Kolb-List Archive Browser

rt(at)schack.keme.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 25, 1998

From:

John <redhill(at)rose.net>

Subject:

Variometers

Does anyone use a variometer on their ultralight? I'm interested in the least expensive unit required to do serious soaring in an ultralight. I noticed units priced from $340 to $167, from non-electric dial to electric beepers that fit inside a helmet. Any recommendations from actual experience??? ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 25, 1998

Subject:

Re: legal Forces

From:

pl4coop(at)juno.com (robert w. cooper)

Hi Gang - Here in the east, we recently had an airport owner take the position that the ultralight could stay. However, all aircraft based at the field, had to carry $500,000.00 liability insurance. Have you called an insurance company requesting that much liability ? I think you will find that the best amount you can find is $50,000.00. However, with an N number the aircraft will be insured as a homebuilt. My Pazmany PL-4A is insured at $500,000.00 an annual cost of $187.00. I have added aircraft damage - non-flight at $144.00 - total $331.00. - In any event the ultralights relocated to another friendlier airfield. And guys - when you live in the land of no people - attitudes are better! Kolb wanna-be Bob Cooper Newfield, NJ writes: >>Rod, >> The two big concerns about ultralights mixing with general >aviation >>are: the slow speed and lack of pilot trainning. If you have a pilots >>licience, one solved. If you fly a Firstar the second is solved. Even >a >>377 Firstar can fly 70 mph in the pattern, which is as fast as the >>pattern speed for a Cessna 150. In Wisconsin we have over 150 public >>airports. In 9 years of flying ultralights, I have never been told >that >>I wasn't welcome. The biggest reason that ultralighters (that I am >aware > >I haven't been that lucky. I went out of my way to ask my local Fed >funded >airport about any special patterns, etc. This was 3 months before I >even >finished construction. He not only uninvited me, he flatly told me >ultralights were not allowed. His policy is illegal, and the FAA has >verified that to me and to him. But there is so much "City Hall BS", >and the FAA is busy with other things, that the policy still stands >there. I fly there on wknds when mr slick-boy-airport-manager is not >around, and have become friends with the GA pilots. > >I think that in general, you are bound to find airport access problems >flying an ultralight. This may be rare, but indeed a hassle, even if >your >plane is FAR103 legal. If you are not FAR103 legal, you may be >required >to show proof of insurance -- at least at your homebase airport. This >is >what truely puts you in a legal predicament. (I'm reluctant to push >for >FAR103 rights at my local airport, cuz when they are forced to allow >me >legitimate access, they will also force me to buy insurance, which i >can't legally do.) If you register it Experimental, they may want to >sneer at you, but will change their tune the minute they see the >N-number. > >-Ben Ransom >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

Re: Follow Up Question?

Date:

May 25, 1998

Rod, You've got the right idea. It's called the 51% rule. You have to be able to prove that more than 51% of the aircraft was amateur built in order to register it in the "experimental-amateur built" category. The original builder could assist you in registering the plane, but it's unlikely that they would want to, and it wouldn't be exactly what you're after anyway. You personally, have to be the builder to get the repairman's certificate. Your plan of disassembly should work. Just make sure that you document everything. Take lots of pictures along the way, and be certain to get shots of the most disassembled condition. It would probably be wise to inform the local FAA office, or your local DAR (designated airworthieness representative) of your intentions before you start. Deciding exactly how much 51% is becomes subjective, and their opinion is ultimately going to be the one that counts. All that being said, I would be reluctant to disassemble anything that was good to start with. If you drill out a good rivet, then replace it, you'll probably have something that isn't quite as good as it was before. It's difficult to drill out a steel rivet without doing any damage to the hole. Hopefully, you can negotiate this with your inspector. Good luck, Rusty SlingShot (31.4 hrs) Is it possible to buy a complete and flying used ultralight, then somehow get it certified as experimental, but make it so that you can do your own inspections, repairs and the like? I would think this might involve completely disassembling the original aircraft and then rebuilding it by your own hands. Then, adding the bits on to make it legally experimental and with you as the builder. I want to buy used, but also do not want to need to pay someone else to do my annual and the like. Cheers! Rod Schack rt(at)schack.keme.co.uk ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

slips and flaps

Date:

May 25, 1998

Hi all, I did a few experiments today based on some of the recent topics. This was in an underpowered SlingShot. 1- Using partial flaps for climb. I only have two notches of flaps in my current configuration. They are 7 degrees, and 12 degrees. Adding 7 degrees seems to help my climb rate, but not enough to be worth doing it. 12 degrees showed a notable loss of climb rate. Tests were done at the normal best climb speed of 58 mph. 2- Forward slips. I made several descents with and without slipping the plane. Speed was kept at 60 mph for all tests. Normal rate of descent for my plane is 700 fpm in this condition, and slipping didn't change it any that I could measure. When slipping, I held the plane at a pretty severe angle, but this still wasn't max slip. It just isn't the same as a GA plane. I'm used to being able to hear all the extra wind resistance of the fuselage, but the SS is just an egg, and I guess it doesn't much matter which way it travels. There must be some extra drag, but not enough to really use. 3- Flaps for a better slow landing. No help here. It's a good thing I picked an empty airport to practice at, because some of my landings were downright ugly. I can make a smooth landing if I land , but when I try to come in at less than 60 mph, either the tail hits first when trying to flare, or the mains hit hard and I bounce. Sometimes both :-) The problem is obviously the pilot, because I've watched Dennis and John Hauck make impossibly short landings in the factory SS. I guess I'll just have to practice some more, or get John H. to come down here and show me how to fly my plane. 4- SS landing gear test. Yep. It takes a real beating :-) Rusty SlingShot (31.4 hours and about 3 good landings) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 25, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: slips and flaps

>:-) The problem is obviously the pilot, because I've watched Dennis and John >Hauck make impossibly short landings in the factory SS. I guess I'll just have >to practice some more, or get John H. to come down here and show me how to fly >my plane. Hey Rusty: When one is showing off one must pick a day at Lakeland with a 25 kt headwind for landing. Anybody can land short in those conditions. john h ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 25, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: Variometers

John, I use an electric one that was designed for hang gliders. It runs all year on a 9 volt battery, and is usually strapped to the wrist. I strap it to my leg (no more panel space). It has a lcd display and is very sensitive. The cost is $300+ new, but I bought mine used. John Jung > >John wrote: > > Does anyone use a variometer on their ultralight? I'm interested in the > least expensive unit required to do serious soaring in an ultralight. I > noticed units priced from $340 to $167, from non-electric dial to > electric beepers that fit inside a helmet. Any recommendations from > actual experience??? ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 25, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: legal Forces

Bob, What is the name of your insurance company? I want to talk to them about insuring my plane. John Jung Firestar II N6163J 6.4 hrs > >robert w. cooper wrote: > snip > My Pazmany PL-4A is insured at $500,000.00 an annual cost of $187.00. I > have added aircraft damage - non-flight at $144.00 - total $331.00. - snip > Kolb wanna-be > > Bob Cooper > Newfield, NJ ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 25, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: ultralight/lightplane and airports

>Richard, > >Do you believe that a transponder would be the deciding factor? The FAA >knows that mixing lightplane traffic with heavies would spell out >disaster and I agree. When landing in a jetliner, the last thing I would >want to see (if I could) would be some dinky ultralight even remotely >close to our approach. Would you want to fly your lightplane in Class B >airspace? No thanks. > >Ralph Burlingame >Original FireStar I totally agree about getting into wake turbulence. However, class B airspace is positive control airspace. Everyone has to be under ATC control, and separation standards between small vs. large, small vs. heavy, large vs. heavy, B757's, etc. are a controllers soup sandwich. However, I suspect you are better off in class B with positive separation than in class C, or class D airspace with pseudo separation. (green-between) I have no plans to be in class B or C airspace anytime soon. But if I did, I would call ATC and tell them the 4 W's: Who I is; What I is, Where I is, What I want. And then I would toodle along the same way I usually do: listening to all the traffic they talk to, and trying to figure out where it is even before they call traffic for me. And looking for the one they forget. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 25, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: Variometers

>Does anyone use a variometer on their ultralight? I'm interested in the >least expensive unit required to do serious soaring in an ultralight. I >noticed units priced from $340 to $167, from non-electric dial to >electric beepers that fit inside a helmet. Any recommendations from >actual experience??? My wife gave me a Makiki Electronics Vario in 1984 for my Hummer. I still have it in the MKIII. It uses a vacuum flask with two little pith balls that float up for lift or sink. it is not fancy, but seems sensitive. It cost $75 in 1984, don't know if they are still in business. Makiki Electronics P.O. Box 629 Kauula, Hi. 96717 808-293-9348 This data is off the instrument, don't know if it is still good. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GeoR38 <GeoR38(at)aol.com>

Date:

May 25, 1998

Subject:

Re: Propellor Forces

<< I went flying today with my buddy. I landed at his short strip with a headwind of 10 mph and I was able to land in about 150 feet after clearing the trees at that end. We then went on to Forest Lake where the lady who owns the airstrip promptly told us that ultralights were not allowed there. She let us leave them while we walked into town for lunch >> Ralph....I have a firestar KX and have a rough time landing in less than 750 ft....so I bought brakes that am installing now ( boy are they heavy...from Kolb) ....but I'm only expecting to get my landings down to 450 or so...GeoR38 the ol fast landing glider pilot! ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: junk in gasoline

From:

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

Date:

May 25, 1998

John, I took that little screen filter out of the float bowl years ago and have never had a problem. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >>Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 10:52:06 -0500 >>To: Cliff and Carolyn Stripling >>From: john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> >>Subject: Re: junk in gasoline >>In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980525151336.006730f8(at)dfw.net> >> >> >> >>Ciff: >> >>Know what those little cylindrcal screens are for in the float bowls? >>They are to keep air bubbles out of the main jet sumps. W/O them the >>fuel mixture could lean out. >> >>john h ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 25, 1998

Subject:

Re: legal Forces

From:

rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT)

Bob Who do you have your ins. with ? On my M/III I used Nation Air insurance agency in Dallas ,Tx. with the same liability as you . and mine is higher I may have to think about changeing , RICK LIBERSAT writes: >Hi Gang - > >Here in the east, we recently had an airport owner take the position >that the ultralight could stay. However, all aircraft based at the >field, had to carry $500,000.00 liability insurance. Have you called >an insurance company requesting that much liability ? >I think you will find that the best amount you can find is $50,000.00. > However, with an N number the aircraft will be insured as a >homebuilt. My Pazmany PL-4A is insured at $500,000.00 an annual cost >of $187.00. I have added aircraft damage - non-flight at $144.00 - >total $331.00. - > >In any event the ultralights relocated to another friendlier airfield. > > >And guys - when you live in the land of no people - attitudes are >better! > >Kolb wanna-be > >Bob Cooper >Newfield, NJ > > > > >writes: >>>Rod, >>> The two big concerns about ultralights mixing with general >>aviation >>>are: the slow speed and lack of pilot trainning. If you have a >pilots >>>licience, one solved. If you fly a Firstar the second is solved. >Even >>a >>>377 Firstar can fly 70 mph in the pattern, which is as fast as the >>>pattern speed for a Cessna 150. In Wisconsin we have over 150 public >>>airports. In 9 years of flying ultralights, I have never been told >>that >>>I wasn't welcome. The biggest reason that ultralighters (that I am >>aware >> >>I haven't been that lucky. I went out of my way to ask my local Fed >>funded >>airport about any special patterns, etc. This was 3 months before I >>even >>finished construction. He not only uninvited me, he flatly told me >>ultralights were not allowed. His policy is illegal, and the FAA has >>verified that to me and to him. But there is so much "City Hall BS", >>and the FAA is busy with other things, that the policy still stands >>there. I fly there on wknds when mr slick-boy-airport-manager is not >>around, and have become friends with the GA pilots. >> >>I think that in general, you are bound to find airport access >problems >>flying an ultralight. This may be rare, but indeed a hassle, even if > >>your >>plane is FAR103 legal. If you are not FAR103 legal, you may be >>required >>to show proof of insurance -- at least at your homebase airport. >This >>is >>what truely puts you in a legal predicament. (I'm reluctant to push >>for >>FAR103 rights at my local airport, cuz when they are forced to allow >>me >>legitimate access, they will also force me to buy insurance, which i >>can't legally do.) If you register it Experimental, they may want to > >>sneer at you, but will change their tune the minute they see the >>N-number. >> >>-Ben Ransom >>- >> ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

lwfuller(at)juno.com

Date:

May 25, 1998

Subject:

General MK-III flying thoughts

Hi everyone-- I'm Larry Fuller and just got on the Kolb net a few weeks ago. I fly an unusual Mark III. Mine has a Revmaster 2100D engine, Rocky Mr. Engine instruments along with a UMB AIS, Altm, Compass, an IVO 3 bladed propand a BRS. To date I have ~ 33 hours logged. It has been an education. I have had a private, SEL rating since the late 1950's and have logged ~1200 hours. My instrument package has the RS-232 interface and I log a lot of the engine data, on my lap top computer, while the tests are going on-- makes it a lot easier to analyze when I'm not busy flying my test plan. I guess I really should say that I'm flying a Mark III Heavy. My first flight was exciting due to an out of trim condition. I installed the aileron trim tab that Dennis recommends and All is well now. The biggest problem that I have had was a sticking AIS, this resulted in some hard landings until I found out what was happening with the AIS. UMB replaced the unit under warranty. I've also had landing gear problems-- bent even with good landings. I redesigned the gear and have a 4130 sleeve inside the fuselage tube and a heat treated 6150 spring steel rod external. The gear now has ~ 12 hours on it and it is doing fine. My current test plan is two parts, (1) fine tune the prop pitch and (2) continue increasing the weight to the maximum. I replaced the passenger seat with a 1/2 inch Alum. plate to mount the weights and the computer system-- Oh yes I programmed the lap top to display the instrument data as bar graphs that change colors with the change in temp. etc. I'm trying to develop a decent display that won't wash out in direct sun light. Others have mentioned problems with water in the fuel tanks-- keep them full all the time on the ground! No condensation or very little this way. Other Kolb flyers have mentioned the "tail wheel banging", been there - done that. I got tired of what was happening on landings and went back to the old weight and balance and started weighing the tail, started with the level position and lowered it 3 inches at a time and re weighed it at each interval. What an eye opener! The weight shift is significant when the tail starts to drop. I now make sure that I don't start the flair until I'm 2 to 3 feet off the ground and I usually come in "Hot" and pull the power off and push the nose over just as the wheels touch. More later-- Larry Fuller ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

slow landings

From:

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

Date:

May 25, 1998

George, I used to land hot too and eat up a lot of runway until I watched the Kolb factory pilot land that FireStar inside of 150 feet or so. The secret is to slow the approach down to 40 mph with some power (about 3000rpm) then at about 20 feet from touchdown close the throttle and get the timing of the flare just right. As soon as the speed begins to drop off, pull back on the stick and it will slow down as if you had brakes (induced drag of the wing). In a wind, I carry about 5 mph more on approach. Try to work on complete power off landings (at idle) from 500 feet. Then when you gain confidence in your landings, shut it off from 500 feet. Being a glider pilot, I'll bet you could soar that ultralight and make power-off landings every time. I once shut it off at 2600 feet and a mile and a half out. I glided back and made a good landing. Not only was it fun, but I learned quite a bit about the glide of a FireStar and how to make it land short. I know those Rotax's are reliable, but you never know. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar >Ralph....I have a firestar KX and have a rough time landing in less >than 750 ft....so I bought brakes that am installing now ( boy are they >heavy...from Kolb) ....but I'm only expecting to get my landings down to 450 or >so...GeoR38 the ol fast landing glider pilot! ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

WVarnes <WVarnes(at)aol.com>

Date:

May 26, 1998

Subject:

Kolb: Junk in gasoline

Hi guys, Been reading all the postings about water (and other junk) in the fuel. I have the Dial-A-Jet installed and one of the side benefits is that any water that might get into the float bowl is immediately siphoned out by the DAJ and injected into the carb airstream to be burned? and disposed of. Don't think it will take any junk through though because the tubing is of the small 1/8" size. Bill Varnes Original Firestar 377 power ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 26, 1998

From:

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

Subject:

Re: slow landings

Ralph and all, I wish I had gotten my glider license. It would have given me more confidence in a possible engine out. My total hours are only about 250 since the '70's. Thank goodness I have about 60 hours of recent time. I have to keep telling myself... the first thing you do when you hear silence is to push the stick FORWARD... then evaluate the situation. The elevator is mis-named isn't it? Didn't "Stick and Rudder" call it the speed control and the throttle the altitude control? ...or am I remembering some other instructional flying book or just dreaming. I have to admit that I fear an engine out. I know that 2-cycles are not that reliable... especially meaning when they quit, they quit, with little or no warning. You know the old addage ...it is not if but when... I always do try to fly the pattern as if my engine could quit anytime. I always try to approach with about 3K rpm (does that equivicate to an engine out in your opinion?) vs. a stopped prop so that if I loose it I will be able to make the field. I always make my approach a bit high for the same reason... and for that reason I sometimes have to pop a little flaps on approach to kill the extra altitude them dump them before short final and flare. I doubt if I will ever intentionally shut it down. Silence is NOT "golden" to me. I like the ERRRRRRR! ...so comforting for chicken little... On the subject of shortening landings, I usually use up about 600' because I come in fast (ideally 10+ mph over stall) and usually decide at the last minute whether to wheel land or transition into a 3-point. I would like in time to become more proficient and use the flaps and land as you have indicated. It looks great to see it done right... like in the Kolb video and at the airshows by the real pros. It is just going to take time. You screw it up just once and you might bend your gear at the very least. I didn't put a "butt sled" (sheet of aluminum under the seat for protection) in my plane either. "Humor" attempt there... Later, -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Retired Pharmacist (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas and Marble Falls Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel Kolb MKIII - N582CC (43.3 hrs) ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"JD Stewart" <jstewart(at)ncfcomm.com>

Subject:

RE: My Nnumbered

Date:

May 26, 1998

I have just spent the last 2 months going through this with the Norfolk, NE airport. It started out with no one even knowing what the proper airspace was for OFK (the airport manager is new). Once we found that out, (Surface Class E), I had all sorts of conflicting stories about what we could do with it and who's in charge. I finally got to the right person at the Minneapolis Center (500 miles away), and all he needed was a signed agreement between the club and us. I expect to have that signed over this noon hour. What started out as "no ultralights" has ended up with us having our own UL flight park at the North end of the airport. They're going to mow us a couple of strips and eventually allow us to build our own hangars out there. Have all your ducks in a row when you go through the process, and stress safety always. They'll be impressed. We require all of our pilots to have a pilot's rating from one of the 3 orgs, or demonstrated ability (for old-timers who were flying before the orgs existance). We're thinking of requiring helmets for all ULs also. J.D. Stewart NCF Communications, Inc. http://www.ncfcomm.com Northeast Nebraska Flying Club http://www.users.ncfcomm.com/nnfc/index.html > > The city airport I fly from does not allow ultra lights ... > I have been told that once an airport has ever received and Federal funds, > there is no way they can keep any kind of aviation from using the > facility, > with this being true, the ultra light club has addressed the > airport board, but they still say no. No body has pushed this to a point of getting an > attorney, but I wonder what would happen. (kind a sorry on has to > resort to > this) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 26, 1998

From:

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

Subject:

Re: slow landings

On Tue, 26 May 1998, Cliff and Carolyn Stripling wrote: > I have to admit that I fear an engine out. I know that 2-cycles are not > ... > "golden" to me. I like the ERRRRRRR! ...so comforting for chicken little... Fear is healthy, but really, a controlled engine out isn't too big a deal if you do it on a long strip, and right after a series of engine idle landings where you do hit your spot. Aim for 1/3 down a 2000 foot strip in calm wind for starters. > > On the subject of shortening landings, I usually use up about 600' because I Being comfy with STOL landings is a very nice benefit of a Kolb -- allows you to fly into many off-the-beaten-path places -- this especially in the lightest wing-load models. I think the 'trick' to getting down to short landings is to mentally focus on sticking the nose into the dirt (cement/whatever); i.e. don't really flare till 10' off the ground, ~10mph above stall. For really tight ones where there are obstacles, and/or if there is wind, carry some power and fly it slow onto the spot -- a la carrier hook landing. If you really do flare at the last couple seconds, it only takes a couple seconds (obviously), so you must feel pretty automatic with how much stick to pull without underflaring or ballooning. Getting good at short landings could come in handy if (read when) the above engine-out thing ever bites. I also *know* that going from heavier planes to being good at this feels very unnatural. Now, i feel i should add the standard disclaimers: -be careful -progress to this in small increments -don't blame me -etc, etc -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

UL DAD <ULDAD(at)aol.com>

Date:

May 26, 1998

Subject:

Re: Revmaster

Hi Larry: Very interesting project. I believe several of us may be interested in your engine choice. Are you using a PRSU on you Revmaster or is it direct drive? How much does the engine/drive weigh? How does performance compare to 582/912 installations? Is your line of thrust changed much from that of Rotax installations? Bill Griffin MKIII/EA-81(one of these days/years) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 26, 1998

From:

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

Subject:

USUA mag this month

To all, I just read this month's mag. There are ads (actually a whole column) for two Kolbs in there that look very interesting. One is a MKIII with lots of expensive goodies for $12.5K. Another is an unfinished Firefly for $2K or so less than invested. Interesting ads. If I were a wannabee... Kolb got a blurb about the re-intro of the Laser Kit and etc. I would like to see the MKIII refinements up close and in person - esp. the spring gear. Later, -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Retired Pharmacist (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas and Marble Falls Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel Kolb MKIII - N582CC (43.3 hrs) ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 26, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: pre covering questions

Ron, To add fuel, I use a hose on the end of the filler spout and stand in back on the right. I lift the tank up next to the carburator. All my camping gear could be loaded without access to the back. I do have a velcroed panel to access the chute (under the tank), and I use it to stuff a small pillow next to the chute. The fuel sight opening can be cut out later if you want as with an access door, so go ahead and cover it per the plans (like mine). John Jung > >Ron Carroll wrote: > > Bill & John, I am about ready to cover my cage and want to pick your brains > one more time. > > I have heard from a couple of guys about how their cages are covered. Some > include no covering on the rear half of the cage, and others completely > cover the cage. An obvious question is, if the cage is fully covered, what > is the best way to put fuel in the tank? Also, from what you have told me, > John, you manage to get a lot of camping gear somewhere in the rear. How do > you manage to access the area? Zippered or Velcroed doors/panels? If so, > where did you place them, and what are they made of? > > Also, the old question of seeing the fuel level. I think John said he just > turns his head, but can you see the whole tank with the front of the rear > cage covered? I am reluctant to put holes in the tank and the cage cover > for a clear tube sight gauge, but other than an electronic gauge I may have > no other option. Or do I? > > You guys will be happier than I when this is finally completed, so that I > can leave you alone. > > Thanks for any help you can offer, > > Ron Carroll > Original Firestar ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: slow landings

47,49,51-55,57,59,61,63-64,66-80

From:

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

Date:

May 26, 1998

Cliff, I believe it was "Stick and Rudder" that stated the throttle is altitude control and the stick is the speed control. It took awhile for me to accept this, but if all pilots believed it maybe there would be fewer accidents. My 2-cycle has been very reliable (knock on wood). The rule: "always stay within gliding distance of a suitable landing field" has been violated just yesterday when I flew about 5 miles over the open waters of Lake Minnetonka. Man, do I have confidence in that little 377! Is it my imagination, or are 2-cycles getting more reliable? I haven't heard about a Rotax engine failure in months. Maybe it's the new oils? Cliff, you are a wise man keeping altitude on your approaches. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >Ralph and all, > >I wish I had gotten my glider license. It would have given me more >confidence in a possible engine out. My total hours are only about >250 since the '70's. Thank goodness I have about 60 hours of recent time. >I have to keep telling myself... the first thing you do when you hear >silence is to push the stick FORWARD... then evaluate the situation. The >elevator is mis-named isn't it? Didn't "Stick and Rudder" call it the speed >control and the throttle the altitude control? ...or am I remembering some >other instructional flying book or just dreaming. >I have to admit that I fear an engine out. I know that 2-cycles are >not that reliable... especially meaning when they quit, they quit, with >little or no warning. You know the old addage ...it is not if but when... I >always do try to fly the pattern as if my engine could quit anytime. >I always try to approach with about 3K rpm (does that equivicate to an >engine out in your opinion?) vs. a stopped prop so that if I loose it I will >be able to make the field. I always make my approach a bit high for the >same reason... and for that reason I sometimes have to pop a little flaps >on approach to kill the extra altitude them dump them before short final >and flare. I doubt if I will ever intentionally shut it down. Silence is >NOT "golden" to me. I like the ERRRRRRR! ...so comforting for chicken >little... > >On the subject of shortening landings, I usually use up about 600' >because I come in fast (ideally 10+ mph over stall) and usually decide at the >last minute whether to wheel land or transition into a 3-point. I would >like in time to become more proficient and use the flaps and land as you have >indicated. It looks great to see it done right... like in the Kolb video >and at the airshows by the real pros. It is just going to take time. >You screw it up just once and you might bend your gear at the very least. >I didn't put a "butt sled" (sheet of aluminum under the seat for >protection) in my plane either. "Humor" attempt there... > >Later, > >-- >Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Retired Pharmacist >(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas >and Marble Falls Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel > Kolb MKIII - N582CC (43.3 hrs) > ____________________|_____________________ > ___(+^+)___ > (_) > 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 26, 1998

Subject:

Re: ultralight/lightplane and airports

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: >Rod, > >This airport (Forest Lake) is a privately owned strip that receives >funding from the township. We knew this prior to our flight over >there. Rumor has it that the State of MN was going to buy it and >convert it into an ultralight/lightplane strip. Good for little HHH! (Just beware of politicians bearing gifts!) :-) I rely (once again) on faulty memory but it was my understanding that the manager of any 'uncontrolled' airport, regardless of whether it had ever received federal funds or not, had the authority to forbid any activity he deems "unsafe" to general aviation at his airport. This includes; glider operations; sky-divers; and even balloon launches. Ask any of these other groups how much freedom they have to operate from the airport of their choice. FAR Part 103 refers to ultralights simply as 'vehicles' (not aircraft). This implies you have about as much right to operate from their property as a 10 year-old with a go-cart. But then, how much do you pay in registration and fuel fees? I flipped through the FAR's and can't find the chapter and verse (so maybe it don't exist) but that's what I was taught. Even so, we don't have much trouble here in Okie-land anyway. Most of the small airports are unmanned and others barely stay open selling fuel. The operators seem glad to have ANYTHING drop in (so to speak) from time to time even if you only buy a soda and shoot the bull for a while. -Mick Fine Tulsa, Oklahoma http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo ________________________________________________________________________________ (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP

From:

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

Subject:

Re: ultralight/lightplane and airports

Date:

May 27, 1998

After following this thread and seeing what problems others have had I can't believe how lucky we got it here in St. Landry Parish. When UL's first showed up there was some skepticism especially from the FBO, but after a few months and he took a look at how much fuel he was selling skepticism turned to enthusiasm. Now one of the UL pilots is on the airport commission, and we have our own area at he airport. Now if I could just get them to let us put in a couple of grass runways(that concrete just eats tires). Geoff Thistlethwaite -----Original Message----- From: Mick Fine <mefine1(at)juno.com> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 11:32 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: ultralight/lightplane and airports >writes: >>Rod, >> >>This airport (Forest Lake) is a privately owned strip that receives >>funding from the township. We knew this prior to our flight over >>there. Rumor has it that the State of MN was going to buy it and >>convert it into an ultralight/lightplane strip. > >Good for little HHH! (Just beware of politicians bearing gifts!) :-) > >I rely (once again) on faulty memory but it was my understanding that the >manager of any 'uncontrolled' airport, regardless of whether it had ever >received federal funds or not, had the authority to forbid any activity >he deems "unsafe" to general aviation at his airport. This includes; >glider operations; sky-divers; and even balloon launches. Ask any of >these other groups how much freedom they have to operate from the airport >of their choice. > >FAR Part 103 refers to ultralights simply as 'vehicles' (not aircraft). >This implies you have about as much right to operate from their property >as a 10 year-old with a go-cart. But then, how much do you pay in >registration and fuel fees? > >I flipped through the FAR's and can't find the chapter and verse (so >maybe it don't exist) but that's what I was taught. Even so, we don't >have much trouble here in Okie-land anyway. Most of the small airports >are unmanned and others barely stay open selling fuel. The operators seem >glad to have ANYTHING drop in (so to speak) from time to time even if >you only buy a soda and shoot the bull for a while. > >-Mick Fine >Tulsa, Oklahoma >http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair >Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) >http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo > >_____________________________________________________________________ >Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com >Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] >- ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

Re: ultralight/lightplane and airports

Date:

May 27, 1998

I live in Tallahassee, Florida. We have a local airport that does NOT allow ultralights PERIOD. I know the FBO very well. As a matter of fact I completed 60.5 hours of private pilot training out of this airport in the Piper Tramahawk. The airport currently has little life to it. I don't see how they can survive. It would sure be convient for me to hanger my aircraft here. Heck, I would be spending money purchasing fuel etc. Many of the local pilots would also like to breath some life into this uncontroled airport as well. But..... We now have to make the drive to Quincy, Florida to their uncontroled airport. This place is alive with everything. It is a growing and prospering business. We have gliders, ultralights (Three Kolbs, soon four), and parachuting, etc. One big happy family. It is sad to see airports become abandoned due to poor management. This is what I see anyway. Opportunity abounds in many uncontroled airports, to bad they have blinders on. ________________________________________________________________________________ (Netscape Mail Server v2.01) with SMTP id AAA144

From:

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

Subject:

Trim Tab

Date:

May 27, 1998

Hello again Kolbers... As I recall, not too long ago, the topic of trim tab placement was discussed. I find there is a need for elevator trim on my Firestar. Also I recall there was someone with Pictures of the tab and placement, etc. Can we go over this again and I will pay more attention this time. Incidently, I have been flying mine a great deal and feel quite comfortable in the new bird. Thanks Larry in Sussex N.J. Original Firestar 377 Powered

Larry in Sussex N.J. Original Firestar 377 Powered

________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

Re: ultralight/lightplane and airports

Date:

May 27, 1998

----Original Message Follows---- Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 10:50:12 -0500 From: Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)nationwide.net> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: ultralight/lightplane and airports Rut, >I live in Tallahassee, Florida. We have a local airport that does NOT >allow ultralights PERIOD. I know the FBO very well. You say you know him well. Apparently, you mean by that that you think he is very stubborn in his ways and not likely to be interested in making any changes. If that is not the case, you might approach him with some of your ideas. You never know - nothing ventured, nothing gained. Good luck, -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Retired Pharmacist Cliff & Carolyn, No, actually he is not completely opposed to the idea. He has much to gain. The owner and the FBO are two different people. The owner lives in New York and is an attorney who I hear is unapproachable. I am going to continue to push the issue some with the locals. I hate to see an airport go to waste. This airport currently has only two operable aircraft based at the field. (That I am aware of) I have visions of developing flight schools, ultralight instruction, maybe even an ultralight dealership. Big Dreamer.... The only reason ever given, was the VOR near the field offers an instrument approach down to 700 ft. When I was flying solo in the PA-28, I frequently came into contact with GA idiots w/o radios who wouldn't even acknowledge other traffic in the pattern. These folks are more of a danger than the ultralight pilots that I know. Oh Well. I feel that is our duty as pilots to continue to develop future pilots by creating interest in aviation. If pilot certification and interest diminishes, our sport (way of life) might be compromised by the Bureaucrats. What would happen if we didn't have organizations like the USUA, AOPA, ect. to look out for our interest? The only reason that they exist is because of us. If we fail to exist, then we loose our voice to government. The world would be left with commercial pilots. I hope that this makes sense. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a mole hill. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 27, 1998

From:

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

Subject:

Re: ultralight/lightplane and airports

On Tue, 26 May 1998, Mick Fine wrote: > I rely (once again) on faulty memory but it was my understanding that the > manager of any 'uncontrolled' airport, regardless of whether it had ever > received federal funds or not, had the authority to forbid any activity > he deems "unsafe" to general aviation at his airport. This includes; This is true. However, the law also states that final authority is held by the FAA as determined by the local FAA District Office. Anybody who doesn't agree with the local airport manager has the right to ask the FAA to come in to review the situation, and the local management -- whether public or private -- must abide by the FAAs ruling. Typically, bringing in the FAA results in ULers and management working something out with the FAA acting as referree. Airport Management has no choice in FAA involvement if they have *ever* had their fingers in the Federal money cookie jar. Good law IMO. Now if everybody could just agree on what an UL really is; I mean in practice, not just what's in FAR103. -Ben Ransom > glider operations; sky-divers; and even balloon launches. Ask any of > these other groups how much freedom they have to operate from the airport > of their choice. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

ULDAD(at)aol.com

Date:

May 27, 1998

Subject:

Re: ultralight/lightplane and airports

Around here most of us UL and Xperimental types fly out of a small uncontrolled county airport. Several years ago we had an "undersirable" move on the field who stirred up a couple of spam-can drivers who never liked UL's anyway. Messed up our nice little airport! All caused by one UL guy that nobody would want and a couple of GA guys that would bitch about anything. The " real airplane" guys went to the "red-neck want-a- be -politicans" (my opinion) on the city council who decided that they would regulate the airspace around the airport. The FAA got word of this and informed the city (from what I understand) that the airspace was their jurisdiction and that the city would be liable for anything that happened if they stuck their noses in it. WHOA!! JUMP BACK!! The mayor said to forget it, she didn't want to hear another word about the airport! Since then all the ass-holes have either left or shut up, the city has built 3 rows of brand new enclosed hangars, and let us put in a grass UL strip in addition to the grass runway and paved runway that we already have. In short, everything is back to it's original "let's go to the airport and have a good time" status. UL's, Xperimentals, and GA's can co-exist at uncontrolled airports but you've got to have respect for the FARs and each others right to fly SAFELY. Let me rephrase that: flying is not a right, it's a privilege. You don't have the right unless you do it safely and with respect for others. Enough of that: let's go fly! Bill Griffin Original FS/ Corbin Baby Ace ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 27, 1998

From:

"william f. davis" <custom_search(at)compuserve.com>

Subject:

Engine Overhaulers

Hello All-- Anyone have any ROTAX independent engine overhaulers they can recommend that are not connected with ROTAX? I am tyring to gather some independen= t information regarding the 912 and 582 engines. Thanks. Bill Davis Mark III builder McKeesport, Pa (near Pittsburgh) ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"CHRISTOPHER DAVIS" <cdavis2(at)capecod.net>

Subject:

Re: Trim Tab

Date:

May 27, 1998

Lauren and all ,I don't know what KOLB is offering for a trim tab ,but I installed one from Rans on my KXP and it works smooth as silk , I cut it down a bit to about 14inches and its infinitely adjustable it operates with a wheel and I can fly hands off at any power setting. I think I paid about 115 dollars for a very complete easy to install kit. I hope this isn't sacrilege! CHRIS -----Original Message----- From: Lauren L. Moore <LLMoore(at)tapnet.net> To: KOLB Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 10:03 AM Subject: Trim Tab Hello again Kolbers... As I recall, not too long ago, the topic of trim tab placement was discussed. I find there is a need for elevator trim on my Firestar. Also I recall there was someone with Pictures of the tab and placement, etc. Can we go over this again and I will pay more attention this time. Incidently, I have been flying mine a great deal and feel quite comfortable in the new bird. Thanks Larry in Sussex N.J. Original Firestar 377 Powered HTML//EN">

-----Original Lauren L. Moore <LLMoore(at)tapnet.net>
To: KOLB <kolb(at)intrig.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 10:03 AM
Subject: Trim Tab

Hello again Kolbers... As I recall, not too long ago, the topic of trim tab placement was discussed. I find there is a need for elevator trim on my Firestar. Also I recall there was someone with Pictures of the tab and placement, etc. Can we go over this again and I will pay more attention this time. Incidently, I have been flying mine a great deal and feel quite comfortable in the new bird. Thanks

Larry in Sussex N.J. Original Firestar 377 Powered

________________________________________________________________________________ release (PO205-101c) ID# 605-45218U5000L500S0) with SMTP

From:

"Vince Nicely" <vincenicely(at)intermediatn.net>

Subject:

Re: Trim Tab

Date:

May 27, 1998

I have a Kolb Firestar II. A couple of years ago, I added a cockpit adjustable elevator trim system which I have used for the last ~125 hours. Essentially, I hand made a trim lever to have a push-pull action on two cables. The cables run through two flexible guides which fasten to the cross piece between the landing gear. The cables attach to springs which in term attach to the cable ends. This works very well and gives me ability to trim at any speed between about 40 and 80. This may be more elaborate than the fixed trim you were asking about, but thought I would mention for your consideration. Can tell you more if you are interested and have questions. Vince -----Original Message----- From: Lauren L. Moore <LLMoore(at)tapnet.net> To: KOLB Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 2:05 PM Subject: Trim Tab Hello again Kolbers... As I recall, not too long ago, the topic of trim tab placement was discussed. I find there is a need for elevator trim on my Firestar. Also I recall there was someone with Pictures of the tab and placement, etc. Can we go over this again and I will pay more attention this time. Incidently, I have been flying mine a great deal and feel quite comfortable in the new bird. Thanks Larry in Sussex N.J. Original Firestar 377 Powered HTML//EN">

Vince

-----Original Lauren L. Moore <LLMoore(at)tapnet.net>
To: KOLB <kolb(at)intrig.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 2:05 PM
Subject: Trim Tab

Hello again Kolbers... As I recall, not too long ago, the topic of trim tab placement was discussed. I find there is a need for elevator trim on my Firestar. Also I recall there was someone with Pictures of the tab and placement, etc. Can we go over this again and I will pay more attention this time. Incidently, I have been flying mine a great deal and feel quite comfortable in the new bird. Thanks

Larry in Sussex N.J. Original Firestar 377 Powered

________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

503 for old-yeller

Date:

May 27, 1998

Dennis, For the sake of completeness, I guess I should ask if you're interested in taking my 503 in trade for the yellow FS. I understand that you would only be offering used-wholesale price for it, but that still might work out to be a desirable trade for me. I really hate advertising and selling stuff. No problem if your not interested. BTW- I thought about it some more, and I do want the 618. It'll go a long way toward flying enjoyment for the next couple years. Just say the word when it's ready. Rusty ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

Re: Trim Tab

Date:

May 27, 1998

> I hope this isn't sacrilege! CHRIS It's only sacrilege if you fail to post a picture of it. What did you say the URL was :-) I've been thinking about a better trim system as well. I used a spring with different holes to adjust the tension, but I can't do it in flight. I'd be interested to see your setup. Rusty (maybe not the slowest SS in the world for long) Duffy ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 27, 1998

Subject:

Re: ultralight/lightplane and airports

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > >....I feel that is our duty as pilots to continue to develop future pilots >by creating interest in aviation. If pilot certification and interest >diminishes, our sport (way of life) might be compromised by the >Bureaucrats. What would happen if we didn't have organizations like >the USUA, AOPA, ect. to look out for our interest? The only reason that >they exist is because of us. If we fail to exist, then we loose our >voice to government. The world would be left with commercial pilots. > >I hope that this makes sense. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a >mole hill. > Makes GOOD sense to me. It's encouraging to read stuff like this. Sounds kinda like what someone I know might have said a few years ago, before he got old and lazy. On a sadder note, my wife pointed out a piece in the paper this morning. Seems that another nearby airport is biting the dust. Hatbox field in Muskogee, Oklahoma (yes, the town Mighty Merle made famous) is going to be closed and converted to a 'sports complex' (softball and soccer fields). For years, Hatbox was home to a very popular annual fly-in. It was always a well attended event and was where I first laid eyes on a real Kolb in 1988 or 89. The last fly-in was about 5 years ago, the FBO shut down a couple years back and the field has been used to store aircraft confiscated by the feds (read - DEA) since then. Our club is having a 'fly-out' to Hatbox this saturday. There's a nice restaurant called Jasper's within a mile or so and we'll go there for lunch. We did the same about a year ago and had a big turnout and a good time. This was planned months ago but now it looks like it will probably be the last. -Mick Fine Tulsa, Oklahoma http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>

Subject:

Insurance

Date:

May 27, 1998

Hi Gang: Just hadda get my 2 cents worth in on insurance. "Vamoose" isn't airborne yet, and 'tho I talked to my agent about flight insurance., I don't remember details. However, something I didn't realize was available is builders' insurance. Since mine will be N-numbered, I'm not sure if this will apply to ultralights, but it would be worth a call. I have a policy thru Avemco ( Mike Sauder - 1-800-638-8440 ) that is for the construction phase only. Covered value, which must be document-able, is $25,000.00. No deductible for loss due to fire, lightning, explosion, vandalism and total loss. P.D. is a token $200.00. This policy also pays up to $15.00 per documented hour of labor to assemble or reconstruct your insured aircraft. Since builders claims of time spent could vary wildly, Mike says they would probably go with the manufacturers estimate of time required to reach your stage of construction. Premium is $ 280.00 per year. Since I rent Cessnas from 2 local schools, I took the advice of Flying Mag. and bought a renters' policy to fill in the gaps in the rent-ors policy, and to CMA. Don't have it handy right now, but I believe the premium is around $185.00 a year. Food for thought. Big Lar. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.Com>

Subject:

Virtual Visit to Kolb Factory...

Date:

May 28, 1998

> I flew into the Kolb factory yesterday morning and took some pictures... > > http://scott.bentley.com/aerial52798/pic00008.jpg is the factory with my > Mark III (N628SB) in the foreground. > > http://scott.bentley.com/aerial52798/pic00009.jpg is the outside of their > hangar. > > http://scott.bentley.com/aerial52798/pic00010.jpg is a sorta blurry > picture of the shipping area (is your Rotax there?) > > http://scott.bentley.com/aerial52798/pic00011.jpg is Bill Martin, Mike > Horvath, and Dennis surrounding the Laser jig. > > http://scott.bentley.com/aerial52798/pic00012.jpg are some of the metal > fabrication machines. > > http://scott.bentley.com/aerial52798/pic00013.jpg is Jake cutting tubing. > > http://scott.bentley.com/aerial52798/pic00014.jpg is the carefully > inventoried cages awaiting sale. > > http://scott.bentley.com/aerial52798/pic00015.jpg is Bill Martin's > "Welders hand" holding some high-tech laser-cut wheel parts. > > http://scott.bentley.com/aerial52798/pic00016.jpg is Bill, Mike, and > Dennis discussing engineering decisions for the Laser. The factory Mark > III is in the background. > > http://scott.bentley.com/aerial52798/pic00017.jpg is another angle on the > Laser. > > http://scott.bentley.com/aerial52798/pic00018.jpg is the factory Firestar > > Unfortunately, we didn't think to take any aerial pictures of the complex > and airstrip, which is where Homer Kolb still lives and is very pretty. > I'll post them after the next trip... > ________________________________________________________________________________ via SMTP by pop-proxy03.primenet.com, id smtpd007277; Thu May 28 08:47:09 1998

Date:

May 28, 1998

From:

swultra <swultra(at)primenet.com>

Subject:

wing handle

I am just about to cover my wings on my mark-3. Someone posted an idea about puting handles inside the wing tips to help in folding. what is the exact placement of these handles and any pic,s. I also have a question?.My subscription to U/L mag ran out last year and diden't here that Jim Lee of Lakeland U/L died. I am sorry to here about this, I had talked to jim on the phone and ordered a duel throdel set up from him for my mark-3. what happened? Thanks Steve Ward ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

618 engine

Date:

May 28, 1998

To All (intentionally this time) Oops! I guess the top secret engine security has been breached. It's true, I'm looking into getting a 618 for the SlingShot. I had planned to wait until the deal was complete before I mentioned it, but I seem to have made a boo boo and sent the previous message to the list rather than to Dennis privately. Rusty (stop me before I e-mail again) Duffy ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com

Date:

May 28, 1998

Subject:

Re: Engine Overhaulers

I had a 582 crankshaft completely rebuild for an excellent price by Airscrew Performance in Arizona that I recommend and they seem rather independent from any Rotax affiliation.The repaired crank has 125 hrs on it since and still running smooth. Tel ( 602) 931-6667. They also advertise in the Ultralight Flying Magazine from USUA. Frank Reynen MarkIII@430 hrs http://www.webcom.com/reynen Hello All-- Anyone have any ROTAX independent engine overhaulers they can recommend that are not connected with ROTAX? I am tyring to gather some independent information regarding the 912 and 582 engines. Thanks. Bill Davis Mark III builder McKeesport, Pa (near Pittsburgh) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 28, 1998

From:

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

Subject:

Wheel Bearings

Hi all Kolbers. I have a problem up here in Iceland. Need you help. I have about 10 hrs. on my Firestar II and no hard landings or rouch landing spots, a bearingin the landing gear broke and caused the wheel to brake. This was the inner bearing, so the bolt for the axle broke and the axle twisted a few turns inside the gear leg attachment, and totally ruined the brake cable. This was something I did not expect after only 10 hrs. of flying and a few landings. I noticed a few days ago on the list that Ben Ransom and Wood, were writing about replacing the wheel bearings. Was there something wrong with the ones supplied by Kolb? I have looked everywhere in Iceland for these type of bearings to fix my problem but they do not have anything except in metric sizes. Can anyone assist me in finding a good bearing, and also help me to prevent this from happening again, with some different setup. According to the plans, there should be no spacer inside the wheel rim, between the two bearings, but to avoid this from happening again, this could be a solution??? Any comments from Dennis Souder would be greatly accepted. Best regards from Iceland, where the weather is finally getting too good,to be waiting for parts. Jhann G. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM

Date:

May 28, 1998

Subject:

Completions reminder

I sent my letter to Kitplanes yesterday, with photo and description of Kolb. Remember, June 10 deadline. Here is a copy of the offer from Dennis: Kitplanes Completions: Just a note from KITPLANES magazine. They are looking for aircraft to list in their September completion issue. Last year they had 100 or more airplanes listed. They are looking for brief letters and color photos from builders. They say that this has become one of their more favorite columns. In addition to seeing your pride and joy published in Kitplanes, you have a chance at winning a Bendix-King KLX-1000 GPScom (about $1,400 worth), the lucky winner will be selected from those who submitted a completion report during the year. Also Kolb will toss in a pair of hats, a pair of T-shirts and our newest video for each published completion. Also, be prepared for some telephone calls of those curious about your craft, and there may be some offers to purchase as well! (You can request them to not list your phone or address.) Time is short. Your completion report must be in by June 10, 1998. Completions may be typed or hand written, but not emailed - Kitplanes not set up to handle that yet. Air to air photos are not required or encouraged. Send to: KITPLANE Completions 8745 Aero Drive, Ste. 105 San Diego, CA 92123 GET THAT ROLL OF FILM DEVELOPED AND PUT YOUR BEST PRINT IN THE MAIL TODAY! jim ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: wing handle

From:

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

Date:

May 28, 1998

Steve, I added handles to my wings using 5/16" tubing and bending it like this: __ __ \------/ I used two 1/2" rivets at each end to rivet into the bowtip of the wing. The handles are located about halfway down the chord. I polished them before riveting them in. They are very handy when folding the wings. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar >I am just about to cover my wings on my mark-3. Someone posted an idea >about puting handles inside the wing tips to help in folding. what is >the exact placement of these handles > Thanks Steve Ward- ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 28, 1998

From:

wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>

Subject:

Re: wing handle

>I am just about to cover my wings on my mark-3. Someone posted an idea >about puting handles inside the wing tips to help in folding. what is >the exact placement of these handles and any pic,s. I also have a I don't have any pics but what I did is I kept the rear spat tube open on the end.When the wing is folded I put a piece of 1" tube in these holes and lift and walk away.Now when I helpeed a friend build his MK111 we made a simple slide mechanism where the 1" tube slides into a pvc tube permanently mounted in the rear spar. When required this tube can be slid out for moving and slid back in for flying so if you are ever caught in the middle of a corn feild and have to walk out the handles are in the wing not back at the hanger. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

WVarnes(at)aol.com

Date:

May 28, 1998

Subject:

Re: Covering orig FS fuselage

Hi Ron, Sorry for the delay in answering your question. Been busy moving my plane from one airport to another. I covered my Orig FS as per Kolbs instructions. The cage is completely covered except for the top and a small triangular opening at the lower rear were the boom tube enters. Also, I modified the bulkhead behind the seat slightly by bringing the fabric down and around the gear leg structure, leaving an upside down V opening there. This was someone elses idea, but a good one, because if you drop the fuel tank cap into the bottom, you can simply reach behind the seat to retreive it. Well, maybe not that simple, but it is a lot easier than trying to reach down from the top, because the only way to do that is to fold, or remove, a wing. Even then it is a long reach to the bottom. I put fuel in the same way as John Jung explained, that is, I attach a piece of plastic hose about 24" long to my fuel can spout which easily reaches the tank from the right rear, next to the carb. I'm using a 2 gal can so I don't have to hold too much weight up over my head. I have no method of checking the fuel level in flight, so I very carefully monitor my fuel burn rate. (I'm sure you recall the scuttle about my Dial-A- Jet and 1.6 GPH at 4500 RPM.) With the 5 gal. tank, that gives me about 3 hours endurance. Recently I went on a 142 mile round trip cross country flight. Because this was a fly-in breakfast and I didn't want to take all day to get there, I cruised at a higher setting of 5200 RPM and my burn rate went up to 2.44 GPH. It took me 1.5 hr to get there (71 mi) and before returning I installed 3,5 gals. of fuel. I've often wondered if one of those capacitance fuel monitors would be reliable and acurate, but have no experience with them. I built a baggage support board behind the seat where I can carry two, 2 gal, cans of extra fuel. I also have a duffle bag that lays on top of the two cans which contains the refuling hose, some tools, a soda and jacket, etc. I only carry these items when I think I'll need them, not on every flight. Many times I'll only carry one can of fuel. It all depends on how far I intend to go AND what the winds are forcasted, because a head wind can create havoc with your progress over the ground. Once the cage is covered, it is impossible to remove the fuel tank. I have often wondered if it would be possible to take that 45 degree angled cross tube on the bulkhead behind the seat and someway make it removable. Then maybe the fuel tank could be removed thru that space. Kolb says the tank can be inverted to replace the grommet and I have done it a couple of times, but it's sort of like a puzzle and only works a certain way. Ron, I'm getting a little long winded here but hope this will help you decide how you want to cover it. And please feel free to bother me with more questions. Bill Varnes Original FireStar 377 ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Ron Christensen" <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com>

Subject:

Re: legal Forces

Date:

May 28, 1998

Hi All: Just today, I received the following quotation for my never-before-flown MKIII 1/2: * Liability $500,000 each occurrence * Bodily injury/property damage $100,000 each passenger * Medical payments $5,000 each passenger * A/C physical damage (hull) $30,000 including "in motion" * Hull deductible $100 not in motion $500 in motion Annual Premium: $1,798.00 ! ! What do you think of this ? ? Ron Christensen MKIII 1/2 N313DR Chino, CA airport -----Original Message----- From: robert w. cooper <pl4coop(at)juno.com> Date: Monday, May 25, 1998 1:49 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: legal Forces >Hi Gang - > >Here in the east, we recently had an airport owner take the position that >the ultralight could stay. However, all aircraft based at the field, had >to carry $500,000.00 liability insurance. Have you called an insurance >company requesting that much liability ? >I think you will find that the best amount you can find is $50,000.00. >However, with an N number the aircraft will be insured as a homebuilt. >My Pazmany PL-4A is insured at $500,000.00 an annual cost of $187.00. I >have added aircraft damage - non-flight at $144.00 - total $331.00. - > >In any event the ultralights relocated to another friendlier airfield. > >And guys - when you live in the land of no people - attitudes are better! > >Kolb wanna-be > >Bob Cooper >Newfield, NJ ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net>

Subject:

Re: legal Forces

Date:

May 28, 1998

Sell it! -----Original Message----- From: Ron Christensen <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com> Date: Thursday May 28 1998 9:50 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: legal Forces >Hi All: > >Just today, I received the following quotation for my never-before-flown >MKIII 1/2: > > * Liability $500,000 each >occurrence > * Bodily injury/property damage $100,000 each passenger > * Medical payments $5,000 each passenger > * A/C physical damage (hull) $30,000 including "in motion" > * Hull deductible $100 not in motion > $500 in >motion > >Annual Premium: $1,798.00 ! ! What do you think of this ? ? > >Ron Christensen >MKIII 1/2 >N313DR >Chino, CA airport > > >-----Original Message----- >From: robert w. cooper <pl4coop(at)juno.com> >Cc: kolb(at)intrig.com >Date: Monday, May 25, 1998 1:49 PM >Subject: Re: legal Forces > > >>Hi Gang - >> >>Here in the east, we recently had an airport owner take the position that >>the ultralight could stay. However, all aircraft based at the field, had >>to carry $500,000.00 liability insurance. Have you called an insurance >>company requesting that much liability ? >>I think you will find that the best amount you can find is $50,000.00. >>However, with an N number the aircraft will be insured as a homebuilt. >>My Pazmany PL-4A is insured at $500,000.00 an annual cost of $187.00. I >>have added aircraft damage - non-flight at $144.00 - total $331.00. - >> >>In any event the ultralights relocated to another friendlier airfield. >> >>And guys - when you live in the land of no people - attitudes are better! >> >>Kolb wanna-be >> >>Bob Cooper >>Newfield, NJ > > > >- ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 28, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: Wheel Bearings

>Hi all Kolbers. >I noticed a few days ago on the list that Ben Ransom and Wood, were >writing about replacing the wheel bearings. Was there something wrong >with the ones supplied by Kolb? >I have looked everywhere in Iceland for these type of bearings to fix my >problem but they do not have anything except in metric sizes. Johann, Sorry about your bearing trouble. When I bought my KXP back in 93 I ordered it without wheels cuz I wanted to fret about which size, etc. I eventually ended up buying wheels elsewhere, to no advantage. In any case, as I recently posted, just get sealed bearings (sometimes called 'precision' ) instead of stamped bearings. Order based on OD, ID, and width. For simplicity you could check w/ Kolb. Originally I had stamped bearings and altho they are bad, they lasted at least 50+ hours, not something like 10. Don't know if that means you have some other problem such as alignment or grit/rust in there that caused early failure. Hope metric vs English doesn't keep you grounded too long. Good luck. -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Ron Christensen" <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com>

Subject:

Kolb Logo

Date:

May 29, 1998

Hi Dennis: Is the Kolb Aircraft logo - like the one on a Kolb hat/cap available as a patch? I would really like to have a few "Kolb Aircraft" patches to apply to a jacket or shirt or whatever. I suspect that some of the other Kolb flyers would also be interested in purchasing patches. If you made the patch a bit "tall", then those who have N-numbered airplanes could also have their N-number applied to the patch. Please advise - and thank you. Ron Christensen MKIII 1/2 N313DR So. Calif. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

DLSOUDER(at)aol.com

Date:

May 29, 1998

Subject:

Re: Experimental

<< Rod and all, >I am considering buying a Firestar in the near future and would not mind >having it certified so that I can land and fly anywhere. Will I still get >kicked off a field? Any good stories? Interesting subject. Anyone out there, correct me if I am wrong in any details... The "experimental" operating limitations say one should not fly over densely populated areas or in congested airways. I think the intent of this is obvious - stay out of "B" airspace (unless you have the proper equipment) - keep to the suburbs and countryside. You are bound to follow all pertinent rules but otherwise can enjoy the system of ATC as any other plane and you must identify yourself as "experimental" to any air traffic control tower. >> We have an airport close by that has a real bad attitude toward ultralights. Yes they have received tons of federal money to improve the facilities. One time Dan landed there and they rushed out in a truck and pulled across in front of him on the taxi way to keep him from going any further. I forget whether they were armed or not :-) And this was with our N-numbered Mark-III. We stay clear of them for the most part, but do a touch and go occasionally, just to irritate them. Dennis ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 29, 1998

From:

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

Subject:

Re: Experimental

> And this was with our N-numbered Mark-III. We stay clear of them for the most > part, but do a touch and go occasionally, just to irritate them. I too have done several 5' agl fly-by's at the other anti-ul airport near me. I agree, it is nice to get that momentary feeling of "So There!!". The odd thing is, just being in the pattern constitutes a problem (according to them) with regard to speed differences, but as far as I can tell, it is completely legal. At least it is at this airport (Class D). A real awnry cuss ULer in a barely flying Pterodactyl raised hell there 11 years ago. With this nut representing ULs it wasn't too hard for the FAA to side with the county and agree that ULs presented a safety problem. At this place the airport manager would call the county sheriff if a UL landed, and he had the FAA document that could put you in jail. Too bad, the place is pretty sleepy and the county wishes it was a money maker instead of a money drain. -Ben 'i wanna move to the sticks' Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM

Date:

May 29, 1998

Subject:

Experimentals, ULs, airports

I can understand why airport managers would not want any non-insured aircraft or vehicle using their facility. People are sue-happy and willing to blame everybody else for their own mistakes (not all people, but society in general today). This is more of the same problem General Aviation is having: Liability limitations, or lack of them. Airport managers are scared, I've seen it and I can't say I blame them. Until people realize that somebody actually pays the bills for their million-dollar settlements, things will continue to worsen. If an aircraft or vehicle has been registered, it generally means it is being operated by a licensed pilot. Also, apparently depending on State law, it is required to have liability insurance. It is tough to get liability insurance without a pilot's certificate, I beleive. At that point, the a/c should have access to any and all public airports providing it has the proper equipment for safety reasons. Lack of ability to maintain a certain speed should not be a reason for safety concern. Mixing with "heavy" traffic is, although while training in a Beech I routinely flew with 727s and C5s in training. I guess if I could paint my Kolb to look 30 years old, it wouldn't make other people as nervous. The catch to registering is that once registered the A/C must be maintained by the A&P or Repairman's Certificate holder. And State tax is payable, and yearly registration is required and the insurance requirement... So it is a big leap just to be able to fly into an airport, choose carefully. Did we ever get the name of the insurance co. that Bob Cooper has the nice low rates with? I would like to compare too! Thanks! jim ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

Re: Experimental

Date:

May 29, 1998

>> And this was with our N-numbered Mark-III. We stay clear of them for the most >> part, but do a touch and go occasionally, just to irritate them. > >I too have done several 5' agl fly-by's at the other anti-ul airport near >me. I agree, it is nice to get that momentary feeling of "So There!!". Before I started on the SS, I considered a FireFly very seriously. As part of my decision, I went to all the small airports around and asked if UL's were welcome. The answers ranged from "Absolutely not", to "there's no rule against them, but we don't like it". Since everyone thinks the SS is an UL, I also have plans to irritate a few places quite legally. The most unfortunate victim is going to be a paved airport in Milton FL. I'm on the waiting list for a city owned hanger there. The FBO owner will NOT be pleased :-) Rusty ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com

via smtpd (for www.intrig.com [206.54.183.49]) with SMTP; 29 May 1998 20:17:21 UT (Netscape Messaging Server 3.0) with SMTP id AAA21202;

Date:

May 30, 1998

Subject:

Re: Kolb Logo

If Kolb doesn't have them there is a outfit that attends S&F each year and sets up in the UL area. They specialize in patches and would probably do they for a fair price. Actually I thought you should get a Kolb hat when you buy a kit or make your first flight. Haven't got mine yet, hint, hint. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb Logo Date: 5/29/98 11:40 AM Hi Dennis: Is the Kolb Aircraft logo - like the one on a Kolb hat/cap available as a patch? I would really like to have a few "Kolb Aircraft" patches to apply to a jacket or shirt or whatever. I suspect that some of the other Kolb flyers would also be interested in purchasing patches. If you made the patch a bit "tall", then those who have N-numbered airplanes could also have their N-number applied to the patch. Please advise - and thank you. Ron Christensen MKIII 1/2 N313DR So. Calif. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net>

Subject:

Re: Experimental

Date:

May 29, 1998

Unfortunately, it is actions like these that have earned the ultralight community the reputation that it has. It will strengthen the GA pilots already poor opinions of us as a group. We need to nurture, not discourage, a healthy relationship with those who share our skies. Besides, ANYTHING other than take-off and landing maneuvers while inside an airport traffic area is against the FARs and should be avoided. I strongly oppose the infamous "high speed pass" operations, especially while I, or any other small aircraft which has a small profile (therefore difficult to see), is in or near the pattern. I've already had a close call, and try to discourage foolhardy antics in or around the pattern. For what it's worth, Ron Carroll Original Firestar -----Original Message----- From: Russell Duffy <rad(at)pen.net> Date: Friday May 29 1998 1:13 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Experimental > > >>> And this was with our N-numbered Mark-III. We stay clear of them for the >most >>> part, but do a touch and go occasionally, just to irritate them. >> >>I too have done several 5' agl fly-by's at the other anti-ul airport near >>me. I agree, it is nice to get that momentary feeling of "So There!!". > > >Before I started on the SS, I considered a FireFly very seriously. As part of >my decision, I went to all the small airports around and asked if UL's were >welcome. The answers ranged from "Absolutely not", to "there's no rule against >them, but we don't like it". Since everyone thinks the SS is an UL, I also have >plans to irritate a few places quite legally. The most unfortunate victim is >going to be a paved airport in Milton FL. I'm on the waiting list for a city >owned hanger there. The FBO owner will NOT be pleased :-) > >Rusty > > > >- ________________________________________________________________________________ release (PO205-101c) ID# 605-45218U5000L500S0) with SMTP

From:

"Vince Nicely" <vincenicely(at)intermediatn.net>

Subject:

Re: Trim Tab

Date:

May 29, 1998

Subject: Re: Trim Tab Hi Vince..Sure I would like to hear more about the trim Tab and control. Sounds pretty good to me. Thanks Vince for the interest. Larry in Sussex N.J. First, I will describe the mechanical details of my cockpit adjustable elevator trim control. Because that was only a small part of the project of trimming on my Firestar II, I will provide some additional detail below just in case you are interested. My Firestar Elevator Trim System I will provide a word picture. Perhaps it will work best if you sketch the parts as I describe them. Of course, the word picture may be so muddled you can't do that. If it seems a little confused, just ask and I will try improve it. I just went out an looked at what I did and hopefully this describes what I found so you can understand it. PARTS LIST (More detail below) 1 Flanged Base Plate for Mounting the Control Handle - 0.035" 4130 Steel or equivalent 1 Pair control cables about 4-1/2 feet each (from 1 10ft Bowden Cable - Aircraft Spruce PN 05-15500, p143 in Catalog) 1 1/4" bolt + elastic self locking nut (I used ordinary hardware) 2 3/16" bolts+ elastic self locking nuts (I used ordinary hardware) 2 5/16" bolts + elastic self locking nuts (I used ordinary hardware) 1 9"x1-1/2" piece of 0.065 Al sheet 2 1/2"x2"x0.035 sheet steel 1 1/2"x3"x0.035 sheet steel 2 Screen Door Closure Springs (Rudder springs would likely work, perhaps better) Soldier 1 small hose clamp about 1/2 dozen large 1/4" washers 3 1/4"id x 1-1/4"od nylon washers MORE DETAIL ON THE PARTS Base Plate The raw base plate is 7"x6". Cut out a 1/2" square at each corner. Bend the 1/2" edge over to make a flange around the plate. Soldier or weld the corners. Now you have a 5"x6" flat plate with a 1/2" flange around it( for stiffness). Draw a line 1" from the short edge across the plate. 2-1/2" from the bottom (i.e., in the middle) drill a 1/4" hole. This is the location to mount the control handle. Draw another line 1/2" from the other edge and parallel to the first line. At both 1" above and below the center of the plate and on the line, drill 3/16" holes. This provides a place to fasten the ends of the two Bowden Cable housings described below. Decide where you will mount the base plate in your cockpit and provide suitable fixtures to enable mounting. Mine is mounted through the bottom edge to the floor pan which is plywood in my plane. Control Handle The 1-1/2" piece of Al sheet is drilled with a 1/4" hole centered and 2" from one end. This hole is used to mount the handle on the plate. A combination of metal and nylon washers are used to space the handle from the plate and tension the handle's motion. Also on the center line, a 5/16" hole is drilled both 1-1/2" above and below the 1/4" hole. These holes provide the location to attach the heart of the Bowder Cable which is a 0.078" wire. The Control Cable Housing Cut two pieces of Bowden Cable Housing each about 4' long. At one end of each, fold the 1/2" x 2" piece of steel sheet symmetrically about the housing. Soldier one folded sheet to each housing. Now, one end of each cable housing is fixed in this way. Drill a 3/16" hole in each folded sheet. These holes provide for fasten the housing loosely to the base plate. The other end of both housings are fastened together and about 1" from each other to a single piece of 1/2"x3"x0.035" steel by folding one end of the sheet around each housing and soldiering in place. This provides for a means of fastening the joined end to a frame member under the seat. Use a hose clamp to fasten the 1"x1/2" flat sheet between the housings to the frame. Control Cables (0.078" Steel Wire) Each piece will be about 5' or less in length. One end of each is bent and folded to make a safety pin like clasp. This is used to hold one end of the spring. Thread the wire through the housing. Drill each 5/16" bolt so that the wire will clear the handle when inserted through the hole in the bolt with the bolt through the handle. Thus, when the nut is tightened on the bolt, it clamps the wire in place; yet, the bolt is free to pivot in the handle. At this point, you can see that as the handle is pivoted about its center, one wire tightens its spring and the other loosens the same amount. Finally, The Springs The folded end of the cable is fastened to one or more sections of spring (in parallel if multiple springs). The other end of the spring is fastened to the elevator shackles or thimbles (your choice). I used 2 pieces of 4-1/2" spring on each of elevator up and down. They are tensioned so that each is just totally relaxed at the end of travel of the trim system. Other Issues At least one concern with spring trim systems is the potential to induce flutter in the control surface. I have tested my system for both static and dynamic response. There is no tendency to induce flutter at any speed. Of course, you will need to do similar testing if you make a system for your plane. TRIMMING MY KOLB FIRESTAR II My Firestar II flew fine the first time with light and responsive control. I have never flown another Kolb airplane, so I do not know how they handle. However, I began a systematic examination of control response in mine. To make a long story short, the plane flew fairly quickly into a left spiral when hands off the controls. Furthermore, it responded to rudder inputs unconventionally compared to the GA aircraft I had been flying. So, I decided upon some changes. First, I added a little fixed trim tab to the rudder and trimmed out yaw. I used a yaw string placed about 2 feet in front of the canopy because I found the airflow over the canopy to be very sensitive and a little tricky on string placement. Next, I added a little fixed trim tab on one aileron. Then I trimmed out the last tendency to roll. Then, I added cockpit adjustable elevator trim to control the attitude. Finally, I found the plane to have negative stability to spiral behavior. That is, if I placed it in a bank, it tended to bank more steeply, and quickly too. This tendency was observed for either left or right bank. I wanted neutral or positive spiral stability. That is, I wanted the plane to either hold its bank or gradually return to straight flight. My conclusion was that a little more dihedral in the wings would be just the ticket. Then came some calculations, a few measurements on the GA aircraft at the local airport, some guessing, and finally deciding how to build new struts that could be shortened systematically to take out dihedral a little at a time without starting from scratch each time. I decided to start my tests with 3 degrees of dihedral which translates into, as I recall, raising each wing tip 9" from level. That compares to 1", I believe, by the standard rigging. The struts needed to be lengthened about 2-1/4". I built the struts, flew the plane and loved it. The plane has very slightly positive spiral stability, i.e., it debanks very slowly on its own. Now the rudder input gets a response very similar to a Cessna 152 or 172. At that point I stopped experimenting. With these adjustments, the plane can be trimmed to speed between about 40 or 45 and about 75 or 80. It flies hands off just great with slight rudder inputs to get heading changes. On a calm day, you can ride along and it flies itself. After a friend told me some small planes can be controlled by body movements, I tried it. On a calm day, I can initiate and stop a bank by leaning sidewise and can initiate and stop slow climbs and dives by leaning forward and backward. What fun! When I want to have my hands on the controls, it is about like when I first flew it. Vince Nicely Firestar II (N8233G with 155 hours) HTML//EN">

Subject: Re: Trim Tab

Hi Vince..Sure I would like to hear more about the trim Tab and control. Sounds pretty good to me. Thanks Vince for the interest. Larry in Sussex N.J.

First, I will describe the mechanical details of my cockpit adjustable elevator trim control. Because that was only a small part of the project of trimming on my Firestar II, I will provide some additional detail below just in case you are interested.

My Firestar Elevator Trim System

I will provide a word picture. Perhaps it will work best if you sketch the parts as I describe them. Of course, the word picture may be so muddled you can't do that. If it seems a little confused, just ask and I will try improve it. I just went out an looked at what I did and hopefully this describes what I found so you can understand it.

PARTS LIST (More detail below)

1 Flanged Base Plate for Mounting the Control Handle - 0.035" 4130 Steel or equivalent

1 Pair control cables about 4-1/2 feet each (from 1 10ft Bowden Cable -

Aircraft Spruce PN 05-15500, p143 in Catalog)

1 1/4" bolt + elastic self locking nut (I used ordinary hardware)

2 3/16" bolts+ elastic self locking nuts (I used ordinary hardware)

2 5/16" bolts + elastic self locking nuts (I used ordinary hardware)

1 9"x1-1/2" piece of 0.065 Al sheet

2 1/2"x2"x0.035 sheet steel

1 1/2"x3"x0.035 sheet steel

2 Screen Door Closure Springs (Rudder springs would likely work, perhaps better)

Soldier

1 small hose clamp

about 1/2 dozen large 1/4" washers

3 1/4"id x 1-1/4"od nylon washers

MORE DETAIL ON THE PARTS

Base Plate

The raw base plate is 7"x6". Cut out a 1/2" square at each corner. Bend the 1/2" edge over to make a flange around the plate. Soldier or weld the corners. Now you have a 5"x6" flat plate with a 1/2" flange around it( for stiffness). Draw a line 1" from the short edge across the plate. 2-1/2" from the bottom (i.e., in the middle) drill a 1/4" hole. This is the location to mount the control handle. Draw another line 1/2" from the other edge and parallel to the first line. At both 1" above and below the center of the plate and on the line, drill 3/16" holes. This provides a place to fasten the ends of the two Bowden Cable housings described below. Decide where you will mount the base plate in your cockpit and provide suitable fixtures to enable mounting. Mine is mounted through the bottom edge to the floor pan which is plywood in my plane.

Control Handle

The 1-1/2" piece of Al sheet is drilled with a 1/4" hole centered and 2" from one end. This hole is used to mount the handle on the plate. A combination of metal and nylon washers are used to space the handle from the plate and tension the handle's motion. Also on the center line, a 5/16" hole is drilled both 1-1/2" above and below the 1/4" hole. These holes provide the location to attach the heart of the Bowder Cable which is a 0.078" wire.

The Control Cable Housing

Cut two pieces of Bowden Cable Housing each about 4' long. At one end of each, fold the 1/2" x 2" piece of steel sheet symmetrically about the housing. Soldier one folded sheet to each housing. Now, one end of each cable housing is fixed in this way. Drill a 3/16" hole in each folded sheet. These holes provide for fasten the housing loosely to the base plate. The other end of both housings are fastened together and about 1" from each other to a single piece of 1/2"x3"x0.035" steel by folding one end of the sheet around each housing and soldiering in place. This provides for a means of fastening the joined end to a frame member under the seat. Use a hose clamp to fasten the 1"x1/2" flat sheet between the housings to the frame.

Control Cables (0.078" Steel Wire)

Each piece will be about 5' or less in length. One end of each is bent and folded to make a safety pin like clasp. This is used to hold one end of the spring. Thread the wire through the housing. Drill each 5/16" bolt so that the wire will clear the handle when inserted through the hole in the bolt with the bolt through the handle. Thus, when the nut is tightened on the bolt, it clamps the wire in place; yet, the bolt is free to pivot in the handle.

At this point, you can see that as the handle is pivoted about its center, one wire tightens its spring and the other loosens the same amount.

Finally, The Springs

The folded end of the cable is fastened to one or more sections of spring (in parallel if multiple springs). The other end of the spring is fastened to the elevator shackles or thimbles (your choice). I used 2 pieces of 4-1/2" spring on each of elevator up and down. They are tensioned so that each is just totally relaxed at the end of travel of the trim system.

Other Issues

At least one concern with spring trim systems is the potential to induce flutter in the control surface. I have tested my system for both static and dynamic response. There is no tendency to induce flutter at any speed. Of course, you will need to do similar testing if you make a system for your plane.

TRIMMING MY KOLB FIRESTAR II

My Firestar II flew fine the first time with light and responsive control. I have never flown another Kolb airplane, so I do not know how they handle. However, I began a systematic examination of control response in mine. To make a long story short, the plane flew fairly quickly into a left spiral when hands off the controls. Furthermore, it responded to rudder inputs unconventionally compared to the GA aircraft I had been flying. So, I decided upon some changes.

First, I added a little fixed trim tab to the rudder and trimmed out yaw. I used a yaw string placed about 2 feet in front of the canopy because I found the airflow over the canopy to be very sensitive and a little tricky on string placement.

Next, I added a little fixed trim tab on one aileron. Then I trimmed out the last tendency to roll.

Then, I added cockpit adjustable elevator trim to control the attitude.

Finally, I found the plane to have negative stability to spiral behavior. That is, if I placed it in a bank, it tended to bank more steeply, and quickly too. This tendency was observed for either left or right bank. I wanted neutral or positive spiral stability. That is, I wanted the plane to either hold its bank or gradually return to straight flight. My conclusion was that a little more dihedral in the wings would be just the ticket. Then came some calculations, a few measurements on the GA aircraft at the local airport, some guessing, and finally deciding how to build new struts that could be shortened systematically to take out dihedral a little at a time without starting from scratch each time. I decided to start my tests with 3 degrees of dihedral which translates into, as I recall, raising each wing tip 9" from level. That compares to 1", I believe, by the standard rigging. The struts needed to be lengthened about 2-1/4". I built the struts, flew the plane and loved it. The plane has very slightly positive spiral stability, i.e., it debanks very slowly on its own. Now the rudder input gets a response very similar to a Cessna 152 or 172. At that point I stopped experimenting.

With these adjustments, the plane can be trimmed to speed between about 40 or 45 and about 75 or 80. It flies hands off just great with slight rudder inputs to get heading changes. On a calm day, you can ride along and it flies itself. After a friend told me some small planes can be controlled by body movements, I tried it. On a calm day, I can initiate and stop a bank by leaning sidewise and can initiate and stop slow climbs and dives by leaning forward and backward. What fun! When I want to have my hands on the controls, it is about like when I first flew it.

Vince Nicely

Firestar II (N8233G with 155 hours)

________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

Re: Experimental

Date:

May 29, 1998

Ron and all, It's possible that I gave you the impression I was planning to do something improper to irritate these airports. I'll assure you that isn't the case. I'm a licensed pilot, and my SlingShot is properly N-numbered as an experimental aircraft. I installed and use a radio in the pattern at all times even though it isn't required in most places. I can't help it if the ignorant people at these FBO's think I'm an UL. Truth be told, I defend the rights of UL pilots at these airports at every opportunity. I think most GA pilots would welcome UL's in the pattern as long as they understand and follow the rules of the pattern as you suggest. Unfortunately, many GA pilots don't follow the rules so well either. Rusty (not a UL pilot) Duffy >Unfortunately, it is actions like these that have earned the ultralight >community the reputation that it has. It will strengthen the GA pilots >already poor opinions of us as a group. We need to nurture, not discourage, >a healthy relationship with those who share our skies. > >Besides, ANYTHING other than take-off and landing maneuvers while inside an >airport traffic area is against the FARs and should be avoided. I strongly >oppose the infamous "high speed pass" operations, especially while I, or >any other small aircraft which has a small profile (therefore difficult to >see), is in or near the pattern. I've already had a close call, and try to >discourage foolhardy antics in or around the pattern. > >For what it's worth, > >Ron Carroll >Original Firestar ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

May 29, 1998

From:

"Richard S. Mick" <rsmick(at)gte.net>

Subject:

[Fwd: Experimental]

Ron- I agree with you 100%! As a GA pilot as well as UL, I have been welcome at many airports where UL types were generally unwelcome. I was told that much of the UL traffic at these airports displayed antics or an unprofessional attitude towards flying, use of traffic patterns etc. It is my opinion that it is our duty to promote proper behavior, especially at airports where our presence is undesirable. You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. RSM Ron-

I agree with you 100%!
As a GA pilot as well as UL, I have been welcome at many airports where UL types were generally unwelcome. I was told that much of the UL traffic at these airports displayed antics or an unprofessional attitude towards flying, use of traffic patterns etc. It is my opinion that it is our duty to promote proper behavior, especially at airports where our presence is undesirable. You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

RSM From: "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Experimental Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 13:42:41 -0700 Unfortunately, it is actions like these that have earned the ultralight community the reputation that it has. It will strengthen the GA pilots already poor opinions of us as a group. We need to nurture, not discourage, a healthy relationship with those who share our skies. Besides, ANYTHING other than take-off and landing maneuvers while inside an airport traffic area is against the FARs and should be avoided. I strongly oppose the infamous "high speed pass" operations, especially while I, or any other small aircraft which has a small profile (therefore difficult to see), is in or near the pattern. I've already had a close call, and try to discourage foolhardy antics in or around the pattern. For what it's worth, Ron Carroll Original Firestar -----Original Message----- From: Russell Duffy <rad(at)pen.net> Date: Friday May 29 1998 1:13 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Experimental > > >>> And this was with our N-numbered Mark-III. We stay clear of them for the >most >>> part, but do a touch and go occasionally, just to irritate them. >> >>I too have done several 5' agl fly-by's at the other anti-ul airport near >>me. I agree, it is nice to get that momentary feeling of "So There!!". > > >Before I started on the SS, I considered a FireFly very seriously. As part of >my decision, I went to all the small airports around and asked if UL's were >welcome. The answers ranged from "Absolutely not", to "there's no rule against >them, but we don't like it". Since everyone thinks the SS is an UL, I also have >plans to irritate a few places quite legally. The most unfortunate victim is >going to be a paved airport in Milton FL. I'm on the waiting list for a city >owned hanger there. The FBO owner will NOT be pleased :-) > >Rusty > > > >- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 29, 1998
From: wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>
Subject: video
Hi gang I guess my video idea would not be such popular idea judging from the response.I will still put all the info on one tape and I will let Bill Davis and Hangerman have a copy.I just won't spend the time trying to do a professional editing job. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 29, 1998
From: Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)nationwide.net>
Subject: Mix of traffic
To all, There is enough responsibility for all of aviation. Everyone can site examples. On the other hand, I have seen the mix of all (with the exception of heavy commercial that fly in different space) work out fairly well around here. I only get a little scared when the warbirds buz the field. They always feel they have to strafe something... just joking guys! I can picture one of them running up my tail. I always monitor the airport frequency for annoucements and look every which way I can. Thanks goodness they usually make their passes a little higher than I do. One of the nicest things about flying a UL or light plane is that you have plenty of time to watch out for others and time to stay ahead of your plane... time to really relax and enjoy not "too" slow and not "too" low. The aerobats meet about once a month on Sunday... a good time to let them have it. I was foolishly putzing around the pattern one of their meeting days and they were taking turns in the aerobatic box with quite an audience watching from below. Their airport patterns are not "typical". While I was on my downwind leg two of them could spiral in for a landing... on base leg another could land. One even cut me off (or so I thought at the time, but in actuality he had plenty of time/room). I had him in my sights for a few seconds though... It is a different perspective to see Pitts and Suka... (the Russion one) and other really high performance planes from the air. Trying to fly safe and stay out of the way, -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Retired Pharmacist (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas and Marble Falls Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel Kolb MKIII - N582CC (43.3 hrs) ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charles Segar <segarcts(at)qtm.net>
Subject: Antena placement and what kind ??
Date: May 29, 1998
I just bought a Icom A22 radio and would like to find out different ways you mount antenna and what kind of antenna,s you use.I have a 1991 Firestar kxp. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 29, 1998
Subject: Re: legal Forces
From: rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT)
RON I think that is to high, you may want to get a quotation with less A/C physical damage. Just a thought. Rick On Thu, 28 May 1998 writes: >Hi All: > >Just today, I received the following quotation for my >never-before-flown >MKIII 1/2: > > * Liability $500,000 each >occurrence > * Bodily injury/property damage $100,000 each passenger > * Medical payments $5,000 each passenger > * A/C physical damage (hull) $30,000 including "in motion" > * Hull deductible $100 not in >motion > >$500 in >motion > >Annual Premium: $1,798.00 ! ! What do you think of this ? >? > >Ron Christensen >MKIII 1/2 >N313DR >Chino, CA airport > > >-----Original Message----- >From: robert w. cooper <pl4coop(at)juno.com> >Cc: kolb(at)intrig.com >Date: Monday, May 25, 1998 1:49 PM >Subject: Re: legal Forces > > >>Hi Gang - >> >>Here in the east, we recently had an airport owner take the position >that >>the ultralight could stay. However, all aircraft based at the field, >had >>to carry $500,000.00 liability insurance. Have you called an >insurance >>company requesting that much liability ? >>I think you will find that the best amount you can find is >$50,000.00. >>However, with an N number the aircraft will be insured as a >homebuilt. >>My Pazmany PL-4A is insured at $500,000.00 an annual cost of $187.00. > I >>have added aircraft damage - non-flight at $144.00 - total $331.00. - >> >>In any event the ultralights relocated to another friendlier >airfield. >> >>And guys - when you live in the land of no people - attitudes are >better! >> >>Kolb wanna-be >> >>Bob Cooper >>Newfield, NJ > > > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 29, 1998
Subject: Re: Antena placement and what kind ??
From: rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT)
Charles I have a Icom A-21 on my M III I put the antenna on the nose cone next to the skid hoop . I has done a very good job at that location . good luck on your's Rick Libersat writes: >I just bought a Icom A22 radio and would like to find out different >ways >you mount antenna and what kind of antenna,s you use.I have a >1991 >Firestar kxp. >- > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: PKrotje(at)aol.com
Date: May 29, 1998
Subject: Re: Antena placement and what kind ??
<< just bought a Icom A22 radio and would like to find out different ways you mount antenna and what kind of antenna,s you use.I have a 1991 Firestar kxp >> I used a flexible fibreglass antenna from Advanced Aircraft Electronics and taped it to the inside of the nose cone on my MK III. Worked very well and was out of sight. Pete Krotje ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Mix of traffic
Date: May 29, 1998
>To all, > Snip > >I only get a little scared when the warbirds buz the field. They always >feel they have to strafe something... just joking guys! I can picture one >of them running up my tail. I always monitor the airport frequency for >annoucements and look every which way I can. Thanks goodness they usually >make their passes a little higher than I do. The close call that I mentioned in an earlier letter was with one of these ex-military pilots who thinks they are still over some south sea island. There were four of us ULs approaching the pattern at my home airport, and I announced our position and intention on the radio. I heard the FBO tell someone to "Be advised, there are ultralights in the pattern". There was no response to the announcement. We were at 500' AGL and I was the lead plane, and had just completed my crosswind and turned downwind. The UL behind me had just crossed the centerline, and the other two hadn't reached the centerline yet. All of a sudden there was three T-34s blowing smoke about 100' blow us doing a show off pass with smoke bellowing out. Just as they came to the end of the runway (right between the 2nd & 3rd UL in our formation) they pulled up sharply and did a 3-way smoke display. Had any of the ULs been over the runway at the time we would have had a very nasty accident. They knew we were there, but ignored it. They then proceeded to do an aerobatic maneuver in the traffic pattern area, strictly against the FARs. As you can guess, these antics are my pet peeve. They are dangerous to anyone else in the immediate area, and it doesn't take much brain power to fly past at 200+mph, trying to impress bystanders with their talents. Also, as you said, radios are not required, either by us in ULs or any other GA plane, i.e., antiques without electrical systems. We may be low on the right-of-way list, but our lives are just as important as anyone else's. I am also a GA pilot and once came up suddenly on an ultralight flying at the GA pattern altitude over an uncontrolled airport. UL pilots, as well as GA pilots must be aware that ULs have a VERY slight profile, making them pretty hard to see by other traffic. We have all gone on a cross country and lost sight of one of our buddy, in spite of the fact that we know he is there somewhere. See and be seen, or don't fly where they are. GA doesn't generally fly at 500', and that's where the fun is. Enough said, I've worn myself (and you (and the subject)) out. Ron Carroll Original Firestar ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ULDAD(at)aol.com
Date: May 29, 1998
Subject: Re: Antena placement and what kind ??
Hi there Charles: I use an ICOM A-21 (the older model). Mounted a whip antenna under the nose cone and it works just fine. You can get them from WAG Aero or make your own. Put plenty of bend in it (45 degrees or more) so you don't break it off when you lift the tail to move the plane backwards. The aluminum floor plate makes a good ground plane. Or even simpler (and cheaper) just put a BNC connector and use the rubber duckie antenna that came w/the radio. That's what I did on my Corbin. Put it on top of the center section. I have a friend who did the same thing with his A22. Stuck it on top of his Cub. They fine and have plenty of range. Evidently you don't need a ground plane either. The other day I was at an airport about 50 mi. away from home base with the rubber duckie and was able to clearly receive xmissions from home airport. Didn't try talking back though. By the way, when in the FS, I carry the rubber duckie antenna anyway. That way if need be I can use the radio away from the airplane. Bill Griffin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 1998
From: Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net>
Subject: Experimental
I wrote: > And this was with our N-numbered Mark-III. We stay clear of them for >the most part, but do a touch and go occasionally, just to irritate them. Someone replied: Unfortunately, it is actions like these that have earned the ultralight >community the reputation that it has. It will strengthen the GA pilots >already poor opinions of us as a group. We need to nurture, not discourage, >a healthy relationship with those who share our skies. > >Besides, ANYTHING other than take-off and landing maneuvers while inside an >airport traffic area is against the FARs and should be avoided. I strongly >oppose the infamous "high speed pass" operations, especially while I, or >any other small aircraft which has a small profile (therefore difficult to >see), is in or near the pattern. I've already had a close call, and try to >discourage foolhardy antics in or around the pattern. > Observation: Touch and go's are pretty normal at this airport and most others. Nothing unusual, discourteous, unsafe, foolhardy, or illegal with a touch and go. I think the point was missed: Even normal by-the-book operations will not be acceptable to those who have biases against ultralight type aircraft. Back in days of yore, when the little Cubs and Taylorcrafts with their little flat engines were coming on the scene, some of them were held in similiar disrespect by the owners of the "real" macho aircraft with big round engines. There was a great Star Trek episode about prejudice, you trekies out there will no doubt remember the men with half of their faces white on one side, and the other half black - divided right down the center. Captain Kirk couldn't understand the basis of their prejudice against one another - they seemed identical. Then one pointed out that the others were black on the left side of the face where he was black on the right side! Great stuff! Prejudice will always exist - it always finds new and novel ways of raising it's ugly head. Wait till the rocket propelled cowboy boots are introduced - ultralights might not look so bad then; who knows ultralighters, themselves, might even start looking down their noses at the rocketbooter crowd. Dennis Souder Pres Kolb Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 1998
Subject: Re: legal Forces
From: pl4coop(at)juno.com (robert w. cooper)
Hi Guys - One last question to ask the insurance company - when will insurance take effect? I'm an olde taildragger pilot. I called AVEMCO to insurance my Pazmany PL-4A. We worked through the cost, and my options, then was advise they could not insure until I had flown 5 hours on the aircraft. Therefore, end of discussion. Since I could not purchase insurance until I had accumulated 5 hours I just took a chance and when flying - finally I called back after 10-15 hours and insured the aircraft. Good Luck!! Bob Cooper Newfield, NJ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 1998
From: William Hinkelmann <whink(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Misc. Stuff
Handles on the wingtips work great. Use the wingtip bow as the actual handle the bent tube is on the inside of the bow. Went to Marathon Key after S&F a couple of years ago. All gates were locked, but "Socially Engeniered" my way on. Flew in the AM and PM. On my way out I asked about UL's. Was told they were not allowed per the County. I dont think they even saw me. Sometimes I dont even see Myself. Went to Sugarloaf Key and asked permission - No!! UL's -- Don't ASK! -- Don't TELL _____________________ William Hinkelmann whink(at)mindspring.com Modified FS-II North Atlanta, Ga. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lrb1476(at)aol.com
Date: May 30, 1998
Subject: Re: Experimentals, ULs, airports
Dear Kolbers, There's always a way to fly, if you join forces. I'm a new member of EAA Ultralight Chapter 103 (LAFA...Light Airplane Flyers Assoiation) here in Miami, Florida. I'm 3/4 finished on the MK lll and the club has been very helpfuf to me in the past 6 months of building. The original club members are very orgainized. We have the FAA come to our meetings, as a result all of us are on first name basis with all of them. As an example my EAA tech is also the FAA guy who will come out and sign off my plane....very neat. We fly from a full services county airport that has given us our own field and a small building (they maintain everything) and our own air space, and pattern. I would suggest contacting the EAA for support and advice, relating to your problem. Also I'm sure the guys at LAFA would be happy to give you some advice. Look us up at http://www.lafa.com Good Luck, Rich Bragassa MK lll lrb1476(at)aol.com Miami, Fla ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 1998
From: Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net>
Subject: Re: Mix of traffic
My experiance has been that the guys out there flying the expensive twins are the ones who fly straight in approaches and land against the wind sock all the time. And they fly so fast that you dont see them till they are right there. I turned base to final the other day and checked that the runway was clear. I then was concentrating on the touchdown point and when I started to flair looked up to the far end of the runway to see two big props churning away as a twin came at me on landing rollout, against the windsock. I added power and went around right over the top of him. he was never in the pattern. probably was below 500 feet for the last couple of miles of his 100 knot approach. He was counting on his radio, which I didnt have for that flight. If you are N-numbered you can and should go into any non-class B airspace you want and you should not take any shit from anybody. if you're an ultralight you have as much right to land in any uncontrolled airfield that recieves federal funds as a GA or experimental craft. so go ahead and do it, but follow the FAR's exactly and be a better pilot then these GA morons like I described. If they give you a hard time report them, the rules are on your side. How do you all feel about strobes? I think we should all have them. Topher ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 1998
From: john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Airports and ULs
Hello Gang: A popular question for me is where do I land and where do I get gas when I am XC'ing ULs. The answere is always the same, at airports. Way back in the very early days I would land on highway right of ways, vacant lots, parking lots, hay fields, etc., to buy auto gas and save money. Very nearly busted my butt on one occassion. Convinced me that the money saved was not worth the risk involved in landing off site. I reckon I have landed in about as many different airports, both controled and noncontrolled, as anybody else, in ULs (registered and not registered), all over the US, Canada, and Alaska. I got some static in 1988, from a line boy at Pottstown/Limerick AP, Penn, about my traffic pattern (I flew left hand and they fly righthand). Seems it was my first trip to Penn and I could not find Homer's airstrip. So I landed at P/L to use the phone to get directions. Tallahassee Comercial Airport, first long XC in my Ultrastar, 250 miles one way. Got verbally attacked and threatened with arrest if I did not trailer my UL off the premises. While gent was inside calling the sheriff, I was on my t/o roll, headed for Quincy, Fl. This was Dec 84. Several years later in a Firestar equipped with VHF radio, I was welcomed with open arms. This is a private airport purchased and built by a couple right after WWII, 1945. They receive no federal funding. The lady runs the UNICOM like a control tower. Or did until she became ill some years ago. You got the info you needed when you called in to land or t/o. Quesnel, BC, was questioned as to UL status after I landed and was cleared by FSS as Experimental 101AB. Soemplace in Connecticut at controlled field was questioned by airport manager after given clearence to land, refuel, etc., whether I was an UL or not, even though I wass pointing to the N numbers on the tailboom. Explained I was experimental, N numbered, and licensed. AP Manager was dense to regs, or just acting that way to bug me. Noone ever bothered me in Alaska. I love the way they fly there. Noone bugged me about my UL, no matter where I landed. I liked that. Other than these few times in 14 years of serious XC'ing around the North American Continent, I have been welcomed to all airports, controlled and uncontrolled. I normally do not land at controlled airports unless I have a good reason to. i.e., fuel, food, restroom, weather, etc. I stay clear of Class B airspace, fly under, around, and over, all the rest. I fly like I belong there and were flying a Bonanza, King Air, 206, or what have you. I fly abreviated patterns, but what is suggested in the FARs. I try not to bring attention to myself by doing something dumb and foolish, unless I have a good audience, JUST KIDDING!!!!! I have had good rapport w/local FBO since 84, and three different managers. I introduce myself and let them know me and my airplane. I am also very fortunate to have a good area to fly here in central Alabama, and a damn good Kolb airplane. Just got back from a little flyin over at Jones Light Airfield, near Columbus, Ga. Had a good turnout, except for my home UL club. Didn't see John (Sling Shot) from Rome, Ga, and Rusty (SS) from Florida. Only one other Kolb there, a local Firestar. Regards, john h Trip home was a delight at 6500 feet, just above the clouds, 60 F, and a 10 MPH tailwind. Nice and smooth, wanted to keep on going. 1141.5 hours on the airframe/908 hours on the little 912. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 1998
From: wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>
Subject: Re: Experimental
>it's ugly head. Wait till the rocket propelled cowboy boots are introduced >- ultralights might not look so bad then; who knows ultralighters, >themselves, might even start looking down their noses at the rocketbooter crowd. > > > >Dennis Souder >Pres Kolb Aircraft Who the heck do you think are going to buy those boots? I'll be first on the list Woody ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ron Christensen" <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb Logo
Date: May 30, 1998
I have shopped around locally for someone to copy the Kolb logo - - I found a guy who can do it by scanning the image from a letter head. He wants ~$65 for the set up and then he will sell a hat, shirt or whatever at his standard prices. I just don't want to pay a setup charge since Kolb obviously has already done so in order to have their hats produced. You are absolutely correct, it would be great customer relations for a cap to be shipped with each kit. I think that if you ask Dennis real nice, he'll send one to you. I have found much nicer hats then the standard Kolb issue, but beggars should not be too fussy, hummm? Ron Christensen -----Original Message----- From: jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com <jerryb(at)jmd.ods.com> Date: Friday, May 29, 1998 1:17 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb Logo > If Kolb doesn't have them there is a outfit that attends S&F each year > and sets up in the UL area. They specialize in patches and would > probably do they for a fair price. > > Actually I thought you should get a Kolb hat when you buy a kit or > make your first flight. Haven't got mine yet, hint, hint. > > >______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ >Subject: Kolb Logo >Author: "Ron Christensen" at MAILGATE >Date: 5/29/98 11:40 AM > > >Hi Dennis: > >Is the Kolb Aircraft logo - like the one on a Kolb hat/cap available as a >patch? I would really like to have a few "Kolb Aircraft" patches to apply >to a jacket or shirt or whatever. I suspect that some of the other Kolb >flyers would also be interested in purchasing patches. If you made the >patch a bit "tall", then those who have N-numbered airplanes could also have >their N-number applied to the patch. Please advise - and thank you. > >Ron Christensen >MKIII 1/2 >N313DR >So. Calif. > > > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 1998
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: Experimental
> >We have an airport close by that has a real bad attitude toward ultralights. >Yes they have received tons of federal money to improve the facilities. One >time Dan landed there and they rushed out in a truck and pulled across in >front of him on the taxi way to keep him from going any further. I forget >whether they were armed or not :-) >And this was with our N-numbered Mark-III. We stay clear of them for the most >part, but do a touch and go occasionally, just to irritate them. > >Dennis > One thing I will hate to give up in a couple years when I retire is my FAA/DOT I.D. card. I have only pulled it twice in 25 years, but it makes a great "attitude adjuster" for morons like you are obviously dealing with here... Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Gerald Nelson <gdnelson(at)agt.net>
Subject: Kolb/W. Canada
Hi all of you I signed on about a week ago and have found this "kolb(at)intrig.com" to be very informative and entertaining. I am retired an want to get back to flying again (used to be GA). I have a Lazair that is being covered for me with Pioneer engines. However, I would very much like to get hold of a used, older, 2-place Kolb (with trailer kit, if possible). Do any of you know of any in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, northern Montana or northern Idaho or even northern Washington? I live in Grande Priairie, AB which is west/n west of Edmonton. Hope to hear from someone (or more!?) Thank you Gerald ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 1998
From: Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)nationwide.net>
Subject: Moron? OUCH! That hurt! :-<
To all, >a great "attitude adjuster" for morons like you are obviously dealing with >here... Sorry, I forgot how to make a "sad" smiley face. Aside from the point being made... How do you win friends and influence people? Call them names... from afar. A Duh!!!!! Should I send this to 400-500 people I ask myself a dozen times? Why not... Cliff (the fool, the idiot, the imbecile, the unwashed, and "fixin" to put on his "thick" skin to shed the rath that might fall upon him soon) Stripling -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Retired Pharmacist (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas and Marble Falls Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel Kolb MKIII - N582CC (43.3 hrs) ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Moron? OUCH! That hurt! :-<
Date: May 31, 1998
Right on, Cliff! Ron Carroll Original Firestar -----Original Message----- From: Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)nationwide.net> Date: Sunday May 31 1998 8:39 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Moron? OUCH! That hurt! :-< >To all, > >>a great "attitude adjuster" for morons like you are obviously dealing with >>here... > >Sorry, I forgot how to make a "sad" smiley face. Aside from the point being >made... How do you win friends and influence people? Call them names... >from afar. A Duh!!!!! > >Should I send this to 400-500 people I ask myself a dozen times? Why not... > >Cliff (the fool, the idiot, the imbecile, the unwashed, and "fixin" to put >on his "thick" skin to shed the rath that might fall upon him soon) Stripling > >-- >Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Retired Pharmacist >(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas >and Marble Falls Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel > Kolb MKIII - N582CC (43.3 hrs) > ____________________|_____________________ > ___(+^+)___ > (_) > 8 8 > > >- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net>
Subject: Strobes and lights?
Date: May 31, 1998
Speaking of strobes...... I've been meaning to add some because my plane is just about invisible in the haze, and we've got tons of military traffic here. At one time, I read that we were rated number one in the nation for near-midairs. Anyway, I've looked at the magnum streamlined wingtip strobes. It seems like they would be a good choice for our planes. Since I'm incapable of doing anything the way it's supposed to be done, I was wondering if it would be possible to use these as strobes and position lights. A few questions: 1- Do they offer colored (red and green) lenses? If not, do the clear ones come off easily so they can be dyed or painted? 2- Is there a provision for using 3 lights rather than two? I could always just put a plain white light facing the rear I guess. 3- Probably a better question, has anyone seen position lights that would be easy to mount on the Kolb? Naturally, what I'm thinking about is night flight capability. I don't really have any plans to launching out into the night with the SS, but it would give me the ability to sneak in just after dark if needed. This would extend my afterwork flying time quite a bit. Thanks, Russell Duffy SlingShot SS-003, N8754K rad(at)pen.net http://www.pen.net/~rad/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net>
Subject: Used 503 to a good home
Date: May 31, 1998
Hi all, It looks like my 618 deal is going to become reality soon. If it does, I'll be selling the 503 package to one of our lucky listers. This would be essentially a full 503 package like you would buy from Kolb, and will likely include the 66" 2-blade IVO prop. According to Dennis, all the mounts are the same, so the engine would literally drop into place for any Kolb model. With any luck, I'll find someone close enough to come get it, so it won't even have to be taken apart (carbs, muffler, oil injection reservoir). The engine is a 15 month old 503 DCDI, and has 33 hours on it now. The price will depend on what ends up being included in the package, but I'm thinking of something in the low $2k range for everything. Let me know if you're interested. Thanks, Russell Duffy Navarre, FL (near Pensacola) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 1998
From: Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: Mix of traffic
>you want and you should not take any shit from anybody. if you're an >ultralight you have as much right to land in any uncontrolled airfield >that recieves federal funds as a GA or experimental craft. so go ahead >and do it, but follow the FAR's exactly and be a better pilot then these >GA morons like I described. If they give you a hard time report them, >the rules are on your side. Right on Topher! >How do you all feel about strobes? I think we should all have them. Strobes are great, but I have found they do essentially nothing to aid visibility in daylight. Only really worthwhile in dusk or really cloudy conditions. Also, allowing us to fly 1/2 hr before sunrise, 1/2 hr after sundown are the best parts of the day. - Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 1998
From: Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Big Insurance News
I was kinda slow getting to this month's UF! magazine. Boy what a surprise tho! AVEMCO announces they will not turn away FAT ultralights. They will consider applicants on a case by case basis and write policies as they deem appropriate. AVEMCO says they feel that certain minor weight gains such as wind-screens or brakes often push ultralights over 254 lbs but not necessarily make the vehicle a bad insurance risk, and in many cases might make it a lesser risk. It seems good news that an insurance company finds it good business to underwrite these outlaw vehicle/aircraft/whatever_we_are. It is nice to see a big company acknowledge up front that fat ULs are everywhere. One could view this as AVEMCO becoming the fat UL pilot's accomplice in crime. Can't imagine how AVEMCO's legal counsel sleeps well with this scenario. It also seems like this could be presented to FAA and ARAC103 as a vote of confidence that fat ULs are safe. Of course I don't yet know what the premiums look like. Also of interest was the letter from USUA Pres John Ballantyne. USUA wants ARAC103 to be stripped of most references to ultralights, the primary group it was meant to address when created in 1993. (And even 1993 is really *after* the failed effort to increase FAR103 weight.) For quite a while now, USUA has been mad at the ARAC103 swing toward heavier Sport Aircraft (1200lbs gross), which by now blows right by any improvement in regulations for slightly fat 103 types. I agree w/ USUA, this really stinks!! It is especially rotten, when AVEMCO now will insure a fat 103, and as well, the safety statistics show fat 103 to be working well, and to boot, FAA accepts fat UL in practice. But somehow ARAC/FAA is still trying to re-invent the totally failed sport pilot and sport aircraft category under the guise of helping ULs. Comments? -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net>
Subject: Re: Big Insurance News
Date: May 31, 1998
>UL pilot's accomplice in crime. Can't imagine how AVEMCO's >legal counsel sleeps well with this scenario. It also seems like >this could be presented to FAA and ARAC103 as a vote of confidence >that fat ULs are safe. Of course I don't yet know what the premiums >look like. I hate to be my normal cynical self, but I bet the "bottom line" of Avemco's new attitude was brought on by the bean counters. They finally realized that they were losing out on a large segment of the aviation market. It might be keeping the lawyers awake, but you can bet the accountants are sleeping well :-) As for the UL weight limits, I have to admit that I hope the rules get changed at some point so the SS could be considered an UL. If I ever loose my medical, it would just be a matter of sending in the registration and peeling off the numbers. Rusty ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 1998
From: Bob Gross <RPGross(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: need IVOptop help.
Hi all, I just bought a new Ivo. It is three blade at 66 inch diameter. I would like to hear from you as to whether I should run two blade or three blades. I know I must cut down the diameter for three blade operation, but don't know diameter works best.Please share with me your thoughts and experiences. A/C 1987 original FS Rotax 377 prov 4 with 2.58:1 Sea level warm wx ops (florida) Thanks Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 1998
From: Gary Thacker <gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us>
Subject: FireStar GPS Ant.
I would like to use my Garmin 45 in my FireStar II. Since I haven't tried it yet I thought I would ask. Will the thing work with the little stub ant. that is mounted on the GPS or do I need one mounted to the airframe somewhere? I know I can just try it and find out but the plane is there and I am here thinkin. I was plannin to rig up somethin to go around my leg to mount the GPS to. I know this isn't new tech. but do you have any suggestions as to puttin such a thing together? Thanks Gary ========================================================================= | Gary Thacker | gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us | | Souderton Pa. | | | | gthacker(at)wsd.k12.pa.us (work only) | ========================================================================= ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Duffy" <rad(at)pen.net>
Subject: Re: FireStar GPS Ant.
Date: May 31, 1998
>I would like to use my Garmin 45 in my FireStar II. Since I haven't >tried it yet I thought I would ask. Will the thing work with the little >stub ant. that is mounted on the GPS or do I need one mounted to the >airframe somewhere? I know I can just try it and find out but the plane is No problem at all using the stub antenna. Remember, this thing is looking up, and there isn't anything significant between it and the sky. Lexan and a few tubes from the wings won't even phase it's reception. >there and I am here thinkin. I was plannin to rig up somethin to go around >my leg to mount the GPS to. I know this isn't new tech. but do you have >any suggestions as to puttin such a thing together? I don't know about the leg wrap, but here's a picture of how I mounted my Garmin 55-AVD in the SlingShot. http://www.pen.net/~rad/ssdc422.jpg Good luck, Rusty ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: need IVOptop help.
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)
Date: May 31, 1998
Hi Bob, My Ivo prop was cut down from a 68" that I bought from a friend. I ran it as a 68" first on my Original FireStar w/377 engine. The prop came too close to the fuse tube (less than a half an inch as I recall), so we cut an inch off each tip. I made an aluminum L-bracket that was clamped to the tip to get the same amount cut off each blade. Before cutting off, I did try it in each configuration. I could not get the 3-blade to rev over 5900rpm on the 377 and it seemed hard to start, so I switched to the 2-blade and have used it that way ever since. Ivo claims the 2-blade is more efficient and will give a better cruise. I climb 900'/min with a 55-60 mph cruise. I'm happy with it. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar >Hi all, >I just bought a new Ivo. It is three blade at 66 inch >diameter. I would >like to hear from you as to whether I should run two blade or three >blades. I know I must cut down the diameter for three blade operation, >but don't know diameter works best.Please share with me your thoughts >and experiences. > >A/C 1987 original FS >Rotax 377 prov 4 with 2.58:1 >Sea level warm wx ops (florida) > >Thanks > >Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: FireStar GPS Ant.
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)
Date: May 31, 1998
Gary, The GPS will work fine with the built in antenna in the FS II. I put sticky-back velcro on the back of the GPS and made a nylon strap that also velcros around my leg. The GPS is then pressed to the velcro strap on my leg and is at the ideal angle for reading. If your FS II is open cockpit, loop the carrying handle around your leg first before attaching it to the velcro. Ralph Burlingame Original FireStar writes: > >I would like to use my Garmin 45 in my FireStar II. Since I haven't >tried it yet I thought I would ask. Will the thing work with the >little stub ant. that is mounted on the GPS or do I need one mounted to the >airframe somewhere? I know I can just try it and find out but the >plane isthere and I am here thinkin. I was plannin to rig up somethin to go >around my leg to mount the GPS to. I know this isn't new tech. but do you >have any suggestions as to puttin such a thing together? > >Thanks > >Gary > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 1998
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: moron explanation?
>Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 00:05:58 -0400 I think I once again failed to express myself correctly, and offended someone. The reference to "morons" in the text below was to stuffed shirt bureaucrats that try to throw us light plane drivers off public use airports. I guess I was rude, next time I'll just say; "stuffed shirt bureaucrats" instead. Thanks for the "heads up" on the etiquette. rp P.S. Surely you didn't think I was referring to the dude doing touch & go's? My reference to pulling the FAA I.D. card was on an obnoxious airport manager a number of years ago. It's a kind of long war story, and if I make it to Oshkosh this year, and if you like war stories, ask me about it. rp >To: DLSOUDER(at)aol.com >From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> >Subject: Re: Experimental >Cc: kolb(at)www.intrig.com > >> > >>We have an airport close by that has a real bad attitude toward ultralights. >>Yes they have received tons of federal money to improve the facilities. One >>time Dan landed there and they rushed out in a truck and pulled across in >>front of him on the taxi way to keep him from going any further. I forget >>whether they were armed or not :-) >>And this was with our N-numbered Mark-III. We stay clear of them for the most >>part, but do a touch and go occasionally, just to irritate them. >> >>Dennis >> > One thing I will hate to give up in a couple years when I retire is my FAA/DOT I.D. card. I have only pulled it twice in 25 years, but it makes a great "attitude adjuster" for morons like you are obviously dealing with here... > Richard Pike > MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 1998
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Subject: Re: need IVOptop help.
Bob, My sugestion is to use two of the blades at 66". You can get the spacers and convert it. A three blade would have to be cut down too much for a 377. John Jung > >Bob Gross wrote: > > Hi all, > I just bought a new Ivo. It is three blade at 66 inch diameter. I would > like to hear from you as to whether I should run two blade or three > blades. I know I must cut down the diameter for three blade operation, > but don't know diameter works best.Please share with me your thoughts > and experiences. > > A/C 1987 original FS > Rotax 377 prov 4 with 2.58:1 > Sea level warm wx ops (florida) > > Thanks > > Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 1998
From: john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Big Insurance News
>at some point so the SS could be considered an UL. If I ever loose my medical, >it would just be a matter of sending in the registration and peeling off the >numbers. > >Rusty Hey Guys: Some where in the back of my CRS riddled mind I remember reading that one can not transform a registered airplane into an unregistered ultralight. Can't remember where I read or heard it, but it sure rings a bell. Might be worth checking out before it spoils one's plans. Anxious to see and hear the performance of the SS with the 618. Should turn a 503 slug into a real race horse. Good luck with it. john h ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 1998
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Subject: Re: FireStar GPS Ant.
Gary, Here is an idea. I made mine out of an archery arm protector and a safety belt and a few pieces of thin bungee. Later, I made one from velcro but it didn't work as well, so I swithced back to the original. John Jung > >Gary Thacker wrote: > > I would like to use my Garmin 45 in my FireStar II. Since I haven't > tried it yet I thought I would ask. Will the thing work with the little > stub ant. that is mounted on the GPS or do I need one mounted to the > airframe somewhere? I know I can just try it and find out but the plane is > there and I am here thinkin. I was plannin to rig up somethin to go around > my leg to mount the GPS to. I know this isn't new tech. but do you have > any suggestions as to puttin such a thing together? > > Thanks > > Gary > > ========================================================================= > | Gary Thacker | gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us | > | Souderton Pa. | | > | | gthacker(at)wsd.k12.pa.us (work only) | > ========================================================================= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 1998
From: john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Strobes and lights?
>Speaking of strobes...... I've been meaning to add some because my plane is >just about invisible in the haze, and we've got tons of military traffic here. Hey Guys: It's me again. I highly recommend spending the bucks, if you want to be a night flyer and have good anticollision lights, for a Whelan system like the set up that has been operating on my MK III for 1142 hours w/o a problem. Set weighs about the same or less than UL junk and they backup what they sell with good service and a fully tested product. I went the UL route on my other two ULs with "mickey mouse" strobes, and spent most of my time on the phone with the manufacturer trying to figure out how to keep them operating. I'm too lazy to get up and get the number of my system, but has pos, strobe, and tail light on each wing tip, thus eliminating the requirement to wire and figure out how to mount the taillight. john h ps: I get no cut from Whelan if I sell a system. hehehe ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 1998
Subject: Re: FireStar GPS Ant.
From: rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT)
Gary I use my Garmin 90 in the M III with the stub ant. and I have no problem at all receving all 8 satellites on my unit I am sure that you will have the same results, with no problems. Good luck RICK writes: > >I would like to use my Garmin 45 in my FireStar II. Since I haven't >tried it yet I thought I would ask. Will the thing work with the >little >stub ant. that is mounted on the GPS or do I need one mounted to the >airframe somewhere? I know I can just try it and find out but the >plane is >there and I am here thinkin. I was plannin to rig up somethin to go >around >my leg to mount the GPS to. I know this isn't new tech. but do you >have >any suggestions as to puttin such a thing together? > >Thanks > >Gary > >========================================================================= >| Gary Thacker | gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us > | >| Souderton Pa. | > | >| | gthacker(at)wsd.k12.pa.us (work only) > | >========================================================================= > > > > > > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 01, 1998
Subject: Re: FireStar GPS Ant.
writes: << I would like to use my Garmin 45 in my FireStar II. Since I haven't tried it yet I thought I would ask. Will the thing work with the little stub ant. that is mounted on the GPS or do I need one mounted to the airframe somewhere? I know I can just try it and find out but the plane is there and I am here thinkin. I was plannin to rig up somethin to go around my leg to mount the GPS to. I know this isn't new tech. but do you have any suggestions as to puttin such a thing together? >> I have a Garmin 38 which works perfectly just rubber banded to the stick which puts the antenna pointing up and right under the windshield of my Firestar KX....do it :-) ..GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: lwfuller(at)juno.com
Date: May 31, 1998
Subject: Strobe lights-- I'm cheap
Hi all, The subject of strobe lights has been kicked around-- I purchased two 12v auto strobes from JC Whitney and fabed wing tip mounts. The units that I used have a magnetic base which were discarded and mounted the lights using a piece of angle alum. and a flat plate. Noise filters have to be installed in the 12v circuit to keep the "hash" out of the radio. I also mounted two Hal. lights under the nose for landing and taxiing. -- The landing lights are visable even in day light.-- Was very glad to have them one day when an Air National Guard C130 and I were sharing the same air space. He was climbing out bound on a radial to the Filmore VOR-- I pushed the nose over and made an immediate 90 degree turn. That was the day that I really realized just how slow my Mark III really is! One other thing-- the Nav lights, red and green, are required for night flying. Which one goes on which wing tip? Just remember that red is a shorter word than green and the short words go together i.e. red - left and green right. enough for tonight-- heading for Colorado in the morning. Larry Fuller ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Swihart" <mswihart(at)tcsn.net>
Subject: TwinStar Decals
Date: May 31, 1998
I'm looking for a set of TwinStar decals can anyone help? -Mark-

I'm looking for a set of TwinStar decals can anyone help?

-Mark-

________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

Re: Big Insurance News

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

>Hey Guys: Some where in the back of my CRS riddled mind I remember reading >that one can not transform a registered airplane into an unregistered >ultralight. Can't remember where I read or heard it, but it sure rings a >bell. Might be worth checking out before it spoils one's plans. I checked into this before I ever started this adventure. You can de-register your plane by returning the registration to the FAA along with a letter. I believe you have to tell them some reason such as "no longer airworthy", "sold for parts", etc. Once you do this, you would have to go through the whole inspection process again to get it re-registered. That makes it impossible to switch back and forth easily. Rusty ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

Subject:

Insurance

Bob Cooper, can you tell us what your insurance Co., agent, phone number... is so we can get a quote? It sounds like you're getting a good rate. Thanks... jim ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

Re: Experimental

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

Dennis Wrote: > And this was with our N-numbered Mark-III. We stay clear of them for the most > part, but do a touch and go occasionally, just to irritate them. Ben Wrote: I too have done several 5' agl fly-by's at the other anti-ul airport near me. I agree, it is nice to get that momentary feeling of "So There!!". Remember, do unto others like you would have them do unto you. I really do not think that these tactics will help us gain access or popularity with such airports. As a matter of fact, it gives these guys even more to bitch about. They may also share these stories with other airport managers. (Even though you are performing legal manuvers) It's kind of like one step forward and two steps back. Those few minutes of "So There!!", might someday cause our extinction. Rut (Just making an observation) Fuller ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

Re: Experimental

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

Good Job Ron, I see you beat me to the punch. Rutledge Fuller ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Experimental Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 13:42:41 -0700 Unfortunately, it is actions like these that have earned the ultralight community the reputation that it has. It will strengthen the GA pilots already poor opinions of us as a group. We need to nurture, not discourage, a healthy relationship with those who share our skies. Besides, ANYTHING other than take-off and landing maneuvers while inside an airport traffic area is against the FARs and should be avoided. I strongly oppose the infamous "high speed pass" operations, especially while I, or any other small aircraft which has a small profile (therefore difficult to see), is in or near the pattern. I've already had a close call, and try to discourage foolhardy antics in or around the pattern. For what it's worth, Ron Carroll Original Firestar -----Original Message----- From: Russell Duffy <rad(at)pen.net> Date: Friday May 29 1998 1:13 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Experimental > > >>> And this was with our N-numbered Mark-III. We stay clear of them for the >most >>> part, but do a touch and go occasionally, just to irritate them. >> >>I too have done several 5' agl fly-by's at the other anti-ul airport near >>me. I agree, it is nice to get that momentary feeling of "So There!!". > > >Before I started on the SS, I considered a FireFly very seriously. As part of >my decision, I went to all the small airports around and asked if UL's were >welcome. The answers ranged from "Absolutely not", to "there's no rule against >them, but we don't like it". Since everyone thinks the SS is an UL, I also have >plans to irritate a few places quite legally. The most unfortunate victim is >going to be a paved airport in Milton FL. I'm on the waiting list for a city >owned hanger there. The FBO owner will NOT be pleased :-) > >Rusty > > > >- ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.Com>

Subject:

Antennae from Advanced Aircraft Electronics

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

I did the same thing, with the same good results. > -----Original Message----- > From: PKrotje(at)aol.com [SMTP:PKrotje(at)aol.com] > Sent: Friday, May 29, 1998 10:22 PM > To: segarcts(at)qtm.net; Kolb(at)www.intrig.com > Subject: Re: Antena placement and what kind ?? > ,,, > I used a flexible fibreglass antenna from Advanced Aircraft Electronics > and > taped it to the inside of the nose cone on my MK III. Worked very well > and > was out of sight. > > Pete Krotje > ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.Com>

Subject:

Advanced Aircraft Electronics flexible Antennae

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

They apparently do not have a web site, but see: http://www.chiefaircraft.com/Aircraft/Antennas/AAE.html http://www.aircraft-spruce.com/spruce/pages.cgi/page385 I had some problems with the Aircraft Spruce site, but if you fiddle with it, you'll find what they charge, I suspect. I did an altavista search http://altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/query?pg=q&q=%22advanced+aircraft+elect ronics%22&stq=10&c9k starting with a simple http://altavista.digital.com/ and entering "Advanced Aircaft Electronics" with the quotes, and found what I was looking for in seconds... > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Carroll [SMTP:ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net] > Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 10:58 AM > To: Scott Bentley > Subject: Re: Antennae from Advanced Aircraft Electronics > > Does "ADVANCED AIRCRAFT ELECTRONICS" happen to have a website? I'd be > interested in this myself. > > Ron > ... > > > >> I used a flexible fibreglass antenna from Advanced Aircraft Electronics > >> and > >> taped it to the inside of the nose cone on my MK III. Worked very well > >> and > >> was out of sight. > >> > >> Pete Krotje > >> > >- > > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

From:

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

Subject:

Re: Experimental

> Ben Wrote: > I too have done several 5' agl fly-by's at the other anti-ul airport > near > me. I agree, it is nice to get that momentary feeling of "So There!!". > > Remember, do unto others like you would have them do unto you. I really > do not think that these tactics will help us gain access or popularity > with such airports. As a matter of fact, it gives these guys even more > to bitch about. They may also share these stories with other airport > managers. (Even though you are performing legal manuvers) It's kind of > like one step forward and two steps back. Those few minutes of "So > There!!", might someday cause our extinction. > > Rut (Just making an observation) Fuller Yeah, you're right about do unto others. But, at the risk of beating this to death, let me clarify a little. At one airport I ventured a 5'agl pass after a month or so of flying elsewhere. Next time by I did a touch and go or 2. Then later, bold enf to land. Six months later I'm operating out of there all the time on wknds including setup from trailer, and had become friends with many GA pilots. No one had a problem except the moron/stuffed_shirt_beaurocrat who runs the place, and he was never ever there. Come to think of it, those adjectives (and worse) were used by the GA guys! So there the adage 'nothing ventured nothing gained' applies. At the other airport, the "several passes" description i used is an exageration (sorry). I've only done 3-4 over a couple years, and there was no one else around at the time. The 'so there!' was really only felt by me. That airport needs to have their FAA restriction to ultralights revisited. If enf ULers got together, it could be done. Somewhere between 'do unto others' and 'don't take no shit from anybody' there is an answer. -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Ron Christensen" <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com>

Subject:

Re: Mix of traffic

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

Topher: A couple of thoughts regarding your message: * In order to land at any airport, it is VERY WISE to have a radio. Obviously at a controlled airport, it is a must. At an uncontrolled airport it is a matter of mutual safety. As you wrote, you didn't have radio contact when landing at the airport when the twin aircraft was landing/rolling out against the sock. Glad you are still around to write about your experience ! ! * For flying in Class B or Class C airspace, I'm sure you know that a transponder and altitude reporter are required in addition to a radio. My new MK III 1/2 has all the necessary equipment to fly in the Los Angeles area. I costs a bit of money, but I feel it is a safety issue here because of the heavy density of air traffic. Ron Christensen -----Original Message----- From: Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net> Date: Saturday, May 30, 1998 1:41 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Mix of traffic >My experiance has been that the guys out there flying the expensive >twins are the ones who fly straight in approaches and land against the >wind sock all the time. And they fly so fast that you dont see them >till they are right there. I turned base to final the other day and >checked that the runway was clear. I then was concentrating on the >touchdown point and when I started to flair looked up to the far end of >the runway to see two big props churning away as a twin came at me on >landing rollout, against the windsock. I added power and went around >right over the top of him. he was never in the pattern. probably was >below 500 feet for the last couple of miles of his 100 knot approach. >He was counting on his radio, which I didnt have for that flight. If >you are N-numbered you can and should go into any non-class B airspace >you want and you should not take any shit from anybody. if you're an >ultralight you have as much right to land in any uncontrolled airfield >that recieves federal funds as a GA or experimental craft. so go ahead >and do it, but follow the FAR's exactly and be a better pilot then these >GA morons like I described. If they give you a hard time report them, >the rules are on your side. > >How do you all feel about strobes? I think we should all have them. > >Topher >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

Subject:

Kolb:engine mount vibs

Has anyone flying a MKIII with 582C 3:1 with 3 blade 66"IVO feel engine vibration in the airframe from 4800-5800 rpm and inspected the Lord mounts for partial collapse, especially the front unit on the exhaust side. This unit sees the combined loads of the torque, weight and propellor force offset and makes occasional solid contact with the mounting bracket as indicated by the markings on the bottom surface of the bracket. I have 2 washers in the front and 4 washers in the back units installed and the IVO 2 1/4"prop spacer for prop clearance and have already rotated the mounts once before,several years ago when first noticing the contact marks although I did not feel the vibration at that time. The scenario is as follows; up to 4800 rpm no contact at all due to low torque and propforce and running smooth; 4800 to 5800 rpm intermittend contact between the bracket and the solid part of the mount sending engine vibrations through the airframe; 5800-6300 solid contact and lowering airframe vibration slightly. Can this be caused by other engine/prop problems. The EGT and CHT are in the normal range and max RPM is 6300 so uneven carburation is not suspect at this time. TTAE including prop is 432 hrs. Frank Reynen MKIII@432 hrs http://www.webcom.com/reynen ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

Re: Kolb:engine mount vibs

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

This sorta sounds familiar, on my slingshot around 4800-5400 rpm I was getting a vibration and a noise, come to find out it was the fabric vibrating against a horizontal tube at the rear of the cage. -----Original Message----- From: Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com <Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com> Date: Monday, June 01, 1998 1:37 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb:engine mount vibs >Has anyone flying a MKIII with 582C 3:1 with 3 blade 66"IVO feel engine >vibration in the airframe from 4800-5800 rpm and inspected the Lord mounts >for partial collapse, especially the front unit on the exhaust side. This >unit sees the combined loads of the torque, weight and propellor force >offset and makes occasional solid contact with the mounting bracket as >indicated by the markings on the bottom surface of the bracket. I have 2 >washers in the front and 4 washers in the back units installed and the IVO >2 1/4"prop spacer for prop clearance and have already rotated the mounts >once before,several years ago when first noticing the contact marks >although I did not feel the vibration at that time. The scenario is as >follows; up to 4800 rpm no contact at all due to low torque and propforce >and running smooth; 4800 to 5800 rpm intermittend contact between the >bracket and the solid part of the mount sending engine vibrations through >the airframe; 5800-6300 solid contact and lowering airframe vibration >slightly. > >Can this be caused by other engine/prop problems. The EGT and CHT are in >the normal range and max RPM is 6300 so uneven carburation is not suspect >at this time. TTAE including prop is 432 hrs. > >Frank Reynen MKIII@432 hrs >http://www.webcom.com/reynen > > >- ________________________________________________________________________________

Subject:

Re: Experimental

From:

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

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

Ben, Ten years ago I landed at a state owned uncontrolled airport just to see what was up. Most of the GA pilots there had never seen an ultralight and they were very skeptic. Today, this airport is 30% ultralight/lightplane and I have seen a complete turnaround in attitudes toward these aircraft. This airport continues to be one of my best places to fly. Ralph (be nice, fly right) Burlingame Original FireStar writes: >Yeah, you're right about do unto others. But, at the risk of beating >this to death, let me clarify a little. At one airport I ventured a >5'agl pass after a month or so of flying elsewhere. Next time by I >did a touch and go or 2. Then later, bold enf to land. Six months >later I'm operating out of there all the time on wknds including setup >from trailer, and had become friends with many GA pilots. No one had >a problem except the moron/stuffed_shirt_beaurocrat who runs the >place, and he was never ever there. Come to think of it, those adjectives >(and worse) were used by the GA guys! So there the adage 'nothing ventured >nothing gained' applies. > >At the other airport, the "several passes" description i used is >an exageration (sorry). I've only done 3-4 over a couple years, and >there was no one else around at the time. The 'so there!' was really >only felt by me. That airport needs to have their FAA restriction to >ultralights revisited. If enf ULers got together, it could be done. > >Somewhere between 'do unto others' and 'don't take no shit from >anybody' >there is an answer. > >-Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

From:

Brian Copple <brianc(at)premier1.net>

Subject:

Firefly

Dear Anyone: Is any one out there building a firefly?? If so let me know how far along you are and we'll talk. I'm waiting on my kit #1 and will be starting sometime in July. don't make me re-invent the wheel let me know what your doing that works and what doesn't. I'm considering a Hirth 2702 for a power plant. Any comments?? Brian in Washington State ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Kolb:engine mount vibs

>Return-Path: >X-Authentication-Warning: www.intrig.com: bin set sender to owner-kolb(at)intrig.com using -f >From: Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com >X-Lotus-FromDomain: SEAGATE@INTERNET >To: kolb(at)intrig.com >Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:21:01 -0700 >Subject: Kolb:engine mount vibs >Sender: owner-kolb(at)intrig.com > >Has anyone flying a MKIII with 582C 3:1 with 3 blade 66"IVO feel engine >vibration in the airframe from 4800-5800 rpm and inspected the Lord mounts >for partial collapse, especially the front unit on the exhaust side. This >unit sees the combined loads of the torque, weight and propellor force >offset and makes occasional solid contact with the mounting bracket as >indicated by the markings on the bottom surface of the bracket. I have 2 >washers in the front and 4 washers in the back units installed and the IVO >2 1/4"prop spacer for prop clearance and have already rotated the mounts >once before,several years ago when first noticing the contact marks >although I did not feel the vibration at that time. The scenario is as >follows; up to 4800 rpm no contact at all due to low torque and propforce >and running smooth; 4800 to 5800 rpm intermittend contact between the >bracket and the solid part of the mount sending engine vibrations through >the airframe; 5800-6300 solid contact and lowering airframe vibration >slightly. > >Can this be caused by other engine/prop problems. The EGT and CHT are in >the normal range and max RPM is 6300 so uneven carburation is not suspect >at this time. TTAE including prop is 432 hrs. > >Frank Reynen MKIII@432 hrs >http://www.webcom.com/reynen > > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: Kolb:engine mount vibs

>Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 17:54:43 -0500 >To: Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com >From: john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> >Subject: Re: Kolb:engine mount vibs >In-Reply-To: <88256616.0058CAB3.00@sv-gw1.stsv.seagate.com> > >>Has anyone flying a MKIII with 582C 3:1 with 3 blade 66"IVO feel engine >>vibration in the airframe from 4800-5800 rpm and inspected the Lord mounts > > >Hi Frank: > >If I didn't tell you before, you have a nice web page, airplane, and home. I like your set up on the water. I too live on the water, Lake Jordan, 25 miles north of Montgomery, Alabama. > >Sounds to me like eng mt vibrations. I had and have the same anoyance. Not really a problem, just the way the system works. Don't have that problem on lesser HP engs, or I didn't with the 447 on my Firestar. > >I have my eng rigged a little different from you. I also had the 582 rigged just like the 912. In order to get the line of thrust more in line with the bottom of the wing, I raised the front of the eng 5/8 inch, and left the rear even, with no spacer. It works well that way. I use a warp drive fast taper 3 blade prop and a home made 2 3/4 in spacer (I think it is 2 3/4). If I read your e-mail correctly, you raised the rear of the eng. > >I use a 1 3/4 or 2 inch fender washer under the 5/8 inch spacer. This prevent the eng thrust and torque from burying the spacer down in the Lord mount. I have had the right front mount come apart after 800 or 900 hours. Keep your eyes on them. Make that part of your preflight. > >Fly safe, > >john h ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: Firefly

Brian, I'm curious. Why a Hirth 2702? Also, where are you in Washington? John Jung > >Brian Copple wrote: > > Dear Anyone: > > Is any one out there building a firefly?? If so let me know how far along > you are and we'll talk. I'm waiting on my kit #1 and will be starting > sometime in July. don't make me re-invent the wheel let me know what your > doing that works and what doesn't. > I'm considering a Hirth 2702 for a power plant. Any comments?? > > Brian in Washington State ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

From:

Terry Swartz <Tswartz(at)ptdprolog.net>

Subject:

Re: Mix of traffic

Question: Does the 1/2 hr. before sunrise and 1/2 hr. after sunset with strobes apply to N- numbered Experimentals? I have not been able to find that it does. Terry loudy > conditions. Also, allowing us to fly 1/2 hr before sunrise, 1/2 hr > after sundown are the best parts of the day. > - Ben Ransom > - ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

Subject:

Re: Big Insurance News

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > >Hey Guys: Some where in the back of my CRS riddled mind I remember >reading >that one can not transform a registered airplane into an unregistered >ultralight. Can't remember where I read or heard it, but it sure >rings a >bell. Might be worth checking out before it spoils one's plans. Quoting from Advisory Circular 103-7, paragraph 15a states: "If your ultralight has been issued an airworthiness certificate, you cannot operate it as an ultralight vehicle under Part 103. An ultralight cannot be operated interchangeably as a certificated aircraft and an ultralight vehicle." But, paragraph 15b states: "If you want to operate your ultralight under Part 103, you must turn in, to the issuing authority, any airworthiness certificate currently issued for the craft." ...Go for it, Rusty (when/if the time comes)! -Mick Fine Tulsa, Oklahoma http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

Subject:

Re: Big Insurance News

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > >..... Can't imagine how AVEMCO's >legal counsel sleeps well with this scenario. More premiums of course! Money is a barrister's valium (and viagra, and prozac, and...). It was most likely one of these soleless vermin who convinced Avemco that it was stupid to cut themselves out of 80-90% of the UL market on account of something as trivial as Federal Regulations. Oops, did I say 'soleless vermin'? I meant 'savy business advisor.' > It also seems like >this could be presented to FAA and ARAC103 as a vote of confidence >that fat ULs are safe. Of course I don't yet know what the premiums >look like. Another slant is: how hard will a 'real' pilot go after the first guy who sticks a 'fat' ultralight in the side of his parked Cardinal (especially when he finds out it was insured by the same people he's been writing BIG checks to for all these years)? Not that I'm paranoid (that only applies if it ain't true right?) but, I'd read the fine print with an electron microscope. Could be you'll get sold down the river if you ever make a claim. Even so, if your 'incident' injures an 'innocent third party', I'd bet any compensation you get from Avemco would be a drop in the settlement bucket by the time the fat lady sings. I hope it doesn't come to this but one of my many fears is that someday, there'll be a 'high profile' UL incident that the media will pick-up and shake like a doll in a pit bull's mouth. We live in such a reactionary climate nowadays that were this to happen, public opinion (dictated by the media) would demand swift and thoughtless action by FAA. A court case with high stakes might be the perfect vehicle for abolishing Part 103 altogether. Of course, it could be I'm just watching too many 'X-Files' again. Does anyone have Johnny Cochran's number? -Mick (just doing my part to rain on the parade) Fine Tulsa, Oklahoma http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 01, 1998

From:

Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>

Subject:

Re: Big Insurance News

Mick wrote: >More premiums of course! Money is a barrister's valium (and viagra, and >prozac, and...). It was most likely one of these soleless vermin who And Rusty wrote: >I hate to be my normal cynical self, but I bet the "bottom line" of Avemco's new >attitude was brought on by the bean counters. They finally realized that they >were losing out on a large segment of the aviation market. It might be keeping FWIW, you are correct. AVEMCO was not shy about coming right out and saying they know they have been turning away a huge market. Good ol USA capitalism to the rescue. I hope it works. Gotta love some of those soleless vermin! :) -Ben ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

Re: Big Insurance News

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

>Not that I'm paranoid (that only applies if it ain't true right?) but, >I'd read the fine print with an electron microscope. Could be you'll get >sold down the river if you ever make a claim. >-Mick (just doing my part to rain on the parade) Fine >Tulsa, Oklahoma Great point!!! My wife just had our first baby 7 weeks ago and all the bills are starting to come in now...and I have been enlightened as to the millions of ways the insurance companies can weasle out of paying legitimate claims!!! I think the electron microscope examination should be standard an ALL insurance policies before you send them your hard earned money. My $.02 worth...and it probably ain't worth what you payed for it... Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

RE: Mix of traffic

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

>>>Does the 1/2 hr. before sunrise and 1/2 hr. after sunset with strobes >>>apply to N- numbered Experimentals? No, it doesn't. Unfortunately, experimentals are bound by the same rules as factory-built planes for required equipment. To fly between sunset and sunrise, we need position lights, anti-collision lights, and (according to my local MIDO) an engine-driven electrical system to keep it all going. -Steve (N-numbered Mk II) ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Rinehart, Mark W." <Mark.W.Rinehart(at)Allison.com>

Subject:

STROBES

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

FAR Part 103.11 states that an ultralight vehicle may be operated 30 min prior to sunrise and 30 min after sunset if it has an operating anticollison light visible for at least 3 statute miles. My question is what constitutes an "anticollision light"? Does a rotating beacon count as well as strobes? Also, can these lights be run off the engine or must I have a complete electrical system including battery? Mark Rinehart "MK III BFI wanna be" ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

From:

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

Subject:

Re: Mix of traffic

I was flying a Champ GA plane at the time, so this was not an ultralight issue. it was uncontroled and the main issue is that the guy did a straight in... the single most dangerous and illegal thing you can do at an uncontroled, radio optional strip. same thing happened to me years ago but I had already landed and a twin did a touch and go! I was forced to turn off the side of the runway. As he went buy at 80 knots I pointed at the windsock. As far as flying an ultralight type experimental in class c or b, you can have it, dodging 747's or even 737's is not the stong point of these planes! Topher ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

From:

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

Subject:

Transponder waiver rule...

To all, ...an engine-driven electrical system to keep it all going. That statement brings to mind the waiver under FAR sec. 91.215 (b.3) to fly within the 30 N mile airport listed in Appendix D, Sect 1 of that part provided such operations are conducted, etc... My airplane does not have an engine-driven electrical system, therefore can operate under the FAR provision of this section without such equipment (meaning mode C transponder). That allows legal operations from my home airport which is within 30 N miles of a big airport terminal and almost under the B space "inverted wedding cake" above. I know the waiver is to protect and allow older or simpler planes (Cubs and the like such as our kind of light plane that can hardly afford or need the equipment in the airspace that they fly in) to operate from airports or in the airspace near the big terminals. Later, -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Retired Pharmacist (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas and Marble Falls Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel Kolb MKIII - N582CC (43.3 hrs) ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: Mix of traffic

>Question: > >Does the 1/2 hr. before sunrise and 1/2 hr. after sunset with strobes >apply to N- numbered Experimentals? I have not been able to find that >it does. > >Terry > > Nope. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

GERKEN(at)RCHVMX.VNET.IBM.COM

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

Subject:

"ENGINE-DRIVEN ELECTRICAL SYSTEM"

Cliff, you wrote: >My airplane does not have an engine-driven electrical system, therefore can If you say you don't have the engine-driven electrical system, what do you call the lighting coil with Rotax regulator? Or are you not using a regulator? If you don't have electric start, and don't need any power except for instruments, maybe you are using that tiny Radio Shack diode regulator method to get your 12 volts for your tach and water temp gauge? I want to say the same thing you are saying (no electrical, no X-ponder). Thanks, jim ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

From:

William V Rayfield <rayfiwv(at)mail.auburn.edu>

Subject:

instruction

Hey gang, I'm looking for someone in Georgia or Alabama area that gives instruction in a MarkIII or a Ferguson. It won't be long before my father and I are ready to solo and fly our own plane. We're getting instruction in a Challenger II and realize it is much different than a Kolb. We would just like a little exposure to a similar aircraft before taxiing and crow-hopping our own. preferably, we'd like to find someone around middle Alabama/Georgia. Any help would be greatly appreciated-thanks Bill Rayfield "I'd rather be lucky than good" Mech. Engr. Student Auburn University "War Eagle" ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

Subject:

Re: instruction

From:

pl4coop(at)juno.com (robert w. cooper)

writes: >Hey gang, > >I'm looking for someone in Georgia or Alabama area that gives >instruction >in a MarkIII or a Ferguson. It won't be long before my father and I >are >ready to solo and fly our own plane. We're getting instruction in a >Challenger II >and realize it is much different than a Kolb. We would just like a >little >exposure to a similar aircraft before taxiing and crow-hopping our >own. >preferably, we'd like to find someone around middle Alabama/Georgia. >Any >help would be greatly appreciated-thanks > >Bill Rayfield >"I'd rather be lucky than good" > >Mech. Engr. Student >Auburn University >"War Eagle" > Hi William - If you travel into the South Jersey area, there is a fellow at Millville Airport that provides instruction in a 2 place Kolb. I'm not sure of the model. Bob Cooper Newfield, NJ > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"CHRISTOPHER DAVIS" <cdavis2(at)capecod.net>

Subject:

Re: instruction

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

I don"t know about instruction in your area but I have this to say about crow hopping a kolb, If you can fly an airplane , forget crow hopping ,if you do it it willprobly be the most difficult flying you ever do in a Kolb ! Isay just give her a through preflight get in an fly away ,The landings are apiece of cake from a nice relaxed , did I say "relaxed" final compared to trying to get a kolb back on the ground when all it wants to do is CliiiiiiiiiiiB!!!!!!! been there, Chris D. -----Original Message----- From: William V Rayfield <rayfiwv(at)mail.auburn.edu> Date: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 6:18 PM Subject: Kolb-List: instruction >Hey gang, > >I'm looking for someone in Georgia or Alabama area that gives instruction >in a MarkIII or a Ferguson. It won't be long before my father and I are >ready to solo and fly our own plane. We're getting instruction in a Challenger II >and realize it is much different than a Kolb. We would just like a little >exposure to a similar aircraft before taxiing and crow-hopping our own. >preferably, we'd like to find someone around middle Alabama/Georgia. Any >help would be greatly appreciated-thanks > >Bill Rayfield >"I'd rather be lucky than good" > >Mech. Engr. Student >Auburn University >"War Eagle" > > >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

From:

wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>

Subject:

Re: wing handle

>Wood, >how do you mount the PVC tubes, isn't there rivets in the rear spar for the >hinges in the way? >Also how do you keep the 1" tubes from sliding out in flight? > >Geoff Thistlethwaite > You need to install the pvc before you rivit the last rivits in.Locate where the rivits will hit the pvc and then drill the pvc to a 1\4 "dia. clearance There is no real strength needed to hold this pvc.To hold the handle in we heated the pvc and gave it a slight bend. This gave enough friction so we don't worry about it coming out in flight.Be sure none of the rivit botttoms hit the handle tube. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

From:

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

Subject:

Re: "ENGINE-DRIVEN ELECTRICAL SYSTEM"

> I want to say the same thing you are saying (no electrical, no X-ponder). > Thanks, jim Jim and all, You are right about "what do you call...". It certainly is an "engine driven electrical system" but it stops at the engine's instrument needs. I use the regulator and capacitor system. The way I understand it the FAA allows such a source to supply only the "engine instruments" as if the definition of an electrical system does not include those items. I operate the nav/com and GPS off a motorbike battery that I take home to recharge. I can find nowhere in the FARs where "an engine driven electrical system" is defined. I could be "full of it". I don't know. Anyone out there of authority have any input? Later, -- Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Retired Pharmacist (972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas and Marble Falls Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel Kolb MKIII - N582CC (43.3 hrs) ____________________|_____________________ ___(+^+)___ (_) 8 8 ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

From:

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

Subject:

Re: "ENGINE-DRIVEN ELECTRICAL SYSTEM"

From:

Cavuontop(at)aol.com

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

Subject:

Re: instruction

In a message dated 6/2/98 4:38:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, cdavis2(at)capecod.net writes: << f you can fly an airplane , forget crow hopping ,if you do it it willprobly be the most difficult flying you ever do in a Kolb >> Amen. I have seen the gear wiped of Kolb products a number of times in this scenario. The beginner staggers along at the edge of a stall without ever really getting a sense of the attitude the plane really flies in. I have said this before, but it bears repeating : guys sit in their Kolbs while they are building them and get the impression that the attitude that the aircraft is in on the ground is the same thing as the level attitude. Have a friend pick up the tail unil the bottom of the wing is level with the ground. You will be surprised how high the tail is and how low the nose is. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: "ENGINE-DRIVEN ELECTRICAL SYSTEM"

>> I want to say the same thing you are saying (no electrical, no X-ponder). >> Thanks, jim > >Jim and all, > >You are right about "what do you call...". It certainly is an "engine >driven electrical system" but it stops at the engine's instrument needs. I >use the regulator and capacitor system. The way I understand it the FAA >allows such a source to supply only the "engine instruments" as if the >definition of an electrical system does not include those items. I operate >the nav/com and GPS off a motorbike battery that I take home to recharge. I >can find nowhere in the FARs where "an engine driven electrical system" is >defined. I could be "full of it". I don't know. Anyone out there of >authority have any input? > >Later, > >-- >Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Retired Pharmacist >(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas Evening Cliff: I'm not an expert and I don't have any references in front of me, but IMOHO I think you will have a hard time convincing anybody other than my bassett hound, Ernie, that you don't have an electrical system, if you are powered by any Rotax eng. If you are flying in front of a 582 you are equiped with a 12 pole, AC generator or alternator. That is an engine driven electrical system. I wish we could get away with it, but I don't think so. I don't need a transponder but occassionally, but when you need it it would be nice to have. Most ARSAs and TRSAs will let you in if you call one hour prior, and sometimes if they aren't busy and the right guy is on duty he will pick you up on radar and vector you in. But when you really want to come in, the tough ones say no. john h ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

Subject:

Re: "ENGINE-DRIVEN ELECTRICAL SYSTEM"

From:

rick106(at)juno.com (RICK M LIBERSAT)

JIM If my memory serves me right the meaning of electrical in the eyes of the FAA is . ELECTRICAL ... VOLTAGE THAT IS PRODUCED BY MEANS OF AN EXTERNAL DEVICE AS ALTERNATOR , anything which is outside of the engine, our rotax's are producing power from within . Rick Libersat > Cliff, you wrote: >>My airplane does not have an engine-driven electrical system, >therefore can > > If you say you don't have the engine-driven electrical system, >what do you call the lighting coil with Rotax regulator? Or are you >not using a regulator? If you don't have electric start, and don't >need any >power except for instruments, maybe you are using that tiny Radio >Shack >diode regulator method to get your 12 volts for your tach and water >temp gauge? > I want to say the same thing you are saying (no electrical, no >X-ponder). > Thanks, jim >- > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

Subject:

Re: instruction

From:

mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine)

writes: > >..... We're getting instruction in a >Challenger II >and realize it is much different than a Kolb. Congrats Bill, Don't take this as an endorsement to go on without 'training in type.' By all means, get some dual in a Kolb if possible but if you and your dad can handle the Challenger, you should have no problem in the Kolb. This is just from my own observation but you'll probably be amazed (and relieved) at the improved lateral stability. In other words, expect to do much less with the (properly designed) rudder on the Kolb :-) Much less adverse yaw from the ailerons also. Otherwise, the performance numbers should be pretty close. Trust me on this 'tho, it is much harder to transition from a Kolb to a Challenger - at least it was for me! The Challenger demands that you stay much further 'ahead of it' than the Kolb - IMHO. I think Cavu has a good theory about crow-hopping. Getting used to the attitude of the plane while it's in the garage as opposed to it's flight attitude maybe why some have been bitten while crow-hopping. I did it, learned from it, gained confidence in myself and in my plane from it, and never felt in danger while doing it (or after) but I have heard about many who come to regret it. I dunno... -Mick Fine Tulsa, Oklahoma http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO) http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 02, 1998

From:

John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>

Subject:

Re: Virtual Visit to Kolb Factory...

Scott, Thanks for taking the time to post the "Virtual Visit". I finally took the time to view the pictures and it was very interesting. John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: Firefly

> > >I'm considering a Hirth 2702 for a power plant. Any comments?? > >Brian in Washington State > >- > One of our locals had one in a Fisher Classic up until yesterday. Had about 4 hours on it, kept running hot, partial seizure on one cylinder. Sent the piston back to (?) whoever he got it from. They reportedly did something to it (?) and sent it back to him, said it was OK. Seized over the departure end of the runway, had enough altitude to get back, but not enough to miss the earth-mover pan that was parked alongside the runway. Admittedly he was not knowledgeable on 2-strokes, and surely has a poor opinion of them by now... That was the first one in the area, not a good start. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) > ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

AMAV8R(at)aol.com

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

Subject:

Re: Kolb:engine mount vibs

I would suspect the IVO prop Russ ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

AMAV8R(at)aol.com

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

Subject:

Re: Firefly

Good choices all around. Russ ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: instruction

>Hey gang, > >I'm looking for someone in Georgia or Alabama area that gives instruction >in a MarkIII or a Ferguson. See if you can track down Glenn Rinck in Grand Ridge , Florida. He can probably tell you who can do it. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: STROBES

>FAR Part 103.11 states that an ultralight vehicle may be operated 30 min >prior to sunrise and 30 min after sunset if it has an operating >anticollison light visible for at least 3 statute miles. My question is >what constitutes an "anticollision light"? Does a rotating beacon count >as well as strobes? Also, can these lights be run off the engine or >must I have a complete electrical system including battery? > > >Mark Rinehart >"MK III BFI wanna be" >- >If it's an ultralight, it can be run off anything you want, as long as it flashes, winks, twinks, or whatever for 3 miles visibility. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

From:

Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>

Subject:

Re: "ENGINE-DRIVEN ELECTRICAL SYSTEM"

I have about as little authority as anybody I know of, but I remember reading that the definition of an "engine driven electrical system" includes the engine, an electrical supply source, and a starter. The question came up back when the mode C veil thing came up for all the TCA's a number of years ago. I suspect that you would find the info in the rationale for a reg that sometimes precedes a reg, and it would be the reg that covers the imposition of the mode C veil for TCA's, but I don't have ready access to that one right now. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42oldpoops) >Jim and all, > >You are right about "what do you call...". It certainly is an "engine >driven electrical system" but it stops at the engine's instrument needs. I >use the regulator and capacitor system. The way I understand it the FAA >allows such a source to supply only the "engine instruments" as if the >definition of an electrical system does not include those items. I operate >the nav/com and GPS off a motorbike battery that I take home to recharge. I >can find nowhere in the FARs where "an engine driven electrical system" is >defined. I could be "full of it". I don't know. Anyone out there of >authority have any input? > >Later, > >-- >Cliff & Carolyn Stripling Him: Retired Pharmacist >(972)247-9821 Dallas Texas Her: Real Estate Broker - Texas >and Marble Falls Texas Both: 5th Wheel - RV - Travel > Kolb MKIII - N582CC (43.3 hrs) > ____________________|_____________________ > ___(+^+)___ > (_) > 8 8 > > >- > > ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

From:

"Richard neilsen" <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us>

Subject:

"ENGINE-DRIVEN ELECTRICAL SYSTEM" -Reply

The regulations are rather all inclusive on this point but the local tower has the authority to interpret these regulations. If you have or want to use a strip under a class C airspace, give it a try and ask. If you request a exemption and give them a reason they just might approve it. I know of exemptions that were approved by saying that they can't afford to install a transponder or the electrical system can't safely handle a transponder. Note these exemptions were under the vail of the airspace and outside the area that goes to the ground. Also you will have to file for a renewal once a year but if you don't gather any negative P.R. the renewal is reported to be a sure thing. My $.02 worth. Rick Neilsen VW powered Kolb MKIII - still no first flight ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

From:

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

Subject:

Re: Used 503 to a good home

tried to send this just to Russell Duffy but it didnt work, so every body else nevermind... I will be wanting to buy an engine in about 6 months but that might be a littl too long for you. I am near Minneapolis so It would require shipping. Any more details available about the engine? which gear box? Standard carbs? are your going to send the engine mounts, throttle cables choke etc. etc. etc. since I dont have any of that stuff. I think saving a thousand bucks might get my wife to free up the funds sooner as opposed to later ;-) Topher ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net>

Subject:

Re: Mix of traffic

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

I don't believe that you will find that a straight-in approach is illegal anyway in the regs, but may not be recommended. Sometimes, when traffic permits, it is much easier for larger planes to do a straight-in because they require such huge turning areas. They turn base so far out that it almost turns out to be a straight-in. Enough of that, now I have a question for the group. I am having trouble finding the exact "page & chapter" in the FAA Regs to support my pet peeve, perhaps someone can help. PET PEEVE: High speed, low level passes ( Just showin' off ! ) I recently had a fairly close call while in the landing pattern at my home airport. I was returning home in an ultralight flight of four, doing a crosswind for downwind and had announced our intentions prior to entering the crosswind. The noise of my plane made it hard for me to hear my radio, but I did hear the FBO announce to someone, "Be advised, there are ultralights in the pattern". I, in the lead plane, had passed the centerline of the runway and was on a left downwind. The second plane had just passed the centerline and was turning downwind, and the other two planes were coming up on the centerline when three T-34s, flying in formation, came zooming down the centerline at about 50' AGL, doing probably 200 mph. At the end of the runway they did an airshow type pullout into a starburst, barely missing out ultralight flight of four. As far as I can determine, this is an illegal use of the airport landing pattern area, but I can't quote the exact FAR to prove it. I said that the maneuver is considered an aerobatic maneuver, but was shut down with the reply that aerobatic maneuvers do not include low low=level, high speed passes. The hazards are obvious, not just to ultralight traffic, but to any and all other traffic in the pattern, especially those without radios. With no radio (not a requirement) there is no way for them to know of our presence, or for us to know of their intent. If, in fact, this is an illegal use of the airport traffic area I would like to write a letter to the FAA, identifying the dates, times and N-numbers of the planes involved. I probably wouldn't make friends, or influence people by writing such a letter, but if it would eliminate the hazard, and possibly save a life, I would get involved. Any help, or recommendations would be appreciated. Ron Carroll Original Firestar Independence, Oregon -----Original Message----- From: Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net> Date: Tuesday June 02 1998 7:55 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Mix of traffic >I was flying a Champ GA plane at the time, so this was not an ultralight >issue. it was uncontrolled and the main issue is that the guy did a >straight in... the single most dangerous and illegal thing you can do at >an uncontrolled, radio optional strip. same thing happened to me years >ago but I had already landed and a twin did a touch and go! I was >forced to turn off the side of the runway. As he went buy at 80 knots I >pointed at the windsock. As far as flying an ultralight type >experimental in class c or b, you can have it, dodging 747's or even >737's is not the stong point of these planes! > >Topher >- ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

" Jim Hanson" <jdhanson(at)ptd.net>

Subject:

high speed passes, pet peeve

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

To Ron -- Go ahead and send the letter. Even if a high speed pass is not considered aerobatic, the star burst manuver would be, in my opinion; a rapid change in attitude and direction. And the fact that they did the pass and manuver in a traffic pattern without permission or radio contact may in itself be a violation as with air show rules/regs. I do not know which regs this would fall under, but this definitely VIOLATES SAFETY, and this is what the regs are all about. Jim

To Ron --

Go ahead and send the letter. Even if a high speed pass is not considered aerobatic, the star burst manuver would be, in my opinion; a rapid change in attitude and direction. And the fact that they did the pass and manuver in a traffic pattern without permission or radio contact may in itself be a violation as with air show rules/regs. I do not know which regs this would fall under, but this definitely VIOLATES SAFETY, and this is what the regs are all about.

Jim

________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Jeff Wilde" <jeffwilde(at)mpinet.net>

Subject:

rotax 503 to a good home

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

Russell, I have been unable to contact you at your e-mail address. I'm interested in your 503. Can you supply me with the specifics of the engine. Jeff Wilde in Orlando Fl. ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

From:

Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net>

Subject:

PET PEEVE: High speed, low level passes

Ron Carroll's pet peeve is a violation of FARs: "91.119 MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDES: GENERAL Except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate an aircraft below ... (c) ... 500 feet above the surface ... closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." also the starburst at the end of the low speed pass violates one and possibly two FARs: "91.303 AEROBATIC FLIGHT No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight -- ... (d) below and altitude of 1,500 feet ... ...aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude ..." "91.307 PARACHUTES ... (d) Unless ... wearing an approved parachute ... no pilot [except solo or training in most situations] may execute an intentional manuever that exceeds -- (1) A bank of 60 degrees ... (2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees ..." Ron, having said all this, I would urge you strongly to *not* get the FAA involved in this situation. The last thing most ultralight pilots should want to do is get into a finger pointing contest with other segments of aviation over strict compliance with FARs. (I'm working very hard to keep my original Firestar below 254 lbs but ...) Besides, it is in no-one's interest to encourage the FAA bureauracy into strict enforcement. Their recent zero-tollerance fiasco caused more safety problems than even the FAA claimed to fix. Might I suggest a better approach would be to contact the nearest EAA Warbirds Chapter and enlist their support to get the safety message to the offending pilots. An attitude of concern rather than anger is more likely to yield positive results. We ask the general populace to accept additional risk so we can enjoy flying over their homes. We also must accept additional risk near airports so others can enjoy aviation. Not to minimize the danger of your situation but I've had many more near misses while instructing at FAA controlled airports than anywhere else. That doesn't mean I felt it would be productive to "report" the offending controllers. Simply making them aware of the problem was sufficient. Tom Kuffel, CFI, EAA Flight Advisor, etc. ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

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

Subject:

503- please stand by

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

Hi everyone, After all the responses to my 503 engine (potential) sale, I figure I should go into the used Rotax business. Pity I didn't think to make it a bidding process :-) First, thanks to everyone that expressed interest, but at this time, I've got way more interested people than engines. I apologize for not responding personally to the last few that wrote, but this week has been MRI hell and I haven't had a chance to keep up with my e-mail. In fact I've only had about 3 hours of sleep over the past 72 hours. Second, I'm still waiting for word on the 618 deal. The guy who owns currently owns it, still hasn't fully decided to sell it, though an answer is expected any day. Sorry to get everyone worked up over this. I had no idea there would be such a demand for a used 503. In retrospect, I should have waited until the 618 deal was final before posted the 503 sale info. Stay tuned Russell Duffy SlingShot SS-003, N8754K RV-8A under construction (despite the prototype crash) ________________________________________________________________________________

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

From:

john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>

Subject:

Re: PET PEEVE: High speed, low level passes

>Ron Carroll's pet peeve is a violation of FARs: >exceeds -- >Might I suggest a better approach would be to contact the nearest EAA >Warbirds Chapter and enlist their support to get the safety message to >the offending pilots. An attitude of concern rather than anger is more >likely to yield positive results. We ask the general populace to accept Well said. I agree 100%. It ain't a good idea to go start pointing the finger at everyone else's violations of the regs. None of us are perfect in the UL community. Besides I like to do flybys and I fly an unorthodox pattern most of the time. I believe the reg on airport operations suggests procedures rather than setting the rule in concrete. john h ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Ron Christensen" <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com>

Subject:

Re: Mix of traffic

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

Topher: You are 100% correct about the dangers of straight in approaches at an uncontrolled airport. Your stroy illustrates why I believe a radio is essential equipment these days for approach to ALL uncontrolled airports. At least you have some hope to have advance warning, and to be aware of the reckless nuts you have twice encountered - of course assuming they broadcast their intentions, locations and movements. I have been flying C150s and C172s in Class B and Class C airspace here in the Los Angeles area, and really enjoy it ! ! The radio procedure is great, and for me, essential arrows for my private pilot quiver. My MKIII is equipped so that I can continue to fly here, and I expect my air speed will be nearly as fast as a C150. Actually, as you know, one does not have to dodge 747s, etc. because ATC does a masterful job of advising of traffic, thus proper separation is not too difficult to maintain. To each his own, hummm? Regards, Ron Christensen -----Original Message----- From: Christopher John Armstrong <tophera(at)centuryinter.net> Date: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 7:52 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Mix of traffic >I was flying a Champ GA plane at the time, so this was not an ultralight >issue. it was uncontroled and the main issue is that the guy did a >straight in... the single most dangerous and illegal thing you can do at >an uncontroled, radio optional strip. same thing happened to me years >ago but I had already landed and a twin did a touch and go! I was >forced to turn off the side of the runway. As he went buy at 80 knots I >pointed at the windsock. As far as flying an ultralight type >experimental in class c or b, you can have it, dodging 747's or even >737's is not the stong point of these planes! > >Topher ________________________________________________________________________________

From:

"Ron Christensen" <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com>

Subject:

Re: PET PEEVE: High speed, low level passes

Date:

Jun 03, 1998

I think Tom's advice is EXCELLENT ! ! Ron Christensen -----Original Message----- From: Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 11:30 AM Subject: Kolb-List: PET PEEVE: High speed, low level passes >Ron Carroll's pet peeve is a violation of FARs: > >"91.119 MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDES: GENERAL >Except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate an >aircraft below ... >(c) ... 500 feet above the surface ... closer than 500 feet to any >person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." > >also the starburst at the end of the low speed pass violates one and >possibly two FARs: > >"91.303 AEROBATIC FLIGHT >No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight -- >... >(d) below and altitude of 1,500 feet ... >...aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving abrupt >change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude ..." > >"91.307 PARACHUTES ... >(d) Unless ... wearing an approved parachute ... no pilot [except solo >or training in most situations] may execute an intentional manuever that >exceeds -- >(1) A bank of 60 degrees ... >(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees ..." > >Ron, having said all this, I would urge you strongly to *not* get the >FAA involved in this situation. The last thing most ultralight pilots >should want to do is get into a finger pointing contest with other >segments of aviation over strict compliance with FARs. (I'm working >very hard to keep my original Firestar below 254 lbs but ...) Besides, >it is in no-one's interest to encourage the FAA bureauracy into strict >enforcement. Their recent zero-tollerance fiasco caused more safety >problems than even the FAA claimed to fix. > >Might I suggest a better approach would be to contact the nearest EAA >Warbirds Chapter and enlist their support to get the safety message to >the offending pilots. An attitude of concern rather than anger is more >likely to yield positive results. We ask the general populace to accept >additional risk so we can enjoy flying over their homes. We also must >accept additional risk near airports so others can enjoy aviation. Not >to minimize the danger of your situation but I've had many more near >misses while instructing at FAA controlled airports than anywhere else. >That doesn't mean I felt it would be productive to "report" the >offending controllers. Simply making them aware of the problem was >sufficient.

Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-aq

Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-aq