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>
Date: Jan 27, 1998
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>
Date: Jan 27, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 1998
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>
Date: Jan 29, 1998
test again, discard, sorry. Jim Gerken ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 1998
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 1998
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>
Date: Jan 29, 1998
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
Subject: air bubbles
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)
Date: Jan 28, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 1998
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>
Date: Jan 29, 1998
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
Date: Jan 28, 1998
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! >- > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 1998
Subject: Re:
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 1998
Subject: Re: Kolb Flyer
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 >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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) >> > >- > > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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 >- > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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?
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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)
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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)
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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)
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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>
Subject: Headsets
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 1998
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
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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
Date: Jan 31, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 1998
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) > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 1998
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
Date: Jan 31, 1998
Subject: double email
I am still getting 2 of the same emails from the kolb group, is anybody else? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 1998
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)
Date: Jan 31, 1998
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)
Date: Jan 31, 1998
Thank You Mick for taking the time to look up that material on A/N bolts. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 1998
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)
Date: Feb 01, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 1998
From: Woody Weaver <mts0140(at)ibm.net>
Subject: Firefly
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>
Date: Feb 01, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 1998
From: Paul VonLindern <paulv(at)digisys.net>
Subject: 582 or 618
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!
Date: Feb 01, 1998
-----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!
Date: Feb 01, 1998
-----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
Date: Feb 01, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 1998
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: 582 or 618
>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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 1998
From: Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca>
Subject: Re: 582 or 618
>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.
Date: Feb 02, 1998
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)
Date: Feb 02, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 1998
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
Date: Feb 02, 1998
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, . . .
Date: Feb 02, 1998
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] > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 1998
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Subject: Legal?
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 1998
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 1998
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
Date: Feb 02, 1998
Subject: Re: 582 or 618
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
Date: Feb 01, 1998
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
Date: Feb 02, 1998
-----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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 1998
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 1998
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Legal
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 1998
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
Date: Feb 03, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 1998
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Legal
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Legal
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)
Date: Feb 03, 1998
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 >- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Legal
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)
Date: Feb 03, 1998
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 1998
Subject: Re: Legal
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 1998
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
Date: Feb 04, 1998
Subject: Re[2]: Legal
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
Date: Feb 04, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 1998
Subject: Re[2]: Legal
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>
Date: Feb 04, 1998
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
Date: Feb 04, 1998
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 @, ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 1998
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>
Date: Feb 05, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ULDAD(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 05, 1998
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
Date: Feb 05, 1998
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 1998
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 > > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 1998
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Subject: juno.com mail
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 1998
From: Michael Watson <psi(at)pivot.net>
Subject: Experimentals
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 1998
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 1998
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 1998
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. | | ========================================================================= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 1998
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
Date: Feb 06, 1998
>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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 1998
Subject: Spare Gas Cans
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 1998
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)
Date: Feb 07, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 1998
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 >- > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 1998
From: Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net>
Subject: Flying
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
Date: Feb 08, 1998
Subject: re: ad for sale
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)
Date: Feb 08, 1998
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 1998
Subject: Souderton?
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 1998
Subject: Re: Flying
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WillU(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 08, 1998
Subject: Factory FireFly
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. >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 1998
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) > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 1998
From: Paul VonLindern <paulv(at)digisys.net>
Subject: Thank You
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 1998
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: Thank You
>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>
Subject: Re: Thank You
Date: Feb 08, 1998
>>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??? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 1998
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Thank You
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 1998
From: Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net>
Subject: Wishing...
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 1998
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 1998
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)
Date: Feb 09, 1998
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- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 1998
Subject: Fear of heights
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
Date: Feb 09, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 1998
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 * *********************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 1998
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
Date: Feb 10, 1998
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 1998
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 1998
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 * *********************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 1998
From: Michael Watson <psi(at)pivot.net>
Subject: Experimental
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
Date: Feb 10, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 11, 1998
Subject: Slow day?
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 1998
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.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) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hasnimus(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 12, 1998
Subject: Fuselage kit
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 1998
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>
Subject: RE: Slow day?
Date: Feb 12, 1998
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) > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: PKrotje(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 12, 1998
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
Date: Feb 12, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 1998
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
Date: Feb 12, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 1998
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___________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 1998
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
Date: Feb 16, 1998
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]
Date: Feb 16, 1998
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
Date: Feb 16, 1998
>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)
Date: Feb 16, 1998
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
Date: Feb 16, 1998
>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)
Date: Feb 16, 1998
Subject: Kolb home page
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
Date: Feb 17, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 1998
From: William Hinkelmann <whink(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Media BS
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 1998
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
Date: Feb 16, 1998
Subject: New Webpage
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
Date: Feb 16, 1998
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>
Date: Feb 17, 1998
Subject: Re: Media BS
> 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
Date: Feb 17, 1998
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
Date: Feb 17, 1998
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>
Subject: Re: Media BS
Date: Feb 17, 1998
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 >- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 1998
From: William Hinkelmann <whink(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Ostrich
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 1998
Subject: Enjoying Life
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)
Date: Feb 16, 1998
Subject: Kolb homesite
Thanks everyone. The Kolbaircraft.com works great. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 1998
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 1998
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
Date: Feb 16, 1998
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
Date: Feb 18, 1998
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
Date: Feb 18, 1998
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
Date: Feb 18, 1998
Subject: Re: Ostrich
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 1998
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
Date: Feb 19, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 19, 1998
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]
Date: Feb 19, 1998
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 >- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 19, 1998
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 20, 1998
From: Gary Thacker <gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us>
Subject: FireFly owners
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) | ========================================================================= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 21, 1998
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
Date: Feb 21, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 21, 1998
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
Date: Feb 22, 1998
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)
Date: Feb 22, 1998
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 1998
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Where to put it
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>
Date: Feb 22, 1998
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
Date: Feb 22, 1998
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>
Subject: Mosler engines
Date: Feb 22, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 1998
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) > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 22, 1998
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)
Date: Feb 22, 1998
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
Date: Feb 23, 1998
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) | ========================================================================= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 1998
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.
Date: Feb 23, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 23, 1998
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
Date: Feb 24, 1998
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
Date: Feb 24, 1998
Hey Rick last we heard from you, you were very close to flying. Is there any more news to report? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 1998
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Seat Belts
>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
Date: Feb 24, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 1998
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 1998
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? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 1998
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 1998
Subject: Re:
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 > > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 1998
Subject: Re:
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 1998
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
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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)
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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>
Subject: Thanks guys
Date: Feb 24, 1998
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thanks guys
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 1998
From: Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net>
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 24, 1998
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 ---------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WillU(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 25, 1998
Subject: Re: Thanks guys
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. >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ULDAD(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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)
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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>
Subject: Re: tailwheels
Date: Feb 25, 1998
>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>
Subject: Re: Service
Date: Feb 25, 1998
>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: WillU(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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>
Date: Feb 25, 1998
Subject: Re: Thanks guys
> 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>
Subject: I surrender!
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 1998
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Kolb Company
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
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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
Date: Feb 25, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 25, 1998
Subject: Re: Service
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 > > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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
Date: Feb 26, 1998
Subject: Kolb Service
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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!
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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
Date: Feb 26, 1998
Subject: Re: Thanks guys
<< 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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>
Subject: Kolb Wanted
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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>
Subject: Newsletter info
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WillU(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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>
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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? >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 1998
From: Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net>
Subject: Laser and HKS
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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>
Date: Feb 26, 1998
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>
Date: Feb 26, 1998
Subject: Chinaware
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>
Date: Feb 26, 1998


January 27, 1998 - February 26, 1998

Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-al