Kolb-List Archive Browser

Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com<= /DIV> ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: Test flight questions

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Jeremy Casey wrote: > A little while back someone sent a tidbit of trivia to the list about > someone doing some "inflight destructive testing" of a Kolb something > to the tune of about 9g's positive. I was curious about if this was I may have mentioned this at one time to a few individuals but not to the group at large. In earlier times (guessing 1982) Dennis Souder tested an ultrastar to destruction in flight. A wing drag strut buckled in a wildly abrupt and full deflection pullout from a sustained high speed dive. The G meters pegged at 6 (not 9). From that the drag strut was redisgned to be stronger. At the time they only felt they needed to substantiate their stated +4G load limits ...i think these were stated as design, not ultimate load limits, not sure now. Yes, he used a recovery chute. I've always wondered if he carried a backup to that, and assumed he did but don't know. Either way, definetly more balls than I got if you'll pardon the expression. This integrity to stand behind the design (and really prove it) with his own hide was part of my reasons in chosing Kolb. -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: Test flight questions

edu> >On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Jeremy Casey wrote: > >> A little while back someone sent a tidbit of trivia to the list about >> someone doing some "inflight destructive testing" of a Kolb something >> to the tune of about 9g's positive. I was curious about if this was > Hey Gang: As a result of the tests, the ultrastar and later designs got a chromoly steel drag strut brace to keep the strut in column. Dennis was equiped with one Jim Handbury had deployed parachute which saved his buns. Catch me when I'm in a talkative mood sometime, someplace else, and I'll tell you how much life insurance you can get from a $500 Handbury Prcht, or for that matter, any other prcht system. john hauck ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

kolb(at)intrig.com

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

RE: Instruments/Avionics

ce.army.mil> Hi Jim: Hauck's opinion for what it's worth: Primer bulb: In and out check valves (all the primers I have used) are spring loaded. They don't care which way they fly. My experience has shown that primer bulbs are a good source for eng failures and power loss. Put your filter in front of the primer bulb. The inlet check valve is easyto block partially or fully. Don't hesitate to replace. They get pin hole leaks and cracks in short time. EGT tells me several things on a 2 stroke: 1. If I have a lean, rich, or correct fuel mixture. (but only if the engine is propped correctly) 2. Prop Pitch: Too much: EGT will be low, even if fuel mix is correct. Too little: EGT will go sky high, even if fuel mixis correct. If you don't believe me, try this: Fly straight and level, 5800 RPM. Don't touch the throttle. Pull the nose up and pull off about 10 or 20 MPH. Watch the EGT go down. The eng is being loaded and gets less air. Fuel mix is richer. Push the nose over and unload the eng. Eng is breathing more air (same amt of fuel) and the mixture is getting leaner. EGT Climbs. Push the nose over to land, come back on the throttle, and the EGT will go out of sight. I usually carry enough throttle to keep the EGT up or go all the way or just off idle. It is possible to sieze a 2 stroke in a decent with partial throttle, throttle in mid-range. Two strokes have many characteristics that 4 strokes to not have. They are not easy to understand for many of us. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com>

Subject:

FW: Test flight questions

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

John, I take it this means you have a parachute on your MKIII. > -----Original Message----- > From: john hauck [SMTP:hawk36(at)mindspring.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 1998 11:55 AM > To: kolb(at)intrig.com > Subject: Re: Test flight questions > > >On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Jeremy Casey wrote: > > > >> A little while back someone sent a tidbit of trivia to the list > about > >> someone doing some "inflight destructive testing" of a Kolb > something > >> to the tune of about 9g's positive. I was curious about if this > was > > > > Hey Gang: > > As a result of the tests, the ultrastar and later designs got a > chromoly > steel drag strut brace to keep the strut in column. > > Dennis was equiped with one Jim Handbury had deployed parachute which > saved > his buns. Catch me when I'm in a talkative mood sometime, someplace > else, > and I'll tell you how much life insurance you can get from a $500 > Handbury > Prcht, or for that matter, any other prcht system. > > john hauck > - ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

Subject:

prcht vs Life ins.

A BRS or eqvlt can save "your" life some day. I like to see any life insurance that can do this and I will mount one my Kolb MKIII tonight and save 26 lbs in the process. PS, I just ordered a VLS conversion for my MkIII. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

From:

Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net>

Subject:

Re: prcht vs Life ins.

Hi guys, What diversity in "required" instrumentation! The electronic instruments may seem like overkill to some but they are deffinately much smaller, lighter, and to my way of thinking simpler then the equivilent mechanical gages. ten million transisters equals one set of springs, lever arms, sprockets and needles. A yaw string probably is the best turn coordinator you can get, especially for the money. The bigest reason to have one isn't just to make the plane fly coordinated for efficency , but as you approach the stall aoa in a tight turn staying coordinated is what prevents a spin. if your yawing the inboard wing stalls first and down you go. Angle of attack is the key to safe flying IMHO. The stall angle of attack is constant no matter your aircraft power setting, loading or attitude. Keeping track of Airspeed works, but stall airspeed changes with weight, bank angle, power setting. Plus airspeed indicators generally stink at low airspeed. A simple little aoa gage you can make for pennys will keep you from unintentionally stalling if you keep your eye on it. I'm sounding awful preachy for such a low timer! Topher ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Yaw String

One thing I have not seen yet in the discussion of instruments, (including yaw strings) is learning to land a MKIII straight ahead. If you haven't flown one, you are sitting in a wide airplane that has a fast taper to the nose, you are not seated straight ahead, but at an angle, your feet pointing toward the middle, and you are on short final with no intuitive reference of what straight ahead is. Even money you land it partly sideways. My first flight in the MKIII was at a controlled field, (BIG RUNWAY) and by the third landing, the controllers were laughing so hard they could barely talk well enough to make disparaging comments. We found a string and taped it to the bottom center of the windshield, and put an end to the jocularity. It is replaced every year with a new one during the annual. And it's cheap too! Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

From:

T Swartz <Tswartz(at)mail.ptd.net>

Subject:

Re: Instrument/Avionics

> >I personally have no requirement for AOA, I assume this is angle of attack > >indicator. All three of my Kolbs (Ultrastar, Firestar, and even fat Albert > >the MKIII that weighs 630+ lbs empty, willclimb with full aft stick and > >full throttle. I used to demonstrate that on rides at Lakeland. The acft > >is stalling and climbing at the same time. > >john hauck > > > > > John I found the above comments interesting. I have a Mark III with a 912, 521 lbs. empty. I have never applied full aft stick at full throttle but have done full power stalls. How do you do this? Other notes: I have an aircraft type ASI, VSI, & mag compass. I also have the EIS system since it is the only way to monitor all the engine functions and still fit it in the panel. I am very pleased with it and Greg at Grand Rapids Tec was very helpful with any questions. He also replaced a EGT probe that failed at about 50 hrs. at no charge. Terry ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

Subject:

Re: prcht vs Life ins.

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > >.... ten million transisters equals one set of springs, >lever arms, sprockets and needles. > "Open the pod bay doors please HAL, .....HAL!!" Just a thought.... :-) -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

Subject:

Re: Instruments/Avionics

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > >....An altimeter is especially nice for staying under (or over) Class-C >airspace, over Class-D airspace, and being at the proper altitude when >flying above 3,000' AGL. > >Ron Sometimes living in the "boonies" is a blessing. Most times all I have to worry about is busting the ARSA around Tulsa Internat'l. (forgive me, I think it's 'class C' space now but ARSA is easier for me to remember). The floor is 2400' MSL between the 5 and 10 mile radius of the tower. The VORTAC antenna is directly east of the tower and right on the 5 mile radius. Sometimes for fun I'll fly on a north or south flightpath at 2390' (+ or - a few) and (visually) pass the antenna just barely outside that invisible wall. "Take THAT you bureaucrats!, You passers of laws!, You pee'ers in punch bowls!!" I say, and then I laugh histerically. Well, I think its fun even if the guys in the tower have never noticed, it may be I'm just easily amused. It helps a lot 'tho, especially around tax-time, which reminds me... (Please note, the above was written for the purpose of entertainment and was not meant to berate, ridicule, or irritate any person employed by the FAA, IRS, FBI, CIA, OMB, State or Local law enforcement agency or meter reader.) -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

rut007(at)hotmail.com

Subject:

Re: Instruments/Avionics

writes: << I think you left out the storm scope. (my favorite instrument is the florescent pink yaw string attached to my windshield) -----Original Message----- From: Christopher John Armstrong >> HEAR! HEAR!,,,I AGREE WHOLE HEARTEDLY GeoR38 an ol glider pilot!!! ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

Subject:

Re: Test flight questions

<< Yes, he used a recovery chute. I've always wondered if he carried a backup to that, and assumed he did but don't know. Either way, definetly more balls than I got if you'll pardon the expression. This integrity to stand behind the design (and really prove it) with his own hide was part of my reasons in chosing Kolb. -Ben Ransom >> one of the main reasons i picked Kolb also!! GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: Club affiliation in sig line/tag line request.....

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

Sounds good, Jim. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar Secretary, Minnesota Ultralight Association writes: >I'm attempting to gather as many E-mail addresses for club >presidents, newsletter writers, or other person in each USUA club >for cross feed of Fly-in info, events, and newsletters. I have all >the Region 5 contacts.....hope to garner a national list. > >So, if you would temporarily (or permanently, if you wish) indiacte >your Club affiliation I'll e-mail you seperately for the above info. > >Thanks..... > > >Jim Baker >Pres, USUA Club 104 >Frontier Ultralight Aviators > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: Instruments/Avionics

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

Jim, I also think it is important to put a bypass around the primer bulb so if the check valves fail, or the bulb clogs up for any reason, the bypass will allow gas to flow. I haven't used my choke for years. My primer works great. Give it 3-4 shots before setting up the plane, and the fuel has vaporized enough to start it on the 1st or 2nd pull of the starter rope. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >One thing that has bugged me is placement of the gas primer bulb. >Many guys in my area place the bulb in a vertical position, that is, >entrance and exit hoses up and down). I think the bulb should be closer to >horizontal to ensure the check valve doesn't get caught in the open >(or closed) position (I should just cut a bulb open to look at how the >ball is configured). {also a must though, is position the bulb where you >can reach it in the cockpit while flying). Your thoughts appreciated. >Jim. ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: Test flight questions

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 05, 1998

Yes Ben, I bought my Kolb without even seeing one fly back in '86. From what I read about Homer Kolb and the performance of his designs, I liked the plane and it was "love at first flight"! I'm still in love 11 years later. Gee's, most marriages don't even get this mushy after all these years. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar >writes: > >Yes, he used a recovery chute. I've always wondered if he carried > backup to that, and assumed he did but don't know. Either way, >definetly more balls than I got if you'll pardon the expression. This >integrity to stand behind the design (and really prove it) with his own hide >was part of my reasons in chosing Kolb. > > -Ben Ransom > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

From:

Michael Watson <psi(at)pivot.net>

Subject:

Email Links

I have a silly question for you netscape users. How do you put a clickable link to your webpage in your email messages? Thanks, Mike Watson ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: Email Links

Michael Watson wrote: > > I have a silly question for you netscape users. How do you put a > clickable link to your webpage in your email messages? > > Thanks, > Mike Watson Mike, The reason that it is hard to understand, is that it is so easy. Just type the full address, starting with "http://" and it will interpret it as an address, and underline it, up to the point that you leave a space. Here is my example: http://www.execpc.com/~jrjung/ John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: Instrument/Avionics

>John > >Glade you are on the list , seen your m/3 at osk. in 96 I think it was >sure looks good > >I need some advice on where did you put your aux fuel tanks , the 10 gal > We built a 25 gal aluminum tank for my MK III. We needed that much fuel capacity to do my big trip with a 582 that I thought I was going to be using. However, it is nice to have a large fuel capacity. It allows me to make to X/C with one less problem, fuel. We needed cargo space for my gear so the tank went upstairs in the open area behind my head. This position also allowed me to have a sight gauge on the left bulk head that is easy to see while flying. Trying to peek through holes or over or between seats behind you can create difficult situations, like fuel starvation. My brother Jim welded up the tank from .052 5052 aluminum. It survived the terrible crash I experienced during testing and extremely hard landings. Never had a leak and it is unusual, but ultimate capacity is 25 gal and useable fuel is also 25 gal. It'll suck every drop oout of that tank. I don't use primer bulbs in the fuel system. They have caused too many problems for me in the past. I have a Fawcet electronic fuel pump under the tank pushing fuel to the engine driven pump. Also had the same set up on my Firestar, even w/o a battery. Use the elec pump to fill the float bowl, during t/o and landings, and low level, which is most of the time. Good thing I didn't have a computer when I was building airplanes or I would never have gotten them built. The puter is taking most of my time now days, and nights. john hauck ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

From:

Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net>

Subject:

Re: Email Links

To put a link in I just cut and paste, either from an existing link or from the location window in the browser. Hold the mouse button down on a link instead of clicking on it and you get a pop up menu that lets you do things with links like save them, bookmark them or copy them instead of just the default open them. This is a good one: http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison/index.htm especially her story of the crash of her Rans S-10. http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison/flying/s10death.htm and her analysis of the cause of the crash. http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison/flying/aftermath.htm and her experiance at flying Ultralights for the first time http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~alison/flying/scary.htm on the subject of fuel system failures, Ralph how does your primer work? Is it hooked to the primer bulb or a separate line and pump all together. It sounds like those bulbs are dangerous enough that I am trying to figure out how to eliminate it from my system. A plane will not stall below the stall Angle of Attack, So John Hauck's planes must be rigged so that full aft stick at the climb out angle, power setting cg postion and weight he is using does not have enough athority to achieve stall aoa. Conventional configuration aircraft can be made just as stall resistant as canards and vice versa, it is just a matter of limiting control power so you can not achieve stall aoa for a given configuration and flight condition. The reasons us aero engineers don't do that are that usually the resulting poor control authority is unacceptable to pilots, and it generally reduces aircraft performance significantly, since the wing is never allowed to get quite to max lift, and full stall landings are not possible. it also only applies to a small cg and weight range. As John pointed out if you do end up stalling in a real steep (slow) climbout it will require lots of altitude to regain enough airspeed (lower aoa enough) to start flying again. So, with the not as reliable as we would like engines we use, climb fast and live long. topher ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: AOA gadgets (was something else)

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Christopher John Armstrong wrote: > Angle of attack is the key to safe flying IMHO. The stall angle of > attack is constant no matter your aircraft power setting, loading or > attitude. Keeping track of Airspeed works, but stall airspeed changes > with weight, bank angle, power setting. Plus airspeed indicators > generally stink at low airspeed. A simple little aoa gage you can make > for pennys will keep you from unintentionally stalling if you keep your > eye on it. Most would probably say watching an AOA indicator (gauge of some sort) is a mistake. One should be familiar enf with the feel of the plane to know automatically the warning signs of an impending stall. That is why on "real airplanes" they do these as audible horns or stick shakers. In any case, the plus side of flying Kolbs and many other ULs is that an impending stall is easy to recognize. I personally wouldn't bother with any gadgetry on this, or if you did, make it some sort of buzzer (or electric shock device?) that will interrupt whatever else you might be doing. I know that once i got my GPS, I sometimes spent so much time bedazzled by paging thru the functions that I was destracting myself from flying. Heaven forbid that someday I'll auger in, but do it exactly on course! :-) -Ben Ransom One other thing, ASI need not stink at low airspeed. In fact, thru many experiments in static port mount, mine has always been most accurate at low speed and least accurate at high speed. Ramble mode off. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: AOA gadgets (was something else)

Ben Ransom wrote: > > In any case, the plus side of flying Kolbs and many other ULs is that > an impending stall is easy to recognize. From my experience, this is only true when the engine is running and depending on the pilot, may not be true when the engine is at idle. The "easy to recognise" power on stall of a Kolb could lead a pilot, who hasn't practiced engine off stalls, into a real problem. I maintain that engine off stalls, at least in my Firestar, happen much faster than I expect and with no warning at all. Power off stalls, also cause a loss of altitude (easily 50 feet), unlike power on stalls which only reduce climb rate. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: AOA gadgets (was something else)

> Ben Ransom wrote: > > > > In any case, the plus side of flying Kolbs and many other ULs is that > > an impending stall is easy to recognize. > On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, John Jung wrote: > From my experience, this is only true when the engine is running and > depending on the pilot, may not be true when the engine is at idle. The I guess I include engine out as a serious indicator of potential for impending stall. I agree with you that that scenario should be practiced. ...mostly cuz it will impress how careful we better be when it gets quiet. (Keep thy nose down.) I've taken my plane to the brink of stall with engine off, but can't recall for sure if I had the nerve to really stall it. I recall chickening out, thinking like it sure felt tail-heavy and oh-so-quick to slow down, and I didn't want to go there. -Ben ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil>

Subject:

RE: Problem with Wing Rib Jig

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

Bill, I am building a FSII. When I started to layout the wing rib fixture, it was obvious that the dimensions on the "original blue prints" did not match the blue prints now supplied with the kit. On my set they are still the only pages that were in the original hand drawn format. You have to use the measurements stated on the plans and not the plans themselves. The position of the main spar has to be adjusted to compensate for the distortion on the blue prints. One of the considerations in laying out the rib fixture is to check the dimensions of your pre-welded ribs as they may not match the plans. John > -----Original Message----- > From: William Kautter [SMTP:wkautter(at)gtco.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 1998 11:59 AM > To: 'kolb(at)intrig.com' > Subject: Problem with Wing Rib Jig > > I am in the process of laying out my jig to build the wing ribs and > have > run into a problem. I have laid out the jig to the dimensions given in > the plans and manual. My plans were slightly too long and too tall. > Also, I made sure that a line draw from the upper and lower surface > tubes would be flush with the appropriate tangent point on the leading > and trailing edge spars. However, now according to my jig, the top > surface pre-bent tubes are too long and the leading edge, trailing > edge, > and main spar pre-fabricated flanges are too large. > > Has anyone else run into this problem and if so what did you do about > it? > > Thanks. > > Best regards, > > Bill Kautter > wkautter(at)gtco.com > - ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

Subject:

Slip Indicator Question

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

I installed a Winter rectangular slip indicator and I am dissapointed with its very poor response. I knew ahead of time that the pink yaw string would be much more effective. But this Winter slip indicator is virtually worthless. My stupid question: Why would my slip indicator fail to work? Has it something to do with the relatively slow speeds of our vehicles.? On another matter this current dicussion of aoa, sensing of an approaching stall , etc. reminds me of the colorful way this subject is handled in the book "Stick And Rudder". On page 61 the following is found: "Because the direction of the air flow differs in various flight conditions, the pilot can sometimes actually smell the approach of a stall. At high angle of attack (slow speed, low buoyancy) smells and hot air from the engine may be wafted up to the pilots head. Or a different circulation may set up within the cabin so that the pilot smells gasoline, or bits of dust picked up from the cabin floor." This was written 54 years ago and is still one possible example of how a "feel for the plane" is ones best protection against the stall. Can you think of others from personal experience that are unique with the Kolb? Ray from Woodbury ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: Slip Indicator Question

Raymond L Lujon wrote: > > I installed a Winter rectangular slip indicator and I am dissapointed > with its very poor response. I knew ahead of time that the pink yaw > string would be much more effective. But this Winter slip indicator is > virtually worthless. My stupid question: Why would my slip indicator > fail to work? Has it something to do with the relatively slow speeds of > our vehicles.? Here is my idea, but I am interested in hearing other ideas. I believe that the reason that a slip indicator doesn't work well in a Kolb is because of the limited side area. Mine does work, but I have to take a carefull look at it to see the change. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net>

Subject:

Re: Slip Indicator Question

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

>I installed a Winter rectangular slip indicator and I am dissapointed >with its very poor response. I knew ahead of time that the pink yaw >string would be much more effective. But this Winter slip indicator is >virtually worthless. My stupid question: Why would my slip indicator >fail to work? Has it something to do with the relatively slow speeds of >our vehicles.? I assume you mean the standard ball type inclinometer??? I installed one of these in my SlingShot and it works fine. The only problem is that the pilot can't seem to keep the ball in the middle as much as he should :-) I compared it's accuracy to the "yarn" method, and saw no difference. Using the yarn, I found that it loses all airflow at near stall speed. It just kinda lays there limp on the canopy, whereas the inclinometer keeps working fine. I suppose I could put the yarn back on and call it a stall indicator :-) Rusty (tailwheel on the mend, weather on the decline) Duffy ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: Slip Indicator Question

On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Russell Duffy wrote: > can't seem to keep the ball in the middle as much as he should :-) I > compared it's accuracy to the "yarn" method, and saw no difference. Using > the yarn, I found that it loses all airflow at near stall speed. It just > kinda lays there limp on the canopy, whereas the inclinometer keeps working RUSTY! I think you just found where to put the static port!! > fine. I suppose I could put the yarn back on and call it a stall indicator > :-) > > Rusty (tailwheel on the mend, weather on the decline) Duffy For me, the ball/slip thingy is primarily there to make my "dashboard" look like a "panel". Really, no kidding. Without it people might ask why i have such big side panels on my snow mobile. I can feel a slip or skid weigh before that darn piece of junk does much. The yaw string on mine is darn good at all speeds. BTW, many people get a $2 leveler meant for a camper and slap that baby on their "panel". Works better than my $20 Ball/Slip deal from LEAF. -Ben ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: Slip Indicator Question

>Raymond L Lujon wrote: >> >> I installed a Winter rectangular slip indicator and I am dissapointed >> with its very poor response. I knew ahead of time that the pink yaw >> string would be much more effective. But this Winter slip indicator is >> virtually worthless. My stupid question: Why would my slip indicator >> fail to work? Has it something to do with the relatively slow speeds of >> our vehicles.? > >Here is my idea, but I am interested in hearing other ideas. I believe >that the reason that a slip indicator doesn't work well in a Kolb is >because of the limited side area. Mine does work, but I have to take a >carefull look at it to see the change. >John Jung >- Hey Guys: The way I've been believing all these years is, it doesn't matter how fast you are flying for a "slip/skid indicator" to work. If it is installed correctly, when the ball is centered you are trimmed correctly to relative air. Also helps you make coordinated turns, so you won't be slipping or skidding the acft. Not only is this for efficiency and making the airplane look like it is supposed to to the crowd on the ground watching you, but an out of trim acft probably has a little higher stall speed than one that is trimmed up the way it is supposed to be. Just hauck's personal opinion again. I certainly ain't no expert. The slip skid indicator works the same for all acft, fixed or rotary wing, slow or fast. Has nothing to do with the shape or size of the acft. Not to be confused with a turn and bank indicator. To keep the acft trimmed, just step on the ball to center it. If the ball is on the right of center, right pedal. Yaw string is opposite. Kolb usually don't put slip/skid indicators in their factory acft. At S & F and Oshkosh I get me a piece of tape and some yarn (I can always find some lady in the camping area that is knitting). If the tail of the string is left, step on the right pedal. Don't quote me guys, I may be wrong, but thats the way I flies it. If you are making a right turn and the ball is left of center, you are skidding the acft. Homer's airplanes are so easy to fly, they don't care if they are in trim or not. We can get away with a lot of stupid pilot tricks and still survive. But I always remind myself: They won't fly w/o airspeed. If I keep my a/s above the stall, no matter what the stall happens to be depending on how hard I am turning and banking or pulling up, I ain't gonna stall. If I keep my a/s up I don't have to worry about angle of attack cause I ain't gonna get the aircraft in that kinda attitude. That's the way my airplanes work. Yours may be different. That's what is neat about ULs and Experimentals. We can do it our way, as long as we only hurt ourselves. PS: The slip/skid indicator should be mounted so that in straight and level flight the instrument is parallel to the ground. When the instrument is mounted in the acft, the airframe and instrument should be level in roll attitude. john hauck ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

Subject:

Slip Indicator Question

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

I feel better knowing that I am not the only one with an inoperative slip indicator. I agree with you Ben, even though the thing doesn't work, it does give the " finishing touch" to my panel. I don't have the heart to pull it out. I paid Sky Sports $35 for mine. Evidently Kolbs have a relatively coordinated turn built in (what ever that means), at least coordinated enough to resist being detected by the slip indicator. I wish the slip indicator did work however, since it is a direct method for measuring slip or slide. I got very used to using a slip indicator coodinating my turns during my Cessna training. The yarn method works well enough but keep in mind it is an indirect measuring device since what it really measures directly is relative wind. Ray from Woodbury ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

Subject:

Re: Re[2]: Instruments/Avionics

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

On Fri, 06 Mar 98 15:02:18 cst jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com writes: > >Mike, > >What do you do for a living. I just noticed your disclaimer has >"meter reader" >listed. > >Jerry Bidle Oh Jerry, Its much worse than that I'm afraid! I program computerized metal cutting (milling) machines that make parts for a little airplane company. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

Subject:

Re: Problem with Wing Rib Jig

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > >...The position of the main spar has to be adjusted to >compensate for the distortion on the blue prints. Believe it or not, even today, many parts of some of the biggest commercial birds are still made to "Undimensioned Drawings." These are full size 'layouts' of what the finished part (usually sheet metal) is to look like. These 'layouts' are drawn or plotted on mylar film which is very stable compared to paper which grows or shrinks with temperature and mostly humidity. I don't know how much trouble or cost it would add but if Kolb's rib layouts could be plotted on a sheet of mylar, I think it would solve this problem forever. (...Just a thought, Dennis.) -Mick (Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group - Tulsa Division) Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

Subject:

Re: AOA gadgets (was something else)

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > >.... I've taken my plane to the brink >of stall with engine off, but can't recall for sure if I had the nerve >to really stall it. I recall chickening out, thinking like it sure >felt >tail-heavy and oh-so-quick to slow down, and I didn't want to go >there. >-Ben > This thread is starting to make me appreciate the configuration of the Flyer all over again. (The thrust line being very close to the vertical center of drag.) It shows practically no pitch change with throttle changes. I actually enjoy practicing 'true' dead-sticks and the plane behaves pretty much the same whether its making noise or not. You "high thrust line" guys are making me a little nervous about the Twinstar (still a ways from getting airborne). I'm assuming that its the thrust line which causes the most notable difference. I think I have a good idea of what to watch out for when I finally transition and this stuff helps a bunch! Ben- When you do a dead stick, is the prop stopped or wind-milling (or can you tell)? I believe the drag is less if the prop is stopped and sometimes I have to slow to the edge of a stall to stop the wind-milling on the Flyer. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

Subject:

Re: Slip Indicator Question

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: >I installed a Winter rectangular slip indicator and I am dissapointed >with its very poor response. I knew ahead of time that the pink yaw >string would be much more effective. But this Winter slip indicator is >virtually worthless. My stupid question: Why would my slip indicator >fail to work? Has it something to do with the relatively slow speeds >of our vehicles.? > Ray, I think it has everything to do with our BRAND, but not necessarily TYPE of vehicle! Being a hard core cheapskate, I bought my "slip indicator" from the local sailboat store. Its a tiny ball bearing in a curved plastic tube filled with what looks like antifreeze. Actually they came 2 in a package for 4 or 5 bucks (which gives some idea of the quality) and I put one on the Flyer. I was disappointed to see that it took real effort fly so bad as to move the ball off center. Later, I bought a Challenger 2 and put the other gage on it. Holy Mackerel! It took (takes) all I've got to keep it centered! ...Oops, I keep forgetting I'm trying to sell that piece of ..uh, wonderful flying aircraft! -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

From:

Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net>

Subject:

Sort of a joke...

To all, ...actually smell the approach of a >stall. It's a ritual around our house. When I come home from flying my wife smells my clothes and says "eeew, they stink". I tell her that she is smelling "fear" and we laugh. Actually it is a various mixture of sweat, gas, oil and dirt... and maybe a little "fear" thrown in. Therefore, I suppose when I am flying if I should smell that familiar odor perhaps I should consider watching my airspeed. I think maybe I will... 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:

Steve Bennett <sab(at)ma.ultranet.com>

Subject:

RE: Sort of a joke...

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

Cliff wrote: >>>When I come home from flying my wife smells >>>my clothes and says "eeew, they stink". This is pretty funny. I realized years ago that I CANNOT sneak in a quick flight without my wife sniffing closely and saying "hey, you've been flying." At first I thought it was the "Fragrance of 2-Stroke" but then I noticed that she could detect it even if I had been up in a Cessna. She claims it must be a hormonal thing. Whatever causes it, there really is a grain of truth here... -Steve ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: Email Links

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

Chris, The primer is a plunger-pump type bought from Leading Edge Air Foils. Mine has a small fuel line (1/8" I think) that T's off the main line to the primer pump, then up to the intake manifold. The instructions said to drill a small hole in the manifold and put in a fitting for the line. This pumps fuel directly into the cylinders. A few shots are all that are necessary. I have the primer installed in the cockpit thinking if I ever have a fuel pump failure, I might be able to keep it going using the primer pump. The primer bulbs are not a problem if you bypass them with fuel line. Of course you have to kink the bypass line when you squeeze the bulb. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar >on the subject of fuel system failures, Ralph how does your primer >work? Is it hooked to the primer bulb or a separate line and pump all >together. It sounds like those bulbs are dangerous enough that I am >trying to figure out how to eliminate it from my system. > ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: Slip Indicator Question

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

Ray, I have practiced stalls many times in my original FireStar. Just prior to the stall, when the engine is running at about 3000 rpm, you can hear the impending stall by the "burble" sound coming from the prop. This is the separated turbulent air from the top of the wing being driven into the prop. Remember the rectangular wing, that we have, stalls first in the center right in front of the prop. This makes for a natural stall warning device and it is really effective. For all you guys who have performed stalls in your Kolb, you know what I'm talking about. The "burble" sound is unmistakable and the closer you get to the stall, the louder it gets! Homer thought of everything, bless his heart. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >On another matter this current dicussion of >aoa, sensing of an approaching stall , etc. reminds me of the colorful >way this subject is handled in the book "Stick And Rudder". On page 61 >the following is found: "Because the direction of the air flow differs >in various flight conditions, the pilot can sometimes actually smell >the approach of a stall. At high angle of attack (slow speed, low >buoyancy) smells and hot air from the engine may be wafted up to the >pilots head. Or a different circulation may set up within the cabin so >that the pilot smells gasoline, or bits of dust picked up from the >cabin floor." This was written 54 years ago and is still one >possible example of how a "feel for the plane" is ones best protection >against the stall. Can you think of others from personal experience >that are unique with the Kolb? Ray from Woodbury ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

From:

Guy Tetreault <samten(at)CAM.ORG>

Subject:

Newbie questions

Hi everyone, I have to say that subscribing to this group has been one of the most helpful moves I've done. I've just been introduced to ultralighting in the last 6 months and have been spending a lot of my time reading all I can get on the sport. So basically it's been ground school, a few hours in a Challenger II (God forbid!)and about 15 minutes in a MK-II. Even to my uninitiated eyes, there's no comparing the Mark II to the afore mentionned aircraft. I am now looking to buy one, so I can train in my airplane. But I get the feeling though that not many were built as I see a lot of original Twinstars and a lot of Mark-IIIs but fairly few MK-IIs (around here anyway!). I just fell in love with the lighter MK-II. I am trying to find a spec sheet of sorts that would list all the pertinent info that the factory published at the time and I can't find anything. It seems so light compared to the MK-III, I'd like to see how they compare. I would appreciate any help in finding this info. I don't want to bother the factory, especially in light of the fact that I am not buying it new, believe me I would if I could. Another related interest, and I'm sure this subject was beaten to death in the early age of ultralighting, is the availability (here again) of Rotax snowmobile engines. I have seen a fine machine (MK-II) that has about 400 hours on it and around 550 hours on the LC Rotax 537 that powers it and it has been running flawlessly since new. The owner is the kind of person who monitors the critical parameters religiously, runs it fairly conservatively and performs the usual preventive maintenance that one who holds life dear should. Being new at this, I'm interested in hearing what you experienced pilots have to say about this. Mick !!! Being so longwinded, it's lucky that I don't pop in too often !!! Any comments (and maybe also a bit of history on the MK-II) will be much appreciated, Thanks, Guy ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 06, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: Slip Indicator Question

>I feel better knowing that I am not the only one with an inoperative slip >indicator. I agree with you Ben, even though the thing doesn't work, it >does give the " finishing touch" to my panel. I don't have the heart to >pull it out. I paid Sky Sports $35 for mine. Evidently Kolbs have a >relatively coordinated turn built in (what ever that means), at least >coordinated enough to resist being detected by the slip indicator. I wish >the slip indicator did work however, since it is a direct method for >measuring slip or slide. I got very used to using a slip indicator >coodinating my turns during my Cessna training. The yarn method works >well enough but keep in mind it is an indirect measuring device since >what it really measures directly is relative wind. Ray from Woodbury > Ray from Woodbury, I believe you are absolutely right, the yaw string measures relative wind, and if you keep that sucker lined up parallel with the airframe as you flies through the air, you are going to be trimmed up. And you can't get any better trimmed up with any other instrument unless your airplane is a tetrahedrone ?? like the Gooney Bird (c-47) at White Horse, Yukon Territory, Airport. Kolbs aren't rudder airplanes like, say a Kit Fox. My old Ultrastar could be flown w/feet off the pedals and do pretty good turns, but the prop blast was under the tail section. My Firestar and MK III don't like me to take my feet off of their rudder pedals and they'll start a slow shuffle that could progress into a very quickly accelerated flutter if ignored long enough. I think that is because of the location of the prop above the tail boom and the prop blast over the tail section. Hasn't been any problem and I have a combined total hours on the two birds of 1860. The factory MK III, I affectionately call "Fat Albert", doesn't have that rudder characteristic that my MK III has. Maybe the location of the rudder hinge in relation to the rudder post and the rudder. I don't know and it doesn't matter anyway. Yaw string is how I determine if I have installed my slip/skid indicator correctly. I always go w/the yaw string and adjust the instrument from it. john hauck ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

MJWAY <MJWAY(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

Subject:

Stowing Ideas - thanks

Just want to say thanks to all who replied to my request for info /advice on getting my FireFly in and out of its enclosed trailer. Will head out early tomorrow to the FF / trailer, take a few measurements and start thinking over the many good ideas I was given. My special thanks to John Jung for the photo he sent of his "U" channel tail wheel ramp. Thanks once again to all. Chris W. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

Subject:

Re: Newbie questions

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

> >... I'm interested in >hearing what you experienced pilots have to say about this. Mick !!! > Being so longwinded, it's lucky that I don't pop in too often Guy, SHHH! Please don't use my name in the same post with the words: experienced, snowmobile, or (especially) longwinded! ;-) -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

Subject:

Re: Sort of a joke...

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > >It's a ritual around our house. When I come home from flying my wife >smells >my clothes and says "eeew, they stink". I tell her that she is >smelling >"fear" and we laugh. ... > I come home and my wife says, "eeew, your clothes stink!" So, I take them off. Then she says, "eeew, it wasn't your clothes!" So, I go back to the hangar for the night. The next day I come home and she says, "Well, thanks alot, I had to tell the girls at work that it was just Bill Clinton flying naked over the highway again." Sorry, I thought this was a contest. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________ (/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.16 #30.237) with smtp for

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon), kolb(at)intrig.com

From:

Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net>

Subject:

Re: Sort of a joke...

Now I know why you can't come to the airport often. The smell of your clothes gives you away. Can't even make up a story, it gives you away. Too bad. Jerry >To all, > >...actually smell the approach of a >>stall. > >It's a ritual around our house. When I come home from flying my wife smells >my clothes and says "eeew, they stink". I tell her that she is smelling >"fear" and we laugh. Actually it is a various mixture of sweat, gas, oil >and dirt... and maybe a little "fear" thrown in. > >Therefore, I suppose when I am flying if I should smell that familiar odor >perhaps I should consider watching my airspeed. I think maybe I will... > >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 > > >- > > ________________________________________________________________________________ (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA150

From:

LLMoore(at)tapnet.net (Lauren L. Moore)

Subject:

new-kid

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

Hello all..Recently I found a 90 Firestar in Ohio, that I feel I feel is Cherry enough to bring back to N.J. There are a few options available to me as far as transporting her. #1 A closed 24 ft. rental truck. ($602.00 1 way) #2 A flatbed car transporter. ( Loaner ) #3 A modified ezLoader ( I have to do yet) boat trailer. Any thoughts on this from you more experienced Kolb types? Are there any points on the airframe that should be supported more so than others? Naturally it will be folded for the ride but There seems to be a wealth of info and opinions here so I thought I would ask to ensure a safe transport home. Thanks Larry Moore LLMoore(at)tapnet.net

boat trailer. Any thoughts on this from you more experienced Kolb types? Are there any points on the airframe that should be supported more so than others? Naturally it will be folded for the ride but There seems to be a wealth of info and opinions here so I thought I would ask to ensure a safe transport home. Thanks Larry Moore LLMoore(at)tapnet.net

________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

From:

Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net>

Subject:

MKII vs MKIII

Guy and all, ...It seems so light compared to the MK-III, I'd like to see how >they compare. My comparison was the MKII with a 503 w/2bld IVO vs. a MKIII with a 582 w/3bld IVO. I flew the II dual and have only flown the III solo (except with some weight in the passenger seat so far). The II does feel lighter (and is of course) and performs pretty much the same (II better glide, little lower stall and seems like equal climb) as the III in my opinion. The cockpit of the III seems roomier (I think it is a little wider and maybe taller) and you are sitting up more. In the II I felt like my behind was down in a bucket. The III is easier to get in and out of. I think the gear legs on the III are a little shorter and beefier. I like the door and fuel tank arrangement better too... otherwise I think they are very much alike. Later, -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (39.5 hrs) (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

open looped rudder control

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

John, I've always had a yaw string on my plane from day one. It is a very effective, so much that when I started flying my feet remained on the floor and off of the rudder pedals. The differential aileron throw will produce a fairly coordinated turn. I once flew over a smoke stack that produced quite a bit of thermal energy. I was flying with my feet off the pedals and when I hit that man-made thermal energy, the plane began a slow oscillation about the yaw axis at about 1 Hz. (one complete cycle per sec). I could hear the cables slapping in the fuselage tube as the tail was swaying about. I immediately put my feet on the pedals and tried stopping it, but it didn't help. I then backed off the power and pulled up close to stall (I was about 2000 feet agl). The oscillation stopped, but it could have been disastrous. I never flew again with my feet off the rudder pedals. What had happened was, that thermal activity had induced enough energy into an open-looped control and caused the plane to break into the oscillation. Once the wings begin swaying back and forth in the yaw axis, that kind of action could eventually damage the cage. Most of the time you can fly with rudder input, but here is a special case where it proved otherwise. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >Kolbs aren't rudder airplanes like, >say a Kit Fox. My old Ultrastar could be flown w/feet off the pedals and do >pretty good turns, but the prop blast was under the tail section. My >Firestar and MK III don't like me to take my feet off of their rudder >pedals and they'll start a slow shuffle that could progress into a >very quickly accelerated flutter if ignored long enough. I think that is >because of the location of the prop above the tail boom and the prop >blast over the tail section. Hasn't been any problem and I have a combined >total hours on the two birds of 1860. The factory MK III, I affectionately >call "Fat Albert", doesn't have that rudder characteristic that my MK III >has. Maybe the location of the rudder hinge in relation to the rudder post >and the rudder. I don't know and it doesn't matter anyway. Yaw string is >how I determine if I have installed my slip/skid indicator correctly. I >always go w/the yaw string and adjust the instrument from it. > >john hauck ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: Problem with Wing Rib Jig

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

>>...The position of the main spar has to be adjusted to >>compensate for the distortion on the blue prints. > >Believe it or not, even today, many parts of some of the biggest >commercial birds are still made to "Undimensioned Drawings." These are >full size 'layouts' of what the finished part (usually sheet metal) is to >look like. These 'layouts' are drawn or plotted on mylar film which is >very stable compared to paper which grows or shrinks with temperature and >mostly humidity. > >I don't know how much trouble or cost it would add but if Kolb's rib >layouts could be plotted on a sheet of mylar, I think it would solve this >problem forever. (...Just a thought, Dennis.) > On the blueprint question I can shed a little expertise. I am a draftsman by trade (Structural steel) and have fought the paper battle for about 3 years. ANY paper will grow in high humidity. You are right about mylar but you have to have special plotters (or at least inks) to stick to the stuff, or first time you take the plot down to the damp basement or wherever and move your hand across it you will wipe all of the ink off!!! Ink does not soak in to mylar like it does paper, and about the price, it is EXPENSIVE!!! Sorry but in my experience there is no better way than to buy a $5 compass and ruler and draw the thing out on your worktable by the dimensions on the old fashioned blueprint (draw NOT TRACE!). Jeremy (Draftsman @ Rodgers Metalcraft Inc.) Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: MKII vs MKIII

>Guy and all, > >...It seems so light compared to the MK-III, I'd like to see how >>they compare. > tank arrangement better too... otherwise I think they are very much alike. > >Later, > >-- >Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Kolb MKIII - N582CC (39.5 hrs) > Hauck's comparison: MK III is tremendously stronger than the MK II. 6" wing spars vs 5" 6" tail boom vs 5" 10 wing ribs vs 7 (I think CRS) Airframe much beefier, stronger and stiffer. Much larger cockpit area. I'd alwaysgo with a III over the II unless someone gave me a II. "I love Homer's airplanes." john hauck ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

From:

Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net>

Subject:

cross country that bird!

Hay what about option 4 fly it cross country from ohio to NJ, sounds like an adventure to me! ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

From:

Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net>

Subject:

fuel primer

Thanks ralph, sounds like a good system although I am not sure I am going to like drilling into my manifold. If I have two carbs then I supose you need to send two lines from the plunger to each minimanifold? Could you just pump it into the carb somewhere? Christopher ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

george_eagle(at)webtv.net (George Thompson)

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

Subject:

primer

Ralph. All the later 503's have a fitting already on the carb to accept the primer hose. It is covered with a little rubber cap. Firestar I and II. George ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

Subject:

Re: new-kid

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > > Hello all..Recently I found a 90 Firestar in Ohio, that I feel I >feel >is Cherry enough to bring back to N.J. There are a few options >available to me as far as transporting her. #1 A closed 24 ft. rental >= >truck. ($602.00 1 way) Larry, Having recently brought a Twinstar back to Tulsa from Albuquerque on an open trailer, I'd say spend the money and rent the "box-truck." I agonized over the same things you mention and finally got the seller to agree to loan me his trailer (he wouldn't sell it to me) for the trip. He was going to be in Tulsa a couple months later so I wouldn't even have to make another trip to return it. Sounds perfect, right? Leaving Albu, I probably averaged 30 mph for the first 200 miles due to strong crosswinds (30, gusting to 40) and having to stop every 10 miles or so to re-tie things. By the time I got to Tucumcari it was getting dark and I was a nervous wreck so I stopped for the night. The next morning I left at sunrise and the wind was nearly calm. About a hundred miles down the road, the wind started howling again. It got so bad that I left the plane in Amarillo with a friend's father and came on home (~350 miles) - had to get to work the next day. I waited for 2 weeks for the wind to die enough that I could go retrieve the plane. I made it back with the plane in one piece but it did suffer some minor damage on the elevator trailing edge from rubbing against something. The quote I got for a 24' "box-truck" was $425. Funny how reasonable that price seems now! I don't want to think about what it cost me in time, trouble and wear and tear on the Blazer (not to mention my nerves) by going the cheapskate way. The old saying, "Its the stingey man who pays the most" seems to apply. If you can leave the plane where it is for awhile, shop around for a better rate on the rental truck. Most people move on the first of the month so you can often get a better price in the middle of the month when demand is less. You'll need to build some sort of pedestal for the tailboom to rest on, don't let the plane rest on the tailwheel while in transit. Good Luck! -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: AOA gadgets (was something else)

>This thread is starting to make me appreciate the configuration of the >Flyer all over again. (The thrust line being very close to the vertical >center of drag.) It shows practically no pitch change with throttle >changes. I actually enjoy practicing 'true' dead-sticks and the plane >behaves pretty much the same whether its making noise or not. Yeah, but thrust line is a minor no-brainer when the 447 is between idle and max power, and power is the fun part. :-) The extra light elevator and ease of slow down at engine off is just something to be aware of. It really doesn't make dead sticks scary; ya just need a touch of forward pressure on the stick until flare. >Ben- >When you do a dead stick, is the prop stopped or wind-milling (or can you >tell)? I believe the drag is less if the prop is stopped and sometimes I >have to slow to the edge of a stall to stop the wind-milling on the >Flyer. Mine is stopped and it won't kick around even if i go fast --- don't recall trying to bump start at or near Vne though so don't know about that. (Warp high aspect prop here). I need to go flying again to find out!! The bit about less drag with stopped prop is uncertain. Some argue that the idling prop is more disk area, therefore more drag, than a stopped prop. A stopped prop on my FS feels like more drag, but maybe that is just cuz of the high thrust line disappearing. -Ben ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: open looped rudder control

I've flown for long stretches with my feet pulled up near the seat. Nothing happens, or maybe i'm not very discerning. :-) It's a nice way to re-arrange my bod' on long XC stretches. Even in very mild bumps things seem to dampen out to smooth sailing and I've not felt any need to jump back to the pedals. As far as turns w/o rudder however, mine feels a noticable slip inside. In fact, for coordinated turns I like to even think slightly lead w/ rudder, add aileron. I've posted before the suggestion to try rudder-only input and see what happens. The plane yaws, banks, and noses up, all the desired things for the turn -- except for added power -- but not in the exact best proportions. Don't get me wrong, i'm not suggesting doing turns w/ rudder only, and I know you others weren't suggesting doing aileron only turns either. Fun to blather when you can't get away to get smelly. :-) -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

Subject:

Re: Re[2]: Instruments/Avionics

<< Its much worse than that I'm afraid! I program computerized metal cutting (milling) machines that make parts for a little airplane company. >> I'll be dad blamed....I program an Okuma....ever hear of it ? GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

Subject:

Re: cross country that bird!

<< To: LLMoore(at)tapnet.net (Lauren L. Moore) CC: kolb(at)intrig.com Hay what about option 4 fly it cross country from ohio to NJ, sounds like an adventure to me! >> I would seriously consider it....only cause I actually got away with that last summer in an N3-PUP, 100 miles from Barnsville O (near W.Va border) to Bristolville O.....learned how to use my GPS as well....marked every airport on the GPS all the way down there and had a van (mine) follow me....one of the best thrills of my life...and ....fortunately the pup flew like a dream....it had other unnerving problems though...too embarrassing to say on this tube.....but it is dangerous to fly an untested (by yourself) airplane for tirst time. Firsts are always dangerous!! GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Cavuontop <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

Subject:

Re: MKII vs MKIII

The difference between the two products is an interesting way to look at the evolution of the company. I have buillt both. The principal problem with the mark 2 was cabin width. It is about 9" narrower than the 3. Plus the edge of the cabin area goes up at an angle that brings the tube right by your shoulder. It looks great when you are standing outside, but it makes it more difficult to get in. You have to put your butt on the edge and sort of slide over. Hard for fatties and women in skirts. The lowered cabin sides of the the three are a great improvement not only for entry/exit but for visibility and the feeling of not being crammed into the plane. The gross weight on the 2 was 750. I brought mine in around 375, so with me and my dad (both over 6 feet) and full fuel we were tightly packed and right at the edge of the envelope. I flew the plane in that condition most of the time and it got off and climbed great with the dual ign. 503. A really great combination of airframe and engine, with low vibration. I would occasionally fly it with 1/4 fuel by myself just to impress the onlookers and the performance was spectacular. My nutty brother used to do two turn spins from 1300 ft. (yes, there were calls from the local folk thinking some one crashed, and he stopped). We stood it still in a stiff breeze over the FBO to the amazement of the gawkers. The 100 lbs that the average 2 weighs less than the 3 make a big difference. The two has full span ailerons. Super for turbulence. Great control authority for such a light plane. The alieron linkage is more complicated than on the three. It had no need for flaps. I don't think the three really does either, but I think folks just feel better when they have all of the attributes of a GA plane. The two is not as mature a design as the three, but it was a knockout market entry for its day. Its folding design was amazing, but the look and construction was sufficiently like a Piper Cub that you didn't think you were taking your life in your hands. In 1987 everything else in its class looked flimsy. And when Rotax came out with dual ignition a general aviation guy like my dad was sold. When you compare them both side by side you can see how Dennis and the boys were not only responding to what the market wanted, but working out the implications of their own philosophical view of what a good aircraft in that class ought to look like. Case in point is the center stick. Most folks were wary of it to start, but then loved it once they started flying the plane. I'm sure most new buyers will go for the dual stick option and pay the extra bucks, because it fits their preconceived notion of what a control system should look like. But the center stick is a perfect expression of Dennis' clever engineering driven by a desire to keep things light and do the job well. It is a very elegant solution to a tough problem. And no one is going to tear their shorts when they get out of a center stick plane. Its hard enough to get in and out of any airplane gracefully, but to have to heave your inboard leg over the stick and then try to get out without scratching the bottom of you leg or catching your clothes . . . Who knows, if my dad hadn't found out about McDonalds two big macs for the price of one deal I'd probably still be flying the two. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: MKII vs MKIII

> The difference between the two products is an interesting way to look at >the evolution of the company. I have buillt both. The principal problem with >the mark 2 was cabin width. It is about 9" narrower than the 3. Plus the > I forgot about the flaps, CRS again or still, on the III. The Flaps are a plus for several reasons: -Gives unexcelled rate of decent w/o unnecessary speed. Ability to get into a very tight area when you have no other choice, i.e. eng out. Pull the flap handle all the way and push the nose over. Thefirst time this is demo'd to you you will swear you are going to auger in. My 1st MK III flt Dennis came over the trees and landed by the hanger at Homer's. I knew we were gonna die. Now after several hours in the III it is a normal sensation to drop out of the sky. The only other kolb design that willdo that is the Sling Shot. I love them all. -Soft field, high grass, rough field: Full throttle w/ flaps up, at 30 to 35 MPH pop the flap handle all the way down (I mean snatch it down) and the MK III will spring into the air. Same for the Sling Shot. The more you practice this the better you timing and coordination w/the correct air speed get. Same is true for any flt maneuver that is not what you normally do on a Sunday afternoon flt. Practice those maneuvers that you probably won't need until there is an emergency situation. Get good at them and when the time comes (and you'll never expect it), you'll react w/o sitting there like a dummy trying to figurre out what to do. I learned this in Army Rotary Wing Training. We were constantly practicing those things that would save our acft and our buns. It pays off. Just a note from a post I read earlier: For me glide ratio really increases when the blade is stopped. At idle you, for all practical purposes have a disc the diameter of which is the length of your prop. Find a good large field and do a lot of eng off, dead stick landings. You will be surprised how the acft floats and glides w/dead stick. Learn this cause if you get (or when you get an eng out) you'll know how to compensate for the increased performance. May keep your acft from getting bent. Same for stalls of all types: pwr on, pwr off, accelerated, as in turn to final stalls (but do all this with plenty altitude (several thousand feet). Homer's airplanes will recover very rapidly from any unusual attitude, but it takes altitude, more than you will expect. Be safe but learn, experiment and practice. I've never been able to get a prop to wind mill on any kolb airplane. In my younger, much much dumber days, I did eng off loops w/my Firestar. Push the nose over straight down. At 90 MPH indicated, pull up and over (barely) the top. Even at 90 the prop would not windmill. Got something to do with running a gear box. If you want to break your airplane and die, try the above eng off loop. Don't try this at home. I emphasize: I have not done an aerobatic maneuver in one of Homer's airplanes since 11 March 1990. They were not designed for aerobatics. They might just wear out and break if you do enough of them. I still have fun flying them and they will do great wing overs, stalls, spins, pull ups, and all the things that we like to do to feel the freedom of this wonderful sport that we enjoy, momentarily beating gravity. My, I have rambled on. I'msorry. I won't ever do it again. john hauck ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

Subject:

Re: Re[2]: Instruments/Avionics

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

> >I'll be dad blamed....I program an Okuma....ever hear of it ? >GeoR38 > % G90G94G17 'Course I have! Good solid machine. I believe Mark Swihart is also in NC, but I think he sells 'em. Us tape punchers gotta stick together! M30 % -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Steve Bennett <sab(at)ma.ultranet.com>

Subject:

RE: fuel primer

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

The newer Bing carbs have a primer fitting already installed. The drill-and-tap fitting is for older carbs. My 503 is about 8 years old, and was originally a single-carb. 3 years ago, I upgraded it to dual-carb. So I have one carb with the fitting and one without! I drilled the manifold and installed the fitting for the old carb, then T-ed the primer lines and ran one to each. BUT... the fitting for the old carb is simply a hose-barb fitting on one end, threaded on the other. It's wide open, so fuel simply pours into the carb when I hit the primer. The fitting that comes in the new carb is actually a small nozzle. It delivers a fine spray of fuel into the carb. Even worse, the nozzle fitting offers a fair amount of back pressure (since it's a small orifice) while the threaded fitting on the old carb offers none. Since the lines are T-ed together, the old carb gets lots of fuel and the new carb gets almost none. That fitting they send you for the old carb is really dumb - it should be a nozzle of some type. -Steve ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

Subject:

Re[2]: Re: AOA gadgets Rep: Stalls

I guess stall training and recognition is a benefit of training in GA aircraft. Everyone should put their plane though a series of stalls to learn to recognize the warnings they give as you approach the actual stall itself. This should be part of the flight test process. Do it at a safe attitude preferably over a suitable landing area in case the engine quits. Practice power off (engine at idle), full power, and departure stall. (Sorry guy I don't support the mohco engine off stuff.) A good training exercise for landings is at attitude make like your landing, keep it in the proper landing attitude (nose up/down position) while letting is slow down. Hold it in that position. As it slows you will normally have to keep coming back on the stick until it stalls, then perform a normal recovery and do it again. (Tip: Keep the wings level with rudder, lifting a wing the handling characteristics and what to expect when operating at landing speeds. Another little exercise is flying at low speed, just above stall again preps you for handling characteristics. You usually find a airplane will have repeatable characteristics. Even the planes of the same model may be different. Some times you'll find one wing may have a tendency to drop first. I got a real surprise one time while taking a biannual flight check in a rented Cessna 150. While doing a stall, the wing suddenly dropped like a brick, I mean I never experienced anything like that ever before. I caught it but it surprised me. I flown some 150's but never experienced anything like that before or after. There had to be something wrong with that airplane, stall strips on the wings in wrong position or missing. The instructor (an older guy) thought it was funny, a good trainer and test of your ability. He was satisfied, I wasn't (with the airplane). ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: AOA gadgets (was something else) Author: jrjung(at)execpc.com at MAILGATE Date: 3/6/98 12:28 PM Ben Ransom wrote: > > In any case, the plus side of flying Kolbs and many other ULs is that > an impending stall is easy to recognize. From my experience, this is only true when the engine is running and depending on the pilot, may not be true when the engine is at idle. The "easy to recognise" power on stall of a Kolb could lead a pilot, who hasn't practiced engine off stalls, into a real problem. I maintain that engine off stalls, at least in my Firestar, happen much faster than I expect and with no warning at all. Power off stalls, also cause a loss of altitude (easily 50 feet), unlike power on stalls which only reduce climb rate. John Jung - ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

Subject:

Re: AOA gadgets (was something else)

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > > --- don't recall trying to bump start at or near Vne though so don't know about that. >(Warp >high aspect prop here). I need to go flying again to find out!! >The bit about less drag with stopped prop is uncertain. Some argue >that >the idling prop is more disk area, therefore more drag, than a stopped > Thanx Ben, I should have made it clear (to everyone) that the Flyer is direct drive. As I said, I'm in the camp that believes a stopped prop is less drag although its hard for me to prove. A spinning vs. stopped prop is probably only a small difference in frontal area on a plane (mine, not yours) that is already quite draggy. My props will spin slowly after killing the ignition without 'diving' but once they do stop, you can't get 'em going again without using the rope! While doing the maneuvers I described before, I usually come in (dead-stick) pretty high and then slip, S-turn, or whatever to get it down. I can hear the wind howling thru the struts sometimes but neither prop ever makes another revolution once they have stopped. Asking whether your prop (with a gear drive) was stopped or not seems a little foolish now. Some older Quicks, Vectors, Wizards and other belt-drive designs had a clutch which allowed the prop to free-wheel when the engine got quiet. I guess I forgot what list I was on! -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

Subject:

Slip Indicator Question

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

I hear you Jerry, but what I really want to know , did you smell anything? Ray from Woodbury ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: fuel primer

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

Chris, Yes you will need two lines for a dual carb. There is a plug on the back of each carb that can be removed to plug in the primer line. I didn't know this at the time I installed my primer line and drilled a hole in the intake manifold. Ralph writes: >Thanks ralph, sounds like a good system although I am not sure I am >going to like drilling into my manifold. If I have two carbs then I >supose you need to send two lines from the plunger to each >minimanifold? >Could you just pump it into the carb somewhere? > >Christopher > >Ralph. All the later 503's have a fitting already on the carb to >accept the primer hose. It is covered with a little rubber cap. >Firestar I and II. George ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

RE: fuel primer

>The newer Bing carbs have a primer fitting already installed. The >drill-and-tap fitting is for older carbs. > >My 503 is about 8 years old, and was originally a single-carb. 3 years >ago, I upgraded it to dual-carb. So I have one carb with the fitting and >one without! I drilled the manifold and installed the fitting for the old >carb, then T-ed the primer lines and ran one to each. > >BUT... the fitting for the old carb is simply a hose-barb fitting on one >end, threaded on the other. It's wide open, so fuel simply pours into the >carb when I hit the primer. The fitting that comes in the new carb is >actually a small nozzle. It delivers a fine spray of fuel into the carb. > Even worse, the nozzle fitting offers a fair amount of back pressure >(since it's a small orifice) while the threaded fitting on the old carb >offers none. Since the lines are T-ed together, the old carb gets lots of >fuel and the new carb gets almost none. > >That fitting they send you for the old carb is really dumb - it should be a >nozzle of some type. > >-Steve > > Go to the hobby shop, buy several sizes of telescoping brass tubing, modify the big one smaller by soldering the tubing into the fitting. To make a tiny orifice for the fuel, insert a single strand of fine wire into the thing before you solder it. Just before the solder sets as it cools, pull the wire out. Saves you having to fool with sub-miniature drills. Or you could just drill the nozzle fitting out, and just DUMP THE FUEL IN BOTH! Crude solution, but it does get rid of back pressure... Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 07, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: MKII vs MKIII

>Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 23:46:26 -0500 >To: john hauck >From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> >Subject: Re: MKII vs MKIII > > >>My, I have rambled on. I'msorry. I won't ever do it again. >> >>john hauck >>- >> > Don't quit. You have worthwhile things to say, and it takes the heat off us other ol' windbags. > > Richard Pike > MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) > ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

Subject:

Re: MKII vs MKIII

<< My, I have rambled on. I'msorry. I won't ever do it again. john hauck >> Please do it again!....good input John!............................GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

From:

molu(at)achilles.net (Lucien Morais)

Subject:

Gas drain

Hi Kolbers, Well I guess yesterday was the last time for winter flying as I had to throw snow in front of my hanger,s doors to get my plane out. The snow is melting like crasy. Since it will be a little while before we fly again it is time to look the plane over. I will like to know if somebody came up with a good way to drain the gas out of the tanks without taking the tanks out of the plane, (like when you have been a while without flying and you want to get rid of the old gas) I feed my gas to the carbs from the tops but the 2 tanks are connected on the bottom by a hose. Any suggestions? Lucien ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: Gas drain

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

Lucien, My fuel line on the bottom of the tank is connected to a plastic "T" where the primer pump is tapped from. I use two surgical clamps (it looks like a pair of scissors that has long needle-nose type ends - forgot the name for them) that I can clamp and hold on both sides of the "T". I then remove the "T" clamp on the fuel line, take off the surgical clamp on the tank side, then drain the tank. You could cut the fuel line if you don't have a connector installed (after clamping both sides with the surgical clamps where you plan on cutting) then drain and add a 1/4" straight plastic connector later. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >Hi Kolbers, >Well I guess yesterday was the last time for winter flying as I had >to throw snow in front of my hanger,s doors to get my plane out. The snow >is melting like crasy. Since it will be a little while before we fly again it is time >to look the plane over. I will like to know if somebody came up with a good way >to drain the gas out of the tanks without taking the tanks out of the >plane, (like when you have been a while without flying and you want to get >rid of the old gas) I feed my gas to the carbs from the tops but the 2 tanks are >connected on the bottom by a hose. > > Any suggestions? > > Lucien ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

RE: fuel primer

>That fitting they send you for the old carb is really dumb - it should be a >nozzle of some type. > >-Steve Hey Steve: Hang around a while and that's not the only thing from ROTAX that could be classified as dumb. jrh ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Timandjan <Timandjan(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

Subject:

Re: Gas drain

In a message dated 3/8/98 2:07:48 PM, you wrote: <> I have a gasolator installed in my firestar 2 so I can drain the tanks easily as well as before each flight as part of the pre flight. tim ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: MKII vs MKIII

> >>My, I have rambled on. I'msorry. I won't ever do it again. >> >>john hauck >>- >> > Don't quit. You have worthwhile things to say, and it takes the heat >off us other ol' windbags. > > Richard Pike > MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) > >OK, I'll do it some more, when I'm in the mood. jrh ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: Rudder Flutter

vertical fin/rudder, gradually increasing in amplitude and violence. I added >a mass balance to the rudder similar to what the Firestars use, and that >cured it. > Besides, I needed a little extra weight at the tail anyway. > Richard Pike > MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) > > Tell me about your rudder balance. I don't have a nav lgt on the rudder nor did my Firestar or Ultrastar, but the FS and MK III both have it (occilation). jrh ________________________________________________________________________________ by InfoAve.Net (PMDF V5.1-10 #23426)

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

From:

Michael E Moody <HOODY(at)CLDS.NET>

Subject:

newbee

Hi, My name is Michael. I am in south Georgia. Currently taking lessons in UL. I am looking at an older Kolb. It has twin 16hp Solo engines with 3-Blade IVO props. What can anyone tell me about this model.?? Would this be a good choice for a first UL.?? How much would you think it would be worth if seller(who is BFI) brings everything up to standard, including new paint, spare 18hp Solo engines, lessons......?? thanks, Hoody ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

Subject:

Slip Indicator Question

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

Jerry, if you are serious, I think you are on to something. I always assumed the center of gravity would be the pivot point for any airplane in all three of its axis, pitch, yaw and roll. Why I assumed that , I don't know. Maybe the pivot point for roll and pitch shares the center of gravity and the pivot point for yaw is determined by the length of the fuselage and the area of the rudder. Are you saying that the pivot point in a Kolb is in the nose section? If so, how do you know that. If this is true, having the slip indicator mounted at or near the yaw pivot point might have the effect of limiting or completely nullifying the slip indicator. Ray from Woodbury ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: MKII vs MKIII

> ><< My, I have rambled on. I'msorry. I won't ever do it again. > > john hauck >> >Please do it again!....good input John!............................GeoR38 > I was only kidding. I'll be glad to share when I can. Just remember it is only my own humble opinion as the result of many mistakes, torn fabric, bent tubes and ego. But I have had a good time doing it. I can't give you fancy answers why some things work and some things do not, all I know is that what I do works best for me. That is why I build airplanes, fly, and live the way I do. If it hadn't been for Homer Kolb I'd still be growing squash and okra in my vegetable garden that died in 1983, and was never resurrected (started building Ultrastar in 84). Been hooked real bad on these ULs ever since, as long as their last name started with Kolb. Only other brand of UL I have flown except Homer's is Bert Howland's personal Honey Bee summer of 89. I spent a week at Bert's home in Maryland, NY, on my way to OshKosh 89, in my Firestar. One of the best flying weeks in my life. I really miss my buddy, Bert. johnhauck ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

Subject:

Re: newbee

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: >Hi, My name is Michael. I am in south Georgia. Currently taking >lessons >in UL. I am looking at an older Kolb. It has twin 16hp Solo engines >with >3-Blade IVO props. What can anyone tell me about this model.?? Would >this be a good choice for a first UL.?? >How much would you think it would be worth if seller(who is BFI) >brings >everything up to standard, including new paint, spare 18hp Solo >engines, >lessons......?? >thanks, Hoody > Hoody, Must be a Flyer. Excellent aircraft! (But I may be a little biased.) How many hours are on it or more important, what condition is it in? New paint will add no strength to old fabric. You can 'punch test' the fabric (borrow a tester from an A&P mechanic). As with any Kolb aircraft, condition is everything (the design itself is fine). I've had mine since '91 and won't part with it. If you're really serious about it, I'll let you know what you're in for as far as engine maintenance, that's the next biggest consideration after its general condition. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

From:

Michael Watson <psi(at)pivot.net>

Subject:

Re: Instruments/Avionics

Mick Fine wrote: > > Its much worse than that I'm afraid! I program computerized metal cutting > (milling) machines that make parts for a little airplane company. > > -Mick Fine > _____________________________________________________________________ % O1( PGMID 176D37A.NC N2G90G80G70G40G17G0 N4M6T1(3" FACEMILL N6S265M3 N8G0G90X-3.6988Y-0.0375E1 N10H1D1Z1.M8 N12G0Z0.25 N14G1Z0.02F3.5 N16X3.6989 N18G0Z1. N20M9M5 N22G0Z0.H0. N24G0G90X0.Y10.E0 N26M30 % Add one more CNC programmer to your list guys. I've been programming for many years. I started my own CNC programming business in 1989. I've worked on many exciting projects, one of the most memorable, the F22 Fighter Jet. I was thinking of taking all the F22 parts I've worked on and scaling it down to make an ultralight, what do you think?---Just kidding! There are some pictures on my web page if you want to check it out. Mike Watson Programming Solutions, Inc. http://www.pivot.net/~psi ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: newbee

>Hi, My name is Michael. I am in south Georgia. Currently taking lessons >in UL. I am looking at an older Kolb. It has twin 16hp Solo engines with >3-Blade IVO props. What can anyone tell me about this model.?? Would >this be a good choice for a first UL.?? >How much would you think it would be worth if seller(who is BFI) brings >everything up to standard, including new paint, spare 18hp Solo engines, >lessons......?? >thanks, Hoody > A good example of an old fashioned but excellent ultralight. Never got to fly one, but have seen them fly and they are agile. Probably a little buzzier than a single engine, and an extra engine is always something else to fiddle with, but I bet you could do a lot worse. It is always a good idea to get a couple friends that are SHARP on the mechanical stuff to look it over with you, and then discuss it privately away from the seller and get their opinion of structural/mechanical integrity. You as the buyer may not be as objective as they would be, because YOU want it, and they don't, they just don't want you to bust your tail. One question: how big a 3-blade IVO can a 16 hp Solo turn? ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

Subject:

Re: MKII vs MKIII

> John, I would be interested in why you have been so powerful in your recommendation of Kolb and how you got to know Homer....also , your vegetable days sound like a few pages in my life....before Kolb.......one of my "achievements" was to constuct a successful "Burpee Bean Teepee"....(claim to fame if you will) before discovering that I could actually realize my childhood dream of flying....after all, I had mastered the modelling business as my father owned a model airplane shop. Also....why did you mount your BRS in the wing root over your head on your great looking Firestar.....what about if the wing folds over as it probably would in case of structural failure? GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

Subject:

Re: MKII vs MKIII

<< Been hooked real bad on these ULs ever since, as long as their last name started with Kolb. Only other brand of UL I have flown except Homer's is Bert Howland's personal Honey Bee summer of 89. I spent a week at Bert's home in Maryland, NY, on my way to OshKosh 89, in my Firestar. One of the best flying weeks in my life. I really miss my buddy, Bert. johnhauck >> Oh! I forgot to mention that one of the UL's I was keenly interested in before I got my Kolb Firestar KX in '91 was the Honey Bee I think it was because it looked so close to the P-40 with its rudder curvature....that has always been my favorite fighter and the AVG has always been my real heroes! GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

Subject:

Re: Instruments/Avionics

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

> >N4M6T1(3" FACEMILL >N6S265M3 ....... 210 surface feet, hmm... Steel?, sounds fast for titanium... Wow, must be some relationship between obscure technical professions being attracted to superior aircraft designs! -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

Subject:

Re: Instruments/Avionics

<< N4M6T1(3" FACEMILL >> Thanks Mike ...you just taught this novice that the second parenthesis is not necessary for a REM......................................GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

From:

Wood <wood(at)mail.wincom.net>

Subject:

F22 ultralight

>Mick Fine wrote: >> >> Its much worse than that I'm afraid! I program computerized metal cutting >> (milling) machines that make parts for a little airplane company. >> >> -Mick Fine >> _____________________________________________________________________ > >% >O1( PGMID 176D37A.NC >N2G90G80G70G40G17G0 >N4M6T1(3" FACEMILL >N6S265M3 >N8G0G90X-3.6988Y-0.0375E1 >N10H1D1Z1.M8 >N12G0Z0.25 >N14G1Z0.02F3.5 >N16X3.6989 >N18G0Z1. >N20M9M5 >N22G0Z0.H0. >N24G0G90X0.Y10.E0 >N26M30 >% > >Add one more CNC programmer to your list guys. I've been programming for >many years. I started my own CNC programming business in 1989. I've >worked on many exciting projects, one of the most memorable, the F22 >Fighter Jet. I was thinking of taking all the F22 parts I've worked on >and scaling it down to make an ultralight, what do you think?---Just >kidding! There are some pictures on my web page if you want to check it >out. > >Mike Watson >Programming Solutions, Inc. >http://www.pivot.net/~psi >- > That F22 idea may not be so wild. I am in the process of building an Avro Arrow.A Canadian Jet fighter from the late 50s.This will conform to the Canadian Ultralight regulations.Do a web search on it for some good pics. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

From:

Bruce Schimmel <bruce(at)schimmel.com>

Subject:

Req:Ultralight bill of sale

I remember reading a sample ultralight bill of sale which states that what is being sold are parts, not an assembled plane, and that the buyer understands that the seller relinquishes liability for airworthiness, etc. Have any of you come across such a piece of boilerplate? Email requested. Thanks, Bruce Schimmel (bruce(at)schimmel.com) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 08, 1998

Subject:

Re: Req:Ultralight bill of sale

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: >I remember reading a sample ultralight bill of sale which states that >what >is being sold are parts, not an assembled plane, and that the buyer >understands that the seller relinquishes liability for airworthiness, >etc. >Have any of you come across such a piece of boilerplate? >Email requested. >Thanks, Bruce Schimmel (bruce(at)schimmel.com) > I've heard of removing the prop and requiring the buyer to sign something like what you mention. Then, you sell him the prop for a buck or two and cross your fingers, sacrifice a chicken and say 3 'Hail Mary's.' Then, go get drunk on the proceeds. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"John Russell" <jr(at)ROMETOOL.COM>

Subject:

SLINGSHOT

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

Have not been on the net lately. Busy working on my slingshot. Nearing completion, waiting on warp 3-blade tapertip prop-weight&balance-breakin & inspection. JR

Have not been on the net lately. Busy working on my

slingshot. Nearing completion, waiting on warp

3-blade tapertip prop-weight&balance-breakin &

inspection.

&nbs= p; = ; JR

________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

From:

Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net>

Subject:

Re: Req:Ultralight bill of sale

I think you can do all sorts of little tricks like that but in the US legal system I think your still going to be in trouble if the guys widow takes you to court for that death trap ultralight you sold my husband. One thing about the gps com combo unit is the user interface. It doesnt seam as good as the newer units. I wonder when ther are going to update it. A GPS II with a com would be nice. Any unconstrained object will rotate about its CG. Doesnt matter what its shape is. When I have built simulators for various aircraft (f-111, f-16 f-22, citation X), I have always use the basic six degree of freedom equations that assume that rotations will take place about the cg and our match to flight testing is usually accurate enough. I would be willing to bet that Kolbs rotate about the CG on all axis. since this is aparently the place for cnc types, can you recommend which cnc mill is the best overall? And are there affordable CNC mills on the used market yet? Or can you rent time on them? Or do any of you who have your oqn business do tiny little one off jobs for prototypes? Topher ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: newbee

Michael E Moody wrote: > > Hi, My name is Michael. I am in south Georgia. Currently taking lessons > in UL. I am looking at an older Kolb. It has twin 16hp Solo engines with > 3-Blade IVO props. What can anyone tell me about this model.?? Would > this be a good choice for a first UL.?? > How much would you think it would be worth if seller(who is BFI) brings > everything up to standard, including new paint, spare 18hp Solo engines, > lessons......?? > thanks, Hoody > Hoody, My opinion may not be popular with this group, but here it is anywhay: While I own two Kolb's and wouldn't mind owning one of each model, I wouldn't recommend any Kolb for a new pilot with just UL training. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: newbee

From:

"rutledge fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com>

Subject:

Kolb Ribs

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

Question: It's hard to tell from the photos, but are Kolb production wing ribs now welded together? I was looking at an orginal Firestar this weekend that I am currently planning on buying and noticed that the ribs built from the factory were rivited together. I am admitting right now that I don't know jack about building, but was wondering about the changes/improvements made to this kit in the past 10 years. I seek everyones observations on this matter. I learn so much from you guys. Thanks, Rut Fuller ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com>

Subject:

Covering the MKIII

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

I am just finishing up covering my last tail / control surface and I don't think I took any of them beyond 225 degrees because I started to notice bending in the parts. Did any of you go much beyond the initial heat setting before you noticed bending? ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

From:

ray abbruzzese <rabbruzz(at)unlinfo.unl.edu>

Subject:

Re: newbee

SNIP >Hoody, > My opinion may not be popular with this group, but here it is >anywhay: >While I own two Kolb's and wouldn't mind owning one of each model, I >wouldn't recommend any Kolb for a new pilot with just UL training. >John Jung >- And I can't believe you would write something like that. What an elite-ist point of view. As a person who got his Kolb FireStar after ONLY 10 hours of instruction in a Quicksilver MXL II ("JUST UL TRAINING") and then ONLY 7 solo hours in a Quicksilver MX (two axis controls), I have to strongly disagree with the above opinion. True, there are some differences from any other type planes, but that is true for every different type of airplane out there. If you take your time and do your homework, Kolb's will fit the bill for any pilot, regardless of the training (UL or GA). See you in the sky ! Ray Abbruzzese E-Mail at: rabbruzz(at)unlinfo.unl.edu Lincoln, Nebraska, USA Standard Disclaimer: These are my opinions and you all know about opinions (they are like butts: everybody has one). I could be wrong and I probably am. Just please do not sue me. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

Subject:

Re: newbee

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

I will start it out.The following is from a low timer who flys a Firestar II solo. I am in no position to agree or disagree with John Jung. However I will say that since the FSII is a " tail dragger" it does present a unique challenge on the ground during both take off and landing that is not found in the tricycle gear. Briefly stated, on takeoff you must have training, among other things on the correct way to correct for the tendency of the airplane to pull to the right. During landing , correct procedure on contact and rollout must be learned in order to prevent ground looping. Ray from Woodbury ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

Subject:

Re[2]: Instruments/Avionics

I've found a number of people in communications networking are also pilots. What's the relationship Are they into networking (higher income) as a means to support their habit or is it because networking tends to be very stressful and flying is therapeutic. When flying I find I clear my mind of other things thus forget about the job, dates, problems, etc. thus reduces my stress level. On the other hand while working on the project and it was close to being done while trying to complete it before I shipped out again was very stressful. Just ask my partner. Since its been completed it like a big weight has been lifted off of me. Jerry Bidle ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Instruments/Avionics Date: 3/8/98 10:18 PM > >N4M6T1(3" FACEMILL >N6S265M3 ....... 210 surface feet, hmm... Steel?, sounds fast for titanium... Wow, must be some relationship between obscure technical professions being attracted to superior aircraft designs! -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: Kolb Ribs

rutledge fuller wrote: > > Question: It's hard to tell from the photos, but are Kolb production > wing ribs now welded together? I was looking at an orginal Firestar > this weekend that I am currently planning on buying and noticed that the > ribs built from the factory were rivited together. I am admitting right > now that I don't know jack about building, but was wondering about the > changes/improvements made to this kit in the past 10 years. I seek > everyones observations on this matter. I learn so much from you guys. > > Thanks, > Rut Fuller > No, only the back of the inside ribs are welded. Those are the ribs that attach to the fuselage and allow folding. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

Subject:

Covering

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

I found temperature control difficult and uncertain at best. You may think you have 225 degrees but it could be 250. Also your fabric could be extra sensitive to heat. Work slowly and watch closely the " effects" of your iron, first and foremost, as well as the temperature you are using. I found applying heat carefully to the fabric on the upper surface of the structure and to the fabric on the lower surface of the structure at the same time stressed the structure evenly. Ray from Woodbury ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: newbee

On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Michael E Moody wrote: > Hi, My name is Michael. I am in south Georgia. Currently taking lessons > in UL. I am looking at an older Kolb. It has twin 16hp Solo engines with > 3-Blade IVO props. What can anyone tell me about this model.?? Would > this be a good choice for a first UL.?? I see there is a little brew-ha going from this thread, but before commenting on that aspect of it, I'd advise against a Flyer as a first ultralight on other grounds. That is, I understand that the Solo engines are less reliable and minimally adequate HP for the Flyer. Certainly it is okay to go with less reliable and barely powerful enf engines, as all early ULers did, but that imparts additional risks that you'd have to deal with -- such as engine out, single engine operation pretty likely early on. This could spell trouble for a low time pilot. These days a newbee has many options to buy a newer, forgiving plane (Kolb or whatever) with a newer, more reliable (and single) engine. As far as the bit about a Kolb for UL-only trained, my opinion is: that is perfect so long as the UL training is/was good training. It is probably reasonable to say that Kolb models since the Flyer are a little testier than Quicksilvers, so the newbee should have more experience compared to flying somethng like a Quick. I've heard many other people with more experience than I say this too. More complex aspects: - taildragger (GA has an endorsement for this kinda thing :-) ) - 2 engine instead of one (GA has a rating for this kinda thing :-) ) - engine reliability (they're running close to full power more of the time) - point ignition instead of electronic - not sure, but i think Flyer also has no spring in landing gear like Ultrastar All are somewhat minor, but they add up, and you have other options. -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: newbee

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

John, I took to my FireStar with just 3.5 hours in a Quicksilver MX. Of course, the private pilot training and RC planes helped out a little, but then I wiped out the FS gear on my first landing. It got much better after that. I think it's 90% skill, 10% knowledge. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar >My opinion may not be popular with this group, but here it is >anywhay: While I own two Kolb's and wouldn't mind owning one of each model, >I wouldn't recommend any Kolb for a new pilot with just UL training. >John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Timandjan <Timandjan(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

Subject:

aero trader needed

Need some help, threw away a recent Aero Trader that I need. I saw a plane in there that a friend is real interested in but can't find the issue nor do remember what issue it was. I picked a free copy up at the airport some time this year, let me describe the airplane. It's a twin, very unique looking plane, has a glass frontal cockpit that kind a is round with a lot of windows. If I had to describe it I would say it looks like Volkswagen micro bus, or a See Bee with a smaller fuselage and windows. I believe the plane was British and had inline cylinder motors. We also saw it as Oshkosh this year and if I remember it correctly, the asking price in the Aero Trader was $90,000. If you have a copy of this issue I would appreciate the phone number, we are having a hard time tracking it down because neighter of us know the name of the plane. thanks ________________________________________________________________________________ Richard.Dewitt(at)HBC.honeywell.com

Subject:

Re: Kolb Ribs

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

Rut, All of the Kolb ribs are still riveted together and have always been his way. The factory will build the ribs for a fee. In 1986 I paid $99 for them to do that and it was well worth it. I'm not sure what they charge now. The newer FS have a 7-rib wing as opposed to the early version, that I have, with 5 ribs. They can be built to carry two, so they are also beefier in construction. Other changes are: aileron control system, redesigned cage and elevator-stabilizer control mechanism in the tail, streamlined lift struts. The new "bare-bones" ones are faster than my original. Except for speed and weight, the flight characteristics are similar between the two planes. I built my FS with average building skills and had never have built anything before except model airplanes. Believe it or not, one of my worst skills is "following directions". I really had to work at this one. It's been built for 11 years and it's built right because I followed the plans. I wouldn't say that it's hard to build, it's just a labor of love where the objective is to be able to fly a nice performing plane as your reward for building. Once finished, you can fulfill that life-long dream of flying a plane that you constructed with your own two hands. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >Question: It's hard to tell from the photos, but are Kolb production >wing ribs now welded together? I was looking at an orginal Firestar >this weekend that I am currently planning on buying and noticed that >the ribs built from the factory were rivited together. I am admitting >right now that I don't know jack about building, but was wondering about the >changes/improvements made to this kit in the past 10 years. I seek >everyones observations on this matter. I learn so much from you guys. > >Thanks, >Rut Fuller ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com

Date:

Mar 10, 1998

Subject:

Re[2]: newbee

Hi John, Your comment about training is bewildering. What training would you recommend if not UL. Could you elaborate on it more detail. Exactly what do you have in mind. Jerry ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Kolb-List: Re: newbee Date: 3/9/98 9:52 AM Michael E Moody wrote: > > Hi, My name is Michael. I am in south Georgia. Currently taking lessons > in UL. I am looking at an older Kolb. It has twin 16hp Solo engines with > 3-Blade IVO props. What can anyone tell me about this model.?? Would > this be a good choice for a first UL.?? > How much would you think it would be worth if seller(who is BFI) brings > everything up to standard, including new paint, spare 18hp Solo engines, > lessons......?? > thanks, Hoody > Hoody, My opinion may not be popular with this group, but here it is anywhay: While I own two Kolb's and wouldn't mind owning one of each model, I wouldn't recommend any Kolb for a new pilot with just UL training. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com

Date:

Mar 10, 1998

Subject:

Re[2]: newbee

I have a GA background. During the transition to UL's I learned a few thing. The two main things I found was there is a significant speed decay when you chop the power. Speed bleeds off quickly due to the high drag of UL's and you need to compensate for it now. The other was the effect of the high center of thrust pusher configuration. Had I not had prior tail wheel experience, that could make things a little more interesting to say the least. For a total newie, lack of tail wheel experience would make it a little challenging but can be mastered safely with a little care and proper direction. Some how I don't picture a GA airplane as the best trainer for preparation of a UL, a light (UL) type) 2 seat trainer would be better but it's not the only answer. Jerry Bidle ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Kolb-List: Re: newbee Date: 3/9/98 9:52 AM Michael E Moody wrote: > > Hi, My name is Michael. I am in south Georgia. Currently taking lessons > in UL. I am looking at an older Kolb. It has twin 16hp Solo engines with > 3-Blade IVO props. What can anyone tell me about this model.?? Would > this be a good choice for a first UL.?? > How much would you think it would be worth if seller(who is BFI) brings > everything up to standard, including new paint, spare 18hp Solo engines, > lessons......?? > thanks, Hoody > Hoody, My opinion may not be popular with this group, but here it is anywhay: While I own two Kolb's and wouldn't mind owning one of each model, I wouldn't recommend any Kolb for a new pilot with just UL training. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

Subject:

Re: Re[2]: Instruments/Avionics

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

On Mon, 09 Mar 98 22:24:00 cst jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com writes: > > Are they into networking (higher income) as a means to support >their > habit or is it because networking tends to be very stressful and > flying is therapeutic. When flying I find I clear my mind of >other > things thus forget about the job, dates, problems, etc. thus >reduces > my stress level. My department is less than 10 individuals. I'm the only "pilot" (UL or GA). Another guy flys RC gliders. I smile the most, he is second. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

Subject:

Re: Kolb Ribs

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: >Question: It's hard to tell from the photos, but are Kolb production >wing ribs now welded together? I think what's confusing you sounded confusing to me too. The "root-rib" (inboard most) of each wing is partly welded 4130 steel tubing (aft of the spar) and riveted aluminum tube (forward of the spar). All ribs outboard of this one are riveted aluminum. An earlier post (about locating a BRS?) mentioned a welded rib. I think this root rib is what it referred to. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

Subject:

Re: Numerical Control, was ..something completely unrelated.

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > >.... When I have built simulators for various aircraft >(f-111, >f-16 f-22, citation X), I have always use the basic six degree of >freedom equations... Ever hear of "Flight Safety Int'l."? Sounds like you have some of the same customers. They have a pretty big operation in Tulsa also. >since this is aparently the place for cnc types, can you recommend >which >cnc mill is the best overall? Like aircraft, "best overall" is impossible to say without defining some pretty specific parameters. Most basic (and critical) is size. What is the minimum X,Y,Z envelope you can live with? Regardless of what size you decide on, the first part you'll have a chance to make any money on will be .5" too big for your machine! > And are there affordable CNC mills on the >used market yet? Like aircraft, condition is everything. All equipment wears out, unless it was useless in the first place. Be VERY careful, paint and polish is cheap. Right now, US industry is generally doing very well. Most shops are busy again (finally!) and so new and surplus equipment is in demand. -Good luck! >Or can you rent time on them? Or do any of you who >have your oqn business do tiny little one off jobs for prototypes? Like aircraft ...Oh sorry, that doesn't apply here.... Our local vo-tech school (they don't like being called that nowadays but I still say "ARSA" too) has what's called a "small manufacturing incubation program" - or something like that. It sounds like just what you need. You take them your idea and after reviewing it, they may decide you're on to something. If so, they'll help you with the design, produce prototypes (with some very nice, brand new machines), counsel you on your business plan, equipment purchases, etc. The idea is to help get more businesses going so their students will have more chances for employment. (Its probably a good program although I personally think it smacks of "tax-and-spend liberalism" ..but that's another subject.) Check with your local (state funded) college or vo-tech, you might be amazed at what they offer. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

From:

Wood <wood(at)mail.wincom.net>

Subject:

Re: newbee

>More complex aspects: >- taildragger (GA has an endorsement for this kinda thing :-) ) >- 2 engine instead of one (GA has a rating for this kinda thing :-) ) >- engine reliability (they're running close to full power more of the time) >- point ignition instead of electronic >- not sure, but i think Flyer also has no spring in landing gear > like Ultrastar > >All are somewhat minor, but they add up, and you have other options. > I built and flew one of the first flyers.I liked it but those 2 engines did give me a lot of trouble.I even flew on the original Chryslers.Other than that it was great. I don't know what all this bitchin about taildraggers is for.I have never had any trouble with the tail wheel or skid.I transitioned myself from a Cessna with no problem. I have taught a student to fly in an Ultrastar in the days befor 2 seat trainers. The taildragger problem is a non issue as far as I am concerned due to the low landing speeds and quick deceleration on the ground. Taxing on the ground is a minor problem but you can get used to it. I did end up converting it to a single engine and sold it soon after. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: aero trader needed

>Need some help, threw away a recent Aero Trader that I need. I saw a plane in >there that a friend is real interested in but can't find the issue nor do >remember what issue it was. I picked a free copy up at the airport some time >this year, let me describe the airplane. It's a twin, very unique looking >plane, has a glass frontal cockpit that kind a is round with a lot of windows. >If I had to describe it I would say it looks like Volkswagen micro bus, or a >See Bee with a smaller fuselage and windows. I believe the plane was British >and had inline cylinder motors. We also saw it as Oshkosh this year and if I >remember it correctly, the asking price in the Aero Trader was $90,000. If you >have a copy of this issue I would appreciate the phone number, we are having a >hard time tracking it down because neighter of us know the name of the plane. >thanks >- > You are obviously describing a Humber-Pudge "Sprightly", and if you send me the $90,000, I will be glad to tell you more... Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 09, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: MKII vs MKIII

> johnhauck >> >John, I would be interested in why you have been so powerful in your >recommendation of Kolb and how you got to know Homer....also , your vegetable GeoR38: I won't take up a lot of space tonight to explain everything. If you are going to Sun and Fun, and/or Oshkosh be glad to sit down and talk with you at great length about Kolb and my affiliation with the Kolb crew. Right off the top of my head, counting my own kolbs and factory acft I have about 3,000 hours in them over the last 14 years. Several two four or six years I was inbetween acft, building, etc. and not flying so conservatively speaking, I accumulated this 3,000 hours kolb time in 8 to 9 years. This time is divided extensively between all models: Ultrastar, Firestar, MK III, with only about 50 hours in the Sling Shot at Lakeland and Oshkosh. I have flown these airplanes in many geographic areas from Key West to Deadhorse (Arctic Ocean), Alaska, San Diego, Ca to Caribou, Ma, Seattle, Wa to Brownsville, Tx, I forget how many Canadian Provinces at the moment, from fbelow sea level at ElCentro, Ca to 10,000 feet at Mt Mckinley, Alaska, 13,500 feet over illinois on a return flight from Oshkosh to Alabama (stopped climbing because I was freezing dressed in shorts and t shirt. Be in all kinds of weather, turbulence, heat, cold, day night. I've lived with these airplanes for extended periods: 21 days, 25 days w/ Firestar (32 states), not counting all the two week trips to S&F and Oshkosh. The little airplanes always bring me home. I feel very comfortable in Homer's airplanes. They are easy to fly, yet are also very exciting to fly. They have great STOL capability and I enjoy that immensely. They come closer to the characteristics of helicopters I flew in the Army, than any other Ul; and airplane I have flown. I have a great deal of plain on confidence in Kolbs. Met Homer at Sun & Fun in 84 one month after I bought my 1st kit from him. Talked to him on the phone, at S&F and Oshkosh, Flew the Firestar to see him in 88 and 89. Stayed in his home on those trips. Built two Oshkosh and one S&F Grand Champions, and one S&F Reserve Grand Champion. If you do that you get to be friendly with the Boss (just kidding and not trying to blow my own horn). For many years Kolbs were consistently chosen Grand Chap and both Oshkosh and Sun and Fun. Wore a Jim Handbury Hand Deployed prcht on my chest for 12 or 13 hundred hours flying US and FS. Mounted 2d Chantz in center sec of MK III. Cen Sec was empty space not being utilized. For my long trip I needed all the cargo area possible. Seriously, I have no fear of a wing folding on the MK III. It has a 6 inch main spar, tremendously strong lift strut w/jury strut to keep it in column under negative loads. Unintentional tests I have experienced w/the MK III wing indicate there's no way I can pull this wing off in flight, but do go out and try to prove me wrong. I emphasize I have never flown any aerobatic maneuvers in my MK III and don't intend to. When I find something I like better than what I fly, that will out perform, outlast, and is any way near as crash worthy as Homer's chromoly cages, I'll build it and fly it. So far I am completely satisfied with the MK III. The Slig Shot I love and it is tempting, but I couldn't be loyal to two airplanes. Takes a lot of time being loyal to one. Hope this answered your questions. john hauck ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"John Russell" <jr(at)ROMETOOL.COM>

Subject:

THERMOSTAT

Date:

Mar 10, 1998

I HAVE A NEW 582 ON MY SLINGSHOT WITH DUAL ROTAX RADIATORS. DOES ANYONE KNOW IF A THERMOSTAT COMES INSTALLED IN A NEW ENGINE, OR DOES IT NEED ONE. I HAVE SOMEWHAT OF A LEARNING CURVE TO GO THROUGH ON THE 582. THANKS JOHN

I HAVE A NEW 582 ON MY SLINGSHOT WITH DUAL

ROTAX RADIATORS. DOES ANYONE KNOW

IF A THERMOSTAT COMES INSTALLED IN A

NEW ENGINE, OR DOES IT NEED ONE. I HAVE

SOMEWHAT OF A LEARNING CURVE TO GO

THROUGH ON THE 582.

&nbs= p; THANKS JOHN

________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"rutledge fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com>

Subject:

Have you heard of

Date:

Mar 10, 1998

I spoke to a guy named Glenn Rink last night about helping me complete a Kolb project that I am planning on taking over. This guy was very helpful and knowledgable about Kolb aircraft. I was wondering if anyone knows this gentleman or has had any dealings with him in the past. I must say that I am very impressed with him after talking with him on the telephone. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 10, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: newbee

> >John Jung wrote: > > > >While I own two Kolb's and wouldn't mind owning one of each model, I > >wouldn't recommend any Kolb for a new pilot with just UL training. > >John Jung > Mark Swihart wrote: > John, > Can you please elaborate on this statement, please? > -Mark- Here is what I think is adequate training for a Kolb: A Recreational Pilots License or equivalent AND a minimum of 50 hours of ultralight experience. Or a Recreational License and min. 50 hours general aviation plus an ultralight checkout. Why? Because there is too much to lose. In a 10 miles radius from my home, there have been 6 Firestars and 4 Ultrastars. Three of the Firestars have been involved in major accidents with an average loss of $10,000. per accident for the planes only. That does not include the medical expenses. All three pilots had serious injuries and none are currently flying. All four of the Ultrastars have spent more years waiting to be repaired than they have being flown. At least their accidents didn't involve serious injuries. I believe that the problem is that too many people think of Kolbs as ultralights rather than light aircraft. Kolbs are great flying planes, but less forgiving than Quicksilvers (the most common ultralight) and much more expensive to repair. Granted, my sample area is only a tiny part of the US, but I think you can understand why I am cautious in my recommendations. John Jung Original 377 Firestar Firestar II N6163J ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"rutledge fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com>

Subject:

Flight Training

Date:

Mar 10, 1998

>Here is what I think is adequate training for a Kolb: > A Recreational Pilots License or equivalent AND a minimum of 50 hours >of ultralight experience. Or a Recreational License and min. 50 hours >general aviation plus an ultralight checkout. > >Why? Because there is too much to lose. > In a 10 miles radius from my home, there have been 6 Firestars and 4 >Ultrastars. Three of the Firestars have been involved in major >accidents with an average loss of $10,000. per accident for the planes >only. That does not include the medical expenses. All three pilots had >serious injuries and none are currently flying. All four of the >Ultrastars have spent more years waiting to be repaired than they have >being flown. At least their accidents didn't involve serious injuries. > I believe that the problem is that too many people think of Kolbs as >ultralights rather than light aircraft. Kolbs are great flying planes, >but less forgiving than Quicksilvers (the most common ultralight) and >much more expensive to repair. > Granted, my sample area is only a tiny part of the US, but I think >you can understand why I am cautious in my recommendations. > >John Jung >Original 377 Firestar >Firestar II N6163J > I must say that I believe that it is necessary to be properly trained by a compotent flight instructor and to be checked out in similar aircraft before venturing out on your own. I also feel that ground school is also important. I tend to agree with John. I myself am fairly new to aviation with just 60.5 hours in GA, mostly in the Piper PA-28 Tomahawk. Education, knowledge, and experience will certainly make one a more compotent pilot. I feel that it is my duty as a pilot to remain up to date on all my training to keep the skies safe. If uneducated and untrained pilots fill the sky laws and regulations may change and take our freedom away due to increases in accidents. While FAR 103 allows us to fly w/o an offical licence, I feel that the FAA, EAA, and the USUA believe that education, knowledge, and experience are essential tools for everyone intending to fly. I recommend to the new guy, to proceed with caution. That doesn't mean not to purchase that aircraft, but to gain all the knowledge and training that you can untill you are confident about your skills. Then countinue to pursue countinued education. That's my 2 cents. From a new guy too. Good Luck and Fly Safe ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 10, 1998

From:

Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net>

Subject:

Re: MKII vs MKIII

John, I wish I had all the experiance you have in Kolbs... to be in the right place at the right time! training, I agree that when you have more than $10k in a new aircraft it makes no sense to go roll the thing into a ball and bust yourself up as well to save a few hundered to get some good dual instruction in a similar aircraft. I wish there were more kolbs around being used for training but there are none around here. My approach is to get my student pilot liscense in a Champ. it is a taildragger 90 horsepower and is probably fairly close to a kolb in flying qualities, except the thrust line and a bit faster. by the time my instructor signs me off for solo I hope to have the plane done, and I can spend alot of time slowly getting used to the Kolb. It will cost me about a thousand dollars to get through to solo but I will be much less likely to roll the plane up and lose it, or me! Plus I will be well on my way to getting my private ticket and that will allow me to move up to a laser or slingshot or what ever eventually! There is no comparison between the time I have in easy to fly ultralights and time I have in the Champ, which I hope is Kolb like. Going from a quicksilver or Rotec rally 2B, its real cheap copy that I flew, to a Kolb wold deffinately test a person. I have flown the Champ fairly well but I am real glad I have a GIB telling me what to do and guiding the controls when I need help. Mick I built engineering simulators, for aircraft development, and testpilot flying qualities evaluation, not pilot training syms like Flight Safety Int'l. They were mostly software projects with a minimum of hardware to give the testpilots a feel for what was going on. The Citation X simulator was a pilot and hardware in the loop project but I only worked on the actual simulation software and recomended some ideas for the hardware. Topher ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 10, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: newbee

John, Pretty bad news about all the crack-ups. I personally don't think of a Kolb FS (the only model I've flown) as more difficul than other ultralights i've flown, but like any unfamiliar plane I gave it a healthy in your area, it at least begs the question whether they had anything besides location and kit vendor in common ...i.e., builder, instructor, weather, club, field, pilot attitude, etc. I can see why you feel the way you do considering the dismal record in your area, but I think on average, 50 hours is way more than necessary to do well in a Kolb. -NTSB mode off (for now), Ben Ransom On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, John Jung wrote: > > >John Jung wrote: > > > > > >While I own two Kolb's and wouldn't mind owning one of each model, I > > >wouldn't recommend any Kolb for a new pilot with just UL training. > > >John Jung > > > Mark Swihart wrote: > > John, > > Can you please elaborate on this statement, please? > > -Mark- > > Here is what I think is adequate training for a Kolb: > A Recreational Pilots License or equivalent AND a minimum of 50 hours > of ultralight experience. Or a Recreational License and min. 50 hours > general aviation plus an ultralight checkout. > > Why? Because there is too much to lose. > In a 10 miles radius from my home, there have been 6 Firestars and 4 > Ultrastars. Three of the Firestars have been involved in major > accidents with an average loss of $10,000. per accident for the planes > only. That does not include the medical expenses. All three pilots had > serious injuries and none are currently flying. All four of the > Ultrastars have spent more years waiting to be repaired than they have > being flown. At least their accidents didn't involve serious injuries. > I believe that the problem is that too many people think of Kolbs as > ultralights rather than light aircraft. Kolbs are great flying planes, > but less forgiving than Quicksilvers (the most common ultralight) and > much more expensive to repair. > Granted, my sample area is only a tiny part of the US, but I think > you can understand why I am cautious in my recommendations. > > John Jung > Original 377 Firestar > Firestar II N6163J > - > Ben Ransom UCD Mechanical Engineering Dept. Email: bransom(at)ucdavis.edu (530) 752-1834 Fax: 752-4158 ________________________________________________________________________________ dwegner(at)isd.net

Subject:

Re: newbee

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 10, 1998

Kolber's I believe the Kolbs have more airplane-like flight qualities than other "more forgiving" ultralights, but the stall on the Kolbs is pretty gentle. As I said in an earlier post, there is also a natural stall warning from the rectangular wing. With these airplane-like flying qualities, the pilot needs a higher skill level to fly them. Since most of us didn't have access to a Kolb trainer, this leaves training to another 2-place UL, or an airplane. If you go the airplane route, the Kolb is so light, by comparison, that this may be quite a surprise on the first flight. If you go the UL route, the Kolb has more performance and this too could also pose a problem to the newbie. Ideally, it would be best to train in a Mark II or III. Since this is not always possible, maybe training in both the UL and airplane would be the way to go. This is what I did and I'm still flying safe 11 years later. Just my opinion. Thanks John Hauck for the email on "why you fly Kolbs". You said a lot there guy and it was great! Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 10, 1998

Subject:

Re: newbee

77-80,86-93

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

All of the inputs to this thread are very interesting. Hoody's question is about a certain Kolb model in which I have 316.3 hours. This is small potatoes (PIC hour wise) compared to some others but I'd like to respond to Ben's points: >...More complex aspects: >- taildragger (GA has an endorsement for this kinda thing :-) ) With me (150#) in seat, I'd guess there's less than 15# on the Flyer's tailwheel. This is purely a guess but I bet its less than a FS and a ton less than a C140, Champ or even a Cub. Still, it does have it's nosewheel back under the rudder (where it belongs) and you must keep that in mind. I've heard many GA pilots say that the FS and later Kolbs are much more docile than GA taildraggers and the Flyer is likely more docile than a FS (I don't know, I've never flown a FS). I have had no tailwheel training. I did run off a runway once (it was a straight crosswind of 15 gusting to 20 and I really shouldn't have been out in the first place), no damage to me or the plane but I sure thought I was gonna buy a runway light for a couple seconds. >- 2 engine instead of one (GA has a rating for this kinda thing :-) ) The distance from aircraft centerline to prop centerline is about 24". With one engine out, the Flyer will (with no rudder input and full power on the remaining engine) crab towards the dead engine about 10-15 and stop there. You can hold it straight which uses about 1/4 of the rudder travel but it seems to fly just as well in either attitude. My plane will not hold altitude on one engine although I've heard other Flyer pilots say theirs will. It will give a nice looong glide 'tho! IMHO, there is no "critical engine" as in a typical GA twin. I'd be surprised if either engine alone has the thrust (at a 24" moment) to overcome the control surfaces but that's just a guess, NOT proven fact! I make fairly wide shallow turns when on one engine, just in case, but I can turn either direction and its never shown any tendency to depart from controlled flight. >- engine reliability (they're running close to full power more of the >time) Sorry Ben, the props are bolted directly to the engines and are thus "self-limiting" on power output. While the Solo 210cc (with points) is rated at 16 hp max, that is measured at 7800 rpm. I turn a 36 x 10" prop on each engine and never see over 5200 rpm. Following the power curve, that's 11 hp or 69% of the max power rating... fixed, forever. No matter how many throttle handles you bend, you can never push the engine beyond 69% of its maximum output. I've never seized one of my Solos. The weak point is really the main bearings. These engines were designed for a side load on the crank, not a thrust load. The bearings will begin to get 'sloppy' after 70-80 hours and will need replaced every 100 hours max. It's always been a progressive deterioration with plenty of warning. To me, its not a big deal to replace them but then, I have always liked to take things apart and see how many parts are left-over when I put it back together. The upshot is there's 2 bearings per engine and they cost $7.00 each. Seals are $2 to 3 each. (Beats hell out of CPS parts don't it?!) >- point ignition instead of electronic I'd love to have CDI on my C2 (447) or Twinstar (503) also. CDI is great but if your engine is an older model, its pretty expensive to retrofit. I'd guess more than half of the UL engines in current operation are still point fired. Think of how reliable GA engines are and they are nearly 100% point fired. Besides, replacing the bearings requires removing the stator (timing) plate anyway. BTW, Solo uses the same points as Rotax. >- not sure, but i think Flyer also has no spring in landing gear > like Ultrastar True, It has short steel legs. I run my wheelbarrow tires with 15 psi or less. Its nice and cushy on a plane which weighs slightly over 200#! I've dropped it in more than a few times and have never damaged the gear (my pride, yes but never the gear). >All are somewhat minor, but they add up, and you have other options. I've had my Flyer nearly 7 years. Its not fast, sleek, or even very pretty (now anyway) but to its credit, its very forgiving but also very responsive. It is also very strong for its weight. True, there are many other choices out there but I'm pretty happy with mine and I think its an excellent plane for a newbee who's had "proper" training. Now, if we could just figure out what that is... -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 10, 1998

Subject:

Re: newbee

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > >... this leaves >training to another 2-place UL, or an airplane. If you go the airplane >route, the Kolb is so light, by comparison, that this may be quite a >surprise on the first flight. If you go the UL route, the Kolb has >more performance and this too could also pose a problem to the newbie. Ralph, I think you hit it dead center. I had about 10 hrs dual and 10 solo in a C152 when I 'transitioned' to my Flyer. The most important thing had to I learn was not to be afraid to put the nose down to go down, somewhat the opposite of the 152. On my first approach, I was afraid that even with the power pulled back, my speed would build very quickly if I dropped the nose even a little.... HA! HA! HA! HA! (I greased it in on my second try.) At the time, I had only ridden in a couple different UL-types (one was a Mk. II). I never had any 'instruction' in either UL but even those short experiences probably helped more than I realized at the time. Some "formal" UL training on top of the GA time would have been a more ideal situation. I have to disagree with John J., 50 hours is more than the minimum required for a PP ticket! Granted, I have most of my time in a "lowly" Flyer but a FS can't be that much more complex. It might actually be less demanding on the pilot due to more available power (you can't 'power' your way out of much with a Flyer!). Many UL pilots get out of the sport before they ever see 50 hours. It could be they'd stay with it if they had something they really enjoyed flying. Just some thoughts... -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 10, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: Have you heard of

>I spoke to a guy named Glenn Rink last night about helping me complete a >Kolb project that I am planning on taking over. This guy was very >helpful and knowledgable about Kolb aircraft. I was wondering if anyone >knows this gentleman or has had any dealings with him in the past. I >must say that I am very impressed with him after talking with him on the >telephone. > Back around 1979 Glen Rinck sold me an Easy Riser ultralight weight shift bi-plane. It had a McCullogh 101 engine with reduction drive, and was covered in unpainted blue fabric. It more than made up for that drabness with wingtips painted white with day-glow orange stripes. I gave him $300 for the Riser and a pretty dilapidated trailer. Glen is taller and weighed somewhat more than I did, so the thrust line being about 5 degrees off, and the engine being mounted about an inch and a half too high on the cage probably didn't affect his flying as much as it did mine. The first time I unweighted the harness in a thermal, the Riser started an outside loop. Chopping the throttle to idle let it recover. I called Chuck Slusarczyk the next day, and he gave me the angles and measurements for getting the thrust line right. I still have them written down in a little green notebook. I seem to remember seeing him being in on a trophy winning Kolb in a magazine article last year. Obviously he is still as gung-ho as ever. He struck me as being an up-front guy that would tell it as it is. If you get involved with him on the project, say hello for me and give him my e-mail address. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

DLSOUDER <DLSOUDER(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

Subject:

Flyers, Taildraggers & Training

The Kolb Flyer: My first solo was in our first Flyer after only several hours of crow hops. Tail dragger was not an issue, twin engine was not an issue, nothing was a problem. It was a very docile predictable slow flying ultralight. Good analysis, Mick, I agree. But, low climb rate ... esp. for heavier pilot, could be an issue, which could result in departure stall. Taildraggers: The taildragger thing is really a non-issue. Not all tail draggers have tail dragger vices. It is so very simple and elementary, and yet so often overlooked, even in in-depth discussions on taildraggers. What makes a tail dragger bad is a lot of weight on the tail! Simple. When there is a lot of weight on the tail, that means that the CG of the airplane is behind the main wheels. The further behind the main wheels, the more vicious the airplane. Because with the CG behind the wheels, you introduce an end-swapping tendency ... a tendency for the back end to swap ends with the front end. Also things like rhythmical bouncing start appearing with increasing weight on the tail. On all Kolb models the tail is kept very light, which means the CG is right between the main gear - a very good place to be. You can do this with a pusher because you dont pay a terribly high price if you go up on your nose and look like a lawn dart. I learned this valuable lesson in my KR2 which tended to be light on the tail when Solo. There I once paid the higher price, up on the nose and quick as you can blink, the prop was a nub. Training: In my (own) observation over the (almost 20 years of ultralighting), the tendency toward accidents does not correlate well with lack of GA experience, total flight hours, or hours of training. The correlation is more basic: training vs. no-training. Those who get training do much better than those who dont get training. But even this does not quite hit the exact mark, more precisely yet: it is the pilots attitude. If he has the proper attitude he is a learner and will get training. He will have an attitude of being careful and an attitude of not being presumptuous. We have been doing quite a bit of training at Kolb Aircraft since Dan, our flight instructor came aboard. Dan has been flight instructing his entire life in GA aircraft. When I asked him who his worst students were, he replied without even needing to think: airline pilots. May sound strange, but many airplane pilots started flying the heavy stuff and never flew the ubiquitous 150s. Why were they poor students: because they had a bad attitude, they assumed since they could fly airlines, they could fly anything. Wrong! They had some things to learn ... one of which was not to land 50 ft in the air! And of course any real pilot can fly an ultralight. I have seen this so often - and have seen the results. Bad attitudes = no training = accidents. Good attitude = learner attitude = safer flying. There was a fatal accident at Kolb Aircraft (not in a Kolb airplane). An unknown pilot flew in and landed. Had a smoke, took off and gained about 700 ft altitude. His engine quit and he wound up stalling and spinning in, he was killed. He was not able to land his UL (which was 700 feet directly over a 3000 ft grass strip) without power! (We later learned he was not a neophyte.) This accident made a big impression on me and - my wife and daughter because I was flying too (but away from the strip) - they heard the crash and assumed it was me. Not sure what happened, controls were all intact, etc. He probably never learned to fly the airplane without power. There are pilots who never fly without power - these are not learners. Learners take the time to check out the characteristics of their airplane without power, etc. Learners dont assume they have it all together. They are humble enough to seek out advice, ask questions, and have the patience to learn first, and fly later. I really appreciated Jack McCormacks article a year or two ago in Ultralight Flying: it was called Booster Shot or something like that. Basically he did a very stupid thing, he tried to take off at Sun-N-Fun with a flat tire on his trike. Everyone tried to stop him, but off he went anyway ... right into the big ditch. The gist of the article was that he had done similar stupid things before and learned the hard way, but now the immunization evidently had worn off and now he needed a booster shot. Back in the days of yore, I was one hot-shot UltraStar pilot. I could make that airplane do almost anything - I probably had over 1000 hours flying them. I regularly did loops, snap rolls, spins, 90 degree whip stalls ... never could make it slow roll though. I was ever ready for another impromptu airshow! One time I flew up behind Bill Martin while we were flying together, got real close and grabbed his rudder. Then I shook it back and forth vigorously! Needless to say Bill kept far from me afterwards. The most ridiculous thing I ever did was a power-off snap roll, just before landing about 150 feet in the air. Of course there was that time that I did manage to fail a wing doing some radical loops - but thats another story. Time for my booster shot. Anyway, the day of the UltraStars faded away with the coming of the FireStars and soon I was abusing them instead of the Ultras. Some years later, one of the locals had an UltraStar powered with a 503. He was anxious for me to check it out. There was no ASI, but having developed well calibrated cheeks - who needs an ASI - not me. I took off and I remember being disappointed with the power, I had expected great things with that 503! Got about mid-field about 50 ft AGL, and I felt some turbulence - still not climbing well. I started looking for the lowest gap in the tree line ahead. And all of a sudden I was looking straight at the ground. Before you could say, or even think of any expletive, it was all over. I had been flying on the back side of the power curve and did not know it. I had been busy thinking what about the 503 could be different, wrong or causing problems, I had been distracted in my thinking and overlooked the obvious. I wasnt hurt - I went on to my graduation from seminary that very same day. Just another illustration that an incorrect attitude ... a careless one - even with much experience - can do the best of us in. One more quick illustration: I was in Taiwan building TwinStars. The importer also sold maxairs and had a MaxAir Rocket back in the corner of the hangar. They wanted it flown on the grand opening day of their ultralight club. The only other person to have flown it was Phil Lockwood when he had been there. We got it started and they wanted the hot-shot pilot to fly it. Never flew a rocket before, but I knew I could! Didnt even need anyone to show me how, even if there was such a person. Got it started and blast-off; boy what a rush! I liked that Rocket! But like I said, I never flew a rocket before ... wasnt acquainted with its power off glide, for instance. Very soon I had an opportunity to experience the Rockets power-off glide! The 532 engine abruptly seized and ... silence. Well, the rocket flies great with no power, but only one problem: not much glide ratio; nothing like I had been accustomed to with our Kolbs. Little 22 ft wing span, lots of wires, and pretty heavy come down fast. I was very close to the strip ... but not close enough. Dont know if I mentioned about the topography in Taiwan. Very few places to land. Couldnt make it to the strip, and the terrain was very rough around the strip almost similar to a quarry. Nothing flat much bigger than a pool table. Hit hard and broke the rocket pretty bad. I hurt my heel and limped for about 6 months afterward. Again, a bad attitude, this time of presumption. All this sounds worse that it is - I hope. Keep it mind these things were stretched out over a period of 20 years ... with some normal flying in-between. I liked to think of myself as a good pilot. Technically I am, but I had a lot of bad attitudes about flying. I use myself as an example - I could speak of others - have a lot of stories about them I could tell, but am doing my best to be humble and stretch out that last booster shot. And I am not the only one, I see others - many others, doing a lot of what I have done in the past (and occasionally still do). I think the freedoms we ultralighters have, tends to encourage bad attitudes. I now have a wife who works on my bad flying attitudes - but she couldnt do a whole lot for me. But then along came our daughter and she has been very instrumental in helping daddy with his bad flying attitudes. Hope this helps one or more of you to fly safer. I am not here because I am a good pilot, I am still here only because God, for reasons known only too himself, has seen fit to keep me here. Now I am trying to do my part as well. Very Sincerely, Dennis (working-on-his-bad-attitudes) Souder ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

Subject:

Re: newbee

<< > >While I own two Kolb's and wouldn't mind owning one of each model, I > >wouldn't recommend any Kolb for a new pilot with just UL training. > >John Jung > Mark Swihart wrote: > John, > Can you please elaborate on this statement, please? > -Mark- Sure I will. But first I'll wait until I get the full reaction. Usually someone else covers some or most of the points that I would, saving me time, and making a stronger point to boot. John Jung >> It is quite evident to me anyway.....that the best ultralight to LEARN on is the pterodactyl....only one control stick and very safe built in anti stall features!!....but no one ever talks about THAT!..........................GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: Flyers, Taildraggers & Training

>The Kolb Flyer: > My first solo was in our first Flyer after only several hours of crow hops. Hope this helps one or more of you to fly safer. I am not here because I am >a good pilot, I am still here only because God, for reasons known only too >himself, has seen fit to keep me here. Now I am trying to do my part as well. > >Very Sincerely, > >Dennis (working-on-his-bad-attitudes) Souder Dennis: I have printed out your referenced msg to keep reminding myself that I am getting older, slower, and gravity has not changed a bit since I started flying 31 years ago (I was a late bloomer, started at 28). Attitude says it all. It is easy to feel that the other guy is going to make the mistake and not me cause I have a little experience. In Army aviation we were constantly taking check rides, flew with co-pilots, and had a safety system that was alive, well, and active. We could check each other. Just the opposite when I retired and started flying ULs. Nobody to check up on me to see if I was making mistakes in flying and in attitude. I am now a free bird left to my own fate. I had an overconfident attitude from the get go. There was nothing in the field of ultralighting that I couldn't do and survive, I thought. I was so good I didn't need any formal training and taught myself to fly off an unimproved 600 feet grass strip that is now known as Gantt International Airport, I guess because it has been extended to 750 feet. I broke my brand new Ultrastar on my first landing after amassing 30 minutes flt time. I learned the hard way then and continued to learn the hard way for almost six years. Just like Dennis I had a higher power watching out for me or I would not be knocking out this msg this morning. I stared death right smack dab in the face on 11 March 1990. I said my last words as I watched the trees rush up to greet me on the side of a mountain in North Alabama, but my Jim Handbury Hand Deployed parachute opened, the kevlar bridal held as it cut thru lift strut and chromoly steel cage, and the fuselage protected me when I went down thru the hard woods and hit the ground. I didn't get a scratch. That crash culminated 6 years of hard, push it to the limit, no holds barred flying. To me I was not flying unsafely, I did not fly over woods, water, or terrain without enough altitude to make a good emergency landing. I flew an immaculately maintained aircraft, a strong, safe reliable aircraft. What I did wrong was fly hundreds of aerobatics in an unaerobatic aircraft. I flew overweight, overspeed, in all kinds of wind and weather. I used the excuse of being caught in bad weather because I flew long, extensive XCs, when in reality I was exposing myself to these conditions because of impatience. Impatience can kill you and me: learning to fly, pushing weather, flying an aircraft that needs maintenance but rather fly a little longer than stop and fix the problem, etc. Flying Kolbs is an exhilirating experience. That's why I do it. It is exciting and makes me pump adrenelin (sp??) at times. I like that. But I fly in an unstable environment controlled by gravity and the ground is very hard and unforgiving. If I want to fly tomorrow, I got to be a big boy and fly safely today. My MK III has never performed an aerobatic maneuver in over 1100 hours, nor I since 11 March 1990, 8 years ago this afternoon about 1500 hours (ironic I should share this with you today. I didn't know what today's date was until I typed it, and then looked at the current date on my computer) I performed my last aerobatic maneuver. Not because I am afraid to, but I have not had the chance to fly an aerobatic aircraft (designed to perform aerobatics). I still fly hard, perform many spins, stalls in all configurations, power off flight (dead stick - engine shut off), extremely short field T/Os and ldgs, recovery from unusual attitudes, practice forced landings, and anything that I thinkwill help me survive when something happens unexpectantly, and that's when it is going to happen. I try to stay prepared. I try to be a big boy now. I want to fly for a long time. I haven't flown in over 6 weeks, waiting exhaust system. Got it yesterday. I am anxious to fly, but I have some maintenance that needs to be done first. Our UL Club has a breakfast flyout Saturday morning. I want to participate, but I probably won't be ready. I will be disappointed, but there will be another time. I'll fly tomorrow. john hauck ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

Subject:

Re: newbee

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

Subject:

Re: newbee

<< More complex aspects: - taildragger (GA has an endorsement for this kinda thing :-) ) - 2 engine instead of one (GA has a rating for this kinda thing :-) ) - engine reliability (they're running close to full power more of the time) - point ignition instead of electronic - not sure, but i think Flyer also has no spring in landing gear like Ultrastar All are somewhat minor, but they add up, and you have other options. -Ben Ransom >> Ben points out that this plane is a little more of a handful for a beginner than would be necessary (considering the present options)....but if the buyer is willing to do some EXTRA learnin, and survives the process...then the conclusion is go with it. GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

Subject:

Re: Numerical Control, was ..something completely unrelated.

<< If so, they'll help you with the design, produce prototypes (with some very nice, brand new machines), counsel you on your business plan, equipment purchases, etc. The idea is to help get more businesses going so their students will have more chances for employment. (Its probably a good program although I personally think it smacks of "tax-and-spend liberalism" ..but that's another subject.) Check with your local (state funded) college or vo-tech, you might be amazed at what they offer. -Mick Fine >> Mick...you are a smart guy....I teach Electronics and Spanish at a Vo-tech here in Ohio!.......................................GeoR38...the ol glider pilot ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: Flyers, Taildraggers & Training

I just finished reading your posts and have one thing to say: EXCELLENT! I have only 10 years experience in ultralighting, but generally have come to the same conclusions. I just wish that I could express them as you both do. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

Subject:

Re: MKII vs MKIII

<< >John, I would be interested in why you have been so powerful in your >recommendation of Kolb and how you got to know Homer....also , your vegetable GeoR38: I won't take up a lot of space tonight to explain everything. If you are going to Sun and Fun, and/or Oshkosh be glad to sit down and talk with you at great length about Kolb and my affiliation with the Kolb crew. Right off the top of my head, counting my own kolbs and factory acft I have about 3,000 hours in them over the last 14 years. Several two four or six years I was inbetween acft, building, etc. and not flying so conservatively speaking, I accumulated this 3,000 hours kolb time in 8 to 9 years. This time is divided extensively between all models: Ultrastar, Firestar, MK III, with only about 50 hours in the Sling Shot at Lakeland and Oshkosh. I have flown these airplanes in many geographic areas from Key West to Deadhorse (Arctic Ocean), Alaska, San Diego, Ca to Caribou, Ma, Seattle, Wa to Brownsville, Tx, I forget how many Canadian Provinces at the moment, from fbelow sea level at ElCentro, Ca to 10,000 feet at Mt Mckinley, Alaska, 13,500 feet over illinois on a return flight from Oshkosh to Alabama (stopped climbing because I was freezing dressed in shorts and t shirt. Be in all kinds of weather, turbulence, heat, cold, day night. I've lived with these airplanes for extended periods: 21 days, 25 days w/ Firestar (32 states), not counting all the two week trips to S&F and Oshkosh. The little airplanes always bring me home. I feel very comfortable in Homer's airplanes. They are easy to fly, yet are also very exciting to fly. They have great STOL capability and I enjoy that immensely. They come closer to the characteristics of helicopters I flew in the Army, than any other Ul; and airplane I have flown. I have a great deal of plain on confidence in Kolbs. Met Homer at Sun & Fun in 84 one month after I bought my 1st kit from him. Talked to him on the phone, at S&F and Oshkosh, Flew the Firestar to see him in 88 and 89. Stayed in his home on those trips. Built two Oshkosh and one S&F Grand Champions, and one S&F Reserve Grand Champion. If you do that you get to be friendly with the Boss (just kidding and not trying to blow my own horn). For many years Kolbs were consistently chosen Grand Chap and both Oshkosh and Sun and Fun. Wore a Jim Handbury Hand Deployed prcht on my chest for 12 or 13 hundred hours flying US and FS. Mounted 2d Chantz in center sec of MK III. Cen Sec was empty space not being utilized. For my long trip I needed all the cargo area possible. Seriously, I have no fear of a wing folding on the MK III. It has a 6 inch main spar, tremendously strong lift strut w/jury strut to keep it in column under negative loads. Unintentional tests I have experienced w/the MK III wing indicate there's no way I can pull this wing off in flight, but do go out and try to prove me wrong. I emphasize I have never flown any aerobatic maneuvers in my MK III and don't intend to. When I find something I like better than what I fly, that will out perform, outlast, and is any way near as crash worthy as Homer's chromoly cages, I'll build it and fly it. So far I am completely satisfied with the MK III. The Slig Shot I love and it is tempting, but I couldn't be loyal to two airplanes. Takes a lot of time being loyal to one. Hope this answered your questions. john hauck ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-za02.mx.aol.com (rly-za02.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.98]) by air-z >> WOW!.....I can't wait to go to Oshkosh and get the .....REST, of the story!!!....Thank you John, it is your kind of experience that makes a list like this so powerful...GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

Subject:

Re: newbee

<< I believe that the problem is that too many people think of Kolbs as ultralights rather than light aircraft. Kolbs are great flying planes, but less forgiving than Quicksilvers (the most common ultralight) and much more expensive to repair. Granted, my sample area is only a tiny part of the US, but I think you can understand why I am cautious in my recommendations. John Jung Original 377 Firestar Firestar II N6163J - >> John you may be correct in being so conservative, and your experience supports it. It would be interesting to know just HOW those planes augered in, however, as I have a similar experience ...only with pteradactyls....two guys INSISTED on teaching themselves how to fly and WOULD NOT listen to even the instructor who sold them the plane and they ended up with piles of junk and broken ribs (theirs) and legs............GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

Subject:

Re: newbee

<< >All are somewhat minor, but they add up, and you have other options. I've had my Flyer nearly 7 years. Its not fast, sleek, or even very pretty (now anyway) but to its credit, its very forgiving but also very responsive. It is also very strong for its weight. True, there are many other choices out there but I'm pretty happy with mine and I think its an excellent plane for a newbee who's had "proper" training. Now, if we could just figure out what that is... -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma >> Mick 5....Ben 1....Good show Mick! I think Ben was mean to me once!....but I can't really remember. ...................GeoR38 just teasin!!! ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: newbee

GeoR38 wrote: > > John you may be correct in being so conservative, and your experience supports > it. It would be interesting to know just HOW those planes augered in, > however, as I have a similar experience ...only with pteradactyls....two guys > INSISTED on teaching themselves how to fly and WOULD NOT listen to even the > instructor who sold them the plane and they ended up with piles of junk and > broken ribs (theirs) and legs............GeoR38 GeoR38, Since you expressed an interest: The first Firestar was destroyed by a pteradactyl pilot who thought he knew "how to fly". The plane that he built "lived" less han 10 hours. The pilot flew slow at 50 feet of altitude, stalled and hit nose first. The second was a by a 3,000 plus hour general aviation/aerobatic pilot who didn't need any "ultralight" dual time before transitioning to his new Firestar II. His plane died on the first landing, when he started his flair too high, stalled and hit nose first. The third was a new pilot who had 20 hours dual time in a Mark III. His new Firestar II "lived" 18.3 hours, until the engine quit on takeoff, he stalled and hit nose first. His plane was not built per plans. It had a smaller rudder and vertical stabilizer which may have contributed. Why do I share these things? Because the experience of others, in my area, has helped me to resist the temptation to "push the limit", and to seek out more trainning after I already "knew how to fly". John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

Subject:

Re: Flyers, Taildraggers & Training

<< I think the freedoms we ultralighters have, tends to encourage bad attitudes. I now have a wife who works on my bad flying attitudes - but she couldnt do a whole lot for me. But then along came our daughter and she has been very instrumental in helping daddy with his bad flying attitudes. Hope this helps one or more of you to fly safer. I am not here because I am a good pilot, I am still here only because God, for reasons known only too himself, has seen fit to keep me here. Now I am trying to do my part as well. Very Sincerely, Dennis (working-on-his-bad-attitudes) Souder >> Dennis, I only met you once, with your wife and daughter, in the parking lot of a restaurant near Rt 80 at Warren Ohio and I can tell you, you do not have the image of the Evil Knevil that you just painted here!....but welcome to Earth and thank you very much for your great story....and don't do anything to jeopardize that litlle girls future!! ...................................GeoR38...driver of ByGeorge! the Firestar ps....attitude!....what a great way to sum it up ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

Subject:

Re: newbee

<< GeoR38, Since you expressed an interest: The first Firestar was destroyed by a pteradactyl pilot who thought he knew "how to fly". The plane that he built "lived" less han 10 hours. The pilot flew slow at 50 feet of altitude, stalled and hit nose first. The second was a by a 3,000 plus hour general aviation/aerobatic pilot who didn't need any "ultralight" dual time before transitioning to his new Firestar II. His plane died on the first landing, when he started his flair too high, stalled and hit nose first. The third was a new pilot who had 20 hours dual time in a Mark III. His new Firestar II "lived" 18.3 hours, until the engine quit on takeoff, he stalled and hit nose first. His plane was not built per plans. It had a smaller rudder and vertical stabilizer which may have contributed. Why do I share these things? Because the experience of others, in my area, has helped me to resist the temptation to "push the limit", and to seek out more trainning after I already "knew how to fly". John Jung - >> John, I see where you come from on the know it all attitude of the pilots but let me just approach it from a slightly different angle... The first pilot was flying by the wind in the face approach learned by his experience in the pterodactyl (which definitely flys slower, safely) and he had a severe problem of being on the bottom edge of the envelope for a kolb. The 2nd pilot knew it all about planes and landed too slow....happens all the time on kolb, even on mine by those who I let fly it ...ask Frank M The 3rd modified the tail ...shades of Jim Lee at Sun and Fun!!!.....what can I say!....the Kolb must be landed faster and you shouldn't modify it!! I'm the ol glider pilot ...so that's the way I was taught to land an airplane ....fast...to punch through any ground turbulence! Now I know that ground turbulence was not the factor for your cases, but the Kolb needs to be landed faster than stall speed ...way faster.....I have 5 pairs of gear to prove it....no one has talked about that. GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

From:

Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca>

Subject:

Mark 111 tail weld failure

HI all; I am in the process of repairing the tail on my Mark 111. I have one of the early Mark 111 ultralights, it was in the second or third production run at Kolb Aircraft. It has 265 hours on it. My bottom 4130 steel tube has broke where it attaches to the steel ring that fits on the end of the six inch tail tube (this broken tube is located about two inches below the elevator control horn). The early Mark 111 ultralights had a light weight tail weldment. A Kolb newsletter a number of years ago stated that they were going to supply a reinforcement kit for the early Mark 111 tail assemblies. The original Kolb Mark 111 had a failure in this area - Has anyone seen one of these kits? - Has anyone reinforced their tail with extra braces? - What is the size and wall thickness of the newer steel tail assemblies? I strongly agree with the safety discussions that have been posted on this list over the last week or so. I must add that proper pre-flight and post-flight inspections are a life and death issue. I found a crack in the tail weldment during an inspection. You must get down on your knees to properly inspect the tail area. If I had not inspected this area I may not have been here to write this e-mail. Brian "KIm" Steiner Saskatchewan, Canada BME ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"rutledge fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com>

Subject:

Re: newbee

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

George Wrote: >John, I see where you come from on the know it all attitude of the pilots but >let me just approach it from a slightly different angle... >The first pilot was flying by the wind in the face approach learned by his >experience in the pterodactyl (which definitely flys slower, safely) and he >had a severe problem of being on the bottom edge of the envelope for a kolb. >The 2nd pilot knew it all about planes and landed too slow....happens all the >time on kolb, even on mine by those who I let fly it ...ask Frank M >The 3rd modified the tail ...shades of Jim Lee at Sun and Fun!!!.....what can >I say!....the Kolb must be landed faster and you shouldn't modify it!! >I'm the ol glider pilot ...so that's the way I was taught to land an airplane >....fast...to punch through any ground turbulence! Now I know that ground >turbulence was not the factor for your cases, but the Kolb needs to be landed >faster than stall speed ...way faster.....I have 5 pairs of gear to prove >it....no one has talked about that. > GeoR38 Why are these people working out of the parameters? One of the first things that I was taught, even before stepping foot into my GA trainer was the limits that I had to live in. This is why I am partial to analog instruments as well. I like to mark my limits on the guages. An example would be air speed. Min, max, all the V speeds. I was also taught to monitor these gauges constantly (departure, pattern, final approach, etc.). Are these UL pilots not doing this? I strongly feel that all pilots should have the limits memorized, written on plaqards within the aircraft, and documented on pre-flight checklists. Am I missing something here? It seems to me that most if not all of the accidents list previously would not have happened if the pilots were paying attention to the limits of the aircraft, and factoring in a safety margin. I know one thing, before I step foot into my first Kolb, which is hopefully soon, I will be more than familiar with the weight/balance and performance parameters of my aircraft. Not to mention being familiar with the airspace and procedures within the area that I will be operating. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

From:

"Henry C. Wortman" <hwortman(at)mail.datasys.net>

Subject:

Flight Characteristics

While there has been some excellent discussions on the matter of flight characteristics of the Ultrastar, Flightstar, FSII, Pterodactyl etc. there are some of us who are learning in Quad City Challengers. I know that this may raise the ire of some purists who think that tail draggers are the only thing to hold dear to your heart but I (and some others) would like to hear some pros (if any) and cons on the Challengers. I feel certain that some of you have had some experience with these vehicles and we would like to hear your evaluation. I think you guys have a great discussion group and I enjoy and appreciate your openness in helping each other. Thanks : Henry ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

Subject:

Re: newbee

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

> >Mick 5....Ben 1....Good show Mick! I think Ben was mean to me >once!....but I >can't really remember. ...................GeoR38 just teasin!!! >- Uh.. that really was NOT the intent and I think Ben knows it. I just thought his list best summed-up some relevant points about the 'Flyer'. You do know that don't you Ben? ..Ben? ...Now put down that tie-down stake and let's talk this thing out! On another point, Dennis mentioned the low climb rate of the Flyer and of course he's absolutely right. On the very best of days, it'll do 250 fpm (and I weigh 150#). On a hot summer day, 100-150 fpm is all it'll do. This is a VERY important point that I left out. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > >...would like to hear some pros (if any) and cons on the Challengers. I >feel certain that some of you have had some experience with these >vehicles and we would like to hear your evaluation. Henry, This is after all, the "Kolb" list. You may have noticed a little bias towards that maker. I think comparing Kolbs to other designs here might just turn into a "put-down" contest. Although that might be fun too. BTW, you said "we". Who, exactly is "we". Henry, you're a spy for Quad City aren't you? I have always suspected those Canadians were just lulling us into a false sense of security, just waiting to pounce when we least expect! Its not our nuclear technology they've been after, its our superior ultralight designs! Gawd, how devious, they plan to take over the world with reverse-engineered 'Flyers' ! Well, you can't make ME talk, I have an iron-will! Ok, Ok, I give! Check out my C2 which is for sale at: http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair/pix.html I've cleverly incorporated some mods which make it fly almost half as nice as a Kolb! -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 11, 1998

Subject:

Re: newbee

<< Uh.. that really was NOT the intent and I think Ben knows it. I just thought his list best summed-up some relevant points about the 'Flyer'. You do know that don't you Ben? ..Ben? ...Now put down that tie-down stake and let's talk this thing out! On another point, Dennis mentioned the low climb rate of the Flyer and of course he's absolutely right. On the very best of days, it'll do 250 fpm (and I weigh 150#). On a hot summer day, 100-150 fpm is all it'll do. This is a VERY important point that I left out. -Mick Fine >> Actually I need to apologize to Ben too cause I think it was someone else who "attacked" me on my egt readings/mounting at the Y. I can thank Dennis for saving my butt on that one.! And I agree that climb rate is a very powerful tool to have for that odd ball circumstance when you may find yourself trapped in a gully that won't allow maneuvering. Tell me about it! I was not used to being "underpowered" when I flew the Global (VW/2) engined N3 Pup and required about 1/2 hr just to gain 400 feet!! Scary then but a great memory now....and it happened just 9 months ago that I ferried that puppy 100 miles.....strange plane/area/destination....WOW! can hardly believe I survived...anyway underpowering is a negative!................GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

DLSOUDER <DLSOUDER(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

Subject:

Flight Characteristics

Dear Henry, If you like the discussions - you'll love the airplanes! :-) More seriously: Some differences between Kolb and Challenger reflect different design goals. Challenger aimed for less drag, Kolb for STOL performance. The Kolbs are better shorter field airplanes than Challengers, but Challengers may be a bit faster. Challenger buried the engine behind the fuselage (to reduce drag) but this results in a smaller prop which is crucial for acceleration and climb. Their recent change from 50 something inch props to 60 was a step in the right direction, but there is still a world of difference between a 60" and the 66" which is Kolb's minimum size. The FireStar II's can swing a 68 and the Mark- III a 72". As part and parcel to the Challenger package, the engine is mounted upside down, which is not everyone's choice of orientation. The Kolb has a more convention wing construction with truss ribs. The Challengers have the sailcloth wing type construction with 2 spars and curved tubes for ribs in between. (You can cover Challenger withs Stits with the addition of more rib tubes.) For a comparison for 2-place aircraft, you have the basic choice between tandem with Challenger and Side-by-side with the Kolb Mark-III. If you want to look at the Tandem FS-II compared to Challenger, then you don't have the dual controls with Kolb, but you have a less expensive aircraft with the FireStar-II. Also you have the choice of the larger engines with the Kolb Mark-III, Rotax 582, 618 and 912. Kolb uses a lot of welded chrom-moly steel where Challenger uses mostly pop riveted aluminum. Personally I think welded chrom-moly steel is far superior. The 4130 steel is a much more expensive material than 6061 aluminum, plus the welding is a more expensive process because it takes more skill to weld than pop rivet. I don't think you'll find any knowledgeable person claiming that pop-riveted aluminum makes for a superior structurer over welded 4130. I mention both of these things because these features increase the cost of the Kolb airframe. Or alternately you could say this helps keep the cost of the Challenger down. Plus Kolb's use more steel in the the other higher stress areas of the airplane in the wings and tail. Challenger sells through dealers and Kolb direct. Challengers pricing and dealer network results in more motivated people out in the field extoling the virtues of Challengers and they sell a lot of airplanes. There has been quite a bit of discussion of the ul new group on Challengers - with my favorite contributor Dan Zank presiding. Kolb has folding wings which many find a plus. Hope this helps! Dennis Souder Pres Kolb Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

>Kolb uses a lot of welded chrom-moly steel where Challenger uses mostly pop >riveted aluminum. Personally I think welded chrom-moly steel is far superior. >The 4130 steel is a much more expensive material than 6061 aluminum, plus the >welding is a more expensive process because it takes more skill to weld than >pop rivet. I don't think you'll find any knowledgeable person claiming that >pop-riveted aluminum makes for a superior structurer over welded 4130 I don't consider myself a "knowledgeable" person by any stretch of the imagination but I have a good bit of experience with chrom-moly mountain bike frames. They are incredibly strong, I have seen these things take severe punishment and never so much as get a dent in the tubing! And like John Hauck mentioned about his landing under a Jim Handbury parachute, if you have to crash through trees hanging under an uncontrollable parachute then I would want to be in a chrom-moly cage NOT a thin wall aluminum tube structure... A safe feeling is a nice feeling.... my $.02 worth. Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

And like >John Hauck mentioned about his landing under a Jim Handbury parachute, if >you have to crash through trees hanging under an uncontrollable parachute >then I would want to be in a chrom-moly cage NOT a thin wall aluminum tube >structure... >A safe feeling is a nice feeling.... >my $.02 worth. > >Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com After reading my own post there I want to put a disclaimer in it 'cause I don't want to misquote anyone. John Hauck never mentioned anything about a pop riveted anything!!!! That was not a direct quote for sure... just thought it was relevant to the Challenger question that was posted. Sorry.... CYA mode off now... Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

DLSOUDER <DLSOUDER(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

Subject:

FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS

Subj: RE: Flight Characteristics Date: 98-03-12 10:45:48 EST From: jstewart(at)ncfcomm.com (J.D. Stewart) Reply-to: jstewart(at)ncfcomm.com (jstewart(at)ncfcomm.com) To: DLSOUDER(at)aol.com ('DLSOUDER') Challenger luker here: Don't boo me, I just found a better deal on a Challenger before I found a Kolb. I thought I'd add a few comments on Dennis's comments. If I could get ahold of a Mark III to compare with my C-II, my next plane (this fall) might be a Kolb. Mine is an '88 503 DC. It has the smaller re-drive and the 54" prop. Still, climb rate is plenty, stall is around 25, with top end around 75. I'll be streamlining the struts in the next couple of weeks to improve that. Having the engine upside down has it's trade-offs. One one hand, I have a lower thrust line, but on the other, I had a plug wire (now safety-tied) fall off 3 times. The Kolb frame sounds like the better way to go, and similar to the Rans tail on a C-II flailing around, which they seem to do. The controversy over the adverse yaw with doors on was enough for me to put on the vertical stabs before I even flew it. I wonder how Challenger would do without Don Zank. He's one great dealer, whether you bought a plane from him or not, and has given me advice freely on the Fly-UL list many times. Dennis, are you admitting you're a luker on the Fly-UL group? If you are, speak up more often :>) Although 2 people can have my wings of in 12 minutes, and on in 20, I'd need a rack to put them on a trailer. The folding wings are a definate plus for the Kolb Check out our NNFC Web Site below. Lots of pictures, and 1 Kolb for sale 120 miles away in Lincoln, NE. I'd certainly like to get some time in it this Spring before he sells it. Otherwise, there's no other 2-place Kolbs that I know of in the area. Looks like I'll have to figure out a way to go to S-n-F to compare both! I need to meet both Dennis and Don someday. J.D. Stewart NCF Communications, Inc.: http://www.ncfcomm.com Home Page: http://www.users.ncfcomm.com/jstewart/index.html N.E. NE Flying Club: http://www.users.ncfcomm.com/nnfc/index.html ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: newbee

On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Mick Fine wrote: > All of the inputs to this thread are very interesting. Hoody's question > is about a certain Kolb model in which I have 316.3 hours. This is small > potatoes (PIC hour wise) compared to some others but I'd like to respond > to Ben's points: I'm behind on my email, but wanted to respond to you Mike. Looks like good points of clarification you made to my comments and assumptions. After reading from your post based on Flyer experience, it sounds not too bad at all. The aspects I still would have some reservation about are the barely adequate power and the off-center engine out should it happen at the "wrong time". Especially with the tail-wheel thing, i agree this is really hardly worth mentioning. I can't discount it entirely tho as my 3 wheeler brother came oh so close to groundlooping my FS. We can all get very used to what we fly and forget about the minor "no-brainers" being one more thing for somebody with different or no experience. As a footnote to that near groundloop, I think it may be more the high angle of attack our Kolbs sit at when all wheels are on the ground. A quartering crosswind gust gets underneath a wing and you better be ruddering and aileroned for it. Maybe true for a tricycle too? Don't know, as I don't have enf experience in them :-). The moral is that a newbee would be fine in a Flyer so long as she/he takes it in slow steps (the attitude thing), just like anything else. BTW, on my KSP, the tailwheel is 30# with me (155) in the cockpit. It is 50# with me out of the cockpit and of course a little more than that with the wings folded (when I have to lift it --ugh-- onto my trailer). -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

I spose this is flame-bait, but maybe I can get away with posting this on the Kolb list (preaching to the choir): In addition to all of Dennis' substantive comments on Kolbs vs Challengers... DON'T YOU THINK LOOKS COUNT? Mostly teasin, but the Challenger looks do *absolutely nothin* for me. One other thing ...my friend seemed to never have room to carry anything in his Challanger I and also he couldn't see the gas tank ...he just guessed ---blech! (I guess that is two other things). -Ben (now ready for Quad City hate mail) Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Anderson, Jim L NWP" <Jim.L.Anderson(at)nwp01.usace.army.mil>

Subject:

RE: Flight Characteristics

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

I think everyone (Kolbophytes) was thinking that. Remember beauty is only skin deep-then you get into pop riveted aluminum. Why do you think they call them challengers??? OK stop it jim A. I'm sure they are fine machines. -----Original Message----- From: Ben Ransom [SMTP:ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 9:05 AM To: Kolb Subject: Re: Flight Characteristics I spose this is flame-bait, but maybe I can get away with posting this on the Kolb list (preaching to the choir): In addition to all of Dennis' substantive comments on Kolbs vs Challengers... DON'T YOU THINK LOOKS COUNT? Mostly teasin, but the Challenger looks do *absolutely nothin* for me. One other thing ...my friend seemed to never have room to carry anything in his Challanger I and also he couldn't see the gas tank ...he just guessed ---blech! (I guess that is two other things). -Ben (now ready for Quad City hate mail) Ransom - ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Marino, Frank J (Youngstown ARB)" <Frank.Marino(at)yng.afres.af.mil>

Subject:

RE: Flight Characteristics

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

I'm going to throw my hat in the ring, when I was looking for an aircraft to build I did a lot of talking to other builders and did a lot of looking to see who was in business the longest and who was the one I could rely on for parts. That was the most fun to fly. I went with Kolb and am not sorry one bit. After I bent the gear on GeoR38's FS (yes I'm the Frank M he's always slamming on the web) and after I bent the gear on mine one time I drove to the factory a couple of times and flew with Dan. Now I have close to 40 hours on my MKIII and can't wait for spring to get here. I did some mods on mine this winter like dual sticks full doors and half doors new instrument panel. But as far as the MKIII is concerned to me it flies like a J3 cub. I would recommend that people at least take some dual flight instruction and at least solo before flying any ultralight aircraft. This is my nickels worth, I have no qualms with Kolb or the people that work there, except for Dennis coming up dual sticks after I spent all winter making mine. THANKS DENNIS. FRANK J. MARINO Chief Loadmaster 773 AS >---------- >From: DLSOUDER[SMTP:DLSOUDER(at)aol.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 8:05 AM >To: kolb(at)intrig.com >Subject: Flight Characteristics > >Dear Henry, > >If you like the discussions - you'll love the airplanes! :-) > >More seriously: >Some differences between Kolb and Challenger reflect different design goals. >Challenger aimed for less drag, Kolb for STOL performance. The Kolbs are >better shorter field airplanes than Challengers, but Challengers may be a bit >faster. Challenger buried the engine behind the fuselage (to reduce drag) >but >this results in a smaller prop which is crucial for acceleration and climb. >Their recent change from 50 something inch props to 60 was a step in the >right >direction, but there is still a world of difference between a 60" and the 66" >which is Kolb's minimum size. The FireStar II's can swing a 68 and the Mark- >III a 72". As part and parcel to the Challenger package, the engine is >mounted upside down, which is not everyone's choice of orientation. > >The Kolb has a more convention wing construction with truss ribs. The >Challengers have the sailcloth wing type construction with 2 spars and curved >tubes for ribs in between. (You can cover Challenger withs Stits with the >addition of more rib tubes.) > >For a comparison for 2-place aircraft, you have the basic choice between >tandem with Challenger and Side-by-side with the Kolb Mark-III. If you want >to look at the Tandem FS-II compared to Challenger, then you don't have the >dual controls with Kolb, but you have a less expensive aircraft with the >FireStar-II. Also you have the choice of the larger engines with the Kolb >Mark-III, Rotax 582, 618 and 912. > >Kolb uses a lot of welded chrom-moly steel where Challenger uses mostly pop >riveted aluminum. Personally I think welded chrom-moly steel is far >superior. >The 4130 steel is a much more expensive material than 6061 aluminum, plus the >welding is a more expensive process because it takes more skill to weld than >pop rivet. I don't think you'll find any knowledgeable person claiming that >pop-riveted aluminum makes for a superior structurer over welded 4130. I >mention both of these things because these features increase the cost of the >Kolb airframe. Or alternately you could say this helps keep the cost of the >Challenger down. > >Plus Kolb's use more steel in the the other higher stress areas of the >airplane in the wings and tail. Challenger sells through dealers and Kolb >direct. Challengers pricing and dealer network results in more motivated >people out in the field extoling the virtues of Challengers and they sell a >lot of airplanes. > >There has been quite a bit of discussion of the ul new group on Challengers - >with my favorite contributor Dan Zank presiding. > >Kolb has folding wings which many find a plus. > >Hope this helps! > >Dennis Souder >Pres Kolb Aircraft >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

DLSOUDER <DLSOUDER(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

Subject:

HKS evaluation

Kolb Evaluation of the HKS engine: We installed the HKS on our SlingShot. For those of you who may not be familiar with the engine, it is a 2 cylinder 4 stroke horizontally opposed engine. It has a gear box and flywheel to help it to run smoother. It is made in Japan and imported by Tom Peghiny at FlightStar. The HKS is very nicely packaged. The installation was straightforward with no big problems. It mounts to an aluminum plate similar to our other models, except we moved it toward the rear a bit more so the rear engine studs were directly in line with the rear Lord isolation mounts. The engine does not bolt directly to the alum plate, but sits on 4 alum bushings to set the engine up for clearance for some of the oil lines. This introduces one little problem with mounting the HKS - it puts the prop shaft to high and this results in the need to carry more back stick than your otherwise would. This would tend to reduce speed a little. Other little quirk we didnt like is the powering of the ignition system. The ignition will run off the coils if the battery fails. Or, if the coils failed, the battery would provide power. But if your battery developed an internal short, for instance, the ignition would fail. Rotax runs their ignition from separate coils. We used the advanced EIS for engine instruments. At Kolb we, of course, are vitally interested in performance and so I evaluated the power from a number of different perspectives. Top Speed: Based upon the top speed checks it appears that the HKS was equivalent to the Rotax 503. Cruise speed with 503 or HKS is 80 mph. (Cruise speed with 582 is 87 mph. Cruise with 912 is 94 mph.) Prop Swap with Rotax 503: More recently I took one of our 66 x 34 2-blade wood propellers and installed it on our famous yellow FireStar with its Rotax 503 and checked its rpm. The 503 turned it 6000 rpm. (It should have been more, maybe the prop is pitched on the high side or maybe our 500 hr 503 is getting tired. In any case that was the rpm.) I put the same prop on the HKS and it turned it 6200 rpm. (That is only another 77 rpms at the prop.) If the 503 was making 52 hp, then the HKS would be making about 55 hp to turn the prop 6200 rpm. The 503 probably would not be making even 52 hp at that rpm, so the HKS would be correspondingly less. Climb Rates: The climb rate of the SlingShot with HKS was 750 fpm. This is about comparable to what a Rotax 503 will do - the 503 may be a bit better. (The climb rate with the 582 is 1300 fpm.) The climb rate was with a 2-blade 68 Warp drive prop with a climb rpm of 6150 rpm. I also had on a 3-blade Ivo, but the climb of the Ivo was less than the warp. Curiously the Warp idled more smoothly than the 3-blade Ivo, but the IVO was smoother at cruise. All the data seems consistent that power output is close to a Rotax 503. It does appear to make another 3 hp or so, but this is offset by the somewhat heavier weight of the HKS. Plus the HKS does not run as smoothly as the 2-strokes, esp. from 2000 to 3500 rpm. Also the oil pressure drops too low at idle - this could be a sender problem. For the yank and bank crowd, the HKS will be disappointing. For those who want to fly with a 4-stroke and cant afford a 912 and dont have high expectations for performance, you may be happy with it. The HKS could be used in the SlingShot or Mark-III. I had hoped to do a modified FireStar with the HKS, but the higher thrust line and extra vibration would not be suitable for the lighter FireStar frame. We plan on removing it soon and trying out a 618 - just for fun; so the HKS package will be for sale. Sincerely, Dennis ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

From:

Michael Watson <psi(at)pivot.net>

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

Henry C. Wortman wrote: > > While there has been some excellent discussions on the matter of flight > characteristics of the Ultrastar, Flightstar, FSII, Pterodactyl etc. > there are some of us who are learning in Quad City Challengers. I looked at many different kits before I got my list narrowed down to the Challenger II and the Kolb Mark III. I had info packs and video's on both. Both had pros and cons that seemed to even out. In the end I went with the Challenger II. I guess the biggest reason for my decision was that I found there was a Challenger dealer in Maine not too far from me. I thought that might be helpful for a first time builder. I can't comment much further than that because I've still got a long way to go, I've just finished the tail section and am now starting the wings. So far so good. One thing us Challenger builders don't have is a group like this. I belong because I believe a lot of the discussion could apply to Challengers as well as Kolbs. In my opinion they are pretty similar birds, give or take here and there. I can't remember the specs on the Mark III but here are a few on the Challenger II (as printed in their info pak). Empty weight 300 lbs. Useful load 500 lbs. Load factor +6 -4 Build Time 40-60 hrs. (More for me I can see) VNE 100 mph Top level speed 75-90 mph Cruise 65-80 mph Stall 22 mph solo, 30 mph dual Clime 1200 fpm solo, 700 dual Take off roll 100 ft. solo, 200 ft. dual Glide ratio 11 to 1 solo, 9 to 1 dual (Soarable) Mike Watson China, Maine ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

<< DON'T YOU THINK LOOKS COUNT? Mostly teasin, but the Challenger looks do *absolutely nothin* for me. One other thing ...my friend seemed to never have room to carry anything in his Challanger I and also he couldn't see the gas tank ...he just guessed ---blech! (I guess that is two other things). -Ben (now ready for Quad City hate mail) Ransom >> But I always thought the Challenger looked pretty good......if it was far enough away!.....hey Ben ...wasn't it the challenger that was deep sixed in Disneyworld in Fla when 5 of them were supposed to put on regular air shows but one of the pilots got carried away and did acrobatics and the BRS hung up in the wing metal??.....GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

writes: << Challenger buried the engine behind the fuselage (to reduce drag) >but >this results in a smaller prop which is crucial for acceleration and climb. >Their recent change from 50 something inch props to 60 was a step in the >right >direction, but there is still a world of difference between a 60" and the 66" >which is Kolb's minimum size. The FireStar II's can swing a 68 and the Mark- >III a 72". >> I believe this prop size dialog from Dennis !00% and is one of the reasons I got a Kolb over the nearby CGS Hawk...sorry Chuck...even though you are an equivalent pioneer like Homer!..........GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

Settle down now Mick, you know these Challengers guys might be able to learn something ....... Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar > >This is after all, the "Kolb" list. You may have noticed a little bias >towards that maker. I think comparing Kolbs to other designs here >might just turn into a "put-down" contest. Although that might be fun >too. ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: Flyers, Taildraggers & Training

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

Dennis, Thanks for such a good report on your early years. Here I thought you were strictly a "behind the desk" engineer and company president. I didn't know that you had all those hours in an UltraStar. Was that you flying the UltraStar in the Kolb promotional video? I hope you and John (Hauck) keep this good stuff coming. Thanks, Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar >Back in the days of yore, I was one hot-shot UltraStar pilot. I could make >that airplane do almost anything - I probably had over 1000 hours flying them. >I regularly did loops, snap rolls, spins, 90 degree whip stalls ... never >could make it slow roll though. I was ever ready for another impromptu >airshow! One time I flew up behind Bill Martin while we were flying >together, got real close and grabbed his rudder. Then I shook it back and forth >vigorously! Needless to say Bill kept far from me afterwards. The most >ridiculous thing I ever did was a power-off snap roll, just before landing >about 150 feet in the air. Of course there was that time that I did manage to >fail a wing doing some radical loops - but thats another story. >Dennis (working-on-his-bad-attitudes) Souder > ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com>

Subject:

FW: HKS evaluation

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

Hey Dennis is good to be hearing so much from you. While you are in a very talkative mood I was wondering if I could get you to expound on any modifications/upgrades to the MKIII you have made in the last 2 years. I received my kit about 2 years ago and I heard through the grape vine about the lift struts changing to round with a fairing for no reason other than the streamline struts are hard to get. You announced the new 17 gallon aluminum gas tank option. I have heard something about the spring steel landing gear legs but no details on them so I will ask my standard 3 questions, how much does it weigh, how much does it cost and what are the benefits (do they make the MKIII higher off the ground)? We all got the formal announcement on the dual controls (very nice to know). These tidbits of information like the engine evaluations and the new options are great to hear about and it gives the slow builder like me the option of buying some of these upgrades if I want them. It is great to here from people like you and John it really keeps me going hearing stories of flying and fun when I am in the basement peeling Polytack from my fingers. > -----Original Message----- > From: DLSOUDER [SMTP:DLSOUDER(at)aol.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 2:39 PM > To: kolb(at)intrig.com > Subject: HKS evaluation > > Kolb Evaluation of the HKS engine: > > We installed the HKS on our SlingShot. For those of you who may not > be > familiar with the engine, it is a 2 cylinder 4 stroke horizontally > opposed > engine. It has a gear box and flywheel to help it to run smoother. > It is > made in Japan and imported by Tom Peghiny at FlightStar. The HKS is > very > nicely packaged. > > The installation was straightforward with no big problems. It mounts > to an > aluminum plate similar to our other models, except we moved it toward > the rear > a bit more so the rear engine studs were directly in line with the > rear Lord > isolation mounts. The engine does not bolt directly to the alum > plate, but > sits on 4 alum bushings to set the engine up for clearance for some of > the oil > lines. > > This introduces one little problem with mounting the HKS - it puts the > prop > shaft to high and this results in the need to carry more back stick > than your > otherwise would. This would tend to reduce speed a little. > > Other little quirk we didn't like is the powering of the ignition > system. The > ignition will run off the coils if the battery fails. Or, if the > coils > failed, the battery would provide power. But if your battery > developed an > internal short, for instance, the ignition would fail. Rotax runs > their > ignition from separate coils. > > We used the advanced EIS for engine instruments. > > At Kolb we, of course, are vitally interested in performance and so I > evaluated the power from a number of different perspectives. > > Top Speed: > Based upon the top speed checks it appears that the HKS was equivalent > to the > Rotax 503. Cruise speed with 503 or HKS is 80 mph. (Cruise speed > with 582 is > 87 mph. Cruise with 912 is 94 mph.) > > Prop Swap with Rotax 503: > More recently I took one of our 66 x 34 2-blade wood propellers and > installed > it on our famous yellow FireStar with its Rotax 503 and checked its > rpm. The > 503 turned it 6000 rpm. (It should have been more, maybe the prop is > pitched > on the high side or maybe our 500 hr 503 is getting tired. In any > case that > was the rpm.) > > I put the same prop on the HKS and it turned it 6200 rpm. (That is > only > another 77 rpms at the prop.) If the 503 was making 52 hp, then the > HKS would > be making about 55 hp to turn the prop 6200 rpm. The 503 probably > would not > be making even 52 hp at that rpm, so the HKS would be correspondingly > less. > > Climb Rates: > The climb rate of the SlingShot with HKS was 750 fpm. This is about > comparable to what a Rotax 503 will do - the 503 may be a bit better. > (The > climb rate with the 582 is 1300 fpm.) The climb rate was with a > 2-blade 68" > Warp drive prop with a climb rpm of 6150 rpm. I also had on a 3-blade > Ivo, > but the climb of the Ivo was less than the warp. Curiously the Warp > idled > more smoothly than the 3-blade Ivo, but the IVO was smoother at > cruise. > > All the data seems consistent that power output is close to a Rotax > 503. It > does appear to make another 3 hp or so, but this is offset by the > somewhat > heavier weight of the HKS. > > Plus the HKS does not run as smoothly as the 2-strokes, esp. from 2000 > to 3500 > rpm. Also the oil pressure drops too low at idle - this could be a > sender > problem. > > For the yank and bank crowd, the HKS will be disappointing. For those > who > want to fly with a 4-stroke and can't afford a 912 and don't have high > expectations for performance, you may be happy with it. > > The HKS could be used in the SlingShot or Mark-III. I had hoped to do > a > modified FireStar with the HKS, but the higher thrust line and extra > vibration > would not be suitable for the lighter FireStar frame. > > We plan on removing it soon and trying out a 618 - just for fun; so > the HKS > package will be for sale. > > > Sincerely, > > Dennis > - ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

I think they were either modified Maxair Drifters or the old Advanced Aviation Lake Buccaneers. Ralph B. >But I always thought the Challenger looked pretty good......if it was >far enough away!.....hey Ben ...wasn't it the challenger that was deep >sixed in Disneyworld in Fla when 5 of them were supposed to put on regular air >shows but one of the pilots got carried away and did acrobatics and the BRS >hung up in the wing metal??.....GeoR38 >- ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Timandjan <Timandjan(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

Subject:

sun in fun

Have a favor to ask someone going to sun in fun. My plans to go have changed due to an illness in the family, I am in the need of a phone number to a vendor that sets up close to Kolb. They embroider items, and I bought an item last year and need another. If you are going and would you please help me and get me their phone number so I could call them later, please E-mail me. thaks in advance tim ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

From:

Wood <wood(at)mail.wincom.net>

Subject:

Re: Flyers, Taildraggers & Training

>The Kolb Flyer: > My first solo was in our first Flyer after only several hours of crow hops. >Tail dragger was not an issue, twin engine was not an issue, nothing was a >problem. It was a very docile predictable slow flying ultralight. Good >analysis, Mick, I agree. But, low climb rate ... esp. for heavier pilot, >could be an issue, which could result in departure stall. > >Taildraggers: > The taildragger thing is really a non-issue. > >Training: > In my (own) observation over the (almost 20 years of ultralighting), the >tendency toward accidents does not correlate well with lack of GA experience, >total flight hours, or hours of training. The correlation is more basic: >training vs. no-training. Those who get training do much better than those >who don't get training. But even this does not quite hit the exact mark, more >precisely yet: it is the pilot's attitude. If he has the proper attitude he >is a learner and will get training. He will have an attitude of being careful >and an attitude of not being presumptuous. >Some years later, one of the locals had an UltraStar powered with a 503. He >was anxious for me to check it out. There was no ASI, but having developed >well calibrated cheeks - who needs an ASI - not me. I took off and I remember >being disappointed with the power, I had expected great things with that 503! >Got about mid-field about 50 ft AGL, and I felt some turbulence - still not >climbing well. I started looking for the lowest gap in the tree line ahead. >And all of a sudden I was looking straight at the ground. Before you could >say, or even think of any expletive, it was all over. I had been flying on >the back side of the power curve and did not know it. I had been busy >thinking what about the 503 could be different, wrong or causing problems, I >had been distracted in my thinking and overlooked the obvious. I wasn't hurt >- I went on to my graduation from seminary that very same day. I now have a wife who >works on my bad flying attitudes - but she couldn't do a whole lot for me. >But then along came our daughter and she has been very instrumental in helping >daddy with his bad flying attitudes. Boy I sure see a lot of myself in this letter.The comments mirror what I have been saying to new pilots for years. I never did do aerobatics. Call me chicken or call me smart but at least you can call me.I get in enough trouble flying straight and level than to tempt fate with fancy tricks.I remember kissing my butt goodbye in a Flyer when I stalled it in a turn at 75 ft. and impacted the ground at 90*. Walked away with a stiff neck and a great appreciation for that welded steel frame. More time should be given to talk about the backside of the power curve. I got on the wrong side once at sun and fun in an Ultrastar. Scared the dickens out of me. I made it through a break in the trees and slowly got on the right side.I don't know if Dennis remembers that but it sure embarrased me [The owner of the Ultrastar wasn't real impressed either].Diagnosing a situation like that is hard to do when you are busy trying to save your hide. The thought of putting the nose nown to gain speed never enters the mind because you do not usually think of the power curve.As I was saying you have other things on your mind. I agree that one of the best safety devices is a wife, but the greatest is a young child that calls you Daddy. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

From:

Wood <wood(at)mail.wincom.net>

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

>I spose this is flame-bait, but maybe I can get away with >posting this on the Kolb list (preaching to the choir): >DON'T YOU THINK LOOKS COUNT? >Mostly teasin, but the Challenger looks do *absolutely >nothin* for me. > Do you really think the Slingshot is a good looking aircraft? It has a lot of good attributes but looks isn't one of them. Hey Dennis how about giving me a shot at making a few modifications and getting a pretty plane for you. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

From:

Wood <wood(at)mail.wincom.net>

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

Challenger buried the engine behind the fuselage (to reduce drag) but >this results in a smaller prop which is crucial for acceleration and climb. >Their recent change from 50 something inch props to 60 was a step in the right >direction, but there is still a world of difference between a 60" and the 66" >which is Kolb's minimum size. The FireStar II's can swing a 68 and the Mark- >III a 72". As part and parcel to the Challenger package, the engine is >mounted upside down, which is not everyone's choice of orientation. > I have always had trouble believing the Challenger performance numbers. They just don't match up when comparing to other makes.I find It hard to believe their climb and cruise numbers with that small prop and reduction drive. Has anyone flown one enough to confirm these figures. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net>

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

> Do you really think the Slingshot is a good looking aircraft? I kinda like it :-) Rusty ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

MJWAY <MJWAY(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

Subject:

Lubricating Hinges??

The first owner of my FireFly (48hrs) reportedly lubricated the control surface hinges with some sort of silicon spray lubricant. He was hesitant to use WD-40 because he felt it or the wash out from the hinges might stain the fabric gap seal that is glued between the flaperons and the wing. I stopped by West Marine in Long Beach, CA to check out their selection of lubes. Picked up a can of BOESHIELD T-9 by PMS Products Inc. of Holland, MI (1-800-962-1732). Can says that it is technology licensed by the Boeing Company and among other things is good for inner wings, airframes, wheel wells, cables and hinges. Can says that it dries to a thin waxy film that clings to metal for months, and is safe on paints, plastics and vinyls. A 16 oz can was $10. The owner of the Hurricane I flew before buying the FF never lubed its hinges. So to you guys with tons more experience than me......Do you lube hinges or not? Does this T-9 sound good? What if any lube do you use on hinges? Where else on the control linkage should I lube? Thanks in advance for any advice. Chris W. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

> >.... I belong because I believe a lot of the discussion could apply to >Challengers as well as Kolbs. In my opinion they are pretty similar >birds, give or take here and there. ... > I agree the "numbers" are very similar but numbers don't measure everything. I can only relate my own feelings: After flying the 'Flyer' for a couple years, I started to watch for an US, FS, TS, MK.2 or any newer Kolb design. I was a 'day late and dollar short' more times than I can count for the next 3 or 4 years. In the meantime, a good friend started taking me along in his own Mk.2 once in awhile. Soon I was mainly looking for a 2-place Kolb. After some more near-misses, the C2 that I have now came up for sale and I bought it more out of frustration than respect or "desire" for that design. While the C2 is not a "bad" plane, you just can't make a Kolb out of it no matter how hard you wish (or how tight you shut your eyes). It just doesn't have the flying "qualities" that my Flyer or my bud's Mk 2 has and it never will. If Quad City had a list they'd be saying the same things about other designs. Mostly, it comes down to personal preference and for me, the C2 is just not nearly as enjoyable to fly. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 12, 1998

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

<< I think they were either modified Maxair Drifters or the old Advanced Aviation Lake Buccaneers. Ralph B. >But I always thought the Challenger looked pretty good......if it was >far enough away!.....hey Ben ...wasn't it the challenger that was deep >sixed in Disneyworld in Fla when 5 of them were supposed to put on regular air >shows but one of the pilots got carried away and did acrobatics and the BRS >hung up in the wing metal??.....GeoR38 >> Yea, I think you are right Ralph the buccaneers I believe!....anyway that's why I mounted my BRS under the Boom tube facing 90 degrees and back and down a little!......GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 13, 1998

Subject:

Re: Flyers, Taildraggers & Training

<< thought of putting the nose nown to gain speed never enters the mind because you do not usually think of the power curve.As I was saying you have other things on your mind. I agree that one of the best safety devices is a wife, but the greatest is a young child that calls you Daddy. Woody >> I see this as an opportunity to post something here that I have pondered for a long time, that could save HIDE! My Cuyunna quit on my Pterodactyl years ago at 50 ft take-off climbout! I glued my eyes to the Ball AIS and waited til it reached 40.....then flattened out! Of course the act of reaching 40 was also accompanied by dropping the nose. Which implies negative G's on the disc in the indicator! After flattening out, the canard non stalling type of craft that it is "mushed" almost straight down to the ground and hit HARD!! At least hard enough to bounce me almost straight up at least 6ft! Then , totally out of control (I was just a passenger to fate at that time), the plane came down again selecting 1 fiberglas landing gear to break.......That's all! The point of this EXTREMELY interesting story is that I flattened out long before I should have because the Ball was giving me the wrong data!!! I wasn't going 40!! Otherwise this 25 MPH plane would still have been flying instead of "Mushing". The Ball AIS was reading on the HIGH side because that little disc in there has MASS and was just FLOATING on Centrifugal force as my nose was making its rounds!! Conclusion ......Beware the MASS of the Ball!!! ....................................GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 13, 1998

Subject:

Re: Flyers, Taildraggers & Training

<< The Ball AIS was reading on the HIGH side because that little disc in there has MASS and was just FLOATING on Centrifugal force as my nose was making its rounds!! Conclusion ......Beware the MASS of the Ball!!! ....................................GeoR38 >> I mean ASI not AIS ..... and I pride myself in my spelling if nothing else.....now I hate myself......Naw, just kiddin! ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 13, 1998

From:

William H Hatfield <hatfield(at)tsixroads.com>

Subject:

Re: Flight Characteristics

Someone wrote: > > > Do you really think the Slingshot is a good looking aircraft? > Russell Duffy wrote: > I kinda like it :-) > > Rusty > >Remember good people, "beauty" is in the eyes of the beholder and is only skin deep. Bill Hatfield -- ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"rutledge fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com>

Subject:

Insurance

Date:

Mar 13, 1998

What are your suggestions about ultralight insurance? I have not priced insurance or even looked around to see if it is available. What are your suggestions? ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

UL DAD <ULDAD(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 13, 1998

Subject:

Re: Insurance

Hello: I think AVEMCO is trying to get out of the ultralite insurance business (according to them, they're trying to stay in it). I've had insurance with AVEMCO since I finished my Firestar 5 years ago. $100,000 liability for $100. $5,000 hull coverage for $150. Total premium $250/year. Not bad. A letter came with my renewal notice in Feb. AVEMCO has made "significant changes to the pricing and limits availabilty for ultralights". They cut liability coverage to $50,000 and raised the rate to $200 and dropped the hull coverage to $4000 for $350. Total premium: $550! I talked to Jim Nelson at AVEMCO who basically said that they had been losing money ever since they started the ultralight program. $50,000 isn't much liability when you're talking airplanes. I asked if they couldn't at least raise the liability but the answer was no. I don't know about the rest of ya'll but I can't pay that high a premium for that small an amount of insurance. So: whatdoyado? John Hauck suggested National, but I haven't had a chance to call them yet. Any other ideas? Bill Griffin Frustrated in Ala. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Anderson, Jim L NWP" <Jim.L.Anderson(at)nwp01.usace.army.mil>

Subject:

RE: Insurance

Date:

Mar 13, 1998

Just insure that you don't crash into anything expensive or living. Flying high is pretty good insurance. -----Original Message----- From: rutledge fuller [SMTP:rut007(at)hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 12:41 PM To: kolb(at)intrig.com Subject: Insurance What are your suggestions about ultralight insurance? I have not priced insurance or even looked around to see if it is available. What are your suggestions? ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: Lubricating Hinges??

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 13, 1998

Chris, Yes, I feel the hinges should be lubricated regularly and I lube mine often. I lube all moving parts with Duralube oil that comes in a small pump can. It can be bought at most auto parts stores and Target. I lightly spray some on the hinge and immediately wipe off the excess with a paper towel. The Duralube has better lubricating properties than WD-40 or other lubricants. Your T9 lube may be better. It sounds more like a spray-grease type of lube. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar >The first owner of my FireFly (48hrs) reportedly lubricated the >control surface hinges with some sort of silicon spray lubricant. He was >hesitant to use WD-40 because he felt it or the wash out from the hinges might >stain the fabric gap seal that is glued between the flaperons and the wing. I >stopped by West Marine in Long Beach, CA to check out their selection of >lubes. Picked up a can of BOESHIELD T-9 by PMS Products Inc. of Holland, >MI (1-800-962-1732). Can says that it is technology licensed by the >Boeing Company and among other things is good for inner wings, airframes, >wheel wells, cables and hinges. Can says that it dries to a thin waxy film >that clings to metal for months, and is safe on paints, plastics and >vinyls. A 16 oz can was $10. The owner of the Hurricane I flew before buying >the FF never lubed its hinges. So to you guys with tons more experience than >me......Do you lube hinges or not? Does this T-9 sound good? What if any >lube do you use on hinges? Where else on the control linkage should I lube? >Thanks in advance for any advice. Chris W. >- ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 13, 1998

Subject:

Re: Insurance

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

> So: whatdoyado? >John Hauck suggested National, but I haven't had a chance to call them yet. >Any >other ideas? > "...cross your fingers, sacrifice a chicken and say 3 'Hail Mary's.' ...." -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 13, 1998

Subject:

Re: Lubricating Hinges??

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

I don't lube my control surface hinges at all. Somewhere, sometime (poor memory again), I read something that advised not to use oil on 'exposed' aluminum-to-steel 'bearing surfaces' (like a piano hinge). The reasoning was that oil would trap and hold more dirt and would actually cause faster wear than using nothing at all. I think it also recommended using parafin on any aluminum-to-aluminum bearing surfaces but there aren't any of those on a Kolb anyway. I could have just dreamed all this so I inspect my hinges pretty good on every pre-flight, just in case... I do use a spray called "LPS-3" on things like the tailwheel pivot and rudder pedal hinges (steel-to-steel). LPS-3 is pretty thin when sprayed but 'sets-up' to a thicker grease-like coating after a few minutes (kinda like 'cosmoline' if you know what that is). Its $4 or 5 a can and there's several other blends for different uses. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 13, 1998

From:

"Henry C. Wortman" <hwortman(at)mail.datasys.net>

Subject:

Insurance

My nephew, another friend and I formed a LLP (Limited liability partnership) and let the partnership purchase the plane. My understanding is that this will somewhat shield the the individuals and the vulnerability would be the assets of the partnership which is the plane and whatever else the individuals place into the partnership. Each partner pays into the partnership based on an hourly fee to cover maintenance and any other costs. The same might be done with a LLC (Limited liability corp) for individual owners. Talk to your attorney and get their advice. It may be money well spent and cheaper than insurance. ________________________________________________________________________________ (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA106

From:

LLMoore(at)tapnet.net (Lauren L. Moore)

Subject:

Weight and Bal..

Date:

Mar 14, 1998

I have a Question for you FIRESTAR owners. Using a 377 Rotax for the powerplant..How large a person could this combination of plane/power handle safely. I wonder if a fellow 6'4" and 230 pounds would have a problem? I haven't bought the plane yet but I might soon. It is in Ohio and I am in N.J. Larry Moore

________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: Weight and Bal..

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 14, 1998

Larry, I think I handle that question for you. I have an original FireStar with a 377 Rotax that I've been flying for quite some time. The climb rate is about 900/min with my weight of 200lbs. I am 5' 10" and my head is about 1" from the bottom of the wing when I have my helmet on. The only problem you might have would be your height of 6' 4", but that depends on how proportioned you are from head to toe. Much of the time I carry an extra 40lbs of fuel (ahead of the cg) so you can see my climb rate is very adequate and so would yours. The builder has the option of rigging the rudder pedals for his comfort and size. If he was a short guy, you may want to consider re-rigging the rudder cables or possibly adding an extension for your legs so that the rudder pedals would be more toward the nose. This would be your only concern, because the 377 on the original FireStar has power to spare. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >I have a Question for you FIRESTAR owners. Using a 377 Rotax for the >powerplant..How large a person could this combination of plane/power >handle safely. I wonder if a fellow 6'4" and 230 pounds would have a >problem? I haven't bought the plane yet but I might soon. It is in >Ohio and I am in N.J. Larry Moore > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 14, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: Insurance

>What are your suggestions about ultralight insurance? I have not priced >insurance or even looked around to see if it is available. >What are your suggestions? To me this is the most depressing subject of all WRT ultralights, and because of that I've ignored the issue for the last few years. The basic problem is that you may be trying to insure an illegal activity. Obviously companies big enf to be in the insurance business don't have convenient little "gray areas" such as those of us do who fly fat ultralights. At best, people sign their name to an insurance contract (the application) in which they state they are flying a FAR 103 compliant vehicle. People sign these because insurance is required by their local airport. They can only hope that they never need to file a claim, and if they do, that either nobody will know or contest that their vehicle was overweight, or perhaps they might be able to argue that the empty weight was in fact FAR 103 compliant. This is the worst part about not having a reasonable certification category for fat ultralights. Even with Federal law requiring open airport access, no airport entity is stupid enf to not require liability insurance. Oddly, there is a tidy little advantage to a folding ultralight here. Some airport policies, such as requirements for insurance, state that they apply to airplanes kept at that airport. Keeping it at home might wiggle you past this airport access snafu. Paying ~$150 to appear legal to the local airport, and have some far out chance of being covered if you needed it is a good deal, I guess. Still, it is depressing (at best) to think about signing false statements, and I myself prefer to just fly out of the back alleys. I keep a good distance from all the expensive airplanes whenever I'm at real airports. Sorry for such a gloomy outlook, but i think that it is accurate. -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 14, 1998

From:

Michael Watson <psi(at)pivot.net>

Subject:

Insurance

While on the subject of ultralight insurance I would like to know if there is any difference in insuring an experimental. Coverage available, cost, etc. Also, does your homeowners cover your plane while your in the building process? Mike Watson, China, ME ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 14, 1998

Subject:

Insurance

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

My American Family home insurance specifically states that it does not cover airplanes either during construction or stored in the family home garage. Ray from Woodbury ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 14, 1998

From:

T Swartz <Tswartz(at)mail.ptd.net>

Subject:

Re: Insurance

Michael Watson wrote: > > While on the subject of ultralight insurance I would like to know if > there is any difference in insuring an experimental. Coverage available, > cost, etc. Also, does your homeowners cover your plane while your in the > building process? > > Mike Watson, > China, ME > - For my N numbered MK III, I got a quote in Nov 97 from Avemco for Liability, 100,000. each person, 1,000,000.00 property, annual premium of 433.00. To add 30,000.00 of Aircraft Damage (Excluding In Motion) with a 200.00 deductable, Premium went to 784.00. At that time I had 41 hours in the plane, Dan had signed me off on the MK III and filled out the EAA flight advisor all of which helped reduce the premium, and of course I have a valid pilots licence and a current medical. Terry ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 14, 1998

From:

molu(at)achilles.net (Lucien Morais)

Subject:

Gas drain

Thank,s to Cliff, Ralph and Timandjan for their suggestions about gas drain.I think I will put a fuel valve between the 2 tanks. I guess I lied last time saying it was the last time for winter flying as the snow was almost all gone. Today we had another snow storm. not a big one ( may be 4 inches) but good enough for some more flying. Thank,s again Lucien ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 14, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: Weight and Bal..

Larry, I have an original 377 Firestar and I agree with Ralph as far as it's ability to carry weight. No problem with having enough power. You may want to sit in an original Firestar before you travel to Ohio. I am 6' and wear a helmet. The top of my helmet touches the gap seal unless I slouch a little. At 6'4", you might be uncomfortable. John Jung http://www.execpc.com/~jrjung/ Lauren L. Moore wrote: > > I have a Question for you FIRESTAR owners. Using a 377 Rotax for the > powerplant..How large a person could this combination of plane/power > handle safely. I wonder if a fellow 6'4" and 230 pounds would have a > problem? I haven't bought the plane yet but I might soon. It is in > Ohio and I am in N.J. Larry Moore ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"rutledge fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com>

Subject:

Re: Insurance

Date:

Mar 14, 1998

Thank's again Gary for the tip. I am still waiting on the bank for my loan. Things are looking really good. I am glad that I found Glenn Rink, who lives right up the road from me. If you recall from the previous posts, he can build a Kolb with his eyes shut. Good luck. Rut >Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 19:45:14 -0500 (EST) >From: Gary Thacker <gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us> >To: rutledge fuller >Subject: Re: Insurance > >Rutledge > >Sounds like you liked the FireStar in Florida. I have been reading some >of your posts. Hope it turns out well for ya. If you remember when I >told you of the FireStar on Nerd World I too was lookin for one. I am >also in the process of making arrangements to get the one I just looked >at home. >About insurance, I know not of what I seak but....... I read a post not >to long ago about some guy's on the list talkin about it. It sounded >like your Ultralight better be ULTRALIGHT as per 103. Also I heard a >price of $800 per year. Along with this was the not to binding aggrement >that the insurance company will pay off. Like I said just know what I >heard on the net. > >Good luck > >Gary > >========================================================================= >| Gary Thacker | gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us | >| Souderton Pa. | | >| | gthacker(at)wsd.k12.pa.us (work only) | >========================================================================= > > > > > > >On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, rutledge fuller wrote: > >> What are your suggestions about ultralight insurance? I have not priced >> insurance or even looked around to see if it is available. >> What are your suggestions? >> >> ______________________________________________________ >> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >> - >> > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 14, 1998

From:

bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler)

Regarding Ultralight insurance: I have a F/S II, registered as an experimental, it costs slightly less then $100 for $100k liability insurance. If you have a fat ultralight and fill out Avemco's application honestly, they won't insure you. If you "fib" about the weight; that's insurance fraud, that could leave you with no insurance when you need it, or problems with the law. Neither option sounds like much fun...... So if you need insurance, go experimental, or make sure it's Far 103 legal- build a firefly Bob Doebler ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 15, 1998

From:

Mark Swihart <mswihart(at)tcsn.net>

Subject:

West Coast Fly-In Update

The web site for the West Coast Fly-In is up on the net. As for the vendors, clubs, and pilots who want me to add information or make corrections, please shoot (or flame) me some e-mail my way. I have an info packet availible that I will mail for free that covers everything from accomadations, wine tasting, antique shops, area factoids, to whats hot in agriculture out here on the central coast. :) -Mark- West Coast Fly-In '98 May 1-3 <http://www.tcsn.net/mswihart/ul/pruaflyin.htm> updated: 3/15/98 <http://www.tcsn.net/mswihart/kolb.htm> Paso Robles Ultralight Association <http://www.tcsn.net/mswihart/prua.htm> ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 13, 1998

From:

"Ron Christensen" <SPECTRUMINTERNATIONAL(at)classic.msn.com>

Subject:

God's Will

Hi Dennis: It's just great that you understand that the hands of God are carrying you safely through your experiences. Ron Christensen MK III 1/2 N313DR Your wrote - - - ---------- Hope this helps one or more of you to fly safer. I am not here because I am a good pilot, I am still here only because God, for reasons known only too himself, has seen fit to keep me here. Now I am trying to do my part as well. Very Sincerely, Dennis (working-on-his-bad-attitudes) Souder ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 15, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Laser?

Someone asked, "What's a Laser?", a while back. Well, you could dig out a July 1991 issue of Experimenter, or look here: http://www.execpc.com/~jrjung/laser.jpg I have been playing with my new Casio camera. Sorry, juno users. There is always the library. :-) John Jung Original Firestar & Firestar II http://www.execpc.com/~jrjung/ ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

Mar 15, 1998

Subject:

Re: Weight and Bal..

<< I have a Question for you FIRESTAR owners. Using a 377 Rotax for the powerplant..How large a person could this combination of plane/power handle safely. I wonder if a fellow 6'4" and 230 pounds would have a problem? I haven't bought the plane yet but I might soon. It is in Ohio and I am in N.J. Larry Moore >> Lauren, I am in Warren Ohio and let a 230 lber taxi my Firestar (447) and he moved one inch and the plane tipped over on its nose and we had a big laugh! No consideration was given to actually flying it though.................GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com

Date:

Mar 15, 1998

Subject:

Re: Insurance

Well if you get your insurance policy out and read it, it probably will tell you in one form or another. I am amazed of the number of people who don't look past the front page or even open the envelop it comes mailed in. Most specifically they address other vehicles and aircraft, materials, and parts. My boat parked in my yard was covered, but my motor cycle stored in my garage wasn't. My policy actually referenced aircraft and aircraft part were not covered. but you motor cycle isn't. Sorry Charlie, not this year. You can purchase a policy from a company like Avemco, but grab your shorts. I couldn't believe what they wanted for a 10K to cover a kit sitting in my house. I could have a 10K stereo system, or furniture not problem, it would be covered under the contents clause, but not an aircraft kit. Who defines aircraft and vehicle. Apparently what happens in the industry is no company can hold total liability for all loses so they sell portions of their risk. The companies that buy these do not like airplanes or strange things as baggage on the policy as they pose increased or unfamiliar risk. This places more liability on the initial underwriter which they usually will not assume. I got into this when trying to insure my RV-6 kit while it was under construction at my home. All I wanted was protection of the kit value in the event of lost due to fire or storm. Other coverage I thought was important was vandalism then theft. Often when they rob a house, they will set it on fire in an attempt to cover their tracks or two simply for spite vandelise things that look like may be valuable to the occupant. That part concerns me. Good luck, let us know how you fare on this topic. Jerry Bidle ____________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Kolb-List: Insurance Date: 3/14/98 2:31 PM While on the subject of ultralight insurance I would like to know if there is any difference in insuring an experimental. Coverage available, cost, etc. Also, does your homeowners cover your plane while your in the building process? Mike Watson, China, ME ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Wayne Welsh <flight(at)mail.on.rogers.wave.ca>

Subject:

Charlie Sharpe

Looking for Charlie Sharpe. I believe he is a member of this email group. If your out there Charlie give me your address. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)worldnet.att.net>

Subject:

KOLB BRS?

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

I am building a Firestar 2 and would like to know which size BRS to get, also any ideas or comments as to mounting would be very helpful Thanks Geoff Thistlethwaite ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

From:

Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net>

Subject:

wing spar

Hello kolb builders, I unpacked and examined my wings (I have not covered them yet) after moving from michigan to western wisconsin and found a small ding in the wing spar... right in the area of the lift strut. It looks like the moving van guys dropped a buckle from the straps or something onto it. I made a sturdy chip board box and had the wings hanging in a sling but I didnt put a top on it... Any ideas as to how to fix this. Would putting a small fiberglass or carbon fiber patch on it be helpful, you could still see through fiberglass and look for cracks. I am no structural engineer but I think that a patch could work if I had someone to tell me ho many plies to put on it. Topher ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com>

Subject:

FW: wing spar

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

Depending on how deep the "ding" is you can just use some emery cloth and polish it out. Start with 200 grit and go to 400 grit then finish with scotchbrite and only sand in the direction of the spar. The good news is, it is on the top of the spar which is loaded in compression and not in tension. There will be no way to check for cracks after the wing is covered except to cut a hole in the top of the wing. If the "ding" is so deep that you have to remove a lot of material to get to the bottom of it, it would probably be best to ask a local aircraft sheetmetal guy to take a look at it and recommend what to do. I do not think putting a composite patch over it is the solution. My 2 cents worth. > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher John Armstrong [SMTP:tophera(at)centuryinter.net] > Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 9:51 AM > To: psi(at)pivot.net > Cc: kolb(at)intrig.com > Subject: wing spar > > Hello kolb builders, > > I unpacked and examined my wings (I have not covered them yet) after > moving from michigan to western wisconsin and found a small ding in > the > wing spar... right in the area of the lift strut. It looks like the > moving van guys dropped a buckle from the straps or something onto it. > I made a sturdy chip board box and had the wings hanging in a sling > but > I didnt put a top on it... Any ideas as to how to fix this. Would > putting a small fiberglass or carbon fiber patch on it be helpful, you > could still see through fiberglass and look for cracks. I am no > structural engineer but I think that a patch could work if I had > someone > to tell me ho many plies to put on it. > > Topher > - ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: wing spar

On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, Christopher John Armstrong wrote: > Hello kolb builders, > > I unpacked and examined my wings (I have not covered them yet) after > moving from michigan to western wisconsin and found a small ding in the > wing spar... right in the area of the lift strut. It looks like the When you fly, you generally have lots of time to think about things. I can't see spoiling that by always having to think about a polished ding or patch on a very critical area. I guess by asking here you are looking for the right way to do it, and all I'm saying is that i'd really try to err on the conservative side here. The bit about watching for cracks ignores the possibility of sudden, complete buckling which seems more likely to me than slow progressive failure. Some questions remain: 1. Does the moving company owe you for the damage? 2. What are the dimensions of the ding? (small is in the eye of the beholder) 3. How much is a new spar? 4. What are your resale considerations? -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

From:

bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler)

Topher Reguarding nick/dent on spar: sounds like a question I would ask Dennis Sauder at Kolb Bob Doebler ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

From:

bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler)

Geoff Thistlethwaite Regarding BRS parachute: The BRS 750 (or whatever they call it now) falls into the F/S II spects. As BRS had not designed a mount for the F/SII when I ordered mine, 3 years ago, they said they were planning too. Suggest you call BRS and ask for tech support. Their number is 612-457-7491 or e-mail BRSchute(at)AOL.com . They can give you the part numbers for the mounting brackets. Although when ordering your chute, the BRS dealer only needs to know your make and model, this is kind of a backup to make sure they send you the right stuff. There are many different thoughts on where the best place to mount the chute is. I myself prefer above the gap-seal, just in front of the engine. Just be aware of engine cooling. Good luck, have fun flying. Bob Doebler ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

Subject:

Wing Spar

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

I would have an experienced Kolb builder take a look. What you have could range from "forget it" to "real trouble". Patching and / or sanding it out may make it look better but I doubt it will improve the integrity of the structure. Cracking may be on the inside of the spar , that is the convex side of the ding. This may be difficult to examine but not necessarily impossible. Ray from Woodbury ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

Subject:

Re: wing spar

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > >... a small ding in the >wing spar... right in the area of the lift strut. It looks like the >moving van guys dropped a buckle from the straps or something onto >it. Just to be clear, the ding is in the spar (5" tube) and not the leading-edge (1.5" tube) correct? -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: KOLB BRS?

Geoff Thistlethwaite wrote: > > I am building a Firestar 2 and would like to know which size BRS to get, > also any ideas or comments as to mounting would be very helpful > Thanks > Geoff Thistlethwaite > Geoff, My Firestar II has a BRS soft pack 750# chute located in the gap seal. It was designed for the Firestar I/II by BRS. I like having the chute in that location. I changed spacers on the installation in order to not lose head room and allow an aluminum gap seal to wrap fully under the chute. My own one piece design for the gap seal was used. I have digital pictures of the installation it they will help. John Jung http://www.execpc.com/~jrjung/ ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com>

Subject:

FW: FW: wing spar

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

I believe he would need an inspection port in the top of the wing to look at a ding in the top of the spar. I don't know if it is OK to put these snap in covers in the top of the wing. I guess he could put one in the bottom and then use 2 mirrors to view the top of the spar. > -----Original Message----- > From: Cavuontop [SMTP:Cavuontop(at)aol.com] > Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 9:02 AM > To: jason(at)sluggo.acuityinc.com > Subject: Re: FW: wing spar > > > << There will be no way to check for cracks after the wing > is covered except to cut a hole in the top of the wing. >> > > > Not so. The descripton of the covering process in the manual does > not > decsribe it but there is a way to put inspection holes in the bottom > surface > of the wing that you can cut open when you need to and then put on a > simple > cover when you are done looking. See the stitts book for a > description. I > put a whole mess of these little rings in my wing. You never know > when you > migh suspect some serious problem which turns out to be nothing and > you will > have saved youself a major recovering job. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

Subject:

CB Communication

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

This probably has been discussed before. I am interested in two-way communication between two or more Kolbs in close proximity while in flight together. Is it legal to use Citizen Band? Is it feasible? I notice in the SkySports catalog they advertise the following.....Patch cord-Radio Shack CB COM927....$79. Nothing about the transciever. Radio Shack has an under the car dash transceiver unit that incorporates an optional weather channel with plug-in for mike, headset and antenna. It operates off 12 volts DC. It would appear to me that the Comtronics helmet and headset unit would be compatible. I would appreciate comments from those in the know. I have no experience in this area. Ray from Woodbury ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

Subject:

Re: CB Communication

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: >This probably has been discussed before. I am interested in two-way >communication between two or more Kolbs in close proximity while in >flight together. Is it legal to use Citizen Band? Is it feasible? Yes, it is feasible. Legal? ...Uh, I hope so, I've had one in the Flyer for years. Around here, several ULers use CBs on channel 1. Its a very handy thing to have, I can usually talk to another airborne UL as much as 40 miles away. Air to ground is nice too, I can talk to the wife when she is running "ground crew" and we're on the way to or from a fly-in. There can be a problem trying to use a CB with a headset tho. Usually, the impedence of the mic on a headset will not match what the CB needs. The easiest fix is just to use the hand mic on the CB (also helps you keep track of which radio you're on ..most FAA types don't go for the, "breaker, breaker", "good buddy", or "10-4" type lingo). The output from the CB can usually go directly to the speakers of the headset or through an input jack of a com-box. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

stories

I was cleaning thru a directory and found a nostalgic message left over from some chat between John Hanson and I last summer. Thought I'd pass it along... > I once was honered by the request of my boss to entertain for his prenupt > party. I flew next to it throwing streamers made of crate paper rolled > up on a small dowel for weight. Worked pretty nicely -- several 200 > foot streamers of red, purple, etc. One caught on the vert stab and I > carried it for several minutes, not even knowing it. I also was given a > box of 500 paper helicopters (made by others out of half sheets of paper > folded to flutter down when tossed, generally intended to be done by > kids in their backyards.) Each of these had something written on it for > the party below, and just one something to do with getting a kiss from > either the bride or groom (choice of recipient :-) ). Anyway, the sight > of my tossing these was even better from the ground than the streamers as > I'm told it was a sudden big burst of color out of the plane. I darn > near lost the box i held them in, but clutched it tight for fear of > loosing it to the prop. I finished off by zooming in low over the > empty lot near their party, with all the kids running around grabbing > the paper helicopters. I poured 3-4 pounds of rice overboard and it > rained down on some of them. They loved it and I was Flying Stud #1 at > the wedding next night! Even the new 70 yr old conservative Chinese > in-laws thought it was cool. I found grains of rice in my plane for > weeks afterward. > > -Ben ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

Subject:

CB Communication

From:

rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon)

Thanks Mick........ Could you be more specific as to your CB transceiver, brand etc. Ray ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

From:

Jhann Gestur Jhannsson <johann.g(at)centrum.is>

Subject:

Re: KOLB BRS?

Geoff Thistlethwaite wrote: > > I am building a Firestar 2 and would like to know which size BRS to get, > also any ideas or comments as to mounting would be very helpful > Thanks > Geoff Thistlethwaite > Hi Geoff, and kolb flyers, I just built a Firestar II and I installed a VLS 750 in the gap between the wings. I preferred this type of box do to less drag on my airframe. BRS inc. do have a mounting hardware for the Firestar for this place of installation. I made some changes to forward fastener. A "S" shaped hook is bolt under the VLS box in the front and hooks under the steel spar, where the wing is connected to the cage. I welded a 2" extension to the "S" shaped hook and drilled an additional hole in the VLS box, which is now bolted in two places instead of one before. The reason for this change, was to move the VLS box forward away from the engine. I am using the Rotax 503 dcdi engine, and the space between engine and rocket for the VLS is approx. 3 1/2". On the rear mounting, I added some shims, to level the VLS box. I did send some pictures to BRS, to get their approval for the changes I made. The release handle is positioned on the left, beside the pilot's seat. For the gap seal, I used the nylon gap seal from Kolb, with the velcro. Some minor changes were here. I cut approx. 3" of the bottom end, because the gap seal does not extend as far back on the top as it should, due to the VLS box. This mounting is easy and works great. I flew my Firestar last week on a frozen lake, close to Keflavik airport, and the temp. was around 20 deg F. I had just completed the full enclosure, the day before, and I did not notice the cold air that chilling day. The winds were calm, sunny and not a single worry in the world except flying my ultralight safely. (Still learning after only 3 hours flying and enjoying my Kolb Firestar). The only thing I noticed during the flight, was the mid range temp got a bit high, so I need to move the clip on the needle to the lower position (richer fuel mixture), and maybee increase the prop pitch. Any commtents would be appreaciated if this is an incorrect solution. After a long winter weather and the only thing close to flying, is when reading the story's from the flyers on this mailing list, you tend to get over excited about the few days you get to fly during the winter time in Iceland. I hope the installation idea will help. Best regards, and thank you for a great list. Jhann G. Iceland. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

Subject:

Re: CB Communication

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: >Thanks Mick........ Could you be more specific as to your CB >transceiver, brand etc. Ray >__________________________________________________________________ Mine is a very compact Radio Shack model that's been out-of-production for a long time. Fortunately, an identical radio came with my C2 but doesn't go with it! Most newer compact CBs have up/down buttons for channel selection. Even if there's a knob, it probably just deflects to the right or left to change channels then returns to center. The problem is that when the power is turned off, the radio goes to channel 9 which is supposed to be for emergencies only. Many times some other pilot has said, "what channel were you guys on? I was hollerin' like mad and nobody would talk to me!" only to be embarassed when we look in his plane and see the red neon "9" on the channel display. Any CB that works on the ground will work fantastic in your UL, provided you can get a low SWR with the antenna installation. I bought my radio in a garage sale for $5. I'd look for one with a rotating channel knob. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: wing spar

From:

ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

Chris, If it makes you feel any better, the guy I fly with has extra drilled holes on the bottom of his FireStar wing spar at the drag strut plate. He bought his 1985 FS built and I know the history of this plane. It has been wrecked twice, seriously. My friend has removed the covering and inspected the workmanship. It isn't perfect. Those extra holes are disturbing, but I told him to keep an eye on the top of the fabric. If the spar were to ever weaken, it would start to bend and the loose fabric would be the first tell-tale sign of it. You should see this plane. It's a beauty from the outside. We both are planning a long summer of flying. I really don't think there is much to worry about. Remember, the chomaly steel H-section is also installed there. It would take a lot of drilled holes/dents to really weaken that spar. I dropped a rachet on my fuselage tube when changing my gearbox oil (dumb, I know). I put a nice ding in the tube. I don't worry, because the H-section is also installed in that spot too. I wouldn't do anything to it except add an inspection hole in that area where you can insert a dental mirror to look at it occasionally. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >Hello kolb builders, > >I unpacked and examined my wings (I have not covered them yet) after >moving from michigan to western wisconsin and found a small ding in >the >wing spar... right in the area of the lift strut. It looks like the >moving van guys dropped a buckle from the straps or something onto it. >I made a sturdy chip board box and had the wings hanging in a sling >but >I didnt put a top on it... Any ideas as to how to fix this. Would >putting a small fiberglass or carbon fiber patch on it be helpful, you >could still see through fiberglass and look for cracks. I am no >structural engineer but I think that a patch could work if I had >someone >to tell me ho many plies to put on it. > >Topher >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: CB Communication

..most FAA types don't go for the, >"breaker, breaker", "good buddy", or "10-4" type lingo). > >-Mick Fine If the guy using the CB lingo has a transponder, the controller will take a subtle revenge. In the aircraft data block, which the computer generates and tags the aircraft with, you always have the callsign, and the airspeed. If the airplane has mode-C, you have an altitude readout. There is also a function called "scratch-pad". This allows the controller to make notations like: "HXA" (slow experimental airplane), "C172" (chickenhawk), "PA28" (cherokee), etc. If you use CB lingo, your scratch-pad note may say; "RDNK" (redneck), "JERK", "DODO", etc. This warns the other controllers of what they will have to deal with... Enjoy. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 16, 1998

From:

Larry Cottrell <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net>

Subject:

Re: CB Communication

>This probably has been discussed before. I am interested in two-way >communication between two or more Kolbs in close proximity while in >flight together. Is it legal to use Citizen Band? Is it feasible? I >notice in the SkySports catalog they advertise the following.....Patch >cord-Radio Shack CB COM927....$79. Nothing about the transciever. Radio >Shack has an under the car dash transceiver unit that incorporates an >optional weather channel with plug-in for mike, headset and antenna. It >operates off 12 volts DC. It would appear to me that the Comtronics >helmet and headset unit would be compatible. I would appreciate comments >from those in the know. I have no experience in this area. Ray from >Woodbury > >I just installed a cb and a aircraft radio in my FS II. I found a antenna at Radio Shack that was designed to mount on the back of the unit. I liked it because it had a 90 bent into it so that I could mount it to a plate that I installed on the bottom of the cage under the seat. Cost 9.95, they also have a panel mount so you can use a short rg 58 cord to it and not throw off your SWR. I got a Y phono plug and have both my Delco radio and the CB patched into my headset. It works well with one exception and that is the mike picks up all the engine noise and about the only way that anyone can understand me is for me to idle back to 4000 rpms. What I need to do is make a patch cord tied to a two position switch that will allow me to use my noise cancelling mike on the headset. One way to Delco the other to CB. I picked up a Midway CB that measures one X 5 X 6 and has a ear phone plug in the back. On sale for 29.00 Larry ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 17, 1998

From:

"Ron Christensen" <SPECTRUMINTERNATIONAL(at)classic.msn.com>

Subject:

RE: CB Communication

Hi Ray; Once upon a time, there were 3 of us flying UL "airplanes" and we always communicated together in flight using hand held FM business band radios. Of course, we couldn't/didn't fly into "real" airports. We had the headset and boom mike in our headset cabled to a connector that plugged into the radio. It worked great. I once used a CB radio the same way. The important consideration is the ability to connect your headset/microphone to the radio. Ron Christensen MK III 1/2 N313DR ---------- From: owner-kolb(at)intrig.com on behalf of Raymond L Lujon Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 9:39 AM Subject: Kolb-List: CB Communication This probably has been discussed before. I am interested in two-way communication between two or more Kolbs in close proximity while in flight together. Is it legal to use Citizen Band? Is it feasible? I notice in the SkySports catalog they advertise the following.....Patch cord-Radio Shack CB COM927....$79. Nothing about the transciever. Radio Shack has an under the car dash transceiver unit that incorporates an optional weather channel with plug-in for mike, headset and antenna. It operates off 12 volts DC. It would appear to me that the Comtronics helmet and headset unit would be compatible. I would appreciate comments from those in the know. I have no experience in this area. Ray from Woodbury ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 17, 1998

From:

"Ron Christensen" <SPECTRUMINTERNATIONAL(at)classic.msn.com>

kolb(at)intrig.com

Subject:

RE: Flight Characteristics

Hi Frank: Glad to hear you have your dual controls finished ! ! Are you satisfied with the results?? Ron Christensen MK III 1/2 N313DR ---------- From: owner-kolb(at)intrig.com on behalf of Marino, Frank J (Youngstown ARB) Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 11:33 AM Subject: Kolb-List: RE: Flight Characteristics I'm going to throw my hat in the ring, when I was looking for an aircraft to build I did a lot of talking to other builders and did a lot of looking to see who was in business the longest and who was the one I could rely on for parts. That was the most fun to fly. I went with Kolb and am not sorry one bit. After I bent the gear on GeoR38's FS (yes I'm the Frank M he's always slamming on the web) and after I bent the gear on mine one time I drove to the factory a couple of times and flew with Dan. Now I have close to 40 hours on my MKIII and can't wait for spring to get here. I did some mods on mine this winter like dual sticks full doors and half doors new instrument panel. But as far as the MKIII is concerned to me it flies like a J3 cub. I would recommend that people at least take some dual flight instruction and at least solo before flying any ultralight aircraft. This is my nickels worth, I have no qualms with Kolb or the people that work there, except for Dennis coming up dual sticks after I spent all winter making mine. THANKS DENNIS. FRANK J. MARINO Chief Loadmaster 773 AS >---------- >From: DLSOUDER[SMTP:DLSOUDER(at)aol.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 8:05 AM >To: kolb(at)intrig.com >Subject: Flight Characteristics > >Dear Henry, > >If you like the discussions - you'll love the airplanes! :-) > >More seriously: >Some differences between Kolb and Challenger reflect different design goals. >Challenger aimed for less drag, Kolb for STOL performance. The Kolbs are >better shorter field airplanes than Challengers, but Challengers may be a bit >faster. Challenger buried the engine behind the fuselage (to reduce drag) >but >this results in a smaller prop which is crucial for acceleration and climb. >Their recent change from 50 something inch props to 60 was a step in the >right >direction, but there is still a world of difference between a 60" and the 66" >which is Kolb's minimum size. The FireStar II's can swing a 68 and the Mark- >III a 72". As part and parcel to the Challenger package, the engine is >mounted upside down, which is not everyone's choice of orientation. > >The Kolb has a more convention wing construction with truss ribs. The >Challengers have the sailcloth wing type construction with 2 spars and curved >tubes for ribs in between. (You can cover Challenger withs Stits with the >addition of more rib tubes.) > >For a comparison for 2-place aircraft, you have the basic choice between >tandem with Challenger and Side-by-side with the Kolb Mark-III. If you want >to look at the Tandem FS-II compared to Challenger, then you don't have the >dual controls with Kolb, but you have a less expensive aircraft with the >FireStar-II. Also you have the choice of the larger engines with the Kolb >Mark-III, Rotax 582, 618 and 912. > >Kolb uses a lot of welded chrom-moly steel where Challenger uses mostly pop >riveted aluminum. Personally I think welded chrom-moly steel is far >superior. >The 4130 steel is a much more expensive material than 6061 aluminum, plus the >welding is a more expensive process because it takes more skill to weld than >pop rivet. I don't think you'll find any knowledgeable person claiming that >pop-riveted aluminum makes for a superior structurer over welded 4130. I >mention both of these things because these features increase the cost of the >Kolb airframe. Or alternately you could say this helps keep the cost of the >Challenger down. > >Plus Kolb's use more steel in the the other higher stress areas of the >airplane in the wings and tail. Challenger sells through dealers and Kolb >direct. Challengers pricing and dealer network results in more motivated >people out in the field extoling the virtues of Challengers and they sell a >lot of airplanes. > >There has been quite a bit of discussion of the ul new group on Challengers - >with my favorite contributor Dan Zank presiding. > >Kolb has folding wings which many find a plus. > >Hope this helps! > >Dennis Souder >Pres Kolb Aircraft >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 17, 1998

From:

Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net>

Subject:

wing spar ding details

Thanks Ralph and all for the ideas about my spar. The ding is on the top of the spar about an inch forward and 1.5 inches inboard of the bolt that holds the lift strut bracket on. It is less then 1/4 by 1/8 inch abrasion, and there is a just barely perceptable dent around the abrasion that is ~3/8 inch around. The very middle of the dent is ~1/16 inch deep. Being so close the the steel inside the wing I would figure that the load is being carried by the steel there, but what do I know? I will take a picture of it and zap it too Dennis and see what he thinks. I havent heard of carbon and aluminum corosion problems, I would probably go with s-glass anyway cause you can see through it. I had planned inspection ports in this area anyway because it is the most likely place for trouble on the wing I think. Topher ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Wayland, William C." <wcw2573(at)eagle.sbeach.navy.mil>

Subject:

FireFly Stick Forces

Date:

Mar 17, 1998

After buying a FireFly from its original owner / builder I asked my friend Dave to inspect and test fly the FF. Dave is an ultralight instructor, GA pilot, and a jet engine mechanic with lots of flying experience. This was the first Kolb he had an opportunity to fly and he really put it through its paces. He flew it for 1 1/2 hours and made about 12 landings. His conclusion was that it was a great UL. He warned me that it was rather close coupled and that coordinated turns would take some learning given my previous experience being mostly in a Hurricane. He did find one thing he did not like, which I believe applies only to the FireFly with its VERY large flaperons. The control stick forces to move the flaperons were very high, particularly when rolling out of a turn. The original owner, Tom, had shortened the stick height above the pivot point from its original 15 to 13 inches to facilitate getting in and out of the cockpit. When I called Tom on this point he said that his modification had not increased the forces noticeably, and yes they are high. After flying the FF myself for 3 1/2 hrs I decided that, for me at least, the stick needed to be longer, much longer. I bought some one inch OD aluminum tubing that was a close slip over fit with top of the stick. Slid it over the stick top and fixed it in place with epoxy and two CRES pop rivets. Finished it off with white heat shrink tubing (to match the white paint job) and a slip over white plastic top cap. The stick top is now 18 inches above the pivot point. I love what this has done to reduce the stick forces and don't find that this has made getting in and out much harder. Chris W Chris Wayland DSN 873-7111 (562) 626-7111 (310) 987-8504 Pager ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 17, 1998

From:

Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca>

Subject:

RE: CB Communication

>Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:03:25 >To: "Ron Christensen" >From: Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca> >Subject: RE: CB Communication > > >>This probably has been discussed before. I am interested in two-way >>communication between two or more Kolbs in close proximity while in >>flight together. Is it legal to use Citizen Band? Is it feasible? I >>notice in the SkySports catalog they advertise the following.....Patch >>cord-Radio Shack CB COM927....$79. Nothing about the transciever. Radio >>Shack has an under the car dash transceiver unit that incorporates an >>optional weather channel with plug-in for mike, headset and antenna. It >>operates off 12 volts DC. It would appear to me that the Comtronics >>helmet and headset unit would be compatible. I would appreciate comments >>from those in the know. I have no experience in this area. Ray from >>Woodbury >> >>_____________________________________________________________________ > There is a lot of information on the web, just type "cb radio" in your favorite search engine. I had the same questions that you have about a year ago when I first installed my CB in my Mark 111. I posted a question about CB's on Dejay news and received some excillent replyes from CB enthusiasts. Some of the tricks that I learned were: - Use a centre loaded or a fiberglass aireal about 3 or more feet long. - Mount it about one foot in front of the vertical stabalizer on the tail tube. - Use 22 feet of good quality cable to connect your aireal to the radio, Excessive cable should not be placed in a round loop. Roll it up and tye it together in the middle so that it kind of looks like a figure 8. Excessive noise from ignition wires can be reduced by using shielded cabe for your kill switch, Radio Shack sells microphone cabe that is sheilded and is supposed to work ok (I have not tryed it). - Keep kill switch wires away form all cb wires. - Ground your cb to the Kolb frame with a short heavy wire. - Connect your cb directly to your battery. - Tune your arial. - Use the external speaker jack on your cb to feed your headset, you will have to install a resistor to lower the volume of your headset, your headset will be very loud without one and it may blow if the cb volume is turned up. Try a 1000 ohm resistor and go up or down from there to get the volume right. - I just use the cb microphone for transmissions. I am an amature when it comes to cb operation. I received the above information from a variety of sources. If someone finds errors whith the above info please reply back to the list. Brian "Kim" Steiner Saskatchewan, Canada BME ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 17, 1998

Subject:

Re: CB Communication

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: >- Use 22 feet of good quality cable to connect your aireal to the >radio, >Excessive cable should not be placed in a round loop. Roll it up and >tye >it together in the middle so that it kind of looks like a figure 8. This argument is to HAM's and CB'ers what "crow-hopping" is to UL'ers, you'll find good arguments for both sides. The theory behind using a certain length of coax is that for a given frequency and antenna line resistance, the cable will be "harmonically balanced" (not to be confused with the harmonic balancer on your Chevy). For the guy in his basement trying to talk to Singapore, this might make a very small improvement but (IMHO) in an UL (or car for that matter), carrying the extra weight of a coil of coax is just not worth it. Run the coax as needed then leave an extra 8 or 10 inches at both ends in case you need to replace a connector or two in the future (cable breaks usually happen right at the connectors). Just happens I use a 3' center loaded fiberglass whip on the Flyer. The stainless wire "stinger" is adjustable (slides in or out about 3/8") to set the SWR. Its mounted on the boom tube (overhead on the Flyer) just behind the wings. The C2 has a steel center load antenna about 2' long also with adjustable whip. Its mounted between the wings at the front spar. Both rigs have a low SWR and work great. I'll probably use the radio and antenna off the C2 on the Twinstar, I don't think the extra length antenna makes much difference either. -Mick Fine Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) Tulsa, Oklahoma http://angelfire.com/ok/gcufo mefine1(at)juno.com ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Mar 17, 1998

Subject:

Kolb

From:

bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler)

To Whomever You asked me to respond to you, so here goes. You mentioned "you just don't get it do you", regarding putting "kolb" in my letter for your search engine. First, my apologize for not always doing so. My flying buddy died a short time ago and I guess I've not been as diligent as I should have been, when I input to this site. However, wouldn't a polite reminder, rather than a sarcastic reply be more in order? Speaking of sarcasm, I have always found that differences of opinion and constructive criticism have a way of stimulating dialog, while sarcasm has a tensity to reduce it. Case in point, in talking to two builders in the last month, they mentioned that they would like to input data to the site, but "some of those guys are really vicious". So if we are really trying to encourage dissemination of information on Kolb aircraft lets lighten up. Otherwise we may just be shooting ourselves in the foot! Again, just my 2-cents worth: I'm outta here Bob Doebler ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com>

Subject:

FW: Kolb

Date:

Mar 17, 1998

I am usually pretty good about following what is being talked about on this group, but this e-mail total lost me. I would like to add that this is the most civil and generous bunch of people I have ever seen on a e-mail group, the noise ratio is extremely low. > -----Original Message----- > From: bobdoebler(at)juno.com [SMTP:bobdoebler(at)juno.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 2:35 PM > To: kolb(at)intrig.com > Subject: Kolb > > To Whomever > > You asked me to respond to you, so here goes. > You mentioned "you just don't get it do you", regarding putting > "kolb" > in my letter for your search engine. > First, my apologize for not always doing so. My flying buddy died a > short time ago and I guess I've not been as diligent as I should have > been, when > I input to this site. > > However, wouldn't a polite reminder, rather than a sarcastic reply be > more in order? Speaking of sarcasm, I have always found that > differences > of opinion and constructive criticism have a way of stimulating > dialog, > while sarcasm has a tensity to reduce it. > > Case in point, in talking to two builders in the last month, they > mentioned that they would like to input data to the site, but "some of > those guys are really vicious". > > So if we are really trying to encourage dissemination of > information > on > Kolb aircraft lets lighten up. Otherwise we may just be shooting > ourselves in the foot! >

Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-am

Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-am