Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-ay
September 24, 1998 - October 02, 1998
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
PLease: When you are responding to Kolb-List emails if you could repond either
to the individual or the Kolb-list and not both I would appreciate it. I arrived
to find over 100 e-mails today most of them doubles. My boss will appreciate
any efforts you can make in this regard. Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.COM> |
I was intrigued by this, since I was certain I'd taken pictures of my gap
seal, but I'm always too lazy to index them. And this was from the period
when I put things on AOL (http://members.aol.com/scottbntly/index.htm)
rather than stealing space on Bentley's web site (http://scott.bentley.com/
.)
So I went to my AOL web site, and I couldn't find the pictures I thought
Todd was referring to (though you can find them with just
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/).
So I went to http://www.matronics.com/searching/search.html, searched for
"Bentley" on the Kolb list, and saw everything I ever contributed.
So I found the message below. I encourage everyone, strongly, to check the
archive before sending questions. There's a whole lotta information there!
Match: #19
Message: #935
From: Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.COM>
Subject: Wing Gap Seal Holddown
Date: Mar 10, 1997
I've come up with a far better method than the "spring" default for
securing the trailing edge of the wing gap seal.
see:
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/gaphold.jpg
First, the square tube is covered at the ends with the "cloth" side of
sticky velcro (white in the picture.) Then the "hook" side of some "not
sticky" velcro strip (a thinner, black strip in the picture) is secured
to the gap seal with rivets through an aluminum plate. The "not sticky"
stuff, designed to be sewn onto fabric, was delivered by mistake with my
upholstry kit.
This eliminates the problem that would occur if the spring came lose,
will not scratch the paint on the square tube, and is very easy to put
on and take off.
If you haven't seen them before, there are pictures of the gap seal on
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgapover.jpg
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgapside.jpg
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgaprear.jpg
...
Turns out all those unindexed pictures are all still there!
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Thompson [mailto:TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 1998 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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. ...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
I'm still not in the air, but making use of the time my engine is in the
shop for new seals.
Because I have top-mounted my BRS canister the wing-gap seal has been an
obstacle to me for quite some time , making the zip-up gap seal unusable.
I've received a couple of good suggestions from the list, but your remark
about what is available directly from Kolb makes me wonder. When I bought
this 1985 kit I wrote Kolb a letter notifying them that I was the new owner,
and filled out their required form. I asked them to please place me on a
list for any pertinent mailings, and asked if there were any options
available or any recommended changes for my plane. I have never heard back
from them regarding either of these requests.
In reading this Kolb List I have learned of a few things that would have
saved me some time and money, but was never otherwise made aware of it,
i.e., heavy duty landing gear legs, a spring aluminum tailwheel rod to
replace the fiberglass rod, a full enclosure option, and now a wing-gap seal
alternative. What else could there be available that I am totally unaware
of? I had to assume that there were no available options. How do you guys
find out about these things?
Ron Carroll
Original Firestar
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>
>
>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.
>Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
Shows to go ya that the Net knows all...forever and ever and ever and....
>>> Scott Bentley 09/24 1:34 PM >>>
I was intrigued by this, since I was certain I'd taken pictures of my gap
seal, but I'm always too lazy to index them. And this was from the period
when I put things on AOL (http://members.aol.com/scottbntly/index.htm)
rather than stealing space on Bentley's web site (http://scott.bentley.com/
.)
So I went to my AOL web site, and I couldn't find the pictures I thought
Todd was referring to (though you can find them with just
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/).
So I went to http://www.matronics.com/searching/search.html, searched for
"Bentley" on the Kolb list, and saw everything I ever contributed.
So I found the message below. I encourage everyone, strongly, to check the
archive before sending questions. There's a whole lotta information there!
Match: #19
Message: #935
From: Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.COM>
Subject: Wing Gap Seal Holddown
Date: Mar 10, 1997
I've come up with a far better method than the "spring" default for
securing the trailing edge of the wing gap seal.
see:
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/gaphold.jpg
First, the square tube is covered at the ends with the "cloth" side of
sticky velcro (white in the picture.) Then the "hook" side of some "not
sticky" velcro strip (a thinner, black strip in the picture) is secured
to the gap seal with rivets through an aluminum plate. The "not sticky"
stuff, designed to be sewn onto fabric, was delivered by mistake with my
upholstry kit.
This eliminates the problem that would occur if the spring came lose,
will not scratch the paint on the square tube, and is very easy to put
on and take off.
If you haven't seen them before, there are pictures of the gap seal on
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgapover.jpg
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgapside.jpg
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgaprear.jpg
...
Turns out all those unindexed pictures are all still there!
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Thompson [mailto:TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 1998 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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. ...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Johann G." <johann.g(at)centrum.is> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety Choice |
Hi Jon.
Act like a lightning in your next bad weather. We here in Iceland can not use that
excuse to get rid of power lines. No lighting weather. So we have BRS parachutes.
Just kidding.
We do have this problem near our ultralight field, High voltage power lines, but
it is on the final most of the time, because of dominant wind from the north.
But
we just come in steep and fast. It's safer. It would cost us a little more that
$2.500 to get rid of this line.
Save flying.
Johann
Jon P. Croke wrote:
>
> 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: | "Johann G." <johann.g(at)centrum.is> |
| Subject: | Re: crash worthiness |
Hi Lenny.
Your story is just like I am reading my own story, three years ago. This is exactly
how I experienced crow hops. Never again. This was my first Firestar II. Since
then I
have had some training in a Maxair Drifter at Jax. Herlong Airport, built one more
Firestar II and am having the greatest time flying a Kolb.
MHO on the Kolb list staying within the subject. I like reading anything about
the
Kolb aircraft and any engine available to be used for this grate plane.Great input
from John Hauck.
After a Rotax engine died on me in my Phantom three weeks ago, I do not trust the
Rotax as much as I did before.
Best regards,
Johann G.
Iceland
Lanny Fetterman wrote:
>
> 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: | "Wayland, William C." <wcw2573(at)eagle.sbeach.navy.mil> |
| Subject: | Prop Leading Edge Tape |
I have a Sport prop on my FF and want to add stainless steel tape to protect
the leading edge. I have seen this tape selling in UL Flying for any where
from $1 to $4 per foot. A while back someone on the list mentioned finding
S.S. tape at a auto parts store. I have contacted several auto supply,
marine supply, hardware and auto paint stores with no luck. I'd like to
just go out an buy some rather than mail order. Being in the Los Angles
area we do have LOTS of stores. Any suggestions on where to look or who is
best to mail order the stuff from will be appreciated. Thanks.
Chris Wayland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
I think there is a link from the Kolb home page to Scotts' AOL page. You can go
to WWW.Kolbaircraft.com and then left mouse click on the Builders & Flyers section
header. You'll see a grand list of builders and many many building pictures
to save you much much time.
>>> Scott Bentley 09/24 1:34 PM >>>
I was intrigued by this, since I was certain I'd taken pictures of my gap
seal, but I'm always too lazy to index them. And this was from the period
when I put things on AOL (http://members.aol.com/scottbntly/index.htm)
rather than stealing space on Bentley's web site (http://scott.bentley.com/
.)
So I went to my AOL web site, and I couldn't find the pictures I thought
Todd was referring to (though you can find them with just
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/).
So I went to http://www.matronics.com/searching/search.html, searched for
"Bentley" on the Kolb list, and saw everything I ever contributed.
So I found the message below. I encourage everyone, strongly, to check the
archive before sending questions. There's a whole lotta information there!
Match: #19
Message: #935
From: Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.COM>
Subject: Wing Gap Seal Holddown
Date: Mar 10, 1997
I've come up with a far better method than the "spring" default for
securing the trailing edge of the wing gap seal.
see:
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/gaphold.jpg
First, the square tube is covered at the ends with the "cloth" side of
sticky velcro (white in the picture.) Then the "hook" side of some "not
sticky" velcro strip (a thinner, black strip in the picture) is secured
to the gap seal with rivets through an aluminum plate. The "not sticky"
stuff, designed to be sewn onto fabric, was delivered by mistake with my
upholstry kit.
This eliminates the problem that would occur if the spring came lose,
will not scratch the paint on the square tube, and is very easy to put
on and take off.
If you haven't seen them before, there are pictures of the gap seal on
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgapover.jpg
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgapside.jpg
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgaprear.jpg
...
Turns out all those unindexed pictures are all still there!
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Thompson [mailto:TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 1998 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 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. ...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
...
>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 had a similar vibration in approximately the same range. I would guess
the resonant frequency is probably related to the mass of the engine and
the properties of the rubber mounts (which might change over time). What
sets up the vibration in the first place is probably the prop. Yes, I
think a 3-blade would make a difference (someone suggested that), perhaps
just shifting the point of harmonic resonance some (maybe even to a place
less desirable). I would look first into ballancing the prop, and if that
didn't change anything, then maybe borrowing another to see if that made a
difference. If it's a composite prop, the first thing to check would be
that pitch is set exactly the same on all blades. I had a great talk with
the pres. of PowerFin a while back and he advised that this was a pretty
important factor in reducing such vibrations.
In my situation, my prop got *worse* after I ballanced it perfectly. I
came to the conclusion that my prop (fairly old, maybe soaked up some oil)
had a problem with *dynamic* ballance, one that I wasn't going to be able
to fix. So I bought another. The problem was largely solved. In fact,
it's interesting, because I'm not sure I would have even noticed any
vibration with the replacement prop had I not been sensitive to the feel of
the vibration and at which rpm it occured at. I still avoid that rpm, in
the interest of avoiding metal fatigue and bearing wear. (In fact, I
haven't been flying since my son was born a year ago, so things ought to
last *really long!) :)
Incidentally, at first I bought a brand new (wooden, Culver) prop. I lost
it in short order, as during a test run a bungee cord that I used in
trailering swung into the prop. Interesting experience to be standing
right beside the pod, hearing a loud POP! and seeing wooden splinters shoot
thru the air at ~ mach .7. Fortunately, both blades lost about the same
amount, so that even tho I was running at full throtle, things were still
intact after the kill switch was hit and engine halted. (Do you practice
getting your fingers on the kill switch real fast--I do.) (Also, this is a
really good reason not to stand in line with the plane of the prop,
especially the area just ahead of the plane of the prop, especially at
higher RPMs.)
I gotta throw in one interesting thing I've heard about: I've been told
that race planes commonly have a safety chain attaching the engine to the
airframe so that, should the prop disintegrate and rip the engine out, they
can still maintain the CG needed to control the airplane.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Leading Edge Tape |
Wayland, you can get leading edge tape from Aircraft SPruce. I have a feeling
that the glues used are differnet than that which you'd get at a parts store.
I'd also check witht he prop. amnufacturer first. See what they recommend.
>>> "Wayland, William C." 09/24 4:17 PM >>>
I have a Sport prop on my FF and want to add stainless steel tape to protect
the leading edge. I have seen this tape selling in UL Flying for any where
from $1 to $4 per foot. A while back someone on the list mentioned finding
S.S. tape at a auto parts store. I have contacted several auto supply,
marine supply, hardware and auto paint stores with no luck. I'd like to
just go out an buy some rather than mail order. Being in the Los Angles
area we do have LOTS of stores. Any suggestions on where to look or who is
best to mail order the stuff from will be appreciated. Thanks.
Chris Wayland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: crash worthiness |
>I guess there is always some slight possibility for something to
>strike the quick release on a restraining system. Doesn't happen very
>often.
-Once too often in my case. Camera strap caught it.
Ben, didn't Roger say that Doolittle always used 2 belts? He thought I
should, since there's no enclosure. I don't think any Kolb enclosure would
make any difference at -.5 Gees even.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: crash worthiness |
>>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.
Same for me, with similar lasting effects. I'd probably own a motorcycle
except for that fact. "Someday" is a little too close for comfort. With
flying, things are a little more under my control.
>>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.
Ditto again. I'm absolutely convinced that this list will, or already has,
saved lives.
-Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar pics |
Nice planes, nice pix, Scott. Thanks for sharing. Grey Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
Scott, went to ur web pg and really enjoyed itespecially Girls! But
what was that open beer bottle doing in the middle of wgupover.jpg?
Only kidding as I'm trying very hard to be nice!
Grey Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: double E-mails |
I totally agree with you but when they changed the system, they made it
difficult.
I use Eudora, I have two choices, reply and reply to all. The way they
have the system for the mail list sit up, it comes up with the kolb list
either once or twice. The originator isn't provided as an option as it
should.
I complained about it early on but single voice fell on death ears. It
seemed a few expressed they had a problem remembering to select all
addresses thus their reply would default to the message originator only.
Now, we can't even do that. I don't get the option, only to the kolb list.
This might be why there's also been a few off Kolb topics flying around
people been fussing over. I liked it before, I had more control and I
could reply directly to the originator if I wanted to or just to the list.
Made it nice if you wanted to reply to the person about something not
related to the group. I now do not have that option. The only way I see
to reply directly to anyone is by manually retyping the persons address
without making any errors.
So I'm hoping the extra messages pressure the issue where it will make
people pool together to force a change.
So until that happens it looks were all going to get a lot of extra
messages to sift through. I'm not happy, your not happy. I hope others
are.
(Note: your getting this message and possibility a second copy because I
can't reply to the original since his address is not listed as a selectable
option, I get one or duplicate kolb addresses. Maybe if the system admin
reads this he might initiate a simple quick fix on the system.)
Jerry (would like to reply directly if I could) Bidle
>
>PLease: When you are responding to Kolb-List emails if you could repond
either to the individual or the Kolb-list and not both I would appreciate
it. I arrived to find over 100 e-mails today most of them doubles. My
boss will appreciate any efforts you can make in this regard. Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
So where would I attach a chain to my 582. Hum, maybe the oil tank? Just kidding.
Actually a good idea. I do guestion my ability to have a heavy enough chain
and maintain my 496 lb limit as an ultralight. I have a mark III.
>>> Mike Ransom 09/24 4:46 PM >>>
...
>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 had a similar vibration in approximately the same range. I would guess
the resonant frequency is probably related to the mass of the engine and
the properties of the rubber mounts (which might change over time). What
sets up the vibration in the first place is probably the prop. Yes, I
think a 3-blade would make a difference (someone suggested that), perhaps
just shifting the point of harmonic resonance some (maybe even to a place
less desirable). I would look first into ballancing the prop, and if that
didn't change anything, then maybe borrowing another to see if that made a
difference. If it's a composite prop, the first thing to check would be
that pitch is set exactly the same on all blades. I had a great talk with
the pres. of PowerFin a while back and he advised that this was a pretty
important factor in reducing such vibrations.
In my situation, my prop got *worse* after I ballanced it perfectly. I
came to the conclusion that my prop (fairly old, maybe soaked up some oil)
had a problem with *dynamic* ballance, one that I wasn't going to be able
to fix. So I bought another. The problem was largely solved. In fact,
it's interesting, because I'm not sure I would have even noticed any
vibration with the replacement prop had I not been sensitive to the feel of
the vibration and at which rpm it occured at. I still avoid that rpm, in
the interest of avoiding metal fatigue and bearing wear. (In fact, I
haven't been flying since my son was born a year ago, so things ought to
last *really long!) :)
Incidentally, at first I bought a brand new (wooden, Culver) prop. I lost
it in short order, as during a test run a bungee cord that I used in
trailering swung into the prop. Interesting experience to be standing
right beside the pod, hearing a loud POP! and seeing wooden splinters shoot
thru the air at ~ mach .7. Fortunately, both blades lost about the same
amount, so that even tho I was running at full throtle, things were still
intact after the kill switch was hit and engine halted. (Do you practice
getting your fingers on the kill switch real fast--I do.) (Also, this is a
really good reason not to stand in line with the plane of the prop,
especially the area just ahead of the plane of the prop, especially at
higher RPMs.)
I gotta throw in one interesting thing I've heard about: I've been told
that race planes commonly have a safety chain attaching the engine to the
airframe so that, should the prop disintegrate and rip the engine out, they
can still maintain the CG needed to control the airplane.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Leading Edge Tape |
Find a store that sells (their main business not auto parts) detailing
tape. This is the taping they use to put custom stripes on vehicles. They
have a lot of different tapes to choose from. Problem is they usually only
sell by the roll so don't except to get out cheap if that is you objective.
In any case it's interesting place to visit if you get the chance.
Jerry
>
>I have a Sport prop on my FF and want to add stainless steel tape to protect
>the leading edge. I have seen this tape selling in UL Flying for any where
>from $1 to $4 per foot. A while back someone on the list mentioned finding
>S.S. tape at a auto parts store. I have contacted several auto supply,
>marine supply, hardware and auto paint stores with no luck. I'd like to
>just go out an buy some rather than mail order. Being in the Los Angles
>area we do have LOTS of stores. Any suggestions on where to look or who is
>best to mail order the stuff from will be appreciated. Thanks.
>
>Chris Wayland
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Ron,
I have never seen any updates for the Original FireStar except in the two
booklets that were published by Kolb Aircraft. I put the heavier landing
gear legs on because I wanted them and not because they were recommended.
The lexan gap seal is my next project since the zipper is wearing out.
The gussets on the elevator was something I read in ULTRALIGHT FLYING.
These are the only updates that I'm aware of.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
> How do you guys find out about these things?
>
>Ron Carroll
>Original Firestar
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald L. Perry" <ronaldpe(at)shenessex.heartland.net> |
| Subject: | Answers to my questions |
I have asked numerous, specific questions about 2-strokes to users of
this list and have received no specific answers to any of them. I have
been a Private Pilot for 40 years and am trying to get away from it and
into ultralights, because the cost of staying current is prohibitive. I
wanted specific do's and dont's about operating 2-strokes. I have heard
horror stories about 2-strokes and wanted my confidence soothed with
helpful info about using 2-strokes, but from reading everything from
this user-list, there seems to be an inordinate amount of time and
energy spent talking about engine failures and forced landings. Don't
get me wrong, I know that anything mechanical can fail, including
4-stroke engines. I am not that naive, but I have been flying behind
4-strokes in all manner of single-engine Cessnas, Pipers, Navions, you
name it, without ever an engine missing a beat. And I personally know
of noone who has had an engine failure in a GA airplane. I have read of
it, so I know it does happen. What bothers me, it seems no matter who I
have talked to, they've had 2-stroke engine troubles of some kind.
I know this is probably a pipe-dream, but I am waiting for someone to
come up with a light-weight 4-stroke for ultralights. Any discussion is
welcome.
Ron Perry
Shenandoah, Ia.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
>
>So where would I attach a chain to my 582. Hum, maybe the oil tank? Just
kidding. Actually a good idea. I do guestion my ability to have a heavy
enough chain and maintain my 496 lb limit as an ultralight. I have a mark
III.
I'd bet the engine in the Kolb's is close enuf to the CG that it would be
controllable should the engine drop. (Maybe we'd want an engine eject
lever to improve engine-out performance??? :)
I don't recall a single report of anyone's engine coming loose on any
ultralight (tho I'm sure it's happened). If it seemed like a good idea,
then probably a cable wouldn't weigh too much.
That brings up another thought. Had anyone given thought as to the
attachment point for the recovery chute cable in relation to the CG of the
airplane? I attached mine to the drag strut attachment point rather than
the main spar, with the thought that with the nose hanging down a bit, the
plane might generate some lift and have some steering authority while
parachuting.
I also figured I'd never use it, so bought the 500# rated model (BRS) to
save a couple of pounds/$$.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Olendorf" <olendorf(at)empireone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
Damn Scott, looks like your Kolb is made out of cardboard boxes! Did you
buy direct from Kolb?
I also found one of your other pictures
ftp://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/girls.jpg but I don't see your plane in it,
hmmm, I think I like this guy.
Scott Olendorf
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com>
Date: Thursday, September 24, 1998 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: RE: Kolb-List: wing gap seal
> snip ---> This eliminates the problem that would occur if the spring came
lose,
>will not scratch the paint on the square tube, and is very easy to put
>on and take off.
>
>If you haven't seen them before, there are pictures of the gap seal on
>
>http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgapover.jpg
>http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgapside.jpg
>http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgaprear.jpg
> ...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injection? |
> 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.
Hirth has one in development...should be ready soon. Was
demonstarted on an F30 four cyl Hirth at OSH.....
http://www.recpower.com/new.htm
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Answers to my questions |
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>
>I have asked numerous, specific questions about 2-strokes to users of
>this list and have received no specific answers to any of them. ....
Ron,
That's because there are so few 'specific answers.' That's just the way
of 2-stroke engines. I've heard so many magic cures; fountains of youth
(...sorry Ralph), iron lungs (...sorry Rusty). One guy claims a thousand
hours before turning a screw (...sorry Mark Brierly) while the next guy
seizes his in the first hour (...sorry Ron Carrol).
I'm convinced 2-strokes either run or they don't because of karma, bad
vibes, sun spots, shifts in the earth's magnetic field, clean-livin' or
just cause they damn well don't want to. There's really very little we as
mere mortals can do. Personally, I sacrifice a chicken in my hangar every
month. I say 3 'Hail-Marys' before pulling the rope and I throw salt over
my left shoulder before taking off. Still, I've had one seizure (the
engine, not me) in 300 hours (I think I walked under a ladder the week
before...).
If it'll make you feel better, I can get you in touch with a friend who
successfully dead-sticked his Cardinal RG into a grass strip 2 hours
after an annual (..sorry Steve).
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Myron Hammer <wally1(at)nvc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: service information and service bulletins for ROTAX |
joe vasher wrote:
>
>
> 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/
>
UN-subscribe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>
>I don't recall a single report of anyone's engine coming loose on any
>ultralight (tho I'm sure it's happened). ...
It has, and at least once on a Kolb. I believe the report was in a
magazine and the cause was the mounting bolts which stripped the threads
from the lower case half. The result was a successful forced landing in a
corn field with the engine being 'held' to the aircraft by the throttle
and choke cables. Any help with my feeble memory is appreciated!
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Answers to my questions |
In a message dated 9/24/98 9:01:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ronaldpe(at)shenessex.heartland.net writes:
<< there seems to be an inordinate amount of time and
energy spent talking about engine failures and forced landings. >>
Well.... folks doing this kind of flying have almost zero VFR into IMC
accidents. Fuel exhaustion seems pretty rare. Inflight structural failure
appears to be zero in Kolbs. What's left? I do alot flying behind an O-470.
It's just a different game. Between my father and my brother they have broken
nearly half a dozen crankshafts in the Franklin engines in their Stinsons in
the last ten years. That is not to mention jugs and vavles. Every device has
its limitations and failure modes. If you stay in the envelope your
percentage liklihood of landing safe goes way up.
You have to know what you are doing opperating a two stroke. The rules
are
not as well articulated and the business is not as mature. We are largely
beholden to Rotax and aircraft engines are a tiny fraction of their business.
On the plus side the rules are pretty simple and on a per hour basis there is
no cheaper or more fun way to fly. I have 135 hrs on a 503 with one forced
landing (muffler crack) which cannot be fairly called and engine failure.
I may get creamed for this, but a real close (and honest) look at virtually
all of the two stroke failures I have personaly been involved with have
suggested opperator error, often verging on criminal stupidity. Remember the
ultralight/experimental fleet is maintained for the most part by guys with no
formal training in aircraft maintenance. Couple that with the crappy, poorly
translated manuals from Rotax, every builder's secret belief that he is
smarter than the designer of the aircraft, the fact that we tend to fly around
low, and you have a recipe for all kinds of interesting problems.
I may get REALLY creamed for this, but a perfect example is Mark 3 fuel
systems. Every one I look at is different. What do you think the accident
record of the Cessna 182 would be if every owner had to figure out his own way
to get fuel from the tank to the carb.
I don't make this point to be discouraging, because I have a little faith
in
my ability and common sense, and I don't think the problems are that hard to
solve. I once read the comment that two stroke engines are mechanically much
simpler than 4 strokes, but metalurgically much more complicated. Temperature
and lubrication are much bigger issues with two strokes because they run in
much narrower limits. The rules for Rotaxes are different than Lycomings one
you learn the difference the rules will make alot of sense, and if you observe
the rules I think you can get pretty confident.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: double E-mails |
>
>I totally agree with you but when they changed the system, they made it
>difficult.
>
>I use Eudora, I have two choices, reply and reply to all. The way they
>have the system for the mail list sit up, it comes up with the kolb list
>either once or twice. The originator isn't provided as an option as it
>should.
>
> What kind of Eudora do you have? I have Eudora lite, and when I
click on the reply button at the top of the page, it comes up like this:
To:kolb-list(at)matronics.com
From:Richard Pike
Subject:Re: kolb list: double E-mails
Cc:
Bcc:
Attachments:
>-->Kolb-List message posted by Jerry Bidle
And then the text of the message. If I reply, it goes to everybody
on the list including Jerry Bidle. If I only want it to go to Jerry Bidle, I
delete the address in the To: box, and type in the address thats 1 1/4"
above here, that's in between the < and the >.
Maybe you have a different type of Eudora, but it seems pretty easy
to me the way it is.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
Ron Carroll wrote:
> snip...
> What else could there be available that I am totally unaware
> of? I had to assume that there were no available options. How do you guys
> find out about these things?
Ron,
It's easy, I go to Oshkosh every year. Of cource that is easy for me, because
I
live 60 air miles south. Besides Oshkosh, Wisconsin is becoming a Kolb state. In
September I attended the second Wisconsin fly-in, this year, where Kolbs out
numbered all other makes. There may not really be more Kolbs, but more Kolb owners
are willing to travel (with their planes) to fly-ins. It used to be that we had
more Quicksilvers and Challengers at fly-ins.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
Ron Carroll wrote:
snip...
> Because I have top-mounted my BRS canister the wing-gap seal has been an obstacle
> to me for quite some time , making the zip-up gap seal unusable.
snip...
Ron,
I have a neighbor that has the canister BRS chute on his Firestar and he uses
the cloth gap seal. I believe that he doesn't use a zipper and attaches it with
2"
velcro. It has been working for him so far.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Answers to my questions |
>
>I have asked numerous, specific questions about 2-strokes to users of
>this list and have received no specific answers to any of them. I have
>been a Private Pilot for 40 years and am trying to get away from it and
>into ultralights, because the cost of staying current is prohibitive. I
>wanted specific do's and dont's about operating 2-strokes. I have heard
>horror stories about 2-strokes and wanted my confidence soothed with
>helpful info about using 2-strokes, but from reading everything from
>this user-list, there seems to be an inordinate amount of time and
>energy spent talking about engine failures and forced landings. Don't
>get me wrong, I know that anything mechanical can fail, including
>4-stroke engines. I am not that naive, but I have been flying behind
>4-strokes in all manner of single-engine Cessnas, Pipers, Navions, you
>name it, without ever an engine missing a beat. And I personally know
>of noone who has had an engine failure in a GA airplane. I have read of
>it, so I know it does happen. What bothers me, it seems no matter who I
>have talked to, they've had 2-stroke engine troubles of some kind.
> I know this is probably a pipe-dream, but I am waiting for someone to
>come up with a light-weight 4-stroke for ultralights. Any discussion is
>welcome.
>
> Ron Perry
> Shenandoah, Ia.
>
> Reliability is relative. If you are flying in something that crosses
the fence at 90, and touches down at 80, reliability needs to be absolute,
or to the extent possible. If you are flying in something that is only used
in good VFR weather, crosses the fence at 45-50, and touches down at 35-40,
it changes your attitude and priorities.
Right now I am using a Rotax 532 that I bought used with 78 hours on
it for $1500, and that included an electric starter, tach, altimeter,
airspeed, egt, water temp, fuel pressure gauge, compass, and
regulator/rectifier, and radiator. Basicly I bought the electric starter and
the panel, and he threw in the engine. Why? Because the previous owner lived
in a mountain valley, had no experience with 2-strokes, and wanted to buy a
Continental O-200 for his Zenair.
It runs fine, is it as reliable as a Continental, or a Lycoming?
Don't be silly. I got what I paid for, which was all I could afford. If I
had to have the kind of reliability that only comes with $10,000 plus
engines, I would have to give it up.
I have been ultralighting since 1978, and have had 10 forced
landings. Only one was due to fouled plugs, and none of the other 8 were
related to anything inherent to 2-stroke engines. All other failures were
fuel, or ignition related, or something came loose, and it was necessary to
land and secure it. I have never had one seize up, or fail mechanicaly in
the air.
Last Thursday morning I took a buddy flying who owns a Cirrus
sailplane. All his landings are forced landings. That's why I fly the type
of airplane that turns forced landings into an inconvenience or a nuisance,
instead of a mishap.
I am going flying in the morning, me and my pseudo-reliable
2-stroke, and I am taking along a Piper Lance owner who is frustrated with
the expense and lack of flying pleasure, and wants to see how the other half
lives.
As far as specifics on HOW to live with 2-strokes? Read all the tech
notes in the back of the LEAF and CPS catalogs, get with a club that has
somebody in it that knows 2-strokes, and learn how the Bing jetting system
works, and how 2-strokes respond to prop loads.
If your EGT and CHT gauges are where they ought to be, if your
engine is turning the rpm it ought to be, and you are using good gas and
good oil, chances are that your failure, when it comes, will be some
accessory to the engine, not the engine itself.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Answers to my questions |
(Parts of Ronald's note are attached below)
Ronald; Education. That's it, the answer to all your questions. Almost
anyone can operate a 4-stroke without special education. But lack of engine
education while operating a 2-stroke on an aircraft is a formula for potential
disaster.
We don't want you to become a statistic, so go out and buy a snowmobile that
some young guy "ported" the exhaust window width out to about 80% of the bore
diameter. If you can keep it running all winter on pump gas, you'll be ready
to operate a 2-stroke powered aircraft come spring.
Back to seriously, 2-strokes are a little picky and you better understand what
is going on before you go up. If you hang around the guys on this list long
enough, they will teach it to you. Some of us learned it the hard way.
So far, there is no comprehensive 2-stroke "do's and don'ts" manual. I agree,
there is a need for it.
One thing that comes close is the ol' "Two Stroke Tuner's Handbook", which I
understand is out of print. It gets a little too technical to be called an
operators manual, but it will give you quite a bit of your needed education.
Good luck, and hang around a while, these guys are always entertaining.
Jim
owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com on 09/24/98 08:08:36 PM
Please respond to kolb-list(at)matronics.com
cc:
Subject: Kolb-List: Answers to my questions
I have asked numerous, specific questions about 2-strokes to users of
this list and have received no specific answers to any of them. I
wanted specific do's and dont's about operating 2-strokes. I have heard
horror stories about 2-strokes and wanted my confidence soothed with
helpful info about using 2-strokes, but from reading everything from
this user-list, there seems to be an inordinate amount of time and
energy spent talking about engine failures and forced landings.
What bothers me, it seems no matter who I
have talked to, they've had 2-stroke engine troubles of some kind.
Ron Perry
Shenandoah, Ia.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: crash worthiness |
| From: | herb87(at)juno.com (HERBERT L JOHNSON) |
Johann,
It would be interesting and helpful to know why your Rotax died.
Was it fuel contamination? That seems to be the most often reason.
HERB87(at)JUNO.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Answers to my questions |
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Date: Friday, September 25, 1998 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Answers to my questions
>
>
>>
>>I have asked numerous, specific questions about 2-strokes to users of
>>this list and have received no specific answers to any of them. I have
>> Reliability is relative. If you are flying in something that
crosses
If your EGT and CHT gauges are where they ought to be, if your
>engine is turning the rpm it ought to be, and you are using good gas and
>good oil, chances are that your failure, when it comes, will be some
>accessory to the engine, not the engine itself.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
Richard and Gang:
Excellent explanation of 2 cycle engines. 99% of my eng failures were
accessories. Had PTO crank bearing come apart in Cuyuna, and my 582 seize,
but ole 447s (point type) were all accessory related.
Two with 912: one water in fuel and one trash in fuel (put me down twice in
a matter of minutes). Pilot error both times. Didn't drain fuel and
inspect prior to t/o.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
.(Maybe we'd want an engine eject
lever to improve engine-out performance??? :)
and couple it to the passenger eject on my plane. The name's Bond, James Bond....
That brings up another thought. Had anyone given thought as to the
attachment point for the recovery chute cable in relation to the CG of the
airplane? I attached mine to the drag strut attachment point rather than
the main spar, with the thought that with the nose hanging down a bit, the
plane might generate some lift and have some steering authority while
parachuting.
I also figured I'd never use it, so bought the 500# rated model (BRS) to
save a couple of pounds/$$.
BRS is playing very conservative these days and I had to put a 1050 on my Mark
II to conform to their product warranty requirements. ALso I placed the halter
mounting as far forward on the main spar as I could. this coresponds closely
to the CG point. We need to maintain the horizontal and vertical CG of the
plane as low as possible to the BRS halter/bridel - I think they call it - so
the aircraft will hang appropriately - as a pendulum. Kolb even suggested to
attach the bridel to the landing gear tubes - as low in the plane as possible.
I disagreed with this but understand that this is the strongest point on
the aircraft and all forces involved in chute deployment will be absorbed throught
the airframe nicely. Someone, maybe BRS said to expect at least +4 maybe
even 6G's on opening depending on airspeed. I can tel oyu that a +6g deployment
will hurt you body - Most likely your back Everything i've ever read is
that the last thing you want to do is deploy because you then no control whatso
ever.
A chute is the "last ditched effort". BRS claims that decent of the Mark II with
the 1050 deployed is about 20 feet per second. At that speed I will hurt something
and do terminal damage to the aircraft BUT will most likely "crawl "
away alive. Having the plane balanced to land on it;'s gear will help to absorb
the decent rate and damage to my body.
Phew! sorry for the dissertation. So do you agree? What do you think?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Answers to my questions |
>>> "Ronald L. Perry" 09/24 9:37 PM >>>
I have asked numerous, specific questions about 2-strokes to users of
this list and have received no specific answers to any of them.
Ronald, stay patient and you will eventually get your answers. The real problem
here is that two strokes are foreign to most of us and tend to be cloaked
as "black magic". I think I have a fairly good understanding of them and also
- ina past life - became a certified Ford mechanic. So maybe I can help. But,
I'll be the first to say I have a lot to learn about the little buggers.
They can certainly make you scratch you head every once in awhile.
First off, a 2 stroke should be a MORE reliable platform because it has less moving
parts. Simpler is better right? MAybe. However, a two stroke is a dirtier
(sp?) engine because it burns mixed oil for lubrication. Hense plugs foul,
and carbon builds up. 2 Strokes are also sensitive to weather. By that I mean
they run differently from high pressure days to low pressure days and vary
due to ambient temperatures. I think you understand this? Consequently, if you
wnat to run a 2 stroke you need to understand and deal with a changing environment
and subsequent "tuning" of your 2 stroke engine. If you want to get into
your aircraft and turn the key on and fly, land and park it then by all means
spend the additional 40% premium on a HKS, Motavia, or other engines that
are availble. This will most likely put you out of the 103 class. But even 4
strokes need maintenance, hense, the terms annuals and zero timed - now there's
some bucks.
So how do you learn to tune a 2 stroke? Pay careful historical attention to your
CHT and EGT temps on the ground and at altitude. One tip I recently read was
about an engine going lean when you least expect it. Pull on the choke! It
will richen it up and you can now to some extent control the lean condition
- which is a 2 stroke's kiss o' death. Lean means higher temperatures and a potential
meltdown, as in a seized engine. Rotax, CPS do a credible job of providing
tables for jetting and maintanence schedules. . You can follow these
and experiment a bit. Rejetting is not hard . IF YOU FOLLOW THE MANUFACTURERS
ADVISE ON PART REPLACEMENTS AND MAINTANENCE YOU WILL HAVE A RELIABLE ENGINE.
As you can see, all of this maintanence will require you to become somewhat
of a "mechanic". If you're insecure, see if a flying buddy can help so you can
"learn as you go" and I think you'll find that it really isn't rocket science
afterall - only common sense maintanence...with a few tricks like Seafoam, which
I r
AND MAINTANENCE IS NOT WELL PERFORMED BY FLYERS. Since may of us grew up on 4
strokes, ("drive it until it breaks, then pull over and park) we tend to do the
same with 2 strokes and then wonder why it failed. If we took a survey of
all the 2 stroke users and looked at the maintanence histories I think you will
find a very reliable record of engines supported by a consciencously applied
pattern of routine maintance. (Huh? Ok smarty, where's the toothpaste?) Hope
this helps to answer a few of your questions.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
I want to know if Scott always wears a two piece when he flys? Is he on the left
or right ?
>>> "Scott Olendorf" 09/24 9:47 PM >>>
Damn Scott, looks like your Kolb is made out of cardboard boxes! Did you
buy direct from Kolb?
I also found one of your other pictures
ftp://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/girls.jpg but I don't see your plane in it,
hmmm, I think I like this guy.
Scott Olendorf
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com>
Date: Thursday, September 24, 1998 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: RE: Kolb-List: wing gap seal
> snip ---> This eliminates the problem that would occur if the spring came
lose,
>will not scratch the paint on the square tube, and is very easy to put
>on and take off.
>
>If you haven't seen them before, there are pictures of the gap seal on
>
>http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgapover.jpg
>http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgapside.jpg
>http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/wgaprear.jpg
> ...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cpeterhu(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
Pardon me, but why all this concern with 'chutes? I s the demise of the plane
for certain? Of course it always a possibility, but is it even a probability?
I would like to have the confidence in the plane that I could land without an
engine and even with damage to the plane. I know I will get a lot of flack on
this, but someone must agree with me.
By the way, has anyone worked with a Honda cycle engine on a plane? Thanks,
Pete in Boonville, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
I have used Sea-foam a couple of times and would like to think that it
works, but a test conducted by a friend bring up some questions.
Recently, a friend with a firefly 447, tore down his engine to clean out
the carbon. He was unsure of the sea-foam that I had been pushing at
the field as a magic cure-all. He decided to test the stuff for
himself. When he tore down the engine he soaked the pistons in a bucket
of sea-foam for close to a week and nothing. The chemical did nothing
to break down the carbon. He testifies that 93 octane amoco gas
actually cleaned the pistons fairly well, even though he has them bead
blasted prior to reassembly. What's the deal? I would like to believe
that Sea-foam actually works but now I have to wonder.
Rutledge Fuller
The weather sucks here and I am about to go crazy!
Tallahassee, Fl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
| Subject: | Sealing the exhaust joints |
Well, I re-sealed my Rotax exhaust system joints again last night. This time
they started leaking after about 25 hours. I noticed the leaking starting by
the brown-colored dusty material (rusty metal dust) accumulating on some of the
springs and on the pipe near the joints. I have been using Loctite black
hi-temp silicone, applied in a thin (approx 3/32" thick) coating to the
connections, let dry for about ten minutes so it wasn't so gooey, and assembled
with the springs. I then tighten the band-clamp mounting bolts last after the
springs have pulled it together.
Does anyone have any suggestions about how to improve either the product or
the method I am using to make it hold longer? I would like to see it last more
hours.
BTW, after looking inside the cyls thru the exhaust "Y" pipe, I guess I'll go
out and buy the "snake oil",,, er, ah, I mean umm Seafoam , today. Not much
buildup and rings are free to move in the grooves so far (52hours), but I can
see some buildup so I might as well try the almighty 'foam. If it works as
people say, it should save much labor, and actually improve reliability as it
eliminates me pulling the heads off and screwing around with a liquid cooled
engine that's working.
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Gross <rpgross(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Answers to my questions |
You guys are missing the point...
2-stroke reliability is clearly governed by.....
Correolis Effect.
Bob
> Ron,
>
> That's because there are so few 'specific answers.' That's just the
way
> of 2-stroke engines. I've heard so many magic cures; fountains of
youth
> (...sorry Ralph), iron lungs (...sorry Rusty). One guy claims a
thousand
> hours before turning a screw (...sorry Mark Brierly) while the next
guy
> seizes his in the first hour (...sorry Ron Carrol).
>
> I'm convinced 2-strokes either run or they don't because of karma, bad
> vibes, sun spots, shifts in the earth's magnetic field, clean-livin'
or
> just cause they damn well don't want to. There's really very little
we as
> mere mortals can do. Personally, I sacrifice a chicken in my hangar
every
> month. I say 3 'Hail-Marys' before pulling the rope and I throw salt
over
> my left shoulder before taking off. Still, I've had one seizure (the
> engine, not me) in 300 hours (I think I walked under a ladder the week
> before...).
>
> If it'll make you feel better, I can get you in touch with a friend
who
> successfully dead-sticked his Cardinal RG into a grass strip 2 hours
> after an annual (..sorry Steve).
>
==
Captain Robert P. Gross
American Airlines MIA
561-744-8055
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: service information and service bulletins for ROTAX |
-----Original Message-----
From: Myron Hammer <wally1(at)nvc.net>
Date: Thursday September 24 1998 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: service information and service bulletins for ROTAX
This doesn't seem to work on the west coast.
Ron Carroll
>> www.rotax-owners.com/
>>
>UN-subscribe
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
Concern with chutes: My answer is "If your going to install one then do it right,
ie, be concerned about it. I may never use it and It's cheap insurance to
save my life but only if I install it correctly. Would you not also be concerned
about proper installation of the fire detector in your house or do you just
stick it on any wall in any position and hope it works (as you expected) when
the time comes? BTW, here in Connecticut 90% of the state is forested and
open areas to land in an emergency can be few so a parachute "is a good thing"
to quote Martha Stewart of Westport, CT. Eeew,, can't believe I said that!
MAybe that 's not what you meant?
>>> 09/25 10:18 AM >>>
Pardon me, but why all this concern with 'chutes? I s the demise of the plane
for certain? Of course it always a possibility, but is it even a probability?
I would like to have the confidence in the plane that I could land without an
engine and even with damage to the plane. I know I will get a lot of flack on
this, but someone must agree with me.
By the way, has anyone worked with a Honda cycle engine on a plane? Thanks,
Pete in Boonville, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald L. Perry" <ronaldpe(at)shenessex.heartland.net> |
| Subject: | WHEW!!!!!!!THANKS, I THINK! |
In the past few days I've gotten so much advice on 2-strokes that I feel
completely inundated with too much information, although I know that is
really not possible. It's just that I am completely overwhelmed with
all this advice that it might be easier for me go just go buy an Aeronca
Champ or something similar that I'm familiar with. Been flying GA
aircraft for some 40 years now. Flying has always been relatively
simple, as in turn the key and go. I'm really not the mechanical type
and all this advice has chipped away at my confidence level.
But keep it coming. It's interesting reading, even if I don't
understand it all.
Ron Perry
Shenandoah, Ia.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henry Wortman <hwortman(at)datasys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sea-foam test |
Rut:
I said last week that I would give a follow up on the use of seafoam in
the inverted engine. Here it is!
using a dental mirror see all of the interior. The top of the pistons
were completely black and to some extent carbon flaking off. There was a
buildup of carbon around each sparkplug. After soaking in seafoam and
turning the prop back and forth to flush the seafoam back and forth
through and by the rings I let it sit overnight. The next day I could
stick my finger through the exhaust port and the carbon on top of the
pistons was soft and would come off onto my finger. I installed the
muffler system and ran the engine until it quit smoking and then for a
few more minutes. I then removed the muffler and mainfold again and
reexamined the inside of the cylinders. Absolutely all of the carbon was
gone from the pistons and nearly all from the head around the plugs. The
rings both top and bottom were completely free.
Maybe the heat from running the engine removes the carbon after it has
had a chance to penetrate. After all the seafoam is a petroleum product
(I think). This treatment was about 62 hours from the last seafoam
treatment.
I'm sold on it. Later : Henry
Rutledge Fuller wrote:
>
>
> I have used Sea-foam a couple of times and would like to think that it
> works, but a test conducted by a friend bring up some questions.
>
> Recently, a friend with a firefly 447, tore down his engine to clean out
> the carbon. He was unsure of the sea-foam that I had been pushing at
> the field as a magic cure-all. He decided to test the stuff for
> himself. When he tore down the engine he soaked the pistons in a bucket
> of sea-foam for close to a week and nothing. The chemical did nothing
> to break down the carbon. He testifies that 93 octane amoco gas
> actually cleaned the pistons fairly well, even though he has them bead
> blasted prior to reassembly. What's the deal? I would like to believe
> that Sea-foam actually works but now I have to wonder.
>
> Rutledge Fuller
> The weather sucks here and I am about to go crazy!
> Tallahassee, Fl.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sea-foam test |
Sorry but I don't hold much to his test or conclusion.
He didn't do it to the recommended procedure so his out come I would expect
to be different. Put it in the cylinder, let it stand a few days them run
the engine. Had he done this then torn the engine down and then reported
what he found, it would had more meaning to me. Tell try it that way next
time.
Jerry
>
>I have used Sea-foam a couple of times and would like to think that it
>works, but a test conducted by a friend bring up some questions.
>
>Recently, a friend with a firefly 447, tore down his engine to clean out
>the carbon. He was unsure of the sea-foam that I had been pushing at
>the field as a magic cure-all. He decided to test the stuff for
>himself. When he tore down the engine he soaked the pistons in a bucket
>of sea-foam for close to a week and nothing. The chemical did nothing
>to break down the carbon. He testifies that 93 octane amoco gas
>actually cleaned the pistons fairly well, even though he has them bead
>blasted prior to reassembly. What's the deal? I would like to believe
>that Sea-foam actually works but now I have to wonder.
>
>Rutledge Fuller
>The weather sucks here and I am about to go crazy!
>Tallahassee, Fl.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Sealing the exhaust joints |
In a message dated 9/25/98 8:19:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, gerken(at)us.ibm.com
writes:
<< Well, I re-sealed my Rotax exhaust system joints again last night. >>
Why are you attempting to seal the joints? The manual does not call for
that. All the manual calls for is anti seize on the joints to keep them from
binding. Seems to me that silicone on that joint would be a big mess and
would smell bad. What does the rest of the group say about this? Should we
be trying to seal that joint?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WHEW!!!!!!!THANKS, I THINK! |
We at "KOLB Central" do our best to discourage new participants into the
world of Ultralights as seen below. : ) Ron don't let them scare you
away. It is just a turn key as anything else. Normal maintance is
basically every 50 hours with the exception of spak plug changes. That
is a lot of flyin and ultralighters seem to always be there to lend a
helping hand. These motors are so easy to work on if you plan on doing
it yourself too.
Keep up the good work guys, I enjoy the reading. I can however see how
people not familiar with engines can get scared away. With all the vast
amount of knowledge and experience flying left and right it get's
overwhelming sometimes. Emagine someone discussing all the aeronautical
knowledge that we must know and understand at one time to some ground
lover.
Ron, I am kind of new to ultralights, but have 50 hours on my Rotax 377
points ignition engine. It hasn't missed a beat, and maintance is a
piece of cake. I still fly as though the engine is going to fail at any
time, and so should ALL pilots including GA. The posibility of failure
is there and should be recognized for all aircraft.
My 2 cents.
Rutledge Fuller
Tallahassee, Fl.
>
>In the past few days I've gotten so much advice on 2-strokes that I
feel
>completely inundated with too much information, although I know that is
>really not possible. It's just that I am completely overwhelmed with
>all this advice that it might be easier for me go just go buy an
Aeronca
>Champ or something similar that I'm familiar with. Been flying GA
>aircraft for some 40 years now. Flying has always been relatively
>simple, as in turn the key and go. I'm really not the mechanical type
>and all this advice has chipped away at my confidence level.
> But keep it coming. It's interesting reading, even if I don't
>understand it all.
> Ron Perry
> Shenandoah, Ia.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sealing the exhaust joints |
>
>Well, I re-sealed my Rotax exhaust system joints again last night.
This time
>they started leaking after about 25 hours.
Did I miss something. Why are you sealing the joints on the exhaust? I
could be totally wrong but if they were meant to be sealed they would
not use springs to hold them together. This is how every 2-stroke
motorcycle I have ever riden has operated. The only thing that I do to
the joint is apply Anti-Seize. Please let me know if I am wrong.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sea-foam test |
>
> Maybe the heat from running the engine removes the carbon after it has
>had a chance to penetrate.
I was thinking the same thing, and was going to contact the
manufacturer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: service information and service bulletins for ROTAX |
| From: | bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler) |
writes:
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Myron Hammer <wally1(at)nvc.net>
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Date: Thursday September 24 1998 9:09 PM
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: service information and service bulletins for
>ROTAX
>
>
>
>This doesn't seem to work on the west coast.
>
>Ron Carroll
>
>>> www.rotax-owners.com/
Ron, I'm in L.A., on the west coast- I think-(if we don't get anymore
earthquakes), and it worked for me. Altho, I couldn't get all the of web
page, I was able to get the "service information". FYI. it is in "PDF"
format. So you will have to either buy Adobe Acrobat Reader-(yuck), to
view it, or download it for free off of the Adobe web page. If I
remember right it is www.adobe.com
Bob Doebler
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | 582 fuel pump placement |
Can anybody advise me on this? I have a 582 on a Mark III and understand the
pump is to be mounted up near / under the engine. This fuel pump works on pulsating
pressure from the crankcase so it shouldn't matter where I put it, right?
Dan at Kolb couldn't answer my question and nobody else was available. He
did mention that, he thought, there was a distance limitation of the vacuum tube.
Is this so and what's the distance limitation?
Secondly, what is the amount of pressure the crankcase puts out? It would be nice
to know so I can keeps tabs on it over time.
Yes, Scott... I did a search first before posting this e-mail. Lots of good stuff
but nothing on placement of the pump and max length of the pulse tube.
Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Answers to my questions |
No Bob, you got it wrong... prop rotation is governed by correolis effect.
>>> Bob Gross 09/25 11:18 AM >>>
You guys are missing the point...
2-stroke reliability is clearly governed by.....
Correolis Effect.
Bob
> Ron,
>
> That's because there are so few 'specific answers.' That's just the
way
> of 2-stroke engines. I've heard so many magic cures; fountains of
youth
> (...sorry Ralph), iron lungs (...sorry Rusty). One guy claims a
thousand
> hours before turning a screw (...sorry Mark Brierly) while the next
guy
> seizes his in the first hour (...sorry Ron Carrol).
>
> I'm convinced 2-strokes either run or they don't because of karma, bad
> vibes, sun spots, shifts in the earth's magnetic field, clean-livin'
or
> just cause they damn well don't want to. There's really very little
we as
> mere mortals can do. Personally, I sacrifice a chicken in my hangar
every
> month. I say 3 'Hail-Marys' before pulling the rope and I throw salt
over
> my left shoulder before taking off. Still, I've had one seizure (the
> engine, not me) in 300 hours (I think I walked under a ladder the week
> before...).
>
> If it'll make you feel better, I can get you in touch with a friend
who
> successfully dead-sticked his Cardinal RG into a grass strip 2 hours
> after an annual (..sorry Steve).
>
==
Captain Robert P. Gross
American Airlines MIA
561-744-8055
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
In a message dated 9/25/98 10:45:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com writes:
<< I have a 582 on a Mark III and understand the pump is to be mounted up
near / under the engine >>
You might want to consider mounting the engine on "rails" as dennis calls
them. There are two pieces of channel that lift the engine about 3 inches.
This also permits you to use a 72" prop. The square channel becomes a very
convenient place to put the pump, and Dennis has a nice mounting scheme
figured out for it. He also seemed to think that raising the engine slightly
had some minor beneficial effects.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sea-foam test |
actually cleaned the pistons fairly well, even though he has them bead
>blasted prior to reassembly. What's the deal? I would like to believe
>that Sea-foam actually works but now I have to wonder.
>
>Rutledge Fuller
>The weather sucks here and I am about to go crazy!
>Tallahassee, Fl.
>
Hey Guys:
May this stuff works like "overhaul in a can". No need to tear down an
engine, just run a can thru the carb or tank and run it another 1,000 hours.
hehehe
My limited experience with the "wingy, dingy, ding, ding 2 strokes" and I
say that affectionately, is if you baby them, run them like a CAT diesel,
slow and below the power band, you will experience a lot of carbon problems.
I always ran my 2 strokes hard, 5800 to 6200 rpm, some times all day (6 and
8 hours XC days) every day. I had a great deal of faith in them, and on a
long XC never had one let me down. Except once when the platinum tip of a
NGK BR8EV came off and put the Firestar down on Grand Island, NY, in the
middle of the Niagara River, less than 5 minutes after I flew over Niagara
Falls for the first time in 1988. The 447 pushed the Firestar in 32
different States, all the States east of the Mississippi River, and into
Canadian airspace. I ain't bragging about my accomplishment only that the 2
strokes will do more than fly you around the "patch". I was planning on
doing my big flight in the MK III with a 582 and would have accomplished the
flight with or without engine failures, no matter how many engines it took.
hehehe The 912 just simplified that project. Didn't have to spend too much
time mechanic'ing.
More maintenance program for the 447's was run them until something went
wrong, started losing power, etc. I replaced plugs every 50 hrs, ran Bosch
WR4CP platinum tips with Bosch plug wires for a 75 or 76 Volvo 4 cyl. The
plug wires had metal jacket connectors thatfit the Bosch plugs snugly.
Along with a 10,000 to 15,000 mf capacitor in the 12V circuit just down
stream from the reg/rec, I had super ign and no RF noise. Eliminated spark
and alternator interference. No braided shielding, lead boxes, or anything
else magical. LEAF and CPS used sell a RF noise suppression kit for about75
or 100 dollars. Used to tickle the crap out of me watching people build
little metal houses for their coils and all that other junk they used to
sell to put on the engines. Mine worked. Plus, with the single ign 447, I
could get two sets of plug wires out of one Volvo kit.
I'm running off at the mouth again. Sorry fellas and gals, is we have any
gals.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
Boy, oh boy, John, now you have my imagination working. After thinking
this over I think I'll take the cloth gap seal to a shoe shop and have the
zipper shortened so that it will *start* in front of the BRS. Then have
them add a new, short zipper for the area between the BRS and the engine.
COOL!
Thanks,
Ron (Gettin' it goin') Carroll
-----Original Message-----
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Date: Thursday September 24 1998 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: wing gap seal
>
>Ron Carroll wrote:
>snip...
>
>> Because I have top-mounted my BRS canister the wing-gap seal has been an
obstacle
>> to me for quite some time , making the zip-up gap seal unusable.
>
>snip...
>
>Ron,
> I have a neighbor that has the canister BRS chute on his Firestar and he
uses
>the cloth gap seal. I believe that he doesn't use a zipper and attaches it
with 2"
>velcro. It has been working for him so far.
>John Jung
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "barry youngblood" <barry(at)hcis.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Carroll <ron.carroll(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Date: Thursday, September 24, 1998 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: wing gap seal
>
>I'm still not in the air, but making use of the time my engine is in the
>shop for new seals.
>
Speaking of seals, I wonder what the first sign is of a bad front seal. I
see some black sticky oil on both sides of my 503, but can't tell exactly
where from. Also wonder if anyone has changed one theirself. 503 Rotax on
FSII with 350 hrs. Am trying Seafoam as we speak. What does BTW stand for?
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sealing the exhaust joints |
I agree, you'll never seal those joints, to much vibration and they're supposed
to flex. Now siliconing the springs and safety wiring them is a smart idea.
I've also safety wired the 90 degree elbow just incase things let loose for some
reason. Don't want that chunk of steel flying into the prop. How often are
we supposed to reapply the antiseize compoound?
>>> 09/25 12:46 PM >>>
In a message dated 9/25/98 8:19:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, gerken(at)us.ibm.com
writes:
<< Well, I re-sealed my Rotax exhaust system joints again last night. >>
Why are you attempting to seal the joints? The manual does not call for
that. All the manual calls for is anti seize on the joints to keep them from
binding. Seems to me that silicone on that joint would be a big mess and
would smell bad. What does the rest of the group say about this? Should we
be trying to seal that joint?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.COM> |
| Subject: | Adobe Acrobat Reader |
... or download it for free off of the Adobe web page. If I
remember right it is www.adobe.com...
http://www.adobe.com/supportservice/custsupport/download.html
You want Acrobat Reader, I think...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
Had anyone given thought as to the
>attachment point for the recovery chute cable in relation to the CG of the
>airplane?
I can tel oyu that a +6g deployment will hurt you body - Most likely your
back
>A chute is the "last ditched effort". BRS claims that decent of the Mark
II with the 1050 deployed is about 20 feet per second. At that speed I will
hurt something and do terminal damage to the aircraft BUT will most likely
"crawl " away alive. Having the plane balanced to land on it;'s gear will
help to absorb the decent rate and damage to my body.
>
>Phew! sorry for the dissertation. So do you agree? What do you think?
>
>
If I had my choice, I would have the airplane hit at a 45-60 degree
angle, tail first. In that attitude, my back is less likely to have a
compressed disc, because it is closer to horizontal. It would probably break
the boom at the fuselage juncture, and dissapate a lot of kinetic energy in
the process.
The next thing to hit would be the gear, and probably
simultaneously, the remains of the rear cage where the boom broke off. The
part where I am then hits last, the airplane haven taken most of the lick first.
Opinions?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
!
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
>
>By the way, has anyone worked with a Honda cycle engine on a plane? Thanks,
>Pete in Boonville, NY
>
> Honda makes/made a 250 2-stroke single that went in a 4 wheeler, one
of the locals had one in a Mitchell wing years ago. It's been a while.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Christensen" <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com> |
>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).
>
>Vince
===========================
Hi Vince:
Thanks very much for the info. I appreciate your input.
Regards - - Ron Christensen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayland, William C." <wcw2573(at)eagle.sbeach.navy.mil> |
| Subject: | Prop Leading Edge Tape |
Jerry: Tried such a store in Long Beach CA, also tried 7 tape stores listed
in the business to business yellow pages. No luck. Looks like I'm going by
Aircraft Spruce or mail order. Thanks for the input. Chris Wayland
>
> Find a store that sells (their main business not auto parts) detailing
> tape. This is the taping they use to put custom stripes on vehicles.
> They
> have a lot of different tapes to choose from. Problem is they usually
> only
> sell by the roll so don't except to get out cheap if that is you
> objective.
> In any case it's interesting place to visit if you get the chance.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Thacker <gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Sealing the exhaust joints |
Tod
I thought I read every 25 hrs for the anti-seize.
Gary
Souderton,Pa.
gthacker(at)wsd.k12.pa.us (work only)
____F i r e S t a r____
___(+)___
(_)
\ /
On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Todd Thompson wrote:
>
> I agree, you'll never seal those joints, to much vibration and they're supposed
to flex. Now siliconing the springs and safety wiring them is a smart idea.
I've also safety wired the 90 degree elbow just incase things let loose for
some reason. Don't want that chunk of steel flying into the prop. How often
are we supposed to reapply the antiseize compoound?
>
> >>> 09/25 12:46 PM >>>
>
> In a message dated 9/25/98 8:19:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, gerken(at)us.ibm.com
> writes:
>
> << Well, I re-sealed my Rotax exhaust system joints again last night. >>
>
>
> Why are you attempting to seal the joints? The manual does not call for
> that. All the manual calls for is anti seize on the joints to keep them from
> binding. Seems to me that silicone on that joint would be a big mess and
> would smell bad. What does the rest of the group say about this? Should we
> be trying to seal that joint?
>
>
>
>
!
!
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wing gap seal |
>Speaking of seals, I wonder what the first sign is of a bad front seal. I
>see some black sticky oil on both sides of my 503, but can't tell exactly
>where from. Also wonder if anyone has changed one theirself. 503 Rotax on
>FSII with 350 hrs. Am trying Seafoam as we speak. What does BTW stand for?
>
>
>Barry
>
Hey Gang:
Seems to me when I would get black sticky oil on the sides of the 447 it was
time to sput some new exhaust manifold gaskets inside and outside the
cowling. Seals, primary cases, and intake manifold may give some black
sooking oil (maybe), but I don't think it will be sticky. If crank seal is
leaking you may have a increase in egt and decrease in HP.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy & Joni Tolvstad" <tolvstad(at)nvc.net> |
| Subject: | VIBRATIONS, CRANKSHAFTS, BEAN FIELDS, AND WAX JOBS |
Thanks Skip!
It seems that with what you have said and the statements that John (THANKS
JOHN!) has share on the vibration that one should just learn to live with
it. I know of at least 3 people with the same problem in the same rpm range
so I think this is just "the nature of the beast" so to speak. I am afraid
to fiddle around to much and end up with the vibration in the range I like
to cruise in (5800RPM). I really doesn't seem to be bad enough to shake the
old girl apart, but I'm sure it would fatigue the plane after some time if I
constantly flew in that range.
Thanks Tod for the info on the Kawasaki's weak crank. It is a little scary
and it will be just one more of those thoughts running through my head when
I get ready to take off! It sounds like I have the same system on my plane.
I did replace all the bearings and the shaft (trying to get rid of the
vibration) on the prop side of the drive, but never gave the crank much
thought. Does anyone know of a easy way to check it out without rippin' the
sucker clear apart? I know that the guy I bought the plane from suggested
that I don't run the belt to tight because it would produce undo wear on the
crank and prop bearings.
Geof your story on bean fields really hit home! I am currently using a bean
field for my airstrip (its already harvested, of course) and when I am
flying and keeping in mind where I would land if my crank did decide not to
stick around I often consider unharvested bean fields. After all those corn
stalks and sunflower fields look like they could beat the hell out of ya
before ya came to a stop. I will be keeping your advice in mind should such
an occasion arise (the part about all the help you got too!)
Thought that I would share this because I remembered someone a while back
mentioning how there plane handled a little heavy on one side of the
aerlons. I started having a similar problem recently and could not figure
out why (showing my lack of airtime experience again). My neighbor has a
firestar and decided to wash a little of the dust off it one afternoon and
he could not believe the difference it made in his airspeed so I thought I'd
give it a try. Up here in the Dakota's theres one thing thats always in the
air and thats mosquitoes. Those pesky critters fly slower than any UL I've
ever heard of, (probably because of the enormous amount of blood they suck
out of ya before ya take notice) and end up with there bloody little bodies
smashed all over the plane. I did notice that due to the direction of the
prop there guts end up on one wing more than the other. It seems that was
the cause of my stick getting a little heavy to one side. I even waxed the
old Ultrastar up and got another 5MPH out of it. Well enough rambling for
one day..........
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WHEW!!!!!!!THANKS, I THINK! |
Ron Perrydid you get the FireFly infp pack I sent via FailMail? Grey
Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Carriker <quanah(at)alltel.net> |
The discussion on 2 cycle engines has been interesting. One of my
first "conveyances" was a 1948 English motorcycle called
ostentatiously, "The Famous James" I have Clinton memory as to how
many cc's or whatever it was. It had a 3 speed tranny and would
propel my li'l arse up to about 50 mph down the highway. Not a mean
speed for those days. Sported a built in oil measuring "cup" in the
fuel (petrol??) tank cap. A great idea!!
If today's 2 cycles are at least as dependable as that one - I
will have no more worries about engine failure than I do with the
Lycomings and Continentals I've flown behind. I mean. . . as a 14
year old boy, all I did was firewall that engine, buy the cheapest
gas and oil I could find (Jeez, some stations charged up to .20
cents a gallon for "regular" gasoline. I couldn't afford that when
I could find it for 14 to 16 cents a gallon somewhere, usually.)
Oil - who remembers?
I have no idea how many hundreds of miles I put on that "James"
and gave it next to no maintenance. Ultimately destroyed it on a
cross country trip from SE Kansas to SW Kansas. Ran out of gas out
in the middle of God's great nowhere in Western Kansas at dusk. Got
some gas and a little bit of oil (not enough) from a combine crew.
It didn't seize or anything, but it was never the same after that.
I like to think that 2 cycles have maybe even improved since
1948. Guess I'll be finding out one of these days. Although come
to think of it. . . . the engines in our GA airplanes haven't
improved since then. Same technology now as then, and probably
poorer workmanship at the factory. Maybe same is true of 2 cycles.
. . . :-(
BTW, this is one of the busiest lists I've encountered.
Great!! Do any of you know any Kolb owner/pilots anywhere in SW
Missouri, NW Arkansas, or NE Oklahoma? I'd sure like to go see one
for real. Kolb's promotional materials are about as "sexy" as a
recruiting bulleting for a convent. Please let me know if you know
someone with a Kolb within a hundred miles or so of Springfield MO.
Thanks
Don C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
Just got of fthe phone with Ted Mayfield of Hyperlite and here's the skinny on
the tail wheel. The hub is about 1.5 inches wide and uses a 5/8 inch axel. The
tread is about 1 inch wide. Wheel diameter is 5 inches. He'll send you one
and you send him back $18. That's right! He'll send it to you first and you
send him the money. Trusting guy.
>>> "Ron Christensen" 09/25 2:00 PM >>>
>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).
>
>Vince
===========================
Hi Vince:
Thanks very much for the info. I appreciate your input.
Regards - - Ron Christensen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
Mick,
I read a follow-up on that loose Firestar engine. Apparently something came
off the engine, broke the prop, and the vibration broke the engine from it's mount
in a few seconds.
John Jung
Mick Fine wrote:
>
> writes:
> >
> >I don't recall a single report of anyone's engine coming loose on any
> >ultralight (tho I'm sure it's happened). ...
>
> It has, and at least once on a Kolb. I believe the report was in a
> magazine and the cause was the mounting bolts which stripped the threads
> from the lower case half. The result was a successful forced landing in a
> corn field with the engine being 'held' to the aircraft by the throttle
> and choke cables. Any help with my feeble memory is appreciated!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Answers to my questions |
>
>I have asked numerous, specific questions about 2-strokes to users of
>this list and have received no specific answers to any of them.
I may be over simplifing but if you keep a good eye on the temps and what
you feed into the carbs you should be ok. I recently had an engine failure
that may have been prevented by checking the timing. Something I plan to do
on a more regular basis but I now know that I can probably see the timing
changes on the temp gauges. Have your engine set to run at certain temps and
if you see a major fluxuation you know there is something going on in the
engine. Clean gas and good oil will also extend the life of the engine. I
have heard of one demo pilot who used to dump straight gas in his tank then
dump in the required oil, give the wings a shake and call it mixed. He had a
few engine failures. Attention to details should keep you going but as in
any engine always be prepared for it to die.
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: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: control stick position |
Matt Nisbet: did anyone come up with a revised bend in the Kolb stick?
I've got short arms, along with being fairly short too, so I have to fly
with rt arm almost straight out, which is a bit tiring. Did you do
anything? I'm thinking of cutting the stick at the present weld joint
and putting in a short L or half U. Got to be careful not to make it too
far back, restricting rear movement. I have to make a few measurements.
Let me know your progress, and I'll reciprocate. Grey Baron, FireFly
________________________________________________________________________________
Gateway Ultralight Club in ST.Louis has a mixed bunch of Kolbs if you are in
the area
Dick C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Christensen" <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar pics |
Hey John:
You wrote - -
===========
Wish I had a scanner so I could share with you all.
===========
Here in So. Cal. we have a photo copy shop that will make digital copies of
your photos. Perhaps there is such a service in AL also. Would enjoy
seeing photos of your MKIII attached to your e-mail.
Ron Christensen
MKIII1/2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | joe vasher <jvasher(at)advadata.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sealing the exhaust joints |
I don't think you should seal any slip joints will cause cracks. Use nickle anti
seize (MAN SPELLING) for slip joints. Or you may have the same problem with
cracking. If you are clamping a joint and suppose to clamp it and you want that
little extra seal, put a bead of muffler cement on the joint then slip the pipes
together then clamp.
Cavuontop(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/25/98 8:19:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, gerken(at)us.ibm.com
> writes:
>
> << Well, I re-sealed my Rotax exhaust system joints again last night. >>
>
> Why are you attempting to seal the joints? The manual does not call for
> that. All the manual calls for is anti seize on the joints to keep them from
> binding. Seems to me that silicone on that joint would be a big mess and
> would smell bad. What does the rest of the group say about this? Should we
> be trying to seal that joint?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | joe vasher <jvasher(at)advadata.com> |
| Subject: | Re: service information and service bulletins for ROTAX |
Sorry that is www.rotax-owner.com
Ron Carroll wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Myron Hammer <wally1(at)nvc.net>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thursday September 24 1998 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: service information and service bulletins for ROTAX
>
> This doesn't seem to work on the west coast.
>
> Ron Carroll
>
> >> www.rotax-owners.com/
> >>
> >UN-subscribe
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
I do ...... I've flown my Original FireStar without a chute for 11 years
and have had two engine failures. One of them was a clogged fuel filter
(fuel starvation,
not the engines' fault) and the other one was stuck rings in the rear
cylinder. Both of them could have been prevented if I had known what I
know now.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
>
>Pardon me, but why all this concern with 'chutes? I s the demise of
>the plane for certain? Of course it always a possibility, but is it
even a
>probability? I would like to have the confidence in the plane that I
could land
>without an engine and even with damage to the plane. I know I will get a
lot of
>flack on this, but someone must agree with me.
>
>By the way, has anyone worked with a Honda cycle engine on a plane?
>Thanks,
>Pete in Boonville, NY
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sea-foam test |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Henry,
Thanks for going to all that trouble to prove a point. You executed the
procedure with the proper method and received the proper results, as
expected. My venerable 377, that I just took off the plane, looked
pretty clean when I peered inside and took a look at the pistons. The
rings were free in movement. You can bet that I will use it on the 447
often. Thanks.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
writes:
>
>Rut:
>I said last week that I would give a follow up on the use of
>seafoam in the inverted engine. Here it is!
>With the exhaust manifold off I could look inside the
>cylinders and by using a dental mirror see all of the interior.
>The top of the pistons were completely black and to some extent
>carbon flaking off. There was a buildup of carbon around each sparkplug.
>After soaking in seafoam and turning the prop back and forth to flush
the >seafoam back and forth through and by the rings I let it sit
overnight.
>The next day I could stick my finger through the exhaust port and the
>carbon on top of the pistons was soft and would come off onto my finger.
I >installed the muffler system and ran the engine until it quit smoking
and then >for a few more minutes. I then removed the muffler and mainfold
again and
>reexamined the inside of the cylinders. Absolutely all of the carbon
>was gone from the pistons and nearly all from the head around the plugs.
>The rings both top and bottom were completely free.
>Maybe the heat from running the engine removes the carbon
>after it has had a chance to penetrate. After all the seafoam is a
petroleum
>product (I think). This treatment was about 62 hours from the last
seafoam
>treatment.
>I'm sold on it. Later : Henry
>
>Rutledge Fuller wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> I have used Sea-foam a couple of times and would like to think that
>it
>> works, but a test conducted by a friend bring up some questions.
>>
>> Recently, a friend with a firefly 447, tore down his engine to clean
>out
>> the carbon. He was unsure of the sea-foam that I had been pushing
>at
>> the field as a magic cure-all. He decided to test the stuff for
>> himself. When he tore down the engine he soaked the pistons in a
>bucket
>> of sea-foam for close to a week and nothing. The chemical did
>nothing
>> to break down the carbon. He testifies that 93 octane amoco gas
>> actually cleaned the pistons fairly well, even though he has them
>bead
>> blasted prior to reassembly. What's the deal? I would like to
>believe
>> that Sea-foam actually works but now I have to wonder.
>>
>> Rutledge Fuller
>> The weather sucks here and I am about to go crazy!
>> Tallahassee, Fl.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allan Blackburn" <traderawb(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WHEW!!!!!!!THANKS, I THINK! |
I'm really not the mechanical type
>and all this advice has chipped away at my confidence level.
> Ron Perry
> Shenandoah, Ia.
>
Ron
Ultralights are a very relaxing way to fly. The only criteria is to always be over
or within reach of a landing area. When the 2-cycle quits (and it will some
day, but it is still a "rare" i.e. not everyday thing) then when it quits you
glide down to an already selected landing area and land. That's it. No worry.
No sweat. Sorta fun.
However; fail to be within range of a suitable landing area, and you may get to
exercise that BRS chute you have. You do intend to have one, don't you? So always
fly over suitable landing areas or high enough to glide to one, and ultralight
flying is just plane fun.
What I'm saying is don't get uptight about this engine thing. You'll pick up the
engine lore out of necessity as you go along. Go fly and enjoy while you read
and ask and learn.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
> Can anybody advise me on this? I have a 582 on a Mark III and understand the
pump is to be moun>
> Secondly, what is the amount of pressure the crankcase puts out? It would be
nice to know so I c>
> Yes, Scott... I did a search first before posting this e-mail. Lots of good
stuff but nothing on> Thank you.
Mikuni manual.....
Impulse hose length (max) 150mm
Impulse hose ID (max) 5mm
Fuel inlet hose length (max) 2000mm
Fuel inlet hose ID (max) 5mm
Height of fuel lift through inlet hose (max) 1000mm
Outlet hose length (max) 500mm
Outlet hose ID (max) 5mm
Outlet hose height (max) 100mm
And for those who don't care, you can use vacuum cleaner hose for
fuel inlet. ; )
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 9/25/98 1:39:44 PM Central Daylight Time,
hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
<<
More maintenance program for the 447's was run them until something went
wrong, started losing power, etc. I replaced plugs every 50 hrs, ran Bosch
WR4CP platinum tips with Bosch plug wires for a 75 or 76 Volvo 4 cyl. >>
Hi Everybody: Just a comment about the Bosch plugs: these are really good
plugs. I ran them in a 377/points ignition. Never had a lick trouble with
them. They ran as clean or cleaner than the nkg plugs in my cdi 447. I quit
using them because the only suppplier I knew of couldn't get them anymore. If
you've got a points ignition, you might want to give these a try, if you can
find them. I've never used them on a cdi. I might switch over though if I
could find them. Be sure to use the Bosch wires also.
Anybody planning on going to the Fly-in at Jones Light this weekend? Several
of us from around Montgomery are thinking of going but it looks like the
harry-cane may mess things up. Good luck to all of you in Fla. Fall is getting
to the deep south (I think) and the air is really starting to get nice!
Bill Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Araldi Tower News |
-----Original Message-----
From: JERRYROOKS(at)aol.com <JERRYROOKS(at)aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 8:36 AM
Subject: Araldi Tower News
>The Polk County Board of Commissioners voted to retract the permit to build
>that tower in any area that might incroach on the regular operation of any
>private, state licensed airstrip. Three for, and two against this
decision.
>It had quickly become obvious to them that they were allowing a nuisance,
and
>their quandary was how to recind a permit that had been legally approved.
>They did as well as they could.
>
>Suzanne Araldi brought about 80 of the best pilots to that meeting, and the
>tower people only brought their paid consultants. There were 40 written
>messages against the tower, and only 1 in favor of it. Still, the close
vote
>was because of the already issued permit. The owners had done everything
they
>had been asked to do, and they felt that they were entitled to use that
permit
>to construct the proposed tower.
>
>I've asked Suzanne to keep her list of VIPs handy. Never know when she
might
>have to call out the big brass again.
>
>Respectfully, Jerry Rooks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
>
>Can anybody advise me on this? I have a 582 on a Mark III and understand
the pump is to be mounted up near / under the engine. This fuel pump works
on pulsating pressure from the crankcase so it shouldn't matter where I put
it, right? Dan at Kolb couldn't answer my question and nobody else was
available. He did mention that, he thought, there was a distance limitation
of the vacuum tube. Is this so and what's the distance limitation?
Mine is 24" total length of pulse tube, and it works ok, but I am
also using a Facet electric pump in parallel, so I am not as marginal as it
might be. Without the Facet in parallel, it would certainly be closer.
>
>Secondly, what is the amount of pressure the crankcase puts out? It would
be nice to know so I can keeps tabs on it over time.
>
Don't know, sorry. I am using a heavy wall fuel tube that will not
flex with the pulses. A tube that flexes in and out will weaken the pulses.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
>
>In a message dated 9/25/98 10:45:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com writes:
>
><< I have a 582 on a Mark III and understand the pump is to be mounted up
>near / under the engine >>
>
>
> You might want to consider mounting the engine on "rails" as dennis calls
>them. He also seemed to think that raising the engine slightly
>had some minor beneficial effects.
It gets it out of the Coreolis Effect...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: double E-mails |
Jerry,
You weren't the only one to object to the new reply method. I started the
discussion titled "150 messages in 3 days". A number of users agreed with me and
only a few liked it this way. Maybe Matt Dralle (the administrator) could let us
know if we even have a choice. I am copying Matt on this message.
Matt, would you let us know if we have a choice or do you have to run each of
the lists the same way?
John Jung
Jerry Bidle wrote:
> snip...
>
> I complained about it early on but single voice fell on death ears. It
> seemed a few expressed they had a problem remembering to select all
> addresses thus their reply would default to the message originator only.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Answers to my questions |
Ron,
All people can tell you specifically, is there experiece with two cycles. And
experiences vary conciderable. I have owned and flown with 6 different 2 cycles,
acumulating 400+ hrs, and I have belonged to a 100+ member ultralight club for
the last
11 years, so I think that my opinion is at least worth concideration. Here it is:
I
believe that the biggest problem with two cylinder, 2 cycle Rotaxes is the person
that
maintains and operates them. Most of the problems that people have are NOT caused
by any
lack of quality, or the 2 cycle design. They are caused by a lack of maintainence
or
improper operation. Pilots routinely fail to warn-up their engines before take-off
and
run well beyond de-carbon time. They also continue to fly engines that are hard
to start,
ignoring a warning from their engine that it needs help. I believe that 2 cycle
Rotaxes,
when properly maintained and operated, are reliably enough for flying over places
that
allow energency landings, in aircraft with reasonably stall speeds. I know, I being
too
general. But it is eneryone own decission on how much risk. The more time one flys
without being over an emergency landing spot, or the faster their stall speed is,
the
more the risk. Oh, if you noticed, I only mentioned two cylinder, 2 cycle Rotaxes.
I
believe that no other 2 cycle is as well proven, not even the 277 Rotax.
John Jung
Ronald L. Perry wrote:
>
> I have asked numerous, specific questions about 2-strokes to users of
> this list and have received no specific answers to any of them.
snip...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VIBRATIONS, CRANKSHAFTS, BEAN FIELDS, AND WAX |
JOBS
Randy and the Group,
>Thanks Tod for the info on the Kawasaki's weak crank. It is a little scary
>and it will be just one more of those thoughts running through my head when
>I get ready to take off! It sounds like I have the same system on my plane.
>I did replace all the bearings and the shaft (trying to get rid of the
>vibration) on the prop side of the drive, but never gave the crank much
>thought. Does anyone know of a easy way to check it out without rippin' the
>sucker clear apart? I know that the guy I bought the plane from suggested
>that I don't run the belt to tight because it would produce undo wear on the
>crank and prop bearings.
FWIW...
I'm of the opinion that it's not necessarily a weak crankshaft on the
Kawasaki engine. I think that it may be (primarily) how tight the belt is
adjusted. Homer mentioned to me, years ago, that the crankshaft on the
Cuyuna would eventually break if the belt tension was not set correctly. I
have a feeling that this is the case for just about any and all engines
that use a belt drive directly off the PTO of the engine.
If we were to have specific guidance as to the drive belt's tension limits,
when using an accurate tensiometer, the problem would probably be minimal.
As it is, and to the best of my knowledge, that info just isn't available.
In the Cuyuna's case, the trick is to get the belt just tight enough so
that it doesn't slip, and NO tighter. This equates to about 1/8" movement
of the belt when a nominal ammount of hand pressure is applied midway
between the prop shaft and the crankshaft. This measurement is, of course,
as it pertains to Kolb's reduction drive using the Cuyuna on the UltraStar.
Regards,
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VIBRATIONS, CRANKSHAFTS, BEAN FIELDS, AND WAX JOBS |
> FWIW...
> I'm of the opinion that it's not necessarily a weak crankshaft on the
> Kawasaki engine. I think that it may be (primarily) how tight the belt is
> adjusted. Homer mentioned to me, years ago, that the crankshaft on the
> Cuyuna would eventually break if the belt tension was not set correctly. I
> have a feeling that this is the case for just about any and all engines
> that use a belt drive directly off the PTO of the engine.
Well of course it is. Look at the crank as removed from the
crankcase and unsupported. Each of those bearings on either side
of the crank throw has a tolerance, plus or minus, that allows some
movement ( about 5 to 20 microns ( .0002 to .0008 in) on a 25mm
side but the movement is still there and may actually be worse
because of a tolerance stack-up. Most loads on the crankshaft are
calculated on rigid body assumptions which is definately not the
case. As an increasing radial load is applied, the crankshaft end
must deflect downward to the applied load while the center of the
crank must deform cyclicly to the alternate loading and unloading
of the center bearing since the shaft deviates to accomodate the
crank throw. Couple this with torsional loading and unloading AND
the fact that most two stroke engines have automatic stress risers
built into the crank/crank cheek/crank pin interface (no transition
fillets) because of the pressed together nature of the crank, and
you have an assembly that may be prone to breakage under end
radial loading. Under axial loading the assembly is just fine up to
the point that an unaccepatble inertial load (prop strike, etc)
exceeds the stick/slip limits of the pressed crank.
The best possible way to run a belt system would be to gear the
engine output to an intermediate shaft via 45 degree helix angle
gears that would place the crank primarily in axial loading.
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
>
>>
>>Can anybody advise me on this? I have a 582 on a Mark III and understand
>the pump is to be mounted up near / under the engine. This fuel pump works
>on pulsating pressure from the crankcase so it shouldn't matter where I put
>it, right? Dan at Kolb couldn't answer my question and nobody else was
>available. He did mention that, he thought, there was a distance limitation
>of the vacuum tube. Is this so and what's the distance limitation?
>
> Mine is 24" total length of pulse tube, and it works ok, but I am
>also using a Facet electric pump in parallel, so I am not as marginal as it
>might be. Without the Facet in parallel, it would certainly be closer.
>>
>>Secondly, what is the amount of pressure the crankcase puts out? It would
>be nice to know so I can keeps tabs on it over time.
>>
>
> Don't know, sorry. I am using a heavy wall fuel tube that will not
>flex with the pulses. A tube that flexes in and out will weaken the pulses.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
>
Richard,
I respect yours and J Baker's view points on this list. One question I have.
Why woulden't duel parallel pulse pumps be just as good for redundancy as an
electric facet pump? It would seem to me to be less complex than adding a
battery and additional electrical circuitry. I'm not convinced that a facet
pump would be any more reliable than a pulse pump as a stand alone system.
It should be simple enough to set up a completely redundant fuel system
using two pulse pumps with pulse lines to each cylinder? Your comments please.
EZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
>
>>
>>Can anybody advise me on this? I have a 582 on a Mark III and understand
>the pump is to be mounted up near / under the engine. This fuel pump works
>on pulsating pressure from the crankcase so it shouldn't matter where I put
>it, right? Dan at Kolb couldn't answer my question and nobody else was
>available. He did mention that, he thought, there was a distance limitation
>of the vacuum tube. Is this so and what's the distance limitation?
>
> Mine is 24" total length of pulse tube, and it works ok, but I am
>also using a Facet electric pump in parallel, so I am not as marginal as it
>might be. Without the Facet in parallel, it would certainly be closer.
>>
>>Secondly, what is the amount of pressure the crankcase puts out? It would
>be nice to know so I can keeps tabs on it over time.
>>
>
> Don't know, sorry. I am using a heavy wall fuel tube that will not
>flex with the pulses. A tube that flexes in and out will weaken the pulses.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
>
Richard,
I respect yours and J Baker's view points on this list. One question I have.
Why woulden't duel parallel pulse pumps be just as good for redundancy as an
electric facet pump? It would seem to me to be less complex than adding a
battery and additional electrical circuitry. I'm not convinced that a facet
pump would be any more reliable than a pulse pump as a stand alone system.
It should be simple enough to set up a completely redundant fuel system
using two pulse pumps with pulse lines to each cylinder? Your comments please.
EZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VIBRATIONS, CRANKSHAFTS, BEAN FIELDS, AND WAX JOBS |
"Christopher John Armstrong"
another way to solve this is to put an additional bearing outboard of the
belt pulleys. this takes the sideload out of the crankshaft.
topher
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Baker <jlbaker(at)telepath.com>
Date: Saturday, September 26, 1998 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: VIBRATIONS, CRANKSHAFTS, BEAN FIELDS, AND WAX JOBS
>
>> FWIW...
>> I'm of the opinion that it's not necessarily a weak crankshaft on the
>> Kawasaki engine. I think that it may be (primarily) how tight the belt
is
>> adjusted. Homer mentioned to me, years ago, that the crankshaft on the
>> Cuyuna would eventually break if the belt tension was not set correctly.
I
>> have a feeling that this is the case for just about any and all engines
>> that use a belt drive directly off the PTO of the engine.
>
>Well of course it is. Look at the crank as removed from the
>crankcase and unsupported. Each of those bearings on either side
>of the crank throw has a tolerance, plus or minus, that allows some
>movement ( about 5 to 20 microns ( .0002 to .0008 in) on a 25mm
>ID bearing). I realize that there may be two bearings on the PTO
>side but the movement is still there and may actually be worse
>because of a tolerance stack-up. Most loads on the crankshaft are
>calculated on rigid body assumptions which is definately not the
>case. As an increasing radial load is applied, the crankshaft end
>must deflect downward to the applied load while the center of the
>crank must deform cyclicly to the alternate loading and unloading
>of the center bearing since the shaft deviates to accomodate the
>crank throw. Couple this with torsional loading and unloading AND
>the fact that most two stroke engines have automatic stress risers
>built into the crank/crank cheek/crank pin interface (no transition
>fillets) because of the pressed together nature of the crank, and
>you have an assembly that may be prone to breakage under end
>radial loading. Under axial loading the assembly is just fine up to
>the point that an unaccepatble inertial load (prop strike, etc)
>exceeds the stick/slip limits of the pressed crank.
>
>The best possible way to run a belt system would be to gear the
>engine output to an intermediate shaft via 45 degree helix angle
>gears that would place the crank primarily in axial loading.
>
>
>J. Baker
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
> Why woulden't duel parallel pulse pumps be just as good for redundancy as an
> electric facet pump?
It's a darned good idea. On the Hirth the port is there and filled
with a plug so all you'd have to do is supply the nipple and the
second pump.
On the Rotax...I don't ever recall ever seeing more than one pulse
outlet on the case so don't think that one port powering two pumps
would work....but then again I've never tried and don't know
precisely what the pressure/pump volume relationship is. Typically,
there is probably a plus/minus 14 pound window (that is, plus 7#
and negative 7# pressure/vacuum or appx. 1 atmosphere) available
within the crankcase. I suspect that the actual observed pressure
at the pump is somewhat less. The strength of the pulse would
also necessarily depend on the specific crank angle/port
relationship and could vary from engine to engine. What would the
tradeoff be if you get two pumps powered by 2.5mm lines from one
port that allows the pumps to only produce half the fuel flow (if
indeed that's the case) not knowing the true pump output and the
engine's fuel volume requirements? Hmmmm......I've never seen
the pump spec published and the only engine fuel flow I've seen
has been pounds per horsepower/hour at full throttle. May be
rather hard to extrapolate the requirements without doing some
bench testing.
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
"Christopher John Armstrong"
Coreolis Effect...
I think you should all be saying Coreolis Force which is the "apparent
force" that would be required to result in the motion observed when
something translates linearly in a rotating referance , like say the earth.
there is no real force, but because the referance rotates around you, you
seem to be turned by a force. Like your toilet water should just go
straight down, there is no force to get it spinning, but since the earth
turns, the apparent Coreolis Force gets that toilet water spinning...
Oh you all knew that all ready and were just kidding... sorry
Topher
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Date: Saturday, September 26, 1998 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 582 fuel pump placement
>
>>
>>In a message dated 9/25/98 10:45:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>>TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com writes:
>>
>><< I have a 582 on a Mark III and understand the pump is to be mounted up
>>near / under the engine >>
>>
>>
>> You might want to consider mounting the engine on "rails" as dennis
calls
>>them. He also seemed to think that raising the engine slightly
>>had some minor beneficial effects.
>
>
> It gets it out of the Coreolis Effect...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
| Subject: | PLEASE READ - Reply-To Survey... |
dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001)
[Please read this entire message. Included is a detailed description of the
each of the possible Reply-To options followed by a URL for a limited-time,
web-based, Kolb-List Survey that will ultimately determine the operational
mode of the Kolb-List. -Matt]
Kolb Listers,
There has been some unrest expressed on the kolb-list in the last few days
about how the Reply-To field is configured on List messages. How this
email header is configured determines the default action when a person does
a "Reply" to a message they have received from the kolb-list. Here are
the possible ways this can be configured:
1) Reply to List
When the List is configured in this manner, the email header "Reply-To:" is
set to the email address "kolb-list(at)matronics.com". When a person does
a "Reply" to a message they have recieved from the kolb-list, the default
action will be to reply back to the List.
If the person wishes to respond back to only the original sender of the
message and *not* the List, they are required to modify the "To:" header
of their reply, replacing the string "kolb-list(at)matronics.com" with the
email address of the original sender. This address is always found at the
top of each message and is preceeded by a "--> Kolb-List message..." string.
This is the current method of operation for the kolb-list and is currently
used on the RV-List and Zenith-List email groups also hosted at this site.
As the List Administrator, this is my preferred method of operation as it
stimulates increased dialog and discussion which is what the List is all
about.
2) Reply to Sender
When the List is configured in this manner, the email header "Reply-To:" is
set to the email address of the original Sender of the the message. When a
person does a "Reply" to a message they have received from the kolb-list,
the default action will be to reply back to *only* the sender.
If the person wishes to respond back to the List, they must include the
address "kolb-list(at)matronics.com" on either the "To: " or "Cc: " email
header in their email program.
Historically running an email list in this manner has decreased the traffic
by as much as 50% or more as many people forget to Cc: the List on their
reply. Many good discussions are missed by the List running in this mode.
3) Reply to BOTH the Sender and the List
This is a new option that I just discovered. When the List is configured in
this manner, the email header "Reply-To:" is set to include both the
original sender of the message *and* "kolb-list(at)matronics.com". For example,
a "Reply" to a kolb-list message would result in a "To: " header similar to
the following:
To: dralle(at)matronics.com, kolb-list(at)matronics.com
With this option, the replier could simply remove the "kolb-list(at)matronics.com"
from the end of the "To: " header if they wished to only send a copy to
the original sender and not the whole List. The only drawback to this
method is that the original sender will likely receive *two* copies of the
reply - one directly and one from the List. If the original sender replies
back to the direct copy, this will only go back to the replier by default
and not the whole List.
THE SURVEY
----------
I have developed a new web site to resolve this debate once and for all. The
site will allow each member of the Kolb-List to vote for their preferred
method of operation as described above. Please submit only one vote as
duplicate votes will be disgarded. I will open the voting up for a period
of two weeks and will post a remider to place your vote a couple of times
during that time. At the end of the two weeks, I will tally the votes, post
a summary, and possibly change to operation of the List as determined by
the outcome of the Vote.
The URL for the Kolb-List Survey is:
http://www.matronics.com/kolb-list/survey.html
Let the vote begin.
Best of luck,
Matt Dralle
Kolb-List Administrator
--
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: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VIBRATIONS, CRANKSHAFTS, BEAN FIELDS, AND WAX |
JOBS
<010f01bde8c6$65aac160$2a494ad1@nvc.net.ns1.nvc.net>
snip
>The best possible way to run a belt system would be to gear the
>engine output to an intermediate shaft via 45 degree helix angle
>gears that would place the crank primarily in axial loading.
>
>
>J. Baker
>
>
Jim,
Another possible solution would be to simply use larger diameter pulleys,
requiring less belt tension for the same amount of power transmission.
These engines do a fine job with belt reduction drives in snowmobiles
without crank or bearing problems. UL belt reductions systems tend to push
the limits in small pulley size because of weight optimization. This causes
radial bearing loads to increase significantly.
EZ
________________________________________________________________________________
I witnessed two incidents this week with very different results. A Kolb and a
Minimax both over ran the strip (for different reasons) while landing and
finished up in the bean field. The Kolb stayed upright but the Minimax ended
up upside down. The Max was an open cockpit and the driver was able to push
his plane off of him and get out. His comment was he will never fly with the
canopy on as he would have been unable to get out. Its worth remembering if
you trade planes one day.
Dick C
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Answers to my questions |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
John,
If you saw where I went this afternoon, you would say that I was putting
all too much trust in that new trusty Rotax.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
>I believe that 2 cycle Rotaxes, when properly maintained
>and operated, are reliably enough for flying over places that
>allow energency landings
>
>John Jung
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Gap Cover Experience |
The following observations are presented for builders considering alternatives
to the gap covers supplied in Kolb kits.
FireStar: The back half of my FireStar gap cover came loose and was flapping
wildly during a fly by at our annual fly-in. Several of my comrades rushed to
their radios to warn me that my whole plane was coming apart. I'm not sure
whether the Velcro was not properly secured or what but I soon replaced it
with one I made based on the Mk lll's semi-rigid design. The front section
was made from .032 Al hooked over the wing leading edge tubes. The area from
the leading edge back to the front of the engine was Lexan. A parachute door
was Polytacked in place over the chute pack. Cracks started to appear at the
Lexan rivit points and the chute door popped open regularly after only a few
hours. The rivit crack propagation was stopped by drilling the rivit holes
larger and using washers under the popped ends. Inch-wide strips of Lexan
were glued around the chute door opening to form a door "jamb" and the door
was Velcroed to the jamb. My eventual conclusion was that the Lexan was not a
good material for use without a supporting framework like that used in the
Mark lll. Also the replacement of the fabric seal with the Lexan/Al. seal did
reduce my stall and landing speed by ~ 5 mph.
Mark lll: The gap seal was built per plan but a chute door had to be added.
The chute door was a Lexan panel held in place by interlocking strips of Lexan
that would allow the door to open if the whole panel was deformed by the chute
being fired. The door occasionally opened in flight and I tried to further
secure it with Velcro but never felt safe with that solution. I believe the
door was popping open because of the lift in that area. I finally tied the
door shut with the smallest Ty wraps available threaded through holes in
double thick Lexan. There were no further problems in 20 Hrs of operation.
The main lesson here is that cutting the chute door out of the main panel
destroyed the bent-sheet integrity of that panel allowing major deformation
from lift in that area. The chute door opening should have been reinforced
all around it's perimiter.
FireFly: With the smaller wing area I wanted to take maximum advantage of all
lift surfaces and drag reduction. No matter how I tried the fabric gap seal
still looked like a rag. I was suspicious of the lift it was providing and
nervous about the possibility of it knotting itself around the chute if it was
ever fired. During a visit to master builder Glenn Rinke's shop (~20 Kolbs) I
saw the way he solves the problem and decided to use his approach. It
consists of an Al. front half that hooks over the leading edge and extends
back to where it is Velcro-ed to the front edge of the back half. The front
edge of the back half is reinforced with a peice of small angle Al. which is
tied to the root tube. The back half extends to and around the engine where
it is held in place by Tywraps at the trailing edge. It has stayed in place
for 11+ hours (~10 foldings) and has significantly reduced my stall and
landing speed.
Always looking for new ideas.... Plane Duane in Tallahassee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Beauford Tuton" <beaufordw(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
"Matt Dralle 925-606-1001"
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ - Reply-To Survey... |
"Beauford Tuton"
Matt:
Just a word of thanks for wading into this morass and taking on the
problem... appreciate your efforts.
Bill Tuton
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Dralle 925-606-1001 <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Date: Saturday, September 26, 1998 8:08 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: PLEASE READ - Reply-To Survey...
925-606-1001)
>
>
>[Please read this entire message. Included is a detailed description of
the
>each of the possible Reply-To options followed by a URL for a limited-time,
>web-based, Kolb-List Survey that will ultimately determine the operational
>mode of the Kolb-List. -Matt]
>
>
>Kolb Listers,
>
>There has been some unrest expressed on the kolb-list in the last few days
>about how the Reply-To field is configured on List messages. How this
>email header is configured determines the default action when a person does
>a "Reply" to a message they have received from the kolb-list. Here are
>the possible ways this can be configured:
>
>
>1) Reply to List
>
>When the List is configured in this manner, the email header "Reply-To:" is
>set to the email address "kolb-list(at)matronics.com". When a person does
>a "Reply" to a message they have recieved from the kolb-list, the default
>action will be to reply back to the List.
>
>If the person wishes to respond back to only the original sender of the
>message and *not* the List, they are required to modify the "To:" header
>of their reply, replacing the string "kolb-list(at)matronics.com" with the
>email address of the original sender. This address is always found at the
>top of each message and is preceeded by a "--> Kolb-List message..."
string.
>
>This is the current method of operation for the kolb-list and is currently
>used on the RV-List and Zenith-List email groups also hosted at this site.
>As the List Administrator, this is my preferred method of operation as it
>stimulates increased dialog and discussion which is what the List is all
>about.
>
>
>2) Reply to Sender
>
>When the List is configured in this manner, the email header "Reply-To:" is
>set to the email address of the original Sender of the the message. When a
>person does a "Reply" to a message they have received from the kolb-list,
>the default action will be to reply back to *only* the sender.
>
>If the person wishes to respond back to the List, they must include the
>address "kolb-list(at)matronics.com" on either the "To: " or "Cc: " email
>header in their email program.
>
>Historically running an email list in this manner has decreased the traffic
>by as much as 50% or more as many people forget to Cc: the List on their
>reply. Many good discussions are missed by the List running in this mode.
>
>
>3) Reply to BOTH the Sender and the List
>
>This is a new option that I just discovered. When the List is configured
in
>this manner, the email header "Reply-To:" is set to include both the
>original sender of the message *and* "kolb-list(at)matronics.com". For
example,
>a "Reply" to a kolb-list message would result in a "To: " header similar to
>the following:
>
> To: dralle(at)matronics.com, kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
>With this option, the replier could simply remove the
"kolb-list(at)matronics.com"
>from the end of the "To: " header if they wished to only send a copy to
>the original sender and not the whole List. The only drawback to this
>method is that the original sender will likely receive *two* copies of the
>reply - one directly and one from the List. If the original sender replies
>back to the direct copy, this will only go back to the replier by default
>and not the whole List.
>
>
>THE SURVEY
>----------
>
>I have developed a new web site to resolve this debate once and for all.
The
>site will allow each member of the Kolb-List to vote for their preferred
>method of operation as described above. Please submit only one vote as
>duplicate votes will be disgarded. I will open the voting up for a period
>of two weeks and will post a remider to place your vote a couple of times
>during that time. At the end of the two weeks, I will tally the votes,
post
>a summary, and possibly change to operation of the List as determined by
>the outcome of the Vote.
>
>The URL for the Kolb-List Survey is:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/kolb-list/survey.html
>
>
>Let the vote begin.
>
>Best of luck,
>
>Matt Dralle
>Kolb-List Administrator
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>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: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Survey...comment! |
Cliff and Carolyn Stripling
To all,
>Let the vote begin.
Wow! Am I glad to see this! I have been innundated with messages every day
that really were personal between some of the guys. I guess they had no way
to not send a message to everyone or did not know how not to. Anyway, this
gives everyone a chance to vote. A heart felt thanks to Matt for giving us
the choice!
If you can't already tell, I voted for "sender". That causes a person to
think twice about whether their message applies to all of the 3-400 or so
people on this mailing list. All they have to do if they want to send a
message to everyone is go to their nickname toolbox or type in the address
of the list.
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: | "Scott Olendorf" <olendorf(at)empireone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sealing the exhaust joints |
I had used the anti-sieze compound and after about 25 hours my muffler
cracked. I have the old style 1-joint muffler. So I now use a layer of
Permatex Ultra Copper high temp rtv silicone gasket maker. So far the joint
still has some play so it apparently hasn't frozen up.
Scott Olendorf
Original Firestar, Rotax 377
Schenectady, NY USA
-----Original Message-----
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>
Date: Friday, September 25, 1998 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Sealing the exhaust joints
>
> Why are you attempting to seal the joints? The manual does not call for
>that. All the manual calls for is anti seize on the joints to keep them
from
>binding. Seems to me that silicone on that joint would be a big mess and
>would smell bad. What does the rest of the group say about this? Should
we
>be trying to seal that joint?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
I'm a little ways south of K.C. Would fly a ways south to meet up on a good day
if
you don't find something closer.
Adam Violett, Spring Hill, KS.
Original Firestar
Don Carriker wrote:
> Do any of you know any Kolb owner/pilots anywhere in SW
> Missouri, NW Arkansas, or NE Oklahoma? I'd sure like to go see one
> for real. Kolb's promotional materials are about as "sexy" as a
> recruiting bulleting for a convent. Please let me know if you know
> someone with a Kolb within a hundred miles or so of Springfield MO.
>
> Thanks
>
> Don C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Beauford Tuton" <beaufordw(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
"Christopher John Armstrong"
| Subject: | Coreolised to Incapacitation |
Topher:
Thanks fer that.... picked up a dull headache, but think I got it.....
Lessee, now.... If I understand, were one to incorporate this into a
scenario most guys can relate to, one might liken the Coreolis illusion to
the apparent, but illusionary, progress a person seemingly makes toward
finishing one's Kolb kit... while at the same time, any objective outside
observer can readily see that this perception of progress is only a cruel,
self-perpetrated hoax.... One is actually mired forever, completely
stationary and up to one's hair-laden nostrils in the fetid slime of
interminable, long-term anti-aviation matrimony....the kit completion date
recedes into the distance at a rate precisely matched to one's delusional,
false impression of construction progress...always just beyond a man's
grasp... And I have forked over all of this perfectly good money,
repeatedly maimed both hands and turned my lungs to styrofoam, just so I may
be forever doomed to awaken in the wee hours, screaming "two-stroke", bolt
upright on sweat-drenched sheets, clawing at imaginary tangles of 6061 T-6
aluminum tubing around my neck.... choking....choking.... but never quite
flying....(sob...!) Incidentally, this middle-of-the night aluminum
fit routine does have an up side; She sure stays the hell out of the garage
for a day or two afterwards....just leaves the baloney sandwich on the floor
by the door and knocks... I think she suspects it all has something to do
with the tours in 'Nam... Where was I..? oh yeah,.... Topher, speaking
of that spinning, does the illusion of the C-force explain why the rim of
the toilet above my head appears to be rotating ever more quickly as I look
up at it? Does being in Florida have anything to do with the direction in
which it oughta turn? I was growing a tad concerned about that aspect of
this situation....afraid I was doing something wrong... Say, I can still
see a little light from above... Should I reach up and flush just one more
time...? fer good luck, ya know.....? closure?
Actually, things ARE almost looking up... got the wings hung on the F.F.
without major pain last weekend... struts installed... it almost sits
straight...from certain perspectives, anyway... Most of the struts worked
out to being roughly the same length... I ended up putting two inches of
dihedral in it, vice the one inch called for... I personally think it looks
a little better that way... kinda like an aggressive pile of aluminum lawn
furniture, as opposed to a more passive pile... will have to wait and see
how (or if) the change affects its personal habits...
More Georges rain likely here tomorrow... mebbe more FF next week...
Bill Tuton
FF#76
Brandon, FL
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher John Armstrong <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net>
Date: Saturday, September 26, 1998 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 582 fuel pump placement
>
>Coreolis Effect...
>
>I think you should all be saying Coreolis Force which is the "apparent
>force" that would be required to result in the motion observed when
>something translates linearly in a rotating referance , like say the earth.
>there is no real force, but because the referance rotates around you, you
>seem to be turned by a force. Like your toilet water should just go
>straight down, there is no force to get it spinning, but since the earth
>turns, the apparent Coreolis Force gets that toilet water spinning...
>
>Oh you all knew that all ready and were just kidding... sorry
>
>Topher
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Date: Saturday, September 26, 1998 12:28 AM
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 582 fuel pump placement
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>In a message dated 9/25/98 10:45:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>>>TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com writes:
>>>
>>><< I have a 582 on a Mark III and understand the pump is to be mounted
up
>>>near / under the engine >>
>>>
>>>
>>> You might want to consider mounting the engine on "rails" as dennis
>calls
>>>them. He also seemed to think that raising the engine slightly
>>>had some minor beneficial effects.
>>
>>
>> It gets it out of the Coreolis Effect...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Survey...comment! |
Cliff and Carolyn Stripling wrote:
>
>
> To all,
>
> >Let the vote begin.
>
> Wow! Am I glad to see this! I have been innundated with messages every day
> that really were personal between some of the guys. I guess they had no way
> to not send a message to everyone or did not know how not to. Anyway, this
> gives everyone a chance to vote. A heart felt thanks to Matt for giving us
> the choice!
>
> If you can't already tell, I voted for "sender". That causes a person to
> think twice about whether their message applies to all of the 3-400 or so
> people on this mailing list. All they have to do if they want to send a
> message to everyone is go to their nickname toolbox or type in the address
> of the list.
>
> 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)
>
>
You miss the point of the list. If you want to send personal letters to
people use their personal address. The list is for communication for all
to see. This is a list. Only rarely do you need to send info to
individuals. Most communications should be for all to see. Vote for THE
LIST.
--
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: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
When I had my Hummer, it had a Rotax 277 with Maxair belt drive. The
dealer showed me a good way to check belt tension. You tightened the belts
so that they were obviously snug, but had a little give, not too tight.
Tie down or securely chock the airplane, crank up the engine, let it
get to safe temperature, and then firewall it for about 30 seconds. Shut it
off. Go back and grab the small pulley. If it is barely warm, the belts are
adjusted OK. If the belts are slipping, it will be hot.
Worked good for 600 hours, then I sold it.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
At 05:50 PM 9/26/98, you wrote:
>Richard,
>
>I respect yours and J Baker's view points on this list. One question I have.
>Why woulden't duel parallel pulse pumps be just as good for redundancy as an
>electric facet pump? It would seem to me to be less complex than adding a
>battery and additional electrical circuitry. I'm not convinced that a facet
>pump would be any more reliable than a pulse pump as a stand alone system.
>It should be simple enough to set up a completely redundant fuel system
>using two pulse pumps with pulse lines to each cylinder? Your comments please.
>
>EZ
>
> One of the guys tried that several years ago on a Rans S12 with a
582. It drove him nuts. He couldn't get it to pump. He finally came to the
conclusion that the pulses from the pulse line, and the corresponding pulses
of fuel from the pumps were somehow interacting, and causing some kind of
interplay that canceled each other out. I don't remember if he removed one
pump, or went to two different length of pulse lines, or what, but I
remember him saying that you can't run a matched set of pulse pumps. This is
2nd hand, but I remember it well enough that I didn't try it on mine.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gap Cover Experience |
MitchMnD(at)aol.com wrote:
It has stayed in place
> for 11+ hours (~10 foldings) and has significantly reduced my stall and
> landing speed.
>
> Always looking for new ideas.... Plane Duane in Tallahassee
>
My original lexan wing center section cover was pop riveted to a
stainless steel front piece which was curved to fit tightly over the
leading edges and velcroed there. The lexan was velcroed both sides all
the way back to the engine on top. There was not then, nor is there now
any bottom section (Head room). This lasted 65 uneventful hours before
departing the aircraft and breaking the prop with resulting severe
vibrations, immediate landing and subsequent repairs.
Lesson: Velcro without mechanical hold downs (screws, tonnau cover
snaps, posts with safety pins, etc) eventually suck! The sun is hard on
plastic tie wraps over time also and 11 hours ain't much time.
--
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: Sealing the exhaust joints |
Scott Olendorf wrote:
>
>
> > Why are you attempting to seal the joints? The manual does not call for
> >that. All the manual calls for is anti seize on the joints to keep them
> from
> >binding. Seems to me that silicone on that joint would be a big mess and
> >would smell bad. What does the rest of the group say about this? Should
> we
> >be trying to seal that joint?
> >
>
> +
My original muffler cracked many times prior to 300 hours and required
being repaired a nauseating number of times. I finally bought a new
muffler and spent a bit of time making my muffler mount system put no
strain or stress on the muffler when mated. Result: over 400 hours
without any muffler problems at all (besides rust). Kolb kit #95. I just
use anti-seize.
--
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: Coreolised to Incapacitation |
Thanks. Enjoyed your humor very much, unless of course this really
happens and then Boy am I sorry for the guy that built mine. Hmmm! He
did get a divorce soon afterwards. I wonder... Nice guy too... Hmmm!
Beauford Tuton wrote:
>
>
> Topher:
>
> Thanks fer that.... picked up a dull headache, but think I got it.....
> Lessee, now.... If I understand, were one to incorporate this into a
> scenario most guys can relate to, one might liken the Coreolis illusion to
> the apparent, but illusionary, progress a person seemingly makes toward
> finishing one's Kolb kit... while at the same time, any objective outside
> observer can readily see that this perception of progress is only a cruel,
> self-perpetrated hoax.... One is actually mired forever, completely
> stationary and up to one's hair-laden nostrils in the fetid slime of
> interminable, long-term anti-aviation matrimony....the kit completion date
> recedes into the distance at a rate precisely matched to one's delusional,
> false impression of construction progress...always just beyond a man's
> grasp... And I have forked over all of this perfectly good money,
> repeatedly maimed both hands and turned my lungs to styrofoam, just so I may
> be forever doomed to awaken in the wee hours, screaming "two-stroke", bolt
> upright on sweat-drenched sheets, clawing at imaginary tangles of 6061 T-6
> aluminum tubing around my neck.... choking....choking.... but never quite
> flying....(sob...!) Incidentally, this middle-of-the night aluminum
> fit routine does have an up side; She sure stays the hell out of the garage
> for a day or two afterwards....just leaves the baloney sandwich on the floor
> by the door and knocks... I think she suspects it all has something to do
> with the tours in 'Nam... Where was I..? oh yeah,.... Topher, speaking
> of that spinning, does the illusion of the C-force explain why the rim of
> the toilet above my head appears to be rotating ever more quickly as I look
> up at it? Does being in Florida have anything to do with the direction in
> which it oughta turn? I was growing a tad concerned about that aspect of
> this situation....afraid I was doing something wrong... Say, I can still
> see a little light from above... Should I reach up and flush just one more
> time...? fer good luck, ya know.....? closure?
>
> Actually, things ARE almost looking up... got the wings hung on the F.F.
> without major pain last weekend... struts installed... it almost sits
> straight...from certain perspectives, anyway... Most of the struts worked
> out to being roughly the same length... I ended up putting two inches of
> dihedral in it, vice the one inch called for... I personally think it looks
> a little better that way... kinda like an aggressive pile of aluminum lawn
> furniture, as opposed to a more passive pile... will have to wait and see
> how (or if) the change affects its personal habits...
> More Georges rain likely here tomorrow... mebbe more FF next week...
> Bill Tuton
> FF#76
> Brandon, FL
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher John Armstrong <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Saturday, September 26, 1998 7:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 582 fuel pump placement
>
>
> >
> >Coreolis Effect...
> >
> >I think you should all be saying Coreolis Force which is the "apparent
> >force" that would be required to result in the motion observed when
> >something translates linearly in a rotating referance , like say the earth.
> >there is no real force, but because the referance rotates around you, you
> >seem to be turned by a force. Like your toilet water should just go
> >straight down, there is no force to get it spinning, but since the earth
> >turns, the apparent Coreolis Force gets that toilet water spinning...
> >
> >Oh you all knew that all ready and were just kidding... sorry
> >
> >Topher
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
> >To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> >Date: Saturday, September 26, 1998 12:28 AM
> >Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 582 fuel pump placement
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>In a message dated 9/25/98 10:45:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> >>>TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com writes:
> >>>
> >>><< I have a 582 on a Mark III and understand the pump is to be mounted
> up
> >>>near / under the engine >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You might want to consider mounting the engine on "rails" as dennis
> >calls
> >>>them. He also seemed to think that raising the engine slightly
> >>>had some minor beneficial effects.
> >>
> >>
> >> It gets it out of the Coreolis Effect...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
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: Reply-To Survey... |
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
925-606-1001) writes:
>
>....Historically running an email list in this manner has decreased the
>traffic by as much as 50% ....
Thanks Matt for giving us the choice!
Over the last couple weeks, I've come very close to un-subscibing (..it's
misspelled for a reason!) precisely because of increased traffic. When we
were an 'off-web' group (hosted by intrig.com), the daily traffic was
about what I personally find comfortable. Since going 'world-wide'
however, the traffic has gradually crept-up to nearly 'annoying' levels.
I don't think reducing it by 50% is necessarily a bad thing!
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
There was an outfit in Camarillo, CA a couple of years ago, and I'm told
they moved back East. Anyone know where ?? I understand they were
surprisingly heavy for their size and power output. There was a new
company at Castle AFB today called Maxi-Thrust LLC. Advertise 40, 60, and
85 hp - 4 (yes, four ) stroke engines for $100.00 per hp. 60 hp is a V -
twin, weighs 89 lbs. 85 hp is 94 lbs. Look pretty good. Beautiful, in
fact. They're at 1-800-991-9777. Big Lar.
----------
> From: Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kawasaki: A good motor?
>
> By the way, has anyone worked with a Honda cycle engine on a plane?
Thanks,
> Pete in Boonville, NY
>
>
>
>
!
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
----------
> From: Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kawasaki: A good motor?
> Date: Friday, September 25, 1998 6:27 AM
>
> Did you see my comments about the Cirrus the other day ??
Big Lar
>.
>
> I also figured I'd never use it, so bought the 500# rated model (BRS) to
> save a couple of pounds/$$.
>
> A chute is the "last ditched effort". BRS claims that decent of the Mark
II with the 1050 deployed is about 20 feet per second. At that speed I
will hurt something and do terminal damage to the aircraft BUT will most
likely "crawl " away alive. Having the plane balanced to land on it;'s
gear will help to absorb the decent rate and damage to my body.
>
> Phew! sorry for the dissertation. So do you agree? What do you think?
>
>
!
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
"Kolb-List: Re: Reply-To Survey..." (Sep 26, 11:38pm)
| Subject: | Re: Reply-To Survey... |
>--------------
>>....Historically running an email list in this manner has decreased the
>>traffic by as much as 50% ....
>
>Thanks Matt for giving us the choice!
>
>Over the last couple weeks, I've come very close to un-subscibing (..it's
>misspelled for a reason!) precisely because of increased traffic. When we
>were an 'off-web' group (hosted by intrig.com), the daily traffic was
>about what I personally find comfortable. Since going 'world-wide'
>however, the traffic has gradually crept-up to nearly 'annoying' levels.
>I don't think reducing it by 50% is necessarily a bad thing!
>
>-Mick Fine
>--------------
For those the feel somewhat overwelmed by the traffic levels, please remember
that a "Digest" version of the kolb-list is available as well. With the
Digest version, all of the day's messages are combined into a single message
and sent to the kolb-list-digest List right around Midnight every day.
While it's a little harder to respond to a given message when subscribed
to the Digest version of the List, it does certainly cutdown on the number
of messages per day.
To subscribe to the Digest version of the kolb-list, simply send an email
message to "kolb-list-digest-request(at)matronics.com" and put the word "subscribe"
in the body of the message. No other Subject, body, or signature text.
FYI
Matt Dralle
Kolb-List Admin.
--
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: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kawasaki: A good motor? |
Ha, this reminds me - the engine I talked about a few minutes ago was the
Gold Wing 1100 (?) cc. BTW Richard, I like most of your answers, but what
do you think about hooking up the bridle so you come down fairly nose low,
so you can see when to brace your feet and hang on ?? Like Todd said in a
previous message - this is really going to be a rare occurence. Kolbs are
VERY rugged. Big Lar.
----------
> From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kawasaki: A good motor?
> Date: Friday, September 25, 1998 12:17 PM
>
>
>
> >
> >By the way, has anyone worked with a Honda cycle engine on a plane?
Thanks,
> >Pete in Boonville, NY
> >
> > Honda makes/made a 250 2-stroke single that went in a 4 wheeler,
one
> of the locals had one in a Mitchell wing years ago. It's been a while.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: VIBRATIONS, CRANKSHAFTS, BEAN FIELDS, AND WAX JOBS |
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
Someone said that snowmobiles do fine on belt-drive. Please correct me if
mistaken but don't they use a 'torque-converter' type drive that
automatically adjusts the PTO pulley diameter as a function of side-load?
We don't have much to do with 'sleds' in Oklahoma but it would seem that
this type drive wouldn't really compare to any UL applications I've seen.
I can however give first-hand instruction on how to break the crank of a
447 when installed on an old Challenger 2 with v-belts but maybe that's
best left to another list (that doesn't exist).
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Never did see an answer to that guy. BTW is By The Way, IMHO is In My
Humble Opinion, FWIW is For What It's Worth, WAG ( my favorite ) is Wild
Ass Guess. What are we missing ?? FWIW, IMHO we should vote for a
choice of where our message goes. That way we get our cake and get to eat
it too.
BTW, Those Californians who didn't go to The Air Show at Castle AFB near
Merced, CA really missed something. It's got a way to go, but still seemed
pretty well run, and very extensive. Also had the benefit of that great
military aircraft museum at the entrance to the base. Another $5.00, but
very, very worth it. I don't think I've ever seen such a collection of
Warbirds. Didn't know such a collection even existed. Enjoyed meeting a
few of the Kolb listers too. Don't know if I want to drive 400 miles each
way again, but next year I'll look forward to flying Vamoose up there,
weather permitting. Who's going to Copperstate ?? Wouldn't miss it.
Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ - Reply-To Survey... |
Matt,
Thanks for giving us the option. It appears that one problem with the
current method has to do with how well each of the users understands (or
fails to understand) their e-mail systems. But it goes beyond that. I
use Netscape mail and I am on computers most of my working day, but the
current system is difficult for me to reply to other than the list. The
current version of Netscape will not allow me to copy an address from
the original message. (An older version does) That means that I have to
reply to all just to be able to copy the address. Then I have to delete
the other addresses or delete the whole message and send a new one. If I
can have this much trouble with Netscape, imagine people that are new to
computing using various e-mail systems.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Larry,
Here is some perspective on how fast 20 fps down really is: A
Quicksilver Sprint, engine off, held in a stall by full back stick,
decends at 600 fpm or 10 fps. If you pull the chute on Mark II (III?),
you will do a lot of damage to the plane. The chutes save lives, not
planes.
John Jung
>
>Larry Bourne wrote:
>
> A chute is the "last ditched effort". BRS claims that decent of the Mark
> II with the 1050 deployed is about 20 feet per second. At that speed I
> will hurt something and do terminal damage to the aircraft BUT will most
> likely "crawl " away alive. Having the plane balanced to land on it;'s
> gear will help to absorb the decent rate and damage to my body.
> >
> > Phew! sorry for the dissertation. So do you agree? What do you think?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | joe vasher <jvasher(at)advadata.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sealing the exhaust joints |
Scott Olendorf wrote:
>
> I had used the anti-sieze compound and after about 25 hours my muffler
> cracked. I have the old style 1-joint muffler. So I now use a layer of
> Permatex Ultra Copper high temp rtv silicone gasket maker. So far the joint
> still has some play so it apparently hasn't frozen up.
>
I would highly recommend not using silver or copper anti seize they will bind the
pipes up from the exhaust and heat. Effectively they will lock the joint (Thus
the
cracking you have had problems with) use nickel anti seize that is what I use on
certified aircraft exhaust when a slip joint is used.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | joe vasher <jvasher(at)advadata.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ - Reply-To Survey... |
thanks to the person who explained how to reply to sender using netscape.
I like the group as is, but would suggest that maybe a little care be used in
creating the subject. If a person is over loaded with a lot of mail coming in from
the group, you can choose to not read some of the messages. However, if the subject
is brief such as (I have a question) or (hello) some important topics can get
missed. So a detailed subject would help a lot.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Reply-To Survey... |
Do we have to unsubscribe to the normal list if we go the digest route,
or visa versa if we want to then return to the normal list?
Matt Dralle 925-606-1001 wrote:
>
>
> >--------------
> >>....Historically running an email list in this manner has decreased the
> >>traffic by as much as 50% ....
> >
> >Thanks Matt for giving us the choice!
> >
> >Over the last couple weeks, I've come very close to un-subscibing (..it's
> >misspelled for a reason!) precisely because of increased traffic. When we
> >were an 'off-web' group (hosted by intrig.com), the daily traffic was
> >about what I personally find comfortable. Since going 'world-wide'
> >however, the traffic has gradually crept-up to nearly 'annoying' levels.
> >I don't think reducing it by 50% is necessarily a bad thing!
> >
> >-Mick Fine
> >--------------
>
> For those the feel somewhat overwelmed by the traffic levels, please remember
> that a "Digest" version of the kolb-list is available as well. With the
> Digest version, all of the day's messages are combined into a single message
> and sent to the kolb-list-digest List right around Midnight every day.
>
> While it's a little harder to respond to a given message when subscribed
> to the Digest version of the List, it does certainly cutdown on the number
> of messages per day.
>
> To subscribe to the Digest version of the kolb-list, simply send an email
> message to "kolb-list-digest-request(at)matronics.com" and put the word "subscribe"
> in the body of the message. No other Subject, body, or signature text.
>
> FYI
>
> Matt Dralle
> Kolb-List Admin.
>
> --
>
> 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
>
--
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: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BTW and more |
Larry, you missed SWAG: Scientific Wild-Assed Guess, and FOCL: Fell Outa
Chair Laffing. GB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
| Subject: | Re: Digest Version of Kolb-List... |
>--------------
>> For those the feel somewhat overwelmed by the traffic levels, please remember
>> that a "Digest" version of the kolb-list is available as well. With the
>> Digest version, all of the day's messages are combined into a single message
>> and sent to the kolb-list-digest List right around Midnight every day.
>>
>> While it's a little harder to respond to a given message when subscribed
>> to the Digest version of the List, it does certainly cutdown on the number
>> of messages per day.
>>
>> To subscribe to the Digest version of the kolb-list, simply send an email
>> message to "kolb-list-digest-request(at)matronics.com" and put the word
>> "subscribe" in the body of the message. No other Subject, body, or
>> signature text.
>>
>> Matt Dralle
>
>Do we have to unsubscribe to the normal list if we go the digest route,
>or visa versa if we want to then return to the normal list?
>
>Allan W Blackburn
>--------------
The digest version of the List is a completely separate email list. You
can be subscribed to either or both - your choice.
Matt
--
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: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry and Susan Steck <lsteck(at)ala.net>
; Jennifer Stanley
; Gordon M. Slaymaker ;
Mel Mella ; Tom McLinskey ; Greg Mc
Gregor ; Lindy ; David Griffin
; Dale Kiel ; Dick Conard
; George W. Groff III ; James Hall
; Joe Dumm ; John Hundley
; Rachael/David Harris ; Shannon
Francis ; Andy Erickson ;
Brandon
Date: Sunday, August 09, 1998 10:17 PM
Subject: Fw: pilots
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: RussHayden(at)aol.com <RussHayden(at)aol.com>
>To: LSteck(at)ala.net
>Date: Sunday, August 09, 1998 12:05 PM
>Subject: pilots
>
>
>>Subj: I want to be a pilot and other jokes
>>
>>
>>
>>I WANT TO BE A PILOT
>>by an 11 year old boy
>>
>>When I grow up I want to be a PILOT because it is a fun job and easy to
>>do. That's why there are so many PILOTS flying around these days. PILOTS
>>don't need much school, they just have to learn to read numbers so they
>>can read instruments. I guess they should be able to read road maps too
>>so they can find their way home if they get lost.
>>PILOTS should be brave so they won't get scared if it's foggy and they
>>can't see, or if a wing or motor falls off they should stay calm so
>>they'll know what to do. PILOTS have to have good eyes to see through
>>clouds and they can't be afraid of lightning or thunder because they are
>>much closer to them than we are.
>>The salary PILOTS make is another thing I like. They make more money
>>than they know what to do with. This is because most people think that
>>plane flying is dangerous except PILOTS don't because they know how easy
>>it is.
>>I hope I don't get airsick because I get carsick and if I get airsick I
>>couldn't be a PILOT and then I would have to go to work.
>>*************************************************************
>>
>>How to Duck the Huge Cost of Instruments
>>
>>Basic rules for The Cat and Duck Method of Flight Under the Hood are
>>fairly well known and are, of course, extremely simple.
>>
>> Place a live cat on the cockpit floor. Because a cat always
>>remains upright, he, or she (as the case may be), can be used in lieu of
>>a needle and ball. Merely watch to see which way the cat leans, to
>>determine if the wing is low and if so, which one.
>>
>> The duck is used for the instrument approach and landing.
>>Because of the fact that any sensible duck will refuse to fly under
>>instrument conditions, it is only necessary to hurl your duck out of the
>>plane and follow him/her to the ground.
>>
>>
>>There are some limitations to The Cat and Duck Method, but by rigidly
>>adhering to the following "Check List," a degree of success will be
>>achieved, which will surely startle you, your passengers, and maybe even
>>an itinerant Tower Operator. (Since GAD Inspectors are familiar with
>>this type operation -- it will not affect them.)
>>
>>CHECK LIST FOR CAT AND DUCK METHOD:
>>
>> GET A WIDE AWAKE CAT. Most cats do not want to stand up, at all
>>at any time. It may be necessary to get a large dog to carry in the
>>cockpit to keep the cat at attention.
>> MAKE SURE YOUR CAT IS CLEAN. Dirty cats will spend all their
>>time washing. Trying to follow a washing cat usually results in a tight
>>snap roll followed by an inverted spin (flat). You can see this is very
>>unsanitary and a little unsafe.
>> OLD CATS ARE BEST. Young cats have nine lives, but an old
>>used-up cat with only one left has just as much to lose as you do and
>>will be more dependable.
>> AVOID STRAY CATS. Try to get one with a good pedigree. Your
>>veterinarian can help you locate a cat with good character, or try any
>>good breeding farm.
>> BEWARE OF COWARDLY DUCKS. If the duck discovers that you are
>>using the cat to stay upright, he/she will refuse to leave without the
>>cat. Ducks are no better on instruments than you are.
>> BE SURE THE DUCK HAS GOOD EYESIGHT. Nearsighted ducks sometimes
>>fail to realize they are on the gauges and will go flogging off into the
>>nearest hill. Very nearsighted ducks will not realize they have been
>>thrown out and will descend to the ground in a sitting position. This
>>maneuver is quite difficult to follow in an airplane.
>> USE LANDLOVING DUCKS. It is very discouraging to breakout and
>>find yourself on final for a rice paddy. Particularly if there are duck
>>hunters around. Duck hunters suffer from temporary insanity when they
>>are sitting in freezing weather in their blinds and will shoot at
>>anything that flies.
>> CHOOSE YOUR DUCK CAREFULLY. It is easy to confuse ducks with
>>geese because many water birds look alike. While they are very competent
>>instrument flyers, geese seldom want to go in the same direction you do.
>>If your duck heads off for Canada or Mexico, you may be sure you have
>>been given the goose.
>>**************************************************************
>>YOU MAY BE A REDNECK PILOT IF....
>>* your stall warning horn plays "Dixie".
>>* your cross country flight plan uses Flea Markets as check
>>points.
>>* you think sectional charts should show trailer parks.
>>* you've ever used moonshine as avgas.
>>* you have mud flaps on your wheel pants.
>>* you think GPS stands for "Going Perfectly Straight".
>>* your toothpick keeps poking your mike.
>>* you constantly confuse "Beechnut" with "Beechcraft".
>>* the NTSB report quotes you as saying, "Hey y'all, watch this!"
>>just before "uncontrolled descent into terrain".
>>* you've ever taxied around the airport drinking beer.
>>* you use a Purina Sack as a windsock.
>>* you fuel your aircraft from a mason jar.
>>* you wouldn't be caught dead flying a Grumman "Yankee".
>>* you refer to Flying in Formation as, "We got ourselves a
>>convoy!"
>>* there is a sign on the side of your airplane advertising your
>>cousin's septic tank service.
>>* the set of matched luggage you take on cross country flights is
>>three grocery sacks from the same Piggly Wiggly.
>>*******************************************************************
>>
>>A
>>superior pilot
>>may be defined
>>as one who stays
>>out of trouble by
>>using his superior judgment
>>to avoid situations which
>>might require the use
>>of his superior
>>skill.
>>
>>
>>**********************************************************************
>>Conducting a study of sexual behavior, a researcher stops an airline
>>pilot,
>>"Can you tell me when you last made love?" she asks.
>>"Nineteen fifty-nine," he answers.
>>Having heard a lot about the reputation of airline pilots, the
>>researcher is taken back.
>>"That's an awfully long time!" she says.
>>"I suppose," says the pilot, glancing at his watch. "But it's only
>>twenty-one fifteen now."
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Bruner" <brunerd(at)ulster.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ - Reply-To Survey... |
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Dralle 925-606-1001 <dralle(at)matronics.com>
=snip=
>Let the vote begin.
>
>Best of luck,
>
>Matt Dralle
>Kolb-List Administrator
Kolb Folks,
First, much thanks to Matt for doing this list!
Second, I know where my mail will go - I'll accommodate either
configuration.
Third, the list can be better if folks would take a bit of care to:
- when replying, be mindful of the subject of the reply.
- use the Kolb-list address in your Address Book to send messages with a
new subject.
- edit the reply, leaving only your added information about the subject of
the reply.
Thanks for all the info - it's another advantage for (owning) a Kolb.
Kolb owner wanabe and kolb-list lurker, who was never able to find john jung
at oshkosh,
david
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Bruner" <brunerd(at)ulster.net> |
| Subject: | Engine reliability, 4 cycle wish |
Lots of discussion about (2 cycle) engine reliabiliy lately. Hope I haven't
missed any comments from Dennis about 4 cycle engines on Kolbs. I just
don't want a 2 cycle. It's been a major sticking point in my quest to find
my own Kolb. Of course, I'll know dead-stick and for sure will have a
chute. But 2 strokers give me the willies. I'm asking for a miracle here?
Still a wannabe kolb owner, looking for a used kolb - w/o engine,
david
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | support(at)matronics.com (Matronics Technical Support 925-606-1001) |
| Subject: | Kolb-List FAQ; Please Contribute... |
>--------------
>On a side note, maybe we need a FAQ (frequently asked questions) page for
>the Kolb List. Something to cover the basics (such as SeaFoam sources!)
>and some more incentive for using that great search engine (How 'bout it
>Matt?). I've been on this list less than a year but the amount of
>repeat-topics is pretty large. Now that we have the ability to access
>such a huge amount of useful information, there's really no need to
>re-hash so many old threads.
>
>-Mick Fine
>--------------
Regarding the FAQ, I do have one of sorts for the kolb-list. It is basically
a heavily edited version of the RV-List FAQ, though, and contains little
Kolb specific information. If someone were willing to 'do it up right' I'd
be more that willing to accept the new and improved document. I would also
be willing to accept specific contributions as well. The current version can
be found at the following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/ftp/Archives/Kolb-List.FAQ
Please send additions to the Kolb-List FAQ only to the following email address:
info(at)matronics.com
A good FAQ can definitely reduce the number of 'newbe' questions. Let's build
a good one for the Kolb-List, guys!
Matt Dralle
Kolb-List Admin.
--
Technical Support | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | support(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com W.W.W. | Specializing in Aircraft Avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GEORGE ALEXANDER" <geoalex(at)whidbey.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Digest Version of Kolb-List... |
----------
> From: Matt Dralle 925-606-1001 <dralle(at)matronics.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Digest Version of Kolb-List...
> Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 10:20 AM
>
925-606-1001)
>
> >--------------
> >> For those the feel somewhat overwelmed by the traffic levels, please
remember
> >> that a "Digest" version of the kolb-list is available as well. With
the
> >> Digest version, all of the day's messages are combined into a single
message
> >> and sent to the kolb-list-digest List right around Midnight every day.
> >>
> >> While it's a little harder to respond to a given message when
subscribed
> >> to the Digest version of the List, it does certainly cutdown on the
number
> >> of messages per day.
> >>
> >> To subscribe to the Digest version of the kolb-list, simply send an
email
> >> message to "kolb-list-digest-request(at)matronics.com" and put the word
> >> "subscribe" in the body of the message. No other Subject, body, or
> >> signature text.
> >>
> >> Matt Dralle
> >
> >Do we have to unsubscribe to the normal list if we go the digest route,
> >or visa versa if we want to then return to the normal list?
> >
> >Allan W Blackburn
> >--------------
>
>
> The digest version of the List is a completely separate email list. You
> can be subscribed to either or both - your choice.
>
> Matt
>
>
> --
>
> 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: | rbaker2(at)juno.com (Ray L Baker) |
Hi Kolp-list
I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the list who
share your experiences and opinions by posting them. You have and do a
great amount of good! I am a GA type getting retreaded for UL's and I
could fill a small book with the knowledge you have imparted and I
haven't even started building yet. You have answered many questions I
didn't even know to ask.
Therefore I encourage the consideration of option 1. I realize that this
exposes us to some extraneous verbiage, but nothing a couple of clicks of
the mouse can't dispatch. I wouldn't want to risk missing even 1 reply.
It might contain the very information that will save my old body from a
lot of hurt.
I suspect that like flying skills, over time, our computer skills will
improve and some of the redundancy and misdirection will go away.
I will be happy to help anyone using Juno. Contact me at
Ray Baker
Lake Butler,FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sealing the exhaust joints |
> I would highly recommend not using silver or copper anti seize they will bind
the
> pipes up from the exhaust and heat. Effectively they will lock the joint (Thus
the
> cracking you have had problems with) use nickel anti seize that is what I use
on
> certified aircraft exhaust when a slip joint is used.
The old Permatex 133A or, now that Permatex is a part of Loctite,
their designation 771. Both are MIL-A-907E compliant, nickle
based.
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VIBRATIONS, CRANKSHAFTS, BEAN FIELDS, AND WAX JOBS |
> don't they use a 'torque-converter' type drive that
> automatically adjusts the PTO pulley diameter as a function of side-load?
As a function of RPM unless you get a high dollar hydraulic unit
that senses load.
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duncan McBride" <dmcbride(at)indigo.fgcu.edu> |
I've been reading a lot about the Mark III and I think it's an impressive
airplane. The literature doesn't specifiy how much room there is for
baggage, so I'd be curious for any input about that. But mainly I'm curious
about how it stacks up to the Ferguson F-II. I've not seen either up close,
and haven't seen enough pictures to appreciate the differences. The F-II
has flaperons, and what looks like a better sealed cabin, but I'd really
like to hear some first-hand experience. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "barry youngblood" <barry(at)hcis.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Frcole(at)aol.com <Frcole(at)aol.com>
Date: Saturday, September 26, 1998 7:43 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Safety
>
>I witnessed two incidents this week with very different results. A Kolb
and a
>Minimax both over ran the strip (for different reasons)
Hi Dick. I flew in to dale's flyin saturday, and talked to the minimax
driver but didn't here about a Kolb incident. Could you tell me who it was.
Barry Y.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
>
>I've been reading a lot about the Mark III and I think it's an impressive
>airplane. The literature doesn't specifiy how much room there is for
>baggage, so I'd be curious for any input about that.
Stock, not as much as I needed to go to Oshkosh. So it got modified.
Now the gas tank is up in the upper fuselage area/gap cover location, and
the former fuel tank area is for baggage. Now it has all the room you need.
I love it. But it was a lot of work.
IMHO the Kolb is better built. It was certainly a very good kit,
easy and fun to build. Factory support was good.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Wilde" <jeffwilde(at)mpinet.net> |
The talk of two strokes has been interesting. I'm building a Mark III and am
presently in the covering process. I have purchased a Geo metro 3 cylinder
motor and will shortly purchase my PSRU from Raven. I know that there is not
much history on this application but Raven seems to be dedicated to the
sucessfull application of this powerplant to light aircraft. I'll keep the
list abreast of my progress. I've included the website. Also, there is a
company selling ballistic chutes known as GRS. Anyone have any experience or
knowledge with this company? I've included the website. Jeff in Oviedo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Wilde" <jeffwilde(at)mpinet.net> |
| Subject: | oops, Raven and GRS websites |
name="Raven Geo Met engines.url"
filename="Raven Geo Met engines.url"
[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.raven-rotor.com/html/ultralight.html
Modified=00A5594A54D5BD012F
name="parachutes, ballistic.url"
filename="parachutes, ballistic.url"
[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.teleport.com/~zlinak/grs/specs.htm
Modified=C021B7A926E1BD0106
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Reply-To Survey... |
>
>925-606-1001) writes:
>>
>>....Historically running an email list in this manner has decreased the
>>traffic by as much as 50% ....
>
>Thanks Matt for giving us the choice!
>
>Over the last couple weeks, I've come very close to un-subscibing (..it's
>misspelled for a reason!) precisely because of increased traffic. When we
>were an 'off-web' group (hosted by intrig.com), the daily traffic was
>about what I personally find comfortable. Since going 'world-wide'
>however, the traffic has gradually crept-up to nearly 'annoying' levels.
>I don't think reducing it by 50% is necessarily a bad thing!
>
>
>-Mick Fine
Mr. Fine,
Unsubscribling would certainly be a fine ( pun intended ) way to reduce the
traffic on the Kolb list if that's your goal. But I would prefer rather to
try make
every body intrested in Kolbs feel welcome.
EZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
OK, JH, where are you now when we need you.
This ain't *Kolb*
Ron Carroll
Original Firestar
-----Original Message-----
From: Lindy <lindy(at)snowhill.com>
Date: Sunday September 27 1998 10:28 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Fw: pilots
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Larry and Susan Steck <lsteck(at)ala.net>
>To: Mark Wedding ; Stacy E Steck
>; Jennifer Stanley
>; Gordon M. Slaymaker ;
>Mel Mella ; Tom McLinskey ; Greg Mc
>Gregor ; Lindy ; David Griffin
>; Dale Kiel ; Dick Conard
>; George W. Groff III ; James Hall
>; Joe Dumm ; John Hundley
>; Rachael/David Harris ; Shannon
>Francis ; Andy Erickson ;
>Brandon
>Date: Sunday, August 09, 1998 10:17 PM
>Subject: Fw: pilots
>
>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: RussHayden(at)aol.com <RussHayden(at)aol.com>
>>To: LSteck(at)ala.net
>>Date: Sunday, August 09, 1998 12:05 PM
>>Subject: pilots
>>
>>
>>>Subj: I want to be a pilot and other jokes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I WANT TO BE A PILOT
>>>by an 11 year old boy
>>>
>>>When I grow up I want to be a PILOT because it is a fun job and easy to
>>>do. That's why there are so many PILOTS flying around these days.
PILOTS
>>>don't need much school, they just have to learn to read numbers so they
>>>can read instruments. I guess they should be able to read road maps too
>>>so they can find their way home if they get lost.
>>>PILOTS should be brave so they won't get scared if it's foggy and they
>>>can't see, or if a wing or motor falls off they should stay calm so
>>>they'll know what to do. PILOTS have to have good eyes to see through
>>>clouds and they can't be afraid of lightning or thunder because they are
>>>much closer to them than we are.
>>>The salary PILOTS make is another thing I like. They make more money
>>>than they know what to do with. This is because most people think that
>>>plane flying is dangerous except PILOTS don't because they know how easy
>>>it is.
>>>I hope I don't get airsick because I get carsick and if I get airsick I
>>>couldn't be a PILOT and then I would have to go to work.
>>>*************************************************************
>>>
>>>How to Duck the Huge Cost of Instruments
>>>
>>>Basic rules for The Cat and Duck Method of Flight Under the Hood are
>>>fairly well known and are, of course, extremely simple.
>>>
>>> Place a live cat on the cockpit floor. Because a cat always
>>>remains upright, he, or she (as the case may be), can be used in lieu of
>>>a needle and ball. Merely watch to see which way the cat leans, to
>>>determine if the wing is low and if so, which one.
>>>
>>> The duck is used for the instrument approach and landing.
>>>Because of the fact that any sensible duck will refuse to fly under
>>>instrument conditions, it is only necessary to hurl your duck out of the
>>>plane and follow him/her to the ground.
>>>
>>>
>>>There are some limitations to The Cat and Duck Method, but by rigidly
>>>adhering to the following "Check List," a degree of success will be
>>>achieved, which will surely startle you, your passengers, and maybe even
>>>an itinerant Tower Operator. (Since GAD Inspectors are familiar with
>>>this type operation -- it will not affect them.)
>>>
>>>CHECK LIST FOR CAT AND DUCK METHOD:
>>>
>>> GET A WIDE AWAKE CAT. Most cats do not want to stand up, at all
>>>at any time. It may be necessary to get a large dog to carry in the
>>>cockpit to keep the cat at attention.
>>> MAKE SURE YOUR CAT IS CLEAN. Dirty cats will spend all their
>>>time washing. Trying to follow a washing cat usually results in a tight
>>>snap roll followed by an inverted spin (flat). You can see this is very
>>>unsanitary and a little unsafe.
>>> OLD CATS ARE BEST. Young cats have nine lives, but an old
>>>used-up cat with only one left has just as much to lose as you do and
>>>will be more dependable.
>>> AVOID STRAY CATS. Try to get one with a good pedigree. Your
>>>veterinarian can help you locate a cat with good character, or try any
>>>good breeding farm.
>>> BEWARE OF COWARDLY DUCKS. If the duck discovers that you are
>>>using the cat to stay upright, he/she will refuse to leave without the
>>>cat. Ducks are no better on instruments than you are.
>>> BE SURE THE DUCK HAS GOOD EYESIGHT. Nearsighted ducks sometimes
>>>fail to realize they are on the gauges and will go flogging off into the
>>>nearest hill. Very nearsighted ducks will not realize they have been
>>>thrown out and will descend to the ground in a sitting position. This
>>>maneuver is quite difficult to follow in an airplane.
>>> USE LANDLOVING DUCKS. It is very discouraging to breakout and
>>>find yourself on final for a rice paddy. Particularly if there are duck
>>>hunters around. Duck hunters suffer from temporary insanity when they
>>>are sitting in freezing weather in their blinds and will shoot at
>>>anything that flies.
>>> CHOOSE YOUR DUCK CAREFULLY. It is easy to confuse ducks with
>>>geese because many water birds look alike. While they are very competent
>>>instrument flyers, geese seldom want to go in the same direction you do.
>>>If your duck heads off for Canada or Mexico, you may be sure you have
>>>been given the goose.
>>>**************************************************************
>>>YOU MAY BE A REDNECK PILOT IF....
>>>* your stall warning horn plays "Dixie".
>>>* your cross country flight plan uses Flea Markets as check
>>>points.
>>>* you think sectional charts should show trailer parks.
>>>* you've ever used moonshine as avgas.
>>>* you have mud flaps on your wheel pants.
>>>* you think GPS stands for "Going Perfectly Straight".
>>>* your toothpick keeps poking your mike.
>>>* you constantly confuse "Beechnut" with "Beechcraft".
>>>* the NTSB report quotes you as saying, "Hey y'all, watch this!"
>>>just before "uncontrolled descent into terrain".
>>>* you've ever taxied around the airport drinking beer.
>>>* you use a Purina Sack as a windsock.
>>>* you fuel your aircraft from a mason jar.
>>>* you wouldn't be caught dead flying a Grumman "Yankee".
>>>* you refer to Flying in Formation as, "We got ourselves a
>>>convoy!"
>>>* there is a sign on the side of your airplane advertising your
>>>cousin's septic tank service.
>>>* the set of matched luggage you take on cross country flights is
>>>three grocery sacks from the same Piggly Wiggly.
>>>*******************************************************************
>>>
>>>A
>>>superior pilot
>>>may be defined
>>>as one who stays
>>>out of trouble by
>>>using his superior judgment
>>>to avoid situations which
>>>might require the use
>>>of his superior
>>>skill.
>>>
>>>
>>>**********************************************************************
>>>Conducting a study of sexual behavior, a researcher stops an airline
>>>pilot,
>>>"Can you tell me when you last made love?" she asks.
>>>"Nineteen fifty-nine," he answers.
>>>Having heard a lot about the reputation of airline pilots, the
>>>researcher is taken back.
>>>"That's an awfully long time!" she says.
>>>"I suppose," says the pilot, glancing at his watch. "But it's only
>>>twenty-one fifteen now."
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | STAN SPRUILL <sspruill(at)surfsouth.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Digest Version of Kolb-List... |
Matt Dralle 925-606-1001 wrote:
>
>
> >--------------
> >> For those the feel somewhat overwelmed by the traffic levels, please remember
> >> that a "Digest" version of the kolb-list is available as well. With the
> >> Digest version, all of the day's messages are combined into a single message
> >> and sent to the kolb-list-digest List right around Midnight every day.
> >>
> >> While it's a little harder to respond to a given message when subscribed
> >> to the Digest version of the List, it does certainly cutdown on the number
> >> of messages per day.
> >>
> >> To subscribe to the Digest version of the kolb-list, simply send an email
> >> message to "kolb-list-digest-request(at)matronics.com" and put the word
> >> "subscribe" in the body of the message. No other Subject, body, or
> >> signature text.
> >>
> >> Matt Dralle
> >
> >Do we have to unsubscribe to the normal list if we go the digest route,
> >or visa versa if we want to then return to the normal list?
> >
> >Allan W Blackburn
> >--------------
>
> The digest version of the List is a completely separate email list. You
> can be subscribed to either or both - your choice.
>
> Matt
>
> --
>
> 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
>
matt,
since you manually took me off kolb list i have received approximately
400 list e-mails. please try again to unsubscribe me.
thanks
stan spruill
sspruill(at)surfsouth.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Richard,
Did I miss something or isn't the round dual Mikuni pumps tied in
parallel when they are used as a single redundant pump? I know this has
been discussed before but I thought this could be done.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
>One of the guys tried that several years ago on a Rans S12
>with a 582. It drove him nuts. He couldn't get it to pump. He finally
came to
>the conclusion that the pulses from the pulse line, and the
corresponding
>pulses of fuel from the pumps were somehow interacting, and causing some
>kind of interplay that canceled each other out. I don't remember if he
removed
>one pump, or went to two different length of pulse lines, or what, but I
>remember him saying that you can't run a matched set of pulse pumps.
>This is 2nd hand, but I remember it well enough that I didn't try it on
mine.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Will be gone on vacation for 2 weeks, and my daughter won't bother
answering Kolb stuff. Temporarily unsubscribing Kolb list, subscribing
digest list, may be easier to sort out when we get home. Didn't want anybody
to think I was being rude...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
>
>Richard,
>
>Did I miss something or isn't the round dual Mikuni pumps tied in
>parallel when they are used as a single redundant pump? I know this has
>been discussed before but I thought this could be done.
>
> I don't know. And I don't know which kind of Mikuni pumps the fellow
was using on the S-12. Sorry.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
>
>OK, JH, where are you now when we need you.
>
>This ain't *Kolb*
>
>Ron Carroll
>Original Firestar
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lindy <lindy(at)snowhill.com>
>To: USUAHQ ; UL Reps
>Date: Sunday September 27 1998 10:28 AM
>Subject: Kolb-List: Fw: pilots
Ron and Gang:
Gosh! Here I am right here. What do you think I should do? hehehe I
think Lindy punched the wrong button on that one. No problem. Hit the
delete button and drive on.
After all he is a Kolb Mk III owner.
On another list I belong to, if one pulls something that is contrary to the
"Commandments", they get whacked, which means they get put in time out for 7
days. One of the commandments is not replying to a previous msg without
aggressive editing first. We could all use a little adjusting in that area
I reckon. hehehe
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BTW and more |
`My God - and I bought my fuel injection and crankfired ignition data from
SWAG Aeromotive in Tucson. Wonder if I oughta FOCL over that.
Big Lar.
----------
> From: bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: BTW and more
> Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 9:27 AM
>
>
> Larry, you missed SWAG: Scientific Wild-Assed Guess, and FOCL: Fell Outa
> Chair Laffing. GB
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi John: The part of the message below that you replied to is the part
I replied to as well. In the editing it looks like my message. In my
answer to this on 9/23, I commented on landing straight down at 18 mph, and
the effect on your spine. Wondered about the possibility of holding a
stall and coming straight down at only 900 fpm. Don't know what if
anything your forward speed would be, but the only answer I've had so far
says it won't work. Surprised there wasn't more comment. Big
Lar.
----------
> From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: BRS chutes
> Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 3:39 AM
>
>
> Larry,
> Here is some perspective on how fast 20 fps down really is: A
> Quicksilver Sprint, engine off, held in a stall by full back stick,
> decends at 600 fpm or 10 fps. If you pull the chute on Mark II (III?),
> you will do a lot of damage to the plane. The chutes save lives, not
> planes.
> John Jung
> >
> >Larry Bourne wrote:
> >
> > A chute is the "last ditched effort". BRS claims that decent of the
Mark
> > II with the 1050 deployed is about 20 feet per second. At that speed I
> > will hurt something and do terminal damage to the aircraft BUT will
most
> > likely "crawl " away alive. Having the plane balanced to land on it;'s
> > gear will help to absorb the decent rate and damage to my body.
> > >
> > > Phew! sorry for the dissertation. So do you agree? What do you
think?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
I question if there is enough pulse pressure generated by the crankcase to drive
two pulse pumps simutaneously.
>>> "Jim Baker" 09/26 2:44 PM >>>
> Why woulden't duel parallel pulse pumps be just as good for redundancy as an
> electric facet pump?
It's a darned good idea. On the Hirth the port is there and filled
with a plug so all you'd have to do is supply the nipple and the
second pump.
On the Rotax...I don't ever recall ever seeing more than one pulse
outlet on the case so don't think that one port powering two pumps
would work....but then again I've never tried and don't know
precisely what the pressure/pump volume relationship is. Typically,
there is probably a plus/minus 14 pound window (that is, plus 7#
and negative 7# pressure/vacuum or appx. 1 atmosphere) available
within the crankcase. I suspect that the actual observed pressure
at the pump is somewhat less. The strength of the pulse would
also necessarily depend on the specific crank angle/port
relationship and could vary from engine to engine. What would the
tradeoff be if you get two pumps powered by 2.5mm lines from one
port that allows the pumps to only produce half the fuel flow (if
indeed that's the case) not knowing the true pump output and the
engine's fuel volume requirements? Hmmmm......I've never seen
the pump spec published and the only engine fuel flow I've seen
has been pounds per horsepower/hour at full throttle. May be
rather hard to extrapolate the requirements without doing some
bench testing.
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
Someone wrote:
>>The sun is hard on plastic tie wraps over time also and 11 hours ain't much
time.
This is something I've been meaning to mention before;
I've seen many guys using the normal natural-color tie-wraps for their
aircraft. There is a much better choice. Use the black tie wraps you can find
in the electrical dept of your hardware store or home-building center. They
say UV-resistant, and will outlast the natural-color ones by 10 times. The
Ultraviolet light from the sun is what is killing the tie wraps.
And besides, the black ones look much better, IMHO.
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Golden West EAA (Castle AFB) |
Hi all,
Flew down to CAFB Saturday ...about 115 s.m. The show was okay, but
i've grown kinda tired of the big deal air shows. Met Kolb list guys
there -- in the flesh: Larry 'BigLar' Bourne, Frank and Christina
Reynen, another Frank (L.A. w/ Revmaster MkIII), and John Wood. It
was nice to meet y'all. Also met up w/ my brothers Mike and Jim who
flew in (Jim lives 30 miles away) in Jim's G-Cheetah.
I got to fly thru some very light rain a little bit. Can anybody fill
me in on what to expect flying in rain? Knowing 2-stroke fuel/air mix
is important, it seems rain against the intake filter would add water
as well. Is it necessary to make a rain shield for the intake filter?
Not many ULs there at all and Saturday was strong gusty X-wind. One of
the good parts of the wknd for me was the surprisingly good sleep I
got on the B-52 concrete ...added my seat cushion to my therm-a-rest
pad and slept like a log. Flew home Sunday with the GPS left shut
off in my pack, for some of my own medicine ya know. :). 400-500' agl
following canals, RR, etc to next destination over unfamiliar territory
was great fun.
Hope the phone rings for you Dennis; lots of drool on my plane :)
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com |
| Subject: | Re: VIBRATIONS, CRANKSHAFTS, |
James Baker wrote,
The best possible way to run a belt system would be to gear the
engine output to an intermediate shaft via 45 degree helix angle
gears that would place the crank primarily in axial loading.
J. Baker
I disagree as this would add an additional axial force on the crank while
still maintaining all the torsional and bending load. The best way to
transmit power from the crankshaft is similar to the Rotax C-box where a
flexible coupling transmits the torsional component to the input shaft of
the gearbox without inducing additional axial and bending loads into the
crank. The gears and the box could be substituted with a beltdrive to cover
the longer distance beween engine and propeller shaft.
Frank ReynenMKIII@476hrs
http://www.webcom.com/reynen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Golden West EAA (Castle AFB) |
>
>Hi all,
>Flew down to CAFB Saturday ...about 115 s.m. The show was okay, but
>i've grown kinda tired of the big deal air shows. Met Kolb list guys
>
>I got to fly thru some very light rain a little bit. Can anybody fill
>me in on what to expect flying in rain? Knowing 2-stroke fuel/air mix
>is important, it seems rain against the intake filter would add water
>as well. Is it necessary to make a rain shield for the intake filter
Not many ULs there at all and Saturday was strong gusty X-wind. One of
>the good parts of the wknd for me was the surprisingly good sleep I
>got on the B-52 concrete ...added my seat cushion to my therm-a-rest
>pad and slept like a log. Flew home Sunday with the GPS left shut
>off in my pack, for some of my own medicine ya know. :). 400-500' agl
>following canals, RR, etc to next destination over unfamiliar territory
>was great fun.
>
Hi Gang:
Ben, you are a man after my own heart. Now that is the way spend the
weekend. Fly, RON (on the apron), and fly home. No fuss, no muss, no
bother. Unencumbered flight without trying to keep up with where one's
ground crew/ground support is. I still have my first XC to make with a
ground crew or a trailer. Ugh!
Only had one problem with 447, none with 582, and none with 912 and rain.
447 started giving up the ghost in a down pour that was making it very
difficult to see to fly. Had been flying thru small showers on the way home
from Sun and Fun 89. Couldn't always see thru them, but they were all small
except the last one and I didn't make it all the way thru and was too far in
to 180 and get the hell out. Was low, 100 to 200 feet, decided to drag a
open area, drainage ditch, big, paralleling the highway 10 miles south of
Crystal River, Fl. On downwind I started losing power and went on in to
land without option. Never did lose it all the way but enough to land,
since area was tall long leaf pine forrest.
Have never used any kind of rain shield on air filter. 912 flew in a
tremendous amount of rain in Yukon Territory and Alaska. Flew in rain far
beyond what I thought it would without the slightest sign of hesitation.
Going into Haines Junction, YT, on the trip back south, it poured cats and
dogs from Beaver Creek, YT, into the airport at Haines Junction. Was a real
frog strangler, difficult flying primarily because of low ceiling combined
with very low visibility and high wind. The rain was not my top priority
for concern at that time.
With a good Thermarest airmattress it is possible to sleep on any surface
and be comfortable. If you are going to do overnight XCs, get a good
Thermarest. They more than pay for themselves in a few nights of good
sleep.
400-500 feet is a good way to go, especially without sophisticated
electronic navigation, or for that matter with it. Can stay in contact with
the earth and the people on it. Just watch out for those darn towers,
especially cell phone towers. They are putting them all over the country,
especially in close proximity to interstate highways and other major roads.
john h (envious in Central Alabama)
________________________________________________________________________________
I have a rain shield on a twin carb 503 and have flown in heavy rain without
engine problems. My chart turned to mache however. I have heard (not
substantiated ) of club members having loss of power in rain and as its so
simple I think a shield is good insurance.
Dick C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
OK, I'll bite.
What might a air filter rain shield look like or be.
Never had one on our old Citabria and I've gone through some rain so hard
that it took paint off the leading edge of the horizontal stab. Wow, I
figured the engine would flood out but just kept on ticking. Never missed
beat.
Jerry Bidle
>
>I have a rain shield on a twin carb 503 and have flown in heavy rain without
>engine problems. My chart turned to mache however. I have heard (not
>substantiated ) of club members having loss of power in rain and as its so
>simple I think a shield is good insurance.
>Dick C
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Swiderski <swidersk(at)digital.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
Duncan,
I looked closely at an uncovered FergyII wing @ Sun & Fun a while back. In my
opinion, they are not only inferior, they are an accident waiting to happen. In
Kolb's design, the ribs are attatched with 8 rivots (4 on top & 4 0n the bottom)
to a flange that fits around the spar tube. The flange is then attatched to the
tube via 6 rivots spread apart to distribute the stress-- 3 on the front side &
3
on the back (and importantly, none on the top or bottom surface of the spar which
would other wise weaken it in a critical area.) In the Fergy design, the ribs
were rivoted directly to the spar with only 4 rivots-- 2 close together on top
& 2
close together on the bottom-- both in a critically adverse area to weaken the
spar. This design is inferior in both strength & longevity, at least that's what
my opinionated brain tells me.
-Richard Swiderski
Duncan McBride wrote:
>
> I've been reading a lot about the Mark III and I think it's an impressive
> airplane. The literature doesn't specifiy how much room there is for
> baggage, so I'd be curious for any input about that. But mainly I'm curious
> about how it stacks up to the Ferguson F-II. I've not seen either up close,
> and haven't seen enough pictures to appreciate the differences. The F-II
> has flaperons, and what looks like a better sealed cabin, but I'd really
> like to hear some first-hand experience. Thanks.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
I too noticed many years ago (bike tour in New Zealand) that the Thermarest
pad makes an amazingly tolerable sleeping pad, even on flat concrete. They
come in two thicknesses, and mines the thin one, 3/4 length (they also come
in full length). On cold ground, you'll want something under your legs
with the 3/4 length. The rest of it insulates very well.
I'm not just posting this as a curiosity matter or a camping thing either.
I noted with interest that there was a Hyperlight at the Castle (Golden
West) fly-in that was using two of them as a seat cushion. This could be a
good idea! A thermarest pad is unlike most other pads in that the
resistance does *not* increase (significantly) with compression. It
therefore cradles contours of your body with an even pressure, somewhat
like a waterbed.
One common mistake made with a thermarest pad is to use them with too much
pressure. With too much pressure, they're too hard and worse, too flat.
Let them self inflate, close the valve, then lie down on it and let air out
till you just feel your butt or hips touching the hard surface below--that
gives you the most surface area of support.
Someone try this and give us a report. I don't think it'll work on my
Ultrastar--3/4 pad still too big and my plane not in flying condition now.
p.s. Anyone with Sorel Hyperlight knowlege? Please respond to me off-list.
I'm interested in the Hyperlight because I read that it's +9/-6 Gs,
comfortably under the 254 pound limit, and still goes 63 mph, even with the
Rotax 277 and being a biplane. They're also trailerable, with detachment
of the rear half of the fuse!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
Todd
On my M 3 I put the fuel on the carb. side just under the carb. on the
aulm.. angle that the 582 is bolted to as far as press. info. cant be
much help. But do use the pulse line it is thicker and wont collapse
Rick Libersat
writes:
>
>
>Can anybody advise me on this? I have a 582 on a Mark III and
>understand the pump is to be mounted up near / under the engine. This
>fuel pump works on pulsating pressure from the crankcase so it
>shouldn't matter where I put it, right? Dan at Kolb couldn't answer
>my question and nobody else was available. He did mention that, he
>thought, there was a distance limitation of the vacuum tube. Is this
>so and what's the distance limitation?
>
>Secondly, what is the amount of pressure the crankcase puts out? It
>would be nice to know so I can keeps tabs on it over time.
>
>Yes, Scott... I did a search first before posting this e-mail. Lots
>of good stuff but nothing on placement of the pump and max length of
>the pulse tube.
>Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com |
HI KOLB FLYERS
I am going to be taking a X-C flight that will put me out where their
will be no MO-GAS
so this means that I will have to use 100LL av. gas
Has anyone done this and if so , could you tell me if the temp . ran the
same?
I know that it will foul the plugs faster , but I change mine out at 25
hr anyway
did the eng. perform the same ? I guess what I need to know can this be
done SAFELY
RICK LIBERSAT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 100 LL and Rotax 2/Strokes |
>I am going to be taking a X-C flight that will put me out where their
>will be no MO-GAS
>so this means that I will have to use 100LL av. gas
>Has anyone done this and if so , could you tell me if the temp . ran the
>same?
>I know that it will foul the plugs faster , but I change mine out at 25
>hr anyway
>did the eng. perform the same ? I guess what I need to know can this be
>done SAFELY
>
>RICK LIBERSAT
Hi Gang:
As far as I know it can be done safely. I burned 100 LL on all my XCs for
the last 14 years, 2 and 4 strokes. Two strokes do better than 4 strokes,
maybe. Only problem encountered was lead fouling at about 75 or 80 hrs, on
the 912, and then only one or two plugs. They could be cleaned with a pin
knife or safety pin, blown out and continued to march. No problem with two
stroke. Temps will be a little cooler, power about the same or better,
iffy. No plug fouling with two stroke.
I personally consider it bad manners to land at a airport on a XC, use the
courtesy car to go eat and buy mogas. The FBO is losing out all the way
around. 100 LL never caused me any real headaches. On my 231 hour XC with
the 912, I fouled plugs once or twice. No real concern with dual ignition.
Usually just one plug in one cylinder would foul. Could feel a little thump
in the airframe and nothing more. Burned 98 % mogas on that flight.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Olendorf" <olendorf(at)empireone.net> |
I have done this on occasion and it doesn't hurt anything. I did notice
that my CHT ran about 25 degrees cooler.
Scott Olendorf
Original Firestar, Rotax 377
Schenectady, NY USA
-----Original Message-----
From: rick106(at)juno.com <rick106(at)juno.com>
Date: Monday, September 28, 1998 8:35 PM
>
>HI KOLB FLYERS
>
>I am going to be taking a X-C flight that will put me out where their
>will be no MO-GAS
>so this means that I will have to use 100LL av. gas
>Has anyone done this and if so , could you tell me if the temp . ran the
>same?
>I know that it will foul the plugs faster , but I change mine out at 25
>hr anyway
>did the eng. perform the same ? I guess what I need to know can this be
>done SAFELY
>
>RICK LIBERSAT
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
Hi Rick,
>I am going to be taking a X-C flight that will put me out where their
>will be no MO-GAS
>so this means that I will have to use 100LL av. gas
I used to come across this problem with an A-65 Continental on my wife's
Aeronca Chief. A load of 100LL would do more than foul plugs, it would
tend to stick exhaust valves.
My solution was to just ask at the airport (if MOGAS wasn't available--
which was usually the case) if someone would loan me a gas can and run me
down to a local gas station. This usually worked. Sometimes, I had to use
100LL and I'd end up sticking an exhaust valve on shutdown.... if I used
more than a tank full.
FWIW, I'm sure your engine will run just fine on 100LL if it's used just
occasionally. :)
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
> >Did I miss something or isn't the round dual Mikuni pumps tied in
> >parallel when they are used as a single redundant pump? I know this has
> >been discussed before but I thought this could be done.
> >
> > I don't know. And I don't know which kind of Mikuni pumps the fellow
> was using on the S-12. Sorry.
The dual pump has one pulse plenum. It is a single,common pump
with two outlets.
J. Baker
ldn't want to
do. Running two pumps from one port may or may not work. Even
at + or - 5 psi (probably the typical pressure difference seen at the
pulse port) adding a second pulse line of any appreciable length
effectively increases line volume and lowers the pressure
substantially. If that's the case what sort of fuel volume would you
get? Wish I knew.
>
> > Why woulden't duel parallel pulse pumps be just as good for redundancy as an
> > electric facet pump?
>
> It's a darned good idea. On the Hirth the port is there and filled
> with a plug so all you'd have to do is supply the nipple and the
> second pump.
>
> On the Rotax...I don't ever recall ever seeing more than one pulse
> outlet on the case so don't think that one port powering two pumps
> would work....but then again I've never tried and don't know
> precisely what the pressure/pump volume relationship is. Typically,
> there is probably a plus/minus 14 pound window (that is, plus 7#
> and negative 7# pressure/vacuum or appx. 1 atmosphere) available
> within the crankcase. I suspect that the actual observed pressure
> at the pump is somewhat less. The strength of the pulse would
> also necessarily depend on the specific crank angle/port
> relationship and could vary from engine to engine. What would the
> tradeoff be if you get two pumps powered by 2.5mm lines from one
> port that allows the pumps to only produce half the fuel flow (if
> indeed that's the case) not knowing the true pump output and the
> engine's fuel volume requirements? Hmmmm......I've never seen
> the pump spec published and the only engine fuel flow I've seen
> has been pounds per horsepower/hour at full throttle. May be
> rather hard to extrapolate the requirements without doing some
> bench testing.
>
>
>
> J. Baker
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
Kolbers:
It took a while, but I finally got some pictures on the web. You can see
my plane at The
N496BM Homepage or point your browser to
http://members.aol.com/cavuontop/collect/index.htm
I welcome all comment.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Vibration, Crankshaft Loading - Jim Baker |
I had the same concern over crank bearing wear when starting mine. Made
very sure that the redrive had ball or roller bearings at BOTH ends of the
input shaft. Also, the input is splined. Takes ALL thrust and lateral
loads off the crank - where they don't belong. Simple and strong.
Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 100 LL and Rotax 2/Strokes |
>around. 100 LL never caused me any real headaches. On my 231 hour XC with
>the 912, I fouled plugs once or twice. No real concern with dual ignition.
>Usually just one plug in one cylinder would foul. Could feel a little
thump
>in the airframe and nothing more. Burned 98 % mogas on that flight.
Hey Gang:
Forgive me please, I made a boo boo. I meant to say 98% 100LL burned on 231
hour XC. Also, never had a problem burning 100LL in 447 or 582, 98% 100LL
diet on long XCs. The main difference between 100LL and mogas is price, as
far as performance and problems are concerned with 2 stroke.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Geezer810(at)aol.com |
Hi Rick,
I just purchased a ready made MKlll and had the same question. Called LEAF
and talked to Ed Wilson. He said if we were in a location with no mogas, we
could use 100 LL with no problems.....not as a regular diet, but just to get
us back home.
Harry Wingert
Papillion, NE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Jim,
I just looked in the LEAF catalog and it looks like the dual Mikuni has
two diaphragms. If one ruptures, will the other continue pumping if they
are
paralleled together?
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
>The dual pump has one pulse plenum. It is a single,common pump
>with two outlets.
>
>J. Baker
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon P. Croke" <joncroke(at)CompuServe.COM> |
| Subject: | Hurricane George |
Is RUSTY OK..... I think he lives in the path of the big one........
Has anyone heard from him ???
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Christensen" <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Gold Wing Engine |
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Bourne <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Saturday, September 26, 1998 10:57 PM
>Ha, this reminds me - the engine I talked about a few minutes ago was the
>Gold Wing 1100 (?) cc.
(snip-snip)
Big Lar.
Larry:
Four or five years ago, I visited the guy in Camarillo who was carving giant
blocks of aluminum into a core for an aircraft engine. I believe that he
was using Honda Gold Wing motorcycle cylinders and heads. I no longer have
the specs on his project, but I rejected it because it was going to be too
much power for a MKIII, and it was going to be quite expensive. Further,
none were flying. He was still in the development stage. As I recall, at
that time he was advertising in several of the aviation magazines. To my
knowledge, the project fizzled.
Ron Christensen
MKIII1/2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Hagen <chagen(at)sd.cybernex.net> |
"'kolb-list(at)matronics.com'"
| Subject: | BUILDER'S FORUM & FLY-IN, OCTOBER 10TH, TEA, SOUTH DAKOTA (EAA |
CHAPTER 289)
On October 10th (Saturday) the EAA Chapter 289 will be holding a Builder's Forum
& Fly-In.
The Forum and Fly-In will be at Great Planes Airport, Tea, South Dakota (just south
of Sioux Falls).
The program will be as follows:
Forum
Time Presenter Topic
9:00 am Gayle Wilts Aluminum construction
10:00 am Dean Libra Fiberglass construction
11:00 am Jerry Phillips Fabric construction
12:00 am Lunch
1:00 pm Larry Vetterman Exhaust, ignition, & fuel systems
2:00 pm Mark Satnan GPS & Avionics
The presenters are truly experts in their field (Gayle has built 8+ RVs! And they
are all show winners)
Aircraft Awards
Homebuilts - best metal
best fabric
best composite
Restored A/C- best metal
Best fabric
Judging and awards at 4:00 pm
Bar-B-Que starts around 5:00 pm
Some hanger accommodations are available & we have rooms blocked off at a few hotels
Days Inn (605) 361-9240
Radisson (605) 361-6684
The Forum is Free! The lunch is cheap as is the bar-b-que.
Some door prizes and eaa chapter fund raising raffles (low pressure).
Please let me know if you have any questions. Please e-mail me at
chagen(at)sd.cybernex.net
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Christensen" <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Flying in the rain |
-----Original Message-----
From: john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Monday, September 28, 1998 1:14 PM
>Hi Gang:
>(snip -snip)
>Had been flying thru small showers on the way home
>from Sun and Fun 89. Couldn't always see thru them, but they were all
small
>except the last one and I didn't make it all the way thru and was too far
in
>to 180 and get the hell out. Was low, 100 to 200 feet, decided to drag a
>open area, drainage ditch, big, paralleling the highway 10 miles south of
>Crystal River, Fl. On downwind I started losing power and went on in to
>land without option. Never did lose it all the way but enough to land,
>since area was tall long leaf pine forrest.
>(snip-snip)
>john h (envious in Central Alabama)
================================
Hey John (and anyone else who flies in the rain);
Is there any danger of damage to the wing or tail feathers leading edge
fabric (or any part of the aircraft for that matter) while flying in the
rain?
Ron Christensen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying in the rain |
>Hey John (and anyone else who flies in the rain);
>
>Is there any danger of damage to the wing or tail feathers leading edge
>fabric (or any part of the aircraft for that matter) while flying in the
>rain?
>
>Ron Christensen
Hey Gang:
Rain is great for knocking the bugs and dirt off the leading edges of
everything. I hve only flown kolbs with two part polyurethane paint and
have encountered no problems, except the inboard 3 inches, maybe two inches,
of the nickle leading edge. Warp Drive sends along three pieces of urethane
tape, clear, one for each blade to place in this area to prevent rain and
water errosian, but I don't like tape and don't put it on. Repair prop with
some J&B Weld when I think it is time.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Original Firestar Owners/ A Gearbox |
I recently discovered that the gearbox on my Firestar 377 was an "A" box
2.58-1. My question is the 12 spring washer update to older gearboxes
from the original 8 washers. I am currently running the Ritz wood prop
that came with the kit and have a two blade IVO on the way. Should I
send off the gearbox to ensure the update, or leave it like it is since
I have a low power engine and light props? The gearbox has given no
problems as of yet.
Rutledge Fuller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Metcalfe <fmetcalf(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
I just completed my Ferguson F II. I had my paper filled out to order a
Mark III when I ran into a guy that had a Ferguson. He said to visit the
factory before ordering the Kolb. So I did.
I read the message from Swiderski and dont agree with his view of more
rivits makes it stronger. The Kolb wing has had failures and the
Ferguson has not. The way the ribs attach to the wing the Ferguson ribs
can not fail. The Kolb wing uses a gusset plate that can and dose oil
can. I have a pice of a fialed Kolb wing in my garage.
Mr Furguson was is a 30 A&P for Delta Airlines and bulit Kolbs. He
Tried to addessed some issues with Mr Kolb that he did not like. Mr Kolb
reply was "If you fly it like I say The plane will be fine" Thats when
the Ferguson was bulit and became the 1991 S&F Gand Champion. Mr
Ferguson upgraded the wall thickness of most all tubing and beefed up
some of the cage assembly. I Invite you to visit the ferguson factory
and see. I can send you some pics if you like.
The Kolb is a good plane But I am glad that I bought a Ferguson. The
standard kit has a full incloseur and prebulit ribs.
The kit went togethere like a Model. This was great for a first time
bulider like me.Oh BTW the plane flies great!!
Duncan McBride wrote:
>
>
> I've been reading a lot about the Mark III and I think it's an
> impressive
> airplane. The literature doesn't specifiy how much room there is for
> baggage, so I'd be curious for any input about that. But mainly I'm
> curious
> about how it stacks up to the Ferguson F-II. I've not seen either up
> close,
> and haven't seen enough pictures to appreciate the differences. The
> F-II
> has flaperons, and what looks like a better sealed cabin, but I'd
> really
> like to hear some first-hand experience. Thanks.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rv8(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hurricane George |
>Is RUSTY OK..... I think he lives in the path of the big one........
>
>Has anyone heard from him ???
Hi all,
All is well here. We were lucky that the storm went in a good bit West of us.
Our top wind gusts were about 80 mph, but the biggest problem is the rain.
We've had over 20 inches so far, and lots of low lying areas are flooded.
Unfortunately, the rain will continue for a couple more days. The beaches are
still closed, but most everything else is open. My biggest fear of the whole
thing was what my dog might do to the RV-8 wings when we had to bring her into
the garage. No problems here, except that the garage smells like a wet dog :-)
Thanks for asking, but I'd be more worried about anyone that might live in lower
Mississippi.
Russell Duffy
Navarre, FL
RV-8 (Mazda Powered), sn-80587 (tanks)
Kolb SlingShot project for sale
PS- I'll be heading to Cleveland again for 4 weeks following a 1 week vacation
in St. Augustine, FL. I'm scheduled to take an intro-aerobatics course there,
starting Oct 5th. Can't wait :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
Flaperons work great for aerobatics. BUT I know from flying RC airplanes that
they do stall more readily probably because of the larger surface area and effect
on the wing. . If you think about it, it makes sence. If you flap the
ailerons and have to apply maximum deflection of the ailerons at criticla angles
of attack it easier to stall this configuration than a separate flap arrangement.
However, my RC experience also says that at slow speeds, if you have negative
washout and flaperons then the more downward deflection causes,effectively,
more washout since the moment of lift moves back on the wing and this causes
the nose to become "heavy". I THINK !! Someone help me out here.
Frank Metcalfe
I just completed my Ferguson F II. I had my paper filled out to order a
Mark III when I ran into a guy that had a Ferguson. He said to visit the
factory before ordering the Kolb. So I did.
I read the message from Swiderski and dont agree with his view of more
rivits makes it stronger. The Kolb wing has had failures and the
Ferguson has not. The way the ribs attach to the wing the Ferguson ribs
can not fail. The Kolb wing uses a gusset plate that can and dose oil
can. I have a pice of a fialed Kolb wing in my garage.
Mr Furguson was is a 30 A&P for Delta Airlines and bulit Kolbs. He
Tried to addessed some issues with Mr Kolb that he did not like. Mr Kolb
reply was "If you fly it like I say The plane will be fine" Thats when
the Ferguson was bulit and became the 1991 S&F Gand Champion. Mr
Ferguson upgraded the wall thickness of most all tubing and beefed up
some of the cage assembly. I Invite you to visit the ferguson factory
and see. I can send you some pics if you like.
The Kolb is a good plane But I am glad that I bought a Ferguson. The
standard kit has a full incloseur and prebulit ribs.
The kit went togethere like a Model. This was great for a first time
bulider like me.Oh BTW the plane flies great!!
Duncan McBride wrote:
>
>
> I've been reading a lot about the Mark III and I think it's an
> impressive
> airplane. The literature doesn't specifiy how much room there is for
> baggage, so I'd be curious for any input about that. But mainly I'm
> curious
> about how it stacks up to the Ferguson F-II. I've not seen either up
> close,
> and haven't seen enough pictures to appreciate the differences. The
> F-II
> has flaperons, and what looks like a better sealed cabin, but I'd
> really
> like to hear some first-hand experience. Thanks.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying in the rain |
On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, Ron Christensen wrote:
> Is there any danger of damage to the wing or tail feathers leading edge
> fabric (or any part of the aircraft for that matter) while flying in the
> rain?
I talked with someone who ruined a wood prop in one 20 min flight thru
rain. If in rain with a wood prop, throttle back to low cruise and land
soon to see how it fares. There are probably effective leading edge
protectors for wood, but IMO it sure adds to the argument for composite.
-
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying in the rain |
>soon to see how it fares. There are probably effective leading edge
>protectors for wood, but IMO it sure adds to the argument for composite.
>-
>Ben Ransom
Hey Guys:
Forgot to mention on previous post reference rain. When I got put down in
Hernando Country, Florida, 1989, I was flying with a brand new GSC wood prop
without leading edge protection. Rain chewed that puppy right up. I put
that prop on just as I was leaving Alabama for Lakeland, Florida. Took
about 3/16" of leading edges.
I get erosion just inside the nickel leading edge on the Warp Drive, but we
are talking about hours and hours and not just punching through a single
rain shower.
I am convinced Warp Drive is the way to go for me. Over 1200 hours without
needing to rebalance. Wood props are good, but balance can get to be a
headache.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 Cavuontop(at)aol.com wrote:
> It took a while, but I finally got some pictures on the web. You can see
> my plane at The
Great web page. Nice informative pics and captions! The plane looks
first class too.
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
>
>> I question if there is enough pulse pressure generated by the crankcase
to drive two pulse pumps >
>> >>> "Jim Baker" 09/26 2:44 PM >>>
>
>Each side of the crank case plenum is seperate from the other
>thus the possibility of using each side to power a pump. As noted
>below, on the Hirth it's easy. On the Rotax you'd have to drill and
>tap a port in the crankcase, something most folks wouldn't want to
>do. Running two pumps from one port may or may not work. Even
>at + or - 5 psi (probably the typical pressure difference seen at the
>pulse port) adding a second pulse line of any appreciable length
>effectively increases line volume and lowers the pressure
>substantially. If that's the case what sort of fuel volume would you
>get? Wish I knew.
>
snip
Give me some time I am going to find out what will work and perhaps what
will not.
EZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 582 fuel pump placement |
Hi Gang:
Let me add my two cents worth. This system worked for 755 hours on my
Firestar with antique 447 with no battery:
Used mikuni pulse pump and Facet electric pump in line. Wired the Facet
into my regulated 12 wires thru a toggle switch (on/off). Still had to keep
that darn primer bulb, but the system worked good. No problem with
overpressure and I had a reliable back up for the mikuni. The one time I
needed the backup pump, I was experimenting with a no-name pump from JC
Whitney. I was flying in NY state and the JC Whitney Special had gone belly
up immediately upon departure from Alabama. So there you go. Never had a
problem with the Facet on the airplanes. The Facet on the MK III has over
1200 hours (not run all that time). Use it on takeoff and landings and when
flying lower than I consider time to get to the switch should I have an
engine driven pump failure.
I ran two single outlet mikunis on my Cuyuna mounted on the Ultrastar.
Cuyuna had two pulse ports on primary case. They worked alright, but I
prefer the Facet and mikuni in combined.
Mikuni pump failures are very few and very far between, but they do fail
occasionally.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
>
>Jim,
>
>I just looked in the LEAF catalog and it looks like the dual Mikuni has
>two diaphragms. If one ruptures, will the other continue pumping if they
>are
>paralleled together?
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original FireStar 400+ hrs
>
NO.
All pulse pumps have two diaphrams. They must both be Ok for the pump to work.
The duel pump is simply a larger single pump with two outlet ports. It is
not a true duel pump.
EZ
>
>>The dual pump has one pulse plenum. It is a single,common pump
>>with two outlets.
>>
>>J. Baker
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
>
>Jim,
>
>I just looked in the LEAF catalog and it looks like the dual Mikuni has
>two diaphragms. If one ruptures, will the other continue pumping if they
>are
>paralleled together?
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original FireStar 400+ hrs
>
NO.
All pulse pumps have two diaphrams. They must both be Ok for the pump to work.
The duel pump is simply a larger single pump with two outlet ports. It is
not a true duel pump.
EZ
>
>>The dual pump has one pulse plenum. It is a single,common pump
>>with two outlets.
>>
>>J. Baker
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Gross <rpgross(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Hold your horses!!! |
Wow, Ive started a storm and it is time to clarify some points. I
wrote asking for advice about my 377's seemingly high fuel consuption
and this has turned into a dicussion of pilotage???..
Anyway... The airspeeds I quoted were CAS (corrected)and yes they were
backed up by an on-knee GPS. I had cranked in more prop pitch trying
to get better specific fuel consumption for x-c flying. This resulted
in 6100 RPM at WOT during climb. While cruising at 48 MPH I got 3.2
GPH. Too high.
I researched the list archives and found some discussion of
under-revving this little 2-stroke causing high fuel consumption. I
don't know if this really happens but soon I will.
I just re-pitched the 66" 2 bladed IVO again and put the windshield
back on. Now it revs at 6600 RPM in climb, gives 55 mph CAS at 5800
RPM and hopefully a lot less fuel flow.
Experienced 377 operators comments are welcome. I have the stock lea
level jetting installed, and hope to get the fuel consumtion down to
2.5 GPH so I can get more than 60 miles on a tank (with reserves).
Cheers... Bob Gross
---Rutledge Fuller wrote:
>
>
> 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: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hold your horses!!! |
Not that I am that experienced, but my two cents are that the best fuel
consumption that I am able to get thus far is 2.75 gph. Since the
weather is going to be getting colder and humidity decreasing in the
next few months, I am unwilling to lean the engine any further since the
weather will be doing it for me. Besides, my plugs look perfect. If
you want to get further than 60 miles on a tank, install a 8/10 gallon
fuel cell. Just because it's the law (5 gallon limit) doesn't mean it's
right. I feel very strongly that additional fuel capacity is added
safety margin. I often wonder what the actual usable capacity is for a
given size tank when considering fuel pickup location and aircraft
pitch/roll.
Flame me if you must, but you will never catch me running out of fuel.
Rutledge Fuller
Tallahassee, Fl.
>I have the stock lea
>level jetting installed, and hope to get the fuel consumtion down to
>2.5 GPH so I can get more than 60 miles on a tank (with reserves).
>
>Cheers... Bob Gross
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
CORRECTION
In a prior message I wrote,
>All pulse pumps have two diaphrams. They must both be Ok for the pump to
work.
The duel pump is simply a larger single pump with two outlet ports. It is
not a true duel pump.<
I spoke where of I knew not. The single Mikuni pump has only one diaphram.
The single Walbro autopulse and the Mikuni duel have two. Sorry abuot the
dis-information. Either way I believe any damaged diaphram will cause the
pump to malfunction.
EZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "W.B.Whitehead,Jr." <behead(at)linknet.net> |
| Subject: | FIRESTAR FOR SALE |
I HAVE A 96 KOLB FIRESTAR FOR SALE NEAR BATON ROUGE ,LA.IF ANYBODY IS
INTERESTED I'LL SEND YOU A PICTURE WITH ALL THE DETAILS.
BENNY WHITEHEAD
behead(at)linknet.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hold your horses!!! |
>
>Wow, Ive started a storm and it is time to clarify some points. I
>wrote asking for advice about my 377's seemingly high fuel consuption
>and this has turned into a dicussion of pilotage???..
>
>Anyway... The airspeeds I quoted were CAS (corrected)and yes they were
>backed up by an on-knee GPS. I had cranked in more prop pitch trying
>to get better specific fuel consumption for x-c flying. This resulted
>in 6100 RPM at WOT during climb. While cruising at 48 MPH I got 3.2
>GPH. Too high.
>
>I researched the list archives and found some discussion of
>under-revving this little 2-stroke causing high fuel consumption. I
>don't know if this really happens but soon I will.
>
>I just re-pitched the 66" 2 bladed IVO again and put the windshield
>back on. Now it revs at 6600 RPM in climb, gives 55 mph CAS at 5800
>RPM and hopefully a lot less fuel flow.
>
>Experienced 377 operators comments are welcome. I have the stock lea
>level jetting installed, and hope to get the fuel consumtion down to
>2.5 GPH so I can get more than 60 miles on a tank (with reserves).
>
>Cheers... Bob Gross
>
>
>
>
>---Rutledge Fuller wrote:
>>
Yep, you're right.
I happen to be able to change my prop pitch on the fly and soon discovered
that the little 377 will just love to scream along at 5800 or more, very
efficiently. Increasing pitch and lowering rpm to 4000 to 4500 will cause
fuel consumption to go up for the same given cruise speed.
EZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dama riddick <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
Kolb builders,
I am considering building a Flightstar without a pod or windshield in an
effort to capture the open experience of the Ultrastar. Are there any
opinions out there on the flying characteristics or potential problems that
this configuration may bring? Thank You.
Kip Laurie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HANGERMAN1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Golden West EAA (Castle AFB) |
Ben,
Sunday, I drove down to Castle AFB in hopes of meeting you again and possibly
meeting other Kolb owner/builders. As a long time list-lurker/owner-wanna-be,
I was hoping to see some *real* Kolbs (vs. photos) and add to the drool you
mentioned. Alas, not one Kolb was left and only a couple of NoName brands
remained by the time I arrived. Sorry I missed all of you. Maybe next time.
I did, however enjoy the afternoon. I especially liked exploring my old
stomping grounds at the East end of the flightline. Back in the 70's I was
with the 84th Fighter Interceptor Squadron when they dominated that end of the
base. The F-104 Delta Dart's were on their last leg then, but we kept them
flying and fighting. Even though they're just buildings, the Missile Shop and
Squadron Headquarters (right where I left them, across the street from each
other), both generated unanticipated emotions. I even rediscovered the
building that housed the F-104 Simulator. (I wonder if I can log the hour I
spent on that thing? Yes, I crashed it! OK, guess not.) The grass was high,
the paint was flaking, but the memories were overwhelming. In my mind, I
could easily see their shiny paint, hear the whine of their engines, and smell
the exhaust of the jets as they taxied out to the runway on another sortie.
Ahhh, the good ol' days.
Jim Johnston
Long time list-lurker/Kolb owner-wanna-be
In a message dated 9/28/98 11:17:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu writes:
Hi all,
Flew down to CAFB Saturday ...about 115 s.m. The show was okay, but
i've grown kinda tired of the big deal air shows. Met Kolb list guys
there -- in the flesh: Larry 'BigLar' Bourne, Frank and Christina
Reynen, another Frank (L.A. w/ Revmaster MkIII), and John Wood. >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
>
>Kolb builders,
>I am considering building a Flightstar without a pod or windshield in an
>effort to capture the open experience of the Ultrastar. Are there any
>opinions out there on the flying characteristics or potential problems that
>this configuration may bring? Thank You.
>Kip Laurie
No pod is great in the summertime, but the colder it gets, the more you
want one. They also improve aerodynamics--and increase weight. (My
Ultrastar might be a little overweight because of the brake system, but a
pod would definitely put me into the "fat" category.) Also, you get a
little more beaten about by the wind. I find that I much prefer crusing
around under 50 mph because of the wind.
All in all, I really *do* enjoy being podless. I can pretty much look
straight down or straight back, or straight between my feet! It's great!
I better throw together a web site to show you what I mean. What I want to
do is to make a shell that I can put on in the winter only. Also, I *much*
prefer *no* windscreen in front of my eyes. I learned this in my
motorcycle days. With a full-face helmet, the wind is really not an issue
for your face or head. Windshields always get less than pristine,
especially flying into the sun. Yuck! I can replace the helmet's visor
for few bucks and have it be like nothing in front of me again. My helmet
also has a built-in visor, which is very nice.
Okay, got a web together. Enjoy: http://agronomy.ucdavis.edu/ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Original Firestar Owners/ A Gearbox |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Rut,
You do not need to update anything on your "A" gearbox, using the IVO
prop, since the "moment of inertia" (kg/cm2) would be less than the Ritz
wooden prop. I flew with the 66" 2-blade IVO on my "A" gearbox and 377
about half of the time that I have been flying the FireStar. The other
half was with the wooden Culver prop shipped with my kit. Only use the
2-blade IVO as the 3-blade would be too much for that gearbox. You may
also consider using a synthetic oil like Mobil 1 gear oil in your
gearbox. It will make it more efficient dissipating less heat and extend
its life.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
writes:
>
>
>I recently discovered that the gearbox on my Firestar 377 was an "A"
>box 2.58-1. My question is the 12 spring washer update to older
gearboxes
>from the original 8 washers. I am currently running the Ritz wood
>prop that came with the kit and have a two blade IVO on the way. Should
I
>send off the gearbox to ensure the update, or leave it like it is
>since I have a low power engine and light props? The gearbox has given
no
>problems as of yet.
>
>Rutledge Fuller
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hold your horses!!! |
Bob,
I flew an original Firestar with a 377 for 3 years prior to last June 27th
(the day it was sold). Here are its stats: With a 66 dia X 28p Carver wood prop,
2.0 gph at 5,000 rpm and 60 mph. Prior to using that prop, I used a two blade Warp
Drive and had the same performance, except quieter, and burned 2.3 gph at the same
rpm and speed. Both props would turn a maximum of 6,000 rpm static. My climb rate
was 950 fpm with either prop. The Warp took me to 17,000 ASL last year on 2.5
gallons of gas (starting from 1,000 ASL). My climb rates were verified with a
digital vario and speeds with a GPS. I have also flown with other original 377
Firestars and they used similar amounts of gas.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J 72 hrs
SE Wisconsin
Bob Gross wrote:
>
> Wow, Ive started a storm and it is time to clarify some points. I
> wrote asking for advice about my 377's seemingly high fuel consuption
> and this has turned into a dicussion of pilotage???..
>
> Anyway... The airspeeds I quoted were CAS (corrected)and yes they were
> backed up by an on-knee GPS. I had cranked in more prop pitch trying
> to get better specific fuel consumption for x-c flying. This resulted
> in 6100 RPM at WOT during climb. While cruising at 48 MPH I got 3.2
> GPH. Too high.
>
> I researched the list archives and found some discussion of
> under-revving this little 2-stroke causing high fuel consumption. I
> don't know if this really happens but soon I will.
>
> I just re-pitched the 66" 2 bladed IVO again and put the windshield
> back on. Now it revs at 6600 RPM in climb, gives 55 mph CAS at 5800
> RPM and hopefully a lot less fuel flow.
>
> Experienced 377 operators comments are welcome. I have the stock lea
> level jetting installed, and hope to get the fuel consumtion down to
> 2.5 GPH so I can get more than 60 miles on a tank (with reserves).
>
> Cheers... Bob Gross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Thanks Gene and Jim for your advise on the dual Mikuni. Here all this
time I was under the impression that the dual Mikuni pump would be safer
than the single.
I guess it ain't true if the dual Mikuni has only one common diaphragm
after all.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
>All pulse pumps have two diaphrams. They must both be Ok for the pump
>to work. The duel pump is simply a larger single pump with two outlet
ports. It
>is not a true duel pump.
>
>EZ
>
>>
>>
>>>The dual pump has one pulse plenum. It is a single,common pump
>>>with two outlets.
>>>
>>>J. Baker
>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>
>Kolb builders,
>I am considering building a Flightstar without a pod or windshield in
>an
>effort to capture the open experience of the Ultrastar. Are there any
>opinions out there on the flying characteristics or potential problems
>that
>this configuration may bring? Thank You.
>Kip Laurie
It'll be a lot windier.
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
dwegner(at)isd.net
| Subject: | Re: Flying in the rain |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Guys,
Composite props are the "only" way to go with a pusher. I took about 1/4"
off the LE of my old wooden Culver on a x-country trip during the winter
of '91. The snow really beat it up. I had to re-torque the prop bolts,
take if off, and balance the thing annually. The vibration levels would
change on every flight due to the ever-changing balance. What a chore. My
IVO is completely maintenance-free and smooth on every flight. It really
is the only way to go.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
writes:
>
>
>On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, Ron Christensen wrote:
>> Is there any danger of damage to the wing or tail feathers leading
>edge fabric (or any part of the aircraft for that matter) while flying
in
>the rain?
>
>I talked with someone who ruined a wood prop in one 20 min flight thru
>rain. If in rain with a wood prop, throttle back to low cruise and
>land
>soon to see how it fares. There are probably effective leading edge
>protectors for wood, but IMO it sure adds to the argument for
>composite.
>-
>Ben Ransom
>http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hold your horses!!! |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
I'm finding that I get about the same fuel consumption on the 447 as I
did with the 377. For the cruise that I fly, about 58 mph, the 447 will
push it at
5100 rpm and the 377 would do it at 5800 rpm. The burn is about 2.7
gal/hr.
The 700 rpm drop on the 447 gives me the savings. BTW, I pitched the IVO
prop so I could climb out at 6100 rpm on both engines. I can now cruise
faster, at the same rpm, than my buddy's Original 447 FireStar equipped
with a 447, with less pitch in his IVO.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar 400+ hrs
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 16:01:37 Eugene Zimmerman writes:
>
>>
>>Wow, Ive started a storm and it is time to clarify some points. I
>>wrote asking for advice about my 377's seemingly high fuel consuption
>>and this has turned into a dicussion of pilotage???..
>>
>>Anyway... The airspeeds I quoted were CAS (corrected)and yes they
>were
>>backed up by an on-knee GPS. I had cranked in more prop pitch trying
>>to get better specific fuel consumption for x-c flying. This resulted
>>in 6100 RPM at WOT during climb. While cruising at 48 MPH I got 3.2
>>GPH. Too high.
>>
>>I researched the list archives and found some discussion of
>>under-revving this little 2-stroke causing high fuel consumption. I
>>don't know if this really happens but soon I will.
>>
>>I just re-pitched the 66" 2 bladed IVO again and put the windshield
>>back on. Now it revs at 6600 RPM in climb, gives 55 mph CAS at 5800
>>RPM and hopefully a lot less fuel flow.
>>
>>Experienced 377 operators comments are welcome. I have the stock lea
>>level jetting installed, and hope to get the fuel consumtion down to
>>2.5 GPH so I can get more than 60 miles on a tank (with reserves).
>>
>>Cheers... Bob Gross
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---Rutledge Fuller wrote:
>>>
>
>Yep, you're right.
>I happen to be able to change my prop pitch on the fly and soon
>discovered
>that the little 377 will just love to scream along at 5800 or more,
>very
>efficiently. Increasing pitch and lowering rpm to 4000 to 4500 will
>cause
>fuel consumption to go up for the same given cruise speed.
>
>EZ
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hold your horses!!! |
Hello Gang:
Based on many hours of cross country trips, my antique 447 burned 3.5 to
3.75 GPH at 5800 to 6000 rpm. I ran a Culver 66X32, static rpm 6200-6300 rpm
(tied down on the ground, WOT). Climbed about the same rpm and would turn
6600 WOT straight and level. I can not remember what my cruise was at 5800,
but a WAG is 65-70 MPH. I'll have to go back to my old log books and notes
to verify.
There is only one way (that I approve of) to obtain fuel burn for XC flight
and that is to do at least an hour XC, starting with a full tank and topping
off at the end of the flight. I am one of those uneducated guys that flew
XCs enough that I could determine the amount of fuel and oil that went in
the tank at fuel stops. I put the oil in first, rolled the aircraft fore
and aft vigorously, topped it off, and took off. Never had a problem,
except once.
I got distracted when I was refueling, someone asking "what the hell a
little ultralight from Alabama was doing in Norwich, NY". Forgot to
vigorously shake my aircraft and mix the fuel. On takeoff about 30 feet in
the air I started losing power. Had a mile of runway so landed and
discovered a lot of blue smoke coming out the stack. Knew exactly what the
problem was immediately. The instant remedy for this problem if discovered
in the air is pull the enricher on full. What happens is the fuel float
bowl fills with a super heavy mix of fuel/oil. By opening the enricher
full, you are feeding the engine enough fuel to keep you flying til you
safely get it back on the ground. Toss some more oil in the tank and shake.
No more problems. Oh yeah, dump the float bowl, and run it up real good on
the ground.
582 on my MK III burned 5 to 5.5 gph at 5800 to 6000 rpm. Gave me 75 to 85
mph depending on air temp.
912 on my MK III burns 4 gph at 5000, 4.25 gph at 5200, and 4.5 gph at 5400.
Neat thing about the 912 is it only uses 2.5 qts of oil in 100 hours. A
little better than the two strokes, as is fuel burn for amount of power
produced, and you can't put a price on reliability. How does 2.5 qts of oil
to 400 gallons of fuel sound? About like, ahhh, 640 to one. Not bad. In
100 hrs the 582 burns 500 gals fuel and 40 quarts of expensive two stroke
oil (figured at 50 to 1). With oil injection, probably does better on oil
burn than 50 to one, but not much. BTW Miss P'fer (my MK III) flies 75 to
85 mph (depending on air temp) at 5000 rpm. Static is 5200-5300 and WOT
straight and level is 5600. Climbs at 5300 40 to 60 mph.
Flying around the patch and playing in the local area burns far less fuel
than a cross country. Don't base what your fuel burn will be on cross
countries by what you are burning at home. You will be surprised.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: 100 LL and Rotax 2/Strokes |
John
Scott ,John , Skip , & Geezer thanks for the info on the 100LL use
when I get in a tight spot ,where they don't have Mo-gas I will sure
feel a lot better about using avgas, and John.H are you about ready to
get rid of that OLD gas tank you have in the Miss.Peffer
and let Jim get started on a brand new shinny tank , just kidding I have
a big tank one of these day's thanks again guy's
Rick Libesat
writes:
>
>
>>I am going to be taking a X-C flight that will put me out where
>their
>>will be no MO-GAS
>>so this means that I will have to use 100LL av. gas
>>Has anyone done this and if so , could you tell me if the temp . ran
>the
>>same?
>>I know that it will foul the plugs faster , but I change mine out at
>25
>>hr anyway
>>did the eng. perform the same ? I guess what I need to know can this
>be
>>done SAFELY
>>
>>RICK LIBERSAT
>
>
>Hi Gang:
>
>As far as I know it can be done safely. I burned 100 LL on all my XCs
>for
>the last 14 years, 2 and 4 strokes. Two strokes do better than 4
>strokes,
>maybe. Only problem encountered was lead fouling at about 75 or 80
>hrs, on
>the 912, and then only one or two plugs. They could be cleaned with a
>pin
>knife or safety pin, blown out and continued to march. No problem
>with two
>stroke. Temps will be a little cooler, power about the same or
>better,
>iffy. No plug fouling with two stroke.
>
>I personally consider it bad manners to land at a airport on a XC, use
>the
>courtesy car to go eat and buy mogas. The FBO is losing out all the
>way
>around. 100 LL never caused me any real headaches. On my 231 hour XC
>with
>the 912, I fouled plugs once or twice. No real concern with dual
>ignition.
>Usually just one plug in one cylinder would foul. Could feel a little
>thump
>in the airframe and nothing more. Burned 98 % mogas on that flight.
>
>john h
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
Whaaaaaaat ? ? ? First time I've ever heard of a Kolb wing failing.
What'd he do ?? Park it under a pile driver ?? Anyone else ever heard of
this ?? Big Lar.
----------
> From: Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ferguson F-II
> Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 6:12 AM
> Frank Metcalfe
>
> I just completed my Ferguson F II. I had my paper filled out to order a
> Mark III when I ran into a guy that had a Ferguson. He said to visit the
> factory before ordering the Kolb. So I did.
> I read the message from Swiderski and dont agree with his view of more
> rivits makes it stronger. The Kolb wing has had failures and the
> Ferguson has not. The way the ribs attach to the wing the Ferguson ribs
> can not fail. The Kolb wing uses a gusset plate that can and dose oil
> can. I have a pice of a fialed Kolb wing in my garage.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | It's Raining, It's Pouring |
Frog Choker ! ! ! Love it. That's gotta be the next step up from a gully
washer. Hit a real "Frog Drowner" over Puget Sound in WA. a few years ago.
I was almost blind in it. At first it seemed impossible for the engine to
keep running and not drown out. Then when it kept going, I started to
worry about the front two (hot) cylinders cold seizing or even cracking
from the flood of ice cold water. But all was fine. Guess I just like to
sweat.
2nd annual fly-in for our ultralite club in Desert Hot Springs is Sat. Oct.
17. Come one, come all. Should be a "jolly good shew !" I'll post
directions + GPS privately to those coming. Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Bruner" <brunerd(at)ulster.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FIRESTAR FOR SALE |
-----Original Message-----
From: W.B.Whitehead,Jr. <behead(at)linknet.net>
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 5:30 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: FIRESTAR FOR SALE
>
>I HAVE A 96 KOLB FIRESTAR FOR SALE NEAR BATON ROUGE ,LA.IF ANYBODY IS
>INTERESTED I'LL SEND YOU A PICTURE WITH ALL THE DETAILS.
>BENNY WHITEHEAD
>behead(at)linknet.net
Benny,
Yes, please send me more info.
Thanks,
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
<< The Kolb wing has had failures and the
Ferguson has not. The way the ribs attach to the wing the Ferguson ribs
can not fail. The Kolb wing uses a gusset plate that can and dose oil
can. I have a pice of a fialed Kolb wing in my garage. >>
Kolb has been accused of many strange things over the years, but this truly
tops them all. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the
strength of any assembly, such as a wing, is only as strong as the weakest
component in the assembly.
The flanges, which attach the rib tubes to the main spar are the strongest,
and least likely to fail, parts in any Kolb wing! This is a very strange
accusation - this argument must have been started by someone with very little
knowledge of structures. This fact is so well established in our testing, and
experience of our fleet of aircraft that it is beyond dispute.
It does not take a rocket scientist to load up a wing panel, or easier
yet,
simply attach a rib to a section of spar and apply force till something fails.
It will never be the flange.
Any wing can fail - even the F___ wing, contrary to your assertion. I
personally failed an UltraStar wing by flying it way beyond what it was
designed for. I dove the UltraStar to 100 mph and then pulled back on the
control stick as abruptly as one can. It failed only after 6 gs. Most
parts in the wing were broken, or bent - including the gussets, but this was a
result of - not the cause of the failure. The drag strut failed in
compression, this caused the wing to fail. It is a very elementary mistake of
logic to, for instance, look at such a wing and fix the cause on the main spar
gussets.
We found a weak link in the UltraStar wing, the drag strut - and I hasten
to
add that the wing was already stronger than we had claimed. But we installed
a brace to eliminate the weak link. With the addition of one pound we could
prevent the drag strut from going out of column. In the FireStars we further
strengthened the drag strut and eventually added additional ribs to be able to
carry heavier weights, etc.
The time honored method of promoting ones product is paid advertising.
In
the aircraft world there are publications that are very willing, for a fee, to
advertise your products. Another good way is to go to airshows, (yes, this
also cost money) and demonstrate your aircraft there.
Lurking on the Kolb list and trying to sell F___ aircraft to those
expressing interest in purchasing Kolb aircraft is not a time honored method
of promoting your product. Furthermore, to do so by misrepresenting Kolb is
even worse - your actions are reprehensible.
I am glad you like your F___ aircraft - go start a F___ aircraft group
of
your own.
Sincerely,
Dennis Souder
Pres Kolb Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dama riddick <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
Dennis, what is a "pice of a fialed wing anyway". Sounds F____ fishy to me.
Kip Laurie
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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: | Allan Blackburn <traderawb(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 09/29/98 |
> I flew an original Firestar with a 377 for 3 years prior to last >June 27th(the
day it was sold). Here are its stats: With a 66 dia X 28p >Carver wood prop,
2.0 gph at 5,000 rpm and 60 mph.
This agrees with my fuel usage on the 377 Original Kolb 600+. I used to
flight plan using 1.9 gph. That was back when I was flying contests and
doing lots of XC's.
To Ralph Burlingame: What modifications were necessary to change from
the 377 to the 447? Does Kolb recommend any beefing up of the motor
mount area or did you just rebore the 377 to a 447 and make no changes
to the mount? I believe that Kolb wants extra wing ribs and more robust
motor mount if used with an engine larger than the 447. I take it you
are happy with this combination. I have been thinking of adding floats
and the 447 engine (or larger if necessary.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
The only wing failure I've ever heard of was when Dennis Souder purposely snapped
one in flight tests. ALso, considering the increase in strength by going to
the 6 inch tubes I'd find it very unlikely to induce a wing failure at the maimum
+4G's rating.
So who had the wing failure and what were the circumstances.
>>> "Larry Bourne" 09/29 11:34 PM >>>
Whaaaaaaat ? ? ? First time I've ever heard of a Kolb wing failing.
What'd he do ?? Park it under a pile driver ?? Anyone else ever heard of
this ?? Big Lar.
----------
> From: Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ferguson F-II
> Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 6:12 AM
> Frank Metcalfe
>
> I just completed my Ferguson F II. I had my paper filled out to order a
> Mark III when I ran into a guy that had a Ferguson. He said to visit the
> factory before ordering the Kolb. So I did.
> I read the message from Swiderski and dont agree with his view of more
> rivits makes it stronger. The Kolb wing has had failures and the
> Ferguson has not. The way the ribs attach to the wing the Ferguson ribs
> can not fail. The Kolb wing uses a gusset plate that can and dose oil
> can. I have a pice of a fialed Kolb wing in my garage.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duncan McBride" <dmcbride(at)indigo.fgcu.edu> |
My apologies for starting a thread about another manufacturer's plane. This
wasn't the right place, and I realize that now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 09/29/98 |
<< To Ralph Burlingame: What modifications were necessary to change from
the 377 to the 447? Does Kolb recommend any beefing up of the motor
mount area or did you just rebore the 377 to a 447 and make no changes
to the mount? I believe that Kolb wants extra wing ribs and more robust
motor mount if used with an engine larger than the 447.
Right church - wrong pew. The extra wing ribs (7 vs. 5) are needed for the
installation of the Rotax 503.
Dennis Souder
Pres Kolb Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
<< My apologies for starting a thread about another manufacturer's plane.
This
wasn't the right place, and I realize that now. >>
Duncan, no apologies needed! You asked an appropriate question - it was the
advertisement (masquerading as a response) that was inappropriate.
Dennis Souder
Pres Kolb Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
Actually it is good that you brought it up. If the accusation is true - as in
factual - then I wnat to hear about it. It could save my life. BUT, the real
question is whether you "heard" about a Kolb wing failure or have actual first
hand knowledge of it. So which is it.? Rumors usually play out as false and
/or twisted facts tortured by "pass it on" distribution. If this is so, then
it is up to you to set the record straight since you made the accusation in
the first place.
>>> "Duncan McBride" 09/30 9:02 AM >>>
My apologies for starting a thread about another manufacturer's plane. This
wasn't the right place, and I realize that now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "john hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
> The time honored method of promoting ones product is paid advertising. In
>the aircraft world there are publications that are very willing, for a fee,
to
>advertise your products. Another good way is to go to airshows, (yes, this
>also cost money) and demonstrate your aircraft there.
> Lurking on the Kolb list and trying to sell F___ aircraft to those
>expressing interest in purchasing Kolb aircraft is not a time honored
method
>of promoting your product. Furthermore, to do so by misrepresenting Kolb
is
>even worse - your actions are reprehensible.
> I am glad you like your F___ aircraft - go start a F___ aircraft group of
>your own.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Dennis Souder
>Pres Kolb Aircraft
>
Good Morning Gang:
Extremely well said Dennis. Thanks for your input. It gets the hair up on
the back of my neck when somebody tries to shoot down a product that I have
personnally flown and tested for so many years and hours. Little airplanes
that have gotten me there and home again safely from many different far away
places thru all kinds of weather.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duncan McBride" <dmcbride(at)indigo.fgcu.edu> |
Wait a minute. The record is I've never seen a Kolb Mark III or a
Ferguson F-II. I've ordered the brochures and the video and I'm really
impressed with the Mark III, and I noticed in the Aerocrafter book the F-II
was similar, so I posted a note hoping to hear about the relative qualities
of flaperons vs. separate flaps and ailerons, cabin enclosures, roadability,
kit features, etc., all benign stuff. I never accused anybody of anything,
but evidently my question provoked some partisan comments and negative,
unsubstantiated claims.
In retrospect, I realized I should have known better, I've belonged to
enough lists to know better, and I apologized for instigating it.
To the guys that offered some useful observations and advice, thanks
very much. I was able to get in touch with pilots of both, and while I
still have some research to do about what kind of airplane will suit me
best, I have no doubt that the Mark III is as solid and well constructed as
I could wish - that was never a question, in my mind.
Sorry to take up the list's time with this. Hope this is the end of
this thread.
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com>
kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 10:51 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: F____
>
>Actually it is good that you brought it up. If the accusation is true - as
in factual - then I wnat to hear about it. It could save my life. BUT, the
real question is whether you "heard" about a Kolb wing failure or have
actual first hand knowledge of it. So which is it.? Rumors usually play
out as false and /or twisted facts tortured by "pass it on" distribution.
If this is so, then it is up to you to set the record straight since you
made the accusation in the first place.
>
>>>> "Duncan McBride" 09/30 9:02 AM >>>
>
>My apologies for starting a thread about another manufacturer's plane.
This
>wasn't the right place, and I realize that now.
>
>
>
>
>
!
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
<< I never accused anybody of anything,
but evidently my question provoked some partisan comments and negative,
unsubstantiated claims.
In retrospect, I realized I should have known better, I've belonged to
enough lists to know better, and I apologized for instigating it. >>
Duncan McBride:
I think some on the list have confused your (reasonable) inquiry with the
(inappropriate) response by Frank Metcalfe who sounded like a salesman for
F___ Aircraft.
Dennis Souder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
>Kolb builders,
>I am considering building a Flightstar without a pod or windshield in an
>effort to capture the open experience of the Ultrastar. Are there any
>opinions out there on the flying characteristics or potential problems that
>this configuration may bring? Thank You.
>Kip Laurie
A couple of other thoughts came to mind:
1. With no enclosure, you can pretty much forget about using maps. Because
things can so easily fly back to the prop, everything has to be secured
with exceptional diligence.
2. The small amount of side profile area forward of the aerodynamic center
results in less effective slips--it's less efficient aerodynamically to
begin with, but doesn't degenerate as quickly as a pod flying sideways
does. Also, easier cross-wind landings, since it flies sideways without
having to bank so far to counteract the yaw in the slip.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joann Hill" <jhill(at)swcp.com> |
For those of you that are interested in evidence of Kolb's lack of recorded
structural failures as reported to the FAA, check out
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/Query.htm . The one fatal I found in 1990 was
probably builder error.
Joann Hill N98KF
http://www.swcp.com/~jhill
-----Original Message-----
>>Actually it is good that you brought it up. If the accusation is true -
as
>in factual - then I wnat to hear about it. It could save my life
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: F_____ aircraft |
Question: what's a fial? Ans.: another spelling for phial, a small
vessel, otherwise known as a crock. GB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
Dennis, I was going to quote my favorite parts (in my "aggressive
editing"), but decided I liked the whole thing. Well said! Including the
last sentence. You were probably mad, but I got a laugh and some
satisfaction from it myself.
I was expecting you to say something that I didn't see, regarding (let's
call it) the "beef it up syndrome." In which, the "knows enough to be
dangerous" builder thinks he's adding strength by making this and that
stronger, but in reality the added weight is making the airplane as a whole
weaker, given the increased flight loads it is going to be exposed to.
Reminds me of a joke I can't remember, but which involved someone that
designed a chair so well that it lasted a looong time, then suddenly
disintegrated into pile of sawdust.
Given all the flight testing and in-the-field experience with such an
established design, the strongest airplane you can make from the Kolb kits
is the lightest, most stock construction possible. The only exceptions I
can think of being beefier landing gear if you plan to abuse it, and maybe
aileron counterballances, if you intend to "soup it up" with more enclosure
or power.
Mike Ransom mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu
Programmer/Analyst, Dept of Agronomy & Range Science
University of California, Davis U.S.A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb fatalities |
Ms. Hall: How did you find Structural failure info from the cited NSTB
source, please? My count, starting w/ 9/9/87 shows 13 fatalities, but no
indication of causes.I'd like further info on these. Much obliged. Grey
Baron FF 70
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Gross <rpgross(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Soaring, safety and design |
Hi John,
Tnx for the info.
Your Vario is clearly more accurate than my old altimeter/watch setup.
Glad to hear my FS is probably doing better than I calculated.
In your other writings, you mention your old FS burned 2 GPH. How did
you get that? Do you remember jet sizes, RPM, temps etc? I'd like to
see fuel flows like that as it will dramatically extend my 5 gallon
I just put the 3 blade IVO on and cut it down to 62 inches. Should I
cut it more? Sure is smooth. BTW the new tiny tach made a big
difference in fuel consumption, but the actual numbers aren't in yet.
I was way-underevving the engine before (assuming the new tach is
accurate).
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb fatalities |
Ms. Hill, I'm very sorry to have misspelled your name. GB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb fatalities |
REspective to Mark III's & ATSB files, here's what all I found during my lunch:
I hope this comes to you in column format and is not to screwed up.
Rep'tType Date Location Make / Model
Regist Number Severity T
Final 3/16/92 TITUS, AL KOLB MARK
III N101AB Nonfatal
Final 11/28/93 OSHKOSH, WI KROTJE KOLB MARK
III N393PK Nonfatal
Final 7/18/96 GOWANDA, NY Kolb MARK III
N695WM Nonfatal
Prel 6/10/97 FINDLAY, OH Mc Ardle KOLB
MARK III N1144T Nonfatal
Prel 9/17/98 CASHMERE, WA Kolb MARK III
N62691 Nonfatal
MY search from 1/1/86 to 12/1/98 showed no fatalities in a Mark III . JoAnn Hills,
where did you find 1 fatality? I searched under ultralights and N number
registers. I think this is a remarkable and enviable record. Congratulations
to the gang at Kolb aircraft. Glad I bought one.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Gesler" <mrelseg(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi all... I am looking for pix and info on Kolb Mark II ultralight
trainers..
Were they only built a few years and were there any problems I should
know about? Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Guys, Iam a long time list lurker and want to tell you about my new
firestar.Il Ilive near Chicago but fly out of Menomonee Falls aeropark
in Wisc. I havent flown it yet but hope to this coming weekend. I have been
getting instruction from Bill Genteman (good instructor) for quite a while .
I think most of my 2SI engine problems have been worked out -
jetting,ignition ,recall,hassle. You guys are great! Thanks for all of the
tips and stories. John(learning to type) Bruzan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 09/29/98 |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Allan,
The mods to the 5-rib wing was a .035" leading edge tube with four 3/8"
tubes running diagonally from the LE to the spar tube. Other than that,
the 447 simply bolts on the same engine mounts with no other
modifications. I added these wing mods for a stronger wing not even
anticipating getting a larger engine. I understand this is not necessary
though as my buddy, whom I fly with nearly every weekend, has the stock
Original FireStar with the 447 engine. This is why I wanted one since we
traded planes once to see how each others' flew. I liked being able to
cruise at lower rpms and have the extra power made available to me should
I need it. John Hauck also had a 447 on his Original when he made all
his ventures around the country long before Miss P'fer was built. With
the 5-rib wing, the 447 is the largest engine it will take. As for the
engine, I got one with the Ducati ignition so I won't have to adjust
points annually. I like this.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar w/447
>To Ralph Burlingame: What modifications were necessary to change from
>the 377 to the 447? Does Kolb recommend any beefing up of the motor
>mount area or did you just rebore the 377 to a 447 and make no changes
>to the mount? I believe that Kolb wants extra wing ribs and more
>robust
>motor mount if used with an engine larger than the 447. I take it you
>are happy with this combination. I have been thinking of adding floats
>and the 447 engine (or larger if necessary.)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
For Ms. Hill. I tried to send you a direct msg but just ain't smart
enough! Got a big load of woogah about spamming! Didn't know i was
spamming you, forgive me. Guess the net censors are busy tonight.
Anyway, thanks for your reply to me. Grey Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy & Joni Tolvstad" <tolvstad(at)nvc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: No Pod and "RAINFLYERS" |
Mike,
I also own an Ultrastar, but it has a customized pod put on it from the
previous owners. I enjoy it, but think it would be a great feeling to be
"just hanging out there". With winter coming on, I have considered even
enclosing it more. I will forward pics of it if anyone is interested in
seeing what it looks like or would like to share opinions and ideas on
enclosing it further. I seem to have no problem cruising at 65-70 with
5800-6000 RPM depending on the day. Also curious about the vibration on
your plane. Do you have a range you have to stay out of?
Thanks to all who have commented on the pulley situation. I currently have
a toothed belt, with I can run fairly loose without to much problem to avoid
to much stress on the old Kawasaki crank.
Just a quick note on the rain fliers. Can't even imagine what this must be
like!!! Here I thought I was being quite a pilot by flying around on a hot
day with a few thermals kicking me about! Just curious on how hard it is to
keep a Kolb in the air under such conditions. With my lack of experience I
have no plans on trying such a task, but would like to here a few pointers
if ever caught in a rain.
Randy Tolvstad
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: No Pod
>
>>Kolb builders,
>>I am considering building a Flightstar without a pod or windshield in an
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Steinhagen" <bsteinhagen(at)itol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Answers to my questions |
John, I have reason to be in Milw area Sunday. Wondering if we could get
together in order that I might look over your BRS installation. I received
my unit this week and am eager to complete installation quickly. Bruce
----------
> From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Answers to my questions
> Date: Friday, September 25, 1998 9:07 AM
>
>
> Ron,
> All people can tell you specifically, is there experiece with two
cycles. And
> experiences vary conciderable. I have owned and flown with 6 different 2
cycles,
> acumulating 400+ hrs, and I have belonged to a 100+ member ultralight
club for the last
> 11 years, so I think that my opinion is at least worth concideration.
Here it is: I
> believe that the biggest problem with two cylinder, 2 cycle Rotaxes is
the person that
> maintains and operates them. Most of the problems that people have are
NOT caused by any
> lack of quality, or the 2 cycle design. They are caused by a lack of
maintainence or
> improper operation. Pilots routinely fail to warn-up their engines before
take-off and
> run well beyond de-carbon time. They also continue to fly engines that
are hard to start,
> ignoring a warning from their engine that it needs help. I believe that 2
cycle Rotaxes,
> when properly maintained and operated, are reliably enough for flying
over places that
> allow energency landings, in aircraft with reasonably stall speeds. I
know, I being too
> general. But it is eneryone own decission on how much risk. The more time
one flys
> without being over an emergency landing spot, or the faster their stall
speed is, the
> more the risk. Oh, if you noticed, I only mentioned two cylinder, 2 cycle
Rotaxes. I
> believe that no other 2 cycle is as well proven, not even the 277 Rotax.
> John Jung
>
> Ronald L. Perry wrote:
>
> >
> > I have asked numerous, specific questions about 2-strokes to users of
> > this list and have received no specific answers to any of them.
>
> snip...
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
> Lurking on the Kolb list and trying to sell F___ aircraft to those
>expressing interest in purchasing Kolb aircraft is not a time honored method
>of promoting your product. Furthermore, to do so by misrepresenting Kolb is
>even worse - your actions are reprehensible.
> I am glad you like your F___ aircraft - go start a F___ aircraft group
of
>your own.
Well articulated and to the point Dennis. I think something is wrong with
my Twinstar. I have never been able to oilcan my spar flanges. Perhaps the
writer of the original letter could give us a few details on this oilcanning
and the wing failure. Please. It may save a life.
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> |
| Subject: | Re: No Pod and "RAINFLYERS" |
>Just a quick note on the rain fliers. Can't even imagine what this must be
>like!!! Here I thought I was being quite a pilot by flying around on a hot
>day with a few thermals kicking me about! Just curious on how hard it is to
>keep a Kolb in the air under such conditions. With my lack of experience I
>have no plans on trying such a task, but would like to here a few pointers
>if ever caught in a rain.
>
I was caught once. Coming back from a fly in 10 miles away I hit a bad
storm. The rain felt like shotgun blasts in my face (this is in a minimal
cowl Twinstar). I felt like I was pointing down at 45* half throttle and it
felt like I was still climbing. I lined up to land on a golf course but
there were to many golfers still out. People think flyers are nuts. Anyway I
diverted to a baseball diamond and waited out the storm. Fun now that I
think back on 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: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: No Pod, "RAINFLYERS", etc etc |
> Just a quick note on the rain fliers. Can't even imagine what this must be
> like!!! Here I thought I was being quite a pilot by flying around on a hot
A good compromise for the "i like to fly naked -- no pod" types might
be to have a pod that is easily removable. Mount the instruments to
the airplane and have a pod that comes off without them.
I personally don't get off on seeing the ground between my toes. The
visibility is fine in a Kolb even with a pod. Without a pod, 50+mph
of wind greatly adds to pilot fatigue whether it is warm or cold.
So, IMO, if you can't stand to be in 50-60mph wind for an hour, what's
the point of having visibility -- i.e. you'll soon be back to just
pedestrian visibility anyway. I like my FS *much* better after even
adding side lexan wind screens with what I think Rusty coined as barf
size openings.
ULs are a good compromise in the first place in that you can fly and
land in many beautiful places. If you can also do so without big concern
of rain, the compromise is even better. I like to go places, rain
or shine, land anywhere (except LAX). You could fly podless with a
great gortex rainsuit I spose, but I think cockpits add versatility
(and improve cruise) at little or no expense.
BTW, since we've been seeing questions comparing other planes (for
some reason all F____ so far), I thought I'd add one comment wrt the
Flightstar. I recall their folding wing feature as shown in pictures
being a nice try but no cigar. Do you see how high the wings are in the
folded position? Forget trailering that thing(!), let alone fitting
it into your garage. BTW, on that post about the F___ unbreakable
wings, i think the impression that wings on anything are unbreakable is
an easy clue that somebody swallowed sales pitch hook line and sinker.
That's when I said "later" on that post. I started to write something but
then pushed delete instead of send (rare, i know). It's understandable
DS put a little more heart into his reply ...picturing crator where send
key used to be. :)
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Davies <kenneth(at)midusa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: No Pod and "RAINFLYERS" |
Would be interested in looking at your pictures, Randy. I am wanting to mount
a
pod on my ultrastar. Have several ideas but haven't decided on one as yet.
Ken
Randy & Joni Tolvstad wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> I also own an Ultrastar, but it has a customized pod put on it from the
> previous owners. I enjoy it, but think it would be a great feeling to be
> "just hanging out there". With winter coming on, I have considered even
> enclosing it more. I will forward pics of it if anyone is interested in
> seeing what it looks like or would like to share opinions and ideas on
> enclosing it further. I seem to have no problem cruising at 65-70 with
> 5800-6000 RPM depending on the day. Also curious about the vibration on
> your plane. Do you have a range you have to stay out of?
>
> Thanks to all who have commented on the pulley situation. I currently have
> a toothed belt, with I can run fairly loose without to much problem to avoid
> to much stress on the old Kawasaki crank.
>
> Just a quick note on the rain fliers. Can't even imagine what this must be
> like!!! Here I thought I was being quite a pilot by flying around on a hot
> day with a few thermals kicking me about! Just curious on how hard it is to
> keep a Kolb in the air under such conditions. With my lack of experience I
> have no plans on trying such a task, but would like to here a few pointers
> if ever caught in a rain.
>
> Randy Tolvstad
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 11:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: No Pod
>
> >
> >>Kolb builders,
> >>I am considering building a Flightstar without a pod or windshield in an
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
Dennis, I was going to quote my favorite parts (in my "aggressive
>editing"), but decided I liked the whole thing. Well said! Including the
>last sentence. You were probably mad, but I got a laugh and some
>satisfaction from it myself.
>I was expecting you to say something that I didn't see, regarding (let's
>call it) the "beef it up syndrome." In which, the "knows enough to be
>dangerous" builder thinks he's adding strength by making this and that
>stronger, but in reality the added weight is making the airplane as a whole
>weaker,
Mike,
Thanks for your response, actually I was thinking of delving into this
very
issue, coincidental that you would mention it. Whenever we would see
another rip-off design, Homer would look it over and comment that copiers
always seem compelled to change at least a coupe things to say they improved
the shortcomings, and that the things they change they invariably get wrong
and make it worse - because they are only copiers and not designers or
engineers. This was illustrated well here by F____ eliminating the main
spar gusset because it "oil can's"
"Beef it up" what a banal expression! "Yea it was an okay design, but
we
felt we needed to beef it up some." The cure all of aircraft design: "beef
it up." Think I'll gag if I hear that one more time.
I remember so clearly the first time Homer and I saw the F____ at SNF.
We
were looking it over and Bill F____ was there and talking with Homer as the
3 of us walked around his airplane. I couldn't believe Homer, he was so
gracious to Bill, actually complimenting him on the planes appearance, etc.
I remember looking at the tail at the elevator control mechanism and noted
that he had copied that exactly. I just stood there just staring at that
one small detail and remember being very angry because I remember how many
hours we had worked to make the elevators fold up without the pin (as our
earlier designs had). We had tried this and then that, built prototypes
etc. It looks very simple now - but you could never guess the amount of
time we spent on just that one little detail. Just one little vignette out
of the whole design process - and along comes F____ and copies it and calls
it his own.
Yes, I was mad when F____ comes along and tried to sell his rip-off copy
on a Kolb group to someone expressing interest in a Kolb Mark-III and then
adds insult to injury and misrepresents Kolb in the process. It also
demonstrates that the character associated with F_____ hasn't changed
either. I re-read your email and it occurred to me that possibly you (and
others) misunderstood what I had intended "F____ to stand for. "F____" was
meant to be a euphemism for Ferguson - not a type of "self replicating"
aircraft. Yes I was angry, but I don't write or talk that way. It can
only mean Ferguson to be consistent in all occurrences of that email. I
just didn't want to say that word: Ferg ...u....s....on. There I got it out
again.
I am not the only one who has feelings about rip-off designs. I was
talking with Mark Beyerly from EarthStar and he had just flown from
California to SNF with his Thundergull with the David's engine (another
story). And along comes someone from Titan and starts asking Mark about the
David's, I could see the hair starting to rise on the back of his neck.
Unless you have been in that situation, it is hard to describe the feelings
you have - others forget very quickly - but if you have been the one ripped
off, you don't forget.
Dennis Souder
Pres Kolb Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
| From: | f.marino(at)juno.com (FRANK J. MARINO) |
Way to go Dennis, I love my MKIII, to me it flies like a piper cub, I
have more fun in my Kolb than any aircraft I have flown and as an
instructor I have flown a lot of aircraft. I now have 52 hours on the
MKIII with no problems (except a couple of bent landing gears) which was
GeoR38,s fault.
Frank Marino
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Mark,
The problem with using the Mark II for trainning is it's gross weight, 750.
The Mark III can be a legal trainner, and has a much higher gross weight, 1,000
(
I think). I have a friend that has used both for trainning and with the exception
of the gross weight, he perferred the Mark II.
John Jung
Mark Gesler wrote:
>
> Hi all... I am looking for pix and info on Kolb Mark II ultralight
> trainers..
> Were they only built a few years and were there any problems I should
> know about? Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Group,
Joann Hill provided an interesting source of information (NTSB records) that
I
was not aware of. About the structural failure that she said was "probably"
builder error, here is some more information, you decide:
"INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT STEEL BOLTS WERE MISSING FROM THE OUTBOARD WING
STRUT ATTACHMENT FITTINGS, RIVETS THAT HELD THE OUTBOARD ATTACHMENT FITTINGS TO
THE WING HAD SHEARED OFF. THE REASON FOR THE MISSING BOLTS AND SHEARED REVITS WAS
NOT VERIFIED. THE ACFT HAD BEEN REGISTERED WITH THE FAA, BUT THERE WAS NO
AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE."
failed to install both 3/8" X 6" bolts that go through the main wing spar for
attaching the struts. The only thing holding the wings were the small rivets that
are there to stop rotation around the bolt. This is the type of thing that would
almost certainly be noticed by any other builder or on the airworthness
inspection, whch the builder didn't wait for.
Of the Kolb fatalities listed, of which there were 11 deaths in 10 accidents,
the rest of them seemed (to me) to be stall and spin accidents, or pilot error.
For those of you that don't think you need professional trainning to fly Kolbs,
because "aren't they really just ultralights?", I say, "READ THE REPORTS!".
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/Query.htm
In summary, if you are worried about the strength of a Kolb, don't be. Insted,
worry about the "smarts" of your pilot.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
Joann Hill wrote:
>
> For those of you that are interested in evidence of Kolb's lack of recorded
> structural failures as reported to the FAA, check out
> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/Query.htm . The one fatal I found in 1990 was
> probably builder error.
>
> Joann Hill N98KF
> http://www.swcp.com/~jhill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
For us new guys, what is oilcanning? and wht does this have to do with the spars?
I have a MArk III. Should I have knowledge of this practice? In advance,
thanks for taking the time.
>>> wood 09/30 11:44 PM >>>
> Lurking on the Kolb list and trying to sell F___ aircraft to those
>expressing interest in purchasing Kolb aircraft is not a time honored method
>of promoting your product. Furthermore, to do so by misrepresenting Kolb is
>even worse - your actions are reprehensible.
> I am glad you like your F___ aircraft - go start a F___ aircraft group of
>your own.
Well articulated and to the point Dennis. I think something is wrong with
my Twinstar. I have never been able to oilcan my spar flanges. Perhaps the
writer of the original letter could give us a few details on this oilcanning
and the wing failure. Please. It may save a life.
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> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
Dennis,
Thanks for explaining the situation with the Ferguson F-II. I had suspected
as
much, but didn't know the actual situation. I have always felt that anyone who
knowingly buys a "rip off" design, is also part of the problem.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J 72 hrs
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "merle hargis" <merlepilar(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: No Pod and "RAINFLYERS" |
I would like to see the pictures. I have a customized pod on my twinstar.
Merle from Orlando
----------
> From: Randy & Joni Tolvstad
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: No Pod and "RAINFLYERS"
> Date: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 11:02 PM
>
>
> Mike,
>
> I also own an Ultrastar, but it has a customized pod put on it from the
> previous owners. I enjoy it, but think it would be a great feeling to be
> "just hanging out there". With winter coming on, I have considered even
> enclosing it more. I will forward pics of it if anyone is interested in
> seeing what it looks like or would like to share opinions and ideas on
> enclosing it further. I seem to have no problem cruising at 65-70 with
> 5800-6000 RPM depending on the day. >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
>
>Dennis,
> Thanks for explaining the situation with the Ferguson F-II. I had
suspected as
>much, but didn't know the actual situation. I have always felt that anyone
who
>knowingly buys a "rip off" design, is also part of the problem.
>John Jung
>Firestar II N6163J 72 hrs
>SE Wisconsin
>
>
Another way to look at this is that imitation is the highest from of
flattery
EZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
>
>Dennis,
> Thanks for explaining the situation with the Ferguson F-II. I had
suspected as
>much, but didn't know the actual situation. I have always felt that anyone
who
>knowingly buys a "rip off" design, is also part of the problem.
>John Jung
>Firestar II N6163J 72 hrs
>SE Wisconsin
>
>
Another way to look at this is that imitation is the highest from of
flattery
EZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Weber <bweber2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 100 LL and Rotax 2/Strokes |
Here is Southern California (and elsewhere, I'm sure), oxygenated
gasoline
is mandated during the winter. The stuff they put in can be any of
several
types of alcohol including methanol or it can be other chemicals. Bottom
line, they are all BAD for our 2-strokes. The only problems I have had
was
using mo-gas during the winter. If I didn't use it all within 2-3 weeks
I
would have very difficult starting and elevated EGT. From October 1 thru
about Feb. 15 I run strictly 100 LL. Never had a problem. Runs a bit
cooler
as someone mentioned and I do see some lead buildup on the plugs. I
clean
the plugs every 12 hours and replace at 25 hours anyway, so that has
never
been an issue.
It may be just a rumor, but I had heard that LEAF recommends running
100LL
exclusively if you are in an area where alcohol and other additives are
allowed to be added to mo-gas. Also av-gas has stuff that keeps it fresh
much longer than mo-gas.
One last thing. If you fly infrequently you could try using one of the
octane boosters or gasoline preservatives you find at auto parts stores.
--
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* Voiceboard Corp * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 100 LL and Rotax 2/Strokes |
Here in New England we have oxygenated gass also. Dennis Souder, what do you guys
do in PA? Does stabilizer help with this? Or octane booster?
>>> William Weber 10/01 12:40 PM >>>
Here is Southern California (and elsewhere, I'm sure), oxygenated
gasoline
is mandated during the winter. The stuff they put in can be any of
several
types of alcohol including methanol or it can be other chemicals. Bottom
line, they are all BAD for our 2-strokes. The only problems I have had
was
using mo-gas during the winter. If I didn't use it all within 2-3 weeks
I
would have very difficult starting and elevated EGT. From October 1 thru
about Feb. 15 I run strictly 100 LL. Never had a problem. Runs a bit
cooler
as someone mentioned and I do see some lead buildup on the plugs. I
clean
the plugs every 12 hours and replace at 25 hours anyway, so that has
never
been an issue.
It may be just a rumor, but I had heard that LEAF recommends running
100LL
exclusively if you are in an area where alcohol and other additives are
allowed to be added to mo-gas. Also av-gas has stuff that keeps it fresh
much longer than mo-gas.
One last thing. If you fly infrequently you could try using one of the
octane boosters or gasoline preservatives you find at auto parts stores.
--
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* Voiceboard Corp * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
Unless it takes MONEY FROM YOUR POCKET!!!! Then it's theft.
>>> Eugene Zimmerman 10/01 11:19 AM >>>
>
>Dennis,
> Thanks for explaining the situation with the Ferguson F-II. I had
suspected as
>much, but didn't know the actual situation. I have always felt that anyone
who
>knowingly buys a "rip off" design, is also part of the problem.
>John Jung
>Firestar II N6163J 72 hrs
>SE Wisconsin
>
>
Another way to look at this is that imitation is the highest from of
flattery
EZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: F____ Rip Off / D. Souder |
Imitation is the purest form of flatery, even if they screw it up.
Duane the plane, Tallahassee, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: No Pod, "RAINFLYERS", etc etc |
edu>
Ben wrote:
>I personally don't get off on seeing the ground between my toes.
*I* do!!! Actually, the impression while flying is that there's *nothing*
in front of you. It takes a little getting used to getting the feel for
what's level flight.
>visibility is fine in a Kolb even with a pod. Without a pod, 50+mph
>of wind greatly adds to pilot fatigue whether it is warm or cold.
>So, IMO, if you can't stand to be in 50-60mph wind for an hour, what's
>the point of having visibility -- i.e. you'll soon be back to just
>pedestrian visibility anyway. I like my FS *much* better after even
>adding side lexan wind screens with what I think Rusty coined as barf
>size openings.
Yes, fatigue really is a factor, but if you're dressed right and it's not
too cold it's fine. If it weren't you wouldn't see so many motorcyclists
driving around without fairings/windscreens. If it gets too cold, your
eyes can start to water and (excuse the frankness) something else happens
when you have a runny nose in a 50 mph helmet. Neither of these things are
good for visibility.
I have seen and flown Ben's plane (before the extended windscreen) and I
must say, the impression of greater comfort was immediate. Largely this
was due to reduced noise (muffler is better, engine further away and wing
in between), but the wind was a big factor too.
Ben's extended windscreen looks to me like a *great* idea and is
well-designed too. We should be seeing them on Fergusons soon. Seriously
Ben, I think you should post details on your system. (If you haven't
already.)
I'm going to add an image to my web page showing a
nosecone/half-pod/windscreen job on another Ultrastar. Someone posted it
to the group (or me?) as an attachment a long time ago. I can't remember
the name to credit the person, so please comment if you're still around!
If I remember right, the poster claimed some very good performance
improvements, but had an engine problem on the maiden flight, so had few
details. See http://agronomy.ucdavis.edu/ransom/index.html#pod
-Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
dwegner(at)isd.net
| Subject: | Re: 100 LL and Rotax 2/Strokes |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Guys,
The "oxygenated" gasoline with 7% ethanol is all they sell here in
Minnesota except for very few stations that might have the non-ethanol
type. We have not noticed any problems using it unless a lot of water
gets into the fuel system which will cause the fuel/lubrication to
separate out (phase separation). I prefer to buy the ethanol type over
the non-ethanol because I believe the ethanol burns very clean and will
remove any water that does happen to enter the tank.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, premium ethanol gas
writes:
>
>
>Here in New England we have oxygenated gass also. Dennis Souder, what
>do you guys do in PA? Does stabilizer help with this? Or octane
>booster?
>
>>>> William Weber 10/01 12:40 PM >>>
>
>Here is Southern California (and elsewhere, I'm sure), oxygenated
>gasoline is mandated during the winter. The stuff they put in can be any
of
>several types of alcohol including methanol or it can be other
chemicals.
>Bottom line, they are all BAD for our 2-strokes. The only problems I
have had
>was using mo-gas during the winter. If I didn't use it all within 2-3
>weeks I would have very difficult starting and elevated EGT. From
October 1
>thru about Feb. 15 I run strictly 100 LL. Never had a problem. Runs a
bit
>cooler as someone mentioned and I do see some lead buildup on the plugs.
I
>clean the plugs every 12 hours and replace at 25 hours anyway, so that
has
>never been an issue. It may be just a rumor, but I had heard that LEAF
>recommends running 100LL exclusively if you are in an area where alcohol
and >other additives are allowed to be added to mo-gas. Also av-gas has
stuff that >keeps it fresh much longer than mo-gas. One last thing. If
you fly infrequently >you could try using one of the octane boosters or
gasoline preservatives you >find at auto parts stores.
>
>--
>***********************************************
>* Bill Weber * Keep *
>* Voiceboard Corp * the shiny *
>* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
>***********************************************
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:First flight |
John, I hope to come to the field early sat. I would like to go around the
patch with Bill first,let him fly my plane and then go from there. I want to
keep the event open ended and low key so there is no pressure.We'll see!
Something tells me the puckerometer (not on the EIS) will be pegged! I sure
hope the weather cooperates. If I can fly better than type we'll be in good
shape. I'm sure the flying will be just as fun as the building and the people
(Dennis, you,Kolb Group,EAA folks,well wishers,etc.).Now I'm getting really
excited! Luck is important but I've been getting good instruction from Bill so
I feel fairly confident
Thanks for your support everyone John Bruzan FS II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying the UltraStar |
<006a01bdece7$ebd5cda0$b6494ad1@nvc.net.ns1.nvc.net>
Ben wrote:
>>I personally don't get off on seeing the ground between my toes.
Mike wrote:
>*I* do!!! Actually, the impression while flying is that there's *nothing*
>in front of you. It takes a little getting used to getting the feel for
>what's level flight.
Skip wrote:
I too, thoroughly enjoy the sensation and view the pilot gets from an
UltraStar without a fairing. I find that flying at relatively low
altitudes (500' or less), attitude awareness is no problem, however,
getting on up in the stratosphere (in my case, 1000-1500') causes me to pay
a bit more attention to attitude, as there is just no good attitude
reference point out front. (maybe I should add an altimeter? :)
Regardless, it's still GREAT fun! Here in Florida the temperatures are
seldom a problem that can't be easily solved by adding a jacket.
If you still want a fairing for the UltraStar, maybe the factory could
help? On Kolb's promotional VCR tape of "The Early Days", they show what
might have been an advanced (1985?) model of the UltraStar with a small pod
type fairing as well as the later style landing gear. They even show a
floatplane version of the UltraStar doing water take offs and landings.
Speaking of that early days VCR tape, I'm TOTALLY IN AWE of Kolb's test
pilot shown doing loops, spins and rolls in the UltraStar! Personally, I
begin to get a bit nervous past about 10 angle of bank. (that's when I
begin to think of the possibility of falling out :)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 100 LL and Rotax 2/Strokes |
In a message dated 10/1/98 10:15:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com writes:
<< The stuff they put in can be any of
several
types of alcohol including methanol or it can be other chemicals >>
Interesting. My understanding is that there are only two oxygenating
agents. Alcohol and MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) I was under the
impression that MTBE is not a problem. What do you know that I don't?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kmead(at)up.net (Kent kathy Mead) |
Hi Gang:
Does anyone happen to know of a used 447 SCDI fan cooled for sale? I am
thinking of upgrading from a 377. I know Ralph likes his.
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
Way to go Dennis, I love my MKIII, to me it flies like a piper cub, I
have more fun in my Kolb than any aircraft I have flown and as an
instructor I have flown a lot of aircraft. I now have 52 hours on the
MKIII with no problems (except a couple of bent landing gears) which was
GeoR38,s fault.
Frank Marino >>
WOW!!....I mean.....WOW!!.....what unbridled gonads on FRANK......but.....I
still luvim anyway......and thatawayto go Dennis......thanks for being
real!..................GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald L. Perry" <ronaldpe(at)shenessex.heartland.net> |
Had thought of going into ultra-lights as an alternative to the cost of
staying current with my Private. I am also totally unfamiliar with
2-strokes and was/am a little apprehensive about them. Well, that
particular problem is irrelevant now, as I have purchased a 1973 Cessna
150. Got a deal I couldn't refuse. At least, I'll be flying behind
something I'm familiar with, although that is certainly no guarantee, my
peace of mind is kinda soothed.
I won't unsubscribe from this list, though. Enjoy reading what you
all have to say.
Keep them cards and letters coming, it's fun.
Ron Perry
Shenandoah, Iowa
HAPPY FLYING!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | oxygenated fuels |
Group,
I don't know how many have to deal with these fuels, but I believe
that it is an important subject that has not been discussed in the last
year. In the Milwaukee area, we drive miles to buy gas from stations
that can still sell unoxgenated (old time) gas for our 2 cycles. It is
my understanding that the ethonol fuels can have problems with some 2
cycle oils and the temperatures run hotter. A few people use the MTBE
gas and while I don't know of any documented problems, I'll let others
do the testing. Do we have any "experts" on the list in this area, or
has anyone found a source for good information?
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
Ralph H Burlingame wrote:
>
>
> Guys,
>
> The "oxygenated" gasoline with 7% ethanol is all they sell here in
> Minnesota except for very few stations that might have the non-ethanol
> type. We have not noticed any problems using it unless a lot of water
> gets into the fuel system which will cause the fuel/lubrication to
> separate out (phase separation). I prefer to buy the ethanol type over
> the non-ethanol because I believe the ethanol burns very clean and will
> remove any water that does happen to enter the tank.
>
> Ralph Burlingame
> Original FireStar, premium ethanol gas
Cavuontop(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Interesting. My understanding is that there are only two oxygenating
> agents. Alcohol and MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) I was under the
> impression that MTBE is not a problem. What do you know that I don't?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CHRISTOPHER DAVIS" <cdavis2(at)capecod.net> |
Hi John and all,speaking of gross weights and other specs,I have never seen
anything in any kolb ads or the builders manual stating design weights, max
G loadings , service ceiling etc., where can I find these? thanks Chris,
"trying to install GPL electric start " Davis
-----Original Message-----
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Date: Thursday, October 01, 1998 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Mark II
>
>Mark,
> The problem with using the Mark II for trainning is it's gross weight,
750.
>The Mark III can be a legal trainner, and has a much higher gross weight,
1,000 (
>I think). I have a friend that has used both for trainning and with the
exception
>of the gross weight, he perferred the Mark II.
>John Jung
>
>Mark Gesler wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi all... I am looking for pix and info on Kolb Mark II ultralight
>> trainers..
>> Were they only built a few years and were there any problems I should
>> know about? Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dama riddick <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
Kolb folks, I may have joined the list a little to late to hear what the
"Sea Foam" process/stuff is all about. Could anyone enlighten me with a
summary of what it is. I have friend who owns a Firestar with a 503 on it
with 70 hours TT and has yet to de-carbonize. Thank You.
Kip Laurie dama(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Swihart" <mswihart(at)tcsn.net> |
| Subject: | oxygenated fuels |
So far I haven't come across problems using oxgenated gasoline in my 2
strokes motors, wether its a briggs, Johnson, or running a rotax and a
cuyana. The gas that I buy here seems to go bad a lot quicker now than
it did years ago.
-Mark Swihart-
TwinStar
(I know, get back into lurk mode!! :))
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Jung
> Sent: Friday, October 02, 1998 1:21 AM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: oxygenated fuels
>
>
>
> Group,
> I don't know how many have to deal with these fuels, but I believe
> that it is an important subject that has not been discussed in the last
> year. In the Milwaukee area, we drive miles to buy gas from stations
> that can still sell unoxgenated (old time) gas for our 2 cycles. It is
> my understanding that the ethonol fuels can have problems with some 2
> cycle oils and the temperatures run hotter. A few people use the MTBE
> gas and while I don't know of any documented problems, I'll let others
> do the testing. Do we have any "experts" on the list in this area, or
> has anyone found a source for good information?
> John Jung
> Firestar II N6163J
> SE Wisconsin
>
> Ralph H Burlingame wrote:
> >
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > The "oxygenated" gasoline with 7% ethanol is all they sell here in
> > Minnesota except for very few stations that might have the non-ethanol
> > type. We have not noticed any problems using it unless a lot of water
> > gets into the fuel system which will cause the fuel/lubrication to
> > separate out (phase separation). I prefer to buy the ethanol type over
> > the non-ethanol because I believe the ethanol burns very clean and will
> > remove any water that does happen to enter the tank.
> >
> > Ralph Burlingame
> > Original FireStar, premium ethanol gas
>
> Cavuontop(at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Interesting. My understanding is that there are only two oxygenating
> > agents. Alcohol and MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) I was under the
> > impression that MTBE is not a problem. What do you know that I don't?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pierskalla, Scott (MN10)" <scott.pierskalla(at)HBC.honeywell.com> |
"Pierskalla, Scott (MN10)" ,
dwegner(at)isd.net
| Subject: | RE: 100 LL and Rotax 2/Strokes |
Guys,
I just wanted to throw in a comment here. For those of you who are
not aware, gasoline with ethanol will get you lower gas mileage than
gasoline without ethanol. This is because the ethanol has roughly half of
the energy content that gasoline does. It's not a large difference but it
is there. So if you use gas with ethanol (10%) you will get about 95% of
your regular mileage (90% from gas and 1/2 x 10% ethanol = 95%). Some
people claim that their mileage has dropped more than 5% with ethanol.
That's all. Scott Pierskalla
-----Original Message-----
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com [mailto:ul15rhb(at)juno.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 1998 4:59 PM
Scott.Pierskalla(at)HBC.honeywell.com; dwegner(at)isd.net
Subject: Re: 100 LL and Rotax 2/Strokes
Guys,
The "oxygenated" gasoline with 7% ethanol is all they sell here in
Minnesota except for very few stations that might have the non-ethanol
type. We have not noticed any problems using it unless a lot of water
gets into the fuel system which will cause the fuel/lubrication to
separate out (phase separation). I prefer to buy the ethanol type over
the non-ethanol because I believe the ethanol burns very clean and will
remove any water that does happen to enter the tank.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, premium ethanol gas
writes:
>
>
>Here in New England we have oxygenated gass also. Dennis Souder, what
>do you guys do in PA? Does stabilizer help with this? Or octane
>booster?
>
>>>> William Weber 10/01 12:40 PM >>>
>
>Here is Southern California (and elsewhere, I'm sure), oxygenated
>gasoline is mandated during the winter. The stuff they put in can be any
of
>several types of alcohol including methanol or it can be other
chemicals.
>Bottom line, they are all BAD for our 2-strokes. The only problems I
have had
>was using mo-gas during the winter. If I didn't use it all within 2-3
>weeks I would have very difficult starting and elevated EGT. From
October 1
>thru about Feb. 15 I run strictly 100 LL. Never had a problem. Runs a
bit
>cooler as someone mentioned and I do see some lead buildup on the plugs.
I
>clean the plugs every 12 hours and replace at 25 hours anyway, so that
has
>never been an issue. It may be just a rumor, but I had heard that LEAF
>recommends running 100LL exclusively if you are in an area where alcohol
and >other additives are allowed to be added to mo-gas. Also av-gas has
stuff that >keeps it fresh much longer than mo-gas. One last thing. If
you fly infrequently >you could try using one of the octane boosters or
gasoline preservatives you >find at auto parts stores.
>
>--
>***********************************************
>* Bill Weber * Keep *
>* Voiceboard Corp * the shiny *
>* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
>***********************************************
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon P. Croke" <joncroke(at)CompuServe.COM> |
John B,
You may remember me from many months ago, when I stopped by to see you
working on your plane (while taking a lesson from Bill that day!)
Congratulations on being ready to take her up.... you'll never forget your
first solo flight.... not many things in life will compare! And the rest
of the following flights get better. Just my impression as its still new
and exciting for me everytime I go up.
I think a lot of us here on this list would be very interested in hearing
about your experiences with the 2SI engine... I heard rumors of just
terrible things you've gone thru just getting that thing to run properly!!
And I know you have a lot of prettty seasoned Kolb builders at your
disposal there..... I WANT all the gory details.... not to discredit the
manufacturer, but because I want to know the facts of your experience......
NO more rumors! ALso, as a regular reader of Ultralight Flying, there's
that columnist Jack Mc___, who is a great writer.... but he plugs 2SI
continually and is also a part owner of the company, I believe. Well, he
leaves you with the impression that all is just rosy with the 2SI
products........ is that accurate??
Look forward to flying with you someday... we're not too far apart... I
think you know John Jung.... he took me on my 1st X-country !
No more lurking... get ready to type!
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferguson F-II |
>who
>>knowingly buys a "rip off" design, is also part of the problem.
>>John Jung
>>Firestar II N6163J 72 hrs
>>SE Wisconsin
>>
>>
>
>
>Another way to look at this is that imitation is the highest from of
>flattery
>
We arn't talking imitation here this is called rip off. Big difference.
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: | "Jon P. Croke" <joncroke(at)CompuServe.COM> |
| Subject: | Delcom 960 and Headsets |
Hi,
Checked the archives and couldnt find what I needed, so here goes:
I bought the Delcom 960 handheld radio and figured Id use it with my
Flightcom GA headset. I purchased the patchcord that is supposed to
connect these two.... well receive works great!...... but when I transmit I
have to YELL just to get the faintest audio into this thing..... I tried a
second patch cord, same result. (The headset is fine, I use it for Cessna
training) Im guessing there is an impedance mismatch between the mike and
Delcom circuitry..
Is anyone out there using the Delcom with a 'standard' headset with good
results?? How do you do it??
Thanks
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "W.B.Whitehead,Jr." <behead(at)linknet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Delcom 960 and Headsets |
>
>Hi,
>
>Checked the archives and couldnt find what I needed, so here goes:
>
>I bought the Delcom 960 handheld radio and figured Id use it with my
>Flightcom GA headset. I purchased the patchcord that is supposed to
>connect these two.... well receive works great!...... but when I transmit I
>have to YELL just to get the faintest audio into this thing..... I tried a
>second patch cord, same result. (The headset is fine, I use it for Cessna
>training) Im guessing there is an impedance mismatch between the mike and
>Delcom circuitry..
>
>Is anyone out there using the Delcom with a 'standard' headset with good
>results?? How do you do it??
>
>Thanks
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>JON,
September 24, 1998 - October 02, 1998
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-ay