Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-bk
April 13, 1999 - May 06, 1999
Monte wrote:
>
> Just back from Sun & Fun and was I surprised to find out Kolb has new
> owners and are now located in London, Kentucky. Am I the only one who
> didn't know this? Monte building a Mark3 in Georgia.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter" <newsletter(at)rootscomputing.com> |
When I visited the Kolb factory in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania about six
weeks ago they were very much in business there. I met Dennis Souder and
took some instruction from Dan Kurkjian. They were very established at that
time. The place was bustling and the hanger had plenty of airplanes in it.
When I called the parts department in Pennsylvania last week they answered
the phone as always.
If Kolb relocated to Kentucky it must have happened in one heck of a hurry!
As in the past 4 or 5 days...
- Dick
>
>Just back from Sun & Fun and was I surprised to find out Kolb has new
>owners and are now located in London, Kentucky. Am I the only one who
>didn't know this? Monte building a Mark3 in Georgia.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
About a month ago, one of the two guys I flew to Oshkosh with told me this
story:
"You know that guy we met in London, Kentucky, that had the MKIII with the
912 on it? The one that was also building an RV-8? He bought out Kolb and
is moving it to London, Kentucky."
I didn't say anything, because I didn't know if it was hearsay, and a
false rumor would have been worse than almost anything else. But apparently
it's true.
The guy was very nice, and flew with us for a while as we headed on
northwest. I got his MKIII on video.
The terrain around London is not too bad to the northwest, but east and
south it is not a good place to lose an engine. The airport is one runway,
not too busy. And it is only about an hour and a half flying time from me.
Across a mountain range and NO place to land for half the trip.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ward <swultra(at)primenet.com> |
WHAT! tell us more. How about it Dennis. Steve Ward tubro Geo Mark-3
Monte wrote:
>
> Just back from Sun & Fun and was I surprised to find out Kolb has new
> owners and are now located in London, Kentucky. Am I the only one who
> didn't know this? Monte building a Mark3 in Georgia.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
I too just got back from SnF and yes there is a name change. It is now
called "The NEW KOLB AIRCRAFT COMPANY". I wrote them a check for M3 kit #1
myself and handed it to a fellow named Bruce Chesnut. His card tells me
that their phone number is (606) 862-9692 , address is 8375 Russell Dyche
Highway London, Ky. 40741. They have a web page going up at
www.tnkolbaircraft.com with a email address of tnkolbaircraft@sun-spot. I
don't understand if PA is closing or if it is just going to be a second
plant...All I know...
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J.D. Stewart" <jstewart(at)ncfcomm.com> |
I would think if I bought out the company and put up a new website, that I
would spell Kolb correctly! Pretty blatant mistake, right at the top. I
wish them well.
J.D. (Kolb admirer) Stewart
NCF Communications, Inc.
http://www.ncfcomm.com
UltraFun Airsports
http://www.users.ncfcomm.com/ultrafunairsports
Challenger Owners e-mail list administrator
http://challenger.maverick.net
Northeast Nebraska Flying Club
http://www.users.ncfcomm.com/nnfc
ICQ # 22494032
They have a web page going up at
>www.tnkolbaircraft.com with a email address of tnkolbaircraft@sun-spot. I
>don't understand if PA is closing or if it is just going to be a second
>plant...All I know...
>
>Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New owner consequences |
I'm sure when Dennis gets back for Sun'n fun we will hear more. I hope.
>In a message dated 4/13/99 8:14:37 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
>swultra(at)primenet.com writes:
> WHAT! tell us more. How about it Dennis. Steve Ward tubro Geo Mark-3
Maybe they can't use the name KOLB so they are renaming it to KOLD. ;-)
>In a message dated 4/13/99 10:36:58 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
>mswihart(at)tcsn.net writes:
> No way do I want to jeopardize
> my hard earned cash and investment of time building a plane on a company
> that just changed hands and no longer have access to the designer, folks
> who built and tested the design and can't even spell K-O-L-B of the plane
> they are selling.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New owner consequences |
Dang! Now my good wife says this is the third or fourth Orphan plane
you've had--the old Pipers, the old 172, the Cardinal (a double orphan)
and now the "KOLD"! It was bad enough with the 1/3 Curtis C-46, and the
1/2 SNJ (which she forgot)...and now this. Hey, maybe we'll have
gen-u-wine antiques soon? And Mr. Homer and Dennis were such nice
people---Dan, too.
Grey (not happy with change in my old age) Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
Like I said in my earlier post , I DON'T know the scoop (and the name change
didn't REALLY strike me as odd until after I'd wrote my check Sunday...)
BUT... All the regular gang was right there at the Kolb trailer including
, Dennis Souder , Homer Kolb , and the list' very own John Hauck who I spoke
with while I was signing paper work... I kind of hope that this is just a
good businessman stepping in to deal with the boring business end of it and
let Dennis and that gang get on with building and designing airplanes!!!
Personally I would like the guy doing the nitty gritty work on my airplane
to have his mind on that and not which tax form needs filling out or whether
or not the check book is balanced. I recently started my own company and
was very astounded how much productive time gets eat up doing the boring
paperwork and such that you have to do to be legal and to be able to write
yourself a check next week!!! Hope it's something like that...
Like I said before there were ALOT of familar KOLB faces around the tent
with a few new ones thrown in...it wasn't like a bunch of strangers standing
around.
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff / Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)tetric.com> |
| Subject: | Sale of Kolb Aircraft |
Hi All,
It seems like the story might be true, but I will wait for corroberation
from Dennis S. before I take it as the gospel truth. Probably is though
since the report supposedly came from him directly.
We will hopefully get an announcement from Dennis himself (or the new
owners) with all the details as soon as they have returned and recovered
from SNF.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling
801 Avenida Serena, Marble Falls, Texas 78654
Vista Del Rio (Central Texas Hill Couuntry)
(830)693-9333 (voice) -7633 (fax)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | The New Kolb Aircraft Company |
Gentlemen and Ladies:
Today is Tuesday, April 13th, and I have just returned from Sun-n-Fun.
Dennis Souder gave me the following this morning and asked me to put it out
on the Kolb list. Hopefully, this will explain what is transpiring at the
Kolb Aircraft Company.
Regards,
Skip
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The New Kolb Aircraft Company 606-862-9692 Fax: 606-862-9622
8375 Russell Dyche Highway
London, Kentucky 40741
www.tnkolbaircraft.com
Contact: tnkolbaircraft@sun-spot.com
--------- PRESS RELEASE ---------
April 12, 1999
Kolb Aircraft is pleased to announce the next step in its growth.
For 20 years, Kolb has been at its place of birth at the Homer Kolb Farm
in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. For five years Kolb has filled the existing
building, and has added rented facilities.
The New Kolb Aircraft Company is building facilities in Kentucky
and soon move to a beautiful new facility, The Chesnut Knolls Aviation
Foundation Airpark. The foundation promotes sport aviation. New Kolb
will have a large plant built for ultralight manufacturing, and a 2,100 foot
grass strip dedicated to Kolb ultralight flight, testing, and sales. State of
the art computer and direct Internet parts management will provide
immediate response to owner's requests anywhere in the world.
Mr. John Yates, a Kolb associate, is moving from Pennsylvania to
Kentucky to head The New Kolb Aircraft Company as Chief Operations
Officer. He has managed many aspects of Kolb manufacturing for the
past three years. John is a talented manufacturing engineer who brings
a wide range of skills and abilities to New Kolb.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | KOLB SOLD AGAIN!! |
| From: | JEFF H VAUGHAN <tonarockfarm(at)juno.com> |
Does anyone know anything about the new kolb owners? Word is that the PA
shop is closing!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com |
Monte
I did not know that !! are you sure that Dennis sold the company?
Rick Libersat
>
>Just back from Sun & Fun and was I surprised to find out Kolb has new
>owners and are now located in London, Kentucky. Am I the only one who
>didn't know this? Monte building a Mark3 in Georgia.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: The New Kolb Aircraft Company |
Skip
What about the rest of the group SURELY the new owner if their is on will
have to realize the talents that DAN,BILL ..... and the rest of the kolb
family have to offer. Did DENNIS say what would happen to them.
Rick Libersat
writes:
>
>
>Gentlemen and Ladies:
>
>Today is Tuesday, April 13th, and I have just returned from Sun-n-Fun.
>Dennis Souder gave me the following this morning and asked me to put
>it out
>on the Kolb list. Hopefully, this will explain what is transpiring at
>the
>Kolb Aircraft Company.
>
>Regards,
>Skip
>XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>
>The New Kolb Aircraft Company 606-862-9692 Fax: 606-862-9622
>8375 Russell Dyche Highway
>London, Kentucky 40741
>www.tnkolbaircraft.com
>Contact: tnkolbaircraft@sun-spot.com
>
>--------- PRESS RELEASE ---------
>April 12, 1999
>
> Kolb Aircraft is pleased to announce the next step in its growth.
>For 20 years, Kolb has been at its place of birth at the Homer Kolb
>Farm
>in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. For five years Kolb has filled the
>existing
>building, and has added rented facilities.
>
> The New Kolb Aircraft Company is building facilities in Kentucky
>and soon move to a beautiful new facility, The Chesnut Knolls Aviation
>Foundation Airpark. The foundation promotes sport aviation. New Kolb
>will have a large plant built for ultralight manufacturing, and a
>2,100 foot
>grass strip dedicated to Kolb ultralight flight, testing, and sales.
>State of
>the art computer and direct Internet parts management will provide
>immediate response to owner's requests anywhere in the world.
>
> Mr. John Yates, a Kolb associate, is moving from Pennsylvania to
>Kentucky to head The New Kolb Aircraft Company as Chief Operations
>Officer. He has managed many aspects of Kolb manufacturing for the
>past three years. John is a talented manufacturing engineer who
>brings
>a wide range of skills and abilities to New Kolb.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The New Kolb Aircraft Company |
Hi Rick,
>What about the rest of the group SURELY the new owner if their is on will
>have to realize the talents that DAN,BILL ..... and the rest of the kolb
>family have to offer. Did DENNIS say what would happen to them.
>Rick Libersat
I only know, and have only personally talked with, Homer and Dennis. Homer
indicated that he would be available for consultation and Dennis indicated
likewise. As you are aware, Homer is retired. Dennis has evidently
decided that, after 20 years, that maybe it was time to try something new.
Other than that, you'll have to ask Dennis as to what the plans are for the
rest of the organization. From what I could ascertain, everyone seems to
be satisfied with what is transpiring. The new owners seem to be held in
Regards,
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Hi Tim, in answer to your email I decided to respond to the list since
there may be others that might be interested in this.
I've been trailering for 12 years and I would advise all those who have a
garage (with space) to use it if they don't have the cash for a hanger.
There are some precautions to take since trailering can damage the plane
if one isn't careful in loading and unloading.
I have a little 4' X 8' trailer with a 3/4" plywood bed. Most of the
ultralight hangs off the back end. I tow it forward using my 4-cylinder
Grand Am (I was using a 1300 cc Honda prior to this and it pulled fine).
I bought the trailer as a kit (made in Taiwan) and it has served me well.
The trailer folds in half and also stores with the plane in a single car
garage. I recently bought a home with a 2-car garage so now there is no
need to fold it up anymore.
Here are my trailering rules:
Rule #1: always chock the trailer before loading and unloading.
Rule #2: take the time to check the tiedowns before moving.
Rule #3: inspect the trailer occasionally.
Rule #4: always lock the ball hitch and attach a safety chain.
Since my trailer has quite a load on the rear portion, the wings were
getting lower and lower while the nose was getting higher when I looked
into the rear view mirror while driving down the road. After a close
inspection, I found the weak spot in the frame after all these years of
service. I had it welded up and I added some angle iron underneath and
now it should last the rest of my days.
The trailer has a gross limit of 1000 lbs so it's fine for my FireStar.
Now that I don't have to fold it up, it's a breeze loading and unloading,
I keep all the "trailer things" like tiedowns, ramps, and chocks right on
the bed. One other nice feature is this type of trailer is small and easy
to maneuver around without a lot of heavy lifting. The less work that is
involved, the more I will want to fly.
I have not noticed any extra wear on the plane from trailering, it has
good shock absorption.
A hanger would be nice but there is an advantage to having the plane at
home: it's easier to keep it in shape with all the comforts of home and
the only "hanger-rash" I get will be made by me.
I paid $250 for the trailer. Let's see, at $100/mo for a hanger over 12
years ..... nice savings, huh? Hmmm, maybe it's time for a Mark III.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, home is the hanger
>So how long have tou been trailering the plane.
>
>I am goin to get mine next week from Dallas where it has been store
>dfor 7
>months. I always had it in a hangar and could fly in a minutes notice
>but my
>situation here in Virginia is making me use my garage. I guess thats
>why I
>build the plane and trailer in the first place. Got any trailering
>tips. I
>have only trailered it twice, once to the airport and once 200 miles
>to the
>brother n laws hangar for storage.
>
>Tim
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bil Ragsdale" <bilrags(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Kolb Company |
Well, the new web site exists. Funny at the top of the site they spell Kolb
as KOLD. I thought that was mighty cold! I've bought several parts from
Pennsylvania lately without problem. As a matter of fact I just received
and opened one carton today.
I'm hoping for the best,
Thanks, Bil
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Casey <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 1999 9:25 AM
>
>I too just got back from SnF and yes there is a name change. It is now
>called "The NEW KOLB AIRCRAFT COMPANY". I wrote them a check for M3 kit #1
>myself and handed it to a fellow named Bruce Chesnut. His card tells me
>that their phone number is (606) 862-9692 , address is 8375 Russell Dyche
>Highway London, Ky. 40741. They have a web page going up at
>www.tnkolbaircraft.com with a email address of tnkolbaircraft@sun-spot. I
>don't understand if PA is closing or if it is just going to be a second
>plant...All I know...
>
>Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter" <newsletter(at)rootscomputing.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The New Kolb Aircraft Company |
I have been reading the announcements and, like many Kolb owners, I have
had some concerns. However, one thing in the announcement pleased me:
>> Mr. John Yates, a Kolb associate, is moving from Pennsylvania to
>>Kentucky to head The New Kolb Aircraft Company as Chief Operations
>>Officer. He has managed many aspects of Kolb manufacturing for the
>>past three years. John is a talented manufacturing engineer who
>>brings
>>a wide range of skills and abilities to New Kolb.
I spent two days with John at his present manufacturing facility. I spent a
day there last December and another day there in February. I am very
impressed with his workmanship and his dedication (I am flying a FireFly
that John Yates built and then, some years later, re-built). He does good
work and he is very dedicated to the Kolb products.
I suspect that this is good news for Kolb owners.
- Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Float equipped M3 |
I came from SnF earlier this week and bought kit 1 for a Mark3. While I was
there I saw a M3 that flew in that was on a Full Lotus Mono Float with
retractable gear that used the original gear sockets for a mount. I assume
that the float could be dropped and flown off of the retractable gear if you
wanted to (eliminating the extra weight and drag without having to go
through a whole lot of work) ANYWAY...all that to say this , I was trying
to get by to speak to the owner but never could make it. I wanted to talk
to him about any modifactions that had to be done during construction (i.e.
weld extra attachment points in the frame for float mounts???) When I
finally got a minute to spare and was heading back to the ultralight area ,
I saw him flying away and I had to leave a few hours later , never saw him
again. The N-number on the plane was N176TS. If anyone knows who this is
please let me know , I would like to talk to him. I would like to build the
accomadations for this type of float system in while I build the plane so I
can add the float at a later date. Something that was interesting about the
setup...It was attached to the plane in 3 places, 2 points under the cockpit
area , 2 at the rear tube to cage attachment point , and 1 bolt at the
midspan of the tail boom. I assume that there was an extra H-section for
the midspan boom attach point. It reasons to me that triangulating the
float stiffner tubes with the tail boom would stop most of the flex out of
the tail boom...just guessing here...not that the tail boom flexing is a big
deal anyway...
Any comments from you guys that fly on floats??? I have never done it but
would like to at some time later. The pictures from Charles Russell
http://www.norquay.com/grizzlies/1998/June/13/index.html and Frank Reynen
http://www.webcom.com/reynen/ sure make it look like FUN!!! Any pros/cons
between the dual float system and the mono float???
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Float equipped M3 |
I ran the N number thru the AV Web search of the FAA database, came up blank,
could be new and hasn't been posted? AV Web has several different database's to
search. URL for their search page is http://www.avweb.com/toc/database.html
You may have to sign up to get to it.
Adam
Original Firestar - Kansas City area
Jeremy Casey wrote:
> The N-number on the plane was N176TS. If anyone knows who this is
> please let me know , I would like to talk to him.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <bwf(at)wavetech.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Float equipped M3 |
I just bought a M3 on a mono float. My float is attached in 4 places, #1 in
the nose, #2 just behind the seat, 3 & 4 on the tail boom. The gear is
electric and pulls in to an indentation in the cockpit.
Bruce
bwf(at)wavetech.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Casey <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 1:58 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Float equipped M3
>
>I came from SnF earlier this week and bought kit 1 for a Mark3. While I
was
>there I saw a M3 that flew in that was on a Full Lotus Mono Float with
>retractable gear that used the original gear sockets for a mount. I assume
>that the float could be dropped and flown off of the retractable gear if
you
>wanted to (eliminating the extra weight and drag without having to go
>through a whole lot of work) ANYWAY...all that to say this , I was trying
>to get by to speak to the owner but never could make it. I wanted to talk
>to him about any modifactions that had to be done during construction (i.e.
>weld extra attachment points in the frame for float mounts???) When I
>finally got a minute to spare and was heading back to the ultralight area ,
>I saw him flying away and I had to leave a few hours later , never saw him
>again. The N-number on the plane was N176TS. If anyone knows who this is
>please let me know , I would like to talk to him. I would like to build
the
>accomadations for this type of float system in while I build the plane so I
>can add the float at a later date. Something that was interesting about
the
>setup...It was attached to the plane in 3 places, 2 points under the
cockpit
>area , 2 at the rear tube to cage attachment point , and 1 bolt at the
>midspan of the tail boom. I assume that there was an extra H-section for
>the midspan boom attach point. It reasons to me that triangulating the
>float stiffner tubes with the tail boom would stop most of the flex out of
>the tail boom...just guessing here...not that the tail boom flexing is a
big
>deal anyway...
>
>Any comments from you guys that fly on floats??? I have never done it but
>would like to at some time later. The pictures from Charles Russell
>http://www.norquay.com/grizzlies/1998/June/13/index.html and Frank
Reynen
>http://www.webcom.com/reynen/ sure make it look like FUN!!! Any pros/cons
>between the dual float system and the mono float???
>Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ultrastar For Sale |
Hi Brad,
>I am forced to sell my Ultrastar. It has new stits covering
>and paint, 105 hrs on airframe, 35 hours on ULII-02, large pod with full
>panel and full windshield, wing tanks, reinforced wings, hegar wheels,
>brakes, 750 lb BRS and more.
I'm sorry to hear that you're selling the UltraStar. It sounds as if it's
a nice one. Mine is strictly plain vanilla with no extras at all. Not
even a compass or altimeter. :)
Just curious, did you ever get the engine running properly? The last that
I heard from you was when you ordered the Cuyuna service manuals and were
having carburator trouble. FWIW, my Cuyuna is performing flawlessly and
I've probably logged close to 50 hours this year. Maybe, when and if, I
get my medical going again, the UltraStar will assume it's more usual
position of flying only a few hours a year. :)
What are you asking for your machine? Who knows, I might need a spare. :)
Regards,
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BRS safety issue |
Steve: I've always had the same concerns about the throttle cable linkage
you mentioned. I soldered the cable end ahead of the set screw after
inserting it into the block but it still concerns me.
Steve Anderson
staecs(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mick Fine <froghair(at)busprod.com> |
>
>Dear Kolb owners,
>
> I have just returned from the Sun-N-Fun airshow in Lakeland
Florida. Yes,
>it is true, Kolb Aircraft is in the process of being acquired by "New
Kolb"........
Well, I guess it's official now! (Monte, I never doubted you for a minute
;-) guess I was just in the early stages of 'denial.') I'm stunned, and
just a little apprehensive about all this. Dennis, please forgive us for
being a little nervous about the future!
No other ultralight/light experimental 'kitter' enjoys the loyalty that
Kolb has had over the years. Kolb's reputation is the envy of all it's
competitors. This reputation was built around quality products but also
around the integrity of the people who designed, tested, refined and
finally built those kits. I know Homer and Dennis don't like this sorta
stuff but this really is the "end of an era."
Dennis, I wish you the best in your new assignment! I know you've already
got the job but should you ever need any references, there's 300 or so
right here besides the other few thousand around the world. I know what you
mean about any occupation becoming 'just a job' after a while but when you
think about it, you and Homer have given something pretty special to a
whole lot of people. I don't care if it sounds 'corny' - you made people's
dreams come true! That's something you can always be very proud of. It's
something very few of us will ever get the chance to do.
Good Luck!
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: It's Official! |
In a message dated 4/14/99 11:27:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
froghair(at)busprod.com writes:
<< Dennis, I wish you the best in your new assignment! I know you've already
got the job but should you ever need any references, there's 300 or so
right here besides the other few thousand around the world. I know what you
mean about any occupation becoming 'just a job' after a while but when you
think about it, you and Homer have given something pretty special to a
whole lot of people. I don't care if it sounds 'corny' - you made people's
dreams come true! That's something you can always be very proud of. It's
something very few of us will ever get the chance to do.
Good Luck!
-Mick Fine >>
Mick, you may not have "said it all" but what you did say fits my feelings
exactly and I'm sure the others will chime in, after the shock has
reverberated throughout their skulls for a few days. The Kolb name has been a
GREAT one and the original company has been a tremendous asset to the entire
ultralight community. We are proud of you folks back
there...................GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com |
well citizens, i guess as the old saying goes - opinions are like a_ _
holes, everybody has one, and i'm no exception. i guess dennis is right, its
time to move on to new things. i read about things like this in the wall street
journal all the time. companies grow to a point and in order for them to grow
further they need to merge/buy/or be bought in order to gain access to captial
and resourses, achieve economies of scale and so forth. of course there is the
personal side of it too. i'm as nervous as anybody about the future, we'll see
.................. tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Trailer advice needed |
I custom built my trailer, and even gave out the plans to a few, and it's a
great trailer, huge flatbed almost 28 feet long, built strong but low with
the plans for someday enclosing the trailer. For now my little Nissan pulls
it OK but I was just asking everyone for advice on using it and keeping it in
my garage since I have up until now had a hangar.
Got another question. And I saw another Kolber do this and even asked Dennis
for some advice, so here is my question. I saw a device made that is
basically a cradle that attaches to the boom tube with a full swivel caster
wheel on it. You attach it before folding the wings back. Then the rear of
the plane can move in any direction for ease of loading and unloading from
the trailer and to make it easy to finagle into the parking place. (currently
to move the tail from side to side you must pick up the tail which is kinda
awkward, as you all know) And the second major reason for this is that I then
use this as the cradle to keep the tail wheel up off the trailer, like the
plans say to do so. My plan is that once I attach this, its great for moving
around and I have a permanent fixture on the trailer that it locks into. So
her is my problem. I made it from an extra piece of the wing spar/boom tube.
I basically took a piece, cut it length wise, attached a hinge, carpeted the
inside to not scratch the boom tube, and made a leg on the bottom which has
the swivel wheel attached. My problem is that it does not grip the boom tube
tight enough so when I move the tail around it moves and moves just enough so
that the tail wheel of the airplane rests on the ground making this unit
useless. Dennis suggested drilling into the boom tube with a pin, etc
(haven't quite figured this out yet) to keep it from moving.
So I thought I would see if anybody else has made this unit. I saw this on a
Furestar near Dallas and the plane was made by some students, so sorry I do
not remember who you are, but if you read this, please drop me a note.
I had also thought about using a piece of rubber with the carpet to add some
grip. All in all it works pretty good, just need to refine my design.
Thanks for the help.
tim loehrke
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wire Tach Up? |
Hi Richard,
Looks like your question almost got lost with the announcement about
the sale of Kolb Aircraft, however yes you can connect your tach to the same
wires that feed your reg/rect.
Dick Kuntzleman
Kuntzleman Electronics, Inc
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New owner consequences |
Best of luck in your new position Dennis!!! We'll miss you!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trailer advice needed |
I was planning to do the same thing but never needed to as yet, but I had
thought to slot the back edges of the clamshell that clamps around the boom
and slip the slot around the leading edge of the upper/lower vertical fin
to stop it from rotating. The edges of the slot would need to be padded.
Possibility?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>Got another question. And I saw another Kolber do this and even asked Dennis
>for some advice, so here is my question. I saw a device made that is
>basically a cradle that attaches to the boom tube with a full swivel caster
>wheel on it. You attach it before folding the wings back. Then the rear of
>the plane can move in any direction for ease of loading and unloading from
>the trailer and to make it easy to finagle into the parking place. (currently
>to move the tail from side to side you must pick up the tail which is kinda
>awkward, as you all know) And the second major reason for this is that I then
>use this as the cradle to keep the tail wheel up off the trailer, like the
>plans say to do so. My plan is that once I attach this, its great for moving
>around and I have a permanent fixture on the trailer that it locks into. So
>her is my problem. I made it from an extra piece of the wing spar/boom tube.
>I basically took a piece, cut it length wise, attached a hinge, carpeted the
>inside to not scratch the boom tube, and made a leg on the bottom which has
>the swivel wheel attached. My problem is that it does not grip the boom tube
>tight enough so when I move the tail around it moves and moves just enough so
>that the tail wheel of the airplane rests on the ground making this unit
>useless. Dennis suggested drilling into the boom tube with a pin, etc
>(haven't quite figured this out yet) to keep it from moving.
>So I thought I would see if anybody else has made this unit. I saw this on a
>Furestar near Dallas and the plane was made by some students, so sorry I do
>not remember who you are, but if you read this, please drop me a note.
>I had also thought about using a piece of rubber with the carpet to add some
>grip. All in all it works pretty good, just need to refine my design.
>Thanks for the help.
>tim loehrke
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
Kolbers:
I spent some time with Bruce Chesnut, the top guy at the New Kolb Aircraft,
while at SNF. I can see that there is some anxiety about a possible
corporate direction change. RELAX. Bruce is one of us. He has built a
couple of Kolbs, he built an award winning Glassair. He has alot of GA
experience. I was impressed with his grasp of the business and I think that
the business model he has in mind for the new Kolb company is something that
we will all be comfortable with.
I suppose my immediate impression is that I found him to be a nice guy.
He spent quite a bit of time listening to me and other builders. When I saw
him on wednesday he told me that he was all charged up about the things he
had learned talking to various builders and was going back to Kentucky with
plans to design an optional left hand throttle that a number of folks had
requested and a couple of other things like that.
For the moment kits will be shipped from Pheonixville, though the
operation will move to kentucky when Bruce's people are up to speed. Mike
Horvath has been training the new guys and he has good things to say about
them. I met a few of the new production guys and they were uniformly good
fellows.
I have no sense whatsover that Bruce plans to change the level of
service that the Kolb folks have delivered over the years. Keep in mind he
is a builder himself and knows how important that is. I also have the
impression that Bruce has some real assets to put into the business, not just
financial but people as well. He has a flight park/airport in Kentucky which
sounds beautiful, and that is where the new factory will be located.
I also think there will be real continuity. Some key Kolb production
people will relocate to KY. I am a Mark III builder and I want to be sure
that I can get parts and support. Bruce was totally reassuring. There was
nothing arrogant about him at all. In many corporate purchase situations I
have observed the new guys think the old guys were are jerks and can't wait
to get rid of them. Not here. Bruce speaks highy of Dennis and reverently
of Homer. Both Homer and Dennis were at SNF and had good things to say about
the new owners. Bruce is way too smart not to use their experience and
design talent in the future.
Overall I think the change will be a good thing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: New owner consequences |
Yes,
>it is true, Kolb Aircraft is in the process of being acquired by "New Kolb"
>- but this need not give rise to alarm
Dennis,
Congratulations on your new direction. I'm happy for you, and it sounds
like you have still put the company and your customers in the best possible
position, even in your departure. You and the whole Kolb group put out a
lot more than a fine bunch of airplanes. Your planes are great, but you
are admired and envied for the way you have done business. It is a model
many will continue to point to. And like Mick said, you certainly played a
huge part in making life-long dreams come true, mine included.
You can't spend this, but you can own it. Thank you for everything.
-Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Trailer advice needed |
Tim Loehrke wrote, quote;
Got another question. - - - I saw a device made that is basically a cradle
that attaches to the boom tube with a full swivel caster wheel on it. You
attach it before folding the wings back. Then the rear of the plane can move
in any direction for ease of loading and unloading from the trailer and to
make it easy to finagle into the parking place. - - - - unquote.
Hi Tim;
I made a device much like you have in mind. I'll try to describe what I
built;
A base of 1/2 inch plywood has 3 inch wheel casters in each corner. If
desired, they can be locked so that they won't swivel which helps keep the
assembly in place on a trailer. Vertical supports of 2" X 6" lumber, about 6
ft. long hinge on the base board. The hinges/boards are mounted about 3 ft.
apart from each other. These vertical supports are linked together by two
pieces of 2" X 10" lumber bolted horizontally between them; one on the
"front" edge & one on the "back" edge. Each of the horizontal pieces have
identically sized half-circle cutouts on their top edge. Both the outside
surface of the vertical 2" X 6" and the half-circle cutouts are padded. The
lumber ends up looking like a capital letter "H" hinged to the base board.
The "H" assembly hinges so that the assembly can be laid down and wheeled
under the tail boom in the fore & aft direction. Then it is raised and
locked into the vertical position. The tail boom rests in the horizontal 2"
X 10" pieces with the padded half-circle cutouts. The horizontal boards are
positioned on the vertical boards such that the tail wheel is raised off the
ground when the tail boom is resting in the cutouts. Since the 2" X 10"
horizontal pieces are separated fore & aft by the width of the 2" X 6"
vertical pieces, the whole assembly is held in alignment with the airplane
when the tail boom is resting in it's nest. The wings then fold back and are
strapped against the padded vertical 2" X 6" pieces. This gives them very
good support while in transit; I believe it is better than the standard
method of pinning the underside of the wing to the tail boom. The base also
has a padded rest for the leading edge of the wing when it is folded back
against the vertical supports.
If you prefer to use the factory standard wing support attachment to the tail
boom, then obviously, the above-described assembly could be made much simpler.
I hope you can follow my attempt to describe this project.
Subsequent to building this "thing", I decided to hanger my airplane, so I
haven't used it very much.
Ron Christensen
MKIII1/2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Czyrny <czyrny(at)acsu.buffalo.edu> |
| Subject: | Looking for a BRS chute |
I am looking for a 500 or 750 canister BRS chute. If anyone has one
please let me know the price and when it is due to be repacked. Thanks,
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "merle hargis" <merlepilar(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New owner consequences |
I'll put my 2 cents in Dennis. Thanks a lot and good luck in your
position. Hope you stay on the Kolb list and contribute to the
discussions. And also thank you Homer, enjoy your retirement.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a BRS chute (response) |
Jim: You wrote looking for a BRS chute.
I have a BRS 5 that was factory repacked last month. I also had them install
a new rocket and the new Kevlar harness. It is like new in the factory BRS
box. I am a very fat Firestar (about 360 lbs empty weight) and probably
should be using a BRS 750. If you would be interested in my BRS 5 I would
buy a 750. I should get about $1,400.00 for the newely packed BRS 5 with
new rocket and harness.
If anyone is reading this and has a reasonably new 750 please let me know.
Steve Anderson
Rapid City, South Dakota
(605)341-1798
staecs(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sharp, Mike (ML)" <MLSHARP(at)dow.com> |
John,
I haven't been on you map page in a while. some time ago I sent
my information... here it is again.. if this is a duplicate or you
already have it posted.. please forgive............
Mike Sharp
Building Kolb Mark III
N-6490J
Angleton Texas. (approx. 40 miles south of Houston...)
Thanks......
Mike
> ----------
> From: John Jung[SMTP:jrjung(at)execpc.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 1999 1:49 PM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb Map
>
>
> Group,
>
> My "Kolb Map" http://www.execpc.com/~jrjung/Kolb_Map.html
> includes
> list
> members that own or are building a Kolb and have asked to be put on
> the
> map. I
> haven't updated it recently and I have a few more people to add. It
> only tells
> what city and model Kolb and if building or flying. I elected not to
> add e-mail
> addresses because of the problem of keeping them up-to-date. It does
> have websites
> links. For anyone on the map that either moves, or changes status
> (finishes building
> and starts flying), let me know and I will include the info on the
> next
> update. Also,
> I can add new people to the map as long as they are from a state that
> isn't full.
>
> John Jung
> Firestar II N6163J
> SE Wisconsin
>
>
>
>
> -----
>
> -----
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> -----
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sharp, Mike (ML)" <MLSHARP(at)dow.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 03/31/99 |
Frank,
Do you wish to take stats from folks???
if so:
Mike Sharp
Building Kolb "Classic" Mark III N-6490J
Angleton Texas (approx. 40 miles south of Houston..)
if not.... sorry......
later...
mike
> ----------
> From: Frank, Christie & Frank
> Hodson[SMTP:fchodson(at)bigfoot.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 1999 4:14 AM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 03/31/99
>
>
>
> I'd be glad to put together a map/list/directory and place it on my
> webpage.
> I'll try to get the list from the matronics kolblist manager. If you
> have
> any suggestions, send them to me.
>
> I'm on "Paternity Leave" for the moment so I have a little time to put
> towards it. I need a project to keep my sanity anyway!!
>
> Franklin E. Hodson III
>
> fchodson@bigfoot.com |http://www.bigfoot.com/~fchodson
>
>
>
>
> -----
>
> -----
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> -----
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Please remove me from your E- Mail list.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Trailer advice needed |
Hey got the photos on your web page. The clam shell is close to what I have
made, and the mouse pads AMEN AMEN AMEN, great idea. Have you thought about
putting a swivel castor on the bottom so it wheels easily to and from the
trailer.
looks like a real nice trailer also, also looks expensive.
Leaving tomorrow to get my airlane anf the 2000 mile trip on the trailer,
here's hoping.
tim
Will talk to you more soon, thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trailer advice needed |
John,
You have some great ideas. I really like the frame & siding construction of
your trailer. I sure would appreciate it if you could put some pictures of the
inside walls doors outside view of siding & how you fastened
it; & over all view of trailer. I'm building one now & would certainly benifit
from them. ...Richard S
Wood, John T. wrote:
>
> http://www.sdlink.com/wood/
>
> Tim,
> My approach to supporting the fuselage tube uses a aluminum clam shell
> that is hinged with piano hinges and supports an aluminum truss to lift and
> hold the fuselage tube firm. The tube is 6" dia 1/4" thick and 18" long and
> is padded with 1/4" mouse pads. Two arms suspended below the tube mesh into
> the two arms extending from the floor of the trailer using 1/4 in pins. Once
> the pins in place I use the lever to raise the 2 arms into position and the
> lever is secured in the cradle with a 1/4" pin. As I pull the lever into
> position and the arms raise the boom (tail wheel off the ground) the main
> wheels are wedged against the stops and the wheel tie downs are wrapped
> around the tires and secured with 2 1/4" ibolts to nuts attached to the
> floor. I adjust the height of the wheel clamps so there is about 1/2 to 3/4
> in. of compression on the tires. The arms and lever are all connect to a
> pole on the underside of the trailer and uses wood clamps for the bearings.
> There are also 2 ubolts, one on each side of the arms to counter against the
> weight of the trailer on the arm.
> I hope the pictures help give you some ideas. None of this cost much if you
> have access to welding gear. I built it with surplus metal and emt conduit.
>
> Let me know if you were able to view my pictures. I had a friend help me
> create a web page.
>
> John N670JW
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Some SlingShot pictures |
http://members.aol.com/n8754k/page/index.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Vortec Generators |
Any-one had any experience with using Vortex Generators; I'm thinking of
trying them on my Firestar I.
Howard Shackleford
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Cubberly" <CUBTLC(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a BRS chute (response) |
Steve
I have a friend here who is going to sell his 900 BRS that was repacked in
late 98 w/new rocket. Don't have a price but could check for you.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: STAECS(at)aol.com <STAECS(at)aol.com>
Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Looking for a BRS chute (response)
>
>Jim: You wrote looking for a BRS chute.
>
>I have a BRS 5 that was factory repacked last month. I also had them
install
>a new rocket and the new Kevlar harness. It is like new in the factory BRS
>box. I am a very fat Firestar (about 360 lbs empty weight) and probably
>should be using a BRS 750. If you would be interested in my BRS 5 I would
>buy a 750. I should get about $1,400.00 for the newely packed BRS 5 with
>new rocket and harness.
>
>If anyone is reading this and has a reasonably new 750 please let me know.
>
>Steve Anderson
>Rapid City, South Dakota
>(605)341-1798
>staecs(at)aol.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
who Kolb-List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mick Fine <froghair(at)busprod.com> |
Not to be a "snitch" but I saw this on the rec.aviation.ultralight list,
was wondering what ever happened with Ron:
------------------------------------
"A very nice Kolb Firestar, completed in November 1998. Outstanding
performance from a Rotax-377 and the original wooden prop.
Total time 60-hours, no damage.
E-mail me for more information/pictures.
Ron
ron.carroll(at)worldnet.att.net
Plane is located near Salem Oregon"
--------------------------------------------
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Disintegrtating Props |
GeoR38(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> John, did you have a piece of STEEL plate or sheet riveted to your boom right
> at the line of prop pass?...I've seen this on some Firestars.........GeoR38
Hi GeoR38 and Gang:
Sorry for the delay in answering your email, but just got
home from Lakeland tonight.
No guards or shields on tailboom. It stayed together from
the attack by the wooden blades. Wouldn't want a carbon
fiber blade to duplicate that attack. Another reason to
have the insurance of a balistic parachute.
john h (tired and hungry and back home in hauck's holler,
alabama)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
remove form your list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
Just checking up on some projects all at once...Was wondering how the guys
out there who were installing the Raven Redrives kits were coming. I am a
long way from needing an engine but am considering alot of ideas... So has
anyone flown the Raven kit yet??? They (Raven) say that there are about
6-8 or so being installed on Kolbs right now. Reply off list if you would
like...
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
Kolb M3 wing & tail on order...
EAA#583961 Local CH. #677
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | MKIII Performance Update |
Hey Kolb Fans;
You may recall my recent writings about my 912 powered MKIII1/2 that is about
15 MPH slower than (for example) John Hauck's similar MKIII; the big
difference is that mine has wings that have been clipped 3 ft. overall.
Recently, it was suggested that I try flying with some added weight in the
nose. I put a bag of sand weighing about 45 lb. between the right side seat
and rudder pedals. Guess what - - I lost about 5 MPH in cruise speed and
about 300 FPM in climb ! ! ! I have double checked the rigging, I know the
wings & tail feathers are all in alignment.
The other suggestion that I checked out was to check the position of the
elevator in straight & level flight (SLF). I did this by measuring the
distance from the top of the stick to the instrument panel while on the
ground with the elevator trimmed to be in alignment with the plane of the
horizontal stabilizer. In SLF with the added 45 lb. on board, I needed about
3/4 of an inch of back pressure on the stick to hold altitude. Without the
added bag of weight, i.e., just me aboard, the distance of the stick to the
instrument panel measured EXACTLY the same as it did on the ground.
I am now convinced that the performance problem is caused only by the fact
that I clipped the wings, so I now plan to make a 3rd. set of wing tips; this
time restoring the 3 ft. of lost span. (The first set of tips are curled UP;
the second set curl DOWN). The 3rd. and hopefully, final set will
essentially duplicate the shape of the original wing tips. Incidentally, I
have done many things during the construction process to clean the
aerodynamics, like fully enclosed cage, wheel pants, faired landing gear
legs, etc.
Comments anyone??
Ron Christensen
MKIII/12
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Gherkins" <rp3420(at)EMAIL.SPS.MOT.COM> |
For you Firestar owners out there.. Do you think it would be beneficial for a
Firestar to have flaps? Has it been done? How easy would it be to install
them? Any thoughts?
Tim in Phoenix
adr;dom: ;;;CH305;;;
tel;work: 6028144651
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Performance Update |
-----Original Message-----
From: RLCPTL(at)aol.com <RLCPTL(at)aol.com>
Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 5:16 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: MKIII Performance Update
>Recently, it was suggested that I try flying with some added weight in the
>nose. I put a bag of sand weighing about 45 lb. between the right side
seat
>and rudder pedals. Guess what - - I lost about 5 MPH in cruise speed and
>about 300 FPM in climb ! ! ! I have double checked the rigging, I know
the
>wings & tail feathers are all in alignment.
from previous posts
>Concerning your comment about CG, are you suggesting that the airplane may
>fly faster with two people aboard?
No I am saying it would fly faster with no people on board if you are having
a trim problem it would be that you are nose heavy and having to hold a ton
of up elevator or stabilizer to hold the nose up. That pushes down onthe
tail making drag and making the wing lift up that much more weight. if your
CG is in limits then that is not a problem.
>The other suggestion that I checked out was to check the position of the
>elevator in straight & level flight (SLF). I did this by measuring the
>distance from the top of the stick to the instrument panel while on the
>ground with the elevator trimmed to be in alignment with the plane of the
>horizontal stabilizer. In SLF with the added 45 lb. on board, I needed
about
>3/4 of an inch of back pressure on the stick to hold altitude. Without the
>added bag of weight, i.e., just me aboard, the distance of the stick to the
>instrument panel measured EXACTLY the same as it did on the ground.
so you're not having a trim problem!
I think the wing area extensions is the way to go... might even want to go
to bigger then an original MKIII as you weight more then a MKIII... not to
big as your wing bending moment will go up and you might start
overstressing the wing just outboard of the strut.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GOOCHMAC(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Twwinstar wanted |
Looking to an older style Twinstar (open cockpit) to buy. If you
have one or know where I can find one please drop me a line. Thanks.
Martin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar flaps? |
Tim,
If you want to get down faster, just pull off more throttle. My
Firestar II can decend like it has flaps, and lands in 250 feet. What
more could a pilot want? There is one problem with pulling off a lot of
throttle while decending: You better not flair early, because it will
stop flying quickly.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
>Tim Gherkins wrote:
>
>
> For you Firestar owners out there.. Do you think it would be beneficial for a
> Firestar to have flaps? Has it been done? How easy would it be to install
> them? Any thoughts?
>
> Tim in Phoenix
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com> |
| Subject: | Solo in the MKIII |
Has anyone on this list trimmed their MKIII to fly hands off solo?
I've tried lowering the flap on the left side, but the nose descends a
bit causing more elevator trim. I am now working with the ailerons, but
would like something without using a sink factor (or down pressure) for
trim. The ailerons (I know) will sooner or later work, but while one
aileron lifts,,, the other pushes down. I have my rudder trim worked
out so it works great in the air without too much ground effect... It
has about half the trim I thought it would have. Every now and then I
must touch the left rudder, but in general I now fly straight.
If there is no other recoarse but the ailerons, then I shall proceed as
I am.
Just thought I'ed ask here... ( I had a little push to bring this to
the list by a fellow Kolb man..)
Regards
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar flaps? |
In a message dated 4/19/99 9:58:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jrjung(at)execpc.com writes:
<< Tim,
If you want to get down faster, just pull off more throttle. My
Firestar II can decend like it has flaps, and lands in 250 feet. What
more could a pilot want? There is one problem with pulling off a lot of
throttle while decending: You better not flair early, because it will
stop flying quickly.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
>Tim Gherkins wrote:
>
>
> For you Firestar owners out there.. Do you think it would be beneficial
for a
> Firestar to have flaps? Has it been done? How easy would it be to install
> them? Any thoughts?
>
> Tim in Phoenix
>>
Boy!..I sure wish I could land MINE in 250Ft!!......I need 750 Ft. One time I
tried to land in 700 Ft and was so concerned about the cyclone fence on the
other end ...I ended up landing it in only 35 Ft...but by no means
successfully!!...I bent both gear... I guess I just don't know how to do
it!!.........GeoR38 Firestar driver..the ol fat glider pilot!! and kinda ugly
too!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Performance Update |
Take the weight out, reflex the flaps up about 3/8", fly it at the same
throttle setting, and tell us what the speed, rate of climb, and the stick
position is.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>Hey Kolb Fans;
>You may recall my recent writings about my 912 powered MKIII1/2 that is about
>15 MPH slower than (for example) John Hauck's similar MKIII; the big
>difference is that mine has wings that have been clipped 3 ft. overall.
>Recently, it was suggested that I try flying with some added weight in the
>nose. I put a bag of sand weighing about 45 lb. between the right side seat
>and rudder pedals. Guess what - - I lost about 5 MPH in cruise speed and
>about 300 FPM in climb ! ! ! I have double checked the rigging, I know the
>wings & tail feathers are all in alignment.
>
>The other suggestion that I checked out was to check the position of the
>elevator in straight & level flight (SLF). I did this by measuring the
>distance from the top of the stick to the instrument panel while on the
>ground with the elevator trimmed to be in alignment with the plane of the
>horizontal stabilizer. In SLF with the added 45 lb. on board, I needed about
>3/4 of an inch of back pressure on the stick to hold altitude. Without the
>added bag of weight, i.e., just me aboard, the distance of the stick to the
>instrument panel measured EXACTLY the same as it did on the ground.
>
>Comments anyone??
>
>Ron Christensen
>MKIII/12
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solo in the MKIII |
I worked real hard, and without much success trying to get my MKIII to fly
hands off. Last summer at Oshkosh I asked JH how to get a MKIII to fly
hands off, and his reply was; "MKIII's won't fly hands off., you are
wasting your time." So I quit worrying about it.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Has anyone on this list trimmed their MKIII to fly hands off solo?
>
>I've tried lowering the flap on the left side, but the nose descends a
>bit causing more elevator trim. I am now working with the ailerons, but
>would like something without using a sink factor (or down pressure) for
>trim. The ailerons (I know) will sooner or later work, but while one
>aileron lifts,,, the other pushes down. I have my rudder trim worked
>out so it works great in the air without too much ground effect... It
>has about half the trim I thought it would have. Every now and then I
>must touch the left rudder, but in general I now fly straight.
>
>If there is no other recoarse but the ailerons, then I shall proceed as
>I am.
>
>Just thought I'ed ask here... ( I had a little push to bring this to
>the list by a fellow Kolb man..)
>Regards
>Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN M. COOLEY" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar flaps? |
Hi Tim and Gang:
I finally get to come out of the bushes again. I think I might have some
info that Tim is looking for. As ya'll might remember I'm a Kolb wannabe and
I hope to order my first kit of a Firestar 2 very soon. I spoke to Dennis
Souder several months ago about this same issue and he indicated that you
could special order a FS with flaperons at a additional cost of approx. 300
bucks. Also the Dec. 1993 issue of Ultralight Flying magazine has a flight
report on the FS 2 by Dan Johnson where he reported that he didn't fly the
FS 2 with a passenger but he could imagine times when flaps might be desired
with a passenger in the rear seat though not necessary flying solo. Hope
this helps! See ya'll, I'm going back in the lurking mode.
John Cooley
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Gherkins <rp3420(at)EMAIL.SPS.MOT.COM>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 1999 5:29 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Firestar flaps?
>
>
> For you Firestar owners out there.. Do you think it would be beneficial
for a
> Firestar to have flaps? Has it been done? How easy would it be to
install
> them? Any thoughts?
>
> Tim in Phoenix
>
> adr;dom: ;;;CH305;;;
> tel;work: 6028144651
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 04/19/99 |
Want a bargain? Got an Ultrastart re-built ground up. New gear, crome molly
stripped, primer and paint. Wings R&R stits and poly tone white. No engine.
$3500. Put your engine and be in air for $5000! Might deliver. TCowan1917@
aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:FireFly Brakes/Wheels |
When I went shopping for brakes for those little FireFly wheels I found that
none of the wheel/brake companys are making this product. The best
alternative was to adapt band brakes available from go-cart suppliers. After
several trys I got them to work fairly well but they did not seem to have the
stopping power needed. Mike Highsmith suggested that the way I had the bands
anchored was the problem. The anchor point needed to be located so that the
band lining dragged on the surface of the drum when the drum was rolling
forward. I had them anchored the opposite way. The proof was when I applied
brakes in while rolling backwards they really grabbed vs when rolling forward
they were far less effective. After I reversed them they worked great, far
better than those wobbly internal shoe brakes I used on my Mark lll. I plan
to use them mainly for parking while I start the engine and to avoid other
aircraft while taxying (Sp?) at the blind corners around the hangar area. My
concern is that if I jamb them on continiously the heat generated will start
melting those little plastic wheels. The big wheels, solid axles, drums etc
weigh about five pounds more and I am still trying to stay within the Part
103 weight limit.
P.S. Welding those band brackets to the ankle and aligning the drums on the
wheels was a real pain but it's better than trying to drag your foot over the
side when you see a Beech Baron coming around the conner of a hanger !
Duane Mitchell, Tallahassee,FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Looking for a BRS chute (response) |
Bob:
Thanks for the 900 info but I'm specifically wanting a 750.
Thanks, anyway.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Waligroski, Greg" <gwaligro(at)ball.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Kolb-List Digest: 04/19/99 |
>>> For you Firestar owners out there.. Do you think it would be
beneficial for a
> Firestar to have flaps? Has it been done? How easy would it be to
> install
> them? Any thoughts?
>
> Tim in Phoenix
>
> adr;dom: ;;;CH305;;;
> tel;work: 6028144651 <<<<<<
>
>
Tim, I think adding separate flaps will cost you weight. A
flaperon mixer might work but added complexity. I can get my FS2 down in
about 300' or less ground roll on a grass strip in calm conditions without
much problem, with some headwind even less. I would think flaps would
mainly help me to have a steeper approach more than slowing my touch down
speed. I can sideslip pretty hard but it doesn't do a tremendous amount. I
would go simple and light which will keep your stall speed down probably as
much as hanging flaps. Maybe I will try and droop my ailerons and see what
simulated flaperons would do..............................
Gregg in Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com> |
Doc:
Moving the ailerons will only droop both of them, and move the stick off
center in level flight. It will never work for trim. You may succeed
in getting the stick to be centered with you holding it, but as soon as
you release pressure, the stick will go off center and the ailerons will
both be drooped or reflexed depending on which way you moved one of
them. Someone on the list mentioned a bungee looped around the stick
and for more trim you just slide the bungee up the stick.
________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Kolbers:
Recently completed a top overhauled my 503 Dual CDI engine. New rings, wrist
pins, gaskets, etc. Followed the break-in procedure to the letter. Engine
runs fine at low RPM and about 5 minutes at full throttle when engine starts
to sputter and losses power. Throttling back does not help. Engine won't
quit just produces about 50% power. EGT/CHT all normal with no change after
problem occurs.
Feels like either a fuel starvation or electrical problem. I have replaced
fuel pump with electrical pump, no improvement, changed back again and put
new diaphragms and gaskets in pulse pump, checked pulse line, checked plugs
and caps, changed needle settings, changed jets, replaced all fuel lines and
filter, checked fuel tank pickup, tried new fuel, tightened all gas line
clamps, changed gas cap and examined air intake, examined all wiring for
possible shorting, cleaned air filters, inspected carbs for proper assembly,
tightened carb boots to manafold, tightened all gas line clamps, each effort
with exactly the same result, runs fine at low settings, about 5 minutes at
full throttle then begins to sputter and cut out. Again all CHT and EGT
normal.
I'm really at a loss. Thanks in advance for light anyone might be able to
shed on this problem.
Steve Anderson
staecs(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Gherkins" <rp3420(at)EMAIL.SPS.MOT.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Kolb-List Digest: 04/19/99 |
Greg,
I would be very interested in the effectiveness of your drooped aileron test.
I wonder if it would cause a yaw unstability problem, having those flaps
(flaperons) way out on the wing tips?
Tim in Phoenix
adr;dom: ;;;CH305;;;
tel;work: 6028144651
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com> |
| Subject: | One rotor rotary engine |
Here is a web site I stumbled across that has an interesting looking
engine, I e-mailed him a couple of days ago but have received no
response. If anyone else knows anything about it, please let us know.
http://personal.riverusers.com/~yawpower/onerotor.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ward <swultra(at)primenet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Raven guys??? |
Hi all, Im am going to be running the turbo version of the Geo on my mark-3. I
have the engine and drive mounted , looks great and every thing bolts on. I am
using Raven's UL-drive,mounts and dry sump sys.. Hope some of you saw some pics.
of my plane at sun and fun at Jeron's booth (raven redrives). off to work!
Steve Ward turbo Geo Mark-3
Jeremy Casey wrote:
>
> Just checking up on some projects all at once...Was wondering how the guys
> out there who were installing the Raven Redrives kits were coming. I am a
> long way from needing an engine but am considering alot of ideas... So has
> anyone flown the Raven kit yet??? They (Raven) say that there are about
> 6-8 or so being installed on Kolbs right now. Reply off list if you would
> like...
>
> Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
> Kolb M3 wing & tail on order...
> EAA#583961 Local CH. #677
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Troubles |
>
>Dear Kolbers:
>
>Recently completed a top overhauled my 503 Dual CDI engine. New rings,
wrist
>pins, gaskets, etc. Followed the break-in procedure to the letter. Engine
>runs fine at low RPM and about 5 minutes at full throttle when engine starts
>to sputter and losses power. Throttling back does not help. Engine won't
>quit just produces about 50% power. EGT/CHT all normal with no change after
>problem occurs.
If you have Dual carbs-make sure the throttle spliter is not
malfunctioning, and will pull the slides all the way up. Had similar problem.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b.charlton" <bambo(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Troubles |
You havent crimped your fuel tank vent have you?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Troubles |
Steve,
Often your symptom occurs when you have a crack in your coil. After it heats
up, the coil expands, the crack opens & it shorts to ground. Works great again
after it cools down. Barrow a coil & see if it helps. ---Richard S
STAECS(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Dear Kolbers:
>
> Recently completed a top overhauled my 503 Dual CDI engine. New rings, wrist
> pins, gaskets, etc. Followed the break-in procedure to the letter. Engine
> runs fine at low RPM and about 5 minutes at full throttle when engine starts
> to sputter and losses power. Throttling back does not help. Engine won't
> quit just produces about 50% power. EGT/CHT all normal with no change after
> problem occurs.
>
> Feels like either a fuel starvation or electrical problem. I have replaced
> fuel pump with electrical pump, no improvement, changed back again and put
> new diaphragms and gaskets in pulse pump, checked pulse line, checked plugs
> and caps, changed needle settings, changed jets, replaced all fuel lines and
> filter, checked fuel tank pickup, tried new fuel, tightened all gas line
> clamps, changed gas cap and examined air intake, examined all wiring for
> possible shorting, cleaned air filters, inspected carbs for proper assembly,
> tightened carb boots to manafold, tightened all gas line clamps, each effort
> with exactly the same result, runs fine at low settings, about 5 minutes at
> full throttle then begins to sputter and cut out. Again all CHT and EGT
> normal.
>
> I'm really at a loss. Thanks in advance for light anyone might be able to
> shed on this problem.
>
> Steve Anderson
> staecs(at)aol.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
| Subject: | weight and balance question |
I weighed my plane, me and fuel and it appears that I may be nearing the aft
CG limit. I would like to find out what other Firestar 2 builders got for
their calculations and to find out how far I am off the mark. My station is
the leading edge of the wing.
Here are my numbers.
weight station moment
left wheel 260 7.25 1885
right wheel 260.5 7.125 1856.06
tail wheel 42 192.25 8074.5
gas 1 30 19 570
gas 2 30 29 870
622.5 13255.5
13255.5/622.5 = 21.294 c of g
21.294 * 100/61 = 34.908 = % of cg
With limit of 35% aft it appears that I will need to add some lead to the
nose to move the CG forward. My own weight is now a factor about 190 lbs.
John N670JW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 04/19/99 |
Where are You?!
Is this a single seat?
Geoff Thistlethwaite
-----Original Message-----
From: TCowan1917(at)aol.com <TCowan1917(at)aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 7:14 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 04/19/99
>
>Want a bargain? Got an Ultrastart re-built ground up. New gear, crome
molly
>stripped, primer and paint. Wings R&R stits and poly tone white. No
engine.
>$3500. Put your engine and be in air for $5000! Might deliver.
TCowan1917@
>aol.com.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 <sbaew(at)dames.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sun n fun and Kolb |
I was unsubscribed from the list while on vacation for a few weeks, so am
not up on the latest postings. My vacation included attending the latter
part of Sun n Fun in Florida. Has the list received reports already about
the fly-in and the news of the sale of Kolb Aircraft Company? Dont want
to bore anybody if this is old news......
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: weight and balance question |
In a message dated 4/20/99 5:20:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil writes:
<< I would like to find out what other Firestar 2 builders got for
their calculations and to find out how far I am off the mark. My station is
the leading edge of the wing. >>
John, it would appear that Kolb designed the Firestar I/II for really big
guys; my CG is almost exactly in center of recommended limits, but
wait-that's with me weighing 265,
only 5 gal. gas, "C" Box, Warp 3 blade prop, brakes. My friend flies his FS
I at the rear limit of CG with no problem, however his plane wants to take
off with no elevator input.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Perry" <perryr(at)123.net> |
| Subject: | Re: weight and balance question |
I'm having the same problem in my Ultrastar. I'm finding that with my body
weight, (195 lbs.) I am 2" behind my rear limit of area for the CG. The
book says the CG should be 16"-19" from the leading edge of the wing. Mine
is only 21". I added 35 lbs to the nose and this brought the CG back to
about 18" from the leading edge, but affected my performance and put me over
FAR 103 weight restrictions.
Any Ideas? My boom tube is already cut down by a foot (per Kolb).
Thanks,
Rob Perry
1984 Kolb Ultrastar
http://mula.perrydice.com/newplane.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: weight and balance question |
Rob Perry wrote:
>
>
> I'm having the same problem in my Ultrastar. I'm finding that with my body
> weight, (195 lbs.) I am 2" behind my rear limit of area for the CG. The
> book says the CG should be 16"-19" from the leading edge of the wing. Mine
> is only 21". I added 35 lbs to the nose and this brought the CG back to
> about 18" from the leading edge, but affected my performance and put me over
> FAR 103 weight restrictions.
>
> Any Ideas? My boom tube is already cut down by a foot (per Kolb).
>
> Thanks,
> Rob Perry
> 1984 Kolb Ultrastar
> http://mula.perrydice.com/newplane.htm
Rob:
Did you try scooting the seat forward a notch or two?
At 180 lbs I had not problem with my Ultrastar, also a 1984,
built and flying in '84. ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Perry" <perryr(at)123.net> |
| Subject: | Re: weight and balance question |
Oops, wrong URL
Rob Perry
1984 Kolb Ultrastar
http://mula.perrydice.com/robsnew.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Wood, John T. <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 5:16 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: weight and balance question
>
> I weighed my plane, me and fuel and it appears that I may be nearing the
aft
> CG limit. I would like to find out what other Firestar 2 builders got for
> their calculations and to find out how far I am off the mark. My station
is
> the leading edge of the wing.
>
> Here are my numbers.
>
> weight station moment
> left wheel 260 7.25 1885
> right wheel 260.5 7.125 1856.06
> tail wheel 42 192.25 8074.5
> gas 1 30 19 570
> gas 2 30 29 870
> 622.5 13255.5
>
> 13255.5/622.5 = 21.294 c of g
>
> 21.294 * 100/61 = 34.908 = % of cg
>
> With limit of 35% aft it appears that I will need to add some lead to the
> nose to move the CG forward. My own weight is now a factor about 190 lbs.
>
> John N670JW
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: weight and balance question |
>
>I'm having the same problem in my Ultrastar. I'm finding that with my body
>weight, (195 lbs.) I am 2" behind my rear limit of area for the CG. The
>book says the CG should be 16"-19" from the leading edge of the wing. Mine
>is only 21". I added 35 lbs to the nose and this brought the CG back to
>about 18" from the leading edge, but affected my performance and put me over
>FAR 103 weight restrictions.
The 19" is very conservative for the rear CG. At 32" your CG is at 32%
which is within the present CG range of the FStars and Flies. You should
not need the weight.
Dennis Souder
Pres Kolb Aircraft
>
>Any Ideas? My boom tube is already cut down by a foot (per Kolb).
>
>Thanks,
>Rob Perry
>1984 Kolb Ultrastar
>http://mula.perrydice.com/newplane.htm
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: weight and balance question |
Oops that should have read: "at 21" your CG is at 32%"
>The 19" is very conservative for the rear CG. At 32" your CG is at 32%
>which is within the present CG range of the FStars and Flies. You should
>not need the weight.
>
>Dennis Souder
>Pres Kolb Aircraft
>>
>>Any Ideas? My boom tube is already cut down by a foot (per Kolb).
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Rob Perry
>>1984 Kolb Ultrastar
>>http://mula.perrydice.com/newplane.htm
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Perry" <perryr(at)123.net> |
| Subject: | Re: weight and balance question |
I have the seat as close as comfortable, second hole from the front....check
out my website for pics. I've taken the sheet metal off the cockpit and do
not fly with the windshield you see because of other problems the original
builder had.
Let me know what you think,
Rob Perry
1984 Kolb Ultrastar
http://mula.perrydice.com/robsnew.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: weight and balance question
>
>
> Rob Perry wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm having the same problem in my Ultrastar. I'm finding that with my
body
> > weight, (195 lbs.) I am 2" behind my rear limit of area for the CG. The
> > book says the CG should be 16"-19" from the leading edge of the wing.
Mine
> > is only 21". I added 35 lbs to the nose and this brought the CG back to
> > about 18" from the leading edge, but affected my performance and put me
over
> > FAR 103 weight restrictions.
> >
> > Any Ideas? My boom tube is already cut down by a foot (per Kolb).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rob Perry
> > 1984 Kolb Ultrastar
> > http://mula.perrydice.com/newplane.htm
>
>
> Rob:
>
> Did you try scooting the seat forward a notch or two?
>
> At 180 lbs I had not problem with my Ultrastar, also a 1984,
> built and flying in '84. ;-)
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Perry" <perryr(at)123.net> |
| Subject: | Re: weight and balance question |
Whew, Thanks for all the info!!! It does fly great, and I have the bungy
suspension on the landing gear which makes it nice for those "Hard"
landings. I was just worried about what would happen if ever I got into a
stall situation....would she nose down and gain airspeed, or tail down and
dirt dart in? The plans that came with it recommend NEVER EVER be tail
heavy.
Let me know what you think,
Rob Perry
1984 Kolb Ultrastar
http://mula.perrydice.com/robsnew.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: weight and balance question
>
> >
> >I'm having the same problem in my Ultrastar. I'm finding that with my
body
> >weight, (195 lbs.) I am 2" behind my rear limit of area for the CG. The
> >book says the CG should be 16"-19" from the leading edge of the wing.
Mine
> >is only 21". I added 35 lbs to the nose and this brought the CG back to
> >about 18" from the leading edge, but affected my performance and put me
over
> >FAR 103 weight restrictions.
>
> The 19" is very conservative for the rear CG. At 32" your CG is at 32%
> which is within the present CG range of the FStars and Flies. You should
> not need the weight.
>
> Dennis Souder
> Pres Kolb Aircraft
> >
> >Any Ideas? My boom tube is already cut down by a foot (per Kolb).
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Rob Perry
> >1984 Kolb Ultrastar
> >http://mula.perrydice.com/newplane.htm
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
| Subject: | Exhaust manifold for sale |
Dear Fellow Kolbers:
I just received my brand new exhaust system back from HPC. When I went to
fit it up to my FS II. ALAS!! The exhaust manifold does not fit!!
A quick call to the factory revealed that the manifold is for a 582 rather
than the 503 that I need.
The good news is that they are shipping the needed 503 ROTAX manifold free
of charge and the rest of the exhaust system remains the same.
The bad news is I own a brand new 582 manifold that I paid to have silver
coated. It looks great and has never been even mounted.
Any buyers? Make an offer to my e-mail address, or write for particulars.
THANKS: FRANK HODSON
OXFORD ME
fwhodson@megalink.net http://www.megalink.net/~fwhodson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: clipped FAA rules |
Last week some one mentioned trying to find an owner by looking up their N -
number. I sent back a reply stating that I believed it was no longer
possible, due to privacy concerns, but gave an address anyway. Now, in the
latest AvFlash newsletter is an excerpt from Jane Garvey's speech. I cut it
loose ( I hope ) and attached it here ( I hope ). So, I was right, but it
looks like the policy is to be re-instated. BTW, the AvFlash is a great
read. If you're interested in aviation in general, you should think about
subscribing. It's free. Big Lar.
> GARVEY HOLDS COURT AT SUN 'N FUN, ANNOUNCES CHANGES
> > After her public "Meet the Administrator" session at Lakeland's Sun 'n
> > Fun Fly-In, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey talked with AVweb about some
> > plans that will affect you. "One way or another in the very near
> > future," Garvey told AVweb, the pilot's database will return. She said
> > that her agency supports legislation that includes reopening access to
> > the airman database that was closed last year over privacy concerns.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Sun and Fun 1999 |
Hi Gang:
Got back from SNF Sunday afternoon and still haven't
recovered from the trip.
Yes, I too was surprised when I found out Saturday before
the show started that Kolb Aircraft had evolved into The New
Kolb Aircraft.
I didn't get to fly the Sling Shot cause it had been sold
just prior to the Show. But I got an adequate replacement,
the prototype Fire Fly. Never was interested in the Fire
Fly and had never flown it until Sunday morning, first day
of the show. Don't tell the Air Ops people at SNF or they
will have my buns. ;-)
Took a few minutes to get adjusted to flying the Fire Fly,
but once we got to the level of flying without thinking of
everything before we did it, the FF became a very
aggressive, fun, and exciting airplane to fly, even though
just a legal UL. hehehe
Yep, I got used to the little wheels and tires, level
attitude, 40 hp 447, mechanical brakes (just like the ones
on my 1931 Model A Ford that I drove to high school in the
50's), and the little stubby wings. It was a delight to
fly, even with the oversize ailerons. As usual at Lakeland,
got to fly in some exciting cross winds, 90 degree, 15
gusting to 25 mph. These winds roll and tumble over the
trees, buildings, hedgerows, and anything else in their
way. Combined with this, throw in the prop blast, wing wash
tubulence of all sizes of ULs and Experimentals taking off
and landing every few seconds, and you have the recipe to
give yourself and your little airplane a good workout and
evaluation of its ability to handle these conditions. All
the Kolb aircraft I have flown at Lakeland over the years
pass with "flying" colors.
I haven't had a chance to fly my old MK III since I got
home, but am looking forward to it. Weather is getting
really nice here in Alabama.
The new folks at Kolb asked me to fly their new 912 powered
Sling Shot at Oshkosh this year, so I guess they were
satisfied with my flying job on the Fire Fly.
Chances are good that I may be flying back to Alaska, the
short way this time, to attempt to complete the flight I
started 5 years ago. I was 207 SM from my destination,
Point Barrow, Alaska, and did not have the funds or time to
wait out the weather to get a decent window to make that
last leg. Point Barrow is the northern-most point in the
US, the Western Hemisphere, and the North American
Continent. It is located west northwest of Dead Horse. As
it was, I was weathered in at Dead Horse for 4 days before I
could head back south. Even then I should have waited a
while longer to get better weather, rather than push weather
in that particular part of Alaska.
Good to be home again,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar flaps? |
| From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
"Ol glider pilot, try an approach speed of 40 mph, then about 20 feet
from touchdown, close the throttle.
Ralph
>
>In a message dated 4/19/99 9:58:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>jrjung(at)execpc.com writes:
>
><< Tim,
>
> If you want to get down faster, just pull off more throttle. My
> Firestar II can decend like it has flaps, and lands in 250 feet. What
> more could a pilot want? There is one problem with pulling off a lot
>of
> throttle while decending: You better not flair early, because it will
> stop flying quickly.
>
> John Jung
> Firestar II N6163J
> SE Wisconsin
>
>
> >Tim Gherkins wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > For you Firestar owners out there.. Do you think it would be
>beneficial
>for a
> > Firestar to have flaps? Has it been done? How easy would it be to
>install
> > them? Any thoughts?
> >
> > Tim in Phoenix
> >>
>Boy!..I sure wish I could land MINE in 250Ft!!......I need 750 Ft. One
>time I
>tried to land in 700 Ft and was so concerned about the cyclone fence
>on the
>other end ...I ended up landing it in only 35 Ft...but by no means
>successfully!!...I bent both gear... I guess I just don't know how to
>do
>it!!.........GeoR38 Firestar driver..the ol fat glider pilot!! and
>kinda ugly
>too!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust manifold for sale |
In a message dated 4/20/99 10:24:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com writes:
<< A quick call to the factory revealed that the manifold is for a 582 rather
than the 503 that I need. >>
Same thing happened to me; apparrently some-one at Rotax has been srewing up.
I had to send the beautiful silver 582 manifold back to Kolb and they sent my
new 503 manifold which I had to then have Jet-Hotted. Kolb paid for
everything.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
About 3-4 weeks ago I reported finding a tiny stress crack in my Warp
drive hub. I had called Warp and sent in the hub on their request. In my
note to them I had admitted that I had used torque values slightly over
(about 15%) what they specified and therefore the crack might have been my
fault. I awaited their return phone call.
In the meantime, I used this as an excuse to just buy a Powerfin Prop,
having wanted to try one on the "grass is greener" syndrome for a long
while. Stuart Gort, the Pres of Powerfin is a very enthusiastic and
knowledgeble person when it comes to props. He was nice enf to stay on the
phone for probably 30 minutes late in the day with me, responding to my
prop questions and so-called theories. I thought I knew a reasonable
amount, but felt I learned a lot more from Stuart. Some of this was very
interesting stuff wrt the 2 vs 3 blade ideas we've talked about here in the
past. I'll add to that discussion if you're interested.
A couple things are more immediately important for any of you who might be
prop shopping. 1.) Powerfin makes a big deal about inertial mass being a
very important factor in prop design/selection. No argument there. But
they make a comparison on their web page to what must be a worst case
scenario for Warp. They compare an inertial mass of >10,000kg-cm2 on a
Warp 3-blader to 2500 for their own 3-blade and 1800 for their 2-blade.
Well, upon receiving my Powerfin 2-blade I borrowed an accurate digital
scale from work, and measured the weight and center of mass of each blade
on my Warp and Powerfin props. Yes, the Warp is slightly heavier
overall but the inertial mass is not bad at all. Here's what I
measured/calculated:
Weight of each blade (grams) Inertial Mass (kg-cm2)
Powerfin 64" B 710/702 1670
Warp 66" tapered 861/861 2050
(btw, Powerfin's web page reports Inertial mass units as kg/cm2. Wrong.
I=sum[mass*radius sq] so units are kg-cm2.)
Note that the warp blades weighed exactly the same, to the gram(!!!), after 4
years and 185 hours. Also note that I had to estimate the inertial mass
of the hubs, because Warp still has my cracked one. However, the hub
contributes very little (only about 25 kg-cm2) cuz its mass is short
radius. What this means is ...Don't think a 2-blade warp is bad in the
inertial mass category. However, it is still possible that differences in
flexibility because of the different construction methods might make for
smoother idling in the Powerfin. Unfortunately, I will not be able to try
it out for another week ...rats!!!
The other big deal, is that I finally got around to calling Warp to ask
about status on my hub. I was a little bent that they hadn't called me,
the wounded consumer and all. So in my phone call I fully expected them to
say, "well yes, you can get yourself a new hub at a couple hundred dollars,
and don't overtorque it next time (you dummy!)." To my surprise, he said
they had just shipped off a new replacement hub to me, free of charge as a
warranty replacement. I almost fell over! These guys really take care of
you!
So now I'll have two very very nice props. I bought them both and feel I
can test fly them and come up with some good comparison info with no
strings attached to either company. I'll be reporting back. The plan-form
and airfoil shape of the two props is very different!
PS: The powerfin prop I bought is a relatively new planform which they
call their B model. It has a very wide chord compared to the Warp taper
blade. I also found it very interesting that the center of mass on the
blades was exactly the same between my Warp 66 and Powerfin 64B, that is,
13 7/16" out radially from center. So, the differences in Inertial mass
are attributable entirely to the overall lighter weight of the Powerfin.
-Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Thanks for the Help |
Thanks to everyone for the helpful input re: my engine problem. I believe
the problem has been resolved by changing needles from 8L2 to 6L2. Can run
the engine now on the ground at full RPM without loosing power. Don't know
why this change would be required since I've used the 8L2 needles for 400
hrs. without a problem before the overhaul.
Haven't flown it yet, it's been raining here in SD. Thanks again.
Steve Anderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar flaps? |
Hello Tim,
I had an Ultra Star which landed slower than any Firestar & still converted
it to full length flaperons. It was the best thing I ever did! It flew faster,
climbed faster, landed slower & generally expanded my flight envelope. Why
settle for mediocrity when you have the option for more performance & more fun?
The keep-it-simple crowd have a valid point worthy of consideration, but if you
have the inclination to expand your skills & increase your performance, go for
it! ---Richard S
Ralph H Burlingame wrote:
>
> "Ol glider pilot, try an approach speed of 40 mph, then about 20 feet
> from touchdown, close the throttle.
>
> Ralph
>
> >
> >In a message dated 4/19/99 9:58:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >jrjung(at)execpc.com writes:
> >
> ><< Tim,
> >
> > If you want to get down faster, just pull off more throttle. My
> > Firestar II can decend like it has flaps, and lands in 250 feet. What
> > more could a pilot want? There is one problem with pulling off a lot
> >of
> > throttle while decending: You better not flair early, because it will
> > stop flying quickly.
> >
> > John Jung
> > Firestar II N6163J
> > SE Wisconsin
> >
> >
> > >Tim Gherkins wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > For you Firestar owners out there.. Do you think it would be
> >beneficial
> >for a
> > > Firestar to have flaps? Has it been done? How easy would it be to
> >install
> > > them? Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Tim in Phoenix
> > >>
> >Boy!..I sure wish I could land MINE in 250Ft!!......I need 750 Ft. One
> >time I
> >tried to land in 700 Ft and was so concerned about the cyclone fence
> >on the
> >other end ...I ended up landing it in only 35 Ft...but by no means
> >successfully!!...I bent both gear... I guess I just don't know how to
> >do
> >it!!.........GeoR38 Firestar driver..the ol fat glider pilot!! and
> >kinda ugly
> >too!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Whoops, I said:
>props. Yes, the Powerfin is slightly heavier overall but the inertial
mass is >not bad at all. Here's what I measured/calculated:
meant to say:
| Date: | Apr 21, 1999 |
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
About 3-4 weeks ago I reported finding a tiny stress crack in my Warp drive
hub. I had called Warp and sent in the hub on their request. In my note
to them I had admitted that I had used torque values slightly over (about
15%) what they specified and therefore the crack might have been my fault.
I awaited their return phone call.
In the meantime, I used this as an excuse to just buy a Powerfin Prop,
having wanted to try one on the "grass is greener" syndrome for a long
while. Stuart Gort, the Pres of Powerfin is a very enthusiastic and
knowledgeble person when it comes to props. He was nice enf to stay on the
phone for probably 30 minutes late in the day with me, responding to my
prop questions and so-called theories. I thought I knew a reasonable
amount, but felt I learned a lot more from Stuart. Some of this was very
interesting stuff wrt the 2 vs 3 blade ideas we've talked about here in the
past. I'll add to that discussion if you're interested.
A couple things are more immediately important for any of you who might be
prop shopping. 1.) Powerfin makes a big deal about inertial mass being a
very important factor in prop design/selection. No argument there. But
they make a comparison on their web page to what must be a worst case
scenario for Warp. They compare an inertial mass of >10,000kg-cm2 on a
Warp 3-blader to 2500 for their own 3-blade and 1800 for their 2-blade.
Well, upon receiving my Powerfin 2-blade I borrowed an accurate digital
scale from work, and measured the weight and center of mass of each blade
on my Warp and Powerfin props. Yes, the Powerfin is slightly heavier
overall but the inertial mass is not bad at all. Here's what I
measured/calculated:
Weight of each blade (grams) Inertial Mass (kg-cm2)
Powerfin 64" B 710/702 1670
Warp 66" tapered 861/861 2050
(btw, Powerfin's web page reports Inertial mass units as kg/cm2. Wrong.
Should be kg-cm2.)
Note that the warp blades weighed exactly the same, to the gram(!!!), after 4
years and 185 hours. Also note that I had to estimate the inertial mass
of the hubs, because Warp still has my cracked one. However, the hub
contributes very little (only about 25 kg-cm2) cuz its mass is short
radius. What this means is ...Don't think a 2-blade warp is bad in the
inertial mass category. However, it is still possible that differences in
flexibility because of the different construction methods might make for
smoother idling in the Powerfin. Unfortunately, I will not be able to try
it out for another week ...rats!!!
The other big deal, is that I finally got around to calling Warp to ask
about status on my hub. I was a little bent that they hadn't called me,
the wounded consumer and all. So in my phone call I fully expected them to
say, "well yes, you can get yourself a new hub at a couple hundred dollars,
and don't overtorque it next time (you dummy!)." To my surprise, he said
they had just shipped off a new replacement hub to me, free of charge as a
warranty replacement. I almost fell over! These guys really take care of
you!
So now I'll have two very very nice props. I bought them both and feel I
can test fly them and come up with some good comparison info with no
strings attached to either company. I'll be reporting back. The plan-form
and airfoil shape of the two props is very different!
PS: The powerfin prop I bought is a relatively new planform which they
call their B model. It has a very wide chord compared to the Warp taper
blade. I also found it very interesting that the center of mass on the
blades was exactly the same between my Warp 66 and Powerfin 64B, that is,
13 7/16" out radially from center. So, the differences in Inertial mass
are attributable entirely to the overall lighter weight of the Powerfin.
-Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Solo in the MKIII |
In a message dated 4/19/99 10:58:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
rpike(at)preferred.com writes:
> MKIII's won't fly hands off., you are
> wasting your time." So I quit worrying about it.
> Richard Pike
My Mk2 won't either......it must have to do with sitting off center and
propeller torque. I use my ship for arial photography so I will probably add
some aileron trim to resolve the left roll tendency (at the moment I prop the
stick with my knee)
I have heard all kinds of philosophys on trim. Using my case (the tendency
to roll left) I feel that the proper correction for this condition would be
to place a tab on the left aileron deflected up so as to push that aileron
down and therefore create more lift on the left wing. Is there anybody that
disagrees with that philosophy?
Steve Kroll
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: weight and balance question |
In a message dated 4/20/99 8:06:22 PM, you wrote:
<>
Just to point out the obvious........ Weight in front of the datum (the
leading edge) is negative.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
| Subject: | RE: weight and balance question again |
I am resending this as my original as my original message was caught up in
another members response and my original message was lost. Thanks, again.
I weighed my plane, myself and fuel and it appears that I may be nearing the
aft
CG limit. I would like to find out what other Firestar 2 builders got for
their calculations and to find out how far I am off the mark. My station is
the leading edge of the wing.
Here are my numbers.
weight station moment
left wheel 260 7.25 1885
right wheel 260.5 7.125 1856.06
tail wheel 42 192.25 8074.5
gas 1 30 19 570
gas 2 30 29 870
622.5 13255.5
13255.5/622.5 = 21.294 c of g
21.294 * 100/61 = 34.908 = % of cg
With limit of 35% aft it appears that I will need to add some lead to the
nose to move the CG forward. My own weight is now a factor about 190 lbs. If
you fly the plane at the aft CG limits what sort of elevator control do you
experience.
Thanks,
John N670JW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
| Subject: | Matronics Email Server Restored... |
Dear Listers,
As I have mentioned, there has been a problem with the Matronics Email
System machine over the last few weeks. The system would randomly lock
up and require a powercycle to restore operation. Often there would be
a few disk errors following the reboot, and these errors would cause
the 'blank messages' that a number of people mentioned.
Last night about 9:30pm the email system hung again and this time wouldn't
restart. Today I procured a whole new system to replace the old hardware
and as of 3:00pm the email system is back online and fully operational.
For those that are interested in such things, the new system is built around
a new ASUS P2B-DS Dual Pentium II mother board with builtin Ultra 2 SCSI
controller. I added two 400mhz Pentinum II processors and 512Mb of 100mhz
SDRAM and used the existing 4Gb Seagate Cheetah HD. The system is now similar
in configuration to the Matronics Web server and represents an over 2x increase
in performance over the older email system! It should also prove to be
enormously more reliable if the MTBF of the Matronics Web Server is
any indication! (The web server has been up for over 3 months at one
point and then I just took it down to move cables).
Anyway, those List email messages should just fly out of here now!
Enjoy!
Matt Dralle
List Administrator, Matronics
RV-4 Builder, Sometimes
--
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: | owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Guys;
I have a question. I was looking over the FS2 I just bought and I
noticed that on the gear box in the part of the case that attaches to the
block there are two tapped holes one on each side with no plugs in them. They
are about even to were the case splits and back about 1.5 inches. Anyone know
what they are for and should they be plugged? I can't tell if oil goes that
far forward in the case. They are in front of the oil fill plug. I looked at
my other B box and there are no holes in it at this location. Anyone seen
this before?
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: pitot/static tube |
>
>
> dennis souder, i have a firestar and i'm going to install the
pitot/static
>tube out the nose like they do on the firefly. how far should the tube stick
>out ? ................... tim
>do not archiv
I don't know. Probably the longer the better. If it is too short, the
static system picks up on the pressure area directly in front of the nose (I
think). We had one that was about 4" and that did not work well at all; it
under reported the speed more than pitot-only system overreads. 8" would
probably be a good length to try. Too long and support and breakage will be
a problem.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
They are for mounting the radiators for a water cooled engine application.
There is no oil in that area and you need do nothing with them unless
insects start making a home in your gear box.
Dennis
>
>Hi Guys;
> I have a question. I was looking over the FS2 I just bought and I
>noticed that on the gear box in the part of the case that attaches to the
>block there are two tapped holes one on each side with no plugs in them. They
>are about even to were the case splits and back about 1.5 inches. Anyone know
>what they are for and should they be plugged? I can't tell if oil goes that
>far forward in the case. They are in front of the oil fill plug. I looked at
>my other B box and there are no holes in it at this location. Anyone seen
>this before?
>
> Kent
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ben's prop post... |
Ben wrote:
>I also found it very interesting that the center of mass on the
>blades was exactly the same between my Warp 66 and Powerfin 64B, that is,
>13 7/16" out radially from center.
Ben, thanks for the descriptive comparison of Warp and Powerfin! You did
not say, but apparently you weighed EACH END of each blade. I assume you
did this because you state the center of mass distance. If you did not
actually weigh each end of each blade, is there any other way to get this
info? I ask because my (apparently "old A-style") Powerfin blades are each
marked with TWO numbers, designating the weights of the root end and the
tip end. As you implied, the further out the radius the weight is
distributed, the more important that it be equal. In fact, it could be
argued that blade-to-blade weight is not as important as proper weight
distribution.
Yup, Stuart will give you a complete prop education if you have the time.
Refreshing change from "buy our prop, 'cause it's the best one!" that you
get from others.
I will be very interested in hearing your flight test comparisons, THANKS
AGAIN!.
jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thanks for the Help |
Steve,
STOP! Don't be in such a hurry to go flying.
I wouldn't fly it, yet. I don't believe that you have really found the
problem. I suspect that you tested it in cooler temperatures (or something else
changed) and the problem is still there. Probably a cracked coil.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE wisconsin
STAECS(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Thanks to everyone for the helpful input re: my engine problem. I believe
> the problem has been resolved by changing needles from 8L2 to 6L2. Can run
> the engine now on the ground at full RPM without loosing power. Don't know
> why this change would be required since I've used the 8L2 needles for 400
> hrs. without a problem before the overhaul.
>
> Haven't flown it yet, it's been raining here in SD. Thanks again.
>
> Steve Anderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solo in the MKIII |
Steve,
You can trim it and it should help. But if Mark III's fly anything like
Firestars, you still won't be able to take your hand off the stick for very long.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
> My Mk2 won't either......it must have to do with sitting off center and
> propeller torque. I use my ship for arial photography so I will probably add
> some aileron trim to resolve the left roll tendency (at the moment I prop the
> stick with my knee)
> I have heard all kinds of philosophys on trim. Using my case (the tendency
> to roll left) I feel that the proper correction for this condition would be
> to place a tab on the left aileron deflected up so as to push that aileron
> down and therefore create more lift on the left wing. Is there anybody that
> disagrees with that philosophy?
>
> Steve Kroll
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
In line with Ben's positive report on good response from vendor's on
propeller problems I also had a good experience with another vendor of
products we use. One of my Kuntzleman strobes stopped working after a few
weeks and I called the manufacturer. Kuntzleman himself answered the call and
recommended a quick test to determine the faulty component. When I completed
the test I mailed the failed part back to the factory. A replacement was sent
by return mail and at no cost. I had my double-flashing strobe blinking it's
way accross the sky in no time.
Duane Mitchell, Tallahassee, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: weight and balance question again |
John,
You can check to make sure that I am correct, but I believe that the limit
for the Firestar II is really 37%. I know that some of the plans say 35% (mine
do), but hardly any one can obtain that limit. I believe that Dennis has
approved a 37% aft CG, and that is what most builders are using. If I am wrong,
someone should say so.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
"Wood, John T." wrote:
>
> I am resending this as my original as my original message was caught up in
> another members response and my original message was lost. Thanks, again.
>
> I weighed my plane, myself and fuel and it appears that I may be nearing the
> aft
> CG limit. I would like to find out what other Firestar 2 builders got for
> their calculations and to find out how far I am off the mark. My station is
> the leading edge of the wing.
>
> Here are my numbers.
>
> weight station moment
> left wheel 260 7.25 1885
> right wheel 260.5 7.125 1856.06
> tail wheel 42 192.25 8074.5
> gas 1 30 19 570
> gas 2 30 29 870
>
> 622.5 13255.5
>
> 13255.5/622.5 = 21.294 c of g
>
> 21.294 * 100/61 = 34.908 = % of cg
>
> With limit of 35% aft it appears that I will need to add some lead to the
> nose to move the CG forward. My own weight is now a factor about 190 lbs. If
> you fly the plane at the aft CG limits what sort of elevator control do you
> experience.
>
> Thanks,
> John N670JW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com> |
| Subject: | throttle location |
Hey list!!!
I have a mild problem that's either my problem or a problem with the
Kolb design.
This is relative to the MKIII only.
On take-offs, I hold both the control stick, and the throttle. BUT,,, 1
in every 15 to 20 take-offs I find myself ( for lift offs) pulling back
on the throttle rather than the control stick...This problem is easy to
reverse, but I don't know if it's just me, or is this common?
I will notify the new Kolb outfit, if this is common, but it could be
just me...
Let me know if others have this happen to them...
I understand it's just a confusion factor, but is the factor due to the
position of the throttle, ot the situation of the pilot's brain???
(Go easy on your comments to that last statement)
Regards
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <bwf(at)wavetech.net> |
| Subject: | Re: throttle location |
It's a design problem. I have mine on the left side, as it should be, so it
works like a normal plane.
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com>
Date: Thursday, April 22, 1999 12:14 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: throttle location
>
>Hey list!!!
>I have a mild problem that's either my problem or a problem with the
>Kolb design.
>
>This is relative to the MKIII only.
>
>On take-offs, I hold both the control stick, and the throttle. BUT,,, 1
>in every 15 to 20 take-offs I find myself ( for lift offs) pulling back
>on the throttle rather than the control stick...This problem is easy to
>reverse, but I don't know if it's just me, or is this common?
>I will notify the new Kolb outfit, if this is common, but it could be
>just me...
>Let me know if others have this happen to them...
>I understand it's just a confusion factor, but is the factor due to the
>position of the throttle, ot the situation of the pilot's brain???
>(Go easy on your comments to that last statement)
>Regards
>Doc
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "EDWARD DOBSON" <edobson(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solo in the MKIII |
ED DOBSON IN AZ.
WE have a Firestar 2 and had to install a tab on the left aileron and bent
it up, this was the only way we could get the left roll out.. We also had to
install a tab on the rudder to make it fly stright..All this triming isn't
correct way but i have been asking around and checking the aircraft for
something out of line,some till me the washout
isn't correctly set but there isn't any adjustment,both wing are at the same
angle..If you find another way to trim let me know ..
Ed Dobson
----- Original Message -----
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Solo in the MKIII
>
>Steve,
>
> You can trim it and it should help. But if Mark III's fly anything
like
>Firestars, you still won't be able to take your hand off the stick for very
long.
>
>John Jung
>Firestar II N6163J
>SE Wisconsin
>
>> My Mk2 won't either......it must have to do with sitting off center and
>> propeller torque. I use my ship for arial photography so I will probably
add
>> some aileron trim to resolve the left roll tendency (at the moment I prop
the
>> stick with my knee)
>> I have heard all kinds of philosophys on trim. Using my case (the
tendency
>> to roll left) I feel that the proper correction for this condition would
be
>> to place a tab on the left aileron deflected up so as to push that
aileron
>> down and therefore create more lift on the left wing. Is there anybody
that
>> disagrees with that philosophy?
>>
>> Steve Kroll
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: throttle location |
In a message dated 4/22/99 11:58:38 AM Central Daylight Time, irena(at)ccis.com
writes:
> osition of the throttle, ot the situation of the pilot's brain???
> (Go easy on your comments to that last statement)
> Regards
> Doc
Hey Doc..
You're right...it's just a brain fart. Be thankful that's the only one
you're having and you do it before you leave the ground. I get em every now
and then but mine occur outside of the airplane. As a matter of fact....I've
never been more vitally and consciously alive as when I am on a bumpy
crosswind approach. Once the airplane is down and safely tucked away in the
hanger, it's Miller Time!!!!
Doc does bring up and interesting question though having to do with those of
us who are celf-certifying our medical and that is.....knowing when it's time
to hang up our flight suits and persue more mundane ground-bound hobbies.
I'm 53 now and although I think I have quite a few more flying years left in
me, I do recognize the fact that my motor skills are not quite what they once
were. We all seem to age at different rates.
I know some guys that are 62 and who shouldn't be flying at all (in my
opinion)
I know another guy who's 82 and flys a tail-dragging SE-5a replica
beautifully. Go figure!!!
You gotta believe that the self-certification portion of the Sport Pilot
certificate that the FAA is considering (and considering and considering) has
got to one of the tougher decisions they have to make and the one that will
most affect us as we get older. Lets not muck it up by brain-farting our
way into incidents and accidents. That would most certainly negatively
affect the way the FAA decides on the issue of "fat" (read safer)
ultralights. I, for one, will breathe a lot easier when that issue is
finally resolved and we're all legal again.
I'd really like to hear everybody elses thoughts about this issue.
Steve Kroll
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: throttle location |
Bruce wrote:
>
>
>
> It's a design problem. I have mine on the left side, as it should be, so it
> works like a normal plane.
I have never flown but one "normal plane" and it was a 152.
Yoke left hand and throttle right hand.
I fly my MK III from the right seat and throttle on my left
in the middle in the normal MK III configuration stick in
right hand (dual controls. I used to fly my MK III to Sun
and Fun, and to Oshkosh, get out, get in the factory MK III,
affectionately named "Fat Albert", fly the left seat with
center stick in right hand and throttle in left hand as my
arm rested across my legs. The only problem I would
encounter occasionally was unconscienciously reaching up
with my left hand to pull the flaps on and not finding the
flap handle, which was in the center of the aircraft.
Stick and throttle in the center of the MK III is not a
design flaw or problem. They are exactly where Homer Kolb
wanted them to be. If you do not like where yours are
located, do like I did and move something. ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Russell" <jr(at)rometool.com> |
| Subject: | Oil Tank Supply Line |
Just a bit of info that I have found , for those of you that may be
using
a Rotax oil tank. The oil supply hose that was supplied with the oil tank
began to leak at the angled fitting that is screwed into the oil tank. Come
to find out, after removing hose, the hose was made to fit over a 1/4" barb,
but the angled fitting screwed into the tank has a 3/8" barb. The hose
simply deteriated in this area. This happened on my Firestar II at about
100 hours. The same situation is happening on my Slingshot at about
85 hours. These are all standard components from rotax, come to think
of it, the hose , fitting & tank came assembled together.
Just thought I would mention this, it could cause a pucker facter to
increase.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <ibimiami(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Solo in the MKIII |
This may or not be relevant as I don't yet have any stick time on my new
acquisition (the Ex-Kolb Mk III demonstrator with a 912), but I did notice
that the vertical stabilizer on it is mounted at a slight angle.
On the Mk III I had previously been building, the instructions called for
installation of the vertical stabilizer straight (parallel to the fuselage
tube).
When I questioned Kolb about this at Sun-N-Fun, they said that the angle
compensates for the torque (or something like that) and that flies better
that way. I don't know if this refers to 912 powered models only or to all
but if it is true, I wonder why they don't mention it on the plans.
Do most of you have straight - or slightly angled vertical stabilizers on
your Mk III's (and for that matter - on the other Kolb models as well?).
Peter Volum
Mk III / 912
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of EDWARD DOBSON
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Solo in the MKIII
ED DOBSON IN AZ.
WE have a Firestar 2 and had to install a tab on the left aileron and bent
it up, this was the only way we could get the left roll out.. We also had to
install a tab on the rudder to make it fly stright..All this triming isn't
correct way but i have been asking around and checking the aircraft for
something out of line,some till me the washout isn't correctly set but there
isn't any adjustment,both wing are at the same angle..If you find another
way to trim let me know ..
Ed Dobson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solo in the MKIII |
Peter Volum wrote:
>
>
> This may or not be relevant as I don't yet have any stick time on my new
> acquisition (the Ex-Kolb Mk III demonstrator with a 912), but I did notice
> that the vertical stabilizer on it is mounted at a slight angle.
>
>
Hi Peter:
I flew my MK III with the vertical stab centered per plans
for more than 1100 hrs. With dead stick or idle power, it
would fly perfectly trimmed with the 582 or 912. 582 turns
prop right, 912 left. Power on at cruise, took a lot of
rudder to keep the acft trimmed in yaw, either engine.
I told Dennis S I was waiting on him to do the testing with
the factory MK III so I would have the correct specs and
only move mine once. Dennis outlasted me. I moved mine 3/4
inch first time. Not enough. Next time as far as I dared
move it without breaking anything, about 1.25 to 1.5 inches
(CRS). Much better now, but still not trimmed with a
centered ball at cruise. Still about 1/4 bubble out.
However, moving the vert stab the way I had to do it, after
the fact, I have a curve in it which probably kills some of
the trim effect. If I ever recover the tail section I will
reweld 4130 fitting to the correct angle on the bottom, and
rebuild the top gussett the same. Then the vert stab will
be straight with no curve.
I flew "Fat Albert" for the first time in February 1991.
Flew off most of the 40 hour test period prior to Sun and
Fun 91. It was cold in Pennsyvania, but I washungry to
fly. Flew a lot of passengers in that plane over the years
at SNF and OSH. Your MK III is a good airplane and an old
friend of mine. ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com |
| Subject: | Solo in the MKIII |
How much and in which direction? I am about to start flying with the 912 on
my mkIII and would like this info. My stabilizer was build inline.
Thanks
Frank Reynen
http://www.webcom.com/reynen/mark3.html
This may or not be relevant as I don't yet have any stick time on my new
acquisition (the Ex-Kolb Mk III demonstrator with a 912), but I did notice
that the vertical stabilizer on it is mounted at a slight angle.
On the Mk III I had previously been building, the instructions called for
installation of the vertical stabilizer straight (parallel to the fuselage
tube).
When I questioned Kolb about this at Sun-N-Fun, they said that the angle
compensates for the torque (or something like that) and that flies better
that way. I don't know if this refers to 912 powered models only or to all
but if it is true, I wonder why they don't mention it on the plans.
Do most of you have straight - or slightly angled vertical stabilizers on
your Mk III's (and for that matter - on the other Kolb models as well?).
Peter Volum
Mk III / 912
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of EDWARD DOBSON
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Solo in the MKIII
ED DOBSON IN AZ.
WE have a Firestar 2 and had to install a tab on the left aileron and bent
it up, this was the only way we could get the left roll out.. We also had
to
install a tab on the rudder to make it fly stright..All this triming isn't
correct way but i have been asking around and checking the aircraft for
something out of line,some till me the washout isn't correctly set but
there
isn't any adjustment,both wing are at the same angle..If you find another
way to trim let me know ..
Ed Dobson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solo in the MKIII |
Peter and Gang:
I forgot to add to my previous msg: I flew your MK III
about an hour this year while at SNF. Flew some prospective
Kolb customers at South Lakeland. Was the first time I had
a chance to fly it with the 912. It did good.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
>
>In the meantime, I used this as an excuse to just buy a Powerfin Prop,
>having wanted to try one on the "grass is greener" syndrome for a long
>while. Stuart Gort, the Pres of Powerfin is a very enthusiastic and
>knowledgeble person when it comes to props.
Next time you talk to him ask him why he does not respond to requests to
receive orders from Canada. I asked 3 times for a price and all requests
were ignored.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <bwf(at)wavetech.net> |
| Subject: | Re: throttle location |
>> It was a problem for me. scratched "design"
Sorry, I guess I've flown too many Navy props and jets.
I have a throttle on the left and right so you can fly it as a jet from the
left or 152 from the right seat. (MK lll)
>
>Bruce
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: throttle location |
Doc
With my Mk /3 I did not want the center throttle , I'm sure that it works
just fine but I needed it on the left side . I just bought a throttle
quadrant from an outfit up in Canada very nice people and will work with
you . Might want to think it over a little to me having the throttle on
the left side feels more natural , ( just my though)
Rick Libersat
>
>Hey list!!!
>I have a mild problem that's either my problem or a problem with the
>Kolb design.
>
>This is relative to the MKIII only.
>
>On take-offs, I hold both the control stick, and the throttle. BUT,,,
>1
>in every 15 to 20 take-offs I find myself ( for lift offs) pulling
>back
>on the throttle rather than the control stick...This problem is easy
>to
>reverse, but I don't know if it's just me, or is this common?
>I will notify the new Kolb outfit, if this is common, but it could be
>just me...
>Let me know if others have this happen to them...
>I understand it's just a confusion factor, but is the factor due to
>the
>position of the throttle, ot the situation of the pilot's brain???
>(Go easy on your comments to that last statement)
>Regards
>Doc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Throttle position |
Richard Bluhm wrote:
>
> What a bummer.
>
> It is really surprising to see some of the (self-appointed) pseudo-pride
The most logical response delt simply with a statement
like: If you
> don't like it there,,, move it !!!!!
> Thanks for the input.... ( I think?)
Hey Doc:
What are you looking for?
OK, I confess. I have decreased power when I intended to
increase power. But I don't think I ever tried to rotate
and fly by pulling back on the throttle instead of the
stick.
Don't think anyone else will admit to doing that,
so.....................I wouldn't try any max performance
take offs out of short confined areas with lots of high
obstacles until I got it in my mind which lever to pull.
;-)
Are you really serious about this problem??? Solution:
Concentrate on the correct procedure before you attempt to
try it.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Throttle position |
In a message dated 4/22/99 5:53:31 PM Central Daylight Time, irena(at)ccis.com
writes:
> One presumptious remark assumed an
> inability on my behalf , reflecting my self diagnostic capabilities (or
> lack of), showing I wasn't fit for flight... WHERE DID THIS CONCLUSION
> COME FROM??? I am glad I didn't mention that sometimes I sneeze i
Richard.....
My remarks really had nothing to do with you at all. If you feel that you
were implicated then I apologize profusely. Your situation with your
throttle just brought up to me what I thought might be an interesting
question and I was hoping for some intersesting input.
Steve Kroll
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jhann G. Jhannsson" <johann.g(at)centrum.is> |
| Subject: | Re: Vendor Support |
To Duane and all,
I am about to install a strobe light on my Firestar. Where do you install it on
your plane,
the tail or the wing end or where. The wiring is the worst problem. Just need
some idea input.
Best regards from Iceland,
Johann G.
MitchMnD(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In line with Ben's positive report on good response from vendor's on
> propeller problems I also had a good experience with another vendor of
> products we use. One of my Kuntzleman strobes stopped working after a few
> weeks and I called the manufacturer. Kuntzleman himself answered the call and
> recommended a quick test to determine the faulty component. When I completed
> the test I mailed the failed part back to the factory. A replacement was sent
> by return mail and at no cost. I had my double-flashing strobe blinking it's
> way accross the sky in no time.
>
> Duane Mitchell, Tallahassee, FL
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: throttle location |
As a side thought, with
> the trim comments currently going on, I'd like to ask John how sitting to
> the right affects his trim when solo ?? How about dual ?? Maybe that's the
> way to eliminate trim tabs. Big Lar.
>
>
Mornin' Larry and Gang:
I learned early on flying the factory MK III that solo left
seat meant holding pressure with my knee to keep from
rolling left. This was with the 582, prop turning right.
Brother Jim and I were at the factory building my MK III
fuselage at this time. Decided to go with dual controls
with pilot in right seat, throttle in left seat. Weight on
right helped off set torque roll to left. Worked great.
Then we swapped engines to 912 which turned left and
opposite the 582. I figured I was in trouble and was
prepared to come up with a big trim tab for the right
aileron. First flight confirmed there was a slight tendancy
to roll left, same as with the 582. Go figure. I do not
understand, but ain't complaining.
With two up flies about the same as with one, reference roll
tendancy.
It is my experience to really learn what the roll, pitch,
and yaw tendancies are for your airplane, do at least a one
hour cross country flight. Trying to hold a constant
heading will tell you a lot more about your airplane than
flying around the patch.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard neilsen" <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Solo in the MKIII -Reply |
I have been reading the discussions about our MKIIIs tendency to roll. My VW powered
MKIII wants to roll left. I have an idea that it is due to a slight misrigging
of the wings. I'm currently handling it by using a bungee cord attached
to the stick. I wonder if I were to devise a fail safe way adjusting the angle
of attack on one of the wings if I could in effect trim the roll tendency
out and also reduce drag.
Also if I were to adjust the angle of attack of the wings would I be better off
moving the leading edge of the left wing up or the right wing down??
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Johann,
For the strobe on my Firestar, I made a mounting plate that attaches under
the
engine (inverted). It keeps the wiring as short and simple as can be and is out
of
the way of anything else. On the down side it took more than a little time to make
the mounting plate because it was a difficult area to measure and fit. I am happy
with it because it is simple and unique. I can see if I have a picture if you are
interested.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
"Jhann G. Jhannsson" wrote:
>
> To Duane and all,
>
> I am about to install a strobe light on my Firestar. Where do you install it
on
> your plane,
> the tail or the wing end or where. The wiring is the worst problem. Just need
> some idea input.
>
> Best regards from Iceland,
> Johann G.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Solo in the MKIII -Reply |
Richard neilsen wrote:
>
> I have been reading the discussions about our MKIIIs tendency to roll. My VW
powered MKIII wants to roll left. I have an idea that it is due to a slight
misrigging of the wings. I'm currently handling it by using a bungee cord attached
to the stick. I wonder if I were to devise a fail safe way adjusting the
angle of attack on one of the wings if I could in effect trim the roll tendency
out and also reduce drag.
Hi Richard and Kolb Gang:
MK IIIs like to roll left a little, especially when flying
solo from the left seat. I don't know about mine cause I
have never flown it from the left seat, no brakes on left
side. ;-)
Your left roll may be compounded by a VW engine that turns a
right handed prop. If it was me and my airplane, I would
make a trim tab for the right aileron and fly it up,
bringing up the left wing. With the trim tab I have
infinite adjustment. With a complex system to change the
angle attack of the wing or wings, my not have that option.
Besides, it will screw up your windshield and gap seal.
How long have you been flying the VW powered MK III? How
does it perform to conventional (Rotax) powered MK IIIs?
Are you happy with it? Please let us know.
Thanks,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard neilsen" <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Re: VW Powered MKIII |
How long have you been flying the VW powered MK III? How
does it perform to conventional (Rotax) powered MK IIIs?
Are you happy with it? Please let us know.
Thanks,
john h
I have been flying the VW for almost a year now but with all the teething problems
I haven't flown it much. Right now it is a smooth and very loud engine that
makes the MKIII perform solo almost as good as a 912 with Dan and Me in it (as
I remember). I can't fault the VW for any of the problems I have had its just
that there wasn't a package developed for the MKIII. I still need to get a
real exhaust system welded up and find/fix a electrical problem but I'm almost
there. I have wished a number of times I hadn't done the VW thing but I think
I will be very happy with the big slow turning 4 stroke. My takeoff RPM is 3400
and it will fly as slow as 2300RPM. My normal cruse is 2800RPM at app 70MPH.
Rick Neilsen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Vendor Support (Strobes) |
Jhann, Great to see your name on the list again. I located my strobe on the
top of the tail boom about five feet aft of the back of the fusilage pod. My
reasoning was that I could only afford one weight-wise and this location made
me visible to planes I could not see above and behind me. The power unit was
mounted inside and at the rear of the fusilage pod.The wire was an extra
length supplied by Kuntzleman or from a local electronics shop. It was routed
along the top of the boom and held in place under a strip of 2" fabric tape.
The flasher was held in place by a stainless hose clamp that went all the way
around the tube. I have used this method on three planes. It doesn't look bad
and I have had no failures in many hours of flight. My only problem was
understanding why the unit has to be wired in series with my 12 volt power
supply. It works so I guess I don't need any other proof.
Duane Mitchell in Tallahassee, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VW Powered MKIII |
Right now it is a smooth and very loud engine that makes the MKIII perform
solo almost as good as a 912 with Dan and Me in it (as I remember). I can't
fault the VW for any of the problems I have had its just that there wasn't a
package developed for the MKIII. I still need to get a real exhaust system
welded up and find/fix a electrical problem but I'm almost there. I have
wished a number of times I hadn't done the VW thing but I think I will be
very happy with the big slow turning 4 stroke. My takeoff RPM is 3400 and it
will fly as slow as 2300RPM. My normal cruse is 2800RPM at app 70MPH.
>
Richard,
Just to let you know that it's out there and to get the opinion of someone
who took the step away from the norm...have you seen the VW redrive that
Great Plains now markets??? It's about $1300 if I remember. It is a 1.6/1
reduction that would put the prop around 2100 with the engine running 3400
(i.e. 70 HP cont. by GP's numbers. Do you think that it would just be too
loud at that RPM? It weighs about 12 lbs. if I remember and will retrofit
to about any aero conversion VW (i.e. goes on the same end as the prop on a
typical aero VW) and it swings a 72" prop. Weight wise I think engine with
redrive would be about 175 - 180 and comparable power to a 912 (that's only
75 ponies continuous) If I remember Dennis S. said the complete 912
installation on a M3 was around 165 lbs.?.? BUUUUUUUTT!!! It's new , and
the 912 is more than proven itself to be a great engine. SOOOOOO! It looks
interesting but I hate being a tester for them...
Anyway the URL is ... http://greatplainsas.com/reduction.html
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
M3 Wings & tail kit should be here in a couple more weeks!! yeeeeee haw!!!
Now if I just had my workshop ready for it...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Weber <bweber2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Troubles |
Richard wrote:
>
>
> Steve,
> Often your symptom occurs when you have a crack in your coil. After it heats
> up, the coil expands, the crack opens & it shorts to ground. Works great again
> after it cools down. Barrow a coil & see if it helps. ---Richard
S
>
A number of good suggestions, all worth trying. Here's one more. I had a
similar problem and tried most everything mentioned. I fixed it by
re-torquing the exhaust bolts - really hammered those suckers down. That
fixed it in my case.
--
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* Voiceboard Corp * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FIREFLY INFO |
I've previously posted my 2000rpm starting antics with my FireFly--it
ROLLS! Since I can't start it from the cockpit, I have to pull-start
while standing on rt side, with chock-on-a-rope holding. Then I flop
into cockpit (this is the funny part) and haul in the chock-on-a-rope.
Yes I do have brakes, but no way to lock them while flopping in. Tried a
stick to hold heel brakes, but my graceful entry knocked it loose, and
Awaaawy we went, with me half in! If any of you Edisons have a solution,
post me. Thanks
Grey ( give me a brake) Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dick Eastman <eastman(at)rootscomputing.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FIREFLY INFO |
My FireFly with a handbrake lever on the control stick is easy to get into
and out of with the engine running. Well, relatively easy. One hand must be
on the control stick at all times, tightly squeezing the brake lever.
I bet heel brakes are much tougher!
- Dick
>
>I've previously posted my 2000rpm starting antics with my FireFly--it
>ROLLS! Since I can't start it from the cockpit, I have to pull-start
>while standing on rt side, with chock-on-a-rope holding. Then I flop
>into cockpit (this is the funny part) and haul in the chock-on-a-rope.
>Yes I do have brakes, but no way to lock them while flopping in. Tried a
>stick to hold heel brakes, but my graceful entry knocked it loose, and
>Awaaawy we went, with me half in! If any of you Edisons have a solution,
>post me. Thanks
>
>Grey ( give me a brake) Baron
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | MK III Vertical Stabilizer Offset |
Ray L Baker wrote:
>
>
> Peter,
>
> When you get the measurements I too would appreciate it if you would
> post them.
Hi Gang:
I flew the factory MK III "Fat Albert" while at Lakeland
this year. Don't know how accurate the offset in vert stab
is. The slip/skid indicator was way out of calibration, to
the point it was unusable.
I'll try and get the measurements off mine and post on List
tomorrow. I moved mine as far as I could comfortably
without bending, crimping, or breaking something. Didn't
want any fabric wrinkles. I think it is 1.25 or 1.5 inches
off center. I still am about 1/4 ball out of trim with no
rudder pedal input.
Got to bush hog the airstrip tomorrow. Spring is here and
the grass and weeds are growing. The wind must have been
blowing while I was in Lakeland. Two sheets of tin are
blown up on the front roof of my hangar.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bil Ragsdale" <bilrags(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Solo in the MKIII |
O K I'm convinced that during my Mk lll rebuild that I should move the
leading edge of the vertical stab. Only question is which way to offset for
a 2 cycle Rotax or Hirth (I think they turn the same direction, opposite of
the 912).
Thanks, Bil
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Thursday, April 22, 1999 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Solo in the MKIII
>
>
>Peter Volum wrote:
>>
>>
>> This may or not be relevant as I don't yet have any stick time on my new
>> acquisition (the Ex-Kolb Mk III demonstrator with a 912), but I did
notice
>> that the vertical stabilizer on it is mounted at a slight angle.
>>
>>
>
>Hi Peter:
>
>I flew my MK III with the vertical stab centered per plans
>for more than 1100 hrs. With dead stick or idle power, it
>would fly perfectly trimmed with the 582 or 912. 582 turns
>prop right, 912 left. Power on at cruise, took a lot of
>rudder to keep the acft trimmed in yaw, either engine.
>
>I told Dennis S I was waiting on him to do the testing with
>the factory MK III so I would have the correct specs and
>only move mine once. Dennis outlasted me. I moved mine 3/4
>inch first time. Not enough. Next time as far as I dared
>move it without breaking anything, about 1.25 to 1.5 inches
>(CRS). Much better now, but still not trimmed with a
>centered ball at cruise. Still about 1/4 bubble out.
>However, moving the vert stab the way I had to do it, after
>the fact, I have a curve in it which probably kills some of
>the trim effect. If I ever recover the tail section I will
>reweld 4130 fitting to the correct angle on the bottom, and
>rebuild the top gussett the same. Then the vert stab will
>be straight with no curve.
>
>I flew "Fat Albert" for the first time in February 1991.
>Flew off most of the 40 hour test period prior to Sun and
>Fun 91. It was cold in Pennsyvania, but I washungry to
>fly. Flew a lot of passengers in that plane over the years
>at SNF and OSH. Your MK III is a good airplane and an old
>friend of mine. ;-)
>
>john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Adjusting Leading Edge Vertical Stabilizer MK III |
Bil Ragsdale wrote:
>
>
> O K I'm convinced that during my Mk lll rebuild that I should move the
> leading edge of the vertical stab. Only question is which way to offset for
> a 2 cycle Rotax or Hirth (I think they turn the same direction, opposite of
> the 912).
Bil and Gang:
How much time do you save writing your first name with one
l?
Just kidding.
912 turns left, move vert stab left.
582 turns right, move vert stab right.
Least ways that worked for me with those two particular
engines on my MK III.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
A few days ago, I downloaded some new software to increase my on-line
capabilities. That's fine, and I'm starting to learn the new format, BUT,
in installing the new format, it deleted 24 messages I was holding, to reply
to when I had time. Some of those were from Listers, so if you have sent me
mail in the last week, and were expecting a reply, Please re-send your
message. I can remember some of them, but doubt if I'll get them all.
Bloody thing also deleted some of my archives, but nothing can bring those
back. I'm sure some of you are familiar with CRS disease. 1st cousin to
CRFT. Tried to send this message 2 days ago, but for some reason it sent
it in HTML format, and the list wouldn't accept it. Thank you Earthlink,
for having a great tech support staff. Big Lar. Do not
Archive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Parking Brake |
<< My FireFly with a handbrake lever on the control stick is easy to get into
and out of with the engine running. Well, relatively easy. One hand must be
on the control stick at all times, tightly squeezing the brake lever.
>>
Hi Guys,
Here's a simple (and inexpensive) Parking Brake idea for those using a single
lever on the control stick!.
Get a couple pieces of sticky back velcro strip about 8-10 inches or so long.
Stick the sticky sides together. Now you have one piece, with the fuzzies
on one side and the pickies on the other. Wrap the velcro strip around the
control stick at a point where it will also include the brake lever, just
below the knobbed end.
To set the brake, unwind some of the velcro strip, pull the brake lever tight
against the stick and wrap the velcro around again. The velcro should go
around far enough to give good holding power. This will hold the brakes on
while you start up and get into the seat. Once in the seat, you simply
unwind enough velcro to release the brake lever, and then rewind the loose
end back around the stick where it will be stored until the next time you
need it. Works for me.
Bill Varnes
Audubon NJ
Original FireStar 377
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aileron Trim Tab vs. /\ Dihedral |
Fellows,
I am trying to keep up with you guys but having a little trouble. I have
been following this thread on roll tendency. I also remember the threads
from late '98 discussing increased stability by increasing dihedral. I am
not sure if these are two totally different issues and require different
fixes or not.
I submit the following from the archive:
<< I find that with the increase dihedral, N8233G will fly all day with only
throttle and rudder inputs and with hands off the stick. With hands on the
stick, it is little, if any, different than before the dihedral was changed.
For those who have flown Cessna airplanes, the directional stability and
rudder control are very similar to those of a Cessna 152 or 172.
Vince Nicely
Firestar II (N8233G) 206 Hours >>
I know we are talking about Mark III's vs Firestar II and that may be a
problem. Vince did some experimenting with the dihedral to see the net
change effect. I am approaching the rigging phase soon and was wondering if
I increased the dihedral to ~6" would that reduce the left roll tendency of
the Mark III (/w 912).
Is the strut length the only thing that controls the dihedral? Would I be
wrong in thinking that I could start with a long strut to increase the
dihedral and cut it and re-rivet if the experiment did not prove beneficial
or is it not that simple?
Thanks for any and all help,
John Bickham
Mark III
St. Francisville, LA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 04/23/99 |
Have older Kolb Firestar and I love it. Want to add my two cents. I correct
my
left turn by putting very small bungie cords in the radial unit under the
wing. Can
adjust when they stretch. Seems to work well and also put bungie attached to
front
of seat bar around from lower part of stick to compensate for full
windscreen. Again,
can ajust to wind and situations. Been using velcro on hand brake years. I
sew a
loop about 1 inch on end and slip it over the break handle and wrap it around
to hold
and lower the wrap around to fly. Works great. Keep it coming.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Trim Tab vs. /\ Dihedral |
Here is a suggesstion on changing strut length: when you drill the three
holes at each end of the lift strut for the end fittings, drill all three
of them spaced exactly even and all perfectly perpendicular. Set your
dihedral up to the stock specs. Now take the steel fitting that goes in the
end of the lift strut and drill one more hole in the inner end of it spaced
symmetrically with the other three. If you want to try more dihedral, just
unbolt the fitting, slide it out one hole space, and rebolt it. If you want
to try even more dihedral, do the same thing with the fitting at the other
end of the strut. The fittings are long enough that with a little
preplanning, this works pretty good, there are only three holes in the
strut, and the adjustments are not apparent from outside. (Cosmetics still
looks the same.) If you don't like it, it is easy to go back.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Fellows,
>
>I am trying to keep up with you guys but having a little trouble. I have
>been following this thread on roll tendency. I also remember the threads
>from late '98 discussing increased stability by increasing dihedral. I am
>not sure if these are two totally different issues and require different
>fixes or not.
>
>I submit the following from the archive:
><< I find that with the increase dihedral, N8233G will fly all day with only
> throttle and rudder inputs and with hands off the stick. With hands on the
> stick, it is little, if any, different than before the dihedral was changed.
> For those who have flown Cessna airplanes, the directional stability and
> rudder control are very similar to those of a Cessna 152 or 172.
> Vince Nicely
> Firestar II (N8233G) 206 Hours >>
>
>I know we are talking about Mark III's vs Firestar II and that may be a
>problem. Vince did some experimenting with the dihedral to see the net
>change effect. I am approaching the rigging phase soon and was wondering if
>I increased the dihedral to ~6" would that reduce the left roll tendency of
>the Mark III (/w 912).
>
>Is the strut length the only thing that controls the dihedral? Would I be
>wrong in thinking that I could start with a long strut to increase the
>dihedral and cut it and re-rivet if the experiment did not prove beneficial
>or is it not that simple?
>
>Thanks for any and all help,
>
>John Bickham
>Mark III
>St. Francisville, LA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FIREFLY INFO |
A! If any of you Edisons have a solution,
>post me. Thanks
>
>Grey ( give me a brake) Baron
>
Do you need 2000 rpm at idle. Remember I am a Hirth guy so Rotax behavior
is somewhat unknown to me. Mine idles at 800 rpm.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Elrod3794(at)aol.com |
remove me from kolb list please
mike elrod
e-mail elrod3794(at)aol.com
thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Great Plains is a well established company with a great reputation, and
that's why I bought my engine case from them. I'm sure they've done their
homework and testing on the new VW re-drive, but to my eyes, it still looks
very light, plus it appears that belt load is taken by the crankshaft
bearings as a sideways force. Also, the drive comes off the nose of the
engine, which is the weak end. I'm very sure that it will require their "
Force One " hub and bearing ass'y, which with machine work, parts and all is
in the $500.00 range. ( 1996 catalog ) They will probably also want to
sell you the Diehl case system, with starter and all for another $ 700.00.
Maybe I'm all wet too, but I doubt it. I've gone with VW power with a
re-drive myself, and I'm familiar with the requirements. I went with the
Aero-Kinetics re-drive, which supports both ends of both shafts in roller
and ball bearings. ( remember my posting last year on installing bearings
?? ) It uses the same Hy-Vo chain that GM uses in its' 4WD transfer cases.
It mounts to the bellhousing end of the engine - much stronger. It is
heavier, ( 33 #, all up ) but appears to be very rugged, and I feel very
confident in being the test pilot. 1st flight is approaching this summer,
and THAT will end any B.S. Somehow, I don't think there'll be much of a
middle ground - it'll either go like hell, or be a complete dog. Top speed
(vne) is still 100 mph, but the climb should really be something. I
anticipate more sluggish handling, due to the weight. You can believe I
wouldn't be going through all this if I weren't real optimistic, and I have
done a huge amount of research and homework on it. For those who haven't
read my previous postings, I'll just say that the engine components are all
counterweighted, balanced, and chosen for strength, smoothness, longevity,
thanks to the local dune buggy racers ), and power. The whole drive system
is under $5000.00 - complete, less prop. Engine mount will allow me to
adjust C.G. with the heavier package by moving the whole assembly forward.
Tail piece is long enough that prop clearance shouldn't be a problem. I
have a fairly good picture in my files, showing the dummy engine on a scrap
metal trial mount, with junkyard fuel injection intake, and the real
re-drive in place. If any one is interested, I'll e-mail it to you direct.
Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Well, Vince really came up with it didn't he. I had completely forgotten
the dihedral discussion, and Vince's point is very well made. My only
(minor) concern is how much it will help. An airplane, be it Cessna or
Kolb, is a vehicle in a fluid medium, and putting weight to 1 side will
cause an imbalance. I know I can notice the difference between single and
dual in a 172, and I can really feel it in a 150. I wonder how much the
dihedral will compensate in a Mk III. Comment 2 ---- as usual Richard
Pike has come up with a simple, sweet solution. This time, to changing
dihedral. My concern here is the famous Bourne measurement system - measure
twice, cut once, then trim to fit, if it's not already too small.
So................how about getting everything set up, drill the 2 outermost
holes, move the end fittings out 1 hole and put a temporary bolt through
the outer strut hole, and the inner tang hole. Then the inner strut hole
will show solid metal on the tang, and will give a precise location for the
next hole. You could step down as far as you like, precisely. Only place
I can see a Problem is in the 3rd strut hole. Hmmmmmmm............my way
would probably be to drill a small hole close to where I want it, then start
filing. Surely some one can come up with something better than that.
Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mjc <mjc(at)etri.re.kr> |
Dear Kolb flyers,
I'm planning to build a two-seater.
I have no building experience and dual control is not necessary- just second seat
for my son or my wife.
How about the FireStar-II comparing Mk-III?
MJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Trim Tab vs. /\ Dihedral |
In a message dated 4/24/99 5:24:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, BICUM(at)aol.com
writes:
<< Is the strut length the only thing that controls the dihedral? Would I be
wrong in thinking that I could start with a long strut to increase the
dihedral and cut it and re-rivet if the experiment did not prove beneficial
or is it not that simple?
Thanks for any and all help,
John Bickham >>
sounds good to me...I have 2" of dihedral in my firestar, but I still have
turn but for a different reason I think which I will fix this summer...my
wing tip is not the same on one side as it is on the other!!...in other
words, my wing is shaped like a moderate potato chip...Don't hate me
folks...i'll handle it ...trust me....I think...........GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting Leading Edge Vertical Stabilizer MK III |
WillU(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi John
> Below is an Internet address for the leading edge vertical stabilizer
> picture. You can copy it and include it with your measurements so everyone
> can see what your talking about.
>
> Will Uribe
>
> http://members.aol.com/n8754k/page/jh_08.jpg
>
> In a message dated 4/23/99 9:14:25 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
> hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
>
> > I'll try and get the measurements off mine and post on List
> > tomorrow. I moved mine as far as I could comfortably
> > without bending, crimping, or breaking something. Didn't
> > want any fabric wrinkles. I think it is 1.25 or 1.5 inches
> > off center. I still am about 1/4 ball out of trim with no
> > rudder pedal input.
Hi gang:
Sorry I haven't had a chance to get to the airstrip and
measure the offset in Miss P'fer's leading edge of vert
stab. However, Will was nice enough to share a picture of
my MK III's leading edge setup which clearly shows the rivet
rows of the right hand bracket in the original,
experimental, and final positions. You can almost
interpolate the exact distance with this photo by measuring
the pop rivet head as a base measurement.
Please be patient and I will get the measurement.
Thanks,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "EDWARD DOBSON" <edobson(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting Leading Edge Vertical Stabilizer MK III |
HI JOHN >
This is ED DOBSON in AZ. flying a FIRESTAR 2 and have been reading theMAIL
on the triming of Kolb's and I also have a bad trim problem ( The aircraft
rolls to the
LEFT even with little power so I have ruled out the ( P ) factor as the
major cause )
At this time I have trim tabs on the left airloron and the rudder but this
tends to make the craft side slip,but has a level flight now it also does't
bank to the left very good..
Would you let me know if by changing the vertical stabilizer the left roll
was also corrected..
Thanks,
Ed Dobson
-----
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 1999 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Re Kolb-List: Adjusting Leading Edge Vertical Stabilizer MK III
>
>
>WillU(at)aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi John
>> Below is an Internet address for the leading edge vertical stabilizer
>> picture. You can copy it and include it with your measurements so
everyone
>> can see what your talking about.
>>
>> Will Uribe
>>
>> http://members.aol.com/n8754k/page/jh_08.jpg
>>
>> In a message dated 4/23/99 9:14:25 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
>> hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
>>
>> > I'll try and get the measurements off mine and post on List
>> > tomorrow. I moved mine as far as I could comfortably
>> > without bending, crimping, or breaking something. Didn't
>> > want any fabric wrinkles. I think it is 1.25 or 1.5 inches
>> > off center. I still am about 1/4 ball out of trim with no
>> > rudder pedal input.
>
>
>Hi gang:
>
>Sorry I haven't had a chance to get to the airstrip and
>measure the offset in Miss P'fer's leading edge of vert
>stab. However, Will was nice enough to share a picture of
>my MK III's leading edge setup which clearly shows the rivet
>rows of the right hand bracket in the original,
>experimental, and final positions. You can almost
>interpolate the exact distance with this photo by measuring
>the pop rivet head as a base measurement.
>
>Please be patient and I will get the measurement.
>
>Thanks,
>
>john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Need some help from the wisdom of the kolbers: One of the guys that flew
to Oshkosh with us this last summer is doing an annual on his Drifter and
is needing to check the fabric. We have one of those fabric testers that
looks like a belt tension tester, it is calibrated in push pounds, it has a
plastic cover on the end, and you slip an aluminum push point barrel over
the plastic end. It is made by Howard Mfg. Co.
The aluminum push point barrel has a nubbin that is 1/16" diameter, and
about 1/8" long. Then the diameter of the aluminum increases rapidly on a
45 degree taper to 5/8". It takes 6 pounds of pressure to force the 1/16"
nubbin through the fabric, but we have no data on how the thing is to be
correctly used, and what force it should require.
Do you test it by poking just the 1/16" nubbin through, and if so, how
much pressure?
Do you push until the 5/8" barrel goes through? And if so, how much pressure?
Hate to seem like aboriginies trying to figure out the True Meaning of a
Snap-On 3/8" ratchet, but that's about the way it is.
Anyone?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fabric tester |
1) The instruction sheet that came with mine (also a Howard Man. Co.) says:
Minimum test values
single surface wing - 12 lb..
single surface tail - 10 lb..
double surface wing - 10 lb..
2)Ultralight Flying Mag. December 1996, issue 248, pp 30
article - "Taking care of your sailcloth"
says: New dacron sailcloth should test to 25 to 30 pounds on 1/16 probe before
failure.
(just for reference)
3) Testing to be done on non-critical areas (away from leading edges, trailing
edges,
reinforcements and ribs) Do not test outboard tip panels on double surface wings.
All
testing must be conducted on top surface only. When the small (1/16) point goes
thru,
that is your value.
Sounds like this fella has REAL bad cloth!!! I've heard of folks loosing entire
wing
panels under this condition. Fatal results!!
Adam Violett
Original Firestar 377
Richard Pike wrote:
>
> Need some help from the wisdom of the kolbers: One of the guys that flew
> to Oshkosh with us this last summer is doing an annual on his Drifter and
> is needing to check the fabric. We have one of those fabric testers that
> looks like a belt tension tester, it is calibrated in push pounds, it has a
> plastic cover on the end, and you slip an aluminum push point barrel over
> the plastic end. It is made by Howard Mfg. Co.
> The aluminum push point barrel has a nubbin that is 1/16" diameter, and
> about 1/8" long. Then the diameter of the aluminum increases rapidly on a
> 45 degree taper to 5/8". It takes 6 pounds of pressure to force the 1/16"
> nubbin through the fabric, but we have no data on how the thing is to be
> correctly used, and what force it should require.
> Do you test it by poking just the 1/16" nubbin through, and if so, how
> much pressure?
> Do you push until the 5/8" barrel goes through? And if so, how much pressure?
> Hate to seem like aboriginies trying to figure out the True Meaning of a
> Snap-On 3/8" ratchet, but that's about the way it is.
> Anyone?
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjusting Leading Edge Vertical Stabilizer MK III |
EDWARD DOBSON wrote:
At this time I have trim tabs on the left airloron and the
rudder but this
> tends to make the craft side slip,but has a level flight now it also does't
> bank to the left very good..
> Would you let me know if by changing the vertical stabilizer the left roll
> was also corrected..
> Thanks,
>
> Ed Dobson
>
Hi Ed and Gang:
I don't know. Sounds like you may have a pair of wing that
aren't rigged the same. Rudder doesn't usually affect roll
much on Kolbs, at least the one I have flown. I don't want
to tell you something I really know nothing about, and that
is your particular airplane. Maybe Dennis Souder can be of
help or someone else on the list. Usually, with the
Ultrastar and Firestar, a little roll problem was quickly
correctly with a trim tab to fly the aileron of the high
wing up. Other than that I am not qualified to make an
uneducated guess.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Hey, Listers - - Help, Help.................Used to be, with internet mail,
I could click on the taskbar, click on Move To, and move my messages into
and out of any category I wanted. Now, with Outlook Express 5, I can move
them from inbox to delete, and that's about it. How can I move them from
category to category ?? I know this isn't strictly Kolb, but it's sure
affecting the way I handle my mail. Big Lar. Do
not Archive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
OK guys, thanks. I combined suggestions and came up with: I had already
figured out & created a couple of new folders, but couldn't get the messages
into them from inbox or deleted. Found that if I highlight the message, and
RIGHT click it, I get a drop down that says, " Move to Folder." From there
it's self-evident. Thanks for the input. Big Lar. Do
not Archive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vince Nicely" <vincenicely(at)intermediatn.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Trim Tab vs. /\ Dihedral |
Hi John and Others,
John Bickham wrote:
> I am approaching the rigging phase soon and was wondering if
>I increased the dihedral to ~6" would that reduce the left roll tendency of
>the Mark III (/w 912).
My Firestar II had a left roll tendency initially. I traced the problem on
my particular ship to a small rigging problem that I seem to remember as the
right wing's rear edge being 3/8" lower than the left one. I changed that
to make them as nearly the same as I could, and then added a tab on the
right aileron to trim out the rest of the roll tendency.
I am the person who has added dihedral by raising the wing tips on my
Firestar II by 9 inches. That modification was done after all roll tendency
had been removed. The dihedral affects the stability of the airplane, i.e.,
its tendency to resist a roll upset and to return to a neutral position.
Dihedral alone is unlikely to solve a roll tendency inherient in the wings
themselves, IMHO.
>Is the strut length the only thing that controls the dihedral? Would I be
>wrong in thinking that I could start with a long strut to increase the
>dihedral and cut it and re-rivet if the experiment did not prove beneficial
>or is it not that simple?
It is that simple! Making the strut longer with the ability to shorten it
without buying additional materials is the way to go. In my case, I had to
buy a complete set of struts to do the experiment because my origional set
were the short ones. I used a stradegy like you suggest the second time.
The longer struts making the outboard ends of the wings 9 inches above the
inner ends flew so nicely, that I never shortened them further on mine.
Vince Nicely
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard C Webb" <RICKWW(at)prodigy.net> |
Hi Guys,my name is Richard(Rick)Webb.I'm located in Milford,De.Last year I
completed and flew a FireStarll,then sold it to buy a FlightStar ll SL(Dumb
move),just sold that and 2 weeks ago bought myself a like new MK lll with
582,GSC prop.Looks like I need to put on rudder trim tab.Well guys,get ready
for lots of questions.
Thanks,
Rick Webb
-----Original
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Throttle position |
What are the X-hinges? Why did you copy them? Where did you find out
about them?
Inquiring minds want to know
Thanks
Ron
>
>
>BTW Fergieman (Firehawk), I copied the Fergie X-hinges and like them a lot.
>
>--
>Cliff & Carolyn Stripling
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff / Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)tetric.com> |
>What are the X-hinges? Why did you copy them? Where did you find out
>about them?
>
>Inquiring minds want to know
Ron and all,
Check out the archives. The must be a bunch of info there, but...
basically they are made by melding two ordinary hinges into one by cutting
every other link out of each side of each hinge... very labor intensive
using a hacksaw and vice to hold and file to smooth up the cuts. Put all
the pieces together on a single hinge pin and "voila" - one hinge with 4
attach flaps. It really stabilizes the hinge connection. I copied the
idea off a "Fergie" I saw at SNF. Would I do it again?... yes, but it was
a lot of work and doubled the cost in hinge material.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling
801 Avenida Serena, Marble Falls, Texas 78654
Vista Del Rio (Central Texas Hill Couuntry)
(830)693-9333 (voice) -7633 (fax)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <ibimiami(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Mk III Vertical Stabilizer Position |
This is in response to those of you who asked about the angled vertical
stabilizer on the Ex-factory demo Mk III:
The center of the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer is 2" from the
port side of the fuselage tube as seen from above. I.e., instead of the
center having 3" on each side, it is 2" from the port side and 4" from the
starboard side.
The rear end is centered.
Keep in mind that this plane has a 912 turning a 3-bladed warp.
I was finally able to fly it back from Lakeland last week end with the help
of a "Test Pilot" friend. The flight was enjoyable and uneventful (for us
anyway - some cows en-route I'm sure won't agree).
Last week there was some discussion about the Mk III not being flyable
"hands off". We found this to be true in thermals and turbulence, but in
smooth air once trimmed, it was very much a "hands optional" affair,
particularly when flying low (20-30 feel acl*).
One thing that we noticed was that rudder input (without touching the stick)
made the nose go up. Is this normal for the Mk III?
Peter Volum
* above cow level
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
Cliff wrote:
>but...
>basically they are made by melding two ordinary hinges into one by cutting
>every other link out of each side of each hinge...
Cliff,
Thanks for the info, but ... ah, not quite clear on this ... does this
require a melding machine to perform the melding on the hinges? Do you know
where I could get such a machine? Are they expenxive? Will a process other
than melding work with this hinge set up? Did you learn about melding from
Spock? Do F____ use melding elsewhere in the structure?
Dennis :~)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry & Karen Cottrel" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
I'm in the process of attempting to get my firestar into shape for a
airworthy certificate inspection. Can anyone who has endured this process
tell me if it is necessary to change all the wiring to aircraft type?
Thanks
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Pridgen" <richard.pridgen(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | H section 6" reinforcement |
Please advise. On page 18 of the Mark III builders manual listed as
important it says "The H sections have a 6" long reinforcement thick-walled
tube inside the top and bottom tubes." and to be sure to use 1/8"x 1/2"
rivits on each side of the bolt? I don't see that reinforcement tube in the
H section . Is this a problem?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com |
| Subject: | Re: Throttle position |
micheal highsmith, He Man Ferguson Haters Club ? i'm not going to bite
on that one. no suh, i'm not going to stick my foot in my mouth again
...................... tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: H section 6" reinforcement |
Rick Pridgen wrote:
> Please advise. On page 18 of the Mark III builders manual listed as
> important it says "The H sections have a 6" long reinforcement
> thick-walled
> tube inside the top and bottom tubes." and to be sure to use 1/8"x
> 1/2"
> rivits on each side of the bolt? I don't see that reinforcement tube
> in the
> H section . Is this a problem?
>
Hello Rick,,
I had the same question... Let me assure you the only thing in error
here is the age of the printing of the book.
In the days of old, Kolb used an aluminium reinforcing "H" section. Now
they use steel, so the standard 1/8" rivets ( I think it was 1/8")
through-out the entire "H" section are used.
Good luck, as I remember this stage of building...
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mk III Vertical Stabilizer Position |
I don't want to get too picky, but this note raises a concern that I feel I
must share. I learned to fly ultralites and Cessnas in the Port
Angeles / Sequim, WA. area - predominantly rural, with many "gentleman"
farms and ranches. I also had a refrigeration / restaurant service business
there, and many of my customers were these suburban ranchers. When informed
by this eager new pilot of the training I was undertaking - they ALL
expressed immediate concern about the Ultralite portion. ONE pilot in an
U/L was getting his jollies by buzzing, stampeding, and chasing livestock,
and these people were absolutely outraged ! ! ! He was ( is still ) an
exception, and I doubt if you're of the same ilk, but this is food for
thought for all of us who like to fly low. These livestock owners tend to
be of the type who get involved in Community affairs, and can really raise a
stink.
Please don't take this personally; I don't know how close you get, and this
guy I mention is a true jerk, but the point I make is very valid.
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Volum <ibimiami(at)msn.com>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 4:04 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Mk III Vertical Stabilizer Position
>
> This is in response to those of you who asked about the angled vertical
> stabilizer on the Ex-factory demo Mk III:
>
> The center of the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer is 2" from the
> port side of the fuselage tube as seen from above. I.e., instead of the
> center having 3" on each side, it is 2" from the port side and 4" from the
> starboard side.
>
> The rear end is centered.
>
> Keep in mind that this plane has a 912 turning a 3-bladed warp.
>
> I was finally able to fly it back from Lakeland last week end with the
help
> of a "Test Pilot" friend. The flight was enjoyable and uneventful (for us
> anyway - some cows en-route I'm sure won't agree).
>
> Last week there was some discussion about the Mk III not being flyable
> "hands off". We found this to be true in thermals and turbulence, but in
> smooth air once trimmed, it was very much a "hands optional" affair,
> particularly when flying low (20-30 feel acl*).
>
> One thing that we noticed was that rudder input (without touching the
stick)
> made the nose go up. Is this normal for the Mk III?
>
> Peter Volum
>
> * above cow level
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Lap Belt/Shoulder Harness MK-3 |
Hi Kolbers,
I am looking for a lap belt/shoulder harness that will allow the shoulder
straps to be unbuckled while leaving the lap belt buckled. This to facilitate
reaching panel switches, etc., in flight. Is anyone using such a setup? If
so, where did you get it?
Thanks
Bill George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>
> I'm in the process of attempting to get my firestar into shape for a
>airworthy certificate inspection. Can anyone who has endured this process
>tell me if it is necessary to change all the wiring to aircraft type?
>
>Thanks
>Larry
>
>
Nope.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lap Belt/Shoulder Harness MK-3 |
WGeorge737(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hi Kolbers,
>
> I am looking for a lap belt/shoulder harness that will allow the
> shoulder
> straps to be unbuckled while leaving the lap belt buckled. This to
> facilitate
> reaching panel switches, etc., in flight. Is anyone using such a
> setup? If
> so, where did you get it?
> Thanks
> Bill George
Hello Bill
You happen to hit a question that I had solved for myself. It required
two seperate seat belts on each seat. One over the lap and one over the
shoulder. I went to the local auto-junk yard and got "back-seat" seat
belts. The back seat, seat belts aren't with the double belt/shoulder
strap. Think I paid 10 bucks each.
Good luck
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
> -----Original Message----->
> says: New dacron sailcloth should test to 25 to 30 pounds on 1/16
> probe before failure.
> (just for reference)
> 3) Testing to be done on non-critical areas (away from leading
> edges, trailing edges,
> reinforcements and ribs) Do not test outboard tip panels on
> double surface wings. All
> testing must be conducted on top surface only. When the small
> (1/16) point goes thru,
> that is your value.
> It is made by Howard Mfg. Co.
> > The aluminum push point barrel has a nubbin that is
> 1/16" diameter, and
> > about 1/8" long. Then the diameter of the aluminum increases
> rapidly on a
> > 45 degree taper to 5/8". It takes 6 pounds of pressure to force
> the 1/16"
> > nubbin through the fabric,
FWIW:
This type of fabric tester requires pressure to the point of cloth puncture!
Another alternative is to use a MAULE fabric tester which does not require a
new hole and a repair patch for each tested area. It is even FAA certified
for fabric GA annuals.
FRANK HODSON, OXFORD MAINE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 04/26/99 |
Just a word about lap and chest belts. Had seperate releases on chest
harness
and had one come off in flight once. Bad weather and could not get it hooked
back
up. Felt pretty unsecure for awhile. It is fairly easy to wedge myself out
of one or
both of my harnesses now with the loop around the seat belt method.
Not an engineer but do fly RC a lot and I would believe changing your
dihedral on
Kolb would absolutely change your stability and ability to counter wind and
speed
would also be affected. Hi dihedral does not like speed. I would not trade
my little
agile Firestar (96 version) 447 White Lightning. You cannot stand on your
wing with
hi dihedral. It would also make landing different, too long a glide. on
Buddy Twin,
don't want to ever have to rely on grease fittings on my valves.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dell Vinal <zoper(at)mint.net> |
George, at sun n fun I spotted a firefly with a proper seatbelt set in
it at the Kolb trailer. They directed me to a table at the Buckeye tent
that a custon seatbelt maker had a display on. I ordered an H harnnes
with L,s on the shoulder straps.They would make anything you want, cost
around $105.I don't have their number yet, But when they send my belts,
I will foreward it if you want. Wentworth Aircraft Salvage probably has
a belt with an inertia reel on the shoulder straps that you could use,
it would require bolting the reel to the spar carrythrough. Do not
archive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <joncroke(at)itol.com> |
:
>
>
> just my un - educated opinion,
> i don't know folks. but if it is true the ' buddy twin ' will go
no
>where in the ultralight world. several postings have put the price at
roughly
>$7000 to $8000 , the actual price i don't know. i think that if they
can't
>sell that engine at roughly the same price as a comparable rotax or cuyuna
then
>they're just wasting their time . its only obvious that if they can't sell
it
>at a competitive price then not enough people will buy that engine to make
it
>profitable to produce........................
Yes,
My visit to Sun n Fun took me to their booth... got to touch and feel the
thing as it was mounted on a plane... when I asked: how much? I was told the
same thing... when I questioned if this was sanity the rep apologized for
the steep price and said that 'marketing' came up with this price... not
engineering... and I shared my beleif that although I was excited about the
technical prospects of this motor, it would go nowhere with a price like
that! Supposed to be available later this year
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fabric tester |
You're right, but the Maule tester is VERY expensive. About a year or so
ago, there was an article in Sport Aviation or Experimenter on how to make
your own, for next to nothing. If anyone is interested, I'll see if I can
find it. Seems to me I commented on it about that time.
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank & Winnie Hodson <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 3:28 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Fabric tester
>
>
> > -----Original Message----->
> > says: New dacron sailcloth should test to 25 to 30 pounds on 1/16
> > probe before failure.
> > (just for reference)
> > 3) Testing to be done on non-critical areas (away from leading
> > edges, trailing edges,
> > reinforcements and ribs) Do not test outboard tip panels on
> > double surface wings. All
> > testing must be conducted on top surface only. When the small
> > (1/16) point goes thru,
> > that is your value.
>
> > It is made by Howard Mfg. Co.
> > > The aluminum push point barrel has a nubbin that is
> > 1/16" diameter, and
> > > about 1/8" long. Then the diameter of the aluminum increases
> > rapidly on a
> > > 45 degree taper to 5/8". It takes 6 pounds of pressure to force
> > the 1/16"
> > > nubbin through the fabric,
>
> FWIW:
>
> This type of fabric tester requires pressure to the point of cloth
puncture!
> Another alternative is to use a MAULE fabric tester which does not require
a
> new hole and a repair patch for each tested area. It is even FAA
certified
> for fabric GA annuals.
>
> FRANK HODSON, OXFORD MAINE
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
I really like the seat belts in my Saab, so ordered up a set from a Saab
wrecking yard in Oregon. Those inertial reels are amazingly heavy, so
scrapped that idea, and sent them back. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dell Vinal <zoper(at)mint.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 5:27 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Belts
>
> George, at sun n fun I spotted a firefly with a proper seatbelt set in
> it at the Kolb trailer. They directed me to a table at the Buckeye tent
> that a custon seatbelt maker had a display on. I ordered an H harnnes
> with L,s on the shoulder straps.They would make anything you want, cost
> around $105.I don't have their number yet, But when they send my belts,
> I will foreward it if you want. Wentworth Aircraft Salvage probably has
> a belt with an inertia reel on the shoulder straps that you could use,
> it would require bolting the reel to the spar carrythrough. Do not
> archive.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mick Fine <froghair(at)busprod.com> |
| Subject: | Re: H section 6" reinforcement |
>
>......In the days of old, Kolb used an aluminium reinforcing "H" section. Now
>they use steel,.....
Huh?, aluminum H-section??!!
Maybe Dennis will clear this up but meantime, I'll try to confuse the
situation:
My Flyer is about as "old-days" as it gets and it has steel (only)
H-sections in the spars and boom tube. AFAIK, the H-section construction is
common to all Kolb models but I can't say for sure.
Rick,
I think the manual is simply refering to the 'crossbar' of the "H" when it
says, "...thick-walled tube inside the top and bottom tubes...." It's the
tube that the long bolt goes thru to attach the strut tang (on the spars)
or the rear fuselage to the boom tube.
"Top and bottom tubes.." may be a little confusing because you have to turn
the H on its side - the position it will be in when it's installed in the
spar. The H-section in the boom tube will have its "top and bottom tubes"
on either side - clear as mud, right?
-Mick Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Woody's comment on Powerfin availability in Canada |
(Woody asked Ben to tell Stuart he is ignoring requests for info on sale of
prop to Canadian customer.)
For Canadians, the following was true two years ago, you may wish to call
to verify today, if interested:
Powerfin is distributed in CANADA by: Six-Shooter Co., Ed Meyers,
Medicine Hat Alberta, 403-528-3812
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Trim comment, idea for your consideration. |
I have not bothered adding any trim tabs to my Mkiii, the forces are not
great enough to bother me. But it seems to me that both the roll and yaw
factors could be corrected by a single tab if it were placed correctly.
First, am I right in assuming that to correct roll you could place the
aileron tab on either aileron, depending on if it was bent up or down,
because its purpose is to cause the aileron to deflect which rolls the
plane? If that is so, why not place the tab on the left aileron (assuming
the Rotax 2-stroke engine here guys), so that it also adds left yaw. The
size of the tab would be determined by the roll-correction requirement, and
then the yaw correction would be tuned by placing it on the proper place on
the aileron. In other words, to get more left yaw correction, you may be
able to move the aileron tab outward (toward the wingtip). Maybe this is
not enough correction, so that is why nobody is doing it. Like I said, the
forces are not that great from my perspective, so I don't really know. And
yes John, I have flown for a couple hours cross country at a time to
actually feel the forces.
jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: H section 6" reinforcement |
Hi Gang:
Most of the Kolbs had 4130 H braces. However my MK III has
aluminum and there are areas to be riveted that are thicker
and required 1/2 in rivets. Now I understand the went back
to 4130.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
I still won't get time to go fly and check out my PowerFin till this coming
wknd, but just wanted to mention that I had made an error in calculating
the inertial mass numbers in my post last week. I used the center of mass
times the radius squared, thinking this was a simplification but perhaps
close enf. I haven't done it the right way yet, which is to integrate the
mr**2 along the full radius. When I get time to re-do this I'll let you
know. Too much other stuff going on!!
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim comment, idea for your consideration. |
Jim and Gang:
Great! If the trim forces don't bother you on a XC then no
need to try and overcome them mechanically.
If you fly the aileron of the opposite wing that is dropping
it seems to work better for me. As for overcoming yaw with
an roll correction with a trim tab on the wing that is
dropping, don't think it will be effective enough to
overcome adverse yaw. As it is, the left aileron is being
deflected down by flying the right aileron. Differential
should come into play here to help overcome the yaw problem,
but the yaw problem on my MK III and the old factory MK III,
Fat Albert, was to great to see any difference without tab
on rudder and vert stab leading edge deflection. Of course
when the power was removed my MK III flew hands off in all
axis.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fw: H - Sections Kolb Aircraft |
| From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
Rick,
Here is the answer I received when I asked the same question.
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
Building Mark III
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: DLSOUDER(at)aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:53:07 EST
Subject: H - Sections Kolb Aircraft
Dear Ray Baker:
Thank you for your email and your questions about the H-section.
Yes, you are correct, all the H-sections have been changed to steel in
more
recent
years. As a result no reinforcement is required.
Thanks again for your question.
Best Regards,
Dan Kurkjian
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 4/26/1999 9:36:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lcottrel(at)kfalls.net writes:
>
> I'm in the process of attempting to get my firestar into shape for a
> airworthy certificate inspection. Can anyone who has endured this process
> tell me if it is necessary to change all the wiring to aircraft type?
>
Don't know what specific kind of wiring you have installed. If any of it is
solid wire, i.e. that is not stranded, change it absolutely. Going to
aircraft quality wiring might generally be a good idea, though it's a lot of
work.
The actual inspection results depend a lot on the person inspecting and what
your wiring looks like. I have seen good Teflon coated type wiring pass on
several occasions, including on two of my aircraft.
Herb
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mk III Vertical Stabilizer Position |
dion.marshall(at)pobox.com
In a message dated 4/26/1999 9:17:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ibimiami(at)msn.com writes:
>
>
> This is in response to those of you who asked about the angled vertical
> stabilizer on the Ex-factory demo Mk III:
>
> The center of the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer is 2" from the
> port side of the fuselage tube as seen from above. I.e., instead of the
> center having 3" on each side, it is 2" from the port side and 4" from the
> starboard side.
>
> The rear end is centered.
>
> Keep in mind that this plane has a 912 turning a 3-bladed warp.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron C Reece" <rcreec(at)ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> |
| Subject: | General build method |
I'm just about ready to start my FSII and am wondering about a few things.
ONE) When building the HS section, do the forward and aft spar and root rib all
touch each other or is there a small gap in-between all those tubes so that just
the gussets hold things together? TWO) How does one bend the edges of the
gussets? THREE) Are the ends of the tubes shaped in a concave fashion to wrap
around the adjoining tube at the joints or just cut off straight or angled, what
ever the case may be?
Ron Reece
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Pridgen" <richard.pridgen(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Kolbers,
Thanks to all who responded. I am all clear now and can start my wings.
Rick Pridgen
dna...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
when I questioned if this was sanity the rep apologized for
>the steep price and said that 'marketing' came up with this price... not
>engineering... and I shared my beleif that although I was excited about the
>technical prospects of this motor, it would go nowhere with a price like
>that! Supposed to be available later this year
>
Has no one ever heard "sell for a little less and make your money on
volume". They must have poor marketing advice if they think people will pay
a premium price for an unproven engine. In my opinion a new engine must sell
for a lot less than a Rotax before the average guy will consider it for his
project.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Woody's comment on Powerfin availability in |
Canada
A
>For Canadians, the following was true two years ago, you may wish to call
>to verify today, if interested:
That was less than a year ago. Still no excuse for not writing back and
telling me they did not want to sell to me.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Gherkins" <rp3420(at)EMAIL.SPS.MOT.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: General build method |
Kolbers,
I think these are excellent questions, and I too, am interested in the answers
as well. Please input as much information, I'm hungary for it!
Tim in Phoenix
adr;dom: ;;;CH305;;;
tel;work: 6028144651
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fabric tester |
Hi Larry,
I would be interested in it! Hope you can still find it.
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Gherkins" <rp3420(at)EMAIL.SPS.MOT.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: General build method |
I'm refering to questions below, sorry, (rookie)
Kolbers,
I think these are excellent questions, and I too, am interested in the answers
as well. Please input as much information, I'm hungary for it!
Tim in Phoenix
I'm just about ready to start my FSII and am wondering about a few things.
ONE) When building the HS section, do the forward and aft spar and root rib all
touch each other or is there a small gap in-between all those tubes so that just
the gussets hold things together? TWO) How does one bend the edges of the
gussets? THREE) Are the ends of the tubes shaped in a concave fashion to wrap
around the adjoining tube at the joints or just cut off straight or angled, what
ever the case may be?
adr;dom: ;;;CH305;;;
tel;work: 6028144651
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: General build method |
>
>
>I'm refering to questions below, sorry, (rookie)
>
>
>Kolbers,
>
>I think these are excellent questions, and I too, am interested in the
answers
>as well. Please input as much information, I'm hungary for it!
>
>
>Tim in Phoenix
>
>
>I'm just about ready to start my FSII and am wondering about a few things.
>ONE) When building the HS section, do the forward and aft spar and root
rib all
>touch each other or is there a small gap in-between all those tubes so
that just
>the gussets hold things together?
The root rib is an identical profile to the other ribs. Use the rib plans
to position the root rib and its gussets. My recollection has the root rib
touching the spars, however, only the gussets hold the leading edge if I
remember.
TWO) How does one bend the edges of the
>gussets?
Kolb sent me pre bent gussets for my Mark III. rib leading edges
THREE) Are the ends of the tubes shaped in a concave fashion to wrap
>around the adjoining tube at the joints or just cut off straight or
angled, what
>ever the case may be?
The only tube on the root rib has to be cut and butted to the spars on the
Mark III. Again the rib pattern will show the correct position of the
tubes. The only shaped tubes (other than the airfoil profile) are the
upper false ribs and are bent circular to wrap around the inboard side of
the leading edge spar as well as the shape of the airfoil. The lower false
ribs are bent to rivet on the inboard side of the leading edge also,
however, the bend is an arc (opening downward) that allows the riveting to
occur near the bottom of the spar and not protrude into the covering.
For what it's worth on a Mark III
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fabric tester |
Hi Frank: I'm a little embarassed. Laziness kept me in my chair last
night, and just now, I got up to look for this, and had it within 30 sec.
Should have just done it last night. When I read a magazine, I put a small
post-it note on the pages that interest me. Mags go in a carton from the
office supply, ( Fellowes stock # 07222 ) then when I need something, I
grab the appropriate box off the shelf, and read the post-its across the
top. The home made Maule tester article is in Experimenter magazine,
June 1996, pages 34 + 35. Hope this helps. It looks like a good unit, and
I plan on building one for myself in a year or two. If you don't have that
issue, and can't get it, I could try scanning it & sending it, but so far my
results at scanning text haven't been too good. Now that I say that, it's
kind of strange, isn't it ?? Most of the photos I've sent out have been
scanned, and are fine. What's the problem with print ??
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fabric tester
>
> Hi Larry,
> I would be interested in it! Hope you can still find it.
> Frank
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank, Christie & Frank Hodson" <fchodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
| Subject: | Fabric tester--scanning |
Have you tried scanning in "gray scale"? It may help out. You could also
try scanning in black and white.
Franklin E. Hodson III
fchodson@bigfoot.com |http://www.bigfoot.com/~fchodson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: General build method |
>
>
>I'm just about ready to start my FSII and am wondering about a few things.
I assume that HS stands for horizontal stabilizer:
>ONE) When building the HS section, do the forward and aft spar and root
rib all
>touch each other or is there a small gap in-between all those tubes so that
just
>the gussets hold things together?
The tubes do touch, but only at the apex of the circumference.
TWO) How does one bend the edges of the gussets?
You don't have to do this. Generally we keep the rivet line close to the
edge of the gusset and this makes this concern a moot point - there is not
enough gusset projecting beyond the apex of the tube to do much with it.
Some builders tend to move the rivet line in too far and this results in a
lot of gusset overhangine the tube; for this it is good to bend the edge of
the gusset down. This can be done in a vice by letting just a little bit of
the gusset protrude, then tap the edge a bit with a hammer. Or we have
turned the edge down by simply tapping it with a plastic hammer after all
the riveting is done. Again, you won't accomplish much if there is not much
gusset beyond the apex of the tube. This works for the .032 gusset, you
won't be able much with the .063 guessets.
You will want to remove the sharp edge of the gusset by filing or sanding,
so there won't be a sharp edge to cut the fabric.
THREE) Are the ends of the tubes shaped in a concave fashion to wrap
>around the adjoining tube at the joints or just cut off straight or angled,
what
>ever the case may be?
The tube are cut at an angle to match the mating tube, it is a simple
straight cut - it is not contoured to fit the mating tube. Some builder
have taken the extra effort to contour the tubes ends for a very close fit,
but this really is not necessary.
Hope this helps
Dennis Souder
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Frank Hodson message |
Hi Frank
This has to be transmitted in the blind as it were because on my last AOL
crash I lost you message and your e-mail address. Got the part yesterday.
Thanks much.
Send me an e-mail with amount.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fabric tester--scanning |
Thanks, I'll try it. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank, Christie & Frank Hodson <fchodson(at)bigfoot.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 6:12 PM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Fabric tester--scanning
>
> Have you tried scanning in "gray scale"? It may help out. You could also
> try scanning in black and white.
>
> Franklin E. Hodson III
>
>
> fchodson@bigfoot.com |http://www.bigfoot.com/~fchodson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bil Ragsdale" <bilrags(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: H section 6" reinforcement |
I had to replace a H section in my tail boom and in a wing spar. Actually
I'm replacing the boom and spar. I drilled the H section out of the remains
of the old broken boom tube in the hopes I could reuse it. No Chance. It
was the aluminum H section with a heavy wall insert. The replacements were
both 4130 steel. They are much nicer than the aluminum stuff. I believe
the Mk lll that I bought was built from a 94 or 95 kit.
Thanks, Bil
-----Original Message-----
From: Mick Fine <froghair(at)busprod.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: H section 6" reinforcement
>
>>
>>......In the days of old, Kolb used an aluminium reinforcing "H" section.
Now
>>they use steel,.....
>
>Huh?, aluminum H-section??!!
>
>Maybe Dennis will clear this up but meantime, I'll try to confuse the
>situation:
>
>My Flyer is about as "old-days" as it gets and it has steel (only)
>H-sections in the spars and boom tube. AFAIK, the H-section construction is
>common to all Kolb models but I can't say for sure.
>
>Rick,
>I think the manual is simply refering to the 'crossbar' of the "H" when it
>says, "...thick-walled tube inside the top and bottom tubes...." It's the
>tube that the long bolt goes thru to attach the strut tang (on the spars)
>or the rear fuselage to the boom tube.
>
>"Top and bottom tubes.." may be a little confusing because you have to turn
>the H on its side - the position it will be in when it's installed in the
>spar. The H-section in the boom tube will have its "top and bottom tubes"
>on either side - clear as mud, right?
>
>-Mick Fine
>Tulsa, Oklahoma
>http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
>Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
>http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Cliff / Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)tetric.com>
Date: Monday, April 26, 1999 1:17 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: X-hinges
>
>>What are the X-hinges? Why did you copy them? Where did you find out
>>about them?
>>
>>Inquiring minds want to know
>
>Ron and all,
>
>Check out the archives. The must be a bunch of info there, but...
>basically they are made by melding two ordinary hinges into one by cutting
>every other link out of each side of each hinge... very labor intensive
>using a hacksaw and vice to hold and file to smooth up the cuts. Put all
>the pieces together on a single hinge pin and "voila" - one hinge with 4
>attach flaps.
Wouldnt it be easier just to take a piece of bent sheet aluminum and rivit
it to the hinge near the eyes, and to the rear spar to form your trangulated
support? No need to spend hours hacking four hinges to bits or buy extra
hinges.
Topher
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
I think you should get shoulderstraps that can be loosened not removed. YOu
let in some slack, do your work and then tighten them up again. never
release them.
TOpher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
>the steep price and said that 'marketing' came up with this price... not
>engineering...
I keep telling engineers to lock marketing in the closet but they wont
listen!
$7000 for 40 HP yah that will sell!
Idiots, too bad I kinda like the engine
TOpher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim comment, idea for your consideration. |
But it seems to me that both the roll and yaw
>factors could be corrected by a single tab if it were placed correctly.
>First, am I right in assuming that to correct roll you could place the
>aileron tab on either aileron, depending on if it was bent up or down,
>because its purpose is to cause the aileron to deflect which rolls the
>plane? If that is so, why not place the tab on the left aileron (assuming
>the Rotax 2-stroke engine here guys), so that it also adds left yaw.
The ailerons are connected and a movement of one is matched buy an oposite
and nearly equal move of the other, so you will get very little adverse yaw
from the trim tab correction and there for no yaw correction. so you need
to rim out undesired motions with a tab for each axis, which is why they
call it three axis control
TOpher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: General build method |
I used a bimetal drill bit the same diameter as the maiting tube in a jig
that held it at the mating angle. ran the drill through the tube and did a
touch of fileing and they fit perfectly. It will priovide a tiny big of
strength, and might look a bit better even after the fabric covers it all
up. I think it was as easy as sawing at an angle, but you have to make a
jig that can hold the tube at the right angle very firmly, the bit tries to
spin the tubing. the pilot will keep it centered well once it gets to the
back side of the tube, untill then there is a tendance to twist.
TOpher
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: General build method |
This is some corrections to my previous post. I took a look at the wing
when I got home last night and discovered some inaccuracies in my
descriptions.
>
>>
>>I'm just about ready to start my FSII and am wondering about a few things.
>
>>ONE) When building the HS section, do the forward and aft spar and root
>rib all
>>touch each other or is there a small gap in-between all those tubes so
>that just
>>the gussets hold things together?
>
>The root rib is an identical profile to the other ribs. Use the rib plans
>to position the root rib and its gussets. My recollection has the root rib
>touching the spars, however, only the gussets hold the leading edge if I
>remember.
The above is correct, however, the factory formed gusset was materially
reformed to account for the different thicknesses of the root rib tubing.
The factory forming portion was unchanged.
>
>TWO) How does one bend the edges of the
>>gussets?
>
>Kolb sent me pre bent gussets for my Mark III. rib leading edges
>
>THREE) Are the ends of the tubes shaped in a concave fashion to wrap
>>around the adjoining tube at the joints or just cut off straight or
>angled, what
>>ever the case may be?
>
>The only tube on the root rib has to be cut and butted to the spars on the
>Mark III. Again the rib pattern will show the correct position of the
>tubes. The only shaped tubes (other than the airfoil profile) are the
>upper false ribs and are bent circular to wrap around the inboard side of
>the leading edge spar as well as the shape of the airfoil. The lower false
>ribs are bent to rivet on the inboard side of the leading edge also,
>however, the bend is an arc (opening downward) that allows the riveting to
>occur near the bottom of the spar and not protrude into the covering.
This is where I could have introduced some confusion. The Falser Ribs are
all bent circular and flattened to the specified thickness. The ID of the
circular bend is 7/8 inches. This allows the tube to be riveted to the
leading edge behind the airfoil contours so that there is no tube
protrusion into the airfoil shape. The circular shape opens outward to
realize this positioning on the leading edge. I hope this is clearer than
mud.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PW Byerly <pizwilli(at)bledsoe.net> |
I am in agreement with all the folks who disclaim Buddy Twin as a viable
product, because of it pricing proposal. I sent AmTech an email yesty
with my name, address and telephone number. The message wasn't all that
sarcastic but I did say "get competitive or turn off the lights and lick
your wounds."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | trim, one more try to convey my concept. |
But it seems to me that both the roll and yaw
>factors could be corrected by a single tab if it were placed correctly.
>First, am I right in assuming that to correct roll you could place the
>aileron tab on either aileron, depending on if it was bent up or down,
>because its purpose is to cause the aileron to deflect which rolls the
>plane? If that is so, why not place the tab on the left aileron (assuming
>the Rotax 2-stroke engine here guys), so that it also adds left yaw.
The ailerons are connected and a movement of one is matched buy an oposite
and nearly equal move of the other, so you will get very little adverse yaw
from the trim tab correction and there for no yaw correction. so you need
to rim out undesired motions with a tab for each axis, which is why they
call it three axis control
TOpher
Sure, I get it, the ailerons work together of course. But I was suggesting
that the required force to correct the Yaw may be low enough to obtain it
with the trim tab area itself, if it is placed outboard far enough. Put
another way, imagine this: Aren't you adding additional Yaw influence by
adding a roll trim tab to either aileron? You are adding drag to that side
of the plane, right? Why not use it constructively? This should decrease
the angle you need to add to the tail. You are adding drag, so use it
wisely.
OK, let me have it.
jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: trim, one more try to convey my concept. |
But I was suggesting
>that the required force to correct the Yaw may be low enough to obtain it
>with the trim tab area itself, if it is placed outboard far enough. Put
>another way, imagine this: Aren't you adding additional Yaw influence by
>adding a roll trim tab to either aileron? You are adding drag to that side
>of the plane, right? Why not use it constructively? This should decrease
>the angle you need to add to the tail. You are adding drag, so use it
>wisely.
> OK, let me have it.
>jim
The whole idea of trim tabs is that they use a tiny little force with a big
moment arm to move a bigger surface to do the job intended. If you were to
make one big enough to trim any reasonable trim requirement directly it
would look like an aileron, and I think it would then deffinately cause
adverse yaw and if it were put on the correct side you could use the adverse
yaw constructively as yaw trim. but I dont think it is a good Idea.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fabric tester |
Richard & All,
I am not an expert in this subject but I have owned GA fabric covered
airplanes which have had to go through the punch test for each annual.
First you need to determine what the fabric really is and the weight.
UL usually use a lighter weight fabric than GA aircraft. Example a GA
plane like the Citabria is covered with 2.7 ounce per sq/yard fabric. UL's
tend to use light weight material - 1.7 ounce. Reason - pressure and
loading forces and speed. Next is it aircraft type fabric like Stitts
(Poly Fiber), Ceconite, Blue River, Super Flite, or Dacron. Consult the
fabric manufacturer for punch test spec's.
The 1.7 is not as strong as 2.7 thus the punch test pressure will be lower.
Determine what type fabric Here's where I need help. If you punch it
you need to know what the maximum test punch pressure is for 1.7 ouch
fabric. Again, consult the fabric manufacturer for punch test spec's.
You DO NOT PUNCH THROUGH the fabric, only to the test pressure. If it
punches through before the specified test pressure then it failed - time
for recover. Make sure the test instrument is calibrated and hasn't been
dropped on the test tip where it has a sharp edge which might cut the
fabric. I found this on a buyers AI's tester who was going to do a pre
sale inspection on our airplane. He had loaned it to someone.
On fabric airplanes typically the top of the wings, top of the fuselage,
and the belly are normally the weakest points. Also test side of the vert
stab, and top & bottom of horiz.. stabs and elevators and rudder. Note,
while punching don't go crazy. Pick a few (half dozen) points on the
airplane and perform the test, more if you suspect problems. Your putting
a great amount of pressure on a very tiny point. It will leave indentation
marks which will come out over time but takes a while. Try to pick less
noticeable areas under high pressure during flight, exposed to sun light,
or moisture like bottom of fuselage. You do not need to pepper the surface
with punches. A couple on each surface is more than adequate for a base
line. Keep in mind "your testing for worthiness not destructive limits".
Again try to keep the location of punch points and quantity to a reasonable
number and in less noticeable areas. If the fabric is weak it will show
up. If you suspect weak points, adjust accordingly. You should never have
to exceed the specified pressure and punch through the fabric. Anybody who
thinks this has to be done is all wet. I leaned from working with AI's
that do inspections on GA airplanes.
Regard,
JerryB
>
> Need some help from the wisdom of the kolbers: One of the guys
that flew
>to Oshkosh with us this last summer is doing an annual on his Drifter and
>is needing to check the fabric. We have one of those fabric testers that
>looks like a belt tension tester, it is calibrated in push pounds, it has a
>plastic cover on the end, and you slip an aluminum push point barrel over
>the plastic end. It is made by Howard Mfg. Co.
> The aluminum push point barrel has a nubbin that is 1/16"
diameter, and
>about 1/8" long. Then the diameter of the aluminum increases rapidly on a
>45 degree taper to 5/8". It takes 6 pounds of pressure to force the 1/16"
>nubbin through the fabric, but we have no data on how the thing is to be
>correctly used, and what force it should require.
> Do you test it by poking just the 1/16" nubbin through, and if so,
how
>much pressure?
> Do you push until the 5/8" barrel goes through? And if so, how
much pressure?
>Hate to seem like aboriginies trying to figure out the True Meaning of a
>Snap-On 3/8" ratchet, but that's about the way it is.
>Anyone?
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FIREFLY INFO |
Electric Start? I don't know what your upset about, I'm short legged and
have to hop over the side rail.
There is one thing - if you could rig it right you could add a hand brake
to the stick which when pulled would apply brakes to both wheels.
(Thinking how to do it with heal brakes still active) When you pull the
handle you chuck a piece of wood in between the space it creates below the
handle as it pivots. That's your parking brake. Problem is I got a gut
feel that darn thing would drag the wheels with no weight in it. Getting
to like the looks of those go-kart powered parachute things - now if I
could just figure a way to put the Kolb wings on it....
JerryB
>
>I've previously posted my 2000rpm starting antics with my FireFly--it
>ROLLS! Since I can't start it from the cockpit, I have to pull-start
>while standing on rt side, with chock-on-a-rope holding. Then I flop
>into cockpit (this is the funny part) and haul in the chock-on-a-rope.
>Yes I do have brakes, but no way to lock them while flopping in. Tried a
>stick to hold heel brakes, but my graceful entry knocked it loose, and
>Awaaawy we went, with me half in! If any of you Edisons have a solution,
>post me. Thanks
>
>Grey ( give me a brake) Baron
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FIREFLY INFO |
Everything is a trade off and compromise, ah.
>
>My FireFly with a handbrake lever on the control stick is easy to get into
>and out of with the engine running. Well, relatively easy. One hand must be
>on the control stick at all times, tightly squeezing the brake lever.
>
>I bet heel brakes are much tougher!
>
> - Dick
>
>>
>>I've previously posted my 2000rpm starting antics with my FireFly--it
>>ROLLS! Since I can't start it from the cockpit, I have to pull-start
>>while standing on rt side, with chock-on-a-rope holding. Then I flop
>>into cockpit (this is the funny part) and haul in the chock-on-a-rope.
>>Yes I do have brakes, but no way to lock them while flopping in. Tried a
>>stick to hold heel brakes, but my graceful entry knocked it loose, and
>>Awaaawy we went, with me half in! If any of you Edisons have a solution,
>>post me. Thanks
>>
>>Grey ( give me a brake) Baron
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VW Powered MKIII |
I beat it would be a cherry with a reduction unit. There was a plane at
Oshkosh (oh that's right it called "Air Expenseture" now isn't it) I think
I just coined a new nick name, consider it public domain. Any how it ran a
belt reduction drive. It sounded healthy, got off quick, climbed great and
seemed to have plenty of power. Without it the year before I understand it
was close call of hitting the fence each time it took off.
Regards,
Jerry Bidle
>
>How long have you been flying the VW powered MK III? How
>does it perform to conventional (Rotax) powered MK IIIs?
>Are you happy with it? Please let us know.
>
>Thanks,
>
>john h
>
>I have been flying the VW for almost a year now but with all the teething
problems I haven't flown it much. Right now it is a smooth and very loud
engine that makes the MKIII perform solo almost as good as a 912 with Dan
and Me in it (as I remember). I can't fault the VW for any of the problems
I have had its just that there wasn't a package developed for the MKIII. I
still need to get a real exhaust system welded up and find/fix a electrical
problem but I'm almost there. I have wished a number of times I hadn't done
the VW thing but I think I will be very happy with the big slow turning 4
stroke. My takeoff RPM is 3400 and it will fly as slow as 2300RPM. My
normal cruse is 2800RPM at app 70MPH.
>
>Rick Neilsen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VW Powered MKIII |
Yes, yes. I looked at that reduction drive while at Sun & Fun. It's made
by another company. Not sure if you could get it cheaper directly from
them. Great Plains isn't adding any value to it other than being a middle
man. Looked at what you got for the price I had a hard time swallowing it.
A bit pricey. Nothing was that complex for the price they were
commanding. It still be worth checking out. My previous reply about the
guy running the redrive, I believe he made it himself. Might be able to
work a deal with him. I sure would give it a try (at your expense you
notice).
Happy test piloting,
JerryB (a fair price for fair product keeps me from looking else where)
>
> Right now it is a smooth and very loud engine that makes the MKIII perform
>solo almost as good as a 912 with Dan and Me in it (as I remember). I can't
>fault the VW for any of the problems I have had its just that there wasn't a
>package developed for the MKIII. I still need to get a real exhaust system
>welded up and find/fix a electrical problem but I'm almost there. I have
>wished a number of times I hadn't done the VW thing but I think I will be
>very happy with the big slow turning 4 stroke. My takeoff RPM is 3400 and it
>will fly as slow as 2300RPM. My normal cruse is 2800RPM at app 70MPH.
>>
>
>
>Richard,
>Just to let you know that it's out there and to get the opinion of someone
>who took the step away from the norm...have you seen the VW redrive that
>Great Plains now markets??? It's about $1300 if I remember. It is a 1.6/1
>reduction that would put the prop around 2100 with the engine running 3400
>(i.e. 70 HP cont. by GP's numbers. Do you think that it would just be too
>loud at that RPM? It weighs about 12 lbs. if I remember and will retrofit
>to about any aero conversion VW (i.e. goes on the same end as the prop on a
>typical aero VW) and it swings a 72" prop. Weight wise I think engine with
>redrive would be about 175 - 180 and comparable power to a 912 (that's only
>75 ponies continuous) If I remember Dennis S. said the complete 912
>installation on a M3 was around 165 lbs.?.? BUUUUUUUTT!!! It's new , and
>the 912 is more than proven itself to be a great engine. SOOOOOO! It looks
>interesting but I hate being a tester for them...
>
>Anyway the URL is ... http://greatplainsas.com/reduction.html
>
>Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
>M3 Wings & tail kit should be here in a couple more weeks!! yeeeeee haw!!!
>Now if I just had my workshop ready for it...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: X-hinges/Cutting Method |
If you used a dremel(sp) tool with a fiberglass cutting wheel, it probably
would be easier to do but then it also allows you screw up faster.
I'm not sure how the thin abrasive cutting blades would work since the
hinges are aluminum. Since there fine texture they may tend to fill up with
aluminum. On the other hand they wear down faster so you get a new
cutting surface. I think the real thin one might prove to wear down to
quick and probably would be too fragile. Better to use the thicker ones or
the glass blade. Watch it these things cut fast.
(Excellent for cutting cable - wrap a piece of masking tape around the
cable and cut through it and the cable - produces a nice clean cut)
While at Sun & Fun I saw some thin fine tooth buzz saw blades for a Dremel.
Some time back when working on our deluxe instrument panel I was looking
for one. The local hobby store wanted around $20 for one. Decided I
didn't want it that bad. At S&F they were like $3-4. These suckers are
dangerous. Got thinking about it decided to pass and try to keep all my
body parts intact. One slip and ....
>
>>What are the X-hinges? Why did you copy them? Where did you find out
>>about them?
>>
>>Inquiring minds want to know
>
>Ron and all,
>
>Check out the archives. The must be a bunch of info there, but...
>basically they are made by melding two ordinary hinges into one by cutting
>every other link out of each side of each hinge... very labor intensive
>using a hacksaw and vice to hold and file to smooth up the cuts. Put all
>the pieces together on a single hinge pin and "voila" - one hinge with 4
>attach flaps. It really stabilizes the hinge connection. I copied the
>idea off a "Fergie" I saw at SNF. Would I do it again?... yes, but it was
>a lot of work and doubled the cost in hinge material.
>
>Later,
>
>
>--
>Cliff & Carolyn Stripling
>801 Avenida Serena, Marble Falls, Texas 78654
>Vista Del Rio (Central Texas Hill Couuntry)
>(830)693-9333 (voice) -7633 (fax)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FIREFLY INFO |
In a message dated 99-04-28 7:38:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jbidle(at)airmail.net writes:
<< f any of you Edisons have a solution,
>post me. Thanks >>
How about chocks on a rope? The chocks hold the plane while you start and
get in, then you yank the rope and the chocks get out of the way.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
Here's an attempt at describing the crack location. The crack was on the
side (not on the PTO or squash plate faces). The crack was in the center
area, starting from the edge where the two halves meet, working back about
5/8" toward the squash plate facing. I believe I felt the crack (during
preflight) before I saw it. The crack was about 5/8" long and practically
invisible with the bolts removed. Warp people told me that the hub they
have sent me for warranty replacement is not the same design as what I
purchased 4.5 years ago, sort of implying that they have seen some cracks
that nudged them to make it a bit beefier. (I've not yet received the
replacement hub.) I have about 185 hours on the
engine/prop/gearbox/airplane all since new. Warp said they have many many
users with the same AL hub with lots more hours than I had and that
generally, a prop strike of some significance is what causes a hub crack.
I have only 2 teeny knicks in my prop (gravel levy at 70mph) and I don't
think that was it. My advice would be to feel carefully around that AL hub
from time to time, and DONT overtorque. In this regard, Warp sure gave me
the benefit of the doubt.
I'll eventually post a pic of the hub w/ crack.
-Ben Ransom
>Ben: I am curious about your crack in the hub. Can you tell me where it was
>located at? How many hours are on it? Doesn't seem that little extra torque
>would make it crack. I'm running a 64" 2 blade, & your post caught my
>attention. Thanks for the reply, Darren Smalec
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fabric tester |
Now that I say that, it's
>kind of strange, isn't it ?? Most of the photos I've sent out have been
>scanned, and are fine. What's the problem with print ??
>Big Lar.
>
I just scan everything as a jpeg and send it out. Most of the time the
quality is acceptable. I would like a copy also if it is not to much trouble.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FIREFLY INFO |
Cavuontop(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> How about chocks on a rope? The chocks hold the plane while you start and
> get in, then you yank the rope and the chocks get out of the way.
>
>
Howdy Gang:
I had the same problem at Sun and Fun with the Fire Fly.
Once it took me 10 mins to get in the airplane after it
started, then get my ear plugs in, hook up the seat belt,
ect., all with one hand on the brake lever and the other to
do the work. No good. There was a small berm around the
concrete pad at the Announcer's Tower. I just pushed the
little Fire Fly down there, put the mains on the edge of the
berm, cranked, and got in. Didn't have any more roll
problems. Alas, can't take the berm with me everywhere I
go.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FIREFLY INFO |
Cav, I first described this chockonarope in article in Winchester VA
Star, 8/15/98, but had been using it for quite sometime prior.Not very
elegant, but only one moving part! GB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ToddThom(at)aol.com |
Sunday, April 24 was first flight day for our MKIII here in Connecticut. Bob
Barrie, of the Kolb-List came along to help with chores and operated the
video camera and brought ballast. MY CFII instructor did the honors of test
flying the airplane for us. I'm really glad because it was very windy and
much of the time it was a cross wind. So after some fast taxis and crow hops
he took off into the pattern.
Nothing fell of the aircraft, all Rotax 582 temps were nominal. The Prince
propellor sounded really awesome and the perfromance was impressive. All of
us were very surprised by the quietness of the ROtax/Prince combination. I
think can safely say that we were more quiet than most of the GA aircraft at
the field. After all was said and done our CFI didn't ask for any trim
adjustments. ALL surfaces were trued flat with a 5 foot straight edge and
the left flap was drooped 3/8 of an inch prior to the flight. BTW, he test
flew it from the right seat so he wouldn't have to cross control the
throttle. Take off required heavy right foot (with a cross wind too)but the
aircraft flew very straight in cruise and level flight. CFII wondered if the
aircraft was turning left on take off because of prop torque as well as cross
wind. With so much wind we really could test one way or the other.
Any way no dings or dents except from the trailer transportation so we'll
have to figure out how the minimise the trailer rash.
Thank to all of the suggestions and support..
BTW, Matco disk brakes really do work. and well.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fabric tester |
I'm working on it, Woody. I switched to B/W as advised, and the program
choked on it; came up with an "unknown error," and I had to C/A/D to get
loose. Gotta get up early, so I'll work on it more tomorrow, and send a
copy to you when done. Big Lar. Do not Archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: wood <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fabric tester
>
> Now that I say that, it's
> >kind of strange, isn't it ?? Most of the photos I've sent out have been
> >scanned, and are fine. What's the problem with print ??
> >Big Lar.
> >
>
> I just scan everything as a jpeg and send it out. Most of the time the
> quality is acceptable. I would like a copy also if it is not to much
trouble.
>
>
> Woody
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FIREFLY INFO |
Hello, CAV! My original post told how I use a chock-on-a-rope!! And
asked for a Tom Edison. But thanks for the boost. Grey (gimme a brake)
Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <ibimiami(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Headsets & Intercom |
Kolbers:
On the first long flight in my new Mk III from Lakeland to Miami, I was
surprised at the high cockpit noise level, and that's with a 912 which is
supposedly "quiet". Despite the use of headsets, I could still hear the
engine drone in my head the next morning.
Apart from the discomfort and difficulty to talk on the radio or intercom,
I'm concerned about hearing damage.
Has anybody in the group successfully managed to reduce the noise level by
means of an insulation barrier between the engine and the pilot?
Do any of you have an ANR headset that you consider to be outstanding?
Yesterday I spoke to Mark Bierhle of Earthstar Aircraft who frequently flies
his Odyssey across the country. He commented that he uses a "Lynx" headset /
intercom combo that is the best he's ever come across. Supposedly even
better than the new $1,000 BOSE headsets despite the fact that they sell for
1/4 the price.
Have any of you heard about Lynx or have personal experience with it? It is
British made and sold in the US by Rollison Airplane Co.
(www.airplanegear.com). It seems to be a good deal, but before I send them
my order I would be interested in some more real-life info. on them.
Thanks,
Peter Volum
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ward <swultra(at)primenet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight |
Hay todd, Are those matco brakes heal operated. If so are they akward to use.I
have them on my mark-3 and they seam that they will be hard to use while tring
to
use the rudder at the same time. I haven't flowen my bird yet so I don't know.
I
also have size 12 feet, not much room down in the nose. Steve Ward tubro geo
mark-3
ToddThom(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Sunday, April 24 was first flight day for our MKIII here in Connecticut. Bob
> Barrie, of the Kolb-List came along to help with chores and operated the
> video camera and brought ballast. MY CFII instructor did the honors of test
> flying the airplane for us. I'm really glad because it was very windy and
> much of the time it was a cross wind. So after some fast taxis and crow hops
> he took off into the pattern.
>
> Nothing fell of the aircraft, all Rotax 582 temps were nominal. The Prince
> propellor sounded really awesome and the perfromance was impressive. All of
> us were very surprised by the quietness of the ROtax/Prince combination. I
> think can safely say that we were more quiet than most of the GA aircraft at
> the field. After all was said and done our CFI didn't ask for any trim
> adjustments. ALL surfaces were trued flat with a 5 foot straight edge and
> the left flap was drooped 3/8 of an inch prior to the flight. BTW, he test
> flew it from the right seat so he wouldn't have to cross control the
> throttle. Take off required heavy right foot (with a cross wind too)but the
> aircraft flew very straight in cruise and level flight. CFII wondered if the
> aircraft was turning left on take off because of prop torque as well as cross
> wind. With so much wind we really could test one way or the other.
>
> Any way no dings or dents except from the trailer transportation so we'll
> have to figure out how the minimise the trailer rash.
>
> Thank to all of the suggestions and support..
>
> BTW, Matco disk brakes really do work. and well.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Headsets & Intercom |
Peter Volum wrote:
>
> Kolbers:
>
> On the first long flight in my new Mk III from Lakeland to Miami, I was
> surprised at the high cockpit noise level, and that's with a 912 which is
> supposedly "quiet". Despite the use of headsets, I could still hear the
> engine drone in my head the next morning.
Peter and Kolb Gang:
Well Peter, if you take a look at how close the prop is to
your ears with nothing inbetween but air to block any noise,
you will understand that it is not the engine, but the prop
making all that noise. Don't think you will be able to
insulate yourself from the noise by adding insulation to the
airframe. A good high quality headset with max noise
attenuation is the best approach to the problem. I have
flown many hours in Kolbs with their inherent noise quite
comfortably using David Clark 10-40 headsets. Both sets are
over 10 years old now and still work fine. On some of my
XCs I flew 10, 11, and 12 hour flight days without too much
strain on these old ears.
I did have an engine noise problem the first time I flew the
912 to Sun and Fun. Some of you may remember my arrival and
departure there in 1993. I didn't have time to come up with
a quiet exhaust system before time to depart.
Made the flt down and back with four straight stacks 18
inches long. Sucker sounded like a formula 1 race car.
About two hours into the flt the noise was hammering thru
the David Clarks and into my head. The exhaust was so loud
I couldn't hear the prop noise. Did sound good though for a
little while. I have some video somewhere that picks up the
sound quite well from the ground.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 <sbaew(at)dames.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Headsets & Intercom |
Peter:
I am not familiar with the Lynx headsets, but I purchased a David Clark
ANR headset for helicoptors, which between the passive and active noise
reduction has what I believe to be the highest level of hearing
protection. The helicoptor version comes with only a single plug (the
standard for helicoptors I guess), but if you tell David Clark Co what
you are using it for, they will swap out the single plug for a double
plug thats standard for GA.
While certainly not cheap, the noise reduction capabilities are quite
impressive - I was quite comfortable wearing them at full throttle during
an engine runup for my 912. Im not sure how they compare with others
with respect to weight etc, but I certainly like them so far.
David Clark has also been helpful and patient with me during numerous
phone inquiries, and I know they have a good warranty and money back
guarantee, although I cant quite remember what time period those go for
at the moment.
Regardless of whether you get the David Clarks, I would suggest shopping
a bit for price on the internet and phone. I got mine through Marv
Golden Discount Sales - check it out on the web. You also might consider
prowling bulletin boards at local flying club lounges etc - a good used
pair can save you a lot of money.
I would also be aware when you buy your headset that it may lock you in
on other items - i.e. will you be wearing a helmet? it will need to
accomodate your headset. Also, Im not sure that all brands of intercoms
are interchangeable.
Hope this helps a little.
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
Wasn't required in my case. Inspection went a lot smoother than I had
expected.
Steve Anderson
N4735S (Firestar KXP)
staecs(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Headsets & Intercom |
Peter,
RE: Noise Reduction & Hearing Loss
At SF this April I learned that even though the low frequency noise (eg.
prop & some engine) is most objectionable and annoying, it does not damage our
hearing nearly as much as the mid frequency noise does. The ANR sets are tuned
to the obnoxious sounds which are low frequency. So if you use an effective ANR
set you might be damaging your hearing because we easily tolerate damaging
levels of mid freqency noise. The ANR units can't focus on that range because
it is also the range of our speech. The bottom line is that we need to have the
best passive insulation available, especially if we also have an ANR. That would
mean (not including for this discussion, cabin structure) the foam seal around
your ear; the foam inside the cup which surrounds the edge of the speaker & also
lies behind it; & maybe even earplugs. The material in the seal & cup vary
greatly in their effectiveness to reduce the decibel rating & price is not
always a good indicator. I don't know of an unbiased source that compares
availabe headsets so I can't give you any hard answers, just some more
questions! ...Richard S
Peter Volum wrote:
>
> Kolbers:
>
> On the first long flight in my new Mk III from Lakeland to Miami, I was
> surprised at the high cockpit noise level, and that's with a 912 which is
> supposedly "quiet". Despite the use of headsets, I could still hear the
> engine drone in my head the next morning.
>
> Apart from the discomfort and difficulty to talk on the radio or intercom,
> I'm concerned about hearing damage.
>
> Has anybody in the group successfully managed to reduce the noise level by
> means of an insulation barrier between the engine and the pilot?
>
> Do any of you have an ANR headset that you consider to be outstanding?
>
> Yesterday I spoke to Mark Bierhle of Earthstar Aircraft who frequently flies
> his Odyssey across the country. He commented that he uses a "Lynx" headset /
> intercom combo that is the best he's ever come across. Supposedly even
> better than the new $1,000 BOSE headsets despite the fact that they sell for
> 1/4 the price.
>
> Have any of you heard about Lynx or have personal experience with it? It is
> British made and sold in the US by Rollison Airplane Co.
> (www.airplanegear.com). It seems to be a good deal, but before I send them
> my order I would be interested in some more real-life info. on them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter Volum
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FIREFLY INFO |
>
>Cav, I first described this chockonarope in article in Winchester VA
>Star, 8/15/98, but had been using it for quite sometime prior.Not very
>elegant, but only one moving part! GB
As a poor SOB that is used to a 800 rpm idle how do you guys land in short
fields with out dead sticking it. Seems like the roll out would be quite
long with out some stopum power somewhere.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <ibimiami(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Headsets & Intercom |
I purchased a David Clark ANR headset for helicoptors, which between the
passive and active noise reduction has what I believe to be the highest
level of hearing protection.
Thanks Erich,
That makes two votes for the David Clarks so far.
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 <sbaew(at)dames.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Headsets & Intercom |
Richard, you may be correct about mid-range frequencies and ear-damage, I
dont know, but I would have to disagree with your statement that "...if
you use an effective ANR set you might be damaging your hearing...".
This seems to imply that ANR can be a bad thing.
Active Noise Reduction is always applied IN ADDITION TO to passsive noise
reduction, and will therefore provide an additional measure of safety
over what would be achieved from just the passive nose reduction alone.
ANR will have no effect on noise that is passed through or around the
earphones - the sound has already gotten to our ear.
So yes, by all means get headphones with good passive noise reduction,
regardless of their ANR capabilities. But ANR in itself can only improve
things, not make them worse. Bottom line: make sure you know what the
headset noise reduction capabilities (in db) are by both passive and
active (electronic)methods. Richard's point that noise reduction is not
equal over the entire frequency range is well taken, although Im sure
this goes for both passive and active noise reduction.
I would encourage all to get the best ear protection they can. Hearing
loss is not something you are typically aware of; its cumulative over the
years, and by the time you are aware of it, it will be a significant
loss. I lost some high-end range hearing from spending time with Dad at
the shooting range as a kid and am now sorry I didnt know any better.
Do ya hear me?
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GOOCHMAC(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Stits |
I'm new to stits covering---how hard is it to apply and how much time and
money will it take to replace a twinstar set?
Martin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Headsets & Intercom |
Erich,
The point I did not communicate too well is not that ANR is a bad thing, but
that if the headset you are using has inferior passive noise reduction, then the
ANR can mask the obvious symptoms (loud obnoxious low frequency noise). At the
same time, ANR will not cut out the mid range frequency whch can be damaging our
hearing because we can comfortabley tolerate damaging levels in that range.
If we go by the company's claim of db reduction for their headset, we can be
totally misled because they often do not include what requency range the
measurments refer to. This is especially true with ANR headsets. All companies
they like to report the biggest numbers, and since the biggest db reduction will
be electronic and not passive, the picture we end up with is their product has
this incredible db reduction, which is true for the low frequency range, but
their product could have average or inferior mid range protection, which is the
area where damage most occurs & it is the range we use the most. More simply
put, if you have ineffective headsets without ANR you'll know it because the low
frequency noise will be uncomfortable. If you have ANR, your headsets may be
ineffective in the essential mid range and you may not know it.
...Richard S
Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 wrote:
>
> Richard, you may be correct about mid-range frequencies and ear-damage, I
> dont know, but I would have to disagree with your statement that "...if
> you use an effective ANR set you might be damaging your hearing...".
> This seems to imply that ANR can be a bad thing.
>
> Active Noise Reduction is always applied IN ADDITION TO to passsive noise
> reduction, and will therefore provide an additional measure of safety
> over what would be achieved from just the passive nose reduction alone.
> ANR will have no effect on noise that is passed through or around the
> earphones - the sound has already gotten to our ear.
>
> So yes, by all means get headphones with good passive noise reduction,
> regardless of their ANR capabilities. But ANR in itself can only improve
> things, not make them worse. Bottom line: make sure you know what the
> headset noise reduction capabilities (in db) are by both passive and
> active (electronic)methods. Richard's point that noise reduction is not
> equal over the entire frequency range is well taken, although Im sure
> this goes for both passive and active noise reduction.
>
> I would encourage all to get the best ear protection they can. Hearing
> loss is not something you are typically aware of; its cumulative over the
> years, and by the time you are aware of it, it will be a significant
> loss. I lost some high-end range hearing from spending time with Dad at
> the shooting range as a kid and am now sorry I didnt know any better.
>
> Do ya hear me?
>
> Erich Weaver
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sound insulation |
Peter,
There's a company here in North central FL that has the formula for the
paint that the US Navy uses on its submarines for anti-sonar dedection. It
reflects sound unbelievably well. It was recently declassified. I wrote them
a
letter asking about it. Their short reply said they'd let me know when they
were ready to sell it to the public. Have not heard from them in over a year
now. Our tax dollars would sure be put to use well if they ever decide to sell
it to the public. ---Richard S
Peter Volum wrote:
>
> Kolbers:
> [snip]Apart from the discomfort and difficulty to talk on the radio or
> intercom,
> I'm concerned about hearing damage.
>
> Has anybody in the group successfully managed to reduce the noise level by
> means of an insulation barrier between the engine and the pilot? [snip]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sound insulation |
Now that you mention that, it reminds me of some stuff I saw at AOPA last
summer, and grabbed a sample. It's a sandwich of padding with foil on each
side, is very light, and approved by the FAA for aircraft. If you have a
full rear enclosure, it might work to line the rear interior. Called " The
Insulator," it's made by Unlimited Quality Products, in Mesa, AZ.
1-800-528-8219. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Sound insulation
>
> Peter,
>
> There's a company here in North central FL that has the formula for
the
> paint that the US Navy uses on its submarines for anti-sonar dedection.
It
> reflects sound unbelievably well. It was recently declassified. I wrote
them a
> >
> > Kolbers:
> > [snip]Apart from the discomfort and difficulty to talk on the radio or
> > intercom,
> > I'm concerned about hearing damage.
> >
> > Has anybody in the group successfully managed to reduce the noise level
by
> > means of an insulation barrier between the engine and the pilot? [snip]
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lee Friend <lfriend47(at)pol.net> |
| Subject: | a beer is a beer, and better free |
JShan(at)tconl.com,
Kolb-List Digest Server ,
M.D.Friend(at)Worldnet.ATT.net, rgertson(at)elc.net, rgorton(at)fwmi.com,
lehtos(at)elc.net, SRich(at)aol.com, tjfriend7(at)juno.com
>
>>
>>>
>>><<
>>> Subject: Hope you can have a beer on me!!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Hello:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>We here at Miller Brewing Company, Inc. would like to help
bring in
>>the > >>>>new millennium for everyone. We like to think of
ourselves as a
>>> >>>>progressive company, keeping up with our customers. We
have found
>>the > >>>>best way to do this via the Internet and email.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Combining these things, we would like to make a special
offer to our
>>> >>>>valued customers: If this email makes it to 2,000,000
people by
>>12:00 >PM > >>>>on New > >>>>Year's Eve of 1999, we will send a
coupon
>>for one six-pack of any of our
>>> >>>>Miller Brand beverages.
>>> >>>>
>>* >>>>In the event that 2,000,000 people are reached, our
tracker/counter,
>>> >>>>embedded in this message, will report to us with the list
of names
>>and > >>>>email addresses. Thereafter, each email address will
be sent an
>>> >>>>electronic coupon which you can print out and redeem at
any Miller
>>Brand > >>>>beverage carrying store. The coupons will be sent as
soon as
>>2,000,000 > >>>>people are reached, so the sooner, the better. >
>>>>
>>*
>>> >>>>Enjoy, and Cheers,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Gary D. Anderson, Chief Marketing Director
>>> >>>>Miller Brewing Company, Inc.
>>> >>>>http://www.millerbrewing.com
<http://www.millerbrewing.com>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>___________ >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fabric tester |
You know, reading that over, we don't really need to scan it. All he did
was to take a weight of 4 - 5 lb., drill a hole in it to accept a 3/8" drill
chuck, and precisely weigh it. Then chuck a drill bit backwards, so the
blunt end is out. Calculate the sq. in. of the end of the drill bit, and
divide it into the weight. e.g. - a 4 lb. weight, with a 3/8 bit would
produce 36.2 psi. With a 5/16 bit it would be 52.2 psi. A 5 lb. weight
with a 3/8 bit would give 45.3 psi. And so on. Now all we need to know is
how much pressure is pass/fail on which weight of fabric. Anyone ??
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: wood <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Fabric tester
>
> Now that I say that, it's
> >kind of strange, isn't it ?? Most of the photos I've sent out have been
> >scanned, and are fine. What's the problem with print ??
> >Big Lar.
> >
>
> I just scan everything as a jpeg and send it out. Most of the time the
> quality is acceptable. I would like a copy also if it is not to much
trouble.
>
>
> Woody
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard neilsen" <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Re: FIREFLY INFO -Reply |
Hey I would hate to have you guys miss out on all this fun with those "chock-on-a-ropes"
but... There is a product out there for hydraulic braking systems that
is intended to serve as a holding brake. It is just a on/off valve placed any
where in the brake line between the activating cylinder and the brake. You
step on the brake then set the valve to off.
My $.02 worth
Rick Neilsen VW powered MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FIREFLY INFO -Reply |
Hello Richard--Fine idea abt brakes BUT I have mechanical brakes, just
like the '53 VW I had in Germany--in '53.
Grey (that's the breaks ) Baron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 <sbaew(at)dames.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dimple tape for noise reduction? |
Hey guys
All this stuff on noise reduction made me remember the adds I see in
Ultralight Flying etc for "dimple tape." Has this stuff been discussed
on the List?
After installation on leading edges of wing and prop, its supposed to
reduce stall speeds and dramatically reduce prop noise. Who wouldnt want
that? Anybody out there using it that can report back to us with first
hand experience? Are there any drawbacks to this product?
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Volum" <ibimiami(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | dimple tape for noise reduction? |
This reply is for the purpose of including the previous reply in the
archive. I think strong opinions like this one should be available to help
others reach their own decisions on products.
Peter Volum
A call about this stuff to my prop manufacturer resulted in a verbal
responce of "absolute junk, don't waste your money". actually if you look
at a golf ball and compare the dimple dimensions and then look at the tape
you can see that it comes no where near the depth needed to perform with any
significance. THIS IS MARKETING HYPE AT IT'S BEST.
Hey guys
All this stuff on noise reduction made me remember the adds I see in
Ultralight Flying etc for "dimple tape." Has this stuff been discussed on
the List?
After installation on leading edges of wing and prop, its supposed to reduce
stall speeds and dramatically reduce prop noise. Who wouldnt want that?
Anybody out there using it that can report back to us with first hand
experience? Are there any drawbacks to this product?
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sound insulation |
If you have a full rear enclosure, go by a place that sells stereo speaker
components for the kids that build hyper-noisy car systems. There is a
sound dampening foam speaker lining that they can order that is about $17
for a 18"x36" slab, and it works good.
When I first had my MKIII enclosed around the back, I lined both sides of
the enclosure with the foam, and it worked real good. It weighs almost
nothing, it is about 1 1/2" thick and a greyish brown. Put the smooth side
of the foam against the sidewalls, and the waffley side facing the back of
your head/ cabin inside. I just tied mine loosley in place with ribbon to
see if it would work, and it cut the noise by about half.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sound insulation |
>If you have a full rear enclosure, go by a place that sells stereo speaker
>components for the kids that build hyper-noisy car systems. There is a
>sound dampening foam speaker lining that they can order that is about $17
>for a 18"x36" slab, and it works good.
>When I first had my MKIII enclosed around the back, I lined both sides of
>the enclosure with the foam, and it worked real good. It weighs almost
>nothing, it is about 1 1/2" thick and a greyish brown. Put the smooth side
>of the foam against the sidewalls, and the waffley side facing the back of
>your head/ cabin inside. I just tied mine loosley in place with ribbon to
>see if it would work, and it cut the noise by about half.
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
Old Poop!
Do you mean that you just covered over the rear windows or just the fabric
covered parts of the rear fuselage with the foam??? If it made it that much
quieter (spelling?) then it might be worth covering over the rear fuselage
completely like John Hauck's Ms P'fer. You would lose some view but how
much are you're ears worth???
For what it's worth I rode in the factory M3 that Peter Volum bought Monday
morn @ Sun-N-Fun for a demo ride. Totally open to the rear and NO
HEADSETS!!! (No earplugs either...I was actually glad it was just a few
minutes...) The ride was incredible , but so was the volume!!! I could
scream right into the ear of the ol'boy that flew me and he couldn't make
out a word!!! Anyway I guess headsets stop the large majority of that
racket...I hope so cause I ordered kit 1 !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dimple tape for noise reduction? |
Kolb-List:
I would not dismiss the idea based on one prop co.'s opinion. Sport
Aviation wrote it up & gave it a credible review. The golfball comparison
probably doesn't hold water since the Reynolds Number of a golfball & a wing or
propellor are quite different. Sailplanes use a simple strip of tape to trip
the airstream. I inquired about the dimple tape when it 1st became available
about a year ago. The response was a joke to me. I could buy strips of gold
cheaper than what he was asking for it.
"Someday" I will try to come up with a die to cut hole in tape. I'm
convinced its a worthy endeavor. ...Richard S
Peter Volum wrote:
>
> This reply is for the purpose of including the previous reply in the
> archive. I think strong opinions like this one should be available to help
> others reach their own decisions on products.
>
> Peter Volum
>
>
>
> A call about this stuff to my prop manufacturer resulted in a verbal
> responce of "absolute junk, don't waste your money". actually if you look
> at a golf ball and compare the dimple dimensions and then look at the tape
> you can see that it comes no where near the depth needed to perform with any
> significance. THIS IS MARKETING HYPE AT IT'S BEST.
>
>
> Hey guys
> All this stuff on noise reduction made me remember the adds I see in
> Ultralight Flying etc for "dimple tape." Has this stuff been discussed on
> the List?
> After installation on leading edges of wing and prop, its supposed to reduce
> stall speeds and dramatically reduce prop noise. Who wouldnt want that?
> Anybody out there using it that can report back to us with first hand
> experience? Are there any drawbacks to this product?
> Erich Weaver
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: a beer is a beer, |
>
Some day these email hoaxes will stop. I have had similar ones from Walt
Disney and Bill Gates.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sound insulation |
When I first built my MKIII, I had the flat rear Lexan windows that ran
from the fabric sides up to the bottom of the center wing section. It was
like sitting in a megaphone, it took all the prop/engine noise and
amplified it. The foam was just strapped to the inside of the Lexan.
I am committed to an open cockpit/wing center section configuration, and
have even cut down the windscreen and doors trying to optimize lift/drag.
But if I had a full rear enclosure like Miss P'Fer, I would definately be
using the dampening foam, probably covered with a speaker cloth for cosmetics.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
>>If you have a full rear enclosure,.........
>>When I first had my MKIII enclosed around the back, I lined both sides of
>>the enclosure with the foam, and it worked real good......
>>Richard Pike
>>MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
>Old Poop!
>
>Do you mean that you just covered over the rear windows or just the fabric
>covered parts of the rear fuselage with the foam??? If it made it that much
>quieter (spelling?) then it might be worth covering over the rear fuselage
>completely like John Hauck's Ms P'fer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dimple tape for noise reduction? |
One of the other controllers at my facility is a sailplane nut, and pretty
good at it. We talked about dimple tape, and the tape strips that sailplane
pilots use to trip up the airflow, and came up with this plan:
To accomplish the same thing on your prop that the dimple tape is supposed
to do, get some thin pinstriping tape and lay a stip down your prop just
ahead of the high point of the airfoil.
Lay another one parallel to it about a tape width or so toward the rear.
Now do it again. Now the high point of your prop's airfoil is bracketed
fore and aft with tape strips.
Spray the prop with clear coat, or the paint of your choice, something that
can be readily removed if it doesn't work; put on about three coats. Pull
off the tape.
Compound lightly. Try it out. (Probably not from a marginal strip, just in
case) If you don't like it, strip it back off. Let us know how it works.
I hope to get my MKIII back in the air tomorrow, and I will be trying it soon.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Kolb-List:
>
> I would not dismiss the idea based on one prop co.'s opinion. Sport
>Aviation wrote it up & gave it a credible review. The golfball comparison
>probably doesn't hold water since the Reynolds Number of a golfball & a
wing or
>propellor are quite different. Sailplanes use a simple strip of tape to trip
>the airstream. I inquired about the dimple tape when it 1st became available
>about a year ago. The response was a joke to me. I could buy strips of gold
>cheaper than what he was asking for it.
> "Someday" I will try to come up with a die to cut hole in tape. I'm
>convinced its a worthy endeavor. ...Richard S
>
>Peter Volum wrote:
>
>>
>> This reply is for the purpose of including the previous reply in the
>> archive. I think strong opinions like this one should be available to help
>> others reach their own decisions on products.
>>
>> Peter Volum
>>
>>
>>
>> A call about this stuff to my prop manufacturer resulted in a verbal
>> responce of "absolute junk, don't waste your money". actually if you look
>> at a golf ball and compare the dimple dimensions and then look at the tape
>> you can see that it comes no where near the depth needed to perform with any
>> significance. THIS IS MARKETING HYPE AT IT'S BEST.
>>
>>
>> Hey guys
>> All this stuff on noise reduction made me remember the adds I see in
>> Ultralight Flying etc for "dimple tape." Has this stuff been discussed on
>> the List?
>> After installation on leading edges of wing and prop, its supposed to reduce
>> stall speeds and dramatically reduce prop noise. Who wouldnt want that?
>> Anybody out there using it that can report back to us with first hand
>> experience? Are there any drawbacks to this product?
>> Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff / Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)tetric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Stits |
>
>I'm new to stits covering---how hard is it to apply and how much time and
>money will it take to replace a twinstar set?
>
>Martin,
If you are new, it would be a good idea to attend a Stits covering class,
school, demo, whatever you can find. The Stits video is better than
nothing at all. In the video they slop the glue on a foot or more at a
time and press the fabric into the glue quickly with the heel of the hand.
Some builders have made some pretty good covering videos also.
You may be lucky enough to find another builder in the process of covering.
Go by and visit and offer to help. The Stits company always hosts a hands
on learning demo at SNF and Osh. Covering... once you have a tiny bit of
experience, is easy and fun.
You might want to consider the alternative method of gluing down the fabric
than the lay down 6" of Polytac and stick method described in the plans.
Some call it the MEK method. Apply two coats of Polytac to the tubing you
plan to glue the fabric to and let dry enough to not be tacky and grab the
cloth. Arrange the cloth around the piece so that there are no wrinkles
and wet out the contact point with a liberal amout of MEK applied with a
sash brush. The re-liquified Polytac beneath the fabric soaks right into
the fabric. Give it a swipe with the heal of your hand to make sure it
makes good contact. Try to work in a well ventilated area. No mistakes
and no wrinkles to iron out.
Time and money? Covering is quick. I would think cleaning and preparing
the airframe for a recover would take more time. Cost... don't know.
I was lucky to find a local supplier for the Stits paint materials and was
not charged the really high hazardous material shipping charges.
There is a lot in the archives about this subject.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling
801 Avenida Serena, Marble Falls, Texas 78654
Vista Del Rio (Central Texas Hill Couuntry)
(830)693-9333 (voice) -7633 (fax)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sound insulation |
Hi all.
I had just the opposite experience with flat rear Lectern window. Last summer
I
removed the real flat Lexan and the 2 side pieces of lexan that I have to cover
the space behind the doors. The noise level was much higher so I put the flat
rear lexan window back in and left the side panels behind the doors off. It was
significantly quieter. The lexan I used for the rear panel and the side panels
behind the doors was real thin, .030.
Finally had some good flying weather in SE PA the last week. I added 5.3 hours
to
my MK III for a total of 138.4 Took one flight by myself for a change. Wow!
I
forgot how quick it lifts off and climbs out!
Terry
Richard Pike wrote:
>
> When I first built my MKIII, I had the flat rear Lexan windows that ran
> from the fabric sides up to the bottom of the center wing section. It was
> like sitting in a megaphone, it took all the prop/engine noise and
> amplified it. The foam was just strapped to the inside of the Lexan.
> I am committed to an open cockpit/wing center section configuration, and
> have even cut down the windscreen and doors trying to optimize lift/drag.
> But if I had a full rear enclosure like Miss P'Fer, I would definately be
> using the dampening foam, probably covered with a speaker cloth for cosmetics.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dimple tape for noise reduction? |
Richard P
This is an excellant idea! Sharing ideas like this makes this list worth
while.
Thanks. ...Richard S
Richard Pike wrote:
>
> One of the other controllers at my facility is a sailplane nut, and pretty
> good at it. We talked about dimple tape, and the tape strips that sailplane
> pilots use to trip up the airflow, and came up with this plan:
> To accomplish the same thing on your prop that the dimple tape is supposed
> to do, get some thin pinstriping tape and lay a stip down your prop just
> ahead of the high point of the airfoil.
> Lay another one parallel to it about a tape width or so toward the rear.
> Now do it again. Now the high point of your prop's airfoil is bracketed
> fore and aft with tape strips.
> Spray the prop with clear coat, or the paint of your choice, something that
> can be readily removed if it doesn't work; put on about three coats. Pull
> off the tape.
> Compound lightly. Try it out. (Probably not from a marginal strip, just in
> case) If you don't like it, strip it back off. Let us know how it works.
> I hope to get my MKIII back in the air tomorrow, and I will be trying it soon.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
> >
> >Kolb-List:
> >
> > I would not dismiss the idea based on one prop co.'s opinion. Sport
> >Aviation wrote it up & gave it a credible review. The golfball comparison
> >probably doesn't hold water since the Reynolds Number of a golfball & a
> wing or
> >propellor are quite different. Sailplanes use a simple strip of tape to trip
> >the airstream. I inquired about the dimple tape when it 1st became available
> >about a year ago. The response was a joke to me. I could buy strips of gold
> >cheaper than what he was asking for it.
> > "Someday" I will try to come up with a die to cut hole in tape. I'm
> >convinced its a worthy endeavor. ...Richard S
> >
> >Peter Volum wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> This reply is for the purpose of including the previous reply in the
> >> archive. I think strong opinions like this one should be available to help
> >> others reach their own decisions on products.
> >>
> >> Peter Volum
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A call about this stuff to my prop manufacturer resulted in a verbal
> >> responce of "absolute junk, don't waste your money". actually if you look
> >> at a golf ball and compare the dimple dimensions and then look at the tape
> >> you can see that it comes no where near the depth needed to perform with any
> >> significance. THIS IS MARKETING HYPE AT IT'S BEST.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hey guys
> >> All this stuff on noise reduction made me remember the adds I see in
> >> Ultralight Flying etc for "dimple tape." Has this stuff been discussed on
> >> the List?
> >> After installation on leading edges of wing and prop, its supposed to reduce
> >> stall speeds and dramatically reduce prop noise. Who wouldnt want that?
> >> Anybody out there using it that can report back to us with first hand
> >> experience? Are there any drawbacks to this product?
> >> Erich Weaver
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engines/costs |
I suspect that the 300 hour TBO on Rotax engines is very conservative, and
I will be conducting a long term experiment to find out. I have about 235
hours on my 532, and I plan to run the same crank to 600 hours.
Don't hold your breath, it will take a while. Since Airscrew Performance
rebuilds cranks for $375, I think I can afford to fly for a while yet. For
those that feel they need to pay $8000+ for a 4 stroke, I'm happy for you.
May you have smooth air, and a fine sunset.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops
>Well, talking about dead horses, you should calculate all the costs, like a
>300 Hr TBO for Rotax's dead horses vs 1000 to 2000 Hrs for some others....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sturgesjim(at)aol.com |
Remove
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 04/30/99 |
Read and followed dimple tape. You're right. Sheets of Gold would be
cheaper.
I tinkered with the idea of putting it on drag struts on my firestar. but...
I like the
idea I can short land and pick my spot. If it floated better, I would worry
about
hitting a fence. I can kill engine at 200 feet and land with rollout to stop
at 30 feet.
Can't do better than that. I found a dimple tape with small holds about the
size of this type. oooooo used for making fake rivets on model war birds.
Almost the same
cost bult would probably work. $3 a sheet 36" long with three sets of twin
holes on
a low stike base. You try it first. Been using Chock on rope for long time
and love it. Its nice to rev up to warm up while buckling up. I found an
insulation very cheap
that is thinner than what skin divers use. abouts 3/16 " thick. Has plastic
sheet on one side which I use carpet tape on and cloth on other. Put it on
my firestar to stop the drumming on the sides. Man, does that stuff work.
Hard to put on put worth it.
Will send sample on request. Put 2" styrofoam up on top over heard when I
don't
have extra tank and stops a lot of motor noise. If you wrape your crome-moly
tubes
with silencing material it will help the transference of sound. Sound wicks.
G-day.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 04/30/99 |
If any one is interested, have just finished restoring Ultra-star. New stits
and paint.
no motor. All it needs is a good owner who will love it and take care of it.
$3500.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com> |
| Subject: | Mess with the bull, you get the horn.. |
Hey kolber's,,,
I went and envited Biglar up here for the week-end to do some flying in
my MKIII.. He was to come up today, (5-2-99) ...I took the plane out of
it's trailer-hanger yesterday to fly,but the wind came up, so I just
parked the plane for the day... (I didn't put it back into the
trailer-hanger) Just parked it near the trailer.
Come this morning, I met Biglar and proceeded to the field...
Do you guys remember before, I mentioned that I fly from a cow
pasture???
Well,,,,,,,, The Bull, had it's revenge.. He used my flaps as a
practice target to hit with his horns... Not only are the tubes bent,,
but some are completely broken into parts with fabric shreads blowing in
the wind....
Biglar drove for a couple hours,,,just to look at my damaged plane...
Sorry Biglar...
Regards
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mess with the bull, you get the horn.. |
>Well,,,,,,,, The Bull, had it's revenge.. He used my flaps as a
>practice target to hit with his horns... Not only are the tubes bent,,
>but some are completely broken into parts with fabric shreads blowing in
>the wind....
>
>Biglar drove for a couple hours,,,just to look at my damaged plane...
>Sorry Biglar...
>Regards
>Doc
>
Sounds to me like a darn good excuse for a BarBQ!!!! Steak anyone?!?!?!
My $.02 worth...
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Well Jeremy, if you wanta wrastle that monster down, while someone else
works on the steaks, I'll be real interested in watching. He's Big. The
way that flap was munched, it kind of looked like he was using it as a head
scratcher, but there is an up side - If he had gotten under the wing, and
lifted his head, Doc would be building a new wing. This brings up a
question - it's going to take Doc a while to rebuild that flap. If he
removed both, could he safely fly the plane " flapless, " until the repair
is done ?? Seems a shame, he did a great job of building, the paint job is
great, he just now got the new prop on, and he's outa the air again. There
ain't no justice. He also didn't mention the big, sloppy, muddy, "cow
kisses" all over the windshield. Glad I'm not a cow ! ! ! But even with
all that, it was still a great visit, and I'm all re-inspired to keep after
mine. Thanks Doc. Big Lar. Do
not Archive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | leading edge metal |
I know this has been hashed out before , just can't remember the answers.
What are the pro's and con's to finishing off the leading edge with a strip
of aluminum??? Just fishing here...
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
Kolb M3 wing & tail on order...
EAA#583961 Local CH. #677
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: leading edge metal |
You're right, it has been hashed over several times, Jeremy, and the general
consensus is that it's not worth the trouble, expense, and weight. There
should be plenty in the archives. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Casey <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 1999 4:06 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: leading edge metal
>
> I know this has been hashed out before , just can't remember the answers.
> What are the pro's and con's to finishing off the leading edge with a
strip
> of aluminum??? Just fishing here...
>
> Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
> Kolb M3 wing & tail on order...
> EAA#583961 Local CH. #677
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: leading edge metal |
Jeremy Casey wrote:
> I know this has been hashed out before , just can't remember the
> answers.
> What are the pro's and con's to finishing off the leading edge with a
> strip
> of aluminum??? Just fishing here...
>
> Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
> Kolb M3 wing & tail on order...
> EAA#583961 Local CH. #677
Hello Jeremy,
Being ground-bound for awhile, I can answer here..
I had asked Dennis about this back when I was building and the reply
was:
"Why? It won't increase effectiveness?? It's main effect will be
esthetic. The dips between the ribs will not be shown, but added weight
will be the cost for this effect."
Hope this short response helps...
Regards
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Debbie Copple" <debc(at)premier1.net> |
| Subject: | firefly for sale |
Dear Kolbers:
Due to the untimely death (plane crash) of my dear friend and fellow builder
of firefly #88 I am putting her up for sale. The ship consists of Kit #1 & 3
and is at the "quick build" stage of completion ready for covering. I have
strobes and large wheels with brakes for it and the workmanship is first
rate. As you all know, this would sell for over $8000 if you ordered it this
way but due to the circumstances I'm going to sell it all for $4500. If
you're interested contact me via e-mail at brianc(at)premier1.net . I'm in the
Seattle area.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry & Karen Cottrel" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
Cows have been the biggest problem in my flying, there is the problem of
weight unbalance due the excessive build up on one wing or the other. Then
there is the natural tendency of the "runway" to grow the best grass in the
whole pasture, not to mention the best place for a nap. It never fails, all
the cows in the field move to the runway the moment that I come into view
over the horizon. If it were not for the farmer getting tired of the noise
of my circling, and going out to run the blasted thing off far enough so
that I can squeeze onto the runway, I would never get to land. They don't
even move anymore, the noise doesn't faze them. Plus they have rubbed my
poor old trailer smooth with their scratching. I have been contemplating a
semiautomatic paint ball gun stuck out of the side of the pod. A cross hair
in the center of the windscreen!!!!!!!!!!!! I wonder if I should wait until
I get my airworthy certification? The thought of pokadotted cows somehow
brings a smile to my thoughts.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Awright cow tippers, and assorted B.S.ers, this IS fun, but no one has
answered the question of flying the Mk III with both flaps removed. Seems
to me it should be OK, but what do I know ?? Any opinions ??
Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Cubberly" <CUBTLC(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: firefly for sale |
Debbie
Do I take from your listing that you DO NOT have the engine package yet ???
Are any instruments included ?? Do you have a trailer to transport unit ??
Very interested, I have built &/or repaired three Kolbs to date.
Bob, San Antonio, TX.
-----Original Message-----
From: Debbie Copple <debc(at)premier1.net>
Date: Monday, May 03, 1999 12:16 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: firefly for sale
>
>Dear Kolbers:
>
>Due to the untimely death (plane crash) of my dear friend and fellow
builder
>of firefly #88 I am putting her up for sale. The ship consists of Kit #1 &
3
>and is at the "quick build" stage of completion ready for covering. I have
>strobes and large wheels with brakes for it and the workmanship is first
>rate. As you all know, this would sell for over $8000 if you ordered it
this
>way but due to the circumstances I'm going to sell it all for $4500. If
>you're interested contact me via e-mail at brianc(at)premier1.net . I'm in the
>Seattle area.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stitts and Covering Video |
| From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
Due to recent posting regarding the subject I sent a message to Jim &
Dondi Miller. This is their reply.
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
Building Mark III
writes:
>Hi Ray, and thanks for your note!
>
>Yes, we're still here, we've been working on a new web page for our
>Poly Fiber Distributorship, called:
>
>aircrafttechsupport.com. (no spaces)
>
>our new e-mail address for this will be :
>info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com (no spaces)
>
>
>and: jim(at)aircrafttechsupport.com
>
>and: dondi(at)aircrafttechsupport.com
>
>
>we're expecting this page and these addresses to be up and operating
>by no later than May 10th, hopefully earlier!!
>
>In the meantime, You can keep using this e-mail address.
>
>We have Kolb video's available, , along with all the Poly Fiber
>products, so please pass this info on to all the Kolb builders.
>
>If anyone has any technical questions on the Poly Fiber system,
>please don't hesitate to call Dondi or me at (toll free) 1(877) 877-
>3334.
>
>Thanks, Jim & Dondi Miller
> Aircraft Technical Support, Inc.
> Poly Fiber suppliers for Kolb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Swihart" <mswihart(at)tcsn.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cow, er, B.S. |
I'ma big believer in not screwing around with basic design...
-Mark-
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Bourne <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Monday, May 03, 1999 2:36 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Cow, er, B.S.
>
>Awright cow tippers, and assorted B.S.ers, this IS fun, but no one has
>answered the question of flying the Mk III with both flaps removed. Seems
>to me it should be OK, but what do I know ?? Any opinions ??
>Big Lar.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Hi y'all,
Got to try out that Powerfin yesterday.
- Pitch setting method with Powerfin AL hub is so easy it should
be illegal. So easy, others will be kicking themselves for not
thinking of that method a long time ago. Nice going Stuart!
- My initial pitch setting was 10 degrees ...this on a 64" B model
2-blade. Tethering the plane I got a full throttle static rpm
of only 6050. I coulda flattened out the pitch, but decided to
test fly first.
- full power climbout was ~6200, 43mph, 1000fpm. The 6200 and 43
are similar to the Warp I had, but it seems I've gotten better
climb rate with the Warp ...I had measured almost 1200fpm a couple
years ago when the engine was younger but on a 95 degree day.
- cruise was 55-56 at 5000rpm, about 5mph slower than with my Warp.
- max speed was ~73mph ~6500-6600rpm ...about 5mph slower than with Warp.
- Noise/vibration at all speeds was noticably quieter than with the
Warp.
All of the performance numbers above do NOT mean that Warp will outperform
Powerfin. It means that the Powerfin settings I have are not yet right.
The two indicators are the low static rpm and slower cruise. To increase
cruise speed I need to increase pitch. But the prop is already too much
load so I need to trim diameter, as Stuart (at Powerfin) was thinking would
probably be the case in the first place. I talked to Stuart this morning.
I will trim the prop down to 63" diam and see how things go at that point.
Stuart thinks I'll need to end up at 62" ...but of course I would not be
able to check 63 if I cut it to 62 first. I'm hoping to end up at equal
or close enf to same performance as the 66" tapered Warp ...we'll see.
One other little ditty... Getting back to my home field Sunday was one of
the tougher landings I've ever had to do. Flying during the afternoon was
in 15-20 mph wind with a cold front in town. Up high it was smooth, but
near the ground things got surprisingly turbulent. I had done some T&Gs out
in the boonies and there too had noticed some hair-raising sink rates --
really got my attention(!) but I thought it was cuz of the trees and
mountain wind shadow. But on that final landing at home, the wind was
gusty at about 60 degrees to the runway. I was being semi-casual but
snapped to full attention as shear pulled the bottom out -- I quickly
added throttle only to get hit with a hard gust that blew me back up
20+ feet again. I used up >1500 feet playing that game until
circumstances were good enf to plant it on. I briefly considered
taking off again, thinking I could do better, but then well, just
decided that I should quit while I was ahead.
-Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Yates <johny(at)epix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: In Flight Rudder Trim |
dama(at)mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Kolbers, I am working on FS-705 delivered in January. I have noticed that my
> H-sections are not pinched as were the earlier ones. My question deals with
> corrosion.
>
Hello
Your H sections with the powder coating on them and the opened ends will most
likely last a few life times. After coating the Id of the H section tubes your
Great Great Grand kids will be able to fly it!!!
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Prosuper(at)aol.com |
please remove me from your list if you would please
Thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Bruner" <brunerd(at)ulster.net> |
| Subject: | Problem with Temps |
Hi folks,
Finally got my "rebuilt 15hrs ago" 503 on my new-to-me Mk II going last
Sunday after having 2 new pistons installed. Total time (since the Hobbs
was installed, anyway) is about 141hrs. It's a single carb with Airscrew's
CDI conversion. Was ready to do the break-in but never got that far - the
EGT in the rear cyl was consistantly 100-150 degrees higher, the CHT's were
50-75. Got a new EIS installed, but swapped the leads on both cyl's to
eliminate any errors there.
Any suggestions gratefully accepted.
OK, ok, I will check the archives too.
David Bruner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cow, er, B.S. |
If you take the MKIII flaps and reflex them up, it makes the airplane act
much tail heavier as the center of pressure/lift moves forward. The shape
of the airfoil is such that it will still be about the same with the flaps
off, but much shorter. I suspect that will have the effect of moving the
center of pressure forward also, and the airplane will act tailheavy. Be
ready to use more forward stick than normal in all flight attitudes.
If I am wrong, be prepared to be creative in your airmanship...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Awright cow tippers, and assorted B.S.ers, this IS fun, but no one has
>answered the question of flying the Mk III with both flaps removed. Seems
>to me it should be OK, but what do I know ?? Any opinions ??
>Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <joncroke(at)itol.com> |
Can anyone suggest to me the correct method/blade (in a circular saw?) to
trim an IVO (those composite blades need about 5" taken off). I did not get
any instructions with my purchase of a slightly used 3 blade and hence could
use some advice on the best way to get a clean cut.
Thank you!
Jon
near Greenbay
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mick Fine <froghair(at)busprod.com> |
>
>....Why can't Marketing see
>profit with large volume gained in a few years? ...
Marketing - what marketing? The 'Buddy Twin' and several other new motors
seem to be developed in some guy's basement. The "marketing department" as
well as engineering, manufacturing, quality control, and accounting
departments are probably all the same guy!
I don't think the 'more volume later' argument is really valid in the UL
market either. The volume to make a purpose-built UL engine profitable just
isn't there. If it were, someone would have already come up with an
alternative to the glorified snowmobile engines we use now.
A couple reasons that Rotax can afford to sell UL engines (not talking
912's) are:
1. The product is essentially a high-priced snowmobile or watercraft engine
that they've already developed and sell a (comparable) ton of and,
2. They are protected from liability problems in the U.S. because they're a
foreign company.
The all-American guy with a good idea and a basement machine shop is not
playing in the same park or even by the same rules. He's much better off
financially to make shopping cart wheels by the thousands for Wal-Mart than
producing a complex machine that might sell 100 units in the first 2 or 3
years - if he's very lucky.
Aside from that, even if his new engine works to perfection, it may well
cost him all his worldly possessions someday because he sold one to some
idiot who flew it into the side of a barn and killed himself (obviously,
the fault of the engine maker!).
At first glance, $6000-$7000 seems outrageous for a 40 hp engine. But when
you really think about it, I wonder why anyone in this country even puts
forth the effort - in the end, it's a 'no win' situation.
-Mick (always the optimist) Fine
Tulsa, Oklahoma
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mick Fine <froghair(at)busprod.com> |
FWIW, I checked the "New Kolb" homepage tonight and see that they (finally)
updated it:
http://www.tnkolbaircraft.com/
-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: Cutting an IVO |
The very 1st thing I would do is --- call Ivo. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Croke <joncroke(at)itol.com>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 1999 9:21 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Cutting an IVO
>
> Can anyone suggest to me the correct method/blade (in a circular saw?) to
> trim an IVO (those composite blades need about 5" taken off). I did not
get
> any instructions with my purchase of a slightly used 3 blade and hence
could
> use some advice on the best way to get a clean cut.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Jon
> near Greenbay
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rayfield, Don" <drayfiel(at)kcc.com> |
IVO told me to measure very carefully from the ends of each blade and mark
the blade. Then I used a scroll saw to cut the blade just outside of the
line and used a stationary disc sander to sand the blade right to the line.
You need to call IVO to see how far you can cut, because the torque rod
extends out to about 3/4 of the blade length.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | flyboy(at)sssnet.com |
Kolbers:
Have any of you ever left off the gap seals between the wings and the
ailerons??
Can you tell me what effect this might have and if anyone has ever did
this just to see what would happen?
I need to replace mine and thought I'd see if anyone had ever left them
off before, and if they did, what was the effect??
I'd like some input before I install the new ones. (before I test fly it
without them).
Thanks
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rpfaff2225(at)aol.com |
Please remove me from your lsit
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Roger,
The gap seal came off my original Firestar twice and I flew it home
both times. Only on the second time did I think to check the stall
speed. It was up about 5 mph. So be carefull! I consider myself lucky
to not have had a problem on the first landing without the gap seal.
Other than the stall speed the plane flew fine and was not noticably
different. My current Firestar has an aluminum gap seal, not a rag. And
aluminum was the replacement for the cloth seal on my original Firestar.
John Jung
Firestar II N6163J
SE Wisconsin
>flyboy(at)sssnet.com wrote:
>
>
> Kolbers:
>
> Have any of you ever left off the gap seals between the wings and the
> ailerons??
>
> Can you tell me what effect this might have and if anyone has ever did
> this just to see what would happen?
>
> I need to replace mine and thought I'd see if anyone had ever left them
> off before, and if they did, what was the effect??
>
> I'd like some input before I install the new ones. (before I test fly it
> without them).
>
> Thanks
>
> Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
Remove
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
The Buddy Twin was/is developed by a fairly strong company. I forget the
details, but I think they are about 200 employees. I get the impression
that a senior engineer there has had terrific ideas bumping around in his
head for years wrt how to make a beautiful little 4-stroke. So he did it.
I think the market is not so bad as you suggest Mick. UL companies make
an airplane to fit a niche of the UL market. Of course they are no model
for getting rich, but the engine market is bigger since it applies to all
powered ULs. Liability is an issue, perhaps the biggest one, but it
might not be so bad outside the FAA GA category.
Especially if Amtech is profitable now, they should be able to last thru
2 years of building their market clientele and not yet recouping R&D
costs. I would see it roughly as 15-20000 ULs worldwide, maybe half
suitable to 40-50HP. Reaching 5% per year within 2 years is over 200
engines. The BTwin looks so good I would think it could get much better
than that if made available for closer to $3k. If offered at $3.5k,
most new buyers would take it over a $2.5k Rotax. Price pressure would
hit new and used Rotaxes (I'd probably want to sell mine). As well,
there are probably other markets for the engine too.
-Ben 'the self-proclaimed marketing expert' Ransom
>
>>
>>....Why can't Marketing see
>>profit with large volume gained in a few years? ...
>
>Marketing - what marketing? The 'Buddy Twin' and several other new motors
>seem to be developed in some guy's basement. The "marketing department" as
>well as engineering, manufacturing, quality control, and accounting
>departments are probably all the same guy!
>
>I don't think the 'more volume later' argument is really valid in the UL
>market either. The volume to make a purpose-built UL engine profitable just
>isn't there. If it were, someone would have already come up with an
>alternative to the glorified snowmobile engines we use now.
>
>A couple reasons that Rotax can afford to sell UL engines (not talking
>912's) are:
>
>1. The product is essentially a high-priced snowmobile or watercraft engine
>that they've already developed and sell a (comparable) ton of and,
>
>2. They are protected from liability problems in the U.S. because they're a
>foreign company.
>
>The all-American guy with a good idea and a basement machine shop is not
>playing in the same park or even by the same rules. He's much better off
>financially to make shopping cart wheels by the thousands for Wal-Mart than
>producing a complex machine that might sell 100 units in the first 2 or 3
>years - if he's very lucky.
>
>Aside from that, even if his new engine works to perfection, it may well
>cost him all his worldly possessions someday because he sold one to some
>idiot who flew it into the side of a barn and killed himself (obviously,
>the fault of the engine maker!).
>
>At first glance, $6000-$7000 seems outrageous for a 40 hp engine. But when
>you really think about it, I wonder why anyone in this country even puts
>forth the effort - in the end, it's a 'no win' situation.
>
>
>-Mick (always the optimist) Fine
>Tulsa, Oklahoma
>http://www.angelfire.com/ok/froghair
>Green Country Ultralight Flyer's Organization (UFO)
>http://www.angelfire.com/ok/gcufo
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <bwf(at)wavetech.net> |
| Subject: | Kolb lll on Mono floats |
I would like to get in contact with anyone that has a Kolb lll on floats.
Thanks
Bruce
bwf(at)wavetech.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
How sad.........but true.
The realities of the US business arena for the "little guy" are prohibitive
at best, but lets not knock the "visionaries" off their idealistic box just
yet. Something good might happen!!
Signed,
Stupid & happy!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Idle tuning methods |
Hello All:
Might seem like a dumb question, but here goes. How in the heck does one
adjust idle speed and mixture without losing anatomical parts? I would
envision perhaps a flex shaft tool with something to hold the slot/blade on
the adjustment as well as clamping the shaft to something solid. How do the
experienced Kolbers do it?
Bill George
Mk-3 582 Ivo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Corrision question. |
>> Kolbers, I am working on FS-705 delivered in January. I have noticed that
my
>> H-sections are not pinched as were the earlier ones. My question deals
with
>> corrosion.
>>
>
> Hello
>Your H sections with the powder coating on them and the opened ends will
most
>likely last a few life times. After coating the Id of the H section tubes
your
>Great Great Grand kids will be able to fly it!!!
>John
On the topic of corrision protection , I am waiting for my wing and tail kit
right now and was thinking about how drastic of corrision protection
measures I would take. I live in Phenix City , Al. which is about a hour
and a half flight from the beach where I WILL BE GOING as often as
possible!!! I do have plans to attach a mono float to my M3 at some time so
I need to consider that as well. What would the collective brain think
would be reasonable but not outrageous??? I am planning to powdercoat the
cage just because I am lazy and don't want to have to prime that big sucker.
So I'm mainly thinking about the wings,tail, and especially the boom
tube/spar tubes...
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thompson, Todd" <tthompson(at)cms.cendant.com> |
| Subject: | Idle tuning methods |
Yep! I'd like to hear this answer too :-}) (I have a mustach)
-----Original Message-----
From: WGeorge737(at)aol.com [mailto:WGeorge737(at)aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 1:08 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Idle tuning methods
Hello All:
Might seem like a dumb question, but here goes. How in the heck does one
adjust idle speed and mixture without losing anatomical parts? I would
envision perhaps a flex shaft tool with something to hold the slot/blade on
the adjustment as well as clamping the shaft to something solid. How do the
experienced Kolbers do it?
Bill George
Mk-3 582 Ivo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Reynolds" <rfreynol(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corrision question. |
I used a simple spray shellac that I purchased at Wal-mart on my challenger.
Spray it on and let it dry for ten minutes. Just wipe the areas where the
fabric will be attached with MEK before covering.
-Rob
Rob Reynolds
Birmingham, Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Casey <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 11:33 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Corrision question.
>
>
>
>>> Kolbers, I am working on FS-705 delivered in January. I have noticed
that
>my
>>> H-sections are not pinched as were the earlier ones. My question deals
>with
>>> corrosion.
>>>
>>
>> Hello
>>Your H sections with the powder coating on them and the opened ends will
>most
>>likely last a few life times. After coating the Id of the H section tubes
>your
>>Great Great Grand kids will be able to fly it!!!
>>John
>
>
>On the topic of corrision protection , I am waiting for my wing and tail
kit
>right now and was thinking about how drastic of corrision protection
>measures I would take. I live in Phenix City , Al. which is about a hour
>and a half flight from the beach where I WILL BE GOING as often as
>possible!!! I do have plans to attach a mono float to my M3 at some time
so
>I need to consider that as well. What would the collective brain think
>would be reasonable but not outrageous??? I am planning to powdercoat the
>cage just because I am lazy and don't want to have to prime that big
sucker.
>So I'm mainly thinking about the wings,tail, and especially the boom
>tube/spar tubes...
>
>Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Corrosion question. |
For a float plane I'd spray the whole airframe, except for those parts
powder coated. Something like Randolph Epoxy primer (A/C Spruce) is
not too expensive, especially when you consider the investment
you are protecting. It is Stits proof too as probably all epoxy
primers are. I'd also do something about the inside of the boom
and wing spar tubes for a saltwater float plane. Maybe reduced Randolphs
sloshed inside, couple coats, would be good. For spraying tube members
get a cheap "touch-up gun" (e.g. $25 Harbor Freight) to avoid paint waste
and environmental pollution. Once you're flying, I'd rinse off after
every saltwater activity.
-Ben Ransom
>
>
>
>>> Kolbers, I am working on FS-705 delivered in January. I have noticed that
>my
>>> H-sections are not pinched as were the earlier ones. My question deals
>with
>>> corrosion.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GOOCHMAC(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:Plane transport help |
I have purchased a kolb in Detroit Mich. Does anybody have anybody have any
ideas how to get it to New Jersey cheaply? Are there any services that will
deliver it without me going out to Mich.? Thanks for your help.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 5/4/99 8:16:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, flyboy(at)sssnet.com
writes:
<< Have any of you ever left off the gap seals between the wings and the
ailerons?? >>
I'll bet your ailerons will be much less effective.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Mick Fine <froghair(at)busprod.com>
Date: Monday, May 03, 1999 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: buddy twin
>
>>
>>....Why can't Marketing see
>>profit with large volume gained in a few years? ...
>
>Marketing - what marketing? The 'Buddy Twin' and several other new motors
>seem to be developed in some guy's basement. The "marketing department" as
>well as engineering, manufacturing, quality control, and accounting
>departments are probably all the same guy!
This may be true for some of the engines but the buddy twin is being
developed by amtec corp a resonable sized defense contractor.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CHRISTOPHER DAVIS" <cdavis2(at)capecod.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corrosion question. |
Ben and all. I have been flying my firestar KXCP on floats for the lasdt
three summers the best thing I have found is LPS 3 I sdpray it on all
exposed alum-steel areas especially where dislike metals meet andf
electrolisess {spell]can take place things come apart easy in the fall when
I put her back on wheels and so far I havn't seen any corosion. works for
me Chris fire star 503 397 hrs never had the head off !!
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
Date: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Corrosion question.
>
>For a float plane I'd spray the whole airframe, except for those parts
>powder coated. Something like Randolph Epoxy primer (A/C Spruce) is
>not too expensive, especially when you consider the investment
>you are protecting. It is Stits proof too as probably all epoxy
>primers are. I'd also do something about the inside of the boom
>and wing spar tubes for a saltwater float plane. Maybe reduced Randolphs
>sloshed inside, couple coats, would be good. For spraying tube members
>get a cheap "touch-up gun" (e.g. $25 Harbor Freight) to avoid paint waste
>and environmental pollution. Once you're flying, I'd rinse off after
>every saltwater activity.
>-Ben Ransom
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Kolbers, I am working on FS-705 delivered in January. I have noticed
that
>>my
>>>> H-sections are not pinched as were the earlier ones. My question deals
>>with
>>>> corrosion.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <bwf(at)wavetech.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Plane transport help |
I rented a truck from Budget, they were cheaper than U Haul and Rider, to
hauled my Kolb lll from Florida to Minnesota. Also the don't have governors
so you can go 65-70 mph. You could find someone to truck it to you but you
won't know how well the tie it in and it may have some damage when it gets
there.
Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: <GOOCHMAC(at)aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 6:09 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re:Plane transport help
>
> I have purchased a kolb in Detroit Mich. Does anybody have anybody have
any
> ideas how to get it to New Jersey cheaply? Are there any services that
will
> deliver it without me going out to Mich.? Thanks for your help.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Don,
I cut 1" off a 68" IVO that I bought from a friend. An easy way to do
this is to make an L-bracket from aluminum that will clamp to the tip
with a vise grips that has a length equal to the amount you want cut off.
Make sure the bracket side is parallel to the tip, then cut off using a
hacksaw following the bracket edge. By doing this, all blades will have
exactly the same amount cut off.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
writes:
>
>IVO told me to measure very carefully from the ends of each blade and
>mark
>the blade. Then I used a scroll saw to cut the blade just outside of
>the
>line and used a stationary disc sander to sand the blade right to the
>line.
>You need to call IVO to see how far you can cut, because the torque
>rod
>extends out to about 3/4 of the blade length.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Problem with Temps |
I have also just purchased an Airscrew Performance CDI, and I love it.
Have flown off the 5 hours that FSDO gave me for a Major Mod and so far it
starts quick and runs good. My front cylinder runs 50-100 degrees hotter
(indicated) than the rear, but it always has, and the spark plugs look
identical, so it is the gauge or probes that are messed up.
I have a 532, and the CDI mod involved rotating the flywheel mag so that
the former timing marks are now N/A. Used a dial gauge to come up with TDC,
and .077 BTDC (532 timing) for timing marks, and used a timing light to
check the timing. If you suspect that timing is off between front and back
cylinders (although they are supposed to both fire at once), you might try
checking it that way.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Hi folks,
>Finally got my "rebuilt 15hrs ago" 503 on my new-to-me Mk II going last
>Sunday after having 2 new pistons installed. Total time (since the Hobbs
>was installed, anyway) is about 141hrs. It's a single carb with Airscrew's
>CDI conversion. Was ready to do the break-in but never got that far - the
>EGT in the rear cyl was consistantly 100-150 degrees higher, the CHT's were
>50-75. Got a new EIS installed, but swapped the leads on both cyl's to
>eliminate any errors there.
>Any suggestions gratefully accepted.
>OK, ok, I will check the archives too.
>
>David Bruner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Idle tuning methods |
Shut the engine off, turn the screws, and crank it back up.
Listen, look, do it again.
Be patient.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) Rotax 532 2-blade Ivo
>
>Hello All:
>
>Might seem like a dumb question, but here goes. How in the heck does one
>adjust idle speed and mixture without losing anatomical parts? I would
>envision perhaps a flex shaft tool with something to hold the slot/blade on
>the adjustment as well as clamping the shaft to something solid. How do the
>experienced Kolbers do it?
>
>Bill George
>Mk-3 582 Ivo
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
My understanding is it should not be flown without the wing gap seal, but
as John Jung has said it can be done WITH experience, and it would be
foolish to fly it this way without any time in the Kolb especially on the
first flight.
Ralph
>
>Kolbers:
>
>Have any of you ever left off the gap seals between the wings and the
>ailerons??
>
>
>Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Well after all these years I finally broke down and made a lexan gap seal
for the wings of my Original FireStar. I went for a flight last Thursday
evening and when a went to zip up the old gap seal, the rip-stop nylon
finally ripped open. At that point I was all set up and ready for flight
and it was a gorgeous evening so I used some 100mph duct tape to
temporarily fix it up. I had a nice flight and I was determined to rip
off the rest of the nylon and make the lexan. I spent all day building
it, following Dennis Souder's plan, and I gotta say it is one BIG
cosmetic improvement for my FireStar. I don't know why I waited so long.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, new gap seal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>
>I know I'm being a little chatty tonight, but I hope its all right. I
>want a chute [or rather my wife wants one before she flys with me]. I
>thought that BRS was the only sourse,but tonight I found that Czechmates
>
BRS cutes-dropped a Firestar in lake, 7 year old chute, got it out the next
day.
Drained the water out of the canister for about a week.
Nailed it to a 4"x4" board.
Ran a cord to the Handle,
Elevated the rocket about 30 degrees.
Pulled the cord!
Guess what?
Fired like a champ. got pictures if you want to see them.
That says something for BRS!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Bruner" <brunerd(at)hvi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Problem with Temps |
This newbie talked to Steve Beatty yesterday and learned a lot: that if the
switch is OFF I can turn over the engine with the wires disconnected to the
plugs without damaging the CDI, but if you've got an engine that doesn't
stop, poping the wires off to kill the engine will damage the CDI. Had no
idea that both plugs fire at the same time, and he said there couldn't be a
timing problem. Also described a method to test the CDI. The guy likes
to talk and share his knowledge.
As far as the reason for the high temps in the rear cyl, he suggested that
it's unlikely to be the rear crankcase seal, more likely the head or
manifold
gaskets.
>
> I have also just purchased an Airscrew Performance CDI, and I love
it.
>Have flown off the 5 hours that FSDO gave me for a Major Mod and so far it
>starts quick and runs good. My front cylinder runs 50-100 degrees hotter
>(indicated) than the rear, but it always has, and the spark plugs look
>identical, so it is the gauge or probes that are messed up.
> I have a 532, and the CDI mod involved rotating the flywheel mag so
that
>the former timing marks are now N/A. Used a dial gauge to come up with TDC,
>and .077 BTDC (532 timing) for timing marks, and used a timing light to
>check the timing. If you suspect that timing is off between front and back
>cylinders (although they are supposed to both fire at once), you might try
>checking it that way.
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>>
>>Hi folks,
>>Finally got my "rebuilt 15hrs ago" 503 on my new-to-me Mk II going last
>>Sunday after having 2 new pistons installed. Total time (since the Hobbs
>>was installed, anyway) is about 141hrs. It's a single carb with
Airscrew's
>>CDI conversion. Was ready to do the break-in but never got that far - the
>>EGT in the rear cyl was consistantly 100-150 degrees higher, the CHT's
were
>>50-75. Got a new EIS installed, but swapped the leads on both cyl's to
>>eliminate any errors there.
>>Any suggestions gratefully accepted.
>>OK, ok, I will check the archives too.
>>
>>David Bruner
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Johann G." <johann.g(at)centrum.is> |
| Subject: | connecting westach rpm |
Hi fellow Kolbers
I have a problem with an old Rotax on my other ultralight.
Since the members on the list have a great knowledge on Rotax engines, I
would like to ask for your help, even though this is not Kolb related.
I have tried the archives, but do not find a solution to my problem.
I have a Rotax 503 scsi (points) 1982-1984, and am not sure if I should
connect the Westach RPM meter to the kill switch wire(black) or use the
blue/yellow or blue/yellow with black stripes. Do not want to ruin the
meter.
Your help is very much appreciated.
Ultralight pioneer in Iceland.
Johann G.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 5/4/99 8:23:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jrjung(at)execpc.com
writes:
<< jrjung(at)execpc.com (John Jung)
>>
John:
Please explain the aluminum gap seal you use. I have fabric that is always
coming loose. Thanks in advance for the help.
Steve Anderson / SD
Firestar KXP N4735S
staecs(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Have a BRS 5 for sale. Like new, freshly inspected, new rocket, repacked, by
BRS. Packed in BRS Box ready to ship. $1,400.00 or possible trade for BRS
750.
Steve Anderson
(605)341-1798
South Dakota
staecs(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 5/4/99 12:37:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
froghair(at)busprod.com writes:
<< Aside from that, even if his new engine works to perfection, it may well
cost him all his worldly possessions someday because he sold one to some
idiot who flew it into the side of a barn and killed himself (obviously,
the fault of the engine maker!).
At first glance, $6000-$7000 seems outrageous for a 40 hp engine. But when
you really think about it, I wonder why anyone in this country even puts
forth the effort - in the end, it's a 'no win' situation.
-Mick (always the optimist) Fine >>
In other words...I HATE THE LITAGASNOUS (sp) OF OUR PRESENT SOCIETY ie. there
is no honor system left....it seems..... only trials for money over trivia
instead of ...........having to resort to ............trenchcoats and guns
.........GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Steve,
My gap seal is made from 2024 aluminum. and overlaps the wings by
2" on each side. It is held in place withe 2" wide velcro. It has a few
aluminum angles riveted to it for stiffness. Besides that it has an
opening for the chute to be deployed, which is held closed by velcro. I
had intended to paint it but it is still plain aluminum. If it were
painted, the paint would be scrached be removing and re-installing.
Enventually I will have pictures on my web-site.
John Jung
Firestar N6163J
SE Wisconsin
STAECS(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 5/4/99 8:23:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jrjung(at)execpc.com
> writes:
>
> << jrjung(at)execpc.com (John Jung)
> >>
> John:
>
> Please explain the aluminum gap seal you use. I have fabric that is always
> coming loose. Thanks in advance for the help.
>
> Steve Anderson / SD
> Firestar KXP N4735S
> staecs(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 5/5/99 9:30:30 AM Central Daylight Time, STAECS(at)aol.com
writes:
> Please explain the aluminum gap seal you use. I have fabric that is always
> coming loose. Thanks in advance for the help.
>
Steve
Kolb has a kit for a lexan gap seal that works really nicely. I have one on
my Mk2 and I like it a lot. It has the advantage of being able to easily
inspect some very important components before each flight,
the fit is perfect, and it also gives you an overhead window. You could
easily make this yourself...the only slightly difficult part being the
forming of the aluminum leading edge wrap. The rest of it is just flat lexan
with a sheer web to hold the shape and it comes on and off easily if you need
to fold up for trailering. I think you can get all the parts needed to
construct from Kolb for about 50 bucks along with the plans, and the
leading edge comes very nicely preformed.
Steve Kroll
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <ransom(at)mae.engr.ucdavis.edu> |
On Wed, 5 May 1999 N51SK(at)aol.com wrote:
> the fit is perfect, and it also gives you an overhead window. You could
> easily make this yourself...the only slightly difficult part being the
> forming of the aluminum leading edge wrap. The rest of it is just flat lexan
You might also still be able to buy the formed AL leading edge only
from Kolb/NewKolb. I went this route myself so as to use local lexan
supplier and flexibility to use my own attachment method. (i don't like
velcro, still use just a little for this ). So, you could try calling
newKolb and checking for $/avail of the leading edge and a little
drawing ...i think it was $9.
-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: connecting westach rpm |
Johann, possibly the wires are different for the Rotax 503 sold in your
country, because the 503 points magneto sold in this country comes with a
different colored set of wires.
The 503 with points in this country used 2 black wires from the points to
go to the kill switch, a brown wire to go to ground, a green wire and a
green/black wire from the 30watt lighting coil, and a yellow and a
yellow/black wire from the 100 watt lighting coil.
It is not a good idea to connect the black wires from the points to your
tachometer, because if there is a problem with the tachometer, it can
cause the ignition to fail.
If your blue/yellow, and blue/yellow with black stripes are from the from
the lighting coils, and as long as the voltage does not exceed 30 volts, it
should not harm the meter.
It is standard to use the 30 watt wires to drive the tach, and use the 100
watt wires for charging the battery, or drive the strobe, but either set
will work the tach.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Hi fellow Kolbers
>
>I have a problem with an old Rotax on my other ultralight.
>Since the members on the list have a great knowledge on Rotax engines, I
>would like to ask for your help, even though this is not Kolb related.
>I have tried the archives, but do not find a solution to my problem.
>I have a Rotax 503 scsi (points) 1982-1984, and am not sure if I should
>connect the Westach RPM meter to the kill switch wire(black) or use the
>blue/yellow or blue/yellow with black stripes. Do not want to ruin the
>meter.
>Your help is very much appreciated.
>
>Ultralight pioneer in Iceland.
>Johann G.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 5/5/99 10:27:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, STAECS(at)aol.com
writes:
<< Please explain the aluminum gap seal you use. I have fabric that is
always
coming loose. Thanks in advance for the help.
Steve Anderson / SD >>
Guys, I believe JJ is talking about the gap seal that goes between the wings
& Steve means the gap between the ailerons & wing.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody Weaver <mts0140(at)ibm.net> |
Dell Vinal wrote:
>
>
> The other day I ran the 582 up and it just didn't seem to turn up. I
> decided to get a digital tach and install it in addition to my original
> one. I ordered one from Airstar co. for my particular motor. Upon
> reading the installation directions, I found that the thing has to be
> mounted within 6 feet or less of the engine. The pick-up is an 18 ga.
> wire wrapped around a plug wire 4 times, then routed separately to the
> guage.$65 for a piece of trash .I tried everything to get an accurate
> reading, longer and shorter wires, different routing.The original tach
> is close enough to use,Foolish me, I thought shurly digital would be
> better.
Check the ground. Are you grounded all the way back to the engine
block?
I have used two or three of these things and they work fine. Ok, I did
fry one.
Woody Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dell Vinal <zoper(at)mint.net> |
this tach has only one wire, that goes from a plug wire to the tach,
where it is routed through a hole in the tach body,then the blind end of
the wire is put into a dead end hole, then the slack is pulled back out
, per directions.Thanks, though.I hate returning stuff,but I have had to
return a lot of things since I bought into the ultralite scene.Do not
archive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bil Ragsdale" <bilrags(at)earthlink.net> |
Gentlemen, all you Kolbers too, I installed the new boom tube on my Mk lll
yesterday. Today I installed the tail and began to hook up the rudder
cables. I kept the left cable on the left Being very careful not to cross
them in the boom. After hooking both up, guess what? The rudder works
backwards+ACEAIQAhACE- I looked at it over and over. The only way I can get it
to
work right is to cross the cables in the boom. I tell you, as Red Skelton
used to say +ACI-it just don't look right to me boy+ACEAIg-
Can it be that it's supposed to be that way? It seems to me like if the
cables were supposed to cross, the cross would occur in plain sight where it
could be easily inspected. The idea of those two cables chafing together
back in that boom tube where I can't see them really bothers me.
OK, OK I take it back, maybe some Kolbers are gentlemen after all,
especially if youall are kind enough to help me out again. If I ever get
this thing flying again I'll consider myself to be a Kolber. Probably never
will consider myself a gentlemen though.
Thanks, Bil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: rudder cables |
Yah, they do cross. If you look at the pedals and think about which way the
rudder has to move as you move each pedal, you'll see that they HAVE to
cross. My own feeling is that the rubbing is at such a long, shallow
angle, that the cables will tend more to polish each other than cut. My
bigger concern inside the tail boom is to keep the elevator cables on the
proper side of the rudder cables. Elevator cables spiral 90' on their way
back from the stick, and seem to me like they could really cause some
chafing, if they all got mixed together. Take plenty of time. In earlier
postings, I mentioned that I had run an extra elevator cable from the trim
springs, all the way back to the "up" elevator horn. Spent a fair amount of
time, and no little cussing, feeding that cable through a full length piece
of fuel tubing, specifically for the concern over chafing, cause it goes
right down the middle. Also was VERY careful about its' routing through all
the other cables. Also fed my tail strobe power lead through a smaller
plastic tube, and anchored it solidly front & rear to the inside bottom of
the boom tube. Same reason.
If you look closely at some of the pics I've sent out, you can see all this.
Over Kill ?? Maybe, but it eases MY mind. Yah, and be careful what
kind of words you use to describe some of us red-necks. Flat landers, too.
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bil Ragsdale <bilrags(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 8:50 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: rudder cables
>
> Gentlemen, all you Kolbers too, I installed the new boom tube on my Mk lll
> yesterday. Today I installed the tail and began to hook up the rudder
> cables. I kept the left cable on the left Being very careful not to cross
> them in the boom. After hooking both up, guess what? The rudder works
> backwards+ACEAIQAhACE- I looked at it over and over. The only way I can
get it to
> work right is to cross the cables in the boom. I tell you, as Red Skelton
> used to say +ACI-it just don't look right to me boy+ACEAIg-
>
> Can it be that it's supposed to be that way? It seems to me like if the
> cables were supposed to cross, the cross would occur in plain sight where
it
> could be easily inspected. The idea of those two cables chafing together
> back in that boom tube where I can't see them really bothers me.
>
> OK, OK I take it back, maybe some Kolbers are gentlemen after all,
> especially if youall are kind enough to help me out again. If I ever get
> this thing flying again I'll consider myself to be a Kolber. Probably
never
> will consider myself a gentlemen though.
>
> Thanks, Bil
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Weber <bweber2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BRS 5 for Sale |
STAECS(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Have a BRS 5 for sale. Like new, freshly inspected, new rocket, repacked, by
> BRS. Packed in BRS Box ready to ship. $1,400.00 or possible trade for BRS
> 750.
In order to ship this, I understand you need to be licensed to ship
explosives. And individuals cannot get that license. In short, BRS can
ship them, but you cannot (legally). BRS gives instructions for removing
the rocket before shipping them back for repack.
Someone correct me if this is wrong.
--
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* Voiceboard Corp * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody Weaver <mts0140(at)ibm.net> |
| Subject: | EGT equal millivolts? |
Has anyone seen that chart that shows the millivolt output of the EGT
probe in actual millivolts, not converted to a temperature readout yet?
thanks,
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Swihart" <mswihart(at)tcsn.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BRS 5 for Sale |
Oh you can ship it....But you pay some bigger than normal bucks.
Contact your friendly local post office they will give you the poop on what
you need to properly ship the unit.
-Fired off the aluminum slug to save the shipping bucks Mark-
-----Original Message-----
From: William Weber <bweber2(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: BRS 5 for Sale
>
>STAECS(at)aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Have a BRS 5 for sale. Like new, freshly inspected, new rocket,
repacked, by
>> BRS. Packed in BRS Box ready to ship. $1,400.00 or possible trade for
BRS
>> 750.
>
>In order to ship this, I understand you need to be licensed to ship
>explosives. And individuals cannot get that license. In short, BRS can
>ship them, but you cannot (legally). BRS gives instructions for removing
>the rocket before shipping them back for repack.
>
>Someone correct me if this is wrong.
>
>--
>***********************************************
>* Bill Weber * Keep *
>* Voiceboard Corp * the shiny *
>* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
>***********************************************
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Howard:
Thanks for clarifying my inquiry. Apparently I didn't make my needs clear.
You are absolutely correct. I have a Lexan seal between wings attached with
Dzus type fastners for easy removal. It has worked beautifully for over 400
hours of flight. I also would recommend it to everyone.
What I am having problems with is the wing/aileron seal. I use a Stits
material with Stits Polytach adhesive but no matter how I prepare the surface
for replacement or reattachment the fabric will come loose, over time, at the
wingtips. I was excited to hear someone may have a solution.
Thanks to everyone for the advice on the Lexan gap seal. I'll try to make my
inquiries clearer next time.
Steve Anderson / South Dakota
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: rudder cables |
April 13, 1999 - May 06, 1999
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-bk