Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-ax
September 13, 1998 - September 24, 1998
Captain Robert P. Gross
American Airlines MIA
561-744-8055
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rick106(at)JUNO.COM |
Subject: | Re: Aluminum Fuel Tank |
John
If this will help last week I took on 22 gal. of gas and I want to tell
you that it sure is good to know that now I have some range The extra
weight,...... did not even notice it . The extra tank are two 6 gal
wal-mart red plastic type.
gas is pumped out and dumped in the two five gal.tk's
I DO want the tanks that JOHN HAUCK has this would give the 582 a good
range
Rick Libersat
>
>> HI list members,
>> > I will be going to the Phoenix area in Nov from North
>> > Dakota for 4 mounths and I will be taking my Firestar with in a
>traile=
>> r. I'm
>> > looking for a good place to fly out of and keep my Kolb and
>trailer dur=
>> ing my
>> > stay. I am also building a Youngster V and will have the wing kit
>with
>> me and
>> > hope to get all four wings built this winter. Any contacts would
>be gre=
>> at. I
>> > will be at Cooperstate in Oct. so could look some of the up at
>that tim=
>> e.
>> > Thanks in advance
>> >
>> > don in
>> > dakota
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>----------
>>
>>
>> To the more experienced,
>>
>> I am seriously considering installing a larger aluminum tank (~20
>gal) in my
>> Mark III. I can weld aluminum and would like to do it myself. I
>need some
>> help with the design (hope John Hauck is listening).
>>
>> This search engine stuff is great! This is an excerpt from an
>earlier John
>> Hauck reply:
>>
>> "We built a 25 gal aluminum tank for my MK III. We needed that much
>fuel
>> capacity to do my big trip with a 582 that I thought I was going to
>be
>> using. However, it is nice to have a large fuel capacity. It
>allows me to
>> make to X/C with one less problem, fuel.
>>
>> We needed cargo space for my gear so the tank went upstairs in the
>open
>> area behind my head. This position also allowed me to have a sight
>gauge
>> on the left bulk head that is easy to see while flying. Trying to
>peek
>> through holes or over or between seats behind you can create
>difficult
>> situations, like fuel starvation.
>>
>> My brother Jim welded up the tank from .052 5052 aluminum."
>>
>> I'd like to install my tank in a similar manner. I work in a
>chemical plant
>> and really like the idea of a sight glass. We have been bitten by
>level
>> instruments failing more than once.
>>
>> John if you are listening, how did you mount your tank in the upper
>part of
>> the cage? I am assuming it must be on legs.
>>
>> Do you have a sump drain to check for condensate/contamination?
>>
>> Any special venting precautions?
>>
>> Any help with rough dimensions would also be appreciated. I haven't
>seen an
>> uncovered cage and am not sure what space is available for sliding a
>tank
>> through the cross braces. I had read where tubing on the cage had
>to be cut
>> and riveted back with internal sleeve.
>>
>> I did talk to Dennis via E-mail about this. He said he would be
>glad to send
>> some plans if he had them and I was more than welcome to come by the
>factory
>> and see their design. It is just a little too far a walk. I did
>get my
>> serial number today (M3-308).
>>
>> Any help from John or others would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John Bickham
>> St. Francisville, LA
>> Mark III Parts Owner
>> M3-308
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: help 377 operators! |
From: | ul15rhb(at)JUNO.COM (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Rut,
Sounds ok to me except for the gas consumption. It should be in the 2.5
to 2.7 gallons/hr range unless you are doing a lot of touch and goes.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
writes:
>
>
>
>
>Hi Rutledge,
>
>Thanks for the info. I was asking cause mine is not doing so well. I
>just hit the 50 hr mark. I flew a x-c to River Ranch FL over the Labor
>day weekend. It was abt 90 miles away. I got....
>45 mph at 5200 rpm
>3.2 GPH (a problem??)
>Top speed is 70 at 6700 RPM with a 66 inch 2 bladed IVO.
>Climb is 6100 rpm at 650 FPM. cruise EGT seems low at 850 F but plug
>color is perfect. No leaks found.
>BTW I took my windshield off for the summer and have only 5 gals gas
>with round wing struts.
>Suggestions/comments anyone?
>
>Thanks Bob...Jupiter Fl.
>
>P.S. I have used Penzoil in the gas. Used seafoam last week. 50 hr
>Inspection was perfect!!
>
>
>==
>Captain Robert P. Gross
>American Airlines MIA
>561-744-8055
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jon P. Croke" <joncroke(at)CompuServe.COM> |
Subject: | Aileron performance questions |
Wow!
Went on my first x-country (35 miles!) yesterday... and did it with the
help of John Jung who accompanied me from my home base up to Ephraim, Wi.
and then back. Of course, John had to travel over a 100 miles from his
home just to get my place! It was great to have an experienced pilot with
you when you wander from your home field for the first time. Thank you
John! (Who have YOU taken on their first x-country recently??)
Now that I have a whopping 8 hours flight time in the FS, I need to get
the opinions of those of you who have plenty of experience under your
belts.... I have discovered how winds at the field level can seem pretty
calm, and yet at just a couple hunder feet they can get just strong and
nasty. I find that the force to move the ailerons when the winds are
strong seems tremendous... to the point that I need to use all my strength
of my arm (well I am a weakling, I suppose) to fight... or correct for
winds trying to keep me from straight and level. And, depending on the the
wind direction, even a little bank will become amplified to the point that
I have to fight opposite pressure to get the wings from over banking. I
make these comparisions to the forces needed for a GA aircraft like a
Cessna where you would hardly notice the extra effort to maintain level
flight while making a turn in a 10 knot wind.
So my questions that I request your opinions on are as follows:
1) Do you think it is normal that in 'strong winds' (my perception) one
requires tremendous force on the stick to move the ailerons to keep level
flight?? (Whether while completing turns or just correcting for wind).
Maybe I am in wind conditions that are beyond my capability if I find it
difficult to keep it level. I am saying that it almost seems that Ill
break the stick by pulling so hard to fight the winds. (no, there is no
binding in my linkages!)
2) Is there a general wind speed threshold that determines whether YOU fly
or not, based on the danger/discomfort of flying the plane? My problem
is that the windsock said there was almost calm winds at the surface... but
by the time I was at 200 feet I almost 'lost' the plane in the pattern from
winds that tried to 'tip' me over and this is where I find incredible
pressure necessary to keep it level. This is not enjoyable!
3) When I get a lot more hours, will this perception go away and my arm
will be so strong that I wont notice this?? I can remember just once when
it was calm and the plane is easy and fun to fly... I want to fly when I
have free time.... do I have to change my schedule to wait for calm days
only???? Maybe I need a re-alignment of my flying attitude!!!! (the one in
my head)
Im interested in your opinions....... (remember when you had just 8
hours...!)
Jon
near Grreenbay
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Beauford Tuton" <beaufordw(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
Randy...
Honestly, I've never flown a minute in an ultralight in my life... all I've
seen is films... and I personally have serious doubts that they really fly
at all... Kinda like the moon landings, ya know...? Did they REALLY....?
etc., etc..... This FireFly kit was a gift from my first wife....
strange, twisted, little woman...nasty personal habits...Then too, I did
notice that her cooking always left that funny taste in my mouth that ya get
after you check a 9 volt battery with yer tongue... and the hair loss was
sorta unexpected... especially all happening over one weekend, like that, ya
know... even under the arms... anyway, she finally left me for good the
morning after the colostomy bag incident on the exercise bike, and I haven't
seen her since... the kit from Kolb showed up the following Monday, along
with some insurance papers they wanted me to sign, and I've been plugging
away on it ever since...It gives me a good feelin' to know she didn't really
harbor any bad feelin's toward me...
You mention be'in kinda low time in ultralights... I worried about that too
for a good while... But then, having read and re-read the last three pages
in the Builder's manual about how to fly, I now feel pretty good about all
this... I'll get it out again a day or so before this sucker is ready to go
and look 'er over one more time... I mean, how hard can this be...? A man
with a fresh martini under his belt can run and CARRY a Buick automobile
faster'n these suckers go straight down... Course, come to think of it, they
CAN go straight down... which is one up on the Buick... might pay a body to
go easy the first few hours... mebbe get a little dual.... especially in
crosswinds if'n ya ain't got much tailwheel time... can't hurt... I bet it
ain't hard, but it might be different... Can't really say...
Thanks for the map info tip...will try it...
As for the bit alluding to this UL mess being better than sex, either you
desperately need professional help of some sort, or apparently my first wife
has somehow found her way to your location.... please tell her the kit is
going just fine...
Good Luck....
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy & Joni Tolvstad <tolvstad(at)nvc.net>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kind Offer
>
>Bill,
>
>Enjoy reading your thoughts very much (still laughing about this one!! It
>kinda hits home). Being new to all this UL stuff, I read this group to try
>and educate myself a little. But I did stumble on something the other day
>that might help you out with coordinates. If you go to most of your road
>atlas or trip setup software ( I use Microsoft Automap) it will also tell
>you the coordinates for any location you click on. It should work great
for
>your GPS (wish I had one).
>
>Just a quick hello to Rutledge. I purchased a old BRS from him that I
still
>haven't got mounted on my plane (how do you spell procrastination?). Sorry
>to here about the experience you witnessed with the Glasair. I agree that
>there are things we are just ment to see and hopefully learn a little from.
>Still had to be a very terrible experience. I do enjoy reading of your
>flying experiences though.
>
>Just curious as to how many hours you guys must have in UL flying? I have
a
>whopping 4 hours on my own. The weather up here must not cooperate as much
>as down there. I do only fly in perfect calm weather so far. Seems that
>when the wind goes down though, I only got one thing on my mind. I am
worse
>than a teenager on a hot date!
>
>Keep the great letters coming and talk to you again
>
>Randy Tolvstad
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Beauford Tuton <beaufordw(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
>To: rut007(at)hotmail.com ; kolb List
>
>Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 8:28 AM
>Subject: Kolb-List: Kind Offer
>
>
>
>>
>>Rutledge:
>>Sorry to be so slow with the response... Have been off the net for a few
>>days.
>>I would like to do the Jonesville thing, but cannot get away from here
just
>>now because of work...
>>Hope you have a good time, and look forward to seeing you and looking at
>>your plane one of these days. Please do give a call if you get the
chance.
>>I have a son working in Tallahassee and will probably get up there sooner
>or
>>later; will contact you to see if you are going to be available before I
>>start that way.
>>To answer your question, I believe the nearest UL friendly airport to be
>the
>>Wimauma Airpark, just south of Brandon, FL about 7 or 8 miles... I believe
>>it's on the sectional, but I don't have access to the coordinates...
Skip
>>Staub, here on the List may know them...He may help us out. The closest
>>other airport to it would probably be Ellenton, X-32.
>>
>>The FireFly is progressing, but slowly... I have an "old" buddy coming in
>>for a visit over this next weekend... He's an airplane builder with a lot
>of
>>savvy and experience... We're going to hang the wings on this monster and
>>get everything lined up... Think I'm going to add a tad more dihedral than
>>specified, based on the experiences I've read here in the list... (Gotta
>>measure those struts).. I figure an extra degree or so can't hurt anything
>>and may make it a little more stable... Am spoiled from having fooled with
>>some "hands-off" old airplanes... I don't want this thing to handle like a
>>helo...i.e. work me all the time just to keep the marble over near the
>>saucer... Am opposed to extra work as a matter of deeply held principle...
>>Further, am getting older, slower and increasingly incompetent...(not to
>>mention, incontinent) and plan to ensure I knowingly build nothing into
>............
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
Subject: | Re: Breaking in a 447 |
Joel,
Follow the procedure. Tie the tail down, our FireFly wanted to lift the
tail at anything 4K RPM and over. Forget trying to hold it you wouldn't do
it for long. Get some ear plugs. It is a noisy process.
We had a problem when we started that we had to repitch the prop during the
process early on. It caused either high EGT temps or excessive RPM.
Changed as the rings seated in. At one point we has to richen it a little
by adding a little choke to keep the EGT within range during high RPM run.
Can be a balance process between CHT and EGT temps. Last of all make sure
everything is fastened down and tighten, it going to shake things a little
and last thing you want is something flying through the prop.
Beforehand we made a chart of the time and RPM and checked it off as we
went. If you don't you'll lose track of where your at.
Good luck and have fun.
Jerry Bidle
>
>Just learned how to start my new 447. Book gives poop for a one-hour
>schedule for break-in at various RPM's. Looks like especially on wide-open
>segments you would encounter over-heating (don't want to risk seizure). Is
>there a maximum outside air temerature beyond which the break-in should be
>done? Should it ALL be done at the same time or can it be done in segments ?
>What would happen if I did't go through all that stuff? The engine runs so
>beautifully, i.e., what does the beak-in accomplish?
>joeljon2(at)aol.com
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
JonI'm confused regarding your statement that your planeseems to
almost "tip..over" idue to winds. The plane is flying in an airmass and
does not "know" which direction the air airmass is movingand therefor
the plane cannot "tip."
The only time the plane is affected by the moving airmass is the when it
(plane) is very near the ground, and then the reference point changes
from the airmass to the ground. Or when you are flying with respect to
some ground position, like figure eights with a little (or lot) wind, or
pattern work in a wind. But it can't tip you over in the air, so relax
about that.
You speak of GA (Cessna). It's exactly the same with them. Your ground
school instructor should have explained this.
As for the inordinate stick pressure, I'm really confused. Perhaps older
heads (are there any?) can help on this. But keep on flying!
Grey Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Hansen, Mark" <MHansen(at)ConusNews.com> |
I was a 100 hp ( I assume it is a 3 cylinder) sorry Dennis, that's one too
many
mark hansen
> ----------
> From: Jim Baker[SMTP:jlbaker(at)telepath.com]
> Reply To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 7:20 PM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: engines
>
>
> > I don't know if this is true or not. But I saw in a magazine (I don't
> > remember which one)
> > Suzuki snowmobile engines will work with the normal gear box for a rotax
> > engine.
> >
> > If this is so, it would be alot cheaper to go with suzuki
>
> What sort of HP and torque curves accompany these engines?
> Probably pretty spikey (is that a word?).
>
>
> J. Baker
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
"INTERNET:kolb-list(at)matronics.com"
From: | "dboll" <dboll(at)ndak.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
I too find the pressure needed to bank my Firestar to be excessive.
Don in Dakota
----------
>
>
> Wow!
>
> Went on my first x-country (35 miles!) yesterday... and did it with the
> help of John Jung who accompanied me from my home base up to Ephraim, Wi.
> and then back. Of course, John had to travel over a 100 miles from his
> home just to get my place! It was great to have an experienced pilot with
> you when you wander from your home field for the first time. Thank you
> John! (Who have YOU taken on their first x-country recently??)
>
> Now that I have a whopping 8 hours flight time in the FS, I need to get
> the opinions of those of you who have plenty of experience under your
> belts.... I have discovered how winds at the field level can seem pretty
> calm, and yet at just a couple hunder feet they can get just strong and
> nasty. I find that the force to move the ailerons when the winds are
> strong seems tremendous... to the point that I need to use all my strength
> of my arm (well I am a weakling, I suppose) to fight... or correct for
> winds trying to keep me from straight and level. And, depending on the the
> wind direction, even a little bank will become amplified to the point that
> I have to fight opposite pressure to get the wings from over banking. I
> make these comparisions to the forces needed for a GA aircraft like a
> Cessna where you would hardly notice the extra effort to maintain level
> flight while making a turn in a 10 knot wind.
>
> So my questions that I request your opinions on are as follows:
>
> 1) Do you think it is normal that in 'strong winds' (my perception) one
> requires tremendous force on the stick to move the ailerons to keep level
> flight?? (Whether while completing turns or just correcting for wind).
> Maybe I am in wind conditions that are beyond my capability if I find it
> difficult to keep it level. I am saying that it almost seems that Ill
> break the stick by pulling so hard to fight the winds. (no, there is no
> binding in my linkages!)
>
> 2) Is there a general wind speed threshold that determines whether YOU fly
> or not, based on the danger/discomfort of flying the plane? My problem
> is that the windsock said there was almost calm winds at the surface... but
> by the time I was at 200 feet I almost 'lost' the plane in the pattern from
> winds that tried to 'tip' me over and this is where I find incredible
> pressure necessary to keep it level. This is not enjoyable!
>
> 3) When I get a lot more hours, will this perception go away and my arm
> will be so strong that I wont notice this?? I can remember just once when
> it was calm and the plane is easy and fun to fly... I want to fly when I
> have free time.... do I have to change my schedule to wait for calm days
> only???? Maybe I need a re-alignment of my flying attitude!!!! (the one in
> my head)
>
> Im interested in your opinions....... (remember when you had just 8
> hours...!)
>
> Jon
> near Grreenbay
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
"INTERNET:kolb-list(at)matronics.com"
From: | "dboll" <dboll(at)ndak.net> |
HI list members,
I will be going to the Phoenix area in Nov from North
Dakota for 4 mounths and I will be taking my Firestar with in a trailer. I'm looking
for a good place to fly out of and keep my Kolb and trailer during my stay.
I am also building a Youngster V and will have the wing kit with me and hope
to get all four wings built this winter. Any contacts would be great. I will
be at Cooperstate in Oct. so could look some of the up at that time.
Thanks in advance
don in
dakota
----------
>
>
> I too find the pressure needed to bank my Firestar to be excessive.
> Don in Dakota
>
> ----------
> >
> >
> > Wow!
> >
> > Went on my first x-country (35 miles!) yesterday... and did it with the
> > help of John Jung who accompanied me from my home base up to Ephraim, Wi.
> > and then back. Of course, John had to travel over a 100 miles from his
> > home just to get my place! It was great to have an experienced pilot with
> > you when you wander from your home field for the first time. Thank you
> > John! (Who have YOU taken on their first x-country recently??)
> >
> > Now that I have a whopping 8 hours flight time in the FS, I need to get
> > the opinions of those of you who have plenty of experience under your
> > belts.... I have discovered how winds at the field level can seem pretty
> > calm, and yet at just a couple hunder feet they can get just strong and
> > nasty. I find that the force to move the ailerons when the winds are
> > strong seems tremendous... to the point that I need to use all my strength
> > of my arm (well I am a weakling, I suppose) to fight... or correct for
> > winds trying to keep me from straight and level. And, depending on the the
> > wind direction, even a little bank will become amplified to the point that
> > I have to fight opposite pressure to get the wings from over banking. I
> > make these comparisions to the forces needed for a GA aircraft like a
> > Cessna where you would hardly notice the extra effort to maintain level
> > flight while making a turn in a 10 knot wind.
> >
> > So my questions that I request your opinions on are as follows:
> >
> > 1) Do you think it is normal that in 'strong winds' (my perception) one
> > requires tremendous force on the stick to move the ailerons to keep level
> > flight?? (Whether while completing turns or just correcting for wind).
> > Maybe I am in wind conditions that are beyond my capability if I find it
> > difficult to keep it level. I am saying that it almost seems that Ill
> > break the stick by pulling so hard to fight the winds. (no, there is no
> > binding in my linkages!)
> >
> > 2) Is there a general wind speed threshold that determines whether YOU fly
> > or not, based on the danger/discomfort of flying the plane? My problem
> > is that the windsock said there was almost calm winds at the surface... but
> > by the time I was at 200 feet I almost 'lost' the plane in the pattern from
> > winds that tried to 'tip' me over and this is where I find incredible
> > pressure necessary to keep it level. This is not enjoyable!
> >
> > 3) When I get a lot more hours, will this perception go away and my arm
> > will be so strong that I wont notice this?? I can remember just once when
> > it was calm and the plane is easy and fun to fly... I want to fly when I
> > have free time.... do I have to change my schedule to wait for calm days
> > only???? Maybe I need a re-alignment of my flying attitude!!!! (the one in
> > my head)
> >
> > Im interested in your opinions....... (remember when you had just 8
> > hours...!)
> >
> > Jon
> > near Grreenbay
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Well ya know, maybe the main effect would be the stains left behind - sorta
like somethin else the same color. Big Lar.
----------
> From: Beauford Tuton <beaufordw(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> To: rut007(at)hotmail.com; kolb List
> Subject: Kolb-List: Kind Offer
> Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 6:10 AM
>
>
the bottom end of a graveyard spiral... Right...? I mean, it's bad
enough,
> ya lose yer cigar when yer mouth sags open....Come to think of it, I
wonder
> if there is any reliable data on the effects of a sodden stogie going
> through an IVO two blade...? All that research to date seems to have
> focused rather selfishly on nuts, bolts and muffler parts... Mebbe we can
>
>> >
> >
> >"
> >Hi Skip:
> >I was wondering where I would end up flying this thing from ... It's
> >too
> >far to the farm in Georgia... I take it from your note that the good
> >folks
> >who run the Wimauma Airpark don't mind UL operations???
> >Would enjoy meeting you, talking over the Kolb stuff and your experience
> >at
> >Wimauma... Also would like to take a look at your airplane...
> >best regards,
> >Bill Tuton
> >(813) 662-2210"
> >
> >Bill, I copied your phone number down for when the weather clears.
> >Where is the nearest ultralight friendly airport/field to your home? Do
> >you have coordinates? I will be at the Jonesville fly-in at the Flying
> >Ten airport. Why don't you stop in. I'm sure that you could get some
> >flying time there.
> >
> >Rutledge Fuller
> >Tallahassee, Fl.
> >Haven't flown in three days
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
<< As for the bit alluding to this UL mess being better than sex, either you
desperately need professional help of some sort, or apparently my first wife
has somehow found her way to your location.... please tell her the kit is
going just fine...
Good Luck....
Bill >>
Bill, you are fantabulous in your humor....it was
....humor....no??!!.................you are a great
writer!!!..........GeoR(Thomas Wolfe)38
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: help 377 operators! |
Bob,
I suggest that you put at least a short windsheild on, if you want to cruise
faster with less fuel.
John Jung
Bob Gross wrote:
>
> Hi Rutledge,
>
> Thanks for the info. I was asking cause mine is not doing so well. I
> just hit the 50 hr mark. I flew a x-c to River Ranch FL over the Labor
> day weekend. It was abt 90 miles away. I got....
> 45 mph at 5200 rpm
> 3.2 GPH (a problem??)
> Top speed is 70 at 6700 RPM with a 66 inch 2 bladed IVO.
> Climb is 6100 rpm at 650 FPM. cruise EGT seems low at 850 F but plug
> color is perfect. No leaks found.
> BTW I took my windshield off for the summer and have only 5 gals gas
> with round wing struts.
> Suggestions/comments anyone?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Good day, Bad day |
"" I know this
has been beat to death, but a friend of mine made a suggestion about the
tail-wheels, after having a chuckle at mine. Why not use a roller blade
wheel ?? Small, light, strong, ball bearing - - - -
Big Lar.""
Currently the factory made Aer-lite uses a roller blade wheel. If you
want a wider wheel, use two...
Rutledge Fuller
Tallahassee, Fl.
Still averaging 10 hrs. per week.
Currently 48.5 TT
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bob Gross <rpgross(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
Hi Jon,
Let me throw in my 2 cents worth,
1. It is aircraft airspeed not winds aloft that regulate stick force.
Want less stick pressure...slow down. Remebeber, 1.5 to 1.6 times
stall speed ( L/D max)gives best climb/glide on most aircraft. My FS
stalls at 29 and I approach 45-48. Fly faster than that only if needed
for gust/stall margin protection "you probably shouldn't have been
flying in those conditions anyway". I have read comments that some
pilots in this group approach at speeds near Vne or even 60ish mph.
Nonsense. The kolb is a very conventional aircraft. Fly it like one!
2. You flew on some pretty bumpy days. It's no fun we all know.
Normally the wx is gentler and a ten knot wind at the sfc will give
you 15 kts at 1000 feet. Not a problem for a kolb.
3. I find here in the FL summer afternoon heat that a 7-10 kt sfc wind
makes for enjoyable flying aloft, although a bit bumpy (light
turbulence as defined in the A.I.M.).
4. You should alway be careful when turning at low altitude, better
yet don't turn at low altitude (Most A/C types will make you dead that
way).
5. Your confidence in the kolb will come with flight time. It is a
great airplane (easy to fly but very UNFORGIVING) to fly and I love
mine, but the kolb is by no means any form of entry level machine.
6. Atmospheric stability plays alot with the ride you'll get. Look for
days where the temp/dew point spread is less that 5 degrees. That is
typical in early morning hours. On a dry day after the sun comes up
and heats the ground, it's gonna be lousy flying.
7. I flew a Challenger II last week. You'll think your kolb handles
like an F-15 after you fly a slug like a challenger.
8. You mention almost losing it in the pattern at 200 feet. That's
way.. way too low. Never fly lower than an altitude that will allow
you to make a "safe" forced landing. This means fly downwind leg at
400-500 feet minimum and plan your turn to final so you can make it to
the runway when the engie quits (it will quit, I've survived 17 engine
failures during the last 25 years without a scratch). You shouldn't
see 200 on your altimeter unless you are on final.
Enjoy....be careful!
Bob
Jupiter, FL
Original FS about 51 hours
14,300 hrs total time
132 A/C types flown since 8/74
-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kind Offer -Re Jonesville |
I am looking forward to it as well. We have four Kolbs at Quincy. I
will be trying to get them to tag along. Do you here that Duane, and
Leon? Start your planning now.
Rutledge
>
>
>Bill (Beauford) Tuton
>Sorry you are not going to make Jonesville next month. I was looking
>forward to meeting someone almost as old and decrepit as I am and
still
>foolish enough to think that he can fly.
>
>Rutledge,
>I will be looking for you. I am still ground bound, flying the Ford
>Ranger. Looking forward to seeing your flying machine.
>
>Kolbers,
>Anyone else out there planing to make the Jonesville fly in?
>
>L. Ray Baker
>Lake Butler, FL
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: help 377 operators! |
I have the wooden Ritz prop 66 inch with standard pitch 28, I think. I
can not maintain level flight at 5200 rpms. Remember the "On the Pipe"
talk a couple of months past with commentary from John Hauck? I find
that on my current set-up, anything less than 5500 rpm, will cause it to
fall on it's face with even the slightest pitch or direction changes.
Your EGT does seem low. Why do you climb at 6100 rpm and not full
power? I have been taught to use full power, remember that full power
is a cooling power setting (rich), while less power say 6100 rpm might
be a leaner setting? Just an observation. It is funny that we all fly
very similar machines, but on closer inspection--they are very
different.
Rutledge Fuller
>Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 16:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Bob Gross <rpgross(at)yahoo.com>
>Subject: Kolb-List: help 377 operators!
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>Hi Rutledge,
>
>Thanks for the info. I was asking cause mine is not doing so well. I
>just hit the 50 hr mark. I flew a x-c to River Ranch FL over the Labor
>day weekend. It was abt 90 miles away. I got....
>45 mph at 5200 rpm
>3.2 GPH (a problem??)
>Top speed is 70 at 6700 RPM with a 66 inch 2 bladed IVO.
>Climb is 6100 rpm at 650 FPM. cruise EGT seems low at 850 F but plug
>color is perfect. No leaks found.
>BTW I took my windshield off for the summer and have only 5 gals gas
>with round wing struts.
>Suggestions/comments anyone?
>
>Thanks Bob...Jupiter Fl.
>
>P.S. I have used Penzoil in the gas. Used seafoam last week. 50 hr
>Inspection was perfect!!
>
>
>==
>Captain Robert P. Gross
>American Airlines MIA
>561-744-8055
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: help 377 operators! |
Ralph,
On closer inspection. I am burning 2.75 per hour at 6100-6200 rpm's. I
normaly climb to 2,500 feet or so full power. Stock jetting.
Rut
>
>Rut,
>
>Sounds ok to me except for the gas consumption. It should be in the 2.5
>to 2.7 gallons/hr range unless you are doing a lot of touch and goes.
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original FireStar 400+ hrs
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Darren L Smalec" <smald(at)shianet.org> |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
Jon: I`ve got a Firestar 1, with 70 hrs, I built it with the longer
ailerons, without the counterweights, and it does seem to need lots of
force. I thought maybe the shorter ailerons wouldn`t require as much
force?? but I don`t know. Being low time on your FS, I would recommend
flying in light winds until you get more familiar with it. A 10 MPH wind,
and I leave mine in the garage unless it`s a steady breeze. Maybe more
time, & I`ll feel more comfortable with a 15 MPH wind. I`ve been "tipped"
nearly 90 deg. in rough air at 230 ft. agl. That was exciting! Yes, after
awhile, you`ll get used to getting pushed around a little.
Have fun! :)
Some numbers on my FS 1 for the group to pick through-
2SI 460-F 40 (#@%& the torpedoes, I`m buying American-made!)
2.65:1 gearbox
64" warp drive 2 blade at 10 deg.
6120 max. rpm
1100 deg. egt. WOT.
325 deg. cht. WOT.
4300 rpm= 45mph @1050 egt. 250 cht.
950 fpm climb ( It will do over 1000fpm with lower pitch)
2 gal/ hr average, more or less
Quaker State synthetic oil, 50:1
(I was using Pennzoil air cooled, but I thought after 40 hrs. I had too
much carbon build-up on the piston crowns. It costs over twice as much as
the Pennziol, but I feel It`s worth it. Looks clean now 20 hrs.later.)
Darren, Central MI.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobdoebler(at)JUNO.COM (Robert L Doebler) |
Bob from Florida
Fly a 400-500 ft pattern? I wish! Our u/l strip is a couple hundred feet
from a GA. strip. We have to fly under 300 agl while in class "D", and
under 100 agl while over airport boundary! After reading about all these
beautiful X/C trips in the midwest etc, I'm ready to move!
Where can I find this scenery, no crowds, no winters, no
bugs,etc...........guess I'm just jealous!
Bob Doebler- in crowded/ over regulated Los Angeles, Ca.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Russell" <jr(at)rometool.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kind Offer -Re Jonesville |
Is Jonesville Jones Lite in Smith Ala.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Rutledge Fuller <rut007(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kind Offer -Re Jonesville
>
>I am looking forward to it as well. We have four Kolbs at Quincy. I
>will be trying to get them to tag along. Do you here that Duane, and
>Leon? Start your planning now.
>Rutledge
>
>>
>>
>>Bill (Beauford) Tuton
>>Sorry you are not going to make Jonesville next month. I was looking
>>forward to meeting someone almost as old and decrepit as I am and
>still
>>foolish enough to think that he can fly.
>>
>>Rutledge,
>>I will be looking for you. I am still ground bound, flying the Ford
>>Ranger. Looking forward to seeing your flying machine.
>>
>>Kolbers,
>>Anyone else out there planing to make the Jonesville fly in?
>>
>>L. Ray Baker
>>Lake Butler, FL
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, dboll wrote:
> I too find the pressure needed to bank my Firestar to be excessive.
> Don in Dakota
There also was a guy in Southern CA who thought the aileron forces
on a FS II were excessive. He went to the trouble to build at least
one new set with different dimensions in an effort to improve things.
He ended up selling his plane and I believe this was the major factor.
Most of the recent related comments so far on this thread are from Orig
FS owners.
Since the ailerons are the only significant aerodynamic difference
between the earlier FS wings (orig, KX/KXP) and the current models,
I'd be curious about comments from those who have experience in both.
I've wondered if it is the different ailerons, or if it is largely just
that the FS IIs are usually flown w/ bigger engines, and therefore flown
faster than the older planes.
Dennis, what are your comments on the roll stick forces among the
FS models?
As for roll stability in turbulence, one key piece to it anyway (besides
slowing down), is to not fight it. Roll with the punches somewhat, and
also push it back with rudder some. I find my KXP no problem and have
flown in pretty gusty conditions ...just get tossed around but nothing
what I would consider abnormal for a light wing loaded plane. I trained
some in a 2-place Phantom ...talk about dawg awful ailerons ...coulda
done better sticking out a 2x4 to bank that ol junker. For those seeking
improvement, greater dihedral should be a significant help, I would think.
-Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Bob,
Move to Wisconsin for great summer flying, but I don't recommend the winters
here. Good flying days are few and far between in the winter. I'd like to be able
to spend winters somewhere in the south. Or anywhere where their is good flying.
John Jung
Robert L Doebler wrote:
>
> Bob from Florida
>
> Fly a 400-500 ft pattern? I wish! Our u/l strip is a couple hundred feet
> from a GA. strip. We have to fly under 300 agl while in class "D", and
> under 100 agl while over airport boundary! After reading about all these
> beautiful X/C trips in the midwest etc, I'm ready to move!
> Where can I find this scenery, no crowds, no winters, no
> bugs,etc...........guess I'm just jealous!
>
> Bob Doebler- in crowded/ over regulated Los Angeles, Ca.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com |
A spark advance of one degree over the full RPM range is meaningless.
Anybody that ever used a timing light on a car engine will testify to that.
The Rotax 912 spec shows a spark advance from 6-26 degrees over the full
RPM range.
I merely stated facts about the SVS-1400 engine and compared them to the
Rotax 912 trying to find justification for the difference in price tag as I
read through all the specs and apologise if I stepped on some peoples toes
in the process.
About gearbox versus beltdrive from somebody that professionally designed
powertransmissions for cranes and hoists for government installations for
many years, I was never asked to design a powertransmission and include
belt drives. There are also good gearboxes and bad gearboxes and there are
people that know the difference between them.
I have not seen any belt drives on certified G/A airplanes.
Frank Reynen MKIII@475hrs
Sat, 12 Sep 1998 22:25
You wrote:
> You really do need to look inside the flywheel of the Rotax at
those
>little points things once in a while...they only retard with time and
wear,
>they don't advance. Trust me.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
I don't know about the single point ignition Rotax, but the models with the
Ducati dual ignition DO have a spark advance. See The Proper Care &
Feeding
of the Rotax Motor, Part 32 ,figure 8, by Mike Stratman. This allows
starting with less chance of kickback than would be the case if the
ignition
were always set for optimum power. The smaller engines will be possible to
start (with a good healthy pull) with the ignition set for optimum power.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
Bob,
Where are you flying out of? Orlando? We expect to see you at
Jonesville (0J8) Flying 10 airport on the 24th. No excuses.
Rut Fuller
Tallahassee, Fl.
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:05:43 -0700
>From: bobdoebler(at)JUNO.COM (Robert L Doebler)
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>Bob from Florida
>
>Fly a 400-500 ft pattern? I wish! Our u/l strip is a couple hundred
feet
>from a GA. strip. We have to fly under 300 agl while in class "D", and
>under 100 agl while over airport boundary! After reading about all
these
>beautiful X/C trips in the midwest etc, I'm ready to move!
>Where can I find this scenery, no crowds, no winters, no
>bugs,etc...........guess I'm just jealous!
>
>Bob Doebler- in crowded/ over regulated Los Angeles, Ca.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kind Offer -Re Jonesville |
John,
It's actually called Flying Ten (0J8) located in Archer, Fl. Not sure
where it got the name Jonesville.
Rutledge Fuller
>From: "John Russell" <jr(at)rometool.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kind Offer -Re Jonesville
>Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:36:40 -0400
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>Is Jonesville Jones Lite in Smith Ala.
> John
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rutledge Fuller <rut007(at)hotmail.com>
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 10:57 AM
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kind Offer -Re Jonesville
>
>
>>
>>I am looking forward to it as well. We have four Kolbs at Quincy. I
>>will be trying to get them to tag along. Do you here that Duane, and
>>Leon? Start your planning now.
>>Rutledge
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bill (Beauford) Tuton
>>>Sorry you are not going to make Jonesville next month. I was looking
>>>forward to meeting someone almost as old and decrepit as I am and
>>still
>>>foolish enough to think that he can fly.
>>>
>>>Rutledge,
>>>I will be looking for you. I am still ground bound, flying the Ford
>>>Ranger. Looking forward to seeing your flying machine.
>>>
>>>Kolbers,
>>>Anyone else out there planing to make the Jonesville fly in?
>>>
>>>L. Ray Baker
>>>Lake Butler, FL
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
a couple of things might cause this, if there is no binding I assume you
mean that it is easy to move ailerons when there is no airspeed. If so I
bet your ailerons are not in trail with the wing. I bet you have them
rigged so they are either both up a bit or both down a bit. If that is the
case straighten them out and your forces should go way down.
Another possibility is that you have something rubbing on the linkage in
flight that does not do so on the ground. like the bottem cage fabric of
your seat belt of your butt!
Did you make your ailerons bigger then standard, that wouyld ause it too.
If you did you might compensate for it by putting spades on the ailerons.
You should figure this out cause it is not safe to have unusable roll
control
topher
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
From: | ul15rhb(at)JUNO.COM (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Jon,
I fly the Original FireStar and have flown two recent model FireStars. I
have noticed the aileron stick forces are slightly higher on the recent
models. When flying in turbulent conditions, it will take a lot stick
movement to level the wings. If you don't feed in some rudder, the plane
will not want to level quickly and you will have to hold lateral stick
longer. This can be fatiguing. Try this: get up to
2000 feet agl and back off the power to 4500 rpm and bring the stick back
so the airspeed drops off to 35 mph or just above stall while holding
altitude. Now move the stick from side to side and there should be very
little force. If there is a lot of force, then you have a binding problem
in the aileron control system.
I'm glad you enjoyed your first x-country flight and that was very
commendable of John Jung to escort you on that flight.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
writes:
>
>
>Wow!
>
>Went on my first x-country (35 miles!) yesterday... and did it with
>the
>help of John Jung who accompanied me from my home base up to Ephraim,
>Wi.
>and then back. Of course, John had to travel over a 100 miles from
>his
>home just to get my place! It was great to have an experienced pilot
>with
>you when you wander from your home field for the first time. Thank you
>John! (Who have YOU taken on their first x-country recently??)
>
>Now that I have a whopping 8 hours flight time in the FS, I need to
>get
>the opinions of those of you who have plenty of experience under your
>belts.... I have discovered how winds at the field level can seem
>pretty
>calm, and yet at just a couple hunder feet they can get just strong
>and
>nasty. I find that the force to move the ailerons when the winds are
>strong seems tremendous... to the point that I need to use all my
>strength
>of my arm (well I am a weakling, I suppose) to fight... or correct for
>winds trying to keep me from straight and level. And, depending on
>the the
>wind direction, even a little bank will become amplified to the point
>that
>I have to fight opposite pressure to get the wings from over banking.
>I
>make these comparisions to the forces needed for a GA aircraft like a
>Cessna where you would hardly notice the extra effort to maintain
>level
>flight while making a turn in a 10 knot wind.
>
>So my questions that I request your opinions on are as follows:
>
>1) Do you think it is normal that in 'strong winds' (my perception)
>one
>requires tremendous force on the stick to move the ailerons to keep
>level
>flight?? (Whether while completing turns or just correcting for
>wind).
>Maybe I am in wind conditions that are beyond my capability if I find
>it
>difficult to keep it level. I am saying that it almost seems that Ill
>break the stick by pulling so hard to fight the winds. (no, there is
>no
>binding in my linkages!)
>
>2) Is there a general wind speed threshold that determines whether YOU
>fly
>or not, based on the danger/discomfort of flying the plane? My
>problem
>is that the windsock said there was almost calm winds at the
>surface... but
>by the time I was at 200 feet I almost 'lost' the plane in the pattern
>from
>winds that tried to 'tip' me over and this is where I find incredible
>pressure necessary to keep it level. This is not enjoyable!
>
>3) When I get a lot more hours, will this perception go away and my
>arm
>will be so strong that I wont notice this?? I can remember just once
>when
>it was calm and the plane is easy and fun to fly... I want to fly
>when I
>have free time.... do I have to change my schedule to wait for calm
>days
>only???? Maybe I need a re-alignment of my flying attitude!!!! (the
>one in
>my head)
>
>Im interested in your opinions....... (remember when you had just 8
>hours...!)
>
>Jon
>near Grreenbay
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
I have a 64" 3-blade Ivoprop, and I would like to try a 66" 2-blade
Ivoprop. If anybody on the list is interested, reply to: rpike(at)preferred.com
and we will haggle. thanx.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
Disconnect both ailerons and move the push tubes by hand from the rear
of the wing ( or even with the stick) and try to find the binding point.
Rust at the central pivot point bolt is sometimes the binding factor.
dboll wrote:
>
>
> I too find the pressure needed to bank my Firestar to be excessive.
> Don in Dakota
>
> ----------
> >
> >
> > Wow!
> >
> > Went on my first x-country (35 miles!) yesterday... and did it with the
> > help of John Jung who accompanied me from my home base up to Ephraim, Wi.
> > and then back. Of course, John had to travel over a 100 miles from his
> > home just to get my place! It was great to have an experienced pilot with
> > you when you wander from your home field for the first time. Thank you
> > John! (Who have YOU taken on their first x-country recently??)
> >
> > Now that I have a whopping 8 hours flight time in the FS, I need to get
> > the opinions of those of you who have plenty of experience under your
> > belts.... I have discovered how winds at the field level can seem pretty
> > calm, and yet at just a couple hunder feet they can get just strong and
> > nasty. I find that the force to move the ailerons when the winds are
> > strong seems tremendous... to the point that I need to use all my strength
> > of my arm (well I am a weakling, I suppose) to fight... or correct for
> > winds trying to keep me from straight and level. And, depending on the the
> > wind direction, even a little bank will become amplified to the point that
> > I have to fight opposite pressure to get the wings from over banking. I
> > make these comparisions to the forces needed for a GA aircraft like a
> > Cessna where you would hardly notice the extra effort to maintain level
> > flight while making a turn in a 10 knot wind.
> >
> > So my questions that I request your opinions on are as follows:
> >
> > 1) Do you think it is normal that in 'strong winds' (my perception) one
> > requires tremendous force on the stick to move the ailerons to keep level
> > flight?? (Whether while completing turns or just correcting for wind).
> > Maybe I am in wind conditions that are beyond my capability if I find it
> > difficult to keep it level. I am saying that it almost seems that Ill
> > break the stick by pulling so hard to fight the winds. (no, there is no
> > binding in my linkages!)
> >
> > 2) Is there a general wind speed threshold that determines whether YOU fly
> > or not, based on the danger/discomfort of flying the plane? My problem
> > is that the windsock said there was almost calm winds at the surface... but
> > by the time I was at 200 feet I almost 'lost' the plane in the pattern from
> > winds that tried to 'tip' me over and this is where I find incredible
> > pressure necessary to keep it level. This is not enjoyable!
> >
> > 3) When I get a lot more hours, will this perception go away and my arm
> > will be so strong that I wont notice this?? I can remember just once when
> > it was calm and the plane is easy and fun to fly... I want to fly when I
> > have free time.... do I have to change my schedule to wait for calm days
> > only???? Maybe I need a re-alignment of my flying attitude!!!! (the one in
> > my head)
> >
> > Im interested in your opinions....... (remember when you had just 8
> > hours...!)
> >
> > Jon
> > near Grreenbay
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
traderawb(at)home.com/\s /\s /\s Commodity Speculator /\s /
/\ /\s / \ / \ / \ /\/\s /\s / \ /
/ \ / \ / \/ \ / \ /\ / \ / \ / \ /
/ \/ \ / b \/b \/ \/b \/b \/b \/b
/b b \/b allan_w_blackburn(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | KHe1144783(at)aol.com |
Hi troops !
I looked at the SVS-1400 spec. sheet which shows 80 hp.@ 5000 RPM,not 76 as
mentioned. The 912 shows only 76 ft. lbs.torque compared to 97 for the SVS.
The SVS is lighter, (all up) burns half the fuel at a much lower RPM (3600
cruise), no water pump,hoses or radiator and uses a cog-belt drive which can't
slip, runs quieter and ( I believe ) uses 5 separate belts for
redundancy. You could probably run on 2.
An aircraft is not a crane and a car engine is not an aircraft engine. I have
not seen a belt drive on a G/A aircraft either but as we all know, the only
great technical advancements in the last 20 years have come from the
ultralight/microlight pioneers who had the guts to go against traditional
design and create better, safer aircraft.
Kris Henkel G/A pilot-Titan builder.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: help 377 operators! |
The only thing that seems out the the ordinary is the 3.2 GPH. I get
more like 1.9 GPH with the 377. I also get 47 mph at 5200 RPM, but have
no idea (read no GPS) how accurate that is.
Bob Gross wrote:
>
>
> Hi Rutledge,
>
> Thanks for the info. I was asking cause mine is not doing so well. I
> just hit the 50 hr mark. I flew a x-c to River Ranch FL over the Labor
> day weekend. It was abt 90 miles away. I got....
> 45 mph at 5200 rpm
> 3.2 GPH (a problem??)
> Top speed is 70 at 6700 RPM with a 66 inch 2 bladed IVO.
> Climb is 6100 rpm at 650 FPM. cruise EGT seems low at 850 F but plug
> color is perfect. No leaks found.
> BTW I took my windshield off for the summer and have only 5 gals gas
> with round wing struts.
> Suggestions/comments anyone?
>
> Thanks Bob...Jupiter Fl.
>
> P.S. I have used Penzoil in the gas. Used seafoam last week. 50 hr
> Inspection was perfect!!
>
> ==
> Captain Robert P. Gross
> American Airlines MIA
> 561-744-8055
>
--
traderawb(at)home.com/\s /\s /\s Commodity Speculator /\s /
/\ /\s / \ / \ / \ /\/\s /\s / \ /
/ \ / \ / \/ \ / \ /\ / \ / \ / \ /
/ \/ \ / b \/b \/ \/b \/b \/b \/b
/b b \/b allan_w_blackburn(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
For comparison, I fly my Kolb with two fingers most of the time. High
airspeed or a momentary gust might make it somewhat harder to move
ailerons, but just strong steady winds should have no effect as you move
through the air at your 45 mph airspeed. The degree of pressure you seem
to be implying you need sounds "mui excessive". Check for binding
somewhere.
Jon P. Croke wrote:
>
>
> Wow!
>
> Went on my first x-country (35 miles!) yesterday... and did it with the
> help of John Jung who accompanied me from my home base up to Ephraim, Wi.
> and then back. Of course, John had to travel over a 100 miles from his
> home just to get my place! It was great to have an experienced pilot with
> you when you wander from your home field for the first time. Thank you
> John! (Who have YOU taken on their first x-country recently??)
>
> Now that I have a whopping 8 hours flight time in the FS, I need to get
> the opinions of those of you who have plenty of experience under your
> belts.... I have discovered how winds at the field level can seem pretty
> calm, and yet at just a couple hunder feet they can get just strong and
> nasty. I find that the force to move the ailerons when the winds are
> strong seems tremendous... to the point that I need to use all my strength
> of my arm (well I am a weakling, I suppose) to fight... or correct for
> winds trying to keep me from straight and level. And, depending on the the
> wind direction, even a little bank will become amplified to the point that
> I have to fight opposite pressure to get the wings from over banking. I
> make these comparisions to the forces needed for a GA aircraft like a
> Cessna where you would hardly notice the extra effort to maintain level
> flight while making a turn in a 10 knot wind.
>
> So my questions that I request your opinions on are as follows:
>
> 1) Do you think it is normal that in 'strong winds' (my perception) one
> requires tremendous force on the stick to move the ailerons to keep level
> flight?? (Whether while completing turns or just correcting for wind).
> Maybe I am in wind conditions that are beyond my capability if I find it
> difficult to keep it level. I am saying that it almost seems that Ill
> break the stick by pulling so hard to fight the winds. (no, there is no
> binding in my linkages!)
>
> 2) Is there a general wind speed threshold that determines whether YOU fly
> or not, based on the danger/discomfort of flying the plane? My problem
> is that the windsock said there was almost calm winds at the surface... but
> by the time I was at 200 feet I almost 'lost' the plane in the pattern from
> winds that tried to 'tip' me over and this is where I find incredible
> pressure necessary to keep it level. This is not enjoyable!
>
> 3) When I get a lot more hours, will this perception go away and my arm
> will be so strong that I wont notice this?? I can remember just once when
> it was calm and the plane is easy and fun to fly... I want to fly when I
> have free time.... do I have to change my schedule to wait for calm days
> only???? Maybe I need a re-alignment of my flying attitude!!!! (the one in
> my head)
>
> Im interested in your opinions....... (remember when you had just 8
> hours...!)
>
> Jon
> near Grreenbay
>
--
traderawb(at)home.com/\s /\s /\s Commodity Speculator /\s /
/\ /\s / \ / \ / \ /\/\s /\s / \ /
/ \ / \ / \/ \ / \ /\ / \ / \ / \ /
/ \/ \ / b \/b \/ \/b \/b \/b \/b
/b b \/b allan_w_blackburn(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: help 377 operators! |
Rutledge Fuller wrote:
>
I find
> that on my current set-up, anything less than 5500 rpm, will cause it to fall
on it's face with even the slightest pitch or direction changes.
>
????? I really hope not. Inverted nose down stalls in any turn. What do
you really mean? ;))
-
traderawb(at)home.com/\s /\s /\s Commodity Speculator /\s /
/\ /\s / \ / \ / \ /\/\s /\s / \ /
/ \ / \ / \/ \ / \ /\ / \ / \ / \ /
/ \/ \ / b \/b \/ \/b \/b \/b \/b
/b b \/b allan_w_blackburn(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
John Jung wrote:
>
>
> Bob,
> Move to Wisconsin for great summer flying, but I don't recommend the winters
> here. Good flying days are few and far between in the winter. I'd like to be
able
> to spend winters somewhere in the south. Or anywhere where their is good flying.
> John Jung
>
> Robert L Doebler wrote:
>
> >
> > Bob from Florida
> >
> > Fly a 400-500 ft pattern? I wish! Our u/l strip is a couple hundred feet
> > from a GA. strip. We have to fly under 300 agl while in class "D", and
> > under 100 agl while over airport boundary! After reading about all these
> > beautiful X/C trips in the midwest etc, I'm ready to move!
> > Where can I find this scenery, no crowds, no winters, no
> > bugs,etc...........guess I'm just jealous!
> >
> > Bob Doebler- in crowded/ over regulated Los Angeles, Ca.
>
John,
I am from Wisconsin and just returned there for a reunion two months ago
after being gone for 25 years. Beautiful. I went looking for some
ultralight activity in the Milwaukee area, but was unable to locate any
in the time allowed. What I did see, however; was fields of corn with 5
lb ears, and trees everywhere. What a bountiful state.
Translation : No place to land in an emergency. Where do you fly? What
do you fly over?
Connecticut and Arkansas have even less places to fly safely due to
beautiful tree covered mountains.
It was sure nice to see green after this year in Texas.
Allan (I came to see the scenery, but these trees and mountains keep
getting in my way) Blackburn
--
traderawb(at)home.com/\s /\s /\s Commodity Speculator /\s /
/\ /\s / \ / \ / \ /\/\s /\s / \ /
/ \ / \ / \/ \ / \ /\ / \ / \ / \ /
/ \/ \ / b \/b \/ \/b \/b \/b \/b
/b b \/b allan_w_blackburn(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: (no GPS) how accurate |
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Allan Blackburn wrote:
> The only thing that seems out the the ordinary is the 3.2 GPH. I get
> more like 1.9 GPH with the 377. I also get 47 mph at 5200 RPM, but have
> no idea (read no GPS) how accurate that is.
Here I am taking the navigation pulpit again...
For my 1st 2.5 years of FS ownership I had no GPS, yet also knew my
airspeed indicator (ASI) was dead-on accurate at cruise. To do any real
XC at all, you gotta have some idea of how close or far off your ASI is,
and a GPS is not at all necessary. Try flying somewhere in a straight
line a known distance away at 60mph indicated. If the sectional says
it is 10 miles away and it takes you 10min to get there, you can from
then on fly with no calculator and leave your mittens and shoes on (but
do bring a watch). Also, you can keep a pretty close idea of headwind,
tailwind, etc by several very low tech methods.
Sorry if I seem all whomped up over this, but if you average R=D/T
from just a few flights you'll have every bit as good or better an ASI
calibration than somebody checking one afternoon using a GPS.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobdoebler(at)JUNO.COM (Robert L Doebler) |
To John H
Maybe we should spend summers at your place, and winters at mine!
And get year round flying....
Bob D
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
>
>
>There also was a guy in Southern CA who thought the aileron forces
>on a FS II were excessive.
>
For those seeking
>improvement, greater dihedral should be a significant help, I would think.
>
>-Ben Ransom
> http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
>
>
>
> Since I went from no dihedral to about 3" at each tip, my MKIII
feels easier on the ailerons. On the other hand, after 2 years, maybe I am
just used to it now. Unfortunatly, it is too much trouble to test.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobdoebler(at)JUNO.COM (Robert L Doebler) |
writes:
>Doebler)
>
>To John H
>
>Maybe we should spend summers at your place, and winters at mine!
>And get year round flying....
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
Several months ago I started a minor discussion flap when I said I felt
I "needed to pay full time and attention" to flying my FireFly. I didn't
say, or mean , that I had a 'death grip" on the stick. In fact, unless I
(was) flying in extreme turbulance in a much heavier A/C, I, too, now my
fly my FF with thumb and finger. My good wife used to chide me for
flying our much larger planes, but after many years she could see that
we were not going to C&B. Unless you keep a light touch on the controls,
you won't get any feel of the plane. "Horsing" the controls won't do it.
Good axiom: redice airspeed in turbulant conditions.
Grey Baron.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
Group,
I have owned and flown both an original Firestar and a Firestar II.
The aileron forces on my II seem to be only slightly less than the
original and I consider neither to be heavy. Here is why I think that
the ailerons may be percieved as heavy. A low hour pilot will be slower
to react when a wing is lowered by turbulence. Plus he may not use the
rudder effectively. By time he reacts, the plane is already has some
momentum in roll that needs to be stopped before the wings can start to
come back to level. This can cause a feeling of lack of control and be
very uncomfortable. More force will not stop it, only being quicker to
react and using the rudder to help. I owned four other ultralights
before my Firestars and none were as responsive. One more thing: During
the middle of the day heat, seemingly calm air on the ground may not
tell what the air is like above the ground. I expect turbulence any time
the sun is high in the summer. To help with unexpected ground turbulece,
I make it a habit to fly faster on approach than I cruise, unless the
runway is short.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J 69 hrs
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
>As for the bit alluding to this UL mess being better than sex, either you
>desperately need professional help of some sort, or apparently my first wife
>has somehow found her way to your location.... please tell her the kit is
>going just fine...
>Good Luck....
Like the old saying -- either I don't know how to fly or you don't know
how to screw.
Woody
Some men are able to stumble over the truth but are able to pick
themselves up and keep walking as if nothing had happened. (Churchill)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
I call upon the collective wisdom of the list to find information on the
110 hp Hirth 4 cyl. engine. I think it is designated the f30. Has anyone
heard about these engines either pro or con? Check with your friends there
must be someone out there that has tried one. Water in the gas dosn't coun't
as a Hirth failure.
Woody
Some men are able to stumble over the truth but are able to pick
themselves up and keep walking as if nothing had happened. (Churchill)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Randy & Joni Tolvstad" <tolvstad(at)nvc.net> |
>Thanks for the map info tip...will try it...
>As for the bit alluding to this UL mess being better than sex, either you
>desperately need professional help of some sort, or apparently my first
wife
>has somehow found her way to your location.... please tell her the kit is
>going just fine...
>Good Luck....
>Bill
Bill,
I can't believe you would associate with such a woman! I am getting a
little nervous after what you said. Seems I have been losing hair rather
slowly over the years, but it does seem to grow back (in all the wrong
places and way to long for my comfort). I did ask my wife if she had ever
been in the company of a man named Beauford. She said "no" in a rather
huffy tone of voice and hurried into the house to start
supper.................(Now what do I do???)
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
>About gearbox versus beltdrive from somebody that professionally designed
>powertransmissions for cranes and hoists for government installations for
>many years, I was never asked to design a powertransmission and include
>belt drives. There are also good gearboxes and bad gearboxes and there are
>people that know the difference between them.
I am an industrial mechanic by trade and I get to fix these gearboxes and
belt drives engineers design. Belt drives are so common you must be missing
them. Check the front of your car engine or your furnace fan. In my job I
see a lot of high H.P. applications for belts. If weight is unimportant then
a gearbox can be made indestructable. But we arn't flying cranes or hoists
so every gear box design is a trade off on stength and weight. I am not anti
gearboxes I just don't believe they the greatest thing to hit the airspace.
Of course this is just my opinion.
Woody
Some men are able to stumble over the truth but are able to pick
themselves up and keep walking as if nothing had happened. (Churchill)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Hansen, Mark" <MHansen(at)ConusNews.com> |
So you don't like to fly in the winter?
put in a heater, yes even you people with an air cooled engine can have
heat.
(if you have a fully enclosed cabin)
I will get the info and post in within a week or two
> ----------
> From: John Jung[SMTP:jrjung(at)execpc.com]
> Reply To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 10:50 AM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re:
>
>
> Bob,
> Move to Wisconsin for great summer flying, but I don't recommend the
> winters
> here. Good flying days are few and far between in the winter. I'd like to
> be able
> to spend winters somewhere in the south. Or anywhere where their is good
> flying.
> John Jung
>
> Robert L Doebler wrote:
>
> >
> > Bob from Florida
> >
> > Fly a 400-500 ft pattern? I wish! Our u/l strip is a couple hundred feet
> > from a GA. strip. We have to fly under 300 agl while in class "D", and
> > under 100 agl while over airport boundary! After reading about all these
> > beautiful X/C trips in the midwest etc, I'm ready to move!
> > Where can I find this scenery, no crowds, no winters, no
> > bugs,etc...........guess I'm just jealous!
> >
> > Bob Doebler- in crowded/ over regulated Los Angeles, Ca.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Hey Guys:
Rut Fuller said something about everybody's Kolbs flew differently, even
though most were the same. I think maybe it is a lot of pilots on this
list fly differently, perceive their acft performance differently, and
eng performance differently. Therefore, when some newby has a question,
everybody jumps in with their opinion on how to deal with the newby's
problem.
The last several days I have heard all kinds of techniques to overcome
turbulence, fuel burn (what it should and shouldn't be), approach
speeds, heavy ailerons, etc.
Glad I'm not new to Kolbs or I might really get confused. I've got a
little time in Ultrastars, "Original" Firestars, MK IIIs, Sling Shot,
"Unoriginal" Firestars (KXP and II), and some time in most single rotor
Army helicopters. I think most of you guys would love to fly rotary
wing aircraft, especially those with hydraulics, or even automatic
stabilization control. Stick forces are negligible and one only thinks
to control with very little cyclic (stick) movement. The "sling wings"
do not react to violent heavy weather as little ultralights, and big
ultralights do.
But ya know, it's personalities that make this list, ultralight and
experimental aircraft building, and flying what it is. We have
tremendous freedom to enjoy our sport, more than any country on earth.
We can design, redesign, build, and rebuild our little airplanes any way
we want, almost without restriction. In a single place UL if we bust
our ass, we have no one to blame but ourselves, and probably have hurt
no one but ourselves. Course when we start hauling passengers, then
that is another story. All the sudden we are responsible for someone
else's life.
I know I don't fly like most of you all. I always takeoff full
throttle, normally fly at the same rpm that makes me, the eng and acft
happy, usually 5800 to 6000 rpm in the two strokes, and 5000 to 5200 in
the 912. All the Kolbs I have flown get heavy ailerons above 60 mph
except the Sling Shot, and guess what, it is the only Kolb (except the
Laser) that has little ailerons. If you have big ailerons, and I
consider the ailerons on my MK III big (even though they are somewhat
smaller than stock), and get over 50 or 60 mph, they are going to load
up. Kolb's are tremendous STOL acft, not super roll rate aerobatic
acft. Like Homer Kolb told me a long time ago when I first started
flying his airplanes, 1984, just be gentle with it and it will do what
you want it to. With those big ole ailerons at higher speeds, all it
takes is a gentle nugging to make the acft do what you want it to.
Attaching spades would lighten the lateral force required for a short
time, then you probably would not have to worry about heavy ailerons,
cause they would not survive the overload. A gentleman by the name of
Aubrey Radford tried spades on his original Firestar and died in 1990,
when the kevlar bridal on his balistic chute was severed after full
canopy. I like to let the airplane fly the way it wants to fly in
turbulence, sort of the way a boat rides on rough water. I can't expect
to make a Kolb fly perfectly straight and level in heavy turbulence. It
just won't do it. I think it was Grey Baron that said that he never
knew of an airplane being inverted by turbulence while flying. Me
either. Same with trying to maintain altitude while XC'ing in turbulent
wind.. Usually if you just let the airplane fly, if you lose altitude
in a moment it will hit an updraft and you will gain it back, and
vice-versa. I am not afraid to turn my Kolb at low altitude and it does
not require VNE speeds to be safe and turn at low altitude. What are
you going to do to maneuver into a very, very small emergency landing
area with obstructions (high) on all four sides, if you can't slow the
airplane down close to stall and do some major maneuvereing???? These
little airplanes fly super good, have no bad habits that I have been
able to find in the last 14 years, and don't stall and fall out of the
sky unless you don't watch your airspeed. I used to try and demonstrate
accelerated stalls to passengers at Sun and Fun in the factory MK III,
with little success, unless I had a really big heavy weight on a super
hot day. I usually carry 10 mph over the stall on really rough days on
final approach so I don't get caught short if the wind should decide to
stop blowing for me. I safely get away flying the Sling Shot at Sun and
Fun with the most confused, violent wind one will normally ever have to
contend with, caused by 15 to 20 mph cross winds, prop wash from the
aircraft that took off in front of you, and usually hold 10 mph over
stall, safely. I don't usually increase speed over cruise speed on
final, normally just the opposite.
Everybody fly the way you want to, enjoy it, share it with us, maybe we
can all learn from each other's experiences. But fly safely.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Hey Bob: Come 100 miles or so East to sunny Palm Springs. Lots of wide
open spaces. Helps if you like brown - lots of brown - desert. ( No, not
the brown of last nights' message ) Seriously, there are a lot of good
flying areas here. Otay fliers from San Diego come up to Salton Sea and
Imperial Valley a lot during the season. Also, next weekend - the 19th -
is our U/L club meeting. Private strip and all. Visitors welcome. Also,
on Oct. 17 is our annual fly-in. Same weekend and vicinity as AOPA's big
wing-ding. Last year we had over 25 planes and gyros, and over 100 people.
Great stuff ! Big Lar.
----------
> From: Robert L Doebler <bobdoebler(at)JUNO.COM>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject:
> Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 8:05 AM
>
>
> Bob from Florida
>
Where can I find this scenery, no crowds, no winters, no
> bugs,etc...........guess I'm just jealous!
>
> Bob Doebler- in crowded/ over regulated Los Angeles, Ca.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Allan Blackburn wrote:
> John,
> I am from Wisconsin and just returned there for a reunion two months ago
> after being gone for 25 years. Beautiful. I went looking for some
> ultralight activity in the Milwaukee area, but was unable to locate any
> in the time allowed. What I did see, however; was fields of corn with 5
> lb ears, and trees everywhere. What a bountiful state.
>
> Translation : No place to land in an emergency. Where do you fly? What
> do you fly over?
Allan,
In southern Wisconsin, there are plenty of alfalfa fields for
emergency landings. Soy beans are the next choice. Even corn fields are
good before July. I tend to fly high when I travel so that I don't have
to pay close attention to the terain below. Then the only concern is
large lakes or swamps, and I can either go around or go higher. One neat
thing about Wisconsin summers, besides the warm weather is that we have
good air (smooth) on most evenings. Another is the beauty of Wisconsin.
Compared to many other states that I have seen, Wisconsin is very green.
It is difficult to find any exposed earth. Something grows everywhere.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J 69 hrs
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: (no GPS) how accurate |
Ben,
You are correct about not needing a GPS. I have noticed that you make
a lot of good points on this list. What you described is exactly how I
checked my speed (progress) before I got a GPS. It is even fun to do it
that way. I enjoy navigation. The GPS is so easy that it takes the
challenge out of it. But using a GPS does make it easier to travel and
takes some of the risk out of it. I'm keeping my Garmin.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
I heard someone or two say on this List they had never heard of a GA
aircraft with belt drive. Thirty years ago this month I soloed my first
ever aircraft at the ripe old age of 29 at Fort Wolters, Texas, in the
US Army Primary Rotary Wing Flight Course. My aircraft was connected
between the engine and the transmission with five rubber v belts. There
was an electric linear activator to tighten up the belts after engine
start. The engine was a big ass Franklin 6 cylinder (CRS the HP). As
far as I know, the TH-55 or Hughes 300 flew with those 5 v belts until
just a few years ago for the Army when they were retired. Don't know of
anyone ever losing all five at one time. I think it would probably fly
with three or four.
The SVS-1400 sounds good on paper. It will be great if it will do
everything the designer claims. I've been flying my old 912 since April
1994, and it has 975 hours on it, still burns 4 GPH at cruise, 5000 rpm,
uses no oil to speak of, gives me 75 mph true in the summer and 80 mph
true in the winter. The only time it has ever quit running is when I
shut it down, or when I accidentally feed it a mixture of gasoline and
water, or gasoline and trash. It willing flies 11 to 12 hour days, in
all kinds of weather, has never lost power even in heavy rain, has flown
in rain all day long on many occasions. It pushed me for 231 flight
hours in 41 days over and thru every kind of terrain and weather you
could imagine. I have a good working relationship with my MK III and my
912. Wish it was as good with the people at ROTAX.
BTW: Cog belts are not slip proof as I read in a previous post. They
can slip. Ask the owner/pilot of this years OSH Grand Champion Light
Plane, Dan Horton. While he was flying off his 40 hours he keep seeing
these big bugs whisking by his head. Pretty soon he realized it was the
teeth from his twin cog belt drive, then the prop stopped. They will
slip. And Dan had his first forced landing in his Early Bird Jenny.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Cpeterhu(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Kolb Flying??? |
Thanks John, that made a lot of sense to me. I have zero time in ultralights
and only about 400 hours logged in GA aircraft and none lately, but have been
following the li st and it is obvious to me when an experienced pilot talks.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
Hello again, Did not get to read your 10-12 Email untill this A.M. We are
back in town safe and sort of sound. Planning to go to Quincy on Wed to try
and get some flight time, check around and show new friend how we operate.
MERFI was great but only saw one KOLB out of ~200 aircraft that showed. It
was a nice day and I thought there would be many more. Today is a work day.
Will call this P.M. Duane
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bruce Steinhagen" <bsteinhagen(at)itol.com> |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
Hi Jon, and Congratulations! I din't know you were this close to flying.
I've noticed many of the wind comments you've made.
Bruce-Algoma
----------
> From: Jon P. Croke <joncroke(at)CompuServe.COM>
> To: INTERNET:kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Aileron performance questions
> Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 9:31 PM
>
>
> Wow!
>
> Went on my first x-country (35 miles!) yesterday... and did it with the
> help of John Jung who accompanied me from my home base up to Ephraim, Wi.
> and then back. Of course, John had to travel over a 100 miles from his
> home just to get my place! It was great to have an experienced pilot
with
> you when you wander from your home field for the first time. Thank you
> John! (Who have YOU taken on their first x-country recently??)
>
> Now that I have a whopping 8 hours flight time in the FS, I need to get
> the opinions of those of you who have plenty of experience under your
> belts.... I have discovered how winds at the field level can seem
pretty
> calm, and yet at just a couple hunder feet they can get just strong and
> nasty. I find that the force to move the ailerons when the winds are
> strong seems tremendous... to the point that I need to use all my
strength
> of my arm (well I am a weakling, I suppose) to fight... or correct for
> winds trying to keep me from straight and level. And, depending on the
the
> wind direction, even a little bank will become amplified to the point
that
> I have to fight opposite pressure to get the wings from over banking. I
> make these comparisions to the forces needed for a GA aircraft like a
> Cessna where you would hardly notice the extra effort to maintain level
> flight while making a turn in a 10 knot wind.
>
> So my questions that I request your opinions on are as follows:
>
> 1) Do you think it is normal that in 'strong winds' (my perception) one
> requires tremendous force on the stick to move the ailerons to keep level
> flight?? (Whether while completing turns or just correcting for wind).
> Maybe I am in wind conditions that are beyond my capability if I find it
> difficult to keep it level. I am saying that it almost seems that Ill
> break the stick by pulling so hard to fight the winds. (no, there is no
> binding in my linkages!)
>
> 2) Is there a general wind speed threshold that determines whether YOU
fly
> or not, based on the danger/discomfort of flying the plane? My problem
> is that the windsock said there was almost calm winds at the surface...
but
> by the time I was at 200 feet I almost 'lost' the plane in the pattern
from
> winds that tried to 'tip' me over and this is where I find incredible
> pressure necessary to keep it level. This is not enjoyable!
>
> 3) When I get a lot more hours, will this perception go away and my arm
> will be so strong that I wont notice this?? I can remember just once
when
> it was calm and the plane is easy and fun to fly... I want to fly when I
> have free time.... do I have to change my schedule to wait for calm days
> only???? Maybe I need a re-alignment of my flying attitude!!!! (the one
in
> my head)
>
> Im interested in your opinions....... (remember when you had just 8
> hours...!)
>
> Jon
> near Grreenbay
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Darren L Smalec" <smald(at)shianet.org> |
John/ group: The jetting for my 460 F-40 w/ bing 36mm carb-
195 main jet
2.82 needle jet
15k2 jet needle @#2 groove
30 pilot jet
Here`s some things I`ve done to try to make this work for me-
1. I made some shims to go under the jet needle clip- one is .010, another
is .020, because moving the clip down (richer) one notch is too much, and
loads it up at mid throttle.(now using the.010 shim)
2. I installed a dial-a-jet, wich only works at W.O.T. or near it.(check
Aircraft Spruce& Specialty) Installed it in my foam air filter.(didn`t want
to drill a hole in my carb body)
Still-- watch your EGT closely when reducing throttle from a long W.O.T.
run, mine likes to go near 1200 sometimes, not good. Reduce more or add
throttle.
I`d like to hear more about others 2SI experiences.
Darren Smalec
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | EAA Golden West Fly-in |
EAA is trying to brew up an annual Oshkosh West sort of thing in Merced
CA on Sept 25-27. Believe me, I too have a hard time comparing green
Oshkosh to the dry void known to man as Merced (or known mostly just by
those who liked the film American Graffiti).
Anyway, I'm going, probably just on Saturday, but may also do a fly-camp
thing near by on Friday or Sunday.
If anybody is in the area and likes 11000 foot runways originally
built for B-52s, drop me a note and maybe we could touch base there.
See http://www.gwfly-in.org/ for details.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
Subject: | Update on the B&C Specialty - Chilling Account... |
[This was just posted to the rv-list(at)matronics.com. It seemed important
enough to cross post. -Matt Dralle]
Top Headlines from AVweb's NewsWire
BB VS FAA: A DAVID AND GOLIATH STORY...
In a battle that often seemed unwinnable, it appears that B&C Specialty
Products' Bill Bainbridge has finally prevailed. His victory has come
at a price: his livelihood, his family, even his health have been
affected. Regular AVweb readers will remember that Bainbridge has been
complaining for two years that an FAA enforcement action filed against
him was totally without merit, that he had done nothing wrong. After
the "Meet the Boss" session at OSH this year, Bainbridge was finally
handed the long promised official letter that stated the action against
him was being dropped. What you will probably also remember is that the
last paragraph of that letter contained a not-so-veiled threat that the
FAA would likely go after him again. Last week Bainbridge received a
"clarification" of that letter from Guy Gardner, Associate Administrator
for Regulation and Certification (not from the FAA lawyers), in which
all the threatening language had been removed -- though in a final
insult, it was addressed and sent to EAA's Tom Poberezny, with a copy
faxed to Bainbridge. He is still awaiting a personal apology.
...BUT THE UNDERLYING PROBLEMS AT THE FAA REMAIN...
How does all this affect you? In following up on the Bainbridge case,
AVweb obtained an internal FAA staff report which reveals that several
of the highest-ranking lawyers in the FAA continued to prosecute the
enforcement action against Bainbridge for nearly a year after being told
that Flight Standards had investigated the complaint, determined that no
violation had in fact occurred, and recommended that the Administrator
withdraw the action. In a chilling telephone exchange documented in the
report, the lawyer tasked with the case says in essence that causing
pain and suffering is acceptable because "that's how the system works."
...THAT'S HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS?
At any point during Bainbridge's two-year ordeal, someone at the
administrative level of the FAA could have stopped it, but no one did.
Whether it was by omission or commission, the outcome was the same: Bill
Bainbridge suffered, unnecessarily, for two years. The question that
Bainbridge asks is: does Administrator Garvey recognize the problem?
Will any action be taken against those who persecuted him? A bigger
question is: Can she -- and will she -- do anything to prevent the same
fate befalling others?
NOTE: AVweb's NewsWire includes Liz Swaine's revealing special
investigative report on the BB affair with the full text of the
"smoking gun" internal staff report document and background
material, including RealAudio of Bainbridge's exchange with Garvey at
Air Venture OSH this past August. Don't miss Mike Busch's editorial,
"The FAA's Top Lawyers Are Out Of Control!", where he explains in
depth the ramifications of these revelations and suggests a solution
to Ms. Garvey: <http://www.avweb.com/toc/atis.html>
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com |
This is pure garbage!
I am glad he is not wasting a good Kolb airplane when his last two belts
break and crashes.
Frank (flying a safe Kolb) ReynenMKIII@475hrs
Hi troops !
I looked at the SVS-1400 spec. sheet which shows 80 hp.@ 5000 RPM,not 76
as
mentioned. The 912 shows only 76 ft. lbs.torque compared to 97 for the SVS.
The SVS is lighter, (all up) burns half the fuel at a much lower RPM (3600
cruise), no water pump,hoses or radiator and uses a cog-belt drive which
can't
slip, runs quieter and ( I believe ) uses 5 separate belts
for
redundancy. You could probably run on 2.
An aircraft is not a crane and a car engine is not an aircraft engine. I
have
not seen a belt drive on a G/A aircraft either but as we all know, the only
great technical advancements in the last 20 years have come from the
ultralight/microlight pioneers who had the guts to go against traditional
design and create better, safer aircraft.
Kris Henkel G/A pilot-Titan builder.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron Christensen" <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com> |
Subject: | Re: Bewildered (again) in Brandon |
>
>Hell, Rusty.... I left out most of the good part.... In addition to the
>minor airplane business I lightly brushed over in the earlier note, I got
a
>prostate big enough to put license plates and turn signals on and drive to
>work.....It tosses and turns in a manner totally independent of what I do
at
>night... (ain't slept 50 consecutive minutes in over five years)... The
>computer is screwed up down at the Mr Greenlawn place and on Thursday while
>no one was home, the stupid bastards rolled in here unannounced and
>re-re-fertilized the smoking remnants of my so-called lawn for the third
>time in three weeks... a man could roast a hotdog over my grass right
now...
>it stinks like a EPA superfund site, is turning the color of a peroxided
>hooker's hairdo, kills cats before they can walk completely across it, and
>it's all gonna have to be resodded... ($2,200...again)... While pondering
>all this, my hoodlum son (the younger) and his bovine, loudmouth bride
>gleefully informed me Friday night that they just lost their lease (again)
>and we are once again about to be graced with their presence in the back
>bedroom for an indeterminate period... AND my airplane is all over the
>garage floor...
>
>Now let me get this straight.... you sent off for the wrong muffler and
>then your rope broke...? and for this you are gonna park a fully
>functional, put-together, magnificent Kolb airplane in the corner, sell-out
>and sulk.... forever???
>Pull yerself together, man.... What if some civilian were to see you like
>this......?
>
>Bill (the aluminum butcher of Brandon) Tuton
===============================================================
Hey Bill:
Probably I'm only one of a host of people who are totally blasted by your
imaginary writing style - - it is GREAT ! ! ! Please don't stop; your
sense of humor is magnificent.
Ron Christensen
MKIII 1/2
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
Frank,
Just what do see as garbage here?
Belt drives?
If so I'll have to bring to your attention that Quicksilvers have many many
years of flying with belt drives, I've got over 100 hrs on belt drives
myself and never had an in-flight failure. Also many of my friends fly
quicks with belt drives and none of them have had a belt drive fail. Good
pre flight inspections are a must and the nice thing about belts is you can
see the whole mechanism whereas on a gear box it's a bit of a pain to do a
complete inspection before flight
BTW It's a little extreme, don't you think, to state (or wish) someone to
crash
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com <Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: SVS-1400
>
>This is pure garbage!
>I am glad he is not wasting a good Kolb airplane when his last two belts
>break and crashes.
>
>Frank (flying a safe Kolb) ReynenMKIII@475hrs
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi troops !
> I looked at the SVS-1400 spec. sheet which shows 80 hp.@ 5000 RPM,not 76
>as
>mentioned. The 912 shows only 76 ft. lbs.torque compared to 97 for the SVS.
>The SVS is lighter, (all up) burns half the fuel at a much lower RPM (3600
>cruise), no water pump,hoses or radiator and uses a cog-belt drive which
>can't
>slip, runs quieter and ( I believe ) uses 5 separate belts
>for
>redundancy. You could probably run on 2.
>
>An aircraft is not a crane and a car engine is not an aircraft engine. I
>have
>not seen a belt drive on a G/A aircraft either but as we all know, the only
>great technical advancements in the last 20 years have come from the
>ultralight/microlight pioneers who had the guts to go against traditional
>design and create better, safer aircraft.
>
>Kris Henkel G/A pilot-Titan builder.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Beauford Tuton" <beaufordw(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
Woody...
"How" is not the problem over here.... What is genuinely disturbing, is
that I keep snapping back to reality in the middle of what is obviously a
very carefully contrived scenario which cost me an arm and a leg to set up,
and not being able to quite recall "why..." (?)
Bill
P.S. The drooling is a tad humiliating at first, but one learns to
compensate.... I also shake...
B.
P.P.S. My current Bride insists that if I didn't shake, I probably wouldn't
move much at all....
B.
P.P.P.S. She would prefer that I not shake...
B.
-----Original Message-----
From: wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kind Offer
>
>>As for the bit alluding to this UL mess being better than sex, either you
>>desperately need professional help of some sort, or apparently my first
wife
>>has somehow found her way to your location.... please tell her the kit is
>>going just fine...
>>Good Luck....
>
>
> Like the old saying -- either I don't know how to fly or you don't know
>how to screw.
>
>
>
> Woody
>
> Some men are able to stumble over the truth but are able to pick
>themselves up and keep walking as if nothing had happened. (Churchill)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Beauford Tuton" <beaufordw(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
Randy....
Whatever you do, man.... Don't eat... !!!
Baldy in Brandon....
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy & Joni Tolvstad <tolvstad(at)nvc.net>
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kind Offer
>
>
>
>>Thanks for the map info tip...will try it...
>>As for the bit alluding to this UL mess being better than sex, either you
>>desperately need professional help of some sort, or apparently my first
>wife
>>has somehow found her way to your location.... please tell her the kit is
>>going just fine...
>>Good Luck....
>>Bill
>
>Bill,
>
>I can't believe you would associate with such a woman! I am getting a
>little nervous after what you said. Seems I have been losing hair rather
>slowly over the years, but it does seem to grow back (in all the wrong
>places and way to long for my comfort). I did ask my wife if she had ever
>been in the company of a man named Beauford. She said "no" in a rather
>huffy tone of voice and hurried into the house to start
>supper.................(Now what do I do???)
>
>
>Randy
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Ruebeling <grube(at)dmi.net> |
Subject: | seeking knowledge |
Group,
About a year and a half ago I got interested in aviation and wanted to
build and fly an U/L. When I received my info paket from Kolb and showed
a picture of the Fire Fly to my loving wife, she wanted to know where
she was going to sit. Right then I decided to sign up for ground school
and take flight lessons; now I have my private ticket and would like to
own an a/c.
I currently have 70 hrs in a 172 with no tail dragger time. I have the
opportunity to purchase a 150 for about the same money as a Mark III,
but I realize that the big expence in aviation is not the license, but
owning the aircraft; especially here in N. Idaho where a hanger is a
must.
So now I am ready to build a two seat a/c.
I am seeking opinions from any of you folks who know both G/A and U/L.
Is it really as exciting and fun as I have read or is it just cheaper. I
have heard some really strong recommendations on "good restaurants" and
went there only to find out that it was on of those "all you can eat for
5 bucks" places. The food"s not worth a damn, but it sure is cheap.
Please help. Feel free to E-Mail me personally. Most of the subscribers
to this list obviously are already kolb owners, and probably aren't very
interested in this non-tech problem. Thank You.
Gary (Rube) Ruebeling
Bonners Ferry, ID
grube(at)dmi.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: seeking knowledge |
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Gary Ruebeling wrote:
> opportunity to purchase a 150 for about the same money as a Mark III,
> Please help. Feel free to E-Mail me personally. Most of the subscribers
> to this list obviously are already kolb owners, and probably aren't very
> interested in this non-tech problem. Thank You.
Are you kidding?! You're inviting us to preach to the choir. The main
trouble is that you may be seeking knowlege and only get opinions. :-)
A year or two ago I put some of my emails together on a web page cuz
people kept asking me the same questions. By now, some of that info
is dated, but not on the subject you just raised. See:
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom/kolbfaq.html#Which Airplane
...the part about "Comparison to GA (aka Flame Bait)
If you're wife don't care about driving, buy Rusty's slingshot and put
a real engine on it. Rusty, you know i'll be expecting a commission if
this sorta cheap plug ever works out. :)
-Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
>
>This is pure garbage!
>I am glad he is not wasting a good Kolb airplane when his last two belts
>break and crashes.
>
>Frank (flying a safe Kolb) ReynenMKIII@475hrs
>
>
Gosh I didn't know a loss of power to the prop caused crashes. I thought
it was poor pilotage in an awkward situation.
Woody
Some men are able to stumble over the truth but are able to pick
themselves up and keep walking as if nothing had happened. (Churchill)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
>
>BTW: Cog belts are not slip proof as I read in a previous post. They
>can slip. Ask the owner/pilot of this years OSH Grand Champion Light
>Plane, Dan Horton. While he was flying off his 40 hours he keep seeing
>these big bugs whisking by his head. Pretty soon he realized it was the
>teeth from his twin cog belt drive, then the prop stopped. They will
>slip. And Dan had his first forced landing in his Early Bird Jenny.
>
>john h
>
I don't think that belt was slipping. He had some other big time problem
that caused his belt to disintigrate. Of course after all the little bumps
were thrown off the belt it probably slipped.
Woody
Some men are able to stumble over the truth but are able to pick
themselves up and keep walking as if nothing had happened. (Churchill)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: seeking knowledge |
>
>
> I am seeking opinions from any of you folks who know both G/A and U/L.
>Is it really as exciting and fun as I have read or is it just cheaper.
>
Been flying since I was 19. Owned a Piper Colt, flown a Cessna
taildragger from East Tennessee to California in 1995, and have flown
ultralights and light planes since 1978. Flew the MKIII to Oshkosh and back
last month.
I could sell my MKIII and buy a pretty nice 152. I will keep the Kolb.
It is somewhat funner and way more cheaper. But not as practical for
trips. For practical, God gave us air conditioned cars.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
wood wrote:
>
> >
> >BTW: Cog belts are not slip proof as I read in a previous post. They
> >can slip. Ask the owner/pilot of this years OSH Grand Champion Light
> >Plane, Dan Horton. While he was flying off his 40 hours he keep seeing
>
> I don't think that belt was slipping. He had some other big time problem
> that caused his belt to disintigrate. Of course after all the little bumps
> were thrown off the belt it probably slipped.
>
> Woody
>
> Hey Guys:
When the pulley is turning faster than the belt, that's slipping. Dan's cog belts
got eaten by one of the pulleys that was not manufactured to the most stringent
standards. When the teeth departed the area the belt slipped.
All you gearbox gear heads don't sit there so smug. Rotax gear boxes can also
slip. No Kidding. They all attach to the crank shaft with taper fit and bolt.
We had a 582 with a slipping clutch, the taper fit slipped in flight, then
tightened back up and slipped again a little later. Doesn't happend very often,
but it can happen.
I don't believe it is a good idea to get to comfortable with any application.
It
might rear up and bite you when you least expect it. Like my 912 that has
performed flawlessly for the most part, except when I feed it gas and water or
gas
and trash. hehehe.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: EAA Golden West Fly-in |
Hi Ben: Recently I e-mailed Larry Fuller in Somis, near Camarillo, CA.
He's the one in Kit Planes who's built the Mk III with Revmaster engine.
He'll be at Castle ( Merced ) too. A couple of friends and I are also
giving serious thought to going. ( After my hang glider lesson on Fri.
morning, of course ) It would be great to meet you, and any one else that
shows up. How will we get together ?? And - just what was wrong with "
American Graffiti ", mister ?? Big Lar.
----------
> From: Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>
> To: Kolb
> Subject: Kolb-List: EAA Golden West Fly-in
> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 9:49 AM
>
>
> EAA is trying to brew up an annual Oshkosh West sort of thing in Merced
> CA on Sept 25-27. Believe me, I too have a hard time comparing green
> Oshkosh to the dry void known to man as Merced (or known mostly just by
> those who liked the film American Graffiti).
>
> Anyway, I'm going, probably just on Saturday, but may also do a fly-camp
> thing near by on Friday or Sunday.
>
> If anybody is in the area and likes 11000 foot runways originally
> built for B-52s, drop me a note and maybe we could touch base there.
> See http://www.gwfly-in.org/ for details.
>
> -Ben Ransom
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: seeking knowledge |
Isn't " Hey, Rube " something from the Circus ?? Yuk yuk. Sorry, I
couldn't help it. Gary, I'm in some what the same situation as you, but a
little farther down the road. Started w/ ultralights, went to Cessna's,
and kinda bounced back and forth. My feeling is to give both a try, before
you spend a lot of money. I've bought time in several types and styles of
U/L's, while accumulating 230 hrs in 3 flavors of Cessnas. One isn't
necessarily " better " than the other, but they are most definitely
different. You're going to get lots of opinions, but the only guaranteed
way to form your own is to try it. I love all 3, ( counting hang types )
and bought the Mk III kit because of : 1. Having a new, rather than 30
yr. old plane, 2. Doing my own maintenance + repair - and this is the
big one, due to the tremendous cost of certified parts, and to a lesser
extent, labor. 3. Cause I love to build things - mostly boats and
engines, and being a huge egotist, wanted to see if I could do it. It's
become a tremendous experience, with a high level of satisfaction as it
progresses. BTW, I'm a transplanted Idahoan, too. Spent 7 years in
Weippe, falling timber for a living, from '76 to '83. Don't miss the
logging too bad, but that sure is beautiful country.
Big Lar.
----------
> From: Gary Ruebeling <grube(at)dmi.net>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: seeking knowledge
> Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 10:05 PM
>
>
>the aircraft; especially here in N. Idaho where a hanger is a
> must.
> So now I am ready to build a two seat a/c.
> I am seeking opinions from any of you folks who know both G/A and U/L.
> Is it really as exciting and fun as I have read or is it just cheaper. I
Gary (Rube) Ruebeling
> Bonners Ferry, ID
> grube(at)dmi.net
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rick106(at)JUNO.COM |
Subject: | Re: seeking knowledge |
Gary
I can tell you this from first hand experience, I have flown many
aircraft and wanted to own this one or that one and boy this one is
the one that I really want .........
But unless you just have more money than sense then get the 172 or
the 150
BUT just for weekend flying in my option the Mk. III with a 912 and
at least a 20 gallon gas tank will just about do what the 150
will do in topend speed but who cares about speed if you are looking at a
150 . First of all you do not have a hanger fee
you do not have to pay for your annual inspections
you don't have to burn 100LL
you don't have to worry about front wheel shimmy dampeners
for the money the two place Mk. lll / 912 / 20 gal.tank soft seat
and a head set
and you are ready if you fly the 172 & 150 the M3 fly's just like them
only easer to land
Rick Libersat
>
>Group,
> About a year and a half ago I got interested in aviation and wanted
>to
>build and fly an U/L. When I received my info paket from Kolb and
>showed
>a picture of the Fire Fly to my loving wife, she wanted to know where
>she was going to sit. Right then I decided to sign up for ground
>school
>and take flight lessons; now I have my private ticket and would like
>to
>own an a/c.
> I currently have 70 hrs in a 172 with no tail dragger time. I have
>the
>opportunity to purchase a 150 for about the same money as a Mark III,
>but I realize that the big expence in aviation is not the license, but
>owning the aircraft; especially here in N. Idaho where a hanger is a
>must.
> So now I am ready to build a two seat a/c.
> I am seeking opinions from any of you folks who know both G/A and
>U/L.
>Is it really as exciting and fun as I have read or is it just cheaper.
>I
>have heard some really strong recommendations on "good restaurants"
>and
>went there only to find out that it was on of those "all you can eat
>for
>5 bucks" places. The food"s not worth a damn, but it sure is cheap.
> Please help. Feel free to E-Mail me personally. Most of the
>subscribers
>to this list obviously are already kolb owners, and probably aren't
>very
>interested in this non-tech problem. Thank You.
>
>Gary (Rube) Ruebeling
>Bonners Ferry, ID
>grube(at)dmi.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
writes:
<< Dennis, what are your comments on the roll stick forces among the
FS models? >>
There have been some really good comments from experienced Kolbers on this
question, Hauck's very thorough epistle among others. (Thanks John you summed
it up well!)
I am not sure there is much more to add to what has already been expressed by
our very competent Kolb counsellors on this group. I do think the later FSs
are a bit heavier on the ailerons - but then it is a heavier aircraft which
needs a little more speed, compared to the original FSs. Heavier = faster
heavier ailerons. Lighter = slower = lighter ailerons.
Some may not be aware that there were two sizes of ailerons shown for the
FireStar I/II series aircraft. Those who built the larger ailerons on the
FireStar I/II models reported heavy ailerons. These larger ailerons were
about the same size as on the original FireStars, but the heavier and faster
FireStar I/IIs did not like those ailerons. We have since deleted the option
of larger ailerons that we had shown in the plans. I think I only recommended
them to one builder who was operating from a very short strip because the
extra area would be a bit of help getting in and out. He was delighted with
the performance, better than anticipated, but did not like the heavier feel.
So he cut them down to the smaller size and still had an easy time operating
from his short strip.
We have flaps on the Mark-III, not because we really wanted flaps, but because
we wanted smaller ailerons. Full span ailerons on the Mark-III would be very
heavy. So when we made the ailerons smaller we needed to do something with
all the space inboard of the ailerons.
Part of it is not the airplane, but a pilot's background experience and what
their expectations are. Sometimes a newbie to a Kolb will fuss at this or
that aspect of it's flying characteristic, but once they have become
familiarized with their Kolb, they state that it really wasn't a problem -
just something different.
Dennis Souder
Pres Kolb Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: help 377 operators! |
OK Allan,
Here is what I ment. I thought you all were mind readers. "anything
less than 5500 rpm, will cause it to fall on it's face with even the
slightest pitch or direction changes" I was refering to rpm's not
airspeed. Anything that puts a greater load on the engine at less than
5500 rpm causes MY rpms drop. As we all know, rpm's control altitude
and pitch controls airspeed.
Hope this clears my past post up.
Rutledge Fuller
>Rutledge Fuller wrote:
>>
> I find
>> that on my current set-up, anything less than 5500 rpm, will cause it
to fall on it's face with even the slightest pitch or direction changes.
>>
>
>????? I really hope not. Inverted nose down stalls in any turn. What do
>you really mean? ;))
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: (no GPS) how accurate |
Good job Ben,
With all the new technology, it's easy to forget our old dead reckoning
skills, or worst yet never learn them in the first place. What happens
when our instruments go down in the middle of nowhere? Will you be
prepared? I know people who constantly stare at their GPS. It's their
only means of pilotage or navigation. When their reception goes down
they will be completely lost, confused, and scared.
Quote from AC61-21A: Dead reckoning, as applied to flying, is the
navigation of an airplane solely by means of computations based on
airspeed, course, heading, wind direction and speed, groundspeed, and
elapsed time.
I'm not perfect, and fall into some of the same pitfalls. When
discussions like these come up, it brings me back to reality. I fly far
away from the field, and many times by myself. My GPS has gone down
several times in overcast conditions, and I had to rely on dead
reckoning and pilotage to get me to my destination. It is a little more
challenging than glaring at the GPS, but much more rewarding. I now
carry a pilots clipboard with me and note wind, groundspeed, and track.
I also follow along with the sectional charts, this forces me to look
outside of the aircraft.
Rutledge Fuller
>
>On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Allan Blackburn wrote:
>> The only thing that seems out the the ordinary is the 3.2 GPH. I get
>> more like 1.9 GPH with the 377. I also get 47 mph at 5200 RPM, but
have
>> no idea (read no GPS) how accurate that is.
>
>Here I am taking the navigation pulpit again...
>
>For my 1st 2.5 years of FS ownership I had no GPS, yet also knew my
>airspeed indicator (ASI) was dead-on accurate at cruise. To do any
real
>XC at all, you gotta have some idea of how close or far off your ASI
is,
>and a GPS is not at all necessary. Try flying somewhere in a straight
>line a known distance away at 60mph indicated. If the sectional says
>it is 10 miles away and it takes you 10min to get there, you can from
>then on fly with no calculator and leave your mittens and shoes on (but
>do bring a watch). Also, you can keep a pretty close idea of headwind,
>tailwind, etc by several very low tech methods.
>
>Sorry if I seem all whomped up over this, but if you average R=D/T
>from just a few flights you'll have every bit as good or better an ASI
>calibration than somebody checking one afternoon using a GPS.
>
>-Ben Ransom
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Subject: | Re: seeking knowledge |
Gary, as a very long-time N-airplane(s) owner and only a recent FireFly
owner, I'll try to give you some answers via your e-mail add. as soon as
I can dig it outa my Trash bin where I put it by mistake. Grey Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Iles <garyiles(at)mnsi.net> |
About those pulleys, the first UL I purchased was a Vector 600.It had 4
v belts flew many hours behind those belts never had a problem,next
plane was a Mirage it had the same belt drive arrangement,flew this
aircraft several hundred hours,no failures.Next aircraft was a Beaver
with rotax B box ,I was on my way to Woodys one day,about 15 mile flight
when the airplane started to vibrate quite badly, had Woodys strip in
sight so I flew straight in. On inspection we found the bearings were
wipped,no way to tell that the bearings were going to fail
beforehand.Currently flying a Rans s12 582 with B box,I re bearing this
drive every 100 hrs just to be safe.Both drives have there good and bad
points. Been flying uls since 1980 .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Kolb Flying??? |
John Hauck said it about as good as anyone could:
"Everybody fly the way you want to, enjoy it, share it with us, maybe we
can all learn from each other's experiences. But fly safely."
Maybe I am overly cautious in flying my Original FireStar. In the beginning I
would only fly during absolutely calm days. Eventually I progressed into
stronger wind conditions. But even now, after 280 hours, I sometimes get
concerned about the rough ride and wonder what I'm doing up there. The Kolb
builders manual says to slow down in rough air as these are ultralights and
stresses go way up. So just how much slower should one fly to insure the
airframe is not overstressed? (Normally I fly at 4500 to 5000 RPM which gives
me an airspeed of about 48 to 55 MPH indicated.)
As for flying qualities, I simply love this Kolb. I haven't noticed any
heaviness of the ailerons. in fact the controls are 'very light'. At 4500 RPM
I can pull up into a stall, and holding the stick back, the plane will just
drop straight thru. No aileron or rudder required. If I relax the stick, it
just goes back to flying immediately. I've experimented with slow flight and
find that it will feel mushy, but is still controllable. The only fault I can
see is that it doesn't slip very well.
Bill Varnes
Original FireStar
Audubon, NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "merle hargis" <merlepilar(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
Subject: | Re: Bewildered (again) in Brandon |
I am another one that enjoys your writing. Please keep it up.
Merle from Orlando
----------
> From: Ron Christensen <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Bewildered (again) in Brandon
> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 2:18 PM
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >Hell, Rusty.... I left out most of the good part.... In addition to the
> >minor airplane business I lightly brushed over in the earlier note, I
got
> a
> >prostate big enough to put license plates and turn signals on and drive
to
> >work.....It tosses and turns in a manner totally independent of what I
do
> at
> >night... (ain't slept 50 consecutive minutes in over five years)... The
> >computer is screwed up down at the Mr Greenlawn place and on Thursday
while
> >no one was home, the stupid bastards rolled in here unannounced and
> >re-re-fertilized the smoking remnants of my so-called lawn for the third
> >time in three weeks... a man could roast a hotdog over my grass right
> now...
> >it stinks like a EPA superfund site, is turning the color of a peroxided
> >hooker's hairdo, kills cats before they can walk completely across it,
and
> >it's all gonna have to be resodded... ($2,200...again)... While
pondering
> >all this, my hoodlum son (the younger) and his bovine, loudmouth bride
> >gleefully informed me Friday night that they just lost their lease
(again)
> >and we are once again about to be graced with their presence in the back
> >bedroom for an indeterminate period... AND my airplane is all over the
> >garage floor...
> >
> >Now let me get this straight.... you sent off for the wrong muffler and
> >then your rope broke...? and for this you are gonna park a fully
> >functional, put-together, magnificent Kolb airplane in the corner,
sell-out
> >and sulk.... forever???
> >Pull yerself together, man.... What if some civilian were to see you
like
> >this......?
> >
> >Bill (the aluminum butcher of Brandon) Tuton
>
> ===============================================================
> Hey Bill:
>
> Probably I'm only one of a host of people who are totally blasted by your
> imaginary writing style - - it is GREAT ! ! ! Please don't stop; your
> sense of humor is magnificent.
>
> Ron Christensen
> MKIII 1/2
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Flying Without Gap Cover |
Forgot to bring my FireFly gap cover to the airport yesterday. Thought I
would try a few crow hops just to make sure she was still airworthy. The
cover is an aluminum panel that extends from the engine and wraps around the
leading edge. I knew it cotributed to the wing lift but I wasn't sure how
much. The OAT was ~75, humid ~90%, wind 45 deg across runway at 0 to 8 Kts.
After three crow hops I concluded that the wing gap cover makes a MAJOR
difference. She got off the grass grudgingly, leveled off o.k. but was very
sluggish in the climb and turn. She would have made it around the pattern but
that's not my style of flying. Conclusion: I won't fly the Fly without the
gap cover. That few square feet of lift area is needed with those short
wings. Duane Mitchell, Tallahassee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Flying Without Gap Cover |
MitchMnD(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Forgot to bring my FireFly gap cover to the airport yesterday. Thought I
> would try a few crow hops just to make sure she was still airworthy. The
Good Morning Gang:
I learned the same lesson back in my Ultrastar days. I was doing some tinkering
and adjusting and thought I could save some time between adjustments by not
bothering with gap seal installation. Boy, was I in for a rude awakening. Darn
airplane felt like it had a drag chute on it. Same characteristics as Duane
describes. Just didn't want to fly.
Never tried that with the FS or MK III.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Flying Without Gap Cover |
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 MitchMnD(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Forgot to bring my FireFly gap cover to the airport yesterday. Thought I
> that's not my style of flying. Conclusion: I won't fly the Fly without the
> gap cover. That few square feet of lift area is needed with those short
> wings. Duane Mitchell, Tallahassee
Can anybody report on how the Firestars do w/o gap cover?
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Russell Duffy" <rv8(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: seeking knowledge |
> I am seeking opinions from any of you folks who know both G/A and U/L.
>Is it really as exciting and fun as I have read or is it just cheaper. I
Everyone knew my 2 cents were coming :-)
As you may or may not know, I'm primarily a GA type pilot that built and flew a
SlingShot for a year. Previous to the SS, I had no ultralike experience, but
was tired of renting and knew that I wanted my own plane. After much
consideration, I decided that the SS would fit my needs fine, and off I went.
Unfortunately, the SS just didn't turn out to be what I wanted. I blame myself
though, and not the plane. It flies great for what it is, but I found that I
wasn't satisfied with it. The Mark-III would have been a better choice in the
practicality respects, but it loses out big (IMO) to the SS in the handling
department. This is more a virtue of the SS rather than a vice of the Mk-III.
My poor engine choice for the SS limited it's fun as well. If I had unlimited
time and money, I'd keep the SS and put a bigger engine in it some day. For
now, the RV-8 project will keep that from happening unless I just can't sell the
SS.
You mentioned cost. Be sure you factor in the value of the plane when (not if)
it becomes time to sell it. A spam can will continue to go up in value, and an
ultralike will plummet (ask me how I know this). I feel like it will be
difficult to sell the SS for even the price of the kit. It seems insane, but
that's how the market is. I've had people call and tell me that it's only worth
$8k, and the odd part is that they were serious.
My best advice would be to go to Kolb and fly with Dan in the Mk-III. Plan to
spend enough time to really get the feel of the plane. Bring your wife and send
her up with Dan too. It would be unfortunate to build the plane and find out
she didn't like it. The tailwheel part of the Kolb design is a non-issue. Dan
is a CFI, and he can give you a tailwheel endorsement (limited to Kolb models).
Good luck with your decision.
Rusty (I choose GA) Duffy
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Hugh M. Pepper (610)354-7155" <hugh.pepper(at)lmco.com> |
Subject: | Re: Flying Without Gap Cover |
Ben Ransom wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 MitchMnD(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Forgot to bring my FireFly gap cover to the airport yesterday. Thought I
> > that's not my style of flying. Conclusion: I won't fly the Fly without the
> > gap cover. That few square feet of lift area is needed with those short
> > wings. Duane Mitchell, Tallahassee
>
> Can anybody report on how the Firestars do w/o gap cover?
> -Ben Ransom
I guess I will address 2 recent topics with one post here!!
1) I have an original Firestar ( 1985 ) and never fly with the gap seal
installed.. and have never noticed
a problem with handling or performance. The reason I do this is because the seat
I use is one of those 5
gallon-gas-tank-integrated-in-the-seat, in addition to the 5 gallon normal tank
in the rear of the cage.
The seat is a bit higher than that of the original sling cloth type...
I am 6'0" tall, and, with a full face helmet on, and taller seat, I would be up
against the gap seal. Just easier to
not install it.
As for the Belts vs the gearbox:
My Firestar is powered by a single carb, single ignition 503 with a 5 belt
reduction system and a fixed wood
prop. The reason:... The 503 is a fairly early model, and as such has no bolt
pattern for the gearboxes of today,
and so I have no choice but to use belts... I bought the plane this way over 2
years ago and have had no problems
with belts or lack of gap seals to bother with... It would be nice to know what
tension to use with the belts, but I have
them set so that they don't slip at all, but not so tight as to put major stress
on the PTO end of that old ( ancient ) 503.
Anybody have any figures for this adjustment other than my trial and error
method???
Other upgrades to the 503 include: upgraded the wrist pin and needle bearings to
the non-caged type last year!!!!
I don't think that I have ever seen another belt drive Kolb.. especially with at
503......
Hugh -
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Flying Without Gap Cover |
du>
>Can anybody report on how the Firestars do w/o gap cover?
I'm sorry, but my reaction to this is that it would be a very crazy thing
to try something like this without any prior knowlege of what the
characteristics would be. The plane is neither engineered or flight-tested
in that configuration. The pilot could've been "crop hopping" and getting
reasonable results within ground effect, then unwittingly be suddenly below
stall speed at 20' AGL.
I know it's easy to sit at a computer terminal and find fault with other's
actions regarding safety, but I think this is a good example of how easy it
is to experiment a little too casually with ultralights. Really, I don't
think it sounds like something that *wouldn't* work (and in fact, we have
had posts indicating that it *does* work--to some extent), but why be a
test pilot with a mod that was not tested, designed, or possibly even
anticipated?
I'm not trying to get on one pilot's case. And I do think that the option
to do a little experimentation is part of what makes ultralights so fun. I
just thought that the idea of flying without the gap seal, without knowing
beforehand if it was okay, is pushing things a bit, and that we all should
take a double dose of caution before any such kind of experimentation.
Sorry for the lecture.
-Mike (no time to really fly) Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Vince Nicely" <vincenicely(at)intermediatn.net> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb Flying??? |
Bill Varnes wrote:
"I sometimes get
concerned about the rough ride and wonder what I'm doing up there. The Kolb
builders manual says to slow down in rough air as these are ultralights and
stresses go way up. So just how much slower should one fly to insure the
airframe is not overstressed?"
This is how I think about overstressing the airframe from turbulence. The
load factor on the wing at stall goes up as the square of the stall speed.
After the wing is stalled, the load factor doesn't increase because the
airflow changes. In a normal stall
at engine idle, the load is 1-g. Your wing can safely handle 4 g's. If you
generate extra lift with the wing by suddenly applying up elevator you have
changed the angle of attack and
the relative wind and increased the load on the wing. An up (or down) draft
does a similar change in the relative wind to increase (or decrease) the
angle of attack, also. Thus, the air induced turbulence can increase the
load. You want to make the maximum load you can induce remain below the
strength of the airframe. An airspeed of twice the stall speed limits the
maximum load you can induce to 4-g's (two squared is four) for then the wing
stalls at that angle of attack. If you keep
your speed to at or less than twice the stall speed, you may get an
accelerated stall, but you should not be able to overstress the airframe.
This is just my thinking and I make no claim to great aeronautical knowledge
If I have erred here, perhaps someone will be kindly enough to help us
better understand this question.
Vince
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Vince Nicely" <vincenicely(at)intermediatn.net> |
Subject: | Soaring and One Wheel High Speed Taxi |
Hi Fellow Kolb Enthusiasts:
I went flying yesterday in East Tennessee and tried two new (to me) things
that might interest the group. Be interested in knowing if others do
similar things.
First, about soaring. I have no experience with gliders at all. But, I
recently bought a book on how to glide and soar - they are different. It
was a hot and hazy afternoon with some developing cumulus. At about 1000
AGL, I set the engine to fly the plane at about 50 mph with about 100-200
ft/min loss of altitude and went looking for lift. After a few minutes I
found some and with some work at figuring how to stay in a rather narrow
column, I quit at 5000MSL with a gain of about 2500 ft. Left the engine
still throttled back and went on my way until I was back to 3000MSL, again
about 1500 AGL. Started looking for lift again. After several tries, found
some good lift and was soon back at 6000MSL and quit because was near bottom
of a cloud. Then, went on my way. This was great fun, but I finally ran out
of time. I feel sure real gliding is likely very different, but I think I
can learn a lot and have some real fun this way. Any comments from
experienced Kolbers or glider pilots?
Recently, Richard Swiderski wrote in part:
"If you are really committed to this process you will gut out the next step
which
is very frustrating & sounds ridiculous, but it will allow you to master the
3rd
dimension of flight- roll control & never leave the ground. While taxing
with
your tail up, give full deflection of left aileron & increase power until
your
right tire just comes off the ground & then cut the power. Do this until
you can
hold the tire off the ground longer & longer until indefinitely! Then do it
with
the opposite aileron. It sounds crazy,... "
I did a lot of taxiing and high speed taxiing before I flew my airplane the
first time, but it never occurred to me to try to taxi for extended periods
on one main wheel on a calm day. Occasionally, I get a one wheel cross wind
landing. However, yesterday, I decided to try this new one-wheel taxi.
First tried it on grass on a short strip. Thought that would be more
forgiving of sloppy technique. After a little practice, went to a
6000x100ft paved runway. Taxied about 4000 feet several times on one main
wheel with tail up of course. On one try, switched wheels, left to right,
in mid stream. It wasn't always pretty, but it was interesting. I thought
it a good learning experience. I will put this in my bag of occasional
proficiency-practice tricks.
Vince
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
> Some may not be aware that there were two sizes of ailerons shown for the
> FireStar I/II series aircraft. Those who built the larger ailerons on the
> FireStar I/II models reported heavy ailerons. These larger ailerons were
> about the same size as on the original FireStars, but the heavier and faster
> FireStar I/IIs did not like those ailerons. We have since deleted the option
> of larger ailerons that we had shown in the plans.
Even with the 11" constant-chord, short ailerons I'd call them plenty
stiff at speed. Could probably take off a few more inches inboard
and not be control-impacted. Should still be plenty of authority.
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Soaring and One Wheel High Speed Taxi |
>
...
>I went flying yesterday in East Tennessee and tried two new (to me) things
>that might interest the group. Be interested in knowing if others do
>similar things.
...
Soaring. One of my favorite things. It just feels more like "real" flying
to me, interacting with the air currents, and sometimes literally flying
with the birds. One of my favorite flying memories was the time I spent
circling in a thermal with about 10 red tailed hawks. Also, I often look
for a little more groundspeed (and fuel economy once when I was concerned
about fuel) by zigging and zagging a bit to pass over likely lift-producing
fields, and varying speed to take advantage of lift or get out of sink
areas faster. It's a much more interactive flying experience and lots of fun.
Vince, your next post is actually related to this one in a way, and I
wanted to mention something to the group about it. (It concerns reducing
speed in bumpy air.) One thing that impressed me in reading "The Joy of
Soaring", was that the author made the point that soaring was basically
aerobatics. A bit non-intuitive, but containing a lot of truth. Glider
jockys have to be *very* performance-conscious. If you're in sink, you
want to speed outa there; if you're in lift, you want to hang in there just
above stall speed (and usually in a tight turn). You have to *think* about
what the air is doing and how to find and stay in lift--quite a fun
challange. In addition, glider pilots have to worry more about one thing
more than us: the planes are so clean that it's easy to pick up speed
really fast, potentially getting into high G situations very quickly. It's
because of these flight characteristics that gliders have to be built
pretty damn strong--they aren't some kind of whimpy sort-of-an-airplane
that you just "ride" till you're out of potential energy.
(In fact, I've heard that modern high-performance gliders are so efficient
now that cross-country speed has become their major issue, rather than just
staying up, resulting in planes that are designed to carry as much as 750
pounds (!!!) of water ballast to improve penetration.)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Flying Without Gap Cover |
>
> I don't think that I have ever seen another belt drive Kolb.. especially with
at
> 503......
>
> Hugh -
>
Hello Gang:
If Hugh has not seen another Kolb with a belt drive, then he hasn't seen the multitude
of
Ultrastars with Cuyunas and Homer's twin poly-v belt reduction drive. There's
still a few
ot there after all these years. We have one in our local area.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | One Wheel High Speed Taxi |
>Recently, Richard Swiderski wrote in part:
> "If you are really committed to this process you will gut out the next step
>which
>is very frustrating & sounds ridiculous, but it will allow you to master the
>3rd
>dimension of flight- roll control & never leave the ground. While taxing
>with
>your tail up, give full deflection of left aileron & increase power until
>your
>right tire just comes off the ground & then cut the power. Do this until
>you can
>hold the tire off the ground longer & longer until indefinitely! Then do it
>with
>the opposite aileron. It sounds crazy,... "
Just make sure you have the tail UP!!!!
In a tail-low attitude on the ground in a tail-dragger, tipping to the left
could easily result in a ground-loop to the right!
________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> I don't think that belt was slipping. He had some other big time problem
> that caused his belt to disintigrate. Of course after all the little bumps
> were thrown off the belt it probably slipped.
>
Dan's drive belt came apart beacuse the belt and the lower sprocket didn't
have exactly the same tooth profile. The difference was VERY slight but enough
to make a difference. He had a co. out west make a new sprocket which has
worked fine so far.
Bill Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
>About gearbox versus beltdrive from somebody that professionally designed
>powertransmissions for cranes and hoists for government installations for
>many years, I was never asked to design a powertransmission and include
>belt drives. There are also good gearboxes and bad gearboxes and there are
>people that know the difference between them.
It's been several years ago (understatement:), and my memory of my
engineering studies may be faulty; but as I remember, a properly designed
belt drive is actually more "energy efficient" than either a gear or chain
drive. Longevity of either the gear box or belt drive, I would imagine,
would be determined by design and operating conditions.
>I have not seen any belt drives on certified G/A airplanes.
One rather large certified GA aircraft comes to mind. Back in 1956 or 57,
Atlantic Aviation out of Wilmington, DE showcased the then new (to this
country) "Helio Courier". The prop speed reduction was accomplished
through the use of 5 V belts. FWIW, later Helio Couriers were equipped
with gear boxes.
As far as uncertified aircraft go, the belt drive on my little 1984 Kolb
UltraStar still seems to be working OK.
Regards,
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
There was a really excellent article in Experimenter something like 5 years
ago (+/- 3) on reduction drives. His general conclusions were basically as
follows:
Gearbox:
on heavy side, potential problem with lubrication to gears
v-belts:
always slip some and always lose energy to friction. Less efficient.
Chain drives:
very heavy for given strength, nearly impossible to lube adequately.
cog belts:
*potentially* the most effecient, both in power xfer and strength:weight
Obviously, any of these solutions can be engineered to work or fail.
Looks like from Bill Griffin's comment that cog tooth profile was a problem
in Dan Horton's plane. This sort of thing was discussed in the article.
There was a new belt going into production at the time of the article (made
in Canada I think) that was supposed to have solved many of the problems
associated with cog belts. Unfortunately, the manufacturer was refusing to
sell any for aircraft use because of liability concerns.
The gearbox is probably a good choice for an ultralight, being engineered
for good reliability and low maintenance.
Related notes:
The Rotax uses a v-belt for the cooling fan doesn't it? Slippage of
cooling fan v-belt in my Ultrastar's Cuyuna engine was causing high CHTs
for me for a long time before I figured it--it was not apparent until I
applied belt conditioner and suddenly saw lower temperatures.
DON'T OVERTIGHTEN DRIVE BELTS! I once had to help pull some guy's
Challanger out of a plowed field due to siesure of main engine bearings
caused by overtight (cog) belt drive.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Flying Without Gap Cover |
My original Firestar had about a 3 mph increase in stall speed w/o the gap
cover. Otherwise it flew fine. The problem being, that one could stall on
approach, high enough to do damage to at least the gear.
John Jung
Ben Ransom wrote:
> Can anybody report on how the Firestars do w/o gap cover?
> -Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Flying Without Gap Cover |
Not having a center gap seal means that the wing is experiencing tip losses in
4 places in place of 2 . There is a lot of spanwise flow on wings basically
due to the air spilling over the ends and you just doubled the number of ends.
Dick C
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Soaring and One Wheel High Speed Taxi |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Vince,
I too have tried soaring my FireStar with the engine idling. I gained
2000' once and thought it was neat. The FireStar with it's low aspect
wing certainly is not any kind of soaring machine, but any ultralight
does offer some distinct advantages over gliders: 1) light weight 2)
tight turning radius to stay centered in the core of a thermal where the
lift is the greatest 3) slower speeds to stay in the areas of lift
longer. I read about Canadian pilot, Ian Coristine, who has soared his
Challenger II without power for over 2 and one half hours gaining 7200'.
I would think a lighter machine would fair even better at staying aloft.
This is a sport that is still in its infancy and hasn't caught on yet. It
offers the advantages of both worlds of powered and unpowered flight.
This ultralight soaring would take the risk out of a forced landing.
I have a great respect for glider pilots as every landing they make are
forced landings.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
writes:
>
>
>Hi Fellow Kolb Enthusiasts:
>
>I went flying yesterday in East Tennessee and tried two new (to me)
>things that might interest the group. Be interested in knowing if
others do
>similar things.
>
>First, about soaring. I have no experience with gliders at all. But,
>I recently bought a book on how to glide and soar - they are different.
>It was a hot and hazy afternoon with some developing cumulus. At about
>1000 AGL, I set the engine to fly the plane at about 50 mph with about
>100-200 ft/min loss of altitude and went looking for lift. After a few
>minutes I found some and with some work at figuring how to stay in a
rather
>narrow column, I quit at 5000MSL with a gain of about 2500 ft. Left the
>engine still throttled back and went on my way until I was back to
3000MSL,
>again about 1500 AGL. Started looking for lift again. After several
tries,
>found some good lift and was soon back at 6000MSL and quit because was
>near bottom of a cloud. Then, went on my way. This was great fun, but I
finally
>ran out of time. I feel sure real gliding is likely very different, but
I
>think I can learn a lot and have some real fun this way. Any comments
from
>experienced Kolbers or glider pilots?
>
>Vince
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
Subject: | Re: Flying Without Gap Cover |
>
> Conclusion: I won't fly the Fly without the
>gap cover. That few square feet of lift area is needed with those short
>wings. Duane Mitchell, Tallahassee
It is not just the few square feet of lost wing area, the big deal is you
are dumping all the lift from the adjacent wing right up through the hole.
Don't fly with out that gap seal.
Dennis Souder
Pres Kolb Aircraft
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon) |
Ralph.... Flying a soaring plane providing up to 40 to 1 gliding ratios
must be a blast. Have you ever read Soaring magazine? To my way of
thinking this is the ultimate form of flying. Also the most expensive.
Ray
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | swidersk <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
Subject: | Re: Soaring and One Wheel High Speed Taxi |
Hey Vince,
Catching those invisible elavators in the sky can be addicting-- just one more
before I head home.... Here in FL with our hot summer midday bumps that keep most
ultralighters grounded, I know at least 2 Kolbers who love sniffin them out while
flying on idle or even dead stick. It's a great way to hone one's skills and &
learn the limits & feel of your plane. Isn't it a priviledge to look up at an
eagle & say, "I've been there & done that!" Sometimes I have to pinch myself &
ask, "Lord, of the billions of people who have walked this earth of Yours, why
am
I among the privileged few with the gift of flight?" -Richard Swiderski
Vince Nicely wrote:
>
> Hi Fellow Kolb Enthusiasts:
>
> I went flying yesterday in East Tennessee and tried two new (to me) things
> that might interest the group. Be interested in knowing if others do
> similar things.
>
> First, about soaring. I have no experience with gliders at all. But, I
> recently bought a book on how to glide and soar - they are different. It
> was a hot and hazy afternoon with some developing cumulus. At about 1000
> AGL, I set the engine to fly the plane at about 50 mph with about 100-200
> ft/min loss of altitude and went looking for lift. After a few minutes I
> found some and with some work at figuring how to stay in a rather narrow
> column, I quit at 5000MSL with a gain of about 2500 ft. Left the engine
> still throttled back and went on my way until I was back to 3000MSL, again
> about 1500 AGL. Started looking for lift again. After several tries, found
> some good lift and was soon back at 6000MSL and quit because was near bottom
> of a cloud. Then, went on my way. This was great fun, but I finally ran out
> of time. I feel sure real gliding is likely very different, but I think I
> can learn a lot and have some real fun this way. Any comments from
> experienced Kolbers or glider pilots?
>
> Recently, Richard Swiderski wrote in part:
> "If you are really committed to this process you will gut out the next step
> which
> is very frustrating & sounds ridiculous, but it will allow you to master the
> 3rd
> dimension of flight- roll control & never leave the ground. While taxing
> with
> your tail up, give full deflection of left aileron & increase power until
> your
> right tire just comes off the ground & then cut the power. Do this until
> you can
> hold the tire off the ground longer & longer until indefinitely! Then do it
> with
> the opposite aileron. It sounds crazy,... "
>
> I did a lot of taxiing and high speed taxiing before I flew my airplane the
> first time, but it never occurred to me to try to taxi for extended periods
> on one main wheel on a calm day. Occasionally, I get a one wheel cross wind
> landing. However, yesterday, I decided to try this new one-wheel taxi.
> First tried it on grass on a short strip. Thought that would be more
> forgiving of sloppy technique. After a little practice, went to a
> 6000x100ft paved runway. Taxied about 4000 feet several times on one main
> wheel with tail up of course. On one try, switched wheels, left to right,
> in mid stream. It wasn't always pretty, but it was interesting. I thought
> it a good learning experience. I will put this in my bag of occasional
> proficiency-practice tricks.
>
> Vince
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
>
>Ben Ransom wrote:
>
>As for the Belts vs the gearbox:
>
>My Firestar is powered by a single carb, single ignition 503 with a 5 belt
>reduction system and a fixed wood
>prop. The reason:... The 503 is a fairly early model, and as such has no bolt
>pattern for the gearboxes of today,
>and so I have no choice but to use belts... I bought the plane this way over 2
>years ago and have had no problems
>Anybody have any figures for this adjustment other than my trial and error
>method???
>
I usually use a 1% flex with moderate pressure at the mid point of the
belt. If you have 1 ft. of belt between pulleys then flex should be about
.12" or 1/8".
I don't want to beat this belt,Gear thing to death but if you are
rebuilding the gearbox at any time you will notice the main bearings are
6305.or something similar.This is a straight single roller ball bearing. It
is not really intended to take thrust loads. If you were to buy a 7305
bearing you would have a bearing of the same physical size but it would have
a higher thrust rating. How high a thrust do you need on a spinning prop?
Think of your prop as a big heavy gyroscope spinning 3000 rpm and then you
make a sharp turn with it. It dosn't want to move. Overcoming the gyroscopic
forces is done on these bearings so the best bearings you can get are what
you want.
Woody
Some men are able to stumble over the truth but are able to pick
themselves up and keep walking as if nothing had happened. (Churchill)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
40 - 1 sure would be a blast. Like you say though, have you ever seen the
price tag on one of those things ?? My instructor tells me the paraglider
has a glide ratio of 4 or 5 - 1, the hang glider about 8 or 9 - 1. The way
we climbed was amazing. I think the Cessna has a G.R. of around 8 - 1.
Hmmmmm. What glide ratios do the various Kolbs have ?? Hmmmmmm. The
Europa has an optional, plug-on, long, high aspect ratio wing available now
that's supposed to really do wonders. I wonder if something like that
would be feasible on our babies ?? Hmmmmmmm.
> From: Raymond L Lujon <rayul(at)juno.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Soaring
> Date: Thursday, September 17, 1998 7:20 PM
>
>
> Ralph.... Flying a soaring plane providing up to 40 to 1 gliding ratios
> must be a blast. Have you ever read Soaring magazine? To my way of
> thinking this is the ultimate form of flying. Also the most expensive.
> Ray
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Aileron performance questions |
Group,
Since we have been discussing this "heavy" aileron topic, I paid particular
attention to it during a recent flight with my Firestar II. I had maintained that
the forces are low. Well, they are only low if the deflection is small. At 60 mph,
the forces would increase to more than my strength, before I got near full
deflection. I don't see this as a problem, because I have always had enough control.
But I think that it helps explain how pilots can describe their Kolbs so
differently. If a pilot is uncomfortable with being rocked around by the wind,
and
he expects to be able to stop it by using large amounts of aileron deflection,
he is
likely to think the ailerons are heavy. Over the years of flying ultralights,
I
have gotten used to being pushed around by the wind, and I have never tried for
maximun aileron deflection, in flight, before. The one time that I try to not be
tossed around at all is on landing. Then I find it is more important to be quick
than strong. And quickness comes with practice. This is why almost everyone suggests
that low time pilots avoid windy conditions. It applies to Kolbs, too.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J 66 hrs
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | 50 hour check for carbon buildup |
Well, it's time for my first carbon check, and possible decarbon. I
wanted to know how others have been approaching the 50 hour inspection.
Probably four hours ago, I used the Sea-Foam technique. I believe that
the manual states to remove the exahust system and view the piston and
rings from the exhaust port. If the carbon is less than .004 of an
inch, bolt it back together. If not pull the head and start scraping
and sanding?
I would appreciate any comments or suggestions that would help me
maintain my aircraft to reduce the likelyhood of an engine failure.
Rutledge Fuller
Tallahassee, Fl.
377 points ignition
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Terry Wells <tgw(at)aloha.net> |
Subject: | Belt drives and soaring |
This seems like a good time for me to jump in here. I have MkIII
that is a lot of fun here in Hawaii but at times the desire to soar
becomes overwelming. Reducing power is not the same as shutting down
your engine, not a wise thing to do around here. So, I'm in the process
of designing and building my own motorglider.
Just to give you a brief description, it has a 49' laminar wing,
gross wt. 700 lbs, built of composites. Power of about 40 hp, pusher,
with tail boom below the prop like most of our kolbs but with the engine
buried behind the pilot. Prop diameter limited to 48". L/D over 30 to 1
without prop drag.
My question to those in the group with lots of engine experience is
how best to transmit power to the prop which is about 10" above the
crankshaft pto and 15" behind it on something like an inverted 447. If I
use a separate belt driven shaft with its own separate bearings will it
need some form of belt tightener. Is there anything out there already
available. The Quicksilver MX series have this arrangement tho I have no
experience with them.
I'm determined not to make the same mistakes as others in the past
who have designed this sort of airplane by leaving the engine solutions
to last and I welcome any and all comments.
Terry Wells
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: 50 hour check for carbon buildup |
On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Rutledge Fuller wrote:
>
> Well, it's time for my first carbon check, and possible decarbon. I
> wanted to know how others have been approaching the 50 hour inspection.
> Probably four hours ago, I used the Sea-Foam technique. I believe that
> the manual states to remove the exahust system and view the piston and
> rings from the exhaust port. If the carbon is less than .004 of an
> inch, bolt it back together. If not pull the head and start scraping
> and sanding?
Hi Rut,
The main thing on carbon inspection is whether the rings still move within
their groves. The Rotax manual specifies the maximum carbon buildup on
the piston crown, but IMO this is an indirect way to estimate how much
carbon might also really be in the ring grooves. (BTW, i have rough
memory that the max was slightly greater than .004")
You can remove the cylinder heads and scrape the carbon off the crowns.
But... like I said, i believe this carbon is relatively unimportant.
What you really must do is get the guck out of the ring grooves.
Some people fear that this top crown scraping only sends the carbon
residue from the crown down into the ring grooves. But, I've found it
scrapes off as dust and easily vacuums up with a shop vac as you go.
The real deal is to remove the cylinders as well. This allows you to
remove the rings and clean the crud out of the grooves. Mike Stratman/CPS
catalog describes this procedure. If you do need to do this, I
personally would recommend going just a bit further. That is, also
remove the pistons from the rods. This allows you to soak the pistons
overnight in Berryman's and also allows you to replace the wrist pin
needle bearings. None of this is too bad a nightmare (if done right),
but still, only do it if you're rings seem almost stuck upon exhaust port
inspection, using engine time and crown build-up as secondary guides as
to whether cleaning is needed.
- Ben Ransom
PS: in my thermal soaring in my FS, i've only been accompanied by
swallows. No eagles. Should I take this personally? :-) Actually, I've
been amused to learn that swallows have an interest in thermals.
I took some glider instruction once and didn't like it. (Different
strokes, ya know). You can't just go anywhere you want, it is almost
always bumpy -- at least when lift conditions are "good" -- and you
spend countless minutes in tight "keep the sicko bag ready" turns.
The adverse yaw is also disorienting, but I guess you get used to that.
Plus, you can't strafe freighters ...so forget it. Gas for flutterbugs
is dirt cheap, so I'm happy to burn it.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Flying Without Gap Cover |
<<
1) I have an original Firestar ( 1985 ) and never fly with the gap seal
installed.. and have never noticed
a problem with handling or performance. >>
If you like your FireStar with no gap seal ... you'll just love it with one!!
Anything between the wings to provide a barrier to airflow from bottom to top
will help.
Dennis Souder
Pres Kolb Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Soaring, safety and design |
A couple of comments:
>I too have tried soaring my FireStar with the engine idling.
I make it a practice to briefly bring the power up once in a while while
thermaling at idle. It probably doesn't really warm up the engine much,
but the idle itself does keep the engine warm. Usually the lift isn't
strong enuf to really overcome the Ultrastar's sink rate, so it's a good
excuse to run at a little above idle--probably a good idea for temperature
maintenance anyway. I also use the periodic rpm increase to try to keep
track of engine condition, ie. I'm attempting to monitor for empending
spark plus fouling.
>The FireStar with it's low aspect
>wing certainly is not any kind of soaring machine, but any ultralight
>does offer some distinct advantages over gliders: 1) light weight 2)
>tight turning radius to stay centered in the core of a thermal where the
>lift is the greatest 3) slower speeds to stay in the areas of lift
>longer.
Comments:
1) Weight probably not directly significant. Sink rate is what matters
while going up, glide ratio when going down.
2) Tight turning ratio: My understanding is that one of the big design
parameters for a glider is that they *are* capable of tight turns. That's
partly why they usually have the long tail.
3) Slower speeds: My guess is that bottom end speeds are not all that
different from an ultralight. I'm thinking that sink rate is pretty
directly related to wing loading. Someone tell me if that's right or
wrong. At any rate, it's an advantage we both share, with us ultralights
being very definitely handicapped with the prop (and other) drag and the
engine weight. (Go ahead and cheat with that engine--it's still a lot
quieter!)
...
>This ultralight soaring would take the risk out of a forced landing.
Beeeeeep! Wrong (IMOH :) Tho it's not directly comparable. This a big
design issue for me. Gliders have skids for off-field landings and can put
down in stuff that would wipe us out. More importantly, their better glide
ratio makes a huge difference in their "engine out" options--a.k.a. the
point at which they run out of lift (or time) and need to return to Earth.
The way I figure it, the land area available for an engine-out landing goes
up as the square of the distance you can glide (being the radius of the
circle). Subtract a little for not being able to verify options in the
distance as well.
[adjust level for soap box...] To me two of the most significant safety
factors in ultralight flying rarely even get discussed or even thought
about: 1) glide ratio, and 2) off-field landing capability. In my opinion,
both comsumers and manufacturers of ultralights are both guilty of favoring
sport flying type performance over safty in this regard. The standard u/l
design seems to be to put all available weight into power, power, power and
woefully sacrifice on drag reduction and sturdy landing gear, to improve
both the off-field options and off-field capability. How many accident
reports have we all read where people with engine problems crash because
they panic about getting back to the field? The reality is that we can't
rely on two-stroke engines 100%. We should deal with it in somewhat the
way that gliders do--ie. plan on it (no engine). And train for it, but...
Design for it, and buy for it.
The FAA has forced us to do this to some extent--the minimum stall speed
requirement. And it's the ultralight's saving grace, safety-wise. But why
are we all pushing the limits so in this area? And look what direction
we're evolving: bigger, faster, heaver airplanes still running on 2-stroke
engines, still designed to be high on power and low on aerodynamics (L:D).
The requirement for a pilots licence (ie. further training) if you're
getting into the experimental realm only partially mitigates this. There's
a good reason why nearly all certified aircraft run on 4-stroke engines.
Safety-wise, you just can't tolerate the lower engine reliability with the
faster, heavier, more complicated aircraft. Remember, impact energy goes
up as the square of your velocity and that there's also a sort of inverse
square relationship as to the off-field capability.
At any rate, I feel like we all just have to remember what we're all
flying: gliders with borrowed engines. Some just glide better and have
more reliable engines. And some can land off-field better than others.
Sorry, I got carried away. Some *are* more fun to fly too!!! :)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
Subject: | Re: Soaring, safety and design |
Regarding engine out routines: Plan your work and work your plan...this is why
the military forces the pilots to practice emergency routines over and over and
over and...then when we do have a "problem" we can rely on rou familiar routines
and not panic.
On another note: I've been building a Mark III , (I think the first production)
dual control, since January and have spent a lot of time studying the pictures
supplied by you guys up on the Kolb home page "builders" area. I can't thank
you enough for doing this. This is my first attempt at building an aircraft
and the guys at Kolb were always there for me, yes even when the answer was
in the Blue Book! NEVER did I get rebuffed by anybody at Kolb. But, I can't
figure out how Kolb makes any money given the fact that their UPS bill for missing
parts sent to me must have exceeded their profit. Would I recommend Kolb
to another? You bet. Can't wait to have enough money to order a FF or FS.
How about a 2 place shoulder wing canard with double tail boom U/L Dennis?
Scott Bentley put me on to the Kolb-List just a few days ago. I wish Dennis
/ Kolb would let all the novis builders know about this place. Having a support
(?) group available would have been great for me in the early stages of constructio
So next weekend we break(in) the motor and hopefully the following weekend we start
to fast taxi, retighten and check things out. Who knows, maybe even a ...crow
hop? HEY , who said that !!????
>>> Mike Ransom 09/18 2:12 PM >>>
A couple of comments:
>I too have tried soaring my FireStar with the engine idling.
I make it a practice to briefly bring the power up once in a while while
thermaling at idle. It probably doesn't really warm up the engine much,
but the idle itself does keep the engine warm. Usually the lift isn't
strong enuf to really overcome the Ultrastar's sink rate, so it's a good
excuse to run at a little above idle--probably a good idea for temperature
maintenance anyway. I also use the periodic rpm increase to try to keep
track of engine condition, ie. I'm attempting to monitor for empending
spark plus fouling.
>The FireStar with it's low aspect
>wing certainly is not any kind of soaring machine, but any ultralight
>does offer some distinct advantages over gliders: 1) light weight 2)
>tight turning radius to stay centered in the core of a thermal where the
>lift is the greatest 3) slower speeds to stay in the areas of lift
>longer.
Comments:
1) Weight probably not directly significant. Sink rate is what matters
while going up, glide ratio when going down.
2) Tight turning ratio: My understanding is that one of the big design
parameters for a glider is that they *are* capable of tight turns. That's
partly why they usually have the long tail.
3) Slower speeds: My guess is that bottom end speeds are not all that
different from an ultralight. I'm thinking that sink rate is pretty
directly related to wing loading. Someone tell me if that's right or
wrong. At any rate, it's an advantage we both share, with us ultralights
being very definitely handicapped with the prop (and other) drag and the
engine weight. (Go ahead and cheat with that engine--it's still a lot
quieter!)
...
>This ultralight soaring would take the risk out of a forced landing.
Beeeeeep! Wrong (IMOH :) Tho it's not directly comparable. This a big
design issue for me. Gliders have skids for off-field landings and can put
down in stuff that would wipe us out. More importantly, their better glide
ratio makes a huge difference in their "engine out" options--a.k.a. the
point at which they run out of lift (or time) and need to return to Earth.
The way I figure it, the land area available for an engine-out landing goes
up as the square of the distance you can glide (being the radius of the
circle). Subtract a little for not being able to verify options in the
distance as well.
[adjust level for soap box...] To me two of the most significant safety
factors in ultralight flying rarely even get discussed or even thought
about: 1) glide ratio, and 2) off-field landing capability. In my opinion,
both comsumers and manufacturers of ultralights are both guilty of favoring
sport flying type performance over safty in this regard. The standard u/l
design seems to be to put all available weight into power, power, power and
woefully sacrifice on drag reduction and sturdy landing gear, to improve
both the off-field options and off-field capability. How many accident
reports have we all read where people with engine problems crash because
they panic about getting back to the field? The reality is that we can't
rely on two-stroke engines 100%. We should deal with it in somewhat the
way that gliders do--ie. plan on it (no engine). And train for it, but...
Design for it, and buy for it.
The FAA has forced us to do this to some extent--the minimum stall speed
requirement. And it's the ultralight's saving grace, safety-wise. But why
are we all pushing the limits so in this area? And look what direction
we're evolving: bigger, faster, heaver airplanes still running on 2-stroke
engines, still designed to be high on power and low on aerodynamics (L:D).
The requirement for a pilots licence (ie. further training) if you're
getting into the experimental realm only partially mitigates this. There's
a good reason why nearly all certified aircraft run on 4-stroke engines.
Safety-wise, you just can't tolerate the lower engine reliability with the
faster, heavier, more complicated aircraft. Remember, impact energy goes
up as the square of your velocity and that there's also a sort of inverse
square relationship as to the off-field capability.
At any rate, I feel like we all just have to remember what we're all
flying: gliders with borrowed engines. Some just glide better and have
more reliable engines. And some can land off-field better than others.
Sorry, I got carried away. Some *are* more fun to fly too!!! :)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
I've been using Pledge to clean and polish the lexan. Anybody got something better?
ALso, we layered in a thin sheet of vynal in the wing gap to provide some sun
screen and a cool color scheme to the A/C. It's cheap and easy to do when building
it. We put it on the bottom since it's melting temperature is suspect and
we thought that putting it up top near the 582's muffler would be dangerous.
One last thought. I saw in the Kolb's BuiLDER's section of the home page Scott
Bentleys' wing gap and was curious about the switch box. Nice piece of work.
Scott told me that Dick Kuntzelman made it. I ordered one and it was the best
investment I could have made. Saved me lots of time in wiring, was professionally
executed and (hopefully) will incease the reliabilty of the a/c. If
you are using the hot box and or EIS this is the way to go regarding wiring.
Thanks to Scott and Dick and also Kolb for recommending the Hot Box / Kuntzelman
Electronics in the first place. So Dick, now do I get a cut?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Henry Wortman <hwortman(at)datasys.net> |
Subject: | Re: 50 hour check for carbon buildup |
Rutledge Fuller wrote:
>
>
> Well, it's time for my first carbon check, and possible decarbon. I
> wanted to know how others have been approaching the 50 hour inspection.
> Probably four hours ago, I used the Sea-Foam technique. I believe
Rut:
it's second seafoam treatment. It is on a Challenger II and is inverted.
I removed the exhaust manifold and checked the rings on both pistons.
The bottom rings are completely free and on the top rings I can detect
some movement but not as much as the bottom. I have about 62 hours since
the last treatment. I put about 25 cc of seafoam in each cylinder and
turned the prop forcing the seafoam by the rings and between the
cylinder and piston. Looking into the cylinder through the exhaust port
I can see some carbon on the head and around each sparkplug. This time I
am going to let it soak for several days instead of only overnight.
(Recommended by "Seafoam" Burlingame)
Other than the carbon on the head the engine looks extremely clean. The
last time there was some carbon in the exhaust port but none this time.
There was some carbon on the edges of the exhaust manifold gasket. I
will turn the prop every day to flush the seafoam by the rings and
hopefully that will wash out any buildup behind the rings. I now have
205 hours on the engine and have only used seafoam and new plugs.
Someone asked how to put the seafoam in an inverted engine and received
an answer to "turn the plane over." This method works so well on an
inverted engine that maybe those with the upright engine should turn
their plane over when treating. This way the seafoam stays in the area
that you are trying to clean. Also if any is forced completely by the
piston it will run to the back side if the piston crown and not around
the bearings and seals.
I will give you a report in a few days. Later: Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
I have been using LP for several months, all over the FireFly. It's
great for picking up the dust since I can't get to the wash rack too
often. Seems to not do any harm to the Lexan, but be careful of using
anything with ammonia in it on most plastic surfaces. Have replaced
C150/172 windscreens in shop due to using household cleaners. Grey Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler) |
Guess I most have been sleeping, what is the address for Kolb home page
ie. pics?
Thanks
Bob D
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron Christensen" <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com> |
> Sorrell (Hyperlight, Hyperbipe, etc.) make a tail wheel assembly
>that will bolt right up to the Kolb MKIII bracket. I love mine. It is twice
>as wide, and sits a little lower.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
========================
Hi Richard:
Do you know the approximate cost, 'phone number and/or address of Sorrell??
I like the sound of this tail wheel. Thanks in advance - -
Ron Christensen
MKIII 1/2
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
Subject: | Re: Soaring and One Wheel High Speed Taxi |
> The FireStar with it's low aspect
> wing certainly is not any kind of soaring machine,
11.5K altitude gain last year (to 13.5K msl), starting from 1000 msl
to 2000 msl under power and then the rest at idle. Exceptional lift
that day. The odd thing is that this year, even with record heat, the
thermal activity in S. Central Oklahoma has been dismal. I've only
gotten good lift to 6.5k this year and only after the heat wave broke.
Here's a good soaring resource for those that want to know if the
thermal possibilities will be good in your area on any particular day.
Also good for winds aloft. Play with the program and learn to use
the data. Every time it said the thermals were popping, they were.
http://csrp.tamu.edu/soar/for.html
> I have a great respect for glider pilots as every landing they make
are
> forced landings.
Then you ought to love shuttle pilots. Energy management is what
it's all about.
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
> main bearings are
> 6305.or something similar.This is a straight single roller ball bearing. It
> is not really intended to take thrust loads. If you were to buy a 7305
> bearing you would have a bearing of the same physical size but it would have
> a higher thrust rating.
Think it's a 6205 (not sure though). Classed as a radial bearing
(ball contact angle from 0d to 45d) they're rated at approximately
14.0 kN(ewtons) radial and 7.85kN axial. Moving to a 7205 (still
classed as radial) yeilds only a 15.3kN radial and 9.5kN axial.
Most all radial, deep groove bearings without supplementary codes
are 30 degree contact angle. A much better choice would be a
6205BI four-point contact ball. Takes axial load in both directions
at 26.7kN radial and 18.8kN axial, almost double.
(Courtesy KOYO)
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
Subject: | Re: 50 hour check for carbon buildup |
> Well, it's time for my first carbon check, and possible decarbon. I
> wanted to know how others have been approaching the 50 hour inspection.
Approached it, passed it, and haven't looked back. Hirth with 180
hrs, 100:1 oils. Did a borescope thru the plug holes...I can still see
the machine marks on the piston tops.
J. Baker
input to level or correct yaw.
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bob Gross <rpgross(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Soaring, safety and design |
My original FS soars nicely with the engine off. At 40 mph CAS it
sinks at 480 FPM and has an L/D of about 5:1. Don't forget.. the
engine cools quickly and after more than 2 minutes of soarng, the
thing won't relight without use of the choke.
Have fun....
Bob Gross
1987 FS original
Commercial rated glider pilot
==
Captain Robert P. Gross
American Airlines MIA
561-744-8055
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Belt drives and soaring |
>
> My question to those in the group with lots of engine experience is
>how best to transmit power to the prop which is about 10" above the
>crankshaft pto and 15" behind it on something like an inverted 447. If I
>use a separate belt driven shaft with its own separate bearings will it
>need some form of belt tightener.
Seems like I remember John Moody, on one of his Easy Risers, having
the engine in a streamlined fairing behind the pilot, and then a tensioned
belt going up to a prop shaft at least 18" higher. See if you can track him
down?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>
>> Sorrell (Hyperlight, Hyperbipe, etc.) make a tail wheel assembly
>>that will bolt right up to the Kolb MKIII bracket. I love mine. It is twice
>>as wide, and sits a little lower.
>> Richard Pike
>> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>========================
>
>Hi Richard:
>
>Do you know the approximate cost, 'phone number and/or address of Sorrell??
>I like the sound of this tail wheel. Thanks in advance - -
>
>Ron Christensen
>MKIII 1/2
>
> Unfortunately, no. I salvaged mine from a wreck. I know the company
is in the Pacific Northwest somewhere. The only place I found on the web
tonight was this one:
http://www.barnstormers.com/hbhipe00.html
they seem to specialize in Sorrell aircraft for sale. Maybe someone else can
help out?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Bob,
Here it is: http://www.kolbaircraft.com/
John Jung
Robert L Doebler wrote:
>
> Guess I most have been sleeping, what is the address for Kolb home page
> ie. pics?
> Thanks
> Bob D
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Soaring, safety and design |
Bob,
Since you are well qualified, how about teaching us how to calculate L/D. I
must be doing it wrong, because I calculated my original Firestar at 8.8 and I
don't know how to get near 5 out of your numbers.
John Jung
Bob Gross wrote:
>
> My original FS soars nicely with the engine off. At 40 mph CAS it
> sinks at 480 FPM and has an L/D of about 5:1. Don't forget.. the
> engine cools quickly and after more than 2 minutes of soarng, the
> thing won't relight without use of the choke.
>
> Have fun....
>
> Bob Gross
> 1987 FS original
> Commercial rated glider pilot
> ==
> Captain Robert P. Gross
> American Airlines MIA
> 561-744-8055
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Soaring, safety and design |
> To those interested in soaring,
> I like this subject, too. I have tried to soar ultralights with very little
> success. Years ago, I had a Falcon UL and
> more recently with an origianl Firestar. The problem that think I had was
> turning tight enough to stay in the thermal
> without giving up too much lift because of the turn. I thought that glider
> pilots must really be skilled. Last year I took
> an introductory ride in a glider.I had no problem. I just flew over a large
> parking lot and started to turn. If I lost the
> lift, I turned the other way or just hunted for it. I was still gaining
> altitude when my time ran out and we flew bact to
> the airport. The thing that I noticed about the glider is how tight it could
> turn without much sink. Maybe a"real glider
> pilot" would comment on this. If a glider half the sink rate of an ultralight,
> will it have less than half in a turn?
> John Jung
> Firestar II N6163J 67.5 hrs
> SE Wisconsin
> P.S. If you are wondering why I haven't tried to soar my Firestar II, it's
> because I can't restart it in flight and while it
> has the same L/D of the original, it does it at 50 mph insted of 40.
> .
> .
> Mike Ransom wrote:
> snip...
>
> 2) Tight turning ratio: My understanding is that one of the big design
> parameters for a glider is that they *are* capable of tight turns.
>
> snip...
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "P. Smithers" <donaho(at)csrlink.net> |
Hellow to the collective,
I just signed on last week and already can`t wait to get home from work
to
check my e-mail.
I started flying a Paraplane in 1983.(OK you can stop laughing now) bought
an MX in 1990 flew it for 114 hrs. then in 1997 I built a Firestar II and
made the transion from two axis to three axis. I only have 14 hrs. on the
firestar because I am still waiting for almost calm conditions to fly. And
it seems half the time it is nice I have family commitments.
Now to the Lexon part, I had a windshield on the MX for years and a full
encloser on the Firestar II and have always used a product called RAIN-X
with great results. You can find it most Dept. and auto parts stores.
I would also like to say Hi to John Houk, we met at Ultraflight in N.Y.
in
1988 during my Paraplane days.You and the way you flew your Firestar were
part of the reason I bought a Kolb.
You probably won`t hear too much from me because my typing skills are just
as new as my three axis skills.
OH! I wanted to mention that there is a picture of my aircraft in the
Completions column of the September issue of Kitplanes.
Lanny Fetterman
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "P. Smithers" <donaho(at)csrlink.net> |
Hellow to the collective,
I just signed on last week and already can`t wait to get home from work
to
check my e-mail.
I started flying a Paraplane in 1983.(OK you can stop laughing now) bought
an MX in 1990 flew it for 114 hrs. then in 1997 I built a Firestar II and
made the transion from two axis to three axis. I only have 14 hrs. on the
firestar because I am still waiting for almost calm conditions to fly. And
it seems half the time it is nice I have family commitments.
Now to the Lexon part, I had a windshield on the MX for years and a full
encloser on the Firestar II and have always used a product called RAIN-X
with great results. You can find it most Dept. and auto parts stores.
I would also like to say Hi to John Houk, we met at Ultraflight in N.Y.
in
1988 during my Paraplane days.You and the way you flew your Firestar were
part of the reason I bought a Kolb.
You probably won`t hear too much from me because my typing skills are just
as new as my three axis skills.
OH! I wanted to mention that there is a picture of my aircraft in the
Completions column of the September issue of Kitplanes.
Lanny Fetterman
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: seeking knowledge |
Rube
I have had the same resturant expearence. I believe dollar value is what we
are looking for and a $5 buffet may be filling but may not be a value. That
applies to everything. I have 35 hours in a 150 and fly at every opertunity. I
have a USUA ultralight pilot certificate fly a quicksilver at every opertunity
and am building a Kolb Firestar. I find general aviation aircraft are doggy
performers compared to most amature built planes but you could find out for
your self. Seek out an ultralight instructor and take lessons in the one that
appeals to you most a Klob Mk III would be a good choice. If you have no one
near you you might think about a trip to Arlington, Oshkosh or Sun N Fun and
try something there. A trip like that will take a few hundred dollars but it
would be a lot of fun and would be a conservative approach before spending
your hard earned cash and labor on an airplane.
I was at the decision stage you are in two years ago. I bought every
magazine I could find and started the process of elemination. When I was down
to six choices I went to Sun N Fun. Kolb was not the first one on my list but
they won me over with out trying. The Firestar fits my personal preferences in
an airplane and the Kolb people are great. If you get a chance to fly in the
company Mk III I think you will probably agree with my choice.
Hope this helps, good luck
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "CHRISTOPHER DAVIS" <cdavis2(at)capecod.net> |
Subject: | Re: Belt drives and soaring |
Hi Richard and all , I am in the process of installing a GPL electric start
on my 503in hopes of doing some soaring and easing the resterrt process.
Problem is I have a "balancemaster" fan belt pulley on the enginer and
really don't want to take it off! Has anyone had any experence with this
situation? it seems thaty the spacer between the ring gear and the fan belt
pulley was an eighth of an inch too thick. I spoke to Gary at GPL and he
said he would machine down and send it to me ,no charge just send back the
old one .He said he would send it priority mail . well 7days later UPS
ground it arrived it was an eighth of an inch thicker, so I took the
original spacer to my local machine shop and they removed an eighth of an
inch, now the distance is correct but it won't go together because the
outside rim of the balancemaster hits the ring gear! GPL says they have had
customers use thier starter on engines with balancemasters installed ,but
I'm not sure that was the whole truth sorry If I run on but Iv'e been
beating my Head against this $600 starter fo a week . Any help would be
appreciated Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 12:38 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Belt drives and soaring
>
>>
>
>> My question to those in the group with lots of engine experience is
>>how best to transmit power to the prop which is about 10" above the
>>crankshaft pto and 15" behind it on something like an inverted 447. If I
>>use a separate belt driven shaft with its own separate bearings will it
>>need some form of belt tightener.
>
> Seems like I remember John Moody, on one of his Easy Risers, having
>the engine in a streamlined fairing behind the pilot, and then a tensioned
>belt going up to a prop shaft at least 18" higher. See if you can track him
>down?
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bob Gross <rpgross(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Soaring, safety and design |
Hi John,
I made a typo and should have put 7:1 but here is how I get it.
Min sink is 40 mph CAS (1.3 Vs) or 58.666 feet per second
Sink rate is aobut 500 FPM or 8.3 Feet per second
58.66/8.3 gives about 7:1 L/D
I'm curious what data you used for 8.8:1...always learning you know.
BTW, John, as you are one of the most experienced 377 guys around, I
finally straightend out all my performance problems except for the low
EGT.
I bought a "tiny tach" and promptly found out that my old tach was
indicating 1200 RPM low!!!
A quick repitch and now my little FS hauls ass! Getting 850 FPM with
my 185 lb body on a hot day.
Cruise at 55 MPH with 5600 RPM at about 2.5 GPH with a 3 blade IVO.
I was shocked at how much more fuel I was burning at the lower RPM. I
was burning over 3.2 GPM at a very low cruise speed of 45. With the
old tach indicating 5200 RPM it was actually turning slightly more
than 4000 RPM.
Got a new EGT probe but still have low 800 F readings with pretty
white plugs. Checked the guage per westbergs millivolt vs temp table
and it checks out fine. Temps used to run 1050 or so 25 hrs ago. Can't
seem to figure it out.
suggestions??
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bob Gross <rpgross(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Soaring, safety and design |
Hi John,
I made a typo and should have put 7:1 but here is how I get it.
Min sink is 40 mph CAS (1.3 Vs) or 58.666 feet per second
Sink rate is aobut 500 FPM or 8.3 Feet per second
58.66/8.3 gives about 7:1 L/D
I'm curious what data you used for 8.8:1...always learning you know.
BTW, John, as you are one of the most experienced 377 guys around, I
finally straightend out all my performance problems except for the low
EGT.
I bought a "tiny tach" and promptly found out that my old tach was
indicating 1200 RPM low!!!
A quick repitch and now my little FS hauls ass! Getting 850 FPM with
my 185 lb body on a hot day.
Cruise at 55 MPH with 5600 RPM at about 2.5 GPH with a 3 blade IVO.
I was shocked at how much more fuel I was burning at the lower RPM. I
was burning over 3.2 GPM at a very low cruise speed of 45. With the
old tach indicating 5200 RPM it was actually turning slightly more
than 4000 RPM.
Got a new EGT probe but still have low 800 F readings with pretty
white plugs. Checked the guage per westbergs millivolt vs temp table
and it checks out fine. Temps used to run 1050 or so 25 hrs ago. Can't
seem to figure it out.
suggestions??
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
Subject: | Randy Simpson's Titanium Tiedowns... |
Listers,
Last week I took delivery of a set of Randy Simpson (aka Airtime Mfg.)
Titanimum Aircraft Tiedowns. I received the complete Kit including the
3 heavy duty tie downs, 8' ropes, and 'cheater bar'. The carrying case
is currently on back order.
The set comes in a really tight UPS shipping box. All four of the titanium
pieces come "screwed together" forming a very manageable cluster that
should store easially just about anywhere. Disassembling and reassembling
the cluster takes some practice and is similar to one of those 'wire puzzles'.
Once you figure out the technique its really quite simple and fast. If
you're having problems, ask your 10 year old, he'll likely be able to show
you on the first try! :-)
Workmanship on the whole package is excellent. They are truely a work of
art. The complete set including the rope and cheater bar weighs in
at 1 lbs, 15 oz. An amount I'd consider very reasonable considering the
holding power and cost of what you'll be trying to 'hold down'.
The List price on the set that I have is $100 and I'd consider that an
*excellent* value. Better yet, Listers receive an additional $10 off and
Randy pays UPS Ground shipping.
Randy accepts both personal checks as well as Credit Card orders. His
mailing address is:
Airtime Mfg.
29091 Sheephead Rd.
Brownsville, OR 97327
(541) 466-3563
e-mail: airtime(at)proaxis.com
web: http://www.airtimemfg.com/
If you been considering a set of tie downs for your plane, these are
definately the ones for you. Randy has done an excellent job.
Matt Dralle
RV-4 Builder, #1763
RV, Kolb, and Zenith List Admin.
[Note: This was a independent review of Airtime Mfg Titanium Tiedowns.
Matt Dralle is in no way connected with Randy Simpson or Airtime Mfg.
The opinions expressed in this review are exclusivly those of Matt Dralle.]
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Subject: | VHF Rubber Ducky Ant. Test |
Sometime ago I promised to evaluate a Radio Shack Rubber Ducky antenna.
Looked in their catalong and called on the Dingwah. Lady said yes the
ant. on pg 68 had a BNC connector, so ordered it. I think this was the
one someone on the list had said was ok for VHF radios, cost about $10.
It came. No BNC, and appeared to be a loaded whip for Citizens Band. The
so-called connector was a set screw to go over the broken stub on some
handheld. Didn't even try it as I'm abt 30-40 yrs past cobbing things
together.
Went to pg 60 to see abt replacement ant for a 144mc ham handheld. It
fer sure had a BNC, but cost abt $29! Ordered it. Came today. Compared
to Rubber Ducky on my Icom A22: it is 6.5" vs. 7.5 for the Icom
(naturally, the Icom works abt 20 mc lower), not quite as flexible,
doesn't have the rubber shielding around base BNC. Now for a very rough
"measure" of ant. gain.
We have a VorTac abt 21nm away at an elevation difference of abt 2000'
which is barely audible on the Icom and sporadically shows a bearing on
the CDIwith Icom ant. The Radio Shack ant still barely brings in the
audio, but only occasionally gives a bearing. I reckon between 2 and 3
dB worse.
The reason I'm going to use it is that I can unplug it from belly of FF
and use it as spare for Icom, and vv. It's so short it won't catch many
weeds or grass, and flexible too.
Using the shielded plug covers helped a great deal, BUT a story:
The shield looked like the bottom edges would pinch the EGT wires, so I
removed the spring thing around the bottom and filed a round notch for
the wire. Everything back, and tried to get warmed up. Bad idle, 1/3
throttle barely gave 2000rpm, and much jolting of engine. Taxied to new
hangar (a real outhouse for birds) and could barely make it. At shut
down I felt rear plugstone cold!!The cover had jumped up without the
spring band.
At least I didn't try a "full" throttle TO.
Grey Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Subject: | Rubber Ducky Ant. test |
Two erratums, or better errata:
1) I really meant CHT when I wrote EGT!
2) The RS PN for the BNC-based ant, is A0019, replacement for the 144mc
Ham Handheld.
GB
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler) |
To Ron Carroll:
In answer to your question: My F/S II is the red one with the WWI
iron-cross on the wings, and the trailer that is mine, is the black one.
(it has the wing tip cradles on the front).
These cradles use "quick pins",to facilitate loading/unloading. The
cradles completely surround both wings and lock them in place.
Also, I have a metal pipe/bracket assembly that swings up under the
motor/rear carry thru assmembly, that supports the weight of the motor.
This helps reduce the amount of tail-boom flexing caused by trailering.
Pics are at //members.aol.com/GuillermoU/BobsFS.html and
at Will Urbe's page at //members.aol.com/WillU/index.html
Bob Doebler
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
Subject: | Re: Randy Simpson's Titanium Tiedowns... |
I also have a set of Randy's tie-downs. Excellent Quality! Super light
weight! The strength of Titanium!
Of course I'm prejudiced because Randy is the President of my ultralight
club in Albany, Oregon, and is an outstanding young man with a quality
product. Not surprisingly, most of Randy's business is from RV owners
(Van's Aircraft, not motorhomes).
Ron Carroll
Original Firestar
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Dralle 925-606-1001 <dralle(at)matronics.com>
; kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Saturday September 19 1998 12:07 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Randy Simpson's Titanium Tiedowns...
925-606-1001)
>
>
>Listers,
>
>Last week I took delivery of a set of Randy Simpson (aka Airtime Mfg.)
>Titanium Aircraft Tiedowns. I received the complete Kit including the
>3 heavy duty tie downs, 8' ropes, and 'cheater bar'. The carrying case
>is currently on back order.
>
>The set comes in a really tight UPS shipping box. All four of the titanium
>pieces come "screwed together" forming a very manageable cluster that
>should store easily just about anywhere. Disassembling and reassembling
>the cluster takes some practice and is similar to one of those 'wire
puzzles'.
>Once you figure out the technique its really quite simple and fast. If
>you're having problems, ask your 10 year old, he'll likely be able to show
>you on the first try! :-)
>
>Workmanship on the whole package is excellent. They are truly a work of
>art. The complete set including the rope and cheater bar weighs in
>at 1 lbs, 15 oz. An amount I'd consider very reasonable considering the
>holding power and cost of what you'll be trying to 'hold down'.
>
>The List price on the set that I have is $100 and I'd consider that an
>*excellent* value. Better yet, Listers receive an additional $10 off and
>Randy pays UPS Ground shipping.
>
>Randy accepts both personal checks as well as Credit Card orders. His
>mailing address is:
>
>
> Airtime Mfg.
> 29091 Sheephead Rd.
> Brownsville, OR 97327
> (541) 466-3563
>
> e-mail: airtime(at)proaxis.com
> web: http://www.airtimemfg.com/
>
>
>If you been considering a set of tie downs for your plane, these are
>definitely the ones for you. Randy has done an excellent job.
>
>Matt Dralle
>RV-4 Builder, #1763
>RV, Kolb, and Zenith List Admin.
>
>
>[Note: This was a independent review of Airtime Mfg Titanium Tiedowns.
>Matt Dralle is in no way connected with Randy Simpson or Airtime Mfg.
>The opinions expressed in this review are exclusivly those of Matt Dralle.]
>
>
>--
>
>Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
>925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
>http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
>Think it's a 6205 (not sure though). Classed as a radial bearing
>(ball contact angle from 0d to 45d) they're rated at approximately
>14.0 kN(ewtons) radial and 7.85kN axial. Moving to a 7205 (still
>classed as radial) yeilds only a 15.3kN radial and 9.5kN axial.
>Most all radial, deep groove bearings without supplementary codes
>are 30 degree contact angle. A much better choice would be a
>6205BI four-point contact ball. Takes axial load in both directions
>at 26.7kN radial and 18.8kN axial, almost double.
>
Is it the same physical size?
Woody
Some men are able to stumble over the truth but are able to pick
themselves up and keep walking as if nothing had happened. (Churchill)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | William Weber <bweber2(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Lexan Polishing |
Todd Thompson wrote:
>
>
> I've been using Pledge to clean and polish the lexan. Anybody got something
better?
Most of us bikers use a product called Mirror Glaze. It polishes and is
also supposed to remove tiny scratches. You should be able to find it at
most any motorcycle shop. I have also seen it at auto parts stores.
--
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* Voiceboard Corp * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Kolb web address |
From: | bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler) |
Thanks to everyone who responded with Kolb's web page address.
Bob d
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
> >Think it's a 6205 (not sure though). Classed as a radial bearing
> >(ball contact angle from 0d to 45d) they're rated at approximately
> >14.0 kN(ewtons) radial and 7.85kN axial. Moving to a 7205 (still
> >classed as radial) yeilds only a 15.3kN radial and 9.5kN axial.
> >Most all radial, deep groove bearings without supplementary codes
> >are 30 degree contact angle. A much better choice would be a
> >6205BI four-point contact ball. Takes axial load in both directions
> >at 26.7kN radial and 18.8kN axial, almost double.
> >
>
>
> Is it the same physical size?
> Woody
Well of course it is! Just pullin' yer leg... ; )
Bearings of the same numerical series are the same size. There
are three boundry dimensions: OD, ID and width. For the 6205 the
are a lot of letter and number prefixes/suffixes that identify bearing
class fit (tolerance), seal type, ball/race contact angle, cage type,
matched pair identification, race type (tapered, cylindrical,etc),
bore retention features, etc. You sort of have to know what you're
looking for and what it can do for (or to) you.
Now the 7205 happens to fall into a class of bearing called an
angular contact class. These are designed to handle more axial
loading but may give up some high speed attributes as the
ball/race contact angle increases. But not to worry. Within the
normal operating parameters our engines face they are all well
under limiting speeds. A 7205 shares all the same attributes as the
6205 in terms of boundry dimensions.
But before anybody comes unwrapped let's look at the kN figures I
quoted. Let's put them into pounds (force). The radial force of
14.0kN is 3,147.3 pounds. You'd have to have a really out of
balance prop to approach those figures. And the axial 7.85kN
equates to 1,764.7 pounds. If you can come anywhere close to
that much thrust load, let me know.
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Subject: | Re: Lexan Polishing |
MirrorGlaize comes in several strengths of abrasiveness. Read the label.
Old FAA mech Grey Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | kmead(at)up.net (Kent kathy Mead) |
Hi All
I have a question for all you IVO users. I am thinking of retiring my old
Culver 66X28 wood prop and would like to know if I should get a two or three
balde IVO. I am running a 377 on an original firestar. If I get a two blade
I guess a 66 in. would be right, would a three blade be 66 in. also? I need
the pros and cons. Thanks in advance.
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | kmead(at)up.net (Kent kathy Mead) |
Hi All again;
This is the most I have talk on line in a long time! One more question. To
get rid of my radio static I went to resistor plugs, metal plug caps and
used metal sheilding on all the wiring. Seems to work well now. The only
problem I have is my idle has went from 2000 rpm to 1500 rpmn and rough. I
tried different plugs, made no difference. The engine runs fine above idle
but you have to feed it in real slow or it just spits and spudders. Anyone
have any ideas?
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
Subject: | Re: VHF Rubber Ducky Ant. Test |
>We have a VorTac abt 21nm away at an elevation difference of abt 2000'
>which is barely audible on the Icom and sporadically shows a bearing on
>the CDIwith Icom ant. The Radio Shack ant still barely brings in the
>audio, but only occasionally gives a bearing. I reckon between 2 and 3
>dB worse.
If you wish to use the antenna for VOR navigation, try horizontal
polarization.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Subject: | Re: VHF Rubber Ducky Ant. Test |
Yes, Skip, I'm familiar with polarizations, V, H, circular (L & R) but
as they say in Philly, irregardless, the RS ant was abt 2-3dB worseno
matter what the ant. positionswhich were both the same during the
crude tests.
GB, pondering the relative merits of base-inductor antenna stretching
vs.top hat capacitive stretching.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Kent,
I switched to an IVO prop on my 377 after the Culver served me for a
number of years. First I tried the 3-blade 66" and I couldn't get beyond
6000 rpm out of it. Then I noticed it was harder to start. After reading
Mike Stratman's (CPS "Care and Feeding of the Rotax Engine" ) article on
props, I saw the 3-blade was on the limit for the "A" gearbox that I had
at the time. I went to the 2-blade and have used it ever since. Now that
I have the 447, I could go with the 3-blade but I think I'll stick with
the 2-blade since the performance is good. IVO states that a 2-blade will
give a better cruise performance, however, the 3-blade will be smoother
running.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
writes:
>
> Hi All
>I have a question for all you IVO users. I am thinking of retiring my
>old Culver 66X28 wood prop and would like to know if I should get a two
or
>three balde IVO. I am running a 377 on an original firestar. If I get a
two
>blade I guess a 66 in. would be right, would a three blade be 66 in.
also? I
>need pros and cons. Thanks in advance.
>Kent
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>
> Hi All
>I have a question for all you IVO users. I am thinking of retiring my old
>Culver 66X28 wood prop and would like to know if I should get a two or three
>balde IVO. I am running a 377 on an original firestar. If I get a two blade
>I guess a 66 in. would be right, would a three blade be 66 in. also? I need
>the pros and cons. Thanks in advance.
>Kent
>
> If it helps you make a choice, I have an Ivo 64" 3-blade for my
MKIII, Rotax 532. The 3-blade requires minimal pitch, turns up at 6600 rpm
at 62 mph. If I crank in more pitch, the 532 won't turn up enough static to
do right. So I am using it as a 2-blade. It is a great cruise prop, but a
little too short for best climb.
The 3-blade is quieter and smoother, the 2-blade gives a better
speed range.
the required static rpm, and that will give you a better cruise; faster
speed, lower rpm.
The same length of prop as a 3-blade will require a lot less pitch
(there is an extra blade loading the engine down) to turn the required
static rpm, and may run out of pitch at higher cruise rpm's. But it will
climb better.
Low pitch prop=climb prop, high pitch prop=cruise prop. (gross
generalization)
BTW, I do have my 64"3-blade for sale...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
Kent,
Anyone
>have any ideas?
I think you are loosing some spark somewhere (resistor plugs don't give as
hot a spark as standard ones) and/or possibly you have a short to a plug. I
shielded my wires and changed to resistor plugs but didn't use the metal
caps. So far the engine runs the same as before. BTW, it also helped my
radio too. Have you checked to see if any one plug is fouled from not firing?
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 (50.5 hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Vince Nicely" <vincenicely(at)intermediatn.net> |
Hi Ron,
You asked:
>>Do you know the approximate cost, 'phone number and/or address of
Sorrell??
>>I like the sound of this tail wheel. Thanks in advance - -
>>
>>Ron Christensen
>>MKIII 1/2
I just happened to notice the caption on a picture in the Sept. sport
Aviation, p60, that shows a Hiperlight and says it is now sold by Sunrise
Aircraft Corp of Sheridan, Oregan (phone 503/843-3616).
Hope this helps. I don't know that it is what you are seeking, but it
sounds similar. It mentions that it is the origional Sorrell design
Vince
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: tail wheel
>
>
>>
>>> Sorrell (Hyperlight, Hyperbipe, etc.) make a tail wheel assembly
>>>that will bolt right up to the Kolb MKIII bracket. I love mine. It is
twice
>>>as wide, and sits a little lower.
>>> Richard Pike
>>> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>>========================
>>
>>Hi Richard:
>>
>>Do you know the approximate cost, 'phone number and/or address of
Sorrell??
>>I like the sound of this tail wheel. Thanks in advance - -
>>
>>Ron Christensen
>>MKIII 1/2
>>
>> Unfortunately, no. I salvaged mine from a wreck. I know the company
>is in the Pacific Northwest somewhere. The only place I found on the web
>tonight was this one:
> http://www.barnstormers.com/hbhipe00.html
>they seem to specialize in Sorrell aircraft for sale. Maybe someone else
can
>help out?
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Russell Duffy" <rv8(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Fw: Rotax 582 FWF for sale |
Just passing along a message I found in one of the newsgroups in case someone is
interested.
Russell Duffy
Navarre, FL
RV-8 (Mazda Powered), sn-80587 (tanks)
Kolb SlingShot project for sale
-----Original Message-----
From: Blake Harral <bharral(at)home.com>
Date: Sunday, September 20, 1998 1:40 AM
Subject: Rotax 582 FWF for sale
>A friend of mine has acquired a Murphy Renegade Biplane that has
>been flown just a few hours since construction was completed.
>My friend is an A&P/IA, but not a two stroke person, so he is planning
>to re-engine the aircraft.
>
>I think this engine is the Rotax 582. Probably less than 20 hrs
>total time. It has a gearbox, but neither he or I are sure which
>model (it has an electric start - does that make it the 'E' gearbox?).
>Frankly, neither of us know much about Rotax engines, but I'm sure the
>exact details can be determined in cooperation with interested parties.
>
>He wants to sell the engine firewall forward, including wood prop,
>cowl, radiator, and engine gages. My Aircraft Spruce Catalog shows
>new price for 582 with electric start at $5100. Wood props for this
>engine look to be in the $200 to $300 range. Cowl, radiator, gauges,
>your guess is as good as mine.
>
>We don't know what this package is worth, but we are thinking
>a fair price would be 70% of the new prices as advertised by
>Aircraft Spruce or other national dealers.
>
>The engine is located in Phoenix, AZ (DVT). You can contact my
>friend Pat Battle @602 274-2434. (BTW, he is looking for a
>crankshaft for a Continental 65). He does not have net access,
>but I will respond to email inquiries for additional information.
>Bear in mind that I don't have much additional information!
>(Can anybody tell me how to determine by inspection the exact
>engine and gearbox models - stamped on the cases perhaps?)
>
> Blake Harral
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "A. J. Vann" <redhill(at)rose.net> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb search engine & useful Kolb information |
John wrote:
>
> It occured to me that some users may wish to have bookmarks for the search engine
to check out all old messages on various subjects as well as our homepage
and Kolb's Factory homepage.
Three bookmarks are:
>
> Kolb factory homepage:= http://www.kolb.com/
>
> Kolb Chat homepage for this group: http://matronics.com/kolb-list/index.html
>
> Kolb search Page for searching messages by subject or content.
> http://matronics.com/cgi-bin/searching/ws_script_short.cgi
The search page includes messages for RV & Zenith & Kolb messages. You
must choose which group you wish to search & how you wish the output to
look on the next line. Works great for those of you who haven't tried
the search engine yet.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
>
>But before anybody comes unwrapped let's look at the kN figures I
>quoted. Let's put them into pounds (force). The radial force of
>14.0kN is 3,147.3 pounds. You'd have to have a really out of
>balance prop to approach those figures. And the axial 7.85kN
>equates to 1,764.7 pounds. If you can come anywhere close to
>that much thrust load, let me know.
>
You lost me a bit. Is it the same thickness? My concern is that I have
seen 3 gearboxes with the 6205 lose its bearings and my belt drive had a
little tick in the bearings after only 20 Hrs. I had the room to install a
double row roller bearing in mine but the gear boxes are somewhat limited
for size. The gyroscopic forces are what I believe is doing in these
bearings.I may be wrong but thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Woody
Some men are able to stumble over the truth but are able to pick
themselves up and keep walking as if nothing had happened. (Churchill)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Kent,
I have a three blade on my 503 and it had to be cut shorter to improve
cruise. Go for the two blade on a 377.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J 72 hrs
SE Wisconsin
Kent kathy Mead wrote:
>
> Hi All
> I have a question for all you IVO users. I am thinking of retiring my old
> Culver 66X28 wood prop and would like to know if I should get a two or three
> balde IVO. I am running a 377 on an original firestar. If I get a two blade
> I guess a 66 in. would be right, would a three blade be 66 in. also? I need
> the pros and cons. Thanks in advance.
> Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Soaring, safety and design |
Bob,
As for sink, the original Firestar that I sold this year had a power off sink
rate of 400 fpm at 40 mph. (I weigh 165 pounds) I have a digital vario and I
tested the plane many times. The best test was last year when I shut the engine
off at 17,000 ASL. The plane held steady at that speed and sink all the way down
to the cumulus clouds at 7000 ASL. I haven't tried my Firestar II 503 with the
engine off yet, but at full idle it sinks at about 500 fpm at 50, which turns out
to be 8.8 L/D also. Also my airspeeds are corrected from indicated readings by
using a GPS. The one thing that I haven't considered is; What about airspeed
error because of altitude. I never tested it above 10,000 feet. I'll have to do
some reading or testing.
On the temperature thing, you have already tried my ideas.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J 72 hrs
SE Wisconsin
Bob Gross wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> I made a typo and should have put 7:1 but here is how I get it.
> Min sink is 40 mph CAS (1.3 Vs) or 58.666 feet per second
> Sink rate is aobut 500 FPM or 8.3 Feet per second
> 58.66/8.3 gives about 7:1 L/D
> I'm curious what data you used for 8.8:1...always learning you know.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Flying Without Gap Cover (Mike Ransom Safety Lecture) |
Mike missed the point. One of the main objectives of this list is to exchange
info on possible dangers in flying Kolb products. My posting was a warning
that flying without a gap cover is not practical. This is my third Kolb and I
personally conducted the test programs on all three. If you want to avoid all
risks I suggest that you stay in bed (alone). Duane Mitchell
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: (no GPS) how accurate |
Well I used to do real navigation on my cross countries, but I've been
to every place around here and now just fly without all that navigation
worry wort stuff. I admit that should I be tempted to push the range
envelope I would make an airspeed check while enroute, but it is easier
and more fun to pick a new airport along the route, land and refuel,
than to mess with all the math. I spent my early life as an Air Force
navigator and find map reading (i.e. watching the country go by) more
fun than watching numbers go by.
Ben Ransom wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Allan Blackburn wrote:
> > The only thing that seems out the the ordinary is the 3.2 GPH. I get
> > more like 1.9 GPH with the 377. I also get 47 mph at 5200 RPM, but have
> > no idea (read no GPS) how accurate that is.
>
> Here I am taking the navigation pulpit again...
>
> For my 1st 2.5 years of FS ownership I had no GPS, yet also knew my
> airspeed indicator (ASI) was dead-on accurate at cruise. To do any real
> XC at all, you gotta have some idea of how close or far off your ASI is,
> and a GPS is not at all necessary. Try flying somewhere in a straight
> line a known distance away at 60mph indicated. If the sectional says
> it is 10 miles away and it takes you 10min to get there, you can from
> then on fly with no calculator and leave your mittens and shoes on (but
> do bring a watch). Also, you can keep a pretty close idea of headwind,
> tailwind, etc by several very low tech methods.
>
> Sorry if I seem all whomped up over this, but if you average R=D/T
> from just a few flights you'll have every bit as good or better an ASI
> calibration than somebody checking one afternoon using a GPS.
>
> -Ben Ransom
>
--
traderawb(at)home.com/\s /\s /\s Commodity Speculator /\s /
/\ /\s / \ / \ / \ /\/\s /\s / \ /
/ \ / \ / \/ \ / \ /\ / \ / \ / \ /
/ \/ \ / b \/b \/ \/b \/b \/b \/b
/b b \/b allan_w_blackburn(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb Flying??? |
John:
You make a pretty airplane and now it seems like you fly one too.
--
traderawb(at)home.com/\s /\s /\s Commodity Speculator /\s /
/\ /\s / \ / \ / \ /\/\s /\s / \ /
/ \ / \ / \/ \ / \ /\ / \ / \ / \ /
/ \/ \ / b \/b \/ \/b \/b \/b \/b
/b b \/b allan_w_blackburn(at)bigfoot.com
john hauck wrote:
>
>
> Hey Guys:
>
> Rut Fuller said something about everybody's Kolbs flew differently, even
> though most were the same. I think maybe it is a lot of pilots on this
> list fly differently, perceive their acft performance differently, and
> eng performance differently. Therefore, when some newby has a question,
> everybody jumps in with their opinion on how to deal with the newby's
> problem.
>
> The last several days I have heard all kinds of techniques to overcome
> turbulence, fuel burn (what it should and shouldn't be), approach
> speeds, heavy ailerons, etc.
>
> Glad I'm not new to Kolbs or I might really get confused. I've got a
> little time in Ultrastars, "Original" Firestars, MK IIIs, Sling Shot,
> "Unoriginal" Firestars (KXP and II), and some time in most single rotor
> Army helicopters. I think most of you guys would love to fly rotary
> wing aircraft, especially those with hydraulics, or even automatic
> stabilization control. Stick forces are negligible and one only thinks
> to control with very little cyclic (stick) movement. The "sling wings"
> do not react to violent heavy weather as little ultralights, and big
> ultralights do.
>
> But ya know, it's personalities that make this list, ultralight and
> experimental aircraft building, and flying what it is. We have
> tremendous freedom to enjoy our sport, more than any country on earth.
> We can design, redesign, build, and rebuild our little airplanes any way
> we want, almost without restriction. In a single place UL if we bust
> our ass, we have no one to blame but ourselves, and probably have hurt
> no one but ourselves. Course when we start hauling passengers, then
> that is another story. All the sudden we are responsible for someone
> else's life.
>
> I know I don't fly like most of you all. I always takeoff full
> throttle, normally fly at the same rpm that makes me, the eng and acft
> happy, usually 5800 to 6000 rpm in the two strokes, and 5000 to 5200 in
> the 912. All the Kolbs I have flown get heavy ailerons above 60 mph
> except the Sling Shot, and guess what, it is the only Kolb (except the
> Laser) that has little ailerons. If you have big ailerons, and I
> consider the ailerons on my MK III big (even though they are somewhat
> smaller than stock), and get over 50 or 60 mph, they are going to load
> up. Kolb's are tremendous STOL acft, not super roll rate aerobatic
> acft. Like Homer Kolb told me a long time ago when I first started
> flying his airplanes, 1984, just be gentle with it and it will do what
> you want it to. With those big ole ailerons at higher speeds, all it
> takes is a gentle nugging to make the acft do what you want it to.
> Attaching spades would lighten the lateral force required for a short
> time, then you probably would not have to worry about heavy ailerons,
> cause they would not survive the overload. A gentleman by the name of
> Aubrey Radford tried spades on his original Firestar and died in 1990,
> when the kevlar bridal on his balistic chute was severed after full
> canopy. I like to let the airplane fly the way it wants to fly in
> turbulence, sort of the way a boat rides on rough water. I can't expect
> to make a Kolb fly perfectly straight and level in heavy turbulence. It
> just won't do it. I think it was Grey Baron that said that he never
> knew of an airplane being inverted by turbulence while flying. Me
> either. Same with trying to maintain altitude while XC'ing in turbulent
> wind.. Usually if you just let the airplane fly, if you lose altitude
> in a moment it will hit an updraft and you will gain it back, and
> vice-versa. I am not afraid to turn my Kolb at low altitude and it does
> not require VNE speeds to be safe and turn at low altitude. What are
> you going to do to maneuver into a very, very small emergency landing
> area with obstructions (high) on all four sides, if you can't slow the
> airplane down close to stall and do some major maneuvereing???? These
> little airplanes fly super good, have no bad habits that I have been
> able to find in the last 14 years, and don't stall and fall out of the
> sky unless you don't watch your airspeed. I used to try and demonstrate
> accelerated stalls to passengers at Sun and Fun in the factory MK III,
> with little success, unless I had a really big heavy weight on a super
> hot day. I usually carry 10 mph over the stall on really rough days on
> final approach so I don't get caught short if the wind should decide to
> stop blowing for me. I safely get away flying the Sling Shot at Sun and
> Fun with the most confused, violent wind one will normally ever have to
> contend with, caused by 15 to 20 mph cross winds, prop wash from the
> aircraft that took off in front of you, and usually hold 10 mph over
> stall, safely. I don't usually increase speed over cruise speed on
> final, normally just the opposite.
>
> Everybody fly the way you want to, enjoy it, share it with us, maybe we
> can all learn from each other's experiences. But fly safely.
>
> john h
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: seeking knowledge |
Two place ultralights(?) do not fly the same as single place
ultralights. In my opinion they do not fly like ultralights, but more
like under powered GA. (Sadly I include the two place Kolbs in this
category.) This is not to say they don't fly well, just not as peppy and
light on the controls as the single place versions, but they do carry
passengers. Can't have everything.
Everything I've heard says the 150 is a great little plane, not quite
the plane the 172 is, buy it flies fine and will probably appreciate in
value over the years.
But two place experimentals can range from under to over powered, from
slow to very fast so it is hard to give you guidance in that area.
--
traderawb(at)home.com/\s /\s /\s Commodity Speculator /\s /
/\ /\s / \ / \ / \ /\/\s /\s / \ /
/ \ / \ / \/ \ / \ /\ / \ / \ / \ /
/ \/ \ / b \/b \/ \/b \/b \/b \/b
/b b \/b allan_w_blackburn(at)bigfoot.com
Gary Ruebeling wrote:
>
>
> Group,
> About a year and a half ago I got interested in aviation and wanted to
> build and fly an U/L. When I received my info paket from Kolb and showed
> a picture of the Fire Fly to my loving wife, she wanted to know where
> she was going to sit. Right then I decided to sign up for ground school
> and take flight lessons; now I have my private ticket and would like to
> own an a/c.
> I currently have 70 hrs in a 172 with no tail dragger time. I have the
> opportunity to purchase a 150 for about the same money as a Mark III,
> but I realize that the big expence in aviation is not the license, but
> owning the aircraft; especially here in N. Idaho where a hanger is a
> must.
> So now I am ready to build a two seat a/c.
> I am seeking opinions from any of you folks who know both G/A and U/L.
> Is it really as exciting and fun as I have read or is it just cheaper. I
> have heard some really strong recommendations on "good restaurants" and
> went there only to find out that it was on of those "all you can eat for
> 5 bucks" places. The food"s not worth a damn, but it sure is cheap.
> Please help. Feel free to E-Mail me personally. Most of the subscribers
> to this list obviously are already kolb owners, and probably aren't very
> interested in this non-tech problem. Thank You.
>
> Gary (Rube) Ruebeling
> Bonners Ferry, ID
> grube(at)dmi.net
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: help 377 operators! |
Rutledge Fuller wrote:
>
>
> OK Allan,
>
> Here is what I ment. I thought you all were mind readers. "anything
> less than 5500 rpm, will cause it to fall on it's face with even the
> slightest pitch or direction changes" I was refering to rpm's not
> airspeed. Anything that puts a greater load on the engine at less than
> 5500 rpm causes MY rpms drop. As we all know, rpm's control altitude
> and pitch controls airspeed.
>
> Hope this clears my past post up.
> Rutledge Fuller
>
> >Rutledge Fuller wrote:
> >>
> > I find
> >> that on my current set-up, anything less than 5500 rpm, will cause it
> to fall on it's face with even the slightest pitch or direction changes.
> >>
> >
> >????? I really hope not. Inverted nose down stalls in any turn. What do
> >you really mean? ;))
> >
>
Throttle set below 5500 rpm and attitude changes cause rpm to drop.
Hmmm! How far down? Can you always bring the rpm back up with throttle?
Maybe you just need to tighten the nut on the throttle to stop it from
slipping and if that is not it you might lower the prop pitch a little.
--
traderawb(at)home.com/\s /\s /\s Commodity Speculator /\s /
/\ /\s / \ / \ / \ /\/\s /\s / \ /
/ \ / \ / \/ \ / \ /\ / \ / \ / \ /
/ \/ \ / b \/b \/ \/b \/b \/b \/b
/b b \/b allan_w_blackburn(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: Flying Without Gap Cover |
Ben Ransom wrote:
>
> Can anybody report on how the Firestars do w/o gap cover?
> -Ben Ransom
>
When the gap cover ripped off and went through the prop I discovered
that 45 mph was too slow an airspeed with which to flair. Later test
after the repairs showed that 55 mph was required and stall was was
raised about the same amount (from 33 to around 37 - 40 mph) Keep the
gap. It is not necessary, but it is very desirable.
I do not have an underside to my new center wing gap (to accommodate my
helmet) and I see no differences from full double sided surfaces. (stall
33 mph...full flair available at 40 mph)
--
traderawb(at)home.com/\s /\s /\s Commodity Speculator /\s /
/\ /\s / \ / \ / \ /\/\s /\s / \ /
/ \ / \ / \/ \ / \ /\ / \ / \ / \ /
/ \/ \ / b \/b \/ \/b \/b \/b \/b
/b b \/b allan_w_blackburn(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: Flying Without Gap Cover |
Mike Ransom wrote:
>
>
> >Can anybody report on how the Firestars do w/o gap cover?
>
> I'm sorry, but my reaction to this is that it would be a very crazy thing
> to try something like this without any prior knowlege of what the
> characteristics would be.
In my case I got the flying experience when the gap cover flew off.
Airplane flew fine, so I wasn't afraid to try flying without the gap
afterwards. Lack of gap cover not a problem if airspeed is maintained.
However stall increases and you'd better add some knots to your landing
speed. But she flies just fine.
--
traderawb(at)home.com/\s /\s /\s Commodity Speculator /\s /
/\ /\s / \ / \ / \ /\/\s /\s / \ /
/ \ / \ / \/ \ / \ /\ / \ / \ / \ /
/ \/ \ / b \/b \/ \/b \/b \/b \/b
/b b \/b allan_w_blackburn(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: Soaring and One Wheel High Speed Taxi |
Vince Nicely wrote:
> I feel sure real gliding is likely very different, but I think I
> can learn a lot and have some real fun this way. Any comments from
> experienced Kolbers or glider pilots?
>
I think real gliding is quieter , but you seem to have a good start
on the rest of it.
--
traderawb(at)home.com/\s /\s /\s Commodity Speculator /\s /
/\ /\s / \ / \ / \ /\/\s /\s / \ /
/ \ / \ / \/ \ / \ /\ / \ / \ / \ /
/ \/ \ / b \/b \/ \/b \/b \/b \/b
/b b \/b allan_w_blackburn(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: seeking knowledge |
-----Original Message-----
From: Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com>
Date: Sunday, September 20, 1998 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: seeking knowledge
>
>
>Two place ultralights(?) do not fly the same as single place
>ultralights. In my opinion they do not fly like ultralights, but more
>like under powered GA. (Sadly I include the two place Kolbs in this
>category.) This is not to say they don't fly well, just not as peppy and
>light on the controls as the single place versions, but they do carry
>passengers. Can't have everything.
Hello Everybody:
My perception of the factory MK III (got a bunch of hours in it solo as well
as flying passengers at Sun and Fun and OSH), my own MK III I have flown
over 1200 hours, and the factory Sling Shot (with and without passengers),
does not agree with Alan's perception of two place Kolbs.
IMHO, the major difference is weight. The MK III, especially mine at over
600 lbs empty, does not recover nearly as quickly as my Firestar did. Other
than that, MK III has demonstrated (solo) that it performs most missions as
well as or better than the Firestars. I fly with many different brands of
ULs and get in and out of areas some of them can't, i.e., my flaps give me
the ability to loose altitude quicker while maintaining a reasonable a/s. I
flew about noon today in Central Alabama. The air has cooled off some and
the 912 would only turn 5200 in climb attitude from 40 to 60 mph indicated.
However, rate of climb was 1300 to 1500 FPM solo with 10 gal fuel on board.
Not bad for a fat two place with gross weight close to 900 lbs. The MK III
cruises comfortably at 80 MPH, while my FS cruised comfortably at 65.
I didn't get a civilian fixed wing ticket until 1990, 10 years after I
retired from Army aviation. My check pilot told me to climb to 5000 ft so
we could do some recovery from unusual attitudes. The 152 would only make
3500 feet, period. This was in June and that was its service ceiling that
particular day. This past June, my Brother Jim and I flew to Texas with
camping gear, clothes, 150 lbs of fuel (25 gal), and spares. It was well
over 100 F and we cruised 7,500 ft out and back. That wasn't our altitude
limit of performance and we were only climbing 200 FPM most of the time, but
it would do it.
I'm not a general aviation sort of guy. If I was, I would be flying them
and not ULs. ULs expand my world of flight much broader than a 150 or 152
could. They are exciting, allow me to experience more than I could with GA.
And I can do it for a lot less money because I do my on engine and airframe
work. I've had a lot of experience rebuilding and repairing my homebuilt
airplanes over the years. The MK III is registered EXP and I have my own
Rprman's Cert, so I can sign off on my own work. I fly out of a 750 ft cow
pasture that has been my airplanes' home since the beginning of my UL hobby.
It is a 5 min ride to the grass strip from my home. If I flew GA I would
have to drive 25 miles one way and pay for hangar space. I built my hangar
for $150 and what I could scrounge. That is what I have invested in it for
almost 15 yrs. Not $100 a month.
UL'ing is not for everyone, just like GA'ing is not for everyone. I
discovered early on I was not a GA type, the few hours I had to fly a 152 to
get my private ticket. I haven't flown one since 1992. I get my BFR in my
MK III. Try both and then decide what you want to fly.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: help 377 operators! |
-----Original Message-----
From: Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com>
Date: Sunday, September 20, 1998 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: help 377 operators!
>>
>Throttle set below 5500 rpm and attitude changes cause rpm to drop.
>Hmmm! How far down? Can you always bring the rpm back up with throttle?
>Maybe you just need to tighten the nut on the throttle to stop it from
>slipping and if that is not it you might lower the prop pitch a little.
>
Howdy Alan and Gang:
A unique characteristic of two stroke engines, especially close to the
beginning of the power band or when it comes up on the pipe, is when loaded
(nose up a little) it falls off rpm rapidly, and when unloaded (nose down)
it will increase rpm. We talked about this before OSH. I hadn't flown a
two stroke for a while so while I was at OSH I played with the Sling Shot
and its 582. The 582 is not nearly susceptible to this characteristic as
the older 447 and 377, but it does display the same thing at a lesser
degree. I believe what happens is the mixture is enriched cause less air is
ingested or leaned because the eng is turning more rpms without increase in
fuel. This opinion backed up by EGT readings. 4 strokes don't do that.
One of the nice things about flying in front of the 912 on XCs. Set it and
forget it.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
Kent kathy Mead wrote:
I went to resistor plugs, metal plug caps and used metal sheilding on all the
wiring.
> Not all metal plug cap are created equal. If you are going to run resister plugs
> with the caps, you need to make sure you are using the 1000 ohm type, not the
> higher resistance type's ( some go as high as 5000 ohms). Did you add spirex
> insulation to your plug wires before you put the metal braid on? if not you are
> probably seing some arcing to the jacket (path of least resistance). Spirex is
> only about $0.79 per foot from CPS, part #9305. I'll be interested to hear what
> you find out
Adam (man 500 feet is short) ViolettOriginal FireStar 377
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | kmead(at)up.net (Kent kathy Mead) |
Hi Adam;
The Metal caps or 1000 ohms and I did use spirex on the plug wires. I think
it must be a small voltage leak some where. I think I need to run it
somemore then check the plugs to see if one is missfiring. Thanks for the
reply.
Kent
<violett@springhill-online.net>
>
>
>
>Kent kathy Mead wrote:
>I went to resistor plugs, metal plug caps and used metal sheilding on all the
>wiring.
>
>> Not all metal plug cap are created equal. If you are going to run
resister plugs
>> with the caps, you need to make sure you are using the 1000 ohm type, not the
>> higher resistance type's ( some go as high as 5000 ohms). Did you add spirex
>> insulation to your plug wires before you put the metal braid on? if not
you are
>> probably seing some arcing to the jacket (path of least resistance).
Spirex is
>> only about $0.79 per foot from CPS, part #9305. I'll be interested to
hear what
>> you find out
>
>Adam (man 500 feet is short) ViolettOriginal FireStar 377
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | kmead(at)up.net (Kent kathy Mead) |
Subject: | IVO Prop and idle |
Hi Guys
Thanks for the advice on the IVO prop and idle problem. I think a 66 in. two
blade is the way to go. As for the idle problem I will work on that some
more and see what happens. Thanks
Kent
Original firestar 009
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
I bought my 912 in Jan 94. Flew it the first time Apr 94. Not long after I
started flying the 912, Rotax came out with an update for early 912s
reference oil pump drive shafts and drive pins. I checked my SN and it was
in the category of newer engine and had the updated shaft and drive pin.
Since then I have flown that engine 975 hours over all kinds of terrain,
water, day, night, etc., etc. Totally comfortable that my oil pump was
going to be there to the very end.
Surprise, surprise! I overhauled the oil pump yesterday and guess what. I
pulled out a little shaft and a roll pin for a drive pin. Not the longer,
larger shaft and solid drive pin. One never knows for sure what Rotax has
in mind. First of all it is next to impossible, up until I got a computer
the first of the year, to find out what changes have come out in a timely
manner. It would be nice for Rotax to use some of that $9,000.00 they get
for the 912 for postage to send us little guys out here flying them that
they have a serious problem with the 912 and this is what we need to do to
fix it before we fly again.
I'm talking off the top of my head now so I may not be exactly right on
dates, but on the way back from Sun and Fun 89 my 447 started loosing a
little power and sorta acting a little sick. I flew the 500 mile trip back
to Alabama and the next day decided to take a look at the eng. When I
pulled the PTO cyl, the piston almost fell off the wrist pin. The needle
bearings from the wrist pin (days of the caged bearings) had departed the
cage, were ingested in both combustion chambers (needles stuck in top of
both pistons), which effectively ruined two heads, two piston, cyls, and
everything else. Some time later I discovered that Rotax in Austria had put
out a letter to dealers to update wrist pin bearings to cageless because the
caged bearings were coming apart. The letter was dated one year prior to my
engine failure. Had I had a copy of that letter sooner, I could have
updated and saved a bunch of bucks not to mention the possibility of tearing
up my airplane and me. Typical Rotax operating procedures. They haven't
changed much since that letter, which was dated in June 1988.
I am happy to say that the old 447 got me back home and was still running
when I shut it down. Cranked it the next day to do a compression check too.
That's when I discovered no compression on PTO cyl.
Back in the late 80's when I was flying to a lot of airshows all over the
place, I kept a freshly built 447 on the bench all the time. Always had a
spare ready to drop in when the other got sick. Those were the good old
days.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "dboll" <dboll(at)ndak.net> |
Subject: | Fw: Rotax Lighting Coil HELP! |
----------
> Date: Sunday, September 20, 1998 06:19:26
> From: Brad
> To: fly-ul(at)majordomo.hughes.net
> Cc: Fishnet-list(at)SportFlyer.com
> Subject: Rotax Lighting Coil HELP!
>
> Desparate cry for help below....
>
> When I first began using my Rotax 582, the voltage would gradually creep up
> (I suppose as the battery charged) to 15+ volts. This was with the Rotax
> regulator that requires a 1-amp load. I have an 18-amp battery, but the
> only thing that would keep the voltage down was to transmit with the radio.
>
> So I tried another Rotax regulator with the same result. Then switched to a
> KeyWest and the problem went away.
>
> But, after putting maybe 15 hours on the engine I noticed the voltage was
> starting to go the other direction! Each time I flew it got a little lower
> and the engine would crank over more slowly. Clearly the battery wasn't
> being charged and the voltage wouldn't change a bit with the engine
> running.
>
> For you helpful troubleshooters out there...
>
> - the battery will take & hold a charge from an external charger
> - going back to the original Rotax regulator didn't help
> - I only get about 1.1 volts AC from the lighting coil
> (- I haven't yet checked the lighting coil output without it being
> connected to the reg/rec)
> - the engine will run without the battery, so at least the CDI charging
> coils are working
> - resistance across the lighting coil leads is .45 ohms (anybody know
> what's normal?)
>
>
> Even though I only have about 25-30 hours on the engine, it sounds like a
> problem with the lighting coils... however I've heard that's extremely
> rare. Since new coils would involve pulling the engine and $300+, I'd
> really appreciate any other ideas.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Brad Kramer
> Fisher Classic
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: help 377 operators! |
On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, john hauck wrote:
> A unique characteristic of two stroke engines, especially close to the
> beginning of the power band or when it comes up on the pipe, is when loaded
> (nose up a little) it falls off rpm rapidly, and when unloaded (nose down)
> it will increase rpm. We talked about this before OSH. I hadn't flown a
Maybe this is part of why I like cruising at the low end of the power band.
E.G. at 5100, I can tell if I've started to wander nose up or nose down
simply by the sound of engine speed and then verification from the tach.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Fw: Rotax Lighting Coil HELP! |
-----Original Message-----
From: dboll <dboll(at)ndak.net>
Date: Sunday, September 20, 1998 11:43 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Fw: Rotax Lighting Coil HELP!
>> Even though I only have about 25-30 hours on the engine, it sounds like a
>> problem with the lighting coils... however I've heard that's extremely
>> rare. Since new coils would involve pulling the engine and $300+, I'd
>> really appreciate any other ideas.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Brad Kramer
>> Fisher Classic
Hey Kolb Builders!!!
I notice more and more foreign traffic. I understand this is the Kolb
Builders List, not the Rotax repair list for other folks with a problem.
Correct me if I am wrong. If I am, maybe we need to think of a new name for
the list. Personally I am not interested in changing the name or the
mission of this list.
john h (lost in Central Alabama)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: help 377 operators! |
Alan Wrote:
>>
>Throttle set below 5500 rpm and attitude changes cause rpm to drop.
>Hmmm! How far down? Can you always bring the rpm back up with throttle?
>Maybe you just need to tighten the nut on the throttle to stop it from
>slipping and if that is not it you might lower the prop pitch a little.
>
Let's drop the subject, because you just don't get it. I will run my
engine at 5800 and above. That's were it is happy. My wooden prop
doesn't have a quick adjust, and the throttle is fine.
Rutledge Fuller
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
Subject: | Re: 50 hour check for carbon buildup |
Jim,
which Hirth and where did you get it?
Did you have mounting problems?
Please pass on your experiences with the Hirth.
Geoff Thistlethwaite
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Baker <jlbaker(at)telepath.com>
Date: Friday, September 18, 1998 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 50 hour check for carbon buildup
>
>> Well, it's time for my first carbon check, and possible decarbon. I
>> wanted to know how others have been approaching the 50 hour inspection.
>
>Approached it, passed it, and haven't looked back. Hirth with 180
>hrs, 100:1 oils. Did a borescope thru the plug holes...I can still see
>the machine marks on the piston tops.
>
>
>
>
>
>J. Baker
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
Subject: | Re: Belt drives and soaring |
Chris,
If you solve your problem please post it, as I'm planning on using the same
engine, starter, and balancers.
thanks,
Geoff Thistlethwaite
-----Original Message-----
From: CHRISTOPHER DAVIS <cdavis2(at)capecod.net>
Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Belt drives and soaring
>
>Hi Richard and all , I am in the process of installing a GPL electric
start
>on my 503in hopes of doing some soaring and easing the resterrt process.
>Problem is I have a "balancemaster" fan belt pulley on the enginer and
>really don't want to take it off! Has anyone had any experence with this
>situation? it seems thaty the spacer between the ring gear and the fan belt
>pulley was an eighth of an inch too thick. I spoke to Gary at GPL and he
>said he would machine down and send it to me ,no charge just send back the
>old one .He said he would send it priority mail . well 7days later UPS
>ground it arrived it was an eighth of an inch thicker, so I took the
>original spacer to my local machine shop and they removed an eighth of an
>inch, now the distance is correct but it won't go together because the
>outside rim of the balancemaster hits the ring gear! GPL says they have had
>customers use thier starter on engines with balancemasters installed ,but
>I'm not sure that was the whole truth sorry If I run on but Iv'e been
>beating my Head against this $600 starter fo a week . Any help would be
>appreciated Chris
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Date: Saturday, September 19, 1998 12:38 AM
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Belt drives and soaring
>
>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> My question to those in the group with lots of engine experience is
>>>how best to transmit power to the prop which is about 10" above the
>>>crankshaft pto and 15" behind it on something like an inverted 447. If I
>>>use a separate belt driven shaft with its own separate bearings will it
>>>need some form of belt tightener.
>>
>> Seems like I remember John Moody, on one of his Easy Risers,
having
>>the engine in a streamlined fairing behind the pilot, and then a tensioned
>>belt going up to a prop shaft at least 18" higher. See if you can track
him
>>down?
>> Richard Pike
>> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
Kolbaircraft.com
>>> Robert L Doebler 09/18 8:37 PM >>>
Guess I most have been sleeping, what is the address for Kolb home page
ie. pics?
Thanks
Bob D
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
I'm just in the process of breaking in my 582 and am a bit nervous of an engine
melt-down. Heres's my delema: I have an EIS that needs to be set up. But I
need to run the engine to make sure all parameters are set correctly. Therefore,
I will be running the enigne a bit before I actually start the break-in process.
Am I doing irreputable harm to the engine?
Second question: The oil injection level should be aligned on the first hash mark
by adjusting the cable stop. I'm all the way out and the hash mark is about
.5 - 1 mm off the mark - on the lean side. Have any of you had this same problem
and how did you fix it? On this cable circuit there is no adjust aviable
other than the cable stop adjust on the engine. This cable is tied in to a
three way splitter harboring the two throttle cables.
Thanks,
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
Subject: | Kolb List Subject Matter |
john hauck" wrote:
I understand this is the Kolb Builders List, not the Rotax repair list for other
folks with a problem. Correct me if I am wrong. If I am, maybe we need to
think of a new name for the list. Personally I am not interested in changing
the name or the mission of this list.
My feeling on this matter is that since the Rotax engine(s) are the predominant
engine of choice on Kolb aircraft then it is absolutely appropriate for open
discussion. In fact, I appreciate hearing about any other equipmnet you guys
/ girls hang on a Kolb. There is strength in knowledge !! And it can save me
money...
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
Can somebody give me the who,what where,when and why's of this product? Also,
are the syn oils really that much better and what brands are prople using. I
was planning on using Pennsoil but if the synthetic stuff is really better I'd
use it.
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb Flying??? |
Vince,
What you said makes sence to me, but I'm no expert either. I was hoping that
an "aeronautical expert" would comment on your post..... Topher?
John Jung
>
Vince Nicely wrote:
>
> Bill Varnes wrote:
>
> "I sometimes get
> concerned about the rough ride and wonder what I'm doing up there. The Kolb
> builders manual says to slow down in rough air as these are ultralights and
> stresses go way up. So just how much slower should one fly to insure the
> airframe is not overstressed?"
>
> This is how I think about overstressing the airframe from turbulence. The
> load factor on the wing at stall goes up as the square of the stall speed.
> After the wing is stalled, the load factor doesn't increase because the
> airflow changes. In a normal stall
> at engine idle, the load is 1-g. Your wing can safely handle 4 g's. If you
> generate extra lift with the wing by suddenly applying up elevator you have
> changed the angle of attack and
> the relative wind and increased the load on the wing. An up (or down) draft
> does a similar change in the relative wind to increase (or decrease) the
> angle of attack, also. Thus, the air induced turbulence can increase the
> load. You want to make the maximum load you can induce remain below the
> strength of the airframe. An airspeed of twice the stall speed limits the
> maximum load you can induce to 4-g's (two squared is four) for then the wing
> stalls at that angle of attack. If you keep
> your speed to at or less than twice the stall speed, you may get an
> accelerated stall, but you should not be able to overstress the airframe.
>
> This is just my thinking and I make no claim to great aeronautical knowledge
> If I have erred here, perhaps someone will be kindly enough to help us
> better understand this question.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ronald L. Perry" <ronaldpe(at)shenessex.heartland.net> |
Subject: | [Fwd: Returned mail: User unknown] |
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 07:54:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON>
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)
This is a MIME-encapsulated message
--HAA26462.906382443/shenessex.heartland.net
from pm1s56.shenessex.heartland.net [206.72.57.156]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to www.intrig.com.:
>>> RCPT To:
<<< 550 ... User unknown
550 ... User unknown
--HAA26462.906382443/shenessex.heartland.net
Reporting-MTA: dns; shenessex.heartland.net
Received-From-MTA: dns; pm1s56.shenessex.heartland.net
Arrival-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 07:54:00 -0500 (CDT)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; jolb(at)intrig.com
Action: failed
Remote-MTA: dns; www.intrig.com
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 ... User unknown
Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 07:54:02 -0500 (CDT)
--HAA26462.906382443/shenessex.heartland.net
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 07:59:50 -0600
From: "Ronald L. Perry" <ronaldpe(at)shenessex.heartland.net>
Subject: FireFly
I am wanting to build a FireFly as an ultralight. I want to use the
Rotax 447. Is there any problem keeping the weight down to 254 lbs? I
would appreciate hearing any experiences with 2-strokes. I have heard
plenty of horror stories, but don't know if they're justified.
Thanks, Ron Perry
900 Walnut St.
Shenandoah, Ia., 51601
P.S., What does the QuickBuild option consist of?
--HAA26462.906382443/shenessex.heartland.net--
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ronald L. Perry" <ronaldpe(at)shenessex.heartland.net> |
Subject: | Building a FireFly |
I am wanting to build a FireFly as an ultralight. I want to use the
Rotax 447. Is there any problem keeping the weight down to 254 lbs? I
would appreciate hearing any experiences with 2-strokes. I have heard
plenty of horror stories, but don't know if they're justified. Would
appreciate any comments.
Thanks, Ron Perry
900 Walnut St.
Shenandoah, Ia., 51601
P.S., What does the QuickBuild option consist of? I would also consider
buying a FireFly already built, if anyone has one for sale.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Kolb List Subject Matter |
From: | rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon) |
John................
We can get too restrictive, you know. This reminds me of the eye
specialist who restricted his practice to right eyes only.
Please let's not get too narrow in the subjects to be discussed. Keep it
open. Only then do we encourage those less knowledgeable to participate.
John, your expertise and knowledge is priceless. However in this instance
you are wrong. Rotex repair , especially maintenance is a prime subject
for discussion on the Kolb list. IMHO Ray
>I understand this is the Kolb Builders List, not the Rotax repair list
>for other folks with a problem. Correct me if I am wrong. If I am,
>maybe we need to think of a new name for the list. Personally I am
>not interested in changing the name or the mission of this list.
>
>
>My feeling on this matter is that since the Rotax engine(s) are the
>predominant engine of choice on Kolb aircraft then it is absolutely
>appropriate for open discussion. In fact, I appreciate hearing about
>any other equipmnet you guys / girls hang on a Kolb. There is
>strength in knowledge !! And it can save me money...
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)csrlink.net> |
I am building a wing gap seal made of aluminum sheet and lexon. I am using
the photo of the factory Firestar II. What I can`t see is how Dennis held
it on. Is it just the curve of aluminum around the leading edge and velcro,
or are there camlock fasteners somewhere?
Lan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
I went flying Sat. for the 7th time this year. Don't laugh at me I am a
busy boy. My new plane under construction takes a lot of time and I have
allways said I like to build more than fly. Any way there I was 1500 ft agl
engine just purrin like a kitten when I turned a sharp right bank and my
motor coughed. I straightened up and decided it was time to go home. My
trusty Hirth 2703 thought otherwise and kept up a protest. I decided my
field was to far so I decided on a closer field I had never been to.
Coughing and sputtering all the way I made it safely in. Since it was
sputtering I figured it had to Carb trouble. I was a bit low on gas so I
added more to be sure, I checked the carb and everything seemed snug, no
dirt, full bowl so I moved down and removed the fuel filter in case there
was an obstruction. I started the engine and it seemed to run fine. I did a
crow hop (don't tell anyone) and as soon as I got up it sputtered again. No
tools with me so I folded up and went home so I could attend a stag party
that night. As luck would have it there was a witness to my little adventure
at the party. He said he could tell I was going down when he heard me
coughing and backfiring. I never heard the backfires. Couldn't find my buzz
box the next day so I went to radio shack and bought the pieces for 4 bucks
and made a new one, I expect the old one to turn up tommorrow. I went out
today and checked the timing with it. I was about 3\8 of an inch out from
the timing mark. Why did it change so far so fast? I will be pulling the
flywheel soon to see if the point plate slipped. I reset the timing and
retarded it a bit to. About a 1\4 inch on the flywheel. I put it back
together and flew home, not a cough or burp out of it. The neat thing is I
have always had trouble with the cht running cold and the egt running hot.
Now by ignoring the factory recomended timing I have a hotter head and
colder exhaust. Sometimes you just get lucky. I had tried every thing to get
the temps right and now I find it was an error in the manual. Live and
learn. Any ideas how my timing got so screwed up?
Woody
Some men are able to stumble over the truth but are able to pick
themselves up and keep walking as if nothing had happened. (Churchill)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Kolb List Subject Matter |
From: | rbaker2(at)juno.com (Ray L Baker) |
John and all the rest,
Please keep up the dialog on Rotax 2 cycles. The more I read the more
convinced I am that I should spend the extra bucks and go with something
that fires every other time and has separate lubrication and fuel
systems! I am almost there and just a couple of more will put me over
the line!
Ray Baker
Lake Butler, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: help 377 operators! |
Ben Ransom wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, john hauck wrote:
> > A unique characteristic of two stroke engines, especially close to the
> > beginning of the power band or when it comes up on the pipe, is when loaded
> > (nose up a little) it falls off rpm rapidly, and when unloaded (nose down)
> > it will increase rpm. We talked about this before OSH. I hadn't flown a
>
> Maybe this is part of why I like cruising at the low end of the power band.
> E.G. at 5100, I can tell if I've started to wander nose up or nose down
> simply by the sound of engine speed and then verification from the tach.
> -Ben Ransom
>
I used to be able to put the Firestar's nose down and the prop would
speed up and would then slow down when the nose was pulled back up to
level or above. I never had it drop in RPM if I sped up. However, with
new timing and plugs and better carburetor adjustments that problem
seems to have gone away except at extreme nose up attitudes when it lugs
down a little. But I have had the RPM creep down due to a loose throttle
nut which puzzles for a moment until you think of it.
I tried to distinguish between single place ultralights widened to carry
two passengers without many other changes except maybe an engine size
increase (2 place ultralights) and light planes designed to carry two
built along the lines of the RANS or other fine designs (which I called
2 place experimentals.) The MX 2 place does not perform like the MX
single place. It costs more, uses more fuel, doesn't go as far, etc.,
but does make a great trainer. I don't know why we make such a big thing
of all this, as all flying (except B-52 bombers after the 12th hour)
puts a smile on my face.
---
traderawb(at)home.com/\s /\s /\s Commodity Speculator /\s /
/\ /\s / \ / \ / \ /\/\s /\s / \ /
/ \ / \ / \/ \ / \ /\ / \ / \ / \ /
/ \/ \ / b \/b \/ \/b \/b \/b \/b
/b b \/b allan_w_blackburn(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: help 377 operators! |
Rutledge Fuller wrote:
>
>
> Alan Wrote:
> >>
> >Throttle set below 5500 rpm and attitude changes cause rpm to drop.
> >Hmmm! How far down? Can you always bring the rpm back up with throttle?
> >Maybe you just need to tighten the nut on the throttle to stop it from
> >slipping and if that is not it you might lower the prop pitch a little.
> >
>
> Let's drop the subject, because you just don't get it. I will run my
> engine at 5800 and above. That's were it is happy. My wooden prop
> doesn't have a quick adjust, and the throttle is fine.
Engines don't have emotions
In the words of Ayn Rand:
"If you want to be understood, you must first be understandable."
--
traderawb(at)home.com/\s /\s /\s Commodity Speculator /\s /
/\ /\s / \ / \ / \ /\/\s /\s / \ /
/ \ / \ / \/ \ / \ /\ / \ / \ / \ /
/ \/ \ / b \/b \/ \/b \/b \/b \/b
/b b \/b allan_w_blackburn(at)bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
Velcro
Shack
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Engine break-in |
>
>Second question: The oil injection level should be aligned on the first
hash mark by adjusting the cable stop. I'm all the way out and the hash
mark is about .5 - 1 mm off the mark - on the lean side. Have any of you
had this same problem and how did you fix it? On this cable circuit there
is no adjust aviable other than the cable stop adjust on the engine. This
cable is tied in to a three way splitter harboring the two throttle cables.
>
I have never had this problem, but if I did, I would probably make
up a new cable to the oil pump.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb List Subject Matter |
> John................
snip...
> However in this instance
> you are wrong.
snip...
Ray,
John Hauck can't be wrong. He only stated his opinion which he has a
right to. Besides, I share his opinon about keeping this list to Kolb
building and flying. And I have noticed some non-Kolb related questions
lately.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J 72 hrs
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: todays lesson |
>
> I went flying Sat. for the 7th time this year.
My trusty Hirth 2703 thought otherwise and kept up a protest.
I had tried every thing to get the temps right and now I find it was an
error in the manual. Live and learn. Any ideas how my timing got so screwed up?
>
>> Woody
Maybe the manual was not written by the Trusty Hirth People...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Todd,
The search engine for past messages is at
http://www.matronics.com/searching/search.html
Type in "Seafoam" and you will find 55 messages on the subject.
John Jung
>
>Todd Thompson wrote:
>
>
> Can somebody give me the who,what where,when and why's of this product? Also,
are the syn oils really that much better and what brands are prople using.
I was planning on using Pennsoil but if the synthetic stuff is really better I'd
use it.
>
> Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Engine break-in |
From: | rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon) |
I have an EIS that needs to
be set up. But I need to run the engine to make sure all parameters
are set correctly. Therefore, I will be running the enigne a bit
before I actually start the break-in process. Am I doing irreputable
harm to the engine?
No.....However, as you know you should verify that all wiring is correct
to your EIS. Be especially sure that all power, ground, and tachometer
connections have been properly made. Verify that the same ground wire is
not used as both a ground to the engine for the EIS, and as a ground for
the ignition for the ignition kill switch. Verify that these separate
ground leads do not connect to the engine in such a way that if they
become disconnected from the engine,they still remain connected together.
Do not use the same connection to the engine for these ground leads. I
assume your aircraft is not equipped with a 12V battery. Therefore start
engine and keep at the lowest practical idle speed. Verify that the LCD
display becomes active. The instrument will be on display page 0. If this
operation is not observed, stop engine and recheck all wiring. If LCD
display is active, advance the display page until tachometer reading, CHT
and EGT for each cylinder is showing. Then proceed with the break-in
procedure as specified in your Rotax Operator's Manual
>Second question: The oil injection level should be aligned on the
>first hash mark by adjusting the cable stop. I'm all the way out and
>the hash mark is about .5 - 1 mm off the mark - on the lean side.
>Have any of you had this same problem and how did you fix it? On this
>cable circuit there is no adjust aviable other than the cable stop
>adjust on the engine. This cable is tied in to a three way splitter
>harboring the two throttle cables.
The book says to pretension the cable by slightly pushing back of the
pump lever. With the adjusting nut position the pump lever until the mark
on the pump lever aligns with the pump housing. In my case ( this may be
your problem) the pump lever would not return completely to correct
position when engine went to idle. I discussed with Rotex people at
Oshkosh. They recommended that I install rubber band to pump lever for
additional tension until it moves freely. It worked. Now I do not
need.
>Ray
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Kolb List Subject Matter |
From: | rayul(at)juno.com (Raymond L Lujon) |
John Jung.....You took my words out of context. John Hauck asked the
question, " If I am wrong, (concerning using the Kolb list to discuss
Rotax engines) let me know." I was only complying with his request. I
note that since then John has had several excellent messages concerning
his experiences with Rotax engines. He must have had a change of heart
which benifits us all. Ray
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Subject: | Re: Building a FireFly |
Ron, I'm sending you a apack of Kolb info, particularly FireFly (I have
one). Dennis gave me a bunch to hand out at fly-ins, so have a coupla
extras. My FF weighed 254 without larger tires and brakes, but still is
almost legal 103. I'll send FailMail to your Shenandoah add. Grey Baron
PeeEss I live in the Shenandoah Valley of VA. You are in great UL
country. And there is a FF TT 8 hrs with enclosed trlr$10K
(248)-689-8763 Michigan GB
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Randy & Joni Tolvstad" <tolvstad(at)nvc.net> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb List Subject Matter |
Hey guys, calm down!
I think it's nice to have discussions on any subject and in any direction
we would want the wind to blow us (so to speak). I personally fly a
Kawasaki engine (I know I know now I am probably REALLY on a bad subject
now) and don't mind a bit reading about you rich buggers with your fancy
Rotaxs. Who knows maybe I'll even get one some day, but till then if I
stumble on a discussion I don't think suits my fancy I just click on to the
next one. If I really get upset over someone's use of the English language
or views on this magnificent sport I may even get radical enough to delete
the sucker! I have learned alot from this group and plan on learning a lot
more. There are so many knowledgeable and experienced people (some say I am
easily fooled) that write into this group and coming from the part of the
country that I'm in with very few ULs around I enjoy being able to get some
of my questions answered. Thanks everyone for the great advice and
thoughts.
Randy Tolvstad
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jon P. Croke" <joncroke(at)CompuServe.COM> |
Thanks to all that commted on the aileron heaviness question. It became
clear to me after the many responses that I was guilty of flying too fast,
simultaneously while in turbulent air, and trying to really 'win' the
stability battle!! After slowing down, choosing calm days, I found the
response to be light and adequate. So there! It was just my inexeperience
that clouded my perceptions. (I still crave those perfectly calm days)
If any of you have a comment on the following, Im all ears:
At one end of my 900' runway are 30 foot power lines. I can make them
magically disappear with a check for $2500 made out ot the local power
company (actually, they get buried for that amoount) Seems like the price
of a chute for the plane. SO, the question is: if you had to choose one or
the other, (not both), which is the WISER investment in safety (either real
or perceived!) ????? I havent found this to be an obvious choice......
but I feel wisdom in the collective mental capacity of this list
membership..... or in other words... what do YOU think???!
Thank you in advance ( and watch those lines if you drop by!)
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "dboll" <dboll(at)ndak.net> |
Subject: | Re: Fw: Rotax Lighting Coil HELP! |
Hi John
I have a kolbfirestar and a Fisher Youngster. I posteted th lighting coil question
for a friend of mine with a Rotax and as a result he got some very good information.I'm
sorry if I steped into holy ground but in North Dakota we don't
have a lot of contacts and need all the support we can get. Thanks to all that
helped me feel that I wasn't out of line and for the helpful information that
was sent back.
don in dakota
----------
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dboll <dboll(at)ndak.net>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, September 20, 1998 11:43 PM
> Subject: Kolb-List: Fw: Rotax Lighting Coil HELP!
>
> >> Even though I only have about 25-30 hours on the engine, it sounds like a
> >> problem with the lighting coils... however I've heard that's extremely
> >> rare. Since new coils would involve pulling the engine and $300+, I'd
> >> really appreciate any other ideas.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Brad Kramer
> >> Fisher Classic
>
>
> Hey Kolb Builders!!!
>
> I notice more and more foreign traffic. I understand this is the Kolb
> Builders List, not the Rotax repair list for other folks with a problem.
> Correct me if I am wrong. If I am, maybe we need to think of a new name for
> the list. Personally I am not interested in changing the name or the
> mission of this list.
>
> john h (lost in Central Alabama)
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
Subject: | Re: Building a FireFly |
________________________________________________________________________________
missed a beat. Most of the hours have been flown by my partner but he's
starting to feel comfortable with the 2-stroke. I'm not quite there yet
but I have to admit is been solid so far. There are much as far as choices
due to weigh for the horse power in the 4-stroke area.
The HKS is 116# plus which is both to heavy and to much power for the
FireFly. The engine we feel that might have some promise is the engine
Larry Israel originally of Team Aircraft is working on. It's air cooled
4-stroke with reduction drive. Some people had raced the core engine there
starting from and claim it was bullet proof. It will be a while yet but I
like what I hear from them.
Jerry Bidle
>
>I am wanting to build a FireFly as an ultralight. I want to use the
>Rotax 447. Is there any problem keeping the weight down to 254 lbs? I
>would appreciate hearing any experiences with 2-strokes. I have heard
>plenty of horror stories, but don't know if they're justified. Would
>appreciate any comments.
>
> Thanks, Ron Perry
> 900 Walnut St.
> Shenandoah, Ia., 51601
>
>P.S., What does the QuickBuild option consist of? I would also consider
>buying a FireFly already built, if anyone has one for sale.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
I think you last line said it all, "watch those power lines if you drop by".
>
>
>Thanks to all that commted on the aileron heaviness question. It became
>clear to me after the many responses that I was guilty of flying too fast,
>simultaneously while in turbulent air, and trying to really 'win' the
>stability battle!! After slowing down, choosing calm days, I found the
>response to be light and adequate. So there! It was just my inexeperience
>that clouded my perceptions. (I still crave those perfectly calm days)
>
>If any of you have a comment on the following, Im all ears:
>
>At one end of my 900' runway are 30 foot power lines. I can make them
>magically disappear with a check for $2500 made out ot the local power
>company (actually, they get buried for that amoount) Seems like the price
>of a chute for the plane. SO, the question is: if you had to choose one or
>the other, (not both), which is the WISER investment in safety (either real
>or perceived!) ????? I havent found this to be an obvious choice......
>but I feel wisdom in the collective mental capacity of this list
>membership..... or in other words... what do YOU think???!
>
>Thank you in advance ( and watch those lines if you drop by!)
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb List Subject Matter |
Easy Gents:
I don't think I made myself understood completely. My fault. Sometimes I
write on the spur of the moment when I am tired, or don't think quite the
same way others do. Anyhow, let me try again.
My concern was not that we were discussing Rotax engines. Everybody knows
that they are usually what keeps us busiest after the construction phase is
over and the flying phase begins. However, Rotax's are much better now than
they were when I was flying them, primarily because of CDI (no points) and
internal improvements. No, I was not inferring that we not talk about Rotax
engines, or any other equipment or material that we use on or in our
airplanes. Notice, I call them airplanes, cause to me that is exactly what
they are (even though the FAA thinks they are UL vehicles or some crap).
I just now tried to find out if we had some guidelines as far as membership
in the list, but the internet is so slow tonight I can't open up the list
server's web site. Anybody know the guidelines for list membership?
I have noticed in the past and recently that people are jumping right in the
fun who don't fly, build, or have any desire to have and build a Kolb. Last
one was a guy asking about lighting coil problems that was flying a Fisher.
Another was a Challenger owner (may have even been a Challenger dealer).
Somehow, this just doesn't sit quite right with me. Again, I may be wrong,
but that is the way I feel. If I am wrong, straighten me out and we will
keep on going and have a good time and learn a bunch of stuff about Kolbs
(building and flying). One of these days I will share the other aspect of
Kolbs, that is crashing. One of the reasons I fly Kolbs is because they
crash good. If they didn't, I wouldn't be here knocking out this msg
tonight. Kolbs are very crashworthy aircraft, in addition to all their
other attributes. One of the first things I look at in an aircraft is
crashworthiness. Some of the ULs out there are a bit frightening if I had
to crash one.
One more thing and I'll get out of here. About 1820 hrs this evening I
heard the most beautiful sound as I was sitting here reading my mail. The
sound of an original Firestar, a two bladed prop, and a 447. Bill Griffin,
of our list, buzzed my house just before sun set. Flew a couple orbits to
say hello and then departed for Wetumpka, Alabama, airport. Bill has a
beautiful red and white sunburst paint job, looks a lot like mine.
Later gang,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
Your power co. should put some Orange Balls on the lines for free.
Geoff Thistlethwaite
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon P. Croke <joncroke(at)CompuServe.COM>
Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 10:27 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Safety Choice
>
>
>Thanks to all that commted on the aileron heaviness question. It became
>clear to me after the many responses that I was guilty of flying too fast,
>simultaneously while in turbulent air, and trying to really 'win' the
>stability battle!! After slowing down, choosing calm days, I found the
>response to be light and adequate. So there! It was just my inexeperience
>that clouded my perceptions. (I still crave those perfectly calm days)
>
>If any of you have a comment on the following, Im all ears:
>
>At one end of my 900' runway are 30 foot power lines. I can make them
>magically disappear with a check for $2500 made out ot the local power
>company (actually, they get buried for that amoount) Seems like the price
>of a chute for the plane. SO, the question is: if you had to choose one or
>the other, (not both), which is the WISER investment in safety (either real
>or perceived!) ????? I havent found this to be an obvious choice......
>but I feel wisdom in the collective mental capacity of this list
>membership..... or in other words... what do YOU think???!
>
>Thank you in advance ( and watch those lines if you drop by!)
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb List Subject Matter |
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb List Subject Matter
>
>
>
>
>
>Hey guys, calm down!
>
> I think it's nice to have discussions on any subject and in any direction
>we would want the wind to blow us (so to speak). I personally fly a
>Kawasaki engine (I know I know now I am probably REALLY on a bad subject
Hey Guys:
Everybody is calm.
I woudn't be ashamed of flying a Kawa, probably one of the best two strokes
ever built, IMHO, as far as reliabilty is concerned, and is defiitely one of
the "names of the games."
What have you got it mounted on, Randy?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
Jon: If you are flying from your own field, and it is a good setup that you
want to continue to use permanently, try this:
Draft a registered letter to the Director of your power company stating your
intentions to use the field for aircraft. Provide the name of your insuror, if
he is behind the idea. Show (if possible) neighbors' concurrence on the
plan. Give an estimate of the traffic (if you will allow friends to use your
field). Ask the Director for a cost estimate for removing an aircraft from
their live power grid. And finally, suggest to the power company that they
consider removing "their" liability from your traffic pattern.
Maybe they will laugh, or maybe they will think about it and wish to make you a
bargain.
I have found that EVERYTHING is negotiable, and you don't get what you don't
ask for.
(the 'chute is your decision)
Jim Gerken
owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com on 09/21/98 10:48:59 PM
Please respond to kolb-list(at)matronics.com
cc:
Subject: Kolb-List: Safety Choice
If any of you have a comment on the following, Im all ears:
At one end of my 900' runway are 30 foot power lines. I can make them
magically disappear with a check for $2500 made out ot the local power
company (actually, they get buried for that amoount) Seems like the price
of a chute for the plane. SO, the question is: if you had to choose one or
the other, (not both), which is the WISER investment in safety (either real
or perceived!) ????? I havent found this to be an obvious choice......
but I feel wisdom in the collective mental capacity of this list
membership..... or in other words... what do YOU think???!
Thank you in advance ( and watch those lines if you drop by!)
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Orig. Firestar for Sale |
I hate to do this, but I want a two-place. I am selling my newly built
Firestar 377. If you are interested, please email me. I can send
details and photos via computer.
Thanks,
Rutledge Fuller
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Group: Where do you draw the line ?? I guess I'm as guilty as
anyone for wandering off subject, tho' I don't think we should go too far
afield. A good example is the SVS 1400 debate. Started by a non-kolber,
but directly applicable to our toys. Another is the soaring thing I
started with the hang glider note. I never dreamed so many people soar
their Kolbs. Never really thought it could be done. Now I have a whole
new aspect of my plane to work on and learn. Bear with us John. I
thoroughly enjoy your contributions, esp. the thoughts on use of flaps.
I'll be working on that too - carefully - whenever Vamoose takes to the
air. Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engine break-in |
Raydo you have the instruction shts that came with the EIS? If not,
tell me and I'll FailMail some Xeroxs when I get to public library
machine. I'd need ur FailMail add. Grey Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb Flying??? |
i'm not a structures guy but the aeroside is simply that there is no
differance between the change in angle of attack from a gust or from an
elevator input. you wouldnt pull full aft or forward stick at top speed so
dont let the air do it with a gust.
Topher, very busy with my new company AeroCAD detailing the powersport
rotary engine and gearbox.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb Flying???
>
>Vince,
> What you said makes sence to me, but I'm no expert either. I was hoping
that
>an "aeronautical expert" would comment on your post..... Topher?
>John Jung
>>
>
>Vince Nicely wrote:
>
>>
>> Bill Varnes wrote:
>>
>> "I sometimes get
>> concerned about the rough ride and wonder what I'm doing up there. The
Kolb
>> builders manual says to slow down in rough air as these are ultralights
and
>> stresses go way up. So just how much slower should one fly to insure the
>> airframe is not overstressed?"
>>
>> This is how I think about overstressing the airframe from turbulence.
The
>> load factor on the wing at stall goes up as the square of the stall
speed.
>> After the wing is stalled, the load factor doesn't increase because the
>> airflow changes. In a normal stall
>> at engine idle, the load is 1-g. Your wing can safely handle 4 g's. If
you
>> generate extra lift with the wing by suddenly applying up elevator you
have
>> changed the angle of attack and
>> the relative wind and increased the load on the wing. An up (or down)
draft
>> does a similar change in the relative wind to increase (or decrease) the
>> angle of attack, also. Thus, the air induced turbulence can increase the
>> load. You want to make the maximum load you can induce remain below the
>> strength of the airframe. An airspeed of twice the stall speed limits
the
>> maximum load you can induce to 4-g's (two squared is four) for then the
wing
>> stalls at that angle of attack. If you keep
>> your speed to at or less than twice the stall speed, you may get an
>> accelerated stall, but you should not be able to overstress the airframe.
>>
>> This is just my thinking and I make no claim to great aeronautical
knowledge
>> If I have erred here, perhaps someone will be kindly enough to help us
>> better understand this question.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, Jon P. Croke wrote:
> At one end of my 900' runway are 30 foot power lines. I can make them
> magically disappear with a check for $2500 made out ot the local power
As you know, a 30' obstacle at 900' is not a problem for a FS II.
It *could* someday be a problem if something goes wrong and your plane
can't climb or you are stretching to make the field, but even that
scenario could be assigned to pilot error at the time. The feasibility
of getting the lines buried at the Power Co's expense probably depends
somewhat on who owns the runway and whether it is an FAA recognized
runway. If it were me, I'd work toward getting the lines buried even
if it might be my own $2500, if you feel like you will want to use the
field for 5 years or more, and especially if you own the strip and are
allowing others to use it. It is a matter of piece of mind, and you
will have less pucker everytime you use the field without the electric
chair at one end. (electric lines give me the creeps :) )
IMO, other factors are involved regarding the BRS decision. (such as:
light aerobatics, typical terrain, personal health, confidence in the
airplane at hand, whether the plane is brand new or very old, and for
the most part, not money)
BTW, glad the aileron thing settled out for you. I'm glad to know more
about the aileron stuff on the FSII ...thanks others and Dennis too.
-
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Don Carriker <quanah(at)alltel.net> |
Subject: | Re: Orig. Firestar for Sale |
Rutledge Fuller wrote:
>
> I hate to do this, but I want a two-place. I am selling my newly built
> Firestar 377. If you are interested, please email me. I can send
> details and photos via computer.
I have just begun looking for an UL. Haven't made up my mind yet what I want.
I
would appreciate your e-mailing whatever info you can about your Firestar. Tell
me the specs and all. I'm a 66 year old private pilot, with 2000+ hours, mostly
in Grumman AA1A's. I am very ignorant about UL's, but see UL flying as the
direction I am going to be taking. The Kolb line is one that interests me.
Thanks
Don Carriker
Quanah(at)alltel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: EAA Golden West Fly-in |
________________________________________________________________________________
anybody interested in going just do messages to those that have
expressed interest in going:
Frank Reynen
Larry Bourne
Mike Ransom
Dean Halstead (not on kolb list)
Ben Ransom
Frank Reynen suggested we meet at noon, possibly at the main
info booth, where-ever that is. We should consider a backup
location at 1130(?), perhaps at the cool looking yellow Firestar
KXP -- blue/yellow checkered tail -- parked in the UL area. :-).
BTW Frank, thanks much for the offer but I'm going to fly down so
will take a rain check.
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
>At one end of my 900' runway are 30 foot power lines. I can make them
>magically disappear with a check for $2500 made out ot the local power
>company (actually, they get buried for that amoount) Seems like the price
>of a chute for the plane. SO, the question is: if you had to choose one or
>the other, (not both), which is the WISER investment in safety (either real
>or perceived!) ????? I havent found this to be an obvious choice......
>but I feel wisdom in the collective mental capacity of this list
>membership..... or in other words... what do YOU think???!
>
>Thank you in advance ( and watch those lines if you drop by!)
>
>Jon
>
I have flown the MKIII for several years now with a parachute, and
if I had to fly it for several more without one, I would hardly give it a
thought.
But I always have to take off and land over power lines, I think about them
every time, and I would gladly trade the parachute away to get rid of them.
I have confidence that the airplane will not fail in such a way that
the parachute will be needed. My wife is not technical minded, so the idea
of a parachute is a comfort to her when we fly together. Cool.
I have a lot less confidence that the engine will not quit at the
worst possible moment. (when I am crossing the power lines in/out) I am not
worried about the engine quitting, even in hilly East Tennessee, I can find
a place to put this slow landing puppy and likely walk away. It is the
possibility that the engine might quit JUST THEN, when I am committed to
trying to cross the wires, that is unpleasant.
Each flight has a 20 second window during takeoff and landing when I
am throwin' the dice. $2500 to eliminate it would be a fair price.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb List Subject Matter |
Personally I don't mind owners of lesser aircraft asking questions
of people on this list as long as they are humble, respectful, keep their
bourgeois opinions of their own aircraft to themselves, and say; "Please",
and "Thank You". If they don't wish to do that, let them form their own list.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
As the owner of a FS2 who put a large fiberglass gap seal thru the prop if you
use Velcro still use a couple of pins with safeties on them. My fairing
scared the hell out of me as I could not recognize what all the noise was from
and then the remains hung up on the horizontal wire brace and blanked off one
side.
Dick C
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
>
>As the owner of a FS2 who put a large fiberglass gap seal thru the prop if
you
>use Velcro still use a couple of pins with safeties on them. My fairing
>scared the hell out of me as I could not recognize what all the noise was
from
>and then the remains hung up on the horizontal wire brace and blanked off one
This has always been my greatest misgiving about wing gap mods. I'm
curious as to just how advantageous/nice they really are. Feedback?
I've also always had a safety concern about the pusher configuration, given
the minimal (or in my case with Ultrastar, no-existant) enclosure. During
one of my lessons, I discovered at the end that a bolt I'd accidentally
left in my jacket pocket was no longer there. It almost certainly was only
narrowly missed by the prop--and it could've brought us down. Ever since,
my preflight checklist has included checking that there's nothing in any
loose pockets, that my zippered pouch is closed, etc. Seems like I read
once of someone loosing the zipper tab of the gap seal into the prop; I
think that's why I began safety clipping it to the plane.
I went with the cloth gap seal because it was lighter. (And abandoned the
cracking *plexiglass* gap seal the plane came with--that's non-stock for
you lurkers--disaster waiting to happen!) I went with a pusher
configuration because it's so outrageously cool to be out there in front
with "nothing on." No pun intended. :)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
I went with a pusher
>configuration because it's so outrageously cool to be out there in front
>with "nothing on." No pun intended. :)
Remember, it's called a "Firestar", not a "Streak".
rp
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb List Subject Matter |
Please Mister Pike: since the FireFly is the most humble (read teeny) of
The Kolbs, can I have just a crust of bread sans beurre? s.v.p. very
old baron, tugging his forelock.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)csrlink.net> |
Subject: | crash worthiness |
I would like to back up John H. about the sturdy construction of at least
the Firestar II. I posted that I had 14 hrs.on my airplane, actually it is
14 hrs. and 45 seconds.
The transition from two axis to three axis was not without cost. It
happened just like Dennis said it could in the manual. I got too much
altitude on a crow hop, the airplane got ahead of me I pulled too much
power too fast and stalled the wing. I pushed the nose over and had almost
recovered when I hit the ground nose and gear at about the same time. The
gear collapsed taking most of the G`s. The nose dug into the airfield
(private strip myself and two other pilots thank heavens no publicity) like
a seven
bottom plow throwing soil in my face and over my head. I skidded about
twenty five yards to a stop, Rotax idling nicely until I shut it down.
Damage to me-NONE not a scratch, until I cut myself loading up the
wreckage on my trailer.
Damage to Firestar- gear wiped off, cage bent where gear attaches, nose
cone trashed.
NO DAMAGE to fuselage tube, wings or tail.
I took my brand new Firestar apart and sent the cage back to the factory
to be repaired. The picture in Kitplanes is of my airplane after the second
time I built it. Since then I have 10 hrs. of dual with Pat Hirst in his
Maxair Drifter, took and passed both the written and flight test to become
an A.S.C. registered pilot.
In my own defense every thing went wrong when I pulled power. The throttle
handle on my MX was about six inches long and had about five inches of
throw, as compared to about a four inch handle with about three inches of
throw on the Firestar. The distance I pulled the throttle wouldn`t have
made much differance in the MX but the Firestar stopped dead in the air or
so it felt.
No ones fault but my own !!!
Thank you for the replys about my gap seal
Lan no flying reputation to protect Fetterman
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Randy & Joni Tolvstad" <tolvstad(at)nvc.net> |
Subject: | Kawasaki: A good motor? |
>Kolbs, that is crashing. One of the reasons I fly Kolbs is because they
>crash good. If they didn't, I wouldn't be here knocking out this msg
>tonight. Kolbs are very crashworthy aircraft, in addition to all their
>other attributes. One of the first things I look at in an aircraft is
>crashworthiness. Some of the ULs out there are a bit frightening if I had
>to crash one.
>
John,
I have an Ultrastar attached to my 440 Kawasaki and it seems to carry me
through the air just fine. I may be a little prejudice because it is be
only plane I have flown so far. I think the Kawasaki engine is a good one
too. It always starts on the 2nd pull and purrs like a kitten. It does
tend to set up a vibration between 4500 and 5000 RPM. Does anyone else have
this problem or know of a cure for it?
I have always wondered as to why with the Firestars and newer Kolb ULs they
moved the motor up higher between the wings. I have heard so many reports
about people who have revved up there motors or got stuck in soft dirt and
tipped their planes forward because of this. My plane is very stable and I
am able to run my engine to full throttle while still on the ground to
assure that all is working well as taught to me by the person I bought my
plane from. Does the Fire Star pitch forward when you open the throttle in
flight?
I am very curious about the statement you made about Kolbs being good in
crashes. Is there a story behind your statement? If so I would be very
interested in hearing it! If I can learn anything from someone else's
mistake, I always consider it a freebee. I have read through many crash
reports over the Internet and learned much useful information from it. For
example, I remember reading a report of a Pilot that had a cap on while
flying an Ultrastar. It seems his cap blew off and went through the prop
breaking off a chunk and it caused such a vibration it caused him to crash.
Now I know better than to wear a cap while flying!
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bruce Steinhagen" <bsteinhagen(at)itol.com> |
Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
Mike, Can you give me details of your cloth installation. I'm going to be
installing a BRS soon and am trying to keep streamlined (within gap)..
----------
> From: Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: wing gap seal
> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 5:06 PM
>
>
> >
> >As the owner of a FS2 who put a large fiberglass gap seal thru the prop
if
> you
> >use Velcro still use a couple of pins with safeties on them. My fairing
> >scared the hell out of me as I could not recognize what all the noise
was
> from
> >and then the remains hung up on the horizontal wire brace and blanked
off one
>
> This has always been my greatest misgiving about wing gap mods. I'm
> curious as to just how advantageous/nice they really are. Feedback?
>
> I've also always had a safety concern about the pusher configuration,
given
> the minimal (or in my case with Ultrastar, no-existant) enclosure.
During
> one of my lessons, I discovered at the end that a bolt I'd accidentally
> left in my jacket pocket was no longer there. It almost certainly was
only
> narrowly missed by the prop--and it could've brought us down. Ever
since,
> my preflight checklist has included checking that there's nothing in any
> loose pockets, that my zippered pouch is closed, etc. Seems like I read
> once of someone loosing the zipper tab of the gap seal into the prop; I
> think that's why I began safety clipping it to the plane.
>
> I went with the cloth gap seal because it was lighter. (And abandoned
the
> cracking *plexiglass* gap seal the plane came with--that's non-stock for
> you lurkers--disaster waiting to happen!) I went with a pusher
> configuration because it's so outrageously cool to be out there in front
> with "nothing on." No pun intended. :)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
>
>At one end of my 900' runway are 30 foot power lines. I can make them
>magically disappear with a check for $2500 made out ot the local power
>company (actually, they get buried for that amoount) Seems like the price
>of a chute for the plane. SO, the question is: if you had to choose one or
>the other, (not both), which is the WISER investment in safety (either real
>or perceived!) ????? I havent found this to be an obvious choice......
>but I feel wisdom in the collective mental capacity of this list
>membership..... or in other words... what do YOU think???!
>
Bury the wires. Kolbs are not in the habit of folding in the air but 2
cycles are known to lose power. If all goes right you will always make the
wires but if you have a power fluxuation you may not.
Woody
Some men are able to stumble over the truth but are able to pick
themselves up and keep walking as if nothing had happened. (Churchill)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
From: | rbaker2(at)juno.com (Ray L Baker) |
Dick,
How did she handle after those in flight midifications?
Ray Baker
>
>As the owner of a FS2 who put a large fiberglass gap seal thru the
>prop if you
>use Velcro still use a couple of pins with safeties on them. My
>fairing
>scared the hell out of me as I could not recognize what all the noise
>was from
>and then the remains hung up on the horizontal wire brace and blanked
>off one
>side.
>Dick C
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
Subject: | Re: crash worthiness |
I might as well add my proof of crashworthiness in here also. I was flying
my original Kolb Flyer with the chrysler 850 engines. The ones I had just
been warned not to bet my life on. I had just taken off and one engine
started running rough. I decided to turn around and land. I was in between
some wooded areas so I was keeping a eye out for trees. I wish I would have
looked at my air speed. I stalled in a turn at about tree top height (75')
The next thing I know I am watching the ground come straight up at me. I
thought about John Chotia of Weedhopper who had done the same trick a couple
weeks before and was no longer with us and I knew my luck could not be much
better. After kissing my backside good bye I decided to keep my eyes open
and watch the end come. After impacting at near 90* straight in one engine
was still running so I reached down to turn it off. The new location for the
switch was now somewhere near my head. None of my welds had broken but
almost everything else did. The wheels were buried to the axels in the
dirt.I walked away with a stiff neck. Disassembled the Flyer put it in a
hanger and drove to a hospital 20 km. away for a check up.
I believe that the steel airframe saved my life and if I had an aluminum
frame around me I would not be here today and there would be less mail
volume on this list. I believe Dennis may have a copy of the photo in his
archives somewhere.
Woody
Some men are able to stumble over the truth but are able to pick
themselves up and keep walking as if nothing had happened. (Churchill)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
>
> I am building a wing gap seal made of aluminum sheet and lexon. I am
using
> the photo of the factory Firestar II. What I can`t see is how Dennis held
> it on. Is it just the curve of aluminum around the leading edge and velcro,
> or are there camlock fasteners somewhere?
> Lan
If I had it to do over again I'd weld a couple of plates for either
camlocks or truss head screws on the root rib to hold the gap in
place. Velcro sucks.
The top and bottom are held together through a vertical section of
Lexan with an aluminum angle riveted on each end. The top angle
is riveted to the Lexan top cover (#30 or #29 drill for pop rivets) and
a couple of self locking nut plates can be fastened to the inside
bottom of the lower aluminum angle. Use truss head screws
through the lower lexan and into the nuts. It'll never come loose this
way. Use the loop side of the Velcro (fuzzy) on the entire
perimeter of the gap seal to cushion it....keeps it from chafing the
fabric.
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Mike,
The lexan gap seal that Kolb has plans for works well and is impossible
to come off because it wraps around the wings' center. It's held on by
velcro and is held firm to the wing.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
writes:
>
>>
>>As the owner of a FS2 who put a large fiberglass gap seal thru the
>prop if
>you
>>use Velcro still use a couple of pins with safeties on them. My
>fairing
>>scared the hell out of me as I could not recognize what all the noise
>was
>from
>>and then the remains hung up on the horizontal wire brace and blanked
>off one
>
>This has always been my greatest misgiving about wing gap mods. I'm
>curious as to just how advantageous/nice they really are. Feedback?
>
>I've also always had a safety concern about the pusher configuration,
>given
>the minimal (or in my case with Ultrastar, no-existant) enclosure.
>During
>one of my lessons, I discovered at the end that a bolt I'd
>accidentally
>left in my jacket pocket was no longer there. It almost certainly was
>only
>narrowly missed by the prop--and it could've brought us down. Ever
>since,
>my preflight checklist has included checking that there's nothing in
>any
>loose pockets, that my zippered pouch is closed, etc. Seems like I
>read
>once of someone loosing the zipper tab of the gap seal into the prop;
>I
>think that's why I began safety clipping it to the plane.
>
>I went with the cloth gap seal because it was lighter. (And abandoned
>the
>cracking *plexiglass* gap seal the plane came with--that's non-stock
>for
>you lurkers--disaster waiting to happen!) I went with a pusher
>configuration because it's so outrageously cool to be out there in
>front
>with "nothing on." No pun intended. :)
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb List Subject Matter |
>
>Please Mister Pike: since the FireFly is the most humble (read teeny) of
>The Kolbs, can I have just a crust of bread sans beurre? s.v.p. very
>old baron, tugging his forelock.
>
It's not the Kolbers that need to be humble on this list; it's the
non-kolb lurkers,and wannabes that I was referring to.
And if I lose my medical, I will be FireFly-ing right there with you!
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
P.S., my wife thought your post was a scream!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb List Subject Matter |
Thankee, mine hair. I am hoist by my own pitot tube. GB
Pee Ess And a most gracious low sweeping groveling bow to yer fare
maiden-lady-wiffe-mate. I'm old enough to know better, but too young to
resist.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ronald L. Perry" <ronaldpe(at)shenessex.heartland.net> |
Subject: | FireFly for sale? |
Does anyone near Iowa have a FireFly for sale?
Ron Perry
900 Walnut St.
Shenandoah, Ia., 51601
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb List Subject Matter |
>
> Personally I don't mind owners of lesser aircraft asking questions
>of people on this list as long as they are humble, respectful, keep their
>bourgeois opinions of their own aircraft to themselves, and say; "Please",
>and "Thank You". If they don't wish to do that, let them form their own
list.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAH yes
Geoff Thistlethwaite
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
For
>example, I remember reading a report of a Pilot that had a cap on while
>flying an Ultrastar. It seems his cap blew off and went through the prop
>breaking off a chunk and it caused such a vibration it caused him to crash.
>Now I know better than to wear a cap while flying!
>
>
>Randy
>
Better yet Randy get rid of any wood prop you've got and get a composite.
Had a cap go through my ultraprop on my old mx type, shredded the cap, prop
didn't even notice.
I wouldn't dream of having a wooden prop on a pusher.
Geoff (I've got my asbestos suit on) Thistlethwaite
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
Subject: | Best Plane for Instruction? |
Group,
I plan to get my BFI and need to get an aircraft to instruct in.
Need opinions, advise, etc.
I was looking for a used twinstar or an aircobra, as I want duel controls,
not the single center stick of the Quicks.
thanks
Geoff Thistlethwaite
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
<<
At one end of my 900' runway are 30 foot power lines. I can make them
magically disappear with a check for $2500 made out ot the local power
company (actually, they get buried for that amoount) Seems like the price
of a chute for the plane. SO, the question is: if you had to choose one or
the other, (not both), which is the WISER investment in safety (either real
or perceived!) ????? I havent found this to be an obvious choice......
but I feel wisdom in the collective mental capacity of this list
membership..... or in other words... what do YOU think???! >>
I would get rid of the lines! I priced the same thing one time here in PA and
their quoted price would have deflated my thin wallet to the tune of $20,000
... cough, cough. $2,500 is cheap! They probably missplace the decimal
point. Drop em before they have a chance to change their minds.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Good Morning Gang:
My little grass strip started life as 600 feet in a cow pasture, with cows
and all that goes with them, with a power line running at a 45 degree angle
right across the south end. This power line kept the Kolb Co., Inc., in
business from 1984 to 1985. I taught myself to fly fixed wing acft (big
mistake) off and on this 600 ft strip. With no brakes I had to use every
inch of my 600 ft. When landing to the north this required a 45 degree turn
just prior to touch down, which invariably meant I landed hard on the right
main gear. In this landing configuration it was simple to bend the fixed
gear leg. It always broke my heart (cause I would have to wait for repairs
or replacement) and it broke my back (cause we had to manhandle the
Ultrastar back to the hangar).
After nine years a friend of mine decided he wanted to keep his airplane at
my strip. He accomplished in a couple days what I had tried to do over a
period of years. He moved the power line at no expense to himself or me.
It helps to work for the REA.
Now I have 750 feet and no power line to dodge coming or going. And I still
have all the cows and everything that goes with them. They love to lounge
and BS on my little mowed strip. They were born and raised with an
airplane, so they are very comfortable with one flying in their midst. Some
times it takes 4 or 5 passes to get some of the old hard core mamas off the
strip so I can land.
After the work was completed, my friend decided to hangar at the local
airport instead of out in the boonies with me. BTW he didn't move the power
line back to its original position.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Stan Glumac <snap(at)sgi.net> |
Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
what's all the flap about the power lines at the end of a 900' runway
are you flying a skylane out of that strip? where is the 200' takeoff
distance measured from? you should have a 1000' on those wires when you
go over them.....
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Stan Glumac wrote:
>
> what's all the flap about the power lines at the end of a 900' runway
> are you flying a skylane out of that strip? where is the 200' takeoff
> distance measured from? you should have a 1000' on those wires when you
> go over them.....
>
Like you say Stan, he "should".
I've found it interesting that every response to Jon's power line question
has been mostly, to bury them. (easy when it's not our $2500 :) ) This,
in spite of the fact that we all know our Kolbs can take off in
100-200 feet. We are all still here to chat about it because we're
safety conscious enf to know we can't always tempt fate. Home field
is used all the time, and it's good to keep the odds on your side.
I'm sure an even tighter "runway" would work, but it detracts from
the fun to have nightmares of hanging crispy-fried in the power lines
just cuz some little piece of cow shit sticks in your carb someday.
Like the bumper sticker says, shit happens, but the electric lines don't
*have* to be there. Jon, consider a temporary career change to work
for the power company, say maybe as a safety engineer. :)
Story time if you're interested...
One of my memorable take-offs: I had just come back from a long
and most enjoyable XC up north (long for me, not for JH). I wanted to
squeeze the last 20 minutes of twilight out of the day but was cold.
If I stopped at my home field to put my jacket on, I woulda spent that
last 20 minutes jabberin with the farmer there, so I picked a spot just
5 minutes away. It was a new housing subdivision, a block on the side
that hadn't been built yet. I'd say it was about 400'long with ~30'
power lines at the end. I landed South into the wind, no obstacles.
Taxied back to beginning, got out and put my jacket on, picked the
tail up to turn around and noticed how much taller the power lines at
the south end had gotten in the last 60 seconds. Guuulp. People from
the neighborhood started to come out wondering if an airplane had just
crash landed -- "are you okay?". Damn, somebodies gonna call 911 soon.
Pressure mounting to get this over with, I launched outa there no problem,
but certainly was in regret mode. I still have a vivid image of those
power lines etched in my brain. And I still smile everytime i drive
by that subdivision, marveling at the stupid pilot that once landed a
plane there.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: crash worthiness |
Group,
Whenever someone says how "crashworthy" their Kolb is, I get concerned. I am
afraid that people will think that a Kolb will protect them and not be as serious
about safety. While some people walk away from accidents in Kolb's, others are
taken to the hospitol by ambulances and spend months recovering. Kolb's are "light
aircraft" (they do stall and spin) and it would better if people considered the
personal and financial risk when they prepare themselves for flying them.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J 72 hrs
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: crash worthiness |
> Whenever someone says how "crashworthy" their Kolb is, I get
concerned. I am
>afraid that people will think that a Kolb will protect them and not be as
serious
>about safety.
On the contrary. Reading reports on accidents and how they occurred is
invaluable and reminds us all that they do happen. "It can't happen to me"
is one of the most dangerous flying attitudes you can have. (no pun again
:) ) It also teaches us that crashworthiness is indeed a VERY important
attribute of an airplane. I'd be willing to bet that safety, more than any
kind of weight or performance reason, is why Homer Kolb went with the
welded steel pod.
I'm very impressed and comforted with the fact that accident reports
involving very hard impacts never seem to report the pilot getting squished
by the engine, which is a potential downside to the pusher configuration.
I do seem to recall some reports of very hard impacts of the "horrizontal
arrival" type (pancaking in) resulting in spinal injury (and I think injury
to the legs?). The recommended improvement was something like closed cell
foam under the seat. Weight cost would be negligible. Anybody with imput
on that?
-Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: crash worthiness |
-----Original Message-----
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: crash worthiness
>
>Group,
> Whenever someone says how "crashworthy" their Kolb is, I get concerned.
I am
>afraid that people will think that a Kolb will protect them and not be as
serious
>about safety. While some people walk away from accidents in Kolb's, others
are
Hey Gang:
Since I am the one who brought up the subject of crashworthiness, maybe I
need to expand on that subject a little bit.
A crashworthy aircraft (just like some automobiles are more crashworthy than
others) will protect you better than an uncrashworthy aircraft. That
doesn't mean that you will not be injured or it does not mean that you will
not be killed.
A welded 4130 chromoly fuselage surrounding my body, which is strapped in
with proper shoulder harness and seat belt will certainly protect me much
more in a crash situation than a wooden fuselage that disintegrates on
impact, separating me from the airplane. The Rans S-12 has a welded 4130
fuselage pan that supports landing gear and seats, but the wings and engine
are supported on aluminum tubing that collapses on extra hard landings and
allows them to come forward and down on the occupants. Challengers are
famous for wiping off the front of the fuselage from about the pilots knees.
Only aircraft I know that fastens the nose gear to the fuselage with hose
clamps. It would worry me flying a minimax if I had to attach shoulder
harness to tailpost. Take a look at the composite aircraft that crashed at
Sun and Fun this year off the UL strip with one fatality.
NASCAR builds their frames out of welded 4130 tubing. Indy cars and Formula
I use composites which are far stronger and more expensive than what we can
afford to use in homebuilts. Are they crashworthy? Yes.
Crashworthy doesn't mean to fly harder with less regard for safety and the
inherent danger of our sport. It means I may have a better chance of
survival if I am in one that crashes than I am in one that is not as
crashworthy. There is never a guarantee of survival.
The serious crash of my MK III which I survived without injury, most likely
would have been fatal in a lesser airplane. I don't know for sure and I
don't want to do it again, but we really have no garantee when we deal with
gravity and altitude and that sudden stop.
Physical condition probably plays a part in crash survival, so I need to be
extra careful and not crash.
Hopefully I have explained my position on crashworthy aircraft. The first
thing I do when I look at a new airplane is see how it is built and how I
think it will survive in a crash. If it isn't crashworthy, I don't want to
fly it.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
Bruce,
protect the chute and keep it dry and at the same time, looks better than the
cloth. I designed a one piece aluminum gap seal for my II, and it only has only
one disadvantage. It takes a few more minutes to attach and that would matter if
you folded it often.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J 72 hrs
SE Wisconsin
Bruce Steinhagen wrote:
>
> Mike, Can you give me details of your cloth installation. I'm going to be
> installing a BRS soon and am trying to keep streamlined (within gap)..
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: crash worthiness |
In a message dated 9/23/98 11:07:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu writes:
<< I do seem to recall some reports of very hard impacts of the "horrizontal
arrival" type (pancaking in) resulting in spinal injury (and I think injury
to the legs?). >>
There was an accident in Manatee county florida a few years back in a
Twinstar where the pilot was actually thrown from the aircraft on impact and,
as I recall, had his head separated from his shoulders by the prop, how that
happened I don't know. The passenger received massive spinal injuries. The
twinstar had a unique center column that supported the nose cone and the
rudder and I don't think that design feature has been repeated in any other
Kolb product. There but by the grace of God go all of us.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
Hi Randy,
>I have an Ultrastar attached to my 440 Kawasaki and it seems to carry me
>through the air just fine. I may be a little prejudice because it is be
>only plane I have flown so far. I think the Kawasaki engine is a good one
>too. It always starts on the 2nd pull and purrs like a kitten. It does
>tend to set up a vibration between 4500 and 5000 RPM. Does anyone else have
>this problem or know of a cure for it?
My UltraStar, with the 35 hp OL-II-O2 Cuyuna engine, has a harmonic
vibration range between 4800 and 5200 rpm. It's no problem as I just try
to stay out of that rpm range as much as possible. I doubt if there is a
complete cure for your situation, but you may wish to try rotating the prop
on the hub a bolt hole at a time to see if there is any improvement in the
vibration. Assuming that your present prop is in balance, you'd probably
run smoother with a 3 bladed prop. That, however, is an expensive option
and will probably degrade your UltraStar's performance. My suggestion is
to just live with it and stay out of the 4500-5000 rpm range. :)
Regards,
Skip
1984 UltraStar
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Best Plane for Instruction? |
>
>Group,
>I plan to get my BFI and need to get an aircraft to instruct in.
>Need opinions, advise, etc.
>I was looking for a used twinstar or an aircobra, as I want duel controls,
>not the single center stick of the Quicks.
>thanks
>Geoff Thistlethwaite
>
>
There is a dual stick conversion for the MKIII available now.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: crash worthiness |
-----Original Message-----
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: crash worthiness
>
>
> There was an accident in Manatee county florida a few years back in a
>Twinstar where the pilot was actually thrown from the aircraft on impact
and,
>as I recall, had his head separated from his shoulders by the prop, how
that
Hey Gang:
You are absolutely right, in my book, about the Twinstar. I have had
absolutely nothing to do with it. Never flown it and didn't even think of
it when I was writing my posts about crashworthiness. There isn't a whole
lot there to protect your buns in a Twinstar.
I don't want to be a projectile if I crash. Rather have that 4130 fuselage
soak up some of that energy, rather than me. That is why I use military
grade hardware when my big Brother Jim sews up my seat belts and shoulder
harnesses. I guess there is always some slight possibility for something to
strike the quick release on a restraining system. Doesn't happen very
often.
A crash worthy aircraft is useless without crashworthy restraining system.
IMHO.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
-----Original Message-----
From: skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net>
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kawasaki: A good motor?
>
>
>Hi Randy,
>
>>I have an Ultrastar attached to my 440 Kawasaki and it seems to carry me
>>through the air just fine. I may be a little prejudice because it is be
>>only plane I have flown so far. I think the Kawasaki engine is a good one
>>too. It always starts on the 2nd pull and purrs like a kitten. It does
>>tend to set up a vibration between 4500 and 5000 RPM. Does anyone else
have
>>this problem or know of a cure for it?
>
>My UltraStar, with the 35 hp OL-II-O2 Cuyuna engine, has a harmonic
>vibration range between 4800 and 5200 rpm. It's no problem as I just try
>to stay out of that rpm range as much as possible. I doubt if there is a
Hey Gang:
I may be running my mouth too much, if so just let me know.
Most all aircraft, fixed and rotary wing, have an area of resonance,
vibration, rough place, in engine, prop, main and tail rotor, and airframe.
Usually at a narrow rpm range. Aircraft with this inherent problem will
have a yellow arc on the tach. This means not to linger in this rpm range,
but go up or down thru it expeditiously.
The Hughes TH-55 and I think the H-34, will get into what is called ground
resonance. While running up the aircraft on the ground if one remains in
this yellow arc area too long the aircraft will literally tear itself apart.
There are some pics of the results of this happening at Ft Rucker or Ft
Wolters on the web. If I can find them again I will post the urls on the
List.
Most of these rough areas are there for life. I wouldn't try to smooth them
out if the aircraft flies good in cruise rpm, but some of you guys fly
really slow so you'll have to figure out how to deal with the problem.
Anyhow, you may be chasing your tail trying to fix a rough area.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Ben,
With a few calculations, I see what you mean:
Assume climbout at best glide speed, ~40mph:
(40mph x 5280 ft/mile / 60min) = 3520 ft/min
This leaves 5.1 sec to climb if takeoff roll is 100 ft on grass (400 ft
total):
(300 ft (runway left to climb) / 3520ft/min x 60 sec) = 5.1 sec
At 1000 ft/min climb (average) = 16.67 ft/sec
So, 16.67 ft/sec x 5.1 sec = 85 ft of altitude agl. Subtract the 30 foot
powerlines = 55 ft above the lines and climbing.
Too close for comfort. Don't feel bad man, I've had my close ones too.
These "close ones" make us better pilots, if we survive them.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
>Story time if you're interested...
>One of my memorable take-offs: I had just come back from a long
>and most enjoyable XC up north (long for me, not for JH). I wanted to
>squeeze the last 20 minutes of twilight out of the day but was cold.
>If I stopped at my home field to put my jacket on, I woulda spent that
>last 20 minutes jabberin with the farmer there, so I picked a spot just
>5 minutes away. It was a new housing subdivision, a block on the side
>that hadn't been built yet. I'd say it was about 400'long with ~30'
>power lines at the end. I landed South into the wind, no obstacles.
>Taxied back to beginning, got out and put my jacket on, picked the
>tail up to turn around and noticed how much taller the power lines at
>the south end had gotten in the last 60 seconds. Guuulp. People from
>the neighborhood started to come out wondering if an airplane had just
>crash landed -- "are you okay?". Damn, somebodies gonna call 911 soon.
>Pressure mounting to get this over with, I launched outa there no
problem,
>but certainly was in regret mode. I still have a vivid image of those
>power lines etched in my brain. And I still smile everytime i drive
>by that subdivision, marveling at the stupid pilot that once landed a
>plane there.
>-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | joe vasher <jvasher(at)advadata.com> |
Subject: | service information and service bulletins for ROTAX |
Someone posted about availability of service bulletins for rotax
engines. There is a web page that
has service bulletins and information.
www.rotax-owners.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Scott Olendorf" <olendorf(at)empireone.net> |
In case anyone is interested I just put a few pics on a web page. Don't
expect anything fancy, I'm just learning the web page thing. I will be
adding a more pictures as time goes by.
http://members.aol.com/olefiresta/
Scott Olendorf
Original Firestar, Rotax 377
Schenectady, NY USA
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Thacker <gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us> |
Scott.Pierskalla(at)HBC.honeywell.com
Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
Atta boy Ralph.
Gary
Souderton,Pa.
gthacker(at)wsd.k12.pa.us (work only)
____F i r e S t a r____
___(+)___
(_)
\ /
On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Ralph H Burlingame wrote:
>
> Ben,
>
> With a few calculations, I see what you mean:
>
> Assume climbout at best glide speed, ~40mph:
> (40mph x 5280 ft/mile / 60min) = 3520 ft/min
>
>
> This leaves 5.1 sec to climb if takeoff roll is 100 ft on grass (400 ft
> total):
> (300 ft (runway left to climb) / 3520ft/min x 60 sec) = 5.1 sec
>
>
> At 1000 ft/min climb (average) = 16.67 ft/sec
>
>
> So, 16.67 ft/sec x 5.1 sec = 85 ft of altitude agl. Subtract the 30 foot
> powerlines = 55 ft above the lines and climbing.
>
>
> Too close for comfort. Don't feel bad man, I've had my close ones too.
> These "close ones" make us better pilots, if we survive them.
>
> Ralph Burlingame
> Original FireStar 400+ hrs
>
>
> >Story time if you're interested...
> >One of my memorable take-offs: I had just come back from a long
> >and most enjoyable XC up north (long for me, not for JH). I wanted to
> >squeeze the last 20 minutes of twilight out of the day but was cold.
> >If I stopped at my home field to put my jacket on, I woulda spent that
> >last 20 minutes jabberin with the farmer there, so I picked a spot just
> >5 minutes away. It was a new housing subdivision, a block on the side
> >that hadn't been built yet. I'd say it was about 400'long with ~30'
> >power lines at the end. I landed South into the wind, no obstacles.
> >Taxied back to beginning, got out and put my jacket on, picked the
> >tail up to turn around and noticed how much taller the power lines at
> >the south end had gotten in the last 60 seconds. Guuulp. People from
> >the neighborhood started to come out wondering if an airplane had just
> >crash landed -- "are you okay?". Damn, somebodies gonna call 911 soon.
> >Pressure mounting to get this over with, I launched outa there no
> problem,
> >but certainly was in regret mode. I still have a vivid image of those
> >power lines etched in my brain. And I still smile everytime i drive
> >by that subdivision, marveling at the stupid pilot that once landed a
> >plane there.
>
> >-Ben Ransom
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Firestar pics |
>
>In case anyone is interested I just put a few pics on a web page. Don't
>expect anything fancy, I'm just learning the web page thing. I will be
>adding a more pictures as time goes by.
>
>http://members.aol.com/olefiresta/
>
>Scott Olendorf
Hi Scott:
Don't be bashful. Send us more pics. Enjoyed your new page. Wish I had a
scanner so I could share with you all.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
>
>what's all the flap about the power lines at the end of a 900' runway
>are you flying a skylane out of that strip? where is the 200' takeoff
>distance measured from? you should have a 1000' on those wires when you
>go over them.....
>
>
You must be new to Ultralights. The take off distance is right but things
are not always perfect. Usually you have engine problems and those wires are
a bit uncomfortable if you are low taking off or coming in real quiet. I
once was taking off on a strip with a railroad embankment running beside it
and a power line running along the far side of the embankment. My flyer had
a power reduction on the left side combined with a left cross wind was
forcing me into this embankment on the right. I may have made it over the
embankment but wasn't sure if I could make the wires. I had to make a quick
choice wires or dirt. I dove it into the embankment because given a choice I
would rather crash than burn. One more testimony to crashworthiness in a Kolb.
Woody
Some men are able to stumble over the truth but are able to pick
themselves up and keep walking as if nothing had happened. (Churchill)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Thacker <gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us> |
Subject: | Re: Firestar pics |
I wish you did too john. Liked the picts Scott. I was #18.
Gary
Souderton,Pa.
gthacker(at)wsd.k12.pa.us (work only)
____F i r e S t a r____
___(+)___
(_)
\ /
On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, john hauck wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >In case anyone is interested I just put a few pics on a web page. Don't
> >expect anything fancy, I'm just learning the web page thing. I will be
> >adding a more pictures as time goes by.
> >
> >http://members.aol.com/olefiresta/
> >
> >Scott Olendorf
>
>
> Hi Scott:
>
> Don't be bashful. Send us more pics. Enjoyed your new page. Wish I had a
> scanner so I could share with you all.
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
> Most all aircraft, fixed and rotary wing, have an area of resonance,
> vibration, rough place, in engine, prop, main and tail rotor, and airframe.
> Most of these rough areas are there for life. I wouldn't try to smooth them
> out if the aircraft flies good in cruise rpm
There will always be unbalanced forces, in any piston engine, of
any design. For a two cycle, two cylinder, in-line engine with 180
degree crank throws, the vibration orders which add are the
2,4,6,...etc. Three cylinder engines, two or four cycle, are better,
since at at 120 degree crank throws the orders are 6,12,18,...etc.
The three cylinder engine wobbles about it's crank axis instead of
rocking.
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
>Hey Gang:
>
>I may be running my mouth too much, if so just let me know.
John, you go a head and run your mouth as much as you please as far as I'm
concerned.
you probubly have more time in more Kolb models than most of us, and I for
one do appreciate you input
>Anyhow, you may be chasing your tail trying to fix a rough area.
However, I do think that Skip may be on to something, and if Randy (decides
to)experiment and finds out something, and reports it to the list it could
help me sometime in the future.
>john h
Geoff Thistlethwaite
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
Kolb List Comrades,
As soon as anyone on this list checks out the fuel injection system, from
Triton Engineering (check out new Ultralight Flyer pg 14) let us in on what
you see/think.
I've been waiting for f/i for 2 strokes, knew it was just a matter of time,
and figure who ever comes up with an affordable, efficient, and safe system
is gonna win big time.
Geoff Thistlethwaite
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Group: Thoughts on several things. 1. I can sympathize with
the power line dilemma ( sp? ), since I had to go through the choice of
radios vs BRS. Roughly the same price + or -. When I built my wings, I
looked at the massive construction, as did some of my club members, and
agreed that anything that breaks one of those is gonna raise hell with me
too. So I bought the radios - important since I plan on flying in + thru
L.A. airspace. When I become rich and famous, or at least a little more
flush, I do plan on adding the 'chute, since it IS a very good idea. 2.
Something I haven't seen mentioned here is " Contact " magazine, for
owner built engines. Seems there's quite some interest out there for more
economical engines, and this is the magazine for it. I mention it now,
since in the new issue that came today, there's an excellent article ( 4th
of a series ) on alternators and charging systems. They are at
www.nonprofitnet.com/contact/ E-mail them at
contact1(at)flash.net 20 bucks a year for 6 issues, and worth much
more. 3. Crashworthiness. Read something in the pile of new
arrivals the other day about the new Cirrus w/chute. Comes down at 1500
fpm under the canopy. Almost 18 mph. Oooh, my aching tailbone. And spine.
Destroys the plane, but saves your life - if you ever walk again. Lancair
( I think ) ran a test wherein they held full stall and came down at 900
fpm. ! ! ! ! Less than 10 mph. Hmmmmm. Have I got rocks in my head, or
is that a viable option ?? A 172 falling leafs too bad, but a 150 settles
straight down, and not too fast....don't remember exactly. How does a Mk
III react ?? On the same idea, one of my destinations has been, and will
be Catalina Island. 35 mi. of open ocean. I know, I know, but it's a very
popular + very beautiful destination. If the unthinkable did occur, and
you set down, I understand that the sudden grab of the landing gear will
flip the plane on its' back. Not good. How about a full stall pancake in
?? I REALLY would like to hear thoughts on that ! ! !
Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
Subject: | Re: FireFly for sale? |
Is Texas near Iowa. Texas is pretty big, it must be close.
Contact Jerry jbidle(at)airmail.net or Gary ghansen(at)airmail.net if interested,
Thanks
>
>Does anyone near Iowa have a FireFly for sale?
>
> Ron Perry
> 900 Walnut St.
> Shenandoah, Ia., 51601
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
>
>Hi Group: Thoughts on several things On the same idea, one of my
destinations has been, and will
>be Catalina Island. 35 mi. of open ocean. I know, I know, but it's a very
>popular + very beautiful destination. If the unthinkable did occur, and
>you set down, I understand that the sudden grab of the landing gear will
>flip the plane on its' back. Not good. How about a full stall pancake in
>?? I REALLY would like to hear thoughts on that ! ! !
>Big Lar.
>
Big Lar,
A couple of years ago, just before I ordered my Firestar, I had(and still
have) an MX type, strut-braced, taildragger Ultralight. 24 flying hours
after putting in a new crank and rings on the cayuna ul202 one of the rings
broke. I was 200 ft agl over a large soybean field when the sudden quiet
happened. The beans were little over waist high, I don't know if your ever
seen soybeans growing but they are like bush/vines and will grab your
landing gear very quickly. I knew I wouldn't make it to the edge of the
field so I headed for the closest turnrow (nose down - airspeed up) held it
level above the rows and right before I ran out of momentum, pulled the nose
up so that the tail wheel dragged in first. Hit the ground moved froward
about 3 ft. when the beans stopped the gear. and the tail rose up to
vertical. I thought for sure it would go over, but it stopped just short of
vertical.
Turns out the only thing hurt (sides my ego) was one bent downtube. Course
none of "my buddies" had time to help me get it out so I had to do it
myself, and ripped the fabric getting it out of the field.
After I get the firestar flying I'm gonna rebuild that taildragger. Really
like that plane.
Geoff Thisltethwaite
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
>
>Hi Group: Thoughts on several things On the same idea, one of my
destinations has been, and will
>be Catalina Island. 35 mi. of open ocean. I know, I know, but it's a very
>popular + very beautiful destination. If the unthinkable did occur, and
>you set down, I understand that the sudden grab of the landing gear will
>flip the plane on its' back. Not good. How about a full stall pancake in
>?? I REALLY would like to hear thoughts on that ! ! !
>Big Lar.
>
Big Lar,
A couple of years ago, just before I ordered my Firestar, I had(and still
have) an MX type, strut-braced, taildragger Ultralight. 24 flying hours
after putting in a new crank and rings on the cayuna ul202 one of the rings
broke. I was 200 ft agl over a large soybean field when the sudden quiet
happened. The beans were little over waist high, I don't know if your ever
seen soybeans growing but they are like bush/vines and will grab your
landing gear very quickly. I knew I wouldn't make it to the edge of the
field so I headed for the closest turnrow (nose down - airspeed up) held it
level above the rows and right before I ran out of momentum, pulled the nose
up so that the tail wheel dragged in first. Hit the ground moved froward
about 3 ft. when the beans stopped the gear. and the tail rose up to
vertical. I thought for sure it would go over, but it stopped just short of
vertical.
Turns out the only thing hurt (sides my ego) was one bent downtube. Course
none of "my buddies" had time to help me get it out so I had to do it
myself, and ripped the fabric getting it out of the field.
After I get the firestar flying I'm gonna rebuild that taildragger. Really
like that plane.
Geoff Thisltethwaite
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charles Henry <chhenry(at)plains.nodak.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
>
>>At one end of my 900' runway are 30 foot power lines. I can make them
>>magically disappear with a check for $2500 made out ot the local power
Jon
The $2500 you were quoted is what my local power company wanted the first
time I asked to get the power line buried ,next I asked what the price would
be if I did the trenching and they came down to $1400 and the trencher cost
$160. Maybe that would work for you too.
Charles Henry
Firestar I
140 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
The leading edges of the wing hold the front of the wing gap and spring hold the
back down. I actually took an idea from Scott Bentley and added 1 inch nylon
webbing for the rear hold down and created a strap which attaches/ buttons to
brass button snaps on the back and bottom sides of the wing rear attachment
bar - two attachment points for redundancy on each side. See Scott's section
up on the Kolb (Kolbaircraft.com) builders & flyer section for photos. I also
used lexan slide guides on the wing gap instead of using aluminum as the plans
call for. they are a bit easier to make and have less of a tendency to cut
into things when misaligned - as when your trying to slide the whole affair onto
the aircraft.
On another note: be careful when your putting on the windshield. I cut the windshield
off at the top support tube thinking that the wing gap sat down against
this tube. I hadn't built the wing gap until after the windshield was cut
and attached. SURPRISE!!! Don't make my mistake yours. The windshield extends
beyond this top tube by a couple of inches. BTW, I ordered a quick build so
it was very easy to get out of sequence form the blue book. Kolb offers no
advice or documentation for quick builders. COming for the RC world I got very
spoiled and expected things to be as organized with sequenced, step by step
instructions for me to perform. It would have been also an advantage to have
parts bagged and inventoried. Also be careful when the plans call for AN4-14
and Kolb gives you AN4-16 only. They should have an errata sheet but they don't
provide one. I've probably spent almost $100 in Aircraft Spruce parts that
I didn't get in my "quick Build Kit" This included a complete set of clevis
pins. A
Sorry for the long dissertation. I write all of this not so much for you but for
other new comers who visit the Kolb list.
>>> Lanny Fetterman 09/21 8:33 PM >>>
I am building a wing gap seal made of aluminum sheet and lexon. I am using
the photo of the factory Firestar II. What I can`t see is how Dennis held
it on. Is it just the curve of aluminum around the leading edge and velcro,
or are there camlock fasteners somewhere?
Lan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
Subject: | Re: crash worthiness |
The steel cage of the Kolb and it's inherent crash worthiness is one of the main
reason we bought the aircraft in the first place. Reading the crash reports
only serves to reinforce our correct decisions and reinforce that we are always
risking a crash when we fly. I rode motorcycles for over 12 years and always
rode with the thought that I was going to be a "target for someone today".
This kept me focused and, I believe, out of trouble. The same goes for discussions
about crashing. It will help keep me focus and out of trouble. There's
advantage in knowledge. Keep the discussions coming, and oh, BTW, thank you
very much.
>>> "
-----Original Message-----
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: crash worthiness
________________________________________________________________________________
On 9/16/98 I wrote:
>>"I sometimes get concerned about the rough ride and wonder what I'm doing up
there. The Kolb builders manual says to slow down in rough air as these are
ultralights and stresses go way up. So just how much slower should one fly to
insure the airframe is not overstressed?"<<
On 9/17/98 Vince nicely responded with:
>>"In a normal stall at engine idle, the load is 1-g. Your wing can safely
handle 4 g's. If you generate extra lift with the wing by suddenly applying
up elevator you have changed the angle of attack and the relative wind and
increased the load on the wing. An up (or down) draft does a similar change
in the relative wind to increase (or decrease) the angle of attack, also.
Thus, the air induced turbulence can increase the load. You want to make the
maximum load you can induce remain below the strength of the airframe. An
airspeed of twice the stall speed limits the maximum load you can induce to
4-g's (two squared is four) for then the wing stalls at that angle of attack.
If you keep your speed to at or less than twice the stall speed, you may get
an accelerated stall, but you should not be able to overstress the
airframe."<<
Vince, thanks for the info. Now just to be sure, let me see if I understand
this right. If my stall speed is 32 MPH indicated, that would mean I should
keep it below 64 MPH (twice the stall speed) in rough air. Since I usually
fly at 45 to 50 MPH (at least according to my ASI) I guess I really wouldn't
have to slow down at all, other than to just feel more comfortable. So, I
guess that's what I'll continue doing, just slow down to a speed that makes me
feel better.
Thanks again,
Bill Varnes
Original FireStar 260 Hrs.
Audubon, NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
I've heard, unsubstanciated, that the 440's may have a problem with their crankshafts.
I know that a guy I used to fly with had his propellor fly away when
the belt reduction drive parted with part of the crank. He had felt a different
vibration in flights before. Curious he went flying to figure it out. (A
lesson here?) Since he was over a tidal mash when the engine went silent he tried
to stretch his glide and augered from 200 feet in on a 45 degree banked
spiral dive. He walked away because the Flight Star SPider steel cage absorbed
the impact. Aircraft was a "Totaled" but he walked away. If you have any
significant hours on the crank, you may want to get it checked - or replaced.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
Subject: | Re: Best Plane for Instruction? |
I have a BFI and am just finishing our Mark II with dual controls. We are using
a Kunzleman over the head - in the wing gap - remote switch box, all eletronics
except for the gauages are over head. This way, if need be, we can turn
off the motor and pull the parachute handle which is right by my right shoulder,
easy to locate if in a spiral high G stall. Kunzleman even provided a plug
to ground the mags when I remove / unplug the gapseal (and switch) from the
aircraft. Can't start the motor. Nice & competent setup.
>>> Richard Pike 09/23 5:25 PM >>>
>
>Group,
>I plan to get my BFI and need to get an aircraft to instruct in.
>Need opinions, advise, etc.
>I was looking for a used twinstar or an aircobra, as I want duel controls,
>not the single center stick of the Quicks.
>thanks
>Geoff Thistlethwaite
>
>
There is a dual stick conversion for the MKIII available now.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Ralph H Burlingame wrote:
> With a few calculations, I see what you mean:
>
> Assume climbout at best glide speed, ~40mph:
> (40mph x 5280 ft/mile / 60min) = 3520 ft/min
> Too close for comfort. Don't feel bad man, I've had my close ones too.
Thanks a lot Ralph! Dead Reckoning takes on a whole new meaning. :)
To be good on definitions and flying method, I'd just clarify to say
I climbed out at Best Angle, not Best Glide speed. Best Angle equals
Minimum Sink speed. For me this is ~38, so the calcs are still about
right, although I re-ran your calcs with a 5mph headwind (plus 2mph
from 40-38) and gained a bit more breathing room. Best Glide = Max
climb rate (fpm), which is not as good as best angle in this situation.
Also, my Best climb rate is ~1150, but i stuck with your 1000fpm as it
is average, conservative, and maybe closer to Best angle climb rate.
Thanks for the exercise.
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
>
> I am building a wing gap seal made of aluminum sheet and lexon. I am using
> the photo of the factory Firestar II. What I can`t see is how Dennis held
> it on. Is it just the curve of aluminum around the leading edge and velcro,
> or are there camlock fasteners somewhere?
> Lan
You can order the leading edge AL piece already press bent to the right
shape from Kolb -- cheap. I believe they have a design drawing if you
ask for it and it shows attach method. In brief answer to your question,
the bottom side of the AL leading edge piece has a piece of lexan on it.
On mine this extends back at least 8" maybe 10. It is velcroed to the
bottom of the wing by a 4" strip each side. This underside attachment
is 90% of what keeps the lexan gap seal from departing in flight --
works well. I have velcro on top and 2 other more solid attach points
to insure it stays put. BTW Jim B, i generally agree, velcro sucks.
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
Full stall & Pancake in? There's no such thing except in the Saturday morning
cartoons. Depending on your aircraft your stall speed will be 27 -37 mph or there
abouts so your forward speed wil be the same unless you stall at altitude
and then your (Terminal) velousity will be dictated by your altitude. Get floats
and be safe. When I rode motorcycles we had a saying regarding "no helmet
riders": $2 brain, $2 helmet. Is the flight out there worth the risk of drowing?
Floats seem to be a cheap life saving option in this case.
>>> "
You wrote:
>--> Thoughts on several things On the same idea, one of my
destinations has been, and will
>be Catalina Island. 35 mi. of open ocean.
September 13, 1998 - September 24, 1998
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-ax