a flight instructor one of the first things you learn on emergency
procedures is if your engine quits you land straight ahead, never try to
turn to make the runway that is a sure way to stall and spin into the
ground. When your engine quits in the air pick a spot and stick with it
don't keep picking better landing sights you might not make it.
FRANK J. MARINO
Chief Loadmaster 773 AS
>----------
>From: jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com[SMTP:jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com]
>Sent: Friday, January 30, 1998 6:15 PM
>To: Kolb(at)intrig.com; jrjung(at)execpc.com
>Subject: Re: Food for thought.
>
>Interesting write up.
>
>I strongly discourage turns back to the runway. It will get you every time.
>We
>have a charred spot on our field from the last guy this summer that tried
>that
>exact maneuver. It didn't work any better for him either. He now has a new
>pair of wings with feathers or at least I hope so.
>
>The problem of turning back isn't the turn, its altitude and then the pilot
>starts running short he tries to extend his glide and then stalls while in
>the
>turn, the wing drops and rotation starts. Better to pick a good spot ahead
>and
>go for it. You might bend the airplane but walking away much better than
>burning as in his case.
>
>OK guys jump in here.
>
>We had a MK-3 in the area go down at an airport about a year ago after an
>engine
>failure. What I understand what got them was when the engine came back to
>life.
>
>They had dropped the nose much like you describe to do but when it restarted
>they had left the throttle full open position. The high thrust line pushed
>the
>nose over and since they were not very high they had little time to react and
>were drove into the ground. I think one guy was killed and the other hurt
>quite
>bad.
>
>I don't how for sure how I would perform under the same situation but being
>made
>aware of these characteristics and thinking them out, and practicing at a
>safe
>altitude can save your bacon.
>
>Jerry Bidle
>
>
>
>
>Group,
> Below is an article that I wrote for an ultralight club that I
>belonged to in 1996. It isn't a flying story, but it is at least
>something to think about and/or discuss.
>
>Engine Failure after Takeoff
>
> For those of you that have not had an ultralight engine quit after
>takeoff, Id like to go through a likely scenario. First, I am talking
>about a plane with a high thrust line like a Firestar. The stick is
>held back during climb to compensate for the high thrust line and full
>power. When the engine quits, the plane immediately starts to slow
>down. The next thing that should happen is that the pilot jams the
>stick all the way forward and levels the wings with coordinated use of
>rudder and ailerons. The airspeed is monitored and the stick held all
>the way forward until the airspeed is at or above stall speed + 30% and
>increasing. The pitch can then be adjusted to maintain that speed. Now
>the plane is flown to the landing site that was planned before takeoff
>and the airspeed is monitored and controlled. Some say that turns
>should be avoided. I say, turn if you want, just allow some extra
>airspeed for the increase in stall speed that a turn causes. The
>important thing is to maintain control of the plane and the best way to
>do that is to maintain enough airspeed.
> Now lets go back to where the engine quit and see what can go wrong.
>If there is any delay in going to full forward stick or if the stick is
>not put far enough forward, the plane could slow to stall speed before
>the nose is low enough to maintain glide. The momentum is all we have
>to substantially change the pitch to nose down. The prop blast is no
>longer on the elevator, so it responds slower than we are used to. It
>is possible for an ultralight to stall just a couple seconds after the
>engine quits in this situation. Believe me when I tell you that this is
>not an unlikely situation. So lets say that were down to stall speed.
>In a high performance ultralight like the Firestar, one wing might stall
>first and it could feel like the plane is starting to turn that way. If
>the pilot fails to recognize the stall and reacts by using ailerons to
>keep the wings level, the stall is aggravated and a spin results. At
>this point, his options arent very good.
>
> So how could the pilot have avoided the spin? First by monitoring the
>airspeed and seeing that a stall is likely. Or by just knowing that a
>stall is likely in this situation. Then if a wing starts to drop, the
>rudder is used to keep the wings level. Ailerons should be neutral.
>The wings will still stall, but the spin can be avoided. The stall will
>cause a loss of altitude, but the nose will lower and the plane will
>start flying again as long as enough altitude remains. A stall and
>recovery like this might need 30 to 100 feet of altitude. How does a
>pilot recognize a stall and instinctively use rudder to counteract a
>spin? By practicing stalls at a safe altitude.
> This has been my own view of how to handle an engine failure after
>takeoff. I hope that none of you ever have to experience this, but if
>it does happen to you, I hope that you are as prepared as possible. For
>more information on this subject, I recommend reading the article titled
>"How to Control...Panic!", in the October 1996 issue of Ultralight
>Flying. In the same issue, Jack McCornack has a very worth-while
>article on engine failure after takeoff. If you dont subscribe to
>Ultralight Flying, I suggest that you give it a try. One article like
>"How to Control...Panic!" is worth the cost of an annual subscription.
>
>John Jung
>377 Firestar (For Sale)
>503 Firestar II N6163J (soon to be inspected)
>-
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Saturdays flight |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Here's a flight that I made this past Saturday with a friend of mine in
an original FireStar. This was his first time flying his plane off skis.
It got up to 40 degrees here and the snow was wet, heavy, and tough to
maneuver during the afternoon hours. Ray Lujon helped me push my car out
when I got it stuck driving it out here on Lake Minnetonka. In the
winter, I usually set up my FireStar out here on Cooks Bay. The problem
Saturday was there was a narrow road plowed out on the lake and I
couldn't drive off that road without getting stuck. I parked the trailer
on the road and then unloaded my FireStar. I had to push the plane up the
snow bank, then set it up. Jerry came flying overhead and said it was
smooth at 2400 ft. They both helped me put on the skis. I usually have to
lift each gear leg, place on a jackstand, then put on a ski. This is
tough on an old guy! It was nice to have some help.
Ray (Lujon),
After you left, Jerry and I flew over the lake for another 15 minutes. I
saw his left ski dipped nose down and decided to go back. He landed
without incident and we went and got a stronger bungee for him. After
getting something to eat, we decided to go to Fish Lake, then on to Lino
Airpark. We landed on Fish Lake, then went on to Lino. Flying over, I saw
the main runway was plowed, so I landed next to it in some very heavy
snow. Even with my skis, I slowed to stop quickly. I tried to wave Jerry
off as he was coming in, because I knew his unwaxed skis wouldn't fare so
well. Sure enough, as he touched down his fiberglass nose went right in.
I ran up to him thinking he really did some damage. As it turned out the
nose was just buried in the snow to the point where he had snow covering
the floor of his cockpit. He was pretty startled. After gassing up, this
is where the fun began. He tried to takeoff, but each time nosing over.
The skis were sticking so badly that he couldn't get up enough speed to
lift off. After an hour of pushing the plane across the plowed runway to
the other side where we thought the snow wouldn't be so deep, we were
beginning to think there wasn't any way. I went over to a hanger where
some guy was working on his Mooney and asked him for help. He had a
snowmobile, and I asked him if he could pack down the runway for us. He
agreed, and got on his snowmobile. I spotted a spray can of Teflon lube
which we borrowed. Jerry applied the spray lube to the bottoms of his
skis while I held the wing up. In the meantime, this guy was busy making
Jerry an airstrip. When Jerry got in his plane, he saw how much easier it
glided on the snow and knew that he could do it this time. As I taxied
around in the heavy snow, on the opposite side of the runway, I had him
in view waiting for him to go. He took off without any problem, now it
was my turn. That heavy wet snow was tough, but I made it off without the
aid of packed snow. Once in the air, I could see Jerry circling back to
see if I made it. I kept going because the ceiling was dropping and I had
30 miles to go. He said later on that I was way ahead and he couldn't
catch up. I made it back at 4pm and made a smooth landing on the lake. I
was more worried about my car going through the ice out on that lake. It
was one warm day! I'm very happy with these skis. They have already
proven their worth today. Thank You, Ray, for pushing me into building
them. I think Jerry learned something today about ski flying.
The ceiling was down to 900 ft when I landed and fog was moving in. I'm
glad I brought my GPS. Now the work begins (again), having to take the
FireStar down and load it back on the trailer. I had a good day and it
was worth it!
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar in Minnesota
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jeff Stripling <jstripli(at)io.com> |
Subject: | Re: double email |
>I am still getting 2 of the same emails from the kolb group, is anybody
else?
The list manager used for this list (majordomo) has been known to
send double mailings. About a year ago when the list grew a bunch
quickly, a lot of people were getting double mailings.
At that time,I aded an email splitter to send mail in groups (a
divide & conquer approach) instead of using one process to send
email to the entire list.
If your email address is in a group with a person who's email
server is not that responsive, this could be causing double
emails.
I can't control who goes in what group -- this is unfortunatly
the luck of the draw. You can send email to majordomo(at)intrig.com
and include this line in your email:
who kolb
You'll get back a list of everyone's email address and you can
at least ensure that you are not on the list twice.
Jeff
--
Jeff R. Stripling
jstripli(at)io.com
(512) 252-3053
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
Subject: | Clarification of MSG Sent 1 Feb 98 |
Been flooded with replies that stated I received a blank MSG.One Kolb
builder doesn't want traffic so please ignore.MSG was forwarded and more
than obvious you did not receive attachment for one reason or another.MSG in
the clear follows.Note;This math problem will only work in 1998. Step 1.
Pick the number of days you want to fly (any other appropriate word will
work I.e. go out,dance,modify as you see fit.Step 2. Multiply by 2. Step 3.
Add 5.Step 4. Multiply by 50. Step 5. If you already had your birthday add
1748,If you haven't add 1747. Step 6 Last step--Subtract the four digit year
that you were born.............Results: You should have a three (3) digit
number.The 1st digit was your original number(How many times you want to
fly, etc).The second two digits are your age! Lindy in (LA)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | Happy birthday to you, . . . |
Ray Lujon;
Thanks for your interesting letter, and happy birthday.
Are you saying that your Firestar is 103 legal? I am building a 1985
"Original Firestar". The manual states the empty weight at 264 #s. This
plane has 5-ribs, no brakes, etc. I have asked others about their
weight and how much paint they used on them. How about your's, weight,
paint, etc?
I live in an airpark community with my hangar in my backyard. All of my
neighbors are fliers and are completely aware of FAR Part 103. I flew a
Quicksilver MXL-ll for a while and several would ask, "Is that a legal
ultralight?", knowing full well that it wasn't. I felt very
uncomfortable trying to fake it. I would like the Firestar to at least
look and fly like an ultralight so that I will arouse less curiosity.
It will be 377 powered, carry 5-gallons of fuel, single seated, and have
a BRS 750# chute. At least it will appear to be an ultralight.
There has been controversy locally regarding the wording of 103's
reference to the 5-gallon fuel capacity. We wonder if the capacity
means that you are not allowed to carry a spare, empty container for use
in transporting fuel from a gas station to the plane, or that you are
not allowed to have anything more than the 5-gallon container plumbed
into the ultralight fuel system? Any ideas?
Also, in Part 103 there is an allowance for safety devices, but we are
unable to determine what the allowance amounts to. Is there a specific
weight allowed for a chute, or other devices? Has anyone ever been
ramp-checked and weighed? If so, and the UL weighed more than 254#s,
was there some sort of allowance made for any safety equipment on board?
If so, how was it determined?
Again, have a happy birthday, and don't spend too much time on my dumb
questions.
Ron
>Snip . . .
>The FAA regulation flap governing ultralights has
>been going on for years and I don't think it will be settled anytime
>soon. The cold facts are that the number of flying ultralights that
meet
>the almost impossible FAR 103 weight restrictions are very few and far
>between. The best we can do is keep our planes as light as possible and
>at the same time build a plane that does not compromise safety. I think
>the Kolb Firestar with the seven rib wing flown solo meets this
criteria.
>Brakes are not neccessary. They are heavy and can get you into real
>trouble. Thanks for reading this far, however I feel I may be preaching
>to the choir. Ray Lujon, Woodbury,MN
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
>Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Ron Carroll wrote:
>
snip
>
> There has been controversy locally regarding the wording of 103's
> reference to the 5-gallon fuel capacity. We wonder if the capacity
> means that you are not allowed to carry a spare, empty container for use
> in transporting fuel from a gas station to the plane, or that you are
> not allowed to have anything more than the 5-gallon container plumbed
> into the ultralight fuel system? Any ideas?
>
> Also, in Part 103 there is an allowance for safety devices, but we are
> unable to determine what the allowance amounts to. Is there a specific
> weight allowed for a chute, or other devices? Has anyone ever been
> ramp-checked and weighed? If so, and the UL weighed more than 254#s,
> was there some sort of allowance made for any safety equipment on board?
> If so, how was it determined?
>
snip
Ron,
I have been flying ultralight s for 10 years, including several trips
into the Oshkosh EAA Fly-In. That I know of, it has been years since
anyone has been weight checked. The EAA has even given "Ultralight"
awards to ultralights that are not even close to legal. If the future is
anything like the past, you will be O.K. with a 377 Firestar. With the
chute, you should be legal up to 289 pounds. It isn't written that way,
but it is generally interpreted that way. I believe that an extra empty
tank is legal as long as it isn't connected. If there is more than five
gallons on board, I think it is illegal. The advantage of an ultralight
is that the FAA doesn't want to get into enforcement. They leave it up
to local police and they don't know how to deal with ultralights. It
kind of the opposte of "Catch 22". We have fallen through the cracks and
uless we do something to make the law notice us, they leave us alone.
John Jung
377 Firestar
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Happy birthday to you, . . . |
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Ron Carroll wrote:
> Ray Lujon;
> Thanks for your interesting letter, and happy birthday.
Yeah, same from me on both those notes. :-)
>
> plane has 5-ribs, no brakes, etc. I have asked others about their
> weight and how much paint they used on them. How about your's, weight,
> paint, etc?
My KXP doesn't come close enf to 254 to make legal by simply pulling off
a few "extras". Ok, i'll simply publish it: 312 lbs. Thats with a
750 BRS, and what Kolb used to call HD gear, which became standard
by the time the KX/KXP was made. It was 312 with the original Kolb
style brakes, and i kept that weight by pulling off those brakes and
putting on the *big* tires. Only other options on mine is a Kuntzleman
strobe (~2 lbs) and a lexan top seal. I used no polyspray, just one
coat plus crosscoat of polytone over the normal 2 coats of polybrush.
KXPs have the 7 rib wing. 312-(254+25) puts me 33 lbs over, ouch, and
yes, more than i anticipated at the outset. The FS II and I w/ 447 i
believe will be even slightly heavier as their cage is longer.
OK, will somebody bail me out of jail? On the serious side, i'm not
trying to be too brash here, just trying to be helpful with weight
expectations and call a spade a spade. There are practically no legal
ULs in the USA.
> It will be 377 powered, carry 5-gallons of fuel, single seated, and have
> a BRS 750# chute. At least it will appear to be an ultralight.
Note a 377 is the same engine as 447, just smaller bore i believe. So
that weight is the same.
> There has been controversy locally regarding the wording of 103's
> reference to the 5-gallon fuel capacity. We wonder if the capacity
This, like everything else comes under the descretion of the local
FAA office. If somebody is mad enf at you and in tight enf w/ the
FAA office, they can easily fine you for any fuel container on board
beyond 5 gal. The old story is that they'll make you drink out of
any container on board other than the 5 gal tank. :-)
In summary, things are pretty much the same everywhere as the airport
you describe. People easily brand anything that looks like an UL an UL,
and the UL owner swallows hard and tries to not get too close to
the weight subject. Just mind your manners and try to make friends; it
becomes easy to make those "real" airplane fliers jealous as hell and
with enf of them in your corner, things seem to almost work. We all,
myself included, need to be more politically active to fix this.
-Ben Ransom
We are but one medical, one false move, (or maybe one ill-advised email)
away from flying RCs.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: archive question |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
Jeff,
I have never been able to access the Kolb list archives. I noticed it is
now linked-to from the Kolb Aircraft homepage but when I try to go there
I get an "unable to locate server" message. Is it just me?
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Saturdays flight |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>Here's a flight that I made this past Saturday with a friend of mine
>in an original FireStar. ...
Nice story Ralph! All this ski-flying sounds like fun, almost makes me
wish for a good deep snow. (well, almost!)
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com |
A 582 is big enough unless you plan on using floats or otherwise fly at
gross weight a lot.
Frank Reynen MkIII@430 hrs on 582
http://www.webcom.com/reynen
This is to all the MKIII owners out there.
My partner and I are considering purchasing a MKIII in the
near future, but are uncertain as to which engine to buy. We
are looking at the Rotax 582 or 618. I've been subscribing
to the list for quit awhile now and don't recall seeing
many of you talking about the 618. From what I've read about
each one I am not sure if the cost difference is worth what
little performance difference there is. We're leaning
towards the 582 but don't want to make the selection without
input from people who already use one or the other.
Please send some input to help us decide.
Thank You
Paul VonLindern
(Hopefully the dream will become reality soon)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "merle hargis" <merlepilar(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | Re: double email |
I got a couple duplicates, but not often.
merle
----------
> From: Timandjan(at)aol.com
> To: Kolb(at)intrig.com
> Subject: double email
> Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 7:06 PM
>
> I am still getting 2 of the same emails from the kolb group, is anybody
else?
> -
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Scott Olendorf" <olendorf(at)empireone.net> |
Subject: | Re: Saturdays flight |
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 10:42 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Saturdays flight
>Here's a flight that I made this past Saturday with a friend of mine in
---------neat story clipped ------------
>
>The ceiling was down to 900 ft when I landed and fog was moving in. I'm
>glad I brought my GPS. Now the work begins (again), having to take the
>FireStar down and load it back on the trailer. I had a good day and it
>was worth it!
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original FireStar in Minnesota
>
Thanks for the flying story! I think you guys have me convinced to try out
my
skis. I have a pair that I have never used. I'm recovering the plane this
winter
but I am going to try out the skis next year for sure.
Scott Olendorf
Original Firestar with Rotax 377
Schenectady, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
Subject: | Re: Happy birthday to you, . . . |
du>
>There are practically no legal
>ULs in the USA.
There are a few. My Kolb Ultrastar weighs in at a hefty 242#. :)
That includes very light in the paint dept., no brakes, no electrical
system, no 'chute, minimal instruments (no compass - no radio - no GPS),
and not even close to 5 gal of fuel for the mighty 35 hp Cuyuna and it
does include a big dose of flying pleasure.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
I think the biggest risk you take flying an illegal Part 103 vehicle
is having some one draw the faa's attention to you. One of our local u/l
flyers got on the wrong side of one of his neighbors, (she didn't like him
flying over her house when he took off or landed at this grass strip he
shared with several other u/l's) and she called flight standards. The
Gung-ho flight standards yuppie lady calls this guy, and being a friendly SW
Virginia country boy, he talks just a little too much. Then the Yuppie
flight standards lady shows up at his strip, and wants to see the machine in
question...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Happy birthday to you, . . . |
>>There are practically no legal
>>ULs in the USA.
>
> The Hummer I sold last spring weighed 248 with brakes, strobe, Terra
720 radio, partial fairing and windshield, and a 12v battery . It was part
103 legal, but had N-numbers and was day and night part 91 VFR legal with
nav lights and a landing light. It had a dope and fabric covering instead of
the original slip on cover, so it had a full set of false ribs and 4 more
top batten ribs than stock. But it was not as good a flyer as a Firestar.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
Subject: | Re: Interference drag reduction -Reply |
Mick, a "trick" I read in EXPERIMENTER about keeping fabric from getting cut
where the dirt gets in between the fabric and the tubing:
"" After finish painting, apply a bead of silicone sealant to
the area to keep the dirt out. ""
I did this and it looks like it is working well. I used clear but wish I'd
used white.
Happy flying...
Jim Gerken
owner-kolb @ intrig.com
01-31-98 06:09 PM
Please respond to owner-kolb(at)intrig.com @ internet
cc:
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Interference drag reduction -Reply
writes:
>Hey Ron,
>
>One thing I didn't mention was that I also cut off all of the steel
>plugs and the "duck-tail" section of the cage. I verified this with
>Kolb before I did this. ....
Jees Ralph,
I've been spending a LOT of time installing the steel plugs and stringers
to the cage of my Twinstar in an effort to make it more like a Mk II.
Maybe we should have just traded airplanes! :-)
As for the fabric wearing-thru, a friend with a 'real' Mk II had the same
problem but attributed it more to dirt getting lodged between the tubes
and fabric on the inside of the fuselage. After a few years, the fabric
was quite weak along most all the intersections of tube & fabric. He
re-covered the fuselage inside and out. He now has a very nice, smooth
looking interior but can't inspect for cracked tubes or welds very easy.
My thought is to use 2" tape on the inside of the tubing and trim it just
short of the welds for inspection. This should keep most of the grit from
getting between fabric and tube and still allow inspection of the welds.
I'd appreciate any other Ideas.
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Richard Pike wrote:
>
> I think the biggest risk you take flying an illegal Part 103 vehicle
> is having some one draw the faa's attention to you. One of our local u/l
> flyers got on the wrong side of one of his neighbors, (she didn't like him
> flying over her house when he took off or landed at this grass strip he
> shared with several other u/l's) and she called flight standards. The
> Gung-ho flight standards yuppie lady calls this guy, and being a friendly SW
> Virginia country boy, he talks just a little too much. Then the Yuppie
> flight standards lady shows up at his strip, and wants to see the machine in
> question...
>
This is a very good point. Most of the ultralight flyers around here
go to great lengths not to upset people or draw attention to ourselves.
And we worry about the few who seem to do the opposite. Ultralighters
have it made. Why do anything to change that?
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Firestar weights |
Ben Ransom wrote:
>
snip
> My KXP doesn't come close enf to 254 to make legal by simply pulling off
> a few "extras". Ok, i'll simply publish it: 312 lbs.
snip
> The FS II and I w/ 447 i
> believe will be even slightly heavier as their cage is longer.
snip
I have a 377 Firestar and while I am not saying exactly what it
weights, Ben is very believable.
My 503 Firestar II (N6163J) is 365 pounds and a 503 weighs 20 pounds
more than a 447. Both my Firestar's have 750# chutes, 5 gallon tanks,
brakes, full instrumentation, recoil start and no shortage of paint.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Food for thought. |
Marino, Frank J (Youngstown ARB) wrote:
>
> As a flight instructor one of the first things you learn on emergency
> procedures is if your engine quits you land straight ahead, never try to
> turn to make the runway that is a sure way to stall and spin into the
> ground. When your engine quits in the air pick a spot and stick with it
> don't keep picking better landing sights you might not make it.
>
Frank,
I think that is good trainning for a student pilot. But I would hope
that pilots progress past student level and develop the ability to think
beyond general rules. If I were at 900 feet AGL, straight off the end of
my grass strip and the engine quit, should I still not turn around? My
choice would be to land in woods if I could not turn back to the field.
If a person is not proficient at flying with the engine off, then they
haven't progressed as a pilot, and are not prepared for an emergency. If
a pilot has prepared himself, should he still be stuck with his
instructors "student" trainning?
Also, I believe that rule about not turning back was intended for
general aviation, where there would be very little chance to make it
anyway. My 377 Firestar climbs at 950 f/m and glides, engine off at -400
f/m. Do the math. I can get back any time after I have enough altitude
to make the turn. About the only time that I couldn't is in a down wind
take off or after I had pulled off the throttle to reduce or stop
climbing. This is a big advantage of some light aircraft over general
aviation. An advantage that would be given up by pilots who stick to
general aviation rules and who fail to progress as pilots.
Every pilot has to make his own decisions. I believe that they should
have the best information to help make those decisions.
John Jung
377 Firestar
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Happy birthday to you, . . . |
> >>There are practically no legal ULs in the USA.
> >
> > The Hummer I sold last spring weighed 248 with brakes, strobe, Terra
> 720 radio, partial fairing and windshield, and a 12v battery . It was part
> 103 legal, but had N-numbers and was day and night part 91 VFR legal with
> nav lights and a landing light. It had a dope and fabric covering instead of
> the original slip on cover, so it had a full set of false ribs and 4 more
> top batten ribs than stock. But it was not as good a flyer as a Firestar.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
Hey Richard, i spose i could be picky and say that, per FAR103,
it couldn't be 103 legal if it had an N-number/AirWorthiness Cert.
Just giving you a bad time here. :-) It is impressive to have gotten
all those extras into 248lbs.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
I certainly agree with this, John, about ultralighters having it made.
This is no secret anymore. I think the FAA will come up with a sport
pilot license before too long. They are working out the details as we
speak. I still cannot believe that we have gone this long license-free!
I will be waiting to see what they do with fuel capacity since this, of
course, will limit the range of any x-country trip. I carry those extra
6g tanks in back of my seat for my trips, and I would hate to see my
freedom being restricted. It may force me to register my original
FireStar as an experimental. So be it and maybe this is what they really
want me to do.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
>Ultralighters have it made. Why do anything to change that?
>John Jung
>-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
When I started flying my ultralight (ok my original slightly overweight
FireStar), I was so excited that I wanted to let everyone know how great
this was. I would intentionally fly over a friends house or buzz an RC
field (which I still do occasionally) just to show off. This was fun
until someone called the local sheriff's office one day. Now I have to
play caution because now they have photos (yes they came out to the field
and took a pic), names, and phone numbers by which they can get nasty
with me if they choose. I have found out through experience that not
everyone is happy seeing me flying merrily along in my little 2-cycle
flying machine. If "they" cannot do it, then "they" do not want to see
you doing it either. I mean you are just having too much fun and
shouldn't that be illegal? I have actually run in to such people. I now
try to be "Mr. Nice Guy" when it comes to my flying because all it will
take is some a...hole from preventing me from enjoying what I like to do
best .... flying my FireStar (hey, I'm an "old guy" and besides that
other stuff is dangerous).
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
writes:
>I think the biggest risk you take flying an illegal Part 103
>vehicl is having some one draw the faa's attention to you. One of our
local
>u/l flyers got on the wrong side of one of his neighbors, (she didn't
like
>him flying over her house when he took off or landed at this grass strip
>he shared with several other u/l's) and she called flight standards. The
>Gung-ho flight standards yuppie lady calls this guy, and being a
>friendly SW Virginia country boy, he talks just a little too much. Then
the >Yuppie flight standards lady shows up at his strip, and wants to see
the
>machine in question...
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>.... The Gung-ho flight standards yuppie lady calls
>this guy, and being a friendly SW
>Virginia country boy, he talks just a little too much. ....
I'm relying on my faulty memory again here but several years ago there
was a very interesting article in a GA magazine (Plane & Pilot?) written
by a lawyer who had defended many pilots in actions brought by FAA. The
main point of the article was that most pilots put their own head in the
noose when confronted by an FAA official. He laid-out a scenario very
similar to Richard's friend. You get a phone call, the caller is
friendly, even jokes around a little and pretty soon you catch yourself
saying, "Ok, yeah I just thought it'd be fun to fly between the goal post
at half time." Its very hard to defend someone who has already confessed.
The article also pointed out that FAA is a regulatory agency, not an
enforcement agency and they don't have the resources to investigate most
cases very thoroughly. Eyewitness accounts are usually pretty vague
(think of how many people don't know a Cessna from a DC3?). Mostly, FAA
must rely on the "accused" to make their case for them. The lawyer
advised anyone in that situation to be courteous and professional
(nastiness won't help) but for Pete's sake, don't buy the bullets for the
firing squad!
This was just something I read and I'm NOT advising anyone to operate
outside the regulations. It is extremely important for ALL of us to stay
on good terms with our neighbors and FAA. I'm just not sure how much help
I could give if they ever call me. I can't always remember what day I
went flying, where I went or even what color plane I was in. Having such
a poor memory isn't always so bad, I can wrap my on Christmas gifts! :-)
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Food for thought. |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
>.... If I were at 900 feet AGL, straight off the end
>of
>my grass strip and the engine quit, should I still not turn around? My
>choice would be to land in woods if I could not turn back to the
>field. .....
Here's another story, just something to think about:
In 1991, I began taking PP instruction from a local CFI with a good
reputation. He is one of the few instructors in this area who'll give a
tailwheel endorsement and does this in his Aeronca Champ. He teaches all
his students to fly a good 'tight' pattern. He stresses that once pattern
altitude is reached, there should be no reason you can't make it back to
the field. However, he also pounds it into you that if you are at
anything less than pattern altitude and the engine quits, you ARE going
to land the plane on the best spot you can see out the (front) windscreen
and nowhere else.
Many times while climbing after a T & G (usually just after my teeth had
stopped rattling) he would slap my right knee and shout, "Your engine
just quit! -Where are we goin'!?" Of course the correct response was to
nod your head toward a parking lot or a gap between buildings or whatever
(this particular airport has very few emergency landing spots) while you
went thru a quick check of ignition switch, fuel valve, etc. and above
all, -FLY THE PLANE. Well, after I had soloed and felt pretty sure I
wasn't too dangerous, I started flying UL's and never finished the PP
ticket.
About 3 years after that, I was watching the late news and was horrified
to see my instructor's Champ crumpled nose down in the middle of the
4-lane street that's right off the south end of the runway. Witnesses
said the engine had quit at a low altitude and it looked like he was
trying to make it back to the field. My instructor and his student
suffered severe injuries. The student (who had been in the front seat)
hung-on for a few days but eventually died.
My instructor has recovered and I see him occasionally but we've never
discussed the accident. I guess I'd rather just trust that he made the
best possible decision for the situation he was in at the time. As I
said, there are very few clear spots in the area of the crash and maybe
an off-field landing would have endangered someone on the ground. I agree
with John that every situation is different and sometimes comes down to a
split-second judgement call. All we can do is try to make the best choice
for a given set of circumstances. This was a GA accident but the physics
are the same for us. Stretching a glide is very often disastrous with or
without N-numbers.
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
We should learn from our leaders. To proper term is I don't recall.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Legal
Date: 2/3/98 2:30 PM
writes:
>.... The Gung-ho flight standards yuppie lady calls
>this guy, and being a friendly SW
>Virginia country boy, he talks just a little too much. ....
I'm relying on my faulty memory again here but several years ago there
was a very interesting article in a GA magazine (Plane & Pilot?) written
by a lawyer who had defended many pilots in actions brought by FAA. The
main point of the article was that most pilots put their own head in the
noose when confronted by an FAA official. He laid-out a scenario very
similar to Richard's friend. You get a phone call, the caller is
friendly, even jokes around a little and pretty soon you catch yourself
saying, "Ok, yeah I just thought it'd be fun to fly between the goal post
at half time." Its very hard to defend someone who has already confessed.
The article also pointed out that FAA is a regulatory agency, not an
enforcement agency and they don't have the resources to investigate most
cases very thoroughly. Eyewitness accounts are usually pretty vague
(think of how many people don't know a Cessna from a DC3?). Mostly, FAA
must rely on the "accused" to make their case for them. The lawyer advised
anyone in that situation to be courteous and professional (nastiness won't
help) but for Pete's sake, don't buy the bullets for the firing squad!
This was just something I read and I'm NOT advising anyone to operate
outside the regulations. It is extremely important for ALL of us to stay
on good terms with our neighbors and FAA. I'm just not sure how much help
I could give if they ever call me. I can't always remember what day I
went flying, where I went or even what color plane I was in. Having such
a poor memory isn't always so bad, I can wrap my on Christmas gifts! :-)
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com |
Subject: | VLS installation |
My current BRS4 requires a repack and I am considering the option to
convert it to a VLS unit that mounts in front of the engine on the gapseal
of the MKIII .
Questions that I need URGENTLY answers on as I am ready to ship unit back
to BRS are as follows;
I would like to hear from ANYBODY with a VLS on a MKIII how it is mounted
and how easy or difficult it is to remove the gapseal for wingfolding and
if there are other considerations before swiching over to this location.
Your quick reply will be greatly appreciated.
Frank Reynen MKIII@430 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
On Wed, 04 Feb 98 11:16:21 cst jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com writes:
>
>
>We should learn from our leaders. To proper term is I don't recall.
>
I think I know which leader you are refering to Jerry. It makes me think,
if we take his definition of what constitutes or (more importantly) what
doesn't constitute "sex" and apply it to ultralights, I guess we don't
really "fly" at all.
Either of these "non-activities" is still great after a rough day at the
office tho! ;-)
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
Subject: | (Fwd) Metal Specifications & Property Data |
Don't know if this was directed at just me or what but as it turns
out this is a very nice resource site.
JB
http://www.principalmetals.com/
Dear Colleague,
The Principal Metals web page at http://www.principalmetals.com now
offers free access to three new utilities:
Specification Cross Reference:
Cross reference over 6000 AMS, ASTM, ASME, MIL, QQ, UNS and proprietary
DMS, GE (B50) and PWA specifications.
Material Property Data:
Complete property data including chemistry, mechanicals, welding, heat
treating, forming, fabricating and application data on more than 5000
ferrous and non-ferrous grades.
Prime Metals Weight Calculator:
Automatically calculates the weight of rounds, flats, hexagons, sheets,
plates, tube, discs and rings in standard or metric sizes in any metal.
We hope that you'll visit us and let us know what you think.
Thanks for your time.
Sam
Sam Fischer
Webmaster
Principal Metals, Inc.
12 Trot Road
Littleton, MA 01460
Fax: (978) 688-9898
Phone: (978) 688-9800
http://www.principalmetals.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Cook" <foxcook(at)cmn.net> |
Subject: | brakes for 86 TwinStar |
Looking for assistance for locating suitable brakes for 86 TwinStar.
I have purchased an unfinished 86 project and want brakes. Don't
really need directional brakes, just something to hold her still during
run-ups other than my feet. Help appreciated!
Paul @,
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re:Kolb:Brakes for 86 Twinstar |
Paul Cook wrote:
>
> Looking for assistance for locating suitable brakes for 86 TwinStar.
> I have purchased an unfinished 86 project and want brakes. Don't
> really need directional brakes, just something to hold her still during
> run-ups other than my feet. Help appreciated!
> Paul @,
>
Paul,
If you use Kolb brakes and have at least as much power as my 377,
your brakes won't hold the plane on engine run-up. My brakes can only
hold until 4,000 rpm. It is also difficult to hold the plane from
standing next to it beond 4,000 rpm. The brakes are good for shortening
landing distances and for making tight turns on the ground.
John Jung
377 Firestar (For Sale)
503 Firestar II N6163J
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | T Swartz <Tswartz(at)smtp1.ptd.net> |
Subject: | Re: VLS installation |
Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com wrote:
>
> My current BRS4 requires a repack and I am considering the option to
> convert it to a VLS unit that mounts in front of the engine on the gapseal
> of the MKIII .
>
> Questions that I need URGENTLY answers on as I am ready to ship unit back
> to BRS are as follows;
>
> I would like to hear from ANYBODY with a VLS on a MKIII how it is mounted
> and how easy or difficult it is to remove the gapseal for wingfolding and
> if there are other considerations before swiching over to this location.
>
> Your quick reply will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Frank Reynen MKIII@430 hrs
>
> -
Frank
I built a Mark III this summer with a 912 and the VLS 1050. The
mounting brackets I received with the VLS could not be used for two
reasons. 1. The brackets were supposed to mounted to the big round
tube on top of the cage but there wasn't enough room because of the oil
tank mounted in front of the 912. Other engine installations may not
have this problem. 2. Other supporting brackets supplied by BRS will
extend down through fabric, you know the square section at the top of
the cage that is most difficult to cover. I could see no reason for it
and I felt it a crime to cut up my nice fabric job. Besides it would
look ugly. BRS offered no assistance in making new brackets even after
I faxed them a drawing that would make a nice instalation. BRS offered
to exchange my VLS for the big round thing, but I was already hooked on
the idea of a nice clean low profile VLS installation. I suggested to
BRS that I make my own brackets which they discouraged and said they may
not stand behind the installation. I made my own brackets anyway, and
Dennis from Kolb flew over in the slingshot to take a look and thought
the brackets were ok. I sent photos of the installation to BRS as
requested by them along with a bill for $100.00 I have heard nothing
from BRS about the installation nor have I received payment. I figured
$100.00 dollars was a deal for them since they offered to exchange my
VLS for the cheeper unit. When I bought the VLS, they told me it came
with all mounting brackets. The ones the send do not make a
satisfactory installation and I still think my time to figure out an
installation should be worth $100.00.
Bottom line is you can make a very nice low profile clean installation
with the VLS by making brackets that attach around the 1 inch square
tube in front of the big round tube. You will most likely need to make
a new gap seal and yes, mine goes on and off very simply. The front one
quarter of the VLS is actuall inside the gap seal with the rear three
quarters of the VLS rising about 2 inches above the gap seal. If I had
a home page I would post some pictures. BTW, I flew up to Kolb factory
and Bill took a look also thought it looked ok.
Hope this helps.
Terry
N26520 project started May 97. FAA inspected 10/10/97. Now 66.5 hrs.
thanks to a mild winter in SE PA.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
Subject: | Re: (Fwd) Re: Minimum order |
I got to thinking (dangerous) that this vendor might have a
prohibitively high minimum order....turns out they don't have one at
all. Don't know about prices though.....
And, no...I'm not a vendor or distributor...just like to have lots of
alternate sources for materials. Also happened to note that they have
6061 alum tube from .012 to 33 inch diameter.
For what it's worth......
>What is your minimum order amount?
>
>Thank you,
>
>Jim Baker
Jim,
We do not have any minimum order and in most cases, can ship orders from
stock within 24 hours.
Thanks,
Sam
Sam Fischer
Webmaster
Principal Metals, Inc.
12 Trot Road
Littleton, MA 01460
Fax: (978) 688-9898
Phone: (978) 688-9800
http://www.principalmetals.com
Jim Baker
Pres, USUA Club 104
Frontier Ultralight Aviators
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Kolb for sale |
I'm forwarding this to the list for a friend. I've seen the plane. Looks good.
Bill Griffin
>
> Very nice KolbUltrastar For Sale. Too many airplane projects! Fresh top
> overhaul, new carb, sandblasted, inspected, and repainted cage (epoxy primer
> and Aerothane), lengthened bungee-sprung gear, brakes, new tires, new SS
> cables, new turnbuckles, and a whole lot more. Blue and Yellow, all Stits
> cover. Located near Montgomery, Alabama. $3500 for a quick sale, Dan
> Horton at DHPHKH(at)aol.com or days, 334-244-6400.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Anderson, Jim L NWP" <Jim.L.Anderson(at)nwp01.usace.army.mil> |
Subject: | Re: RE: Re: Kolb for sale |
I just subscribed to the Kolb gang so I don't know if I'm doing
this right.
I too have an aircraft for sale. It's a Firestar II 95/96 model
with all Stits cover and paint. 503DCDI, Hegar rims w/hydr. Brakes,
fixed mount GPS and ICOM radio, Stereo, w/ intercom. Custom upholstery,
etc. 81 hours and flies great. I want to start a new project. I would
like to keep it but, just can't afford two planes. (See it in Sept 97,
Kitplanes). Jim Anderson at 503 228-2726 or at work 503 808-4387
(Portland, Oregon).
Also: Is anyone flying 100:1 oil ratio?? I currently use AV-2 with
good results, but am considering converting, Your thoughts appreciated.
If your sick of small window display GPS units. Try a
marine fixed mount unit like a GARMIN 120 as I have in my machine. The
Man Over Board function is great, especially if you or your flying
partner is going to crash (great for instantly marking spots) I mounted
it on a bracket on the floor between legs. It works great, big display,
and the little antenna on my sheet aluminum gap seal looks pretty cool.
Thanks, Jim Anderson.
-----Original Message-----
From: ULDAD(at)aol.com [SMTP:ULDAD(at)aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 1998 2:24 PM
To: kolb(at)intrig.com
Subject: Re: Kolb for sale
I'm forwarding this to the list for a friend. I've seen the
plane. Looks good.
Bill Griffin
>
> Very nice KolbUltrastar For Sale. Too many airplane
projects! Fresh top
> overhaul, new carb, sandblasted, inspected, and repainted cage
(epoxy primer
> and Aerothane), lengthened bungee-sprung gear, brakes, new
tires, new SS
> cables, new turnbuckles, and a whole lot more. Blue and
Yellow, all Stits
> cover. Located near Montgomery, Alabama. $3500 for a quick
sale, Dan
> Horton at DHPHKH(at)aol.com or days, 334-244-6400.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: VLS installation |
From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
FRANK
I HAVE A FRIEND IN HOUSTON,TX. HE HAS A M III THAT HE HAS JUST
FINISHED HIS AIRPLANE LAST YEAR I AN ALMOST SURE THAT HE HAS THE CHUTE
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
GIVE HIM A CALL IF YOU CALL HIS OFFICE LET HIS SECRETARY KNOW THAT YOUR
A PILOT AND NEED TO TALK TO GARY
FRANK HIS NAME IS GARY HALEY AND HIS OFFICE NUMBER IS 1 - 800 643-9063
OR YOU COULD TRY HIM AT HOME THAT NUMBER IS (713) 984 - 9884 YOU MIGHT
HAVE A HARDER TIME GETTING HIM THEIR BUT IT MAY BE WORTH A TRY
GARY IS NO STRANGER TO FLYING HE IS A DOUBLE CFI AND HAS SOME SAIL
PLANES AT HIS AIRPORT
RICK
writes:
>My current BRS4 requires a repack and I am considering the option to
>convert it to a VLS unit that mounts in front of the engine on the
>gapseal
>of the MKIII .
>
>Questions that I need URGENTLY answers on as I am ready to ship unit
>back
>to BRS are as follows;
>
>I would like to hear from ANYBODY with a VLS on a MKIII how it is
>mounted
>and how easy or difficult it is to remove the gapseal for wingfolding
>and
>if there are other considerations before swiching over to this
>location.
>
>Your quick reply will be greatly appreciated.
>
>Frank Reynen MKIII@430 hrs
>
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Kolb owners info. |
From: | lavasseur(at)juno.com (Jon D LaVasseur) |
Just received your name from a friend with a Kolb Firestar. I am flying
a Firestar II with a 503. Please reply with instructions on getting on
your mailing list. Thank you in advance.
>From LaVasseur(at)Juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
To those in the group that use juno.com for their e-mail: I
understand that you can't mail or receive graphics. If that is true, and
you are interested in a free e-mail that can send and receive graphics,
check out yahoo's e-mail. (www.yahoo.com) They have a free e-mail system
that is free and fairly full featured. They can even pickup e-mail from
other POP mail services. And they don't have advertizing flashing at you
while you read your mail.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael Watson <psi(at)pivot.net> |
I was wondering if some of you that have licensed your aircraft as
experimentals could send me info on some of the rules I can look forward
to. I am a first time builder and its hard to get much advice in the
area I live, (Maine). I hold a private pilot certificate but have never
owned a plane; always rented. I would just like to know things to keep
in mind while building and after. It sounds like I need to keep a log
while building w/ pictures for FAA inspection. What about annual
inspections, can I do these myself? Any information at all would be
greatly appreciated.
Thank You,
Mike Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ron Hoyt <RONALD.R.HOYT(at)cdev.com> |
Subject: | Approved Position Lights |
I was looking at FAR 91.205 (c) last night. It is the Visual Flight Rules
(Night)section of the FAR. It referenced a requirement for Approved
position lights as well as an approved anticollision light system. My
question is what is an approved position light? Is there a section of the
FAR that defines the requirements for these lights? e.g., angular
coverage, color, brightness, location.
Thanks
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ron Hoyt <RONALD.R.HOYT(at)cdev.com> |
Subject: | KOLB seat pans and cushion |
I took some time and found the references for the Kolb Mark III Service
Bulletin that the UK's Popular Flying Association approved. This was in
response to a couple of landing accidents in which the crews suffered
spinal injuries in hard outfield landing.
The source is Mainair Sports in the UK. They supply a kit consisting of an
aluminium sheet as well as a complimentary description and drawing. From
their drawings the sheet fits under the factory fabric seat and is riveted
with the factory rivets in the factory specified seat riveting locations.
A cushion from AS&S P/N 01-09300 is used on top of the seat. The pan only
spans the two lower seat tubes and is wrapped 90 degrees around the forward
tube to be included with the floor pan rivets. The pan is bent about 45
degrees to lay on the rear seat tube and is under the fabric. The fabric
is sandwiched between the pan and the and existing alloy strip for holding
the fabric to the tube. The pan is 16SWG Al. alloy grade HS30 (6082 T6) or
NPB (5083). The lip around each tube is 1.5 inches. The pan is 16" at the
rear, 13.5" in the front and approx. 21" long.
I expect the alloy is a British designation. Are they also US?
Thanks
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Experimentals |
Michael Watson wrote:
>
> I was wondering if some of you that have licensed your aircraft as
> experimentals could send me info on some of the rules I can look forward
> to. I am a first time builder and its hard to get much advice in the
> area I live, (Maine). I hold a private pilot certificate but have never
> owned a plane; always rented. I would just like to know things to keep
> in mind while building and after. It sounds like I need to keep a log
> while building w/ pictures for FAA inspection. What about annual
> inspections, can I do these myself? Any information at all would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank You,
> Mike Watson
> -
Mike,
Being able to maintain and inspect my own plane was the primary
reason that I built my Firestar II. Otherwise I would have bought a
completed plane. Form AC 8610-2 is used to apply for a Repairman
Certificate which is what is needed. The best sorurce of information of
this type is the EAA. If you are a member, they will send you a packet
of information for builders of experimental aircraft. If you are not a
member, now would be a good time to join.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J (soon to be inspected)
Original Firestar (For Sale)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Approved Position Lights |
>I was looking at FAR 91.205 (c) last night. It is the Visual Flight Rules
>(Night)section of the FAR. It referenced a requirement for Approved
>position lights as well as an approved anticollision light system. My
>question is what is an approved position light? Is there a section of the
>FAR that defines the requirements for these lights? e.g., angular
>coverage, color, brightness, location.
>
>Thanks
>Ron
>-
> There is a good diagram in the Aircraft Spruce catalog. 180 degrees
coverage in the vertical plane, laterally visible through a range of 110
degrees left and right from straight forward. The white tail light whould
cover a range from straight back to plus or minus 70 degrees from either
side of the tail.
Approved lights have a reflector bulb that makes them much brighter
for the wattage, and also quite expensive. You can sometimes get good
bargains on used position lights, plan to pay twice as much if the bulb is
good than if it is not.
On a Kolb: never put the rear white light on the rudder trailing
edge; Flutter city, big time. (Did you know the main tube really will go
into a sine wave shape?) Put it on top of the vertical fin, or one on each
wingtip.
If in doubt that your planned system will pass inspection at initial
sign-off, run the wires, prepare the mounting pads, and wait until the 40
hours are done, and you are signed off. Then put the lights on, no
inspection is necessary, but you do have to make the correct logbook
entries, and be in compliance.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Thacker <gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us> |
Subject: | Lookin at FireStars |
I need a little help. I am in the process of looking for a FireStar. I
have found a couple with a Rotax 377. I weigh about 240 lbs. Is this
enough engine to do the job? Also is there enough room in the plane to
take some camping stuff for an overnight fly-in kinda thing? What kinda
questions should I be asking and what should I be lookin for in a used
FireStar? Anything else I shoud be aware of in my search?
Thanks for the help
Gary
=========================================================================
| Gary Thacker | gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us |
| Souderton Pa. | |
=========================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler) |
OK, Let's try this one more time....
Replay to Michael Watson
To register your aircraft as an experimental, you can call the FAA in
Washington, DC; or write
them for free advisory circulars at::
U.S. Dept of Transportation
Utilization and Storage Section, M 443.2
Washington, DC. 20590
Ask for Advisory Circular 20-27D
(Certification and Operation of Amateur-built Aircraft)
Also ask for A/C 65-23A
(Certification of repairmen-experimental aircraft builders).
For FARs and A/C's that require a fee, write to:
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington D.C. 20402
Don't know which are free and which are not? Ask for A/C 00-44
These forms can also be obtained from your F.A.A. District Office.
I made it throught the registration process, so it can be done. But my
hair is now white!
Bob Doebler
bobdoebler(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
Subject: | Re: Approved Position Lights |
>question is what is an approved position light? Is there a section of the
>FAR that defines the requirements for these lights? e.g., angular
>coverage, color, brightness, location.
It's in the FAR's somewhere, but I can't tell you what the number is. If
you have an Aircraft Spruce catalog, they have a good display that shows the
coverage required (page 309 in my 96-97 version). I doubt you'd ever get
questioned on this, especially if you add them after the initial inspection.
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
Someone (a week or so ago) asked about carrying a spare fuel can. The
question about position lights and such prompted me to pull out my own
copy of the FAR's and AC103.7 and I hate to pee in the punch-bowl but I
ran across this concerning spare gas cans:
Advisory Circular 103.7 paragraph 19 a. says:
"The total volume, including all available space for usable and unusable
fuel in the fuel tank or tanks on the vehicle is the total fuel capacity.
The fuel in the lines, pump, strainer, and carburetor is not considered
in a calculation of total volume."
Personally, I just threw away my carry-can and ordered 4 thousand feet of
fuel line from CPS. :-(
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: juno.com mail |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
>To those in the group that use juno.com for their e-mail: I
>understand that you can't mail or receive graphics. If that is true,
>and
>you are interested in a free e-mail that can send and receive
>graphics,
>check out yahoo's e-mail. (www.yahoo.com) They have a free e-mail
>system
>that is free and fairly full featured. They can even pickup e-mail
>from
>other POP mail services. And they don't have advertizing flashing at
>you
>while you read your mail.
>John Jung
>-
Thanx John,
The same is true for 'Mailexcite' (www.mailexcite.com) but you have to
have internet service to use it. The advantage of Juno is that it is
independant of the "net". Juno is a 'call-in' service and is completely
free if they have an access number within your local calling zone. Even
if its a long distance call, the line is only used for a minute or two
while your messages are up/downloaded. All you need is a modem and not
even a fast one. Being a hard-core cheapskate, I don't have net-access at
home (only at work) and so I use Juno at home and I'm happy with it, its
great for lists like this which forbid attachments anyway.
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | T Swartz <Tswartz(at)smtp1.ptd.net> |
Subject: | Re: Experimentals |
Michael Watson wrote:
>
> I was wondering if some of you that have licensed your aircraft as
> experimentals could send me info on some of the rules I can look forward
> to. I am a first time builder and its hard to get much advice in the
> area I live, (Maine). I hold a private pilot certificate but have never
> owned a plane; always rented. I would just like to know things to keep
> in mind while building and after. It sounds like I need to keep a log
> while building w/ pictures for FAA inspection. What about annual
> inspections, can I do these myself? Any information at all would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank You,
> Mike Watson
> -
Mike
I called my local FAA office (Harrisburg PA) and they sent a big packet
of info with all the necessary forms and instructions.
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Spare Gas Cans |
>Someone (a week or so ago) asked about carrying a spare fuel can. The
>question about position lights and such prompted me to pull out my own
>copy of the FAR's and AC103.7 and I hate to pee in the punch-bowl but I
>ran across this concerning spare gas cans:
>
>Advisory Circular 103.7 paragraph 19 a. says:
>
>"The total volume, including all available space for usable and unusable
>fuel in the fuel tank or tanks on the vehicle is the total fuel capacity.
>The fuel in the lines, pump, strainer, and carburetor is not considered
>in a calculation of total volume."
>
>Personally, I just threw away my carry-can and ordered 4 thousand feet of
>fuel line from CPS. :-(
>
I would be of the opinion that if you are carrying an EMPTY fuel can
along to use to go to the gas station when you get to the next cow pasture,
and it is not connected to the fuel system in any way, you are legal.
Unusable fuel refers to fuel that is in the fuel system, that is
unable to be used.
There is nothing in FAR-103 about carrying baggage, luggage, or
cargo, and this would include plastic cans not connected to the fuel system.
If there is nothing in the carry on gas can, it is a non issue.
But if it has fuel in it, then there is more than 5 gallons on your
vehicle while conducting aviation, and that is a different question.
If you take off with your 5 gallon fuel system full, and there is a
pint of residual fuel in your carry along gas can, then you are technically
illegal.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Lookin at FireStars |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Gary,
In looking for a FireStar, there are many models. The original FS has a
5-rib wing and the newer ones have 7-rib wings. The newer ones are
heavier and can carry more payload. The 377 powered ones are most likely
the original FS. You can carry camping gear in all of them. For a used
FS, the most important question can only be answered by seeing the
workmanship of the plane. Some builders have been very professional, in
their build, and others have rivets all over the place when they should
be inline. The quality is strictly in the builder's workmanship. The
other question may not be answered as readily. That is, does it fly
straight. A plane can look good, but may have a serious trim problem due
to a possible twist in the wing. You won't know this until you fly it.
Have an experienced Kolb pilot fly it before buying. Buyer Beware.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
writes:
>
>I need a little help. I am in the process of looking for a FireStar.
>I have found a couple with a Rotax 377. I weigh about 240 lbs. Is
>this enough engine to do the job? Also is there enough room in the
plane
>to take some camping stuff for an overnight fly-in kinda thing? What
>kinda questions should I be asking and what should I be lookin for in a
>used FireStar? Anything else I shoud be aware of in my search?
>
>Thanks for the help
>
>Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Spare Gas Cans |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>.... Unusable fuel refers to fuel that is in the fuel system, that is
>unable to be used.
> There is nothing in FAR-103 about carrying baggage, luggage,
>or
>cargo, and this would include plastic cans not connected to the fuel
>system.
> If there is nothing in the carry on gas can, it is a non
>issue.
> But if it has fuel in it, then there is more than 5 gallons on
>your
>vehicle while conducting aviation, and that is a different question.
> If you take off with your 5 gallon fuel system full, and there
>is a
>pint of residual fuel in your carry along gas can, then you are
>technically
>illegal.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
That's certainly the argument I'd use ...if it was ever necessary.
Interpretation is everything and I was just quoting the letter of the
law. :-)
I would think this is probably a small issue compared to compliance with
certain other requirements of Part 103. I can't recall anyone ever
getting "popped" for carrying a spare can. Matter of fact, I can't recall
anyone (at least anyone that I know personally) getting "popped" for
anything relating to Part 103.
Several years ago, a local Challenger single was seized by the feds but
that had more to do with what the pilot had been growing in his
basement. Sure scared hell out of the other UL'ers who were at the field
when 5 or 6 federal agents showed up with a flat-bed trailer tho!
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Experimentals |
From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
Mike
Idid the same thing that Terry did , but I got in touch with the main
office in OKLAHOMA
I told them what I was doing and needed all the info they could send me
along with the paper work to get the " N " number they were very
helpful and I got all the info plus some . You will have to keep some
pictures , and a log on what you have done .
good luck , it realy not all that bad just a little paper work
Rick N106RL
writes:
>I was wondering if some of you that have licensed your aircraft as
>experimentals could send me info on some of the rules I can look
>forward
>to. I am a first time builder and its hard to get much advice in the
>area I live, (Maine). I hold a private pilot certificate but have
>never
>owned a plane; always rented. I would just like to know things to keep
>in mind while building and after. It sounds like I need to keep a log
>while building w/ pictures for FAA inspection. What about annual
>inspections, can I do these myself? Any information at all would be
>greatly appreciated.
>
>Thank You,
>Mike Watson
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
To All,
I got to fly along side the Firefly based at my airport today. The little
sucker is pretty fast seeing that it has to carry a "man sized" pilot and is
powered by the Rotax 447. We just went cruising around and ended up at the
old Hartlee Field to land and talk a bit. This was the Firefly's first
"cross country" flight. Hartlee looks somewhat like the airports prior to
WWII - quanset hut hangers big enough for planes down each side and a big
ole wide grass strip. It is where I learned to land on grass back in the
70's. Gary discovered the 447 was really sucking the fuel and he had only a
half tank left. On our return, he made a minimum speed bee line back to our
home port. My MKIII wouldn't fly quite that slow so I had to do some loop
backs and S-turns. On landing, he had about 3/4 gallon left - probably the
minimum for a single 5 gallon top draw tank. Sure was fun flying along side
another Kolb.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (37.3 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
I erased the message sent a week or so ago from the person who was selling the
Firestar with I believe a 377 or 447 and the price was $3500. At the airport
yesterday a friend mentioned that he was interested and so anyways if you
could send me the information again I will pass it along.
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Lookin at FireStars |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Gary,
Yes, the 377 will get you off the ground just fine. I have a 377 and I'm
200 lbs. Sometimes I carry an extra 40 lbs.and the FS will climb out at
900 ft/min. Plenty of power.
Ultralight flying isn't for everyone. There are airplane pilots who would
like to fly an ultralight, but when they see it up close they get scared
because the lack of structure (so they think) looks unsafe. What they
don't realize is the same airplanes they fly have basically the same
structure, it's just hidden by heavier fabric. Some pilots don't like the
slow speed. They think that they are on the edge of a stall all the time.
I would advise you to look over the Kolb well. If the workmanship is
good, then get someone with Kolb experience to fly it for you.
The Kolbs are well designed planes and if treated properly they will
probably outlast any other ultralight. Other ultralights have so many
bolts that go through aluminum tubes, that they need replacement every
500 hrs or so. The Kolbs have a few bolts and mostly rivets. Mine is 11
years old and I see many more years of flying it.
I doubt the factory will test fly it for you because of liability. You
might ask though.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
writes:
>Ralph
>Thanks for the info. This is a 5 rib wing. I am goin to try to get
>to see the thing tomorrow. This is the first one that I will be lookin
>at. I'm not in a hurry. The big question is will the 377 get me off the
>ground with reasonable performance? I weigh about 240. The other big
>question is this is the second owner in 20hrs. Why???? I live close
>enough to Kolb that I may be able to get someone to fly it for me to
>test it out if I go that far with it. I don't know if they do that sort
of thing.
>
>Thanks again
>
>Gary Thacker
>Souderton Pa.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>.....
>Gary Thacker
>Souderton Pa.
Ok Dennis,
I can't be the only one wondering!
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>To All,
>
>I got to fly along side the Firefly based at my airport today. The
>little
>sucker is pretty fast seeing that it has to carry a "man sized" pilot
>and is
>powered by the Rotax 447. ...
The March 'Kitplanes' came in the mail a couple days ago and it has a
very nice article about the Firefly. They are kicking-off a series on
"true Part 103" ultralights and chose to look at the Firefly first.
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
I was looking at the Firefly's pictures on Kitplanes. Why does the wing gap
on FireFly bulge while it's flying? Does it have a VLS installation?
Will Uribe
Building a FireStar II
Tail assembly done, started on the wings.
http://members.aol.com/WillU/index.html
<< The March 'Kitplanes' came in the mail a couple days ago and it has a
very nice article about the Firefly. They are kicking-off a series on
"true Part 103" ultralights and chose to look at the Firefly first. >>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Factory FireFly |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
>I was looking at the Firefly's pictures on Kitplanes. Why does the
>wing gap
>on FireFly bulge while it's flying? Does it have a VLS installation?
>
>Will Uribe
Not sure about the VLS but the original gap seal on my Flyer was rip-stop
nylon with a zipper down the center. It also bulged quit a bit when
in-flight.
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | why 2 owners in only 20 hours |
writes:
>ground with reasonable performance? I weigh about 240. The other big
>question is this is the second owner in 20hrs. Why???? I live close
I think there are a surprisingly large number of people selling their UL
within a few hours. Yes there is the possibility that the plane is crooked
so nobody wants it. However, for many, ultralights just may not turn out
to be the kind of flying they envisioned. I know too that there are some
who just get chicken, which isn't unreasonable as it is a hobby that
requires fairly constant attention to everything being relatively perfect.
I know a guy that let the thought of disaster creep under his skin and stay
there. Yuch. For me, i kinda enjoy the requirement of trying to keep
everything perfect as it is the only thing i have where i don't
need to make excuses about putting reasonable time or money into it.
It is an activity that we all see and dream about probably 1000 times more
than we actually are flying, and the two activities just might not match.
Even Wilber Wright said the absolute funnest flying he ever experienced was
the two years prior to first powered flight when he just lay there at night
imagining what it would be like.
UL flying, however, can stay exciting for at least a few reasons. 1) it
won't bankrupt you; 2) It's not supposed to be practical in the first
place; 3) you can tinker and make minor mod's without FAA red tape; 4) you
can make big mods or addditions like floats, skis, whatever without FAA red
tape or quadrupled insurance costs (floats). Also, i think if you just
stick with it past what may be a boring or tiring flight, there is another
great adventure waiting for you next time.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: why 2 owners in only 20 hours |
>Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 15:04:45 -0500
>To: Ben Ransom
>From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
>Subject: Re: why 2 owners in only 20 hours
>
>
>>
>>I think there are a surprisingly large number of people selling their UL
>>within a few hours. Yes there is the possibility that the plane is crooked
>>so nobody wants it. However, for many, ultralights just may not turn out
>>to be the kind of flying they envisioned. I know too that there are some
>>who just get chicken,
>>-Ben Ransom
>>-
>>
>
> One of the guys at work bought a hot air balloon several years ago
and flew it for a couple months and then sold it. The reason? He never
overcame his fear of heights. On a trashy day at altitude, our flutterbugs
don't always seem as "substantial" as our yellow streaks might wish. Or as
Jack McCornack once said; "It is better to be on the ground wishing you were
up there, than to be up there wishing you were on the ground."
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Paul VonLindern <paulv(at)digisys.net> |
Hello again
We posted a question a week or so ago about what would be
the engine of choice for the MKIII and would like to thank
everyone that sent a responce. Sounds like if money is no
object the 912 is the way to go, otherwise it's a toss-up
between the 582 & 618. Being from northwest Montana the idea
of having enough horses for skis sounds like the way to go.
I am wondering if a person could order everything except the
engine and not run into any building problems, that way we
could maybe save more cash and make the engine decision
later. Also at what point of the building process would we
need the engine on hand?
Thank you in advance
Paul & Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>Hello again
>
>We posted a question a week or so ago about what would be
>the engine of choice for the MKIII and would like to thank
>everyone that sent a responce. Sounds like if money is no
>object the 912 is the way to go, otherwise it's a toss-up
>between the 582 & 618. Being from northwest Montana the idea
>of having enough horses for skis sounds like the way to go.
>I am wondering if a person could order everything except the
>engine and not run into any building problems, that way we
>could maybe save more cash and make the engine decision
>later. Also at what point of the building process would we
>need the engine on hand?
>
>Thank you in advance
>Paul & Henry
>
>The motor mounts are probably the same for the 582 & 618. Better ask Kolb
first if you think you might want a 912. Is it the same as the 2-strokes?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
>>The motor mounts are probably the same for the 582 & 618. Better ask Kolb
>first if you think you might want a 912. Is it the same as the 2-strokes?
Another thing you might ask is weather they have everything worked out for
the 618. I can't find it now, but it seems like I read something about the
exhaust mounting being different and conflicting with the wing folding.
Again, I don't really remember, but you should probably ask Kolb to make
sure if you want the 618.
Good luck,
Rusty
RV-8 building today= 3.5 hours
SlingShot flying= 0.7 hours
Perhaps an ugly trend???
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: why 2 owners in only 20 hours |
From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
TO ALL
Last month I had posted a note on a problem that I was having with my
tach , I did get some very good response which I did check out . But I
remembered an article that I read in the EXPERIMENTER so I started going
through a stack of my books , well I found it
and I think that if anyone that has a Rectifier - Regulator on their
plane should look at the
FEBRUARY 1995 EXPERIMENTER on page 38. In short it goes on to
tell the story about rotax 582 tachometer suddenly jumped from 6300 -
to - 8200 rpm
same thing that happened to me , they called Richard Thompson at Kodiak
Research, along with others , come to find out after a lot of phone calls
it turned out to be the Rectifier - Regulator I have the 3 phase one
so I used the spare wire and the tach is now ok .I have no idea how
this has anything to do with the tach but it did make the tach read
right.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Russell Duffy wrote:
snip
> RV-8 building today= 3.5 hours
> SlingShot flying= 0.7 hours
> Perhaps an ugly trend???
>
I say that any day that I can build and fly is a good day.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
Subject: | UL Flying in general |
Ben and all,
>However, for many, ultralights just may not turn out... etc.
Good article. UL flying IS different from general aviation. So far (I am
pretty new) I love the relatively inexpensive, low, slow, ability to land in
almost any dry (El Nino you know) field, enjoy the view type of flying. I
have not experienced an engine out yet so I am developing more confidence in
the Rotax. I suppose that has been (and always will be) MY biggest fear of
UL flying. I have plenty of confidence in the Kolb airframe.
Commoradary is also an important part of flying to me. Pretty soon I can
take a passenger along. Flying with other UL planes (I have done it once)
should also be a lot of fun.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (39.5 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> |
Richard and all,
"It is better to be on the ground wishing you were
>up there, than to be up there wishing you were on the ground."
I have been there a time or two. Once (in my almost 40 hours of UL) I was
up in a really stiff crosswind saying to myself... you fool, you fool - why
did you decide to fly today. All the airports in my area are north/south.
I would have given a LOT at the time to have had an east/west one around. I
almost did the proverbial jump out and kiss the ground that day...
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (39.5 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Fear of heights... |
From: | rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon) |
Fear of heights is universal to some degree and one of our original
fears. The best we can do is overcome it through experience. I have a
fear of heights only when on the observation decks of tall buildings or
watching rock climbers on TV. This is not to the point of preventing me
from taking the elevator to the top when I have a chance, as I did at
the Stratosphere in Las Vegas in October. But it is there, no doubt about
it. In contrast I do not experience this fear while flying, exhilaration
for sure but not fear. Why is this? When I discuss this somewhat taboo
subject with other flyers, I find my experience is not unique. Ray
Lujon, Woodbury, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jon Steiger <stei0302(at)cs.fredonia.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Fear of heights... |
>Fear of heights is universal to some degree and one of our original
>fears. The best we can do is overcome it through experience. I have a
>fear of heights only when on the observation decks of tall buildings or
>watching rock climbers on TV. This is not to the point of preventing me
>from taking the elevator to the top when I have a chance, as I did at
>the Stratosphere in Las Vegas in October. But it is there, no doubt about
>it. In contrast I do not experience this fear while flying, exhilaration
>for sure but not fear. Why is this? When I discuss this somewhat taboo
>subject with other flyers, I find my experience is not unique. Ray
>Lujon, Woodbury, MN
>
Yep, absolutely.
If I look over a ledge, or off a tall building, (even just a couple of
stories) etc., I get the heebie-jeebies something fierce! A hang on, white
knuckle, hug the floor kind of feeling. :-) However, when I'm flying I
have absolutely NO fear of heights, not even a tiny glimmer of the start
of exhileration or anxiety. I'm not sure why, but for some reason, my
brain just doesn't correlate the two. I've flown at 13,000' and 500'; it
doesn't make a difference... It just doesn't register in my brain as height.
Weird, but lucky for me. :-) Now, I'm not sure, but it might be because
I've only flown in "enclosed" cockpits. (Well, my FireFly isn't enclosed,
but it is definitely a cockpit.) If I were flying something like a Drifter,
it might be different; I'm not sure.
-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: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Fear of heights |
Jon Steiger wrote:
> If I look over a ledge, or off a tall building, (even just a couple of
> stories) etc., I get the heebie-jeebies something fierce! A hang on, white
> knuckle, hug the floor kind of feeling. :-) However, when I'm flying I
> have absolutely NO fear of heights, not even a tiny glimmer of the start
> of exhileration or anxiety. I'm not sure why, but for some reason, my
> brain just doesn't correlate the two. I've flown at 13,000' and 500'; it
> doesn't make a difference... It just doesn't register in my brain as height.
> Weird, but lucky for me. :-) Now, I'm not sure, but it might be because
> I've only flown in "enclosed" cockpits. (Well, my FireFly isn't enclosed,
> but it is definitely a cockpit.) If I were flying something like a Drifter,
> it might be different; I'm not sure.
My flying experience is similar in that it doesn't feel like I could
fall. One exception though: I used to fly in a Quicksilver MX and
occasionally lean forward to look straight down between my legs. One
time the seat belt came unlatched and only then did I feel like I could
actually fall. Suddenly it was like being on top of a cliff, until I got
the seat belt latched again.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Fear of heights... |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Ray and Jon,
Yes, I share the same phenomenon and have no fear when I fly my FireStar.
I have noticed in recent years, and since I've started flying, that the
fear is diminishing. For example I climbed a forest rangers lookout tower
that was 100 ft up. Once at the top, I looked out and thought, "Well I'm
on final". The tower started swaying in the wind and my buddy "freaked
out". The opposite effect also took place one fine day in the summer
several years ago. I was flying along at about 3000 ft agl and started
thinking. "Wow, I'm up high and climbing". I began to "psyche myself out"
and get scared. I could see that if I continued in that mindset that I
could possibly lose control. If you do find yourself in that position,
look out and scan the horizon and avoid looking down. This may explain
why some pilots crash for unexplained reasons. I flew a friends'
UltraStar with no enclosed cockpit. I was right out there in front. I
took it up to 3000 ft because and it was so light and I caught a thermal.
I didn't think it would ever come down (nice plane by the way). I had no
fear.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
>>Fear of heights is universal to some degree and one of our original
>>fears. The best we can do is overcome it through experience. I have
>a fear of heights only when on the observation decks of tall buildings
>or watching rock climbers on TV. This is not to the point of preventing
>me from taking the elevator to the top when I have a chance, as I did
>at the Stratosphere in Las Vegas in October. But it is there, no doubt
>about it. In contrast I do not experience this fear while flying,
>exhilaration for sure but not fear. Why is this? When I discuss this
somewhat
>taboo subject with other flyers, I find my experience is not unique.
Ray
>>Lujon, Woodbury, MN
writes:
>Yep, absolutely.
>If I look over a ledge, or off a tall building, (even just a couple
>of stories) etc., I get the heebie-jeebies something fierce! A hang on,
>white knuckle, hug the floor kind of feeling. :-) However, when I'm
flying
>I have absolutely NO fear of heights, not even a tiny glimmer of the
>start of exhileration or anxiety. I'm not sure why, but for some
reason, my
>brain just doesn't correlate the two. I've flown at 13,000' and 500';
>it doesn't make a difference... It just doesn't register in my brain as
>height. Weird, but lucky for me. :-) Now, I'm not sure, but it might
be
>because I've only flown in "enclosed" cockpits. (Well, my FireFly isn't
>enclosed, but it is definitely a cockpit.) If I were flying something
like a
>Drifter, it might be different; I'm not sure.
>
>
>
> -Jon-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon) |
An explanation why we may not experience a fear of heights while flying
is because we lack any perspective, that is we have nothing to compare
our height above the ground with. A friend of mine in North Dakota
related an experience while flying a Breezy that seems to verify this.
He attempted a coodinated 360 turn using a very high TV as his point of
reference. His turn was off and the tower appeared to rotate below him.
He said he experienced vertigo mixed with fear so bad that he had to
immediately focus his gaze on the horizon until he settled down. Ray
Lujon , Woodbury, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Hasnimus(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Fear of heights |
looking for a fuselage kit for firestar anyone out there with a unfinished kit
or looking to get out of the project out there contact hasnimus @ aol. com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill Weber (DVNS)" <bweber(at)micom.com> |
Subject: | Re: Fear of heights |
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Raymond L Lujon wrote:
> An explanation why we may not experience a fear of heights while flying
> is because we lack any perspective, that is we have nothing to compare
> our height above the ground with. A friend of mine in North Dakota
> related an experience while flying a Breezy that seems to verify this.
> He attempted a coodinated 360 turn using a very high TV as his point of
> reference. His turn was off and the tower appeared to rotate below him.
> He said he experienced vertigo mixed with fear so bad that he had to
> immediately focus his gaze on the horizon until he settled down. Ray
> Lujon , Woodbury, MN
This corresponds to experiences in my club as well. Some pilots have
reported vertigo when flying over radio or power line towers. I have
experienced it slightly myself. The effect diminishes with increased
altitude over the tower.
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* MICOM Communications Corp. * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Fear of heights... |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>Ray and Jon,
>
>... If you do find yourself in that position, look out and scan
>the horizon and avoid looking down. This may explain why some pilots
>crash for unexplained reasons.
Me too,
I get very nervous standing near the edge of a building or cliff but the
only times I get that feeling in an UL is when its so hazy that with more
altitude the horizon starts to fade away below the nose and I know its
time to start down.
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Doug Lack <Doug.Lack(at)bentley.com> |
Subject: | reducing prop niose |
A message was posted awhile back suggesting the use of tape on props to
reduce the noise levels and increase efficiency. This tape contained
holes throughout (described as dimples) and would be placed on the
thickest portion of the prop or wing. I as an AeroE was very skeptical
and talked with a Ph.D. friend of mine.
Normally you would like the flow to transition at the thickest portion
(minimum pressure) to lower drag and increase efficiency. Air flow at
this point will have trouble negotiating the adverse pressure gradient
(pressure rise) without separating, unless the flow is turbulent. This
tape is acting like a transition strip, making sure all the flow is
turbulent, so it won't separate prematurely. My guess, anyway.
Transition strips are commonly made of mylar tape or 3D grit,
distributed along a narrow row. Usually the leading edge of this narrow
band should be high enough to trip the flow without raising the drag.
Raised dots, as opposed to holes, are commonly used on sailplane wings,
called turbulators (do a Web search on turbulators and you should turn
up an article by Al Bowers).
Preventing laminar separation by disrupting it into turbulent flow will
reduce drag and noise. The fact the tape has holes in it does little
more than lighten the tape itself. The edge thickness is the real factor
here. The tape placement is also critical. The tape should be placed so
that the edge is along a line determined by the thickest portion of the
airfoil. This is all really a guess as the location of exact separation
is determined by the local Reynolds number and airfoil design. You may
find its more trouble than its worth due to the trial and error needed
to find the proper placement. Its my opinion that the fellow who
experienced a dramatic noise reduction and airspeed increase got very
lucky.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: reducing prop niose |
>A message was posted awhile back suggesting the use of tape on props to
>reduce the noise levels and increase efficiency. This tape contained
>holes throughout (described as dimples) and would be placed on the
>thickest portion of the prop or wing. I as an AeroE was very skeptical
>and talked with a Ph.D. friend of mine.
>
>Normally you would like the flow to transition at the thickest portion
>(minimum pressure) to lower drag and increase efficiency. Air flow at
>this point will have trouble negotiating the adverse pressure gradient
>(pressure rise) without separating, unless the flow is turbulent. This
>tape is acting like a transition strip, making sure all the flow is
>turbulent, so it won't separate prematurely. My guess, anyway.
>Transition strips are commonly made of mylar tape or 3D grit,
>distributed along a narrow row. Usually the leading edge of this narrow
>band should be high enough to trip the flow without raising the drag.
>Raised dots, as opposed to holes, are commonly used on sailplane wings,
>called turbulators (do a Web search on turbulators and you should turn
>up an article by Al Bowers).
>
>Preventing laminar separation by disrupting it into turbulent flow will
>reduce drag and noise. The fact the tape has holes in it does little
>more than lighten the tape itself. The edge thickness is the real factor
>here. The tape placement is also critical. The tape should be placed so
>that the edge is along a line determined by the thickest portion of the
>airfoil. This is all really a guess as the location of exact separation
>is determined by the local Reynolds number and airfoil design. You may
>find its more trouble than its worth due to the trial and error needed
>to find the proper placement. Its my opinion that the fellow who
>experienced a dramatic noise reduction and airspeed increase got very
>lucky.
>-
The full article on the tape is in the EAA Sport Aviation magazine,
January 98, page 77.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill Weber (DVNS)" <bweber(at)micom.com> |
Subject: | Re: reducing prop niose |
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Doug Lack wrote:
> Preventing laminar separation by disrupting it into turbulent flow will
> reduce drag and noise. The fact the tape has holes in it does little
> more than lighten the tape itself. The edge thickness is the real factor
> here. The tape placement is also critical. The tape should be placed so
> that the edge is along a line determined by the thickest portion of the
> airfoil. This is all really a guess as the location of exact separation
> is determined by the local Reynolds number and airfoil design. You may
> find its more trouble than its worth due to the trial and error needed
> to find the proper placement. Its my opinion that the fellow who
> experienced a dramatic noise reduction and airspeed increase got very
> lucky.
I was the one who mad the post you are referring to. The holes in the
tape are not just for lightening. They increase the turbulance by
providing more edge area. The dramatic noise reduction and airspeed
increases were not luck, but a result of experimentation and trials
conducted over a perioid of years.
The placement apparently was not as critical as might be expected. If you
can get hold of the January issue of Sport Aviation, check out the
article for yourself.
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* MICOM Communications Corp. * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael Watson <psi(at)pivot.net> |
Thanks to all who sent me alot of good advice about building an
experimental.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Cook" <foxcook(at)cmn.net> |
Subject: | brakes for 1986 TwinStar |
I have purchased an unfinished 1986 TwinStar and as I
intend to completly enclose the cockpit, I need brakes. I have
been offered for sale 1996 FireStar Brakes, but have no idea
if they will bolt on and work without major modifications. Can
someone out there help me? I'm sure there are lots of older TwinStars
with brakes. What will work?
Help! Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
I'm wondering if I've been getting all my mail. I got 3 messages from the
Kolb list yesterday and 2 today. I'd appreciate if someone (not using
Juno) could verify these numbers, seems a little light.
-Thanx
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>I'm wondering if I've been getting all my mail. I got 3 messages from the
>Kolb list yesterday and 2 today. I'd appreciate if someone (not using
>Juno) could verify these numbers, seems a little light.
>
>-Thanx
>
>-Mick Fine
>Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
>Tulsa, Oklahoma
>
The very windy front that is passing through has probably squelched
the flying, and knowing that Saturday is Valentines Day, and Monday is
Presidents Day, yet Bill and Monica won't be able to exchange Valentines
this year has just got everybody too bummed to say much.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Hasnimus(at)aol.com |
anyone out there who wants to sell a fuselage kit for aFirestar either still
in box or partially completed em me at Hasnimus@ aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Barry Charlton <bambo(at)xtra.co.nz> |
Subject: | radios on twinstar |
Hi
I have a twinstar Mk 2 with a handheld radio with an aerial mounted on
the nose foreward of the instrument panel. My Rotax 503 seems to be
producing a lot of noise on the radio when at anything other than idle.
Has anybody had similar problems, is there any better aerial position,
everthing seems ok with the engine idleing, or off. I'm not sure if it
is engine noise or poor aerial location, any thoughts?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Marino, Frank J (Youngstown ARB)" <Frank.Marino(at)yng.afres.af.mil> |
Mick: I don't use Juno as you can see from my military address and I
only got two messages yesterday also. Was wondering the same as you.
FRANK J. MARINO
Chief Loadmaster 773 AS
>----------
>From: Richard Pike[SMTP:rpike(at)preferred.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 12:26 AM
>To: mefine1(at)juno.com
>Cc: kolb(at)www.intrig.com
>Subject: Re: Slow day?
>
>>I'm wondering if I've been getting all my mail. I got 3 messages from the
>>Kolb list yesterday and 2 today. I'd appreciate if someone (not using
>>Juno) could verify these numbers, seems a little light.
>>
>>-Thanx
>>
>>-Mick Fine
>>Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
>>Tulsa, Oklahoma
>>
> The very windy front that is passing through has probably squelched
>the flying, and knowing that Saturday is Valentines Day, and Monday is
>Presidents Day, yet Bill and Monica won't be able to exchange Valentines
>this year has just got everybody too bummed to say much.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: radios on twinstar |
<< I have a twinstar Mk 2 with a handheld radio with an aerial mounted on
the nose foreward of the instrument panel. My Rotax 503 seems to be
producing a lot of noise on the radio when at anything other than idle.
Has anybody had similar problems, is there any better aerial position,
everthing seems ok with the engine idleing, or off. I'm not sure if it
is engine noise or poor aerial location, any thoughts? >>
Try shielding the tach wire and the mag cut off wires. These are the main
sources of radio noise. If that doesn't help, then try resistor plugs or
shielding the plug wires. CPS has a kit for this.
Pete Krotje
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Steve Bennett <sab(at)ma.ultranet.com> |
Subject: | RE: radios on twinstar |
I've had great success using an Icom handheld in my Twinstar Mk 2.
The biggest factor seemed to be using resistor spark plugs. Either that or
a resistor spark plug cap. One warning - don't use BOTH resistor plugs and
a resistor cap. It'll add to rough running and hard starting.
My ignition cutoff wires are shielded - I used stereo microphone cable, two
conductors inside a grounded braided shield. I don't know how necessary it
is, but it couldn't hurt. My tach wire isn't shielded at all.
At one point I installed braided shields over the spark plug wires, but
they really didn't make any difference. I think the CPS shielding kit is
way overkill.
Again, the most effective thing seems to be resistor plugs or cap. And
turn on the ANL (noise limiting) on the radio.
My antenna is mounted on the boom tube, about 6 inches foward of the
vertical stabilizer. The coax cable runs through the tube and into the
cockpit. Both the REC and XMIT quality are excellent.
-Steve
----------
From: PKrotje(at)aol.com[SMTP:PKrotje(at)aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 10:07 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: radios on twinstar
<< I have a twinstar Mk 2 with a handheld radio with an aerial mounted on
the nose foreward of the instrument panel. My Rotax 503 seems to be
producing a lot of noise on the radio when at anything other than idle.
Has anybody had similar problems, is there any better aerial position,
everthing seems ok with the engine idleing, or off. I'm not sure if it
is engine noise or poor aerial location, any thoughts? >>
Try shielding the tach wire and the mag cut off wires. These are the main
sources of radio noise. If that doesn't help, then try resistor plugs or
shielding the plug wires. CPS has a kit for this.
Pete Krotje
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Slow day? - Guess so |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
Thanks Richard & Frank-
On Tues evening I kept getting a message, "Unable to connect to Juno's
computers, try again later" (AOL users may know this feeling). When I did
connect on Wed and got such a light load, it made me suspicious. Its
proly like Richard said, I know this Bill & Monica thing has me pretty
upset too!
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: radios on twinstar |
>Hi
> I have a twinstar Mk 2 with a handheld radio with an aerial mounted on
>the nose foreward of the instrument panel. My Rotax 503 seems to be
>producing a lot of noise on the radio when at anything other than idle.
>Has anybody had similar problems, is there any better aerial position,
>everthing seems ok with the engine idleing, or off. I'm not sure if it
>is engine noise or poor aerial location, any thoughts?
>-
A major source of noise could be the wiring to your tach or kill
switch. The plug wires are one source, but there is AC running to the tach,
and the kill switches, and it makes noise too. I have always used shielded
microphone wire from Radio Shack to wire up the tach and kill switches, and
have never had much noise problem.
The shield wraps around the inner wires, and needs to be grounded
to dissipate the static.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Tom Lloyd <lloyd(at)vermontel.com> |
Subject: | reducing prop niose |
The reduction in prop noise and the improvement in prop efficiency is
not a mistake and not luck. One inch wide tape with staggered holes, as
in the pattern on ticker tape or the like, helps solve the problem of
locating the exact chord position of minimum pressure. Ideally a single
tape edge at the right location on the airfoil chord would do the job.
However, if the tape edge is located too far forward, the airflow just
re-attaches, turbulence is not induced, and you get no gain. If you
locate the tape edge too far back on the chord, separation will have
already occurred and you get no gain. If you locate an inch wide strip
of turbulence generators along the thickest part of the airfoil your
likely to have some part of the tape in the right location, turbulence
is induced and the wake thickness is reduced rewarding you with the
desired result - less noise and more prop efficiency
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fred Steadman <fstead(at)fastlane.net> |
Subject: | [Fwd: tonight's news program] |
Tonight's news carried the story of an ultralight crash into Lake Ray
Hubbard, killing one of the two people aboard. The pilot was apparently
flying low over the water when he sunk a landing gear and flipped. His
wife drowned.
The plane could have been a Kolb, or a Kolb look alike. It was a boom
structure with a high, constant chord wing. It carried an "N' number as
well as a passenger, so not an ultralight.
The TV reporter chose to editorialize against ultralights, which I guess
is what set me off.
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 00:46:51 -0600
From: Fred Steadman <fstead(at)fastlane.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: tonight's news program
Tonight's news opened with a story of an airplane crash into Lake Ray
Hubbard, resulting in the death of a passenger.
Your reporter used the word "ultralight" several times to describe the
type of aircraft, when in fact it is obviously NOT an ultralight.
Ultralight vehicles are authorized under "Federal Aviation Regulation
Part 103: Ultralight Vehicles". I can send you a copy of that
regulation if you need to see it, but briefly; part 103.1 Applicability:
"(a) is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the
air by a single occupant;" and
"(c) does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness
certificate;"
The aircraft in your story had two seats, and was carrying two persons.
Furthermore, it had a registration number ("N" number) displayed on its'
tail boom. The machine is clearly an aircraft, not an ultralight
vehicle.
Why is this distinction important? Well, your reporter made it
important when she chose to editorialize hysterically about the evils of
ultralights; "even hot air balloons are regulated more than
ultralights". Pretty cheap shot considering she has no idea what an
ultralight is.
If you have any interest in unbiased reporting, you will note that
although ultralight vehicles are not registered, and carry no license
requirements, they are regulated. Basically they are allowed to exist
on the condition that they are operated far from polite society, do not
attempt to mix with other forms of aviation, and carry NO PASSENGERS.
Part 103.9 Hazardous operations: "(a) No person may operate any
ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or
property".
Part 103.13 "(b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner
that creates a hazard with respect to any aircraft".
Part 103.15 Operations over congested areas: "No person may operate an
ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or
settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons".
Part 103.17 Operations in certain airspace: "No person may operate an
ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace
or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace
designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization
from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace".
I hope to see a correction of the facts of this story in tomorrow
night's news broadcast, as well as a retraction of the editorial
commentary.
Fred Steadman,
Irving, Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Fear of heights... |
<< Fear of heights is universal to some degree and one of our original
fears. The best we can do is overcome it through experience. I have a
fear of heights only when on the observation decks of tall buildings or
watching rock climbers on TV. This is not to the point of preventing me
from taking the elevator to the top when I have a chance, as I did at
the Stratosphere in Las Vegas in October. But it is there, no doubt about
it. In contrast I do not experience this fear while flying, exhilaration
for sure but not fear. Why is this? When I discuss this somewhat taboo
subject with other flyers, I find my experience is not unique. Ray
Lujon, Woodbury, MN
>>
I hear you Ray Lujon and can relate....I have no fear of heights when flying
my Firestar KX and KNOW that I have a dreadful fear of heights also because
of what happened to me in El Paso once...I was climbing a mountain with my boy
(8) and his friend and was so surprised when I looked around behind me after
climbing for awhile and saw the deep, deep angle of declination behind me that
I was petrified so profoundly that I could not move a muscle! It was as if
there was a huge "bug" or animal inside me that was taking possesion of me
creating a terror that I have never experienced since!! Meantime my boy and
his friend are running around me on the side of the mountain and I'm stuck!!
In looking behind me again, I saw a hot air balloon take off 3 miles a way and
head in my direction. I absolutely KNEW that the balloon was destined to float
over and knock me off the mountain!!
Its all in the mind and panic control is MY main concern over any
extraordinary activity such as UL flying ....but I never see any information
about it....I call at least one form of it ..."Mind Freeze" and I've seen it
happen twice....fortunately the person was able to snap out of it each
time!..... and just in time!.....its an interesting subject! GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fred Steadman <fstead(at)fastlane.net> |
Subject: | Saturday's crash |
An update on my post from last night. WFAA (www.wfaa.com) posted the
following to thier web site as of this morning. Most other Dallas media
have begun refering to the airplane as an airplane. The Dallas Morning
News gave its' type as a Rans 12.
______________________quoted material from wfaa web site______________
LAKE RAY HUBBARD, February 14 -- Rescuers tried and
failed to save a woman trapped in a
sinking ultralight aircraft
that crashed at Lake Ray Hubbard
Saturday evening just
after 5 p.m.
Crews from Rockwall, Dallas and Garland
rushed to the
crash site trying to free the victim,
who was trapped in a
sunken plane -- but time was not on
their side.
Witnesses say the two-seat aircraft
aircraft had been flying
dangerously low over Interstate 30 when
something went
terribly wrong.
Capt. Jeff Tokar of the Garland Fire
Department said the
plane barely missed traffic on the
causeway which carries
the highway across the lake. "He came
across the lake and
one of the tires caught the water and
flipped the ultralight
into the water," Tokar said.
The 49-year-old pilot managed to escape,
then desperately
tried to rescue his passenger -- his
27-year-old wife -- who
was trapped inside the sinking plane.
"He told us that he'd tried to get his
passenger out of the
ultralight aircraft about three times,
and could not get her
unbuckled from the seat belt," said
Garland Fire Department
Captain Ron Ward. "He was getting real
tired, and so we did
get him out of the water and transport
him to the hospital."
Officials say it took just minutes for
the plane to plummet 30
feet down to the lake bottom.
As night fell, divers had trouble too,
searching through the
cold, murky water.
It took more than one hour to snare the
ultralight and begin
towing it to shore.
Once the victim was finally free of the
wreckage, paramedics
began CPR, hoping the frigid waters had
bought them some
time.
Capt. Tokar explained, "with the water
being so cold, there's
chances that she can be revived, so
we're taking every effort
we can to try and establish life with
her."
But it was too late.
Investigators have a lot questions about
why this aircraft was
flying so low over the windy waters, and
what caused the
crash that -- on this Valentine's Day --
separated a husband
and wife forever.
The victim's name was not immediately
released.
Her husband was treated for hypothermia
at an area hospital
and later released.
Ultralight aircraft and pilots are not
regulated.
The Federal Aviation Administration
estimates there are
about 40,000 ultralight aircraft in the
United States, and they
are all exempt from licensing,
inspection, and registration.
Gliders, hot air balloons and even
blimps have more
regulatory oversight.
There is a growing concern among general
aviation pilots
about the air traffic mix of small
planes and ultralights, but
ultralight pilots groups say they police
themselves.
Reporter: Janet St. James
Last update: Sunday, February 15 at
03:06 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: [Fwd: tonight's news program] |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>
>...I hope to see a correction of the facts of this story in tomorrow
>night's news broadcast, as well as a retraction of the editorial
>commentary.
>
>Fred Steadman,
>Irving, Texas
>
Way to go Fred!
Keep us updated.
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: [Fwd: tonight's news program] |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>
>Tonight's news carried the story of an ultralight crash into Lake Ray
>Hubbard, killing one of the two people aboard. ...
Our local media must have gone to the same school. The rule seems to be
this; If you can't immediately identify what type of aircraft crashed,
call it an ultralight until you get more (or any) facts. Trouble is, by
the time they "correct" the story, it has gone from the front page to the
back or is slipped-in between the weather and the sports on tv. The
general public only remembers the initial report.
We had a nice fly-in camp-out last summer on a field next to a local lake
with 18 or 20 ultralights. Everyone had a good time and left for home by
early Sunday afternoon. Later that evening, an aircraft crashed into the
same lake about 8 or 10 miles from the strip where we had been. I don't
recall (poor memory again) but I think both occupants were killed.
Initial radio reports said it was (guess what) an ultralight. This
naturally caused us great concern. The phone lines heated-up as everyone
checked to make sure everyone else had made it home. The next day, it was
reported that the plane had actually been a Thorp T-18 (hardly an UL) and
the owner had been demo'ing it for a prospective buyer. I suspect that
the reporters probably heard from "witnesses" that there had been a lot
of UL's in the area all weekend and jumped to a very wrong conclusion.
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Saturday's crash |
Fred and others,
Guess i felt inspired to spout back to the reporter myself. Here's what i
just
emailed to her. It is funny how these things get us kinda mad, but at the
same
time once again point to the need for a better category than what we now
have in
103 or GA. Thanks for posting the article.
-Ben Ransom
>To: stjames(at)wfaa.com
>From: Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
>
>Dear Ms. St. James,
>
>I'm afraid you have raised the ire of many with your interpretation and
reporting this morning of yesterday's unfortunate "ultralight aircraft"
crash. As you report on a wide variety of subjects, I'm sure it is
difficult to be correct on every aspect of every story, especially with
short, imposing time requirements. Your depiction of ultralights,
ultralight pilots, and their relationship with general aviation pilots is
inaccurate and unfair.
>
>When you state that "ultralight pilots groups say they police themselves",
you unfairly imply an arrogance among ultralighters. In fact, the FAA
itself established self-regulation of ultralights in 1982 as an innovative
way to maintain safety in the fastest growing segment of light aviation.
This was, and is, an effective way to regulate with less government. In
creating this aviation category (Federal Aviation Rule 103), the FAA stated
"...FAA will continue to monitor performance of the ultralight community in
terms of safety statistics, growth trends, and maturity and, if indicated
will take additional regulatory actions to preclude degradation of safety
to the general public while allowing maximum freedom for ultralight
operation. ...The FAA's intent in this matter is clear. Do it voluntarily
or we'll do it for you." Note again, this was established in 1982! With
the increasing difficulty to insure aviation safety for the millions who
use aviation daily for public transportation, it is refreshing to see a
government enacted program that does not unnecessarily burden you and I as
tax payers.
>
>You state that there is "growning concern among general aviation pilots
about the air traffic mix of small planes and ultralights". There has
always been concern among all pilots of everything that flies about sharing
public airspace. PUBLIC airspace! Small planes and ultralights do mix
safely all the time. What the heck does this crash have to do with this
issue anyway?!
>
>Lastly, it is a little ironic that your article is unfair to ultralights
when this was a general aviation aircraft accident. We ultralighters are
the "little guy", and we take offense at unfair blame and public heat for
accidents and even less serious incidents attributed to us as a group.
Yes, this accident could have been an ultralight accident. But it wasn't.
In fact, maybe you should have reported whether the pilot was a certified
FAA pilot, and whether he may have been breaking Federal Aviation Rules
pertaining to general aviation. As the "little guy", we ultralighters are
very wary of public sentiment that unfairly favors the freedom of flying
only for those who can afford $100,000 airplanes, and that is what your
statements foster.
>
>The most important thing however, is that this was a small but tragic
aviation accident. All concerned should try to learn from it. Unfairly
riling the fear and anger of the general public or any particular aviation
group is a disservice to all.
>
>-Ben Ransom
> *USUA trained and licensed pilot certificate #14413
>
>(*United States Ultralight Association)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: [Fwd: tonight's news program] |
And John Denver's also was supposedly an ultralight crash. Damn those
reckless fools (the reporters)!
-Ben Ransom
>Our local media must have gone to the same school. The rule seems to be
>this; If you can't immediately identify what type of aircraft crashed,
...clipped
>reported that the plane had actually been a Thorp T-18 (hardly an UL) and
>the owner had been demo'ing it for a prospective buyer. I suspect that
>the reporters probably heard from "witnesses" that there had been a lot
>of UL's in the area all weekend and jumped to a very wrong conclusion.
>
>
>-Mick Fine
>Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
>Tulsa, Oklahoma
>mefine1(at)juno.com
>For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: [Fwd: tonight's news program] |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>
>...I don't know why the press has it in for UL all of a sudden, but they
>seem determined to hound that class of sport plane out of existence.
>Perhaps objecting to every single incorrect story, along with an offer
>to help reporters tell the difference, will help.
Tulsa only has one newspaper now and for a few years we were fortunate to
have very accurate aviation reports. They had a bright young man at the
"business desk" who just happened to fly a Kolb Flyer (like mine). Mitch
and I became fast friends. Whenever there was an aviation event or
incident, they would pull Mitch away from his business beat to cover it.
Unfortunately, the news biz doesn't pay very well (at least not here in
T-town). He earned his law degree while working for the paper and left
that job when he passed the 'bar' about 2 years ago. The accuracy of the
reporting has since returned to its old "half right, half the time"
level. I only hope he can raise aviation accuracy in his current field.
Lord knows they could use it!
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Saturday's crash |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>Fred and others,
>Guess i felt inspired to spout back to the reporter myself. Here's
>what i
>just
>emailed to her. .....
Nice response Ben. Maybe we're "piling-on" a little but I decided to vent
my spleen too, here's what I sent:
Ms. St. James,
I know you have already received e-mail correcting your very inaccurate
report of the accident at Lake Ray Hubbard so I will not repeat it.
I see that polls currently show a growing public distrust of the accuracy
of the media in general. Your hasty, inaccurate reporting only reinforces
this. I realize that competition in your business is intense and speed is
important but when you sacrifice accuracy for sensationalism you are
chipping away at a smaller and smaller amount of public trust.
Sincerely,
Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Clive Hatcher <CliveHatcher(at)compuserve.com> |
Subject: | Re: radios on twinstar |
On 2/12/98 you wrote:-
>Hi
> I have a twinstar Mk 2 with a handheld radio with an aerial mounted on=
>the nose foreward of the instrument panel. My Rotax 503 seems to be
>producing a lot of noise on the radio when at anything other than idle.
>Has anybody had similar problems, is there any better aerial position,
>everthing seems ok with the engine idleing, or off. I'm not sure if it
>is engine noise or poor aerial location, any thoughts?
On my Mk 3 I have the aerial mounted at the outboard end of the port wing=
strut pointing downwards. The coaxial cable runs down the inside of the
strut and connects to a short extension lead using a BNC connector at the=
strut/cabin joint. This keeps the aerial as far away as practically
possible from the engine (582) and on the opposite side to the electrics.=
The strut and main spar seem to give a good ground plane for the aerial a=
nd
I get very little engine noise pickup unless the squelch is turned right
down.
Clive Hatcher, G - MYLN
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | arnwine(at)toad.net |
Subject: | trim for the firestar |
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
hello, Haven't seen any information in plans book or drawings to help me to design
some sort of trim for the firestar.
Factory says we can use the same style trim as in the Slingshot.
but I am not familiar with this setup.
Am looking for someone who has added this feature to their Firestar.
Thanks, hank arnwine, Harwood, Maryland.
(__) ,---------. NOTE: The preceding message was sent via Jaek and
(oo) | :\/: _ _ \ Jon's WWW mail cow gateway. That is to say, the
/-------\/_/ : :: :: : ) person who sent this message could in fact be an
/ | MAIL|| \_ ' '`-'`-'/ anonymous prankster. Even though this message was
* ||"" || \__________/ mailed to you from the cs.fredonia.edu domain, it
^^ ^^ could have been generated by anyone in the world.
Please keep this in mind. Thank you! --Jaek (smit2204) and -Jon- (stei0302)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | arnwine(at)toad.net |
Subject: | trim for the firestar |
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
hello, Haven't seen any information in plans book or drawings to help me to design
some sort of trim for the firestar.
Factory says we can use the same style trim as in the Slingshot.
but I am not familiar with this setup.
Am looking for someone who has added this feature to their Firestar.
Thanks, hank arnwine, Harwood, Maryland.
(__) ,---------. NOTE: The preceding message was sent via Jaek and
(oo) | :\/: _ _ \ Jon's WWW mail cow gateway. That is to say, the
/-------\/_/ : :: :: : ) person who sent this message could in fact be an
/ | MAIL|| \_ ' '`-'`-'/ anonymous prankster. Even though this message was
* ||"" || \__________/ mailed to you from the cs.fredonia.edu domain, it
^^ ^^ could have been generated by anyone in the world.
Please keep this in mind. Thank you! --Jaek (smit2204) and -Jon- (stei0302)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | arnwine(at)toad.net |
Subject: | trim for the firestar |
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
hello, Haven't seen any information in plans book or drawings to help me to design
some sort of trim for the firestar.
Factory says we can use the same style trim as in the Slingshot.
but I am not familiar with this setup.
Am looking for someone who has added this feature to their Firestar.
Thanks, hank arnwine, Harwood, Maryland.
(__) ,---------. NOTE: The preceding message was sent via Jaek and
(oo) | :\/: _ _ \ Jon's WWW mail cow gateway. That is to say, the
/-------\/_/ : :: :: : ) person who sent this message could in fact be an
/ | MAIL|| \_ ' '`-'`-'/ anonymous prankster. Even though this message was
* ||"" || \__________/ mailed to you from the cs.fredonia.edu domain, it
^^ ^^ could have been generated by anyone in the world.
Please keep this in mind. Thank you! --Jaek (smit2204) and -Jon- (stei0302)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | arnwine(at)toad.net |
Subject: | trim for the firestar |
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
hello, Haven't seen any information in plans book or drawings to help me to design
some sort of trim for the firestar.
Factory says we can use the same style trim as in the Slingshot.
but I am not familiar with this setup.
Am looking for someone who has added this feature to their Firestar.
Thanks, hank arnwine, Harwood, Maryland.
(__) ,---------. NOTE: The preceding message was sent via Jaek and
(oo) | :\/: _ _ \ Jon's WWW mail cow gateway. That is to say, the
/-------\/_/ : :: :: : ) person who sent this message could in fact be an
/ | MAIL|| \_ ' '`-'`-'/ anonymous prankster. Even though this message was
* ||"" || \__________/ mailed to you from the cs.fredonia.edu domain, it
^^ ^^ could have been generated by anyone in the world.
Please keep this in mind. Thank you! --Jaek (smit2204) and -Jon- (stei0302)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: [Fwd: tonight's news program] |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>
>You may have hit on something when you said, "the news biz doesn't pay
>very well", but surely a TV newscaster rates a high enough salary so
>that they don't have to accept any homeless migrant that wanders past
>the employment office. The fifth estate has long had a proud
>tradition
>of making sure stories are correct before printing them. Not so, it
>seems, for TV news programs.
I've never seen Ms. St. James, but I suspect she was hired for something
other than her journalistic abilities. Hairy legged reporters like my
friend at the newspaper have to make their (small) money the old
fashioned way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a politically incorrect slam against
beautiful women. I'm making a politically incorrect slam against the
senior TV news editors who do the hiring! BTW, what's his/her em address?
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Saturday's crash |
<< I realize that competition in your business is intense and speed is
important but when you sacrifice accuracy for sensationalism you are
chipping away at a smaller and smaller amount of public trust.
Sincerely,
Mick Fine >>
Bless you too Mick!...... GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fred Steadman <fstead(at)fastlane.net> |
Subject: | Re: [Fwd: tonight's news program] |
Mick Fine wrote:
>
> writes:
> >
> >You may have hit on something when you said, "the news biz doesn't pay
> >very well", but surely a TV newscaster rates a high enough salary so
> >that they don't have to accept any homeless migrant that wanders past
> >the employment office. The fifth estate has long had a proud
> >tradition
> >of making sure stories are correct before printing them. Not so, it
> >seems, for TV news programs.
>
-- snip --
>
Ben Ransom used the address, "stjames(at)wfaa.com" for her. I don't know
where he got it but it looks reasonable. I used "wzwirko(at)wfaa.com"
because it was laying around on the web site. I did get an answer, the
essence of which was; "As explained in today's follow-up stories, the
term "ultralight" was used by the police officials who were the source
of the original information".
Tonight's 10:00 o'clock broadcast showed a follow-up wherein the plane
was refered to as an "experimental aircraft". In addition, that same
followup story is now on their web site as follows;
__________________________quoted material____________________________
LAKE RAY HUBBARD, February 15 -- Federal investigators went to the scene
of a fatal plane crash at Lake Ray Hubbard early Sunday morning as
salvage crews hauled the tiny plane out of the water.
It crashed late Saturday afternoon, killing 27-year-old Maleenah
Arterburn of Rockwall.
Her husband Donavan, the pilot, was able to swim to safety.
Investigators are now looking at whether the pilot may have flown too
close to choppy water.
They're also checking out whether the plane's design or mechanical
problems led to the accident.
The plane, a Rans S-12 manufactured in Hays, Kansas, is an experimental
homebuilt aircraft, weighing only 470 pounds and costing about $13,000.
Investigators say it could take up to six months to decide exactly what
caused it to go down. "We will look at the aircraft and all areas of the
aircraft from the engine to the airframe," said Joyce Rose of the
National Transportation Safety Board. "We'll look into the pilot's
qualifications and we'll look into the weather at the time."
Witnesses have said they saw a plane flying close to the lake Saturday
morning, but they aren't sure whether it was the same plane that
crashed.
Garland Police originally called the craft an ultralight, but it's an
experimental aircraft regulated by the FAA that's been on the market now
for about eight years.
Another model of the Rans, the S-9, crashed in McKinney on July 19 last
year. The student pilot was killed.
Reporter: Dave Evans
Last update: Sunday, February 15 at 09:25 PM
______________________quoted material___________________________________
They don't say, but the S-9 may well have been a ultralight.
Curiously, the original, offensive story is still on the web site,
accessable through a link to previous stories. It has been modified so
that it no longer uses the word, "ultralight" in connection with the
downed airplane, but it still contains the editorial content:
______________________quoted material___________________________________
Ultralight aircraft and pilots are not regulated.
The Federal Aviation Administration estimates there are about 40,000
ultralight aircraft in the United States, and they are all exempt from
licensing, inspection, and registration.
Gliders, hot air balloons and even blimps have more regulatory
oversight.
There is a growing concern among general aviation pilots about the air
traffic mix of small planes and ultralights, but ultralight pilots
groups say they police themselves.
Reporter: Janet St. James
Last update: Sunday, February 15 at 03:06 AM
______________________quoted material___________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Saturday's crash |
From: | rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon) |
Depending on how it is used in news stories , the term "experimental
aircraft" has a very, very negative connotation to the general public. As
we all know they do not know or understand the designation as used with
home built airplanes. As used in the Lake Ray Hubbard news stories, the
terms ultralight and experimental ( read untested or under test ) become
lumped in the public's mind. Its too bad that the "experimental
designation" isn't something more benign and descriptive, such as " Sport
Plane". This also goes for ultralights. The designation for ultralights
could be "Freedom Plane". Ray Lujon , Woodbury, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
Subject: | re bad journalism from a journalist |
I have been reading all the discussions about the inaccuracies in the news
reports. I have to agree, and what's even funnier is I work in the field. I am
a newspaper photographer.
I do not like the way the media has gone, it's a real lengthy topic for me so
I will not get to deep into my opinions, but here are a few.
I enjoy photgraphy and the people I meet every day, and from one day to
another I never do the same thing, so I do a good job at what I do, however, I
am a lonely worker on the bottom of the totem pole, and have little say in
what's in the newspaper, kind a like a lot of the reporters. I keep this in
mind, my work allows me to afford my aviation hobby when I am away from work,
and it's better than digging ditches.
As for television news, have you ever wondered why they report on something
lets say in the afternoon, ie maybe a crash, well they report early and the
information they get that early is usually incorrect or full of errors with
just a bit of factual information, then they run this again at 5,6 and the 10
p.m. news. It seems they never try to update. Then what really gets me is the
next day they never ever run a correction, nor do they give another report
with the correct factual information. Not to defend newspapers, but at least
they keep reporting until their later p.m. deadlines and try to get the facts
correct for the next days paper. I am not defending the lesser of the 2 evils,
but I know from working in the field that usually what they report is the
information they get. Some reporters would not know that the front end of an
airplane from the rear, so may bee a lot has to do with them just reporting on
something that they know nothing about. This seems to be true unless you live
in a giant market where the papers can afford to hire experts that report in
their fields.
I can't tell you how many calls I get at home or at work when an aviation
mishap happens locally, at least I can usually try to get them accurate
information.
So anyways, I am like the rest of you when I read and hear abouth the bad
reporting on out aviation industry. I kinda gotta duck my head for a few days
at the airport when somehting like this happens.
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Waligroski, Greg" <gwaligro(at)ball.com> |
Mick Fine
Subject: | RE: [Fwd: tonight's news program] |
Hmm, kind of makes me wonder.....we caught all the inaccuracies in the
news report because aviation is near and dear to us. How much other
stuff do we mis-interpret and form opinions on that is reported in the
news on topics that we are less informed about......
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Steadman [SMTP:fstead(at)fastlane.net]
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 1998 11:00 PM
> To: Mick Fine
> Cc: kolb(at)intrig.com; wzwirko(at)wfaa.com
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: tonight's news program]
>
> Mick Fine wrote:
> >
>
> > writes:
> > >
> > >You may have hit on something when you said, "the news biz doesn't
> pay
> > >very well", but surely a TV newscaster rates a high enough salary
> so
> > >that they don't have to accept any homeless migrant that wanders
> past
> > >the employment office. The fifth estate has long had a proud
> > >tradition
> > >of making sure stories are correct before printing them. Not so,
> it
> > >seems, for TV news programs.
> >
> -- snip --
> >
>
> Ben Ransom used the address, "stjames(at)wfaa.com" for her. I don't know
> where he got it but it looks reasonable. I used "wzwirko(at)wfaa.com"
> because it was laying around on the web site. I did get an answer,
> the
> essence of which was; "As explained in today's follow-up stories, the
> term "ultralight" was used by the police officials who were the source
> of the original information".
>
> Tonight's 10:00 o'clock broadcast showed a follow-up wherein the plane
> was refered to as an "experimental aircraft". In addition, that same
> followup story is now on their web site as follows;
>
> __________________________quoted material____________________________
>
> LAKE RAY HUBBARD, February 15 -- Federal investigators went to the
> scene
> of a fatal plane crash at Lake Ray Hubbard early Sunday morning as
> salvage crews hauled the tiny plane out of the water.
>
> It crashed late Saturday afternoon, killing 27-year-old Maleenah
> Arterburn of Rockwall.
>
> Her husband Donavan, the pilot, was able to swim to safety.
>
> Investigators are now looking at whether the pilot may have flown too
> close to choppy water.
>
> They're also checking out whether the plane's design or mechanical
> problems led to the accident.
>
> The plane, a Rans S-12 manufactured in Hays, Kansas, is an
> experimental
> homebuilt aircraft, weighing only 470 pounds and costing about
> $13,000.
>
> Investigators say it could take up to six months to decide exactly
> what
> caused it to go down. "We will look at the aircraft and all areas of
> the
> aircraft from the engine to the airframe," said Joyce Rose of the
> National Transportation Safety Board. "We'll look into the pilot's
> qualifications and we'll look into the weather at the time."
>
> Witnesses have said they saw a plane flying close to the lake Saturday
> morning, but they aren't sure whether it was the same plane that
> crashed.
>
> Garland Police originally called the craft an ultralight, but it's an
> experimental aircraft regulated by the FAA that's been on the market
> now
> for about eight years.
>
> Another model of the Rans, the S-9, crashed in McKinney on July 19
> last
> year. The student pilot was killed.
>
> Reporter: Dave Evans
> Last update: Sunday, February 15 at 09:25 PM
>
> ______________________quoted
> material___________________________________
>
> They don't say, but the S-9 may well have been a ultralight.
>
> Curiously, the original, offensive story is still on the web site,
> accessable through a link to previous stories. It has been modified
> so
> that it no longer uses the word, "ultralight" in connection with the
> downed airplane, but it still contains the editorial content:
>
> ______________________quoted
> material___________________________________
>
> Ultralight aircraft and pilots are not regulated.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration estimates there are about 40,000
> ultralight aircraft in the United States, and they are all exempt from
> licensing, inspection, and registration.
>
> Gliders, hot air balloons and even blimps have more regulatory
> oversight.
>
> There is a growing concern among general aviation pilots about the air
> traffic mix of small planes and ultralights, but ultralight pilots
> groups say they police themselves.
>
> Reporter: Janet St. James
> Last update: Sunday, February 15 at 03:06 AM
>
> ______________________quoted
> material___________________________________
> -
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
Subject: | Re: trim for the firestar |
>hello, Haven't seen any information in plans book or drawings to help me to
>design some sort of trim for the firestar.Factory says we can use the same
>style trim as in the Slingshot.but I am not familiar with this setup.Am
looking for >someone who has added this feature to their Firestar.Thanks,
hank arnwine, >Harwood, Maryland.
I just put up a temporary page that has a few photos of the trim on Kolb's
factory SlingShot, and on mine. These are posted at the full res of my
camera, so they're about 160k each. They are at:
http://www.pen.net/~rad/trim.htm
Kolb's is adjustable in flight by turning the friction wheel that you see.
Mine is only ground adjustable by moving the spring to different holes. You
can also see my fancy aileron trim :-)
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Saturday's crash |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Ray,
Yes, I've heard at various fly-in events that the word "experimental"
should be changed to something else. It really does invoke a mental
picture of an aircraft that is untested and prone to malfunction. It's a
little unfair in this age of instant news reporting that the only way to
get public attention is to report on something so dramatic as to cause a
public outcry that will draw attention to that issue. When an aircraft
goes down, that word "experimental" does get attention.
Let's not end up on the 10pm news with a "story hungry" reporter sticking
a microphone in your face and saying, "Isn't that a 2-cycle engine on
that machine and, by the way, don't you need a license to fly that thing?
...... back to you Don at the studio."
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
writes:
>Depending on how it is used in news stories , the term "experimental
>aircraft" has a very, very negative connotation to the general public.
>As we all know they do not know or understand the designation as used
>with home built airplanes. As used in the Lake Ray Hubbard news
>stories, the terms ultralight and experimental ( read untested or
>under test ) become lumped in the public's mind. Its too bad that the
>"experimental designation" isn't something more benign and
>descriptive, such as " Sport Plane". This also goes for ultralights.
>The designation for ultralights could be "Freedom Plane". Ray
>Lujon , Woodbury, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
Subject: | Re: trim for the firestar |
>Kolb's is adjustable in flight by turning the friction wheel that you see.
>Mine is only ground adjustable by moving the spring to different holes.
You
>can also see my fancy aileron trim :-)
I should have also mentioned that both these setups only offer either up or
down trim force (not both). Both the factory plane and mine seem to require
up elevator pressure to stay level.
Rusty (again)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | george_eagle(at)webtv.net (George Thompson) |
Can anyone out there give me the correct address for the Kolb web site.
I have been trying the address in the March Kit Planes which is
seem to latch on to it. I am flying a Firestar now with 250 hrs and am
finishing up a Firestare II. Has anyone used any of the newer 4
stroke engines on either of these?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
Subject: | Re: re bad journalism from a journalist |
Yes, it's quite true few people are knowledgeable about every subject matter.
Calling it an Ultralight was a minor error since they reported based upon
briefing from the police.
My major complaint I had was with the editorial information the reported added
on Ultralights which was outside of the actual event and was inaccurate and
outdated and very damaging. I've asked for equal editorial time by a
knowledgeable individual in the industry to address the subject and correct the
information the reporter presented. We'll see what happens.
Jerry Bidle
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: re bad journalism from a journalist
Date: 2/16/98 10:11 AM
I have been reading all the discussions about the inaccuracies in the news
reports. I have to agree, and what's even funnier is I work in the field. I am
a newspaper photographer.
I do not like the way the media has gone, it's a real lengthy topic for me so
I will not get to deep into my opinions, but here are a few.
I enjoy photgraphy and the people I meet every day, and from one day to
another I never do the same thing, so I do a good job at what I do, however, I
am a lonely worker on the bottom of the totem pole, and have little say in
what's in the newspaper, kind a like a lot of the reporters. I keep this in
mind, my work allows me to afford my aviation hobby when I am away from work,
and it's better than digging ditches.
As for television news, have you ever wondered why they report on something
lets say in the afternoon, ie maybe a crash, well they report early and the
information they get that early is usually incorrect or full of errors with
just a bit of factual information, then they run this again at 5,6 and the 10
p.m. news. It seems they never try to update. Then what really gets me is the
next day they never ever run a correction, nor do they give another report
with the correct factual information. Not to defend newspapers, but at least
they keep reporting until their later p.m. deadlines and try to get the facts
correct for the next days paper. I am not defending the lesser of the 2 evils,
but I know from working in the field that usually what they report is the
information they get. Some reporters would not know that the front end of an
airplane from the rear, so may bee a lot has to do with them just reporting on
something that they know nothing about. This seems to be true unless you live
in a giant market where the papers can afford to hire experts that report in
their fields.
I can't tell you how many calls I get at home or at work when an aviation
mishap happens locally, at least I can usually try to get them accurate
information.
So anyways, I am like the rest of you when I read and hear abouth the bad
reporting on out aviation industry. I kinda gotta duck my head for a few days
at the airport when somehting like this happens.
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | William Hinkelmann <whink(at)mindspring.com> |
It was once said " Believe Half of what you see and None of what you hear"
With the way TV has gotten into special effects you cannot believe what you
"Think" you see.
Fish Wrappers (News Papers) are so inaccurate I stopped buying or
reading them years ago. TV news is is in the same class as Jerry Springer
and the rest of the "Totally Trash TV". Even the Documentary on TV have
re-enactments labled as actual footage. History books have been rewriten
to change public views.
The only thing that is REAL is FLYING.
Hope I didn't burst anyones bubble, and yes there is a Santa Clause.
_____________________
William Hinkelmann
whink(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re:Kolb home page |
Kolb's address is -> http://www.kolbaircraft.com/
George Thompson wrote:
>
> Can anyone out there give me the correct address for the Kolb web site.
> I have been trying the address in the March Kit Planes which is
> seem to latch on to it. I am flying a Firestar now with 250 hrs and am
> finishing up a Firestare II. Has anyone used any of the newer 4
> stroke engines on either of these?
> -
________________________________________________________________________________
by r1.boston.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.6.Beta0/2.0.kim) with ESMTP id VAAAA24450
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
Dear Kolb Listers,
I have just put-up a homepage for our club. Its still "under
construction" but here's the URL:
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
Check it out, send your comments & suggestions!
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
by r1.boston.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.6.Beta0/2.0.kim) with ESMTP id VAAAA24496
Subject: | Re: Saturday's crash |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>.... Its too bad that the
>"experimental designation" isn't something more benign and
>descriptive, such as " Sport Plane". This also goes for ultralights.
>The designation for ultralights could be "Freedom Plane". Ray
>Lujon , Woodbury, MN
I'm not so sure Ray,
I think what the general public really despises is someone enjoying life
without their permission! "Sport Plane" might make them envision fox
hunters in airplanes. "Freedom Plane" might bring on images of hippies in
a VW bus with wings.
IMHO, "Kitplane" or "Homebuilt" (for experimentals) and "Ultralight" (for
genuine Part 103 vehicles) are descriptive and accurate. The problem is
most folks in the press don't have a clue of when and where to apply
these terms. I agree that "Experimental" seems more descriptive of
military and commercial prototypes while "Ultralight" is just
misunderstood (and misused) more than anything (even by us sometimes).
Unless I'm mistaken, the true record of true ultralights is very
admirable, too bad the public is fed half truths and outright lies in the
name of sensationalism and higher ratings.
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
> and yes there is a Santa Clause.
> _____________________
> William Hinkelmann
Just what clause is that? I always thought it was a Sanity Clause.
Jim Baker
Pres, USUA Club 104
Frontier Ultralight Aviators
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
Subject: | Cabin heat works great |
This is just a quick update on the cabin heat project. I tested it over the
weekend, and it works great. Thanks again to Frank for his ideas/critique!
One of the features is a valve in the lower cross-hose which disables the
carb-side radiator, this makes more pressure and higher temperatures available
to the cabin heater core. The source is right out of the top of the engine,
"T"d off the 1" main hose, and the return line taps into the lower cross-hose
of the Rotax dual rad setup. I believe I will still be covering part of the
remaining radiator in colder weather.
This, combined with poly-fabric covering over the boom tube open end to reduce
cold airflow into the cabin, should make it possible to fly in 30 degree
weather with just a light jacket or sweatshirt.
Jim Gerken
Vibration/Acoustics
HYDA
253-2454
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
Subject: | Kolb: Prop cavitation |
I think I experienced cavitation. Here are the symptoms: I have been
increasing pitch of the three-blade Powerfin progressively as the 582 keeps
gaining power. I last used 17 degrees 30 minutes and the engine was again
running a bit too fast at about 6900 full throttle. So I advanced the pitch to
18 d 30 m as measured by the Warp prop protractor. When I spun it up for a
STATIC test, as it approached 5900 it got much louder and the prop noise was
mixed and "choppy" sounding. I shut it down and repitched to 18 d 10 m. It
did the same thing this time but not until about 6100 and it was not as loud.
Does this sound like cavitation? Will it go away if I am moving forward, at a
speed faster than zero? If I am carefull to not run it at this speed until
moving forward is it going to work OK? Thanks for the opinions.
Jim Gerken
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Is the following from Bill "The Ostrich" Hinkleman?
>It was once said " Believe Half of what you see and None of what you
hear"
>With the way TV has gotten into special effects you cannot believe
what you
>"Think" you see.
> Fish Wrappers (News Papers) are so inaccurate I stopped buying or
>reading them years ago. TV news is is in the same class as Jerry
Springer
>and the rest of the "Totally Trash TV". Even the Documentary on TV
have
>re-enactments labled as actual footage. History books have been
rewriten
>to change public views.
> The only thing that is REAL is FLYING.
>
>Hope I didn't burst anyones bubble, and yes there is a Santa Clause.
>_____________________
>William Hinkelmann
>whink(at)mindspring.com
>-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | William Hinkelmann <whink(at)mindspring.com> |
I do not bury my head in the sand, But I also do not believe ANYTHING
unless I know the Authors credentials and believe his motives to be benign.
Trust No One!
_____________________
William Hinkelmann
whink(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon) |
There is a small but active segment of the general public that does
worry excessively that someone, somewhere may be having a good time. With
the growing use of cellular phones, calling the local gendarme down on
whoever they see who they feel might be having fun provides immediate
gratification. Here in Minnesota, the land of 10,000 taxes, such people
have been in the forefront of an ever growing restrictive legislation
against snowmobilers. The jet skiers are next and then who knows. Ray
Lujon, Woodbury, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | george_eagle(at)webtv.net (George Thompson) |
Thanks everyone. The Kolbaircraft.com works great.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Enjoying Life |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>....such people have been in the forefront of an ever growing
restrictive
>legislation against snowmobilers. The jet skiers are next and then who
>knows. Ray Lujon, Woodbury, MN
>
Amen Brother,
Remember 3-wheelers? I even played Lawn Darts as a kid and it was great
fun but then what do I know? I'm just too stupid to protect my own hide,
good thing someone else is always trying to protect it for (from) me.
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb: Prop cavitation |
>I think I experienced cavitation. Here are the symptoms: I have been
>increasing pitch of the three-blade Powerfin progressively as the 582 keeps
>gaining power. I last used 17 degrees 30 minutes and the engine was again
>running a bit too fast at about 6900 full throttle. So I advanced the pitch to
>18 d 30 m as measured by the Warp prop protractor. When I spun it up for a
>STATIC test, as it approached 5900 it got much louder and the prop noise was
>mixed and "choppy" sounding. I shut it down and repitched to 18 d 10 m. It
>did the same thing this time but not until about 6100 and it was not as loud.
> Does this sound like cavitation? Will it go away if I am moving forward, at
a
>speed faster than zero? If I am carefull to not run it at this speed until
>moving forward is it going to work OK? Thanks for the opinions.
>
>Jim Gerken
>-
> One way to know if it is cavitating is to start a takeoff (On a LONG
runway!) and if it is, it will probably quit cavitating as your airspeed
increases, and your RPM will drop WAY down. Land and repitch.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Saturday's crash |
Mick Fine wrote:
>
snip
> IMHO, "Kitplane" or "Homebuilt" (for experimentals) and "Ultralight" (for
> genuine Part 103 vehicles) are descriptive and accurate.
snip
I agree, Mick. And between Kitplane and Homebuilt, Homebuilt would
probably give most people the best understanding of the type of
airplane.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
by r1.boston.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.6.Beta0/2.0.kim) with ESMTP id XAAAA28647
Subject: | Re: [Fwd: tonight's news program] |
From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
Quotes:
>...The plane, a Rans S-12 manufactured in Hays, Kansas, is an
>experimental
>homebuilt aircraft, weighing only 470 pounds and costing about
>$13,000.
Finally, a spade is called a spade, "experimental homebuilt aircraft."
Too bad the initial report screamed, "ULTRALIGHT!" Did they state the
price to instill fear in the public or inspire a working guy or gal to
dream of flight? (HA, HA, just kidding, I know which. If the working
class had hope, we might not need TV!)
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
Subject: | Kolb: Lemon Yellow #136 Stits Poly Tone available |
I have some #136 Lemon Yellow Stits Polytone available. I bought it from Cliff
Stripling a year ago, I have never opened it but it still sloshes around in
there and it is sealed. I will ship it to the first interested builder who is
willing to spend $20 plus shipping costs (from Minnesota, to you). It is about
3/4 - 7/8 of a gallon.
Sorry for the "advertisment" but I hate to see this stuff go to waste.
Jim Gerken
507-253-2454
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
Subject: | Half-door kit question |
Dennis, I have seen Frank Reynen's Mkiii on his home page (
http://www.webcom.com/reynen/kolb25x.html) with half-doors. I understand Frank
has engineered these doors himself. Does Kolb Company offer kits to do this,
including a welded and bent frame like the original full-size doors come with,
and the lexan? If so, what is the price?
Thanks!
Jim Gerken
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
Credentials, you mean wall paper. Most of them have wall paper. In
fact to much emphasis today is being placed on wall paper rather than
personal skills and ability.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Ostrich
Date: 2/17/98 6:55 PM
I do not bury my head in the sand, But I also do not believe ANYTHING
unless I know the Authors credentials and believe his motives to be benign.
Trust No One!
_____________________
William Hinkelmann
whink(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | William Hinkelmann <whink(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Flight of the Pheonix |
Arising from the ashes of a FSII comes not a majestic bird but a FROG! with
wings--and floats. Hope to have pictures on the net, next week. IF the
weather allows me to unfurl its wings, AND my son shows me how to
accomplish this daring feat on his computer. Presently he only allows me
to use E-mail (thinks I can't screw things up too bad doing this).
Format C:*.* -- I think this will make stuff coming off the printer look
better. ???
_____________________
William Hinkelmann
whink(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
Subject: | Re[2]: [Fwd: tonight's news program] |
Sorry guy's, you may not agree with me but I feel your barking up the
wrong tree and about the wrong issue. Now were nit picking and
whining.
If what I understand is correct, the police were the ones that
identified it as being a UL. The media just took from there. You
have to admit for most people not familiar with aviation, a smaller
tube and rag airplane is going to fit into their thinking as an UL
from previous media coverage. Even our own aviation writers and
organizations like the EAA add to the confusion by calling oblivious
"light planes" ultralights and presenting them awards as
"Ultralights". Who cares....They finely got it right. It's not the
issue here.
What is important and under my skin is the image damaging editorial
comments pertaining to Ultralights the reporter added. It's these
comments which were not related to the incident and which on the most
part were stale and inaccurate that is the issue. They have not
corrected or undone this damage.
So why are we not all demanding they do so instead of whining over
whether it was reported as GA (experimental amateur built) aircraft or
UL type vehicle?
Together let's keep the pressure on them. Maybe we can turn this
around to generate some positive publicity by getting the reporter out
of her glass office and to the airport for some lessons to the point
of solo in both a general aviation aircraft and UL type vehicle. I
almost offered to fund it.
We'll never win this one if we don't push it. We have to force it by
nagging on them. It could be good for us as long as they don't draw
some maverick that dives the plane in ground with the reporter on
board like we had happen near Dallas a few years back. She was doing
a story on an aircombat operation operating just north of Dallas. She
made the headlines but unfortunately it ended as being her last story.
I said my piece, not it's up to you all to say it to them. Send them
an email and follow it up.
Jerry Bidle
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: [Fwd: tonight's news program]
Date: 2/18/98 12:15 PM
Quotes:
>...The plane, a Rans S-12 manufactured in Hays, Kansas, is an
>experimental
>homebuilt aircraft, weighing only 470 pounds and costing about
>$13,000.
Finally, a spade is called a spade, "experimental homebuilt aircraft."
Too bad the initial report screamed, "ULTRALIGHT!" Did they state the
price to instill fear in the public or inspire a working guy or gal to
dream of flight? (HA, HA, just kidding, I know which. If the working
class had hope, we might not need TV!)
-Mick Fine
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
Tulsa, Oklahoma
mefine1(at)juno.com
For Attachments Use: froghair(at)mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: [Fwd: tonight's news program] |
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com wrote:
> Sorry guy's, you may not agree with me but I feel your barking up the
> "light planes" ultralights and presenting them awards as
> "Ultralights". Who cares....They finely got it right. It's not the
> issue here.
Jerry and others: Since last Sunday when I wrote to the news
repoter and copied to this list, i've recalled that even USUA
almost always refers to planes such as the one in this crash as
ultralights. But USUA adds an asterisk to "ultralight" stating
at the bottom what they mean by the term -- something like "all
small really light planes used for recreation". However, since
the media, police, and the public don't know an experimental from
an ultralight, it still seems reasonable to tell them when
they're unfairly putting blame into the wrong group.
Maybe at some point we can say that not only do ultralighters have
it made, but so do light plane pilots. Instead of checking for
FAR violations, maybe they too will just get a ticket from the
local police. ...nah
>
> What is important and under my skin is the image damaging editorial
> comments pertaining to Ultralights the reporter added. It's these
She unknowingly blamed the UL category for the crash, and said GA
was increasingly concerned about sharing airspace with ULers. These
statements were not quite fair or relevant to the crash. She also said
that we were unlicensed and unregulated, and that is basically true.
All considered, she was off the mark and received some mail for it,
but I personally don't see it worth much more concern on our part.
Realistically, she's probably covering the PTA today, will get part of
that wrong, and the ________ (whatever) crash is a fading memory.
To me, time and effort would be better spent pushing ARAC, EAA, USUA to
get a better Sport pilot category that truely represents fat ultralights.
my $.04
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | Re: [Fwd: tonight's news program] |
Well said, Ben.
Good night all!
Ron
>On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com wrote:
>
>> Sorry guy's, you may not agree with me but I feel your barking
up the
>> "light planes" ultralights and presenting them awards as
>> "Ultralights". Who cares....They finely got it right. It's
not the
>> issue here.
>Jerry and others: Since last Sunday when I wrote to the news
>repoter and copied to this list, i've recalled that even USUA
>almost always refers to planes such as the one in this crash as
>ultralights. But USUA adds an asterisk to "ultralight" stating
>at the bottom what they mean by the term -- something like "all
>small really light planes used for recreation". However, since
>the media, police, and the public don't know an experimental from
>an ultralight, it still seems reasonable to tell them when
>they're unfairly putting blame into the wrong group.
>
>Maybe at some point we can say that not only do ultralighters have
>it made, but so do light plane pilots. Instead of checking for
>FAR violations, maybe they too will just get a ticket from the
>local police. ...nah
>
>>
>> What is important and under my skin is the image damaging
editorial
>> comments pertaining to Ultralights the reporter added. It's
these
>
>She unknowingly blamed the UL category for the crash, and said GA
>was increasingly concerned about sharing airspace with ULers. These
>statements were not quite fair or relevant to the crash. She also
said
>that we were unlicensed and unregulated, and that is basically true.
>All considered, she was off the mark and received some mail for it,
>but I personally don't see it worth much more concern on our part.
>Realistically, she's probably covering the PTA today, will get part
of
>that wrong, and the ________ (whatever) crash is a fading memory.
>
>To me, time and effort would be better spent pushing ARAC, EAA, USUA
to
>get a better Sport pilot category that truely represents fat
ultralights.
>
>my $.04
>-Ben Ransom
>-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | U/L or Experimental? |
The recent discussion about Ultralights or Experimentals raises some
good points. Obviously the police that made the report screwed up, and the
reporter's willingness to insert editorial comments into what should have
been a straight news story was very unprofessional. But we bear part of the
blame ourselves.
Look at the bottom of John Ballantine's Director's Memo in each
months Ultralight Flying and notice his deliberate muddying of the waters.
He calls everything that looks "ultralighty" an ultralight. He is probably
the most visible, but not the only example of those that want it both ways.
It makes sense from Ballantine's viewpoint, and for obvious reasons, to
refer to all "ultralite like" aircraft/vehicles as ultralights. It probably
doubles his potential membership base, and the numbers look good when you
have to deal with bureaucrats and feds. Obviously also, those of us that fly
the things could care less if they have N-numbers or not, we are all like
minded, and don't much care whether our wingman has an Airman's Certificate
in his/her pocket.
Unfortunatly it works both ways. Because of the tendency of too many
folks muddying the waters, I have been refused airport access even though I
had N-numbers because the aircraft I was flying "looked like" an ultralight.
I have been refused radar services "because ultralights are vehicles, not
aircraft" (technically and legally true, think about it). I have been
"turned in" for flying an "ultralight" (that wasn't) in controlled airspace.
I have been told similar stories by others with N-numbers on their flutterbugs.
Meanwhile, the last two issues of Ultralight Flying have feature
stories of two seat trikes all over the place and not an N-number in sight.
(Obviously all the pictures were taken while dual instruction was being
given, and everyone that buys one will operate it as an exempted trainer,
since they are sold assembled, and can't meet the 51 percent rule to qualify
as homebuilts, Right?)
Maybe if we cleaned up our own act first...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Thacker <gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us> |
Been thinkin about a FireStar or a FireFly. Noticed that the performance
of the fly seems to be better than the Star. Notable difference for me
is the fact that the Fly's gross is 500lbs. If I get in the thing it
will be a bit over gross. How do you guy's find the strength of the
Fly? Would it be built a little light for a 240lb pilot? Will it take a
little abuse? If you have flown both the Fly and the Star what do you
think of each of them?
Thanks for the help
Gary
=========================================================================
| Gary Thacker | gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us |
| Souderton Pa. | |
| | gthacker(at)wsd.k12.pa.us (work only) |
=========================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: FireFly owners |
Gary,
You would be happy with a Firestar. It is a great flying plane and
even a 377 will do the job. I wouldn't worry about the strength of the
Firefly except for the landing gear. Most Firestar owners now use
heavier gear legs and axles from the KXP models after bending or
breaking the light weight originals. I believe that you can use stronger
fear legs on the Firefly also. But adding more weight after you are
already over gross may negatively affect the flying characteristics.
Gross weight is not based only on strengh.
John Jung
Gary Thacker wrote:
>
> Been thinkin about a FireStar or a FireFly. Noticed that the performance
> of the fly seems to be better than the Star. Notable difference for me
> is the fact that the Fly's gross is 500lbs. If I get in the thing it
> will be a bit over gross. How do you guy's find the strength of the
> Fly? Would it be built a little light for a 240lb pilot? Will it take a
> little abuse? If you have flown both the Fly and the Star what do you
> think of each of them?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | William Kautter <wkautter(at)gtco.com> |
Subject: | Problem with Wing Rib Jig |
I am in the process of laying out my jig to build the wing ribs and have
run into a problem. I have laid out the jig to the dimensions given in
the plans and manual. My plans were slightly too long and too tall.
Also, I made sure that a line draw from the upper and lower surface
tubes would be flush with the appropriate tangent point on the leading
and trailing edge spars. However, now according to my jig, the top
surface pre-bent tubes are too long and the leading edge, trailing edge,
and main spar pre-fabricated flanges are too large.
Has anyone else run into this problem and if so what did you do about
it?
Thanks.
Best regards,
Bill Kautter
wkautter(at)gtco.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Problem with Wing Rib Jig |
Bill,
It's been awhile for me, but I'd just emphasize that while making the
jig, double check that you are paying attention to whether you are
measuring from the *center*, *top*, *rear* or *front* edge of the
various spar tubes according to the plans book. I quickly went thru making
my wing rib jig ...three times, and if I had been more careful
I would've gotten it right the first time. Measure 5 times, cut once.
If by some chance this isn't it i'm guessing you'll need to check
with Dennis at Kolb. One other little thing I found handy is that
i used an electric stapler to punch in the little 1/4" plywood tabs
of the jig. I think i added some glue to feel sure they'd stay put.
Good luck.
-Ben Ransom
>I am in the process of laying out my jig to build the wing ribs and have
>run into a problem. I have laid out the jig to the dimensions given in
>the plans and manual. My plans were slightly too long and too tall.
>Also, I made sure that a line draw from the upper and lower surface
>tubes would be flush with the appropriate tangent point on the leading
>and trailing edge spars. However, now according to my jig, the top
>surface pre-bent tubes are too long and the leading edge, trailing edge,
>and main spar pre-fabricated flanges are too large.
>
>Has anyone else run into this problem and if so what did you do about
>it?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Bill Kautter
>wkautter(at)gtco.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
Subject: | Re: FireFly owners - Owners Reply |
Hi Gary,
My partner and I have a FireFly. Both of us are in your weight
category. One thing you'll find is there isn't a lot of extra room in
the FireFly with a large person. I mean I fit OK but we have to be
creative to find places for things like radios and GPS's where you can
both see and reach them. I would encourage you sit in one before
buying it.
published gross is 500# which puts you over especially with parachute.
Empty weight 254#
Fuel 5 gal 6#/gal 30#
Your weight 240#
------
Total 524# - your over gross
Parachute 16# - actual parachute weight will vary between
------ 16-24# depending upon configuration size used
540#
While it could be built less than the 254#, I would not count on to
much less with a 447 engine. Small plastic wheels, maybe brakes,
stand windscreen, and minimum instruments. Anything much extra and
you be over the 254#.
My partner wanted a chute so we went with the BRS VLS-750# unit. The
750# unit was my choice since I new we were going to be about 50#
over. I have experience under canopy and the figure for decent are at
the maximum rated weight. I didn't think I would want to experience a
decent rate greater than that for 500# rating thus opted for the 750#.
(I favored walking away rather than using it as a marker where to pick
you up)
vertical launch mounts between the wings in the wing root area. I had
to modify the gap seal to made it work and look nice. The canister
might be a little lighter but probably produces a little more drag.
When I selected the FireFly I was interested in it's shorter wing span
and folding wing capability. I consider it like the sports coupe, not
lot of extra room or space up front but flies fine and gets up and
moves. From the perspective of weight if your sticking tight to the
UL weight limits, the FireFly is your choice. I don't think you could
build a FirsStar within the weight limit and be happy with it.
The FireStar on the other hand is little bigger, a little more room to
put things up front with you. It has a longer wing span and probably
gets off a little faster because of that. For a big person it would
probably be a little more comfortable. We have a friend with one
that's pushing 300# and it gets of well with him on a 377 Rotax
engine. I also think the FireStar might be a little better for rough
terrain due to the long wing and lifting off faster but it also will
be a little slower than the Fly.
Continue on reading if you want a little more about our experience
I have a little critacistem with Kolb on one thing. When my partner
and I looked at the FireFly at Oshkosh, both Dennis and Dan were
present during the conversation. When I asked about the gross weight,
Dennis's reply was it was a conservative figure. (They both could see
neither one of use were a twiggy) Their reply was something to the
effect of it was chosen to keep people weight conscientious but wasn't
an absolute maximum figure. They seen our size plus Dennis is no
light weight himself. As we were getting near first flight Dennis
suggested that who ever was going to make the first flight talk to Dan
first. During the initial flight my partner had difficulty with the
takeoff where it seemed like it didn't want to break ground. Note,
once it did, it climbed great. My partner thought we didn't have
enough back stick (up elevator), I wasn't so convinced thus called Dan
to discuss it with him as I thought it was technique, that is pilot
influenced. My partner was very concerned about nosing it over thus I
didn't feel was coming forward enough with the stick to get the tail
up to allow rotation.
It wasn't far into my conversation with Dan when he raised hell about
our gross weight and got stuck on it. Insisted we had to be out of
weight and balance window. We were well with in the window. It's a
pretty simple process to perform and calculate. Needless to say I
didn't get much help from him, couldn't get him past that issue to
talk about technique thus ended the call. We were on our own from
that point on.
What upset me was if the gross weight was that critical on the
FireFly, they sure didn't indicate or disclose it when asked about it
at Oshkosh before we purchased it. As it turns out, were OK on the
weight. Were a little heavier than they would like but recall their
number was conservative so were not putting ourselves into any
structural jeopardy.
My partner was still convinced we needed more up elevator. We were
very close to what Dennis said we should have. (Another one of my
peeves - why doesn't Kolb publish what the control deflections should
be, at least a minimum figure.) So we again took measurements, then
filed down the interference point on the control stick which was
restricting the travel and increased it about an inch in each
direction. When I flew it the first time, I got the tail up then got
on the power and was to much after that I was flying. Got of fine. I
am a tail wheel pilot but I have to say it was a little different.
Since my partner has been more aggressive and less concerned about
nosing it over and it appears to be getting off fine. So it appears
technique is important. It fly's well, is responsive and smooth.
Climbs very well.
Were slowly figuring where to put the radio and GPS where we can see
and reach them. Since the first flight, we have installed the full
enclosure as it gets cold in Texas in December thru February. The
enclosure is easier for me to get in and out but it does limit elbow
room. My partner also thinks it picked up a little speed with it.
Were talking about making an in between unit of the standard and the
full enclosure. My partner doesn't like the wind blasting in his face
and the full enclosure will be to hot in summer.
Were also adding storage compartments under the seat. (Thanks to Cliff
fasteners for closing from the local Container Store. We can fasten
it under the seat using the same pop rivets as that which holds the
seat fabric. (A insulated one is good for a bottle of water needed in
the hot Texas summer) We intend to put another standard unit on the
other side for maps, etc. There is also adequate baggage areas behind
the seat and the fuel tank.
If you have any questions please feel free to send us an email at
jbidle(at)airmail.net or my partner Gary at ghansen(at)airmail.net.
Good Flying,
Jerry Bidle
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: FireFly owners
Date: 2/20/98 7:46 PM
Been thinkin about a FireStar or a FireFly. Noticed that the performance
of the fly seems to be better than the Star. Notable difference for me
is the fact that the Fly's gross is 500lbs. If I get in the thing it
will be a bit over gross. How do you guy's find the strength of the
Fly? Would it be built a little light for a 240lb pilot? Will it take a
little abuse? If you have flown both the Fly and the Star what do you
think of each of them?
Thanks for the help
Gary
=========================================================================
| Gary Thacker | gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us |
| Souderton Pa. | |
| | gthacker(at)wsd.k12.pa.us (work only) |
=========================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: FireFly owners - Owners Reply |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Jerry,
Thanks for your detailed report on the FireFly -FireStar comparisons. It
was interesting to read. On my plans for the original FireStar, the
up-elevator deflection says 9 inches. I perform a soft-field takeoff
everytime I fly, that is with full back stick. I do this for a few
reasons: 1) It gets the FS off as soon as it can fly 2) In crosswinds,
it keeps the tail on the ground until it's ready to fly
3) I have oversized tires that are not balanced well and if I attain too
much speed with them, the nose will start shaking on takeoff. When the FS
breaks ground, the stick goes forward to about neutral, and I climb out
at 40mph, which is best climb speed. You must get the stick forward
quickly. This method works very well for me.
I had an experience once, in a crosswind, where I went off the runway and
aborted my takeoff. This is when I decided to change my takeoff technique
with the above method. It never happened again. I might add that novice
pilots not try this method until they feel very comfortable with "wheel"
takeoffs. My ground roll in a strong headwind is sometimes about 10 feet.
On the subject of room for your gear, I have two side-bags inside the
cockpit that my ex-wife made out of a "simulated leather" material. They
fit next to the seat and carry tools, oil, spare pump, plugs, etc. This
bag is very roomy. The other one is smaller and has pictures, maps, oil
mix chart, etc. The larger bag is attached with cable ties to the side
structural members. I can remove easily if necessary.
The GPS solution is this: Make a wide velcro band to fit around your
upper leg.
Put velcro on the back of your GPS to attach to the band on your leg. The
positioning of the GPS, while you are seated, is ideal and close enough
to read. Since my FS is an open cockpit, I loop the carrying handle
around my leg first.
By the way, those rechargeable RC car batteries can be used to run your
GPS on external power. They will last quite awhile. I have a ni-cad
battery that I put together that will theoretically last 9.6 hrs. I have
an older Magellan that draws 135mA. After a day of flying, I plug the
external battery into my RC charger. The internal batteries (3 "AA") will
last 5 hrs and can be used as a backup if the external power fails.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
On Sun, 22 Feb 98 16:28:56 cst jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com writes:
>Were slowly figuring where to put the radio and GPS where we can see
>and reach them.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
One good place to put the GPS is on your control stick. On the
MKIII, the top of the stick is 3/4" O.D. I took a short length of 3/4" steel
tubing about 3" long and cut in in half lengthways, then took a steel strip
1" wide and 6" long and welded it to one end, angling it out and up a bit.
Then took some rubber padding and glued to the steel. Took black electrical
tape and taped the GPS to the rubber padded side of the steel strip.
Peel back the top half of your rubber hand grip, and lay the half
round of tubing up against the control stick and tape it in place with black
electrical tape, then roll the rubber hand grip back over it.
When you get done, the GPS will angle up and out away from the top
of your stick at a good angle to read, and if you have the type that has the
keypad on the bottom, like some of the Magellen's, you can reach the keypad
with your index finger of your flying hand.
The rubber handgrip over the electrical tape will keep it plenty
secure. Make sure it will clear the windscreen, etc. It clears the MKIII,
but it is close.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
Subject: | 1998 OKIE 500 plan...... |
Press Release from Frontier Ultralight Aviators, USUA Club 104
For Immediate Publication
Frontier Ultralight Club Sponsors 1998 OKIE 500
The Frontier Ultralight Aviators of Central Oklahoma have planned
this year's OKIE 500 as a follow-on to one of the largest air shows
in America, Aerospace America at Oklahoma City, June 19-21, and as a
prelude to the second annual Lake Texoma Ultralight Gathering at
Cedar Mills Resort on Lake Texoma, June 26-28.
The OKIE 500 will originate at Thompson Airfield (53OK) located SW
of Oklahoma City on June 21st and will terminate day one at
Fountainhead Resort (0F7) on Lake Eufaula. The other major stops
for the week will be McAlester (MLC), Ada (ADH), Ardmore (ADM), Lake
Murray Lodge (1F1), and terminating in Gainesville, TX (GLE) on June
25th.. There are several aviation related events and tours planned
along the way.
Please call Jim Baker at 580-788-4631 or 2779, or send E-mail to
JLBAKER(at)TELEPATH.COM, for more information or an event flight plan.
Jim Baker
President, USUA Club 104
Frontier Ultralight Aviators
Oklahoma City
OKIE 500 Flight Plan
Thompson Tuttle 53OK 103 111 15.6
122.7
D.J. Perry Norman OK14 073 079 39.6
122.8
Seminole Seminole H45 070 076
33.2 122.8
Henryetta Henryetta F10 087 093 20.3
122.8
Fountainhead Eufaula 0F7 177 183
14.1 122.9
Arrowhead Canadian 91F 265 Appx
12
Don Parham N of Ulan 155Appx 16
123.0
McAlester McAlester MLC 257 263 44 122.8
Ada Muni Ada ADH 203 209
34.6 118.5 TWR
Ardmore Ardmore ADM 191 197
14.1 122.8
Lake Murray Overbrook 1F1 183 190
25.8 123.0
Gainesville Gainesville GLE 060 Appx 22
Cedar Mills Gordonville
The plan is read as the departure airport, city and ID with the
headings, distances, and destination frequencies following that
entry.
Air-to-Air VHF is 122.75 or 122.85
CB Frequencies as agreed to by individual pilots.
Day 1 - OKIE 500 originates at Thompson Field at 0800 on the 21st of
June. We expect to arrive at Fountainhead in the early afternoon.
Fountainhead serves as a staging area for aviators that may want to
join up from SE Missouri, E Kansas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Bring
your golf clubs or rent them at the course. An impromptu golf game
will probably be the order of the day.
Day 2 - Starts at Fountainhead and travels to Don Parham's strip.
Don is setting up business to manufacture a two place, fully
enclosed, gyrocopter. Don also manufactures and sells a redrive for
Subaru engines. Then on to McAlester for termination of Day 2.
Day 3 - Starts in McAlester with a tour of the Flight Service
Station and then on to Ada Muni for lunch at Bob's BBQ. After lunch
we go to Ardmore Muni to visit Task Research. Task is the developer
and manufacturer of the Fighter Escort Wing P-51. Day 3 terminates
at Lake Murray Lodge.
Day 4 - Starts at Lake Murray for breakfast and then goes to
Gainesville. The attraction there is the Outlet Mall for those who
care to shop. For the others there will be a chance to participate
in a Youth Aviation Camp being held at Gainesville Muni that week.
Gainesville is also a staging area for Texas and other SW and SE
aviators that are enroute to Cedar Mills and wish to tail in on the
OKIE 500 to start the Texoma Gathering. That afternoon we go to
McGehee Catfish (T40) for dinner. We can overnight at Gainesville
or McGehee and then go to Cedar Mills the next morning.
There is a one day weather delay built in. If the weather holds
then we'll have an extra day so an early arrival at Cedar Mills may
be an option.
Looks to be a busy week. As a note to all those going to Texoma
without ground crew - we'll pre-position two or three 5 gal gas cans
at the Lake Texoma (F31) airstrip. It's only about a 30 mile round
trip flight. There is a nice, well used, gas station there that is
a whole lot cheaper than the TX side (at least it was last year).
The cans will be reserved for pilots use. The only stipulation is
that the cans must be emptied into your tank(s) on every use. Some
use 100:1 mix instead of 50:1 and the mixing of remaining oils is
not wise, either.
Contacts:
Jim Baker 580-788-4631 or 2779 jlbaker(at)telepath.com
Oklahoma Lodge Reservations (statewide) 800-654-8240
Arrowhead Lodge (gambling) 800-422-2711
Cedar Mills 903-523-4222
McAlester FSS 800-WX BRIEF
Oklahoma Tourism http://www.otrd.state.ok.us
Jim Baker
Pres, USUA Club 104
Frontier Ultralight Aviators
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
Subject: | Saturday's flight |
Hi everyone,
I took the SS up to a hard surface airport yesterday to make a few landings
since the weather was perfect (for a change). As I landed on the 5100 ft
runway, I heard a fairly horrible noise coming from the tailwheel. It
sounded like the bearings had gone out completely, though the noise stopped
a slower speeds. I decided just to take off again, and fly back to my home
(grass) airport to check it out. (note that I've heard this sound once
before at my home airport and a thorough inspection at the time revealed no
problems). The landing at home was uneventful, and I taxied back to the
hanger like usual. When I made my sharp 90 degree turn at the hanger, there
was no difference in turn radius, but the rudder pedals felt much lighter
than usual. When I got out of the plane, I found that the chain/spring
linkages from the rudder to the tailwheel were missing on both sides. The
rubber tailwheel is also pretty chewed up from what I now suspect was shimmy
on the hard surface runway.
I admit that I never quite got around to squeezing the S hooks down so they
couldn't come off. The tension of the springs seemed to hold them in place
well enough, but I had meant to squeeze them together anyway. I suspect
that a shimmy was induced somehow that was severe enough to cause the
springs to lose tension and allow the hooks to come loose. It's fortunate
that the chains didn't thrash the rudder whenever they departed, but now I
wonder what would happen if a spring broke and the chain wasn't able to come
off so easily.
This isn't the worst thing that could have happened, since I've been meaning
to change the tailwheel anyway. On the SS, there's a lot of weight on the
tailwheel due to the short fuselage tube. The skinny little tailwheel cuts
a deep rut anywhere that the grass is a little thin at the airport, . I've
already heard a couple of comments from the owners of the private strip (I'm
just a guest), so I need to get a wider wheel. Also, I'd like to have a
full swivel wheel, because it will make the plane much easier to push around
in the hanger. Before my hanger owner had his RV-6 flying, I had easy
access to the door at all times since his plane didn't have to go in and
out. But now that he flies all the time, and I tend to live back in the
corner :-(
Here comes the question part. I realize that I should have put this up
front, because most of you have probably hit the delete button by now. Has
anyone found a tailwheel that will replace the standard Kolb item? The
primary problems I see with the ready-made units are: weight (designed for
heavy planes), cost (designed for people with no choice), and the fact that
they're almost all made to bolt to a flat spring rather than a round rod.
The only one I've found that looks usable, is in the Aircraft Spruce
catalog. It's listed as a "homebuilder special tailwheel". It's 4"
diameter, 3 lbs, $223 (ouch), and can mount to a 5/8" "round spring". I
assume this means a rod like the Kolb uses, however my tailwheel rod is 3/4"
and would have to be milled down to accept the wheel. I also plan to use
compression type springs on my replacement linkages.
Anybody know of a better replacement?
Russell Duffy
SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
RV-8 80587, under construction
rad(at)pen.net
http://www.pen.net/~rad/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
Hi again,
Anybody know what happened to Mosler engines? A fellow from Australia asked
me the other day, and I can't remember. I was thinking they changed names
to something like TEK, or TEC, but I can't find anything on them either.
This guy has a Mosler 4-stroke engine on an UL and was trying to find a
contact for parts and information. Does anyone have a non-800 voice or fax
number for the people who handle this engine now? If so, I'll pass it
along.
Thanks,
Rusty (my tailwheel's broke) Duffy
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler) |
Bill
Don't forget your kolb blueprints are made out of paper. Depending on
humidity, they will expand or contract slightly. Thus it is better to
trust your printed dimensions over
"blueprint" drawings.
Bob Doebler
bobdoebler(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Saturday's flight |
>Hi everyone,
>
>
>
>Here comes the question part. I realize that I should have put this up
>front, because most of you have probably hit the delete button by now. Has
>anyone found a tailwheel that will replace the standard Kolb item?
>
>Anybody know of a better replacement?
>
>
>Russell Duffy
>SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
>RV-8 80587, under construction
>rad(at)pen.net
>http://www.pen.net/~rad/
>
I am using a tailwheel assembly off a Hyperlight. Sorrell apparently
makes their own casting and the wheel is nylon with a rubber tire. Don't
know what it costs because I bought a wrecked Hyperlight for junk and this
was one of the things I salvaged. The tire is about twice as wide as the
Kolb. It bolts in place with no modifications, and is a classy unit. It is
not full swivel.
Call Sorrell and ask?
Richard Pike
N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Thacker <gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us> |
Subject: | on line U/L classifieds |
Does anyone have a list of places on the web where I can check for U/L's
for sale? Where else is a good source?
Thanks
Gary
=========================================================================
| Gary Thacker | gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us |
| Souderton Pa. | |
| | gthacker(at)wsd.k12.pa.us (work only) |
=========================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: FireFly owners - Owners Reply |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Tim,
My original FireStar stalls at 20mph indicated, but I don't believe this
is accurate because I have a short pitot tube on the nose. I should check
it out with the GPS. Kolb says that the stall is at 28mph and I believe
this is more like it. The new FireStar stalls at 30mph indicated as I've
tested two of them.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
>I fly my firestar 2 and my ias stall solo is 37-38, for safety I
>climb out at 50, but no problem at 45, and even at 40, I just fly a bit
faster for
>my own peace of mind. I am just curious, does the original firestar also
>stall around there.
>tim
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com |
Subject: | Re: on line U/L classifieds |
Got ya covered again.
This is a good site. They have a lot of listings and easy to view
unlike some of those "super good site's". You don't know you missed
candy until you tasted it, they obviously haven't yet.
Here's the URL:
http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/WWW/ULTRA/class_USA.html
You'll like it.
Jerry Bidle
/
\\-FireFly--Oo
/
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kolb-List: on line U/L classifieds
Date: 2/22/98 8:59 PM
Does anyone have a list of places on the web where I can check for U/L's
for sale? Where else is a good source?
Thanks
Gary
=========================================================================
| Gary Thacker | gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us |
| Souderton Pa. | |
| | gthacker(at)wsd.k12.pa.us (work only) |
=========================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: on line U/L classifieds |
Gary Thacker wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a list of places on the web where I can check for U/L's
> for sale? Where else is a good source?
>
> Thanks
>
> Gary
Try these locations for ultralight classifieds:
http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/WWW/ULTRA/ultralight.html
http://ul-flyer.com/mdex/
http://aircraft.classifieds.yahoo.com/
http://www.classifieds2000.com/cgi-cls/display.exe?C2K+Generic+Aviation+Aircraft+Search
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: FireFly owners - Owners Reply |
Tim,
My original Firestar indicates 30 at stall and it is reasonable
accurate because I have checked it at slightly higher speeds with a GPS.
I have heard of Firestar II's that have stall speeds as high as 40 mph.
I'll find out what the stall speed is on my Firestar II soon, and report
first hand information.
John Jung
> >I fly my firestar 2 and my ias stall solo is 37-38, for safety I
> >climb out at 50, but no problem at 45, and even at 40, I just fly a bit
> faster for
> >my own peace of mind. I am just curious, does the original firestar also
>
> >stall around there.
> >tim
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
Subject: | Kolb: Easier recoil start on bigger engines. |
I am probably one of the last die-hards in the world using recoil start on a
582, but just in case there are others out there, I will share the following
with you:
I built the recoil-start rope routing per plans initially. After using this
stock system for a day (maybe half-dozen starts), the rope was frayed like it
was going to break. It was due to the dragging thru that front ring that is
welded onto the flap control torque tube. I ordered more rope and another Kolb
pulley. The 2nd pulley was installed to replace that welded ring, by making a
square clamp to go around the square tube at the front-top of the cage (the
main-spare pass-thru). This improvement made the rope-wear problem go away.
Until yesterday, however, I have not been able to start the engine from the
seated pilot position. The Dukati 300 RPM minimum is tough to attain, while
seated, for a 582 (for me anyway). At first I thought it would get easier
after break-in and eventually I would be able to start it seated, instead of
standing beside the a/c with my foot in front of the tire, and then jumping in
to hit the brakes before it rolled too far. At this point the engine is fully
broke-in and I still could not spin it over fast enough to start it from the
pilot's seat. The safety issues started to concern me so I began to think
about a brake-lock (easy but expensive for hydraulic brakes, about $100 for two
line-lock valves), and I even started considering the weight and expense of
electric start (there, I've said it. Beat me, I need it). As a last-ditch
effort I studied the rope-path again and decided there was a still room for
improvement.
This weekend I was able to start the aircraft three times, first pull each
time, from the seated position! Here is what I did:
The rear pulley was the major problem. It was mounted at a position that
required the rope to make an angle back slightly as it exited the recoil
housing, and this was causing the rope to actually drag on the recoil housing
enough that I could feel the texture of the rope as I pulled the handle. I
determined the ultimate mounting location for that rear pulley and set about
designing bracketry to position it there. After three protos, I finished a
pulley and mounting which is clamping to the two diagonal steel 1/2" tubes near
where they weld to the 2" backbone under the front of the engine. The new
pulley is 2" diameter, with ball-bearings and is mounted so the rope exits the
recoil housing STRAIGHT down with no drag. The pulley wheel is positioned so
that 1/3 of it is below the fabric (a slot was cut in the fabric for it), so
the rope travels straight forward from there, along the bottom surface of the
fabric to the pull-handle at the cabin, where I have my Kolb-stock pulley. The
new rope path is shorter by over a foot, it looks cleaner because the rope is
almost hidden, and it glides like silk. I would guess that it pulls 25% easier
than before. It weighs a few ounces more than stock due to clamping with "U"
bolts and bigger pulley with bearings, but it is worth it to me.
Hope this helps someone, see ya...
Jim Gerken
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Saturday's flight |
From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
RUSSELL
Today I am having to replace my tail wheel with a new one that was sent
to me from a friend up north ( Bud DEgraft ) . The bearing in the KOLB
wheel is a 99502 which is not a standard size for the inter race but
that is what you have to use the wheel I have is slightly larger and it
is twice as wide I will be finish with it this week another problem with
the tail wheel on mine was the tang on the top of the wheel bracket
where the bolt goes through is now oblong causing the wheel to ware out
fast on one side it is just about to the plastic wheel and not on the
other side I let you know how it turns out
>Hi everyone,
>
>I took the SS up to a hard surface airport yesterday to make a few
>landings
>since the weather was perfect (for a change). As I landed on the 5100
>ft
>runway, I heard a fairly horrible noise coming from the tailwheel. It
>sounded like the bearings had gone out completely, though the noise
>stopped
>a slower speeds. I decided just to take off again, and fly back to my
>home
>(grass) airport to check it out. (note that I've heard this sound
>once
>before at my home airport and a thorough inspection at the time
>revealed no
>problems). The landing at home was uneventful, and I taxied back to
>the
>hanger like usual. When I made my sharp 90 degree turn at the hanger,
>there
>was no difference in turn radius, but the rudder pedals felt much
>lighter
>than usual. When I got out of the plane, I found that the
>chain/spring
>linkages from the rudder to the tailwheel were missing on both sides.
>The
>rubber tailwheel is also pretty chewed up from what I now suspect was
>shimmy
>on the hard surface runway.
>
>I admit that I never quite got around to squeezing the S hooks down so
>they
>couldn't come off. The tension of the springs seemed to hold them in
>place
>well enough, but I had meant to squeeze them together anyway. I
>suspect
>that a shimmy was induced somehow that was severe enough to cause the
>springs to lose tension and allow the hooks to come loose. It's
>fortunate
>that the chains didn't thrash the rudder whenever they departed, but
>now I
>wonder what would happen if a spring broke and the chain wasn't able
>to come
>off so easily.
>
>This isn't the worst thing that could have happened, since I've been
>meaning
>to change the tailwheel anyway. On the SS, there's a lot of weight on
>the
>tailwheel due to the short fuselage tube. The skinny little tailwheel
>cuts
>a deep rut anywhere that the grass is a little thin at the airport, .
>I've
>already heard a couple of comments from the owners of the private
>strip (I'm
>just a guest), so I need to get a wider wheel. Also, I'd like to have
>a
>full swivel wheel, because it will make the plane much easier to push
>around
>in the hanger. Before my hanger owner had his RV-6 flying, I had easy
>access to the door at all times since his plane didn't have to go in
>and
>out. But now that he flies all the time, and I tend to live back in
>the
>corner :-(
>
>Here comes the question part. I realize that I should have put this
>up
>front, because most of you have probably hit the delete button by now.
> Has
>anyone found a tailwheel that will replace the standard Kolb item?
>The
>primary problems I see with the ready-made units are: weight (designed
>for
>heavy planes), cost (designed for people with no choice), and the fact
>that
>they're almost all made to bolt to a flat spring rather than a round
>rod.
>The only one I've found that looks usable, is in the Aircraft Spruce
>catalog. It's listed as a "homebuilder special tailwheel". It's 4"
>diameter, 3 lbs, $223 (ouch), and can mount to a 5/8" "round spring".
>I
>assume this means a rod like the Kolb uses, however my tailwheel rod
>is 3/4"
>and would have to be milled down to accept the wheel. I also plan to
>use
>compression type springs on my replacement linkages.
>
>Anybody know of a better replacement?
>
>
>Russell Duffy
>SlingShot SS-003, N8754K
>RV-8 80587, under construction
>rad(at)pen.net
>http://www.pen.net/~rad/
>
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com |
Does anybody have an unused set of the original Kolb MKIII seatbelt
material left over that he would like to sell or know of a place (other
than Kolb) where I can get the 2" wide material . I only need the long
fabric belts.
Frank Reynen MKIII@430hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com> |
Subject: | VW powered MKIII |
Hey Rick last we heard from you, you were very close to flying. Is
there any more news to report?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>Does anybody have an unused set of the original Kolb MKIII seatbelt
>material left over that he would like to sell or know of a place (other
>than Kolb) where I can get the 2" wide material . I only need the long
>fabric belts.
>
>Frank Reynen MKIII@430hrs
>
>
> The local Army Surplus store sells seat belt strap in bulk.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | Original Firestar hazard |
I've just about completed construction of the wings, ailerons and tail
feathers on my original Firestar. Covering will be coming up pretty
soon. Things are progressing nicely.
Over the years I have had two friends that were paralyzed from the
waste down as a result of very hard landings with planes with sling
type seats. On impact the material of the sling seat are not strong
enough to withstand the tremendous forces and therefore tear loose,
allowing the pilot to drop down onto whatever is beneath him. In one
case it was a rock, and in the other it was an elevator pushrod tube.
Now that I can concentrate my efforts on the cage assembly I notice
something that bothers me a lot. On the original Firestar there is a
cross tube in the cage just forward and below the lower seat support
tube. On this tube there are steel 'ears' welded in a vertical
position for placement of four cable pulleys. These pulleys and
bracket are directly below the pilot's tailbone, a VERY hazardous
location.
My question is directed to those of you that have a similar
arrangement, whether it is an original Firestar, or any other model
that may use this arrangement:
What did you do to protect yourself from the hazard?
I have considered grinding off the 'ears' (there goes my powder
coating), and making similar brackets to fasten to the underside of
the lower seat cross brace tube, but I'm unsure what would hold them
adequately, i.e., rivets, clamps, or what? A 'hard' seat of some
type might help, but could weigh more than I'd like (however, the
original Firestar is already 'fat'). If anyone has a good idea for a
seat, or where to get one, I'd appreciate hearing from you.
Maybe some of you aren't even bothered by this, and I am just a
worry-wart. Quien sabe?
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Original Firestar hazard |
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Ron Carroll wrote:
> My question is directed to those of you that have a similar
> arrangement, whether it is an original Firestar, or any other model
> that may use this arrangement:
>
> What did you do to protect yourself from the hazard?
I don't have the cable support ears but still have the issue of worrying
about "bottoming out" in a crash. I guess European microlite laws require
a solution for this on Kolbs so some of our friends there might have an
off-the-shelf solution.
I've not done it, but my thought is to do something like making a sandwich
out of 2 sheets of AL filled with A+B urethane foam (hold the mayo).
The AL would spread the loads out to more than just your tailbone versus
rock, and the foam would be the crumple zone. If you were crazy for
weight (or rich) you could substitute epoxied kevlar for the AL.
Hopefully i'll get around to this before i need it.
-Ben "don't want to visit the Proctologist" Ransom
(Firestar KXP)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Original Firestar hazard |
Ron,
The new Firestars have been changed from a nylon web seat to an
aluminum seat.
I don't like them as well, but they do solve that problem. You might
upgrade to aluminum and keep the fabric for the back.
John Jung
Ron Carroll wrote:
>
> I've just about completed construction of the wings, ailerons and tail
> feathers on my original Firestar. Covering will be coming up pretty
> soon. Things are progressing nicely.
>
> Over the years I have had two friends that were paralyzed from the
> waste down as a result of very hard landings with planes with sling
> type seats. On impact the material of the sling seat are not strong
> enough to withstand the tremendous forces and therefore tear loose,
> allowing the pilot to drop down onto whatever is beneath him. In one
> case it was a rock, and in the other it was an elevator pushrod tube.
>
> Now that I can concentrate my efforts on the cage assembly I notice
> something that bothers me a lot. On the original Firestar there is a
> cross tube in the cage just forward and below the lower seat support
> tube. On this tube there are steel 'ears' welded in a vertical
> position for placement of four cable pulleys. These pulleys and
> bracket are directly below the pilot's tailbone, a VERY hazardous
> location.
>
> My question is directed to those of you that have a similar
> arrangement, whether it is an original Firestar, or any other model
> that may use this arrangement:
>
> What did you do to protect yourself from the hazard?
>
> I have considered grinding off the 'ears' (there goes my powder
> coating), and making similar brackets to fasten to the underside of
> the lower seat cross brace tube, but I'm unsure what would hold them
> adequately, i.e., rivets, clamps, or what? A 'hard' seat of some
> type might help, but could weigh more than I'd like (however, the
> original Firestar is already 'fat'). If anyone has a good idea for a
> seat, or where to get one, I'd appreciate hearing from you.
>
> Maybe some of you aren't even bothered by this, and I am just a
> worry-wart. Quien sabe?
>
> Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard neilsen" <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us> |
Subject: | VW powered MKIII -Reply |
Well sort of. I haven't flown yet. My runway is under construction so I'm
going to transport it to another runway for the test flight in the spring.
But I have installed skis and I WILL be flying if it ever snows here in
Michigan. I have also added a starter and I'm ready
>>> Jason Omelchuck 02/24/98 12:11pm >>>
Hey Rick last we heard from you, you were very close to flying. Is
there any more news to report?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler) |
Ron C
Kolb sent out a notice to cover the bottom of the seat with aluminum
sheet, instead of using the fabric material. I think it was .020" , if
you need that info,let me know and I will go look it up. I put a seat
cushion on top of the aluminum and it works find.
Bob Doebler
bobdoebler(at)juno.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
Frank
I got what you need send me some info.
RICK LIBERSAT
writes:
>Does anybody have an unused set of the original Kolb MKIII seatbelt
>material left over that he would like to sell or know of a place
>(other
>than Kolb) where I can get the 2" wide material . I only need the long
>fabric belts.
>
>Frank Reynen MKIII@430hrs
>
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
RON
WHEN DID YOU GET THIS NOTICE FROM KOLB ?
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HEAR OF IT
Rick
writes:
>Ron C
>
>Kolb sent out a notice to cover the bottom of the seat with aluminum
>sheet, instead of using the fabric material. I think it was .020" , if
>you need that info,let me know and I will go look it up. I put a seat
>cushion on top of the aluminum and it works find.
>
>Bob Doebler
>bobdoebler(at)juno.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: VW powered MKIII |
From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
JASON
I have got 55 hr. on my Mk. 3 and it flies great I have learned a lot
and still doing so
safety pins ,seems to stay on the top of my list. I have looked at my
plane for hours trying to come up with where I can put in more gas, 10
gal. just will not do I like flying the beach , to GALVESTON ,TX. just
can not understand why all those people like to lay in the hot sand .
this summer will try to link up with Cliff Stripling and his M/3 an
some of his buddies with their FIRESTAR up in Dallas. How is your M/3
doing with the V W on it
Rick
writes:
>Hey Rick last we heard from you, you were very close to flying. Is
>there any more news to report?
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Seat bottom of FS2 & Mark-III |
Dear Kolb Builders<
Somewhere, sometime, someone wrote:
Kolb sent out a notice to cover the bottom of the seat with aluminum
>sheet, instead of using the fabric material. I think it was .020" , if
>you need that info,let me know and I will go look it up. I put a seat
>cushion on top of the aluminum and it works find.
Just to make a note of clarification: The above applies to the FireStar II
-not the Mark-III. The FireStar-II formerly had a fabric seat bottom. The
seat bottom was changed to aluminum because it was very close to touching the
torque tube directly under the seat. Some flyers reported that it seemed that
there was some contact with torque tube.
The Mark-III's seat bottom is still fabric.
Dennis Souder
President Kolb Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Original Firestar hazard |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Ron,
I'll have to look more closely on my original FireStar to see what you
guys are referring to. I was never informed by Kolb or anyone else of a
potential hazard. I do know the webbing you are talking about is pretty
strong. It is held in place by an aluminum strip that covers the ends of
the webbing by rivets fastened to the steel cross-members. In all the
years I've sat in that seat, it hasn't really sagged all that much. If
anyone were to crash their Kolb, I suspect most of the impact would be
from the front rather than the bottom, anyway. All of the crashed Kolbs
that I've seen or heard about, have impacted nose or wingtip first. I
think the Kolbs offer excellent crash protection in that area.
My buddy that died in his Cloudancer, when he augured in, would be alive
today if he were flying a Kolb. The Cloudancer is protected in front by a
single aluminum tube with a fiberglass nose. The Cloudancer is a low-wing
plane and his head was the highest point on the aircraft. On impact, his
legs were clearly broken, but the plane flipped over snapping his neck.
By the way, he had a balIistic parachute on board, but failed to use it
(indicating a low altitude stall and probably not enough time to use it).
I guess there are advantages to high-wing planes.
If a guy is concerned about the web seat, it could be replaced with an
aluminum one.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Bob, thanks for your response to my question. I was not aware that
there is a recommended fix put out by Kolb. In fact, I have
specifically requested any update or recommended change information on
this original Firestar kit that I bought, and have been ignored, not
even a courtesy reply. ALL of the contacts I, and another local
Mark-III builder have had with the Kolb company have been nothing
short of disappointing. They have been unfriendly, unhelpful and VERY
rude over the phone. They have confused orders, ignored orders, and
shipped wrong parts. If this weren't such a good plane I certainly
would NOT recommend this company to anyone with an interest in
building an ultralight.
>From some of the mail I've seen regarding this question, I'm not the
only one that has not been told by Kolb of the 'fix' you mention for
this dangerous design error. Very inconsiderate of the safety of
their customers.
Now back to the subject, I really would appreciate it if you could
look up the specifics on the fix you mentioned. No hurry because I
still have a lot of things to do before I fly.
I also want to thank others that have replied:
John Jung (sez the newer Firestars have a metal seat bottom),
Jim Baker (suggested a .063 aluminum pan & a nice Tempafoam seat
cushion, cordura covered),
Ron Hoyt (who gave the UK fix for the M-III),
Frank Marino (who had a hard landing which hurt his back and neck),
Ben "don't want to visit the Proctologist" Ransom (will fix it soon)
Thanks again,
Ron "Don't want to see the Proctologist either" Carroll
>
>Kolb sent out a notice to cover the bottom of the seat with aluminum
>sheet, instead of using the fabric material. I think it was .020" ,
if
>you need that info,let me know and I will go look it up. I put a seat
>cushion on top of the aluminum and it works find.
>
>Bob Doebler
>bobdoebler(at)juno.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Ron,
Wow, I haven't dealt with the Kolb people since I built my Original
FireStar 11 years ago. I've talked to them at Oshkosh, but that's about
it. When I was building, they were very courteous and helpful. They would
ship out parts for free, if I said I was missing them. Their parts have
always been reasonably priced and I have been very satisfied with their
product, which is an excellent design. The only problem I saw with the
newer FireStars was in the vertical aileron push-pull tubes which I think
should be made longer, so the aileron horns will angle properly when they
are installed.
I don't know what's happened. If Dennis (Souder) is reading this, maybe I
should go to work for Kolb Aircraft, as I'm presently unemployed, and can
help straighten these guys out. Otherwise, Homer Kolb needs to come out
of retirement and get things back on track.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
writes:
>Bob, thanks for your response to my question. I was not aware that
>there is a recommended fix put out by Kolb. In fact, I have
>specifically requested any update or recommended change information on
>this original Firestar kit that I bought, and have been ignored, not
>even a courtesy reply. ALL of the contacts I, and another local
>Mark-III builder have had with the Kolb company have been nothing
>short of disappointing. They have been unfriendly, unhelpful and VERY
>rude over the phone. They have confused orders, ignored orders, and
>shipped wrong parts. If this weren't such a good plane I certainly
>would NOT recommend this company to anyone with an interest in
>building an ultralight.
>
>>From some of the mail I've seen regarding this question, I'm not the
>only one that has not been told by Kolb of the 'fix' you mention for
>this dangerous design error. Very inconsiderate of the safety of
>their customers.
>
>Now back to the subject, I really would appreciate it if you could
>look up the specifics on the fix you mentioned. No hurry because I
>still have a lot of things to do before I fly.
>
>I also want to thank others that have replied:
>John Jung (sez the newer Firestars have a metal seat bottom),
>Jim Baker (suggested a .063 aluminum pan & a nice Tempafoam seat
>cushion, cordura covered),
>Ron Hoyt (who gave the UK fix for the M-III),
>Frank Marino (who had a hard landing which hurt his back and neck),
>Ben "don't want to visit the Proctologist" Ransom (will fix it soon)
>
>Thanks again,
>Ron "Don't want to see the Proctologist either" Carroll
>___________________________________________________________
>>
>>Kolb sent out a notice to cover the bottom of the seat with aluminum
>>sheet, instead of using the fabric material. I think it was .020" ,
>if
>>you need that info,let me know and I will go look it up. I put a seat
>>cushion on top of the aluminum and it works find.
>>
>>Bob Doebler
>>bobdoebler(at)juno.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Guy Tetreault <samten(at)CAM.ORG> |
Subject: | Original Firestar hazard, part ...N |
Here is some info related to the "crash through the seat syndrome" it
doesn't refer to a firestar but a Twinstar MK III. So it seems that
adding this aluminium reinforced seat is something to be considered.
Pretty soon we'll have airbags under our butts !
Here is a brief excerpt from one of the sources below:
"As a result of the findings of the investigation into a previous
accident to this type of aircraft (Bulletin 11/94, Ref:- EW/C94/7/3), in
which the two occupants
suffered fatal spinal injuries, and knowledge of an unreported heavy
landing accident, in which the occupants suffered severe spinal
injuries, AAIB made a Safety
Recommendation (94-36), calling for consideration to be given to
providing better protection to the occupants, in the event of a heavy
landing.
This resulted in the introduction of an optional modification, by the UK
distributor, which consisted of the substitution of the original canvas
bottomed seat by one
with an aluminium seat pan supplemented by a cushion of high density
energy-absorbing foam. This modification, including the cushion, was
fitted to this aircraft.
http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/aug96htm/aug96in.htm
http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/aug96htm/gmyor.htm
One more bean for the pot !
Guy
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Metal seat bottoms |
Dear Kolb Builders,
This is a follow-up post to an earlier one today regarding metal seat bottoms.
In that previous post someone confused an email to the group about an aluminum
seat bottom in a FireStar-II and thought it applied to a Mark-III.
Now someone else, has confused this and thinks this applies to his original
FireStar:
Ron Carrol wrote:
"From some of the mail I've seen regarding this question, I'm not the
only one that has not been told by Kolb of the 'fix' you mention for
this dangerous design error. Very inconsiderate of the safety of
their customers."
Please note: The only Kolb model with an aluminum seat bottom is the newer
FireStar-II series. All other Kolb models have always have had fabric seats.
The FireStar-II was given an aluminum seat bottom because the torque tube
underneath the seat was much closer than on other models.
There never was any update concering any aluminum seat bottom for an original
FireStar.
It would be helpful for the group to be as specific as possible in refering to
the model of aircraft they are commenting upon. This will help eliminate
needless confusion ... and heartburn
Sincerely,
Dennis Souder
President Kolb Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
Hi,
I had been concerned by the bottem stabbers under the original firestar
seat too. I am building a firestar II now which has moved the pulleys
to just behind the front seat so the company must have decided that they
were dangerous in the old position. The torque tube is still just under
the seat bottem and there is very little else down there between your
bum and the ground/tree branches or what ever else might find its way
"in there"in a crash. I think an aluminum pan is a good idea. I dont
think you can get very close to 103 weight anyway so put it in and save
the butt!
I would disagree with the comments about Kolb being a bad company,
they added flaperons to my FSII kit and have answered most of my
questions. I did request powdercoating and they didnt do it, which
actually turned out good cause a I found a local shop that did it for
only $200 instead of the $500 that Kolb wants.
How many of you have or are planing to install brs chutes? I probably
will.
Chris "topher" Armstrong
tophera(at)centuryinter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard neilsen" <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us> |
Subject: | Kolb Customer Support |
I'm a recent builder of a VW powered MKIII. This was a project that should
have caused Dennis Souder to get upset with me but he didn't. In fact the
whole Kolb staff have gone out of their way to be helpful in every way
possible. This has included extra parts that I really had but was too
blind to see (and some I didn't get), a prototype VW engine mount, and
many many questions answered thru the building process and all of this at
no extra cost to me. I also drove to the Kolb factory and got some of the
best flight training in a MKIII that this rusty pilot has ever had. While
there Dennis took time out of his busy day to talk at length and even
bought me lunch. In an organization like Kolb that deals with the public
they must have to deal with difficult people from time to time and someone
gets to talk to them afterwards, BUT I have never had a conversation with
ANY of the Kolb staff that hasn't been very professional and polite.
My $0.02 worth.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron Christensen" <SPECTRUMINTERNATIONAL(at)classic.msn.com> |
Subject: | RE: Saturday's flight |
Hey Russell:
I would be concerned about hanging a three pound tail wheel onto your
airplane. I wonder if this would be too much??
Ron Christensen
So. California
MK III 1/2
N313DR
----------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Howdy! New guy onboard! |
Have recently joined up with you guys and gals. Not that I am new to ULs
and building, but I am very new to computing.
Bought my first kit from Homer Kolb, an Ultrastar, Jan or Feb 1984.
Started cross-country flights in it two weeks after completion, Jul 84.
Had to read my sectional, memorize headings and checkpoints, sit on the
sectional, and fly that leg with the mag compass.
When I built the Firestar in 87, I graduated to a semi-inclosed cockpit,
and the ability to fly, read and hold my sectional at the same time. Got
serious about XC'ing in the Firestar. Flew in 32 states, all east of the
Mississippi and some west. It was a wonderful experience flying a little
airplane several thousand miles from home, sitting in front of a little 447
Rotax w/point ign that was never really reliable.
Last was the MK III built from 91 to 93. Had to build it twice because I
broke it during testing the first time around. This is the acft I flew
around the border of the US and Alaska. It started out life with a 532
(212+ hours) and then graduated to a 912 spring of 94. 912 has 880 hours.
MK III has 1100+ hours. This is the most reliable, performing (STOL &
Super STOL) acft I have ever flown. It does everything I want an acft to
do and even has decent cruise: 80 MPH fully loaded. My MK III never knows
the difference, how much weight it carries.
I've been doing business w/Kolb folks for over 14 years. They've made some
mistakes on parts and orders. Early on in my building career no one could
supply me with parts and service fast enough, let alone a very small
specialized company with a hand full of employees like Kolb Aircraft. I
find most first time and second time builders are a lot like me, impatient.
We feel like we are the only customer Kolb has. I still have that feeling
when I want to fly, which is often. I don't want anything to stand in my
way, especially the UPS man. I'm waiting on him now. My exhaust system is
somewhere between Arkansas and Alabama, or it may still be in the factory.
I've been grounded since the first of Feb.
I have been reading the mail with interest and anticipate an informative
and enjoyable time being a member of the Kolb List.
Keep 'em flying.
john hauck
titus, alabama
334-567-6280
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.Com> |
Subject: | RE: Kolb Customer Support |
I feel a little reluctant to comment, since I feel each person is
entitled to their own standard and opinion on what constitutes good
customer support.
And the Kolb factory is 20 minutes both from my house, and my office.
I've haunted them FAR more than I had any right to. I consider several
Kolb employees to be personal friends.
However, I realize there may be people on the list considering
purchasing a Kolb, and coming to conclusions on the company based on
comments here. I therefore feel I must say, that in my opinion, the
factory folks are exceptionally nice. While they do make mistakes, they
work very hard on keeping me, at least, happy. There's lots of things
they've done for me they should have charged for and did not. I work
with dozens of vendors and companies, and I can't think of one that
comes close to Kolb Aircraft in service, or in my overall satisfaction.
________________________________________________________________________________
Ron, are we dealing with the same company? I have never talked with an
unfriendly person at Kolb. Everytime I have cut the wrong tube they send me,
at no charge, a replacement with no questions asked. Every e-mail question I
have put to them has been answered. Some not as fast as I would like but then
again I can always pick up the telephone and call them.
As a first time kit builder I would definitely recommend them. One of the
reasons I went with Kolb was the support from this list (thanks to Jeff
Stripling) and the websites of other builders (thanks to Mike Rael for putting
them together).
I'm building the FireStar II for the fun of it. When I finish a part I always
wondered in the back of my mind if it was going to assemble with the other
parts, so far I have not been disappointed. It sure felt good when I
assembled the tail section and see a wing start taking shape. Not to mention
the bragging rights "I'm building an airplane". If it starts feeling like
work or gets discouraging I'll sell the kit for scrap aluminum.
Will Uribe
Installing the drag strut braces on the right wing.
http://members.aol.com/WillU/index.html
<< ALL of the contacts I, and another local Mark-III builder have had with
the Kolb company have been nothing short of disappointing. They have been
unfriendly, unhelpful and VERY rude over the phone. They have confused
orders, ignored orders, and shipped wrong parts. If this weren't such a good
plane I certainly
would NOT recommend this company to anyone with an interest in
building an ultralight. >>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Howdy! New guy onboard! |
Welcome to the group, John Hauck. You are probably the most experienced
and famous Kolb flyer around. I have been reading the stories of your
adventures for years. Thank you for sharing those stories. The group
will be even better with you as a member.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: RE: Kolb Customer Support |
Scott Bentley wrote:
>
snip...
> I work
> with dozens of vendors and companies, and I can't think of one that
> comes close to Kolb Aircraft in service, or in my overall satisfaction.
Here is where I see things different. I believe, that if it wasn't
for the outstanding service that I have experienced from most other
companies, I might be satisfied with Kolb's service. During my building,
I had to keep reminding myself that Kolb is a small buisness and should
not be compared to most national marketing companies. And that they DO
have a good product.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com |
Subject: | KOLB seatbelts MkIII |
Thanks every one for the offer of the seatbelts and I have now a source of
replacement belts for the next 21 years. I have contacted Rick Lieberstadt
to be my first supplier.
Frank Marino wrote:
Also what did you do special on your 582 to make it last so long.
As far as the longivity of the Rotax 582C with 3blade IVO on my MkIII is
concerned I rebuilt it @300hrs and replaced the toprings,all seals and the
oilpump check valves(I use AV-2 oil ) I also had to replace a crankshaft
bearing and new pistonrods and the RV shaft and brass gear . I still have
an internal oil leak problem in the RV area pointing at damaged or worn
seals that may require yet another expensive teardown if it gets
excessive.
The radiators developed corrosion spots /leaks and I had them welded up .
My assesment after 7 years is that this motor will need replacing at the
end of this year and I have been looking at my options for replacement . I
do not think I want another two stroke but have not decided which 4-stroke
to purchase ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$).
I am currently evaluating the feasability of installing a 90 hp 4-cyl
watercooled fuel injected motorcycle motor(K-100 BMW).The weight is high
but the price is right ($1000.00 in rebuildable condition and lots of
locally available spare parts). Installing this motor would decrease my
usefull weight by about 75 lbs if I stick to the 1000# gross weight
limitation cutting the max. weight of my passenger down to 150 # . In
return I would get 38% more Hp usefull with floatflying, 4-stroke
reliability even with single ignition, better fuel economy and extended
maintenance cycles.The C- gearbox and the IVO prop will be reused. The
weight and balance with floats is close but not exceeding max aft GC with a
190 lbs pilot and full fuel.
I would like to hear your opinions on the pro's and contra's of this
conversion.
Frank Reynen MKIII@430hrs
http://www.webcom.com/reynen
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: RE: Kolb Customer Support |
Hi Everybody: Had to come out of lurking mode to defend my favorite aircraft
company. I've never had a bad experience with Kolb Co. or anyone associated
with them. Builder support is excellent and I always point this out when
recommending Kolb to prospective builders. Visiting with Homer, Dennis and Co.
is one of the main reasons that I've gone to Lakeland for the last 10+ years
(see ya'll at Oskosh this year, hopefully).
Bill Griffin
Firestar
MKIII (still not finished!)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Howdy! New guy onboard! |
48-49,51,54-60
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
John,
Welcome to the Kolb Mailing List! Your accomplishments in your Kolb
planes are outstanding and I'm sure many will want to draw from your
experience. I have personally witnessed one of the times you flew into
Oshkosh from Alabama. Along with your cans of sardines that you pulled
out of the back of that little FireStar, it looked like you were pretty
well prepared for that trip. I will have some questions for you later on.
This is gonna make for some gooood reading! Thanks for coming aboard!
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar
writes:
>Have recently joined up with you guys and gals. Not that I am new to
>ULs and building, but I am very new to computing. Bought my first kit
from >Homer Kolb, an Ultrastar, Jan or Feb 1984. Started cross-country
flights in it >two weeks after completion, Jul 84. Had to read my
sectional, memorize >headings and checkpoints, sit on the sectional, and
fly that leg with the mag >compass. When I built the Firestar in 87, I
graduated to a semi-inclosed
>cockpit, and the ability to fly, read and hold my sectional at the same
time.
>Got serious about XC'ing in the Firestar. Flew in 32 states, all east
of
>the Mississippi and some west. It was a wonderful experience flying a
>little airplane several thousand miles from home, sitting in front of a
>little 447 Rotax w/point ign that was never really reliable. Last was
the MK III >built from 91 to 93. Had to build it twice because I broke
it during testing the >first time around. This is the acft I flew around
the border of the US and >Alaska. It started out life with a 532 (212+
hours) and then graduated to a 912 >spring of 94. 912 has 880 hours. MK
III has 1100+ hours. This is the most >reliable, performing (STOL &
Super STOL) acft I have ever flown. It does >everything I want an acft
to do and even has decent cruise: 80 MPH fully >loaded. My MK III never
knows the difference, how much weight it carries.
>I've been doing business w/Kolb folks for over 14 years. They've made
>some mistakes on parts and orders. Early on in my building career no
one
>could supply me with parts and service fast enough, let alone a very
small
>specialized company with a hand full of employees like Kolb Aircraft.
>I find most first time and second time builders are a lot like me,
impatient.
> We feel like we are the only customer Kolb has. I still have that
>feeling when I want to fly, which is often. I don't want anything to
stand in
>my way, especially the UPS man. I'm waiting on him now. My exhaust
>system is somewhere between Arkansas and Alabama, or it may still be in
the
>factory. I've been grounded since the first of Feb. I have been reading
the mail >with interest and anticipate an informative and enjoyable time
being a member of the Kolb List.
>
>Keep 'em flying.
>
>john hauck
>titus, alabama
>334-567-6280
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
Subject: | Re: Howdy! New guy onboard! |
John,
It's about time you connected with this mailing list. You probably don't
remember meeting me at Sun'nFun the spring after your "big trip" but that
dosen't matter. That was about the time I had decided to purchase a MKIII
kit. I was nosing around every Kolb there and quizzing any Kolb pilot that
would give me the time of day. Your plane was very impressive and you
answered all of my questions.
Your talk to the USUA group forum about your trip was super. All of us
dream about making long trips to Oshkosh, SNF or whereever, but few actually
do. For a fellow who professes to be "shy in front of a crowd" they almost
had to get out the "hook" to get you off the stage. Very enjoyable!
Read the mail and offer up some sage advice from your Kolb experiences.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (39.5 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: | Re: Kolb Customer Support |
To all,
I have never had a conversation with ANY of the Kolb staff that hasn't been
very professional and polite.
Without trying to raise a discussion on this subject, that was my experience
exactly.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (39.5 hrs)
(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas
Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel
____________________|_____________________
___(+^+)___
(_)
8 8
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Anderson, Jim L NWP" <Jim.L.Anderson(at)nwp01.usace.army.mil> |
Subject: | RE: Kolb Customer Support |
That could be the best selling point about why Kolb Aircraft are
so great. The factory support is terrific. They have kept their
designs simple, and based on tried and true building techniques and
materials. Kolb definitely has nothing to hide in their
products....just another satisfied customer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard neilsen [SMTP:NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 9:24 AM
To: kolb(at)intrig.com
Subject: Kolb Customer Support
I'm a recent builder of a VW powered MKIII. This was a project
that should have caused Dennis Souder to get upset with me but he
didn't. In fact the whole Kolb staff have gone out of their way to be
helpful in every way possible. This has included extra parts that I
really had but was too blind to see (and some I didn't get), a prototype
VW engine mount, and many many questions answered thru the building
process and all of this at no extra cost to me. I also drove to the Kolb
factory and got some of the best flight training in a MKIII that this
rusty pilot has ever had. While there Dennis took time out of his busy
day to talk at length and even bought me lunch. In an organization like
Kolb that deals with the public they must have to deal with difficult
people from time to time and someone gets to talk to them afterwards,
BUT I have never had a conversation with ANY of the Kolb staff that
hasn't been very professional and polite.
My $0.02 worth.
-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Anderson, Jim L NWP" <Jim.L.Anderson(at)nwp01.usace.army.mil> |
Ron Carroll
Subject: | RE: New to the list |
Sounds like there are a lot of "anal" retentive flyers (or hangar
flyers) out there. The FSII comes with the plan for the aluminum seat
bottom. If weight is an issue regarding "legal ultralight" status or
safety-I'll take safety any day. My "ultralight" FSII has many safety
features including seven ribs, upholstered padded seat- but no
parachute. Except for a midair collision, I'd rather have control
during descent instead of dropping at 23 fps. I also don't fly low and
slow either- altitude is one of the best safety features there is.
......Keep your Cheeks tight and enjoy your machine!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher John Armstrong
[SMTP:tophera(at)centuryinter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 11:04 AM
To: Ron Carroll
Cc: mail List Kolb; Robert L Doebler
Subject: New to the list
Hi,
I had been concerned by the bottem stabbers under the original
firestar
seat too. I am building a firestar II now which has moved the
pulleys
to just behind the front seat so the company must have decided
that they
were dangerous in the old position. The torque tube is still
just under
the seat bottem and there is very little else down there between
your
bum and the ground/tree branches or what ever else might find
its way
"in there"in a crash. I think an aluminum pan is a good idea. I
dont
think you can get very close to 103 weight anyway so put it in
and save
the butt!
I would disagree with the comments about Kolb being a bad
company,
they added flaperons to my FSII kit and have answered most of my
questions. I did request powdercoating and they didnt do it,
which
actually turned out good cause a I found a local shop that did
it for
only $200 instead of the $500 that Kolb wants.
How many of you have or are planing to install brs chutes? I
probably
will.
Chris "topher" Armstrong
tophera(at)centuryinter.net
-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
>I would be concerned about hanging a three pound tail wheel onto your
>airplane. I wonder if this would be too much??
>
>Ron Christensen
Remember that the original one probably weighs 1.5-2 lbs when you add all
the parts. I ran the numbers, and adding 2 lbs to my tail (make that the
planes tail) will cause no problems for the CG. Maybe I'm reaping the only
benefit of using the small 503 engine :-)
I ordered the full swivel wheel wheel from Spruce Monday. I'll let the list
know how it works out when it gets here (maybe 1.5 weeks).
Rusty
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net> |
>even a courtesy reply. ALL of the contacts I, and another local
>Mark-III builder have had with the Kolb company have been nothing
>short of disappointing. They have been unfriendly, unhelpful and VERY
>rude over the phone. They have confused orders, ignored orders, and
>shipped wrong parts. If this weren't such a good plane I certainly
>would NOT recommend this company to anyone with an interest in
>building an ultralight.
Ron,
I'm sorry to hear that you've had this experience. I'm also surprised
because my experience, and those of many others that I've spoken with,
couldn't be more different from yours. I've dealt with several other kit
companies in one way or another, and Kolb is tops without question. Dennis
and Dan have been outstanding whenever I've had a question regarding
construction or flight testing, and in my opinion, there's no finer group of
people running a kit company. Kolb gets my unconditional recommendation.
Russell Duffy
SlingShot, SS-003
RV-8, 80587
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Olathe, Kansas and Anaheim, CA |
Next month I'll be in Olathe, Kansas and Anaheim, CA. I would like to look at
some Kolbs and get ideas for my FireStar II. If your in the area let me know.
I need to take more Kolb airplane pictures for my web page.
Will Uribe
Building a FireStar II when ever I'm home.
http://members.aol.com/WillU/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
> When I was building, they were very courteous and helpful. They would
> ship out parts for free, if I said I was missing them. Their parts have
> always been reasonably priced and I have been very satisfied with their
> product, which is an excellent design.
I'll second that...my experience was very good with Kolb (1993-94).
Parts were sent post-haste and questions answered forthrightly and
quickly.
JB
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I aroused a lot of interest and found many faithful Kolb customers as
a result of my crying over spilled milk. It is apparent that the Kolb
staff has offered no less than good service to those of you in need in
the past. I must apologize for my statements, but I couldn't help but
feel irate after a couple of less than perfect experiences. I
appreciate all of your favorable remarks, but that doesn't mean that I
fared as well. I am optimistic that things will be better.
I have dropped Dennis a personal e-mail at his AOL address,
apologizing for the disturbance, and hoping for better times ahead.
Based on your testimonies it's in the bag and I look forward to it.
I am really excited and anxious to get my plane in the air so that I
can tell a few tales myself.
Thanks for your feedback!
Ron Carroll
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | T Swartz <Tswartz(at)mail.ptd.net> |
Subject: | Kolb Customer Service |
I'm a little late reading my mail, but would like to add my vote of
confidence to the great support I received while building my MK III.
Dennis answered my many calls with patience and good information.
Dennis even took the time to fly over in his slingshot (at no charge) to
take a look at my VLS installation since the brackets I received from
BRS wouldn't work. Now thats service! Sure, there was a missing pin or
two, but those sort of things were taken care of with no question. I
started my MK III in May of 1997 and finished in Oct. 97 so I'm not
talking about yesteryear service either. Since then I've had 67 hours
of fun flying it. Hang in there Ron, it will be worth it when you fly!
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | New Firestar page |
Within the last week I brought up a home page to help sell my original
Firestar. It contains good pictures and general information that may be
of interest to members of the group.
The address is: http://www.execpc.com/~jrjung/
Please check it out and I welcome your comments.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
The Kolb Company doesn't fawn all over you, neither do they give you
a bad time. I found them to be very reasonable and helpful. If you start
proposing "good idea modifications" right off the bat, they treat you like a
looney. So would I. After flying my MKIII for a year, I descreetly sent
Dennis what I thought were very carefully reasoned ideas for some minor
modifications, and he gave me reasonable replies.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
by r1.boston.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.6.Beta0/2.0.kim) with ESMTP id UAAAA02323
Subject: | Safety Issue-Wheels |
From: | rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon) |
I bought a set of Hegar wheels recently. While sitting in my garage
during the January weather, one of the tubeless tires went flat. Checking
around I found out, that while the Hegar is the wheel of choice locally,
it needs to have a tube, especially during cold weather or the seal is
broken and you risk a flat. I was informed that several winters ago a
very active Quicksilver pilot here had a tire go flat in the air. He had
skies mounted on the tires. On landing he received quite a surprise,
when the ski on the flat tire came loose. Fortunately the damage was
minimal. Since I like to have my tires less than fully inflated ( helps
take the bounce out of landings), I now have tubes in my tires. Despite
the forgoing, I highly recommend Hegar wheels when you decide to upgrade.
Ray Lujon, Woodbury, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
by r2.boston.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.6.Beta0/2.0.kim) with ESMTP id VAAAA11802
From: | bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler) |
Rick/Ron and whoever:
Aluminum seat bottom:
Aluminum sheet info was not included in my original drawings. My F/S II
blue prints are dated Dec. 1991. So whoever made "comments" that they
were on the plans, didn't take into account that maybe, just maybe plans
do get updated as a product matures!
Kolb sent out a newsletter dated July 1, 1995 called: "KOLB AIRCRAFT
UPDATES & newsletter"
among the things listed for the firestar is:
* Seat bottom; 032" aluminum pan , riveted around the perimeter with a
2" spacing.
* change axle retaining bolt from a 3/16" to a 1/4".
* Make a control cable fairlead for the front end of the fuselage tube,
remove several rivets
on the bottom of the fuse-tube, install 1/16" lexan appox. 1" x 2"
there, so cables rub on lexan, not rivets or tube.
* Remove rear tube from rear seat. Turns it into a sling seat, but takes
stress off other parts of the cage.
* Flutter, Must have aileron counter balance kit installed.
I hope this answers your questions: if not e-mail me at
bobdoebler(at)juno.com
Bob Doebler
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT) |
Russell
I could not agree more KOLB has ALWAYS treated all the folks that I know
very well
but it seem like their is one thing missing let's not forget Barbra
sometimes when Dennis is out she has handled the show
Rick
>>even a courtesy reply. ALL of the contacts I, and another local
>>Mark-III builder have had with the Kolb company have been nothing
>>short of disappointing. They have been unfriendly, unhelpful and
>VERY
>>rude over the phone. They have confused orders, ignored orders, and
>>shipped wrong parts. If this weren't such a good plane I certainly
>>would NOT recommend this company to anyone with an interest in
>>building an ultralight.
>
>
>Ron,
>
>I'm sorry to hear that you've had this experience. I'm also surprised
>because my experience, and those of many others that I've spoken with,
>couldn't be more different from yours. I've dealt with several other
>kit
>companies in one way or another, and Kolb is tops without question.
>Dennis
>and Dan have been outstanding whenever I've had a question regarding
>construction or flight testing, and in my opinion, there's no finer
>group of
>people running a kit company. Kolb gets my unconditional
>recommendation.
>
>Russell Duffy
>SlingShot, SS-003
>RV-8, 80587
>
>
>-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Firestar II ideas |
Will,
I'll see what I have for pictures and take some more as needed. Then
I will add them to my web page. Basically, it is BRS's installation of a
soft pack chute in a Firestar I/II. I changed the nylon spacers that
they provided in order to raise the chute about an inch. This was in
order to keep all the original headroom and to allow the gap seal to
wrap under the chute. The gap seal, that I designed, is one piece of
.016 aluminum. The seal and wings have 2 inch wide velcro. The opening
for chute deployment is a saw cut at the rear of the chute and on both
sides, (but not the front). The cut is centered on the side velcro so
that one inch of width holds the flap closed. Two inch velcro is also
centered on the rear of the opening (one inch on each side). The
advantage of this design over a two piece, is that I don't have to worry
about the rear piece comming loose and going through the prop.
John Jung
WillU(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Thats what I've been looking for information on the chute in the wing gap.
> Can you send me close up pictures of your installation?
>
> Thanks
> Will
>
>
> << The chute is in the wing gap and to cover
> it, I designed my own one piece aluminum gap seal. >>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
Dear Kolb Builders,
Thanks to you all who expressed yourselves on our company service.
If our
intentions counted, we would get an A+, but too many times we have not
functioned at that level. But we do try hard! I know there is room for
improvement - but I also know that we do expend a lot of energy and resources
to keep good customer relations. I dont fear the considerable communication
between our customers on this news group - as I suspect some companies might.
I dont fear it because we have good designs, deal fairly with our customers
and do our best to resolve problems that do occasionally occur.
I was encouraged to hear the many positive comments from the group - and
I
hasten to add that just because so many of you expressed positive experiences,
that I want to recognize there is room for those who may feel otherwise. For
those who do feel differently, please let me know so we can work on it.
This past year was an unorganized one for us as we lost the capable help
of
our long time secretary and office manager, Barbara Mansfield. At the end of
1996 she went into the hospital with a heart attack and had a triple by-pass
operation. That was soon followed by a heart transplant. She was released
from the hospital just before Sun-N-Fun last year. During all of 1997 and
this year so far, we have limped along with a part-time temporary secretary -
trying to hold Barbaras position open for her, in case she could return.
Anyone in a small business setting knows how important an organized secretary
is to the smooth functioning of the organization - and Barbara was a very
organized secretary.
We have just learned that Barbara will be going on permanent disability
and
will not be returning to Kolb Aircraft. That is the bad news. The good news
is that Esther Kolb (our present part-time temporary secretary) is now joining
us full time. Esther Kolb will not be a new name to some of your old times
out there. She was secretary at Kolb before Barb Mansfield. So we at Kolb
Aircraft are absolutely delighted that she has made the decision to join our
staff once again.
Esther has been re-acquainting herself this past year with our business
and
now that she is here full time, I am confident that things will be functioning
more smoothly.
The Laser is coming!
We have decided to produce the Laser, we are now in the midst of producing
parts for it! We will have partial kits available by Sun-N-Fun. We have
added another welder to our staff last fall so we could start producing Laser
parts. We are planning to produce a batch of 10 kits initially and now,
already, we have 10 complete sets of welded tail surfaces. I have been
enjoying flying it again, spending time getting reacquainted with her
characteristics and on optimizing the propeller. We are getting a solid 105
mph cruise at 75% power with a Rotax 582. The Laser will have folding wings,
we considered eliminating that feature for simplicitys sake, but in the end
couldnt bring ourselves to produce an aircraft without folding wings. We are
very excited about the Laser project - look for it at Sun-F-Fun!
New HKS 4-stroke engine.
I will soon provide the group of our evaluation of the new HKS 4-stroke
engine from Japan. We have installed it on our SlingShot and have been
putting some time on it. Incidentally, the HKS was one of the factors that
helped us rev up the Laser project again. When I first saw the HKS I thought
what a sweet engine that would be for our Laser.
Sincerely,
Dennis L. Souder
President, Kolb Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: U/L or Experimental? |
<< Meanwhile, the last two issues of Ultralight Flying have feature
stories of two seat trikes all over the place and not an N-number in sight.
(Obviously all the pictures were taken while dual instruction was being
given, and everyone that buys one will operate it as an exempted trainer,
since they are sold assembled, and can't meet the 51 percent rule to qualify
as homebuilts, Right?)
Maybe if we cleaned up our own act first...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>>
you're a tough guy, but you make a lotta sense "42", just as ALL the comments
I read on this subject does. We do muddy the water almost as the earh was
"without form and void" in the beginning as well. It is pretty darn
new!....and still growing, I hope! GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Problem with Wing Rib Jig |
<< Also, I made sure that a line draw from the upper and lower surface
tubes would be flush with the appropriate tangent point on the leading
and trailing edge spars. However, now according to my jig, the top
surface pre-bent tubes are too long and the leading edge, trailing edge,
and main spar pre-fabricated flanges are too large.
Has anyone else run into this problem and if so what did you do about
it?
Thanks.
Best regards,
Bill Kautter >>
I noticed the same thing when building my Firestar and decided that since I
lived in a 95% humidity area, a trip to the kitchen oven might shrink the
plans ....and it did!
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Howdy! New guy onboard! |
john hauck
titus, alabama
334-567-6280
For all of you Kolb list readers out there who haven't seen John's MkIII in
the real you have missed a great looking plane. I saw it in Smith Station ,
Al. about a year ago and talked to John for a good while.
Ultraflight magazines this month. Way to go!
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
<< In fact, I have
specifically requested any update or recommended change information on
this original Firestar kit that I bought, and have been ignored, not
even a courtesy reply. ALL of the contacts I, and another local
Mark-III builder have had with the Kolb company have been nothing
short of disappointing. They have been unfriendly, unhelpful and VERY
rude over the phone. They have confused orders, ignored orders, and
shipped wrong parts. If this weren't such a good plane I certainly
would NOT recommend this company to anyone with an interest in
building an ultralight. >>
Gee, my experience with the company has been completely the opposite. I
have found them to be very, very nice. When I had a small problem with my
mark three cage they had a guy drive it to my house in the company truck. I
find Dennis and the guys to be outstanding in their support of the product. I
also think my Mark 3 is a peach, and the reason why I built it is because I
thought the company was outstanding after I built a Mark 2.
Our differing experiences aside, there is a very important point which you
only mentioned in passing. If I read your post correctly you did not buy your
kit from kolb. If that is the case you have no contractual relationship with
them. That may not seem like a big deal to you, but when I bought my kit I
signed an agreement waiving my rights with respect to a whole bunch of stuff
which causes most of the general aviation world to gnash their teeth and wring
their hands. The company has an obligation to me and I think they have lived
up to it admirably. But they also took a nice chunk of change from me and I
presume part of that goes to pay for telephone support time etc.
I have no first hand knowledge of this, but I am told that many of the big
kit outfits won't even return your calls for parts or service if you are not
on the list of kit buyers. The reasons for that are obvious, given limited
resources you have to service your customers first. Second, downstream owners
and buyers represent a huge liability to a company FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NOT
BEEN COMPENSATED. The waiver I signed when I bought my kits protects Kolb
from suit by me, but it does not protect them from my downstream buyers. If
you point out that you are no different from the buyer of a used cherokee or
c-150 you are WRONG. Cessna and Piper have insurance. There is a huge
bulding in South Street Seaport in Manhattan with cash green carpets and
mahogany furniture (the offices of USAIG the biggest aviation insurance
carrier, I can see it from my office window) built by the premiums paid by
those companies. When you buy the farm in your Kolb there is nothing to stop
your estate from trying to clean Kolb's very modest clock.
If you think that the litigation craze which most pilots (wrongly, I
think) agree killed general aviation hasn't made it to the experimental
aircraft business yet you are fooling yourself. Most of us know or have heard
of Jim Lee, who set himself up as an aftermarket manufacturer of completed
Kolb kits. The question of how you could comply with the 51% rule if he built
your kit asside, there were alot of folks that didin't feel like building
their kits themselves or wanted floats or whatever and spent their money with
him. By delivering a finished product he put himself in the position of
Cessna or Piper. Predictably, when some one got hurt in one of his kits he
got sued. BUT HE DOES"T HAVE A HUGE INSURANCE CARRIER TO TAKE THE PROBLEM OFF
HIS HANDS. The fact that he has been dead for nearly a year is no deterant.
There is suit pending against his estate in New York as we speak.
Frankly, I think the Kolb guys are heros for supporting the whole line
of products all the way back to the beginning, including the models which were
designed and sold by Homer's company. My understanding is that if you are a
downstream buyer they merely ask you to sign the same waiver that all the
other buyers do before they will ship you parts. This strikes me as beyond
reasonable, into downright nice, given the risks presented. Look at the
computer software business, no one thinks of calling up microsoft for free
product support for a pirated copy of windows. The analogy is not perfect,
but it is not far off either. Kolb would be well within their rights to have
a separate parts price list for downstream buyers, or to refuse to deal with
them at all. But they don't.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
mail List Kolb ,
Robert L Doebler
Subject: | Re: New to the list |
HI jim
About what does your plane weight? Which engine are you using? ONe of
the real strenghths of the FS is the crash worthiness of the cage, so
that is probably why people who build it would be interested in
optimizing that area.
Thanks
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "rutledge fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
I am in the market for a 1 or 2 seat Kolb Firestar/Firefly located near
Florida. Also looking for a trailer. If you can help let me know.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler) |
To Will Uribe
Reguarding being in Anaheim next month. I live in the west end on the San
Fernando Valley, appox. 60 miles from Anaheim. I have a F/S II; if you
want to check it out, e-mail me at
bobdoebler(at)juno.com , or call me at 818-348-7075
Bob Doebler
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Thanks, Bob, I appreciate the information. Unfortunately I do not
have any newsletters from Kolb, so I am unaware of any changes made.
Do the items below apply to the original Firestar, or can you tell?
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L Doebler <bobdoebler(at)juno.com>
Date: Thursday February 26 1998 12:02 AM
>Rick/Ron and whoever:
>
>Aluminum seat bottom:
>
>
>Aluminum sheet info was not included in my original drawings. My
F/S II
>blue prints are dated Dec. 1991. So whoever made "comments" that
they
>were on the plans, didn't take into account that maybe, just maybe
plans
>do get updated as a product matures!
>
>Kolb sent out a newsletter dated July 1, 1995 called: "KOLB AIRCRAFT
>UPDATES & newsletter"
> among the things listed for the firestar is:
>
>* Seat bottom; 032" aluminum pan , riveted around the perimeter with
a
>2" spacing.
>
>* change axle retaining bolt from a 3/16" to a 1/4".
>
>* Make a control cable fairlead for the front end of the fuselage
tube,
>remove several rivets
> on the bottom of the fuse-tube, install 1/16" lexan appox. 1" x 2"
>there, so cables rub on lexan, not rivets or tube.
>
>* Remove rear tube from rear seat. Turns it into a sling seat, but
takes
>stress off other parts of the cage.
>
>* Flutter, Must have aileron counter balance kit installed.
>
>I hope this answers your questions: if not e-mail me at
>bobdoebler(at)juno.com
>
>Bob Doebler
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | T Swartz <Tswartz(at)mail.ptd.net> |
Subject: | Re: Where to put it |
Richard Pike wrote:
>
> One good place to put the GPS is on your control stick. On the
> MKIII, the top of the stick is 3/4" O.D. I took a short length of 3/4" steel
> tubing about 3" long and cut in in half lengthways, then took a steel strip
> 1" wide and 6" long and welded it to one end, angling it out and up a bit.
> Then took some rubber padding and glued to the steel. Took black electrical
> tape and taped the GPS to the rubber padded side of the steel strip.
> Peel back the top half of your rubber hand grip, and lay the half
> round of tubing up against the control stick and tape it in place with black
> electrical tape, then roll the rubber hand grip back over it.
> When you get done, the GPS will angle up and out away from the top
> of your stick at a good angle to read, and if you have the type that has the
> keypad on the bottom, like some of the Magellen's, you can reach the keypad
> with your index finger of your flying hand.
> The rubber handgrip over the electrical tape will keep it plenty
> secure. Make sure it will clear the windscreen, etc. It clears the MKIII,
> but it is close.
>
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
> -
Richard
I like your location idea for GPS. I think I'll try that.
What nav radio do you have and where have did you put that? And as I
recall, you also have a transponder. Where did you put that?
You mentioned before that you mounted the VHF antenna behind the pilot
seat and a suggested a ground plane of 12" on a side. Do you mean
something like a 24" strip of aluminum, perhaps glued to the fabric on
the inside, with the antenna mounted in the middle and protruding down
through the fabic? Or does this ground plane need to be a 24" circle?
So far I have been using an icom A-22 with the attached rubber duckie.
Thanks
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Kolb Service |
<< The Laser is coming!>>
Whats a Laser, does anyone have a picture?
<>
I also like what I have read on the HKS 4-stroke engine. Can a FireStar II
handle it?
Will Uribe
http://members.aol.com/WillU/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Ultralight Vehicle Questions |
From: | rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon) |
Does anyone know why 254 pounds was picked as the limit for empty
weight, excluding floats and safety devices, to be Part 103 legal? What
is so magic about 254 pounds? Why can't the limit be raised to a figure
that is more realistic from a safety standpoint and more in line with the
majority of " ultralight " vehicles that are on the market today? With
that one minor change the majority of Part 103 could still be retained.
What don't I get? It all seems so simple. Maybe that's the problem, too
simple. Ray Lujon, Woodbury,MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler) |
To Ron C
The updates from the news letter I sent you was for the firestar 1 & 2.
Call Kolb, I'm sure they will send you a copy. I don't remember if I paid
for mine or not,
But a donation for postage/printing & time I'm sure, wouldn't hurt. I'd
call, rather than e-mail,. That way,if there's any misunderstanding/
problems or questions you can get them straightened out right now.
I've always been happy with their service. Yah, when I got my kit a few
parts were missing too. Guess there human like all the rest of us. But a
call always got a friendly and quick response. I definitely cannot
complain about Kolb. They have always been professional
and friendly to me.
Bob Doebler
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler) |
To Ray Lujon
Regarding 254# limit.
Of course it doesn't make any sense. Government bureaucracies don't need
to make sense, or a profit!
Bob Doebler
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WillU <WillU(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Re: Ultralight Vehicle Questions |
Ray
You can find the answer to your question at
http://www.usua.com/far.htm
<< Does anyone know why 254 pounds was picked as the limit for empty
weight, excluding floats and safety devices, to be Part 103 legal? What
is so magic about 254 pounds? >>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
The laser is a low wing side by side two seater that is a real sweat
looking airplane. I might have to build one of those next! The HKs
would be a bit heavy (116 pounds) for a FSII I think. Would be quite
powerful too, but the improved reliability and reduced fuel flow wold
sure make for a great cross country plane. It goes for around twice
what a 503 costs though! ouch.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill Weber (DVNS)" <bweber(at)micom.com> |
Subject: | Re: Ultralight Vehicle Questions |
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Raymond L Lujon wrote:
> Does anyone know why 254 pounds was picked as the limit for empty
> weight, excluding floats and safety devices, to be Part 103 legal? What
> is so magic about 254 pounds? Why can't the limit be raised to a figure
> that is more realistic from a safety standpoint and more in line with the
> majority of " ultralight " vehicles that are on the market today? With
> that one minor change the majority of Part 103 could still be retained.
> What don't I get? It all seems so simple. Maybe that's the problem, too
> simple. Ray Lujon, Woodbury,MN
My understanding is that the 254 lb limit was choses because it
encompassed all or almost all of the vehicles in use at the time. If the
limit was simply raised, say to 300 lb to encompass most of the current
designs, exactly the same thing would happen. New vehicles and
"improvements" would, before long, have most of them overweight again.
Raising the speed limit rarely reduces the number of speeders. They just
go 5-10 mph faster than the limit, whatever it is.
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* MICOM Communications Corp. * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DLSOUDER <DLSOUDER(at)aol.com> |
Subject: | Mark-III dual control sticks |
Dear Kolb Builders,
Dual control sticks now available for the Mark-III
I forgot to include this with the earlier email today. We have developed
a
dual control stick for the Mark-III. There have been a couple builders: our
new list member, John Hauck; and Ron Christensen among them, who have already
done this (forgive me if I overlooked anyone on this.) We tried to steer
clear of doing this project, but too many Mark-III builders kept bugging us.
It is designed to be a bolt (actually rivet) on installation with no
alteration to the existing frame: no cutting or welding required. It can be
removed at a later date if desired and the original single stick re-installed.
Those who were involved with training operations were the most interested
in
having 2 control sticks. I dont think it is for everyone, but some will
appreciate the new stick position. It does make getting into the Mark-III
more difficult, but it isnt too much harder. We probably will make the
passenger stick removable for those who want to hop a lot of rides. Price is
$395 which includes a new elevator push-pull tube. If you want it
powdercoated, add another $50.
Dennis Souder
President Kolb Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DLSOUDER <DLSOUDER(at)aol.com> |
Dear Bonnie,
Could you please provide more information: name and where it could be
purchased, etc. on your China? Yvonne was telling Audrey, her sister, about
it and she thinks she might be interested in it. Please email any
information to my flykolb(at)epix.net address
Thanks Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DLSOUDER <DLSOUDER(at)aol.com> |
January 27, 1998 - February 26, 1998
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-al