Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-ba
October 15, 1998 - October 28, 1998
-Ben 'Seafoam wannabe' Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax quit, why?! |
> It's been said before, but needs repeating every once in a while: IF YOU HAVE
> AN UNEXPLAINED ENGINE FAILURE YOU *MUST* PULL THE EXHAUST MAINFOLD AND INSPECT
> THE RINGS, PISTONS, AND CYLINDERS BEFORE FLIGHT! This is a good idea because
> what you may have had was a seizure. I believe it could have seized at
If you remove your exhaust ports, I recommend using gasket sealer in
addition to the gaskets on teh exhaust ports. This due to my experience
with exhaust manifold air leaks on a properly torqued well maintained
Rotax 447 -- enf to turn my FS into a glider. :-/ !!
I would also somewhat recommend pulling the cylinder heads if you are
really looking for possible evidence of seizure and didn't find cause
of trouble during exh port inspection. If all still looks good, look
for an air leak. I've become a firm believer that if these engines are
misbehaving just a little bit, there is a reason. (i.e. not just goofy
humidity, whatever other convenient reasoning there is to fly anyway.)
-Ben Ransom
...now if i can just live by my own advice
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <joncroke(at)itol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: seafoam (skeptic) |
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>
Date: Friday, October 16, 1998 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: seafoam (skeptic)
>
>
>I put things back together perfectly, so far as I could tell. Used all
>new gaskets, everything torqued properly etc, and retorqued, rechecked
>4 runtime hours after re-assembly.
>
>
>Guess how I'll be decarboning next time!
>
>-Ben 'Seafoam wannabe' Ransom
> http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
>
Ben,
Are you saying that the cause of this failure was, in effect, the
dissassembly of the engine which resulted in the exhaust gasket seal to be
compromised?? Or, in other words, if inspection/decarbonation is all that
is trying to be accomplished, do NOT dissassemble because the possibility of
doing more harm looms??!
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mick Fine" <froghair(at)mailexcite.com> |
| Subject: | Cliff's Mark III Webpage |
I thought everyone might enjoy seeing some of the nice details on Cliff Stripling's
Mk.3 so here it is:
http://members.tripod.com/~froghair/cliffs/
-Enjoy!
Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mick Fine" <froghair(at)mailexcite.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax quit, why?! |
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:20:36 Cavuontop wrote:
>
> ...These are words to live by for those of us who hang our lives on Rotax
>engines....
I thought we were supposed to fly in a manner where we're NOT hanging our lives
on any engine??
-Mick
Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Leaf" <705460(at)ican.net> |
| Subject: | Re: corrosion on aluminum |
Hi Kolb pilots, my first question to the list, be gentle.
I am building a FS2 ,should I be putting any type of corrosion
protection on the aluminum parts before covering?
I have done all the steel parts that I could get at, what about putting
that linseed oil in the sealed tubes , has anybody ever cut open a sealed
tube
after it has been in service for a while.
I am picking up a lot of help from the list !!
thanks, Dave Leaf
seafoam product that will reduce the amount of time it
>>takes doing the procedure. The product is: Seafoam Deep Creep in an
>>aerosol can. The last time I flew, I used this product prior to takeoff
>>by spraying it into the cylinders. I removed both sparkplugs and brought
>>one cylinder to TDC by inserting a plastic oriental chopstick (no
>>significance, it's long enough to work with) into the sparkplug hole. I
>>sprayed enough Deep Creep into the cylinder to fill it up to the top of
>>the hole. I rocked the prop and let it sit for a few minutes. I replaced
>>the plug and repeated the procedure for the other cylinder. I did this
>>out at the field. After a few more minutes, I started it up and ran out
>>the seafoam. It belched out the usual white smoke for about 10 minutes.
>>After it was finished, I took it for a flight. This is something that can
>>be done often and doesn't take a lot of time. By filling the cylinder up
>>after the piston is at TDC, the seafoam has a chance to seep into the
>>rings where it needs to go. This may be the preferred method due to its
>>time-saving capability and the convenience of doing it at the field.
>>
>>Ralph Burlingame
>>Original FireStar, 447 powered
>>
>>
>
>
>What is Seafoam? I know it is a product some of you guys can get at your
>NAPA store that supposedly is a decarbon in a can. What chemical
>compound is it? What active ingredient? If it really does what some listers
>believe, there must be a million and one other uses for it too. Can you by
>the same stuff at K-mart to clean the carbon crap off your oven or barbecue
>grill.Is this stuff some new secret chemical formula that most chemical
>engineers have not caught up with yet? Hardly. What really is it? What
>other products are similar? What effects does it have on various metals?
>If it is safe to soak the top of the piston, what about running it through
>the fuel into the carb? Are there known certified engineering tests to
>verify the results of this stuff or must I simply accept the subjective
>account of results from someone that I have no way of knowing if they are
>merely akin to a water smeller.
>As you can tell I am a skeptic, but I am also ready to learn.
>Answering, doesn't cut for me. Why?
>
>
>Skeptically,
>Eugene Zimmerman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | swultra <swultra(at)primenet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cliff's Mark III Webpage |
Mick Fine wrote:
>
>
> I thought everyone might enjoy seeing some of the nice details on Cliff Stripling's
Mk.3 so here it is:
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~froghair/cliffs/
>
> -Enjoy!
>
> Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
> http://www.mailexcite.com
>
Nice plane clif!!!! hope mine turns out as well thanks for the pics.
Steve Ward building a mark 111......
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayland, William C." <wcw2573(at)eagle.sbeach.navy.mil> |
>
> To continue this line of reasoning, we should require all airline pilots
> to
> do actual engine out landings in their airliners :-)
>
>
No but how about in their simulators. I do dead stick landing in an
F-16 all the time. That is in Falcon 3 on my P.C.
Chris Wayland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "barry youngblood" <barry(at)hcis.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: barry youngblood <barry(at)hcis.net>
Date: Friday, October 16, 1998 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: Teflon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net>
>To: barry(at)hcis.net
>Date: Thursday, October 15, 1998 11:29 PM
>Subject: Teflon
>
>
>>>Now I am going to retreat with Teflon
>>>which I do every 2 years.
>>
>>OK Barry... Now you are going to have to tell everyone about the Teflon
>>treatment.
>>
>OK it is -Micro-TFE Snowmobile Engine Treatment - address is Energy
>Efficient Systems Middletown,CT 06457 The Gateway UL Club in St. Louis
>was sold on it so like Seafoam I decided it could not hurt. Add to fuel
>according to instructions and try to burn most of the tank in one flight.
>You must wait 15-20 hrs on new engines to allow ring seating before use.
>After use the first time, I experienced 200rpm increase at idle which I
>attributed to less friction. Most club members treat a 5 gal tank twice the
>first time and one tank every year there after. Have you tried it Dick C.?
>
>Barry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: seafoam (skeptic) |
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Jon Croke wrote:
> >I put things back together perfectly, so far as I could tell. Used all
> >new gaskets, everything torqued properly etc, and retorqued, rechecked
> >Guess how I'll be decarboning next time!
> >
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Jon Croke wrote:
> Ben,
> Are you saying that the cause of this failure was, in effect, the
> dissassembly of the engine which resulted in the exhaust gasket seal to be
> compromised?? Or, in other words, if inspection/decarbonation is all that
> is trying to be accomplished, do NOT dissassemble because the possibility of
> doing more harm looms??!
> Jon
Preventive maintenance often presents the dilema: "If it ain't broke
don't fix it." So, if there is a less invasive way to accomplish the
maintenance, do it.
There is still value in doing the top-end tear down. I actually will
still do a top end tear-down about every 125 hours. This allows full
inspection and rework of anything necessary. (I still wish I had replaced
the wrist pin needle bearings at my 125hr teardown.) Every ~60 hours
I'll do a seafoam treatment. My other point, which kinda bordered into
the other current thread about "engine quit, why?", is that my limited
experience found the exhaust manifold port to be an easy candidate
for leaks on a well maintained, relatively new engine. All 2-stroke
owners remove the exh manifold to check for ring freedom and evidence
of possible scoring or seizure. For even this minor maintenance step
I'd recommend using gasket sealer, as I believe my 447 had minor exhaust
port leaks since new. I have not heard of anyone else recommending gasket
sealer here and am a little surprised about that.
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax quit, why?! |
>I thought we were supposed to fly in a manner where we're NOT hanging our
lives on any engine??
>
>-Mick
>
>
Only if you are some kind of wussy boy. ;)
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: | "merle hargis" <merlepilar(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
About all I noticed was how nice and quite it was and believe I had a
better glide ratio. With that much grass I didn't really try to sand on a
spot.
Merle from Orlando
----------
> From: Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Out!
> Date: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 3:08 PM
>
>
> What differences did you notice between an at idle simulated engine out
and
> actual engine off.
>
> Jerry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
It's always amazing to me how history repeats itself. Back in 1977 when I was
riding motorcycles I used a product called Microlon. The Middletown,CT address
jogged my memory. I think this is the same product??? I used it in the crankcase
but could have used it in the gas. I could never verifiy that I wasn't
throwing my money away. I used it because I could afford it. Was it worth it?
I don't know but it didn't seem to hurt so what the ___.
Flying RC and racing pylon I know you can get the same RPM effect (increase) by
spraying silicon directly into the carburators of a running engine. Racing rules
preclude this but it lasts for about a tank full of full and then you are
back to normal. Sounds like Rogain doesn't it? As long as you use it your hair
will stay in. Stop using it and all your hair falls out just as if you never
used it. Yes, I'm a chrome dome and was in the original Yale- New Haven Hospital
study group. I was asked to "drop out" because my results were "medically
insignificant". Talk about demoralizing!! The last time I was kicked out
of something was Cub Scouts. I was caught playing Doctor with Bobby Ogiltree's
mother. They're so picky about the behavior of troop fathers. Gee Whiz!
So I guess the moral is, if you can afford it, use it and if you keep using it
it may help. BUT who's got the definitive objective data to prove it's worth?
Energy Efficient Systems? The Efficiency may be in taking your money.
>>> "barry youngblood" 10/16 12:48 PM >>>
-----Original Message-----
From: barry youngblood <barry(at)hcis.net>
Date: Friday, October 16, 1998 11:07 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Re: corrosion on aluminum |
Dave and all,
>I am building a FS2 ,should I be putting any type of corrosion
>protection on the aluminum parts before covering?
I did not. I did dip or paint the rivet heads (as suggested) with epoxy
chromate in all the areas I considered "really" important... like the "H"
section, inner steel rib to spar, fuselage spar to cage, drag strut gussets,
and many other connections. Some guys dipped all the rivets in "rustoleum"
or other paint.
I thought about using an epoxy wash (or some other thin wash paint of some
kind) like is suggested by the Zenith company but never did find out what
they used... by that time I was covered and beyond that stage. I figured
that it would be added weight and not recommended anyway by the Kolb company
to do.
>I have done all the steel parts that I could get at, what about putting
>that linseed oil in the sealed tubes , has anybody ever cut open a sealed
>tube after it has been in service for a while.
I made some rivet holes in the steel tubes ... but as few as possible and in
every case I did use epoxy chromate dipped rivets. Obviously, I did not use
the linseed oil treatment... I don't know of anyone with a Kolb who has.
The only hole I made and can remember leaving open is one at the very bottom
of the tail post.
Everytime I wanted to make a little change or add something, I would ask
myself... is this really necessary. Will "whatever I wanted to accomplish"
be worth the weight penalty... Of course, if it had anything to do with the
flight characterists, I would ask Kolb company first. In almost every
converstation, making it as light as possible usually was mentioned. I
tried to do that and came out with a "mid-range" weight plane at 482 lbs.
The high school paint department did a beautiful (but heavier than it could
have been) paint job... three coats of color instead of two.
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: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
You must be a carpenter by trade since you .. "try to sand on a spot."
>>> "merle hargis" 10/16 12:05 PM >>>
About all I noticed was how nice and quite it was and believe I had a
better glide ratio. With that much grass I didn't really try to sand on a
spot.
Merle from Orlando
----------
> From: Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Out!
> Date: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 3:08 PM
>
>
> What differences did you notice between an at idle simulated engine out
and
> actual engine off.
>
> Jerry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: seafoam (skeptic) |
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Todd Thompson wrote:
>s not enough room to screw in the fourth bolt hole on each cylinder.
>Not liking this, I use a short bolt and moving a 1/8 turn at a time
>added the fourth bolt. I was wondering about the 503 and did you have
>room enough to use all four bolt holes on each
I have a 447 new in 1994. It uses only 2 bolts per exhaust manifold port.
There are tapped holes for 4 bolts in the cylinder port face, but only
2 through holes in each manifold per se. I have thought about drilling
the other 2 thru holes but have gone along with Rotax' idea that 2
is adequate. Please don't anybody tell me that their stock Rotax 447
came with 4 bolted holes per exh manifold (total 8, or even 6 for that
matter). If so I'll rejoin the anti-Rotax group.
Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "merle hargis" <merlepilar(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
I guess I better read what I send and not just check spelling. Of course
you all knew I ment "land" on a spot.
----------
> From: Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com; merlepilar(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Out!
> Date: Friday, October 16, 1998 2:30 PM
>
> You must be a carpenter by trade since you .. "try to sand on a spot."
>
>
> >>> "merle hargis" 10/16 12:05 PM >>>
>
> About all I noticed was how nice and quite it was and believe I had a
> better glide ratio. With that much grass I didn't really try to sand on
a
> spot.
>
> Merle from Orlando
>
> ----------
> > From: Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net>
> > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Out!
> > Date: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 3:08 PM
> >
> >
> > What differences did you notice between an at idle simulated engine out
> and
> > actual engine off.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firefly wheels & CG |
Problem is not on takeoff, it is on landing or taxiing. Yes, even with the
stick back. I'm very close to a balance point that when just the right
circumstances occur over we go.
Jerry
>
> the balance
>> point on the gear is my concern. Understand were nose heavy compared to
>> most. The present gear position seems to make it pretty easy to go on
>its
>> nose. Have to watch power, 3800-4000 RPM will push it over.
>>
>This may be a rather silly question, but you guys are keeping the stick
>pulled back into your belly as far as you can until you get close to flying
>speed, Aren't you?
>Larry
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
How is rate of descent affected - glide distance increase or decrease.
Jerry
>
>Jerry, the actual engine out uses more forward stick control and the
>landings are more gentle if you hit tailwheel first in a full stall.
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original FireStar
>
>
>writes:
>>
>>What differences did you notice between an at idle simulated engine
>>out and
>>actual engine off.
>>
>>Jerry
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----------
>>> Ralph H Burlingame you wrote on the subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine
>>Out!
>>>and I agree with you. On thur.. I practiced a couple engines out. I
>>fly
>>>from a 3300 foot grass strip in Zellwood, fl. so I had a lot of room
>>for
>>>mistakes. I found it to be enjoyable this time. I had done it once
>>before
>>>but that time it was for real and I didn't have time to enjoy the
>>trip.
>>>Practice does help.
>>>
>>>
>>> Date: Thursday, October 08, 1998 11:14 PM
>>>>
>>Burlingame)
>>>>
>>>> Gentlemen,
>>>>
>>>> I think it's a very wise idea to practice those engine-off
>>landings. Of
>>>> course GA pilots don't practice it because the risks are greater,
>>but
>>>> what do you think usually happens to all GA pilots when it quits?
>>They
>>>> panic, and then it's over. If they were to practice, starting on a
>>very
>>>> long runway and working their way down to a 2500 foot strip,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax quit, why?! |
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
>
>>I thought we were supposed to fly in a manner where we're NOT hanging
>our
>lives on any engine??
>>
>>-Mick
>>
>>
> Only if you are some kind of wussy boy. ;)
>
>
>
> Woody
Hey -don't be winkin' at me like that!
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Wilde" <jeffwilde(at)mpinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: new seafoam method |
I got out my engineering books and there is no mention of hydralic lock. Is
this principle akin to hydraulic lock? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net>
Date: Thursday, October 15, 1998 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: new seafoam method
>
>Be ware if you fill a cylinder with fluid and put the plug back in then
>rotate the prop, you can damage the connecting rod (bend it). You form
>what is referred to as a hydralic lock, you can't compress a liquid so
>something has to give, usually the rod bends. Be careful....
>Jerry
>
>>
>>Guys (and ladies if there are any),
> I
>>snip... I sprayed enough Deep Creep into the cylinder to fill it up to the
>top
>>of the hole. I rocked the prop and let it sit for a few minutes. I
replaced
>>the plug and repeated the procedure for the other cylinder. I did this
>>out at the field. After a few more minutes, I started it up and ran out
>>the seafoam. It belched out ....
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rotax quit, why?! |
<< On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:20:36 Cavuontop wrote:
>
> ...These are words to live by for those of us who hang our lives on Rotax
>engines....
I thought we were supposed to fly in a manner where we're NOT hanging our
lives on any engine??
-Mick
>>
I agree 101%.......the ole glider pilot. (always lookin for landin space
GeoR38)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: seafoam (skeptic) |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Gene, these are all very good questions and I don't have the answers. I
have, along with many others now, seen the results of this seafoam
treatment. It does work and I will be using it as long as I fly
2-strokes, and often. I've had one engine seizure in twelve years due to
stuck rings and that's one too many. Over the years I've looked for
something that would prevent the carbon buildup in the first place. This
may be the answer to this problem. I was very skeptical too, but now
after using it for about a year and flying with it, I have absolutely no
hesitation with putting it into my cylinders and feeling safe about it.
Your choice.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
>What is Seafoam? I know it is a product some of you guys can get at
>your NAPA store that supposedly is a decarbon in a can. What chemical
>compound is it? What active ingredient? If it really does what some
>listers believe, there must be a million and one other uses for it too.
Can
>you by the same stuff at K-mart to clean the carbon crap off your oven
or
>barbecue grill.Is this stuff some new secret chemical formula that most
>chemical engineers have not caught up with yet? Hardly. What really is
it?
>What other products are similar? What effects does it have on various
>metals? If it is safe to soak the top of the piston, what about running
it
>through the fuel into the carb? Are there known certified engineering
tests to
>
>verify the results of this stuff or must I simply accept the
>subjective account of results from someone that I have no way of knowing
if >they are merely akin to a water smeller.
>As you can tell I am a skeptic, but I am also ready to learn.
>Answering, doesn't cut for me. Why?
>
>
>Skeptically,
>Eugene Zimmerman
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: new seafoam method |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Jerry, you are right and what I meant to say is to add the Deep Creep
seafoam to both cylinders one at a time and then put the plugs back in.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
>Be ware if you fill a cylinder with fluid and put the plug back in
>then rotate the prop, you can damage the connecting rod (bend it). You
>form what is referred to as a hydralic lock, you can't compress a
liquid
>sosomething has to give, usually the rod bends. Be careful....
>Jerry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
<< This is VERY bad news to a Kolber wannabe like me or anyone else who lives
>in mountainous, forested, remote areas. Does this mean that the only sail
I
>should ever use will be attached to a boat? That if I want to fly in these
>areas I should have 5000' AGL? There's GOTTA be something reliable
>(assuming proper maintenance) for Kolbs.
>
>Let's have it: is the 503 the most reliable?
>
>David Bruner
David,
My reply was meant to be a very safe "rule of thumb".
I know there are folks flying Kolbs, Quicks and assorted other craft around
where it is heavily forested, rocky, etc. and the only other solution that I
know of is get a chute, follow a strict preflight plan, keep up the
maintenance of your engine and airframe.
I've had to fly over large forests and rivers in older Quicksilvers and it
always increases the "pucker factor" but this is also part of the fun!
Don't let the horror stories scare you from the fun!
Geoff Thistlethwaite >>
I just flew 37 miles into a headwind that was very hard to detect at 6PM and
found myself at risk of flying in the dark..........again.........and I hate
it!!.....but it happened....and I suitably hate myself for it . As a result,
I found myself flying at 500 ft to take advantage of the lower speed gradient
to get to my second GPS closer landing field. This put me at risk of an
engine out...(which I have never had since firing up "By George" in 1992). But
I was VERY uncomfortable flying over houses and areas that offered no haven
for short spells on my mission to put this baby ....DOWN as quick as possible
in the twilight!!......point of story.....everything worked out fine due to
reliability of the 447, but I KNOW that I goofed up by getting caught in the
headwind with still 9 more miles to safe haven!!.......GeoR38 (glad to be
alive even though nothing happened)........but it was a GREAT experience!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)csrlink.net> |
Hi group,
I put another hour on the FSII this evening, Pa. fall foliage is almost
at
it`s peak I had a wonderfull flight.
I have two guestions for the group. First, I have two fuel tanks on board
and I have noticed since my first or second flight, that they do not flow
out at the same rate. When I land I always have about 3/4 Gal. more fuel in
the front tank then in the rear tank.
I have checked the vents in the fuel caps both are open and seem close
to
the same pressuer when I blow into them, I have switched caps, and made the
fuel lines exactly the same length to the tee fitting. None of these things
helped.
I would like to know if I ever get low on fuel, will one fuel pick-up be
sucking air while I still have 3/4 Gal.(not counting the unusable fuel that
the pick-up can`t reach) in my front tank?
Second guestion, I chose to land with about a four mph tail wind, instead
of into the setting sun (full Lexon encloser, visibily is really poor into
the sun).
How much tail wind is safe to land in ? Or are there too many variables
such as approach speed (60mph. for this once bitten pilot) runway length,
etc. to make this call.
I`m going to a wedding tomorrow so it will be a day or two before I am
back. My thanks in advance.
Lanny Fetterman FSII
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 10/16/98 1:50:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
lcottrel(at)kfalls.net writes:
Does anyone out there have a good design for a heater that fits on the
muffler? Its really starting to get cold here in the Northwest.
Larry >>
There is a nice heater made by a fellow in Minnesota that captures warm air
from the fan / cylinder head outlets on rotax fan cooled engines. I'll hunt
up the name & address. I use one on my plane with the 503 and it works well.
Cost is around $150
Pete Krotje
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: seafoam (skeptic) |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Ben, you sure go to a lot of trouble to make sure your Rotax is reliable.
DId you see evidence of the exhaust leak before disassembly? I would
think that a leak around the gasket would spray oil onto the side of the
crankcase. I had a very slight leak under the sparkplug once that leaked
out oil around the fins. This didn't affect the engine performance that I
could detect, because after I had it fixed, the engine ran the same.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
> Problem was an air leak at the PTO exhaust manifold, in spite of what I
think >were good methods in the overhall. (When I finally discovered the
source of the
>air leak I also found that the port facing on the cylinder was not
>milled flat -- a dip allowed leakage even at proper manifold torque!)
>
>-Ben 'Seafoam wannabe' Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Jerry, the L/D is increased and the descent rate is decreased, without
the engine idling, but I don't know exactly how much. There is more prop
drag when the engine is idling than when it's stopped.
Ralph
writes:
>
>How is rate of descent affected - glide distance increase or decrease.
>
>Jerry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: full stall landing |
<< From: Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: full stall landing
> Date: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 12:05 PM
flat, 3rd, 4th, and 5th flaps down. This gives me a great deal more peace
of
> mind since I now have some redundancy for pitch control. Did you ever
think
> about what if you lost elevator control for some reason? Real scary
> thought for me.
>
> Eugene Z.
>>
This is exactly why I put an elevator trim tab on my Firestar....so that I can
still land with the throttle if I lose the elevator................GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: corrosion on aluminum |
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>
>...Obviously, I did not use
>the linseed oil treatment... I don't know of anyone with a Kolb who
>has. ...
My Flyer has 'tube-oil' (boiled linseed oil) in all the closed fuselage
tubes. At least that's what I assume since I didn't build it and have
never talked to the guy who did. You can see the 'seal rivets' installed
at the highest point of each tube. They look like a standard pop rivet
head except the shank breaks-off level with the head and remains in the
hole.
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dboll" <dboll(at)ndak.net> |
Hi Ed
It was nice meeting you at Cooperstate, I will call you when we get to Arizona
in Nov.
Don
----------
>
>
> Is anyone going to Copperstate?
>
> Ed Kiger
> edkiger(at)mwaz.com
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGrooms511(at)aol.com |
Larry;
Buy some fiberglass rope from K Mart that is sold as an airtight wood
stove gap seal. Get the thickest size they sell. It comes with a high temp
glue.
Cut a piece of .16 aluminum sheet, large enough to go around your muffler
with a half inch air gap, and a one inch overlap.( read on; you will
understand what I mean)
Wrap the entire length of your muffler with the aluminum. Use the rope as a
seal
on both ends, thus holding the aluminum off of the muffler by 1/2 inch,
creating the air gap. You can glue the rope to the aluminum, and use a large
radiator type strap clamp on the outside of the piece of aluminum to hold it
in place on the muffler.
The front of the muffler (rope) gap seal should only go around 3/4 of the
muffler. The hole left by the rope not going completely around the muffler
should be on the outside of the muffler. This hole will be the air inlet.
The back of the muffler should have a complete circle of rope gap seal thus
sealing in the heated air, and forcing it out the hole you will drill.
Rivet the aluminum along it's length, say every two inches.
Drill a 2 inch hole on the inside rear of the piece of aluminum, and rivet a 1
15/16"
piece of thin wall pipe (about two inches long )in the hole.
Connect a flexible 2" hose to the pipe, and run it into your cabin.
This heater is very light weight, and requires no fan, as it uses ram air.
Works great. You might want to keep a CO detector on board when using it.
I believe that is required by the FAR'S. You can get one of the small card
models for a couple of bucks.
Fly warm, and fly all winter long!
Walt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)megalink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: corrosion on aluminum |
To Dave Leaf:
I didn't treat the aluminum in any way, however I did use Stits Tube Seal
Oil in every steel tube that I drilled into to avoid rust problems that are
not uncommon in damp New England weather. (We had 10.5" of rain in 2 days
just last week) It probably wouldn't have hurt to treat all the tubing but
most of them are largely sealed to weather unless you drill them. It is not
all that expensive or time consuming for the additional protection and it
only adds a few ounces IMHO
Frank Hodson, Oxford ME / FSII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Weber <bweber2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: seafoam (skeptic) |
Ben Ransom wrote:
>>
> I have a 447 new in 1994. It uses only 2 bolts per exhaust manifold port.
>
> There are tapped holes for 4 bolts in the cylinder port face, but only
> 2 through holes in each manifold per se. I have thought about drilling
> the other 2 thru holes but have gone along with Rotax' idea that 2
> is adequate. Please don't anybody tell me that their stock Rotax 447
> came with 4 bolted holes per exh manifold (total 8, or even 6 for that
> matter). If so I'll rejoin the anti-Rotax group.
>
The other two holes are for placing the manifold in the "down" position,
i.e you can have the outlet pointing slightly up (as in the Kolb) or
pointing slightly down for other planes where the muffler is mounted
below the engine.
--
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* Voiceboard Corp * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "barry youngblood" <barry(at)hcis.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)csrlink.net>
Date: Friday, October 16, 1998 8:17 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: fuel tanks
>
>
> Hi group,
> I put another hour on the FSII this evening, Pa. fall foliage is almost at
>it`s peak I had a wonderfull flight.
> I have two guestions for the group. First, I have two fuel tanks on board
>and I have noticed since my first or second flight, that they do not flow
>out at the same rate. When I land I always have about 3/4 Gal. more fuel
I have noticed this on my FSII. It is because of the downward angle of the
fuselage in flight. I also wondered about emptying the rear tank first
untill I ran out of fuel in 1996. Engine just went silent and landed safely
in harvested corn field, but both tanks were completly empty.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Lanny Fetterman wrote:
snip...
>How much tail wind is safe to land in ?
snip....
Lanny,
I land in tailwinds of up to 15 mph on a 500 ft runway. The runway
length is more of a problem than the tailwind. Two problems, that I can
think of, associated with downwind landings are: 1) flying against
traffic 2) higer risk because of increased touch down ground speed.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: new seafoam method |
That's what happens when you trying late at night and forget to run the
spell checker. Yes you right I mean hydraulic lock. It's often shows up
in vehicles when the owners drive them through deep water. They stop dead
in there tracks. They come back later trying to start it thinking they got
the engine wet to find it will not start or some cases even turn over.
Bye,
Jerry
>
>I got out my engineering books and there is no mention of hydralic lock. Is
>this principle akin to hydraulic lock? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net>
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Date: Thursday, October 15, 1998 5:58 PM
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: new seafoam method
>
>
>>
>>Be ware if you fill a cylinder with fluid and put the plug back in then
>>rotate the prop, you can damage the connecting rod (bend it). You form
>>what is referred to as a hydralic lock, you can't compress a liquid so
>>something has to give, usually the rod bends. Be careful....
>>Jerry
>>
>>>
>>>Guys (and ladies if there are any),
>> I
>>>snip... I sprayed enough Deep Creep into the cylinder to fill it up to the
>>top
>>>of the hole. I rocked the prop and let it sit for a few minutes. I
>replaced
>>>the plug and repeated the procedure for the other cylinder. I did this
>>>out at the field. After a few more minutes, I started it up and ran out
>>>the seafoam. It belched out ....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
John,
Didn't you mean to say a 5 mph tailwind instead of 15 mph on a 500'
strip? Without brakes, I landed at 700' strip with a 5 mph tailwind to
avoid obstructions at the opposite end. I came within 75' of slamming
into a tree. There were 5 UL pilots witnessing this. They call me
"Downwind Charlie" now.
Ralph
>
>Lanny Fetterman wrote:
>snip...
>>How much tail wind is safe to land in ?
>snip....
>
>Lanny,
> I land in tailwinds of up to 15 mph on a 500 ft runway. The runway
>length is more of a problem than the tailwind. Two problems, that I
>can
>think of, associated with downwind landings are: 1) flying against
>traffic 2) higer risk because of increased touch down ground speed.
>John Jung
>Firestar II N6163J
>SE Wisconsin
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
> I would like to know if I ever get low on fuel, will one fuel pick-up
be
>sucking air while I still have 3/4 Gal.(not counting the unusable fuel that
>the pick-up can`t reach) in my front tank?
>
If your fuel tanks are such that one tank can get empty (and have
it's pickup in to the air) while the other one has 3/4 gallon in it, things
are gonna get real quiet...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
This is a great way to go. LOTS of heat! However, preflight more
carefully than usual, there are a lot of vibration-prone parts in it to go
through your prop if it starts to vibration crack!
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>Larry;
> Buy some fiberglass rope from K Mart that is sold as an airtight wood
>stove gap seal. Get the thickest size they sell. It comes with a high temp
>glue.
> Cut a piece of .16 aluminum sheet, large enough to go around your muffler
>with a half inch air gap, and a one inch overlap.( read on; you will
>understand what I mean)
>Wrap the entire length of your muffler with the aluminum. Use the rope as a
>seal
>on both ends, thus holding the aluminum off of the muffler by 1/2 inch,
>creating the air gap. You can glue the rope to the aluminum, and use a large
>radiator type strap clamp on the outside of the piece of aluminum to hold it
>in place on the muffler.
>The front of the muffler (rope) gap seal should only go around 3/4 of the
>muffler. The hole left by the rope not going completely around the muffler
>should be on the outside of the muffler. This hole will be the air inlet.
>The back of the muffler should have a complete circle of rope gap seal thus
>sealing in the heated air, and forcing it out the hole you will drill.
>Rivet the aluminum along it's length, say every two inches.
>Drill a 2 inch hole on the inside rear of the piece of aluminum, and rivet a 1
>15/16"
>piece of thin wall pipe (about two inches long )in the hole.
>Connect a flexible 2" hose to the pipe, and run it into your cabin.
>This heater is very light weight, and requires no fan, as it uses ram air.
>Works great. You might want to keep a CO detector on board when using it.
>I believe that is required by the FAR'S. You can get one of the small card
>models for a couple of bucks.
>Fly warm, and fly all winter long!
>Walt
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Ralph,
Yes, I ment 15 mph, but I use brakes. And I still can't get into the
strip the other way because of the Hanger and very tall trees.
John Jung
>
>Ralph H Burlingame wrote:
>
>
> John,
>
> Didn't you mean to say a 5 mph tailwind instead of 15 mph on a 500'
> strip? Without brakes, I landed at 700' strip with a 5 mph tailwind to
> avoid obstructions at the opposite end. I came within 75' of slamming
> into a tree. There were 5 UL pilots witnessing this. They call me
> "Downwind Charlie" now.
>
> Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
| Subject: | Matronics Web & FTP Sever Down... |
Due to upgrades and other problems... www.matronics.com and ftp.matronics.com
are currently not available. Email traffic is currently being handled
normally.
I will post an update when the WWW and FTP server is back online. No ETA
at this time.
Sorry about the prolonged outage. It was only suppose to last 10 minutes...
Matt Dralle
RV, Zenith, and 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: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
John, I would think landing in tailwind of any significance, at that
short 500' strip, would cause a nose-over condition when the brakes are
applied and the wind trying to push it over. If you had to abort your
landing, those trees sure would come up fast and it wouldn't want to
climb like it should. I can see why you would want to choose a calm day
to fly. I certainly don't envy you guys that have these kind of
restrictions to fly under. The closest airport is 20 miles away and I
would either have to trailer it that distance or find a mini-storage
garage that would be long enough and close enough to that airport.
Another option worth considering is storing the plane in an enclosed
trailer at the airport. How many
of you guys do this? The glider pilots store their ships in these
trailers and it seems like a very convenient way of using the facilities
and keeping the hanger costs down. In an earlier post by Dennis Souder,
the enclosed trailer would have to be well ventilated, or the
condensation inside would corrode the plane over time.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
>
>Ralph,
>Yes, I ment 15 mph, but I use brakes. And I still can't get into
>the strip the other way because of the Hanger and very tall trees.
>John Jung
>
>>
>>Ralph H Burlingame wrote:
>>
>> John,
>>
>> Didn't you mean to say a 5 mph tailwind instead of 15 mph on a 500'
>> strip? Without brakes, I landed at 700' strip with a 5 mph tailwind
>>to avoid obstructions at the opposite end. I came within 75' of
>>slamming into a tree. There were 5 UL pilots witnessing this. They call
me
>>"Downwind Charlie" now.
>>
>> Ralph
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Change of subject topic |
TOPIC - Use of Message Subject Field
Let's help each other. If you reply to an existing message and change the
topic, please edit the message subject field to reflect the new topic.
Sure makes it a lot easier to find things later when searching for it.
Thanks to all of you,
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dirk4315(at)aol.com |
HI Bruce, I have a 912 and I am using Castrol Syntec Blend 20W-50 a part
synthetic mortor oil. The 912 now has 75 hours on it.
Dirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry & Karen Cottrel" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
----------
> From: Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: launch pads
> Date: Sunday, October 18, 1998 7:09 AM
>
> Another option worth considering is storing the plane in an enclosed
> trailer at the airport. How many
> of you guys do this? The glider pilots store their ships in these
> trailers and it seems like a very convenient way of using the facilities
> and keeping the hanger costs down. In an earlier post by Dennis Souder,
> the enclosed trailer would have to be well ventilated, or the
> condensation inside would corrode the plane over time.
I have used a fully enclosed trailer to store my FS2 in over the winter and
summer. I also have no ventilation built into it. ( dust is a factor) I
kept it tipped up on the tongue end so the snow would run off and never
found condensation to be a problem or even present. I had expected it to be
and had planned to foam it inside, but could never make contact with the
flake that does that here. I assumed that what ever condensation there was
ran to the front, and therefore off the plane. I will be keeping a close
watch this winter to make sure that I am correct.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Waligroski, Greg" <gwaligro(at)ball.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Airborne in Colorado |
Well after much waiting, learning, listening to the "list" retrieving my
bird from North Carolina (finally) and some training my Kolb got airborne in
Colorado today. Flies great!!!! I am impressed with the performance from
the 377 at 5000 feet, climbs strong and maintains altitude with 4250 on the
tach. Have to shut the power all the way down to return to earth. Much
more spritely handling and easier to fly than the T-Bird I trained in.
(Although there's not much drag to work the approach with that I was used to
in the T-Bird.) With the Rocky Mountain front range for a backdrop and
perfect weather it was a terrific day to go solo. I now know first hand
what you all have been talking about....
And with a day as grand as this, the thank you list:
Thanks to everyone on the list for all the great info, I have used it.
Thanks to my instructor Barney Fletcher, good teacher and good guy.
Thanks to Bruce Harrison for building the nicely done airframe, it flies
straight and true.
Thanks to the Kolb company for such a fine flying design
And special thanks to the "BIG" guy for letting me have this day!
Cheers all........
________________________________________________________________________________
I'll have to put in my 2 cents in support of John Jung. I also have only
one way in and out of 500 feet of grass and have managed safe landings
with 10 mph tail winds so far.
Adam Violett
Original Firestar w/377
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
To all,
>> Another option worth considering is storing the plane in an enclosed
>> trailer at the airport.
You have to check with the airport authority to see if they will allow
trailers to be kept on the airport. Some do... some don't... Kind of
depends on their rules and/or whims.
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: | Gary Thacker <gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us> |
| Subject: | 503 dc uneven cht's |
Yesterday while flyin I found that my cht's weren't even close. They ran
about 70 degs with the front cylinder runnin hotter than the back
around 270 or so. No matter what I did with the power setting the
difference was the same. Is this a symptem of the carb bein out of
adjustment? The front cylinder seemed to be fine as to normal operating
temps but the rear was as much as 100 different. Most of the time it
ran 70 degs. This is on a 503 with duel carbs. I just got the plane this
spring and haven't touched it as far as carbs and prop pitch. I am findin
out that the cooler weather here is making a big difference in my power
settings. I am really throttled back and have to watch my EGT closely.
My guess is the needle in the cooler cylinder is to rich and needs to be
dropped a notch. Am I on the right track? This is the first time I have
noticed a problem with the cht. I guess the air temp was in the low 60's.
Gary
Souderton,Pa.
gthacker(at)wsd.k12.pa.us (work only)
____F i r e S t a r____
___(+)___
(_)
\ /
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | john hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com wrote:
>
> A spark advance of one degree over the full RPM range is meaningless.
> Anybody that ever used a timing light on a car engine will testify to that.
> The Rotax 912 spec shows a spark advance from 6-26 degrees over the full
> RPM range.
>
Howdy Gang:
If I remember correctly, the 912 starts at 6 deg and then goes to 26 degs after
startup. I'll have to look in the Shop Manual to find out for sure.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rv8(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 503 dc uneven cht's |
>Yesterday while flyin I found that my cht's weren't even close. They ran
>about 70 degs with the front cylinder runnin hotter than the back
Hi Gary,
I'm obviously no Rotax expert, but I think the first thing I would do is
swap the CHT probes between cylinders. This will prove whether there is
really a temp problem or if it's just an indicated error (ie- bad probe,
connection, gauge). If it's really a temp problem, I'd take it as a big
neon warning sign and consult the Rotax gurus before further flight.
Another thought would be to check your throttle linkage and make sure that
each carb is opening the same amount for any given throttle setting.
BTW- as I understand it, the mixture has little to do with the CHT's, and
primarily affects the EGT's only. CHT is a measure of the load that the
engine is under, and the power it's having to generate. In cooler weather,
you might have to lower the needles a notch as you mentioned, but this
should be required of both carbs, not just one.
Good luck,
Rusty (stuck in Cleveland for 3 more weeks) Duffy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Swiderski <swidersk(at)digital.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Enclosed Trailers |
I'm getting ready to build another enclosed trailer. My previous one didn't
have any ventilation. I never noticed condensation, or encountered corrosion
problems. But I can't say I went out and looked at it when condensation
conditions were present. I live in FL. Anyone else have condensation problems?
Has anyone come up with a simple way to load a Kolb by yourself? Building
a
trailer that tilts up or squats down is a pain. What's the simplest solution out
there? I trailer my plane every time I fly so quick, & easy is a necessity.
-- Richard Swiderski
Larry & Karen Cottrel wrote:
>
> ----------
> > From: Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
> > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Kolb-List: launch pads
> > Date: Sunday, October 18, 1998 7:09 AM
> >
>
> > Another option worth considering is storing the plane in an enclosed
> > trailer at the airport. How many
> > of you guys do this? The glider pilots store their ships in these
> > trailers and it seems like a very convenient way of using the facilities
> > and keeping the hanger costs down. In an earlier post by Dennis Souder,
> > the enclosed trailer would have to be well ventilated, or the
> > condensation inside would corrode the plane over time.
>
> I have used a fully enclosed trailer to store my FS2 in over the winter and
> summer. I also have no ventilation built into it. ( dust is a factor) I
> kept it tipped up on the tongue end so the snow would run off and never
> found condensation to be a problem or even present. I had expected it to be
> and had planned to foam it inside, but could never make contact with the
> flake that does that here. I assumed that what ever condensation there was
> ran to the front, and therefore off the plane. I will be keeping a close
> watch this winter to make sure that I am correct.
> Larry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Airborne in Colorado |
Greg,
Congratulations on the Firestar first flight. And with the Rockies
in your view, too. Sounds great! Keep us posted about flying in
Colorado. It's a beautiful state, and someday I plan to bring my
Firestar their for a flying vacation.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Ralph H Burlingame wrote:
> John, I would think landing in tailwind of any significance, at that
> short 500' strip, would cause a nose-over condition when the brakes are
> applied and the wind trying to push it over. If you had to abort your
> landing, those trees sure would come up fast and it wouldn't want to
> climb like it should. I can see why you would want to choose a calm day
> to fly. I certainly don't envy you guys that have these kind of
> restrictions to fly under.
snip..
Ralph,
The brakes haven't been a problem so far. Ocassionally the tail comes
up slightly, and I ease off the brakes. The good thing about the big
trees is that they stop the wind as I get near them. Plus the wind is
always less at ground level. As for go arounds, by time I am within 300
feet of the end of the runway, I'm comitted, because it's too late to go
around. I should point out that while the Kolb Firestars can do this, I
don't recommend it for those with limited experience. I have been flying
the "launch pad", for 9 years, and progressed to Firestars from slower
ultralights. The good part is that I can fly right up to sundown, land,
and put the plane in the hanger in about 2 minutes. If I were folding
down and trailering I, would be feeding mosquitoes for at least 20
minutes. Also, hangering on private 500 foot runway is much less
expensive than at an airport. It's 10 minutes from my house, too.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Guys
Been reading some recent posts about storing Kolbs in trailers. Here's
another option for storing a folded Kolb.
My buddy and I had previously been using a hangar together, but we were forced
to move to another airport and then faced with a storage problem. At first we
had considered renting or purchasing one of those metal shipping containers,
but heard from another fellow that they get awfully hot inside. Then we
checked out some enclosed trailers, but felt the prices were too high for what
we wanted. After pulling out our hair (well, I still have some of mine left)
we decided to purchase one of those COVER IT instant garages. They are now
being advertised in Ultralight Flying--see the Oct 98 issue page 36.
We each purchased a separate garage. Our cost during a special sale was $684
each, delivered. They are 12' wide X 24' long X 8' high. The structure is
made of galvanized metal tubing formed into an arch. The covering is made of
a rip stop reinforced plastic. One end cover has a door or flap opening. One
heavy duty zipper on the left and one on the right. Too open the door/flap,
you open the zippers from ground level to the top, then roll up the flap and
secure it in the open position. The approx. 6' X 6' opening is big enough to
get a folded Kolb thru. We cleared a piece of ground that is located under
some tall pine trees which gives shade. These pines are of the soft variety
so we're hoping that no limbs will fall down and puncture the cover. You can
simply place the structure on the ground, but we used some treated 2 X 4
lumber as a footer. Then, there are several anchors included that are screwed
into the ground to hold it down. Four people installed these two units in one
half day. Then we spent the rest of the day personalizing them. I put some
recycled regular household carpeting in mine to keep the dust down. I also
still cover the cockpit and engine with one of those blue tarps to further
reduce any dust/dirt problems. We've been using them about 6 months now and
we really like them. Apparently they get enough ventilation because so far we
haven't noticed any condensation.
They come in many sizes and a couple of different shapes. Some big enough
that you wouldn't have to fold the wings. You can call COVER-IT for a
brochure and information at: 1-800-932-9344 (No, I don't own stock or work
for them, just want to pass on what I feel makes a good storage arrangement)
Bill Varnes
Original FireStar 377
Audubon, NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Airborne in Colorado |
Good for you Greg. Sounds like a great flight on a wonderful day in a very
nice area. Helps keep us "wannabes" abuilding. Keep it up.
Big Lar.
----------
> From: Waligroski, Greg <gwaligro(at)ball.com>
> To: 'kolb-list(at)matronics.com'
> Subject: Kolb-List: RE: Airborne in Colorado
> Date: Sunday, October 18, 1998 6:07 PM
>
>
>
> Well after much waiting, learning, listening to the "list" retrieving my
> bird from North Carolina (finally) and some training my Kolb got airborne
in
> Colorado today. Flies great!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
<< As for go arounds, by time I am within 300
feet of the end of the runway, I'm comitted, because it's too late to go
around. >>
One innovative Kolber flying from a launch pad scared himself one too many
times one his short one way strip, and did the following to ease the heartburn
upon landing: He planted two heavy posts at the tree-and-powerline-end of his
runway. Then he stretched a heavy nylong rope between the poles about 18"
above the ground. The rope will slide up the landing gear and be held nicely
at the bottom of the cage. If he doesn't get stopped before the ropes ... he
will stop. Nylon is an excellent shock absorber, it will stretch about 100%
of its length before breaking.
Not my idea - haven't tried it myself - just passing along second hand
information - probably shouldn't try this at home.
Dennis (take the rope over the trees) Souder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
Whew! 9.9 hrs and 650 miles of smooth air from Quincy, Fl. to Lucedale,
Ms. and back home for the South Mississippi Fly-In. It was a blast.
The makers of M-Squared and South Mississippi Ultralight have developed
a new fully acrobatic double surface (symmetrical) wing strut braced
ultralight. It flys loops, rolls and outside loops inverted. Really
cool. There was another stunt show by some guy in a low wing fisher who
played the drunk act. He scared me to death with his low maneuvers. He
would even drag his wing on the ground. I watched these guys very
closely, and learned that I will fly just the opposite of them. The
stunt man in the Fisher after questioning him on margin of safety said,
"I am pretty much on the edge". I translated this to, "One of these
days, this thing is going to bite me in the ass."
Jerry: I witnessed another accident. A French made weedchopper lost an
engine in the pattern and nose dived to the ground at about a 60 degree
angle straight into the ground. The aircraft was completely destroyed,
and the pilot walked, well limped away. He never practiced emergency
landings (Engine off or idle). When his engine quit, he panicked and
forgot how to fly. I still think that engine off is important practice,
but I guess idle engine is better than nothing. The cause of the engine
out was due to a broken pulse line.
The trip was beautiful. At one point, we were at 6,800 feet with the
clouds below us. What a sight. It sure was a good feeling to return
from a long trip and enter your home fields traffic pattern.
That's all for now.
Rutledge Fuller
Orig Firestar 377: 75.6 hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Enclosed Trailers |
Richard,
My trailer has a rear door that becomes a ramp. In addition to that it has
a
U-channel that the tail wheel rides in to lift the tail up high enough so that
it can
be pushed in forward, without having to pick up the tail. It is easily done by
one
person. It is a variation of a snowmobile trailer, but I have seen homebuilts that
work the same way. John Bruzan, on this list, built a trailer that is so good,
that
he should be selling plans.
John Jung
Firestar II
SE Wisconsin
Swiderski wrote:
>
> I'm getting ready to build another enclosed trailer. My previous one didn't
> have any ventilation. I never noticed condensation, or encountered corrosion
> problems. But I can't say I went out and looked at it when condensation
> conditions were present. I live in FL. Anyone else have condensation problems?
> Has anyone come up with a simple way to load a Kolb by yourself? Building
a
> trailer that tilts up or squats down is a pain. What's the simplest solution
out
> there? I trailer my plane every time I fly so quick, & easy is a necessity.
>
> -- Richard Swiderski
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 503 dc uneven cht's |
In a message dated 10/18/98 9:51:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gthacker(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us writes:
<<
Yesterday while flyin I found that my cht's weren't even close. They ran
about 70 degs with the front cylinder runnin hotter than the back
around 270 or so >>
bad idea to try swapping the probes around before you draw any serious
conclusions.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Enclosed Trailers |
| From: | herb87(at)juno.com (HERBERT L JOHNSON) |
writes:
>
> I'm getting ready to build another enclosed trailer. My previous
>one didn't
>have any ventilation. I never noticed condensation, or encountered
>corrosion
>problems. But I can't say I went out and looked at it when
>condensation
>conditions were present. I live in FL. Anyone else have condensation
>problems?
> Has anyone come up with a simple way to load a Kolb by yourself?
>Building a
>trailer that tilts up or squats down is a pain. What's the simplest
>solution out
>there? I trailer my plane every time I fly so quick, & easy is a
>>necessity.
>
> -- Richard Swiderski
We have a trailer for our FS2. and had the same problem as you. The
leading edge of the folded wings would drag the door ramp when loading
or unloading it. The door was hinged at the bottom. We made a rail out
of 2" aluminum channel so the tail wheel would be high enough to keep the
wings from touching while
loading. Then made a guide rod to manuver the tail wheel. It was an old
broom handle with a bolt through the end that fit the right side of the
tail wheel . To keep the prop from touching the sides of the trailer
walls while manuvering in or out, we fastened some 4" plastic sewer tile
to the floor on each side to guide the
wheels. Now one person can load and unload it.
Herb Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
At least one time, landing in a tail wind, with my brakes not well adjusted,
I
had to turn turn off the runway into crops to avoid hitting the hanger, or my car
parked next to it. At times like that, a rope would have seemed like a brilliant
idea.
John Jung
DLSOUDER(at)aol.com wrote:
> One innovative Kolber flying from a launch pad scared himself one too many
> times one his short one way strip, and did the following to ease the heartburn
> upon landing: He planted two heavy posts at the tree-and-powerline-end of his
> runway. Then he stretched a heavy nylong rope between the poles about 18"
> above the ground. The rope will slide up the landing gear and be held nicely
> at the bottom of the cage. If he doesn't get stopped before the ropes ... he
> will stop. Nylon is an excellent shock absorber, it will stretch about 100%
> of its length before breaking.
>
> Not my idea - haven't tried it myself - just passing along second hand
> information - probably shouldn't try this at home.
>
> Dennis (take the rope over the trees) Souder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 503 dc uneven cht's |
Gary, I noticed irregular occurances of CHT differential in my 477 and
proceeded to tighten the fan drive belt. When I removed the fan I noticed
that some of the blade tips have been rubbing against the inside of the
shroud. I used a fine file to give them just enough clearance, removed two
washers to get the required tension. I have not tested this adjustment as yet
but am hopeful that it solves the problem. I'll post results when available.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: :Re: Kolb-List:Enclosed Trailers |
Richard Swiderski, I also live in the humid Florida environment and must
unload my plane from my trailer by myself each time I fly. Give me a call and
I'll be pleased to send drawings, advise etc. Duane Mitchell, Tallahassee FL
(850) 878-9047.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
| Subject: | Exhaust manifold gaskets leak? Try four bolts and flatten t |
Someone wrote:
>remove the exh manifold to check for ring freedom and evidence
>of possible scoring or seizure. For even this minor maintenance step
>I'd recommend using gasket sealer, as I believe my 447 had minor exhaust
>port leaks since new. I have not heard of anyone else recommending gasket
>sealer here and am a little surprised about that.
I think the "three bolts is good enough" advice from Rotax is part of the
problem for anyone having exhaust leaks. If you want to use four, it can be
done by either drilling the holes on the manifold out alittle crooked or
oversized and using a hex head bolt so it can be tightened,, or by fitting a
stud into the head. I went with the fourth bolt, trying first the stud and
later the hex bolt, I liked the bolt better.
I did not use any gasket sealer but I did flatten the exhaust manifold ("Y"
pipe) before assembly. It was off by about .050", and it probably would have
pulled together alright but I figured I'd help it by getting it as flat as I
could. I ran it on a big belt sander CAREFULLY to make it more planar.
Instead of a sander, this could be done on a very flat surface and a pc of
sandpaper.
Both fixes used together (four bolts AND flattening the manifold) is probably
overkill, but what the heck, it is an airplane.
Jim Gerken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: maintaining Rotax (was seafoam skeptic) |
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Ralph H Burlingame wrote:
> Ben, you sure go to a lot of trouble to make sure your Rotax is reliable.
> DId you see evidence of the exhaust leak before disassembly? I would
I think I agree with you about the first part, but I'm not sure what it
is that gave you that impression. I'll admit I fussed over my 2-stroke
more than most (i think). Some of this was due to the non-book EGTs
you get from a single EGT probe at the Y. I had little other experience
around me to keep me from checking plugs etc (etc etc etc).
But as for my comments in this thread, I don't think I was going to more
trouble than reasonable. My engine would quit in flight, guaranteed, and
I needed to figure it out. There were no stains to indicate leaks, perhaps
because the leaking was underneath the cooling shroud, perhaps more the
lower shroud than the upper. You have to get things pretty undone to find
stains there, if they exist. I still would bet that a high percentage of
air cooled Rotaxes are operating with air leakage on the exhaust ports
that the owner is unaware of and eliminating them would improve performance.
Now if Rusty ratted on me about what I first attempted as a method to find
air leaks, then Yes, you'd have every reason to pin me with "going to a
lot of trouble". :-)
I've learned some and have changed to dual EGT probes 4" out. Both of
these things have done a lot toward keeping me more hands-off of my
engine. A side note is that I've noticed that EGT probes 4" out are
much less sensitive to mixture change. At the Y, EGT varied A LOT with
the mixture and it makes you want to chase it all over. At 4" it is a
dumber instrument, and this is mostly good.
-
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | bolt bushings (for oversizing) |
I've always had a sorta sloppy hole on one of my axle fittings,
where it bolts to the landing gear leg. It is nominally a 1/4"
hole. If I could find some 5/16" .032 stainless I thought I'd
drill the hole out to a clean 5/16 and push in the stainless
sleeve. I've only seen 5/16 x .035. Anybody got ideas or
sources on doing what I want to do? (I can't drill out to 3/8;
that is too big for the leg and axle fitting diameters.)
TIA
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 503 dc uneven cht's |
Gary,
I wouldn't worry too much about CHT's, unless it is a new change. You didn't
mention EGT's, and they are more indicative of carb tuning. CHT's can vary either
because of the probe tolerance, or because one has some shrink tubing rubed off
near the plug, or because one is in a different position than the other. What I
mean by position is that is one is in the airflow and the other is shaded by the
plug, they will read different. It is possible to check the performance of the
probe gage combination by clamping the probes together (away from the engine) and
heating them with a flame. Changing positions, like others suggested, is also good
thing to try.
John Jung
SE Wisconsin
Gary Thacker wrote:
>
> Yesterday while flyin I found that my cht's weren't even close. They ran
> about 70 degs with the front cylinder runnin hotter than the back
> around 270 or so. No matter what I did with the power setting the
> difference was the same. Is this a symptem of the carb bein out of
> adjustment? The front cylinder seemed to be fine as to normal operating
> temps but the rear was as much as 100 different. Most of the time it
> ran 70 degs.
snip...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: bolt bushings (for oversizing) |
Ben,
Why not use a 5/16 bolt?
John Jung
Ben Ransom wrote:
>
> I've always had a sorta sloppy hole on one of my axle fittings,
> where it bolts to the landing gear leg. It is nominally a 1/4"
> hole. If I could find some 5/16" .032 stainless I thought I'd
> drill the hole out to a clean 5/16 and push in the stainless
> sleeve. I've only seen 5/16 x .035. Anybody got ideas or
> sources on doing what I want to do? (I can't drill out to 3/8;
> that is too big for the leg and axle fitting diameters.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: bolt bushings (for oversizing) |
On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, John Jung wrote:
>
> Ben,
> Why not use a 5/16 bolt?
> John Jung
Thanks John, for providing me a brain on this one.
As to the specific answer to your question, the reason is because
I seem to go to a lot of trouble, as has already accurately perceived
on this list. :-)
I guess I did have some thoughts of keeping the 1/4" hole in the
axle fitting, but there is little or no point in doing this.
- Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rv8(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: maintaining Rotax (was seafoam skeptic) |
>Now if Rusty ratted on me about what I first attempted as a method to find
>air leaks, then Yes, you'd have every reason to pin me with "going to a
>lot of trouble". :-)
Ben, I'm still taking bids to see what that info is worth, but you're safe
for a few more weeks because that message isn't on my laptop
Rusty (18 more days) Duffy
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | UV Protection/Poly Spray |
Hello Group,
I am approaching the fabric covering stage in a few weeks, I hope. I have
been reading the literture and the manuals. I have a question that I'd like
to ask of the groups collective knowledge and experience.
I have two options:
1) 6 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 coats POLY SPRAY, 2 coats POLY
TONE.
2) 4 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 (thick) coats POLY TONE with UV
protection.
I'd being interested to hear about the methods used by you guys and the length
of time in service with no problems. Keep in mind, I'm down here in the deep
south where summer time heat and sun approaches 100 degrees. Also I am
concerned about the high humidty problems during the covering/finishing
process.
Keep those actual flying stories coming. It keeps the rivets popping.
Thanks again for any and all help,
John Bickham
St. Francisville, LA
M3-308
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: UV Protection/Poly Spray |
In a message dated 10/19/98 6:49:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, BICUM(at)aol.com
writes:
<< I'd being interested to hear about the methods used by you guys and the
length
of time in service with no problems. >>
On my mark two I used the 4 coat system. The plane has never been stored
outside and after 6 years it looks fine. On the mark three I used the 6 coat
system and the finish was a little better because I could sand the poly spray.
The more coats you put on the more chances you have to screw up. Unless you
are trying to be particularly artistic, or plan to store your plane outside, I
don't think there is any meaningfull difference.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: bolt bushings (for oversizing) |
Take the fitting off and stuff a socket into the tube past the bolt hole and
then get someone with a gas welder to cast metal into the hole and melt into
the edges. The socket acts as a cold sink and will not be harmed . You fill
one side and then reinstall and redrill the hole thru the weld area, probably
do not need to do both sides
Dick C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Carburator departure |
Kolbers:
Does anyone know of any incidents of carburators falling off rotax
engines installed on kolb products? Just curious.
________________________________________________________________________________
I know I will take FLAK for this but I just replaced my ruptured Duck aluminum
gear with a Titanium one. The scrap dealer had 5 feet of 6AL-4V 1 inch dia
bar that I made both legs from. No I did not taper it as its tough for
amateurs to work Titanium. According to my numbers its about 20% more capable
(15000 in LB Vs 12800 in LB bending moment) and ended up 6 oz heavier. Ups
the impact G loading before bending from 2.5 to 3. This is still less than GA
typical values of 4 to 5 but might make the difference with my diminishing
skill levels.
Dick C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Swiderski <swidersk(at)digital.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Enclosed Trailers |
Thanks to all of you who shared your ideas. This listing is great.
MitchMnD(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Richard Swiderski, I also live in the humid Florida environment and must
> unload my plane from my trailer by myself each time I fly. Give me a call and
> I'll be pleased to send drawings, advise etc. Duane Mitchell, Tallahassee FL
> (850) 878-9047.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: bolt bushings (for oversizing) |
BEN
If you don't have any luck with the sleeve I could send you some shim
stock ,
Or I could send you this material that is called BELZONA it is a two part
mix that WILL make the sleeve for you may have to wrap your 1/4 bolt in
saran wrap so it wont stick to the bolt. This stuff will get hard as
steel and you can turn it in a lathe.
Rick Libersat
writes:
>
>
>I've always had a sorta sloppy hole on one of my axle fittings,
>where it bolts to the landing gear leg. It is nominally a 1/4"
>hole. If I could find some 5/16" .032 stainless I thought I'd
>drill the hole out to a clean 5/16 and push in the stainless
>sleeve. I've only seen 5/16 x .035. Anybody got ideas or
>sources on doing what I want to do? (I can't drill out to 3/8;
>that is too big for the leg and axle fitting diameters.)
>
>TIA
>
>-Ben Ransom
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: UV Protection/Poly Spray |
John
I am down here in south east tx. where it is just as hot and humid as
where you and the guys from FLORIDA are what I did was use the forgot
what it is called but the 100% U V blocker " silver " stuff that STITTS
has, then used the polytone with the U V mixed with the paint now after
it is all said and done I don't have to say boy I sure wished that I
would have used that 100% stuff that I caint remember the name of
Rick Libersat
>
>Hello Group,
>
>I am approaching the fabric covering stage in a few weeks, I hope. I
>have
>been reading the literture and the manuals. I have a question that
>I'd like
>to ask of the groups collective knowledge and experience.
>
>I have two options:
>
>1) 6 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 coats POLY SPRAY, 2 coats
>POLY
>TONE.
>
>2) 4 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 (thick) coats POLY TONE with
>UV
>protection.
>
>
>I'd being interested to hear about the methods used by you guys and
>the length
>of time in service with no problems. Keep in mind, I'm down here in
>the deep
>south where summer time heat and sun approaches 100 degrees. Also I
>am
>concerned about the high humidty problems during the
>covering/finishing
>process.
>
>Keep those actual flying stories coming. It keeps the rivets popping.
>
>Thanks again for any and all help,
>
>John Bickham
>St. Francisville, LA
>M3-308
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Carburator departure |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
I haven't heard about any on a Kolb but I have heard of it happening on
other UL's. Clamps can break and I found a broken one on my pulse line at
the pump. Lucky for me, the pulse line was rigid enough to have a good
seal and didn't compromise my safety.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
>
>Kolbers:
>
> Does anyone know of any incidents of carburators falling off rotax
>engines installed on kolb products? Just curious.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Keep us posted on how that Titanium gear works out. John Monnet ( Monett??
) says good things about it on his new Sonex. TIA. Big Lar.
----------
> From: Frcole(at)aol.com
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Landing Gear
> Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 4:18 PM
>
>
> I know I will take FLAK for this but I just replaced my ruptured Duck
aluminum
> gear with a Titanium one. The scrap dealer had 5 feet of 6AL-4V 1 inch
dia
> bar that I made both legs from. No I did not taper it as its tough for
> amateurs to work Titanium. According to my numbers its about 20% more
capable
> (15000 in LB Vs 12800 in LB bending moment) and ended up 6 oz heavier.
Ups
> the impact G loading before bending from 2.5 to 3. This is still less
than GA
> typical values of 4 to 5 but might make the difference with my
diminishing
> skill levels.
> Dick C
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Carburator departure |
Sorry, not on a Rotax or a Kolb, but did see a Carb come to pieces on a
Kawasaki powered Flightstar a couple of years ago. Bottom fell off it on
takeoff and caused a lot of silence. Gas everywhere and a lot of loud,
excited voices. No fire or further damage. He put it back together,
double checked all and took off. Happened at CLM in Port Angeles, WA.
Big Lar.
----------
> From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Carburator departure
> Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 4:09 PM
>
>
> Kolbers:
>
> Does anyone know of any incidents of carburators falling off rotax
> engines installed on kolb products? Just curious.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bolt bushings (for oversizing) |
Don't feel like the lone stranger, Ben. Let he who is without sin cast the
first stone. BTW, no help from my friends on the gas tank question.
Big Lar.
----------
> From: Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>
> To: John Jung
> Cc: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: bolt bushings (for oversizing)
> Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 2:03 PM
>
> As to the specific answer to your question, the reason is because
> I seem to go to a lot of trouble, as has already accurately perceived
> on this list. :-)
>
>
> - Ben Ransom
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carburator departure |
If a carburator did fall off a Rotax on a Kolb, I suspect that it
would have more to do with the installer than the plane.
John Jung
>
>Cavuontop(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Kolbers:
>
> Does anyone know of any incidents of carburators falling off rotax
> engines installed on kolb products? Just curious.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Dick,
If you didn't taper them, I suspect that the impact G loading is
increased by more than 20%. How did you mount the axles without the
taper?
John Jung
>
>Frcole(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> I know I will take FLAK for this but I just replaced my ruptured Duck aluminum
> gear with a Titanium one. The scrap dealer had 5 feet of 6AL-4V 1 inch dia
> bar that I made both legs from. No I did not taper it as its tough for
> amateurs to work Titanium. According to my numbers its about 20% more capable
> (15000 in LB Vs 12800 in LB bending moment) and ended up 6 oz heavier. Ups
> the impact G loading before bending from 2.5 to 3. This is still less than GA
> typical values of 4 to 5 but might make the difference with my diminishing
> skill levels.
> Dick C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "barry youngblood" <barry(at)hcis.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UV Protection/Poly Spray |
-----Original Message-----
From: BICUM(at)aol.com <BICUM(at)aol.com>
Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 5:46 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: UV Protection/Poly Spray
>
>Hello Group,
>
>I am approaching the fabric covering stage in a few weeks, I hope. I have
>been reading the literture and the manuals. I have a question that I'd
like
>to ask of the groups collective knowledge and experience.
>
>I have two options:
>
My FSII was covered with 4 coats 5 years ago and still seems good.
Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | 4 Bolts in the Ex. Manifold |
An easy way to get 4 bolts in the exhaust manifold is to take a
hacksaw and slot the 2 holes in the inside corner of the exhaust manifold
vertically. Then screw the 2 bolts for those holes into place through the
gaskets with the lock washers already in place. Then slip the manifold into
place, the bolts should already be screwed in until there is just enough
room to fit. Add all the rest of the bolts. Tighten them all equally.
I like Ultra Copper silicone sealer on both sides of the exhaust
gaskets. Works good, no leaks, no complaints, cheap.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: bolt bushings (for oversizing) |
Hi Rick
I think I'll just go simple and use a once over metric or 5/16 bolt as
Todd and John suggested. BTW, I've used saran wrap type stuff
for epoxy/glass work myself. Works well for quick and dirty forming.
For things such as keeping a bolt or other mold form from getting epoxy
stuck to it I've used wax or PVA release agent ...but this is getting
way into other subjects. Thanks anyway for the offer.
-Ben Ransom
On Mon, 19 Oct 1998 rick106(at)juno.com wrote:
>
> BEN
> If you don't have any luck with the sleeve I could send you some shim
> stock ,
> Or I could send you this material that is called BELZONA it is a two part
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UV Protection/Poly Spray |
John,
I used a variation on your first option. On top there are 3 coats of
Poly Brush (6 cross coats), but only 1 coat on the bottom. Also, I used
3 coats of Poly Tone for looks. The Poly Brush also helps the looks, and
the top is much more visual than the bottom.
John Jung
>
>BICUM(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Hello Group,
>
> I am approaching the fabric covering stage in a few weeks, I hope. I have
> been reading the literture and the manuals. I have a question that I'd like
> to ask of the groups collective knowledge and experience.
>
> I have two options:
>
> 1) 6 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 coats POLY SPRAY, 2 coats POLY
> TONE.
>
> 2) 4 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 (thick) coats POLY TONE with UV
> protection.
>
> I'd being interested to hear about the methods used by you guys and the length
> of time in service with no problems.
snip...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UV Protection/Poly Spray |
All,
>>2) 4 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 (thick) coats POLY TONE with
>>UV protection.
I did mine this way more or less except that I ended up with an average of 3
coats of Polytone because of the color scheme. I didn't use the "silver"
Polyspray. I know it is better than using the UV additive (it has to be).
My paint job ended up fairly heavy even without the "silver". There will be
a weight penalty. The paint is only a couple years old and it has been
hangered the whole time. It looks brand new though so far. I use Maquires
Wax on it after each wash and Pledge on the Lexan. I use only fore/aft
strokes on the Lexan so the fine scratches at least all run the same direction.
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: | "merle hargis" <merlepilar(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: Carburetor departure |
Yes I had a carburetor come off in flight about 4 years ago. I believe the
air cleaner came off and went through the prop first. About six inches
came off one blade of the wooden prop. this caused out of balance shakes
so bad the carburetor came off. At this point, as you might imagine it
became awfully quite and I had a my first dead stick landing. The plane and
I both came out fine. The throttle cable and the fuel lines kept the
carburetor from coming completely off the airplane. I had to replace the
carburetor because of a small hairline crack. I always safety wire both
the carburetor and the air filter from that day forward.
----------
> From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Carburator departure
> Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 7:09 PM
>
>
> Kolbers:
>
> Does anyone know of any incidents of carburators falling off rotax
> engines installed on kolb products? Just curious.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: bolt bushings (for oversizing) |
>
>I've always had a sorta sloppy hole on one of my axle fittings,
>where it bolts to the landing gear leg. It is nominally a 1/4"
>hole. If I could find some 5/16" .032 stainless I thought I'd
>drill the hole out to a clean 5/16 and push in the stainless
>sleeve. I've only seen 5/16 x .035. Anybody got ideas or
>sources on doing what I want to do? (I can't drill out to 3/8;
>that is too big for the leg and axle fitting diameters.)
>
>-Ben Ransom
Instead of going all the way up to 5/16", why not drill it out to
8 mm., and put in a metric high tensile bolt? (GASP! HERESY!)
The hole size is a hair larger than 1/4", and I would use one of the bolts
normally used to clamp a set of handlebars to the top fork brace, or clamp
the forks in the lower brace, etc. Not your basic wimpy bolt.
Find a parts geek that's pretty savvy, so that you get the correct
length of unthreaded shank, and has the proper strength markings on the
head, (Are they different from AN and SAE?)and use a fiber lock nut, and you
ought to be in good shape.
If I was going to drill it out to 5/16", I'd just go ahead and use a
5/16" bolt.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Larry Bourne wrote:
> Hi Ben: In the not too distant future, I'll be installing my CHT + EGT
> probes. Like you, I had originally thought of just putting two probes -
> one at each Y. Then decided what the heck, for the little extra money, I
> can put 4 probes and 2 switches for my duplex EGT gauge. I'm curious - why
> do you think they are less sensitive closer to the valve ?? Or were you
> serious ?? Your message gave the impression that less sensitive is
> probably better. Howcum ?? I'm not teasing or putting you on Ben, I'm at
Hi Larry,
I was serious. Yes, the EGT probe is more sensitive on a Rotax 447 when
placed further out at the manifold Y. The standard answer on this is
some complex jive about standing wave pulse blah blah dribble etc. For a
simplistic view (works for me), I take an analagy of a Oxy-Ac torch where
the hottest point -- the blue flame cone tip -- is out further than near
the torch tip. Changes in fuel-air mixture on the 2-stroke make a bigger
difference out at this hotter tip portion of the exhaust (wave/whatever
it is) than near the exhaust port. Closer in, and the inside of the
heat cone/wave/whatever looks the same unless the mixture is really
rich or really lean. You really start believing in this analogy when
you run a single EGT further out on the Y of two cylinders. A minor
jetting change is immediately noticable in significant EGT change.
Like I said earlier, too much sensitivity in EGT -- and the lack of any
Rotax book value for proper EGT readings at the Y -- had me looking at
plugs and changing jets way too often. As for your 4-stroker, i won't
pretend to offer any valid clues at all. (That word "valve" in your
post thru me somethin awful, so you can tell I'm getting badly 2-stroke
brainwashed.) I would however, think you might as well monitor each
cylinder with it's own probe and use a switch if you don't want to fill
your panel with EGT gauges. This works very very well. 4-strokes of
course won't care nearly as much about fuel-air mixture, but the probes
are cheap and the knowledge of how all 4 cyls are running might be the
piece of info that forwarns you of something like a burned valve, etc.
> Copperstate was OK, but I'm glad I went to Castle too. Whoever set up
> Castle did a better job - I think - on their first try than CS has done
> with all their experience. See you there next year. I WILL fly Vamoose up
> there. If I have to carry the fool thing. Big Lar.
Sounds good to me.
- Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Christensen" <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
-----Original Message-----
From: Frcole(at)aol.com <Frcole(at)aol.com>
Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 4:25 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Landing Gear
>
>I know I will take FLAK for this but I just replaced my ruptured Duck
aluminum
>gear with a Titanium one. The scrap dealer had 5 feet of 6AL-4V 1 inch dia
>bar that I made both legs from. No I did not taper it as its tough for
>amateurs to work Titanium. According to my numbers its about 20% more
capable
>(15000 in LB Vs 12800 in LB bending moment) and ended up 6 oz heavier. Ups
>the impact G loading before bending from 2.5 to 3. This is still less than
GA
>typical values of 4 to 5 but might make the difference with my diminishing
>skill levels.
>Dick C
=============================================================
Hi Dick:
I don't understand the technical discussion in your message about the
relative merits of aluminum VS. titanium, so for purposes of this message, I
assume that the aluminum bends easier than titanium.
I bent the aluminum legs on my MKIII and seriously considered steel
replacements, but after talking to a lot of people, including Dennis S. at
the factory, I decided to stay with the alum. version. The problem of
course, is the requirement for the gear legs and the steel cage to absorb a
lot of energy during a hard landing. In my case, the landing was so hard
that some of the steel tubes around the landing gear "socket" were bent, as
were the legs. If the gear legs had been made of something like steel, I
know that the cage would have been in MUCH worse condition following the
accident. The resultant cost of repair can be staggering.
Just some food for thought.
Ron Christensen
MKIII 1/2
N313DR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UV Protection/Poly Spray |
>
>Hello Group,
>
>I am approaching the fabric covering stage in a few weeks, I hope. I have
>been reading the literture and the manuals. I have a question that I'd like
>to ask of the groups collective knowledge and experience.
>
>I have two options:
>
>1) 6 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 coats POLY SPRAY, 2 coats POLY
>TONE.
>
>2) 4 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 (thick) coats POLY TONE with UV
>protection.
>
>
>I'd being interested to hear about the methods used by you guys and the length
>of time in service with no problems. Keep in mind, I'm down here in the deep
>south where summer time heat and sun approaches 100 degrees. Also I am
>concerned about the high humidty problems during the covering/finishing
>process.
>
>Keep those actual flying stories coming. It keeps the rivets popping.
>
>Thanks again for any and all help,
>
>John Bickham
>St. Francisville, LA
>M3-308
>
If you don't use any silver, and you use light colored paint, when
your airplane is sitting in the sun, backlit, the light will shine through
the paint, and the light and dark areas will be apparent. (Unless you can
paint better than me, which is likely) Also, the Stits ink mark stampings
may show through, unless you lay extra paint over them.(See original sentence)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Wilde" <jeffwilde(at)mpinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UV Protection/Poly Spray |
I am right now in the process of covering my Mark III. I used the poly
spray, 2 coats. I also used a dab of uv protector in the poly tone being
from the more is better school of aircraft construction. I do have a
question regarding primer. Stits recommends their epoxy primer because it
doesnt come off the tubes when covered with the strong solvents in the
paint. I used epoxy primer from a local paint manufacturing company and got
good results but it does soften slightly when covered with the poly tack and
sofened with MEK. Does the stits epoxy soften at all? I have finished the
tail surfaces and they look great. Jeff in Oviedo.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: UV Protection/Poly Spray
>
>>
>>Hello Group,
>>
>>I am approaching the fabric covering stage in a few weeks, I hope. I have
>>been reading the literture and the manuals. I have a question that I'd
like
>>to ask of the groups collective knowledge and experience.
>>
>>I have two options:
>>
>>1) 6 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 coats POLY SPRAY, 2 coats POLY
>>TONE.
>>
>>2) 4 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 (thick) coats POLY TONE with UV
>>protection.
>>
>>
>>I'd being interested to hear about the methods used by you guys and the
length
>>of time in service with no problems. Keep in mind, I'm down here in the
deep
>>south where summer time heat and sun approaches 100 degrees. Also I am
>>concerned about the high humidty problems during the covering/finishing
>>process.
>>
>>Keep those actual flying stories coming. It keeps the rivets popping.
>>
>>Thanks again for any and all help,
>>
>>John Bickham
>>St. Francisville, LA
>>M3-308
>>
> If you don't use any silver, and you use light colored paint, when
>your airplane is sitting in the sun, backlit, the light will shine through
>the paint, and the light and dark areas will be apparent. (Unless you can
>paint better than me, which is likely) Also, the Stits ink mark stampings
>may show through, unless you lay extra paint over them.(See original
sentence)
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cpeterhu(at)aol.com |
Hello group,
I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost my
medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA, but I
would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will do what
I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 650 mile trip |
>Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:28:20 -0500
>To: rut007(at)hotmail.com
>From: Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net>
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 650 mile trip
>
>I have to agree, there is a difference with the engine off when you
come to
>flare in the landing process. Some day I may kill the engine once I
know I
>have the field made, until then I am practicing judging my decent to
make
>my picked landing spot at idle. I need more time in the airplane..
total 6
>flights over 3 hours, and 24 landings. 20 were on the last two
flights.
>Made a difference.
>
>Judging the flare where not to run into the ground due to a high rate
of
>sink it a key item on our FlyFire. With 22 foot wings, it can come
down at
>a fairly high sink rate, you have to watch speed bleed off very closely
or
>you get ground rush for the last few feet.
>
>Jerry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
I can't delieve that no one has purchased Rusty's Sling Shot yet!! I
think that would be a good project for you, unless you really want to
build.
Rutledge Fuller
>From: Cpeterhu(at)aol.com
>Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:53:13 EDT
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: decision
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>Hello group,
>
>I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost
my
>medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA,
but I
>would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will
do what
>I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
>something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Jonesville FL/Colquit Ga gatherings |
Hello Ray and other SE listers, The forecast for Saturday looks bad right now
and our Tallahassee coven is considering a closer alternative. The word is
that there will be a UL gathering at Colquit GA that same weekend. The Panama
City guys are planning to go to this one and we may join them if we can get a
little more info (i.e. there is no airport at Colquit). I'll post further
info when available.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: UV Protection/Poly Spray |
-----Original Message-----
From: BICUM(at)aol.com <BICUM(at)aol.com>
Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 5:51 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: UV Protection/Poly Spray
>
>Hello Group,
>
>I am approaching the fabric covering stage in a few weeks, I hope. I have
>been reading the literture and the manuals. I have a question that I'd
like
>to ask of the groups collective knowledge and experience.
>
>I have two options:
>
>1) 6 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 coats POLY SPRAY, 2 coats POLY
>TONE.
>
>2) 4 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 (thick) coats POLY TONE with UV
>protection.
>
>
>I'd being interested to hear about the methods used by you guys and the
length
>of time in service with no problems. Keep in mind, I'm down here in the
deep
>south where summer time heat and sun approaches 100 degrees. Also I am
>concerned about the high humidty problems during the covering/finishing
>process.
>
>Keep those actual flying stories coming. It keeps the rivets popping.
>
>Thanks again for any and all help,
>
>John Bickham
>St. Francisville, LA
>M3-308
John,
I'm just past the covering stage and have sprayed the silver, and am about
to paint. Here's a few tips I learned the hard way.
Get an ice chest or a refrigerator, put the Poly-brush, silver, tone
overnight or longer and keep it there between lodes.
I didn't do this to start and after the brush on coat of P/B I tried to
spray the 2nd coat of P/B and it cotton candied on me. To fix that I
sprayed with reducer and it melted in. You don't have to worry so much
about the humidity as the heat. Use only the r-85(higher temp) reducer and
when you mix use more reducer, it may take a little longer to dry but that's
good.
I've seen what the sun here in La. can do to any U/L fabric, I highly
recommend the silver. To keep weight down you can put it lighter on the
bottom of all parts, also the silver is a sanding base and it will help to
cover any goofs in the poly brush.
I "almost" wish I could do the covering part all over cause now that I've
learned I know I could do a much better job!!!
Also once you get the hang of it the covering is allot of fun, especially
when you heat shrink the fabric and suddenly you've got an elevator instead
of a bunch of aluminum!
The next plane I do will look allot better than this one!
E-mail me if you have any problems, or call
Geoff Thistlethwaite
Opelousas, La.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Pete,
If I were you, I would check with Rusty about his SlingShot.
John Jung
>
Cpeterhu(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Hello group,
>
> I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost my
> medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA, but I
> would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will do what
> I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
> something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
michael.highsmith(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET
| Subject: | Re: Jonesville FL/Colquit Ga gatherings |
For all interested, I have the coordinates at the house and will post
them tomorrow. The current situation is this: We will meet at Quincy
(2J9) Saturday morning and fly over to Colquitt. It is a private 2500ft
grass strip. It is located on both the JAX and New Orleans sectional.
Colquitt is Northeast of Donaldsonville (17J). The strip is 1 mile SE
of Colquitt. There will be FREE food to all. Anyone interested can
contact me at work (850) 413-8272 or home at (850) 385-6673 for details.
Rutledge Fuller
>From: MitchMnD(at)aol.com
>Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 08:25:27 EDT
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Jonesville FL/Colquit Ga gatherings
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>Hello Ray and other SE listers, The forecast for Saturday looks bad
right now
>and our Tallahassee coven is considering a closer alternative. The
word is
>that there will be a UL gathering at Colquit GA that same weekend. The
Panama
>City guys are planning to go to this one and we may join them if we can
get a
>little more info (i.e. there is no airport at Colquit). I'll post
further
>info when available.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Carburetor departure |
>I always safety wire both the carburetor and the air filter from that day
>forward.
I also safety wired both the carbs and the air filters. I was surprised to
find that the carb boot clamps loosened up as much as they did after a few
heat cycles of running the engine. The rubber must deform a little under
the pressure of the clamp and the heat. I check the clamps every once in a
while even now to make sure they are snug enough.
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: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UV Protection/Poly Spray |
when covered with the poly tack and
>sofened with MEK. Does the stits epoxy soften at all? I have finished the
>tail surfaces and they look great.
Isn't the covering fun to do... I am not joking. As I recall, it remained
hard as a rock.
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: | "Joann Hill" <jhill(at)swcp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UV Protection/Poly Spray/stits epoxy |
When mixed and applied correctly, "stits" epoxy primer will not soften when
used under other stits products. I've used the stits process on more than
one airplane and will use it on my next (hopefully a SLINGSHOT). I will not
deviate from the full process (a chain being only as strong as its weakest
link and all that).
Joann Hill N98KF
http://www.swcp.com/~jhill
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Wilde <jeffwilde(at)mpinet.net>
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: UV Protection/Poly Spray
I used epoxy primer from a local paint manufacturing company and got
>good results but it does soften slightly when covered with the poly tack
and
>sofened with MEK. Does the stits epoxy soften at all? I have finished the
>tail surfaces and they look great. Jeff in Oviedo.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UV Protection/Poly Spray |
We used Poly Tak and then used brush on the fabric to "weld" it all together.
It's very difficult to get off and I have torn pieces of the fabric in testing
this method. I don't know what the cost of epoxy primer is but it' can't be
less than tak.
>>> "Jeff Wilde" 10/20 8:15 AM >>>
I am right now in the process of covering my Mark III. I used the poly
spray, 2 coats. I also used a dab of uv protector in the poly tone being
from the more is better school of aircraft construction. I do have a
question regarding primer. Stits recommends their epoxy primer because it
doesnt come off the tubes when covered with the strong solvents in the
paint. I used epoxy primer from a local paint manufacturing company and got
good results but it does soften slightly when covered with the poly tack and
sofened with MEK. Does the stits epoxy soften at all? I have finished the
tail surfaces and they look great. Jeff in Oviedo.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: UV Protection/Poly Spray
>
>>
>>Hello Group,
>>
>>I am approaching the fabric covering stage in a few weeks, I hope. I have
>>been reading the literture and the manuals. I have a question that I'd
like
>>to ask of the groups collective knowledge and experience.
>>
>>I have two options:
>>
>>1) 6 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 coats POLY SPRAY, 2 coats POLY
>>TONE.
>>
>>2) 4 coat system - 2 coats POLY BRUSH, 2 (thick) coats POLY TONE with UV
>>protection.
>>
>>
>>I'd being interested to hear about the methods used by you guys and the
length
>>of time in service with no problems. Keep in mind, I'm down here in the
deep
>>south where summer time heat and sun approaches 100 degrees. Also I am
>>concerned about the high humidty problems during the covering/finishing
>>process.
>>
>>Keep those actual flying stories coming. It keeps the rivets popping.
>>
>>Thanks again for any and all help,
>>
>>John Bickham
>>St. Francisville, LA
>>M3-308
>>
> If you don't use any silver, and you use light colored paint, when
>your airplane is sitting in the sun, backlit, the light will shine through
>the paint, and the light and dark areas will be apparent. (Unless you can
>paint better than me, which is likely) Also, the Stits ink mark stampings
>may show through, unless you lay extra paint over them.(See original
sentence)
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carburetor departure |
CLiff I wonder about your comment regarding the carb boots, deforming in the heat.
If anything I would expect the carb boot to be very cold and not warm during
the running of our engines. Being a smart guy, I've never tried to stand
at the rear of our MKIII with the engine running to feel the boots and I can't
feel them from the front unless I climb out on the wing which I'm unwilling to
do. I think the real issue here is that the carbs and boots have oil on them
and so they can become parted and without safety wire fall into the prop. Proper
cleaning prior to installation may help lesson this potential accident.
>>> Cliff and Carolyn Stripling 10/20 9:54 AM >>>
>I always safety wire both the carburetor and the air filter from that day
>forward.
I also safety wired both the carbs and the air filters. I was surprised to
find that the carb boot clamps loosened up as much as they did after a few
heat cycles of running the engine. The rubber must deform a little under
the pressure of the clamp and the heat. I check the clamps every once in a
while even now to make sure they are snug enough.
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: | "Joann Hill" <jhill(at)swcp.com> |
If I was in your situation I would very likely build a FireStar 2.
Joann Hill N98KF
http://www.swcp.com/~jhill
>
>Hello group,
>
>I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost my
>medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA, but I
>would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will do
what
>I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
>something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
To the group because many of you may not know the UL Part 103 regulations and 4274
exemption.
Since Peter has lost his license due to a medical condition he has no choice but
to follow the Ultralight avenue, unless of course he can pass his medical.
So, now he is restricted to single seat, 254 lbs, 5 gal fuel, stall at 27 mph
and max speed of 63 mph or thereabouts, ie. FireFLy territory. There is one
way he can go though. He could get his BFI license and then fly a two place plane
such as the MK III or as Joann suggested, as Fire Star 2, but it would have
to be used for instructional purposes only. Since this aircraft only has a
sinlge control stick not centrally located I think the FAA would have a hard
time believing that a lesson was being given.
The student must have access to the controls.
I just thought I'd remind everybody of the UL regs and so too Peter's options,
as I see them at this point.
BTW, I've been told that each infraction of the UL Part 103 regs carry a $1000.00
fine. Gulp! I'd hate to be made an example of.
>>> "Joann Hill" 10/20 1:02 PM >>>
If I was in your situation I would very likely build a FireStar 2.
Joann Hill N98KF
http://www.swcp.com/~jhill
>
>Hello group,
>
>I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost my
>medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA, but I
>would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will do
what
>I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
>something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff and Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Carburetor departure |
Todd and all,
>CLiff I wonder about your comment regarding the carb boots, deforming in
the heat. If anything I would expect the carb boot to be very cold and not
warm during the running of our engines.
You may be right about heat. I have never actually felt them. I just
assumed the engine block would be hot. Vaporization of fuel in the boots
should cause them to be cold. It could be just the constant pressure of the
hose clamps. For whatever reason, they do loosen up some.
Proper cleaning prior to installation may help lesson this potential accident.
I agree. Doesn't it say somewhere to clean both surfaces well and use no
lubricant (oil or silicone) of any kind.
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: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 Cpeterhu(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost my
> medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA, but I
> would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will do what
> I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
> something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
>
I just saw Todd's post and was thinking of throwing in something along
those lines myself. Good reminder Todd.
What you end up with Peter, depends on how much you want to be flying
under a cloud of illegality and personal liability. A 103 UL that got
a little heavy (i know, no such thing in strict terms) will likely not
cause you any grief. However, even this leaves you in the illigitimate
child category of aviation. You may find trouble getting insurance,
which would likely be required at your local airport. But then, maybe
you'd have no problem either; most people don't, but have perhaps signed
their name to false weight on their insurance application.
If you are flying something much beyond slightly fat 103, you're really
asking a lot of the FAA to leave you be. I think anything 2-place
and you not having a BFI/AFI, or without dual controls is flagrant
violation of the letter and spirit of 103. You might as well fly a C-150
without medical. Getting back to the specific options you mention, I
think the SS is OUT, and the FF is good, but you might make it illegally
heavy anyway by adding optional equipment. A legal weight FF
offers the advantage of you being able to ask for the full FAA backing
when some anti-UL airport manager gives you grief. To me, the best UL
plane is a Firestar I with 447. I say that because they are just a bit
slower stall and lighter than a FSII-503, and the 447 is plenty of power
unless you're an extra large pilot. I'm thinking the earlier model FS
(originial or KX, KXP) with 447 might even be better than a FS I, again
because of slightly lower weight, slower landing, etc. ...individual
preference tho.
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carburetor departure |
The Rotax manual says to clean with a degreaser prior to installation and then
afterwards to coat with a protectant to guard against UV. I clean with Acrylaclean,
made by PPG. I used this solvent instead of the PolyStitts what's it name
cleaner when I was" Poly Spray/Toning" the MKIII. It was cheaper and perfromed
better. I dries your hands but is not as nasty - read that as dangerous
- as the Poly stuff.
The best advise I've heard so far is to assume that everything possible that can
go into and through the prop will and so you had better guard against this.
In fact, I think somebody said that we should have as part of our checklist a
"empty your pockets" into a bag to be left in the car and investigate the cockpit
for all loose items which could leave the aircraft. This is specially important
for pilots like me who fly wooden props since anything bigger than a gnat
can make the dreaded "silence" happen when we least expect it.
My Grandfather used to say, "measure twice, cut once".
So I look twice...uh, well you get the idea.
>>> Cliff and Carolyn Stripling 10/20 1:57 PM >>>
Todd and all,
>CLiff I wonder about your comment regarding the carb boots, deforming in
the heat. If anything I would expect the carb boot to be very cold and not
warm during the running of our engines.
You may be right about heat. I have never actually felt them. I just
assumed the engine block would be hot. Vaporization of fuel in the boots
should cause them to be cold. It could be just the constant pressure of the
hose clamps. For whatever reason, they do loosen up some.
Proper cleaning prior to installation may help lesson this potential accident.
I agree. Doesn't it say somewhere to clean both surfaces well and use no
lubricant (oil or silicone) of any kind.
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: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Mr. ToddAt our EAA fly-in I was the only legal UL (FF) and the other
three just laffed at me! While I could cough-up (gulp) the thou, it
would increase the per hr charges more than somewhat. I don't advise
others either way, I just have my own fun. Grey Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UV Protection/Poly Spray |
I used epoxy primer from a local paint manufacturing company and got
>good results but it does soften slightly when covered with the poly tack and
>sofened with MEK. Does the stits epoxy soften at all? Jeff in Oviedo.
Nope. Neither does Randolph Epoxy primer.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>
>Hello group,
>
>I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost my
>medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA, but I
>would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will do what
>I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
>something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
Let me get this straight: you don't have a medical, and you want to
stay legal, but you want two seats?!?! Unless you become an Ultralight
Instructor, you appear to have some contradictory requirements.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
I made some new lower fittings using 1 inch inside dia steel tube welded to
the .625 axle tube. The 1 inch tube is longer and I used two 3/16 bolts thru
the leg.
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UV Protection/Poly Spray |
HI Guys,
I used the 6 part process but I only sprayed the
top of the wings and tail surfaces with Poly Spray (silver) to save weight.
John
(waiting for weather)Bruzan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
I agree with Ben and want to continue the thread discussion regarding the fat UL
and insurance issues. For a time the insurance companies would not honor the
policies if it was found that your UL was indeed fat. Specific to two place
ULs, this is no longer the case. I talked with both Avemco and John Ballantine,
President of USUA and confirmed that Avemco will insure a fat 2 place BFI
owned UL. i did not discuss a single place UL. We no longer need to lie about
the weight. This is mostly due to the lobby efforts of USUA and Avemco's realization
that the Fat characteristics usually result from our safety item additions
not so much from bigger gas tanks, or engines, etc. Unfortunately, the
coverage of a UL is restricted to liability only. The airframe is no longer
covered. This restriction was imposed because to many of the UL pilots were trashing
their UL's paying the deductible and buying a new aircraft. This phenominum
is also happening in Canada where it cost $55 a year to cover a UL. Their
lega
Because of this liability we all accept - if you fly you accept it - we have to
cover ourselves as best we can. Forget the aircraft, protect your family, your
home and property from legal forfeiture. Many of you may have coverage via
your home owners policy. Check it out. On the same note: Check your life
insurance policy. Mine does not cover me if I'm "piloting" any aircraft. So
now I have supplemental.
>>> Ben Ransom 10/20 3:48 PM >>>
On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 Cpeterhu(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost my
> medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA, but I
> would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will do what
> I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
> something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
>
I just saw Todd's post and was thinking of throwing in something along
those lines myself. Good reminder Todd.
What you end up with Peter, depends on how much you want to be flying
under a cloud of illegality and personal liability. A 103 UL that got
a little heavy (i know, no such thing in strict terms) will likely not
cause you any grief. However, even this leaves you in the illigitimate
child category of aviation. You may find trouble getting insurance,
which would likely be required at your local airport. But then, maybe
you'd have no problem either; most people don't, but have perhaps signed
their name to false weight on their insurance application.
If you are flying something much beyond slightly fat 103, you're really
asking a lot of the FAA to leave you be. I think anything 2-place
and you not having a BFI/AFI, or without dual controls is flagrant
violation of the letter and spirit of 103. You might as well fly a C-150
without medical. Getting back to the specific options you mention, I
think the SS is OUT, and the FF is good, but you might make it illegally
heavy anyway by adding optional equipment. A legal weight FF
offers the advantage of you being able to ask for the full FAA backing
when some anti-UL airport manager gives you grief. To me, the best UL
plane is a Firestar I with 447. I say that because they are just a bit
slower stall and lighter than a FSII-503, and the 447 is plenty of power
unless you're an extra large pilot. I'm thinking the earlier model FS
(originial or KX, KXP) with 447 might even be better than a FS I, again
because of slightly lower weight, slower landing, etc. ...individual
preference tho.
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Just to 2nd what Ron said here. The gear should have a break point
that comes sooner than the cage. Trading that away is not so
great IMO. Ideally you'd design this in to whatever you decide
to use as a substitute for standard legs.
- Ben Ransom
Ron wrote:
>the factory, I decided to stay with the alum. version. The problem of
>course, is the requirement for the gear legs and the steel cage to absorb a
>lot of energy during a hard landing. In my case, the landing was so hard
>Just some food for thought.
> Ron Christensen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vince Nicely" <vincenicely(at)intermediatn.net> |
Pete and the Group,
In going through the NTSB accident reports, I noticed that the investigators
on some unregistered KOLB airplanes noted in the report that the plane
should have been registered (read experimental I think). First I don't know
if any penalty was imposed, and secondly, I did not count the number because
I was looking for something else. However, I seem to remember more than one
such report.
Vince
>To the group because many of you may not know the UL Part 103 regulations
and 4274 exemption.
>BTW, I've been told that each infraction of the UL Part 103 regs carry a
$1000.00 fine. Gulp! I'd hate to be made an example of.
>
>>Hello group,
>>
>>I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost my
>>medical and not my desire to fly
Pete
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UV Protection/Poly Spray |
Seems I've said this on this group before, John, but you prove again that
the simplest ideas are often the best. I plan on using the silver, (
necessary I think, in the desert ), but had automatically planned on doing
the whole thing - top and bottom - and knowing me, probably inside out,
too. Once you said it, I went " AH !!! Eureka, the answer ", and so
simple. Many thanks. Big Lar.
----------
> From: Bruzan3(at)aol.com
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: UV Protection/Poly Spray
> Date: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 3:44 PM
>
>
> HI Guys,
>
>
> I used the 6 part process but I only sprayed
the
> top of the wings and tail surfaces with Poly Spray (silver) to save
weight.
>
>
>
>
John
> (waiting for weather)Bruzan
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Kolb-List message posted by: Frcole(at)aol.com
>I know I will take FLAK for this but I just replaced my ruptured Duck
aluminum
>gear with a Titanium one.
If you beef up your landing gear too much, you will bend your cage, mostly
the bottom tubes. It helps to put a brace between these two tubes, they
will bend outward-if your are going to go to an unbendable landing gear
situation. The landing gear are made to bend, Yes, they cost money to
replace, but are less expensive and a lot less trouble than fixing the
cage: I know, I've had to fix them both. I personally won't go past the
Kolb's Mark II gear. You can bend them back & turn them upside down at
least once.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: bolt bushings (for oversizing) |
> 8 mm., and put in a metric high tensile bolt?
Class 6.8 or 8.8 will do fine. 10.8 is too brittle.
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bolt bushings (for over sizing) |
I would recommend you drill the hole under the 5/16 size. Get a reamer for
the 5/16 and put the shank through the hole and slowly with cutting oil
pull it through. You'll have a lovely, clean hole. If you have to you can
resort to drilling it but suggest putting the shank end of a drill in the
back side of the original hole size to hold alignment. The drill will push
out as you progress through the material.
As for the shim you could do that buy why not just install a 5/16 bolt and
be done with it. If you have a pair of calibers (everybody should have one
- beats an ugly tie for fathers day) measure the diameter of your bolt
shank (the unthreaded part). Reamers can be purchased in various
increments just like number and letter drills sizes. Buy the one closest
that's just larger than the bolt.
If you elect to go with the shim, measure the OD. of the shim stock,
ream/drill the hole to that size. You'll will have to ream/drill out the
shim stock to 1/4" to get a 1/4" bolt through it.
Reamers may be obtained from ENCO or KITs.
Jerry Bidle
>
>I've always had a sorta sloppy hole on one of my axle fittings,
>where it bolts to the landing gear leg. It is nominally a 1/4"
>hole. If I could find some 5/16" .032 stainless I thought I'd
>drill the hole out to a clean 5/16 and push in the stainless
>sleeve. I've only seen 5/16 x .035. Anybody got ideas or
>sources on doing what I want to do? (I can't drill out to 3/8;
>that is too big for the leg and axle fitting diameters.)
>
>TIA
>
>-Ben Ransom
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
While attending the Copperstate Flyin last weekend in Mesa, AZ, I attended a
forum that was presented by representatives of the FAA. These 2 guys said
they were the ones responsible for writing all the regulations we get to
read in the AIMS. They brought up an interesting subject that is along the
lines of the thread. The FAA is "strongly" looking into the "sport" pilot
rating once again. The criteria for the rating included the following: All
"fat" ultralights would have to be N numbered and airplanes up to 1200 lbs.
with a stall speed of less that 35 kts would be included. The pilot would
have to certified as a sport pilot and would be allowed to carry one
passenger. There would be no physical required and the pilot would only be
allowed to fly during daylight hours. He would be allowed to use class D, C
& B airspace and airports. The distance limitation associated with the
recreation pilot would also be removed. They did not address navigational
requirements, i.e. transponder, ELS or radio so I have no details in that
area. Peter and other pilots that have lost there physical may want to look
into this and see if there is any truth to it.
I have one more question for the group. I was told by a CFI that a
taildragger endorsement is not required for a GA pilot if the taildragger is
an experimental. Can anyone confirm or deny that? ?? the FAR?
I have one more piece of information. The FAA is now requiring a bill of
sale to be submitted with your request for "n" number and registration. They
are now enforcing the regulation for "kit" built aircraft. This is now
required for all applications received by the FAA after OCT 1, 98. Faxed or
copied signatures are not acceptable they must be original.
John
waiting for "N" number
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Thompson [mailto:TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: decision
To the group because many of you may not know the UL Part 103 regulations
and 4274 exemption.
Since Peter has lost his license due to a medical condition he has no
choice but to follow the Ultralight avenue, unless of course he can pass his
medical. So, now he is restricted to single seat, 254 lbs, 5 gal fuel,
stall at 27 mph and max speed of 63 mph or thereabouts, ie. FireFLy
territory. There is one way he can go though. He could get his BFI license
and then fly a two place plane such as the MK III or as Joann suggested, as
Fire Star 2, but it would have to be used for instructional purposes only.
Since this aircraft only has a sinlge control stick not centrally located I
think the FAA would have a hard time believing that a lesson was being
given.
The student must have access to the controls.
I just thought I'd remind everybody of the UL regs and so too Peter's
options, as I see them at this point.
BTW, I've been told that each infraction of the UL Part 103 regs carry a
$1000.00 fine. Gulp! I'd hate to be made an example of.
>>> "Joann Hill" 10/20 1:02 PM >>>
If I was in your situation I would very likely build a FireStar 2.
Joann Hill N98KF
http://www.swcp.com/~jhill
>
>Hello group,
>
>I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost my
>medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA, but I
>would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will do
what
>I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
>something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
!
!
!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
hawk36(at)mindspring.com, kolb-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Colquitt, Ga. Fly-In |
For those interested in attending the Colquitt Fly-In this weekend, as
promised her are the coordinates:
N31 09 03
W84 42 03
The 2500ft grass runway runs East to West. Colquitt is located NE of
Donaldsonville (17J) and is on both the Jacksonville and New Orleans
sectionals.
I will also be hosting an Ultralight and GA Gathering at Quincy, Fl. on
Saturday, November 21, 1998 from 8-5pm. Campers are welcome. We will
be having a safety seminar, bomb drop competition, spot landing contest,
and poker run. There will be food, fun, friends, and Kolbs. If you are
interested call me at (850) 385-6673 or (850) 413-8272.
Rutledge Fuller
Tallahassee, Fl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
| Subject: | mail box for Ben |
Ben, your recient messages have been sneeking past my Kolb mailbox filter
into my in box. It is probably because of your Cc: to the list.
Only Ben?? :)
Eugene Z.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Wood, John T. <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil>
Date: Wednesday October 21 1998 7:05 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: decision
>
>There would be no physical required and the pilot would only be
>allowed to fly during daylight hours. He would be allowed to use class D, C
>& B airspace and airports. The distance limitation associated with the
>recreation pilot would also be removed. They did not address navigational
>requirements, i.e. transponder, ELS or radio so I have no details in that
>area. Peter and other pilots that have lost there physical may want to
look
>into this and see if there is any truth to it.
>
Be a little careful with this one because, as I understand it, anyone
intending to 'self-certify' , as for a glider rating, must not have had
their medical refused. Once you have lost it, you are not allowed to
self-certify, for obvious reasons. If you have never had a medical you are
qualified to self-certify. So, as the local sail-plane instructor said, "Get
your rating BEFORE you lose your medical".
>
>I have one more question for the group. I was told by a CFI that a
>taildragger endorsement is not required for a GA pilot if the taildragger
is
>an experimental. Can anyone confirm or deny that? ?? the FAR?
>
Looking back, I'm really not sure if the endorsement is required or not.
When I had my T-18 I 'thought' I needed the sign-off and took the training,
but I didn't really know for sure. The training was worthwhile.
Ron Carroll
Original Firestar
Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Cloughley <cloughle(at)novell.nadn.navy.mil> |
I fly a Corben Junior Ace (taildragger). Although it is an experimental, it is
considered a regular airplane. I had to take taildragger lessons from an instructor
and get the endorsement. The time with the instructor was well spent.
Coming from a Cessna 150, I can't imagine trying to takeoff and/or land a taildragger
without it. I also fly an Ultrastar but it doesn't at all fly like
a taildragger.
Bill Cloughley
Ultrastar
Essex, Maryland
>>> "Ron Carroll " 10/21 10:40 AM >>>
-----Original Message-----
From: Wood, John T. <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil>
Date: Wednesday October 21 1998 7:05 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: decision
>
>There would be no physical required and the pilot would only be
>allowed to fly during daylight hours. He would be allowed to use class D, C
>& B airspace and airports. The distance limitation associated with the
>recreation pilot would also be removed. They did not address navigational
>requirements, i.e. transponder, ELS or radio so I have no details in that
>area. Peter and other pilots that have lost there physical may want to
look
>into this and see if there is any truth to it.
>
Be a little careful with this one because, as I understand it, anyone
intending to 'self-certify' , as for a glider rating, must not have had
their medical refused. Once you have lost it, you are not allowed to
self-certify, for obvious reasons. If you have never had a medical you are
qualified to self-certify. So, as the local sail-plane instructor said, "Get
your rating BEFORE you lose your medical".
>
>I have one more question for the group. I was told by a CFI that a
>taildragger endorsement is not required for a GA pilot if the taildragger
is
>an experimental. Can anyone confirm or deny that? ?? the FAR?
>
Looking back, I'm really not sure if the endorsement is required or not.
When I had my T-18 I 'thought' I needed the sign-off and took the training,
but I didn't really know for sure. The training was worthwhile.
Ron Carroll
Original Firestar
Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
Ron;
The FAA guys specifically addressed the issue of the medical and implied
that there was no medical required and the "self certification" was being
removed from the wording.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Carroll [mailto:ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: decision
-----Original Message-----
From: Wood, John T. <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil>
Date: Wednesday October 21 1998 7:05 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: decision
>
>There would be no physical required and the pilot would only be
>allowed to fly during daylight hours. He would be allowed to use class D, C
>& B airspace and airports. The distance limitation associated with the
>recreation pilot would also be removed. They did not address navigational
>requirements, i.e. transponder, ELS or radio so I have no details in that
>area. Peter and other pilots that have lost there physical may want to
look
>into this and see if there is any truth to it.
>
Be a little careful with this one because, as I understand it, anyone
intending to 'self-certify' , as for a glider rating, must not have had
their medical refused. Once you have lost it, you are not allowed to
self-certify, for obvious reasons. If you have never had a medical you are
qualified to self-certify. So, as the local sail-plane instructor said, "Get
your rating BEFORE you lose your medical".
>
>I have one more question for the group. I was told by a CFI that a
>taildragger endorsement is not required for a GA pilot if the taildragger
is
>an experimental. Can anyone confirm or deny that? ?? the FAR?
>
Looking back, I'm really not sure if the endorsement is required or not.
When I had my T-18 I 'thought' I needed the sign-off and took the training,
but I didn't really know for sure. The training was worthwhile.
Ron Carroll
Original Firestar
Oregon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
Bill;
I am going to get my taildragger endorcement also. I was just trying to
determine the FAA regulation related to it. You are right the experience is
necessary and well worthwile the little extra money to get.
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: William Cloughley [mailto:cloughle(at)novell.nadn.navy.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: decision
I fly a Corben Junior Ace (taildragger). Although it is an experimental, it
is considered a regular airplane. I had to take taildragger lessons from an
instructor and get the endorsement. The time with the instructor was well
spent. Coming from a Cessna 150, I can't imagine trying to takeoff and/or
land a taildragger without it. I also fly an Ultrastar but it doesn't at
all fly like a taildragger.
Bill Cloughley
Ultrastar
Essex, Maryland
>>> "Ron Carroll " 10/21 10:40 AM >>>
-----Original Message-----
From: Wood, John T. <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil>
Date: Wednesday October 21 1998 7:05 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: decision
>
>There would be no physical required and the pilot would only be
>allowed to fly during daylight hours. He would be allowed to use class D, C
>& B airspace and airports. The distance limitation associated with the
>recreation pilot would also be removed. They did not address navigational
>requirements, i.e. transponder, ELS or radio so I have no details in that
>area. Peter and other pilots that have lost there physical may want to
look
>into this and see if there is any truth to it.
>
Be a little careful with this one because, as I understand it, anyone
intending to 'self-certify' , as for a glider rating, must not have had
their medical refused. Once you have lost it, you are not allowed to
self-certify, for obvious reasons. If you have never had a medical you are
qualified to self-certify. So, as the local sail-plane instructor said, "Get
your rating BEFORE you lose your medical".
>
>I have one more question for the group. I was told by a CFI that a
>taildragger endorsement is not required for a GA pilot if the taildragger
is
>an experimental. Can anyone confirm or deny that? ?? the FAR?
>
Looking back, I'm really not sure if the endorsement is required or not.
When I had my T-18 I 'thought' I needed the sign-off and took the training,
but I didn't really know for sure. The training was worthwhile.
Ron Carroll
Original Firestar
Oregon
!
!
!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: decision/exp taildrag endorsement |
John Wood asks:
<>
My fellow CFI is correct. FAR 61.31 contains the General Limitations
for Catagory, Class, High Performance, High Altitude and Tailwheel.
61.31h is an Exeption which says: ".... the rating limitations of this
section do not apply to .... (3) The holder of a pilot certificate when
operating an aircraft under the authority of an experimental or
provisional type certificate."
In theory, my single-engine-land private pilot wife can legally fly our
twin engine Defiant, even if I put it on floats. However, as an EAA
Flight Advisor, I must note anyone who flys a twin or water or high
performance or high altitude or tailwheel experimental aircraft without
enough instruction to meet 61.31 is less than properly prudent (I
orginally wrote crazy).
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Sport category (was decision) |
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Wood, John T. wrote:
> lines of the thread. The FAA is "strongly" looking into the "sport" pilot
> rating once again. The criteria for the rating included the following: All
> "fat" ultralights would have to be N numbered and airplanes up to 1200 lbs.
And as I've stated before, this is not necessarily good for us. This
constitutes a plane and pilot certification (and certification cost)
that is 95% of what it takes to get a real PPLicense and an N number.
Groups or individuals that promote this have selfishly taken the
liberty of using fat ultralights as a primary reason it is needed.
Why should a 350lb,. 30-80mph day-only plane that is currently operated
safely with USUA instruction be sucked into the same category as a
1200lbs 2-place 140mph plane? This was suppose to be OUR category.
To me, the sport category may be fine, but it is unfair that FAA or
anybody else pretends it is a solution for fat ultralights. And to
boot, this whole second(?) look was initiated for the 103 problem,
NOT as a way to try to rescue or bolster GA. In reality, I think the
sport category will result in a new law-breaking category analogous to
fat ultralights, but will come to be called thin-GA. I'm sour mainly
because the need for a good "fat ultralight" category is ignored, and
just as bad, some will pretend it has finally been addressed. It hasn't.
off-pulpit
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard neilsen" <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Taildragger Endorcement |
I got my tail dragger endorcement from Dan at Kolb. I got my byannual, taildragger,
and MKIII experience in one day. Now the taildragger endorcement isn't really
intended for a general avation tail dragger but Kolbs don't handle (BAD)
like most tail draggers. The local instructors in Lansing MI area were talking
10-15 hours dual before you could earn a endorcement. A real quick calculation
showed it was much cheaper to go to the Kolb factory than to do it locally and
I got training in the plane I had built. I call this a no brainer win win.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport category (was decision) |
Ben, in some ways I do agree with you but in others I don't. I don't like the
segregation and discrimination UL pilots suffer when they try to fly into some
GA airports. I would like to be honored like any other GA VFR pilot anywhere.
However I don't believe that our type of aviation can support the existing
GA licensing machine. For example, the recreational license was supposed to
cut the cost of a pilots license by a big percentage. The local flight schools
curriculum for this license was 95% of what it takes for 95 of the cost and
you could only fly with 50 miles. So what's the point. If USUA and or EAA
could administrer a Sport License we could regulate and lobby for UL, and receive
all the benefits of an "N" aircraft then I'm all for it.. We all share a
common aviation interest and having all rights and privledges as an N numbered
aircraft is all right by me. No doubt, I don't know how the Flight Schools could
make any money on this license unless they "fast food" vend the offering.
The GA
I am always amazed when a Harley owner shuns a scooter rider. "My machine is a
real motorcycle and yours is insignificant therfore you don't count!" This egotistic
attitude will kill the industry. We must band together with GA to perserve
aviation in all forms. UL activity can help a small airport attract more
business and therefore more money. We need GA pilots to help win over some
of the airport operators. In my case, since I run a flight school operation
out of a private airport I provide a cut of my profits to the airport owner.
Without him I couldn't exist so I'm happy to do so. Do I make any money?
Hardly, after the cost of running, depreciation of the aircraft, materials I provide
to the students and insurance I can buy a pizza in celebration of the solo
ride.
So why do it? As the poem High Flight says: " to reach out and touch the face
of God" What an experience we all share! Let's work together with the GA community
and spread our unique aviation "hanging it all out there" joy.
Now I'll get off the stump so someone else can speak. Thank you, thank you very
much.
>>> Ben Ransom 10/21 4:04 PM >>>
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Wood, John T. wrote:
> lines of the thread. The FAA is "strongly" looking into the "sport" pilot
> rating once again. The criteria for the rating included the following: All
> "fat" ultralights would have to be N numbered and airplanes up to 1200 lbs.
And as I've stated before, this is not necessarily good for us.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
I agree but-with a socket type joint limited to 1.25 dia I dont think it can
be done. Even with the orig gear acting as a failure element people have
damaged the cage. Best would be a hinged and supported type cub style but
Homer was fighting weight. I still have not even got the plane out of the
Barn yet to try it.
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cpeterhu(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Sport category (was decision) |
Guess I'll look for a boat.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Bruner" <brunerd(at)ulster.net> |
| Subject: | Re: decision/Ransom's comments |
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: decision
>
>On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 Cpeterhu(at)aol.com wrote:
>> Hello group,
>>
>> I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost my
>What you end up with Peter, depends on how much you want to be flying
>under a cloud of illegality and personal liability. A 103 UL that got
>a little heavy (i know, no such thing in strict terms) will likely not
>cause you any grief. However, even this leaves you in the illigitimate
>child category of aviation. You may find trouble getting insurance,
>which would likely be required at your local airport. But then, maybe
>you'd have no problem either; most people don't, but have perhaps signed
>their name to false weight on their insurance application.
>
>If you are flying something much beyond slightly fat 103, you're really
>asking a lot of the FAA to leave you be. I think anything 2-place
>and you not having a BFI/AFI, or without dual controls is flagrant
>violation of the letter and spirit of 103. You might as well fly a C-150
>without medical. Getting back to the specific options you mention, I
>think the SS is OUT, and the FF is good, but you might make it illegally
>heavy anyway by adding optional equipment. A legal weight FF
>offers the advantage of you being able to ask for the full FAA backing
>when some anti-UL airport manager gives you grief. To me, the best UL
>plane is a Firestar I with 447. I say that because they are just a bit
>slower stall and lighter than a FSII-503, and the 447 is plenty of power
>unless you're an extra large pilot. I'm thinking the earlier model FS
>(originial or KX, KXP) with 447 might even be better than a FS I, again
>because of slightly lower weight, slower landing, etc. ...individual
>preference tho.
>
>Ben Ransom
>http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
Thanks Ben, for the clearest (in such a murky atmosphere) outline of the
ramifications of "fat" U/L's. A few questions tho, if you (all) would humor
(a wannabe) a bit.
Can't a BFI flying solo in a Mark III (or other 2 seat, dual control U/L)
say she is doing further training? How do unregistered 2 place U/L's stay
w/i reg's unless they're always training a student?
I'm not familiar with the KX or KXP models; evidently they're no longer
available (new that is). How do they compare with current Kolbs and why
aren't they being made any more? Sometimes a little extra weight (strength
& safety) is better.
Last - doesn't the 503 (single carb) weigh (about) the same as a 447?
David (still trying to conjure up my perfect U/L) Bruner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)WORLDNET.ATT.NET> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Wood, John T. <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil>
Date: Wednesday October 21 1998 9:55 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: decision
>
>Ron;
> The FAA guys specifically addressed the issue of the medical and implied
>that there was no medical required and the "self certification" was being
>removed from the wording.
>
>John
GOOD NEWS! Let's hear it for the 'good old FAA' ! I'll take one!
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: decision/Ransom's comments |
David Bruner wrote:
> Can't a BFI flying solo in a Mark III (or other 2 seat, dual control U/L)
> say she is doing further training? How do unregistered 2 place U/L's stay
> w/i reg's unless they're always training a student?
They are suppose to have a student with them or be traveling to or from student
trainning.
> I'm not familiar with the KX or KXP models; evidently they're no longer
> available (new that is). How do they compare with current Kolbs and why
> aren't they being made any more? Sometimes a little extra weight (strength
> & safety) is better.
The Firestar KX and KXP models were produced between the original Firestar and
the
current Firestar I and II. The KXP had the 7 rib wings and the KX had 5. The other
difference was the unique cage, one seat, low sides. If I have this wrong, someone
correct me, quick.
> Last - doesn't the 503 (single carb) weigh (about) the same as a 447?
The 503 weighs about 20 more pounds than the 447. I don't recall if that was with
one or two carbs. But they only claim 6 more hp for the single carb version than
the 447.
John Jung
Firestar II 503
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: decision/Ransom's comments |
The other situation that could arise allowing a solo BFI flight is when you've
made maintanence fixes or changes to the aircraft and you must flight test before
allowing a student to occupy the aircraft. My aircraft requires a lot of
maintanence...since I am such a perfectionist and very safety oriented.
>>> John Jung 10/22 8:07 AM >>>
David Bruner wrote:
> Can't a BFI flying solo in a Mark III (or other 2 seat, dual control U/L)
> say she is doing further training? How do unregistered 2 place U/L's stay
> w/i reg's unless they're always training a student?
They are suppose to have a student with them or be traveling to or from student
trainning.
> I'm not familiar with the KX or KXP models; evidently they're no longer
> available (new that is). How do they compare with current Kolbs and why
> aren't they being made any more? Sometimes a little extra weight (strength
> & safety) is better.
The Firestar KX and KXP models were produced between the original Firestar and
the
current Firestar I and II. The KXP had the 7 rib wings and the KX had 5. The other
difference was the unique cage, one seat, low sides. If I have this wrong, someone
correct me, quick.
> Last - doesn't the 503 (single carb) weigh (about) the same as a 447?
The 503 weighs about 20 more pounds than the 447. I don't recall if that was with
one or two carbs. But they only claim 6 more hp for the single carb version than
the 447.
John Jung
Firestar II 503
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Davis" <ldavis(at)netusa1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: decision/Ransom's comments |
> Thanks Ben, for the clearest (in such a murky atmosphere) outline of the
> ramifications of "fat" U/L's. A few questions tho, if you (all) would humor
> (a wannabe) a bit.
>
> Can't a BFI flying solo in a Mark III (or other 2 seat, dual control U/L)
> say she is doing further training? How do unregistered 2 place U/L's stay
> w/i reg's unless they're always training a student?
>
> I'm not familiar with the KX or KXP models; evidently they're no longer
> available (new that is). How do they compare with current Kolbs and why
> aren't they being made any more? Sometimes a little extra weight (strength
> & safety) is better.
>
> Last - doesn't the 503 (single carb) weigh (about) the same as a 447?
>
> David (still trying to conjure up my perfect U/L) Bruner
David,
While not legal, thousands of people fly two place ultralights, all
the time, with no problems. Go to any large fly-in and you'll see
this is true. You just take a chance that you'll be checked by the
FAA, but few ever are. It it bothers you, just get a BFI certificate
and if asked, you are on the way to giving a lesson. If you'd rather
not worry about the possibility of being hassled, buy/build a single
place and outfit it anyway you want. You'll never be bothered by
anyone, with a single place. The 503 (my choice) weights 8 pounds
more than the 447 with single carb and ten more with dual carbs
(my choice again) according to CPS (1-800-AIRWOLF) catalog.
The Rotax 503 is a beautiful engine. Especially on a Challenger 1
CW. :)
--
Larry Davis
Marion, Indiana
http://www.netusa1.net/~ldavis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Re: The no-medical thing. I wonder whether the restriction also applies
to cases like mine, wherein I didn't send a bunch of med info in,
requesting Special BlahBlah. Cardioquack said I wouldn't pass, so no use
wasting 32 So I wasn't turned down, just didn't re-apply at end of old
med. Prob'ly need a PHL lawyer? Grey Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
Flying UL doesn't require a medical examination. So you could fly Part 103 and
or fly exemption 4274 - 2 place ULs as a BFI.
The key here is that you have not submitted the medical paperwork to the FAA to
certifiy that you failed your medical. You're in the grey area and the call
is yours. With UL regs, you are required to sign an afidavit stating that you
do not knowlingly have any impairment which would negatively impact your ability
to fly the aircraft competantly. If you can in good conscience sign such a
document then you are free to fly under Part 103. It's your choice to do the
right thing, however you see it. "A man's got to know his limitations". (Thank
you Dirty Harry?) I'm classified as a "handicap" and have proven that I can
competantly fly an aircraft. I could not pass a medical without exclusions,
limitations, caviats, insurance riders and a note from my mommy to get an FAA
license - and then go throught the whole mess each subsequent year. So I fly
UL and have my BFI. I made my choice. You'll have to do the same.
BTW, why don't we have medicals for a drivers license? 60% of the population would
fail for some idiotic reason BUT our insurance rates would decrease BIG TIME
!!
Re: The no-medical thing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ray abbruzzese <rabbruzz(at)unlinfo.unl.edu> |
>
>Flying UL doesn't require a medical examination. So you could fly Part 103
and or fly >exemption 4274 - 2 place ULs as a BFI.
>The key here is that you have not submitted the medical paperwork to the
FAA to certifiy >that you failed your medical. You're in the grey area and
the call is yours. With UL >regs, you are required to sign an afidavit
stating that you do not knowlingly have any >impairment which would
negatively impact your ability to fly the aircraft competantly.
Where is that "requirement" written? I have NEVER had to sign such a
document and I've been at this UL thing for over 10 years now.
See you in the sky !
Ray Abbruzzese E-Mail at: rabbruzz(at)unlinfo.unl.edu
Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Standard Disclaimer: These are my opinions and you all know
about opinions (they are like butts: everybody has one). I
could be wrong and I probably am. Just please do not sue me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
I hope this works out although better it be the gear leg which bends and is
easily replaced, let me rephrase that, easier to replace, than repair of a
bent, fatigued metal cage. Weakest link bends or breaks. Keep us posted.
Jerry
>
>I know I will take FLAK for this but I just replaced my ruptured Duck
aluminum
>gear with a Titanium one. The scrap dealer had 5 feet of 6AL-4V 1 inch dia
>bar that I made both legs from. No I did not taper it as its tough for
>amateurs to work Titanium. According to my numbers its about 20% more
capable
>(15000 in LB Vs 12800 in LB bending moment) and ended up 6 oz heavier. Ups
>the impact G loading before bending from 2.5 to 3. This is still less
than GA
>typical values of 4 to 5 but might make the difference with my diminishing
>skill levels.
>Dick C
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Colquitt GA Fly In |
Any of you folks in the N Fla, SW Georgia, SE Alabama areas should be saving
up your gas money for the trip to Colquitt. The forcast is starting to look
great and I'm already salivating over the whole pig barb-b-que on Saturday the
24th. The Tallahassee/Quincy bunch was planning to go to the Jonesville
gathering but decided closer is better.
The field is a sod farm one mile SE of the city of Colquitt. Hope to see a
crowd of you there ! Especially you, John H., no excuses even if you have
to drive (gulp).
Duane Mitchell, Tallahassee, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-list: decision[s] |
I thought I'd put up the basic weight and power specs for
the Rotax Firestar size engines. All these from the 1996/97
LEAF catelog. I think I maybe already said earlier, but I
like the 447. For me it is plenty of power and keeping the
weight down whereever possible helps keep the L in STOL.
-Ben Ransom
377 35hp @6500 ~26 ft-lbs @6000
Engine 60.6
Carb 2.5
Exh 11.0
Grbox 10.5
Total 84.6 2.42 lb/hp
447SC 39.6hp @6800 32.5 ft-lbs @6000
Engine 59.1
Carb 2.0
AirClnr ~ .5
Exh 10.8
B Box 9.9
Total 82.3 2.08 lb/hp
447DC 41.6hp @6800 34.7 ft-lbs @6000
add 2.5 for second carb
Total 84.8 2.04 lb/hp
503SC 46hp @6250 ~38 ft-lbs @6000
Engine 69.2
Carb/Cleaner 2.5
Exh 11.2
B Box 9.9
Total 92.9 2.02 lb/hp
503DC 50hp @6500 ~41 ft-lbs @6250
add 2.5 for second carb
Total 95.4 1.91 lb/hp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cpeterhu(at)aol.com |
Hey, you are absolutely right about that drivers license bit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cpeterhu(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: decision/Ransom's comments |
Boy I sure have learned lot with that one question. Thank you one and all.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carburetor departure |
>
>There was some flak some time back about a DAR inspecting an airplane
>required the builder to safety the carbs to the engine so they couldn't
>come out of the boot. I heard that the rubber boot should be replaced
>every couple years as it ages it gets brittle and cracks and carb will
>come off. When you see how those things shake you really wonder how they
>take it.
>Jerry
That might have been me. I had to positively secure the carb
assembly on the Rotax 532. The easiest way is to use the threaded castings
that the Rotax has on the side of the block, probably designed as motor
mount holes for a snowmobile application. Attach a 90 degree bracket
oriented vertically to the one by the gearbox, and another one to the
casting below and behind the pulse port. Loosely bolt a flat strap to each
of the brackets and make it long enough to stick out as far as the air filter.
Bolt/rivit a bracket/strap to the steel outside edge of the
airfilter box, and the ends should turn 90 degrees and point at the engine.
Loosely bolt the flat
strap ends to it.
Now you have the airfilter, (and the carbs sandwiched between it and
the block) bolted/strapped to the engine, and it is free to shake up and
down, but not move in or out. Cheap, quick, and easy. And the carbs CANNOT
get away. I assume it will also work on the 582. I have no similar ideas for
the 503/447, sorry.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: decision/exp taildrag endorsement |
This is the true word ?? No mistake ?? I can fly my Mk III with my SEL
pilots' license and no taildragger sign-off ?? Legally ?? This is going
to save me the best part of a $1000.00 bill. I've already taken 2 lessons
in a Citabria, and have been assured by many people that an experimental
follows the same rules as a certified airplane. This is great news, and
I'd like to read more on it. My copy of the FAR/AIM doesn't have 61.31.
Where can I find it on the web ?? Lately I've been saying Thanks quite a
bit to you guys. Again, this is great ! ! ! Big Lar.
----------
> From: Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: decision/exp taildrag endorsement
> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 11:10 AM
>
>
> John Wood asks:
>
> < taildragger endorsement is not required for a GA pilot if the
> taildragger is an experimental. Can anyone confirm or deny that? ?? the
> FAR?>>
>
> My fellow CFI is correct. FAR 61.31 contains the General Limitations
> for Catagory, Class, High Performance, High Altitude and Tailwheel.
> 61.31h is an Exeption which says: ".... the rating limitations of this
> section do not apply to .... (3) The holder of a pilot certificate when
> operating an aircraft under the authority of an experimental or
> provisional type certificate."
>
>
> Tom Kuffel
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rv8(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: decision/exp taildrag endorsement |
>I'd like to read more on it. My copy of the FAR/AIM doesn't have 61.31.
>Where can I find it on the web ?? Lately I've been saying Thanks quite a
The following link will take you to an index of all the FAR's, listed by
section. This is really the best way to use them, because you can download
the sections you want quickly, then search for what you're interested in.
Enjoy,
Rusty
http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far_idx.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
While your correct about the reg's, I would tend to believe majority of
this group are flying fat UL's with some exceptions and those with N
numbers. Ever been to Oshkosh, the FAA is there and are even riding or
flying in them.
Myself, I would much rather have a trained previously licensed pilot who
may not have a valid medical in the air with me or over my head with a
solid machine than self taught pilots who have no ideal of what a pattern
is or emergency procedures flying marginal constructed and strength
vehicles where the engine may fall off and land on me. (Kolbs are well
built but there are others out there one might be careful of)
I do feel flying a two place as an UL is pushing things. Keep it simple
and make it look like a UL and fly right, they'll leave you alone unless
you go picking a fight. I also think we should have a category like many
other countries following the 360# limit single place, with some minimum
training and that it should be enforced. I would be happy with it.
Jerry
>
>To the group because many of you may not know the UL Part 103 regulations
and 4274 exemption.
>
> Since Peter has lost his license due to a medical condition he has no
choice but to follow the Ultralight avenue, unless of course he can pass
his medical. So, now he is restricted to single seat, 254 lbs, 5 gal fuel,
stall at 27 mph and max speed of 63 mph or thereabouts, ie. FireFLy
territory. There is one way he can go though. He could get his BFI
license and then fly a two place plane such as the MK III or as Joann
suggested, as Fire Star 2, but it would have to be used for instructional
purposes only. Since this aircraft only has a sinlge control stick not
centrally located I think the FAA would have a hard time believing that a
lesson was being given.
>The student must have access to the controls.
>I just thought I'd remind everybody of the UL regs and so too Peter's
options, as I see them at this point.
>
>BTW, I've been told that each infraction of the UL Part 103 regs carry a
$1000.00 fine. Gulp! I'd hate to be made an example of.
>
>>>> "Joann Hill" 10/20 1:02 PM >>>
>
>If I was in your situation I would very likely build a FireStar 2.
>Joann Hill N98KF
>http://www.swcp.com/~jhill
>
>
>>
>>Hello group,
>>
>>I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost my
>>medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA, but I
>>would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will do
>what
>>I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
>>something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
>
>
>
>
>
>
!
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Sport category (was decision) |
Ben, I differ with your position.
The sport pilot rating addresses exactly the problem, fat UL's. In your own
words you highlight the problem "Why should a 350lb,. 30-80mph day-only
plane that is currently operated safely with USUA instruction be sucked
into the same category as a >1200lbs 2-place 140mph plane? This was
suppose to be OUR category.
Our "category" is 254# not 350#. Change the law or obey it. I go for
changing the law and if necessary creating a new category allowing me to
fly a safe airplane/vehicle with a safe fuel allotment, say 10-15 gallons
rather than fall out of the sky 5 when you encounter a head wind. Brakes
are a nice safety feature also. No passengers, no annual, 360# just like
other countries.
They messed up a couple years ago. A couple of our good "organizations"
either objected in total or proposed changes to the published RFC for the
new proposed category during the comment period thus those were counted as
no votes so were all stuck without anything better. Later, even a lead
administor of one of our major organizations withdrew from the FAA his own
proposal he has submitted. Take what we can get then change it to what we
want and need. The reason the FAA doesn't move on anything is pilots tend
to be free spirited thus can't take a firm "collective" position on
anything so we have little voice to be heard.
Jerry
>
>On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Wood, John T. wrote:
>> lines of the thread. The FAA is "strongly" looking into the "sport" pilot
>> rating once again. The criteria for the rating included the following: All
>> "fat" ultralights would have to be N numbered and airplanes up to 1200 lbs.
>
>And as I've stated before, this is not necessarily good for us. This
>constitutes a plane and pilot certification (and certification cost)
>that is 95% of what it takes to get a real PPLicense and an N number.
>Groups or individuals that promote this have selfishly taken the
>liberty of using fat ultralights as a primary reason it is needed.
>
>Why should a 350lb,. 30-80mph day-only plane that is currently operated
>safely with USUA instruction be sucked into the same category as a
>1200lbs 2-place 140mph plane? This was suppose to be OUR category.
>
>To me, the sport category may be fine, but it is unfair that FAA or
>anybody else pretends it is a solution for fat ultralights. And to
>boot, this whole second(?) look was initiated for the 103 problem,
>NOT as a way to try to rescue or bolster GA. In reality, I think the
>sport category will result in a new law-breaking category analogous to
>fat ultralights, but will come to be called thin-GA. I'm sour mainly
>because the need for a good "fat ultralight" category is ignored, and
>just as bad, some will pretend it has finally been addressed. It hasn't.
>
>off-pulpit
>-Ben Ransom
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
The SlingShot is nearly 400#, well over the 254# limit. I have a FireFly,
it flys fine but if your a larger person I would go for a FireStar, it's
roomer and the extra wing will reduce your landing speed making it a bit
safer. While you might be able to build a FireStar within the 254#, you'll
probably be over but you still look like a ultralight.
My 2 cents,
Jerry
>
>Hello group,
>
>I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost my
>medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA, but I
>would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will do
what
>I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
>something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
>
>
>
>
>
103. It's your choice to do the right thing, however you see it. "A man's
got to know his limitations". (Thank you Dirty Harry?) I'm classified as a
"handicap" and have proven that I can competantly fly an aircraft. I could
not pass a medical without exclusions, limitations, caviats, insurance
riders and a note from my mommy to get an FAA license - and then go
throught the whole mess each subsequent year. So I fly UL and have my BFI.
I made my choice. You'll have to do the same.
>
>BTW, why don't we have medicals for a drivers license? 60% of the
population would fail for some idiotic reason BUT our insurance rates would
decrease BIG TIME !!
>
>
>Re: The no-medical thing.
>
>
>
>
!
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
My partner has a different (tractor type) airplane which had a poor design
for the gear. He reworked it using springs instead of bungee cord and it
make a totally different airplane out of it. It was sweet and you didn't
have to worry to much about dropping it in or over loading the fragile cord
restraints the original system used which were always wanting to bend.
Jerry
>
>I agree but-with a socket type joint limited to 1.25 dia I dont think it can
>be done. Even with the orig gear acting as a failure element people have
>damaged the cage. Best would be a hinged and supported type cub style but
>Homer was fighting weight. I still have not even got the plane out of the
>Barn yet to try it.
>Dick
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
Good solid advise below from Ben. Owning a FireFly, I would now go for the
FireStar unless your a small person. (I needed the short wing span at the
time) As for the engine I should know the weight difference but I don't
have my reference material at hand. How much weight difference is there
between the 447 and the 503. There is some but it not that much. As for
brakes, the small amount of weight they add, I would put them on. I look
at them as safety equipment. If your were to run into another plane or a
person from not having them your would be in it deep so what difference
would it make. Just learn to fly where you don't depend upon them. Good
luck...
Jerry
>
>On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 Cpeterhu(at)aol.com wrote:
>> Hello group,
>>
>> I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost my
>> medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA, but I
>> would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will
do what
>> I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
>> something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
>>
>I just saw Todd's post and was thinking of throwing in something along
>those lines myself. Good reminder Todd.
>
>What you end up with Peter, depends on how much you want to be flying
>under a cloud of illegality and personal liability. A 103 UL that got
>a little heavy (i know, no such thing in strict terms) will likely not
>cause you any grief. However, even this leaves you in the illigitimate
>child category of aviation. You may find trouble getting insurance,
>which would likely be required at your local airport. But then, maybe
>you'd have no problem either; most people don't, but have perhaps signed
>their name to false weight on their insurance application.
>
>If you are flying something much beyond slightly fat 103, you're really
>asking a lot of the FAA to leave you be. I think anything 2-place
>and you not having a BFI/AFI, or without dual controls is flagrant
>violation of the letter and spirit of 103. You might as well fly a C-150
>without medical. Getting back to the specific options you mention, I
>think the SS is OUT, and the FF is good, but you might make it illegally
>heavy anyway by adding optional equipment. A legal weight FF
>offers the advantage of you being able to ask for the full FAA backing
>when some anti-UL airport manager gives you grief. To me, the best UL
>plane is a Firestar I with 447. I say that because they are just a bit
>slower stall and lighter than a FSII-503, and the 447 is plenty of power
>unless you're an extra large pilot. I'm thinking the earlier model FS
>(originial or KX, KXP) with 447 might even be better than a FS I, again
>because of slightly lower weight, slower landing, etc. ...individual
>preference tho.
>
>Ben Ransom
>http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
There is evidently one other option: Fly a two place UL with an individual
exemption from the FAA. I talked to a Mark III pilot this summer that applied for
an got and exemption from to fly his two place as an ultralight. He weighs well
over 200 pounds, and he claimed that only a two place ultralight would be safe
for
him. I don't know how many people are getting these, and I don't know what the
requirements or guidelines are, but it appears to be possible.
John Jung
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Geezer810(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: decision/exp taildrag endorsement |
Hi Lar,
Stopped flying GA about 11 years ago because of the cost. Bought a Phantom UL
and have been flying it ever since. Earlier this year my wife suggested I buy
a 2 place "someting". I found a practically new MKIII just a few miles away
for sale. I was also told that a tailwheel endorsement was needed. I got my
medical, BFR and the endorsement in a Piper Pacer. (Snakey little devil)
After all this, I found that FAR 61.31 on page F-63 says I didn't need it.
Although the MKIII flies much easier than the Pacer, I would hate to have
tried flying it without the endorsement.
Later,
Harry Wingert
Papillion, NE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
>>> Jerry Bidle 10/23 4:56 AM >>>
" flying marginal constructed and strength
vehicles where the engine may fall off and land on me. "
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
>>> Jerry Bidle 10/23 4:56 AM >>>
I not sure I want to ask this since we all might learn something none of us
want to hear but what affidavit are you referring to as being required to
sign to fly a UL.
Jerry and K/L,T
The USUA Student Application Form & Release has a "self certifiy" type clause (let's
not debate my choice of words here) which requires you to affirm by signing
which states:
"It is the responsibility of each student to ask whatever questions are necessary
for him or her to have a thorough understanding of the actions and proceedures
that he or she must perfrom in or to make a safe flight. Each ultalight pilot
has the responsibility to exercise certain practises and perform certain
actions to maintain safety for himself or herself and for other people."
To "exercise certain practises and perform certain actions to maintain safety for
himself or herself and for other people." is the "self certifying" staement.
If you have a known heart condition which would preclude you from exercising
certain practises and perform certain actions to maintain safety and could
endanger the safety of others then in good conscienous you would never affirm
this statement. It seems to me that there is no grey area here.
!
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Sport category (was decision) |
Right off the top:
Hope the kolb group is somewhat tolerant of this subject. I know it is
not distinctly kolb related so I'll drop it after this note. Anyone feel
free to mail me directly if interested in further discussion.
-Ben Ransom
On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Jerry Bidle wrote:
>
> Ben, I differ with your position.
>
> The sport pilot rating addresses exactly the problem, fat UL's. In your own
> words you highlight the problem "Why should a 350lb,. 30-80mph day-only
> plane that is currently operated safely with USUA instruction be sucked
> into the same category as a >1200lbs 2-place 140mph plane? This was
> suppose to be OUR category.
>
> Our "category" is 254# not 350#. Change the law or obey it. I go for
> changing the law and if necessary creating a new category allowing me to
> fly a safe airplane/vehicle with a safe fuel allotment, say 10-15 gallons
> rather than fall out of the sky 5 when you encounter a head wind. Brakes
> are a nice safety feature also. No passengers, no annual, 360# just like
> other countries.
My thinking tho, is that it is too big a jump from the training
requirements we now have in 103 to the training requirements for Sport
category. Not only that, the Sport category is too close to the GA
requirements for it to be anything appreciably new. The main thing
it seems to be is a wiggle hole for people who don't pass the medical
(myself included perhaps). I'm with you as far as a 360# microlight
category as is used in other countries. The main goal should be
training/certification commensurate with aircraft and flying complexity.
IMO, Sport category requirements are too far from what most people are
flying as fat UL, and too close to what most people are flying as GA.
> proposal he has submitted. Take what we can get then change it to what we
> want and need.
I think this may be how things turn out. But 103 has been around and
unchanged for a long time now. I don't think we'll get endless chances
to get a category or piece of the "umbrella" that is specific to typical
fat ULs. Fat ULs are popular because of their capabilities, not just
because they are a poor man's excuse for an airplane (although that
unfortunately exists too). Therefore a corresponding pilot category
will always be needed.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chris sudlow <suds77(at)earthlink.net> |
John,
I would like to hear more about this. Do you have a name or phone # for the Mark
III
owner?
John Jung wrote:
>
> There is evidently one other option: Fly a two place UL with an individual
> exemption from the FAA. I talked to a Mark III pilot this summer that applied
for
> an got and exemption from to fly his two place as an ultralight. He weighs well
> over 200 pounds, and he claimed that only a two place ultralight would be safe
for
> him. I don't know how many people are getting these, and I don't know what the
> requirements or guidelines are, but it appears to be possible.
> John Jung
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Coquitt Georgia fly-in |
I drove to the site of the Colquitt "fly-in" today just to check it out and
maybe lend a hand. I found a paper sign on highway 27 but that was the only
indication of any activity. It was on dirt road with some sparsely grassed
open fields on one side and some nearly overgrown bushy fields on the other.
There was one grassy strip about 800' long but the grass was about 18" high.
I may fly from my home base in Quincy to Bainbridge, gas up, then fly the rest
of the way with plenty of gas in case I decide not to land. The forcast has
dimmed my hopes with 10 to 15 mph head winds. Always hoping for the best but
never depending on hope.... Duane (Captain Chicken) Mitchell.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Reed Lindberg <reed(at)indra.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rusty's Sling Shot |
Rutledge Fuller wrote:
>
> I can't delieve that no one has purchased Rusty's Sling Shot yet!! I
> think that would be a good project for you, unless you really want to
> build.
>
> Rutledge Fuller
>
> I'm new here and haven't heard about Rusty's Sling Shot. Could be just what
I
> need. Where's Rusty located?
Reed Lindberg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rv8(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rusty's Sling Shot |
>> I'm new here and haven't heard about Rusty's Sling Shot. Could be just
what I
>> need. Where's Rusty located?
>
>Reed Lindberg
Unfortunately, Rusty is currently stuck in Cleveland for two more weeks, and
he's not happy about it :-)
The plane, however, is near Pensacola FL. What I'm selling is a SlingShot
that I built and flew for about a year with a 503 engine. As it turned out,
the SlingShot really wasn't as much fun as I had hoped it would be with the
503, so I removed the engine and sold it. I considered some other engine
options, but since my priority now is the RV-8 that I'm building, I realized
it would be best to just sell the SS.
Well, that brings everyone up to date on the SS saga. The plane is complete
minus engine, and I'm asking $9000. There are building and flight logs
available on my web page, and also a few pictures of the plane. If you have
any specific questions, e-mail me direct.
Thanks,
Rusty
http://www.mindspring.com/~rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: decision/exp taildrag endorsement |
Thanks Rusty. Now all I have to do is figure out how to print only what
I'm interested in, and not the whole book. Also, I told my hang gliding
instructor about your SS today. He's looking for a semi- or completed U/L
with jump seat, and good performance. Forwarded your message with your web
link to him. Big Lar.
----------
>
> The following link will take you to an index of all the FAR's, listed by
> section. This is really the best way to use them, because you can
download
> the sections you want quickly, then search for what you're interested in.
>
> Enjoy,
> Rusty
>
> http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far_idx.htm
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Swartz <Tswartz(at)ptdprolog.net> |
What idle RPM do you 912 users like? I have mine set at 1900 but that
requires constant braking when taxing on hard surfaces. I am getting
ready to do my first annual and plan to balance the carbs and was
considering lowering the idle RPM. Comments???
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-list: decision[s] |
<< I thought I'd put up the basic weight and power specs for
the Rotax Firestar size engines. All these from the 1996/97
LEAF catelog. I think I maybe already said earlier, but I
like the 447. For me it is plenty of power and keeping the
weight down whereever possible helps keep the L in STOL.
-Ben Ransom
377 35hp @6500 ~26 ft-lbs @6000
Engine 60.6
Carb 2.5
Exh 11.0
Grbox 10.5
Total 84.6 2.42 lb/hp
447SC 39.6hp @6800 32.5 ft-lbs @6000
Engine 59.1
Carb 2.0
AirClnr ~ .5
Exh 10.8
B Box 9.9
Total 82.3 2.08 lb/hp
447DC 41.6hp @6800 34.7 ft-lbs @6000
add 2.5 for second carb
Total 84.8 2.04 lb/hp
503SC 46hp @6250 ~38 ft-lbs @6000
Engine 69.2
Carb/Cleaner 2.5
Exh 11.2
B Box 9.9
Total 92.9 2.02 lb/hp
503DC 50hp @6500 ~41 ft-lbs @6250
add 2.5 for second carb
Total 95.4 1.91 lb/hp
>>
great numbers! and now I understand why the 503 is so loved.....1.91
lb/hp...packs more hp per weight than anything else!.....but I'm at a loss on
the lack of dimensions on some of the other data...........and what a bout the
"total" number....a figure of merit or something like it??.............I
merely ask you....what's goin on here??!!....GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: decision/exp taildrag endorsement |
? You siad the endorsement, I feel you ment the experience you gained.
>
>Hi Lar,
>Stopped flying GA about 11 years ago because of the cost. Bought a
Phantom UL
>and have been flying it ever since. Earlier this year my wife suggested I
buy
>a 2 place "someting". I found a practically new MKIII just a few miles away
>for sale. I was also told that a tailwheel endorsement was needed. I got my
>medical, BFR and the endorsement in a Piper Pacer. (Snakey little devil)
>After all this, I found that FAR 61.31 on page F-63 says I didn't need it.
>Although the MKIII flies much easier than the Pacer, I would hate to have
>tried flying it without the endorsement.
>
>Later,
>Harry Wingert
>Papillion, NE
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com |
Pete
Let me say this about the KOLB co. that I have not seen anyone say
something about
and that is the SERVICE you receive from" KOLB" I built a M/3 and every
time that I needed advice,.. a call to old Dennis and the problem
answered .Every time that I needed a part wammo.... it was on the way.
Well this was 3yr. ago
Now I needed a part so I called KOLB talked to Dan, the KOLB flight
instructor
about my needs he said take care of it but right now he had a student
waiting on him
by the airplane , PETE this telephone conversation took place on tuesday
morning on FRIDAY morning the part that I ordered was at my house
thousands of miles away
So you must look at the kind of service you will receive during the
building as well as three years after you get finished .
Rick Libersat
>
>Hello group,
>
>I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost
>my
>medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA,
>but I
>would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will
>do what
>I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
>something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
All the discussion the last couple days about part 103 and 350 Pound
"Ultralights" got me thinking about my old Hummer. I bring this up to maybe
help those that are trying to save weight.
When I finished the Hummer in 1983, it weighed 246 pounds. It had a
Rotax277 with belt drive. No options, factory stock, period.
Several years later it was operating under part 91, and was up
around 275 pounds with hand deployed (Handbury brand) parachute, brakes, nav
and landing lights, 720 channel radio, strobes, partial fairing and
windshield, and a cargo bin behind the gas tank.
In 1992 or 93, I totally disassembled it to replace the fabric, it
had the slip on double surface sails type of fabric. Recovered it with glued
on fabric, had to add a bunch of false ribs and also a false spar to attach
them to.
Used the lightest dacron I could get, glued it to the tubing with
Rand-O-Bond, and ribstitched it to the ribs. Painted it with latex, 2 coats
of black for a U/V stopper, and then trimmed it in yellow for a sunburst
decoration. That only saves a little weight over the correct Stits process,
but it saves a BUNCH over slip-on sails.
Along the way, aggressively reduced weight by replacing original
heavy sleeved cables with open cables and small pulleys, took the fairing
and sanded it thinner to lighten it, went to the next thinner thickness
Lexan windshield, eliminated the cargo bay and attached a kids school
bookbag to the back of the seat, replaced the old technology strobe with a
newer smaller one, stuff like that.
Replaced the hand deployed chute with a Sidewinder. Weighed it after
I got done, it weighed 254 pounds, with the chute. And it flew a bunch better.
I guess the point is, there are ways to make it lighter. Just
bolting stuff on as you want it only makes 'em porky.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler) |
Rusty, would you tell me where in FAR 61.31 we don't need a tailwheel
endorsement if its an experimental? Guess I'd never make it as a lawyer.
Tried reading it twice, never did find it, but I almost fell asleep!
Government must have classes to teach people how to write dull boring
regs. I did find where any tailwheel experience before 1991 could be used
in lew of an endorsement. Since I flew gliders,I guess I'm ok, but it
would be nice to know where that experimental a/c exclusion is.
Thanks in advance.
Bob-no lawyer-Doebler
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Duffy" <rv8(at)mindspring.com> |
>Rusty, would you tell me where in FAR 61.31 we don't need a tailwheel
>endorsement if its an experimental? Guess I'd never make it as a lawyer.
>Tried reading it twice, never did find it, but I almost fell asleep!
I know what you mean Bob...zzzzzz :-)
For the record, I'm on the fence about the interpretation of the
experimental tailwheel endorsement. Toward the end of 61.31, there's an
"exception" that many people claim as the reason you don't need any sort of
endorsement (like tailwheel or high performance) or rating (like
multi-engine or seaplane). Others, including some in the FAA, say
otherwise. It's all in how you interpret it, and whether anyone ever calls
you on it. I got an endorsement from Dan for the SS, but it's limited to
certain Kolb designs. For the RV-8, I'll likely get an endorsement from a
GA plane just to make sure. Fortunately, for me, I have a CFI with an RV-6
nearby. In fact, it's may original RV-6 project that I sold before starting
the SS.
Rusty
Here's a "less drowsy" version of the 61.31 rule :-)
Sec. 61.31 Type rating requirements, additional training, and
authorization
requirements.
(k) Exceptions. (1) This section does not require a category and class
rating for aircraft not type certificated as airplanes, rotorcraft, or
lighter-than-air aircraft, or a class rating for gliders or powered-lifts.
(2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to--
(i) An applicant when taking a practical test given by an examiner;
(ii) The holder of a student pilot certificate; --(iii) The holder of a
pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under the authority of an
experimental or provisional aircraft type certificate;
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Reynolds" <rfreynol(at)mindspring.com> |
I interpret part 61.31 as saying that you DON"T need the endoresment, but if
you want insurance on your aircraft, you will need it. Avemco requires it
plus a total of 10 hrs of tail wheel time (assuming that your get the
endoresement in less than 10 hrs)
-Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Duffy <rv8(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Saturday, October 24, 1998 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: FAR 61.31
>
>>Rusty, would you tell me where in FAR 61.31 we don't need a tailwheel
>>endorsement if its an experimental? Guess I'd never make it as a lawyer.
>>Tried reading it twice, never did find it, but I almost fell asleep!
>
>
>I know what you mean Bob...zzzzzz :-)
>
>For the record, I'm on the fence about the interpretation of the
>experimental tailwheel endorsement. Toward the end of 61.31, there's an
>"exception" that many people claim as the reason you don't need any sort of
>endorsement (like tailwheel or high performance) or rating (like
>multi-engine or seaplane). Others, including some in the FAA, say
>otherwise. It's all in how you interpret it, and whether anyone ever calls
>you on it. I got an endorsement from Dan for the SS, but it's limited to
>certain Kolb designs. For the RV-8, I'll likely get an endorsement from a
>GA plane just to make sure. Fortunately, for me, I have a CFI with an RV-6
>nearby. In fact, it's may original RV-6 project that I sold before
starting
>the SS.
>
>Rusty
>
>
>Here's a "less drowsy" version of the 61.31 rule :-)
>
>
>Sec. 61.31 Type rating requirements, additional training, and
>authorization
>requirements.
>
>(k) Exceptions. (1) This section does not require a category and class
>rating for aircraft not type certificated as airplanes, rotorcraft, or
>lighter-than-air aircraft, or a class rating for gliders or powered-lifts.
>(2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to--
>(i) An applicant when taking a practical test given by an examiner;
>(ii) The holder of a student pilot certificate; --(iii) The holder of a
>pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under the authority of an
>experimental or provisional aircraft type certificate;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler) |
Rusty
Yup its there alright. Nearly bit me in the butt! With this and the
grandfather clause, I guess I'm covered.
Tailwheel, that's the nosewheel they put at the wrong end right?
Thanks again
Bob D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
This is a test.
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sport category (was decision) |
<< To me, the sport category may be fine, but it is unfair that FAA or
anybody else pretends it is a solution for fat ultralights. And to
boot, this whole second(?) look was initiated for the 103 problem,
NOT as a way to try to rescue or bolster GA. In reality, I think the
sport category will result in a new law-breaking category analogous to
fat ultralights, but will come to be called thin-GA. I'm sour mainly
because the need for a good "fat ultralight" category is ignored, and
just as bad, some will pretend it has finally been addressed. It hasn't.
off-pulpit
-Ben Ransom >>
I agree with you 100% Ben..........I have few active causes but I think USUA
and the rest of us ultralighters got the
SHAFT!..................................GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Test, Ignore. |
You passed the test 100%33% on each. GB
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Test, Ignore. |
| From: | rbaker2(at)juno.com (Ray L Baker) |
Matt,
Your test worked!! :-)
Ray
925-606-1001) writes:
>925-606-1001)
>
>This is a test.
>
>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: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
the FAA is not co-operating:
The weight limit for part 103 vehicles is 254 pounds. If you knew
your El Tubbo Deluxo weighed more than that when you bought it...why did you
buy it?
The part 103 fuel limit is 5 gallons. If you knew that your El Tubbo
Deluxo needed a 582 to stay aloft (and used 4 gallons an hour)...why did you
buy it?
The part 103 stall speed is not more than 24 knots, if you knew that
the El Tubbo Deluxo stalled at 35 knots...why did you buy it?
The part 103 max cruise is 55 knots, if you knew your El Tubbo
Deluxo cruises at 105 knots...why did you buy it?
Did you really want an ultralight, or did you want to fly an
unlicensed airplane with no airworthiness certificate, while you have no
medical, and no airman's certificate and now have the FAA retroactively give
you it's blessing? And now it's whining time?
And meanwhile those of us that have busted our butts for the last 16
years to keep within the limits of the regs, and fly legal are supposed to
feel sorry for those that bought El Tubbo Deluxo's?
Probably not.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
RichardSince you said it all, I won't waste bytes. Many thanks, GBFF
________________________________________________________________________________
the FAA is not co-operating:
The weight limit for part 103 vehicles is 254 pounds. If you knew
your El Tubbo Deluxo weighed more than that when you bought it...why did you
buy it?
The part 103 fuel limit is 5 gallons. If you knew that your El Tubbo
Deluxo needed a 582 to stay aloft (and used 4 gallons an hour)...why did you
buy it?
The part 103 stall speed is not more than 24 knots, if you knew that
the El Tubbo Deluxo stalled at 35 knots...why did you buy it?
The part 103 max cruise is 55 knots, if you knew your El Tubbo
Deluxo cruises at 105 knots...why did you buy it?
Did you really want an ultralight, or did you want to fly an
unlicensed airplane with no airworthiness certificate, while you have no
medical, and no airman's certificate and now have the FAA retroactively give
you it's blessing? And now it's whining time?
And meanwhile those of us that have busted our butts for the last 16
years to keep within the limits of the regs, and fly legal are supposed to
feel sorry for those that bought El Tubbo Deluxo's?
Probably not.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>>
I wanted an ultralight and I thought I had one (before this list was
available) until I first flew it....it was a Kolb Firestar. with
447.....while all the talk by USUA and several officials of FAA was that the
103 FAR which spelled out nearly completely arbitrary numbers on all that you
identified above....would be increased to encompass what the market was
producing since there could then be at least some logic behind it.
One bit of logic might even have included the Microlight numbers which could
have made universal or more so the freedoms of the air throughout the entire
WORLD......and I merely ask you......what's wrong with the WORLD's idea of
micro/ultralite flying......350# certainly makes more sense than
1200!!.....AND there is even a REASON for
it.........................sorry....no humor in this thread from
me!!......................Also....we are not looking for sympathy, but it
should be recognized that the USUA was betrayed.....by someone, ....somewhere
in the arbitration.....I think it is somehow called manipulation!!......there,
I said it and I'm glad!!!.....................GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
I suppose you can feel what you like, however when I bought my Kolb in 93
there was a general understanding and expectancy that the weight limit would
be raised to 360 lb (soon) and the planes being sold at that time would make
that easily. If legality worries you then I certainly would not look around
too much. None of the Kolbs in my neck of the woods can make within 20 lb of
the limit, none of the phantoms or TEAM and certainly not the Challengers. We
did have a Eagle that was close but it took off without the pilot one day and
has become coke cans
Dick C
________________________________________________________________________________
<< Like you, I stick to my story based upon experience. I have to believe
that the flight instruction industry has learned what works over the years.
The practice of shutting of the engine and dead sticking it in, crow
hopping, and high speed taxis are excellent ways to bust up a airplane and
maybe yourself along with it. These are all daring, macho type operations.
My final 2 cents,
Jerry >>
as a glider pilot , I don't ever feel "macho" when landing...........and I
think everyone should be acquainted with What to Do ....WHEN the engine
quits.............the last thing to suffer is
............PANIC!!....especially when a little practice, in a controlled way,
will blow it away.............................GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
>
>... None of the Kolbs in my neck of the woods can make within
>20 lb of
>the limit, none of the phantoms or TEAM and certainly not the
>Challengers. We
>did have a Eagle that was close but it took off without the pilot one
>day and
>has become coke cans
>Dick C
Wow, not even a Challenger?! ;-) Maybe you need to move Dick, could be
there's a gravitational 'pocket' in the St. Louis area that just makes
things seem heavier - ever'body around here is legal!
>...I suppose you can feel what you like, however when
>I bought my Kolb in 93
>there was a general understanding and expectancy
>that the weight limit would
>be raised to 360 lb (soon)....
Following this logic, can I also claim to be a "victim" because I bought
a car that will do 200 mph on the salesman's 'assurance' that those pesky
speed limits would be repealed next year? ..."Dadburnit!, I been
snookered again!"
It's just a theory but the authorities may view the Part 103 limits about
like they do posted speed limits. When the limit was 55, you could
almost be guaranteed of getting away with 60. A whole bunch of us got by
doing 65 and a few at 70. Now after almost 20 years, the limits have been
raised to 65 or 70 on most interstate highways. Consequently, if you're
not doing at least 80 in some places, you'll get shoved into the next
convenient bridge piling without a second thought! ..."Society" - ain't
it great!?
Part 103 has only been around for about 16 years. Be patient, flaunt the
regs. for another 4 or 5 more years and maybe it'll change. Then we can
all cry about needing a 600 lb plane that goes 100 mph - in the interest
of "safety" ...of course!!
-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
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
I agree with you George except that the microlight weight limit is 360
lbs empty weight while the Sport Pilot category is 1200 lbs gross weight.
Add another
260 lbs for pilot weight and gas, 620 lbs is still a little over half the
Sport Pilot proposal which is more realistic for typical "fat"
ultralights of today. If the Sport Pilot becomes law, what will it do to
the flying "fat u/l's"? How many owners are going to register their
planes as N-numbered experimentals? How many will be able to do it if
they didn't build it? In answer to these questions, I think what is
needed is a "microlight category" that is better suited to accommodate
"fat u/l's". Aircraft weight isn't the only parameter to consider.
Compare a Titan Tornado with a cruise speed of 125 mph to a Kolb FireStar
with a cruise of
65 mph. Both planes can have approximately the same weight. Maybe there
needs to be multiple categories. My Original FireStar was optimized for
Part 103 rules. It weighed in at about 261 lbs, but is NOT in the same
category with the faster Titan, Rans, or Europa to name a few. There are
"ultralights/microlights" and then there are "lightplanes". Where do the
"fat u/l's" fit in? Well I guess it depends on how fast it goes too! I
suppose we could fit the "Bud Light jet" under the Sport Pilot proposal.
Is this what we want?
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
>I wanted an ultralight and I thought I had one (before this list was
>available) until I first flew it....it was a Kolb Firestar. with
>447.....while all the talk by USUA and several officials of FAA was
>that the 103 FAR which spelled out nearly completely arbitrary numbers
on all
>that youidentified above....would be increased to encompass what the
market
>was producing since there could then be at least some logic behind it.
>One bit of logic might even have included the Microlight numbers which
>could have made universal or more so the freedoms of the air throughout
the
>entire WORLD......and I merely ask you......what's wrong with the
WORLD's
>idea of micro/ultralite flying......350# certainly makes more sense than
>1200!!.....AND there is even a REASON for
>it.........................sorry....no humor in this thread from
>me!!......................Also....we are not looking for sympathy, but
>it should be recognized that the USUA was betrayed.....by someone,
>....somewhere in the arbitration.....I think it is somehow called
>manipulation!!......there,
>I said it and I'm glad!!!.....................GeoR38
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Group: It's easy to sit back and see both sides of a story, and also
easy to point the finger at the other guy when you feel you're the one in
the right. In truth - why did you buy El Tubbo Deluxo when you knew it was
too heavy, too fast, too thirsty, etc. ?? Baaaad boy !! But also - I
think most will agree that the 254 # limit is un-necessarily restrictive,
and yes - even compromising on safety in some instances. So there really
are 2 sides to every story, and neither is all right or all wrong. The
point was made about world standards, and is well taken. A couple of years
ago, the FAA switched us over to the international TAR/METAF system of
reporting to bring us into line with the rest of the world - to the tune of
a lot of screaming and wailing. Not least from me. Yet the same FAA
that's so worried about meeting world standards in that aspect seems to
care little about the light plane/experimental mess. Yet even there is a
huge gap in size and capability - between aircraft of 254 # + those of 900+
or 1200 or whatever. Extremes again. Not too long ago I read a proposal -
I forget from who - that said something to the effect of starting off at
the U/L level with a minimum level of training. ( Will anyone out there
argue that U/L pilots should go out with NO training ?? ) As you progress
through size, capability, complexity, etc., you would go through further
training appropriate to the category you're entering, until ultimately you
would have your private pilots' license, or you could stop at whatever
level you're satisfied with. Seems very fair and reasonable to me, like
everyone could have their cake and eat it too. What do you think ??
Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Full power stalls |
Group,
Someone reported recently that his Kolb (FireFly, I think) would not stall
with full power. I didn't understand how that could be, and it got me thinking.
Could it relate to a misadjustment in the elevator or the elevator cables not
being tight enough? Or could it be the power to weight ratio of the FireFly? Last
week I was flying my Firestar II (503) in 50 degree air and noticing how steep
it
would climb under full power. Then while doing some full power stalls, I noticed
that the stick had to be almost all the way back. And the plane recovered quickly
on its own, lowering the nose slightly, and without my letting the stick go
forward. If my elevator were adjusted a little more down, it may not have stalled
at all under full power.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J 70+ hrs
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport category (was decision) |
I may be all wet but some where back I recall USUA not supporting any
change to 103 thus opposed the proposed changes. If you research I think
you may find they had their hands on the other end of the shaft.
Jerry
>
>
><< To me, the sport category may be fine, but it is unfair that FAA or
> anybody else pretends it is a solution for fat ultralights. And to
> boot, this whole second(?) look was initiated for the 103 problem,
> NOT as a way to try to rescue or bolster GA. In reality, I think the
> sport category will result in a new law-breaking category analogous to
> fat ultralights, but will come to be called thin-GA. I'm sour mainly
> because the need for a good "fat ultralight" category is ignored, and
> just as bad, some will pretend it has finally been addressed. It hasn't.
>
> off-pulpit
> -Ben Ransom >>
>
>I agree with you 100% Ben..........I have few active causes but I think USUA
>and the rest of us ultralighters got the
>SHAFT!..................................GeoR38
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Wheel Bearings - Back to building & flying |
Some time back there was a thing about wheel bearing where someone came up
with a number for replacements of a better quality. At that time I had
reported we had a problem getting them to fix on the 5/8" (.625) dia. axle
of the FireFly just as I was leaving to go out of town again.
To get back to the story, my partner took some scott brite and cleaned up
the axle and they fit fine. The bearing number is: 499502H They were
about $4.60 a piece.
We have the 6" FireStar steel (wheel barrow type) wheels and they fit a
little loose in the hub. Some RTV or blue GM seal adhesive could be used,
some thing that tacks up but doesn't get hard or you'll never get them out.
Actually we didn't use anything. These bearings also have a snap ring
rather than the flat flange thus do not insert as far into the hub. So far
they are working great.
Now if Jim Baker is out there paying attention, he might be able to cross
these to ones with the flange rather than the snap ring. If they were the
flange variety they would then insert into the wheel hub further.
One thing we noticed is were no longer having any more random brake
grabbing. The originals would get sloppy and allow the wheel to cock and
grab on the shoes.
Jerry & Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
....while all the talk by USUA and several officials of FAA was that the
>103 FAR
....would be increased to encompass what the market was producing
That is the problem in a nutshell. No one EXCEPT the USUA has ever
seriously talked about changing part 103, or acted like it didn't really
make any difference if you were legal or not. Their publication regularly
tests fat everythings, and only lately has begun to mention if they were 103
legal or not. Why shouldn't manufacturers keep making fat u/l's? The
Association convinced it's members that it didn't matter/will change
tomorrow, so people went ahead and bought them. Read the back issues of the
Director's Memo's in UF and see for yourself. It was only wishful thinking,
but now who's got stuck?
Richard Pike
N420P (42oldpoops)
P.S. The Legality of Fat U/L's don't bother me in the least. I am in the
part of the FAA that separates flying things from bangin' into each other,
not weighing or cataloging them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net
| Subject: | Engine Seizure in flight |
Yes folks, it really happened, and I am damn glad I had been practicing
for my guaranted Rotax engine failure. It happened on climb out at
about 1,000ft msl. I simply kept my cool, spotted a sod field and
landed. Not even a scratch on anything other than my piston.
Be prepared, because it's not if, but when!
Last weekend in Mississippi, a weedhopper had an engine failure which
led to the destruction of the aircraft and minor injury (lucky) to the
pilot. The pilot said that he had never practiced dead stick landings.
Please be prepared and get the proper training. Once again this weekend
in Colquitt, a trike pilot of three hours flew straight into the ground
breaking his back and hip. Most, well, all of the accidents that I have
witnessed have been PILOT error. Mostly lack of training and
experience.
Fly safe,
Rutledge Fuller
Tallahassee, Fl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Richard Pike wrote:
> the FAA is not co-operating:
> you it's blessing? And now it's whining time?
> And meanwhile those of us that have busted our butts for the last 16
> years to keep within the limits of the regs, and fly legal are supposed to
> feel sorry for those that bought El Tubbo Deluxo's?
I'm not whining or looking for sympathy because the FAA made an unfair
law. I don't think they did. I am whining about them not adequately
addressing fat ultralights 5,10,15+ years later, and now pretending that
the Sport category is it. I would gladly receive a new category that
appropriately reflects the flying 10,000(?) people like to do. I want
a new category and GA wants a new category too. Having 10,000 fat
ultralights flying without a valid pilot or aircraft certificate stinks
for all of aviation.
BTW, I remember talking to an FAA FDO person about flying an ultralight
at my home field. This was 8 months before completion of my FS, and at
that time I didn't really know how much it would weigh, but did realize
it would be *slightly* over 103 (and safer too). The conversation
was friendly,etc and near the end he asked me what kind of UL I had.
I reluctantly told him, fearing that as an FAA official dealing with 103
issues (as well as others), he might surely look up on his list and find
that i was fat. Instead, when I told him FS KXP, he said "Oh neat!!,
those are really nice! I think I'd like to have one of those too!"
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
DIdo for me about KOlb. Even when I lost my cool they were always calm and collected
and ready to serve. Ask for their advise and you'll get it clear and concise
and objective. Labor intensive aircraft to build but an easy company to
deal with. Sit in a Kolb cage. Think about rekitting the plane (crashing)
and you'll buy the Kolb. Look at the wing construction and you'll buy the Kolb.
Meet the Kolb people and you'll buy a Kolb. Talk to Kolb owners and builders
and you'll buy the KOLB.
So go buy a Kolb already....
>>> 10/24 4:16 PM >>>
Pete
Let me say this about the KOLB co. that I have not seen anyone say
something about
and that is the SERVICE you receive from" KOLB" I built a M/3 and every
time that I needed advice,.. a call to old Dennis and the problem
answered .Every time that I needed a part wammo.... it was on the way.
Well this was 3yr. ago
Now I needed a part so I called KOLB talked to Dan, the KOLB flight
instructor
about my needs he said take care of it but right now he had a student
waiting on him
by the airplane , PETE this telephone conversation took place on tuesday
morning on FRIDAY morning the part that I ordered was at my house
thousands of miles away
So you must look at the kind of service you will receive during the
building as well as three years after you get finished .
Rick Libersat
>
>Hello group,
>
>I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost
>my
>medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA,
>but I
>would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will
>do what
>I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
>something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
| Subject: | Sport pilot, Umbrella??? |
Please, someone please correct me or help me out here...
Some of the Kolb guys here have been trashing the new proposed Sport Pilot
Category. I had the vague understanding that the BIGGER PICTURE of this is
that the Sport Pilot category is only a single aspect of the overall plan to
adopt some kind of UMBRELLA licensing program. The Umbrella would allow the
establishment of many unique pilot and craft licensing categories as their need
was established. The first of these is the Sport Pilot. I don't know why or
how the Sport Pilot got ahead of the Microlight, I would have guessed it would
have happened the other way around. I have been following this in
EXPERIMENTER and I think it was last month's issue had a very good write-up on
the whole thing.
I would think that, if what I understand is correct, once the Umbrella is
working, it should be easy(er) for the USUA to get you guys a Microlight-like
category. And a trike category and a parachute cat. and a rotary-thing cat....
Does anyone grasp the whole thing (the Umbrella) well enough to explain it
better? Or did I completly misunderstand the concept?! Maybe it was a dream.
Hope not, it sounded like progress for changes.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DLSOUDER(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Kolb Email Address |
Dear Kolbers,
When sending email to Kolb Aircraft for whatever reasons, please use the
following address: support(at)kolbaircraft.com
This is our official email address.
If you are waiting for a response to an email you have already sent, please
resend to this address.
While we do receive email sent to the other addresses which have been in use,
this address is now the one to use and a speedier reply is more likely.
Thank you.
Dennis Souder
Pres Kolb Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <joncroke(at)itol.com> |
I took Ben's suggestion from a much earlier post regarding replacing the
normal stock wheels on the FSII with the large tundra tires. I had to
remove my brakes, but didnt use them very often and found them not that
effective. Here is my experience after making this change:
They look great and really travel over rough grass and divets in the ground
MUCH better than my previous tires! I use to get stuck as I taxied to my
runway.... no longer! This alone justifies the change!
On the negative side... I dont know if its imbalance or what... but when
reaching t/o speed and just leaving the ground, you get a real shaking and
vibration .... diminishes shortly after airborne... so not a big deal but
would love if someone has a remedy for this.....
Landing..... I was never so surprised the first time I touched down...
bounced a good 5 feet in the air.. and this was due to my normal landing
procedure..... and after coming down and boncing again I wonder how the legs
faired... NO bend!! My tires are filled to 15 lbs and you wont believe the
difference in landing if you dont *gently* touch down..... I guess this
forces you to make perfect landings each time... otherwise.. BOUNCE!
I realize this is just a matter of getting used to it all... but what a
difference.... Yes, more shock absorption for the legs... more capability
for rough terrain... I am happy with the change.
Now, if I could get a pair of those special patented Ben R. brakes with
those mahogony block pads....
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
First flights with the new gear were interesting, taxiing gear felt flexible
similar to a Firefly. First landings were wheel on type and it felt springy
but ok. Next were purposely hard (honestly)! and it was a different beast,
best description would be a Kangaroo with sore feet. The 1 inch titanium
returns a lot of energy and makes it very bouncy. I need more time to see if
its acceptable or not but I may try and damp it slightly by extending the
aluminum sleeve further down the legs. I think maybe 1,125 dia might be a
better choice. Of course if I take the engine and one wing off to get legal
it would probably be OK too. By the way I do think heavier aircraft are safer
and certainly they fly better, absolutely nothing better than 30000 LB at 160
knots on final. I might miss the Barn though.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
| Subject: | PLEASE READ - System Upgrades / Fund Raiser... |
[ Please read this whole message as it contains important information
regarding the operation of the RV, Zenith, and Kolb Lists and web sites. ]
Dear Listers,
As my good friend Al Mojzisik has pointed out to the RV-List this weekend,
I've been hard at work upgrading the web server and email server machines
that are used predominately to provide services for the Lists. The web
server is now running on a brand new 400MHz dual-processor Pentium II
Linux system with 512Mb of 100MHz SDRAM, and a 10k RPM Seagate Ultra Wide
SCSI hard drive. As an example of this new system's performance, a two-word,
ANDed search of the RV-List's 55Mb archive file now take on the order of
2 to 3 seconds! With the dual-processors, two searches can be occurring
at once with little or no increase search time. Searches of the Zenith and
Kolb List archive files turn in some equally impressive times. The
Matronics web server provides service for over 100,000 web hits a month,
of which over 95% is directly related to the RV, Zenith, or Kolb Lists.
The web server also provides over 3,000 archive searches each month and
over 12,000 search match messages are also viewed.
This weekend I have also upgraded the old SUN SPARC2 system that provides
email support for the RV, Zenith, and Kolb Lists. The new system is based
on a 200MHz dual-processor Pentium Pro Linux system with 384Mb of RAM and
another 10k RPM Seagate Ultra Wide SCSI hard drive. Some performance tests
this weekend have shown the new email system to be over 75 times faster
on *one* processor than the old SPARC2 system and affectively 150 times
faster running both processors! The new email system is also running its
own caching nameserver now which lightens the DNS lookup load on the
Internet connection rather substantially. The performance boost in the
new email system should decrease the message turn around time on posted
List messages. It will also give me the performance breathing room to
implement some much needed additional List message filtering and
management. Look for more information on this in the coming weeks.
I am also working with my ISP to increase the current Internet connection
speed from the 384k ADSL to a new 768k SDSL offering that they now have. This
additional bandwidth should significantly improve the access to the web server
as well as additionally decrease the List message turn around.
The bottom line is, however, that I've invested *a lot* of money in all these
upgrades that could have, quite frankly, easily gone into my RV-4 project...
As Al Mojzisik pointed out this weekend, a Fall Fund Raiser seems in
order to support all of the new hardware and upgrades! As in the past, I
only ask for contributions when I have invested a significant amount of my own
money into the betterment of the Lists and it would seem that I've somewhat
out done myself this time!
Historically, contribution participation have been on the order of 10% of the
List population. Based on the typical contribution levels, we'll need at
least a 20% participation level for me to even come close to breaking even
on the most recent upgrades.
I want to stress now, that the Lists are free and will always be free and I'm
not forcing anyone to contribute. I only ask that you donate an amount equal
the the value you obtain from your participation in the List. A subscription
to the EAA is $35 - is the List worth more to you than 12 issues of Sport
Aviation? It certainly is to me; a *lot* more in fact.
To make a contribution, you may now use the fully encrypted SSL Contribution
Web Page located at the following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution.html
Here, you may use your MasterCard or Visa to make a secure contribution using
either 40 or 128 bit encryption depending on your web browser. The complete
transaction is fully encrypted and your account information is highly secure.
You may also make a contribution by sending a personal check to:
Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94551
I want to thank everyone in advance for their generous contributions. I
hope that everyone will enjoy the new performance and new features available
with the latest upgrades. I will post a summary of the contributing members
in a few weeks.
Thank you so much for your support!
Matt Dralle
RV-4 Builder
RV, Kolb, and Zenith 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: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
Your excessive bouncing is probably because your running to much air
pressure. Think bike tire, small skinny lots of #, the big fat ones much
much less.
That brings our to the next subject. The vibration just as you lift off.
Wheel balance or out of round. When you put the tires on did you notice
any type of painted dot on the inside edge of the tires, that's suppose to
be positioned by the valve stem. Oops's. Next possibility is since your
inflating them with so much pressure, they distorting under that pressure.
Jack up the plane and spin the wheel at a moderate speed by hand and see if
the tire appears oval. If not then it probably balance. You can mark the
tire deflate it and rotate it either 90 or 180 degrees and see what happens.
When you lift off have you looked out at the wheels and see which ones
jumping around.
Last resort, balance it by adding stick on weights to the outside surface
(lip) of the wheels rim. Put it on a small diameter rod, heavy side goes
down.
Bye and good luck,
Jerry
>
>
>
>I took Ben's suggestion from a much earlier post regarding replacing the
>normal stock wheels on the FSII with the large tundra tires. I had to
>remove my brakes, but didnt use them very often and found them not that
>effective. Here is my experience after making this change:
>
>They look great and really travel over rough grass and divets in the ground
>MUCH better than my previous tires! I use to get stuck as I taxied to my
>runway.... no longer! This alone justifies the change!
>
>On the negative side... I dont know if its imbalance or what... but when
>reaching t/o speed and just leaving the ground, you get a real shaking and
>vibration .... diminishes shortly after airborne... so not a big deal but
>would love if someone has a remedy for this.....
>
>Landing..... I was never so surprised the first time I touched down...
>bounced a good 5 feet in the air.. and this was due to my normal landing
>procedure..... and after coming down and boncing again I wonder how the legs
>faired... NO bend!! My tires are filled to 15 lbs and you wont believe the
>difference in landing if you dont *gently* touch down..... I guess this
>forces you to make perfect landings each time... otherwise.. BOUNCE!
>
>I realize this is just a matter of getting used to it all... but what a
>difference.... Yes, more shock absorption for the legs... more capability
>for rough terrain... I am happy with the change.
>
>Now, if I could get a pair of those special patented Ben R. brakes with
>those mahogony block pads....
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I couldn't agree more!!!!
BWHAHAHAHHA
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Date: Monday, October 26, 1998 11:28 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: FAT U/L's
>
>
>the FAA is not co-operating:
> The weight limit for part 103 vehicles is 254 pounds. If you knew
>your El Tubbo Deluxo weighed more than that when you bought it...why did
you
>buy it?
> The part 103 fuel limit is 5 gallons. If you knew that your El
Tubbo
>Deluxo needed a 582 to stay aloft (and used 4 gallons an hour)...why did
you
>buy it?
> The part 103 stall speed is not more than 24 knots, if you knew
that
>the El Tubbo Deluxo stalled at 35 knots...why did you buy it?
> The part 103 max cruise is 55 knots, if you knew your El Tubbo
>Deluxo cruises at 105 knots...why did you buy it?
> Did you really want an ultralight, or did you want to fly an
>unlicensed airplane with no airworthiness certificate, while you have no
>medical, and no airman's certificate and now have the FAA retroactively
give
>you it's blessing? And now it's whining time?
> And meanwhile those of us that have busted our butts for the last
16
>years to keep within the limits of the regs, and fly legal are supposed to
>feel sorry for those that bought El Tubbo Deluxo's?
> Probably not.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Wheel Balance, 4" Brakes |
All three of my Kolbs had a vibration at takeoff from wheels being out of
balance. The solution was to mooch some weights from my tire dealer, jack up
one wheel at a time and stick them on. I had to epoxy them on usually because
if they lost their grip they could come off like bullets. This is not as
refined as the balancing required on auto tires but the bearings on our little
planes are good enough to allow acceptable balancing by this method.
I finally got my 4" brakes working. I called all over the country trying to
find a supplier for these brakes without success. The ones I built are made
from band brakes and drums used on go-carts. These drums are supplied only
for 4 bolt pattern wheels and had to be re-drilled to fit my 3-bolt wheels. A
lot of small part cutting, fitting and welding was required to mount the bands
and cables but it can be done. With due regard for my welding skill these
fittings are still an item on my preflight. These brakes are about 4 pounds
lighter than the 5" wheel/brakes/axles and my plane is still a legal
ultralight (just barely). I'll share my design details with anyone
interested. Duane Mitchell, Tallahassee, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
This discussion needs centering. Dead stick landings, crow hops and high speed
taxis all have their place and time and strategic if not tactical value. So
now I have a question. When you guys and girls first flight tested your aircraft,
did you high speed taxi, crow hop, etc or just take off and hope the aircraft
was trimmed accordingly. And once you had the aircraft trimmed how did
you determine the L/D characteristics of the aircraft? Did you throttle back to
idle or maintain a specific RPM to "simulate" and engine out? It seems to me
that "engine out" practise sessions to a "made field" is not only smart but
mandatory. A man's got to know his limitations!!
>>> 10/25 9:07 PM >>>
<< Like you, I stick to my story based upon experience. I have to believe
that the flight instruction industry has learned what works over the years.
The practice of shutting of the engine and dead sticking it in, crow
hopping, and high speed taxis are excellent ways to bust up a airplane and
maybe yourself along with it. These are all daring, macho type operations.
My final 2 cents,
Jerry >>
as a glider pilot , I don't ever feel "macho" when landing...........and I
think everyone should be acquainted with What to Do ....WHEN the engine
quits.............the last thing to suffer is
............PANIC!!....especially when a little practice, in a controlled way,
will blow it away.............................GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
The high humidity in New England makes all the UL heavy. Why doesn't the FAA recognise
this and provide a geographical allowance?
In the winter, the UL's left outside gain 30-100 lbs easy.
>>> Mick Fine 10/25 11:09 PM >>>
>
>... None of the Kolbs in my neck of the woods can make within
>20 lb of
>the limit, none of the phantoms or TEAM and certainly not the
>Challengers. We
>did have a Eagle that was close but it took off without the pilot one
>day and
>has become coke cans
>Dick C
Wow, not even a Challenger?! ;-) Maybe you need to move Dick, could be
there's a gravitational 'pocket' in the St. Louis area that just makes
things seem heavier - ever'body around here is legal!
>...I suppose you can feel what you like, however when
>I bought my Kolb in 93
>there was a general understanding and expectancy
>that the weight limit would
>be raised to 360 lb (soon)....
Following this logic, can I also claim to be a "victim" because I bought
a car that will do 200 mph on the salesman's 'assurance' that those pesky
speed limits would be repealed next year? ..."Dadburnit!, I been
snookered again!"
It's just a theory but the authorities may view the Part 103 limits about
like they do posted speed limits. When the limit was 55, you could
almost be guaranteed of getting away with 60. A whole bunch of us got by
doing 65 and a few at 70. Now after almost 20 years, the limits have been
raised to 65 or 70 on most interstate highways. Consequently, if you're
not doing at least 80 in some places, you'll get shoved into the next
convenient bridge piling without a second thought! ..."Society" - ain't
it great!?
Part 103 has only been around for about 16 years. Be patient, flaunt the
regs. for another 4 or 5 more years and maybe it'll change. Then we can
all cry about needing a 600 lb plane that goes 100 mph - in the interest
of "safety" ...of course!!
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
On the other hand the 254# has pushed the engineers to be creative in using materials,
design and construction techniques to the point where we have UL conforming
A/C with +4 / -2 G ratings - and some higher. Amazing.
>>> Ralph H Burlingame 10/26 12:25 AM >>>
I agree with you George except that the microlight weight limit is 360
lbs empty weight while the Sport Pilot category is 1200 lbs gross weight.
Add another
260 lbs for pilot weight and gas, 620 lbs is still a little over half the
Sport Pilot proposal which is more realistic for typical "fat"
ultralights of today. If the Sport Pilot becomes law, what will it do to
the flying "fat u/l's"? How many owners are going to register their
planes as N-numbered experimentals? How many will be able to do it if
they didn't build it? In answer to these questions, I think what is
needed is a "microlight category" that is better suited to accommodate
"fat u/l's". Aircraft weight isn't the only parameter to consider.
Compare a Titan Tornado with a cruise speed of 125 mph to a Kolb FireStar
with a cruise of
65 mph. Both planes can have approximately the same weight. Maybe there
needs to be multiple categories. My Original FireStar was optimized for
Part 103 rules. It weighed in at about 261 lbs, but is NOT in the same
category with the faster Titan, Rans, or Europa to name a few. There are
"ultralights/microlights" and then there are "lightplanes". Where do the
"fat u/l's" fit in? Well I guess it depends on how fast it goes too! I
suppose we could fit the "Bud Light jet" under the Sport Pilot proposal.
Is this what we want?
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
>I wanted an ultralight and I thought I had one (before this list was
>available) until I first flew it....it was a Kolb Firestar. with
>447.....while all the talk by USUA and several officials of FAA was
>that the 103 FAR which spelled out nearly completely arbitrary numbers
on all
>that youidentified above....would be increased to encompass what the
market
>was producing since there could then be at least some logic behind it.
>One bit of logic might even have included the Microlight numbers which
>could have made universal or more so the freedoms of the air throughout
the
>entire WORLD......and I merely ask you......what's wrong with the
WORLD's
>idea of micro/ultralite flying......350# certainly makes more sense than
>1200!!.....AND there is even a REASON for
>it.........................sorry....no humor in this thread from
>me!!......................Also....we are not looking for sympathy, but
>it should be recognized that the USUA was betrayed.....by someone,
>....somewhere in the arbitration.....I think it is somehow called
>manipulation!!......there,
>I said it and I'm glad!!!.....................GeoR38
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Seizure in flight |
In a message dated 10/27/98 12:31:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rut007(at)hotmail.com writes:
<< I simply kept my cool, spotted a sod field and
landed. Not even a scratch on anything other than my piston. >>
Way to go. Sounds like a nice piece of flying. What happened to cause the
seizure?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Seizure in flight |
I trusted somebody elses fuel. It was contaminated and probably not
mixed correctly.
Rutledge
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:30:58 EST
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Seizure in flight
In a message dated 10/27/98 12:31:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rut007(at)hotmail.com writes:
<< I simply kept my cool, spotted a sod field and
landed. Not even a scratch on anything other than my piston. >>
Way to go. Sounds like a nice piece of flying. What happened to
cause the
seizure?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Seizure in flight |
Yes folks, it really happened, and I am damn glad I had been practicing
for my guaranted Rotax engine failure. It happened on climb out at
about 1,000ft msl. I simply kept my cool, spotted a sod field and
landed. Not even a scratch on anything other than my piston.
Be prepared, because it's not if, but when!
I could have used that altitude last Friday when my 582 Rotax quit abruptly
and without much of a warning during take-off at 25 ft altitude with WOT. I
was over a sharp bend in the river at the end of my normal takeoff run but
managed to get the nose down and hit the water with my left float first
wiping out the float attachment brackets and bending the left gearleg and
float tubes. The Lotus floats survived and the plane stayed afloat with me
and the missus OK.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Seizure in flight |
In a message dated 10/27/98 10:11:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rut007(at)hotmail.com writes:
<< I trusted somebody elses fuel. It was contaminated and probably not
mixed correctly. >>
My undersanding is that old fuel loses octane and if not mixed right the
oil can segregate. Very interesting. I NEVER put anything into the tank of
my Mark 2 which I wasn't totaly confident in. Good lesson to be learned here.
You have to take charge of this stuff.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Christensen" <spectruminternational(at)email.msn.com> |
From: Jon Croke <joncroke(at)itol.com>
Date: Monday, October 26, 1998 9:38 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: New wheels
snip-snip
>On the negative side... I dont know if its imbalance or what... but when
>reaching t/o speed and just leaving the ground, you get a real shaking and
>vibration .... diminishes shortly after airborne... so not a big deal but
>would love if someone has a remedy for this.....
snip-snip
==================================================
Jon - - All you need do is hit the brakes for a moment to stop the spinning
of your out-of-balance wheels. This is not uncommon. Alternatively, you
could have the wheels/tires balanced.
Ron Christensen
MKIII1/2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Jon Croke wrote:
> I took Ben's suggestion from a much earlier post regarding replacing the
> normal stock wheels on the FSII with the large tundra tires. I had to
> remove my brakes, but didnt use them very often and found them not that
> effective. Here is my experience after making this change:
>
> Now, if I could get a pair of those special patented Ben R. brakes with
> those mahogony block pads....
> Jon
>
Jon, Congratulations on your happiness with the big poof-size tires.
I use 4.5-5 psi. Even then you can bounce but i'm sure not as prone to it
as the higher pressure you mention. You'll also find that low pressure
will cause your plane to slow down much better on landing roll-out, this
somewhat offsetting the removal of brakes. I flew that way for about
a year.
The out-of-round wobble is a more likely problem with the larger
diameter and mass tire (centrifugal force is higher). You may find this
a prime reason to put brakes back on, that is, the ability to stop the
wheels after lift-off. I don't want to push my home-made brakes much.
They are good enf, that's about it. Still, you need something if you
taxi downwind at an airport, and mine are good enf for that. Back to
way around inside the tire, this partly due to the low pressure. (It is
the same as what happens when pushing a bike home with a flat tire.)
This tends to bunch more of the tube mass at one part of the tire, leading
to worsened imbalance wobble. I keep an eye on the valve stems, and if
they start to point forward or backward it is time to deflate the tire
and work the tube back to normal position. Watch for this; you don't
want the stem tearing off the tire, let alone the imbalance.
So, in spite of some minor hassle, the bigger tires really do expand the
capability and fun of the plane. BTW, Kent Mead (kmead(at)up.net) is one
other person I know of that made brakes similar to mine. You might want
to ask him too if you're seriously interested in making a pair. I
think he probably did a better job on the shoes (if not other aspects),
making them more effective.
Can't resist another tiny story. My last flight I was definetly
having fun romping around and had stopped at a grass field (Columbia).
There was a sharp drainage dip across the taxi way near the beginning
of the runway. On my last taxi out of there I was scooting along at
10+mph and the whole plane bounced airborne going over the dip. I didn't
even slow down, turned and took off like I planned it that way. Fun. :)
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Seizure in flight |
GLad to hear you're both OK. To bad about the plane. Let us know what caused
the engine failure.
>>> 10/27 11:30 AM >>>
Yes folks, it really happened, and I am damn glad I had been practicing
for my guaranted Rotax engine failure. It happened on climb out at
about 1,000ft msl. I simply kept my cool, spotted a sod field and
landed. Not even a scratch on anything other than my piston.
Be prepared, because it's not if, but when!
I could have used that altitude last Friday when my 582 Rotax quit abruptly
and without much of a warning during take-off at 25 ft altitude with WOT. I
was over a sharp bend in the river at the end of my normal takeoff run but
managed to get the nose down and hit the water with my left float first
wiping out the float attachment brackets and bending the left gearleg and
float tubes. The Lotus floats survived and the plane stayed afloat with me
and the missus OK.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | UL Airport directory |
I would like to publish on the Kolb-List a UL skyparks and UL friendly airport
directory. Could you all please give me the following information. I will
tabulate it and republish it on the List. Thanks
1. State
2. Airport Name
3. City
4. Runway length
5. Runway type - grass or pavement (G or P) & width.
6. Lat/Long. & UTM
7. Radio/ UNICOM freq.
8. Left or right approach pattern
9. Gas Available & type or w/in walking distance
10. Landing fees?
11. Notes: such as camping or hotels nearby, food, car rentals, Local Kolb list
member number to call when you visit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UL Airport directory |
I would like to publish on the Kolb-List a UL skyparks and UL friendly
airport directory. Could you all please give me the following
information. I will tabulate it and republish it on the List. Thanks
1. State: Florida
2. Airport Name: Quincy(2J9)
3. City: Quincy
4. Runway length:2900
5. Runway type - grass and pavement. 14/32
6. Lat/Long. & UTM
7. Radio/ UNICOM freq: 122.7
8. Left 14 and right 32
9. 100LL
10. Landing fees? none
11. Camping. Kolb contact: Rutledge Fuller (850) 385-6673
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.COM> |
| Subject: | UL Airport directory |
Might I suggest that everyone simply provide identifiers, and review the
information currently stored in http://www.airnav.com/ . That web site is
very extensive, and is already updated. Trying to duplicate it is not only
unnecessary, but would eventually have obsolete information distributed.
From: Todd Thompson [mailto:TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 12:21 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: UL Airport directory
I would like to publish on the Kolb-List a UL skyparks and UL friendly
airport directory. Could you all please give me the following information.
I will tabulate it and republish it on the List. Thanks
1. State
2. Airport Name
3. City
4. Runway length
5. Runway type - grass or pavement (G or P) & width.
6. Lat/Long. & UTM
7. Radio/ UNICOM freq.
8. Left or right approach pattern
9. Gas Available & type or w/in walking distance
10. Landing fees?
11. Notes: such as camping or hotels nearby, food, car rentals, Local
Kolb list member number to call when you visit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
| Subject: | Re: Subscription and Unsub... [PLEASE READ] |
[ Listers - I receive messages like the one below quite often. Please read
both the message and my response regarding the unsubscription process.
Thanks - Matt ]
>Matt, Hi.....
>
>I am an RV-list subscriber that has just had his original address shut
>down and had to start up a new account with the resulting change of
>account and address... I do know the correct way to Sub... and Un-sub...
>but figure that as I can't send as or be seen as the old address I will
>merely confuse your new system muchly.
>
>Could I please impose on you to manually unsubscribe my old address of
>gratech(at)acslink.aone.net.au (it may be but shouldn't be
>gratech(at)acslink.net.au - that one should have died nearly 18 months
>ago!). I will subscribe with my new address immediately after this
>message is sent.
>
>Thanking You in anticipation
>Graham Jones
Hi Graham,
No matter what email address you are coming from, you can always subscribe
and unsubscribe email addresses from the List. I've already done this for
your today, but for example, you could have sent an email message like
the one shown below to make sure that you were completely unsubscribed:
==============
From: "Graham Jones" <gratech(at)a1.com.au>
Subject:
unsubscribe gratech(at)acslink.aone.net.au
unsubscribe gratech(at)acslink.net.au
subscribe
==============
This would try to unsubscribe the both of the old addresses and request the
your new current email address be subscribed.
The only cavat about this is that when the _unsubscribe_ request comes from
an email address other than the address being unsubscribed, it must be
approved by me and this will usually take less than 24 hours.
Best Regards,
Matt Dralle
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
DIdo for me about KOlb. Even when I lost my cool they were always calm and collected
and ready to serve. Ask for their advise and you'll get it clear and concise
and objective. Labor intensive aircraft to build but an easy company to
deal with. Sit in a Kolb cage. Think about rekitting the plane (crashing)
and you'll buy the Kolb. Look at the wing construction and you'll buy the Kolb.
Meet the Kolb people and you'll buy a Kolb. Talk to Kolb owners and builders
and you'll buy the KOLB.
So go buy a Kolb already....
>>> 10/24 4:16 PM >>>
Pete
Let me say this about the KOLB co. that I have not seen anyone say
something about
and that is the SERVICE you receive from" KOLB" I built a M/3 and every
time that I needed advice,.. a call to old Dennis and the problem
answered .Every time that I needed a part wammo.... it was on the way.
Well this was 3yr. ago
Now I needed a part so I called KOLB talked to Dan, the KOLB flight
instructor
about my needs he said take care of it but right now he had a student
waiting on him
by the airplane , PETE this telephone conversation took place on tuesday
morning on FRIDAY morning the part that I ordered was at my house
thousands of miles away
So you must look at the kind of service you will receive during the
building as well as three years after you get finished .
Rick Libersat
>
>Hello group,
>
>I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost
>my
>medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA,
>but I
>would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will
>do what
>I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
>something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | skip staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | El Tubbo Deluxe & 254 pounds |
Big Lar wrote:
>Hi Group: It's easy to sit back and see both sides of a story, and also
>easy to point the finger at the other guy when you feel you're the one in
>the right.
Me thinks... It's easier to point the finger (by far) than to see both
sides of the story. :)
>But also - I
>think most will agree that the 254 # limit is un-necessarily restrictive,
>and yes - even compromising on safety in some instances.
Here again, it depends on your perspective.... There are a few here that
were around when an UltraLight had to be landed using the pilot's legs as
the landing gear. We thought that it was a great leap forward when the FAA
finally allowed the ultralight to have "real" landing gear and to only have
someone demonstrate that the airplane "could (or have been at some time)
sucessfully landed using just one's legs.
Personally, I don't see the 254# limit to be a big thing. For many years,
people like Homer and Dennis, among others, have designed and made
available safe flying machines that weigh in under the 254# limit. The
exemption for two place training aircraft and the provision to carry extra
weight in safety related items, such as a ballistic parachute, seem to be
more than a reasonable concession by the FAA.
If a person wants more speed, convenience, safety and utility ... there is
always the certified pilot and certified airplane route. No medical?
There are still options which allow you to fly such as hot air balloons,
sailplanes, and even motorized gliders in addition to ultralights. It
seems reasonable to me that if you wish to play with the "big boys"; you
have to meet the same criteria that they do. Sorry, just my opinion.
Regards,
Skip
Ellenton, FL
1984 UltraStar
So there really
>are 2 sides to every story, and neither is all right or all wrong. The
>point was made about world standards, and is well taken. A couple of years
>ago, the FAA switched us over to the international TAR/METAF system of
>reporting to bring us into line with the rest of the world - to the tune of
>a lot of screaming and wailing. Not least from me. Yet the same FAA
>that's so worried about meeting world standards in that aspect seems to
>care little about the light plane/experimental mess. Yet even there is a
>huge gap in size and capability - between aircraft of 254 # + those of 900+
>or 1200 or whatever. Extremes again. Not too long ago I read a proposal -
>I forget from who - that said something to the effect of starting off at
>the U/L level with a minimum level of training. ( Will anyone out there
>argue that U/L pilots should go out with NO training ?? ) As you progress
>through size, capability, complexity, etc., you would go through further
>training appropriate to the category you're entering, until ultimately you
>would have your private pilots' license, or you could stop at whatever
>level you're satisfied with. Seems very fair and reasonable to me, like
>everyone could have their cake and eat it too. What do you think ??
> Big Lar.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Got a chuckle from this, thought I'd pass this on.
Original was credited to "A recent press article from the United Press
International (UPI)"
-Mike Ransom
> Scientists at the NASA Ames facility near Mt. View, California have
>developed a gun built specifically to launch dead chickens at the
>windshields of airliners, military jets and the space shuttle, all
>traveling at maximum velocity.
>
> The idea is to simulate the frequent incidents of collisions with
>airborne fowl to test the strength of the windshields. British engineers
>heard about the gun and were eager to test it on the windshields of their
>new high-speed trains.
>
> Arrangements were made. But when the gun was fired, the
>engineers stood shocked as the chicken hurtled out of the barrel,
>crashed into the shatterproof shield, smashed it to smithereens,
>crashed through the control console, snapped the engineer's backrest in two
>and embedded itself in the back wall of the cabin.
>
> The horrified Britons sent NASA the disastrous results of the
>experiment, along with the designs of the windshield, and begged
>the U.S. scientists for suggestions. NASA's response was just one
>sentence, "Thaw the chicken."
>
p.s. A former crop-duster pilot neighbor of mine was telling me about the
problems with waterfoul in their operations in rice fields. He reported
shattered windshields and huge leading edge dents from hitting ducks. As
if they don't already have enough to think about!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Swiderski <swidersk(at)digital.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wheel Imbalance |
Jon, Put some of that liquid "Fix-A-Flat" into each tire. It comes in aerosol
cans under many brand names. The liquid is suppose to automatically distribute
itself in such a way that an unbalanced condition doesn't occur, plus you'll have
Jon Croke wrote:
>
> I took Ben's suggestion from a much earlier post regarding replacing the
> normal stock wheels on the FSII with the large tundra tires. I had to
> remove my brakes, but didnt use them very often and found them not that
> effective. Here is my experience after making this change:
>
> They look great and really travel over rough grass and divets in the ground
> MUCH better than my previous tires! I use to get stuck as I taxied to my
> runway.... no longer! This alone justifies the change!
>
> On the negative side... I dont know if its imbalance or what... but when
> reaching t/o speed and just leaving the ground, you get a real shaking and
> vibration .... diminishes shortly after airborne... so not a big deal but
> would love if someone has a remedy for this.....
>
> Landing..... I was never so surprised the first time I touched down...
> bounced a good 5 feet in the air.. and this was due to my normal landing
> procedure..... and after coming down and boncing again I wonder how the legs
> faired... NO bend!! My tires are filled to 15 lbs and you wont believe the
> difference in landing if you dont *gently* touch down..... I guess this
> forces you to make perfect landings each time... otherwise.. BOUNCE!
>
> I realize this is just a matter of getting used to it all... but what a
> difference.... Yes, more shock absorption for the legs... more capability
> for rough terrain... I am happy with the change.
>
> Now, if I could get a pair of those special patented Ben R. brakes with
> those mahogony block pads....
>
> Jon
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wheel Imbalance |
Now that's an even better great idea. Thanks
>>> Swiderski 10/27 11:37 AM >>>
Jon, Put some of that liquid "Fix-A-Flat" into each tire.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UL Airport directory |
Scott, thanks for the link. And your right. Give me the state and ID number of
the UL friendly airport and any UL friendly private fields which are not on
this list , we'd have a lot more value.
Might I suggest that everyone simply provide identifiers, and review the
information currently stored in http://www.airnav.com/ .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Humor, not for live geese |
Just a word of warning from an old guy: NEVER fly under a bunch (flock)
of migrating geese. When they get nervous they immediately head for the
ground/waterand they are worse than PPCs bunched on final. Geez, I
hope I haven't started another PPC war. Forgive me. Grey (voice of
sheet-metal repair experience) Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine Seizure in flight |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Rut,
Please let us know what you think the cause of engine failure was
attributed to. How many hours do you have on it?
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
writes:
>
>
>
>Yes folks, it really happened, and I am damn glad I had been
>practicing
>for my guaranted Rotax engine failure. It happened on climb out at
>about 1,000ft msl. I simply kept my cool, spotted a sod field and
>landed. Not even a scratch on anything other than my piston.
>
>Be prepared, because it's not if, but when!
>
>Last weekend in Mississippi, a weedhopper had an engine failure which
>led to the destruction of the aircraft and minor injury (lucky) to the
>pilot. The pilot said that he had never practiced dead stick
>landings.
>Please be prepared and get the proper training. Once again this
>weekend
>in Colquitt, a trike pilot of three hours flew straight into the
>ground
>breaking his back and hip. Most, well, all of the accidents that I
>have
>witnessed have been PILOT error. Mostly lack of training and
>experience.
>
>Fly safe,
>Rutledge Fuller
>Tallahassee, Fl.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine Seizure in flight |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Hmmmmmm ...... I think it's best to carry your own, mix it well and buy
it from a station that is used a lot. Thanks for telling us.
Ralph
writes:
>
>
>
>I trusted somebody elses fuel. It was contaminated and probably not
>mixed correctly.
>Rutledge
>
>From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
>Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:30:58 EST
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Seizure in flight
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>In a message dated 10/27/98 12:31:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>rut007(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
><< I simply kept my cool, spotted a sod field and
> landed. Not even a scratch on anything other than my piston. >>
>
>
> Way to go. Sounds like a nice piece of flying. What happened to
>cause the
>seizure?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brad Houston" <HoustonBW(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ultralight Introduction Ride |
I have a friend that lives near Destin, FL that I would like to introduce
to Ultralighting and Kolbs, Does anyone know of someone in the Destin area
that could take her up for an introduction ride? Thanks in advance and safe
flying.
Brad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F J MARINO" <FMARINO(at)netlink1.nlcomm.com> |
BUY A STINKIN KOLB MAN YOU WILL ENJOY IT, BEST COMPANY AROUND, BEST AIRPLANE
AROUND, SAFEST AIRPLANE AROUND, ANNNND THE FUNNEST TO FLY
From: Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: decision
>
>DIdo for me about KOlb. Even when I lost my cool they were always calm and
collected and ready to serve. Ask for their advise and you'll get it clear
and concise and objective. Labor intensive aircraft to build but an easy
company to deal with. Sit in a Kolb cage. Think about rekitting the plane
(crashing) and you'll buy the Kolb. Look at the wing construction and
you'll buy the Kolb. Meet the Kolb people and you'll buy a Kolb. Talk to
Kolb owners and builders and you'll buy the KOLB.
>
>So go buy a Kolb already....
>
>
>>>> 10/24 4:16 PM >>>
>
>Pete
>
>Let me say this about the KOLB co. that I have not seen anyone say
>something about
>and that is the SERVICE you receive from" KOLB" I built a M/3 and every
>time that I needed advice,.. a call to old Dennis and the problem
>answered .Every time that I needed a part wammo.... it was on the way.
>Well this was 3yr. ago
>Now I needed a part so I called KOLB talked to Dan, the KOLB flight
>instructor
>about my needs he said take care of it but right now he had a student
>waiting on him
>by the airplane , PETE this telephone conversation took place on tuesday
>morning on FRIDAY morning the part that I ordered was at my house
>thousands of miles away
>So you must look at the kind of service you will receive during the
>building as well as three years after you get finished .
>Rick Libersat
>
>>
>>Hello group,
>>
>>I am on the fence about which plane to buy. I have a private but lost
>>my
>>medical and not my desire to fly. I don't want to play with the FAA,
>>but I
>>would like 2 seats just in case. I would like to stay legal but I will
>>do what
>>I have to do. Firefly or Slingshot? Or
>>something else? Would appreciate some thoughts on this. Thanks Pete
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
!
>
!
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
ETAtAhUAsbBBP4IjqzVcCFjOKBhxZNNVnC4CFEqCQpd5Rfjjgw1qWhA2I4nA1BJ9
| From: | wndean(at)webtv.net (William Dean) |
| Subject: | Weight & Balance |
When calculating W&B is the pilot weght a negative number because it is
in front of the Datum line? When I figure the weight as a negative I am
within the guidelines but as a positive I am outside.
Getting close on my FS1.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F J MARINO" <FMARINO(at)netlink1.nlcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport pilot, Umbrella??? |
Let me throw my schillings worth about the sport licensing of ultr-light
pilots, as a flight instructor for general aviation, I have gone to many
many renewals for my license and can tell you this is one way the FAA has
their finger on you. Once you get a license you are under the control of
thwe FAA and with their power they could revoke your ticket just like they
did Bob Hoovers, and it will be up to you to prove that you are innocent.
As it stands now you can fly your ultra lights with out the FAA's control,
although every one should follow the rules of the FARS's just to be safe.
The other thing is right now if you get a DUI the FAA has no way of knowing
this, but once you get a license they want your SSN and any time you should
get a DUI or in any kind of trouble that requires the law even its DUI or
speeding the FAA will know and want you license. I think that if a person
flies his or her ultra light safely and responsibly they will not get in
trouble. Unfortunatly some pilots don't or won't fly safely and it makes it
bad on all of us. Any time the FAA proposes something it means trouble for
the little guy. Why sould you need a license to fly the way we do, normally
we are up about an hour or less and normally stay in the pattern, once in a
while we go on a short cross country to another grass field some where out
of the way of GA and commerical aircraft and we just putzz aorund for fun,
thats why we went to ultr lights to get out from under the control. Stop and
think about this and I think some of might agree with me, Geor38 will think
I nuts, bvut he's just and ole glider pilot so he says. Any way this my
pences worth.
From: Jim Gerken <gerken(at)us.ibm.com>
Date: Monday, October 26, 1998 9:50 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Sport pilot, Umbrella???
>
>
>Please, someone please correct me or help me out here...
>
>Some of the Kolb guys here have been trashing the new proposed Sport Pilot
>Category. I had the vague understanding that the BIGGER PICTURE of this is
>that the Sport Pilot category is only a single aspect of the overall plan
to
>adopt some kind of UMBRELLA licensing program. The Umbrella would allow
the
>establishment of many unique pilot and craft licensing categories as their
need
>was established. The first of these is the Sport Pilot. I don't know why
or
>how the Sport Pilot got ahead of the Microlight, I would have guessed it
would
>have happened the other way around. I have been following this in
>EXPERIMENTER and I think it was last month's issue had a very good write-up
on
>the whole thing.
> I would think that, if what I understand is correct, once the Umbrella is
>working, it should be easy(er) for the USUA to get you guys a
Microlight-like
>category. And a trike category and a parachute cat. and a rotary-thing
cat....
>Does anyone grasp the whole thing (the Umbrella) well enough to explain it
>better? Or did I completly misunderstand the concept?! Maybe it was a
dream.
>Hope not, it sounded like progress for changes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Weight & Balance |
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, William Dean wrote:
>
> When calculating W&B is the pilot weght a negative number because it is
> in front of the Datum line? When I figure the weight as a negative I am
> within the guidelines but as a positive I am outside.
> Getting close on my FS1.
You could do a W&B calculation with positive and negative moments
(wt x distance from datum), such as positive is moments in front of
the datum and negative behind the datum. HOWEVER, I STRONGLY
recommend just following the procedure in the kolb Plans book. An
example, from the Kolb KXP plans book, is shown in:
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom/build/a4weight.gif
(shown with Kolb credit, but without Kolb permission, updates, etc)
Use the method in the pages from your own plans book. It is clear
and relatively easy. Dont rush/Get it right/Safe building and flying.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAT U/L's (+4 /-2 rating.) |
>
>On the other hand the 254# has pushed the engineers to be creative in
using materials, design and construction techniques to the point where we
have UL conforming A/C with +4 / -2 G ratings - and some higher. Amazing.
>
>
Yeah right,
What kind of uniform test is required for ultralight manufacturers to be
able to claim a +4 /-2 rating.
You can just be thankful that Kolb is a conservative company with good old
fashioned values and ethics. But my guess is that Dennis is uncomfortable
with the 254 LB constraints for safety and durability reasons.
Eugene Zimmerman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Weight & Balance |
>
>When calculating W&B is the pilot weght a negative number because it is
>in front of the Datum line? When I figure the weight as a negative I am
>within the guidelines but as a positive I am outside.
>Getting close on my FS1.
Yes - but technically the weight is positive, but the distance is negative.
If your distances behind the datum (usually taken as the leading edge of the
wing) are positive, then the pilot's distance is negative.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | newbie inquiries |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame) |
Todd, when I bought my kit in '86, I really went into this blindly. I had
never even seen a FireStar fly. I looked the kit over thoroughly at
Oshkosh '85 and thought it to be the best one on the market at the time.
I had read some good things about Homer Kolb and his efforts to design a
decent ultralight. The kit at that time was not easy to build without any
charts or figures in the construction manual. It was a few typed pages on
"how-to-build the kit", but an excellent set of blueprints were included.
After completion, I took it out and essentially taught myself to fly
after taking a few lessons in a Quicksilver. It was easy, but my first
landing left a lot to be desired. I didn't crow-hop it but instead gave
it full throttle and got up in the air. I was venturing into the unknown
and learning as I went along, fun, but could have been dangerous. Now
nearly 12 years later, I can honestly say, "There isn't another
ultralight I would rather have than a Kolb". Homer and Dennis designed a
solid little plane and kept a newbie like me from hurting myself. This
ultralight plane has really been through some tough times flying when I
shouldn't have ..... in strong winds and the like. I was up one day in
'88 when a tornado was spotted just 5 miles from where I was flying. It
had developed out of nowhere. I can testify to the strength of the
design. It may have pulled the wings off something else, who knows. Like
all ultralight pilots, I have learned a tremendous amount about this
sport and made a good choice with that plane. In answer to your question,
I didn't know the L/D right away, nor did I do any dead stick landings
until I had sufficient time to learn the characteristics of the machine.
Today, the little plane is nose-heavy and out of trim due to the extra
weight up front (me) and I have to hold a slight back pressure on the
stick when I fly. It's not fatiguing because it is light. I have made
several true dead stick landings each year which keeps me in practice.
One of them was at 2600' agl and over a mile from the field, intentional
of course. Do I know my limitations? There is an old saying in aviation:
"When a pilot thinks he knows everything, the end may be near".
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
>
>
>This discussion needs centering. Dead stick landings, crow hops and
>high speed taxis all have their place and time and strategic if not
>tactical value. So now I have a question. When you guys and girls
>first flight tested your aircraft, did you high speed taxi, crow hop,
>etc or just take off and hope the aircraft was trimmed accordingly.
>And once you had the aircraft trimmed how did you determine the L/D
>characteristics of the aircraft? Did you throttle back to idle or
>maintain a specific RPM to "simulate" and engine out? It seems to me
>that "engine out" practise sessions to a "made field" is not only
>smart but mandatory. A man's got to know his limitations!!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Weight & Balance |
| From: | bobdoebler(at)juno.com (Robert L Doebler) |
From: wndean(at)webtv.net (William Dean)
Subject: Kolb-List: Weight & Balance
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 18:45:25 -0500 (EST)
When calculating W&B is the pilot weght a negative number because it is
in front of the Datum line? When I figure the weight as a negative I am
within the guidelines but as a positive I am outside.
Getting close on my FS1.
Bill
When I did my w/b, I did it with me in the plane. Cause that's the way I
usually fly it.
However I "think" the moment is negative, but the weight is always
additive, unless you do w/b and then install a smaller pilot. Hope I'm
not leading you down the slippery path.
Bob D
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sport pilot, Umbrella??? |
| From: | mefine1(at)juno.com (Mick Fine) |
writes:
>
>.... until ultimately you
>would have your private pilots' license, or you could stop at whatever
>level you're satisfied with.....
Wasn't that the intent of the 'recreational ticket', a step between solo
and private? A few days ago, Todd commented on it with something like,
"...why bother when you have to stay within 50 miles..." Well, that limit
went away a couple years ago although the public heard little about it.
Many CFI's won't volunteer much information on RP because they'll lose
quite a few hours of instruction and aircraft rental if more students opt
for it.
Very few RP certificates have been issued, that's why the 50 mile limit
was dropped. Still, it fits the way a lot of us fly - no night ops., no
radio work, no controlled airspace. A lot of folks like to say FAA is not
responsive but I think they recognized a need for some middle ground and
tried to address it with RP. Hey, give 'em some credit, it's a step in
the right direction. The reason more people don't go for it is because
they don't know it even exists or they've been fed a lot of
misinformation by CFI's who make more money steering them away from it.
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <joncroke(at)itol.com> |
| Subject: | Viagra meets the FAA |
Just heard on the news that FAA says NO Viagra when flying!!!
Sure glad I fly an ultralight.......not that I take the stuff.... but... I
asume we ultralighters are exempt?????
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wheel Bearings - Back to building & flying |
> The bearing number is: 499502H They were
> about $4.60 a piece.
> Now if Jim Baker is out there paying attention, he might be able to cross
> these to ones with the flange rather than the snap ring.
Mail filters pay attention for me ; )
The problem is that the flange bearings are low grade, non-
extensive use types made for...you guessed it...wheelbarrows or
bicycles or some such. They are inch size bearings that don't
have an equivalent size with any other cone/cup roller bearing or
ball bearing. Sorry. The best you could do is make a steel spacer
to fit in the wheel bore, drill a hole in the wheel housing and
rosebud weld the spacer in place so it doesn't move axially in the
bore. Two or three welds should do fine.
weld
J. Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: USUA Cubs.Members USUA Region3, Alabama,Mississippi,Tennessee |
From: Lindy <lindy(at)snowhill.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 11:26 PM
Subject: USUA Cubs.Members USUA Region3, Alabama,Mississippi,Tennessee
The annual membership meeting of the United States Ultralight Association
(USUA) will be held in Knoxville,Tennessee on February 26th and 27th,
1999.It has been the custom for a USUA club in the region,normally the
closest one to provide logistical assistance during the meeting by providing
administrative support and assisting the USUA Headquarters staff.Please
encourage as many members as possible to attend.Watch ultralight flying
magazine for additional information related to the meeting location.
The primary purpose of this letter is to request input topics and subjects
for discussion and necessary action by the headquarters staff and regional
representatives.
As a matter of information the major items of interest at the 1998 meeting
in Portland ,Oregon were Club Insurance to include property owners
provisions, National Ultralight events, ultralight vehicle insurance,
Leave Part 103 alone,BFI's that really teach,Interacting with other aviation
groups, grandfathering in of all current USUA instructors and pilots, ARAC
committee in the FAA, Search and Rescue, bickering among individuals and
clubs, media coverage of accidents, Radio use,mandatory use of ballistic
chutes, USUA Home page on the Internet.Insurance problems in Alaska and
Hawaii.safety seminars.
For your information and the information of Club members USUA is a 501 c (3)
non profit organization registered with the Internal Revenue
Service.Approx.. 3.5 % of annual income is spent on administrative costs to
run the association, 3 full time and 2 part time employees operate out of a
2500 square foot building to support the national organization.
approximately 73% of USUA income comes from dues.approximately 66% of income
is spent on membership services.Each and every year USUA returns
approximately $ 40,000 to instructors.Membership fluctuates like any other
organization but we have approximately 13000 members as of February 1998.
Approximately 1275 members move every year and approximately 40-50% fail to
submit a change of address to insure receipt of the monthly newspaper.
The E mail address of USUA is usuahq(at)aol.com.(USUA) attends and provides
membership services at Sun/Fun,Oshkosh, Arlington, and represented by
regional reps or members of the headquarters staff at major regional events
held in different sections of the country.
Region 3 this year has 9 Clubs, 330 members, 69 registered aircraft, 22
BFI's and 72 registered USUA Pilots. If any additional administrative data
is needed feel free to contact me at (334) 347-3933, by e-mail, or mail at
Route 3, Box 103 Enterprise< Alabama 36330-9613.E-mail address listed below.
If you have a suggestion,recommendation,comment,idea,or recognize a problem
or future problem feel free to state in your own words exactly what the
problem is and your recommended solution or alternate solution to the
problem.
Most of you know me personally and I will present what you present to me as
your representative at the annual meeting in Knoxville for consideration by
the President,Board of Directors and Regional Representatives of the United
States Ultralight Association (USUA).
The format of this letter is in E-mail format and will be distributed by
E-mail channels and through the postal Service.Please return your comments
in writing Not late than 10 January 1999.
Respectively,
Lindy
Linderman
Regional Representative Region 3
E-mail-lindy(at)snowhill.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ultralight Introduction Ride |
Sure do. Call Mike Highsmith in Panama City (850) 234-9404 or (850)
832-1786. He is a BFI and flys a Ferguson. As you might have picked up
on the list from earlier this month, the F_______ is a Kolb copycat.
Mike is a great instructor who has owned Kolbs and Quicks as well.
Rutledge Fuller
THIS IS NOT A FERGUSON ADVERTISMENT!
Tallahassee, Fl.
From: "Brad Houston" <HoustonBW(at)worldnet.att.net>
I have a friend that lives near Destin, FL that I would like to
introduce
to Ultralighting and Kolbs, Does anyone know of someone in the Destin
area
that could take her up for an introduction ride? Thanks in advance and
safe
flying.
Brad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Seizure in flight |
It's hard to say exactly. I was on climbout at full power when it
seized. The float bowls were full. Prior to take off, I refueled. I
noticed that there was trash in the bottom of the gas can. I also
trusted the fellow Kolb owner that the fuel was mixed 50:1. I have
always had the CHT's climb until I reduce power on climbout. The plugs
were white, unlike the other plugs that I have run. It looks like a
lean condition. Before flying from Quincy, I rejetted from a 165 main
to a 170 main to help on climbouts. And it did to a point. On the way
back from Mississippi, I noticed that the crankshaft oil seal was
seeping. Everyone told me to ignore this until it got really bad. That
is not like me to ignore something like that. That is one of the
reasons that I choose a flyin that was close to Quincy. It could have
been the crank seal or any combination. I hate it when it is hard to
determine the exact cause.
I am replacing the fuel pump, fuel, piston, seals and gaskets, and will
double check the engine timing. I will do everything that I know to do
to ensure a good running engine. But on the other hand will not trust
the damn thing as far as I can throw it.
The bad news is that it will end up spending about $400 on rebuild, and
I am doing all the work. I will be hitting the motorcycle shops next
time.
Rutledge Fuller
Tallahassee, Fl.
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Seizure in flight
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)
Rut,
Please let us know what you think the cause of engine failure was
attributed to. How many hours do you have on it?
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
writes:
>
>
>
>Yes folks, it really happened, and I am damn glad I had been
>practicing
>for my guaranted Rotax engine failure. It happened on climb out at
>about 1,000ft msl. I simply kept my cool, spotted a sod field and
>landed. Not even a scratch on anything other than my piston.
>
>Be prepared, because it's not if, but when!
>
>Last weekend in Mississippi, a weedhopper had an engine failure which
>led to the destruction of the aircraft and minor injury (lucky) to the
>pilot. The pilot said that he had never practiced dead stick
>landings.
>Please be prepared and get the proper training. Once again this
>weekend
>in Colquitt, a trike pilot of three hours flew straight into the
>ground
>breaking his back and hip. Most, well, all of the accidents that I
>have
>witnessed have been PILOT error. Mostly lack of training and
>experience.
>
>Fly safe,
>Rutledge Fuller
>Tallahassee, Fl.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: newbie inquiries |
Ralph and Group,
I have an aluminum trim tab on my elevator that I hand adjust on the
ground. It is great for long trips when you load down the cockpit with
tent etc. I fly hands off with the tab adjusted. Also, I can kill the
engine with hands off the stick and it will setup a 50 mph decent
automatically. When the trim is set improperly, it is a bear to fly,
and hands off would be disaster. An untrimmed aircraft in an emergency
could prove fatal because your attention might be on other things like
restarting or field selection. Be careful.
Rut
Today, the little plane is nose-heavy and out of trim due to the extra
weight up front (me) and I have to hold a slight back pressure on the
stick when I fly. It's not fatiguing because it is light.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.COM> |
| Subject: | UL Airport directory |
Note that many private fields have information - I would guess all
registered with the FAA (you might check Kolb, for example.)
Of course, you should never land in a private field without first getting
permission and a briefing.
Might I suggest that everyone simply provide identifiers, and review the
information currently stored in http://www.airnav.com/ .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Reynolds" <rfreynol(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport pilot, Umbrella??? |
This is precisely why sport pilot will fail. There will be no instructors!
Those current CFI will steer you towards the Private Pilot, and not many of
them are going to be willing to train in MKIII. Those guys are just time
building to go fly for the majors or corporate.
From: Mick Fine <mefine1(at)juno.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 10:04 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Sport pilot, Umbrella???
>Wasn't that the intent of the 'recreational ticket', a step between solo
>and private? A few days ago, Todd commented on it with something like,
>"...why bother when you have to stay within 50 miles..." Well, that limit
>went away a couple years ago although the public heard little about it.
>Many CFI's won't volunteer much information on RP because they'll lose
>quite a few hours of instruction and aircraft rental if more students opt
>for it.
>
>Very few RP certificates have been issued, that's why the 50 mile limit
>was dropped. Still, it fits the way a lot of us fly - no night ops., no
>radio work, no controlled airspace. A lot of folks like to say FAA is not
>responsive but I think they recognized a need for some middle ground and
>tried to address it with RP. Hey, give 'em some credit, it's a step in
>the right direction. The reason more people don't go for it is because
>they don't know it even exists or they've been fed a lot of
>misinformation by CFI's who make more money steering them away from it.
>
>
>-Mick Fine
>Tulsa, Oklahoma
>http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
>Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
>http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAT U/L's (+4 /-2 rating.) |
I'll let Dennis handle this topic. As a manufacturer it would be interesting to
get an education on how Kolbs planes are tested to determine the G ratings.
Care to comment Dennis?
>>> Eugene Zimmerman 10/27 6:59 PM >>>
>
>On the other hand the 254# has pushed the engineers to be creative in
using materials, design and construction techniques to the point where we
have UL conforming A/C with +4 / -2 G ratings - and some higher. Amazing.
>
>
Yeah right,
What kind of uniform test is required for ultralight manufacturers to be
able to claim a +4 /-2 rating.
You can just be thankful that Kolb is a conservative company with good old
fashioned values and ethics. But my guess is that Dennis is uncomfortable
with the 254 LB constraints for safety and durability reasons.
Eugene Zimmerman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport pilot, Umbrella??? |
Now that interesting because the FLight school local to me specifically told me
in the Spring of 1997 that they don't provide a program for RP's because the
overall cost is just to close to the PP program (I think within 10-15%) and that
the RP is restricted to 50 miles. I guess I was fed a bit 'o bs. Nevertheless,
they don't support it.
>>> Mick Fine 10/27 10:57 PM >>>
writes:
>
>.... until ultimately you
>would have your private pilots' license, or you could stop at whatever
>level you're satisfied with.....
Wasn't that the intent of the 'recreational ticket', a step between solo
and private? A few days ago, Todd commented on it with something like,
"...why bother when you have to stay within 50 miles..." Well, that limit
went away a couple years ago although the public heard little about it.
Many CFI's won't volunteer much information on RP because they'll lose
quite a few hours of instruction and aircraft rental if more students opt
for it.
Very few RP certificates have been issued, that's why the 50 mile limit
was dropped. Still, it fits the way a lot of us fly - no night ops., no
radio work, no controlled airspace. A lot of folks like to say FAA is not
responsive but I think they recognized a need for some middle ground and
tried to address it with RP. Hey, give 'em some credit, it's a step in
the right direction. The reason more people don't go for it is because
they don't know it even exists or they've been fed a lot of
misinformation by CFI's who make more money steering them away from it.
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: newbie inquiries |
Can you tell me the configuration/design of your trim tab and the adjustment mechanism?
Thanks.
>>> "Rutledge Fuller" 10/28 8:13 AM >>>
Ralph and Group,
I have an aluminum trim tab on my elevator that I hand adjust on the
ground. It is great for long trips when you load down the cockpit with
tent etc. I fly hands off with the tab adjusted. Also, I can kill the
engine with hands off the stick and it will setup a 50 mph decent
automatically. When the trim is set improperly, it is a bear to fly,
and hands off would be disaster. An untrimmed aircraft in an emergency
could prove fatal because your attention might be on other things like
restarting or field selection. Be careful.
Rut
Today, the little plane is nose-heavy and out of trim due to the extra
weight up front (me) and I have to hold a slight back pressure on the
stick when I fly. It's not fatiguing because it is light.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F J MARINO" <FMARINO(at)netlink1.nlcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport pilot, Umbrella??? |
The reason most instructors won't mention the RP license is they want the
money to teach you all the way to a private. I have two students right now I
'm working with them on the RP, it is easier and more ecnomical for the
student. Like you said most people when they fly in general avation aircraft
usually only take one passenger and normanlly stay with the general area of
the airport. To me the most fun in flying is the take off and landing,
flying cross country is boring, and I dread it when it comes time to start
this part of the private pilots lesson plan. The other thing I think will
happen with the sport pilot license is once it is approved the next step
would be for you to have a FAA medical in order to fly. This will cost all
of us more money and it will change the way we fly our ultra lights and I
believe in the end ultra light flying will end up like general aviation, you
won't be able to afford it. Go to the airport and see how many Cessna's and
the likes are flying, on the other hand the ultra light flying is on the
rise because it is somewhat cheep and there are not to may restrictions YET.
Sorry for getting worked up again but we have the best of both worlds when
it comes to flying cheep and not to many regulations. Lets keep it that way.
Frank on the soap box Marino
From: Rob Reynolds <rfreynol(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Sport pilot, Umbrella???
>
>This is precisely why sport pilot will fail. There will be no instructors!
>Those current CFI will steer you towards the Private Pilot, and not many of
>them are going to be willing to train in MKIII. Those guys are just time
>building to go fly for the majors or corporate.
>
>
>From: Mick Fine <mefine1(at)juno.com>
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Date: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 10:04 PM
>Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Sport pilot, Umbrella???
>
>
>
>>Wasn't that the intent of the 'recreational ticket', a step between solo
>>and private? A few days ago, Todd commented on it with something like,
>>"...why bother when you have to stay within 50 miles..." Well, that limit
>>went away a couple years ago although the public heard little about it.
>>Many CFI's won't volunteer much information on RP because they'll lose
>>quite a few hours of instruction and aircraft rental if more students opt
>>for it.
>>
>>Very few RP certificates have been issued, that's why the 50 mile limit
>>was dropped. Still, it fits the way a lot of us fly - no night ops., no
>>radio work, no controlled airspace. A lot of folks like to say FAA is not
>>responsive but I think they recognized a need for some middle ground and
>>tried to address it with RP. Hey, give 'em some credit, it's a step in
>>the right direction. The reason more people don't go for it is because
>>they don't know it even exists or they've been fed a lot of
>>misinformation by CFI's who make more money steering them away from it.
>>
>>
>>-Mick Fine
>>Tulsa, Oklahoma
>>http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
>>Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
>>http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Seizure in flight |
Rut,
As long as you are covering all the possibilities, let me ask a question.
What was the cylinder head temperature just prior to your take off run when it
seized? My own theory of seizures on takeoff is that most are "cold" seizures
caused by improper warm up. I don't let the rpm's go over 4,000 until the engine
is within 50 degrees of normal CHT. With my engine and gage, that 200 degrees CHT
before take off.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: newbie inquiries |
It's just a painted piece of aluminum rivited to the bottom of one side
of the elevator. bend as necessary for proper trim. I don't have the
dimensions on hand, but would guess 1.5 feet wide by 6inches deep. For
detailed information I would recommend contacting Glenn Rinck at (850)
592-5891. Remember that I am not a builder, and would hate to give
improper information. Glenn has an extraordinary amount of skill and
experience and loves to talk to fellow ultralighters. He is probably at
home now sitting on the couch waiting for the phone to ring.
Rutledge
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:01:41 -0400
From: Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: newbie inquiries
Can you tell me the configuration/design of your trim tab and the
adjustment mechanism? Thanks.
>>> "Rutledge Fuller" 10/28 8:13 AM >>>
Ralph and Group,
I have an aluminum trim tab on my elevator that I hand adjust on the
ground. It is great for long trips when you load down the cockpit with
tent etc. I fly hands off with the tab adjusted. Also, I can kill the
engine with hands off the stick and it will setup a 50 mph decent
automatically. When the trim is set improperly, it is a bear to fly,
and hands off would be disaster. An untrimmed aircraft in an emergency
could prove fatal because your attention might be on other things like
restarting or field selection. Be careful.
Rut
Today, the little plane is nose-heavy and out of trim due to the extra
weight up front (me) and I have to hold a slight back pressure on the
stick when I fly. It's not fatiguing because it is light.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
!
!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Seizure in flight |
If memory serves me right, it was at 180 CHT, and at seizure it was high
360's.
Rut
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:42:35 -0600
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Seizure in flight
Rut,
As long as you are covering all the possibilities, let me ask a
question.
What was the cylinder head temperature just prior to your take off run
when it
seized? My own theory of seizures on takeoff is that most are "cold"
seizures
caused by improper warm up. I don't let the rpm's go over 4,000 until
the engine
is within 50 degrees of normal CHT. With my engine and gage, that 200
degrees CHT
before take off.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Seizure in flight |
For what its worth, I just recently had a SECOND seizure during the full
throttle portion of the Rotax break-in procedure. I believe that the source
of the problem was the fuel pump's inability to supply adequate fuel for
full throttle operation. As I've read in the list in the past, a new fuel
pump is an inexpensive way to take care of poor fuel flow problems. I
changed from the originally supplied Mikuni single to the Mikuni dual pump.
I will start the third try at breaking in the engine later on today, or
early tomorrow. This seizing up is getting a little old (and expensive).
Ron Carroll
Original Firestar
From: Rutledge Fuller <rut007(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday October 28 1998 5:03 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Seizure in flight
>
>It's hard to say exactly. I was on climbout at full power when it
>seized. The float bowls were full. Prior to take off, I refueled. I
>noticed that there was trash in the bottom of the gas can. I also
>trusted the fellow Kolb owner that the fuel was mixed 50:1. I have
>always had the CHT's climb until I reduce power on climbout. The plugs
>were white, unlike the other plugs that I have run. It looks like a
>lean condition. Before flying from Quincy, I rejetted from a 165 main
>to a 170 main to help on climbouts. And it did to a point. On the way
>back from Mississippi, I noticed that the crankshaft oil seal was
>seeping. Everyone told me to ignore this until it got really bad. That
>is not like me to ignore something like that. That is one of the
>reasons that I choose a flyin that was close to Quincy. It could have
>been the crank seal or any combination. I hate it when it is hard to
>determine the exact cause.
>
>I am replacing the fuel pump, fuel, piston, seals and gaskets, and will
>double check the engine timing. I will do everything that I know to do
>to ensure a good running engine. But on the other hand will not trust
>the damn thing as far as I can throw it.
>
>The bad news is that it will end up spending about $400 on rebuild, and
>I am doing all the work. I will be hitting the motorcycle shops next
>time.
>
>Rutledge Fuller
>Tallahassee, Fl.
>
>
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Seizure in flight
>From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)
>
>Rut,
>
>Please let us know what you think the cause of engine failure was
>attributed to. How many hours do you have on it?
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original FireStar, 447 powered
>
>
>writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes folks, it really happened, and I am damn glad I had been
>>practicing
>>for my guaranted Rotax engine failure. It happened on climb out at
>>about 1,000ft msl. I simply kept my cool, spotted a sod field and
>>landed. Not even a scratch on anything other than my piston.
>>
>>Be prepared, because it's not if, but when!
>>
>>Last weekend in Mississippi, a weedhopper had an engine failure which
>>led to the destruction of the aircraft and minor injury (lucky) to the
>>pilot. The pilot said that he had never practiced dead stick
>>landings.
>>Please be prepared and get the proper training. Once again this
>>weekend
>>in Colquitt, a trike pilot of three hours flew straight into the
>>ground
>>breaking his back and hip. Most, well, all of the accidents that I
>>have
>>witnessed have been PILOT error. Mostly lack of training and
>>experience.
>>
>>Fly safe,
>>Rutledge Fuller
>>Tallahassee, Fl.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Carroll " <ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Seizure in flight |
For what its worth, I just recently had a SECOND seizure during the full
throttle portion of the Rotax break-in procedure. I believe that the source
of the problem was the fuel pump's inability to supply adequate fuel for
full throttle operation. As I've read in the list in the past, a new fuel
pump is an inexpensive way to take care of poor fuel flow problems. I
changed from the originally supplied Mikuni single to the Mikuni dual pump.
I will start the third try at breaking in the engine later on today, or
early tomorrow. This seizing up is getting a little old (and expensive).
Ron Carroll
Original Firestar
From: Rutledge Fuller <rut007(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday October 28 1998 5:03 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Seizure in flight
>
>It's hard to say exactly. I was on climbout at full power when it
>seized. The float bowls were full. Prior to take off, I refueled. I
>noticed that there was trash in the bottom of the gas can. I also
>trusted the fellow Kolb owner that the fuel was mixed 50:1. I have
>always had the CHT's climb until I reduce power on climbout. The plugs
>were white, unlike the other plugs that I have run. It looks like a
>lean condition. Before flying from Quincy, I rejetted from a 165 main
>to a 170 main to help on climbouts. And it did to a point. On the way
>back from Mississippi, I noticed that the crankshaft oil seal was
>seeping. Everyone told me to ignore this until it got really bad. That
>is not like me to ignore something like that. That is one of the
>reasons that I choose a flyin that was close to Quincy. It could have
>been the crank seal or any combination. I hate it when it is hard to
>determine the exact cause.
>
>I am replacing the fuel pump, fuel, piston, seals and gaskets, and will
>double check the engine timing. I will do everything that I know to do
>to ensure a good running engine. But on the other hand will not trust
>the damn thing as far as I can throw it.
>
>The bad news is that it will end up spending about $400 on rebuild, and
>I am doing all the work. I will be hitting the motorcycle shops next
>time.
>
>Rutledge Fuller
>Tallahassee, Fl.
>
>
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Seizure in flight
>From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com (Ralph H Burlingame)
>
>Rut,
>
>Please let us know what you think the cause of engine failure was
>attributed to. How many hours do you have on it?
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original FireStar, 447 powered
>
>
>writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes folks, it really happened, and I am damn glad I had been
>>practicing
>>for my guaranted Rotax engine failure. It happened on climb out at
>>about 1,000ft msl. I simply kept my cool, spotted a sod field and
>>landed. Not even a scratch on anything other than my piston.
>>
>>Be prepared, because it's not if, but when!
>>
>>Last weekend in Mississippi, a weedhopper had an engine failure which
>>led to the destruction of the aircraft and minor injury (lucky) to the
>>pilot. The pilot said that he had never practiced dead stick
>>landings.
>>Please be prepared and get the proper training. Once again this
>>weekend
>>in Colquitt, a trike pilot of three hours flew straight into the
>>ground
>>breaking his back and hip. Most, well, all of the accidents that I
>>have
>>witnessed have been PILOT error. Mostly lack of training and
>>experience.
>>
>>Fly safe,
>>Rutledge Fuller
>>Tallahassee, Fl.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport pilot, Umbrella??? |
>Sorry for getting worked up again but we have the best of both worlds when
>it comes to flying cheep and not to many regulations. Lets keep it that way.
>
> Frank on the soap box Marino
Yesterday, (Tuesday) there were 7 of us that flew from the
Bristol/Kingsport area over to Middlesboro, Kentucky to see the P-38 that
was dug up out of the Greenland glacier ("Glacier Girl") and is being
restored. There was a Hi-Max, a Fisher303, a Hawk, a Drifter XP503, a
Firestar, a FirestarII, and my MKIII. Clear, calm wind, and the leaves were
peak. Flying solo at 50 MPH at 5000 rpm to stay back with the others, I used
13 gallons of gas in 3.5 hours of flight time. 3.72 GPH with a 532!
Coming back I was flying along the southeast crest of Clinch Mountain
(a long sharp spine that runs from Knoxville NE on up into Virginia) and
just above the crest, the rising warm air from the late afternoon sun was
letting
me sustain altitude at 4400 rpm and 42 mph. Smooth as glass. Not a ripple.
Is this a great way to fly, or what?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert E. Kearbey, D.D.S." <kearbey(at)cncnet.com> |
From: Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Out!
>
>This discussion needs centering. Dead stick landings, crow hops and high
speed taxis all have their place and time and strategic if not tactical
value. So now I have a question. When you guys and girls first flight
tested your aircraft, did you high speed taxi, crow hop, etc or just take
off and hope the aircraft was trimmed accordingly. And once you had the
aircraft trimmed how did you determine the L/D characteristics of the
aircraft? Did you throttle back to idle or maintain a specific RPM to
"simulate" and engine out? It seems to me that "engine out" practise
sessions to a "made field" is not only smart but mandatory. A man's got
to know his limitations!!
>
>>>> 10/25 9:07 PM >>>
>
>
>
><< Like you, I stick to my story based upon experience. I have to believe
> that the flight instruction industry has learned what works over the
years.
> The practice of shutting of the engine and dead sticking it in, crow
> hopping, and high speed taxis are excellent ways to bust up a airplane and
> maybe yourself along with it. These are all daring, macho type
operations.
>
> My final 2 cents,
> Jerry >>
>
>as a glider pilot , I don't ever feel "macho" when landing...........and I
>think everyone should be acquainted with What to Do ....WHEN the engine
>quits.............the last thing to suffer is
>............PANIC!!....especially when a little practice, in a controlled
way,
>will blow it away.............................GeoR38
>
>As a CFII I can tell you that when giving instruction in a powered
airplane, the FAA would be very upset if something happened on a landing
and the available power had been shut off. We just don't teach that way.
Power off landings are done in an idle throttle position. This closely
enough simulates a power off situation.
crow-hopping at about two feet off the ground to test for stability and trim
etc. Then I when I was satisfied, I added full power and went flying.
Always a rush to test fly a new airplane.
Bob Kearbey CFII
>
>
>
!
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine Seizure in flight |
Ron Carroll
You wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For what its worth, I just recently had a SECOND seizure during the full
throttle portion of the Rotax break-in procedure. I believe that the source
of the problem was the fuel pump's inability to supply adequate fuel for
full throttle operation. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
First of all I'm glad to hear that you finally got your engine back together
from the first seizure you had some time ago.
As for your second seizure, I don't think you should blame it on the fuel
pump. Two strokes can run out of fuel and there will still be enough residual
oil lubrication to prevent a seizure. Better look for something else! (IMHO)
Bill Varnes
Original FireStar 377 300+ hours
Audubon NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com> |
Bob, you're thoughts parallel mine EXCEPT that I think power off landing by the
aircraft owner/pilot are necessary and a good thing to practise. This is not
a task that I , as a BFI, would teach the student pilot. It can only be practised
after the pilot has gained a lot of familiarity and confidence in the aircraft.
As you can tell from this thread, the general concensus and proceedure
is to kill the engine when you know you can make the field. This is not a procedure
a student would initiate and not a procedure a pilot with a brand new
airplane would initiate until after many hours of flight testing and gaining
familiarity with. At least I hope so.
>>> "Robert E. Kearbey, D.D.S." 10/28 2:35 PM >>>
From: Todd Thompson <TTHOMPS(at)dictaphone.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Engine Out!
>
>This discussion needs centering. Dead stick landings, crow hops and high
speed taxis all have their place and time and strategic if not tactical
value. So now I have a question. When you guys and girls first flight
tested your aircraft, did you high speed taxi, crow hop, etc or just take
off and hope the aircraft was trimmed accordingly. And once you had the
aircraft trimmed how did you determine the L/D characteristics of the
aircraft? Did you throttle back to idle or maintain a specific RPM to
"simulate" and engine out? It seems to me that "engine out" practise
sessions to a "made field" is not only smart but mandatory. A man's got
to know his limitations!!
>
>>>> 10/25 9:07 PM >>>
>
>
>
><< Like you, I stick to my story based upon experience. I have to believe
> that the flight instruction industry has learned what works over the
years.
> The practice of shutting of the engine and dead sticking it in, crow
> hopping, and high speed taxis are excellent ways to bust up a airplane and
> maybe yourself along with it. These are all daring, macho type
operations.
>
> My final 2 cents,
> Jerry >>
>
>as a glider pilot , I don't ever feel "macho" when landing...........and I
>think everyone should be acquainted with What to Do ....WHEN the engine
>quits.............the last thing to suffer is
>............PANIC!!....especially when a little practice, in a controlled
way,
>will blow it away.............................GeoR38
>
>As a CFII I can tell you that when giving instruction in a powered
airplane, the FAA would be very upset if something happened on a landing
and the available power had been shut off. We just don't teach that way.
Power off landings are done in an idle throttle position. This closely
enough simulates a power off situation.
crow-hopping at about two feet off the ground to test for stability and trim
etc. Then I when I was satisfied, I added full power and went flying.
Always a rush to test fly a new airplane.
Bob Kearbey CFII
>
>
>
!
>
>
>
>
>
>
October 15, 1998 - October 28, 1998
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-ba