Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-bg
January 24, 1999 - February 14, 1999
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: looking for MKIII owner |
Terry
If I went with the W/D and wanted to leave the flap horns alone how long
of a spacer do you think I would need to be clear of prop strikes .
Rick Libersat
writes:
>
>
>Rick
>
>I have the warp drive and I did not have to use spacers. The flap
>horns must be
>installed straight down for the 912 with a warp drive which I did when
>I built
>it. If yours isn't built that way, you will need a prop spacer or
>change the
>flap horns and then the flap linkage. If the IVO reduces noise levels
>because
>of the increased distance from the flaps, I would go with the IVO.
>This summer,
>I took off the full enclosure for summertime flying. I ended up
>putting the
>back piece right back on because of the high noise level. I would
>like to try a
>spacer with the warp and it seems, despite of all the discussion, its
>hard to
>argue with all the hours John H has on his. My only reason would be
>to reduce
>noise.
>
>I'm pretty sure you are supposed to get a sign off and fly off another
>40 hours
>if you change the engine or prop.
>
>Terry
>
>rick106(at)juno.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Terry
>> Thanks I think I will like the 912 ok as far as the air filters I
>have
>> the flat ones , but now on the prop I don't know what to buy??? I
>talked
>> to DAN at KOLB and he said they use the IVO then Mr. Hauck he uses
>the
>> warp drive ,then FRANK R REYNEN will use the IVO I like
>frank's
>> reason it makes all the since in the world ,and I could keep going
>on an
>> on . what I would like to do is use the one that will use the
>shortest
>> spacer. what did you go with and did you have to put the spacer in.
>You
>> got me on the HAVE TO FLY OFF THE 40 HR. again . what about one of
>the
>> guy's on the list he was one of the F.A.A. boys do I have to fly
>off 40
>> hr if I put on another engine.
>>
>
> name="tswartz.vcf"
> filename="tswartz.vcf"
>
>begin:vcard
>n:Swartz;Terry
>adr:;;;;;;
>version:2.1
>email;internet:Tswartz(at)desupernet.net
>note:http://users.success.net/tswartz/
>fn:Terry Swartz
>end:vcard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
Recent events have made me a little gun shy, so will ask before I leap.
The instruction book takes me up to the point where the position of the
hinges is secured by screws/clecos on each corner of the hinge. It does
not indicate if the rest of the 44 holes for each hinge can be drilled
at this time. I see no reason why not and have been unable to locate
anything one way or the other.
I would appreciate the benefit of those with experience.
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F J MARINO" <FMARINO(at)netlink1.nlcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator hinges |
Ray: I drilled all the holes in the hinges first then drilled the four
holes on the elevator and stablizer put the clecos in and marked the other
holes with a black marker took the hinges back off snaped punched where the
marks are and then drilled the holes in the elevator and stablizer, I think
it was easier than trying to drill through the hinges and the tubes at the
same time. Hopes this helps. Use cleco's instead of screws their easier to
work with and don't miss up the holes like screws would especially when your
putting them in and removing them numerous times.
Frank.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com>
Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 3:45 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Elevator hinges
>
>
>Recent events have made me a little gun shy, so will ask before I leap.
>
>The instruction book takes me up to the point where the position of the
>hinges is secured by screws/clecos on each corner of the hinge. It does
>not indicate if the rest of the 44 holes for each hinge can be drilled
>at this time. I see no reason why not and have been unable to locate
>anything one way or the other.
>
>I would appreciate the benefit of those with experience.
>
>L. Ray Baker
>Lake Butler, Fl
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator hinges |
Ray, as a old Mech and aircraft sheet metal guy, I'd do as book says in
locating hinge, undrilled, but screwed/clecoed down securely on ends.
Then drill every two or three holes, clecoing as you go. then drill the
remaining holes between clecos. You gotta be careful in getting a "bag"
between end holes. I mean a hump. Sometimes in doing a large sheet I
would drill #40s (and use small clecos) and get everything lined up.
Then you go back with #30 drill and re-cleco. The advantage is that if a
#40 hole is off Slightly, you can usually drill the #30 off-center
enough to be OK, and not make an egg-shaped #30.
Replacement sheets for GAs come with just a few #40s so you can fit it
up to an existing mating sheet.
Yeah, I know others will probably take exception and advise differently.
Take your pick of the posts. Grey (1000's of holes) Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: looking for MKIII owner |
Rick
I'll take some measurements and a picture next time I'm at the airport.
Terry
rick106(at)juno.com wrote:
>
> Terry
> If I went with the W/D and wanted to leave the flap horns alone how long
> of a spacer do you think I would need to be clear of prop strikes .
>
> Rick Libersat
>
name="tswartz.vcf"
filename="tswartz.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Swartz;Terry
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Tswartz(at)desupernet.net
note:http://users.success.net/tswartz/
fn:Terry Swartz
end:vcard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator hinges |
Go for it. Cleco about every fourth one. Enjoy.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
>Recent events have made me a little gun shy, so will ask before I leap.
>
>The instruction book takes me up to the point where the position of the
>hinges is secured by screws/clecos on each corner of the hinge. It does
>not indicate if the rest of the 44 holes for each hinge can be drilled
>at this time. I see no reason why not and have been unable to locate
>anything one way or the other.
>
>I would appreciate the benefit of those with experience.
>
>L. Ray Baker
>Lake Butler, Fl
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry & Karen Cottrel" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
| Subject: | Re: vortex generators |
While browsing the classifieds I came across a add for vortex
generators. Like the R&D muffler it sounds pretty good, However I do know
of GA planes that benifit from them. Anybody have a guess as to whether
they are worth the $395.00 that they ask? Perhaps the best answer would be
from Dennis.
Thanks in advance.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator hinges |
Ray L Baker wrote:
hinges is secured by screws/clecos on each corner of the hinge. It
does
> not indicate if the rest of the 44 holes for each hinge can be drilled
> at this time. I see no reason why not and have been unable to locate
> anything one way or the other.
>
>
Hey Buddy:
I always drill all the holes in all the hinges: elevator, aileron, and
rudder. And anything else I can before painting and covering. Use a
pencil soldering iron with sharp point to burn thru fabric. Forgot,
also drill ribs prior to cover. Saves a lot of heart ache down the
road.
Had a good flight with my buddies this afternoon: my MK III, a Fire
Star, Avid Flyer Speed Wing, Rans S12, and old Kermit - a WWII L-4
(Piper Cub Observation Plane).
We flew over to Selma, Alabama's Sky Harbor Airport. Not a paved runway
on the place. Laid back country air and ag strip. My kind of flying.
That's what it is all about.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rivet holes in Ribs |
| From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
John Hauck,
Thanks for the comeback on the hinges. You mention drilling the holes in
the ribs before covering. I would like to drill the holes in the ribs
before assembling the wing. I have not been able to find information, on
the precise locations of these holes, on the blue prints or the
instruction manual. (I have kit #1). I would like to make up a jig to be
sure of getting the holes TDC/BDC. Accuracy is a little difficult
drilling freehand on the 5/16th tubing.
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet holes in Ribs |
Ray L Baker wrote:
> Thanks for the comeback on the hinges. You mention drilling the holes in
> the ribs before covering. I would like to drill the holes in the ribs
Ray and Gang:
I drill holes in ribs for fabric rivets after the wing is assembled.
a. I made a jig out of 1/4 alum tubing. Bent a curve to hook on
trailing edge.
b. Marked rivet spacing on a rib, transferred to jig, then marked the
other ribs. Had to also have jig for bottom of rib.
c. Went back with snap punch and punched apex of mark. After you
mark rib with felt tip, go back and rub another tube over the mark (long
enough to go across several bays) and that will give you a mark down the
apex of the rib.
d. Then, very carefully with a nice new bit, drill out all dem holes.
There are several other ways to do it, so if you don't like this way,
let me know and I'll give you another way to do it.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator hinges |
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Ray L Baker wrote:
> Recent events have made me a little gun shy, so will ask before I leap.
>
> The instruction book takes me up to the point where the position of the
> hinges is secured by screws/clecos on each corner of the hinge. It does
> not indicate if the rest of the 44 holes for each hinge can be drilled
> at this time. I see no reason why not and have been unable to locate
> anything one way or the other.
>
> I would appreciate the benefit of those with experience.
I assume you are talking about aileron hinges.
As I recall, the point of only drilling 4 holes to start with (one
each corner of the hinge), is so that you can minimally attach the
aileron enough to check for adequate travel up and adequate travel
all the way around to the position for wing folding. ...ok, i just
checked my book, and that is correct. The placement of the line of
rivets must be done very accurately, and you could not affort to keep
a wing spar with 44 holes in the wrong place. It is the only place
in the plans where 1/32" accuracy is specified, thus the extra care
required before drilling en masse. And btw, clecos will not allow
you to check for down aileron movement.
-Ben Ransom (Firestar Kxp)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet holes in Ribs |
John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> Ray L Baker wrote:
> > Thanks for the comeback on the hinges. You mention drilling the holes in
> > the ribs before covering. I would like to drill the holes in the ribs
>
> Ray and Gang:
>
> I drill holes in ribs for fabric rivets after the wing is assembled.
>
> a. I made a jig out of 1/4 alum tubing. Bent a curve to hook on
> trailing edge.
>
Hey Guys:
Probably need to clarify:
The 1/4 in alum tube, which I call a jig, is for transferring
measurements only. It is not a drill jig.
Rivet hole in ribs can also be marked with a chalk line. Even quicker
than the other method.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Reynolds" <rfreynol(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet holes in Ribs |
Here is how I drilled the holes for the fabric rivets on my Challenger, all
drilled before installing the ribs.
a) I laid each rib flat on a level table and marked a center line on the
top of the ribs by running a 90 degree square down the edge of the top. The
edge of the square will make a slight mark on the ribs.
b) I lined up all the ribs side-by-side, top side up on the table, with
curved part hanging over the edge. I then used packing tape to strap the
ribs down.
c) With a chalk line, I measured the locations for the ribs and snaped a
chalk line across the all the ribs. Where the chalk line crossed the center
marks, I used a center punch to mark where the hole would be drilled.
d) Drilled the holes. A very tedious process, since I had 6 holes per rib
and 14 ribs per wing.
I didn't have to deal with the bottom ribs, since there aren't any on the
Challenger, but I do think I'll add them if I ever build another Challenger.
(But I probally won't, since I'm reading the Kolb list)
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Rivet holes in Ribs
>
>
>Ray L Baker wrote:
>> Thanks for the comeback on the hinges. You mention drilling the holes in
>> the ribs before covering. I would like to drill the holes in the ribs
>
>
>Ray and Gang:
>
>I drill holes in ribs for fabric rivets after the wing is assembled.
>
> a. I made a jig out of 1/4 alum tubing. Bent a curve to hook on
>trailing edge.
>
> b. Marked rivet spacing on a rib, transferred to jig, then marked the
>other ribs. Had to also have jig for bottom of rib.
>
> c. Went back with snap punch and punched apex of mark. After you
>mark rib with felt tip, go back and rub another tube over the mark (long
>enough to go across several bays) and that will give you a mark down the
>apex of the rib.
>
> d. Then, very carefully with a nice new bit, drill out all dem holes.
>
>There are several other ways to do it, so if you don't like this way,
>let me know and I'll give you another way to do it.
>
>john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
Hi Gang:
When it came time to do aileron hinges temporarily, I used soft all
aluminum pop rivets. They snug up and hold better than sheet metal
screws, allow the aileron to fold fully, unlike using Cleco's, and are
easy to drill out when the time comes.
Sorry, I can't be better help, but it has been a good while since I have
done any building. My MK III is staying together very well.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
Thanks John. All this talk about lining up holes etc. sent me diving
back into my archives for the message I sent about drill bits on 5/23/98.
When you use the snap punch, the B & D Bullet Bit picks up the small dimple
real well without slipping. If you drill the hinge holes first, ( as I did
) it's difficult to center a bit in the hinge hole to accurately locate the
second hole behind it. The "Turbomax" bit, made by Irwin, P.N. 73308, ( I
bought mine at Chief Auto Parts ) is a shrouded tip bit that easily centers
the bit in the hole. Neither bit holds up well on steel.
Big Lar.
----------
> From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Aileron Hinges
> Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 9:47 PM
>
>
> Hi Gang:
>
> When it came time to do aileron hinges temporarily, I used soft all
> aluminum pop rivets. They snug up and hold better than sheet metal
> screws, allow the aileron to fold fully, unlike using Cleco's, and are
> easy to drill out when the time comes.
>
> Sorry, I can't be better help, but it has been a good while since I have
> done any building. My MK III is staying together very well.
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rivet holes in Ribs |
| From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
John,
My problem is I don't know how to ask the right question.
The specific dimensions I am looking for are the ones you mention in b.
"a. I made a jig out of 1/4 alum tubing. Bent a curve to hook on
trailing edge.
b. Marked rivet spacing on a rib, transferred to jig, then marked the
other ribs. Had to also have jig for bottom of rib."
I think I know that the rivets on the top of the wing do not start until
some point aft of the main spare, and those on the bottom are probably at
about 4" intervals for the entire length of the rib. This information is
probably somewhere in the documentation, I just have been unable to
locate it.
Ray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet holes in Ribs |
Ray L Baker wrote:
>
>
> John,
>
> My problem is I don't know how to ask the right question.
> The specific dimensions I am looking for are the ones you mention in b.
>
> "a. I made a jig out of 1/4 alum tubing. Bent a curve to hook on
> trailing edge.
>
> b. Marked rivet spacing on a rib, transferred to jig, then marked the
> other ribs. Had to also have jig for bottom of rib."
>
> I think I know that the rivets on the top of the wing do not start until
> some point aft of the main spare, and those on the bottom are probably at
> about 4" intervals for the entire length of the rib. This information is
> probably somewhere in the documentation, I just have been unable to
> locate it.
>
> Ray
Ray:
I got the rivet spacing out of the Stits Manual. Do you have one? If
not, I will dig one out and get the dimensions for you. I think it is
based on VNE and weight.
The Kolb manual should give you the point to start placing rivets, top
and bottom.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b.charlton" <bambo(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: vortex generators |
I have vortex generators in my Quickie, they help keep the flow attached
on the canards laminar airfoil when it is contaminated by either rain or
bugs, they work well. I cant see any reason to but them on a Kolb
though, generally they are a "fix" for a poor design job in the first
place, they usually help re-attatch flow in areas of early seperation.
If you are interested the Quickie web page has an article on how to
design and build these things for a few cents each,and where to position
them on airfoils that require them.
Regards Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thinking of starting a club |
kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Richard wrote:
> Jerry Bidle wrote:
>
> > Wonderful story and a good lesson which people will remember. Now how did
> > that prop strike happen?
> >
> > Jerry Bidle
>
> Hello Jerry & All, If you read this far it is assumed you will swear yourself
> to secrecy & never repeat this incident: There was this guy who was showing
> off, to a large group of people at a fly-in, how many times he could cut a
> roll of streaming toilet paper in half from 1000 ft. All eyes were riveted
> on him as he sat in his UltaStar, holding a roll of toilet paper between his
> knees, as he warm up his engine. His eyes were glued to the CHT as he
> anxiously awaited this spectacular feat. But then without him even noticing,
> some Evil Force put a spell on him, and that CHT gauge transformed itself into
> a TV screen. He sat there enthralled at what he saw. The crowd, the sound of
> the engine, all disappeared as he watched himself twirling & swooping as he
> effortlessly sliced that toilet paper streamer over & over again while the
> crowd below clapped & cheered in amazement. Suddenly, a deafening explosion
> rocked his plane and broke the evil spell. Stunned by the explosion & then by
> the silence, the pilot desperately struggled to regain his senses. Looking
> back & to his right he could see the clouds through the gapping holes in his
> wing. Like a compound fracture, the trailing edge jutted out in the middle of
> his wing. He doesn't recall unstrapping his 5 point harness & climbing out,
> but the sight of his twisted engine hanging near the ground with parts of the
> mangled fuselage still attached to it, will forever be singed into his
> memory. Then he noticed that 1 & 1/2 blades of his beautiful 3 blade
> Precision Propellor with hand inlaid p-tips were missing. Then fear sobered
> his numb brain... did they become impaled in someone... a child maybe? He
> looked around, there was no commotion, just frozen people, staring at him. He
> didn't know what to say or do so he just turned back & starred with them at
> his plane. That's when he saw for the 1st time white fluff all over the grass
> & his plane. Looking closer he realized it was toilet paper. He had let it
> slip from between his knees & as the plane was creeping forward, it had
> bounced into the propellor! Humility has a high price. I paid dearly,
> several, make that many, times for mine! ---Richard in
> Ocala
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Thinking of starting a club |
Hello Jerry & All,
In Response to your letter below, if you read this far it is assumed you will
swear yourself to secrecy & never repeat this incident: There was this guy who
was showing
off, to a large group of people at a fly-in, how many times he could cut a roll
of
streaming toilet paper in half from 1000 ft. All eyes were riveted on him as
he
sat in his UltaStar, holding a roll of toilet paper between his knees, as he
warmed up his engine. His eyes were glued to the CHT as he anxiously awaited this
spectacular feat. But then without him even noticing, some Evil Force put a spell
on him, and that CHT gauge transformed itself into
a TV screen. He sat there enthralled at what he saw. The crowd, the sound of
the
engine, all disappeared as he watched himself twirling & swooping as he
effortlessly sliced that toilet paper streamer over & over again while the crowd
below clapped & cheered in amazement. Suddenly, a deafening explosion rocked his
plane and broke the evil spell. Stunned by the explosion & then by the silence,
the pilot desperately struggled to regain his senses. Looking back & to his right
he could see the clouds through the gapping holes in his wing. Like a compound
fracture, the trailing edge jutted out in the middle of his wing. He doesn't
recall unstrapping his 5 point harness & climbing out, but the sight of his
twisted engine hanging near the ground with parts of the mangled fuselage still
attached to it, will forever be singed into his memory. Then he noticed that 1
&
1/2 blades of his beautiful 3 blade Precision Propellor with hand inlaid p-tips
were missing. Then fear sobered his numb brain... did they become impaled in
someone... a child maybe? He looked around, there was no commotion, just frozen
people, staring at him. He didn't know what to say or do so he just turned back
&
starred with them at his plane. That's when he saw for the 1st time white fluff
all over the grass & his plane. Looking closer he realized it was toilet paper.
He had let it slip from between his knees & as the plane was creeping forward,
it
had bounced into the propellor! Humility has a high price. I paid dearly,
several, make that many, times for mine! ---Richard in Ocala
Jerry Bidle wrote:
> > Wonderful story and a good lesson which people will remember. Now how did
> > that prop strike happen?
> >
> > Jerry Bidle
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lining up holes |
| From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
Big Lar (Can I call you Big?:-)
Your mention of centering the drill in the hole of a hinge or guide, got
me to thinking (This has been a concern of mine). I could not find the
shrouded tip drills, you used, locally.
As a consequence, I made a tool which aligns the drill to the center of
the hole.
Step 1. Squeezed about 3/4" end of a 9" scrap of 5/16 tubing as flat as
possible. (Really mashed that sucker)
Step 2. Drilled 1/8" hole within 3/16 of the end of flattened end.
Rounded off the corners on sander.
Step 3. Removed stem from 1/8" steel rivet. Inserted body of rivet into
hole.
Step 4. Aluminum welded rivet so that it is permant in hole. Sanded
small end of rivet body to remove rounded edge.
Application: Use handle to position rivet in hole being aligned. Use
5/64 bit thru empty rivet body to drill pilot hole or dimple to position
1/8" or #30 drill.
Bang on center every time! Sure speeds up the process and cuts down the
pucker factor.
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul VonLindern <paulv(at)digisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet holes in Ribs |
Has anyone stitched the fabric to the wing ribs instead of using rivets. I am
concerned about the possibility of recovering, sometime down the road, and
having to drill out all those rivets doesn't sound to appealing beside the fact
that after drilling them out the holes would now be a tad larger. If they were
stitched all a person would have to do is cut the string.
We're getting closer to the covering process and want to do it right the first
time.
Paul VonLindern
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet holes in Ribs |
Ray
I would drill also before covering for a few reasons 1 . to make sure
that I would not have any alum. shavings in the wing and don't forget to
plug the ends of each rib so that after you pop the rivet their is not a
chance that the end could role out and be inside the wing.and 2 you may
want to get your spacings on the first rib I forgot the distance but if
you started from the leading edge step back 5 or 6 in. all the way down
to the trailing edge then go to the wing tip make a mark on that rib to
match the first one then get a chalk line and pop a line across all the
ribs this will save you some time and all rivets will be in line
Rick Libersat
>
>John Hauck,
>
>Thanks for the comeback on the hinges. You mention drilling the holes
>in
>the ribs before covering. I would like to drill the holes in the ribs
>before assembling the wing. I have not been able to find information,
>on
>the precise locations of these holes, on the blue prints or the
>instruction manual. (I have kit #1). I would like to make up a jig to
>be
>sure of getting the holes TDC/BDC. Accuracy is a little difficult
>drilling freehand on the 5/16th tubing.
>
>L. Ray Baker
>Lake Butler, Fl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: looking for MKIII owner |
LOOKING FORWARD TO TO PIC. AND INFO
Rick Libersat
writes:
>
>
>Rick
>
>I'll take some measurements and a picture next time I'm at the
>airport.
>
>Terry
>
>rick106(at)juno.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Terry
>> If I went with the W/D and wanted to leave the flap horns alone how
>long
>> of a spacer do you think I would need to be clear of prop strikes
>.
>>
>> Rick Libersat
>>
>
> name="tswartz.vcf"
> filename="tswartz.vcf"
>
>begin:vcard
>n:Swartz;Terry
>adr:;;;;;;
>version:2.1
>email;internet:Tswartz(at)desupernet.net
>note:http://users.success.net/tswartz/
>fn:Terry Swartz
>end:vcard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet holes in Ribs |
In a message dated 1/25/99 11:50:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
paulv(at)digisys.net writes:
<< I am
concerned about the possibility of recovering, sometime down the road, and
having to drill out all those rivets doesn't sound to appealing beside the
fact
that after drilling them out the holes would now be a tad larger >>
I have recovered/repaired a number of wings on Kolbs and found that
drilling out the soft alum rivets was no big deal.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet holes in Ribs |
>
>Has anyone stitched the fabric to the wing ribs instead of using rivets. I am
>concerned about the possibility of recovering, sometime down the road, and
>having to drill out all those rivets doesn't sound to appealing beside the fact
>that after drilling them out the holes would now be a tad larger. If they were
>stitched all a person would have to do is cut the string.
>We're getting closer to the covering process and want to do it right the first
>time.
>
>Paul VonLindern
>
All things considered the FAA does not find it necessary to require any
rib stitching for an aircraft that goes less than 110 mph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet holes in Ribs |
> All things considered the FAA does not find it necessary to require any
>rib stitching for an aircraft that goes less than 110 mph
Doesnt that depend alot on rib cross section and material? If you have nice
flat 3/8 wood ribs your fabric to rib glue job is a whole lot stronger then
fabric to a round 5/16 inch aluminum tube, where the contact is only 1/8
inch or so, and alum versus wood.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet holes in Ribs |
Rib stitched the MKIII, it was a piece of cake. Would not consider drilling
all those nasty 1/8" holes in the those puny little 5/16" tubes.
But I am certainly in the minority.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Has anyone stitched the fabric to the wing ribs instead of using rivets.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet holes in Ribs |
I dunno. When I went to the Poly-Fiber workshop at A/C Spruce they taught
us how to rib stitch, and I did quite well at it. ( Being naturally so
talented and all ) There are those who may enjoy such stuff I suppose, but
this ole builder found it to be a raging pain in the so-and-so. I'll stick
with rivets, thanks. Big Lar.
----------
> From: wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Rivet holes in Ribs
> Date: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 6:51 AM
>
>
> >
> >Has anyone stitched the fabric to the wing ribs instead of using rivets.
I am
> >concerned about the possibility of recovering, sometime down the road,
and
> >having to drill out all those rivets doesn't sound to appealing beside
the fact
> >that after drilling them out the holes would now be a tad larger. If
they were
> >stitched all a person would have to do is cut the string.
> >We're getting closer to the covering process and want to do it right the
first
> >time.
> >
> >Paul VonLindern
> >
>
> All things considered the FAA does not find it necessary to require
any
> rib stitching for an aircraft that goes less than 110 mph
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
Test:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Boom tube install ? |
List,
I've finished painting and about to reassemble my FS2.
Question: Best method to reinstall the boom tube without breaking it? Scared
to beat on the end to force it in....suggestions?
Thanks to all
Geoff Thistlethwaite
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ToddThom(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Boom tube install ? |
Line it up, place a 2x6 or 2x8 on the end and hit/tap it with a sledge.
Carefully. A light spray of silicone or white lithium grease will help
matters.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Boom tube install ? |
Geoff Thistlethwaite wrote:
>
> List,
> I've finished painting and about to reassemble my FS2.
> Question: Best method to reinstall the boom tube without breaking it? Scared
> to beat on the end to force it in....suggestions?
> Thanks to all
> Geoff Thistlethwaite
Hi George:
Well, if you painted the entire tube to include the ends, where they
slip inside the fuselage ring and tailpost ring, then you need to remove
enough paint or all of it to slide the tube home. I found that usually
a little bumping and tapping would get it where I wanted it.
It always amazes me how much a little paint adds to a dimension when
working with snug tolerances.
I got a lot of experiences with boom tubes in the MK III. In a little
over 200 hours, about a year and a half, I installed three. Well, I
guess I finally got it right. The third one has been stuck back there
for over 1,000 hours and almost 6 years.
john h (hauck's holler is IFR, zero/zero)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Boom tube install ? |
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Geoff Thistlethwaite wrote:
>
> List,
> I've finished painting and about to reassemble my FS2.
> Question: Best method to reinstall the boom tube without breaking it? Scared
> to beat on the end to force it in....suggestions?
> Thanks to all
> Geoff Thistlethwaite
In addition to the other suggestions, you of course have to file certain
little places on the tube end to make room for any big weldments in the
cage ring. File enf to fit tube in as deep as possible to get reasonable
rivet edge distance. The one FS I passed on buying used -- the builder
had not filed enf and the edge row of rivets was barely holding on to
anything. Worse than that, he just glopped epoxy (no glass either) around
the outside tube/ring junction as a "fix". ...couldn't see what other
"fixes" he might have made inside wings, so later on that one (for me).
Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Hi Ben:
I just finished looking thru your photo album the second time. I must
not have been looking last year, the first time I perused it.
Thoroughly enjoyed the pics. I didn't realize you liked to fly the way
I do. Your pics brought back a lot of memories from some of my
adventures.
I finally got to see the Pacific coast thru your eyes. On my 94 flight,
the closest I got to the Pacific was Petaluma, Ukia, Willets,...... I
had planned to fly up the coast from San Diego to Seattle, but the
coastal fog hung in there all the time I was flying thru Cal, Oregon,
and Wash.
One of these days I'll make it back out with my airplane, if I am
lucky. Would enjoy flying with you.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Beauford Tuton" <beaufordw(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Boom tube install ? |
Geoff:
I had the devil's own time getting mine to fit without beating it up... I
too had primed both pieces... I finally calmed down after a final futile
spate of bashing various sized pieces of wood with various,(always getting
larger) hammers and sipped a taste of Tennessee sour mash and thunk 'er
over... I had ground the edges of the ring, the tube, my 'ol lady's faggot
cat, and several of the neighborhood kids with a Dremel tool, all to no
avail... the garage was awash in such a slop of silicon, motor oil, wax,
grease and other, more exotic mouse-milks, to the extent that it had become
difficult to walk around, and downright suicidal to strike a match to light
a cigar... I finally hit upon something which made it slide right in...
(you should pardon the use of such an indelicate term...)
Take a source of moderate heat such as a drop cord with a 100 watt bulb...
use it to heat the steel ring somewhat...
Get a one gallon zip-loc baggie... fill that sucker with ice cubes and put
it in the end of the aluminum tube for about ten minutes or so... when the
tube is good and cold, quickly pull out the ice and fit 'er together... mine
"slud" right on in there with only a courtesy tap of the mallet...
(apologies to Dizzy Dean, wherever he is tonight...)
Seriously... it worked like a charm... aluminum has a relatively large
thermal expansion coefficient, and it will shrink right on down for you...
Good luck...
Bill Tuton
The Aluminum Butcher of Brandon, FL
Building FF #76
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thistlethwaite <geoffthis(at)worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 8:49 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Boom tube install ?
>
>List,
>I've finished painting and about to reassemble my FS2.
>Question: Best method to reinstall the boom tube without breaking it?
Scared
>to beat on the end to force it in....suggestions?
>Thanks to all
>Geoff Thistlethwaite
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | In-flight Videos |
Hi Group: I turn to this massed group of intellects for help, cause I
know that all problems can be solved by the resident experts on-line. See
the faith I have in you guys ?? Two weekends ago, we hooked a Sony
camcorder to my Flight-Com intercom with a monaural patch cord with the
idea of having the radio calls and all on the tape. Went from the " Aux
Out " jack on the back of the intercom to the "Input" on the 'corder. What
was a noisy video up to that point went instantly silent. No noise at all,
so apparently the jack is shutting off the ext. mic. which is right and
proper, but then there was NO input. The headsets worked fine. A call to
Flight-Com's service line was no help. He talked B.S. at me, told me the
output impedance was 100 K, and to try "Y"ing into the headset jack. Huh
?? 100 K ?? Never heard of impedance like that. Can anyone shed some
light ?? HELP ! ! ! My buddy also had camera shake-itis, even with image
stabilization, but I'm sure that's going to be an experience item. Not
sure of the model number of the camcorder, but he paid close to $1000.00
for it last year. Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Christensen" <SPECTRUMINTERNATIONAL(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet holes in Ribs |
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul VonLindern
Date: Monday, January 25, 1999 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Rivet holes in Ribs
>Has anyone stitched the fabric to the wing ribs instead of using rivets. I
am
>concerned about the possibility of recovering, sometime down the road, and
>having to drill out all those rivets doesn't sound to appealing beside the
fact
>that after drilling them out the holes would now be a tad larger. If they
were
>stitched all a person would have to do is cut the string.
>We're getting closer to the covering process and want to do it right the
first
>time.
>
>Paul VonLindern
==========================================
Hi Paul;
The EAA Technical Advisor I talked to during construction of my MKIII
strongly suggested that the fabric NOT be stiched to the ribs. His point
was that rib stiching is normally done where the rib has a flat "cap" rather
than the Kolb tube ribs. His view was that the rivet is a far superior
technique for a/c with tubular ribs. Also, I should think the finished job
would look better without the puckers at each tie; but perhaps no worse than
the rivet heads. Anyway, I riveted mine as suggested by the factory.
Ron Christensen
MKIII1/2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Christensen" <SPECTRUMINTERNATIONAL(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: In-flight Videos |
-----Original Message-----
>
>Hi Group: I turn to this massed group of intellects for help, cause I
>know that all problems can be solved by the resident experts on-line. See
>the faith I have in you guys ?? Two weekends ago, we hooked a Sony
>camcorder to my Flight-Com intercom with a monaural patch cord with the
>idea of having the radio calls and all on the tape. Went from the " Aux
>Out " jack on the back of the intercom to the "Input" on the 'corder. What
>was a noisy video up to that point went instantly silent. No noise at all,
>so apparently the jack is shutting off the ext. mic. which is right and
>proper, but then there was NO input. The headsets worked fine. A call to
>Flight-Com's service line was no help. He talked B.S. at me, told me the
>output impedance was 100 K, and to try "Y"ing into the headset jack. Huh
>?? 100 K ?? Never heard of impedance like that. Can anyone shed some
>light ?? HELP ! ! ! My buddy also had camera shake-itis, even with image
>stabilization, but I'm sure that's going to be an experience item. Not
>sure of the model number of the camcorder, but he paid close to $1000.00
>for it last year. Big Lar.
>
=========================================
Hey Lar;
I recently did the same thing; the difference is that my recording includes
all the audio that I was experiencing. What you must do is buy a special
cable assembly available from most of the a/c supply houses (~$35). The
cable assembly is a "Y" configuration. One end plugs into a standard
headset jack; your headset plugs into a 2nd. end; the 3rd. end plugs into
the camcorder. It works great.
Ron Christensen
MKIII1/2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Boom tube install ? |
Worse than that, he just glopped epoxy (no glass either) around
>the outside tube/ring junction as a "fix". ...couldn't see what other
>"fixes" he might have made inside wings, so later on that one (for me).
John Hauck added: I found that usually a little bumping and tapping would
get it where I wanted it. It always amazes me how much a little paint adds
to a dimension when
working with snug tolerances.
>
Back in the good ole UltraStar days ... when the days seemed to last longer
- I had a standing offer to any builders in our area to test fly their
ultrastars. This offer was well appreciated and accepted readily. One time
I flew my KR2 over to NJ to check out an UltraStar that had just been
completed. Of course, part of my offer included a thorough inspection before
flying. I looked his US over and made the amazing discovery that he had
installed only one pop rivet for each lift strut end fitting. I pointed out
this very serious omission; he replied, "oh its okay, I really had to force
those fitting into the tube .... it won't come out!" Needless to say I did
not share his unbridled faith in friction.
Dennis Souder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ToddThom(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
Since you still seem to be be on track with removing the second seat and
flying as a UL, I think more direct words from me , as a BFI, are needed. I
don't like doing this but your "painted into the corner" thinking has me
upset.
AS was stated before on the list and as far as I know Avemco is the only
company who will provide liability insurance - no airframe - at this time on
my MKIII. It has to be hangered. Avemco knows about fat ultralights and is
ok about insuring them. You, on the other hand are "just a bit outside" on
this one. To even think about taking a MKIII, removing a seat and flying it
as a "Part 103" is reprehensible. It's guys like you who give UL'ers a bad
name and perpetuate ill feelings in the GA world.
We've been given great freedoms through part 103 and this requires that we
follow our restrictions as defined in Part 103 and exception 4274. If you
lived around me, and you were flying this aircraft I'd report you to the FAA.
A fat UL is sometimes understandable. This idea of your's is illegal.
You claim that you will be getting a BFI soon. Being a BFI means your conduct
is "example setting". Your thinking so far hasn't shown you have the
qualifications to be a BFI.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: In-flight Videos |
> Two weekends ago, we hooked a Sony
>camcorder to my Flight-Com intercom with a monaural patch cord with the
>idea of having the radio calls and all on the tape. Went from the " Aux
>Out " jack on the back of the intercom to the "Input" on the 'corder. What
>was a noisy video up to that point went instantly silent. No noise at all,
Low tech solution. Go to radio shack and buy a $8.00 "telephone pick up".
Suction cup on one end, and plug on the other, made to stick on the
"outside" of a phone receiver and plug into a tape recorder.
It will also stick on the outside of most headsets. Picks up some engine
noise, which is kinda neat, and also whatever you hear over your earphones.
Curing the "shake-itis" is going to be your biggest problem.
Tech tip:
If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
Well Said!
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
Kolb-List message posted by: ToddThom(at)aol.com
Since you still seem to be be on track with removing the second seat and
flying as a UL, I think more direct words from me , as a BFI, are needed.
I don't like doing this but your "painted into the corner" thinking has me
upset.
To even think about taking a MKIII, removing a seat and flying it as a
"Part 103" is reprehensible. It's guys like you who give UL'ers a bad name
and perpetuate ill feelings in the GA world.
We've been given great freedoms through part 103 and this requires that we
follow our restrictions as defined in Part 103 and exception 4274. If you
lived around me, and you were flying this aircraft I'd report you to the FAA.
A fat UL is sometimes understandable. This idea of your's is illegal.
You claim that you will be getting a BFI soon. Being a BFI means your
conduct is "example setting". Your thinking so far hasn't shown you have
the qualifications to be a BFI.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 <sbaew(at)dames.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
Geez guys, lighten up just a little, OK? I havent done anything yet.
Your opinion is valued by me, and I hear you loud and clear. Im not out
to screw anybody, and have no plans to misrepresent myself to an
insurance company. But the fact is, ALL fat ultralights are illegal, and
ALL two place ultralights are illegal unless conducting instruction or
going somewhere to give instruction. Anybody want to venture a guess
about the percentage of people in perfect compliance with that?
Everybody outside of the strict ultralight definition is making a
personal judgment about what they can live with and still sleep at night.
I have gotten trained through a reputatable instructor with a local club,
and have been working on getting the Mrk III ready with the
vice-preseident of the club, who is also a mechanic. I will do what ever
is necessary to meet acceptable standards for that club. Dont cricfy me
because I was exploring options for being able to fly my own mrk III and
get the BFI training in it.
How about it? Will you let me back on the List?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 wrote:
> I have gotten trained through a reputatable instructor with a local club,
> and have been working on getting the Mrk III ready with the
> vice-preseident of the club, who is also a mechanic. I will do what ever
> is necessary to meet acceptable standards for that club. Dont cricfy me
> because I was exploring options for being able to fly my own mrk III and
> get the BFI training in it.
>
> How about it? Will you let me back on the List?
You haven't been kicked off in any way. You touched a nerve so people get
heated up. Take the post from Todd, Richard, and others for what it is,
reaction to your asking about going *very* far from center. There are
people who drive 70 in a 63, but you were asking everybody about maybe
going 90. That far from the norm could cause trouble for everyone, not
just you, thus the sharp and justifiable criticism. Hopefully that
criticism can help you pick your way through alternatives and find
one that makes you and others happy campers. I fly fat myself, but
easily see and agree with Todd's point of view, especially about BFIs
setting example. Although I know it is really *my responsibility*, I
personally have felt a little duped by the USUA in my early UL days by
their party-line that fat is fine, 2-place is fine, etc. I don't like to
see the mess worsened. Try not to take any of this emotionally ...you
just have to figure out how to fit your plane into the system, close
to expected norms if not within the exact letter of the law.
my $.03
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Gross <rpgross(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | check six gentlemen toddthom(at)aol.com coward alert!!! |
Dear Erich,
These shit-heads who have been preaching to you think they are experts
at
all forms of aviation, but the fact is they are little more than bored,
tired old turds that got thown out of their trailer park associations
because they all the do is whine, cry, and make up stories about their
trivial sorry little lives. As you have already learned, it is best to
ignore them and sooner or later they will go away hauling their B.S. with
them.
There is a tremendous amount of knowledge out here, and all of it will
come from otherwise normal sincere aviation promoting Kolb owners rather
than these self-proclaiming hippocritical aviation imposters. I personally
welcome you to ask questions and provoke discussions here anytime about any
kolb related subject, as this is the perfect forum. You can count on my
unwaivering support as well as that from hundreds of other aviation lovers
to stand up for your rights right here on the kolb-list.
For the benefit of everyone out there, here is copy of this gutless
ASSHOLES' (toddthom(at)aol.com) text. Do you really want to be anywhere near
an airport with this guy around?? So how about it "coward toddthom", care
to step up to your high and mighty platform and preach to all of us how "a
fat ultralight is sometimes understandable"? I'd be interested in hearing
your FAA approved definition of "fat ultralight". And how come only you get
to know the definition? Are you GOD "toddthom"? I hope someone shoves your
FAA hotine right up your ass. We'll be looking for you a SNF.
Check six gentlemen... "toddthom" is out there!
Bob
>AS was stated before on the list and as far as I know Avemco is the only
>company who will provide liability insurance - no airframe - at this time on
>my MKIII. It has to be hangered. Avemco knows about fat ultralights and is
>ok about insuring them. You, on the other hand are "just a bit outside" on
>this one. To even think about taking a MKIII, removing a seat and flying it
>as a "Part 103" is reprehensible. It's guys like you who give UL'ers a bad
>name and perpetuate ill feelings in the GA world.
>We've been given great freedoms through part 103 and this requires that we
>follow our restrictions as defined in Part 103 and exception 4274. If you
>lived around me, and you were flying this aircraft I'd report you to the FAA.
!!!!!******* A fat UL is sometimes understandable.
*******!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
In a message dated 1/29/99 1:17:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu writes:
<< Try not to take any of this emotionally ...you
just have to figure out how to fit your plane into the system, close
to expected norms if not within the exact letter of the law.
>>
When this issue of the letter of the law comes up I suppose it is an
invitation for me to throw in my two cents. I'm an aviation lawyer. I built
and flew a properly registered Mark 2 and will shortly begin flying a properly
registered and street legal mark 3.
In my practice I regularly represent pilots in enforcement actions. Right
now I'm representing the Baltimore FSDO's top instrument instructor (the guy
they use as the teacher when they decide you need extra education rather than
a suspension of your license) in an enforcement action brought by the guys at
the Burlington FSDO for a runway incursion so minor I can hardly believe a
knowledgable person in this business would waste ink on it.
Believe me the FAA is stretched very thin, and none of them are really
actively looking for trouble, but if you have the misfortune to get on their
scope and piss them off you can be in a world of hurt.
So lets say you decide to come visit me in your fat ultralight at Twin
Pine International Airport (N75) just south of Princeton, NJ. Now, Twin pine
is an uncontrolled grass field that is inside the 5 mile class D ring for
Trenton. Your GPS batteries die and you bumble through the class D. The
controllers in the Trenton tower are used to us knuckleheads flying around low
to their north, and I had the ultralight symbol put on the sectional so folks
know were out there. No problem.
But a regional carrier, Eastwind, has just started running passenger
service out of Trenton and the ILS 24 goes right over Twin Pine. I have seen
these guys come right through our pattern at 1100 ft. So there you are on
your way to see me in your fat ultralight flying the correct pattern at the
correct height and one of these Eastwind guys, who is no more looking for you
than the man in the moon, comes by and he gets close enough to you to give a
passenger a fright. The passenger complains and yadda yadda yadda the FSDO at
Teterboro, NJ finds out about it. This is now a situation they cannot ignore.
Teterboro tracks you down and sends you a friendly letter. If you have
some sense your next call is to me, or some one like me. You now have an
interesting situation. I presume you are flying a fat ultralight because 1)
you don't have a license, 2) you used to have one but now can't get a medical
or 3) didn't feel like hassling with registration, N numbers etc. If you have
a license you will most certainly lose it for a while, maybe for good.
The other two options present even more interesting problems. The FAA
is used to dealing with guys who fly for a living and who are scared to death
of losing their license. If they don't have that stick to beat you with
really all they can do is fine you. Because there was a big plane with lots
of people on it involved and because that airline captain and Eastwind are't
going to want to take any responsibility everyone will be pointing the finger
at you.
From my perspective I would say that any fine under $3,000.00 was a
total victory. Just for argument sake lets say that I have to write a big
bunch of letters and make lots of phone calls and attend two hearings with
you. The FAA says ok, $3,500.00 fine, and you have to promise never to EVER
EVER EVER fly anything yourself ever again. You say ok.
So lets figure out the costs of this little event.
$3,500.00 --fine
$2,000.00 -- Legal fees. I went easy on you because you have a Kolb.
$3,000.00 -- loss you take selling your mark 3 for less than what it cost you
to build, because now you can't fly it.
$ 400.00 -- two days off to attend FAA hearings.
-------------
$8,400.00 total (best case)
It just gets worse from there guys.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: check six gentlemen toddthom(at)aol.com coward |
alert!!!
Well, you certainly are gross...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42oldpoops)
>
>
>Dear Erich,
> These shit-heads who have been preaching to you think they are
experts at
>all forms of aviation, but the fact is they are little more than bored,
>tired old turds that got thown out of their trailer park associations
>because they all the do is whine, cry, and make up stories about their
>trivial sorry little lives. As you have already learned, it is best to
>ignore them and sooner or later they will go away hauling their B.S. with
>them.
>
> There is a tremendous amount of knowledge out here, and all of it
will
>come from otherwise normal sincere aviation promoting Kolb owners rather
>than these self-proclaiming hippocritical aviation imposters. I personally
>welcome you to ask questions and provoke discussions here anytime about any
>kolb related subject, as this is the perfect forum. You can count on my
>unwaivering support as well as that from hundreds of other aviation lovers
>to stand up for your rights right here on the kolb-list.
>
> For the benefit of everyone out there, here is copy of this gutless
>ASSHOLES' (toddthom(at)aol.com) text. Do you really want to be anywhere near
>an airport with this guy around?? So how about it "coward toddthom", care
>to step up to your high and mighty platform and preach to all of us how "a
>fat ultralight is sometimes understandable"? I'd be interested in hearing
>your FAA approved definition of "fat ultralight". And how come only you get
>to know the definition? Are you GOD "toddthom"? I hope someone shoves your
>FAA hotine right up your ass. We'll be looking for you a SNF.
>
>Check six gentlemen... "toddthom" is out there!
>
>Bob
>
>>AS was stated before on the list and as far as I know Avemco is the only
>>company who will provide liability insurance - no airframe - at this time on
>>my MKIII. It has to be hangered. Avemco knows about fat ultralights and is
>>ok about insuring them. You, on the other hand are "just a bit outside" on
>>this one. To even think about taking a MKIII, removing a seat and flying it
>>as a "Part 103" is reprehensible. It's guys like you who give UL'ers a bad
>>name and perpetuate ill feelings in the GA world.
>>We've been given great freedoms through part 103 and this requires that we
>>follow our restrictions as defined in Part 103 and exception 4274. If you
>>lived around me, and you were flying this aircraft I'd report you to the
FAA.
>
> !!!!!******* A fat UL is sometimes understandable.
>*******!!!!!!!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
This is an interesting story! I suppose I was in the pattern for N75 when
Eastwind did their fly by! I don't have electricity on board so no comm.
Local pattern altitude depending on airport is roughly 800 to 1000 agl or
about 1800 msl. You are telling us that I am at fault while on the down
wind leg if eastwind pulls a fly by on me? N number or not?
disturbed Ron
> When this issue of the letter of the law comes up I suppose it is an
>invitation for me to throw in my two cents. I'm an aviation lawyer. I built
>and flew a properly registered Mark 2 and will shortly begin flying a
properly
>registered and street legal mark 3.
>
> In my practice I regularly represent pilots in enforcement actions.
Right
>now I'm representing the Baltimore FSDO's top instrument instructor (the guy
>they use as the teacher when they decide you need extra education rather than
>a suspension of your license) in an enforcement action brought by the guys at
>the Burlington FSDO for a runway incursion so minor I can hardly believe a
>knowledgable person in this business would waste ink on it.
>
> Believe me the FAA is stretched very thin, and none of them are really
>actively looking for trouble, but if you have the misfortune to get on their
>scope and piss them off you can be in a world of hurt.
>
> So lets say you decide to come visit me in your fat ultralight at Twin
>Pine International Airport (N75) just south of Princeton, NJ. Now, Twin pine
>is an uncontrolled grass field that is inside the 5 mile class D ring for
>Trenton. Your GPS batteries die and you bumble through the class D. The
>controllers in the Trenton tower are used to us knuckleheads flying around
low
>to their north, and I had the ultralight symbol put on the sectional so folks
>know were out there. No problem.
>
> But a regional carrier, Eastwind, has just started running passenger
>service out of Trenton and the ILS 24 goes right over Twin Pine. I have seen
>these guys come right through our pattern at 1100 ft. So there you are on
>your way to see me in your fat ultralight flying the correct pattern at the
>correct height and one of these Eastwind guys, who is no more looking for you
>than the man in the moon, comes by and he gets close enough to you to give a
>passenger a fright. The passenger complains and yadda yadda yadda the
FSDO at
>Teterboro, NJ finds out about it. This is now a situation they cannot
ignore.
>
> Teterboro tracks you down and sends you a friendly letter. If you
have
>some sense your next call is to me, or some one like me. You now have an
>interesting situation. I presume you are flying a fat ultralight because 1)
>you don't have a license, 2) you used to have one but now can't get a medical
>or 3) didn't feel like hassling with registration, N numbers etc. If you
have
>a license you will most certainly lose it for a while, maybe for good.
>
> The other two options present even more interesting problems. The FAA
>is used to dealing with guys who fly for a living and who are scared to death
>of losing their license. If they don't have that stick to beat you with
>really all they can do is fine you. Because there was a big plane with lots
>of people on it involved and because that airline captain and Eastwind are't
>going to want to take any responsibility everyone will be pointing the finger
>at you.
>
> From my perspective I would say that any fine under $3,000.00 was a
>total victory. Just for argument sake lets say that I have to write a big
>bunch of letters and make lots of phone calls and attend two hearings with
>you. The FAA says ok, $3,500.00 fine, and you have to promise never to EVER
>EVER EVER fly anything yourself ever again. You say ok.
>
> So lets figure out the costs of this little event.
>
>$3,500.00 --fine
>$2,000.00 -- Legal fees. I went easy on you because you have a Kolb.
>$3,000.00 -- loss you take selling your mark 3 for less than what it cost
you
>to build, because now you can't
fly it.
>$ 400.00 -- two days off to attend FAA hearings.
>-------------
>$8,400.00 total (best case)
>
> It just gets worse from there guys.
>
>
>~~************
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bobby Gross" <rpgross(at)yahoo.com> |
testing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
In a message dated 1/29/99 4:45:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, Ronald.R.Hoyt@gd-
is.com writes:
<< You are telling us that I am at fault while on the down
wind leg if eastwind pulls a fly by on me? N number or not?
>>
No, I'm not saying that at all. All pilots have to see and avoid, no
matter who they are. If you are where you are supposed to be, doing what you
are allowed to do, with all the right papers and clean underwear you should be
ok. The hypothetical situation I described, which I expect to actually happen
some time this summer when UL activity cranks up at Twin Pine, would result in
a world of hurt for the unlicensed guy in the fat ultralight. If you have
your nose clean I think the finger would wind up being pointed back at the
Eastwind guy for his failure to see and avoid. Why do you think I asked the
NOA to put the ultralight symbol on the sectional?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Boom tube install ? |
Stick it in the freezer?
Warm up the rings, don't torch them, cool of the tube - ice water
Don't use dry ice - they used to use that process to remove paint off
airplanes, causes it to pop off.
Jerry
>
> Worse than that, he just glopped epoxy (no glass either) around
>>the outside tube/ring junction as a "fix". ...couldn't see what other
>>"fixes" he might have made inside wings, so later on that one (for me).
>
>John Hauck added: I found that usually a little bumping and tapping would
>get it where I wanted it. It always amazes me how much a little paint adds
>to a dimension when
>working with snug tolerances.
>>
>
>Back in the good ole UltraStar days ... when the days seemed to last longer
>- I had a standing offer to any builders in our area to test fly their
>ultrastars. This offer was well appreciated and accepted readily. One time
>I flew my KR2 over to NJ to check out an UltraStar that had just been
>completed. Of course, part of my offer included a thorough inspection before
>flying. I looked his US over and made the amazing discovery that he had
>installed only one pop rivet for each lift strut end fitting. I pointed out
>this very serious omission; he replied, "oh its okay, I really had to force
>those fitting into the tube .... it won't come out!" Needless to say I did
>not share his unbridled faith in friction.
>
>Dennis Souder
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Not Quite Bob Gross" <YouAre(at)Quite.Rude> |
| Subject: | check six gentlemen...Update |
I'm sorry...That type of language and demeanor should not be allowed in this
civilized email list.
To find out more about "Bob Gross" go to http://www.yahoo.com and search his
email address rpgross(at)yahoo.com or goto
http://profiles.yahoo.com/rpgross?.done=http%3a//search.profiles.yahoo.com/
Let's all be more polite. Thank you.
A Concerned Reader
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F J MARINO" <FMARINO(at)netlink1.nlcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Boom tube install ? |
Beauford, yall sond lik a good ole souther boy, well ah haid good ole time
gittin ma tube in to but ah didn't paint it ah putt sum silicone on da tube
an me and ma sun wit a hunk of 2x6 and a good ole sludge hammer wit a few
good taps it went rite in with enough room for all the rivets. It was
probably the hardest thing to do beside putting the "H" chanel in the tube
and the wing spars. The thing is you will have to hammer some a little.
Sorry about the southern thing just haven fun
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Beauford Tuton <beaufordw(at)worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Boom tube install ?
>
>Geoff:
>I had the devil's own time getting mine to fit without beating it up... I
>too had primed both pieces... I finally calmed down after a final futile
>spate of bashing various sized pieces of wood with various,(always getting
>larger) hammers and sipped a taste of Tennessee sour mash and thunk 'er
>over... I had ground the edges of the ring, the tube, my 'ol lady's faggot
>cat, and several of the neighborhood kids with a Dremel tool, all to no
>avail... the garage was awash in such a slop of silicon, motor oil, wax,
>grease and other, more exotic mouse-milks, to the extent that it had become
>difficult to walk around, and downright suicidal to strike a match to light
>a cigar... I finally hit upon something which made it slide right in...
>(you should pardon the use of such an indelicate term...)
>Take a source of moderate heat such as a drop cord with a 100 watt bulb...
>use it to heat the steel ring somewhat...
>Get a one gallon zip-loc baggie... fill that sucker with ice cubes and
put
>it in the end of the aluminum tube for about ten minutes or so... when the
>tube is good and cold, quickly pull out the ice and fit 'er together...
mine
>"slud" right on in there with only a courtesy tap of the mallet...
>(apologies to Dizzy Dean, wherever he is tonight...)
>Seriously... it worked like a charm... aluminum has a relatively large
>thermal expansion coefficient, and it will shrink right on down for you...
>Good luck...
>Bill Tuton
>The Aluminum Butcher of Brandon, FL
>Building FF #76
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Geoff Thistlethwaite <geoffthis(at)worldnet.att.net>
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 8:49 AM
>Subject: Kolb-List: Boom tube install ?
>
>
>
>>
>>List,
>>I've finished painting and about to reassemble my FS2.
>>Question: Best method to reinstall the boom tube without breaking it?
>Scared
>>to beat on the end to force it in....suggestions?
>>Thanks to all
>>Geoff Thistlethwaite
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MGAviator(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: check six gentlemen toddthom(at)aol.com coward alert!!! |
I'm new to the list. I hope the language isn't always this bad.......
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
In a message dated 1/29/99 12:31:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, sbaew(at)dames.com
writes:
<< I have gotten trained through a reputatable instructor with a local club,
and have been working on getting the Mrk III ready with the
vice-preseident of the club, who is also a mechanic. I will do what ever
is necessary to meet acceptable standards for that club. Dont cricfy me
because I was exploring options for being able to fly my own mrk III and
get the BFI training in it.
How about it? Will you let me back on the List?
>>
Eric, by no stretch of the imagination should you feel the need ot crawl like
Clinton on this topic, which is entirely POLITICAL instead of MORAL!!!! And
besides you posted instead of hiding behind a cigar!!!....I say
Congratulations for airing an opinion in your
investigation!!.................GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 <sbaew(at)dames.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
Wow, I certainly stirred up a hornets nest! Maybe we can just let the
dust settle a little bit...
I do find food for thought in each of the replys though.
Im not sure I understand the suggestion from Todd about having my
instructor oversee my flights until I get my BFI - please elaborate. I
mean, what I need to do to get the BFI is get the 40 hrs solo plus the 15
hrs additional instruction. So the issue is in what plane I do that time
in.
I had been hoping I could do the time in my plane to save a few dollars,
but Im prepared to do whatever it takes to be acceptable to the local
ultralight community. Im assuming you (or others) dont take issue with a
BFI flying a Mrk III with a 912 for instruction or "pilot proficiency" -
or do you? (perhaps there is a problem here in that I will only hear
from the nay-sayers?)
OK, give me another earful - Im gobbling all of it up.
Erich
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
In a message dated 1/29/99 3:00:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, Cavuontop(at)aol.com
writes:
<< $3,500.00 --fine
$2,000.00 -- Legal fees. I went easy on you because you have a Kolb.
$3,000.00 -- loss you take selling your mark 3 for less than what it cost
you
to build, because now you can't fly
it.
$ 400.00 -- two days off to attend FAA hearings.
-------------
$8,400.00 total (best case)
It just gets worse from there guys.
>>
Thank you Cavuontop, I actually think I learned something.....only because
Eric was BRAVE enough to veer from the norm as Ben said, thanks Eric and
Thanks Ben...and even thanks to the 2 emotional fellas who came on so strong
on both sides of the fence that even the fence could have caught fire
....................GeoRf38
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: check six gentlemen toddthom(at)aol.com coward alert!!! |
In a message dated 1/29/99 7:42:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, MGAviator(at)aol.com
writes:
I'm new to the list. I hope the language isn't always this bad.......
>>
You are observing a very rare ......therefore refreshing circumstance
here!.......GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brandon <majortom(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: check six gentlemen toddthom(at)aol.com coward alert!!! |
WELL SAID BOB
We have these types around my airport too!
Bob Gross wrote:
>
> Dear Erich,
> These shit-heads who have been preaching to you think they are experts
at
> all forms of aviation, but the fact is they are little more than bored,
> tired old turds that got thown out of their trailer park associations
> because they all the do is whine, cry, and make up stories about their
> trivial sorry little lives. As you have already learned, it is best to
> ignore them and sooner or later they will go away hauling their B.S. with
> them.
>
> There is a tremendous amount of knowledge out here, and all of it will
> come from otherwise normal sincere aviation promoting Kolb owners rather
> than these self-proclaiming hippocritical aviation imposters. I personally
> welcome you to ask questions and provoke discussions here anytime about any
> kolb related subject, as this is the perfect forum. You can count on my
> unwaivering support as well as that from hundreds of other aviation lovers
> to stand up for your rights right here on the kolb-list.
>
> For the benefit of everyone out there, here is copy of this gutless
> ASSHOLES' (toddthom(at)aol.com) text. Do you really want to be anywhere near
> an airport with this guy around?? So how about it "coward toddthom", care
> to step up to your high and mighty platform and preach to all of us how "a
> fat ultralight is sometimes understandable"? I'd be interested in hearing
> your FAA approved definition of "fat ultralight". And how come only you get
> to know the definition? Are you GOD "toddthom"? I hope someone shoves your
> FAA hotine right up your ass. We'll be looking for you a SNF.
>
> Check six gentlemen... "toddthom" is out there!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
| Subject: | check six gentlemen toddthom(at)aol.com coward alert!!! |
Fellow Kolbers:
This fellows mind is easy to read if you edit it for content (see below).
If it was Bob's intent to be supportive of another's opinion, why do I feel
like mine just got buried even before I had a chance to respond?
...
A Quote to consider:
"If you cant present a considered/reasonable response...
You can consider throwing enough mud to bury the reasonable."
...
Hopefully it was just a bad day,
Frank Hodson: Oxford ME
> Dear Erich,
> These shit-heads
> tired old turds
> B.S.
> hippocritical aviation imposters.
> this gutless ASSHOLES'
> Are you GOD "toddthom"?
> I hope someone shoves your FAA hotine right up your ass.
> Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: check six gentlemen toddthom(at)aol.com coward alert!!! |
Yah, I've been on the list about a year and that's a first. I can
understand strong feelings, since I'm a little ?? touchy myself, but
there's better ways to present them in a public forum. Big Lar.
----------
> From: MGAviator(at)aol.com
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: check six gentlemen toddthom(at)aol.com coward
alert!!!
> Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 4:38 PM
>
>
> I'm new to the list. I hope the language isn't always this bad.......
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
Hey Erich, not so much a storm as a tempest in a teacup. Where is your
club located ?? From time to time I get up into the Ventura, Santa Barbara
area. Big Lar.
----------
> From: Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 <sbaew(at)dames.com>
> To: kolb-list
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: UL insurance
> Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 8:28 AM
>
>
> Geez guys, lighten up just a little, OK? I havent done anything yet.
> Your opinion is valued by me, and I hear you loud and clear. Im not out
> to screw anybody, and have no plans to misrepresent myself to an
> insurance company. But the fact is, ALL fat ultralights are illegal, and
> ALL two place ultralights are illegal unless conducting instruction or
> going somewhere to give instruction. Anybody want to venture a guess
> about the percentage of people in perfect compliance with that?
> Everybody outside of the strict ultralight definition is making a
> personal judgment about what they can live with and still sleep at night.
>
> I have gotten trained through a reputatable instructor with a local club,
> and have been working on getting the Mrk III ready with the
> vice-preseident of the club, who is also a mechanic. I will do what ever
> is necessary to meet acceptable standards for that club. Dont cricfy me
> because I was exploring options for being able to fly my own mrk III and
> get the BFI training in it.
>
> How about it? Will you let me back on the List?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: ## Bacteria Warning## |
-----Original Message-----
Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 9:02 PM
Subject: ## Bacteria Warning##
>Thorn Apple Valley recalls 30 million lb. of Hot Dogs Jan. 25,
>
>Washington, D.C. (Reuters) A recall announced Friday by Thorn Apple Valley,
>Inc. involves approximately 30 million pounds of hot dogs produced over six
>months that may have been contaminated with the food bacteria listeria, a
>company spokesman told Reuters on Monday.
> The company said it estimates that due to the hot dog's 77 day shelf
>life, 25 million pounds of the meat have expired and hopefully is out of
the
>consumer's refrigerators. ( or already consumed -SC) The company estimated
>that one third of the product that had not expired was still on grocery
>store shelfs when the recall was announced. Thorn Apple Vally is also
>recalling luncheon kits, but the spokesman said the amount of kits that
were
>created is minimal.
> Thorn Apple Vally announced on Friday that it was recalling hot dogs
>and luncheon kits produced over six months at it's Forrest City, Arkansas
>plant after goverment tests discovered listeria bacteria in meat produced
by
>the southfield, Michigan based company. Recalled products include "Est.
>13529" and "Est. 13529" on the packaging.
> The Agriculture Department withdrew it's meat inspectors from the
>Forrest City plant on December 31, effectively shutting it down. The
>company spokesman said it was unclear when the plant would reopen.
> Listeria causes a condition known as listeriosis, which can cause
>miscarriages and stillbirths and can be fatal for those with weakened
immune
>systems, including infants, the elderly, people with chronic diseases, and
>those who are infected with HIV or who are undergoing chemotherapy.
> Recently, 12 people have died and three women have had misxcarriages
>in cases linked to listeria that was found in hot dogs and deli meat
>produced by Bil Mar, a division of Sara Lee Corp.
>
> ********* OK folks, EVERYBODY make sure you cook those hot dogs to at
>least 165F at the Fly-Ins this weekend. We want you to stay around and in
>good health.
> Have Fun, Fly (and eat) Safe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 wrote:
>
> I had been hoping I could do the time in my plane to save a few dollars,
> but Im prepared to do whatever it takes to be acceptable to the local
> ultralight community. Im assuming you (or others) dont take issue with a
> BFI flying a Mrk III with a 912 for instruction or "pilot proficiency" -
Hello Erich and Kolb Gang:
You can do anything you want to, you probably are anyhow. That is up to
you and the risks you are ready to assume.
I do not believe it is up to any individual, the Kolb List, or any other
group of people to take issue with the way you choose to fly. You are
dealing with Federal Air Regulation Parts 20, 61, 91 (and probably some
others) and 103. I think they will be the ones who decide if you are
right or wrong. Same same someone who flies a fat ultralight. That is
the risk one takes. I used to fly a fat UL. It looked like an UL, but
it flew a lot faster than 63 mph, carried a lot more fuel than 5 gal,
and weighed a lot more than 254 lbs empty. Just cause it looked like an
UL didn't make it right. As long as I flew that aircraft I always had
that feeling of uncertainty in the back of my mind. Never was
comfortable 100% with what I was doing.
I never had a civilian ticket, so in 1990 I went to fixed wing school.
Was a good refresher course for a lot of things I had forgotten in Army
flight school. Also taught me a lot of things about fixed flying, I was
rotary wing only trained. I built and registered my MK III by the
book. It gets an annual inspection every year and I get a medical and
BFR every two years. We have liability insurance, can't afford hull
coverage any more. I have a pvt fw se land ticket and I am legal. I am
comfortable. I do not get shakey when I see someone with an FAA hat
on. I don't have to make excuses or cover my tracks.
The FAA can be ruthless when they want to be. They can make ones life
miserable. They can cost one a lot of time and money. They can
irritate the heck out of one. They are not to be played with. I speak
from experience. They ran me ragged for about six months, during which
time, 41 days was spent flying around the US, Canada, and Alaska. It
was not easy to make that flight and keep the FAA problem out of my
mind. If you have a few hours to kill and you see me at Sun and Fun or
Oshkosh, I will share this episode with you.
To me, my own little personal opinion, this thread is getting a long way
from the purpose of the Kolb Builders List. I'm here to talk about
building and flying techniques, and maybe a little XC experience thrown
in. But not too interested in making judgment calls on what is or isn't
legal. I am not a judge. I believe it is everyone's responsibility to
read and be familiar with Part 103. You may interpret 103 any way you
want to, but you are ultimately responsible, not me.
Let's build and fly and have fun and pray the rain will soon leave
Alabama so I can get out there and work on my Kolb and fly.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Swihart" <mswihart(at)tcsn.net> |
IMHO, This sport is self policing and things get emotional
with a lot ultralight pilots when they see the rules being
bent or not followed at all. Especially the ones that have
been around and helped pioneer the sport and fought for what
we have now...PART 103. I'm one of "Those" that believe in
"leave 103 alone" and legalize "fat UL's to 1200lbs w/sport
pilot endorsement".
-Mark Swihart-
TwinStar ASC/USUA/EAA
Bradley, CA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of GeoR38(at)aol.com
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 4:51 PM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: UL insurance
>
>
> In a message dated 1/29/99 12:31:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> sbaew(at)dames.com
> writes:
>
> << I have gotten trained through a reputatable instructor with a
> local club,
> and have been working on getting the Mrk III ready with the
> vice-preseident of the club, who is also a mechanic. I will do what ever
> is necessary to meet acceptable standards for that club. Dont cricfy me
> because I was exploring options for being able to fly my own mrk III and
> get the BFI training in it.
>
> How about it? Will you let me back on the List?
> >>
>
> Eric, by no stretch of the imagination should you feel the need
> ot crawl like
> Clinton on this topic, which is entirely POLITICAL instead of
> MORAL!!!! And
> besides you posted instead of hiding behind a cigar!!!....I say
> Congratulations for airing an opinion in your
> investigation!!.................GeoR38
>
>
> ---------
>
> ---------
>
> ---------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Scott" <mdscott3(at)excite.com> |
Im looking for some help.I have just about desided to purchase a kolb MKIII
when after talking to other pilots at my airstrip where i plan to fly thay
say for the price of a MKIII kit I can by a verynice used cessna 150 that
flies faster and you can sell easier. Ive been thinking about that alote and
it seem they may have a point. Does any one have an opinon on this thay may
help me deside.
Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Reynolds" <rfreynol(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
You can expect to pay several thousand dollars a year in maintenance costs
on the C-150, that is if nothing is wrong with it. A&P's and annuals are
expensive. Owning an experimental (that you build) allows you to perform
the maintenance, thus it will be cheaper in the long run.
You will also find that the MkIII is more fun to fly, has greater STOL
capability, and if you get a 912, it will burn half as much fuel as the
150. Why buy a 30 year old plane, when you can build a brand new one. :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Scott <mdscott3(at)excite.com>
Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 7:54 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: MKIII vs 150
>
> Im looking for some help.I have just about desided to purchase a kolb
MKIII
>when after talking to other pilots at my airstrip where i plan to fly thay
>say for the price of a MKIII kit I can by a verynice used cessna 150 that
>flies faster and you can sell easier. Ive been thinking about that alote
and
>it seem they may have a point. Does any one have an opinon on this thay may
>help me deside.
>
>
>Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Reynolds" <rfreynol(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
According to the Kolb website, a MkIII kit with a Rotax582 is $12,614.00.
If you have a source for clean, used 150's for that price, please let me
know! :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Scott <mdscott3(at)excite.com>
Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 7:54 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: MKIII vs 150
>
> Im looking for some help.I have just about desided to purchase a kolb
MKIII
>when after talking to other pilots at my airstrip where i plan to fly thay
>say for the price of a MKIII kit I can by a verynice used cessna 150 that
>flies faster and you can sell easier. Ive been thinking about that alote
and
>it seem they may have a point. Does any one have an opinon on this thay may
>help me deside.
>
>
>Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
Mark Scott wrote:
>
>
> Im looking for some help.I have just about desided to purchase a kolb MKIII
> when after talking to other pilots at my airstrip where i plan to fly thay
> say for the price of a MKIII kit I can by a verynice used cessna 150 that
> flies faster and you can sell easier. Ive been thinking about that alote and
> it seem they may have a point. Does any one have an opinon on this thay may
> help me deside.
Good morning Scott and Kolb Gang:
Do the other pilots at your airstrip have any experience flying a MK
III?
Do they enjoy the satisfaction of building and flying their on creation?
Do they maintain and sign off on their own maintenance?
Do they enjoy flying in and out of extremely small unimproved areas
where all others but rotary wing and little ultralights dare tread?
Are they more interested in flying faster and selling quicker than they
are enjoying much greater visibility, versatility, and just down right
fun flying?
Do they keep their 150's in their back yards?
That's a few of the questions you can answer. I don't have much
experience in GA aircraft, only a few hours in the 152. I was not
impressed with performance (during summer in Alabama), visibilty,
expense, and restrictions of flight, with the Cessna.
I'll take my Fire Star, Sling Shot, and MK III, any time over a "spam
can." Can't speak to the Fire Fly, have no experience with it.
john h (hauck's holler, Alabama, watching the raindrops fall, and fall,
and fall for the rest of the weekend)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kelly" <jtk1976(at)mail.tqci.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolbs in MD. |
Dennis,
Will do. My Kolb is nothing fancy, just a stock 377, with hangar rash here
and there, but your welcome to have a look sometime.
ISP question, I've had lots of Email trouble with my current provider, TQCI,
considering switching to OLG. How have you liked your service?
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Watson <djwatson(at)olg.com>
Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 1:06 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Kolbs in MD.
>
>List, Thanks to all that responded.
> Hey Jim, I live in Ridge. I talked to you on the phone 4 or 5 Months ago
>when I was looking for an instructor. Give me a call sometime at
>301-872-9523 (H) or at the Office 301-863-5090 X241 I would love to check
>out your Kolb and get some insight into flying out of St.Marys.
>Thanks.........Dennis djwatson(at)olg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff / Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
>Does any one have an opinon on this thay may help me deside.
It is all in what you want from a plane. They are all different in so many
ways and have different utilities. I flew Cessnas most of my time in
general aviation. They do what they are supposed to do and very well...
get from one place to another. I personally never felt like I was really
flying... enshrouded in an aluminum box with a limited view like that. The
Kolb is a lot more open to the view and feel of flying. Cross country is
limited unless you build your Kolb with that in mind. You can wrap it up
when it is cold and progressively unwrap it even down to bugs on your teeth
if you want too. You can do your own maintenence and inspections on your
Kolb. An old 150 can be a real money pit. Overhaul of a Rotax is
affordable compared to the certified engines. Reliability can be debated
vs. certified but the only engine failure I have ever had so far (knock on
wood) has been with the certified. I know that is way against the stats.
You can fold up your Kolb and keep it at home if you want. It was fun to
build (really!). It always attracts attention where ever you fly. Does a
150? For me, if I want to drill holes in the air, I would rather flit
around in my slow but powerful little butterfly, maneuvering PDQ and
landing (if need be) almost anywhere around where I live. To complete the
circle, it is all in what you want from a plane.
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+ hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ToddThom(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
Erich, if your BFI is willing you can fly any where you want to in your MKIII
provided you have a copy of your BFI's 4274 exemption paperwork in your
aircraft. This means that your BFI is overseeing your (XC) excursions and
flights. It's really that simple. He must know your where abouts - flight
plan. You should have his ph. number in case there is a need for it. Cell
phones work great for this use. If anyone ever questions you on this practise
- like an FAA guy, tell him to call your BFI. One other thing, do not
surrender the 4274 paperwork to anybody. FAA personnel can look at it but
cannot keep it under any circumstances. Tom Gunnarson, (USUA FLight Safety
Director) in a very recent BFI training class, made all these points very
clear to all of us so we would know our rights and limitations under Part 103
and 4274 exemptions. I should have thought about this before I salvo'd into
you. I'm sorry for my lack of finding a creative solution to your problem.
So talk to your BFI and if he's got any questions he can talk to Tom at USUA
to verify my idea. I think it would work well.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody Weaver <mts0140(at)ibm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
You know.....
It's easy to concentrate on the pilot certificate as the solution to the
problem. Get a "license" and a current medical and stop worrying.
DOESN'T CHANGE A THING FOLKS!!!!!
The airplane is illegal if flown as an ultralight when it isn't.
The FAA has let us down here with their total absence of involvement.
Woody Weaver
(Trying to get my MX down to legal weight)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
Woody Weaver wrote:
>
> DOESN'T CHANGE A THING FOLKS!!!!!
>
> The airplane is illegal if flown as an ultralight when it isn't.
>
> The FAA has let us down here with their total absence of involvement.
> Woody Weaver
> (Trying to get my MX down to legal weight)
>
Hey Woody and Gang:
I'm certainly not trying to stick up for the FAA. I have had more than
my share of problems with those folks. But how can you believe the FAA
let us down with their total absence of involvement?
They came up with a reg in 1983, set the limits for ultralight vehicles,
and we exceeded all those limits. If we had built out ULs to their
specs and then they reduced those limits after we built, then we could
blame the FAA.
I for one am happy with part 103, and when my time comes to build
another UL I will probably build it just like I did my last one: Fast,
Heavy, and with plenty Fuel. I flew the old Fire Star a lot of hours
and a lot of places. Never was hassled by the FAA. I still believe if
your UL looks like an UL they will leave you alone. However, if it
looks like a Titan Tornado single place with a 912 on top of the wing
and those little USUA registration numbers on the aircraft, forget it.
They gonna get your buns.
I do not think the FAA has the funds or manpower to get down on us
little guys unless we draw a lot of attention to ourselves. Fly like
you would fly any GA aircraft, with good sense, especially around
airports, and you'll be alright, I theeenk. I was.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
A good deal C-150 might beat out a Mk-III on overall price if the
C-150 were sold back in less than two years. IMO that might be the
very longest anybody could possibly enjoy one. In spite of being biased
toward Kolbs, that is my honest opinion about C-150s. The climb is so
dog awful (300 fpm w/ 2 aboard on a good day) -- the whole climb-out
rubs your nose in how bad your situation is, because the only thing
you can see is the rattling spam cowling in front of you covering up
the inadequate engine. They are also about as responsive as a brick.
For a more specific comparison, I would only try to repeat what Cliff
Stripling covered. A big thing not mentioned yet is liability.
Other things aside, that makes a certified plane a much nicer deal.
After you sell an Exp category plane you gotta worry for the rest of
your life that some widow will come after you and ruin you financially cuz
you are the original builder. I know, there are supposed work-arounds,
but they all affect the bottom line.
Another related thing about comparing Rotax to Lyc or Cont maintenance
costs ...I've always easily given the GA guys that theirs are definetly
cheaper cuz of resale value and the big 2000 TBO. But now my brother
Jim is debating whether he should do a top end on his Lyc O-360 (Grumman)
and it is only 1200 since new. It seems very few of these engines go
all the way to 2000 hours. Not only that, reconditioned cylinders alone
are ~$1000 each. Wow.
-Ben Ransom (Firestar kxp)
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Mark Scott wrote:
> Im looking for some help.I have just about desided to purchase a kolb MKIII
> when after talking to other pilots at my airstrip where i plan to fly thay
> say for the price of a MKIII kit I can by a verynice used cessna 150 that
> flies faster and you can sell easier. Ive been thinking about that alote and
> it seem they may have a point. Does any one have an opinon on this thay may
> help me deside.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Scott" <mdscott3(at)excite.com> |
| Subject: | legality in MKIII |
There seems to be alote of people out there who knows alote about the
current UL laws.Maybe someone can tell me what i will need to be Legal. I
plan to build a MKIII with dual controls. I am working on my private pilot
rating now. I also plan to get my Kolb registered i guess an an experimental
airplane due to the weight class. What else will i need to be legal and to
fly passengers.
Also what is a BFI i keep hearing about.
Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody Weaver <mts0140(at)ibm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> Woody Weaver wrote:
> >
> > DOESN'T CHANGE A THING FOLKS!!!!!
> >
> > The airplane is illegal if flown as an ultralight when it isn't.
> >
> > The FAA has let us down here with their total absence of involvement.
> > Woody Weaver
> > (Trying to get my MX down to legal weight)
> >
>
> Hey Woody and Gang:
>
> I'm certainly not trying to stick up for the FAA. I have had more than
> my share of problems with those folks. But how can you believe the FAA
> let us down with their total absence of involvement?
>
> They came up with a reg in 1983, set the limits for ultralight vehicles,
> and we exceeded all those limits. If we had built out ULs to their
> specs and then they reduced those limits after we built, then we could
> blame the FAA.
>
> I for one am happy with part 103, and when my time comes to build
> another UL I will probably build it just like I did my last one: Fast,
> Heavy, and with plenty Fuel. I flew the old Fire Star a lot of hours
> and a lot of places. Never was hassled by the FAA. I still believe if
> your UL looks like an UL they will leave you alone. However, if it
> looks like a Titan Tornado single place with a 912 on top of the wing
> and those little USUA registration numbers on the aircraft, forget it.
> They gonna get your buns.
>
> I do not think the FAA has the funds or manpower to get down on us
> little guys unless we draw a lot of attention to ourselves. Fly like
> you would fly any GA aircraft, with good sense, especially around
> airports, and you'll be alright, I theeenk. I was.
>
> john h
>
>
John,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I too like the Firestar. considering a Firefly.
The funds may come together this year and then its decision time. But hey, how
bad can it be with two nice
aircraft to choose from.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
>I for one am happy with part 103, and when my time comes to build
>another UL I will probably build it just like I did my last one: Fast,
>Heavy, and with plenty Fuel. I flew the old Fire Star a lot of hours
>and a lot of places. Never was hassled by the FAA.
>
>I do not think the FAA has the funds or manpower to get down on us
>little guys unless we draw a lot of attention to ourselves.
I agree with John, unless there is an accident or incident and enough left to
weigh (never seen them weigh one yet, even when they could have), I havn't
had any really "bad" experiences with them. I have had to strip one down
after a problem landing. If you've got two 5 gallons tanks, you might
consider dragging one out into the woods after you stop any arterial
bleeding.
Most accidents in well-designed systems involve two or more events of low
probability occurring in the worst possible combination.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UL insurance |
sorry bout that last nothing message .... I just installed windows 98 and my
fingers are going all over the place...hi Frank......GeoR38..... do not
archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Camcorder Sound. |
Hi Group: Thanks to all who replied to my question about in-flight
video sound. I did a little digging around in my box of tricks out in the
shop, and came up with a stereo headphone splitter. Already own the patch
cord from the previous attempt, so went to Radio Shack today and bought an
adapter for headphone to small jack for about $2.00. We'll try it out next
weekend. Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Suthirak" <suthirak(at)asianet.co.th> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
Hi Mark:
I used to have the same idea as you. I have been flying with Cessna 172 and
two times with 150. I own one Titan Tornado. I also fly the Kitfox from time
to time. Anyway, I want other airplane and looking for 150 and plan to
change engine to a more powerful 160 hp. Subaru if I can get away with ICAO
or FAA rule. But consider the small private airport which I want to keep my
airplane and short take off requiremet, my idea with 150 is diminished and
plannning for the new RV-6 or RV-6A or Glastar, etc. The reason that I don't
select Kolb, because I already have Titan Tornado II. It also difficult to
compare Kolb with C-150 since they are designed with diferrent purposes. One
for recreation and other one a small business airplane, I think.
Suthirak
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Scott <mdscott3(at)excite.com>
Date: 31 2542 13:07
Subject: Kolb-List: MKIII vs 150
>
> Im looking for some help.I have just about desided to purchase a kolb
MKIII
>when after talking to other pilots at my airstrip where i plan to fly thay
>say for the price of a MKIII kit I can by a verynice used cessna 150 that
>flies faster and you can sell easier. Ive been thinking about that alote
and
>it seem they may have a point. Does any one have an opinon on this thay may
>help me deside.
>
>
>Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: legality in MKIII |
To be legal and fly passengers in your MKIII, you will need to have it
registered and have an airworthiness certificate. You will have certain
operating limitations that you will need to comply with, depending on what
you want to do with it. Day VFR, you will need the minimum equipment and
gauges specified in Part 91, and if you want to fly after dark, then you
need the lights and stuff specified in Part 91. If you want to fly in
Classs A,B or similar airspace, then you need more hardware. As you work on
your private rating, you will find out all that stuff.
When you start to fly the MKIII, you will be assigned a 40 hour test
period to work the bugs out before you can carry anybody with you.
Then if you have your private ticket, you're good to go.
BFI is Basic Flight Instructor. It is taking up a second career in lieu
of
getting the above mentioned legalities. But if you think you might like to
teach flying, it's a good lick. Just don't let anybody else bend your
MKIII. (Ouch)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>There seems to be alote of people out there who knows alote about the
>current UL laws.Maybe someone can tell me what i will need to be Legal. I
>plan to build a MKIII with dual controls. I am working on my private pilot
>rating now. I also plan to get my Kolb registered i guess an an experimental
>airplane due to the weight class. What else will i need to be legal and to
>fly passengers.
>
>Also what is a BFI i keep hearing about.
>
>
>Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Mk-3 Vx and Vy speed |
I am interested to know if any of you folks have got some numbers on climb
speeds Vx (best angle) and Vy (best rate) for the Mk-3.
These numbers should include operating weight, outside air temp, airport
elevation, engine type and airspeed indicator make and model. Airplane assumed
to be configured flaps up. If pitot head is configured differently than stock,
that would be nice to know also.
Thanks
Bill George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ToddThom(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: legality in MKIII |
If you "N" number it, you have a private pilot license, fly off your required
hours and you're all set except for the maybe required insurance.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thomas L. King" <kingdome(at)tcac.net> |
Speaking of maintenance cost of a C-150.
A new (rebuilt) cylinder can be found for 580 and with the 100 core refund
will cost only 480. That does not include valves, rings or piston. (boss
bought one last week.)
To be legal, maintenance must be done by qualified A&P. Shop rate about 40
to 50 per hour.
TBO can usually be reached or even exceeded if given proper care and you're
lucky.
Annual should cost about 16 man hours minimum, if nothing has to be fixed
and all AD's are up to date.
Make a bad landing and knock off the nose gear and you trash: prop, cowling,
front gear, wheel, engine mount, firewall, belly skin behind firewall, etc.
This will call for at the minimum a runout check on the crank and possible
replacement (2500); new prop (1200); rebuild of all bent/torn metal. There
are two ways to go here. Purchase the parts new/salvage yellow tag and put
them on with minimal mechanic time, or have the mechanic fabricate as much
as possible. Purchase is quicker, fabrication is cheaper, but can burn up
lots of shop hours. Cost--I can only say LOTS.
Land your Kolb funny and you bend some gear legs. Replace them your self.
No damage to engine or prop. Wheels and brakes are probably OK. Maybe some
skin damage.
I'm an A&P currently employed at rebuilding a C-150 with a C-140 and another
C-150 waiting in the other hangar.
I am building a Kolb MKIII.
Nuff said?
Tom King
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thomas L. King" <kingdome(at)tcac.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Darwin (was Boom tube install) |
>Hi guy's, speaking of the Darwin awards has there been any new ones!
>Steve Ward Mark-3
>
Yes, the 98 Darwin awards are out. I have them in a text file and will send
to anyone who wants them. I got them from my brother and saved them as a
WP8 file. Don't know where he got them.
Tom King
kingdome(at)tcac.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
Hi Will,
I moved, living near DC in Herndon Virginia.
Just thought I would say Hi
tim loehrke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Darwin (was Boom tube install) |
>
>Pardon my ignorance, but what are the Darwin Awards ??
>Big Lar.
>
The Darwin Awards are awards to people who do something so totaly stupid
they remove themselves from the human gene pool. Sort of like a Jeff
Foxworthy redneck joke. You know you are a redneck when one of your
relatives lasts words were "Hey watch this"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Darwin (was Boom tube install) |
>>
>Yes, the 98 Darwin awards are out. I have them in a text file and will send
>to anyone who wants them. I got them from my brother and saved them as a
>WP8 file. Don't know where he got them.
>
>
Send them to the other Woody also please
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | swultra <swultra(at)primenet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
Rob Reynolds wrote:
>
>
> According to the Kolb website, a MkIII kit with a Rotax582 is $12,614.00.
>
> If you have a source for clean, used 150's for that price, please let me
> know! :)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Scott <mdscott3(at)excite.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 7:54 AM
> Subject: Kolb-List: MKIII vs 150
>
> >
> > Im looking for some help.I have just about desided to purchase a kolb
> MKIII
> >when after talking to other pilots at my airstrip where i plan to fly thay
> >say for the price of a MKIII kit I can by a verynice used cessna 150 that
> >flies faster and you can sell easier. Ive been thinking about that alote
> and
> >it seem they may have a point. Does any one have an opinon on this thay may
> >help me deside.
> >
> >
> >Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/
> >
> >
>
Are you sure on the price of a mark-3. Mine with brakes, and inclosure
was 10,500 without any engine, also 4 yrs ago. Steve Ward Mark-3
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Reynolds" <rfreynol(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
Yes, the price came directly from the Kolb website.
www.kolbaircraft.com
-----Original Message-----
From: swultra <swultra(at)primenet.com>
Date: Monday, February 01, 1999 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: MKIII vs 150
>> >
>>
>Are you sure on the price of a mark-3. Mine with brakes, and inclosure
>was 10,500 without any engine, also 4 yrs ago. Steve Ward Mark-3
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Mk-3 Vx and Vy speed |
In a message dated 1/31/99 12:06:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
WGeorge737(at)aol.com writes:
<< If pitot head is configured differently than stock,
that would be nice to know also. >>
There really isn't a stock pitot configuration. Alot of guys just stick a
piece of aluminim tubing straight out the nose. Winter the german instrument
company makes a very nice helicopter ASI which reads down to 7-10 mph which I
used on my mark 2.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
Just a note concerning the bad press Hirth recieved on this list from some
one that uses them,
We have had many Hirth engines here and have only ever had one Crank problem.
from a new unit and have had no others. The factory was very quick to replace
the engine without any problems and the engine that I am referring to now has
over 300 hrs on it.
The only time that I have heard of crank problems has been when the alignment
of the drives was incorrect or the prop setup was out of balance or wrong
size.
I do not know what Buzzman(?) is referring to, but I am basing my experience
on many (over 12 ) of the Hirth engines that I have experience with. And many
perple that contact me for technical support on them.
In answer to the Crank problem... I have not seen any more problems with the
Hirth than any other brand includng Rotax. Most are installation and setup
problems which would give the same results on any make of engine. Proper
loading and alignment are critical to any engine
also
Dave,
In any event, you still did not site specific examples of Hirth engine
failures as compared to Rotax failures. In fact, your "engine site" is
replete with every type of failure that could happen......to Rotax engines.
ie. crank, pistons, carbs & redrives.
You state that a Rotax 582 should be rebuilt after 300hrs. (not much
confidence huh)?
My point to you was not Hirth Vs Rotax. It was...Quit knocking, and
providing misleading / inacurate info on products that you don't personaly
care for. And, at the time of the initial discussion, to counter your advise
(in UL Flyer) to mount a 582 Rotax engine......UPRIGHT...... on a Challenger.
put on a 65hp 2706, now with 150 hrs. (the 2703 is now pulling a Rag Wing
Special Biplane)
Please be so kind as to post this reply onto your web site......@........
http://www.ultralightnews.com/buz/rtxhirt.html
Chuck Scrivner ....... http://www.angelfire.com/biz/MFM
Thanks for listening
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com> |
I don't know about the "Darwin" awards, but here's a true story given me
by a marine patient.
Near San Diego California, the marines and Army were having artillery
practice. The Army was using rockets while the marines were using their
big guns. (This patient then pointed to my Kolb picture in the outer
office) Then we saw this ultra-light come flying over our target range
and we had to stop the practice. We then saw two helicoptors go after
the ultralight.
That's the whole story I received, but if anyone knows something
further, I would like to hear about the penality phase of this
infraction...
(Makes you understand why the FAA doesn't give more freedom to "103")
I have another tale of woe, but will only put it on this list if you
people aren't bored with this one.
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
Test
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
>. It also difficult to
>compare Kolb with C-150 since they are designed with diferrent purposes. One
>for recreation and other one a small business airplane, I think.
>
Interesting point you make. I think you are correct. I would be curious to
know how many 150's are used for businesses - beside flight training. It
would be curious to know how the 150 might have faired if it was designed
more for sport flying ... better visibility, lighter, better short field
performance, etc.
The seeming ever increasing desire for the Piper Cub makes this point: many
flyers want a sport type airraft - not a commuter type such as the 150. The
response to this thread, bear this out. Fun flyers want visibilty and short
field performance.
I was talking with a Rans S10 owner one time, which he had sold and replaced
it with a TwinStar. He said on the very first flight in the S10 he knew he
had made a mistake. With its higher speeds and reduced visibity he discoved
he was flying it like a 150. The S10 is faster for traveling longer
distances and the mid-wing gives better roll control. But visibilty is poor.
I had a KR-2 for a while, same problem, higher speed and reduced visibility
- reduces the fun. More anxiety thinking about what happens if the engine
quits. Poor visibilty compounds the problem with knowing it will be much
more difficult to accurately set down in a small patch - actually closer to
impossible. When you try to land slow in a KR2 the world beneath
dissappears as the angle of attack increases.
John Roncz made the point in a forum at Oshkosh one time in discussing his
new design, he started by describing why he had the forward swept wings - it
was all for visibility. He ended up saying that visibilty was his #1
criterion for his new design because it is the reason many fly - to see the
world beneath, not the sky above - you can see that just as well from the
ground.
The SlingShot cruises in the 90 mph range the Laser a little over a 100, not
a big difference, but I fly the Laser more like an airplane (more altitude
and usually well above stall speed range). The SlingShot I fly like an
ultralight, lower and many times slower. This is not a conscious decision,
but an automatic adjustment for the characteristics of the aircraft and
comfort level of the pilot.
I have talked with many pilots over the years who have flown fast impressive
aircraft. They usually don't describe them as being fun to fly. Flying
fast does have its own rewards, but fun usually is not one of them. I like
USUA's motto: Fly for Fun!
Dennis Souder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Flyer114(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Nav Lights for Mark III |
I am looking for suitable Nav lights to install on my Mark III.
Catalog lights I have found will not attach reasonably to the wing tip bow
tube.
Suggestions would be appreciated.
John Haines
flyer114(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav Lights for Mark III |
Flyer114(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> I am looking for suitable Nav lights to install on my Mark III.
> Catalog lights I have found will not attach reasonably to the wing tip bow
> tube.
> Suggestions would be appreciated.
>
> John Haines
> flyer114(at)aol.com
Hello John and Kolb Gang:
I have Whelen A600-PG-PR position'strobe lights on my MK III. I like
them because the tail/strobe/position lights are in one unit that mounts
on the wing tip. Don't have to rig a tail light on the rudder and run
more wire back there. My unit has been in service more than 1200 hours
with out failure of any type, except crashes and those don't count.
Made some sheet metal mounts to rivet on the bowtip. No sweat.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Tore the 532 apart today to seal an air leak between the crankcase halves.
Good occasion for Seafoam effectiveness appraisal. The Seafoam had removed
most all the carbon from the underside of the head, there was a thin layer
on the top of the piston, the top ring was starting to gum up, and also
starting to stick somewhat on the exhaust side.
Had the pistons out in June 98, replaced the top rings, cleaned carbon
from grooves, time: 175 hours. Treated the top end with Seafoam at 210
hours. Time at present: 227 hours.
Conclusion: Seafoam maybe helps some, but it will still be necessary to
decarbon the top end every winter, or the rings will probably still stick.
Wonder what the situation would be if I had used Seafoam every 10 hours or so?
Will be making one other change also: I have used Phillips Injex 2-stroke
oil for years, as have most of the other guys in the chapter, never had any
problems. Everyone raved about Pennzoil 2-cycle oil so much, so I started
using it this spring. Conclusion: it is much sootier. The mess on the
outside of the airplane shows more soot than Injex, which is oilier in it's
"mess quotient".
Perhaps one of the engineers on the list can explain the
advantages/disadvantages of those traits?
The engine ran good and showed no apparent wear with either Pennzoil or
Phillips, but the Pennzoil costs nearly twice as much. The local Phillips
dealer will deliver case lots to the door for $32 for 12 quarts.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dell Vinal <zoper(at)mint.net> |
| Subject: | mysterious engine outs and carb ice |
I'm new to this list,and the archives facinate me. Every so often the
enginequitting and then running fine later story appears. Carb ice is
probably the cause. Gen. ave. pilots are taught about it and trained to
use carb heat even before ice forms.
We in the two-cycle engine world have,to my knowledge, only the cyclone
carb. heater avialible to us. They press on the carb body on the inlet
side and transfer heat, either hot water or electric,to the carb
body.Supposedly the ice will not stick to the carb.Some where I read
that England and some other countries require these heaters. I put them
on my mk III 582. Fairly simple job. Don't believe in carb ice,especialy
in a trailing throttle flight mode? All the best.
Want an example of ice forming where gas is mixing with air? Take a
plastic gas can that is full to 1/2 full. Use a 5 gal. or so can.
Tighten the big cap firmly, but loosen the small one enough that vapors
can escape. Put this jug some where with the sun shining on it
mostly,but keep the small cap end in the shade. If the sun is strong
enough and the moisture content of the air high enough,ice forms
quickly.Comments and opinions wanted.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ToddThom(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Nav Lights for Mark III |
I installed Kuntzelman's strobes. They seem to work very weel and are bright.
I see he just introduced a single mast type strobe. Check him out. He's ad
is in Ultralight magazine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ToddThom(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Carbon/Seafoam |
Richard, who is your source for the Philips oil? Do you have a phone # ??
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Carbon/Seafoam |
| From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Richard,
There are ways to drag me out of hiding. How much Seafoam did you use per
treatment?
I think the synthetics are catching on fast for clean burn and almost
carbon-free operation. The Seafoam filled to the top at TDC and
synthetics are the way to go in my humble opinion. More time will tell
and thanks for your appraisal.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
writes:
>Good occasion for Seafoam effectiveness appraisal. The Seafoam had
>removed most all the carbon from the underside of the head, there was a
thin
>layer on the top of the piston, the top ring was starting to gum up, and
>also starting to stick somewhat on the exhaust side.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carbon/Seafoam |
I could get you one tomorrow, it's just a local dealer in Greenville, Tn. I
would think a lot of oil or petroleum distributors would be in your phone
book, that's how I found mine. Oil by the case from a distributor is always
MUCH cheaper than in stores, and they are usually happy to sell to
individuals, as long as you buy at least a case at a time. I ask my flying
buddies , and sometimes can buy several cases at once. A couple years ago,
one of the distributors gave me an "AeroShell Pilots Watch", I was the only
pilot that ever came around and bought anything, and he was tired of the
watch (surely a promotional item) laying around his desk! And all I ever
bought was Injex for my Rotax, never bought any AeroShell!
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Richard, who is your source for the Philips oil? Do you have a phone # ??
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | large tube, small ring |
Nice work Mick; Jay Leno would love to have lines that good! My wife came
over to see what I was laffin' at! She figured Beauford had something to do
with it...
.....would it hurt to heat the small ring and cool the big tube?
C'mon Beauford,
We're all waiting.... I'd give it a shot (so to speak) but it would just
pale in comparison.
;-)
-Mick Fine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carbon/Seafoam |
About two tablespoons at TDC, let it soak down for awhile, then did the
other one. rp
>
>Richard,
>
>There are ways to drag me out of hiding. How much Seafoam did you use per
>treatment?
>
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original FireStar, 447 powered
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | george murphy <gmpossum(at)mindspring.com> |
I have a Rotax 582 and use one of those push pull type primers to help
crank my engine when it is cold. I had been flying for a hour or so when
the engine started running rough. I was cloce to an airport and put her
down. Upon inspection I found the push pull primer was leaking gasoline
around the shaft and sucking air. The primer was several years old. I do
not know if the problem was just normal wear or if something inside the
primer failed. I would suggest anyone using a primer check for any fuel
leaks arount the shaft area. If fuel can leak in this area, Air can also
get into your fuel lines.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | swultra <swultra(at)primenet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A tale of woe |
Richard Bluhm wrote:
>
>
> I don't know about the "Darwin" awards, but here's a true story given me
> by a marine patient.
> Near San Diego California, the marines and Army were having artillery
> practice. The Army was using rockets while the marines were using their
> big guns. (This patient then pointed to my Kolb picture in the outer
> office) Then we saw this ultra-light come flying over our target range
> and we had to stop the practice. We then saw two helicoptors go after
> the ultralight.
> That's the whole story I received, but if anyone knows something
> further, I would like to hear about the penality phase of this
> infraction...
>
> (Makes you understand why the FAA doesn't give more freedom to "103")
>
> I have another tale of woe, but will only put it on this list if you
> people aren't bored with this one.
> Doc
>
MORE/MORE/MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello: Test Test 1-2-3-4-5. Is there something wrong w/the list or is it me?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Luis Arellano <luis_m_arellano(at)yahoo.com> |
Yes Im Interested in ultryligh aircrafs includeme in your mailing list
Luis Arellano
10742 SW 88th St. Ste L2
Miami Fl 33176
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Luis Arellano wrote:
> Yes Im Interested in ultryligh aircrafs includeme in your mailing list
>
> Luis Arellano
> 10742 SW 88th St. Ste L2
> Miami Fl 33176
Luis:
You need to go to: http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
to subscribe to the Kolb Builders List.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>
>Hello: Test Test 1-2-3-4-5. Is there something wrong w/the list or is it me?
Be careful: You know how questions like that tempt this bunch...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.COM> |
| Subject: | Nav Lights for Mark III |
Dick's email address is dickk9(at)aol.com . His phone number is 610 326 9068.
...
I installed Kuntzelman's strobes. They seem to work very weel and are
bright.
I see he just introduced a single mast type strobe. Check him out. He's ad
is in Ultralight magazine.
...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
>Fun flyers want visibilty and short field performance.
Gosh Dennis, it sounds as if you're making a good case for the introduction
of a new UltraStar. :)
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nav Lights for Mark III |
John
I too am looking for nav lights for a Mark III. The best idea I have seen
to date is the approach used by Richard Pike. He used spare tubing to
enclose a used set of lights on the outside of the curve of the wing such
that they pointed straight ahead. Some lights that I have seen on a PA12
stood on posts that screwed to the wing edge. If you have any other good
approaches let me know
Ron
>
>I am looking for suitable Nav lights to install on my Mark III.
>Catalog lights I have found will not attach reasonably to the wing tip bow
>tube.
>Suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>John Haines
>flyer114(at)aol.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com |
| Subject: | Re: primer failure |
George,
I had a similar problem with fuel leaking from the shaft when using the
primer and replaced the primer thinking that the gas additive was not
compatible with the O-ring material. Did not check for air leakage and
never had an engine problem.
Two questions came to mind reading your post:
Is your primer located below the fuel level in the tanks making a gas leak
possible,( mine was located above the fuel level)
Are you using oil and gas mixed or the injector(I used injector)and maybe a
mixture makes the o-ring last longer due to the addition of lubrication.
P.S. For those interested in additional information on Kolb/Full Lotus
amphib float attachments, I have added some more float attachment pictures
from my MKIII on my home page.
See: http://www.webcom.com/reynen/techinfo.html
Frank Reynen MKIII@485hrs
I have a Rotax 582 and use one of those push pull type primers to help
crank my engine when it is cold. I had been flying for a hour or so when
the engine started running rough. I was cloce to an airport and put her
down. Upon inspection I found the push pull primer was leaking gasoline
around the shaft and sucking air. The primer was several years old. I do
not know if the problem was just normal wear or if something inside the
primer failed. I would suggest anyone using a primer check for any fuel
leaks arount the shaft area. If fuel can leak in this area, Air can also
get into your fuel lines.
________________________________________________________________________________
Test, again.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | george murphy <gmpossum(at)mindspring.com> |
My primer was located above the fuel tank. Only Amaco super gasoline
passed through the primer. I have never premixed the oil in the tank. The
fuel is filtered before getting to the primer, so I dont think foriegn
particles could be the culprit. My primer definately sucked air into the
fuel line. I have since replaced it with a new one and it works just fine.
I guess everything wears out eventualy. Still might be worth checking
from time to time. I know I will.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com |
T ERRY
I need a hand on the REGULATOR-RECTIFIER
their are some letters on the reg. rect. they are G, G,
R, +B, L, C
The question is the two yellow wires that come out of the engine DO
they plug in to the spot labled G G
and dose R +B & C do they tie together then they go to the
+ on the battery?
then guess I can run a ground to the engine , and or frame from neg
side of battery
did you run a ground from the regulator rectifier case to a ground
Rick Libersat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Billy Jones <bjones8103(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: primer failure |
I've had a couple similar problems with primer failures, one of which
was on a new primer. I found an aircraft salvage dealer and bought a
GA type primer, which I think was an Essex. It's much better quality,
and I've had no problems since.
BJones in Houston
---george murphy wrote:
>
>
> I have a Rotax 582 and use one of those push pull type primers to help
> crank my engine when it is cold. I had been flying for a hour or so
when
> the engine started running rough. I was cloce to an airport and put
her
> down. Upon inspection I found the push pull primer was leaking
gasoline
> around the shaft and sucking air. The primer was several years old.
I do
> not know if the problem was just normal wear or if something inside
the
> primer failed. I would suggest anyone using a primer check for any
fuel
> leaks arount the shaft area. If fuel can leak in this area, Air can
also
> get into your fuel lines.
>
>
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: primer failure |
Frank's comment about additives spurred a connection for me. I have
several times run into a problem with alcohol eating O-rings. Turns them
into a kind of black cheese, that crumbles easily. I'm sure no one is
knowingly using a high alcohol fuel, BUT, if someone in a cold climate, say
midwest or back east, was having icing problems, and poured a can of " Heet
", or similar into a low tank, the level would be quite high, and may cause
problems. Food for thought. Big Lar.
----------
> From: Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: primer failure
> Date: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 11:36 AM
>
>
>
> George,
> I had a similar problem with fuel leaking from the shaft when using the
> primer and replaced the primer thinking that the gas additive was not
> compatible with the O-ring material.
Frank Reynen MKIII@485hrs
>
>
>
> I have a Rotax 582 and use one of those push pull type primers to help
> crank my engine when it is cold. I had been flying for a hour or so when
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Group: The point was brought up in another conversation about
normalizing the welds on 4130. I've read many articles about the
desirability of this, but in typical blind-sided-ness, never connected it
to MY airplane. Does Kolb normalize the welds on the fuselage ?? How
necessary is it ?? Mine is all powder coated + assembled, so I'm going to
have to live with it, but are the welds something I should keep an extra
careful eye on during pre-flighting ?? Always something, eh ??
Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Larry Bourne wrote:
>
> have to live with it, but are the welds something I should keep an extra
> careful eye on during pre-flighting ?? Always something, eh ??
> Big Lar.
Mornin Larry:
Yes you need to keep your eye out during pre and post flight for
cracks. If you have a white powdercoated fuselage, they will probably
show up as black hairline cracks, if you get one. I had one on my
original Firestar back around on of the verticals under the engine
mount, but still looking for the first crack on my old MK III, 8 years
and 1200+ hours.
Not a problem, but a possibility. No need to dwell on it, but something
we always look for, especially around higher stressed areas: tailpost,
engine/airframe, etc.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
>T ERRY
>
>I need a hand on the REGULATOR-RECTIFIER
>their are some letters on the reg. rect. they are G, G,
>R, +B, L, C
>The question is the two yellow wires that come out of the engine DO
>they plug in to the spot labled G G
Yes These are the generator (alternator) outputs and they are AC at a
harmonic of the engine RPM.
>
>and dose R +B & C do they tie together then they go to the
>+ on the battery?
There is a multitude of approaches to this the wiring. The C is a control
line and needs to take its input from the point in the wiring circuit that
you want controlled for voltage. The R and B+ are normally tied together
and go to a battery. There is an optional capacitor for this circuit and
if you have any avionics or electrical equipment on board I recommend using
it. There is a failure mode for this regulator that will place over 100
volts on the output without it. The issue is that when there is no
reference voltage (as stored in the capacitor)for the control circuit the
regulator goes bonkers. This can result from a broken wire, a bad betray
connection, a fuse blown in the power out, or a regulator malfunction.
BTW with the capacitor you can maintain regulated electrical power output
with a disconnected battery.
>
>then guess I can run a ground to the engine , and or frame from neg
>side of battery
>
>did you run a ground from the regulator rectifier case to a ground
It also needs to be grounded.
>
>Rick Libersat
>
>~~************
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Lar
When I visited the factory at KOLB I saw the welding shop. They use MIG to
assemble the cages and my guide said that they don't normalize the welds.
During a form at Oshkosh on welding this subject produced a lot of
discussion. The speakers assessment was that the MIG was fast enough in
its fusion that there was not the expansion found in torch or TIG welding
and hence it didn't insert the stresses found in the others. Thus
normalizing was unnecessary.
Ron
>Hi Group: The point was brought up in another conversation about
>normalizing the welds on 4130. I've read many articles about the
>desirability of this, but in typical blind-sided-ness, never connected it
>to MY airplane. Does Kolb normalize the welds on the fuselage ?? How
>necessary is it ?? Mine is all powder coated + assembled, so I'm going to
>have to live with it, but are the welds something I should keep an extra
>careful eye on during pre-flighting ?? Always something, eh ??
> Big Lar.
>
>~~************
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: primer failure |
>
>
>P.S. For those interested in additional information on Kolb/Full Lotus
>amphib float attachments, I have added some more float attachment pictures
>from my MKIII on my home page.
>
>See: http://www.webcom.com/reynen/techinfo.html
>
>Frank Reynen MKIII@485hrs
>
Frank
Thanks for the photos. I hope to some day put floats on and your design is
very informative and proven.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Ron Hoyt wrote:
> When I visited the factory at KOLB I saw the welding shop. They use MIG to
> assemble the cages and my guide said that they don't normalize the welds.
> During a form at Oshkosh on welding this subject produced a lot of
> discussion. The speakers assessment was that the MIG was fast enough in
> its fusion that there was not the expansion found in torch or TIG welding
> and hence it didn't insert the stresses found in the others. Thus
> normalizing was unnecessary.
I don't get it. I'm under the impression that the basis for normalizing
is to apply and reduce heat slowly, allowing the alloy structure time
to normalize into a non-stressed micro-structure. And it is done with a
torch because you can apply just the right amount of heat exactly where
you want it. Quick heating to a very small area, and subsequent rapid
cooling that is characteristic of MIG,TIG greatly reduces strength right
next to the weldment. Is this wrong?
Dennis, when you comment on this, please also mention what the Kolb
practice and reasoning was before the frames were MIG welded (earlier
models). Thanks.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Spent the last week trying to figure out a web page. Now there are some
MKIII Hints and Tweaks at http://www.angelfire.com/tn/kolbmkiii/index.html
I need some MKIII pictures/links to add to it.
Would anybody want a link to a story/pictures of the flight to Oshkosh
this summer?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Reynolds" <rfreynol(at)mindspring.com> |
Hey Richard, you need to upload your pictures to your website. The html
for your page is referenceing the pictures on your hard drive. :)
-Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 9:06 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Web Page
>
>Spent the last week trying to figure out a web page. Now there are some
>MKIII Hints and Tweaks at
http://www.angelfire.com/tn/kolbmkiii/index.html
>I need some MKIII pictures/links to add to it.
> Would anybody want a link to a story/pictures of the flight to
Oshkosh
>this summer?
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
>
>On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Ron Hoyt wrote:
>> When I visited the factory at KOLB I saw the welding shop. They use MIG to
>> assemble the cages and my guide said that they don't normalize the welds.
>> During a form at Oshkosh on welding this subject produced a lot of
>> discussion. The speakers assessment was that the MIG was fast enough in
>> its fusion that there was not the expansion found in torch or TIG welding
>> and hence it didn't insert the stresses found in the others. Thus
>> normalizing was unnecessary.
>
>I don't get it. I'm under the impression that the basis for normalizing
>is to apply and reduce heat slowly, allowing the alloy structure time
>to normalize into a non-stressed micro-structure. And it is done with a
>torch because you can apply just the right amount of heat exactly where
>you want it. Quick heating to a very small area, and subsequent rapid
>cooling that is characteristic of MIG,TIG greatly reduces strength right
>next to the weldment. Is this wrong?
>
I be leave you are right. The argument that I have heard is that the weld
is so much thicker than the tubing that the weld is adequately strong. As
I understand it, the weld properties of 4130 are such that the heating and
cooling of the steel doesn't destroy its strength. If you cause expansion
and lock it in place with the weld then you have pre stressed the joint.
This is what normalization is addressing as I understand it.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terr601671(at)aol.com |
Hi Everyone. I'm new to this list, and am seriously thinking about building a
Firestar. If there is anyone out there from my area (about 40 miles north of
Pittsburgh) that is willing to show me their Kolb, finished or in progress,
please e-mail me. I'd love to see it. Thanks,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
Here's some info I found very interesting. Today I spoke with a guy who
had just broken his third carb needle in a month, on a Polaris snowmobile.
The needles have been breaking at the clip position. To make the story
short, he eventually traced it to imbalance caused by the drive clutch
having some stuck weights (the weights are supposed to swing freely inside
the clutch, to activate the gear ratio change). This made me understand
better the recommendation for us air-vehicle guys to check our needles
every XX hours and replace if the clip spins freely. The clip (stainless
steel?) evidently wears thru the needle (aluminum), if vibration is
present.
I can tell you from years of experience and friends' experience that a
worn-thru needle is almost unheard-of in snowmobiles and ATVs. My Rotax
on the MKiii has about 60 hours on it and there is one clip position on the
needle that has looseness, the one I ran all summer. It seems we are
dealing with more vibration force than the ground-pounding vehicles and I
am guessing that it stems from the huge diameter prop (compared to the
relatively small-diameter gears and clutches of Snowmobiles and ATVs).
One more thing for your inspection list, if it is not already there. I
think there is an official Rotax policy on this, but I forgot what it was.
jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PaulSpadin(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: primer failure |
In a message dated 2/2/99 5:48:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
gmpossum(at)mindspring.com writes:
<<
My primer was located above the fuel tank. Only Amaco super gasoline >>
I had that happen to me and the primer quality is not too good.
I switched to an aircraft quality primer. I got at the oshkosh flymkt.. $20
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gvoigt3000(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 02/02/99 |
Hi, my name is Gary, I hope this works as a chat session as I just signed
up for this. I, am what you would call a "kolb" wanna be. I ,am hoping someome
can give me good solid information. I have wanted to fly ultralights every
since the weedhopper came out I think in the mid 80's, however I felt they
were unsafe, fifteen years later I,am getting closer to taking the plunge, I
have obtained packets from kolb and quicksilver, I don't hold any type of
certificate for flying, as a novice and first time flyer, would you recommend
that I go with quicksilver or kolb unit as far as easiest to learn flying,
I,am vary mechanically inclined and will make the time to put the kolb
together. both are very competitve in price and the firestar looks to be
sleeker built than the quickersilver but it is the differance between 60 hours
and 500 hrs. if these are true hrs. and I like the idea of fold up wings. I
want to thank you in advance for your help if you can e-mail or call me
collect if you have built one of these or can give me some good information so
I to can enjoy the sport in a safe manner.
thanks,
Gary r. voigt
612-474-3540
excelsior,mn.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Thanks for the responses to my question. There's not much I can do now,
but my mind, such as it is, is eased a little. I'll just keep an eye on
things, without getting fanatical, and take appropriate steps if and when
necessary. The powder coating IS white, so cracks should be easy to see,
as stated. Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ToddThom(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Carb needles |
Jim, your needles should have O rings on top to prevent turning and the
incipient wear which causes the failure. If you do not have these then go and
buy them. They're a stock item.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 02/02/99 |
>
> Hi, my name is Gary, I hope this works as a chat session as I just signed
>up for this. I, am what you would call a "kolb" wanna be
Don't be afraid of the build time there are enough people here to walk
you through the process, most of us find it fun to build. The Kolb may be a
bit more difficult to fly but it is still fairly simple and can be
accomplished with practice and you will be much happier with the end result
and added performance. The tail dragger part is almost a non issue. A day of
taxi testing should do wonders for your skill level.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 02/02/99 |
> Hi, my name is Gary, I hope this works as a chat session as I just
signed
snip
>If you have built one of these or can give me some good information so
>I to can enjoy the sport in a safe manner.
>
> thanks,
> Gary r. voigt
> 612-474-3540
> excelsior,mn.
Gary
I live in Apple Valley, MN. I have a Mark III being assembled in my
garage. Let me know if you are interested in a tour. BTW there are at
least 2 additional firestars being built in my neighborhood, and a couple
of guys fly them from the north side of town. Getting to be lots of KOLBS
around Minneapolis.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Digest: 02/02/99 |
Gary,
I love my Kolb, but if I were in your shoes I would not buy a new
ultralight yet, whether it is Kolb, Quick, or anything else. I would
take USUA lessons (~$750) as this will be needed no matter what you do
and it will give you an idea of what a Quick is like. You hopefully will
then get a chance to rent a single place Quick for at least a little bit.
It flies like a super light little kite. It is fun too. A single place
Kolb is faster, flies a little heavier and with noticably less drag,
and requires just a little more experience to get into than a Quick.
Don't downplay the 500 hours build time if you want a new Kolb. That's
a lot to do -- and I enjoyed it myself -- but you ought to fly some
first.
my $.02
-Ben Ransom
My Kolb pics at http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
>just signed up for this. I, am what you would call a "kolb" wanna
>be. I ,am hoping someome can give me good solid information. I have
>wanted to fly ultralights every since the weedhopper came out I think
>together. both are very competitve in price and the firestar looks to be
>sleeker built than the quickersilver but it is the differance between 60
>hours and 500 hrs. if these are true hrs. and I like the idea of fold up
>wings. I want to thank you in advance for your help if you can e-mail
>or call me collect if you have built one of these or can give me some
>good information so I to can enjoy the sport in a safe manner.
> thanks,
> Gary r. voigt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
Jogging by the airport a couple days ago I saw a cub take off and was
thinking about this original thread -- what if the question was whether
to buy a Mk III or a Cub (instead of C-150)? Now that woulda been a
tougher call as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure the MkIII will beat
it in performance at all corners (slow, fast, climb, useful load, and
maybe life cost too) but it sure is a lot closer comparison than a C-150.
I've never been in a Cub, but looks, reputation, and nostalgia certainly
add to it's charm.
One more thing we like in the Kolbs Dennis (besides visibility and STOL
capability) is the light control responsiveness. Yank it around or step
on the gas and it obeys easily. For me maybe this outweighs visibility,
or perhaps i've gotten used to the great vis and am taking it for granted.
One of the funnest things in flying is cruisin at 50mph, 300' over
pretty terrain, knowing you could put it down safely if you needed
to. That's definetly not a C-150 business trip. :-)
-Ben Ransom
> Interesting point you make. I think you are correct. I would be curious to
> know how many 150's are used for businesses - beside flight training. It
> would be curious to know how the 150 might have faired if it was designed
> The seeming ever increasing desire for the Piper Cub makes this point: many
> flyers want a sport type airraft - not a commuter type such as the 150. The
> I had a KR-2 for a while, same problem, higher speed and reduced visibility
> - reduces the fun. More anxiety thinking about what happens if the engine
> quits. Poor visibilty compounds the problem with knowing it will be much
> more difficult to accurately set down in a small patch - actually closer to
> impossible. When you try to land slow in a KR2 the world beneath
> dissappears as the angle of attack increases.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
<< I'm sure the MkIII will beat
it in performance at all corners (slow, fast, climb, useful load, and
maybe life cost too) but it sure is a lot closer comparison than a C-150. >>
My expectation is that my 65 hp mark three will outperform a 65 hp cub in
all categories except fuel consumption.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
...
>John Roncz made the point in a forum at Oshkosh one time in discussing his
>new design, he started by describing why he had the forward swept wings - it
>was all for visibility. He ended up saying that visibilty was his #1
>criterion for his new design because it is the reason many fly - to see the
>world beneath, not the sky above - you can see that just as well from the
>ground.
...
I'll chime in on this one... The good visibility of the UltraStar (hi
Skip) was my primary reason for buying one. In just about any plane, you
can fairly quickly get enough altitude to have the perception of going
slow. I fly because I want to get up there and see stuff--and I don't mean
the instruments and the engine cowling!!! I think I get more of a
sensation of speed flying around a mowed alfalfa field at 20' than you'd
get with most any other certified or experimental aircraft.
Between Ben and I, I think the thing that really got us going with
ultralights was our trip to Oshkosh in which it looked like the
ultralighters were having all the fun.
Another thing that contributes to most ultralight's good visibility is the
pusher configuration. Because of CG considerations, a rear engine means
the pilot goes further forward, reducing the one big blind spot that high
wing aircraft usually have--the wing. We still have it, however. Hi-wing
a/c have great vis downward to the side, but they're lousy in turns. (I
once had a C-5 close encounter where it passed 500' directly overhead
(approaching from back and left) and I only saw it coming because I was
scanning for shadows.) Personally I would rather not be in a pusher
otherwise because of the concern about loose objects going thru the prop.
I've always wondered if it would be feasable, aerodynamically and within
ultralight parameters, to design a low-wing ultralight that got enough
strength:weight by virtue of a really thick wing to do away with the lift
struts. (comments Dennis, Topher???) Some high-wing a/c are really bad
for visibility, as there is a reduction in frontal area to be gained by
having more vertical separation between pilot's eyes and the wing. To me
it's worth the sacrifice to have more separation.
One thing I didn't realize before I flew was the additional sacrifice in
visibility that is made with more reclined sitting positions. Lay way back
in a Lazy Boy chair and try to look straight behind you--doesn't work too
well. Sitting more upright incurs more frontal area, but I think it's
worth it for recreational flying. In this regard, a C-150 is actually very
good. Because of my plane's tailheavyness and my highth, I have to move
the seat all the way forward and it leaves me in kind of a scrunched up
reclined position that makes it more difficult to have that view back thru
the propeller.
p.s. Flying an UltraStar can be COLD!
Mike Ransom, Programmer/Analyst, Dept of Agronomy & Range Science
University of California, Davis U.S.A.
mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | March kitplanes oops |
Personally I would rather not be in a pusher
otherwise because of the concern about loose objects going thru the prop
Not to mention loose engine going thru the pilot in a crash
>I've always wondered if it would be feasable, aerodynamically and within
>ultralight parameters, to design a low-wing ultralight that got enough
>strength:weight by virtue of a really thick wing to do away with the lift
>struts. (comments Dennis, Topher
yes... there was a ultralight called the Intruder mark IIIb (originally
Birdman) or something like that very early in the ultralight movement, also
the Goldwing. Marske's flying wings are gliders but they would make a
great starting point for an ultralight design.
THe laser is heavier cause it is a twoplace and high horsepower but dennis
could pop out a low HP single design that would work.
Dennis did you see and complain about the cover of the March 99 Kit planes
yet... the TEAM laser! I cant believe they did that...
>One thing I didn't realize before I flew was the additional sacrifice in
>visibility that is made with more reclined sitting positions
When designing High g aircraft like the F-16 the more reclined you are the
better you tolerate Gs.... There was a design of the F-16 prototype that
had a 60 degree lean on the seat back. the plane was designed for 12 gs
sustaned flight and would easily take anything in the air (on paper).... but
the pilots said that they couldnt see anything except straight up and they
would be sitting ducks to anybody who came from below or behind.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Feb. Experimenter |
Sure is a beautiful FS2 on the read cover of the Feb. Experimenter
magazine!!
Who is Dick Rayhill and why ain't he here?
Geoff Thistlethwaite
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gvoigt3000(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 02/02/99 |
Ray, thanks for the info, I will have to do that. if not your show, at
least the one in wi.
thanks.
Gary r. voigt
mpls, mn.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gvoigt3000(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 02/02/99 |
woody, this is exactly the kind of info I was looking for. I kind of
thought that would be the case, but I was not 100% for sure. at least I,am
thinking on the same wave length as you guys.
thanks,
Gary r. voigt
mpls, mn.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gvoigt3000(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 02/02/99 |
Ron, thanks for the info, that would be great if when you have time to
give me a little tour. you can call me at your convienance to set up a time.
thanks,
Gary r. voigt
excelsior, mn.
612-474-3540
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Feb. Experimenter |
Geoff Thistlethwaite wrote:
> Sure is a beautiful FS2 on the read cover of the Feb. Experimenter
> magazine!!
> Who is Dick Rayhill and why ain't he here?
> Geoff Thistlethwaite
Geoff and Gang:
Maybe I can help.
That's the factory FS2 at Sun & Fun 98.
Dick flies the FS2 for the factory at Sun&Fun and OSH.
Dick has the reputation, at both flyins, to be the first up and the last
down. He loves to fly. Was working with Kolb in Spring City, Pa, and
probably still is. He keeps a J3 Cub and another old Piper in Homer
Kolb's hangar. He'll take off from up there early in the morning and
not return til late evening.
Dick is my flying buddy. He likes to fly the way I do.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
This is very valid and very true. I think I said a while back, that one of
my main reasons for buying a Kolb pusher came from flying a Cessna in the
mountains of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, and now in the mountains of
Southern California. With that huge engine and instrument panel right in
front of your nose, you cannot see down in front of you. When flying up
canyons, and allowing plenty of room, ( altitude ) I still make fairly
frequent S-turns to make sure I'm not going to spear myself on an unseen
pinnacle. With the tapered nose of the Kolb, and the bulging doors, and
pusher prop / engine, seeing down and ahead won't even be a factor. The
visibility is there ! ! ! Part of my ultralight training was in a Beaver,
a great little plane, but a tandem, and I like sitting Beside my passenger.
I don't think the point about the engine going through the pilot in the
event of a crash is valid. Maybe in a Challenger, with its' lower mounted
engine, but the set-up in the Kolb would have the engine / prop go over and
past you, in the event it ever tore loose. Big Lar.
----------
> From: Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: MKIII vs 150
> Date: Thursday, February 04, 1999 2:32 PM
>
>
> ...
> >John Roncz made the point in a forum at Oshkosh one time in discussing
his
> >new design, he started by describing why he had the forward swept wings
- it
> >was all for visibility. He ended up saying that visibilty was his #1
> >criterion for his new design because it is the reason many fly - to see
the
> >world beneath, not the sky above - you can see that just as well from
the
> >ground.
> ...
> I'll chime in on this one... The good visibility of the UltraStar (hi
> Skip) was my primary reason for buying one. In just about any plane, you
> can fairly quickly get enough altitude to have the perception of going
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
----------
> From: Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: MKIII vs 150
> Date: Thursday, February 04, 1999 2:32 PM
>
>
> ...
> >John Roncz made the point in a forum at Oshkosh one time in discussing
his
> >new design, he started by describing why he had the forward swept wings
- it
> >was all for visibility. He ended up saying that visibilty was his #1
> >criterion for his new design because it is the reason many fly - to see
the
> >world beneath, not the sky above - you can see that just as well from
the
> >ground.
> ...
> I'll chime in on this one... The good visibility of the UltraStar (hi
> Skip) was my primary reason for buying one. In just about any plane, you
> can fairly quickly get enough altitude to have the perception of going
> slow. I fly because I want to get up there and see stuff--and I don't
mean
> the instruments and the engine cowling!!! I think I get more of a
> sensation of speed flying around a mowed alfalfa field at 20' than you'd
> get with most any other certified or experimental aircraft.
>
> Between Ben and I, I think the thing that really got us going with
> ultralights was our trip to Oshkosh in which it looked like the
> ultralighters were having all the fun.
>
> Another thing that contributes to most ultralight's good visibility is
the
> pusher configuration. Because of CG considerations, a rear engine means
> the pilot goes further forward, reducing the one big blind spot that high
> wing aircraft usually have--the wing. We still have it, however.
Hi-wing
> a/c have great vis downward to the side, but they're lousy in turns. (I
> once had a C-5 close encounter where it passed 500' directly overhead
> (approaching from back and left) and I only saw it coming because I was
> scanning for shadows.) Personally I would rather not be in a pusher
> otherwise because of the concern about loose objects going thru the prop.
> I've always wondered if it would be feasable, aerodynamically and within
> ultralight parameters, to design a low-wing ultralight that got enough
> strength:weight by virtue of a really thick wing to do away with the lift
> struts. (comments Dennis, Topher???) Some high-wing a/c are really bad
> for visibility, as there is a reduction in frontal area to be gained by
> having more vertical separation between pilot's eyes and the wing. To me
> it's worth the sacrifice to have more separation.
>
> One thing I didn't realize before I flew was the additional sacrifice in
> visibility that is made with more reclined sitting positions. Lay way
back
> in a Lazy Boy chair and try to look straight behind you--doesn't work too
> well. Sitting more upright incurs more frontal area, but I think it's
> worth it for recreational flying. In this regard, a C-150 is actually
very
> good. Because of my plane's tailheavyness and my highth, I have to move
> the seat all the way forward and it leaves me in kind of a scrunched up
> reclined position that makes it more difficult to have that view back
thru
> the propeller.
>
> p.s. Flying an UltraStar can be COLD!
> Mike Ransom, Programmer/Analyst, Dept of Agronomy & Range Science
> University of California, Davis U.S.A.
> mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
to all my bros on this web page ! you can't compare GA to
ultralights, its like comparing oranges and apples. what were talking
about is a want and not a need. if we were talking about a need or
something neccessary to get a job done then we could make some kind of
comparison between ultralights and GA. since what we're talking about on
this page is something we use as a weekend toy any comparison between the
two is irrelevant ......................... tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
> I don't think the point about the engine going through the pilot in the
>event of a crash is valid. Maybe in a Challenger, with its' lower mounted
>engine, but the set-up in the Kolb would have the engine / prop go over and
>past you, in the event it ever tore loose. Big Lar.
Sorry about that... It was a joke. If you hit something hard enough to tear
the engine off the mounts and go through the main spar of the fuselage and
into you then you were dead before the engine got to you cause you are flat
as a pancake already. The cause of death in John Denver's Crash was
reported by the media as the engine went through him... which it might very
well have done, but he was probably already dead from the impact with the
ground. I was trying to make a point that that arguement is not a valid
reason to be against pushers... I was once again too light with my sarcasm.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Carb needle wear |
>Jim, your needles should have O rings on top to prevent turning and the
>incipient wear which causes the failure. If you do not have these then go
and
>buy them. They're a stock item.
Yes Todd, my bing carbs have the O rings. And the wear is still happening.
jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 02/02/99 |
>
>
> Let me know if you are interested in a tour.
>>
>>Ron
>
>
>I am building a FSII in Osceola WI... I would be interested in a tour of
>your shop some day... we are almost getting enough Kolb aircraft in the twin
>cities area to form a club.
>
>Chris Armstrong
>
Calling it a shop is much too flattering. It is really just a collection
point that has displaced 2 cars. It does however contain my project which
you are welcome to visit whenever you are in the area. I try to work on it
every evening and on weekends, barring other obligations. I want to cover
it this spring. Phone me at 612 921 6923 during the work day or 612 431
0765 otherwise if you are going to be in the area and I'll give you
directions to the site.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: crash worthiness, engine location |
On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Christopher John Armstrong wrote:
> Sorry about that... It was a joke. If you hit something hard enough to tear
> the engine off the mounts and go through the main spar of the fuselage and
> into you then you were dead before the engine got to you cause you are flat
> as a pancake already. The cause of death in John Denver's Crash was
> reported by the media as the engine went through him... which it might very
> well have done, but he was probably already dead from the impact with the
> ground. I was trying to make a point that that arguement is not a valid
> reason to be against pushers... I was once again too light with my sarcasm.
>
> Topher
Hey Topher,
I think there must be several crash scenarios where the rear engine is
worse even if it stays mounted. It is all that much more mass to crumple
whatever is between it and the point of contact. There must be very few
crash scenarios where a rear engine is better than a front engine, although
engine fire comes to mind. Sadly, an aquaintance and well known aviator
near here (Vern Dahlmann, in Harmon Rocket) died from front engine fire
recently.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mr. Chuck" <mrchuck(at)1st.net> |
Whar is Rittman, Oh. I live outside of Bellaire, Oh & building a firestar II
Chuck S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII vs 150 |
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com wrote:
> to all my bros on this web page ! you can't compare GA to
> ultralights, its like comparing oranges and apples. what were talking
> about is a want and not a need. if we were talking about a need or
> something neccessary to get a job done then we could make some kind of
> comparison between ultralights and GA. since what we're talking about on
> this page is something we use as a weekend toy any comparison between the
> two is irrelevant ......................... tim
>
Tim,
I agree with you. However, I've heard plenty of people say they are
thinking about getting into GA with the thought that the cost is partially
offset by the ability to occassionally fly for business, i.e. a Need.
In fact, I think that turns out to be practical only for a few people,
so it is important --as you suggest -- to decide how much you *Need* vs
*Want* to fly and let that help guide you in the *What* column.
-Ben 'Web Bro' Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Digest: 02/02/99 |
This may be Ben's $.02, but I would like to add two more cents. I couldn't have
said it better myself.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J (in the hanger since November)
SE Wisconsin
Ben Ransom wrote:
>
> Gary,
> I love my Kolb, but if I were in your shoes I would not buy a new
> ultralight yet, whether it is Kolb, Quick, or anything else. I would
> take USUA lessons (~$750) as this will be needed no matter what you do
> and it will give you an idea of what a Quick is like. You hopefully will
> then get a chance to rent a single place Quick for at least a little bit.
> It flies like a super light little kite. It is fun too. A single place
> Kolb is faster, flies a little heavier and with noticably less drag,
> and requires just a little more experience to get into than a Quick.
> Don't downplay the 500 hours build time if you want a new Kolb. That's
> a lot to do -- and I enjoyed it myself -- but you ought to fly some
> first.
>
> my $.02
> -Ben Ransom
> My Kolb pics at http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
>
> >just signed up for this. I, am what you would call a "kolb" wanna
> >be. I ,am hoping someome can give me good solid information. I have
> >wanted to fly ultralights every since the weedhopper came out I think
> >together. both are very competitve in price and the firestar looks to be
> >sleeker built than the quickersilver but it is the differance between 60
> >hours and 500 hrs. if these are true hrs. and I like the idea of fold up
> >wings. I want to thank you in advance for your help if you can e-mail
> >or call me collect if you have built one of these or can give me some
> >good information so I to can enjoy the sport in a safe manner.
> > thanks,
> > Gary r. voigt
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com |
| Subject: | Re: Digest: 02/02/99 |
john, in the hanger since november ? why, shame on you ! install an
enclosure and heat . ain't no use lettin' winter keep you out of the sky
............... tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Group: At around 3:00 PM this afternoon, I inadvertently, by
accident, by mistake, and by virtue of a massive brain fart, erased 13
messages sent between about 9:30 PM last night and today, before I had a
chance to read them. Can anyone relay those messages to me ?? Also, if
you sent a personal message, please re-send it. Possum, I got yours, thank
you. Now I just have to figure out how to open it. Thanks all.
Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
| Subject: | PLEASE READ - I Need Your Help... |
Dear Listers,
I received the letter below from J.P. Instruments' attorneys yesterday.
J.P. Instruments (JPI) manufactures aircraft engine monitoring instruments
and they are based out of Huntington Beach, California. In the letter, JPI
alleges that because Matronics (my company and sponsor of these email lists)
uses the name "FUEL SCAN" on our product, Matronics is infringing on JPI's
registered trademark of "SCANNER". (The actual name of the Matronics
product is "FUELSCAN" not "FUEL SCAN" as indicated.) They are requesting
that Matronics discontinue the use of the name "FUEL SCAN" by
February 19, 1999 or they will "resort to legal remedies."
As you can imagine, this is very upsetting information. Changing the name
of the FuelScan now will cost thousands of dollars by having to redo product
literature, brochures, documentation, silk screening and a host of other
items that include the name. Many of these items have been reproduced in
large quantities to make the reproduction costs more affordable. All of
this would have to be discarded and reproduced if Matronics is forced
to comply. Perhaps even more significant, however, is the fact that
after 4 years on the market, the Matronics FuelScan is just now becoming
more widely known as a fine and reliable product. Changing the FuelScan's
name at this critical time in the product's life would be a devastating
blow to both the long term successfulness of the FuelScan as well as
to financial stability of Matronics. Complying with JPI's request could
cause Matronics to cease to exist as we now know it and might very well
jeopardize the many other services Matronics provides to the Aviation
community such as these email Lists and web site.
With that all being said, I'm not sure what to do at this point. There is
no way that I can afford to fight JPI over this. I definitely don't want
to just roll over and give them their way, either. It just doesn't seem
quite fair that they could put me out of business because, in their
estimation, "my product might be confused with their's".
If there is anyone out there that could offer some legal advise or
consultation in these matters, I would really appreciate it. It would
also seem, that with nearly 1900 members on the combined four email Lists,
we would represent a rather strong voice. If anyone has any ideas on how
to organize that strength to help resolve this matter, I would love to
hear it.
I would like to thank everyone here in advance for all of your support over
the years. It's in times like these that it becomes very apparent what a
truly great group of people these Lists represent. I thank you.
Matt Dralle
Matronics
RV, Rocket, Kolb & Zenith List Admin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprint of FACSIMILE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Price, Gess & Ubell
Attorneys at Law
2100 S.E. Main Street, Suite 250
Irvine, California 92614-6238
February 5, 1999
Joseph W. Price
Albin H. Gess
Franklin D. Ubell
Doyle B. Johnson
Michael J. Moffatt
Gordon E. Gray III
Bradley D. Blanche
A Professional Corporation
Telephone: (949) 261-8433
Facsimile: (949) 261-9072
Facsimile: (949) 261-1726
e-mail: pgu(at)pgulaw.com
VIA FACSIMILE
-------------
President
Matronics, Inc.
P.O. Box 347
Livermore, CA 94551
Re: J.P. Instruments v. Matronics, Inc.
Our Ref: JPI1-700a
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed for your review is the federal trademark registration for
"SCANNER" owned by J.P. Instruments. We have recently discovered your use
of the mark "FUEL SCAN" for after-market aircraft parts. The use of
FUEL SCAN is likely to cause confusion with our client's trademark
SCANNER and therefore infringes our client's trademark.
We request that you respect our client's intellectual property
rights and stop using the FUEL SCAN mark. If you do not confirm that
you have stopped using the FUEL SCAN mark by February 19, 1999, our
client will resort to its legal remedies.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
PRICE, GESS & UBELL
[signature]
Gordon E. Gray
GEG:xox
Enclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprint of Trademark Enclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Int. Cl.: 9
Prior U.S. Cl.: 26
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Reg. No 1,943,281
Registered Dec. 26, 1995
TRADEMARK
PRINCIPAL REGISTER
SCANNER
J.P. INSTRUMENTS (CALIFORNIA CORPORATION)
1540-K EAST EDINGER
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
FOR: ENGINE TEMPERATURE INDICATORS, IN CLASS 9 (U.S. CL. 26)
FIRST USE 6-0-1884; IN COMMERCE 6-0-1984.
SEC. 2(F).
SER. NO. 73-742,104, FILED 7-25-1988
KATHRYN ERSKINE, EXAMINING ATTORNEY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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: | "kirk smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
I wonder if anybody has tried a Walter Lom 65/75hp engine on a Kolb? Looks
like it could be a good application.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ - I Need Your Help... |
Matt, will an e mail deluge help. Say the word--and give a few hints as
content. Grey Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Cowen <jcowen(at)APK.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ - I Need Your Help... |
Doesn't sound close enough to worry about-what's their beef?
Jim
Matt Dralle 925-606-1001 wrote:
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> I received the letter below from J.P. Instruments' attorneys yesterday.
> J.P. Instruments (JPI) manufactures aircraft engine monitoring instruments
> and they are based out of Huntington Beach, California. In the letter, JPI
> alleges that because Matronics (my company and sponsor of these email lists)
> uses the name "FUEL SCAN" on our product, Matronics is infringing on JPI's
> registered trademark of "SCANNER". (The actual name of the Matronics
> product is "FUELSCAN" not "FUEL SCAN" as indicated.) They are requesting
> that Matronics discontinue the use of the name "FUEL SCAN" by
> February 19, 1999 or they will "resort to legal remedies."
>
> As you can imagine, this is very upsetting information. Changing the name
> of the FuelScan now will cost thousands of dollars by having to redo product
> literature, brochures, documentation, silk screening and a host of other
> items that include the name. Many of these items have been reproduced in
> large quantities to make the reproduction costs more affordable. All of
> this would have to be discarded and reproduced if Matronics is forced
> to comply. Perhaps even more significant, however, is the fact that
> after 4 years on the market, the Matronics FuelScan is just now becoming
> more widely known as a fine and reliable product. Changing the FuelScan's
> name at this critical time in the product's life would be a devastating
> blow to both the long term successfulness of the FuelScan as well as
> to financial stability of Matronics. Complying with JPI's request could
> cause Matronics to cease to exist as we now know it and might very well
> jeopardize the many other services Matronics provides to the Aviation
> community such as these email Lists and web site.
>
> With that all being said, I'm not sure what to do at this point. There is
> no way that I can afford to fight JPI over this. I definitely don't want
> to just roll over and give them their way, either. It just doesn't seem
> quite fair that they could put me out of business because, in their
> estimation, "my product might be confused with their's".
>
> If there is anyone out there that could offer some legal advise or
> consultation in these matters, I would really appreciate it. It would
> also seem, that with nearly 1900 members on the combined four email Lists,
> we would represent a rather strong voice. If anyone has any ideas on how
> to organize that strength to help resolve this matter, I would love to
> hear it.
>
> I would like to thank everyone here in advance for all of your support over
> the years. It's in times like these that it becomes very apparent what a
> truly great group of people these Lists represent. I thank you.
>
>
> Matt Dralle
> Matronics
> RV, Rocket, Kolb & Zenith List Admin.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reprint of FACSIMILE
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Price, Gess & Ubell
> Attorneys at Law
> 2100 S.E. Main Street, Suite 250
> Irvine, California 92614-6238
> February 5, 1999
>
> Joseph W. Price
> Albin H. Gess
> Franklin D. Ubell
> Doyle B. Johnson
> Michael J. Moffatt
> Gordon E. Gray III
> Bradley D. Blanche
>
> A Professional Corporation
> Telephone: (949) 261-8433
> Facsimile: (949) 261-9072
> Facsimile: (949) 261-1726
>
> e-mail: pgu(at)pgulaw.com
>
> VIA FACSIMILE
> -------------
>
> President
> Matronics, Inc.
> P.O. Box 347
> Livermore, CA 94551
>
> Re: J.P. Instruments v. Matronics, Inc.
> Our Ref: JPI1-700a
>
> Dear Sir or Madam:
>
> Enclosed for your review is the federal trademark registration for
> "SCANNER" owned by J.P. Instruments. We have recently discovered your use
> of the mark "FUEL SCAN" for after-market aircraft parts. The use of
> FUEL SCAN is likely to cause confusion with our client's trademark
> SCANNER and therefore infringes our client's trademark.
>
> We request that you respect our client's intellectual property
> rights and stop using the FUEL SCAN mark. If you do not confirm that
> you have stopped using the FUEL SCAN mark by February 19, 1999, our
> client will resort to its legal remedies.
>
> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
>
> Very truly yours,
>
> PRICE, GESS & UBELL
>
> [signature]
>
> Gordon E. Gray
>
> GEG:xox
> Enclosure
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reprint of Trademark Enclosure
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Int. Cl.: 9
> Prior U.S. Cl.: 26
> United States Patent and Trademark Office
>
> Reg. No 1,943,281
> Registered Dec. 26, 1995
>
> TRADEMARK
> PRINCIPAL REGISTER
>
> SCANNER
>
> J.P. INSTRUMENTS (CALIFORNIA CORPORATION)
> 1540-K EAST EDINGER
> SANTA ANA, CA 92705
>
> FOR: ENGINE TEMPERATURE INDICATORS, IN CLASS 9 (U.S. CL. 26)
>
> FIRST USE 6-0-1884; IN COMMERCE 6-0-1984.
> SEC. 2(F).
>
> SER. NO. 73-742,104, FILED 7-25-1988
>
> KATHRYN ERSKINE, EXAMINING ATTORNEY
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
>
> 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: | "Christopher Heitman" <cjh(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: PLEASE READ - I Need Your Help... |
Here is an excerpt from an email that I just sent to JPI. I sent it to
their technical support email address with a request that it be forwarded to
the president/CEO. I will also drop a copy in the mail:
President
J. P. Instruments
3402-I West Macarther Blvd.
Santa Ana, CA 92704
February 6, 1999
Re: J.P.Instruments v. Matronics, Inc.
Please call your dogs (PRICE, GESS & UBELL) off of Matronics, Inc.
If not, be prepared for a tremendous backlash from the aviation community.
Word of this was posted on the RV builder's list just minutes ago and one
builder has already decided to switch to from JPI to Electronics
International. He will not be the only one.
Nobody is going to confuse "Scanner" with "Fuelscan" and to claim such is an
insult to the aviation consumer.
The community of EAA members and other homebuilders is a tight-knit one that
respects the services that Matronics offers. There is already way too much
litigation going on over ridiculous matters and seeing your threat of
litigation instills a great deal of anger among your current and potential
future customers. Do not forget how effective the internet, EAA Chapter
meetings and fly-in's are in spreading the word about this spineless assault
on a much respected small company.
A personal response would be appreciated.
Regards,
Christopher Heitman
Dousman, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kirk smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
Lawyers are a lot like poker players, a lot of games can be won without
showing your cards. Have a lawyer look at it, it won't cost that much for a
legal opinion. Maybe a local judge will offer his opinion.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thomas L. King" <kingdome(at)tcac.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ - I Need Your Help... |
Matt it seems to me that if anyone is confused by FUEL SCAN as opposed to
"temperature" SCANNER they are not bright enough to be able to pilot an
aircraft. Perhaps those lawyers?
I do not know if it would be any help, but I too am ready to join an email
deluge-----
Tom King
925-606-1001)
>
>
>Dear Listers,
"snip"
> Enclosed for your review is the federal trademark registration for
>"SCANNER" owned by J.P. Instruments. We have recently discovered your use
>of the mark "FUEL SCAN" for after-market aircraft parts. The use of
>FUEL SCAN is likely to cause confusion with our client's trademark
>SCANNER and therefore infringes our client's trademark.
>snip---snip
>TRADEMARK
>PRINCIPAL REGISTER
>
>SCANNER
>
>J.P. INSTRUMENTS (CALIFORNIA CORPORATION)
>1540-K EAST EDINGER
>SANTA ANA, CA 92705
>
> FOR: ENGINE TEMPERATURE INDICATORS, IN CLASS 9 (U.S. CL. 26)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Feb. Experimenter |
| From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Guys,
Also checkout the front cover with that pretty yellow Titan Tornado built
by
Al Reay, a friend and mentor who builds some fabulous machines.
It was a fabulous ski flying day here in Minnesota. A friend and I flew
all over the lake at 5' AGL. This type of ground effect flying is really
a lot of fun. It's amazing to see the looks on peoples faces as we pass
by. Noticed some GA guys doing the same thing. It's catching on.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
>Sure is a beautiful FS2 on the read cover of the Feb. Experimenter
>magazine!!
>Geoff Thistlethwaite
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Update on Phone Charges |
-----Original Message-----
From: Hollis Bridges <hobama(at)juno.com>
Date: Saturday, February 06, 1999 11:51 AM
Subject: Update on Phone Charges
>
>
>About the Internet fee. That is not true information. I am sending you
>the text from the FCC page on that issue.
>
>Here it is:
>
>THE FCC, INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, AND ACCESS CHARGES
>
>This fact sheet offers informal guidance on an issue that has generated a
>great deal of public interest. For more specific details about the
>proceedings currently before the Commission, please visit our web site
>(http://www.fcc.gov/).
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>In December 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requested
>public comment on issues relating to the charges that Internet Service
>Providers (ISPs) and similar companies pay to local telephone companies.
>On May 7, 1997, the FCC decided to leave the existing rate structure in
>place.
>In other words, the FCC decided not to allow local telephone companies to
>impose per-minute access charged on ISPs.
>
>Please Note: There is no open comment period in this proceeding. If you
>have recently seen a message on the Internet stating that in response to
>a request from local telephone companies, the FCC is requesting comments
>to by February 1998, be aware that this information is
>inaccurate.
>
>The FCC issued an unrelated public notice, DA 98-2, on January 5, 1998 in
>connection with a report to Congress on universal service. Pursuant to
>the FCC's 1998 appropriations legislation, the Commission must submit a
>report by April 10, 1998 on several issues including the legal status of
>Internet services under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Comments in
>response to the public notice are due January 20, 1998, and reply
>comments are due February 2, 1998. Informal comments may be sent by email
>to
>.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Background Information
>
>Each long distance telephone call you make includes per-minute fees that
>your long distance carrier pays to the originating and terminating local
>telephone companies over whose facilities that call also travelled. Those
>fees, which are designed to recover the costs to local telephone
>companies for use of their facilities, are referred to as "access
>charges."
>
>As part of its Access Reform proceeding, CC Docket 96-262, the FCC in
>December 1996 sought comment on the treatment of ISPs and other "enhanced
>service providers" that also use local telephone companies' facilities.
>Since the access charge system was established in 1983, enhanced service
>providers have been classified as "end users" rather than "carriers" for
>purposes of the access charge rules, and therefore they do not pay the
>per-minute access charges that long-distance companies pay to local
>telephone companies.
>
>In the Access Reform Order, FCC 97-158, adopted on May 7, 1997, the FCC
>concluded that the existing rate structure for ISPs should remain in
>place.
>In other words, the Commission reaffirmed that ISPs are not required to
>pay interstate access charges.
>
>When it began the Access Reform proceeding, the Commission also issued a
>Notice of Inquiry, CC Docket 96-263, seeking comment more broadly on
>usage of the public switched telephone network by Internet and interstate
>information service providers. A Notice of Inquiry is a request for
>information that does not involve any specific proposed action. The
>Commission stated in the Access Reform order that it intended to use the
>Notice of Inquiry record to develop a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
>(NPRM) proposing actions to facilitate the efficient deployment of data
>networks.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Frequently Asked Questions on Internet Services and Access Charges
>
>Q: Does the FCC regulate the rates charged by Internet Service Providers
>(ISPs)?
>
>A: No. ISPs are considered "enhanced service providers" under FCC rules.
>The FCC does not regulate the rates that enhanced service providers
>charge to their subscribers.
> --------------------------------------
>
>Q: How does the FCC regulate the rates that local telephone companies
>charge to ISPs?
>
>A: ISPs purchase local phone lines so that customers can call them. Under
>FCC rules, enhanced service providers ISPs are considered "end users"
>when they purchase services from local telephone companies. Thus, ISPs
>pay the same rates as any other business customer, and these rates are
>set separately in each state. By contrast, long-distance companies are
>considered "carriers," and they pay interstate access charges regulated
>by the FCC.
> --------------------------------------
>
>Q: How are access charges different from the rates ISPs pay now?
>
>A: Today, ISPs typically purchase "business lines" from local phone
>companies. Business lines usually include a flat monthly charge, and a
>per-minute charge for making outgoing calls. Because ISPs receive calls
>from their subscribers rather than making outgoing calls, ISPs generally
>do not pay any per-minute charges for their lines, which is one reason
>many ISPs do not charge per-minute rates for Internet access. Access
>charges, by contrast, include per-minute fees for both outgoing and
>incoming calls. The rate levels of interstate access charges are also in
>many cases higher than the flat business line rates ISPs pay today.
> --------------------------------------
>
>Q: Have local phone companies requested authority from the FCC to charge
>per-minute rates to ISPs?
>
>A: Since 1983, there has been an ongoing debate about whether enhanced
>service providers should be required to pay access charges, based on the
>contention that these companies use local networks in the same manner as
>, US West, and NYNEX) submitted studies to the
>FCC concerning the effects of Internet usage on these carriers' networks.
>The companies argued that the existing rate structure did not reflect the
>costs imposed on local telephone companies to support Internet access,
>and that Internet usage was causing congestion in part of the local
>network. In connection with these studies and other pleadings, several
>local phone companies have asked the FCC for authority to charge
>interstate access charges to ISPs, although they have not filed a formal
>petition for rulemaking.
> --------------------------------------
>
>Q: Is the FCC considering allowing local phone companies to impose access
>charges on ISPs?
>
>A: The FCC requested public comment in December 1996 on whether ISPs
>should pay current access charges, and more generally on how Internet and
>interstate information services that use local telephone networks should
>be treated. The Commission concluded on May 7, 1997 that ISPs should not
>be subject to interstate access charges. There is currently no open
>comment period on this issue.
> --------------------------------------
>
>Q: Does the FCC currently have an ongoing proceeding on Internet and
>interstate information services?
>
>A: The FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in December 1996, at the same
>time as it asked for comment on whether ISPs should be subject to access
>charges. The NOI asked generally about how to create incentives for
>companies to make the most efficient use of the telephone network for
>Internet and other information services. The comment period for the NOI
>is closed, but the FCC has stated that it plans to issue a Notice of
>Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) asking for comment on more specific proposals
>based on the responses to the NOI. The NPRM will consider actions other
>than imposition of per-minute access charges on ISPs.
> --------------------------------------
>
>Q: What is the difference between a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) and a Notice
>of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)?
>
>A: A NOI is the earliest step in the FCC's process and typically asks
>questions in an effort to gather enough information to make informed
>proposals on a given topic. A NPRM is a request for comment on specific
>proposals made by the Commission. After the FCC reviews the comments
>filed in response to an NPRM, the FCC can issue a Report and Order
>adopting new rules.
> --------------------------------------
>
>Q: Are comments filed by other parties be available for review?
>
>A: Yes. All formal comments are available for review in the FCC Reference
>Center in Washington DC, and copies may be purchased through
>International Transcription Services, which can be reached at
>202-857-3800. In addition, copies of comments that were submitted on
>diskette are available for review at
>http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/comments.html.
> --------------------------------------
>
>Q: Is the FCC considering taxes for use of the Internet or online
>services?
>
>A: No. The debate involves charges levied by local phone companies, not
>government taxes.
> --------------------------------------
>
>Q: Is this the "FCC modem tax" that has been floating around the Internet
>in various forms for several years?
>
>A: The "modem tax" referred to a proposal in 1987 to require enhanced
>service providers to pay interstate access charges, which at that time
>were significantly higher than they are today. The 1987 proposal was
>abandoned in 1988. The current Access Reform proceeding is entirely
>separate.
> --------------------------------------
>
>For more specific questions, see the Access Reform page on the on the FCC
>Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html.
>
>Last Updated January 7, 1998
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Update on Phone Charges |
what a waste of BW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ronald Vandervort <rvanderv(at)linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: PLEASE READ - I Need Your Help... |
Matt,
Two things I feel are relevant;
1) You can tell them you have stopped using FUEL SCAN because you
in fact don't use it. Or you can tell them you never have
used FUEL SCAN.
2) I believe they are blowing smoke. SCANNER is too general of a
term. There are a host of products out there with SCAN
somewhere in the product name. I believe they are fishing...,
and sure can't understand why. Someone has their hat on
crossways.
Please keep us posted on the developments.
Good luck,
Ron Vandervort
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Waligroski, Greg" <gwaligro(at)ball.com> |
Sounds like the JPI lawyers need to justify their existance and retainer fee
to JPI. Hmmm, "scanner", gosh if i'm not mistaken there's a couple of
pieces of electronic equipment at my lab at work that have that name on
them, I wonder if those manufactureres (HP, deep legal pockets) would like
to know JPI is using their trademark (with no spelling differences)? Sorry
to hear Matronix has this happening, basically getting a little legal
extortion that may bankrupt you either to make the changes or hire the
"legal" help you need to defend it - a case an English teacher could decide
in 2 seconds. I guess this is something that could happen to any of us. I
agree with Christopher Heitman's approach and will likewise send mail, email
and word of mouth, maybe post a few flyers at the local airports(?) at your
request......
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ - I Need Your Help... |
A few years ago here in Windsor Ont. the Olympia restaurant in operation
for 30yrs was asked to change their name so as not to be confused with the
olympic games. It was thrown out of court as there could be no confusion. Of
course that was a Canadian court where such litigation is frowned upon. In
your case I would suggest that you suggest they go after Logitec and other
computer firms that have the nerve to advertise items such as scanners
without consulting them first. When they get a court order to stop computer
companies from using the whole word "scanner " then they can go after you
the little guy using part of the word. Personally I think it is just some
lawyers with nothing else to do and wanted to raise a little fast and easy
cash. Winning isn't important,they get paid for bringing things to court.
You may be able to go after them for harrassment as anyone can see there
could be no confusion in the name. If you used the term fuel scan first
perhaps you should go after them for using the name scanner.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Swihart" <mswihart(at)tcsn.net> |
| Subject: | PLEASE READ - I Need Your Help... |
Matt, Talk to an attorney....Don't screw around about this...Its
bogus...Lets
face it. The company is trying to stomp on the competition..
If anything, Fortune 500 company's such as HP, Canon, Panasonic, etc.
ought to get in the act and go after this dud who is giving you grief..Why?
They manufacture Scanners! Flatbed scanners, FAX scanners, etc.
-My 2 cents worth-
Bradley, CA
Litigation State of the Union....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KEstrobes(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Photos needed, Thanks |
Hi Group,
I am putting a web page together and am looking for some neat pictures of
your planes to put in a PHOTO ALBUM section. Any close up shots for
installations of Kuntzleman Electronics products would be nice but not
necessary. Please email photos as JPG to KEstrobes(at)aol.com
You are all welcome to take a look at what I have so far, comments
welcome. Thanks in advance
http://members.aol.com/KEstrobes/index/home.h
tm
Dick Kuntzleman
Kuntzleman Electronics, Inc.
PS. No COPYRIGHT PLEASE!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
Bill & all,
I seems I indented the URL too far and part of it went to the next line,
try
http://members.aol.com/kestrobes/index/home.htm Sorry about that
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | arnwine(at)toad.net |
| Subject: | Scanner Controversy |
Common guys, "Scanner" is so generic it's like saying "liquid"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
Kirk,
Haven't seen a thing on it. Where do I look?
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
| Subject: | PLEASE READ - Lister Response Wonderful! |
Dear Listers,
I am truly overwhelmed by the wonderful List response and support I have
received in the last 24 hours! My email box was literally jammed-packed
with hundreds of supportive comments from Listers this morning!
I would like to thank each and everyone of you for your support in this
matter. Many of you have asked "What can I do?" and I think at this point
that letter writing will be the most effective. I encourage you to please
send a note to JPI and indicate your feelings on this matter. *Please*
keep your comments polite and professional as this will work the best
especially when received in large quantities. I don't want to tell you what
you should say in your letter, as I feel this should come from your own
personal feelings on the matter. As a template, however, I would suggest
that you review some of the letters that have been CCd to the Lists
already. I have been very pleased with the content and professionalism
of these letters, and would encourage *all* to do similarly. Please also
CC the Lists with a copy of your letter. This is an excellent way to
inspire everyone to do the same.
I would also suggest that you not only send your letter to their email
address, but also follow it up with a FAX and an actual US Post letter.
I have included below all of the necessary address information for both JPI
as well as their Attorneys.
Again, I want to thank everyone here for their outstanding support on this
matter! I will certainly keep Lists abreast of any new developments.
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Matronics
RV, Rocket, Kolb, Zenith List Admin.
JPI Address Information
-----------------------
Email: 75147.3127(at)CompuServe.com
US Mail:
J.P. Instruments
3402-I West Macarthur Blvd.
Santa Ana, Ca 92704
Fax: (714) 557-9840
Phone: (714) 557-3805
Price, Gess & Ubell Address Information
Email: pgu(at)pgulaw.com
US Mail:
Price, Gess & Ubell
Gordon E. Gray
2100 S.E. Main Street, Suite 250
Irvine, California 92614-6238
Fax: (949) 261-9072 and (949) 261-1726
Phone: (949) 261-8453
--
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: | "Steve Carrozzo" <steve(at)concourse.net> |
| Subject: | ultralight financing |
Dear Kolb List Readers,
Does anyone know of a company that would loan enough $ (9-12k) to purchase a
used Kolb firefly/enclosed trailer? I am eager to buy soon, and a little too
impatient to wait the 2-3 years it would take to put the $ aside.
Does anyone have any suggestions besides selling my truck and riding a
skateboard to work?
Thanks for the input,
Steve Carrozzo
steve(at)concourse.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Klmidd97(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ultralight financing |
I am also interested in ultralight financing($12-13k). I am in the same boat
as Steve is. There is 3 of my friends interested, maybe a partnership would
work, but I think that would be a big headache, probably would want to fly at
the same time, etc. Also, I'm from the Tri-City area of Wa, is anybody from
around here that I could talk to and look at your setup? I had my first flight
in a ultralight 2 weeks ago and now I am hooked!
Thank you,
Keith Middleton
Klmidd97(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Bruner" <brunerd(at)ulster.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: kirk smith <snuffy(at)usol.com>
Date: Saturday, February 06, 1999 4:49 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Walter Lom
>
>I wonder if anybody has tried a Walter Lom 65/75hp engine on a Kolb? Looks
>like it could be a good application.
Found a web site that describes them:
http://www.moraviation.com/walter.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul VonLindern <paulv(at)digisys.net> |
| Subject: | Instrument Panel |
Hello everyone
I am interested in some photos instrument panels if anyone has any. We
are getting closer to that part of the project and would like ideas
before we get there.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rutledge Fuller" <rut007(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carb needle wear |
You can also make a larger gap in the clip, install the needle and
secure it with locktite 290. I would recommend replacing the clip and
needle and trying the "o" ring method again with new parts. The
Locktite method will work for your old parts as long as the wear is not
sever.
Rutledge Fuller
Tallahassee, Fl.
----Original Message Follows----
From: gerken(at)us.ibm.com
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 06:36:52 -0600
Subject: Kolb-List: Carb needle wear
>Jim, your needles should have O rings on top to prevent turning and the
>incipient wear which causes the failure. If you do not have these then
go
and
>buy them. They're a stock item.
Yes Todd, my bing carbs have the O rings. And the wear is still
happening.
jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PaulSpadin(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Carb needle wear |
<<
secure it with locktite 290. I would recommend replacing the clip and >>
I don't think locktite is very good idea.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F J MARINO" <FMARINO(at)netlink1.nlcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carb needle wear |
To all Kolbers just curious as to how many Kolb flyers had a problem with
the carb needles, and is the rubber washer a local purchase item for 10
cents or a $10 item from the Rotax suppliers.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Rutledge Fuller <rut007(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Carb needle wear
>
>
>You can also make a larger gap in the clip, install the needle and
>secure it with locktite 290. I would recommend replacing the clip and
>needle and trying the "o" ring method again with new parts. The
>Locktite method will work for your old parts as long as the wear is not
>sever.
>
>Rutledge Fuller
>Tallahassee, Fl.
>
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: gerken(at)us.ibm.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 06:36:52 -0600
>Subject: Kolb-List: Carb needle wear
>
>
>>Jim, your needles should have O rings on top to prevent turning and the
>>incipient wear which causes the failure. If you do not have these then
>go
>and
>>buy them. They're a stock item.
>
>
>Yes Todd, my bing carbs have the O rings. And the wear is still
>happening.
>
>jim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | J.P. Instrument's legal action against Matronics |
Jim Irwin, CEO
Aircraft Spruce
Dear Mr. Irwin,
As an Aircraft Spruce customer and builder of an RV-8A (emp finished &
awaiting Quick Build kit) I was very dismayed to learn of J.P.
Instruments' attempt to use a harassment lawsuit against Matronics (a
small firm marketing their "FuelScan" instrument). In JPI's legal action
begun late last week JPI asserts that Matronics use of the product
description name "Fuel Scan" infringes on their "SCANNER" copyright. JPI
copyrighted "SCANNER" in 1988 for their temperature indicators - which
you market. While Matronics has been utilizing "FUELSCAN" prior to JPI
including fuel scanning in their instrument, they appear to be resorting
to legal harassment to compete.
News of JPI's action is spreading like "Wild Fire" through out the
custom/kit building market, with unanimous condemnation. We have more
than enough harassing lawsuits already, which have had a very negative
impact on General Aviation. For a complete copy of the JPI's attorneys
letter please contact Matt Dralle at dralle(at)matronics.com.
Please be aware that I will not purchase any item from JPI or any other
firm that supports their heavy handed legal harassment (bullying),
either through direct action or lack of action. Your review of this
matter and a response is greatly appreciated.
Chuck Rowbotham
RV-8A in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Carb needle wear |
In a message dated 2/8/99 9:12:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
FMARINO(at)netlink1.nlcomm.com writes:
<< To all Kolbers just curious as to how many Kolb flyers had a problem with
the carb needles, and is the rubber washer a local purchase item for 10
cents or a $10 item from the Rotax suppliers.
Frank >>
I just cut the top off a Trojan and I'm flyin hi buddy!!
Hey I gave a copy of your weight and balance to Harris
I think I might be able to get a hot blooded Italian black haired girl who
wants a MAN to go with you if your interested. .....lemme know .....I'm comin
over in an hour or so ...I'll call this morning........GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F J MARINO" <FMARINO(at)netlink1.nlcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Sport Pilot License |
This past weekend I got my CFI renewed at Kent St U. which was sponsered by
the AOPA and the FAA, one of the topics was the Sport Pilot License, which
according to the aopa rep it is a hot item and may be coming in the very
near future. They mentioned that if you are a USUA BFI or an advanced flight
instructor that you will probably have to get an FAA CFI, and from what I
understand the license might replace the recreational pilots license and
that ultralight pilots will also get the sport license. I talked to the
instructor while we where on break and he said that the sport license might
be a way to make fat ultrlights legal. With the sport license the medical
will be a self medical (wonder how you give your self a rectal check) any
way the Aopa rep thinks it will be here soon. Then the next 15 hours was
pure torture going over the changes in the FAA Regs
Frank
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ultralight financing |
Check out this web page for more information on financing.
http://home.navisoft.com/kitfoxbuilder/finance.htm
In a message dated 2/8/99 12:38:54 AM Mountain Standard Time, Klmidd97(at)aol.com
writes:
> I am also interested in ultralight financing($12-13k). I am in the same boat
> as Steve is. There is 3 of my friends interested, maybe a partnership would
> work, but I think that would be a big headache, probably would want to fly
> at
> the same time, etc. Also, I'm from the Tri-City area of Wa, is anybody from
> around here that I could talk to and look at your setup? I had my first
> flight
> in a ultralight 2 weeks ago and now I am hooked!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | swultra <swultra(at)primenet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ultralight financing |
Klmidd97(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> I am also interested in ultralight financing($12-13k). I am in the same boat
> as Steve is. There is 3 of my friends interested, maybe a partnership would
> work, but I think that would be a big headache, probably would want to fly at
> the same time, etc. Also, I'm from the Tri-City area of Wa, is anybody from
> around here that I could talk to and look at your setup? I had my first flight
> in a ultralight 2 weeks ago and now I am hooked!
>
> Thank you,
>
> Keith Middleton
> Klmidd97(at)aol.com
>
Hi Keith, I used to live In tri-citys (and glow in the dark--I worked at
the hanford nuke site) I live in Payette, Id. about 5 hrs. from you. I
am building a Mark-3 tubro Geo powered. you are wellcome anytime to come
look. Hope to have it flying this spring!. Steve Ward
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bentley <Scott.Bentley(at)Bentley.COM> |
| Subject: | Instrument Panel |
See http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/panel197.jpg
This has worked well for me. The EIS is from Grand Rapids technology.
Then I have just Altimeter, Airspeed, and VSI. I used large instruments so
I can see them easily.
I mounted a directional indicator on the windscreen:
http://members.aol.com/mykolbmk3/drctfnd.jpg
All the controls that I need to touch while flying are overhead in the gap
seal http://members.aol.com/scottbntly/image09.jpg
This has ignition switch, master switch, Strobe switch, and EIS Next/Ack
switch.
All those pictures are pretty old - if anyone cares deeply, I can take more
recent ones.
----
I am interested in some photos instrument panels if anyone has any. We
are getting closer to that part of the project and would like ideas
before we get there.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot License |
nd he said that the sport license might
>be a way to make fat ultrlights legal.
It will make the pilot legal, the aircraft still has to fit into part 103
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot License |
> nd he said that the sport license might
> >be a way to make fat ultrlights legal.
>
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, wood wrote:
> It will make the pilot legal, the aircraft still has to fit into part 103
>
As I'm sure many here remember, I have whined and fussed about this.
However, for the record, I've come around to looking forward to the Sport
Category. I would be pleased as punch to be fully legal, even if it means
a bit of overkill in getting a "almost GA" license with self-medical and
Exp category for my FS. Having to fake 103 wears you down (as perhaps
it should), and if a 1200lb gross Sport category is the only alternative,
I'll take it.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody Weaver <mts0140(at)ibm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot License |
F J MARINO wrote:
>
>
> This past weekend I got my CFI renewed at Kent St U. which was sponsered by
> the AOPA and the FAA, one of the topics was the Sport Pilot License, which
> according to the aopa rep it is a hot item and may be coming in the very
> near future. They mentioned that if you are a USUA BFI or an advanced flight
> instructor that you will probably have to get an FAA CFI, and from what I
> understand the license might replace the recreational pilots license and
> that ultralight pilots will also get the sport license. I talked to the
> instructor while we where on break and he said that the sport license might
> be a way to make fat ultrlights legal.
SNIP
Can someone explain to me how licensing the pilot makes the aricraft legal????
woody weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody Weaver <mts0140(at)ibm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot License |
wood wrote:
>
>
> nd he said that the sport license might
> >be a way to make fat ultrlights legal.
>
> It will make the pilot legal, the aircraft still has to fit into part 103
>
>
>
> You would be amazed at the difficulty in getting this concept across!!!!!!!!!!!
Wody Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ultralight financing |
Check out EAA website for info on EAA aircraft finance;
http://www.eaa.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Carb needle wear |
Kolb-list,
>You can also make a larger gap in the clip, install the needle and
>secure it with locktite 290.
>>your needles should have O rings on top to prevent turning and the
>>incipient wear which causes the failure.
>my bing carbs have the O rings. And the wear is still
>happening.
Just curious... Is this problem specific only to Bing carbs or is it a
potential problem for the Mukuni carbs also?
Regards,
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F J MARINO" <FMARINO(at)netlink1.nlcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot License |
I believe what THEY are thinking is by licensing the pilot the ultralight is
no longer an ultralight but an expermental aircraft so the weight factor is
no longer a problem. Who knows what th FAA is thinking, every thing they do
takes the fun out of flying or makes it that much harder to fly legal. I was
only passing on what was said this weekend, sorry about the fuss.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>
Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Sport Pilot License
>
>> nd he said that the sport license might
>> >be a way to make fat ultrlights legal.
>>
>On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, wood wrote:
>> It will make the pilot legal, the aircraft still has to fit into part
103
>>
>
>As I'm sure many here remember, I have whined and fussed about this.
>However, for the record, I've come around to looking forward to the Sport
>Category. I would be pleased as punch to be fully legal, even if it means
>a bit of overkill in getting a "almost GA" license with self-medical and
>Exp category for my FS. Having to fake 103 wears you down (as perhaps
>it should), and if a 1200lb gross Sport category is the only alternative,
>I'll take it.
>
>-Ben Ransom
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
| Subject: | PLEASE READ - Trademark Issue, Comment on Fund... |
Dear Listers,
While I prefer not to specifically comment at this point, let me just say
that I have been overwhelmed by the positive response and support Matronics
has received in the last few days. It is truly wonderful to have so many
people in the industry supporting me and my company.
I would like to make one comment now regarding the "Defense Fund" that a
number of people have suggested. While this issue may come down to this
level of support, I am hoping that this can all be resolved without any
legal intervention. I would hate for everyone to send contributions at this
early stage, only to have the issue easily resolved without complication.
I would feel it necessary at that point to return the contributions to
those who had so graciously submitted them. However, I do want to thank
everyone for this wonderful offer.
I will generally refrain from further comment at this point either in this
public forum or in private, unless it is to provide updates on new
developments. I do want to thank *everyone*, however, who has showed
their support up to this point. I am truly touched by the overwhelming
positive, and professional responses I have seen thus far.
Thank you so much,
Matt Dralle
Matronics
RV, Rocket, Kolb, and Zenith 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: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
Did you see what I hope is a blooper on the front cover of March Kit
Planes. "Team's Laser Kit: Ready for Action.
I guess it's Kits Planes way of telling Dennis they were a little slow
releasing it.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kirk smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
I'm a 51year old man. My father fought in WWII and carried the war home to
his family as did many WWII vets. His 2 brothers also fought in WWII. His
youngest brother was a POW in Germany for 2 years, where he was tortured,
beaten and suffered seizures his entire post war life as a result of them.
My father's closest brother, in age and connectedness, died in the
Mediterranean, sunk by a u-boat. I grew up in a family scarred by war. In
1968-69 I served as a combat infantryman. I saw brave men die, I nearly died
myself. All this was to preserve and protect the free enterprise system we
have. A system of laws intended to give everyone in America a chance to make
an honest living. It really pisses me off when these immoral, unethical,
selfish, greedy, low life scumbags, attempt to use that system for personal
gain. Of course the only thing sacred to them is the all mighty dollar. They
have no sense of the interdependancy of us all, they perceive the world as
every man for himself, and if I want it, it's my right to have it. I think
they may be getting a lesson in relationships from what I'm seeing now.
Let,s hope so, this isn' t just matronics dilemma, I'ts America's dilemma.
We as tax payers are subsidizing such unethical behavior. Maybe we should be
teaching our children how to behave ethically in business, and not just how
to succeed in business. nuff said.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
One of the fun things of Experimental Airplanes to me was the idea of
beating the system by doing it better for cheaper. When the AD came out on
putting the O-rings
on Bing carb needles, I dug around in a box of 30 year old O-rings I had
brought with me when I left my job @ the Honda shop. Found one that was
just the right size to fit the needle perfectly. Next time the GoodLookin'
Ol' Poop went to town, she went by Bearings, Inc., matched it up,and got a
bag of 25 O-rings for $3.00. At the next EAA meeting, I gave O-rings to
everybody with Bing carbs, and still got lots left.
The size: 5/64"x13/64"x1/16"
If you have a Bearings Inc, Dixie Bearings, Bruning Bearings, or King
Bearing, I think they all use the same Part #: 01-004 Material: BUNA N 70
One thing I did do was to modify the underside of the white nylon cup that
the carb spring pushes down over the needle and clip. Rigged up a
magnifying glass so that I could see what I was doing, and chucked a
dentist's drill into the Mototool, and buzzed just a bit off the underside
where the O-ring fits . That way the needle is still free to move around,
it is not pinched or cocked in a bind by having the cup squeeze the O-ring
too tight. It may not be necessary, but I think I remember that part of the
AD was a modified nylon cup as well as the O-ring.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mick Fine <froghair(at)busprod.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Teams new Laser |
>
>Did you see what I hope is a blooper on the front cover of March Kit
>Planes. "Team's Laser Kit: Ready for Action.....
Yes, and here's what I sent to the editor, Dave Martin "dave(at)kitplanes.com" -
>Dave,
>
>I've been a loyal subscriber to your magazine for nearly 10 years - check
your records. I've >come to accept "typos" as a casualty of your deadline.
>
>Until last month, this was just an annoyance but for Gutenberg's sake,
DOES'NT SOMEONE >IN YOUR COMPANY HAVE TIME TO PROOF-READ THE COVER!!!
>
>-Mick Fine
>Tulsa, Oklahoma
>http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
>Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
>http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: J.P.Instruments |
kirk smith wrote:
>
> I grew up in a family scarred by war. In1968-69 I served as a combat
> infantryman. I saw brave men die, I nearly died myself. All this was
> to preserve and protect the free enterprise system we have. A system
> of laws intended to give everyone in America a chance to make an
> honest living. It really pisses me off when these immoral, unethical,
> selfish, greedy, low life scumbags, attempt to use that system for
> personal
> gain.
A very honorable record you have there Captain Kirk!!! I am a Korean
Vet who also occupied Germany.I have one problem with what you say...
I wonder just what "you" fought for? Was it for your fellow americans
to have the "freedom" to do what they wished? Or did you fight to have
them do what you think they aught to do???
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Panel |
Which model are you building, Paul ?? What is your snail mail address ??
Big Lar.
----------
> From: Paul VonLindern <paulv(at)digisys.net>
> To: Kolb Mailing list
> Subject: Kolb-List: Instrument Panel
> Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 4:13 AM
>
>
> Hello everyone
>
> I am interested in some photos instrument panels if anyone has any. We
> are getting closer to that part of the project and would like ideas
> before we get there.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Bruner" <brunerd(at)ulster.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 10:46 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: O Rings
>
>One of the fun things of Experimental Airplanes to me was the idea of
>beating the system by doing it better for cheaper. When the AD came out on
>putting the O-rings
Out in the boonies where I live, don't think I'll find the Bearing shops you
mentioned, but there is a Honda shop... Anyway, really 'preciate the rest
of the info. When I dismantled my first ever Bing 54 yesterday, I found the
e-clip and needle jet (without O-Ring) directly under the spring instead of
under the spring cup like it shows in the CPS book. It's a 503 Single Carb
on a Mk II, with a 15K2 needle and a 2.72 main jet, and I've yet to start
her up. My question is, when the needle and e-clip (and O-ring) is assembled
correctly, how will it run? Will I need to get another needle or main jet
to adjust for its new position? Which groove in the needle do I use (the
needle fell out of the clip when it dropped out and there is no wear on the
needle to show where it was)?
David (better get me a Bing book, but TIA for your help on this) Bruner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Jory" <rickjory(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: PLEASE READ - Trademark Issue, Comment on Fund... |
FYI, I'm not an attorney, but over the years my company has received several
letters like the one you've mentioned. Usually it is a relatively
inexpensive way for a company to have a competitor go through the expense of
changing product labeling, advertising, product literature, etc. etc. The
first letter usually has no "weight" . . . it is sent out by a law firm with
the hope that the competitor will get shook up and make the changes.
If you have an attorney dispute this via a simple letter . . . usually the
other party recognizes you are not willing to bend, and they'll drop it.
They usually don't want huge legal bills on stuff like this. So, my advice
is to have an attorney send a simple letter saying you do not see any
problems regarding the issue. This letter may cost you about $120 . . . but
that should do it.
As to the comments re: "Scanner", unfortunately the courts get weird when it
comes to product labeling and trade mark issues. In one case I'm familiar
with a company got into trouble with a product called NeuroMod . . . a
second company claimed rights to "Neuro" . . . this was a medical company,
and you'll find "neuro" all over the map . . . but the courts did say the
company could not use NeuroMod!!! But, again, I think a formal response to
the first letter from an attorney, NOT YOU, should put an end to this. Good
luck. One other point, I find that companies that can't win in the
marketplace sometimes try to win in court. Consumers are fed up with this.
All of us in the aviation community know what court actions have done to the
cost of flying--be it commercially built planes, engines, insurance, etc.
So you'll have quite a bunch of supporters behind you if this goes further.
Rick Jory
Highlands Ranch, CO
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Dralle 925-606-1001 <dralle(at)matronics.com>
; kolb-list(at)matronics.com
; zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 6:06 PM
Subject: RV-List: PLEASE READ - Trademark Issue, Comment on Fund...
>--> RV-List message posted by: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle
925-606-1001)
>
>
>Dear Listers,
>
>While I prefer not to specifically comment at this point, let me just say
>
>
>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: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: J.P.Instruments ...patriotism |
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Richard Bluhm wrote:
> > I grew up in a family scarred by war. In1968-69 I served as a combat
> > infantryman. I saw brave men die, I nearly died myself. All this was
> > to preserve and protect the free enterprise system we have. A system
> > of laws intended to give everyone in America a chance to make an
> > honest living. It really pisses me off when these immoral, unethical,
> > selfish, greedy, low life scumbags, attempt to use that system for
> > personal
> > gain.
>
> A very honorable record you have there Captain Kirk!!! I am a Korean
> Vet who also occupied Germany.I have one problem with what you say...
> I wonder just what "you" fought for? Was it for your fellow americans
> to have the "freedom" to do what they wished? Or did you fight to have
> them do what you think they aught to do???
> Doc
Kirk, Doc, others, I'd say this is WAY to vulnerable for misinterpretation
by way of a list server. Don't risk trashing a bunch of good people's
feelings by attempting to discuss honor and patriotism via email.
IMO it just won't work.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: kiss off lame brain |
Friend Dennis--look on BACK cover of latest Experimenter!! A FireFly!!
Grey (FF#70) Baron, yet
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b.charlton" <bambo(at)xtra.co.nz> |
Put my needle & clip in that position by mistake once, it runs very
rich, put it back in the correct place or it will run like a hairy dog!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot License |
>
>I believe what THEY are thinking is by licensing the pilot the ultralight is
>no longer an ultralight but an expermental aircraft so the weight factor is
>no longer a problem. Who knows what th FAA is thinking, every thing they do
>takes the fun out of flying or makes it that much harder to fly legal. I was
>only passing on what was said this weekend, sorry about the fuss.
>
>
Heck it ain't no fuss at'all (Oh no I'm starting to sound like Beauford).
An ultralight becomes an experimental when you put the N numbers on it after
the inspection. If it dosn't fit 103 it is an unregistered experimental,
thems the facts. Of course up here in Canada we have high weight limits and
the need for an ultralight licence and aircraft registration so this is a
moot point for us.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com |
| Subject: | Re: Carb needle wear |
I found a worn needle groove in one of my Bings after 430 hrs on a 582 and
replaced the needle with a new one and added the O-rings (CPS $0.65/ea
item).
Frank Reynen MKIII@485hr
To all Kolbers just curious as to how many Kolb flyers had a problem with
the carb needles, and is the rubber washer a local purchase item for 10
cents or a $10 item from the Rotax suppliers.
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Panel |
I'd be happy to talk over mine with you. See picture at
http://members.aol.com/cavuontop/collect/index.htm
Mark Sellers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LLowedown(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ultralight financing |
In a message dated 2/7/99 8:18:53 PM Central Standard Time,
steve(at)concourse.net writes:
<< Unsubscribe >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
I don't recall the original conversation, but maybe you could try looking
up Kaman Bearing, or Bearings Inc. on the Web. Shouldn't be too hard to
find, and they have EVERYTHING.
Big Lar.
----------
> From: David Bruner <brunerd(at)ulster.net>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: O Rings
> Date: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 4:02 AM
>
>
>
>>
>
> >
> Out in the boonies where I live, don't think I'll find the Bearing shops
you
> mentioned,
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: J.P. Instrument's legal action against Matronics |
The attached Aircraft Spruce response was received 1 day after my letter
to them. Hopefully J.P. Instruments response will be just as timely.
-------------------------------
>Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:30:10 -0800
>To: "Charles Rowbotham"
>From: spruce(at)deltanet.com (Aircraft Spruce & Specialty)
>Subject: Re: J.P. Instrument's legal action against Matronics
>
>Dear Chuck,
>I received your Email regarding a dispute between JPI and Matronics
over
>Matronics use of the word "Scanner". Please be advised that Aircraft
>Spruce has nothing to do with this matter. All we know is that JPI
>purchased the rights to the word "scanner" and all forms of the word
>sometime back and JPI has simply asked Matronics to not use it. We
carry
>the products of hundreds of suppliers including JPI and we certainly
have
>no intention of getting involved in a matter that is not our business.
We
>do not support either party; thery can work it out on their own! We
>appreciate your business and certainly hope that you would not refuse
to
>deal with Aircraft Spruce over an issue in which we have no
involvement.
>Regards,
>Jim Irwin
>President, Aircraft Spruce
>______________________________________________________
>>Jim Irwin, CEO
>>Aircraft Spruce
>>
>>
>>Dear Mr. Irwin,
>>
>>As an Aircraft Spruce customer and builder of an RV-8A (emp finished &
>>awaiting Quick Build kit) I was very dismayed to learn of J.P.
>>Instruments' attempt to use a harassment lawsuit against Matronics (a
>>small firm marketing their "FuelScan" instrument). In JPI's legal
action
>>begun late last week JPI asserts that Matronics use of the product
>>description name "Fuel Scan" infringes on their "SCANNER" copyright.
JPI
>>copyrighted "SCANNER" in 1988 for their temperature indicators - which
>>you market. While Matronics has been utilizing "FUELSCAN" prior to JPI
>>including fuel scanning in their instrument, they appear to be
resorting
>>to legal harassment to compete.
>>
>>News of JPI's action is spreading like "Wild Fire" through out the
>>custom/kit building market, with unanimous condemnation. We have more
>>than enough harassing lawsuits already, which have had a very negative
>>impact on General Aviation. For a complete copy of the JPI's attorneys
>>letter please contact Matt Dralle at dralle(at)matronics.com.
>>
>>Please be aware that I will not purchase any item from JPI or any
other
>>firm that supports their heavy handed legal harassment (bullying),
>>either through direct action or lack of action. Your review of this
>>matter and a response is greatly appreciated.
>>
>>Chuck Rowbotham
>>RV-8A in progress
>>
>>______________________________________________________
>>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>AIRCRAFT SPRUCE & SPECIALTY CO.
>225 Airport Circle
>Corona, CA 90270 U.S.A.
>Tele: 909-372-9555
>Fax: 909-372-0555
>Order Desk: 800-824-1930
>Customer Service: 800-861-3192
>Email: info@aircraft-spruce.com
>WWW: http://www.aircraft-spruce.com
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F J MARINO" <FMARINO(at)netlink1.nlcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ - Trademark Issue, Comment on Fund... |
Matt: if the word scan or scanner is their trademark then I believe that
they need to go after Canon next , I got a christmas gift from my kids and
it is a CanoScan SCANNER. Do you think they want to tackle Canon, I don't
think so, hang in there Bud.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Dralle 925-606-1001 <dralle(at)matronics.com>
; kolb-list(at)matronics.com
; zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 8:06 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: PLEASE READ - Trademark Issue, Comment on Fund...
925-606-1001)
>
>
>Dear Listers,
>
>While I prefer not to specifically comment at this point, let me just say
>that I have been overwhelmed by the positive response and support Matronics
>has received in the last few days. It is truly wonderful to have so many
>people in the industry supporting me and my company.
>
>I would like to make one comment now regarding the "Defense Fund" that a
>number of people have suggested. While this issue may come down to this
>level of support, I am hoping that this can all be resolved without any
>legal intervention. I would hate for everyone to send contributions at
this
>early stage, only to have the issue easily resolved without complication.
>I would feel it necessary at that point to return the contributions to
>those who had so graciously submitted them. However, I do want to thank
>everyone for this wonderful offer.
>
>I will generally refrain from further comment at this point either in this
>public forum or in private, unless it is to provide updates on new
>developments. I do want to thank *everyone*, however, who has showed
>their support up to this point. I am truly touched by the overwhelming
>positive, and professional responses I have seen thus far.
>
>Thank you so much,
>
>Matt Dralle
>Matronics
>RV, Rocket, Kolb, and Zenith 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: | Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com> |
After 15 hours of spraying paint on my MKIII (one brushed on coat of
poly brush, one sprayed on coat of poly brush with UV blocker, two coats
of poly tone with UV blocker sprayed on) I thought I was done with that
nasty job. I noticed if I hold a fluorescent shop light up to one side
of the wing, I can see the light coming through the other side. Has
anyone else had this problem if no poly spray was used? I am afraid
when I get the airplane out in the sun, it will shine right through and
make my airplane glow translucent blue instead of the Bahama blue it was
suppose to be. It looks like I would need at LEAST 4 coats of poly tone
to make it so a shop light cannot shine through. If I do need to apply
polytone until I can see no light, it probably would have been better to
use poly spray to stop the light and then two coats of poly tone for the
color. As always any comments would be appreciated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Painting done? |
>
>After 15 hours of spraying paint on my MKIII (one brushed on coat of
>poly brush, one sprayed on coat of poly brush with UV blocker, two coats
>of poly tone with UV blocker sprayed on) I thought I was done with that
>nasty job. I noticed if I hold a fluorescent shop light up to one side
>of the wing, I can see the light coming through the other side.
___________________
Yes it probably would have been better to
use poly spray.
But we have a 10 year old firestar with no polyspray and the
fabric is still OK, however you can see the ribs in the wings when it is
between
you and the sun.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
| Subject: | Flight to Tallahassee, Florida. |
John H.:
Keep up the flight stories just the way they happen! Many of us really
enjoy realistic stories and learn from other accounts of problem solving.
Even the FAA admits to being able to find deviations from their regulations
in the majority of G.A. flights, if subjected to careful scrutiny.
As a G.A. pilot I have accumulated many stories such as:
-flying on one magneto (and having it fail)
-making a stop at the hardware store for duct tape required to fly home.
-landing at the wrong airport at night (Bartow vs. Lakeland FL)
-a total electrical outage over Boston.
-the quickest turn around on an iced runway, completing the runout backward
-doing timed turns to exit snow squalls.
-stopping in a pasture to avoid a thunderstorm, and having the cows visit.
-leaving grass airports with truck taillights for guidance.
-landing beside of the runway to miss meeting a lost student head-on.
-actually bending the gear (familiar to kolbers) due to misjudgment.
Such personal experiences and many others shared by my friends have caused
me to bond permanently to our beloved sport...Flying is more to some of us
than getting from point A to B, it is interesting and fun!!
Geoff S.:
Ultralight pilots should not be due any closer scrutiny due to their
operations than anybody else (BTW: did you happen to note your actual
speedometer reading on the last trip that you took in your car? Did it
absolutely stay within the posted speed limits for the entire time? Or
should we all be sitting on pineapples?)
Frank H., Oxford ME
>
> One has to question the reasons that ultralights and their
> pilots have over
> the years got the ruff end of the pineapple shoved at us from
> other forms of
> aviation, but when I read of your trip I can clearly see where it comes
> from.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Tallahassee, Florida. |
Geoff Smart wrote:
>
> One has to question the reasons that ultralights and their pilots have over
> the years got the ruff end of the pineapple shoved at us from other forms of
> aviation, but when I read of your trip I can clearly see where it comes
> from.
>
> 1. Changed pitch on prop, wrong way, now check flight, they goes cross
> country.
> 2. Sets of on 2.5 hr flight with 2 hrs day light left.
> 3. Had problem with wiring before and not fixed.
> 4. What sore of licence do you have IFR Ultralight?
> 5. Fuel shut of behind and at back of tank great place to get to in a hurry
> when you have a fire.
> 6. Not a routine check to see if fuel valve not turned on I suppose if its
> hidden they who else could possible turn it of except you .
> 7. Is Gantt International Airfield in controlled airspace?
>
> One can only hope this is a contest of stupidity and I scored from the test
> well or is this reality and I now know the answer to the first bit.
>
> MAX
Hi Geoff and Kolb Gang:
Wow!!! You really laid it on me didn't you.
I left the entire reply above, without cutting, so I could
try to understand where you are coming from, and what your
intentions are to accomplish with all the above allegations
of "stupidity." My first impression was the name says it
all, SMART, well almost all. It seems you either don't
understand what you read or you read into something what you
want it to mean rather than what the author intended. I
thought I did a fair job of describing my flight to
Tallahassee for the education and enjoyment of this list. I
don't mind constructive criticism, it has kept me alive
through out my professional career as an aviator and also my
recreational flying for the last 15 years since retirement.
I'll try and speak to each of the seven items you mention
above. You have a lot of typos, but I think I get the jest
of what you are trying to say. If not, you can correct me
in your on special "smart" way. OK?
1. I certainly see nothing wrong in going on a cross
country after a .5 degree pitch change without a test
flight. I made the test flight before I crossed the fence
at the end of the cow pasture. It in no way degraded or
endangered me or anyone else. However, it did cost me 5 mph
cruise. Big deal.
2. "Set out on a 2.5 hr XC with 2 hr daylight available."
What's wrong with that? That is why I have nav and landing
lights, instrument lights, and two mini-mag lights in the
cockpit (one with red and one with clear lens). That is why
I have an endorsement on my air worthiness certificate that
says my little experimental may fly at night, and an
endorsement in my log book by my IP that says I can fly when
the sun don't shine.
3. "Had problem with wiring before and not fixed." Now
that is not true. I fixed problem each time it occurred.
Had problem with ign kill wire, cleaned connection,
recrimped. Worked great for several years. Then it came
back. So, connection is exposed to weather on top of
engine. My little airplane does a lot of XCs and spends
time out doors in the weather on most of these XCs. Cleaned
and retightened connection again. When I landed at Union
Springs, out in the middle of nowhere with no facilities, to
include rest rooms, I discovered that the wire had in fact
corroded away, gone inside the insulation. Probably going
that way a long time and I didn't know it. In order to
repair correctly the ign module will have to come off and if
I can get enough good wire to solder to, then I can repair.
If not I'll have to get a new module. I'll also configure
some way to protect those wires from the sun and other
elements.
4. "What source of license do you have, IFR ultralight?"
That's really a "smart" comment, isn't it Geoff?
All I have is all I need, Pvt SEL, day and night.
5. Geoff, you make some profound comments of which you know
not the first thing. First, are you that familiar with my
airplane, that you know whether or not it is a great place
to get to the fuel shut off in event of a fire??? It is
mounted satisfactorily for me and for the inspector that
signed off on my air worthiness certificate. It does not
have to meet your standards.
6. That is right Geoff, I do not make it a part of my
preflight to see if fuel is shutoff. It is in a place where
someone would have to make an intentional effort to sabotage
me and the airplane to turn off fuel. But if I know you are
in the area, I will definitely make it a part of my
preflight.
7. "Is Gantt International Airfield in controlled
airspace?" Don't really understand where you are going with
this question. Like what difference does it make whether it
is in controlled airspace or not? Right now is is
controlled by about 50 hugh cows and about half that number
new born calves, and one big proud bull. They dictate when
I can land and when I can take off. Sometimes I have to
wait a while till they decide to move off my strip so I can
take off. Sometimes I have to make up to 5 passes low level
down the strip to get them to move so I can land. Other
than that, God controls the weather that controls whether I
can fly or not on a given day. As far as the FAA
controlling my airspace, nada.
Now Geoff, how about reading my msg about my flight and see
if you can hear what I am trying to say, not what you can
imagine I have done wrong. I don't know who you are or
where you are coming from, but I feel you have a terrible
attitude, would like to hurt someone far more than you would
like to help them. Now if you can offer some advice to help
me, feel free to do so. If you can't bring yourself to be
helpful then go ahead and be yourself Mr. "Smart." I think
I know where you are coming from.
I don't mind you calling me stupid if you do it to my face.
But I feel you are really a coward hiding behind the
internet doing it this way. Grow up.
john h (hauck's holler, alabama)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Painting done? |
I've thought about going that route too, for simplicity and for weight
saving. Anyone have any idea how much if any savings there would really be
?? Kind of afraid of it though, because of the tremendous power of the
summer sun here. Any thoughts ?? Just a few more weeks till covering
time. Brrrrrr. Big Lar.
----------
> From: Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Painting done?
> Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 4:15 PM
>
>
> >
> >After 15 hours of spraying paint on my MKIII (one brushed on coat of
> >poly brush, one sprayed on coat of poly brush with UV blocker, two coats
> >of poly tone with UV blocker sprayed on) I thought I was done with that
> >nasty job. I noticed if I hold a fluorescent shop light up to one side
> >of the wing, I can see the light coming through the other side.
> ___________________
>
> Yes it probably would have been better to
> use poly spray.
> But we have a 10 year old firestar with no polyspray and the
> fabric is still OK, however you can see the ribs in the wings when it is
> between
> you and the sun.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
I should have mentioned a minute ago that Kaman and Bearings Inc. are the
ones to talk to if you have a question such as the one about Firestar wheel
bearings. They have or have access to every size, type, load capacity,
etc. known to mortal man. And can cross reference, research and so on. I
think. See what I mean by CMA, Hank ?? They are well worth talking to.
One case where they saved me a lot of grief is in the case of a Stainless
Steel shaft sleeve to give a new sealing surface on a grooved or otherwise
damaged shaft. Cheap, strong and easy. They suggested it when seeing a
grown man crying at their counter finally upset them, and throwing rocks
didn't help. Big Lar.
----------
> From: Woody Weaver <mts0140(at)ibm.net>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: O Rings
> Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 5:12 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Tallahassee, Florida. |
john, i've seen this marvel mystery oil in pep boys. what do you know
about it ? can it be used with a two - stroke mixture ? ......................
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Tallahassee, Florida. |
geoff, in response to your posting about johns flight to tallahasse. Dang !
.......................... you ought to try drinking de - caf
.................. tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Tallahassee, Florida. |
whoa ! everybody's puttin' in their two - cents worth about johns trip to
tallahassee ..................... tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Panel |
lord have mercy ! reading all these e-mails about geoff's response to
john's flight to tallahassee. whoa ! somebody stirred up a hornet's nest on
that one. this is like the internet version of the W.W.F. that's right , no
holds barred ..................... tim ( firestar 377 - balto, md. )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Geoff Smart" <gsmart(at)iinet.net.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Painting done? |
Sorry to here that the painting is not as you wanted, but the poly fiber
covering and painting manual on page 16-17 recommends that you put 2 coats
poly brush, and 3 coats of poly spray.
I f you contact ploy fiber aircraft coatings 1800 362 3490 or 909 684 4280
they will get to you the manual. ( maybe to late now but ready for the next
Kolb.)
MAX
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com>
Date: Thursday, 11 February 1999 0:49
Subject: Kolb-List: Painting done?
>
>After 15 hours of spraying paint on my MKIII (one brushed on coat of
>poly brush, one sprayed on coat of poly brush with UV blocker, two coats
>of poly tone with UV blocker sprayed on) I thought I was done with that
>nasty job. I noticed if I hold a fluorescent shop light up to one side
>of the wing, I can see the light coming through the other side. Has
>anyone else had this problem if no poly spray was used? I am afraid
>when I get the airplane out in the sun, it will shine right through and
>make my airplane glow translucent blue instead of the Bahama blue it was
>suppose to be. It looks like I would need at LEAST 4 coats of poly tone
>to make it so a shop light cannot shine through. If I do need to apply
>polytone until I can see no light, it probably would have been better to
>use poly spray to stop the light and then two coats of poly tone for the
>color. As always any comments would be appreciated.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Tallahassee, Florida. |
Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com wrote:
>
> john, i've seen this marvel mystery oil in pep boys. what do you know
> about it ? can it be used with a two - stroke mixture ? ......................
> tim
Tim:
Check out the Kolb List Archives. There is considerable
discussion on Marvel Mystery Oil.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Painting done? |
? I am afraid
>when I get the airplane out in the sun, it will shine right through and
>make my airplane glow translucent blue instead of the Bahama blue it was
>suppose to be.
>
Unless someone is looking at your airplane directly into the sun (not a
good idea) I wouldn't worry about it. Also paint adds weight.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Rejects --E Mail |
-----Original Message-----
From: Lindy <lindy(at)snowhill.com>
Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 9:11 AM
Subject: Fw: Rejects --E Mail
-----Original Message-----
From: greg moloney <gregmol(at)ihug.com.au>
Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Rejects --E Mail
Information for all-it seems our friends in foreign countries have more
common sense than we do.Notice the weight.Will send a copy of msg to Dennis
at Kolb-and other US Manufactures that I have an E-mail address.Have sent
research info/data so clubs in Australia could have creditability in their
justification and economic impact arguments.Unfortunately no luck here in
US.
Lindy,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Rejects --E Mail |
Lindy wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lindy <lindy(at)snowhill.com>
> Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 9:11 AM
> Subject: Fw: Rejects --E Mail
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: greg moloney <gregmol(at)ihug.com.au>
> To: Lindy
> Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 4:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Rejects --E Mail
>
> Information for all-it seems our friends in foreign countries have more
> common sense than we do.Notice the weight.Will send a copy of msg to Dennis
> at Kolb-and other US Manufactures that I have an E-mail address.Have sent
> research info/data so clubs in Australia could have creditability in their
> justification and economic impact arguments.Unfortunately no luck here in
> US.
>
> Lindy,
Lindy:
How goes it?
Did you forget the attachment on the above?
Anything happening in your neck of the woods?
The good weather is going to turn shitty for the weekend, as
usual. The only time I get to fly with my buddies that
work.
Flew down to TLH Monday. Came back Tuesday. You probably
read my msg about my flight on the Kolb List. Also the come
back from some yo-yo named Geoff Smart, with emphasis on
"smart ass." Have no idea where this guy comes from.
However, he chose not to respond to my response to his
comments about my "stupidity."
All kinds on these lists.
Catch ya later.
john
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Rejects --E Mail |
John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> Lindy wrote:
>
My apologies Gang:
This msg should have gone bc, but because of my "stupidity"
hehehe I sent it back to the List. Again, I apologize.
john h (got my nose in the corner for the rest of the day)
;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Postings |
Richard neilsen wrote:
>
>
> We have had a few postings from unnamed sources (you know who you are) that have
crossed the bounds of good taste. My understanding of the purpose of this
group is to share ideas for the common good of those that fly or want to fly Kolb
aircraft. Anyone that blasts another person on the list is destroying the
overall good this list does and makes us all reconsider making a post. I have
shared a few stupid things that I have done in the hope that no one else would
have to experience the same. With the recent gross and smart comments that have
been made, I and others might not share information that most of us want
or need to hear.
.......................................................................
Thanks for the post Rick,
I was going to let this drop, I thought I had said all I
needed to say reference "smart" vs "stupidity," but your
post got me going again.
I agree with you whole heartedly. The only reason I shared
that flight was to share some blunders and errors I had made
cause I was in a hurry, hadn't flown a XC in a while. It is
easy to get out of shape if I don't exercise, ref XC
flying. I have always felt if I could share my mistkes with
others, they would not have to experience the same thing.
BTW, the 912 accumulated 1,000 hours before takeoff on that
flight. When I got back to my strip it had 1,005+ hours and
the airframe 1237+. A long XC is always good for my engs, 2
or 4 stroke. Run hard they burn and blow out a lot of
crude, carbs get cleaned up abit, and they run, feel, and
sound mucho better. I chugged 1 pint Marvel Mystery Oil in
25 gal fuel also, plus there was already some MMO in the 5
or so gal already in the tank.
I took off for Florida, got comfortable, settled down and
remembered I left all 3 sectionals in my bag. Luckily my
bag had been placed on the floorboard in front of left
seat. My old Garmin 55AVD GPS is still working great, it's
a 1993 model. Doesn't have pictures of the world and my
country road, but I do pretty good following those numbers
it so accurately spits out at me.
The flight to Tallahassee, other than being in the air
flying, is a very boring flight. Have been flying back and
forth for 15 years. Have tried every variation of route
possible to make it more interesting, but what can you do
with millions of acres of yellow pines. This flight I flew
direct course from my airstrip to Tallahassee Commercial
Airport, and return.
I was able to make to down and back without refueling.
Usually I take on 5 gal to be on the safe and comfortable
side of things. My fuel site gauge is good down to about 3
or 4 gal, then the visible fuel disappears. That's when I
get uncomfortable and wish I had put that 5 or 10 gal in
before departure. If I get too uncomfortable, there are
most always airports within minutes to take on fuel.
This is a friendly List. We share with each other something
that we truly love, or we would not invest the time and
money to build and fly Homer Kolb's airplanes like we do.
It is far more difficult to give time and energy to someone
else to help them than it is to get vicious and tear them
down and try to make them look bad in front of their
friends.
I'll be the first to admit I make mistakes, but hopefully I
learn and others learn from them. Ain't but one guy I know
of anywhere near perfect and he died about 2,000 years ago.
Have fun, fly safe, see ya'll in Lakeland in less or there
abouts 2 months.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kirk smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | John Hauck's trip |
What I'm interested in is whether or not John has ever hit a pie on one of
his night landings. If he has and it was a fresh big one and splattered all
over hitting the spinner and as a result everything else, who washes the
plane? I have deer on my runway and dang near hit a nice buck with my c-120
one evening. That learned me to make a couple low passes first. Thats
something you got to watch out for in the upper midwest, theres a lot of
deer up here and when I get my Mark III done, I'm looking forward to
flying low on those warm summer evenings, with the doors off so I can smell
the earth and see the deer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: John Hauck's trip |
> What I'm interested in is whether or not John has ever hit a pie on one of
>
All this talk of other critters, I thought I'd post one too
...although plenty of you may have already seen it.
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom/1997/cows1.html
(see the Next two pics after that one too.)
BTW, i like those hardened cow pies for handy wheel chalks ...well
maybe handy isn't the best word, but I ain't too proud to drag one
over when needed.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Painting done? |
Gents,
>>After 15 hours of spraying paint on my MKIII (one brushed on coat of
>>poly brush, one sprayed on coat of poly brush with UV blocker, two coats
>>of poly tone with UV blocker sprayed on)
FWIW, my 1984 UltraStar has only one brushed on coat of poly brush (with UV
blocker) and one very thin color coat of enamel (with a plasticizer). This
finish, although extreme and certainly not as pretty as it could be, is
quite light and probably saved a few pounds. In sunlight the framework can
be easily seen through the fabric.. Regardless, the fabric is still good.
The flying machine has, however, always been kept under cover except when
it's taken out to fly.
I can't say that this process would have worked as well if the machine had
been covered in grade "A" cotton or linen. :)
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Flying Story by BV |
I really liked reading John Hauck's flying story and wondered if anyone would
like to hear mine. Like it or not, here it is:
I am a member of EAA Chapter 216, located at Cross Keys Airport, in Southern
New Jersey. On the first Saturday of each month, the members get together
somewhere for breakfast. On February 6th, we chose to meet at Hammonton
Airport. My airplane is hangared at Alloway Airport, a private turf field
located about 22 miles S. of Philadelphia. For me, the flight to Hammonton is
30 miles.
On Friday evening I checked the weather channel for Saturdays forecast. It
looked somewhat ? favorable for a morning flight, but winds were predicted to
increase to 15 MPH during the day. Flying in my Kolb FireStar ultralight,
that's about the limit for me. I arose at 6 AM, had a little something to
eat, loaded my flying gear into the truck and headed for Alloway, stopping
along the way to get my 5 gallon fuel can filled.
Arrived at the airport about 7:45 and set about unfolding the plane and
fueling up. I was just about to depart when my best friend and flying buddy,
Ken Mancus, drove up. Since he was still suffering effects of the flu, he
decided not to go. I took off from Alloway at about 8:40. I climbed to 1200'
and headed N.E. for Hammonton. The sky was cloudy and slightly threatening,
but the air was perfectly calm. With my throttle set at 5000 RPM, my ASI was
wavering between 55 to 60 MPH and the GPS verified this with the same
indication. It was kinda cold, but I felt I could stand it for the 30 minutes
or so it would take me to get there. Approaching Hammonton, I saw no traffic,
entered the pattern and flew down the runway until reaching a point where I
could set it down and turn off for parking. Not seeing any other members
planes had me wondering if I had the wrong day! But, as I was getting out of
my plane, Pres. George Bigge, with Barry Campbell as copilot, landed his
Aircoupe and parked next to me. When I entered the restaurant, I saw there
were quite a few members that had driven in. Walt Ballauer was the next one
to arrive, in, I think, a Piper Cherokee. Then Joe Flood and #2 son in his
Pitts and his #1 son, Joey, in the J3 Cub, with George Naphas riding along.
Next was Jim George in his Stits Playboy and then Bob Cooper in his Pazmany
PL-4.
After a really good breakfast, prepared by the Ed Neumann clan, member Andy
Kondrach gave us a tour of the facilities. We are planning to use the big
hangar for a pancake breakfast during the towns annual Red, White and
Blueberry Festival on June 26th. Meanwhile, a light sleet had started falling
and I wondered whether I would be able to fly back to Alloway. I was thinking
that if it continued, perhaps I could find a place to park my plane inside,
then catch a ride home with someone who drove in. But, luckily for all who
flew in, the sleet stopped and we were able to fly back.
I departed Hammonton, using the same 5000 RPM throttle setting and 55 to 60
MPH airspeed as before. However, at 1200' the GPS showed my GS was only in
the 35 MPH range. I climbed up to 1800' looking for a better GS, but it
slowed even more, so back down to 1200.' As I crossed Rt. 55, my GS
deteriorated into the 30 MPH range. So, apparently, the wind was picking up,
but still, the air was fairly smooth. I could see brighter skies in the
distance. One thing that was bothering me was the fact that the airplane nose
seemed to be pointing a way off to the left of the nuclear station at Salem.
It should be pointing more directly towards it. I know I was crabbing for a
cross wind, but I didn't think it should be that much. My buddy Ken always
told me to "trust your instruments," so I kept following the GPS course and
continued hitting the check points. Then, after a while, the wind must have
changed direction, because now the airplane nose was pointing more towards the
nuke station, as it should be. That made me feel better. I learn more about
this cross country flying every time I go up.
It had taken 35 minutes, counting taxi time, to get to Hammonton. But getting
back to Alloway took 55 minutes, 20 minutes longer. Upon landing, I
discovered that at ground level there was practically no wind at all. I
folded the wings, wiped off the dirt and topped off the fuel tank. For the 60
mile round trip flight, I had burned approx. 2.8 gallons, which gave me a burn
rate of 1.9 GPH for the 3 enjoyable hours of flying. BTW, if my math is
correct, this calculates out to 21.4 MPG. Using a tailwheel dolly, I pulled
the folded plane into my Cover-It hangar, closed the door and drove home. A
very nice flight!
Bill Varnes
Original FireStar 377
320 hours
Do no archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Geoff Smart" <gsmart(at)iinet.net.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Tallahassee, Florida. |
Thanks for the reply John,
It seem I hit a nerve with my comments of you on your latest XC adventure.
First lets clear up a point or two, my comments have come from both a
reasonable level of intelligence and from a lot of lives little on going
experiences and in the world of aviation which I have been associated with
for some 20 years, I have found that the area of ultralights to have
received or maybe created a attitude with others i.e GA pilots etc that we
are not all that clued up when it comes to flying, building etc our chosen
area of flight.
now ultralights , I have never encountered such a harsh response from all
corners of the general public as soon as I mention I have a Ultralight.
No doubt you are experienced flyer and must have encountered the usual,
You don't fly one of those do you, they are so dangerous.
They are those little planes that you don't need any licence for no wonder
so many crash.
I know the ones, they are small and very noisy.
You wouldn't get me in one of those.
You take you family up, you are crazy, there should be some law against it.
etc,etc,etc,etc, no it goes.
Having been to lots' probably a hundred or so airshow throughout the world,
including the worlds best Oshkosh and Sun and Fun twice, and having
travelled by motor home and Ultralight throughout at least half of your
beautiful USA, I can say with no hesitation that Ultralights have still
got a long way to go before we are accepted well.
Even at the flight briefings at Sun and Fun that I attended, the general
comment from the officials was to show the FAA and GA that we were as good
as the others and could obey and put on a good show.
Yes we have to always put our best foot forward, do it better, prove that we
are competent, and get past that image that we are dangerous idiots with the
wrong attitude.
Most of us are, including you John, so when I read on a public open notice
board, the Internet, of a Ultralight TYPE of aircraft regardless of the
numbers on it's tail, or its pilots rating, has a XC or any type of flight
if it comes to that, so full of silly if not stupid situations that it get
me to commenting.
I wish I had a $ for every time someone has said to me, did you here or read
about the, blar blar blar that this idiot did, with his plane. I then
question why do some have to put up in print again, and again, the negative
happens of Ultralight flying for those knockers to feed on.
I believe we should all be writing to any list we choose, about our
experience, but we must remember that the whole world is reading and
although you are probable well know to the KOLB group, most of us don't know
you, and so you story just feeds the fires of the knockers.
You make reference to the 7 commented situations, lets go back,
1.Quote (I made the test flight before I crossed the fence
at the end of the cow pasture), that sounds good, you test you new prop
setting on take off, not at cruise, not to see if it had any other effect on
the aircraft's performance, over heating, fuel consumption, handling,etc.
2.Quote ("Set out on a 2.5 hr XC with 2 hr daylight available." ) you made a
point of this in you story why? to the majority (who don't know you) they
all may say that ultralights can't fly at night and this guy go off
knowing it will be dark when he gets there in a aircraft that has been
modified and not tested?
3.Quote (Had been having occasional problem with poor contact on bullet
>connectors, so tried to pull apart and clean but wire came apart
>instead. ) Quote (I fixed problem each time it occurred. ) I wonder what
other little gremlins are lurking in you wiring that will have to fail,
before you fix them up. Rewire, and get ride of the bullet connector.
4.Already cover night flying in ultralights , and your licence.
5.Fuel shut off valve. ( not my standard, the standard on most if not all
countries and aircraft) the fuel shut off valve must be clearly marked, and
in such a position that the pilot can turn off the fuel supply to the engine
in case of fire in flight, or on the ground. And in particular on a aircraft
that is home built and most fuel operators at airports or any one else
associated with the aircraft i.e. friends, other flyers, would be able to
get to it if necessary. Do you have a grounding point and do you earth you
fuel bottles to the aircraft when you fill.? great cause for fires if not
done. Not label on Final Filter, about static and dangers associated with.
6.Similar to point 5 but what happens when you are out flying on day and
land to see some of you friends and while you are away from you Kolb a fuel
leak starts and some one else notices it and finds you fuel valve and turns
it off, and you don't check it.
Don't tell me it won't start, read the history of GA and others who forgot
to check fuel values and have started, taxied out, done a run up and mag
check only to find the fuel line emptied about 400' and off the end of the
runway.
7.Well Gantt International Airfield sound to the rest of the world like the
name of a international airport that ultralights should not fly into so
your particular international airport only has cows to deal with that ok I
guess.
There you are now flying in the dark low on fuel due to the fact, that the
prop change and the unexpected head wind has made you even later that the
2.5 hrs you expected and since,
Quote (Right now is
>controlled by about 50 hugh cows and about half that number
>new born calves, and one big proud bull. They dictate when
>I can land and when I can take off. Sometimes I have to
>wait a while till they decide to move off my strip so I can
>take off. Sometimes I have to make up to 5 passes low level
>down the strip to get them to move so I can land)
after you 5 passes up and down the strip you in the dark of the night, but
with you landing lights on just happened to miss the ( one big BLACK proud
bull) SPLAT one bent Ultralight.
Tomorrows headlines read.
Ultralight has Bar-B-Q with tasty steaks.
Last night a Ultralight flew into and kill farmer Jones prized bull, the
aircraft pilot was luckily to escape injury, but his Ultralight was
destroyed, as onlookers who rushed to help remove his unconscious body,
could not turn of the leaking fuel and the faulty electrical system on the
aircraft started a fire.
The local flying club is putting on a roast steak breakfast today, be quick
the steaks are already cooked and getting cold.
Well John you may say Quote
( I don't know who you are or
>where you are coming from, but I feel you have a terrible
>attitude, would like to hurt someone far more than you would
>like to help them. Now if you can offer some advice to help
>me, feel free to do so. If you can't bring yourself to be
>helpful then go ahead and be yourself Mr. "Smart." I think
>I know where you are coming from.
>
>I don't mind you calling me stupid if you do it to my face.
>But I feel you are really a coward hiding behind the
>internet doing it this way. Grow up)
So you don't like my attitude, I can live with that, I don't go out of my
way to hurt you or anyone.
So now you have read my free advice, I hope it will help you, and I 'am not
hiding behind the internet, the next time I come to the USA I hope to meet
you and we can both call each other name's OK. By then I will be a little
more grown up and have experienced a little more of life's wonderful
experiences. Won't we.
Geoff (MAX) Smart
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Thursday, 11 February 1999 10:57
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Flight to Tallahassee, Florida.
>
>
>Geoff Smart wrote:
>
>>
>> One has to question the reasons that ultralights and their pilots have
over
>> the years got the ruff end of the pineapple shoved at us from other forms
of
>> aviation, but when I read of your trip I can clearly see where it comes
>> from.
>>
>> 1. Changed pitch on prop, wrong way, now check flight, they goes cross
>> country.
>> 2. Sets of on 2.5 hr flight with 2 hrs day light left.
>> 3. Had problem with wiring before and not fixed.
>> 4. What sore of licence do you have IFR Ultralight?
>> 5. Fuel shut of behind and at back of tank great place to get to in a
hurry
>> when you have a fire.
>> 6. Not a routine check to see if fuel valve not turned on I suppose if
its
>> hidden they who else could possible turn it of except you .
>> 7. Is Gantt International Airfield in controlled airspace?
>>
>> One can only hope this is a contest of stupidity and I scored from the
test
>> well or is this reality and I now know the answer to the first bit.
>>
>> MAX
>
>
>Hi Geoff and Kolb Gang:
>
>Wow!!! You really laid it on me didn't you.
>
>I left the entire reply above, without cutting, so I could
>try to understand where you are coming from, and what your
>intentions are to accomplish with all the above allegations
>of "stupidity." My first impression was the name says it
>all, SMART, well almost all. It seems you either don't
>understand what you read or you read into something what you
>want it to mean rather than what the author intended. I
>thought I did a fair job of describing my flight to
>Tallahassee for the education and enjoyment of this list. I
>don't mind constructive criticism, it has kept me alive
>through out my professional career as an aviator and also my
>recreational flying for the last 15 years since retirement.
>
>I'll try and speak to each of the seven items you mention
>above. You have a lot of typos, but I think I get the jest
>of what you are trying to say. If not, you can correct me
>in your on special "smart" way. OK?
>
>1. I certainly see nothing wrong in going on a cross
>country after a .5 degree pitch change without a test
>flight. I made the test flight before I crossed the fence
>at the end of the cow pasture. It in no way degraded or
>endangered me or anyone else. However, it did cost me 5 mph
>cruise. Big deal.
>
>2. "Set out on a 2.5 hr XC with 2 hr daylight available."
>What's wrong with that? That is why I have nav and landing
>lights, instrument lights, and two mini-mag lights in the
>cockpit (one with red and one with clear lens). That is why
>I have an endorsement on my air worthiness certificate that
>says my little experimental may fly at night, and an
>endorsement in my log book by my IP that says I can fly when
>the sun don't shine.
>
>3. "Had problem with wiring before and not fixed." Now
>that is not true. I fixed problem each time it occurred.
>Had problem with ign kill wire, cleaned connection,
>recrimped. Worked great for several years. Then it came
>back. So, connection is exposed to weather on top of
>engine. My little airplane does a lot of XCs and spends
>time out doors in the weather on most of these XCs. Cleaned
>and retightened connection again. When I landed at Union
>Springs, out in the middle of nowhere with no facilities, to
>include rest rooms, I discovered that the wire had in fact
>corroded away, gone inside the insulation. Probably going
>that way a long time and I didn't know it. In order to
>repair correctly the ign module will have to come off and if
>I can get enough good wire to solder to, then I can repair.
>If not I'll have to get a new module. I'll also configure
>some way to protect those wires from the sun and other
>elements.
>
>4. "What source of license do you have, IFR ultralight?"
>That's really a "smart" comment, isn't it Geoff?
>All I have is all I need, Pvt SEL, day and night.
>
>5. Geoff, you make some profound comments of which you know
>not the first thing. First, are you that familiar with my
>airplane, that you know whether or not it is a great place
>to get to the fuel shut off in event of a fire??? It is
>mounted satisfactorily for me and for the inspector that
>signed off on my air worthiness certificate. It does not
>have to meet your standards.
>
>6. That is right Geoff, I do not make it a part of my
>preflight to see if fuel is shutoff. It is in a place where
>someone would have to make an intentional effort to sabotage
>me and the airplane to turn off fuel. But if I know you are
>in the area, I will definitely make it a part of my
>preflight.
>
>7. "Is Gantt International Airfield in controlled
>airspace?" Don't really understand where you are going with
>this question. Like what difference does it make whether it
>is in controlled airspace or not? Right now is is
>controlled by about 50 hugh cows and about half that number
>new born calves, and one big proud bull. They dictate when
>I can land and when I can take off. Sometimes I have to
>wait a while till they decide to move off my strip so I can
>take off. Sometimes I have to make up to 5 passes low level
>down the strip to get them to move so I can land. Other
>than that, God controls the weather that controls whether I
>can fly or not on a given day. As far as the FAA
>controlling my airspace, nada.
>
>Now Geoff, how about reading my msg about my flight and see
>if you can hear what I am trying to say, not what you can
>imagine I have done wrong. I don't know who you are or
>where you are coming from, but I feel you have a terrible
>attitude, would like to hurt someone far more than you would
>like to help them. Now if you can offer some advice to help
>me, feel free to do so. If you can't bring yourself to be
>helpful then go ahead and be yourself Mr. "Smart." I think
>I know where you are coming from.
>
>I don't mind you calling me stupid if you do it to my face.
>But I feel you are really a coward hiding behind the
>internet doing it this way. Grow up.
>
>john h (hauck's holler, alabama)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Tallahassee, Florida. |
>now ultralights , I have never encountered such a harsh response from all
>corners of the general public as soon as I mention I have a Ultralight.
>
>No doubt you are experienced flyer and must have encountered the usual,
>You don't fly one of those do you, they are so dangerous.
>They are those little planes that you don't need any licence for no wonder
>so many crash.
>I know the ones, they are small and very noisy.
>You wouldn't get me in one of those.
>You take you family up, you are crazy, there should be some law against it.
>etc,etc,etc,etc, no it goes.
>
Maybe things are different in other countries, but John Hauck and I share
one excellent advantage over
other areas of the world, we live in the South. That part of the world
where "Hey Ya'll, watch this!" is still accepted as appropriate masculine
behavior.
I don't know how the rest of the world (including those frozen areas north
of the M/D line) deal with comments such as Geoff enumerates above, but
here in East Tennessee, it goes something like this:
airplane, how many have yew got?"
We also like the this little retort; (useful against other G/A pilots who
should know better)
never read no FAR's?"
And for those Philistines that can't understand why the Kolb pushers look
like they do:
airplane that gives the prop the best view?"
Comfort the afflicted. Afflict the comfortable. Take no prisoners.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
http://www.angelfire.com/tn/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Tallahassee, Florida. |
In a message dated 2/11/99 12:48:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com writes:
<< john, i've seen this marvel mystery oil in pep boys. what do you know
about it ? can it be used with a two - stroke mixture ? .............. >>
I would avoid that. If Rotax wanted you to use that stuff they would tell
you to do it. Aviation Consumer did an investigative piece on it a while back
and decided it was mostly perfume. As far as I know AVBlend is the only oil
additive approved for GA use. I'll let someone else try it in a two stroke
first.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Painting done? |
In a message dated 2/10/99 11:45:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jason(at)acuityinc.com writes:
<< I can see the light coming through the other side. Has
anyone else had this problem if no poly spray was used? >>
Yes, that is quie typical. Depending on how light your paint is the
translucence can be noticable if you look hard for it. Most folk don't
notice.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F J MARINO" <FMARINO(at)netlink1.nlcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: John Hauck's trip |
They make good frizzbies also Ben,
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>
Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: John Hauck's trip
>
>> What I'm interested in is whether or not John has ever hit a pie on one
of
>>
>
>All this talk of other critters, I thought I'd post one too
>...although plenty of you may have already seen it.
> http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom/1997/cows1.html
>
> (see the Next two pics after that one too.)
>
>BTW, i like those hardened cow pies for handy wheel chalks ...well
>maybe handy isn't the best word, but I ain't too proud to drag one
>over when needed.
>
>-Ben Ransom
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
Just a couple of comments on past postings.
I once covered a Vector 600 with stits glued on with contact cement. I
painted it with latex house paint. After about 5 years of outdoor storage
the paint had eroded away and I gave it another coat. After another 3 yrs of
outside storage I took it for a flight and did not like the way it felt,
kindas sloppy and not secure. I landed and retired it from service. When I
removed the covering it was still held on real strong with the glue
(Stripping of a stits covering stuck on with poly tac did not give me a
secure feeling). The fabric itself was still strong and I was unable to
poke a hole through it with a stick.This is after 8 yrs of outdoor in the
sun and weather storage. Says a lot for the quality of the fabric and
ability to withstand the UV without proper protection.
Speaking of cow pies. I used to fly this Vector out of a hay field. One day
the farmer spread some manure on the field and I didn't notice untill I was
doing about 20mph and this s--- started hitting me in the face. would not
have happened if I had my Kolb taildragger. There was no sh-- eatin grin
that day. Thinking back on it it does seem kind of funny now.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William V Rayfield <rayfiwv(at)mail.auburn.edu> |
Guys, Guys, Guys!
Geoff, you said your opinion of John's flight. He responded appropriately
which should be expected. There's no need to keep hashing this out. At
this point it has become a nuiscance to a normally enjoyable and
productive list.
Bill Rayfield
"I'm not smart, but I sure am slow!"
Mechanical Engineering Student
Auburn University
"War Eagle"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Tallahassee, Florida. |
In a message dated 2/10/99 6:40:58 PM Central Standard Time,
gsmart(at)iinet.net.au writes:
"A bunch of crap"
Golly Gee Geoff: who pissed in your grits this morning?
Bill Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Tallahassee, Florida. |
Sent this last night, but when it showed up on my inbox from the list,
half of the lines were half gone!? Made no sense to me, surely much
less to the group.
Will try again, this is sorta a test. rp
>now ultralights , I have never encountered such a harsh response from all
>corners of the general public as soon as I mention I have a Ultralight.
>
>No doubt you are experienced flyer and must have encountered the usual,
>You don't fly one of those do you, they are so dangerous.
>They are those little planes that you don't need any licence for no wonder
>so many crash.
>I know the ones, they are small and very noisy.
>You wouldn't get me in one of those.
>You take you family up, you are crazy, there should be some law against it.
>etc,etc,etc,etc, no it goes.
>
Maybe things are different in other countries, but John Hauck and I share
one excellent advantage over other areas of the world, we live in the South.
That part of the world where "Hey Ya'll, watch this!" is still accepted as
appropriate masculine behavior.
I don't know how the rest of the world (including those frozen areas north
of the M/D line) deal with comments such as Geoff enumerates above, but
here in
East Tennessee, it goes something like this:
of airplane, how many have yew got?"
We also like the this little retort;
(useful against other G/A pilots who should know better)
Ain't yew never read no FAR's?"
And for those Philistines that can't understand why the Kolb pushers look
like they do:
Yew think I paid $15,000 to buy an airplane that gives the prop the best
view?"
Comfort the afflicted. Afflict the comfortable. Take no prisoners.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
http://www.angelfire.com/tn/kolbmkiii/index.html
If this comes out cobbed up, I guess I reload my Eudora mail program...?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flight to Tallahassee, Florida. |
Gents,
>i've seen this marvel mystery oil in pep boys. what do you know
> about it ? can it be used with a two - stroke mixture ? .............. >>
>Aviation Consumer did an investigative piece on it a while back
>and decided it was mostly perfume.
I somewhat remember the Aviation Consumer article. They also stated that
the base stock was a low viscosity mineral based oil of high quality. It
had anti-wear ingrediants ... seems that it may have been a magnesium
additive that helped bearings withstand high pressure/wear (?) They also
stated that MMO possessed very high detergent qualities.
What I do know for sure is that the stuff really works well when used in an
A-65 Continental when the engine is being run on unleaded auto fuel.
Without Marvel Mystery Oil in the gas (4 oz./10 gallons) exhaust valves
would tend to stick within a few hours of operation in my wife's Aeronca
Chief. Even the largest Aeronca organization said they didn't really know
why, but that the stuff really worked.
Every so often when the prop governor on the 180 Lycoming in my Swift
starts to get sluggish, I'll add MMO to the crankcase (governor works off
of engine oil pressure) and there is a noticeable improvement in the
governor's operation within a few hours of operation.
That said, I would urge you to exercise caution when using the product.
It's not a case of a little doing good so, therefore, more is even better.
It is a detergent and if used in quantities greater than reccommended, it
might cause engine damage by effectively washing the oil from cylinder
walls. Also, just as one does not suddenly go from using a non-detergent
oil and then switching to a high-detergent oil in a HIGH TIME certified 4
stroke aircraft engines because of the possibility of breaking carbon loose
that then might clog oil passages, the same would seem to hold true for the
4 stroke engines now being utilized on our Kolb aircraft.
As far as 2 strokes go.... I have never used MMO in a 2 stroke. I doubt
if it would do any harm if used as directed, but I have no idea if it would
help either.
Regards,
Skip
1984 UltraStar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | support(at)matronics.com (Matronics Technical Support 925-606-1001) |
"RE: Message to List Contained MIME..." (Feb 12, 10:52am)
| Subject: | Re: Message Contained MIME -> MS Outlook... |
>--------------
>>--------------
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>The message you posted to the List below contained MIME enclosure data and
>>consequently was not posted to the List. You will notice that the enclosure
>>is quite large and contains data that many mailer programs can't use. This
>>enclosure also adds far too much 'useless' data to the already huge archive
>>file. Please check the configuration of your email program and disable
>>MIME.
>>Feel free to repost your message when you are sure MIME has been disabled.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Matt Dralle
>>List Admin.
>>--------------
>
>OK ... I've looked everywhere (or so I think) and can't find any reference
>to "MIME". I am using MS Outlook. This was my first post to the list, and
>I would still like to post my question. Any ideas ???
>
>>--------------
Dear Larry et al,
Generally Microsoft Outlook encodes a message with MIME when you
include "Stylized Text" in your message. This means that if you change
the font, indent, increase the font size or color style, or basically
use any of the "Stylized Text" options, Outlook will encode it using MIME.
If you just type in a message, without using any of these features, MS
Outlook will generally just send the message as plain text.
You can also disable MIME in MS Outlook by following steps:
Click on "Tools".
Then select "Services".
Next select the "Services Tab" here (should already be selected).
In the profile list, select "Internet Mail".
Click on the "Properties" button.
Select the "General" tab (default tab).
Click on the "Message Format..." button.
*UNCHECK* the "Use MIME when sending messages" check box.
Click on OK, etc. etc.
This should keep MS Outlook from using MIME even if you somehow use
Stylize Text in your message.
Best of Luck,
Matt Dralle
RV, Kolb, Zenith, and Rocket List Admin.
--
Technical Support | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | support(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com W.W.W. | Specializing in Aircraft Avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kirk smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | John's Jolly Journey |
Hey Y'all,
Let's get real serious now bout ole John. Y'all no John was a spinner wang
pilot. Now the military ain't stupid bout wherin they put those holler
boys thats a wantin to fly. Now a holler boy Cain't drive down a straight
langhth a road fer more then a couple hunderd foot without a steerin in a
gully. Now they kin jump out a tree un lan on a hogs back un restle em down
or run down un hogtie a herford calf in the meanest nastiest holler
south a the MD line. But a teachin one a those holler boys ta keep a real
airplane with wheels unner it a goin straight. Well, I'm from north of that
ole MD line and I seen a many a duck meet it's waterloo a tryin ta land on
a frozen lake. Now a duck is a helluva flyer but he cain't taxi werth a
fiddlers fert, an a teachin a holler boy ta taxi is akin ta teachin a duck
ta skate. It just cain't be done boys un its cruel un inhumane treatment ta
een try. So y'all see they had ta put ole John on skids in the army. So he
nare learned ta drive in the service. Thets why he bought a Kolb, he ain't
gotta taxi much in a Kolb. Nother thang bout ole John un his flyin. Y'all
see helicopters don't have no brakes either, so ole John has ta land in a
cow pasture thets full a biiiig pies fer im ta ram inta fer brakin. Jest
joshin.
Don't archive!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flying Story by BV |
| From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Thanks Bill for that nice flying story. With my Original FireStar and I
can identify with your flight. There has been more than one occasion
where I had to get a ride home from a fly-in meeting due to weather. It's
risky sometimes, especially during the summer months dealing with
thunderstorms while on a x-country. I've been caught enough times to know
that I don't care to take the risk anymore even if I haven't flown in
three weeks. My Oshkosh trip this summer will be different. It will be
the longest trip and the biggest risk I've taken so far. It's not the
plane I'm concerned about, it's the weather.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
>
>I really liked reading John Hauck's flying story and wondered if
>anyone would
>like to hear mine. Like it or not, here it is:
>
>I am a member of EAA Chapter 216, located at Cross Keys Airport, in
>Southern
>New Jersey. On the first Saturday of each month, the members get
>together
>somewhere for breakfast. On February 6th, we chose to meet at
>Hammonton
>Airport. My airplane is hangared at Alloway Airport, a private turf
>field
>located about 22 miles S. of Philadelphia. For me, the flight to
>Hammonton is
>30 miles.
>
>On Friday evening I checked the weather channel for Saturdays
>forecast. It
>looked somewhat ? favorable for a morning flight, but winds were
>predicted to
>increase to 15 MPH during the day. Flying in my Kolb FireStar
>ultralight,
>that's about the limit for me. I arose at 6 AM, had a little
>something to
>eat, loaded my flying gear into the truck and headed for Alloway,
>stopping
>along the way to get my 5 gallon fuel can filled.
>
>Arrived at the airport about 7:45 and set about unfolding the plane
>and
>fueling up. I was just about to depart when my best friend and flying
>buddy,
>Ken Mancus, drove up. Since he was still suffering effects of the
>flu, he
>decided not to go. I took off from Alloway at about 8:40. I climbed
>to 1200'
>and headed N.E. for Hammonton. The sky was cloudy and slightly
>threatening,
>but the air was perfectly calm. With my throttle set at 5000 RPM, my
>ASI was
>wavering between 55 to 60 MPH and the GPS verified this with the same
>indication. It was kinda cold, but I felt I could stand it for the 30
>minutes
>or so it would take me to get there. Approaching Hammonton, I saw no
>traffic,
>entered the pattern and flew down the runway until reaching a point
>where I
>could set it down and turn off for parking. Not seeing any other
>members
>planes had me wondering if I had the wrong day! But, as I was getting
>out of
>my plane, Pres. George Bigge, with Barry Campbell as copilot, landed
>his
>Aircoupe and parked next to me. When I entered the restaurant, I saw
>there
>were quite a few members that had driven in. Walt Ballauer was the
>next one
>to arrive, in, I think, a Piper Cherokee. Then Joe Flood and #2 son
>in his
>Pitts and his #1 son, Joey, in the J3 Cub, with George Naphas riding
>along.
>Next was Jim George in his Stits Playboy and then Bob Cooper in his
>Pazmany
>PL-4.
>
>After a really good breakfast, prepared by the Ed Neumann clan, member
>Andy
>Kondrach gave us a tour of the facilities. We are planning to use the
>big
>hangar for a pancake breakfast during the towns annual Red, White and
>Blueberry Festival on June 26th. Meanwhile, a light sleet had started
>falling
>and I wondered whether I would be able to fly back to Alloway. I was
>thinking
>that if it continued, perhaps I could find a place to park my plane
>inside,
>then catch a ride home with someone who drove in. But, luckily for
>all who
>flew in, the sleet stopped and we were able to fly back.
>
>I departed Hammonton, using the same 5000 RPM throttle setting and 55
>to 60
>MPH airspeed as before. However, at 1200' the GPS showed my GS was
>only in
>the 35 MPH range. I climbed up to 1800' looking for a better GS, but
>it
>slowed even more, so back down to 1200.' As I crossed Rt. 55, my GS
>deteriorated into the 30 MPH range. So, apparently, the wind was
>picking up,
>but still, the air was fairly smooth. I could see brighter skies in
>the
>distance. One thing that was bothering me was the fact that the
>airplane nose
>seemed to be pointing a way off to the left of the nuclear station at
>Salem.
>It should be pointing more directly towards it. I know I was crabbing
>for a
>cross wind, but I didn't think it should be that much. My buddy Ken
>always
>told me to "trust your instruments," so I kept following the GPS
>course and
>continued hitting the check points. Then, after a while, the wind
>must have
>changed direction, because now the airplane nose was pointing more
>towards the
>nuke station, as it should be. That made me feel better. I learn
>more about
>this cross country flying every time I go up.
>
>It had taken 35 minutes, counting taxi time, to get to Hammonton. But
>getting
>back to Alloway took 55 minutes, 20 minutes longer. Upon landing, I
>discovered that at ground level there was practically no wind at all.
>I
>folded the wings, wiped off the dirt and topped off the fuel tank.
>For the 60
>mile round trip flight, I had burned approx. 2.8 gallons, which gave
>me a burn
>rate of 1.9 GPH for the 3 enjoyable hours of flying. BTW, if my math
>is
>correct, this calculates out to 21.4 MPG. Using a tailwheel dolly, I
>pulled
>the folded plane into my Cover-It hangar, closed the door and drove
>home. A
>very nice flight!
>
>Bill Varnes
>Original FireStar 377
>320 hours
>
>Do no archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying Story by BV |
Ralph,
>
>My Oshkosh trip this summer will be different. It will be
>the longest trip and the biggest risk I've taken so far. It's not the
>plane I'm concerned about, it's the weather.
There is a very old general aviation cliche that says:
"When you have time to spare, go by air".
Give yourself plenty of time on both ends and you won't have any
problems.... especially since you're flying a KOLB!. :)
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: John's Jolly Journey |
I think that says it all. Lest wise it has my vote. Firehawk
-----Original Message-----
From: kirk smith <snuffy(at)usol.com>
Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 3:28 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: John's Jolly Journey
>
> Hey Y'all,
>
> Let's get real serious now bout ole John. Y'all no John was a spinner wang
>pilot. Now the military ain't stupid bout wherin they put those holler
>boys thats a wantin to fly. Now a holler boy Cain't drive down a straight
>langhth a road fer more then a couple hunderd foot without a steerin in a
>gully. Now they kin jump out a tree un lan on a hogs back un restle em down
>or run down un hogtie a herford calf in the meanest nastiest holler
>south a the MD line. But a teachin one a those holler boys ta keep a real
>airplane with wheels unner it a goin straight. Well, I'm from north of that
>ole MD line and I seen a many a duck meet it's waterloo a tryin ta land
on
>a frozen lake. Now a duck is a helluva flyer but he cain't taxi werth a
>fiddlers fert, an a teachin a holler boy ta taxi is akin ta teachin a duck
>ta skate. It just cain't be done boys un its cruel un inhumane treatment
ta
>een try. So y'all see they had ta put ole John on skids in the army. So he
>nare learned ta drive in the service. Thets why he bought a Kolb, he ain't
>gotta taxi much in a Kolb. Nother thang bout ole John un his flyin. Y'all
>see helicopters don't have no brakes either, so ole John has ta land in a
>cow pasture thets full a biiiig pies fer im ta ram inta fer brakin. Jest
>joshin.
>
>Don't archive!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Group: Now, here's a question for the engineer types on board. As
is well known by now, I'm building a healthy VW engine for my Mk III, and a
major concern is to cool the thing. Hanging the cylinders out in the
breeze, J-3 style is not an option; cooling is uneven + inadequate in this
application. Standard VW doghouse with blower is also out, due to the huge
drag factor of such a thing. Removing the doghouse, and adding scoops to
the basic cooling sheet metal would most likely do the job in the air, but
how to force feed air through it on the ground and initial climb ??
Especially in the desert summer ?? Now - - - ! ! ! Type III VW cooling
uses a centrifugal blower, like a squirrel cage, mounted on the front of
the crankshaft, with a plenum leading around to each pair of shrouded
cylinders. It's beautifully made and quite light. 2 problems.
1. Type III's are notorious for overheating, but I'm told that that's
largely a result of poor air circulation in the engine compartment, which
would not be a factor on a plane. Also, even tho' the busses had a Type IV
engine they used essentially a T III system, and didn't overheat - and they
most definitely worked hard. 2. Naysayers have said the T III blower
uses huge amounts of power. More than a T I ?? My question - In
relatively still air, I can see a fair amount of power draw. Acceptable ??
Maybe, depending on how much, and if it cools the engine. No cooling, no
flying, si ?? Anyway, as speed increases, seems to me that the air hitting
the blower would need less effort to move it sideways, than to accelerate
it , then move it sideways. So, power draw should be less at speed than on
the ground, right ?? Or wrong ?? Maybe a scoop in front of it would give
enough pressure to even gain a little ?? Thoughts ?? Ideas ?? I'd sure
like to hear them. Also, I kinda like the idea of a Type III on a Mk III.
Oh my. Thanks in advance. Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cooling Fans |
well larry, about your VW engine. all i can do is give my 2 cents worth.
i think using a VW engine is a good idea, balanced well and low rpm's. as far
as cooling the engine, my guess would be to use scoops like they do on j-3's.
yes, you'll have the problem of cooling while on the ground but i bet it would
work very well while in flight. to help with cooling you could install an
oversized oil cooler with an electric fan that you could turn on and off as
needed .................. tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Cooling Fans |
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Larry Bourne wrote:
> Hi Group: Now, here's a question for the engineer types on board. As
> is well known by now, I'm building a healthy VW engine for my Mk III, and a
> major concern is to cool the thing. Hanging the cylinders out in the
> breeze, J-3 style is not an option; cooling is uneven + inadequate in this
Larry,
One thing you could consider is a back-end to the scoops. As you said,
scoops are good only when air is getting pushed thru them. I'd consider
also using cooling shrouds off the back side of the cylinders, routing
the heated air back next to the propellor. You may think this idea sucks.
If so, you get it.
Obviously some design attention should be focused on any venturi
cross-sectional area of the outlet versus inlet versus area at cylinders.
As well, how close does the outlet need to be to the propellor, and what
is the right place radially from prop hub out? Securing any ducting
close to the prop also will require more than Elmers glue and speed tape.
Now get going. Remember, you are supposed to be flying that thing
to Castle AFB, not carrying it. :)
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cooling Fans |
On the subject of VW cooling : Finally found a letter on page 35 of the
October 1998 EAA Experimenter from a guy in South Africa who has used
several VW engines engines in various airplanes and has definite opinions
about how to cool them. His E-mail address is : pjoubert(at)mpi.ctech.ac.za
and he says he welcomes correspondence on the subject.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff / Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Panel |
>
>Hello everyone
>
>I am interested in some photos instrument panels if anyone has any. We
>are getting closer to that part of the project and would like ideas
>before we get there.
>
>Paul
The best instrument panel I have seen (and I copied it) is one that is
built on top of a retangular tray (deep enough (5-6") to contain all of the
instruments in front of the face of the fiberglas nose cone) built of angle
aluminum and gussets. Triangle braces are place on the corners and tube
braces to the top middle. Barrel type rubber shocks attach the face of the
instrument panel to this tray and braces. The rear of the tray is attached
to the fiberglass nose cone by piano hinge so that the whole tray will fold
down to allow work on the rear side. The tray is held up and in place by
two screws from the sides through a glare shield which also acts as a cover
over the top of the tray and panel face.
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+ hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff / Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)dfw.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Postings |
>My understanding of the purpose of this group is to share ideas for the
common good of those that fly or want to fly Kolb aircraft. Anyone that
blasts another person on the list is destroying the overall good this list
does ...
Richard and all,
I heartily agree. The thing about this "internet" is that you can only
wish and hope that is the case (and on the Kolb mailing list the messages
are usually very helpful, friendly and informative). We have a really good
group with experienced builders and some guys with hundreds of hours of
experiences to share ...but sometimes "it" happens. You have to do your
best to ignore the unbased negative when it occurs. Heck, constructive
criticism is OK, different opinions are OK, nothing should be
unquestionably accepted as the "only truth". We have to think for
ourselves, but by-in-large, there is "good stuff" written here about Kolbs.
Think more than twice about what you write, but if you have something to
say, speak up. The only "stupid" question is the unasked question. Just
ask yourself... will the whole list enjoy or appreciate this? does it
apply to the whole list or just the individual? is it revalent to the
subject of Kolbs? is it constructive criticism? (and most important) is
it something I would say to his or her face in person?
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+ hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <richard.wood(at)usa.net> |
>
>Sounds funny to hear about it too, Woody. Musta been a real sh____ day.
>Glad you didn't push the 8 yr old fabric too far, you may not have made
>this posting. Big Lar.
You missed my point. After 8 yrs in the sun with only house paint on it it
was still strong. The rest of the airframe felt weak.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mick Fine <froghair(at)busprod.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Panel |
>
>The best instrument panel I have seen (and I copied it) ....
Cliff forgot to mention that theres a photo (it ain't great - I took it) of
his IP at:
http://members.tripod.com/~froghair/cliffs/
If you just can't wait for all the photos to load, go here for the IP only:
http://members.tripod.com/~froghair/cliffs/panel.gif
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: Fly-in at Shady Bend |
Hey John, I got to go play with the Mrs. so I'll make this short. It is on
March 6-7 (sat. &sun.) we will meet at Quincy and (Rut) can have us coffee
and donuts while we wait on any stragglers from the SFUA (Chuck and Lindy).
Rut should have the Kitfox "wired" and ready to go by then. They are going
to demo a Wankel Rotary with the redrive on Sat. We can even go swimming if
we want to. I just love that part of Florida. Open fields and lots of
uncontrolled airports. Later FIREHAWK
-----Original Message-----
From: Tracy Crook <rws(at)altavista.net>
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 5:38 AM
Subject: Re: Fly-in at Shady Bend
>Hi Michael! This is Laura Crook - the social coordinator of the family
:).
>
>RE accommodations: We are out in the middle of NOWHERE so accommodations
>of the formal variety are very limited. There is an adorable Bed and
>Breakfast 2 miles north of here - they have 3 cabins + a
>luxury" RV + one other trailer for rent. It sounds tacky but it is not -
we
>visited the place 2 weeks ago to look around. They are on the Internet at
>SMOAKHOUSERANCH.com and can be reached at 904-935-2662. Tim and Mimi
>Smoak own the place and are friends of ours (+ Tim is a pilot). This
>location is close enough that we could provide transportation . It also
has
>a 2500 ft grass strip that you may be allowed to use, but you'd need to
>verify that with Tim.
>
>There is also the possibility of renting a River home across the street
from
>us. Please contact Bryan Harms at 904-935-2601 or by email at
>bry(at)suwanneevalley.net to see if that is available.
>
>We have another lot on the airstrip that we are making available for
camping
>and after the airstrip traffic is gone for the day, you can "wing camp" in
>the tie down area. We have a rest room (no shower) available at the flight
>shack + a "shop bath" (translation: the walls are not finished) at the
>house with a shower that everybody is welcome to use + 1 more completed
bath
>in the house.
>
>The closest formal place to stay - outside of the B & B - is in Chiefland
or
>High Springs both of which are a 30 minute drive.
>
>We'd really enjoy it if you and your group of friends could come. Please
>let me know if you need more information.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Highsmith <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net>
>To: Tracy Laura Crook
>Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 4:28 PM
>Subject: Fly-in
>
>
>>Hey Tracy, Jerry gave me the message that you are having a fly-in in March
>>at Bell. Me and two buddies came through there last weekend on our way to
>>Clermont just buzzing the country side. Maybe we can get a group from
our
>>club, The Southern Flyers, to go if it's a good weekend for weather. There
>>are those that fly and there are those that talk about flying and we
always
>>try to encourage those want- a- bes to take short X-Cs to get a feel of
the
>>vasness of this great country.
>> If we can get 6 we will be doing good but I know there will be at lest 3
>>who will go. Tell me about the accomadation (camp sites, R.V.s, motels,
>>rooms to let, showers, two day three day, Food? fuel, contest). Do you
know
>>any of the guys who fly from Aims( south of you) like Bill Dickert? I
>>noticed on the chart your're on the river, north or south?
>>I've also been thinking of a Mazda for my Ferguson. Do you think it should
>>be done? I'm using a 582 now and wouldn't need hardly any more power but I
>>would like to extend the TBO a little. I have 600 hours on the engine now
>>and am about to rebuild it for the second time, not that it needs it but
it
>>is a factory recomendation. Drop me a line, am looking forward to the
>>Fly-In, FIREHAWK
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Pike" <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
After my buddies and I got back fro Oshkosh this summer, I wrote the
following for our EAA chapter newsletter. It is kinda long, but somebody
might enjoy it. It may not translate well from HTML format to the plain text
that it needs to be in here, but if not, just consider the source...
Deja Vu II
Being The Whimsical Tale Of How An Overabundance Of Wishful Thinking
Causes Otherwise Sane Men To Fly Entirely Too Far At Airspeeds That Are
Entirely Too Slow
I still think this whole thing was somebody else's idea. Surely it couldn't
have been mine. Yet David says it was, and I never knew him to lie. Terrible
he waited until this late in life to start. Oh, well, if he insists, maybe I
did, it turned out OK, and that's all that matters.
We had a ground crew to go with us, Carl Cardin, Bucky Buchanan, and his
grandson, Caleb Sherrod. They were pulling a little camping trailer, and had
a 50 gallon steel tank, complete with electric pump, in the back of the
pickup truck so that we could mostly use premium autofuel, and avoid avgas.
They had arranged to meet with us at most every fuel stop, and also they
were carrying our heavy bulky things that make camping more comfortable,
and just don't seem to fit into airplanes.
Originally there were seven people planning to fly up, but when Monday
morning dawned foggy and overcast, it was just David Jones, Ed Martin, and
me. The first leg started at Indian Springs airport, the humble abode of
N420P, (42OldPoops), Blountville's finest Kolb MKIII. Maybe some day
Blountville will get another Kolb, but for now, the title is all mine.
The takeoff was a classic, all the pretty wives standing beside the hangar,
waving as their men flew bravely into the dawn, trying not to choke back
tears as we flew away with the credit cards. High overcast, visibility about
ten miles, smooth as glass. This is to get us started off on the wrong foot,
thinking that the whole trip might be like that.
Refueled at London, Kentucky, and then on to Frankfort, Kentucky where our
ground crew caught up with us, and then on to Columbus, Indiana. Had to wait
a while there, as we were making a lot better time than they were. But the
wait was not bad, talked to one of the line boys at the FBO, and found out
he was John Moody's nephew Charles.
The Rotax 532 seemed just a tad puny, so I checked the spark plugs, and
they didn't look too good, so put in a new pair. Then the ground crew caught
up, so we went for some lunch, and things looked pretty good, blue sky and a
tailwind, time to go.
Landed next at Kokomo, and the 532 was still not acting very happy at all.
Smooth and easy starting, but starting to be noticeably down on power, and
running a bit cool. Dropped the needles one notch, and took off for
Rochester, Indiana. Got there just before sunset, and the FBO was closed,
but there was a private hangar open, and this friendly pilot named Robert
told us to just go ahead and stick our airplanes into any open bay available
in the various T-hangars there. Then he unlocked the back end of the FBO
building so that the ground crew/campers could get to the bathroom, and
scrounged up a key for the courtesy car and aimed us at the hotel.
Something we noticed all through Indiana, is those people were wonderfully
friendly and thoughtful. I wouldn't want to live any farther north, but if I
had to, Indiana sure has a lot of good people. And enormous mosquitos.
Once we got the airplanes put to bed, we took off across Rochester to find
the Comfort Inn, and something to eat. The hotel was very nice, and the rate
included breakfast, so we decided to all share a room, but the only room
available just had one king size bed.
David said that was all right, he would let Ed and I have the bed, he
wanted to sleep off in the corner on the air mattress anyway because he
snored.
About 2 hours later I was having this terrible dream that the 532 had split
it's exhaust manifold, and then blown one of it's spark plugs clean out of
the head, but then I woke up, and sure enough, David really does snore.
Next morning was beautiful, but a stiff wind out of the west. We flew about
ten miles northeast to Mentone, and had a good visit there with Bob Clupper,
the airport manager, and master of hospitality. The PRA secretary gave us
the key to the LeRoy Hardee Museum, and told us to make ourselves at home.
So we poked and snooped, it is a good facility, they are just now starting
to get things going, and we were well content.
Before we left, Bob came and took a picture of the three of us standing by
the airplanes, and sent us all an 8x10, free! (Told you those Indiana people
were friendly!)
Then came the bad news. Got out to the end of the runway, and discovered
that the 532 wouldn't get up to takeoff rpm. Flew down the runway in ground
effect, and then had to land.
Taxied back, tried it again, and this time it wound up to normal, but it
was not a good sign. Something else that was not a good sign was that the
Magellan quit working. Could not figure out where it was. Good thing that we
each had a GPS, because my navigation was defined strictly in terms of
sectional chart and landmarks. Next stop was at Valpariso, Indiana, Porter
County airport, and Bucky got me a pint of Seafoam to dump in the gas tank,
just in case it was the rings starting to stick.
Our next stop was at Morris-Washburn, about 20 miles SW of Joliet,
Illinois. It was chosen because it was close to the interstate highway and
also because it had a restaurant. One thing we did not consider was that by
the time we got there we had a 20 knot direct crosswind.
Flying west across southern Illinois was a real enduro. Ground speed was in
the middle 30's, and the 532 was getting seriously sick, no longer able to
get much above cruise power.
When we got to the airport, my failure to go out and practice crosswind
landings showed up. Got on final, and could not get it together, wallowed
and squirreled along just above the runway for long enough to frustrate
myself, then gave up and went around.
Climbed out east of the field and watched Ed land ok, and a Cherokee land
ok, and then David landed ok, and then I caught a little down draft, and
couldn't maintain altitude. Now I'm down to about 25' agl over the corn, and
can't get back around to final, because there is a plot of woods between me
and where I need to go.
So I listened real close to the unicom frequency, and not hearing anybody
else in the pattern, I aimed it right at the grass over run just off the
approach end of the runway, because that was the only way to get to the
airport without climbing, and landed into the wind on the grass next to the
ramp. That was the scariest part of the whole trip, trying to raise the
right wing enough to make sure there was no one on final while I was
approaching the over run at a 90 degree angle, having already resigned
myself to getting my butt chewed out by whoever ran the airport once I got
to the ramp.
That didn't happen, but I was still pretty bummed at being 350 miles from
home with a sick puppy, and no clue. David suggested timing, but I had just
set the points the week before.
It was frustrating. Been playing with Rotax engines for 15 years, and this
one had me stumped. Decided to take the easy way out, and just took some
pitch out of the prop. (If the engine won't pull the load, lighten the
load...) About this time, Bob Tipton and his new bride, Stella showed up and
everybody had a nice lunch at the restaurant.
With the engine now back up into it's power band, we are heading north to
Beloit, Wisconsin. The sign out front proclaims it to be the World's
Prettiest Airport, and they may be right. We have outrun the ground crew, so
we buy avgas, and are just cranking up when they catch up to us. We make
rude comments and vulgar gestures (not really) and head for Dodge County
airport at Juneau.
About half way between Watertown and Juneau is a place on the sectional
where two railroad tracks intersect. Turned out the trains intersected too,
we saw train cars piled up all over the place, but fortunately all were
cargo type, probably no injuries. Looked interesting though.
Ran out of daylight. Forty some miles to go, and the sun is getting close
to the horizon. Rode into Beaver Dam in the back of Bob's pickup, stayed in
a fine hotel, but David wanted a room to himself. Maybe Ed and I were
snoring too loud? Re-initialized the GPS, and it seemed to know where it
was. We'll see.
Wednesday morning and it is a perfect day. Since David is the only one who
has not flown into Oshkosh before, we make him lead. Since we are slow, and
ultralight looking, we go for the ultralight strip instead of the normal
runway arrival. David does a fine job of squeezing us into a gap in the
downwind, and suddenly we have arriven. Ended up with ringside seats, too.
We are tied down just to the west of the ultralight strip at midfield, and
we put the tents up right beside the airplanes.
I won't say too much about the camping fees they charge, but if any of you
go up there to camp, only one per campsite needs to pay the camping fee to
get the little sticker for your camper/tent. But they will ask everyone if
they are camping, and take your money if you say yes...
Oshkosh was like Oshkosh always is, but certain things stand out. One of
the better ones was just after lunch on Thursday, Ed and I were just walking
past the ultralight camping area guard shack where the sweet little grey
haired granny lady presided, when we met David walking back toward us, so we
all went to sit under a nearby wing and catch up.
He told us about the long walk, and he told us about the lunch, and then he
told us about the showers.
"Boys, you really need to check out those showers. I woke up early this
morning and there wasn't nobody there, and I got one. But that water was as
cold as ice! Time I got out of that thing, I could have gone and showered in
the Women's, and nobody could have told the difference, I'm telling you, it
was cold!"
We looked up to see the little granny lady convulsed with laughter...after
she got her composure back, she pulled out her camera and took our picture.
We all smiled. I wonder how she will tell the story when she shows her
friends that picture?
Friday afternoon the weather was perfect, light wind out of the East. David
went to the afternoon pilots briefing, and later took Caleb for his first
airplane ride. I guess getting your Young Eagles Wings in a Drifter, out of
the ultralight strip at Oshkosh is a pretty great way to start.
Never did figure out what was wrong with the engine, it seemed to have
stabilized at it's new prop pitch. Asked several different Rotax gurus what
it might be, and got several different answers. A couple of people suggested
timing, but since I had adjusted the points and set the timing the weekend
before we left, I knew that couldn't be it.
Saturday morning we took off for home, it was another gorgeous morning, and
we even had a little tailwind. Oddly enough, now both the Magellan GPS's
quit working, but Dave's Garmin worked fine, a phenomenon which he enjoyed
way too much.
We went back through Beloit, then to Morris-Washburn, and by that time the
532 was pooping out again. David insisted that we check the timing, which on
that engine, with the magneto sitting roughly over the middle of the wing,
was not an easy task. Turned out that the points had worn down so much that
instead of opening at .077 before TDC, one opened at .004 and the other at
.034 BTDC. Eventually got them set back where they were supposed to be, and
then got the prop back to where it needed to be, and my mood and optimism
improved along with the power curve.
From there we went to Kentland, Indiana, and then on to Crawfordsville,
Indiana. Dave's Garmin quit working, but now both the Magellan's were
working perfectly. Paybacks are wonderful. By the time we got to
Crawfordsville, it was almost dark, and oddly enough, I made one of my best
landings of the whole trip. Once again, Indiana hospitality shone brightly,
the young airport manager found a hangar for Ed and Dave's Drifters, gave us
their Ford Fiesta courtesy car, left the FBO unlocked for the ground crew,
and then got us reservations at the last available hotel room. Seems they
were running the Brickyard 400 at Indianapolis, about 40 miles northeast,
and rooms were tough to be had. So we all shared one together, and slept
sound enough that even David couldn't wake us up.
Another beautiful morning, and away we went. For about 45 minutes, then
there came this howl of desperation. "We have to find a place to land, now!"
Uh-oh, Ed has reached his limits of kidney endurance. So we frantically
looked at sectional charts, back roads, and suitable cow pastures, and found
a long, wide, and freshly plowed and smooth field. Ed has tundra tires on
his Drifter, and has talked about getting rid of them for the normal type,
but they came in real handy. He landed without any trouble, and I amused
myself by doing 360's over him, recording the event on the video camera
while he stood under the wing. After all, what else are friends for?
Then on to Columbus, Frankfort, and London, and then we took a break.
Laid out for a while and took a little nap until about 6, and then the last
leg across the mountains. Couldn't have been nicer. Beautiful blue sky, good
visibility, and not a hint of wind. Smooth as glass. After we crossed Clinch
Mountain, Ed peeled off and headed south for Greenville. Then as we came
over Kingsport, I left David, dropped the nose and let 20P build up some
speed. I figured she was probably tired of flying 50, and might like to try
75 again. Just to make sure that Barbara knew I was home, I made a low pass
down the runway, and circled back. Man, that's a good feeling!
After it was all over, did a little reflecting on the whole expedition.
Used 144 gallons of gas and 24 pints of 2 stroke oil. Total flight time was
about 31 hours. Had no rain en route, no turbulence, other than normal
midday thermals, and no mechanical problems, other than the defective
points, which had worn down again to .047, and .035 by the time I got home.
The trip was actually pretty easy. The only tough part was the crosswind at
Morris, and I have only myself to blame. The best part was the company. Good
companions make good trips. Thanks Ed, Dave, Bob, Stella, Bucky, Carl, and
Caleb. Thanks Barbara, Joyce, and Sandy for believing in us and trusting us
to go and come back safe.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: John's Jolly Journey |
In a message dated 2/13/99 6:39:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
FMARINO(at)netlink1.nlcomm.com writes:
<<
Howdy Snuffy; how come when I talked like that I got slam dunked by old
Beauford.
Frank >>
Probably cause when you did it, Frank, your southern Italian backlit through
the Redneck.
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Panel |
The instrument panel is very nice - you bet, but what really caught my eye
was the wing tip grab handles on the froghair website. Do you mind if I
copy your idea ?? Big Lar.
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~froghair/cliffs/
>
> If you just can't wait for all the photos to load, go here for the IP
only:
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~froghair/cliffs/panel.gif
>
>
> -Mick Fine
> Tulsa, Oklahoma
> http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
> Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
> http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cooling Fans |
Thanks O.P.: I remember seeing something by him lately on the T IV
VW engines. It was that article that got me thinking seriously about the T
III cooling for my engine. Had passed it by because of the overheating
reputation, but read that and re-researched it. Glad I did. I'll look up
the article you mentioned, and probably contact him. Big Lar.
----------
> From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Cooling Fans
> Date: Saturday, February 13, 1999 9:18 AM
>
>
> On the subject of VW cooling : Finally found a letter on page 35 of the
> October 1998 EAA Experimenter from a guy in South Africa who has used
> several VW engines engines in various airplanes and has definite opinions
> about how to cool them. His E-mail address is : pjoubert(at)mpi.ctech.ac.za
> and he says he welcomes correspondence on the subject.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cooling Fans |
Yeah, yeah, oh my aching back ! ! ! You don't forget nothin' do ya ??
After I finished chuckling, I got to picturing in my mind, and I think I
see a couple of ways to do what you're saying. Hmmmmmm. I'm more a cut +
try people, rather than a theoretician, so I'll have to do some heavy
cogitating. Ever notice how often a thorny problem will suddenly resolve
itself at 4:00 AM of a sleepless, tossing night ?? Problem is remembering
the solution in the morning. Ol' Possum really sank the
spurs, for which I haven't yet really thanked him, and I've been going like
gangbusters out there. Finished the pilot's door latches yesterday, after
2 months or more of dinging around. Got 2/3 of the passenger door latch
done today. Gotta get that thing covered and painted before summer heat
hits. Feels good to be back in gear. Big Lar.
P.S. On further reflection, I think this is a case of where I might go
ahead with the T III tin, or similar, so I'll have a pretty much guaranteed
cooling system for testing, tuning, break-in, etc. Once I know everything
works properly, I'd have a known base to start making changes from. Your
idea is intriguing. Any design engineers out there who could give me a
starting point ?? The picture I've got in my mind right now would be
pretty clunky. Lar.
----------
> From: Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>
> To: Larry Bourne
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Cooling Fans
> Date: Saturday, February 13, 1999 8:45 AM
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Larry Bourne wrote:
> > Hi Group: Now, here's a question for the engineer types on board.
As
> > is well known by now, I'm building a healthy VW engine for my Mk III,
and a
> > major concern is to cool the thing. Hanging the cylinders out in the
> > breeze, J-3 style is not an option; cooling is uneven + inadequate in
this
>
> Larry,
> One thing you could consider is a back-end to the scoops. As you said,
> scoops are good only when air is getting pushed thru them. I'd consider
> also using cooling shrouds off the back side of the cylinders, routing
> the heated air back next to the propellor. You may think this idea
sucks.
> If so, you get it.
>
> Obviously some design attention should be focused on any venturi
> cross-sectional area of the outlet versus inlet versus area at cylinders.
> As well, how close does the outlet need to be to the propellor, and what
> is the right place radially from prop hub out? Securing any ducting
> close to the prop also will require more than Elmers glue and speed tape.
>
> Now get going. Remember, you are supposed to be flying that thing
> to Castle AFB, not carrying it. :)
>
> -Ben Ransom
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cooling Fans |
Tim brings up an interesting point. I know air MUST flow through the
cylinder and head fins for cooling, but I also understand that the oil is a
major cooling factor in "air cooled" engines. I'll have a large oil cooler
and fan all right, but does any one know just how much of the cooling IS by
the oil ?? I talked to a Lycoming tech at the AOPA convention last summer
about the oil nozzles they're using inside the valve covers on some high
output engines ( I think the new Mooney uses one of them ), and he says it
knocks a lot of the heat out of the valve guide area very effectively, and
engines that were needing premature top overhauls are now making TBO. He
says it's a jet of oil, rather than a spray. Definitely food for thought.
Big Lar.
----------
> From: Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Cooling Fans
> Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 11:22 PM
>
>
>
> well larry, about your VW engine. all i can do is give my 2 cents
worth.
> i think using a VW engine is a good idea, balanced well and low rpm's.
as far
> as cooling the engine, my guess would be to use scoops like they do on
j-3's.
> yes, you'll have the problem of cooling while on the ground but i bet it
would
> work very well while in flight. to help with cooling you could install
an
> oversized oil cooler with an electric fan that you could turn on and off
as
> needed .................. tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Fly-in at Shady Bend |
In a message dated 2/13/99 10:16:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net writes:
<< . They are going
to demo a Wankel Rotary with the redrive on Sat. We can even go swimming if
we want to >>
You can go swimming if you are kin to a polar bear! If you are interested in
rotary power, this is the place to go. Tracy has about as many rotary hours in
his RV4(about 900) as the rest of the homebuilders in the world. He is also a
very good presenter and documenter of what he is doing. He is going to tear
this one down at 1000hrs to study the wear patterns in aircraft use.
Bernie Kerr, ex kolb firestar and mark III pilot, now flying flightstars and
building anRV6( isn't most of the flying world!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | UL radio operations? |
OK, finally I've gotten myself radio equipped. I'm wondering what
is typical for UL operators as far as use of call letters. In
usua clubs or otherwise, is the UL registration scheme (12ABC)
used or is it typically something different? I'm guessing I'll
also finally go get the usua 12abc type registration.
Comments?
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UL radio operations? |
Ben Ransom wrote:
>
>
> OK, finally I've gotten myself radio equipped. I'm wondering what
> is typical for UL operators as far as use of call letters. In
>
Ben:
In the early days, we were required to have a FCC license.
The FCC license gave us a number to use. I forget what my
number was but it started with N and ended with U. It was
not an FAA N number, but sounded like one.
If I had an UL and a radio I would us the call sign
"Ultralight (plus whatever the serial number is)".
I don't know what the powers to be require, but that's what
this old guy would use til I found out something else.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UL radio operations? |
Hey John;
Did you see your picture in Sport Pilot, January issue, The Sling shot
looked pretty good, even with you in it. Just kidding!
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UL radio operations? |
Kenmead(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Hey John;
> Did you see your picture in Sport Pilot, January issue, The Sling shot
> looked pretty good, even with you in it. Just kidding!
>
> Kent
>
Hell, I thought I made a pretty sophisticated lookin pilot,
didn' t you? ;-) hehehe
Seriously, Did think it was a good pic. Didn't know it had
been taken until someone mentioned it on the List and I saw
it at Books-a-Million.
Thanks Kent.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UL radio operations? |
John Hauck wrote:
>
>
> Kenmead(at)aol.com wrote:
> >
>
Sorry Folks:
I screwed up again. Thought this last msg was bc.
john h (back in the corner again in hauck's holler, alabama)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kirk smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UL radio operations? |
Y'all won't been so purdy iffin they'd taken yer pitcher when y'all hed dun
landed, instead a afour. Jest joshin!
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Sunday, February 14, 1999 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: UL radio operations?
>
>
>Kenmead(at)aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey John;
>> Did you see your picture in Sport Pilot, January issue, The Sling
shot
>> looked pretty good, even with you in it. Just kidding!
>>
>> Kent
>>
>
>
>Hell, I thought I made a pretty sophisticated lookin pilot,
>didn' t you? ;-) hehehe
>
>Seriously, Did think it was a good pic. Didn't know it had
>been taken until someone mentioned it on the List and I saw
>it at Books-a-Million.
>
>Thanks Kent.
>
>john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kirk smith" <snuffy(at)usol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UL radio operations? |
Oh lord I don't believe I said that, how crass and inappropriate' stupid,
rude, obnoxious. I guess I smoked a little too much stumble weed in Nam. I'm
sorry John. I'll put the rest of this Bud in the can and my hindin in bed.
Sorry !
-----Original Message-----
From: kirk smith <snuffy(at)usol.com>
Date: Sunday, February 14, 1999 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: UL radio operations?
>
>Y'all won't been so purdy iffin they'd taken yer pitcher when y'all hed dun
>landed, instead a afour. Jest joshin!
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Date: Sunday, February 14, 1999 7:20 PM
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: UL radio operations?
>
>
>>
>>
>>Kenmead(at)aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey John;
>>> Did you see your picture in Sport Pilot, January issue, The Sling
>shot
>>> looked pretty good, even with you in it. Just kidding!
>>>
>>> Kent
>>>
>>
>>
>>Hell, I thought I made a pretty sophisticated lookin pilot,
>>didn' t you? ;-) hehehe
>>
>>Seriously, Did think it was a good pic. Didn't know it had
>>been taken until someone mentioned it on the List and I saw
>>it at Books-a-Million.
>>
>>Thanks Kent.
>>
>>john h
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com> |
| Subject: | "Stupid" flying story |
Okay, guy's,,, Here's stupidity at it's greatest.
A while back, I noticed my flap control rod wasn't connected. I didn't
know if the pin fell out in flight or if I had forgotten to connect
it.(I fly a MKIII) I requested another pin from Kolb, and they sent me
another at absolutely no charge. (later) A friend wanted a ride, so I
took the plane up to check out the air and I found myself all over the
sky... I couldn't figure out what was wrong. In my landing, I fell
about 2 feet to the ground and bounced a bit with no damage. I didn't
know what was wrong, so I waited a while and tried it again. I
increased the speed to gain more control, but the control just wasn't
100 percent there. I tried a fly-by, and began to fall again. I
quickly added power and did pull out, but not before one tire bounced
off the ground. I just couldn't get the absolute control I'm used to.
Today, Sunday the 14th of Feb, I thought I'ed try it again. As I was
unfolding the plane when a friend of mine (Bob Balentine) noticed one of
my three blades of the prop was tore up. We looked closer and saw where
the missing pin hit, and caused a vibration that shattered the composite
structure of the prop. I never noticed it, and flew with it like that
twice with no damaging effects. I know I'm lucky, so you needn't remind
me, but from now on, if I think I misplaced something,,,, I will inspect
m prop.
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UL radio operations? |
Hey Ben---guys and gals, Ref; radio use---The proper use of an ultralight's
radio is to always say ultralight first, then the message. You can use your
USUA registration # or your radio assigned # from the FCC if you register it
which by the way you are suppose to even though it cost very little if any.
Using UL first is what the FCC, the air traffic, the local FBO and the
private strip owner wants to here. You should not have any problems by doing
this. Be proud to be an Ultralight pilot and let the rest of the aviation
world know you are out there. --It sure sounds good on a radio to hear,"
Sandy Creek traffic, Ultralight 10 papa- charley- bravo, entering left
downwind, runway 09, Sandy Creek". It lets everyone know what you are, where
you are and what you intentions are. It sure keeps the GA pilots happy.
There usually the first ones to meet you at the ramp or they will call you
up while your in the air, and in a good frame of mind too. I don't remember
what issue it was but it was in the Ultralight Flying Magazine a few months
back.----- Hope this helps everyone---FIREHAWK
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu>
Date: Sunday, February 14, 1999 1:32 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: UL radio operations?
>
>OK, finally I've gotten myself radio equipped. I'm wondering what
>is typical for UL operators as far as use of call letters. In
>usua clubs or otherwise, is the UL registration scheme (12ABC)
>used or is it typically something different? I'm guessing I'll
>also finally go get the usua 12abc type registration.
>Comments?
>
>-Ben Ransom
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "Stupid" flying story |
Hey Richard, I use to do stupid things like that so often I thought I might
have to take up another sport. Then I made myself a check list of everything
that I could think of that might come off or go wrong before I flew. Guess
what? I stopped the stupidity and began to really enjoy flying again. It's
been quiet a while since I made a boo boo but it was because I didn't check
the list first. It only takes a minute and it will give you great peace of
mind. --FIREHAWK
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com>
Date: Sunday, February 14, 1999 8:12 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: "Stupid" flying story
>
>Okay, guy's,,, Here's stupidity at it's greatest.
>A while back, I noticed my flap control rod wasn't connected. I didn't
>know if the pin fell out in flight or if I had forgotten to connect
>it.(I fly a MKIII) I requested another pin from Kolb, and they sent me
>another at absolutely no charge. (later) A friend wanted a ride, so I
>took the plane up to check out the air and I found myself all over the
>sky... I couldn't figure out what was wrong. In my landing, I fell
>about 2 feet to the ground and bounced a bit with no damage. I didn't
>know what was wrong, so I waited a while and tried it again. I
>increased the speed to gain more control, but the control just wasn't
>100 percent there. I tried a fly-by, and began to fall again. I
>quickly added power and did pull out, but not before one tire bounced
>off the ground. I just couldn't get the absolute control I'm used to.
>Today, Sunday the 14th of Feb, I thought I'ed try it again. As I was
>unfolding the plane when a friend of mine (Bob Balentine) noticed one of
>my three blades of the prop was tore up. We looked closer and saw where
>the missing pin hit, and caused a vibration that shattered the composite
>structure of the prop. I never noticed it, and flew with it like that
>twice with no damaging effects. I know I'm lucky, so you needn't remind
>me, but from now on, if I think I misplaced something,,,, I will inspect
>m prop.
>Doc
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UL radio operations? |
Michael Highsmith wrote:
>
>
> Hey Ben---guys and gals, Ref; radio use---The proper use of an ultralight's
> radio is to always say ultralight first, then the message. You can use your
> USUA registration # or your radio assigned # from the FCC if you register it
> which by the way you are suppose to even though it cost very little if any.
> Using UL first is what the FCC, the air traffic, the local FBO and the
> private strip owner wants to here. You should not have any problems by doing
Mike and Kolb Gang:
FCC eliminated the requirement for FCC station license for
private aircraft that fly in US, and for boats that don't
cruise in foreign countries.
I would assume that station license for UL would have also
been eliminated. However, I don't remember reading or
hearing anything about the UL requirement.
I guess we could do a search of FCC or possibly go the
Landings web site and find out something a little more
concrete than my guessing.
I guess,
john h (remember when a CB license cost $5.00)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Kolb MK III and Siberian Grizzlies |
Hi Gang:
Early last year Dennis Souder posted a short bit of info on
a couple of Americans that study Grizzlies in Russia. They
live during the short summer season more than 200 miles from
the nearest human habitation. Their mode of travel and
exploration is Kolb MK III on a monofloat.
Just by luck I caught their show on Alabama Public
Television tonight at 2000 central time. Had some excellent
footage of the MK III at work, it did perform well with the
monofloat (can't remember the name of it ???).
These folks have a very current web site with lots of pics
and info on their study. I especially enjoyed both the
bears and the MK III. Got to watch those big buggers feed
on salmon while in Alaska.
Here's the url:
http://www.norquay.com/grizzlies/index.html
Enjoy,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UL radio operations? |
John and gang, I believe the registration with the FCCis voluntary for all
radios but the fees have been eliminated.---Firehawk
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Sunday, February 14, 1999 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: UL radio operations?
January 24, 1999 - February 14, 1999
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-bg