Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-bo
July 22, 1999 - August 13, 1999
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Clevis Pins for Mark III and Firestar II |
Hi Johann: Go to the bottom of this message, and click on Archive Search
Engine. When it comes up, scroll down the archive list, and click Kolb.
For Output Method, click 2 Frame, Index. In Search String, type in "
Struts". Scroll down to # 93 Aug 98 John Hauck. Open each message
in the string down to # 99. There's more related messages from # 130 to #
146. Hope this helps. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Johann G. Johannsson <johann.g(at)centrum.is>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 2:10 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Clevis Pins for Mark III and Firestar II
>
> Dear List members.
>
> I need some help on the Clevis Pins used on the Mark III and the
> Firestar II.
> I can not go and measure the pins on my plane, (am at work) but will
> need to order some spare pins.
> Does anyone have the correct size for the Clevis Pins needed for the
> Kolb planes?
> Someone on the list mentioned about a spacer for the lower wing strut.
> The pins have enlarged the holes on the cage, and I would like to solve
> the problem.
> I can not find the solution on the archive list.
> Hope you can help,
>
> Best regards,
> Johann G.
> Iceland.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Beauford Tuton" <beaufordw(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Painting cage |
Frank and Winnie:
Shot my cage with the Stits two-part epoxy, using a paasche airbrush to cut
overspray and waste... The
airbrush was a tad slow, but really made the primer go a long way... took
about two hours
to shoot the cage. Came out pretty slick... good coverage and gloss. You
can get a good airbrush like
the Paasche H series from Harbour Freight for less than $50.
After about two months, roughed the primer with #600 wet or dry paper and
shot over it with automotive
acrylic enamel with polyurethane crosslinker added...(hardener)... Be really
carefully shooting the
enamel with the hardener added... it really adds super gloss and hardness,
but conventional spray masks
are worthless for it... you need an external source air supply... I use an
old aqua-lung... that hardened
acrylic is superior, but will absolutely kill you if you breathe it... Did
the same on the tail boom, using a
standard size gun... great gloss and it is hard as a rock.
As to what not to spray... had a helluva time getting the tailboom to slide
into the painted ring
on the cage... Debated whether to sand off all the epoxy inside the ring...
instead, ended up chilling
the tube with a bag of ice and slightly heating the ring... went right
in.... same for the drag strut
attach fittings... I worried about sanding off all the epoxy anti-corrosion
protection, just to make
it go together... decided the ice and heat trick was a better bet and it
worked for me ...
Good luck...
Bill Tuton
The Aluminum Butcher of Brandon, FL
Flailing away at FF #076
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank & Winnie Hodson <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com>
Date: Thursday, July 22, 1999 12:37 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Painting cage
>
>
>> I'm getting ready to paint the fuselage and the small parts
>> associated with
>> it. I have read of parts that are hard to fit when they are painted. Any
>> recommendation of which areas to mask off.
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick106(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb crash in Minnesota, again. |
Bruce and ALL
I hope all goes ok if I may and I hope that you all don't think that
this is tacky on my crash of my Mk.3 on father's day IF I did not have my
helment on I would not be here today their were tube marks all over the
helment. once again I hope and pray that BRUCE will be ok
Rick Libersat
writes:
>
>Thanks to all of all who expressed concern. Bruce's plane did go down
>yesterday (7/21) afternoon; he will be OK; FAA and TSB are
>investigating but
>the report I received from Bruce late last night indicated some
>problem with
>the tail; "it felt loose and I couldn't control it at all so I tried
>to stay
>over water and avoid a very crowded swimming beach". Will try and
>keepall of
>you posted on outcome of investigation and Bruce's physical status.
>Took
>them 30-45 minutes to extricate him from the plane.
>Please respond to this address with any questions.
>Thanks again for your concern and good thoughts.
>Helen Fletcher
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <gerken(at)us.ibm.com>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 7:11 AM
>Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb crash in Minnesota, again.
>
>
>>
>> See:
>> http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990721-150015.html
>>
>> Supposedly it is a Kolb Mkiii (according to last nights television
>news).
>Does
>> anyone know who the pilot was? My friend saw the news report and
>told me
>that
>> the pilot ended up with a pc of aluminum tube stuck thru his neck.
>Hopefully the
>> guy(s) is recovering OK.
>> I am not sure of whether the plane had floats or not. I heard he
>had
>just
>> taken off from across the lake and had 100' altitude when it fell
>off one
>side
>> and hit the water in a spiral.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Reynolds" <rfreynol(at)mindspring.com> |
Yes, the FAA does have and 'official' bill of sale form. It's main use when
individuals buy/sell a plane. I can't remember the OMB Form Number, but
when I was at the local FSDO yesterday, they had a stack of them sitting
there.
-Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: <RLCPTL(at)aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 12:58 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: FAA Sales
>
> Big Lar wrote - - - Whazzat ?? What FAA approved form ?? Anyone else
heard
> of this ?? All I've got is the original receipt they sent when they
received
> my check. Isn't that enough ?? Big Lar.
>
> The bill of sale or receipt that came with my kit satisfied the FAA when I
> submitted my registration application papers. I don't know of any special
> FAA approved form for a "sales slip."
> Ron Christensen
> MKIII1/2
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Fletcher" <bwf(at)emailmn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb crash in Minnesota, again. |
Thanks so much for your good thoughts, Bruce will be OK, they discovered
some fractured vertebrae in his lower back so we're waiting to see about
surgery. Learned that the problem (confirmed by the FAA investigator) was
the rudder. Will try and keep you posted.
----- Original Message -----
From: <rick106(at)juno.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb crash in Minnesota, again.
>
> Bruce and ALL
> I hope all goes ok if I may and I hope that you all don't think that
> this is tacky on my crash of my Mk.3 on father's day IF I did not have my
> helment on I would not be here today their were tube marks all over the
> helment. once again I hope and pray that BRUCE will be ok
>
> Rick Libersat
>
> writes:
> >
> >Thanks to all of all who expressed concern. Bruce's plane did go down
> >yesterday (7/21) afternoon; he will be OK; FAA and TSB are
> >investigating but
> >the report I received from Bruce late last night indicated some
> >problem with
> >the tail; "it felt loose and I couldn't control it at all so I tried
> >to stay
> >over water and avoid a very crowded swimming beach". Will try and
> >keepall of
> >you posted on outcome of investigation and Bruce's physical status.
> >Took
> >them 30-45 minutes to extricate him from the plane.
> >Please respond to this address with any questions.
> >Thanks again for your concern and good thoughts.
> >Helen Fletcher
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <gerken(at)us.ibm.com>
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 7:11 AM
> >Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb crash in Minnesota, again.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> See:
> >> http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990721-150015.html
> >>
> >> Supposedly it is a Kolb Mkiii (according to last nights television
> >news).
> >Does
> >> anyone know who the pilot was? My friend saw the news report and
> >told me
> >that
> >> the pilot ended up with a pc of aluminum tube stuck thru his neck.
> >Hopefully the
> >> guy(s) is recovering OK.
> >> I am not sure of whether the plane had floats or not. I heard he
> >had
> >just
> >> taken off from across the lake and had 100' altitude when it fell
> >off one
> >side
> >> and hit the water in a spiral.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Fletcher" <bwf(at)emailmn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb crash in Minnesota, again. |
All I can say, Ralph, is that the FAA confirmed Bruce's feelings that it was
the rudder that caused the problem. Obviously a much closer inspection will
help us all learn more but that will take some time. Bruce has a few
fractured vertebrae in his lower back and will be laid up for a while. I've
been assured that the release of the plane from the Police impound lot will
occur very soon and we will have the plane towed to our Medicine Lake
property. Will try to keep you posted, please keep both of us in your good
thoughts. Helen Fletcher
----- Original Message -----
From: Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolb crash in Minnesota, again.
>
> Hi All,
>
> Commenting on Bruce's Kolb Mark III that crashed yesterday out on
> Medicine Lake in Plymouth MN, this was a modified Kolb with extended all
> aluminum Titan wings, Rotax 912 80hp engine, IVO Magnum ground-adjustable
> prop, Lotus monofloat with outrigger, retractable electric driven
> gearlegs, and was built by the late Jim Lee. I flew with Bruce this past
> Saturday as he met me at the private field I set up and launch from. One
> of the things I first noticed was the loose tail-bracing. The bottom
> cables were slack and I recommended that we replace the bottom wing nut
> with a ny-lock one right away. I gave him a new one and watched him
> replace it. There was still a lot of slack and I made some other
> recommendations. We took off and flew to Winsted, about 20 miles away and
> cruised 60 mph together. After our stay, we both took off and flew the
> remaining distance back to the field while he continued on home. I gassed
> up and flew over Medicine Lake to see if he made it back ok. I confirmed
> that he did and flew the rest of the evening. It was last evening while
> watching the local news that I saw the plane in the water while rescuer's
> hauled him out on a stretcher.
>
> I hope Bruce is doing well and am anxious to find out the details of this
> crash.
>
> Ralph Burlingame
> Original FireStar, 447 powered
>
>
> writes:
> >
> >Thanks to all of all who expressed concern. Bruce's plane did go down
> >yesterday (7/21) afternoon; he will be OK; FAA and TSB are
> >investigating but
> >the report I received from Bruce late last night indicated some
> >problem with
> >the tail; "it felt loose and I couldn't control it at all so I tried
> >to stay
> >over water and avoid a very crowded swimming beach". Will try and
> >keepall of
> >you posted on outcome of investigation and Bruce's physical status.
> >Took
> >them 30-45 minutes to extricate him from the plane.
> >Please respond to this address with any questions.
> >Thanks again for your concern and good thoughts.
> >Helen Fletcher
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <gerken(at)us.ibm.com>
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 7:11 AM
> >Subject: Kolb-List: Kolb crash in Minnesota, again.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> See:
> >> http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-990721-150015.html
> >>
> >> Supposedly it is a Kolb Mkiii (according to last nights television
> >news).
> >Does
> >> anyone know who the pilot was? My friend saw the news report and
> >told me
> >that
> >> the pilot ended up with a pc of aluminum tube stuck thru his neck.
> >Hopefully the
> >> guy(s) is recovering OK.
> >> I am not sure of whether the plane had floats or not. I heard he
> >had
> >just
> >> taken off from across the lake and had 100' altitude when it fell
> >off one
> >side
> >> and hit the water in a spiral.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Clevis Pins for Mark III and Firestar II |
<< The enlargement is in the lower lift strut.
When I drilled the holes for the clevis pins, they were a tight fit. I did
use
the 1/4 " drill >>
johann,
If you only need a few thousandths larger diameter pin to take up the slack,
order some 'Close Tolerance Bolts' from one of the aviation suppliers. These
bolts have a ground finish and are usually just a tad tighter fitting than a
regular bolt or pin.Cut the bolts to the same length as the original pins,
grind a radius on the cut end to make it easier to install and then drill a
hole for the safety pin.
Bill Varnes
Audubon NJ USA
Original FireStar 377
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
"Tom Ferguson" , "Ted Cowan" ,
"Scott Sharon Wilcox" ,
"Sam Cox" ,
"Rutledge Fuller" ,
"Paul Spadin" ,
"Michael Highsmith" ,
"Kolb Builders" ,
"John Hauck" ,
"Greg Moloney" ,
"Fly Ultralights" ,
"Dave Thomas" , "Danny Day" ,
"Buddy Carilse" ,
"Bob Moorehead" , "ASC2"
| Subject: | Fw: 178 Seconds to Live |
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Cole <bencole(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 9:17 PM
Subject: FW: 178 Seconds to Live
> >Return-Path:
> >From: Roger Bitton <sptflt19(at)idt.net>
> >Reply-To: "sptflt19(at)idt.net"
> >To: "'bencole(at)mindspring.com'"
> >Subject: FW: 178 Seconds to Live
> >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 07:10:46 -0700
> >Organization: Sport Flight Aviation
> >Encoding: 81 TEXT
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: John Talbert [SMTP:talbert(at)stonemedia.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 5:41 PM
> >To: Alfred Langer; Bill Anderson; Brian Talbert; Christine Dow; Dan
> >Paumier; Fred; Howard Pearce; Irene Langer; John; John Redwine; Tom
> >Whitaker
> >Subject: 178 Seconds to Live
> >
> >Here's a little insight into what might possibly have happened to John
> >Kennedy Jr.
> >
> >
> >
> >178 Seconds to Live
> >
> > How long can a pilot who has little or no instrument training
> >expect to
> >live after he flies into bad weather and loses visual contact?
> >Researchers at the University of Illinois did some tests and came up
> >with some very interesting data. Twenty student "guinea pigs" flew into
> >simulated instrument weather, and all went into graveyard spirals or
> >roller coasters [attribute to the U of I flight training
> >program??]. The outcome differed in only one respect - the time required
> >till control was lost. The interval ranged from 480 seconds to 20
> >seconds. The average time was 178 seconds -- two seconds short of three
> >minutes.
> >
> > Here's the fatal scenario. . . . . . .
> >The sky is overcast and the visibility is poor. That reported five mile
> >visibility looks more like two, and you can't judge the height of the
> >overcast.
> >Your altimeter tells you that you are at 1500 feet but your map tells
> >you that there's local terrain as high as 1200 feet. There might be a
> >tower nearby because you're not sure how far off course you are. But
> >you've flown into worse weather than this,
> >so press on.
> > You find yourself unconsciously easing back just a bit on the
> >controls to clear those towers. With no warning, you're in the soup. You
> >peer so
> >hard into the milky white mist that your eyes hurt. You fight the
> >feeling in your stomach. You try to swallow, only to find your mouth
> >dry. Now you realize you should have waited for better weather. The
> >appointment was important, but not all that important.
> >Somewhere a voice is saying, "You've had it -- it's all over!"
> >You now have 178 seconds to live.
> > Your aircraft feels on even keel but your compass turns slowly. You
> >push a little rudder and add a little pressure on the controls to stop
> >the
> >turn but this feels unnatural and you return the controls to their
> >original position. This feels better but now your compass is turning a
> >little faster and your
> >airspeed is increasing slightly. You scan your instruments for help but
> >what you see looks somewhat unfamiliar. You're sure that this is just a
> >bad spot. You'll break out in a few minutes.
> >(But you don't have a few minutes left. . .)
> > You now have 100 seconds to live.
> >You glance at your altimeter and you are shocked to see it unwinding.
> >You're already down to 1200 feet. Instinctively, you pull back on the
> >controls but the altimeter still unwinds. The engine is into the red and
> >the airspeed, nearly so.
> > You have 45 seconds to live.
> >Now you're sweating and shaking. There must be something wrong with the
> >controls; pulling back only moves the airspeed indicator further into
> >the red. You can hear the wind tearing at the aircraft. You are about to
> >meet your Maker; you have 10 seconds to live.
> > Suddenly you see the ground. The trees rush up at you. You can see
> >the
> >horizon if you turn your head far enough but it's at a weird angle --
> >you're almost inverted. You open your mouth to scream but. . . . . ..
> >.you just ran out of seconds.
> >
> >Think about it before you press on into marginal weather
> >
> >--
> >Bob Cox robertcox(at)copper.net
> >Pickerington Ohio ICQ # 23392522
> >Challenger II
> >Home Page
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clarence R. Perry Jr." <perryr(at)123.net> |
| Subject: | For Sale: Crashed Kolb Ultrastar |
For Sale:
1984 Kolb Ultrastar
100 Hours TTE/A
Flew great until aborted take-off/crash in June 1999.
Serious fuselage/landing gear damage (Cromoly steel)
Some holes in wing covering from prop turning into toothpicks.
Cuyuna UL/II Engine still runs great.
I have all original build plans and revisions plus original builders
notes/sales receipts.
Comes with fully enclosed trailer. Helmet.
Great project for someone who knows how to weld and has the time.
Asking $2000.00 for all or trade for PPG.
Located in Michigan.
For Crash pics, see:
http://mula.perrydice.com/ultrasta.htm
For what it look like before/and trailer, see:
http://mula.perrydice.com/robsnew.htm
Thanks for your time,
Rob Perry
rob.perry(at)perrydice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter" <newsletter(at)rootscomputing.com> |
>Yes, the FAA does have and 'official' bill of sale form. It's main use when
>individuals buy/sell a plane. I can't remember the OMB Form Number, but
>when I was at the local FSDO yesterday, they had a stack of them sitting
>there.
AC Form 8050-2 which is called "Aircraft Bill of Sale."
The instructions on the form state:
"The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 requires the registration of each United
States civil aircraft as a prerequisite to its operation. The applicant for
registration must submit evidence of ownership that meets the requirements
prescribed in Part 47 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
"This form identifies the aircraft being purchased, and provides space for
purchaser and seller identification and signature. This is intended only to
be a suggested bill of sale form which meets the recording requirements of
the Federal Aviation Act, and......"
If I interpret that correctly, the FAA suggests that you use this form but
that is not a requirement.
The top copy goes to the FAA, along with $5.00 as a filing fee. The second
copy is kept by the purchaser.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis & Diane Kirby <kirbyd(at)flash.net> |
Dear Fellow Kolbers -
Here's a question for you Mark-3 owners with the Full Enclosure: What
is supposed to cover the area immediately aft of the door side bows? My
full enclosure kit came with door frames and lexan to cover them, and
the sewn vinyl enclosure for the rear top half of the fuselage cage, but
no reference to that area just aft of the doors. I'm thinking of
installing cut-to-fit sixteenth-inch lexan sheets. That would be an
easy addition. But I still wonder if that was the original intent for
the "full enclosure." What have you been-there-built-that Mark-3 owners
done in this area? A related question: if I do install tall,
triangularish lexan panels there, what would happen if I flew with the
doors removed? Seems to me you'd have a pair of big scoops sticking out
the sides, causing boatloads of drag. This sort of follows Peter
Volum's earlier concerns on wanting to see pictures of the full
enclosure - any input would help me too. Thanks -
Dennis Kirby
Mark-3 in Cedar Crest, New Mexico
s/n 300, 80% finished
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Full Enclosure |
I don't have my vinyl enclosure any more, but yours should have come
with two curved 1/2" tubes. These tubes will fit just inside the rear
edge of your door Lexan when the doors are closed. (one on each side)
The vinyl enclosure fit over the tubes, and ran back to the edge of the
fuselage,
where it was attached with velcro. The upper back part of the rear enclosure,
the back part of it wraps around the vertical tubes that run from the
side of the cage up to the front spar carrythrough. Velcro tabs attach the
lower edge to the cross bar that runs just above and behind the seats.
I can't remember what the top was attached to.
The aluminum 1/2" tubes (side bows) were attached to that little threaded
nut plate
that you install on the fuselage gusset near the lower rear corner of the
doors,
and a gusset that was formed and bolted to the windshield support tube.
If you use lexan rigid side windows, you can still use the same side bow,
to attach the lexan to, just not the vinyl rear enclosure.
You cannot fly with the side bows in place and the doors off, either with
the rigid rear windows, or the vinyl rear enclosure, the wind will wreck it.
I have located all three sheets from kolb showing how the side bows, &
rear lexan was to be fabricated and installed. If Mustek EVER sends me
a power adapter for my scanner, I will send you a .jpg copy of the pages.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Dear Fellow Kolbers -
>Here's a question for you Mark-3 owners with the Full Enclosure: What
>is supposed to cover the area immediately aft of the door side bows? My
>full enclosure kit came with door frames and lexan to cover them, and
>the sewn vinyl enclosure for the rear top half of the fuselage cage, but
>no reference to that area just aft of the doors. I'm thinking of
>installing cut-to-fit sixteenth-inch lexan sheets. That would be an
>easy addition. But I still wonder if that was the original intent for
>the "full enclosure." What have you been-there-built-that Mark-3 owners
>done in this area? A related question: if I do install tall,
>triangularish lexan panels there, what would happen if I flew with the
>doors removed? Seems to me you'd have a pair of big scoops sticking out
>the sides, causing boatloads of drag. This sort of follows Peter
>Volum's earlier concerns on wanting to see pictures of the full
>enclosure - any input would help me too. Thanks -
>Dennis Kirby
>Mark-3 in Cedar Crest, New Mexico
>s/n 300, 80% finished
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Beauford Tuton" <beaufordw(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Painting cage |
Frank and Winnie:
I left out one little detail about putting the acrylic enamel on over the
epoxy....
You probably knew this already, but wait to apply the acrylic until AFTER
you
have covered the cage, and only use the acrylic for cosmetic appearances on
the
exposed parts which will not be exposed to the MEK-based Stits poly
products....
The MEK will, of course, do a job on the acrylic enamel...
Bill Tuton
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank & Winnie Hodson <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com>
Date: Thursday, July 22, 1999 12:37 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Painting cage
>
>
>> I'm getting ready to paint the fuselage and the small parts
>> associated with
>> it. I have read of parts that are hard to fit when they are painted. Any
>> recommendation of which areas to mask off.
>>
>
>Dear Will:
>
>A good rule of thumb for surfaces that if painted may cause trouble is if
>these parts need to be sleeved into another part. Aileron control horns,
>horizontal stabilizer attachment horns, the inside surfaces of the tail
boom
>receiving rings etc.
>
>I used a STITS (POLYFIBER) two part epoxy primer with good luck. I was
able
>to remove unwanted/excess coverage over the next several weeks with the
>associated epoxy reducer and polyfiber reducer.
>
>Good Luck: FRANK HODSON, Oxford ME
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Sudlow" <suds77(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | nose cone install |
Group,
I'm installing/fitting the nose cone on the Mark III. Is it better to bolt,
or rivet, the cone and the nose skid to the cage?
Thanks for any suggestions.
chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: nose cone install |
Riveting is easier. However, I wanted to get inside the area for break
maintenance rather than stand on my head so I bolted it on. I also
extended the instrument panel forward 6" making the peddle area harder to
access.
>
>
>Group,
>
>I'm installing/fitting the nose cone on the Mark III. Is it better to bolt,
>or rivet, the cone and the nose skid to the cage?
>
>Thanks for any suggestions.
>
>chris
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dama(at)mindspring.com |
I am about to rig the wings on my FSII and have a couple of questions. First
how important is the electronic level? It seems to me that setting the boom
to a negative 4 degree angle is a preliminary thing and the final adjustment
is lining up the wing tabs to the cage tabs. Therefore the precision of the
electronic level is not needed. Secondly, with the cage leveled, is the tail
supposed to be that high off the ground. It seems that the thing would be
flying very nose low. Any other advice for this part of the project is very
welcomed.
Sincereley,
Kip Laurie FS-705
Atlanta
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 7:58 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: 178 seconds
>
>
>178 Seconds to Live
>
>How long can a pilot who has little or no instrument training expect to
>live after he flies into bad weather and loses visual contact?
>
>Researchers at the University of Illinois did some tests and came up
>with some very interesting data. Twenty student "guinea pigs" flew into
>simulated instrument weather, and all went into graveyard spirals or
>roller coasters [attribute to the U of I flight training program??]. The
>outcome differed in only one respect - the time required till control was
>lost. The interval ranged from 480 seconds to 20 seconds. The average
>time was 178 seconds -- two seconds short of three minutes.
>
>Here's the fatal scenario. . . . . . .
>The sky is overcast and the visibility is poor. That reported five mile
>visibility looks more like two, and you can't judge the height of the
>overcast. Your altimeter tells you that you are at 1500 feet but your map
>tells
>you that there's local terrain as high as 1200 feet. There might be a
>tower nearby because you're not sure how far off course you are. But
>you've flown into worse weather than this, so press on.
>You find yourself unconsciously easing back just a bit on the
>controls to clear those towers. With no warning, you're in the soup.
>You peer so hard into the milky white mist that your eyes hurt. You fight
>
>the feeling in your stomach. You try to swallow, only to find your mouth
>dry. Now you realize you should have waited for better weather. The
>appointment was important, but not all that important.
>Somewhere a voice is saying, "You've had it -- it's all over!"
>You now have 178 seconds to live.
>Your aircraft feels on even keel but your compass turns slowly. You
>push a little rudder and add a little pressure on the controls to stop
>the turn but this feels unnatural and you return the controls to their
>original position. This feels better but now your compass is turning a
>little faster and your airspeed is increasing slightly.
>You scan your instruments for help but what you see looks somewhat
>unfamiliar. You're sure that this is just a bad spot. You'll break out in
>a few minutes.
>
>(But you don't have a few minutes left. . .)
>
>You now have 100 seconds to live.
>You glance at your altimeter and you are shocked to see it unwinding.
>You're already down to 1200 feet. Instinctively, you pull back on the
>controls but the altimeter still unwinds. The engine is into the red and
>the airspeed, nearly so. You have 45 seconds to live.
>Now you're sweating and shaking. There must be something wrong with the
>controls; pulling back only moves the airspeed indicator further into
>the red. You can hear the wind tearing at the aircraft. You are about to
>meet your Maker; you have 10 seconds to live. Suddenly you see the
>ground. The trees rush up at you. You can see the horizon if you turn
>your head far enough but it's at a weird angle --
>
>you're almost inverted. You open your mouth to scream but. . . . . ..
>you just ran our of seconds.
>
>Think about it before you press on into marginal weather
>
>Lucian Bartosik
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Full Enclosure |
I used 1/16 Lexan for the side and rear enclosure and it works out very well.
One piece for the back and two more pieces, one on each side. I will take some
pictures and e-mail them to you as soon as I get to the airport.
Terry
Dennis & Diane Kirby wrote:
>
> Dear Fellow Kolbers -
> Here's a question for you Mark-3 owners with the Full Enclosure: What
> is supposed to cover the area immediately aft of the door side bows? My
> full enclosure kit came with door frames and lexan to cover them, and
> the sewn vinyl enclosure for the rear top half of the fuselage cage, but
> no reference to that area just aft of the doors. I'm thinking of
> installing cut-to-fit sixteenth-inch lexan sheets. That would be an
> easy addition. But I still wonder if that was the original intent for
> the "full enclosure." What have you been-there-built-that Mark-3 owners
> done in this area? A related question: if I do install tall,
> triangularish lexan panels there, what would happen if I flew with the
> doors removed? Seems to me you'd have a pair of big scoops sticking out
> the sides, causing boatloads of drag. This sort of follows Peter
> Volum's earlier concerns on wanting to see pictures of the full
> enclosure - any input would help me too. Thanks -
> Dennis Kirby
> Mark-3 in Cedar Crest, New Mexico
> s/n 300, 80% finished
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
>
> I am about to rig the wings on my FSII and have a couple of
> questions. First
> how important is the electronic level?
Secondly, with the cage leveled,
> is the tail
> supposed to be that high off the ground. It seems that the thing would be
> flying very nose low. Any other advice for this part of the
> project is very
> welcomed.
> Sincereley,
> Kip Laurie FS-705
> Atlanta
IMHO the precision level is very desirable (read necessary) for several
stages of the project:
-The leveling of the saw horses/table to build the wings.
-The rigging of the wings to the cage.
-For calculating the weight and balance.
As for the tail being so high during the rigging process: Yes it does need
to be that high to be able to level the wings. This attitude does not
reflect the final flying angle, as the wings will have to have a positive
angle of incidence to the flight path to develop the required lift,
especially in slow flight, and the fuselage will be more level.
Good Luck: Frank Hodson, Oxford ME (FS II N6399J)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Rigging |
Don't think about nose low or tail high, that's irrelevant.
Think about wing angle of attack. When the thing is
trimmed out right, you will be flying with the wing at
a slight positive angle of attack, 4 or 5 degrees at normal cruise.
The stabilizer will be one or two degrees front down,
the wing will be 4 or 5 degrees front up.
You could care less what angle the tail boom is at.
And the lower the nose cone, the better you can see out.
Enjoy.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42Oldpoops)
>
>I am about to rig the wings on my FSII and have a couple of questions. First
>how important is the electronic level? It seems to me that setting the boom
>to a negative 4 degree angle is a preliminary thing and the final adjustment
>is lining up the wing tabs to the cage tabs. Therefore the precision of the
>electronic level is not needed. Secondly, with the cage leveled, is the tail
>supposed to be that high off the ground. It seems that the thing would be
>flying very nose low. Any other advice for this part of the project is very
>welcomed.
>Sincereley,
>Kip Laurie FS-705
>Atlanta
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douglas G. Murray" <dgmurray(at)telusplanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Rigging |
> I am about to rig the wings on my FSII and have a couple of questions. First
> how important is the electronic level? It seems to me that setting the boom
> to a negative 4 degree angle is a preliminary thing and the final adjustment
> is lining up the wing tabs to the cage tabs. Therefore the precision of the
> electronic level is not needed. Secondly, with the cage leveled, is the tail
> supposed to be that high off the ground. It seems that the thing would be
> flying very nose low. Any other advice for this part of the project is very
> welcomed.
> Sincereley,
> Kip Laurie FS-705
> Atlanta
Yup - the nose is real low and it will be there in flight so that you can have
an incredible view. You don't really need an electronic level but if there is
one available it will speed up the process. The most important thing is to
triple check ALL the measurements BEFORE drilling those alignment holes. Make
sure the wings have the same incidence. You might be off in degrees in relation
to the longitudinal plane but be sure that BOTH wings are at the same angle of
incidence. Start with a 1/8" bit and work up to a size just smaller than the
finished size needed. Then use a UNIBIT drill to 'ream' the final hole size. A
twist drill bit doesn't leave a perfectly round hole for the clevis pin to sit
in and reamers can be costly.
Doug Murray FireStar 1 Flying since 1990
Southern Alberta
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
| Subject: | Is anybody home???? |
> Hello Frank
> You can call me for tech questions I will try to help you as much
> as I can.
> For tech questions call me @ 717-362-1057
>
> John Yates
> Chief Operating Officer
> 606-862-9692 610-948-4136 717-362-1057
> www.tnkolbaircraft.com
> tnkolbaircraft@sun-spot.com
> www.kolbaircraft.com
> johny(at)epix.net
FYI KOLBERS:
I was able to reach John today at 717-362-1057. He was very helpful and
empathetic to my situation.
The phone numbers to TNK are still connected to an answering machine,
including the additional number specifically set aside for the parts
department. The message clearly states that normal hours are until 5 PM
(even though my calls have all been around 4 PM).
The part that I needed was ordered through John who FAX'D it through to the
company...time will tell!
Also of interest Esther Kolb called to say that she will be making a
personal trip shortly and will obtain the necessary signatures for the AC
form # 8050-2. She thinks I should have it in hand in about two weeks.
FRANK HODSON: OXFORD ME
P.S. Anybody have any comments on the area code disparity for the company
numbers?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douglas G. Murray" <dgmurray(at)telusplanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: nose cone install |
>
>
> Group,
>
> I'm installing/fitting the nose cone on the Mark III. Is it better to bolt,
> or rivet, the cone and the nose skid to the cage?
>
> Thanks for any suggestions.
>
> chris
>
Chis - I pop riveted my nose cone on. To get to the back of the IP I ended up
cutting out the fiberglass dash panel and making an aluminum IP supported on
four Cessna IP Lord shock mounts. I haven't had a problem in 8 years and if I
need to get behind the panel I just undo four nuts and the panel lays down onto
the floor.
Doug Murray FireStar 1 Flying since 1990
Southern Alberta
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: nose cone install |
I don't know how often it may be a factor, but I wanted to be able to remove
the nose cone fairly easily, in case I need to work on something, or fix
some damage, or whataever. So, instead of using rivets, I ordered a bunch
of the AN366F-832 anchor nuts, on page 90 of the '98-'99 A/C Spruce catalog.
Used round headed screws with large washers on the outside, to avoid
cracking the fiberglass. Might be overkill, I guess, but I've had it on and
off a couple of times already, and it comes off, and goes back on easily and
solidly in just a few minutes. Lining them up to the screw holes and
getting ready to rivet them was a bitch. Also, they're meant for solid
rivets, and I had to - carefully - open the holes up to 1/8" for the
pop-rivets. The anchor nuts have ny-loc inserts, so they shouldn't (??)
come loose under vibration. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas G. Murray <dgmurray(at)telusplanet.net>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: nose cone install
>
>
> >
> >
> > Group,
> >
> > I'm installing/fitting the nose cone on the Mark III. Is it better to
bolt,
> > or rivet, the cone and the nose skid to the cage?
> >
> > Thanks for any suggestions.
> >
> > chris
> >
>
> Chis - I pop riveted my nose cone on. To get to the back of the IP I
ended up
> cutting out the fiberglass dash panel and making an aluminum IP supported
on
> four Cessna IP Lord shock mounts. I haven't had a problem in 8 years and
if I
> need to get behind the panel I just undo four nuts and the panel lays down
onto
> the floor.
>
> Doug Murray FireStar 1 Flying since 1990
> Southern Alberta
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Well folks, I bragged about the powder coating shop, and I bragged about the
machine shop. Doesn't look like I can brag too much about my choice of
welders. This guy came down here last weekend with a truck load of
equipment, and welded up the door frames, and matching - sills ??, I guess
you'd call them ?? Anyway, the solid part the door closes against. He
didn't do too bad on the doors, and he admitted he was more used to heavy
steel plate. Ran a couple of practise beads on some scrap tubing, and away
he went. Frames were fine, and lower edge of the sills are fine, the upper
side of the center is fine, BUT --- now we get to the underside of the
center, where the hinges and center support rod for the gull wings meet the
upper frame loop. Started grinding it smooth this afternoon, before the
gnats (no-see-ums) drove me back in the house. That one section looks like
a semi-terminal case of pin-hole, and not-so-pin-hole cancer. This isn't a
structural area, but it is cosmetic, and I want it better than that. I have
in mind to center punch the worst of them, to dimple them, then get my
oxy-acetylene torch and fill braze it fairly smooth. Then polish it out,
and paint. Any thoughts or suggestions ?? I don't think bondo or such
would hold in such a limited area - about 4" of " chromoly tubing.
Today I went and got the air compressor and sand blaster (bead blaster) from
work, and plan on using it tomorrow to prep for painting. Someone mentioned
a concern for work hardening the parts - as in bead blasting a crankshaft to
toughen it. That may be, but I believe it would take a lot more than I'll
be giving this. Then too, as I say, it's a non-structural area. Any
thoughts on That ?? Before I paint, I'll take some pics, if anyone's
interested.
Tomorrow, I'll be going to the dragster builders shop, and we'll
have at the engine mount, and the fuel injection throttle body. The plan is
to graft a Ford Tempo throttle body onto a VW type 3 fuel inj. intake.
Should be interesting. Gives about 3 times the intake area. This brute
should Breathe ! ! ! I'll keep you-all posted.
Go-Gittum Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Water landings. |
Any of you guys interested in knowing how to make a "water landing" in a
Firestar without floats and without getting killed "as per the late Mr.
Kennedy-the good die young and all of that" - not an expert, but have made
one, and I hope the last one. Have pictures - and can tell you how it feels.
At least what "not" to do. I guess the best advice is not to do it at all,
but most of the time the water is better than the treesif you have a
choice, I got some tree pictures too if you want to see them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is anybody home???? |
Frank
717 area code is South Central PA, Lancaster, Harrisburg area where I live.
Terry
Frank & Winnie Hodson wrote:
>
> > Hello Frank
> > You can call me for tech questions I will try to help you as much
> > as I can.
> > For tech questions call me @ 717-362-1057
> >
> > John Yates
> > Chief Operating Officer
> > 606-862-9692 610-948-4136 717-362-1057
> > www.tnkolbaircraft.com
> > tnkolbaircraft@sun-spot.com
> > www.kolbaircraft.com
> > johny(at)epix.net
>
> FYI KOLBERS:
>
> I was able to reach John today at 717-362-1057. He was very helpful and
> empathetic to my situation.
> The phone numbers to TNK are still connected to an answering machine,
> including the additional number specifically set aside for the parts
> department. The message clearly states that normal hours are until 5 PM
> (even though my calls have all been around 4 PM).
> The part that I needed was ordered through John who FAX'D it through to the
> company...time will tell!
> Also of interest Esther Kolb called to say that she will be making a
> personal trip shortly and will obtain the necessary signatures for the AC
> form # 8050-2. She thinks I should have it in hand in about two weeks.
>
> FRANK HODSON: OXFORD ME
>
> P.S. Anybody have any comments on the area code disparity for the company
> numbers?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Hale" <AccessToData(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Is anybody home???? |
> I was able to reach John today at 717-362-1057. He was very helpful and
> empathetic to my situation
I called TNK at 606 862 9622 and got right thru to the receptionist. She
confirmed that my order was ready. Nice southern accent too.
Brian Hale
Sacramento, CA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Water landings. |
In a message dated 7/24/99 1:27:06 AM Central Daylight Time,
possums(at)mindspring.com writes:
<< Have pictures - and can tell you how it feels. >>
I for one would be very interested!
Daniel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Rigging |
In a message dated 7/24/99 10:24:06 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
dama(at)mindspring.com writes:
> Secondly, with the cage leveled, is the tail
> supposed to be that high off the ground. It seems that the thing would be
> flying very nose low. Any other advice for this part of the project is very
> welcomed.
Here is a picture of a FireStar II flying so you can get an idea of how high
the tail is in flight. It's not a very good picture because I scanned it
from a print out Tim gave me.
http://members.aol.com/WillU/tl20.jpg
Regards
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
Building a FireStar II
http://members.aol.com/WillU/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Adam Violett" <aviolett(at)worldinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Water landings. |
Absolutely interested!
Please, do tell about both.
Adam
Original Firestar, Kansas City area
> Any of you guys interested in knowing how to make a "water landing" in a
> Firestar without floats and without getting killed I got some tree
pictures too if you want to see them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Barton <barton(at)ameslab.gov> |
| Subject: | Mark II tailwheel gear needed |
Since I'm really desparate I'll try again. I am the not-so-proud, new owner of
a restored Kolb Mark II (with R582 and FL amphib floats) which I have never flown
since the tailwheel assembly was totally destroyed by improperly securing
it for
transit from Mississippi to Iowa in a UHaul truck. Thus by telephone we ordered
from Kolb a steerable tailwheel to be delivered by FedEx (an extra $22). I
don't know what the heck I was sent, nor do any of the A&P's and homebuilders
at our airport, but it most certainly is not a steerable tailwheel for a Kolb
Mark II. It for all the world just looks like a bunch of thin-walled tubes randomly
welded together as if for a practice piece in a high school welding class
(that at least
was the best guess by a local A&P with extensive experience in UL's).
Thus, I would appreciate learning where I can purchase quickly a steerable tailwheel
that would work on my Kolb Mark II (not III). Nothing I can find in catalogs
would seem to work since the Mark II uses a 3/4" Al tailrod and
everything else seems to attach to a flat plate. I have no idea what the other
Kolb models use since this is the first Kolb I've ever seen as no one else
has one around here.
Our summers don't last long up here and I really want to fly this bird before putting
it up for the winter.
Thanks,
Tom
(Tom Barton, 815 Onyx Circle, Ames, IA 50010, 515-294-2770)
P.S. I plan to return that thing that Kolb sent yesterday, but I
still want to know what the heck it is. I'd include some pictures
but someone vandalized my digital camera. It's not been a good
summer!
P.P.S. Please do not suggest the use of a grocery cart wheel as it is
not the wheel but the system of attachment that I need.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mark II tailwheel gear needed |
Hi Tom
A search of the Kolb list archives turned this up
http://members.aol.com/n8754k/page/ssdc537.jpg
This is the 4 inch diameter "homebuilders special" special tailwheel from
Aircraft Spruce. P/N L-693 is made for a 5/8" round spring, so it has to be
bored out to 3/4" for the SlingShot tail rod. I'm not sure if that's the same
size as other Kolbs. Watch you wallet and CG because this wheel is $223, and
it
weighs 2 lbs more than the original wheel. The beauty of it is that it's full
swivel and makes the plane a dream to move around on the ground. Also, it's
far
wider than the original wheel, so it doesn't disc the runway as you go :-)
Good Luck
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
Building a FireStar II
Will's FireStar II
In a message dated 7/24/99 4:22:08 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Tom Barton
writes:
> Thus, I would appreciate learning where I can purchase quickly a steerable
> tailwheel that would work on my Kolb Mark II (not III). Nothing I can find
> in catalogs would seem to work since the Mark II uses a 3/4" Al tailrod and
> everything else seems to attach to a flat plate.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Water landings. |
In a message dated 7/24/99 2:19:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
possums(at)mindspring.com writes:
<< Any of you guys interested in knowing how to make a "water landing" in a
Firestar without floats and without getting killed "as per the late Mr.
Kennedy-the good die young and all of that" >>
Please tell us...
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Mark II tailwheel gear needed |
In a message dated 7/24/99 10:43:28 AM, barton(at)ameslab.gov writes:
<< Thus, I would appreciate learning where I can purchase quickly a steerable
tailwheel that would work on my Kolb Mark II (not III). Nothing I can find
in catalogs would seem to work since the Mark II uses a 3/4" Al tailrod and
everything else seems to attach to a flat plate. >>
Tom:
I searched for a more substantial piece to replace the tailwheel on my Mk-3.
I located a light weight steerable tailwheel assembly to accept the 3/4
strut. I got it last week but have not installed it yet. I sent some 4130
tubing out to get heat treated and it has not come back yet. It will be used
instead of the aluminum rod. The tailwheel is only 4 inches in diameter but
is very substantial. The only problem I have found prior to installing it is
the that the hole is .745 instead of .750 so I will have to take it to a
machine shop and get it enlarged a bit.
The manufacturer is Aviation Products Inc. 805-646-6042
Good luck
Bill George
Mk-3 582 Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Today is finally winding down, and ole Lar is about wore out. This morning,
Vamoose came off the porch and into the driveway for the 1st time, and got a
much needed bath. Soaked with sweat Lar needed (and got) one too. 104 out
there by 9:00 AM. Then out to my friends' shop in Banning. Turns out
Gary Fore owns "ForePlay Racing," and races in A Gas Supercharged. He's
held ET and Top Speed records for some years now. What a shop the man has.
And talk about TOYS ! ! ! Hoooooeee ! ! ! The Plasma cutter made short
work of the engine mount material, and the milling machine squared the sides
up. Such a deal ! ! ! Then he cut the nose off the VW type 3 F.I.
intake, milled it square, and milled a chunk of aluminum to an exact (read
that as Precise) fit to the 2.3L Ford throttle body. Then heli-arced that
to the front of the cut down intake, so now the Ford throttle body bolts
right up to my VW intake. The thing looks like it grew there. Next week
the whole intake system will go to the powder coater. I got the final
pieces (pushrods) on the engine yesterday, so by next weekend, the engine
should be sitting in its' mounts on top of Vamoose. Hell of a deal. Too
bad it won't be ready for vacation next month. Sure hope Ben
doesn't hold me to that rash statement I made about Golden West in Sept.
Guess I'd just have to snivel out. Sorry Ben, I'll be coming from the
North, and won't be able to "carry" my plane up there. Actually, I really
had planned on trailering it to Merced. Thought that would be worth a few
chuckles, and maybe draw some interest, but I just don't think the timing
will work out. Vacation ends on Sept.12th, and I'll really be moving by
then, heading home after 3 weeks on the road.
Worn Out Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Source for Full Swivel Tailwheel |
One of the past SlingShot builders put one on his plane. If I recall he
got his from Aircraft Spruce. I suggest your call them or more likely
their source below and save a few bucks. The RV-4 & 6 builders have
similar need and tail wheel spring (rod) size may be nearly the same.
RV'ers usually they order or swap the tail spring (rod) for a modified unit
turned down to slightly smaller than 3/4". Because of there speed (RV's)
the mount has to be tight to prevent shimmy. They actually use heat and
cold when installing them. I don't think this is a necessary step with
Kolb but may explain Bill's statement below.
Here's a source that sells full swivel tail wheels: (These are the one the
RV'ers are using)
Aviation Products Inc.
114 Bryant
Ojai, CA 93023
Tel: 805-646-6042.
Price was around $180
Ask what they are bored out to - compare that to what you need and if
necessary if they can supply a different size if necessary. I understand
these folks are pretty good to work with.
Post your findings.
Good luck, they work real well on RV's.
Jerry Bidle
>
>
>In a message dated 7/24/99 10:43:28 AM, barton(at)ameslab.gov writes:
>
><< Thus, I would appreciate learning where I can purchase quickly a
steerable
>tailwheel that would work on my Kolb Mark II (not III). Nothing I can find
>in catalogs would seem to work since the Mark II uses a 3/4" Al tailrod and
>everything else seems to attach to a flat plate. >>
>
>Tom:
>
>I searched for a more substantial piece to replace the tailwheel on my Mk-3.
>I located a light weight steerable tailwheel assembly to accept the 3/4
>strut. I got it last week but have not installed it yet. I sent some 4130
>tubing out to get heat treated and it has not come back yet. It will be used
>instead of the aluminum rod. The tailwheel is only 4 inches in diameter but
>is very substantial. The only problem I have found prior to installing it is
>the that the hole is .745 instead of .750 so I will have to take it to a
>machine shop and get it enlarged a bit.
>
>The manufacturer is Aviation Products Inc. 805-646-6042
>
>Good luck
>
>Bill George
>Mk-3 582 Powerfin
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | nose cone attachment |
| From: | Robert L Doebler <bobdoebler(at)juno.com> |
I"ve always attached fiberglass cowlings, that I later wanted to remove
with aluminum piano hinges. Just like we install our control surfaces.
Pull the hinge pin and cowling comes off. Also, piano hinge helps support
the fiberglass.
works for me
Bob Doebler
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BILLBEAM(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: New Kolb Co. |
Bob,
I too have visited the New Kolb facility and agree with you whole heartily.
They spent a fortune just putting in sprinklers for that half mile of sod.
I agree that it is great for us Kolbers to have some folks like them take
over. Once they get the rough edges smoothed out I believe they will
be a Class A company.
Did you get to see their new creation for Oshkosh? Heard it climbs like
an Otis Elevator. Bruce has always been a creator of the spectacular.
This year should be no different.
I believe that by winter we will see a bigger and better company. They
have the foundation for it.
Bill Beams
FS438
Wilmore, Ky
________________________________________________________________________________
Fellow Kolbers,
I'm learning how to fly my new Mk lll, and have already bent a gear
leg........ordered a new one and am flying with only one week down time. It's
hard to get used to the sink rate. If I cut power too much at landing, it
comes down pretty fast !!!!
My kit is #289, and doesn't have aileron counterbalances like some of the
older Mk lll's. My ailerons are quite heavy, and I would like to lighten them
up (a little). I remember this discussion in the past, but never came to a
clear cut conclusion.
Does the factory still make them or were they in the older blue prints? I
realize they would have to be added after the fact. Does anyone have an
opinion..... It seems like the factory discontinued the counterbalances.....
for a reason?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Ailerons |
Don't think the aileron counterbalances will solve the problem.
Counterbalances are to prevent aileron flutter, and would
not affect the heaviness of the ailerons.
I agree that the ailerons are very heavy, especially
compared to the very light rudder and elevator.
I suspect that the best solution would be spades
mounted on the bottom of the ailerons,
about in the middle of each one.
But that will be a good project for this winter, when I can't fly.
Right now it is better to fly a good airplane with heavy ailerons.
P.S. Some of the early Rans S-12 Airailes had ailerons that
were heavy as sin, and the company came out with a spade kit.
Anybody know someone that has/had such a beast,
and might have plans, pictures, etc. of those spades?
Hate re-inventing the wheel.
(Maybe I should just call Rans?)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Fellow Kolbers,
>My kit is #289, and doesn't have aileron counterbalances like some of the
>older Mk lll's. My ailerons are quite heavy, and I would like to lighten them
>up (a little). I remember this discussion in the past, but never came to a
>clear cut conclusion.
>
>Does the factory still make them or were they in the older blue prints? I
>realize they would have to be added after the fact. Does anyone have an
>opinion..... It seems like the factory discontinued the counterbalances.....
>for a reason?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Ailerons |
Richard
There is a guy, don't know his name, from NJ. That comes to the Father's Day
fly-in here in PA with a Rans S-12 with spades. If I see him or find out who he
is I'll take some pictures. As I recall, they were quite complex because the
spades hinged depending on the amount of aileron deflection. This same fellow
may
come to the Labor Day fly-in. I'm also going to Oshkosh and I keep an I out.
Terry
Richard Pike wrote:
>
> Don't think the aileron counterbalances will solve the problem.
> Counterbalances are to prevent aileron flutter, and would
> not affect the heaviness of the ailerons.
> I agree that the ailerons are very heavy, especially
> compared to the very light rudder and elevator.
> I suspect that the best solution would be spades
> mounted on the bottom of the ailerons,
> about in the middle of each one.
> But that will be a good project for this winter, when I can't fly.
> Right now it is better to fly a good airplane with heavy ailerons.
>
> P.S. Some of the early Rans S-12 Airailes had ailerons that
> were heavy as sin, and the company came out with a spade kit.
> Anybody know someone that has/had such a beast,
> and might have plans, pictures, etc. of those spades?
> Hate re-inventing the wheel.
> (Maybe I should just call Rans?)
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
> >
> >Fellow Kolbers,
>
> >My kit is #289, and doesn't have aileron counterbalances like some of the
> >older Mk lll's. My ailerons are quite heavy, and I would like to lighten them
> >up (a little). I remember this discussion in the past, but never came to a
> >clear cut conclusion.
> >
> >Does the factory still make them or were they in the older blue prints? I
> >realize they would have to be added after the fact. Does anyone have an
> >opinion..... It seems like the factory discontinued the counterbalances.....
> >for a reason?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Ailerons |
I have Mk III kit # 274, and received the aileron counterbalance on request,
at no charge. If they're not available any more, I could easily measure
mine and send them to you. They'd be very simple to build. On the spade
question, here's another question. Since the counterbalance already ties
into the outer end of the aileron, and points forward, it should almost act
as a spade as it is. How about fastening a small tab to the front of it to
give more leverage ?? By slowly making the tab larger - in small steps -
couldn't you tailor the aileron effort to your own taste ?? Thanks for
bringing this up, I would really like an answer from some of the engineer
types out there.
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Lrb1476(at)aol.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 1999 11:44 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Heavy Ailerons
>
> Fellow Kolbers,
>
> I'm learning how to fly my new Mk lll, and have already bent a gear
> leg........ordered a new one and am flying with only one week down time.
It's
> hard to get used to the sink rate. If I cut power too much at landing, it
> comes down pretty fast !!!!
>
> My kit is #289, and doesn't have aileron counterbalances like some of the
> older Mk lll's. My ailerons are quite heavy, and I would like to lighten
them
> up (a little). I remember this discussion in the past, but never came to a
> clear cut conclusion.
>
> Does the factory still make them or were they in the older blue prints? I
> realize they would have to be added after the fact. Does anyone have an
> opinion..... It seems like the factory discontinued the
counterbalances.....
> for a reason?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Maurice Shettel <mshettel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Ailerons |
Has anyone tried servo tabs on their ailerons? Im thinking of going this
route sometime this winter. Should work well if done right.
Maurice
Richard Pike wrote:
>
> Don't think the aileron counterbalances will solve the problem.
> Counterbalances are to prevent aileron flutter, and would
> not affect the heaviness of the ailerons.
> I agree that the ailerons are very heavy, especially
> compared to the very light rudder and elevator.
> I suspect that the best solution would be spades
> mounted on the bottom of the ailerons,
> about in the middle of each one.
> But that will be a good project for this winter, when I can't fly.
> Right now it is better to fly a good airplane with heavy ailerons.
>
> P.S. Some of the early Rans S-12 Airailes had ailerons that
> were heavy as sin, and the company came out with a spade kit.
> Anybody know someone that has/had such a beast,
> and might have plans, pictures, etc. of those spades?
> Hate re-inventing the wheel.
> (Maybe I should just call Rans?)
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
> >
> >Fellow Kolbers,
>
> >My kit is #289, and doesn't have aileron counterbalances like some of the
> >older Mk lll's. My ailerons are quite heavy, and I would like to lighten them
> >up (a little). I remember this discussion in the past, but never came to a
> >clear cut conclusion.
> >
> >Does the factory still make them or were they in the older blue prints? I
> >realize they would have to be added after the fact. Does anyone have an
> >opinion..... It seems like the factory discontinued the counterbalances.....
> >for a reason?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Ailerons |
I brought that question up last year.
Dennis Souder said ixnay.
The tip vortex flows up and around the tip,
and screws it up. (sounds like they already
tried it, seemed pretty firm...)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>I have Mk III kit # 274, and received the aileron counterbalance on request,
>at no charge. If they're not available any more, I could easily measure
>mine and send them to you. They'd be very simple to build. On the spade
>question, here's another question. Since the counterbalance already ties
>into the outer end of the aileron, and points forward, it should almost act
>as a spade as it is. How about fastening a small tab to the front of it to
>give more leverage ?? By slowly making the tab larger - in small steps -
>couldn't you tailor the aileron effort to your own taste ?? Thanks for
>bringing this up, I would really like an answer from some of the engineer
>types out there.
> Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Ailerons |
I was going to do that, but if that adds more weight
to the trailing edge of the ailerons, (and it will!) then
you better for sure plan on counterbalances.
I think spades will be the simplest and least likely
to screw up.
Dennis said that if you use spades, they work best
at the center of the aileron.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Has anyone tried servo tabs on their ailerons? Im thinking of going this
>route sometime this winter. Should work well if done right.
>
>Maurice
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Ailerons/ Cross Country trip |
<<
Don't think the aileron counterbalances will solve the problem.
Counterbalances are to prevent aileron flutter, and would
not affect the heaviness of the ailerons.
I agree that the ailerons are very heavy, especially
compared to the very light rudder and elevator.
I suspect that the best solution would be spades
>>
Thanks for the input...I have two buddies down here in Miami with the Rans
S-12. Their planes have heavy controls like the Kolb. They like the heavy
controls, because they train (BFI's) in their planes, and claim they like
that kind of control for the students. I'll see if they have plans etc...
I went on my first cross country with fellow LAFA (EAA Chapter 103)
http://www.lafa.com/
Home Page members this weekend. There
were two Rans S-12's with 503's and a Buc 11 with a 582. We flew from Miami
due north over the Everglades and over Lake Okeechobee to three Airparks.
Home sites were for sale, the area is east of Sebring, (home of Lockwood
Aviation). Total flight about 280 miles round trip. I've lived in Florida
just about my whole life, but have never seen it from the ultra-light slow
and low perspective. I was totally amazed at the sights. I was in sensory
overload when I got home, was dead tired, but couldn't sleep. I spent the
next day, Sunday, walking around in a stupor, like a drug addict coming off a
high.
Like the old Harley Davidson saying goes...If I have to explain, you won't
understand...
Rich Bragassa
Mk lll
Miami, Fl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>Subject: GPS Alert
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999
Just passing this on from our Club......
End-of-Week Rollover for GPS- August 22, 1999
The GPS EOW rollover happens every 1,024 weeks -- about once every 20 years.
The GPS system calculates time by counting the number of weeks since January
6, 1980 -- up to a maximum of 1,023 weeks. At midnight between August 21-22,
1999, the GPS week "counter" will roll back to zero weeks. DOD says this
will not create problems for the GPS satellites or DOD's GPS ground control
center, but it could be a problem for consumers who use GPS receivers and
related applications. That's because after August 21, 1999, receivers could
process satellite data incorrectly and display inaccurate information.
GPS and Y2K
As for the Year 2000 date change, DOD has determined that the GPS satellites
and its ground control center will operate properly after December 31, 1999.
But if consumer GPS receivers and applications are not Y2K ready, they could
process satellite data incorrectly. Consumers who depend on GPS for
geographic locations at sea, on land or in the air, may experience serious
safety hazards. Specifically, consumers may experience one of the following
problems with their receiver:
* It will be unable to locate the satellites, resulting in the
receiver not working at all.
* It will take more time than usual to locate the satellites.
* It will appear to be working but display inaccurate positions, times
or dates.
What Should You Do?
If you use GPS, check with your receiver manufacturer to find out if your
receiver and applications are EOW rollover- and Y2K-compliant. You may want
to check the Coast Guard Navigation Center's web site
<http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/gps/geninfo/y2k/default.htm>where the Department
of Transportation has posted a list of receiver manufacturers and contacts.
You also can call the free Y2K consumer hotline (1-888-USA-4-Y2K) to get
manufacturer contact information. You will need to tell the manufacturer
your receiver's model, serial number, and the firmware version or release
date that is displayed on the startup screen.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Ailerons |
Oh well ........................! ! ! Frustrated Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 1999 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Heavy Ailerons
>
> I brought that question up last year.
> Dennis Souder said ixnay.
> The tip vortex flows up and around the tip,
> and screws it up. (sounds like they already
> tried it, seemed pretty firm...)
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
> >
> >I have Mk III kit # 274, and received the aileron counterbalance on
request,
> >at no charge. If they're not available any more, I could easily measure
> >mine and send them to you. They'd be very simple to build. On the spade
> >question, here's another question. Since the counterbalance already
ties
> >into the outer end of the aileron, and points forward, it should almost
act
> >as a spade as it is. How about fastening a small tab to the front of it
to
> >give more leverage ?? By slowly making the tab larger - in small steps -
> >couldn't you tailor the aileron effort to your own taste ?? Thanks for
> >bringing this up, I would really like an answer from some of the engineer
> >types out there.
> > Big Lar.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Okay sports fans, now that I've stopped pouting, how about those
aileron spades ?? I haven't started covering yet, so could easily work them
in. I think. Has it been done ?? Are there plans ?? I've got just 1 hr.
in a Citabria, 2 yrs ago, and the ailerons were very heavy. If I have an
alternative, I'd just as soon not fight something like that in my own plane.
I'm known to be a sucker for punishment, but there ARE limits.
Lazy Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DRMusgrove(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MkIII Tailwheel |
> ...The only problem I have found prior to installing it is
> the that the hole is .745 instead of .750 so I will have to take it to a
> machine shop and get it enlarged a bit.
> ...
> Bill George
> Mk-3 582 Powerfin
Hey Bill -
I'm certainly against anything that sounds like 'half-assing', but in this
case, why not chuck a strip of emery in a split rod and take out that .005 to
fit. Take your time (but not much time) with a hand drill and you'll get a
perfect fit. Would save you a trip to the machini$t and the results should
be better!
FWIW
David M.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Spades |
In a message dated 7/27/99 4:15:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net writes:
<<
Okay sports fans, now that I've stopped pouting, how about those
aileron spades ?? I haven't started covering yet, so could easily work them
in. >>
Kolbers,
Since I started this aileron discussion, I was wondering WHY they are so
heavy, opposed to other ultra-light aircraft? I hope the answer is not that
their ALL heavy.
Rich Bragassa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Ailerons servo tabs |
Yes, and it is a lot of work for what you get. It was built into the
original Ferguson ailerons. They could be adjusted from inside the cockpit.
They did work but it was not worth all the effort to get the right effect.
My suggestion is if you want to take out some of the heaviness make your
ailerons smaller and your flaps larger. There are a lot of airplanes out
there with a lot smaller ailerons that work just fine.
At slow speeds the ailerons are not that heavy so it has to do with the
amount of air traveling over the surfaces. The faster you go the heavier
they get. Another thing is you might want to put a little negative reflex in
the ailerons to get then up out of the air stream a little for straight and
level flight. I know this will improve your top speed. Then shallow turns
takes more of a thought than moving the stick. Just thinking again and
passing it along. Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Maurice Shettel <mshettel(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Monday, July 26, 1999 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Heavy Ailerons
>
>Has anyone tried servo tabs on their ailerons? Im thinking of going this
>route sometime this winter. Should work well if done right.
>
>Maurice
>
>
>Richard Pike wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't think the aileron counterbalances will solve the problem.
>> Counterbalances are to prevent aileron flutter, and would
>> not affect the heaviness of the ailerons.
>> I agree that the ailerons are very heavy, especially
>> compared to the very light rudder and elevator.
>> I suspect that the best solution would be spades
>> mounted on the bottom of the ailerons,
>> about in the middle of each one.
>> But that will be a good project for this winter, when I can't fly.
>> Right now it is better to fly a good airplane with heavy ailerons.
>>
>> P.S. Some of the early Rans S-12 Airailes had ailerons that
>> were heavy as sin, and the company came out with a spade kit.
>> Anybody know someone that has/had such a beast,
>> and might have plans, pictures, etc. of those spades?
>> Hate re-inventing the wheel.
>> (Maybe I should just call Rans?)
>> Richard Pike
>> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>>
>> >
>> >Fellow Kolbers,
>>
>> >My kit is #289, and doesn't have aileron counterbalances like some of
the
>> >older Mk lll's. My ailerons are quite heavy, and I would like to lighten
them
>> >up (a little). I remember this discussion in the past, but never came to
a
>> >clear cut conclusion.
>> >
>> >Does the factory still make them or were they in the older blue prints?
I
>> >realize they would have to be added after the fact. Does anyone have an
>> >opinion..... It seems like the factory discontinued the
counterbalances.....
>> >for a reason?
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Please remove me from the list.
Steve Anderson
staecs(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MkIII Tailwheel |
>
>
>In a message dated 7/27/99 2:18:34 AM, DRMusgrove(at)aol.com writes:
>> ...The only problem I have found prior to installing it is
> the that the hole is .745 instead of .750 so I will have to take it to a
> machine shop and get it enlarged a bit.
><< , why not chuck a strip of emery in a split rod and take out that .005 to
>fit. Take your time (but not much time) with a hand drill and you'll get a
>perfect fit. Would save you a trip to the machini$t and the results should
>be better! >>
We found it easier to buy a .750 inch stone for your drill bit and run it
through the inside of the bearing so it will slip on, if that's what your
having trouble with. That way the little axel will still fit in the
bracket. Those things are really made to be pressed on any way, but that
won't work for you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Spades |
I have been flying a Kolb MK 3 a friend bought. He had no ultra-light time or
tailgear time and had not flown in a while so I did the honors of test flying
it for several hours. I put it through it paces quite a bit. This was a
second hand airplane with about 50 hours on it. I then flew him several hours
of t&g and stalls and turns etc and now he is getting his flight review and
tailgear endorsement in it--about 5 hours from a local flight instructor.
Anyway, those ailerons are heavy. I was somewhat displeased with them being
so. I have a Kitfox 4 and they are finger light compared to the Kolbs and so
much more responsive and roll rate is much higher than for the Kolb. I think
the idea of spades might be a good one. I think refexing them up just a tad
might also help. I am building an RV4 and have the full swivel RV conversion
in my shop back home. I think it would be a big improvement over that plastic
thing Kolb gives you. I landed on a paved runway and the little bugger
provided very little steering or stability.Better stick to grasss untill
something is done about it-- me and my friend. JR--new Kolb pilot for a bit
longer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Intercom noise--help!!!! |
What intercom set up you guys use. I have been using my Flight tech and my
friend bought a similar unit--neither will work at all in the Kolb cockpit
due to being overwelmed by ambient noise. We have Lightspeed and David Clarks
and Softcom headset and none work. Set squelch low enough and no work and set
it high and are overwhemed by noise--loud enough to damage ears. He has doors
but the rear section is open behind your heads. What do we need to do to get
rid of the engine prop noise so we can speak over the intercom. Both units
work great in the Fox. Help?????/!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MkIII Tailwheel-reamer |
Maybe try a chucking reamer of .75 or .749 etc. Lube well and turn by hand or
CareFully in a press or drill. That size will probably need a drill press or
at least Arnold arms. JR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul VonLindern <paulv(at)digisys.net> |
Larry,
The covering process is long, but not tough. It's actually kinda fun (in a sick
way).
My web address is http://www.digisys.net/users/paulv/kolb.htm
Stay outa da heat
PaulV
Larry Bourne wrote:
>
> Good to hear from you, Paul. I've lost your web-site address somewhere
> along the line. Thought I was better organized than that.
> Sounds like the covering process is a long and tough one. You've been at it
> quite a while now. I'll look forward to seeing some pics. Please re-send
> your web address. Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Help with drilling wheel axles? |
Need help from the list,
I have reached a point where I need to drill the two 3/16" holes in each
wheel axle. This is not the alignment hole but the two holes in each axle.
I have used three bits and have made very little dent in this thing. I was
wondering if anyone has had a similar problem and any offerings of possible
solutions. The axles are tagged "Heat treated, do not weld". The only thing
I can come up is get to the drill press and slow it down ,take my time and
drill away. I'm looking for some better bits in the meantime.
I checked the archives and my search didn't turn up anything specific on this
problem.
any help appreciated,
John (not at Oskosh) Bickham
St. Francisville, LA
Mark III
N308JB (assigned)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Help with drilling wheel axles? |
I had great success with Black & Decker "Bullet" drill bits I purchased at
Lowe's. You can find them anywhere. I recently saw that Walmart even carries
them. Good luck!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Intercom noise--help!!!! |
Kolb Gang,
Get a 3 blade IVO or equivalent, close in the back with lexan, make sure that you
have all the fabric around the back section of the cockpit attached to the
formers with double side stick foam tape to stop the drumming and shield the plug
wires from the base of the plugs to the base of the coils. If your are still
picking up radio noise a lot, which you can do through your intercom, one or
more of a plug wire end may be deteriorating so you may want to pull them off
and check them. I had one that had burned itself off up into the insulation
1/2 ''. over a period of time it made so much noise in the radio I couldn't squelch
it out. That's when I knew I had a problem. I cut it back to the good wire
core and reinstalled it. The noise has not returned. I also get much better
tx on the radio without having to tx the noise. My wingman immediately noticed
the clarity of the tx.
Make sure all of your intercom wires are shielded, But do one thing at a time.
These all help but there may be one thing that is causing most of your problem.
I continually get compliment on how quit my plane is in the air and in the cockpit
but that's because Ive done all these things over time. It was real noisy
when I first started flying it too.
Let use know what you do to solve the problem you may find something we can use.
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
"Ted Cowan" ,
"Scott Sharon Wilcox" ,
"Sam Cox" ,
"Rutledge Fuller" ,
"Paul Spadin" ,
"Michael Highsmith" ,
"Kolb Builders" ,
"Glenn Rinck" ,
"Fly Ultralights" ,
"Dave Thomas" , "Danny Day" ,
"Buddy Carilse" ,
"Bob Moorehead" , "Bob Cooper" ,
"Ben Cole" , "ASC2"
----- Original Message -----
From: greg moloney <gregmol(at)ihug.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 4:52 AM
Subject: Fw: GREAT!
>
>
> >>Subject: GPS Alert
> >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999
> >
> >Just passing this on from our Club......
> >
> >End-of-Week Rollover for GPS- August 22, 1999
> >The GPS EOW rollover happens every 1,024 weeks -- about once every 20
> years.
> >The GPS system calculates time by counting the number of weeks since
> January
> >6, 1980 -- up to a maximum of 1,023 weeks. At midnight between August
> 21-22,
> >1999, the GPS week "counter" will roll back to zero weeks. DOD says this
> >will not create problems for the GPS satellites or DOD's GPS ground
control
> >center, but it could be a problem for consumers who use GPS receivers and
> >related applications. That's because after August 21, 1999, receivers
could
> >process satellite data incorrectly and display inaccurate information.
> >GPS and Y2K
> >As for the Year 2000 date change, DOD has determined that the GPS
> satellites
> >and its ground control center will operate properly after December 31,
> 1999.
> >
> >But if consumer GPS receivers and applications are not Y2K ready, they
> could
> >process satellite data incorrectly. Consumers who depend on GPS for
> >geographic locations at sea, on land or in the air, may experience
serious
> >safety hazards. Specifically, consumers may experience one of the
following
> >problems with their receiver:
> >* It will be unable to locate the satellites, resulting in the
> >receiver not working at all.
> >* It will take more time than usual to locate the satellites.
> >* It will appear to be working but display inaccurate positions,
> >times
> >or dates.
> >What Should You Do?
> >If you use GPS, check with your receiver manufacturer to find out if your
> >receiver and applications are EOW rollover- and Y2K-compliant. You may
want
> >to check the Coast Guard Navigation Center's web site
> ><http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/gps/geninfo/y2k/default.htm>where the
> Department
> >of Transportation has posted a list of receiver manufacturers and
contacts.
> >You also can call the free Y2K consumer hotline (1-888-USA-4-Y2K) to get
> >manufacturer contact information. You will need to tell the manufacturer
> >your receiver's model, serial number, and the firmware version or release
> >date that is displayed on the startup screen.
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Ailerons |
I asked Dennis Souder the same question and he said don't do it and was quite
convinced.
Terry
Richard Pike wrote:
>
> I brought that question up last year.
> Dennis Souder said ixnay.
> The tip vortex flows up and around the tip,
> and screws it up. (sounds like they already
> tried it, seemed pretty firm...)
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
> >
> >I have Mk III kit # 274, and received the aileron counterbalance on request,
> >at no charge. If they're not available any more, I could easily measure
> >mine and send them to you. They'd be very simple to build. On the spade
> >question, here's another question. Since the counterbalance already ties
> >into the outer end of the aileron, and points forward, it should almost act
> >as a spade as it is. How about fastening a small tab to the front of it to
> >give more leverage ?? By slowly making the tab larger - in small steps -
> >couldn't you tailor the aileron effort to your own taste ?? Thanks for
> >bringing this up, I would really like an answer from some of the engineer
> >types out there.
> > Big Lar.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Spades |
OK, OK, I'm convinced ! ! ! I'm familiar with tip vortices, so that makes
sense, so now all I need is some kind of plan for spades. How big, what
material, what shape, where and how to attach ???? I'm real sure I don't
like heavy anything in my controls, so I think it sounds like a worthwhile
addition.
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: <JRWillJR(at)aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Aileron Spades
>
> I have been flying a Kolb MK 3 a friend bought. He had no ultra-light time
or
> tailgear time and had not flown in a while so I did the honors of test
flying
> it for several hours. I put it through it paces quite a bit. This was a
> second hand airplane with about 50 hours on it. I then flew him several
hours
> of t&g and stalls and turns etc and now he is getting his flight review
and
> tailgear endorsement in it--about 5 hours from a local flight instructor.
> Anyway, those ailerons are heavy. I was somewhat displeased with them
being
> so. I have a Kitfox 4 and they are finger light compared to the Kolbs and
so
> much more responsive and roll rate is much higher than for the Kolb. I
think
> the idea of spades might be a good one. I think refexing them up just a
tad
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help with drilling wheel axles? |
I used Cobalt bits with a handheld drill without a problem as someone suggested
several years ago.
Terry
BICUM(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Need help from the list,
>
> I have reached a point where I need to drill the two 3/16" holes in each
> wheel axle. This is not the alignment hole but the two holes in each axle.
> I have used three bits and have made very little dent in this thing. I was
> wondering if anyone has had a similar problem and any offerings of possible
> solutions. The axles are tagged "Heat treated, do not weld". The only thing
> I can come up is get to the drill press and slow it down ,take my time and
> drill away. I'm looking for some better bits in the meantime.
>
> I checked the archives and my search didn't turn up anything specific on this
> problem.
>
> any help appreciated,
>
> John (not at Oskosh) Bickham
> St. Francisville, LA
> Mark III
> N308JB (assigned)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Intercom noise--help!!!! |
I used a Hush-A-Com, which is no longer made, with good success for a year and
a
half. However, on long flights the noise still got old. I then got a set custom
made which work great. They are 27 db passive noise reduction and I am using the
sigtronics SPO-22N intercom which is made for high noise.
BTY The Hush-A-Com is for sale 200.00 for two headsets and intercom.
Terry
JRWillJR(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> What intercom set up you guys use. I have been using my Flight tech and my
> friend bought a similar unit--neither will work at all in the Kolb cockpit
> due to being overwelmed by ambient noise. We have Lightspeed and David Clarks
> and Softcom headset and none work. Set squelch low enough and no work and set
> it high and are overwhemed by noise--loud enough to damage ears. He has doors
> but the rear section is open behind your heads. What do we need to do to get
> rid of the engine prop noise so we can speak over the intercom. Both units
> work great in the Fox. Help?????/!!!!!!!!!!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help with drilling wheel axles? |
John,
You got the right idea with using the drill press @ the slowest setting. Use
a Cobalt drill bit & cool it continuously with a very light light oil (diesel
fuel will even work). Push it only hard enough to keep it cutting. If you don't
let it overheat & take your time, it will be a piece of cake.
Richard S
BICUM(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Need help from the list,
>
> I have reached a point where I need to drill the two 3/16" holes in each
> wheel axle. This is not the alignment hole but the two holes in each axle.
> I have used three bits and have made very little dent in this thing. I was
> wondering if anyone has had a similar problem and any offerings of possible
> solutions. The axles are tagged "Heat treated, do not weld". The only thing
> I can come up is get to the drill press and slow it down ,take my time and
> drill away. I'm looking for some better bits in the meantime.
>
> I checked the archives and my search didn't turn up anything specific on this
> problem.
>
> any help appreciated,
>
> John (not at Oskosh) Bickham
> St. Francisville, LA
> Mark III
> N308JB (assigned)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Ailerons? /a good answer....finally |
Kolbers,
I finally made contact with a man who lives in Florida who has built 26.....,
yes thats twenty six Kolb aircraft in the last twenty five or so years. He is
responsible for alot of major design changes and options for the Kolb
factory. Anyway he is a walking Bible on the entire Kolb line. He is kind of
private so I wont use his name on the list (bummer)... unless he advises
otherwise. I'm probable the only idiot that doesn't know him anyway.
He advises that the heavy ailerons is a simple fix, and if you do it right
the plane flys like it has power steering. First ajust your ailerons about
3/8" up from the bottom of the wing. Some guys have already figured this out.
Fly the plane and see if theres a difference. Next install the
counter-balances. He says it makes all the difference in the world when both
of these have been done.
Any way I'm going to try the ajustment part this weekend and see if It makes
a difference.
Good Luck,
Rich Bragassa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JON CROKE <joncroke(at)itol.com> |
| Subject: | New web site: UltralightPilot.com |
Fellow Kolbers:
I would like to announce a new website I have deployed.
www.UltralightPilot.com
The purpose of this site is to register and list ultralight pilots in a
national directory that is available freely to all.
The intended benefits of this mission is to be able someday to allow you to
'search' or find other pilots in YOUR neighborhood with similar aircraft,
interests, etc. I feel that there is a real need to have a 'white pages'
directory to help us find each other and share our interests and expertise
in this hobby? just like this list does for Kolb builders.
This idea may 'take off and fly' or may die if there is no interest.
However, I have a webserver available to me, the expertise to build
databases (do it for a living) and NO financial interest or incentive of
any kind. I simply cannot believe there is currently not a place to go to
find 'others' (ultralight enthusiasts) in my geographical area that are
experienced/interested in this sport. (this includes providing outlets for
students and instructors to connect)
You are invited to register yourself in the database?. Give it a try! (You
can always delete yourself later). Live dangerously! See what happens! I
expect to do some campaigning at Osh Kosh.
Your feedback in this matter is welcome (probably best offline, this isnt
Kolb related material!) after you visit the site.
Thanks
Jon near Greenbay
FS I
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BILLBEAM(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: New web site: UltralightPilot.com |
In a message dated 7/27/99 11:09:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
joncroke(at)itol.com writes:
<< www.UltralightPilot.com
>>
Jon, Is there some trick to getting to your new website? I keep getting
knocked off.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
Just finished my new plane - want to see some pictures?
<http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MkIII Tailwheel |
>
>Yo Possum:
>
>Thanks for the info. Perhaps I wasn't clear on the .745 thing. The clearance
>I was talking about was for the strut, not the wheel axle. This is for the
>new assembly which is totally different from original. It has a steerable
>feature which switches to full swivel after a set limit is reached. I'm
still
>going to take it down to the machine shop and get it fit nicely. It will add
>about 3 pounds over the original tailwheel so the CG will be at the aft edge.
Mines Aft edge too - about 36%. But flys great & turns on a dime.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry & Karen Cottrel" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MkIII Tailwheel |
----------
> From: Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: MkIII Tailwheel
> Date: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 10:48 PM
>
Say Possum- where did you get the model for the jacket or what ever that
was? I;m from the east where they have a lot of possums and that don't look
like any that I ever saw while I was there. Perhaps they elvolved into
something that looks like a fox while I've been gone. The plane looked
good though.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
Plane looks great. Paint appears to have a high gloss. What paint did you use?
Terry
Possum wrote:
>
> Just finished my new plane - want to see some pictures?
> <http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>
> Paint appears to have a high gloss. What paint did you use?
Aerothane - from Aircraft Spruce.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Howard Ping" <hping(at)hyperaction.net> |
Kolbers
I just set up a home page.The grass strip is located 12 mi. west
of TNK.check it out.
Howard
http://www.hyperaction.net/hping
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: pucker patch |
>
>Kolbers
>I just set up a home page.The grass strip is located 12 mi. west
>of TNK.check it out.
>Howard
>http://www.hyperaction.net/hping
Excellent! Appreciate a man giving the Lord thanks for the blessing of flight.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Oshkosh 99 on TV |
Hi Gang:
Perhaps the rest of the planet already knows this but the Discovery Wings
channel will start airing AirVenture 99 tomorrow July 29. It runs for four
days I think.
Bill George
Mk-3 582 Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com |
--0__=gY5TrJuK9E6TtUCKSfJBHmI9UCpSWanXaZLe4YMRDMprguUfKV6IMHPP
.......... to whom it may concern .........
Magellan Corporation
Year 2000 (Y2K) and GPS End-of Week Rollover (EOW)
Information
For some time, Magellan Corporation has had a company-wide project underway to
evaluate our operations and products to ensure their readiness for the Year 2000
and GPS End-of-Week Rollover events. Recognizing its importance to our customers
and business partners, we have made the project a high priority within the
company. As a result of this ongoing, rigorous testing program and in keeping
with the standards described later in this document, we have determined that the
following products currently being sold by Magellan are compliant with both the
Y2K and GPS EOW events:
--0__=gY5TrJuK9E6TtUCKSfJBHmI9UCpSWanXaZLe4YMRDMprguUfKV6IMHPP
=B7 GPS 300
=B7 GPS 315
=B7 GPS 315A
=B7 GPS 320
=B7 GPS Blazer12
=B7 GPS 2000XL
=B7 GPS Tracker
=B7 GPS Color Track
=B7 NAV 6000
=B7 MAP 410
=B7 GSC 100
=B7 SkyStar PLUS
=B7 EC-20X
=B7 AIV-10
=B7 AIV-10SI
=B7 ProMARK X
=B7 ProMARK X-CP
=B7 ProMARK X-CM
The company is also testing products that are no longer in production,
with the
most recently produced products tested first. The results of those tests will be
released as the individual tests are completed, and well in advance of
either
the EOW or Y2K event. As of May 4, 1999, we have determined the following
Magellan products to be Y2K and EOW compliant:
=B7 NAV 5000
=B7 NAV 5000D
=B7 NAV 5000DX
=B7 NAV 5000DLX
=B7 NAV 5200
=B7 NAV 5200D
=B7 NAV 5200DX
=B7 NAV 5000A
=B7 MAP 7000
=B7 SkyNAV 5000
=B7 NAV 5000 PRO
=B7 FieldNAV
=B7 ProMARK V
=B7 ProMARK V-CM
=B7 OEM 5000
=B7 NAV 1000M5
=B7 The HAWK
=B7 FieldPRO V
=B7 Meridian
=B7 Trailblazer
=B7 Meridian XL
=B7 Trailblazer XL
=B7 NAV 1200
=B7 NAV 1200XL
=B7 SkyBlazer
=B7 SkyBlazer XL
=B7 SkyBlazer LT
=B7 SkyStar
=B7 Patriot
=B7 GPS 2000
=B7 GPS 3000
=B7 GPS 4000
=B7 GPS 3000XL
=B7 GPS 4000XL
=B7 GPS Pioneer
=B7 NAV DLX-10
=B7 Chartmate
If your Magellan product is not yet listed, please continue to look to
this
location for updated information on Magellan's Y2K and GPS EOW Compliance
Program.
Magellan Year 2000 and GPS End-of-Week Rollover Compliance Program
Magellan's Y2K and EOW Program tests our products' compliance with the
Y2K and
EOW standards described below. The compliance testing process evaluates each
model of GPS receiver and communications product that the company has sold since
the company's inception, beginning with the most recently released products.
Customers should check the evaluation list for information about their
particular model product. For each product that we identify which does
not meet
the following standards, the company will determine whether to fix or modify the
product to make it compliant.
We will keep customers and business partners informed of this program through
the www.magellangps.com and www.ashtech.com websites. This information
also is
available by calling the company's customer service and technical support
departments and through the email addresses Y2K(at)mgln.com and Y2K(at)ashtech.com .
The Year 2000 Issue
The Y2K issue arises from computer software written to use only the last two
digits of a year to recognize and correctly process date data. When the date
changes from December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000, this software and any product
in which it is used may recognize the year "00" as "1900" rather than "2000",
causing product failure, malfunction or data corruption.
In response to this concern, Magellan Corporation is evaluating its products
using the following Y2K standard:
Definition: "Year 2000 conformity shall mean that neither performance nor
functionality is affected by dates prior to, during and after the Year
2000.
This means 1) No value for the current date will cause any interruption in
operation; 2) Date-based functionality must behave consistently for dates prior
to, during and after the Year 2000; 3) In all interfaces and data storage, the
century in any date must be specified either explicitly or by unambiguous
algorithms or inferencing rules; and 4) The Year 2000 must be recognized as a
leap year."
GPS End-of-Week Rollover Issue
In addition to evaluating its products for compliance with the Y2K, Magellan is
also evaluating its products for compliance with the EOW event, which is similar
to the date rollover at the end of the century, but unique to Global Positioning
System technology.
GPS time is based on a "GPS week number" ranging from "0" to "1023". Week 1023
will end at midnight (UTC time) on August 21, 1999, at which time the week
number will "roll over" or re-set to week 0 beginning on August 22, 1999. If a
receiver has not been prepared to handle this week rollover event, the
receiver
may calculate inaccurate position fixes, generate erroneous dates or have
difficulty acquiring satellite signals.
Magellan is evaluating its products for compliance with this event using the
following EOW standard:
Definition: "GPS End-of-Week compliance shall mean that neither performance nor
functionality is affected by dates prior to, during and after the GPS system
time rollover. This means: 1) No value of the GPS week will cause any
interruption in operation of the hardware or software in the GPS product.
Rollover between all time demarcations will be performed correctly. 2)
The
product must behave consistently for dates prior to, during and after the GPS
week 1023. 3) For all interfaces and data storage, any date must be specified
either explicitly or by unambiguous algorithms or inferencing rules from the
value entered.
Y2K and EOW Compliance Testing Procedure
Magellan is currently evaluating its products for compliance with the Y2K and
EOW events using a GPS simulator programmed to provide signals similar
to what
experts believe will be received from the GPS satellites at the time of such
events. We have designed our tests using simulated dates prior to and after the
EOW and Y2K events to consider various possibilities of product turn-on and use.
In addition, we have used the U.S. Air Force GPS Week Number Rollover and Y2K
test plan in designing our tests and believe the resulting Magellan Testing
Program to be more extensive than the Air Force requirements.
Compliance Results:
Magellan's Y2K and EOW Program is well underway and will be completed in time to
make a smooth transition before the EOW and the new millennium. With over 100
different models of GPS and communications products manufactured since
1989, and
over one million products sold, the task is an enormous and an important one. As
our Program advances, we will release product evaluation test results.
The
results will be released on our Internet websites listed above. The company has
also established email addresses at Y2K(at)mgln.com (consumer products) and
Y2K(at)ashtech.com (precision products) to receive and respond to specific
inquiries for the latest information about our compliance Program.
Important Legal Information and Disclaimer
Magellan has provided the foregoing solely to disseminate information to our
customers regarding product compliance with the Y2K and EOW standards set forth
herein. While we have been careful in our planning, testing, and reporting of
the results, we are necessarily dependent upon information and equipment
received from others and used in our Program. Accordingly, the accuracy of our
results is dependent upon the accuracy and performance of such third party
information, and Magellan makes no representation or warranty of any kind with
respect to such third party information.
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED TO CUSTOMERS FOR THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF ASSISTING IN PLANNING FOR THE Y2K AND EOW EVENTS, AND DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE AN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND WITH
RESPECT TO ANY MAGELLAN PRODUCT. THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS THE INFORMATION
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE REGARDING THE COMPLIANCE OF MAGELLAN'S PRODUCTS TO
THE
STANDARDS SET FORTH HEREIN AND IS PROVIDED "AS IS".
SALE AND WARRANTY OF MAGELLAN PRODUCTS ARE GOVERNED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE
TERMS AND
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH PRODUCTS ARE SOLD AND THE WARRANTIES CONTAINED
THEREIN. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT MODIFY ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF SUCH SALES
CONTRACT OR PRODUCT WARRANTY.
MAGELLAN DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN
NO EVENT
SHALL MAGELLAN CORPORATION OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER
INCLUDING DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, PUNITIVE OR
SPECIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF MAGELLAN CORPORATION OR ITS SUPPLIERS HAVE BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
=
--0__=gY5TrJuK9E6TtUCKSfJBHmI9UCpSWanXaZLe4YMRDMprguUfKV6IMHPP--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis & Diane Kirby <kirbyd(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Drilling Wheel Axles |
I had the same problem drilling those hardened-steel axles for my
Mark-3. Went thru at least four 3/16 drill bits with little progress.
Even a Titanium bit didn't do much. Then I bought a Cobalt bit (used
for drilling stainless steel) which finally worked. Did fine using a
hand drill (that's all I've used for or this whole project). Give it a
try.
Dennis Kirby
s/n 300
Cedar Crest, New Mexico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Drilling Wheel Axles |
Secret is low speed 500-600 RPM max., slower is better, LOTS of "pressure",
and some oil.
If you go light on the pressure or go fast (RPM) you just work harden the
material and then it's a real bitch to drill. Learned from drilling RV
gear legs and steel axles on the Kolb. Run the drill slow, get on it, and
use oil. Tapping oil works great.
Jerryb
>
>I had the same problem drilling those hardened-steel axles for my
>Mark-3. Went thru at least four 3/16 drill bits with little progress.
>Even a Titanium bit didn't do much. Then I bought a Cobalt bit (used
>for drilling stainless steel) which finally worked. Did fine using a
>hand drill (that's all I've used for or this whole project). Give it a
>try.
>Dennis Kirby
>s/n 300
>Cedar Crest, New Mexico
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Bruner" <brunerd(at)hvi.net> |
Eam,
here's that message i told you bout yesterday.
Hope you make out well with Jane maybe I'll have
already heard when you get this tho.
Talk to you soon, or already. Definitely always.
love,
dad
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 11:35 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: 178 seconds
>
>
>178 Seconds to Live
>
>How long can a pilot who has little or no instrument training expect to
>live after he flies into bad weather and loses visual contact?
>
>Researchers at the University of Illinois did some tests and came up
>with some very interesting data. Twenty student "guinea pigs" flew into
>simulated instrument weather, and all went into graveyard spirals or
>roller coasters [attribute to the U of I flight training program??]. The
>outcome differed in only one respect - the time required till control was
>lost. The interval ranged from 480 seconds to 20 seconds. The average
>time was 178 seconds -- two seconds short of three minutes.
>
>Here's the fatal scenario. . . . . . .
>The sky is overcast and the visibility is poor. That reported five mile
>visibility looks more like two, and you can't judge the height of the
>overcast. Your altimeter tells you that you are at 1500 feet but your map
>tells
>you that there's local terrain as high as 1200 feet. There might be a
>tower nearby because you're not sure how far off course you are. But
>you've flown into worse weather than this, so press on.
>You find yourself unconsciously easing back just a bit on the
>controls to clear those towers. With no warning, you're in the soup.
>You peer so hard into the milky white mist that your eyes hurt. You fight
>
>the feeling in your stomach. You try to swallow, only to find your mouth
>dry. Now you realize you should have waited for better weather. The
>appointment was important, but not all that important.
>Somewhere a voice is saying, "You've had it -- it's all over!"
>You now have 178 seconds to live.
>Your aircraft feels on even keel but your compass turns slowly. You
>push a little rudder and add a little pressure on the controls to stop
>the turn but this feels unnatural and you return the controls to their
>original position. This feels better but now your compass is turning a
>little faster and your airspeed is increasing slightly.
>You scan your instruments for help but what you see looks somewhat
>unfamiliar. You're sure that this is just a bad spot. You'll break out in
>a few minutes.
>
>(But you don't have a few minutes left. . .)
>
>You now have 100 seconds to live.
>You glance at your altimeter and you are shocked to see it unwinding.
>You're already down to 1200 feet. Instinctively, you pull back on the
>controls but the altimeter still unwinds. The engine is into the red and
>the airspeed, nearly so. You have 45 seconds to live.
>Now you're sweating and shaking. There must be something wrong with the
>controls; pulling back only moves the airspeed indicator further into
>the red. You can hear the wind tearing at the aircraft. You are about to
>meet your Maker; you have 10 seconds to live. Suddenly you see the
>ground. The trees rush up at you. You can see the horizon if you turn
>your head far enough but it's at a weird angle --
>
>you're almost inverted. You open your mouth to scream but. . . . . ..
>you just ran our of seconds.
>
>Think about it before you press on into marginal weather
>
>Lucian Bartosik
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Howard Ping" <hping(at)hyperaction.net> |
| Subject: | Re: pucker patch |
Bill
Yea! i'm still at 3704-8427 or until I-66 covers up my runway and
barn.
Glad to hear your a Kolb flyer now,after your first flight what do you
think of their climb.All in all I think their hard to beat.The Kolb
factory 's cordinates are 3709-8420,it's easy to find,it runs parallel
to Ky 80 and is about 1.5 mi. E. of the Rockcastle River bridge.
You'll like Oshkosh,their Warbird displays are second to none.but
i'm a ultralighter and prefer Sun & Fun .It get's the year started off
right.
I went up a while last night ,climbed to about 1500' and looked
down,fog had started rising up from a rain, every hollow was white,I
pulled the power back and landed.My shortest flight ever.
Have fun at the world's biggest air show.
later
Howard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MkIII Tailwheel |
>
>
>In a message dated 7/27/99 7:45:49 PM, possums(at)mindspring.com writes:
>
><< Mines Aft edge too - about 36%. But flys great & turns on a dime. >>
>
>What does your manual say for aft limit?
It's the same as a regular Firestar as close as I can tell, same wing cord.
About 37% back max. Don't really have a manual for this one.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Landing help--how? |
What approach and landing style works best for you guys with Mark 3 aircraft.
I have been flying it on at about 55 doing wheel landings. Attempts to land
the bugger like I would do a Fox or a Cub or an RV as in a normal power off
flare into a three point leaves me flopping on to the ground like a wounded
duck. There is surely something I am missing here though I have tried several
methods to get a nice full stall landing. Wheelies are good but I would like
to three-point. Off subject but what does a possum have to do with flying
Kolbs--I always preferred Armadillos anyway. Armadillos kick possum tail. As
you said -- no respect at all. Just kidding. Thanks. JR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Thompson" <eagle1(at)futureone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New web site: UltralightPilot.com |
-----Original Message-----
From: JON CROKE <joncroke(at)itol.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 8:14 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: New web site: UltralightPilot.com
>
>Fellow Kolbers:
>
>I would like to announce a new website I have deployed.
> www.UltralightPilot.com
>
>The purpose of this site is to register and list ultralight pilots in a
>national directory that is available freely to all.
>The intended benefits of this mission is to be able someday to allow you to
>'search' or find other pilots in YOUR neighborhood with similar aircraft,
>interests, etc. I feel that there is a real need to have a 'white pages'
>directory to help us find each other and share our interests and expertise
>in this hobby? just like this list does for Kolb builders.
>
>This idea may 'take off and fly' or may die if there is no interest.
> However, I have a webserver available to me, the expertise to build
>databases (do it for a living) and NO financial interest or incentive of
>any kind. I simply cannot believe there is currently not a place to go to
>find 'others' (ultralight enthusiasts) in my geographical area that are
>experienced/interested in this sport. (this includes providing outlets for
>students and instructors to connect)
>
>You are invited to register yourself in the database?. Give it a try! (You
>can always delete yourself later). Live dangerously! See what happens! I
>expect to do some campaigning at Osh Kosh.
>
>Your feedback in this matter is welcome (probably best offline, this isnt
>Kolb related material!) after you visit the site.
>
>Thanks
>
>Jon near Greenbay
>FS I
>
>
>Put me down.
Started in ultrilights in 1984. Have built a Hi Max and Firestar
KXP. Am just finishing up a Firestar II.
eagle1(at)futureone.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Billy Jones <bjones8103(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MkIII Tailwheel |
37% is what the factory quoted me for my FirestarII. Sounds a long way
back to me. BJones in Houston
--- Possum wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >In a message dated 7/27/99 7:45:49 PM,
> possums(at)mindspring.com writes:
> >
> ><< Mines Aft edge too - about 36%. But flys great
> & turns on a dime. >>
> >
> >What does your manual say for aft limit?
>
> It's the same as a regular Firestar as close as I
> can tell, same wing cord.
> About 37% back max. Don't really have a manual for
> this one.
>
>
>
>
>
> The Kolb-List is sponsored by Matronics, makers
> of fine Aircraft
> Avionics, and by the generous Contributions of
> List members.
>
>
> Matronics:
> http://www.matronics.com
> Kolb-List:
> http://www.matronics.com/kolb-list
> Archive Search Engine:
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> Archive Browsing:
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> Other Email Lists:
> http://www.matronics.com/other
>
>
>
>
>
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Kolb Fly-in at TNK |
I wanted to see if we could get a collective head count as to how many
listers are going to make an appearance at the Fly-In that TNK is planning
for late Sept. I live in Alabama and am thinking about driving up with the
camper for a couple of days of Kolb building inspiration (boy there's a lot
of parts...) I was wondering if we can get a head count here.
Question to TNK: Will camping be allowed??? Would there be any chance of a
A/C hook-up at the air field??? I promise not to be rowdy!!!
It sure would be nice to get 30-40 Kolb's together for some nice formation
photo's heh???
Anyway respond to me privately if you want and I'll tally a list for those
interested...
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
Kolb parts owner..
P.S. To the possum...Great web page , especially the last 2
pics...heheheheh
P.P.S. to the gentleman who questioned what a possum looks like...Had one
climb up on a firewood pile and look in my den window one time. When I went
and looked out the window at him , he openned his mouth , showed me his
teeth , and hissed. Let's just say this...he could make a mess of your leg
if he got a hold of it...And the possums jacket is very accurate as to their
looks. Well I've not personally seen one with a leather pilot's helmet and
little gomer goggles buuuuuut ...they are in Louisiana....hehehehe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing help--how? |
Keep the speed up to 60 until just before touchdown,
keep a little power on too. Chop the power and hold it off,
it'll three point.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>What approach and landing style works best for you guys with Mark 3 aircraft.
>I have been flying it on at about 55 doing wheel landings. Attempts to land
>the bugger like I would do a Fox or a Cub or an RV as in a normal power off
>flare into a three point leaves me flopping on to the ground like a wounded
>duck. There is surely something I am missing here though I have tried several
>methods to get a nice full stall landing. Wheelies are good but I would like
>to three-point. Off subject but what does a possum have to do with flying
>Kolbs--I always preferred Armadillos anyway. Armadillos kick possum tail. As
>you said -- no respect at all. Just kidding. Thanks. JR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Fletcher" <bwf(at)emailmn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New web site: Accident report |
The first on your new list:
----- Original Message -----
From: George Thompson <eagle1(at)futureone.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: New web site: UltralightPilot.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JON CROKE <joncroke(at)itol.com>
> To: 'kolb-list(at)matronics.com'
> Date: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 8:14 PM
> Subject: Kolb-List: New web site: UltralightPilot.com
>
>
> >
> >Fellow Kolbers:
> >
> >I would like to announce a new website I have deployed.
> > www.UltralightPilot.com
> >
Gentlemen
My Kolb lll www.metroflorida.com/plane amphibian is now an organ donator.
After my accident I don't have the money to rebuild. So I am selling it in
pieces. This weekend I will be making notes on what's usable. Tomorrow I
hope to find what problems I'll be having with my back.
To all who had asked about me thanks for your concerns. The morning after
the accident the FAA rep stopped in to see me. His first glance at the plane
that morning he couldn't see what caused it. So I told him what I thought.
I was climbing out and at about 200' 165 mph something snapped in the rudder
system. So for 200' I had, I tried to turn away from the swimming beach I
was heading for. I landed out side the ropes and altitude. This plane like
most planes don't fly very well with out rudder control.
About 1 hour later the FAA insp. Called back and told my wife it was not
pilot error. He found that one of the pulleys used in rudder the system had
frozen to the shaft and after time ( 6 mos. to? ) the cable had sawed trough
the pulley and put about 4" of slack in the cable. This is something not
easily checked on the preflight in my plane. A yearly check should catch
this. Or maybe a good spot for an inspection window.
This was a Florida plane for the last 3 years.
Anyone interested in parts send me your E-Mail address and when I compile a
list I send it to you.
Bruce Fletcher
bwf(at)emailmn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duncan McBride" <duncan.mcbride(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help with drilling wheel axles? |
Cobalt bits, new and fresh. I burned up two or three regular bullet bits,
then had no problem with the cobalt guys. No problem. Good luck.
-----Original Message-----
From: BICUM(at)aol.com <BICUM(at)aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 3:50 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Help with drilling wheel axles?
>
>Need help from the list,
>
>I have reached a point where I need to drill the two 3/16" holes in each
>wheel axle. This is not the alignment hole but the two holes in each axle.
>I have used three bits and have made very little dent in this thing. I was
>wondering if anyone has had a similar problem and any offerings of possible
>solutions. The axles are tagged "Heat treated, do not weld". The only
thing
>I can come up is get to the drill press and slow it down ,take my time and
>drill away. I'm looking for some better bits in the meantime.
>
>I checked the archives and my search didn't turn up anything specific on
this
>problem.
>
>
>any help appreciated,
>
>John (not at Oskosh) Bickham
>St. Francisville, LA
>Mark III
>N308JB (assigned)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landing the MKiii |
>From: JRWillJR(at)aol.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: Landing help--how?
>
>
>What approach and landing style works best for you guys with Mark 3 aircraft.
>I have been flying it on at about 55 doing wheel landings. Attempts to land
>the bugger like I would do a Fox or a Cub or an RV as in a normal power off
>flare into a three point leaves me flopping on to the ground like a wounded
>duck.
I'll second that! I was making perfect wheel landings all season until I
decided I should be making three-pt instead, and started to flare more. For two
weeks I kept trying until one new gear leg was in order. Now I am back to
making perfect wheel landings. I think with the tail dragger it makes more
sense to perform wheel landings anyway. It is kind of nice to have the tail
flying last since the rudder gives great control compared to the tailwheel. The
longer I keep the tailwheel in the air, the smoother and straighter I seem to
land. That's my experience anyway.
As for landing with power, that's OK, unless you don't have any. I practice all
idle-engine landings everytime (no power after 600'AGL), in preparation for the
day it happens that my engine quits. I lower the nose, use half flaps, keep
airspeed at 60. If cross-wind, I use no flaps. If passenger with experience,
I
use full flaps. Once over the runway, speed drops to 50 and I quit watching it.
Happy "Wheelies",
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Hale" <AccessToData(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Whatever Goes Up ... |
Here is different kind of accident that I thought the list might find
interesting. I don't think the pilot would mind if I share this, but just
in case, I won't mention any names. I think something can be learned from
this.
"...when we were ready to leave, I had a problem...I had let a kid sit in my
plane while I ate breakfast, and he messed with the controls...no problem
usually,
but as the guys were ready to leave with their engines running, I started up
my Carrera like usual, but didn't check the throttle position B4 starting it
from behind, and when it started, it was at FULL THROTTLE! Since I was
behind
the plane, I grabbed the wire that goes from the wing to the tail, and was
able
to hold it as it went in a circle, dragging me...There were alot of people
there
to help me, but they couldn't get in there to grab the plane, as it was
circling
too fast...a couple of guys tossed sweaters and other clothing at the prop,
but the new Sportprop was too tough, and just shredded them. After about
30-40
circles in Jim's field, the wire began cutting my skin on my hand, and I
couldn't
hold on any longer. When the plane was pointed away from his
house/people/planes,
I finally let go, aiming it at some shrubs and a tree. I had been working it
towards that tree on purpose, hoping it would stop it, but my fingers were
bleeding
at this point, and the pain became unbearable. When I finally let go, the
Carrera
headed towards that tree, just brushing it. Then it went into the open
field,
accelerating till it began to fly by itself. It climbed out, clearing the
trees
that lined the field, trimmed perfectly at first (and the fuel tanks were
full
at this point too. I had visions of it flying till it finally would run
outta
gas, probably over the ocean somewhere...
Well, when it got to about 100-200 feet up, it began to turn right, circling
and losing altitude till it hit a fir tree, stopping it. It fell down into
the
lower branches, still at full throttle, till a branch hit the prop, stopping
the motor. My new Sportprop was ruined, now only about half the original
diam.
The left wing is totaled, but the fuselage and right wing are OK, and my
motor
seems ok too. The tail has only one slightly bent tube also. Definately
repairable,
but it will take a while. I do hope to have it fixed in time for the Alvord
fly-in.
I thought for sure it would have been totaled, but got lucky."
Brian Hale
Firestar I # 439
Sacramento, CA
PS: The guy I bought my Firestar from hit his throttle while climbing in.
With one leg in and one out he managed to stay with the plane and kill the
throttle.
________________________________________________________________________________
Dell,
That's real good news. I'm going to try the fix tomorrow. I don't know about
more adjustment. I guess the info was good.....the counterbalances probably
will help a little too. Maybe a few other Kolbers will try the fix, then we
can come up with a resolution !!!!
Rich Bragassa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Have reflexed my ailerons up about 1/4",
but have not had the wind/ bad weather ease up enough
for a flight test. But maybe this will do the job.
If it does, then I will need a trim tab on the elevator
to keep the nose down when flying solo.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Dell,
>
>That's real good news. I'm going to try the fix tomorrow. I don't know about
>more adjustment. I guess the info was good.....the counterbalances probably
>will help a little too. Maybe a few other Kolbers will try the fix, then we
>can come up with a resolution !!!!
>
>Rich Bragassa
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing the MKiii |
Gents,
>>a normal power off flare into
>>a three point leaves me flopping on to the ground like a wounded duck.
Just a thought... Not being able to make decent 3 point landings in a
particular aircraft, while you are able to do so in other aircraft, sounds
to me as if you might have a forward CG problem. In any case, that's
usually the problem when people tell me that they are having trouble 3
pointing their Swift.
>I think with the tail dragger it makes more
>sense to perform wheel landings anyway.
FWIW... It usually takes a bit more skill to consistantly make good 3
point landings as opposed to wheeling the plane on. But... As I see it, 3
pointers allow you to land at a slower speed thus saving wear and tear on
the airplane as well as markedly shortening your landing roll.
Save the wheel landings for the times when they might be advantageous such
as in extreme crosswinds.
Regards,
Skip
Ellenton, FL
1984 Kolb UltraStar
1946 Globe Swift
Ellenton, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing the MKiii |
gerken(at)us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> >From: JRWillJR(at)aol.com
> >Subject: Kolb-List: Landing help--how?
> >
> >
> >What approach and landing style works best for you guys with Mark 3
> aircraft.
> >I have been flying it on at about 55 doing wheel landings. Attempts
> to land
> >the bugger like I would do a Fox or a Cub or an RV as in a normal
> power off
> >flare into a three point leaves me flopping on to the ground like a
> wounded
> >duck.
>
> I'll second that! I was making perfect wheel landings all season
> until I
> decided I should be making three-pt instead, and started to flare
> more. For two
> weeks I kept trying until one new gear leg was in order. Now I am
> back to
> making perfect wheel landings.
> The longer I keep the tailwheel in the air, the smoother and
> straighter I seem to
> land. That's my experience anyway.
> keep airspeed at 60. If cross-wind, I use no flaps. If passenger
> with experience, I
> use full flaps. Once over the runway, speed drops to 50 and I quit
> watching it.
>
> Happy "Wheelies",
> Jim G
Hello guy's;
Here's my 2 cents worth:
Rather than tell you what my ASI reads, I'll just say that my landing
approach is 5 mph faster than my take-off (actual lift-off) speed.
Whenever I fly solo, my main wheels usually land first. (I have made 3
point landings, but these aren't due to any attempt.) Then my tail wheel
settles down. Whenever I have a passenger, (due to my trim) my tail
wheel "always" touches down first. I can feel the tail wheel hit just
prior to my mains touching down...
The secret here is to determine your actual lift-off speed as indicated
by your own ASI, add 5 mph and that will be a good landing approach
speed. I have some power added for these approaches, but with an engine
out, my approace would have a greater angle to maintain this speed.
(just happens my ASI reads 55 for my approaches) I have also noticed the
MKIII, with dead-stick, is hard to get over 60 in a descent... Have you
guys noticed this??
Well, this is just another one of those opinions that may be of
assistance. I find I can land just about anywhere in most winds using
this method. Mistakes may cause for an abort, as there isn't enough
speed left to try and correct without adding throttle. The slowness of
your approach will give you plenty of time to see an oncoming problem.
Regards
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landing the MKiii? |
The airplane quits flying as soon as I come back on the stick to round off
into a flare. I was using 50 over the fence slowing to about 45 or so as I
began the flare--it just stops flying--flops to the ground. Using a 1.3 X
stall with stall seeming to be at 37 MPH then a proper approach should be
flown power off at 48 to 50 MPH. This works in every other airplane I have
flown--example, Pitts, Midget mustang, Cub, Super Cub, RV4-6, Kitfox,
Aeronca, Luscombe, Decatholon and quiet a few others until now. Something is
amiss. Still wondering if flying on in a wheelie at 60 MPH power on to about
4500 RPM is the only way to land the Kolb--what is wrong? JR-sure would hate
to hit a possum at 60--might ding the gear
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landing the MKiii? |
In a message dated 7/30/99 5:50:41 AM, JRWillJR(at)aol.com writes:
<< The airplane quits flying as soon as I come back on the stick to round off
into a flare. I was using 50 over the fence slowing to about 45 or so as I
began the flare--it just stops flying--flops to the ground. Using a 1.3 X
stall with stall seeming to be at 37 MPH then a proper approach should be
flown power off at 48 to 50 MPH. This works in every other airplane I have
flown--example, Pitts, Midget mustang, Cub, Super Cub, RV4-6, Kitfox,
Aeronca, Luscombe, Decatholon and quiet a few others until now >>
Not being an expert in Kolb technique I offer this. The 1.3 Vso works in
other airplanes because they have a certain amount of float in them. Due to
the fact that speed bleeds off rapidly in very light craft I expect that 1.5
Vso is more appropriate. Add 1/2 the steady wind and all of the gust and you
have a speed that is provides a more comfortable round out.
Just an opinion.
Bill George
Mk-3 582 Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing the MKiii? |
>
>The airplane quits flying as soon as I come back on the stick to round off
>into a flare. I was using 50 over the fence slowing to about 45 or so as I
>began the flare--it just stops flying--flops to the ground. Using a 1.3 X
>stall with stall seeming to be at 37 MPH then a proper approach should be
>flown power off at 48 to 50 MPH. This works in every other airplane I have
>flown--example, Pitts, Midget mustang, Cub, Super Cub, RV4-6, Kitfox,
>Aeronca, Luscombe, Decatholon and quiet a few others until now. Something is
>amiss.
All the airplanes you list have more mass and/or less drag, and will carry
more inertia through the flare. The Kolb has more drag and less inertia,
and gives
off it's energy much faster. Use more speed over the fence, and don't start
to give
up any speed until you are closer to the ground.
Kolbs fly more like traditional airplanes, but they still land more like
traditional
ultralights in their ability to dissipate inertia.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing the MKiii ;Three pionters |
Just my opinion.
I believe that wheel landings in the MK3 and other UL aircraft of its' type is
the safe and proper way to land in almost all cases. In a Ga aircraft you will
have considerably more weight and kinetic energy to carry you through the round
out and the landing. Our planes have a way of dropping airspeed quickly because
of the lack of kinetic energy and weight once you have cut the power and
pulled the nose up to flare. The time for us to make a good three point landing
is considerably shorter than the heavier GA plane. It is also considerably more
likely to be effected by any change in the direction and speed of the relative
wind at landing because of the narrow critical angle of attack in which we
have to attain in order to threepoint successfully without bouncing.
I have over 2000 logged landings in these type aircraft and I have been able to
land three point many times with great success but the only time I have ever
bent the gear was when I was trying to three point on an unfamiliar field that
I thought I should land as short as possible. As it turned out the field had
a slight upgrade on the end that I was attempting to land and I did not has the
air speed or the attitude to abort the landing. I landed in a perfect three
point with the terrain rising to meet me in the upgrade. That was all it took
to bend the gear legs. A wheel landing would have been the right choice at that
time and I have since made many landings there on the mains without any problems
with that short field.
I currently land on 900' with trees at both ends along with the banner plane pilots
who land as short as I do consistently some 300-400'. They too land many
times on the mains and have a lot more control on roll out which for them it is
usually 500-700'.
For me it isn't worth the potential damage to my airplane to do three point landings
when I can land with a lot more control and stop in as short a distance
using little brakes by wheel landing. I'm not advocating wheel landings only
and I believe we should practice three pointers but on the average I believe the
potential is there to damage the airplane more times with threepoints than
it is with a wheel landing.
Sometimes we get stuck on the belief that there is only one way to skin a cat.
There are lots of options open to our kind of flying. Take advantage of them all.
Some may fit your particular style of flying better than others. Safety is
what we are after here so we don't have to read about those "Ops" as often as
we do.
Again, just my opinion. Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2-stroke reliability |
>
>
>I know nothing about 2-stroke engines, so my question is. Why are the CHT
>and EGT so critical when a 2-stroke is used as an airplane engine? With my
>weed-eater, lawnmower, etc, it's just crank and go. Never have to worry
>about it. I think they will run forever.
> Thanks, Ron
Take your 2-stroke weedeater and go to full throttle, and start richening
up the
high speed needle. It runs slower and slower. Now start to lean it out, and it
speeds up. 2-strokes are sort of mixture driven, in terms of efficiency
and horsepower, much more than 4-strokes.
The weedeater and lawnmower are so de-tuned that they are somewhat "idiot
proof".
An efficient and powerful 2-stroke engine is not, and can be leaned to the
point that
it will "good itself to death", so it is necessary to know how close to the
peak you
are operating, without going so far as to compromise reliability.
Temperature monitoring is a reliable way to do that.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dirk4315(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Kolb Mark III for sale in Ca. |
Late model Mark III for sale in Ca. with aluminum amphibious floats powered
by a 912 Rotax with 45 hours total time. 90% of the construction was done by
a United aircraft mechanic. It has a Warp Drive tapered tip prop, BRS chute,
15.5 gallon Kolb factory aluminum fuel tank, advanced EIS engine monitor
system, strobes, electrical system, hydraulic brakes, and much more, a very
nice aircraft flies great, I have photos to e-mail. Large investment. Asking
27,000
My name is Dirk Davis, if you have any question call me at 925-516-4875 or
Dirk4315(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clarence R. Perry Jr." <perryr(at)123.net> |
| Subject: | For Sale: Kolb Ultrastar |
For Sale:
1984 Kolb Ultrastar
100 Hours TTE/A
Flew great until aborted take-off/crash in June 1999.
Serious fuselage/landing gear damage (Cromoly steel)
Some holes in wing covering from prop turning into toothpicks.
Cuyuna UL/II Engine still runs great.
I have all original build plans and revisions plus original builders
notes/sales receipts.
Comes with fully enclosed trailer. Helmet.
Great project for someone who knows how to weld and has the time.
Asking $2000.00 for all or trade for PPG.
Located in Michigan.
For Crash pics, see:
http://mula.perrydice.com/ultrasta.htm
For what it look like before/and trailer, see:
http://mula.perrydice.com/robsnew.htm
Thanks for your time,
Rob Perry
rob.perry(at)perrydice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dell Vinal <zoper(at)mint.net> |
On the wheelie vs stall landing. If your airplane doesn't sit on
the ground at least at the stall angle, you're going to hit tail first
every stall landing and then drop in.This puts a good shock to the plane
twice every landing.
The wheel landing is hard to learn, but then easy as flying.because
that's what you do ,fly it onto the ground without much shock at all. A
navy study proved that you can wheel it on fast, and while you have
speed and elevator you can brake hard and stop at least as short as a
stall landing because while the stall landing is flaring the wheelie is
on the ground under heavy braking. However, if you are using a
tailhook,you should always follow the POH.
I'm going to try another couple turns on the aileron rods next time
I fly.Keep tuned.
.
I thank every one for their landing insights. I am going to use
this stuff the next time I fly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BILLBEAM(at)aol.com |
For my 2 cents worth on landings (bad ones).
1. Use full seat belt and two strap shoulder harness. Not a GM car belt.
2. Wear an approved full sided helmet.
3. If battery is used, install it in a secure, enclosed box. Battery acid
spills
will destroy skin and clothing.
4. Install vent tubes on the fuel tanks that terminate below the thanks.
They will be above the tank(s) if you flip over.
Don't wait to learn these the hard way. Enough said. Thanks for listening.
Bill
FS438
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dean Halstead" <deanbo(at)calweb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Whatever Goes Up ... |
It seems like a lot of these recent accident descriptions bear the signs of
poor pre-flight inspections. I'm not perfect and I've made a couple misses
of my own but as a GA pilot of thirty years, I never get in a plane without
giving it the once over.
I don't even trust fellow pilots when I ride co-pilot with them. I do my
own secondary pre-flights.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Thacker <gthacker(at)mciu.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Lubs and probes |
Just a couple of quick questions. I know in the past there has been
thoughts about lubs for hinges, cables, and pulleys etc. What is the
preferred lube for these things. I have heard, in the past that some of
the lubes attract dirt and can have a negative effect. What are you
guy's usin?
One other thing. I had to replace my CHT probes yesterday. Just
wonderin. Should the probes contact the head directly or should they go
between the compression ring and spark plug. Common sense would say the
head but ya never know. I would think they would "fit" better between
the the compession ring on the plug and the plug face. I don't know if
that little change would make that much difference.
Gary
Souderton,Pa.
gthacker(at)mciu.org
|
____F i r e S t a r____
___(+)___
(_)
\ /
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lubs and probes |
This'll be interesting. My understanding is that you're supposed to take
the factory ring off the plug, and just use the CHT sender. Let's see what
comments you generate. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Thacker <gthacker(at)mciu.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 1999 7:00 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Lubs and probes
>
>
> One other thing. I had to replace my CHT probes yesterday. Just
> wonderin. Should the probes contact the head directly or should they go
> between the compression ring and spark plug. Common sense would say the
> head but ya never know. I would think they would "fit" better between
> the the compession ring on the plug and the plug face. I don't know if
> that little change would make that much difference.
>
>
> Gary
> Souderton,Pa.
> gthacker(at)mciu.org
>
> |
> ____F i r e S t a r____
> ___(+)___
> (_)
> \ /
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Davis" <ldavis(at)gatem02.netusa1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lubs and probes |
I found I had a much better seal if I first removed the sparkplug
gasket, put the CHT sender on the sparkplug threads, and then re-
installed the gasket on the sparkplug threads. It also makes
threading the sparkplugs back into the head easier. IMHO
This'll be interesting. My understanding is that you're supposed to
take
the factory ring off the plug, and just use the CHT sender. Let's see
what comments you generate. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Thacker <gthacker(at)mciu.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 1999 7:00 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Lubs and probes
>
>
> One other thing. I had to replace my CHT probes yesterday. Just
> wonderin. Should the probes contact the head directly or should they go
> between the compression ring and spark plug. Common sense would say the
> head but ya never know. I would think they would "fit" better between
> the the compession ring on the plug and the plug face. I don't know if
> that little change would make that much difference.
>
>
> Gary
> Souderton,Pa.
> gthacker(at)mciu.org
>
> |
> ____F i r e S t a r____
> ___(+)___
> (_)
> \ /
>
>
--
Larry Davis
Marion, Indiana
Challenger 1 CW
http://www.netusa1.net/~ldavis/airplane.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan I. Goldman" <goldman(at)ameslab.gov> |
| Subject: | bent landing gear |
My partner and I just had the (apparently common) experience of bending a
gear leg during a rough landing. We need to replace the leg on a 1986 Kolb
Twinstar MKII, and are tempted to get a rod of Al and have it tapered here
in town. Problem is, that we are not sure which aluminum grade, species,
etc... to use. Any help here would be greatly appreciated.
thanks in advance
alan
Alan I. Goldman
Professor and Chair, Department of Physics and Astronomy
Senior Physicist, Ames Laboratory USDOE
Director, Midwest Universities Collaborative Access Team
A501 Physics Addition
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
phone: 515-294-3585, 515-294-5442
fax: 515-294-6027, 515-294-7129
email: goldman(at)ameslab.gov
homepage: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cmpexp/groups/goldman/homepage.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "merle hargis" <merlepilar(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Ailerons/ Cross Country trip |
You don't have to explain. I live in Orlando and fly all over central Fl.
I try to fly at least once a week and get my "fix" for the week.
Merle Hargis
(Twinstar) from Orlando
> I went on my first cross country with fellow LAFA (EAA Chapter 103)
> http://www.lafa.com/
> Home Page members this weekend. There
> were two Rans S-12's with 503's and a Buc 11 with a 582. We flew from
Miami
> due north over the Everglades and over Lake Okeechobee to three Airparks.
> Home sites were for sale, the area is east of Sebring, (home of Lockwood
> Aviation). Total flight about 280 miles round trip. I've lived in Florida
> just about my whole life, but have never seen it from the ultra-light
slow
> and low perspective. I was totally amazed at the sights. I was in sensory
> overload when I got home, was dead tired, but couldn't sleep. I spent the
> next day, Sunday, walking around in a stupor, like a drug addict coming
off a
> high.
>
> Like the old Harley Davidson saying goes...If I have to explain, you
won't
> understand...
>
> Rich Bragassa
> Mk lll
> Miami, Fl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | MKIII ailerons/elevator trim |
Today I had a chance to try out the ailerons in a reflexed condition
to see if they felt any lighter. Since I knew from previous experience
that reflexing the ailerons makes the MKIII fly as if it were tailheavy,
I went ahead and added trim tabs to the elevators to give it a little
more of a nose down tendency.
Since I had previously modified the stainless steel "L" brackets
at the front of the horizontal stab, raising the front of the
horizontal stab to also help get rid of the tendency to nose up,
I found that I had created some really weird trim conditions.
The trim tabs on the elevators are 16" long, and started out 2"
wide (not counting the part that is rivited to the elevator).
The are on the top, and slant up at about a 20 degree angle.
That was too big, and combined with the raised front stabilizer
brackets, they create two different unsatisfactory trim situations.
At higher speeds and higher power settings, (70 MPH, 5800 RPM)
it required most of the available up elevator trim to stabilize level
flight.
At lower power settings and speeds (50 MPH, 4800 RPM) the airplane
would once again try to nose up and slow down some more at the
same elevator trim setting.
More disturbing, I got the distinct impression that the combination
of down elevator trim tabs and the raised front edge of the stabilizer
created an unstable situation, the airplane no longer felt like it would
behave itself properly in all situations. Pitch unstable at certain speeds.
Also felt that adding or reducing power further destabilized the situation.
Ailerons had been reflexed up 4 turns of the end fitting from the way they
normally are, no apparent improvement.
Removed the shims from the front of the stabilizer and tried it again.
Now it was stable, but different speeds affected how effective the
elevator trim tabs were. Too effective at high speeds, not enough
at low speeds.
Landed and trimmed 1/2" off the back edge of the trim tabs.
Much more consistent at all speeds, still needed a little more up
elevator trim than It seemed like it should.
Reflexed the ailerons up 4 turns more, and things were better all around.
The balance between the elevator tabs and the ailerons was very good,
only needed a little up elevator trim from the stock lever, and and trim was
close to constant at all speeds.
Ailerons were lighter, especially at slower speeds, still a bit too heavy
at higher speeds. The improvement in the ailerons was good enough
that adding spades or servo tabs is no longer likely an option for me, will
wait until I fly two up to see if maybe I can reflex them up a bit more
and see how that works.
Right now the apparent reflex is such that in flight, the ailerons look to be
up about three degrees from parallel to the bottom of the wing.
Trimmed another 1/8" off the rear of one of the elevator trim tabs, now it
seems just about right.
Handling qualities now are better than ever, and that was always good.
Realize this has been pretty long, but maybe it will help some one
else work their way through the same situation.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lubs and probes |
Kolbers and non Kolbers,
Any lubrication on the hinges is better than none. There was a test done on moving
metal parts years ago. What was found is that metal wears 300 time faster
without lubrication than it does with lubrication. It was done on motorcycle
chains back in the 70s. I found out through my on experimentation that I could
make a moto cross bike chain last some 10 times as long with a continuous supply
of oil running to the chain from a reserve that I had built into the frame.
I proved the test results myself this way. I could run a whole day of racing
without so much as having to adjust the chain while my racing buddies were constantly
having the adjust and replace their chains and sprockets.
I use the used gearbox oil to lube my hinges and all the metal pivot points on
the whole airframe. Anything that moves or even vibrates needs some oil. I take
a cable tie and dip it in a small container that holds an oz. or two of the
gear oil. This way I can control how much oil I want to use and see where it
is going. After I apply I wipe all excess. The small amount that gets to the
point of pivot is all that is needed to make all your moving metal parts last
a good portion of the life of the airframe.
Although a smooth running engine and prop has a lot to do with wear on the airframe
and after 750 hours on mine I believe now it will at lest take another 750
hours before I even think of replacing hinges. So far there is no appreciable
wear on the hinges and there want be any dirt on them either as long as I wipe
them off while I do my walk around.
Now that I know you know how to make your moving parts last let me tell you how
I keep my plugs from ever leaking oil around their base. I use an anti seize
stick I get from Advanced Auto that looks like a Crayola crayon with the paper
wrapped around it. I learned this from the old A&P that works at our field. As
often as we should change and check our plugs we should always use it to keep
the threads in the heads from getting worn out. The best thing is it will keep
the oil from seeping out around the base of the plugs.
After I tighten new plugs down to compress the ring gasket I pull it out and put
the thermo couple on the bottom next to the head with anti seize on the threads.
A little anti seize goes a long way. It works well for me and they don't
leak. The CHT gauge doesn't seem to know the difference.
I got to fly 3.6 hours today and landed at 3 different places with two of wingmen.
Hope y'all had as happy a day also. I had so much fun I think I'll do it again
tomorrow. We're
"sky hole pok'rs" down here in the panhandle.
Negative reflex does help in a lot of ways, especially in hands off flying.
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Beauford Tuton" <beaufordw(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bent landing gear |
Alan:
For whatever it's worth... the legs on the Firefly are
7075-T651... rpt 7075-T651... good luck
Bill Tuton
Building at FF 076
Brandon, Fl.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan I. Goldman <goldman(at)ameslab.gov>
Date: Saturday, July 31, 1999 2:20 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: bent landing gear
>
>My partner and I just had the (apparently common) experience of bending a
>gear leg during a rough landing. We need to replace the leg on a 1986 Kolb
>Twinstar MKII, and are tempted to get a rod of Al and have it tapered here
>in town. Problem is, that we are not sure which aluminum grade, species,
>etc... to use. Any help here would be greatly appreciated.
>
>thanks in advance
>
>alan
>
>
>Alan I. Goldman
>
>Professor and Chair, Department of Physics and Astronomy
>Senior Physicist, Ames Laboratory USDOE
>Director, Midwest Universities Collaborative Access Team
>
>A501 Physics Addition
>Iowa State University
>Ames, IA 50011
>
>phone: 515-294-3585, 515-294-5442
>fax: 515-294-6027, 515-294-7129
>email: goldman(at)ameslab.gov
>homepage:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cmpexp/groups/goldman/homepage.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
> I'm glad to hear that 4 more turns are gonna make even better
>results.I weigh 210, Old Poops, what do you go?I was suprised to hear
>about trim concerns .
I weigh 190, and my Kolb always acted tail heavy solo, unless I drooped
the ailerons a tiny bit. Not any more. Flew this afternoon, took a passenger,
very nice, and the ailerons are a bit better. (4 more turns out since this
morning)
Ailerons look to be about 4 degrees higher than parallel to the wing lower
surface
while in flight.
> I looked at an Air Command gyro today. Built in 92-93 from a 91
>kit. 582,prerotator, stock-never flown. It seems they have an annoying
>tendency to tip over when a certian situation arrises. This one had new
>draggon rotor blades and seemed in good shape.Somebody tell me some
>reasons why I shouldn't buy this thing, Please.5 thou.
The wife of our former chapter president is a widow. Snowbird two seater.
A bolt tucked into a control system cluster behind the second seat was
not visible/accessable during preflight. Closed casket funeral.
He was a scrupulous perfectionist, and a flight instructor,
but it got him and his student anyway.
I am a firm believer in staying away from anything where all the
crucial stuff that keeps you aloft, or can decapitate you, is in unstable
motion.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List - First flight |
Too bad you're just lurking. Sounds like you're really up and doing
it - - - the right way. Congratulations, and good luck. Keep us posted.
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Cooley <johnc(at)datasync.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 1999 7:41 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List - First flight
>
> Hello Gang:
> Well I finally got in the air today. Here's a quick recap of my plane
as
> I'm sure most of you don't remember. I purchased a 1988 model Twinstar MK
11
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
I think I'd be real wary of anything that has a tendency to "tip over."
I've got a real hard head, but the rest of me is real fragile. I'm
thoroughly enjoying this input on aileron reflexing. Keep it up, and
thanks. Sensitive Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 1999 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: landings
>
>
> > I looked at an Air Command gyro today. Built in 92-93 from a 91
> >kit. 582,prerotator, stock-never flown. It seems they have an annoying
> >tendency to tip over when a certian situation arrises. This one had new
> >draggon rotor blades and seemed in good shape.Somebody tell me some
> >reasons why I shouldn't buy this thing, Please.5 thou.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: bent landing gear |
>
>My partner and I just had the (apparently common) experience of bending a
>gear leg during a rough landing. We need to replace the leg on a 1986 Kolb
>Twinstar MKII, and are tempted to get a rod of Al and have it tapered here
>in town. Problem is, that we are not sure which aluminum grade, species,
>etc... to use. Any help here would be greatly appreciated.
>
>thanks in advance
>
>alan
>
>
I think it is 7075. It is a common grade. Some of the guys on the list
are using 4130 steel for the legs.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Reflexed Ailerons |
I,too noticed rather heavy ailerons on my Firestar I; I think this is
probably not a bad thing as the less "yank & bank" you do the more likely you
are to stay out of trouble.
However.....
On Friday, I reflexed my ailerons up four turns & did indeed find them
lighter & more responsive without any noticeable change in climb performance
or any pitch change.
My CG is dead in the middle of the recommended range. I do have
counterbalances but don't believe they have much effect on 'heaviness'.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan I. Goldman" <goldman(at)ameslab.gov> |
Hi all,
Thanks for the response on the gear rod material. A couple more questions
if anyone can answer.
We just purchased a Twinstar MKII (serial #4)with a Rotax 582. Apparently
the plane was sent back to the factory to beef up the support for the
engine. What we don't know are the relevent numbers for typical empty
weigt, gross weight, c.g. range (with respect to, say, the leading edge of
the wing) and various speeds for safe operation. The owners manual was not
with the mound of paper we received.
The plane was orignally on a set of full lotus floats, that we have since
removed, and the tail wheel support was extended down to account for the
added height of the tube above the floats. Now we need to shorten that
tube to bring the planed back to its original configuration. What angle
should the tube be with respect to the horizontal ( that will tell me how
much shorter the tailwheel support has to be). In addition, there is a
steel wire strung between the two mains that has snapped (in an unfortunate
landing). Does anyone know what the tension in that cable should be? All
information about the twinstar would be appreciated. We would be
especially grateful if anyone can supply us with a copy of a manual for a
1986 Twinstar MKII.
thanks in advance
alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Missing Man @ Wimauma |
Hi Beauford,
Another Sunday's flying is in the log books (so to speak). Ann and I went
out to Wimauma International about 8:00 am and unfolded the UltraStar.and I
flew it for about 45 minutes. There were three trikes on the field and two
of them flew. The 3rd one was just bought by a gent that lives up near
Lake City and has his own strip and a Cessna 150. He bought the trike and
now needs to learn to fly it. Unfortunately, he had been travelling most
of the night and didn't feel up to the challenge of learning something new
today.
A friend of one of the trike owners ("James A Barone"
) seems rather interested in Kolb aircraft. I
don't know if he has any flight experience or not, but he enjoys riding in
the trikes. When I told him that there was a man in Brandon building a
Kolb Firefly he seemed VERY interested in seeing how one was built. He is
a professional mechanic so I doubt if the project would be beyond his
capabilities. In any case, I gave him your e-mail address and you might
hear from him as I'm sure he has some questions. (I too would like to see
your project:)
In a previous message to me you said something to the effect that you
brought your boat back to MacDill. Are you retired from the military? I
was both an enlisted man and an officer in both the Air Force and the Navy.
Retired in 1979. 20 years ago---- damn I'm getting old!
Regards,
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MKIII ailerons...another cross country |
<< Reflexed the ailerons up 4 turns more, and things were better all around.
>>
Richard,
Looks like my friends info was some what accurate...I tried 3 turns this
weekend, with a very slight improvement in stick pressure. My adjustment is
approx. 3/8". If I understand your info you went 4 turns and then another 4?
What would that be in inch measurement from the trailing edge of the aileron,
and the bottom of the wing? Since we all build a little different our
"turns" will have other values. I would like to "crank" in some more turns.
I went on another cross country this weekend. My buddy and I flew from Miami
due west across the Everglades to the west coast to Everglades City (a
fishing community). Great trip, one hour fifteen minutes with a five mph tail
wind. The Airport is small, but probable the most modern and nicest in the
State. The Airport manager, John treated us like Royality. We ate lunch, at a
local joint and watched the weather building up in the NW, probably an hour
or two away. I called our buddies on the phone at our club field in
Homestead. They said the weather was clear there, so we halled butt back to
Miami.
The elephants were walking in front of that rain at 500 to 1,000 feet, so we
climed to 5,000. It was real smooth, but cold as hell...no doors...tee shirts
and shorts...... We were cruising at 75 indicated with a 10 mph tail wind.
Got back in 50 minutes. Sure enough 4 hours later in the afternoon the rain
came in, but I was in my Lazy-Boy dreaming about next weekend.......
Rich Bragassa
Mk lll
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: pucker patch |
In a message dated 7/28/99 9:56:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
hping(at)hyperaction.net writes:
<< http://www.hyperaction.net/hping
>>
Howard, you are a talented guy and have created a bit of heaven on earth...it
is quite easy to see......keep it up buddy!!...........GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "plane" <plane(at)atomic.net> |
| Subject: | Re: For Sale: Kolb Ultrastar |
-----Original Message-----
From: Clarence R. Perry Jr. <perryr(at)123.net>
Date: Friday, July 30, 1999 7:06 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: For Sale: Kolb Ultrastar
>
>For Sale:
>1984 Kolb Ultrastar
>100 Hours TTE/A
>Flew great until aborted take-off/crash in June 1999.
>Serious fuselage/landing gear damage (Cromoly steel)
>Some holes in wing covering from prop turning into toothpicks.
>Cuyuna UL/II Engine still runs great.
>I have all original build plans and revisions plus original builders
>notes/sales receipts.
>Comes with fully enclosed trailer. Helmet.
>
>Great project for someone who knows how to weld and has the time.
>
>Asking $2000.00 for all or trade for PPG.
>
>Located in Michigan.
>
>For Crash pics, see:
>http://mula.perrydice.com/ultrasta.htm
>
>For what it look like before/and trailer, see:
>http://mula.perrydice.com/robsnew.htm
>
>Thanks for your time,
>Rob Perry
>rob.perry(at)perrydice.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Density Altitude |
Seems like every time I go for a taildragger lesson, something more comes of
it than I expect. This Fri., the 30th, it was back to APV for another shot
at the Champ. My share-expense passenger couldn't make it till 9:00 AM, so
we were an hour later getting up there. After pre-flighting the student
(me) and then the plane, we didn't commence to Aviate till after 11:00 AM.
Bad Mistake. This is High Desert, folks, getting up toward Doc's neck of
the woods. Hot and windy. APV is at 3059' msl, and by the time we started
we had a 10-12 mph crosswind - 90 to runway 18. Let's just say that the
1st takeoff was.................interesting. I could hear John suck in air
in the back seat, even over the engine noise. Nuffa that !!! Events 2, 3,
and 4 we did off rwy 26, and it was much better, except that by takeoff # 4,
the temp was up to 103. Aircraft is a Champ with just 75 hp, and 380 lb.
of student and instructor. Terrain west of 26 rises toward a small mountain
about a mile or so away. Our pitiful rate of climb was just barely greater
than the rising ground. We managed a normal pattern, and called it a day.
Density Altitude in Action. Surprising thing was that t.o. # 3 was fine.
Climb in the Champ isn't anything to brag about at the best of times, but it
was sufficient. In the time it took to do the pattern, make a full stop,
taxi back, and go for # 4, there was a great difference. Lest you think
we're completely insane, our out was descending ground to the north, but
would have required a right turn, and blown the pattern. Still, it was
there if we needed it. A side note is that our planned lunch at Big
Bear, (L35) was out of the question. Would have taken all day to climb up
there in the 172. Fun, fun, fun, in the warm California sun. Except that
I guess everybody has had that blistering sun this past week. Not much fun
is it ?? Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII ailerons...another cross country |
>Looks like my friends info was some what accurate...I tried 3 turns this
>weekend, with a very slight improvement in stick pressure. My adjustment is
>approx. 3/8". If I understand your info you went 4 turns and then another 4?
>What would that be in inch measurement from the trailing edge of the aileron,
>and the bottom of the wing? Since we all build a little different our
>"turns" will have other values. I would like to "crank" in some more turns.
Really don't know how much in inches. Just looking at the end of the wing,
and where the aileron used to go straight back, now it looks like it goes up
about 3/8" in flight. Now that I think about it, I dont know if I turned
the end
fitting eight half turns (4 full turns) or twelve (six full turns). I just kept
turning and test flying until they reflexed up a little as you look at it
in flight.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antennas and Portland Seminar questions |
>Have been reading your comments on GlaStarNet with interest. I have a
couple
>of questions that perhaps you could help me with.
>
>1. I purchased and ACK ELT for installation in the GlaStar. In the
>installation instructions, it states that the antenna should be installed a
>minimum of 5 ft. from any com antenna.
>
>It does not state why, nor does it state the consequences if the above
>"should" is violated. The only two things I can think of is that if the ELT
>were activated, it could overload the rf into the com receiver.
>Alternatively, is it possible the com signal could overload the ELT
>transmitter, active or inactive? Do you have any knowledge of why the
>instruction is included?
Like software designers who believe their work is the most important
program on your computer and loads up your quick start icons with
a half dozen links to THEIR program, hardware designers constantly
dream about the ideal install of their equipment in your computer -OR-
airplane.
In the real world, there are few performance issues with respect to
antennas that ever get idealized on airplanes . . . especially the
lower frequency devices (VHF) . . . gee, when I got started in
electronics, 100 MHz was the edge of no-man's land . . . guys who
could make things work at 2-meters (144 MHz) were revered for
their technical accumen that was rumored to include special
blessings and perhaps a bit of black-magic.
Nowadays, we're all wishing that 50 year old VHF "junk"
would just go away. Transponders, GPS and Cell-phone
antennas (900 MHz and up) are about as close to ideal installs as
you can get in any vehicle. 100 MHz has become the new "low"
frequency service with its huge, bulky antenna and quirky idealized
requirments that are hard to achieve on anything smaller than
a DC-9 . . .
If your ELT were really, Really, REALLY close to the com
transmit antenna, there might be some risk of the com transmitter
popping somethign in the ELT but were talking inches of separation.
Given that the output stages of the ELT are another TRANSMITTER
designed to handle considerable power comparted to the sensitive
amplifiers in the front end of a RECEIVER, it's unlikely that
the ELT can be damaged by proximity coupled energy from another
light plane transmitter (airlines use 25 watt transmitters and
are potentially more dangerous to other on-board systems).
Bottom line is install things were they (1) fit, (2) look best
or (3) work best . . . according to most builders choices
(1) and (2) are handily accomodated by installing
all antennas inside the tailcone . . . keeps of the bugs, rain,
and make the airplane look really sharp. Given that you've probably
spent $K$ on your electro-goodies, it would be nice that they
also work . . . My best advice is to look over installations
other builders have been flying and if they're happy with the
way things work, your chances of a similar result are good.
>2. I am thinking (and dealing with time conflict) of attending your seminar
>in Portland (possibly another preson as well). What is the sign-up
deadline?
> Can we sign-up/pay at the seminar?
The Portland gig was postponed for lack of interest. We're in the
re-organization mode. Watch the seminar webpage. We'll also announce
new dates and places on the various lists.
To other list-servers . . . I've been out of town a lot over the
past month and have a couple of trips (weekend only) yet this
month . . . this is why I've been so quiet lately on the lists.
I've been able to teach my laptop how to dial using a calling card
so I was able to keep up with most e-mail while Dee and I were on
an extended trip earlier last month.
Right now, I'm sitting at a folding table in our new office
here at the house. No furniture in it yet but I do have the
copy machine installed. Spent most of the weekend installing all
the telephone and networking cables in the walls . . . carpenter
things are not my favorite pastimes! Got all the phone system
up and running about 1 a.m. this morning.
When all the office furniture is out of the shop, we'll be adding
about 200 square feet of new shelving and plan to greatly expand
our electro-goodies inventory. I've got a guy working on a new
website with a shopping cart catalog. The goal by the end of the
year is to become a truely one-stop-shopping source for all your
electrical system needs.
It's going to take several more days to get the office back together
so I may continue to be more "distant" than usual . . . but I'll
be back!
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Independence Kansas: the >
< Jurassic Park of aviation. >
< Your source for brand new >
< 40 year old airplanes. >
=================================
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | RE: Flaps reflex... |
The flaps replex discussion has been interesting. A recent post:
>Dell,
>
>That's real good news. I'm going to try the fix tomorrow. I don't know about
>more adjustment. I guess the info was good.....the counterbalances probably
>will help a little too. Maybe a few other Kolbers will try the fix, then we
>can come up with a resolution !!!!
>
>Rich Bragassa
I have always had the counterbalances on (the mkiii). This weekend I tried the
reflex ideas too. I assumed that you guys were adjusting BOTH the ailerons AND
flaps, right??? That's what I did, adjusted all four surfaces up about 1/2", as
measured at the rear tip of the surfaces. This took a couple turns of each end
of each linkage. After adjustment, the surfaces appeared to be slightly higher
than parrallel with the bottom of the wing, when in flight. They may have been
too low before. Flight results: no detectable change in trim bias, no
detactable change in stall or top speed, no detectable change in control force
to move ailerons.
Since I have not yet affected the trim bias, should I go further?
Jim Gerken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | BACK FROM OSHKOSH |
Just got back from Oshkosh. The new owners are real nice. They have a new
Mark 3 (actually his) and a new slingshot with a 912 that they were flying.
They are also plavving a flyin in Kentucky in September, near the end (forgot
the date).
I live in the Virginia Washington DC area if anybody ion the area wants to go
maybe we can go together. (trailer to the place)
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flaps reflex... |
>
>I have always had the counterbalances on (the mkiii). This weekend I
tried the
>reflex ideas too. I assumed that you guys were adjusting BOTH the
ailerons AND
>flaps, right???
I had previously modified the flap control handle so that I can adjust the
flaps up and
down in small increments to affect trim, so: yes.
That's what I did, adjusted all four surfaces up about
>1/2", as
>measured at the rear tip of the surfaces. This took a couple turns of
each end
>of each linkage. After adjustment, the surfaces appeared to be slightly
>higher
>than parrallel with the bottom of the wing, when in flight. They may have
been
>too low before. Flight results: no detectable change in trim bias, no
>detactable change in stall or top speed, no detectable change in control force
>to move ailerons.
> Jim Gerken
Interesting. On my MKIII, any change in aileron or flap raising/drooping
immediately
raises or lowers the nose quite a bit.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Flaps and Aileron reflex: |
Think about this+ADs-
If you leave the flaps set straight in line with the bottom of the wing and the
ailerons were set up from the bottom about 4-5 degrees would not this give
you a positive control in a stall? This would make the inside of the wing next
to the wing root stall first but the outside of the wing next to the tip would
still be flying being you have effectively reduced the angle of attack by turning
up the ailerons, therefore you would be given a small advantage in time
and control as the wing is approaching and during the stall. The Lazair ultralight
has a slightly washed out wing for this purpose. With no flaps a pilot
could put the Lazair in a complete stall at very slow speed but as the whole wing
dropped the ailerons were still effective to somewhat because they had not
stalled nor did the wing tip. It could be stalled for long descents with a good
portion of control.
Based on experimentation in my opinion there is an advantage to turning up the
flaps and ailerons for cruise but if they is turned up to much and I do mean a
lot your stall speed will increase and there is a point that it can add drag.
There is a balance though that works very well for cruise and stalls. This is
where you might want to look. It's like fine tuning your aircraft to perform
to its' optimum. Every wing is a little different so the exact thing that works
for one may or may not work for another.
I'm just trying to give something to think about while you are flying along wondering
how to improve a good design. It will also give you something else to
do next weekend.
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flaps reflex... |
| From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
Jim/Richard,
How do your CG's compare??????
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
Building Mark III, SN 312
writes:
>>detactable change in stall or top speed, no detectable change in
>control force
>>to move ailerons.
>> Jim Gerken
>
>Interesting. On my MKIII, any change in aileron or flap
>raising/drooping
>immediately
>raises or lowers the nose quite a bit.
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 <sbaew(at)dames.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: CG calculations |
Im getting ready for test flight in Mark III with a 912 and did some
center of gravity calculations. Perhaps a few of the old hands out there
could look over my shoulder and see if anything looks funny to you? Not
having built the plane myself, Im going off of what I as able to get old
Kolb to send to me, Ben Ransoms Firestar web site, and Kolb list
postings. I expected the plane to be tail heavy with the 912, but was a
little surprised that I had to put 52 lbs in the nose of the plane to
reach mid-range of what is recommended. Check it out:
CENTER OF GRAVITY CALCULATION
(Sorry if the formatting of this post gets messed up through the e-mail
system.)
The basics:
Empty weight=510 lbs (plane, parachute, no gas, no pilot or passenger
Plane attitude at 9 degrees pitch upward, as measured along bottom
surface of wing with 4-foot level and ruler set at 7.5 inches.
Measuring points for weight: R wheel, L wheel, T wheel
Datum for CG calculation: leading edge of wing
Avg. Wing chord = 66 in. (leading edge to trailing edge of wing,
including flap)
Distances between measuring
points and datum: R wheel: 7"
L wheel: 7"
T wheel: 207"
(all measurements aft of datum; i.e they will have positive moments)
Formula: Total Moment = Weight x Distance
Case: Plane + 9.5 gallons gas + me (188 lbs) with radio and helmet + 52
lbs nose weight (Nose weight center of mass approximately 49" in front of
datum)
Measured wt Distance Moment
(lbs) (inches) (inch-lbs)
R wheel 349 7 2,443
L wheel 409 7 2,863
T wheel 53 207 10,971
Total Wt. 811 Total Moment 16,277
Resultant Distance = Total Moment / Total Weight
= 16,277 / 811
= 20.1
% chord = Resultant Distance / Avg Wing Chord
= 20.1 / 66 = 30.4%
(acceptable range: 25-35%)
Conclusions: optimum balance achieved for case of me as pilot, full
tank of gas, and added nose weight
Does everything look hunky-dory here?
Did a theoretical calculation to consider same circumstances but with a
low fuel tank (~3 gal gas). CG was still very near optimum. Appears
that with the 52 lbs nose weight in place, amount of fuel in tank affects
CG very little. I guess thats a good thing......
Did a for-real CG check with full tank, passenger (168 lbs) and no nose
weight added; CG was right in middle of acceptable range. That should
make it easy: add full nose weight when by myself; remove all nose
weight when have passenger of average build.
Thanks in advance for any critiques of my methods and results.
Plan on using a test pilot who weighs a little less than me, so will be
looking at the affect of a lighter pilot as well...
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flaps and Aileron reflex: |
>
>
>Think about this+ADs-
> If you leave the flaps set straight in line with the bottom of the wing
>and the ailerons were set up from the bottom about 4-5 degrees would not
>this give you a positive control in a stall? This would make the inside of
>the wing next to the wing root stall first but the outside of the wing next
>to the tip would still be flying being you have effectively reduced the
>angle of attack by turning up the ailerons, therefore you would be given a
>small advantage in time and control as the wing is approaching and during
>the stall.
Agree. It would be better to have the ailerons a little higher.
>Based on experimentation in my opinion there is an advantage to turning up
>the flaps and ailerons for cruise but if they is turned up to much and I do
>mean a lot your stall speed will increase and there is a point that it can
>add drag. There is a balance though that works very well for cruise and
>stalls. This is where you might want to look. It's like fine tuning your
>aircraft to perform to its' optimum.
Agree again. So far my solo rate of climb is staying right at 1000' FPM
and dual the other day, 180 lb. passenger, 83 degrees was 600-700 FPM.
Cruise is the same or better than before, dual or solo. Stall no change.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Appleton <randy(at)euclid.acs.NMU.EDU> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 07/26/99 |
I was talking to the ultralight instructor who lives nearest my house.
Unfortunately, he lives 4 hours away by car. Anyway, he was telling me
that ultralight activity is down both locally (Northern Michigan) and
nationally. He seemed rather depressed about it, but not unreasonably so.
My question is: How is the state of ultralight activity? Increasing,
decreasing?
-Much Thanks
-Randy
========================================================================
|| Randy Appleton, Professor of Computer Science at Northern Michigan ||
|| University. And a big fan of Linux! ||
================= mailto:randy(at)euclid.nmu.edu ==========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flaps reflex... |
Solo, I am diet limited. Right now I weigh 190. If I get down below 165, I need
to add a passenger, or wear heavier shoes. So I am somewhat near the
rear CG solo. ( I could go out and dig the paperwork out, and give you
specific numbers, but you get the idea.)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Jim/Richard,
>
>How do your CG's compare??????
>
>L. Ray Baker
>Lake Butler, Fl
>Building Mark III, SN 312
>
>
>>no detectable change in stall or top speed, no detectable change in
>>control force
>>>to move ailerons.
>>> Jim Gerken
>>
>>Interesting. On my MKIII, any change in aileron or flap
>>raising/drooping
>>immediately
>>raises or lowers the nose quite a bit.
>>Richard Pike
>>MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: CG calculations |
>
>Im getting ready for test flight in Mark III with a 912 and did some
>center of gravity calculations. Perhaps a few of the old hands out there
>could look over my shoulder and see if anything looks funny to you? Not
>having built the plane myself, Im going off of what I as able to get old
>Kolb to send to me, Ben Ransoms Firestar web site, and Kolb list
>postings. I expected the plane to be tail heavy with the 912, but was a
>little surprised that I had to put 52 lbs in the nose of the plane to
>reach mid-range of what is recommended. Check it out:
You don't have to hit the "Middle" just stay within bounds would be O.K.
I,m at 36% and flys great.
But on the other hand you can always take weight out, of the nose after you
fly it for a while. They turn better a "little" Tail heavy it seems to
me-so far.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lubs and probes |
has anyone used chain wax?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WEBEFLYRS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Lubs and probes |
WHATS IT FOR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lubs and probes |
Waxes yer chain.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Unscribe |
Please remove me from your mailing list, Thank You very much.
JL1339(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Please remove me from your mailing list, Thank You very much.
JL1339(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lubs and probes |
>has anyone used chain wax?
I find chain wax to be a superior lubricant for motorcycle chains, but I'm
not certain that it would be the best thing for aircraft hinges. To be
effective on a motorcycle, the chain must be warmed up by riding for awhile
before application. I doubt that physically moving an aileron or elevator
back and forth would generate the heat necessary. :) Maybe warming the
hinge with a heat gun prior to application would work? I can only guess
that chain wax would be a little cleaner than oil.
Personally, I just use a little engine oil (in a squirt can) and then wipe
off the excess.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 07/26/99 |
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Appleton <randy(at)euclid.acs.NMU.EDU>
Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 1:40 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 07/26/99
Anyway, he was telling me
> that ultralight activity is down both locally (Northern Michigan) and
> nationally
Hi All:
Seems to be increasing in here in South Ms. Hearing reports at work of
lots of Ultralight sightings over the weekend.
Still high from first flight in my plane! Hope to get another fix
Wednesday morning.
Later,
John Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flaps reflex... |
I have always had the counterbalances on (the mkiii). This weekend I tried
the
reflex ideas too. I assumed that you guys were adjusting BOTH the ailerons
AND
flaps, right??? That's what I did, adjusted all four surfaces up about 1/2",
as
measured at the rear tip of the surfaces. This took a couple turns of each
end
of each linkage.
Jim,
My info was to raise only the ailerons, I think raising both would defeat the
purpose. I'm going to try a little more next weekend to see if theres a
noticable difference. Richard Pike got some good results so far.....lets
see.....
Rich Bragassa
Mklll
Miami, Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Official Usage Guideline [Please Read] [Monthly |
Posting]
unsubcribe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | flaps, trim, CG, etc... |
I am afraid that I don't have the info handy either, but here's my rough
figures: I have placarded it "Minimum solo pilot 150 lbs." If I remember
correctly, that is 37% CG. I weigh 190. I will go to the airport and check
this out on the paperwork, and report back again if it is different than
reported here.
>From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: Flaps reflex...
>.
>
>
>Solo, I am diet limited. Right now I weigh 190. If I get down below 165, I need
>to add a passenger, or wear heavier shoes. So I am somewhat near the
>rear CG solo. ( I could go out and dig the paperwork out, and give you
>specific numbers, but you get the idea.)
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>>
>
>>
>>Jim/Richard,
>>
>>How do your CG's compare??????
>>
>>L. Ray Baker
>>Lake Butler, Fl
>>Building Mark III, SN 312
>>
>>
>>>no detectable change in stall or top speed, no detectable change in
>>>control force
>.>>to move ailerons.
>>>> Jim Gerken
>.>
>>>Interesting. On my MKIII, any change in aileron or flap
>>.raising/drooping
>.>>immediately
>>>raises or lowers the nose quite a bit.
>>>Richard Pike
>>>MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron C Reece" <rcreec(at)ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> |
Gang
As much as I'd like to say that things are going great with construction of my
FSII, things aren't. I just realized that after finishing both horizontal
stabilizers and most of the verticals, I realized that I used the 3/8s tubing
for bracing instead of the 5/16 stuff. #@&$@*#!!!! Is this a problem? Do I
need to change it out? I know I have to reorder same, but I really don't want
to rip things apart so soon. Any thoughts folks?
Signed
ashamed
Ron Reece
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douglas G. Murray" <dgmurray(at)telusplanet.net> |
Ron C Reece wrote:
> Gang
>
> As much as I'd like to say that things are going great with construction of my
> FSII, things aren't. I just realized that after finishing both horizontal
> stabilizers and most of the verticals, I realized that I used the 3/8s tubing
> for bracing instead of the 5/16 stuff. #@&$@*#!!!! Is this a problem? Do
I
> need to change it out? I know I have to reorder same, but I really don't want
> to rip things apart so soon. Any thoughts folks?
>
> Signed
> ashamed
>
> Ron Reece
Ron - you will probably make many more mistakes as you build your aircraft. Don't
feel ashamed over mistakes 'cause that's how we learn. Since you are just starting
your project you will be on a steep learning curve and will make more mistakes
now
than later. It is better for you to step back from your project and reorder the
new tubing for your stabilator now, than to make a choice to compromise your
project and be happy with mistakes. Remember - it will be your life on the line
when you are up in the sky flying. Do you really want to be in an aircraft that
you _know_ that you could have built better?
Have fun building and do it right.
Doug Murray FireStar 1 flying since 1990
Southern Alberta
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
It want hurt to use a little larger tubing in the tail feather bracing. It will
add a tad more weight. It shouldn't change the CG. I for one would not take it
out and I would go ahead and order to replace that that I had used you need
it later. Do think about it and take your time. You'll make a lot more mistakes
before you are through. The trick is to keep them at a minimum.
One mistake I made was not getting out all the little metal shavings out of the
wing and tail before I covered. You just can't be vigilant enough on getting
out every little speck before you cover. They'll show up just about the time you
get ready to paint. Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
>
>
>Gang
>
>As much as I'd like to say that things are going great with construction of my
>FSII, things aren't. I just realized that after finishing both horizontal
>stabilizers and most of the verticals, I realized that I used the 3/8s tubing
>for bracing instead of the 5/16 stuff. #@&$@*#!!!! Is this a problem? Do I
>need to change it out? I know I have to reorder same, but I really don't want
>to rip things apart so soon. Any thoughts folks?
>
>Signed
>ashamed
Gosh no oone on this list has ever screwed up before. I am not sure which
tubes you are refering to but if it is the ones I am thinking about I would
leave them in and order more 3/8 tube to replace what you accidentally used
up. I doubt if it added that much extra weight to the tail. If you used 5/16
instead of 3/8 I would be worried
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
Ron, been there done that.
I use the 3/8" tube only on the vertical stabilizer. Dennis Souder said it
was no problem, he also sent me replacement tubing at no charge. I'm not use
to mentally converting fractions to decimal or vice versa.
The plans shows the dimension in fractions and the tube's dimensions are
printed in decimal. I think the plans should show the dimension in fractions
as well as in decimals.
Nowadays to double check I'm using the right tube size is by side an open end
wrench, http://member.aol.com/fs2kolb/pictures/19.jpg
I also printed a fraction to decimal conversion chart and pasted it on the
wall.
Don't get discourage, It's all part of the learning experience.
Will Uribe
http://member.aol.com/WillU/index.html
>
>
>
> Gang
>
> As much as I'd like to say that things are going great with construction
of
> my
> FSII, things aren't. I just realized that after finishing both
horizontal
> stabilizers and most of the verticals, I realized that I used the 3/8s
> tubing
> for bracing instead of the 5/16 stuff. #@&$@*#!!!! Is this a problem?
Do
> I
> need to change it out? I know I have to reorder same, but I really don't
> want
> to rip things apart so soon. Any thoughts folks?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Prop pitch & EGTs |
HI Gang:
This subject has received a lot of coverage on the list. John Hauk has put
out some valuable info and John, if you have recovered from Oshkosh, I'd
appreciate you jumping in here.
Background. Engine is 582 with "C" box at 3:1 ratio. Operating from an
airport at 2700 MSL and density altitude of 3900 ft. Engine starts quick,
runs smooth and idles well.
I purchased a Powerfin "F" model 68 inch three blade and when winds permit I
have been trying to dial in the proper pitch. The Ivo three 67 1/2 blade that
was previously installed loaded the engine to the extent that RPM never
exceeded 6000. EGTs were always around 1000 and below for all throttle
openings. The thing ran so cool that I never got specific numbers. Temps were
always in the low side of the green arc.
Started the Powerfin pitch setting at the factory recommended 10.5 degrees
tip angle, which was way too little, and have been increasing pitch from
there. Once in the range that the static RPM was around 6100-6200 I began
flight testing. I am now to 12.5 degrees pitch. Performance is good. WOT in
level flight is redline. Full throttle climb temps are 1000. However, as
soon as throttle was reduced from max power the temps went up to 1200. Idle
was OK below 1000.
Since I BELIEVED the prop is pitched close I then raised the needles to the
bottom clip (one notch) and the mid range temps now seem only slightly above
the full throttle temps. But it seemed that at cruise power the engine was
not quite as smooth. This was hard to determine because by late morning there
was lots of wind and thermal activity.
I do understand the relationships of loading and EGT on two strokes. But, I
am wondering if I should have increased pitch another half degree before
going to the needles? This, particularly since the old installation had good
temps.
I'd appreciated numbers from those with similar installation on the
following:
1) RPM and EGT for full throttle climb.
2) EGT at cruise RPM
3) EGT at partial power descent (3500 to 4000 RPM)
4) Blade angle at tip
Thanks for your input.
Bill George
MK-3 582 Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis & Diane Kirby <kirbyd(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Cutting Instrument Panel Holes |
Hey, Gang -
I'm stuck, and need some advice. (Be kind, all - this is the first
human-carrying airplane I've ever built.)
I am ready to begin cutting out instrument panel holes, and want to go
about it properly.
(My instrument panel is .063 alum sheet, same size & shape as the stock
fiberglas panel on the nosecone, only offset 6 inches aft from the
nosecone. It's supported by an alum framework and hinges at the bottom
for fold-down easy access to instruments. Also, the alum panel is
shock-mounted to its support structure ... good news for the
instruments. Top glare shield (.025 Al sheet) finishes appearance
nicely. Thanks again, Cliff, for the excellent idea!)
Earlier this year, when I asked the List about instrument holes, the
advice was generally that one could use door-hole saws - the kind used
for wood or aluminum doors. I've seen these at the hardware store, 3
inches diam. Hole size requirement is 3 and an eighth. (Actually, a
wee bit more, to allow a bit of play for easy installing.)
Is the accepted practice to drill the 3-inch hole, then hog out the
rest using a good-quality rounded file? (Seems like I heard that
somewhere.) What's the right kind of file to use for this? Is there a
better/easier method?
Thanks for the help -
Dennis Kirby (wishing I could be at OSH instead)
Mark-III, s/n 300
80% finished in New Mexico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Prop pitch and EGT for 582 |
With 755 hours of flight, 582, 3/1 Ebox , 70+ACI- IVO, pitch at tip is 11.5 degrees
Max climb out RPM is 6400
Water temp is always between 145-170 and at cruise it hangs at around 150-160
EGT on climb out is 950-1000 ( Normal per rotax is 930- 1150)
CHT is 190-225 ( Normal per Rotax is 230-270) mine has always read low?
Cruise EGT is 1000-1050
Cruise CHT is 200-225
Here is the clincher---My normal fuel burn for 5000-5200 rpm is 3-3.2 gals/ hr
My normal fuel burn for 5800-6000 rpm at an AS of 80 -85 mph( my preferred cruise
/ John Hauck) is only 3.4-3.6 gals/ hr
I have checked it many times and it always comes out the same.
I for one am not going to change it or complain about it.
It burns the same or less than most 503s I fly with.
I do have a little exhaust deflector I have fabricated on the stinger pipe to keep
the hot gas and oil off the prop. It does a good job for what I designed it
for but when I installed it I had to drop the main jet down to +ACM-150 in
order to get these temps. I also dropped to a +ACM-45 idle jet to keep it idling
smooth. The engine runs smooth in all ranges and it has the power I need. Go
figure?
One comment here. I did find out that these gauges are notoriously off a lot of
the time. I had a new Rotax Tach that would read off everytime it got hot (
cockpit temperature hot) Sometimes by as much as 1000 RPM.
Another thing I have found out through experience with my 582, is that if you let
the K+ACY-N filter go to long without cleaning it or if you fly through through
to much rain and not service it, it will wake you up one day on climb out
with a series of skips and misses. Then the wrong thing to do is clean it with
gas because its' all you got. It will cost you a cool +ACQ-50 for that little
mistake. Been there done that. Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BILLBEAM(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting Instrument Panel Holes |
Dennis,
I have similar question about instrument installation.
The previous owner or builder installed all the gages from
the rear of the panel. Can you see some logical reason for this?
I'm going to make a new panel on piano hinge like yours and thought
about putting the instruments in from the front. This will hide the
rough edges made by the extra 1/8 inch. Any thoughts?
Bill Beams
FS348
Wilmore, Ky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul VonLindern <paulv(at)digisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting Instrument Panel Holes |
Dennis
I just cut the holes for my panel and I used a circle cutter. I purchased it at
Western Building Center ( Ace Hardware ) and cost about $12.00. It cuts a very
nice clean hole, especially if you use a cutting fluid ( I used a product called
"Tap magic" ). After the hole was cut no filing was necessary. It must be used
in a drill press and I would suggest drilling some sample holes in a piece of
scrap material to get the hole size adjusted correctly.
PaulV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting Instrument Panel Holes |
I used a Milwaukee Hole Saw, pn 49-56-3120, of 3 1/8" diameter
for the large holes. A friend loaned me a machinists 2 1/4" hole hog for
the small ones, but it made them a little too tight. Very tedious opening
them up. Finally tried one of those rotary sandpaper "flapper" things in my
drill, and it did a pretty good job, and kept the holes round. I'm sure
Milwaukee makes a 2 1/4". If you like, I can email you a picture of the
panel. I agree with Paul - use a drill press - you can't hold a hand drill
steady enough for nice results. Never tried Paul's circle cutter, but it
sounds like it did a nice job, and you only need to buy one, for all the
holes. The biggest hair puller I ran into on the panel, was getting all the
mounting screw holes lined up nice and neat. A possible reason someone
installed the gauges from the back of Bill's panel may be that they used
aircraft instruments, which are designed that way. Automotive instruments
are slightly smaller, and are designed to slip in from the front of the
panel. BTW, I used all aircraft instruments; I too used .063 aluminum,
and faced it with wood grain formica. I know the formica may add 8 or 10
ounces, but boy, it sure looks good, and is 0 maintenance. I thought of
using some kind of fancy veneer, but then thought of trying to refinish it
in the future - no way - uh-uh.
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis & Diane Kirby <kirbyd(at)flash.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 12:45 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Cutting Instrument Panel Holes
>
> Hey, Gang -
> I'm stuck, and need some advice. (Be kind, all - this is the first
> human-carrying airplane I've ever built.)
> I am ready to begin cutting out instrument panel holes, and want to go
> about it properly.
>
> (My instrument panel is .063 alum sheet, same size & shape as the stock
> fiberglas panel on the nosecone, only offset 6 inches aft from the
> nosecone. It's supported by an alum framework and hinges at the bottom
> for fold-down easy access to instruments. Also, the alum panel is
> shock-mounted to its support structure ... good news for the
> instruments. Top glare shield (.025 Al sheet) finishes appearance
> nicely. Thanks again, Cliff, for the excellent idea!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Seats and Plastic |
For those of you I promised pictures of my bucket seats and mounts,
I've finally got some photos of them back, and will get them on their way to
you.
Now, I have a question. To connect the intake runners to the
throttle body, I need tubing of 1 1 /4" I.D. Local NAPA store has
radiator tubing that will fit and probably last forever, but I seem to keep
getting more and more carried away with this thing. I'd really like to find
some blue urethane, or similar tubing that would look better. I'll be
painting the intake system, and the cooling shrouds a medium metallic blue,
and will be using blue anodized braided hoses for fuel and oil lines. A
local plastics supplier can get me all I want, of any color I choose, as
long as I start with a minimum 50' order. I need 10". Help ! ! ! Where
would I logically (or otherwise) look to find such a thing ??
..............................You know, I was just about to hit "send", and
had the idea - if all else fails, maybe blue heat shrink tubing over the
radiator hose ?? Where would I look for some of that in about 1 1/2"
diameter ?? Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Prop pitch and EGT for 582 |
Thanks for the response. I will print this one out. One question. What is
your field elevation and what sort of OATs in your area?
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 <sbaew(at)dames.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Seats and Plastic |
Big Lar:
Talk to MSC Industrial Supply, and get a free catelog while you're at
it.
Phone: 800-645-7270.
If they dont have what you want, it most likely doesnt exist.
There are thousands of pages of stuff I never knew I needed before in
their catelog. Easy index when you know what you want. Great toilet
reading when you're just looking for something to want.
Let me know how you make out.
Erich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douglas G. Murray" <dgmurray(at)telusplanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting Instrument Panel Holes |
Dennis & Diane Kirby wrote:
> --Hey, Gang -
> I'm stuck, and need some advice. (Be kind, all - this is the first
> human-carrying airplane I've ever built.)
> I am ready to begin cutting out instrument panel holes, and want to go
> about it properly.
>
> (My instrument panel is .063 alum sheet, same size & shape as the stock
> fiberglas panel on the nosecone, only offset 6 inches aft from the
> nosecone. It's supported by an alum framework and hinges at the bottom
> for fold-down easy access to instruments. Also, the alum panel is
> shock-mounted to its support structure ... good news for the
> instruments. Top glare shield (.025 Al sheet) finishes appearance
> nicely. Thanks again, Cliff, for the excellent idea!)
>
> Earlier this year, when I asked the List about instrument holes, the
> advice was generally that one could use door-hole saws - the kind used
> for wood or aluminum doors. I've seen these at the hardware store, 3
> inches diam. Hole size requirement is 3 and an eighth. (Actually, a
> wee bit more, to allow a bit of play for easy installing.)
>
> Is the accepted practice to drill the 3-inch hole, then hog out the
> rest using a good-quality rounded file? (Seems like I heard that
> somewhere.) What's the right kind of file to use for this? Is there a
> better/easier method?
>
> Thanks for the help -
> Dennis Kirby (wishing I could be at OSH instead)
> Mark-III, s/n 300
> 80% finished in New Mexico
Dennis - There are two accepted methods to cut instrument holes in you IP. The
first is to use a flycutter and cut the holes real carefully. The second is to
use a 'GreenLee' punch and punch out the hole. The punch has the tendency to
leave ragged edges and a slightly deformed panel but is accurate it size and
quick. the punch is rather expensive. The flycutter can be adjusted for any size
and leaves a real nice hole that needs only a light deburr to clean it up. If
you really want a super and expensive job you could always graph out an IP on
your CAD and have it laser cut.
Hope this helps
Doug Murray FireStar 1 flying since 1990
Southern Alberta
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
> -----Original Message----- I just realized that after finishing both
> horizontal
> stabilizers and most of the verticals, I realized that I used the
> 3/8s tubing
> for bracing instead of the 5/16 stuff. #@&$@*#!!!! Is this a
> problem? Do I
> need to change it out? I know I have to reorder same, but I
> really don't want
> to rip things apart so soon.
Dear Ron:
You have now become a seasoned builder who made a slight 'modification" in
the interest of increased strength! Seriously you have made a boo-boo in
the best direction and place...It will increase the bracing capability
beyond what was needed without changing the basic design/function. All of
the empanage bracing hides inside the shapes of larger structural tubing and
will not show through to the final finish. The weight penalty will total
less than 1/2# in a project that will eventually weigh between 300 and 400
pounds. If this is the only time you become confused or make a mistake you
make during your project...You will become the winner of the KOLB CRAFTSMAN
award!
This Project is absolutely riveting! FRANK HODSON, OXFORD ME
(FSII N6399J)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
>
> (My instrument panel is .063 alum sheet, same size & shape as the stock
> fiberglas panel on the nosecone, only offset 6 inches aft from the
> nosecone. It's supported by an alum framework and hinges at the bottom
> for fold-down easy access to instruments. Also, the alum panel is
> shock-mounted to its support structure ... good news for the
> instruments. Top glare shield (.025 Al sheet) finishes appearance
> nicely. Thanks again, Cliff, for the excellent idea!)
>
> Earlier this year, when I asked the List about instrument holes, the
> advice was generally that one could use door-hole saws - the kind used
> for wood or aluminum doors. I've seen these at the hardware store, 3
> inches diam. Hole size requirement is 3 and an eighth. (Actually, a
> wee bit more, to allow a bit of play for easy installing.)
>
> Is the accepted practice to drill the 3-inch hole, then hog out the
> rest using a good-quality rounded file? (Seems like I heard that
> somewhere.) What's the right kind of file to use for this? Is there a
> better/
My Ideas???? The 3 1/8 hole saws are available but pricy. The rounding out
method with a file works but gives an umpefect round hole which I have never
been happy with.
Another method, they sell these adjustable hole saws, the cutting blades are
sharpened 1/8 inch steel rods, the are designed for wood, however, I have cut
a many holes in the aluminum and if you cut slowld thay work fine. I think
they sell for around 10 dollars. I have seen them at Home Depot as one place.
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Barton <barton(at)ameslab.gov> |
Why would using stronger tubing for bracing be a problem?
The only reason I can imagine would be weight.
Tom
>
>Gang
>
>As much as I'd like to say that things are going great with construction
of my
>FSII, things aren't. I just realized that after finishing both horizontal
>stabilizers and most of the verticals, I realized that I used the 3/8s tubing
>for bracing instead of the 5/16 stuff. #@&$@*#!!!! Is this a problem?
Do I
>need to change it out? I know I have to reorder same, but I really don't
want
>to rip things apart so soon. Any thoughts folks?
>
>Signed
>ashamed
>
>Ron Reece
>
Tom Barton
Director, Ames Laboratory
Director, Institute of Physical Research & Technology
Distinguished Professor of Chemistry
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50011
Phone: 515-294-2770
Fax: 515-294-4456
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Big Lar's got the blues... |
Big Lar wrote:
>From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
>Subject: Kolb-List: Seats and Plastic
> For those of you I promised pictures of my bucket seats and mounts,
>I've finally got some photos of them back, and will get them on their way to
>you.
> Now, I have a question. To connect the intake runners to the
>throttle body, I need tubing of 1 1 /4" I.D. Local NAPA store has
>radiator tubing that will fit and probably last forever, but I seem to keep
>getting more and more carried away with this thing. I'd really like to find
>some blue urethane, or similar tubing that would look better. I'll be
>painting the intake system, and the cooling shrouds a medium metallic blue,
>and will be using blue anodized braided hoses for fuel and oil lines. A
>local plastics supplier can get me all I want, of any color I choose, as
>long as I start with a minimum 50' order. I need 10". Help ! ! ! Where
>would I logically (or otherwise) look to find such a thing ??
>..............................You know, I was just about to hit "send", and
>had the idea - if all else fails, maybe blue heat shrink tubing over the
>radiator hose ?? Where would I look for some of that in about 1 1/2"
>diameter ?? Big Lar.
Larry, I also started off making everything color-neat and mostly one color.
This looks less home-made when you get done but there is a drawback to keeping
all the plumbing one color: Inspection efficiency. I have found that, once it
is all plumbed and complicated-looking, it is kind of nice to have a few
different colors of hoses for the various functions, to make tracing and
inspecting easier. Think of it this way: how would you like to do all your
electrical wiring with the same color? big mess, Big Lar!
Just my two cents..., use some black hoses mixed in with your blue, and save
yourself some headaches and cash. If this doesn't suit you, then you should
know that HPC of Kansas offers high-temp coatings for exhaust systems in about
ten different colors, including BLUE!
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | HPC coatings--??? |
Please elaborate on HPC coating of Kansas. I am interested please. Thanks. JR
of Kansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Cutting instrument holes |
For cutting your instrument holes a quality hole saw works great--oneintended
for metal. I used a tool known as a flycutter. The flycutter is an adjustable
diameter cutting tool on a rod for varying the diameter with a set screw.
Operate at lowest RPM on a floor type drill press. Be careful--a flycutter
will grb your arms, hands, fangles, clothing. Another tool available from
Avery and Cleveland tool is a reversible 3 1/8 and 2 1/4 hole punch at about
80$ for the tool that will neatly and professionally cut your instrument
holes. A template is available from Aircraft spruce for laying out your screw
holes and cutouts for altimeter or make your own. JR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wally Hofmann <wally(at)foxfibre.com> |
| Subject: | Cutting Instrument Panel Holes |
I just finished drilling the holes in the fiberglass panel for my
FireFly. It may not be the same in aluminum but an adjustable 'fly
cutter' worked great. I got it adjusted just right by drilling scrap
material. It left a very clean edge. The biggest problem was building a
jig to hold the nose cone under the drill press. I think the most
important thing is to go slow. I didn't try the hole saw but would be
afraid it might chip up the edge of the hole.
I also discovered that a coping saw with a very fine blade worked really
well for cutting the rectangular hole for the EIS unit.
Wally Hofmann
Wickenburg, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting instrument holes |
Yah, I got that metal template from A/C Spruce, and it works - sorta. The
holes in it don't .........quite..........match up with the holes in the
instruments. Takes a little work with a 1/8" round file. It helps a lot,
but care must still be taken to get the holes all lined up. I found it to
be pretty tedious, but the finished result looks very good. Big
Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: <JRWillJR(at)aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 10:06 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Cutting instrument holes
>
> For cutting your instrument holes a quality hole saw works
great--oneintended
> for metal. I used a tool known as a flycutter. The flycutter is an
adjustable
> diameter cutting tool on a rod for varying the diameter with a set screw.
> Operate at lowest RPM on a floor type drill press. Be careful--a flycutter
> will grb your arms, hands, fangles, clothing. Another tool available from
> Avery and Cleveland tool is a reversible 3 1/8 and 2 1/4 hole punch at
about
> 80$ for the tool that will neatly and professionally cut your instrument
> holes. A template is available from Aircraft spruce for laying out your
screw
> holes and cutouts for altimeter or make your own. JR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Big Lar's got the blues... |
Thanks Jim. Your point is well taken, and I'll have to sit and chew on that
for a while. I do want - definitely - to keep everything in light colors,
both to reduce heat absorption here in the desert, and also to make leaks
and cracks easier to spot. Blue Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: <gerken(at)us.ibm.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 9:41 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Big Lar's got the blues...
>
> Larry, I also started off making everything color-neat and mostly one
color.
> This looks less home-made when you get done but there is a drawback to
keeping
> all the plumbing one color: Inspection efficiency. I have found that,
once it
> is all plumbed and complicated-looking, it is kind of nice to have a few
> different colors of hoses for the various functions, to make tracing and
> inspecting easier. Think of it this way: how would you like to do all
your
> electrical wiring with the same color? big mess, Big Lar!
>
> Just my two cents..., use some black hoses mixed in with your blue, and
save
> yourself some headaches and cash. If this doesn't suit you, then you
should
> know that HPC of Kansas offers high-temp coatings for exhaust systems in
about
> ten different colors, including BLUE!
>
> Jim G
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
Hello Folks:
Just got thru with my second lesson in my Twinstar MK II. Practiced
coordinated turns for about 1 hour and then practiced flying in the pattern
and pretty much landed the plane myself on the third pass. Of course the
instructor kept a light feel on the stick just in case. Had a blast and just
want to get back in the air real soon.
I would like some info if anyone could help please. When I bought the
plane it didn't have any paperwork with it and I need to know the published
VNE, stall speed, roc (single and double) and any other pertinent info.
Oh yea! Even though the instructor is a "M-Squared man" he commented on
how well the Kolb fly's and lands. Of course having 3500 ft of runway does
help. Our indicated airspeed on landings was about 50-55 mph. I have no idea
how accurate or inaccurate my indicator is. I did use one of Ben Ransom's
idea's ( I'll give him credit since I saw it on one of his post) by venting
the static port to both sides of the front pod. Airspeed at 5800 rpm was
approx. 55 mph if I remember correctly. I know I'm rambling too much so I'll
quit.
Thanks,
John Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cutting Instrument Panel Holes |
A picture so you can get an idea on cutting the instrument panel holes.
http://member.aol.com/n8754k/page/ssdc170.jpg
In a message dated 8/5/99 3:07:26 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Wally Hofmann
writes:
> I got it adjusted just right by drilling scrap
> material. It left a very clean edge. The biggest problem was building a
> jig to hold the nose cone under the drill press.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <joncroke(at)itol.com> |
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> My trip to Oshkosh was very nice. It was about a 600 mile round trip from
> Minneapolis and back. About the only discouraging thing that happened was
> that I was grounded from flying during the event by Jamie Kee for
> crossing over the active runway without permission. I was camped on the
> west side which made it necessary to taxi around or across. He made
Ralph,
Congrats on making that long trip! Sorry I missed you, but did run into
Kent, my 'neighbor' to the north and we swapped some stories, etc. I wanted
to find you, but I couldnt stay long enough.
Im curious, how many stops did you make in each direction? Any wind
problems, etc. Im alsways amazed at those making that long of a trip in
these planes..... I still never leave a 20 mile circle around my house!
Chicken!
As for Osh Kosh... maybe its just me, but I see evidence every year of more
'lack of consideration' for the ultralight sport. It starts with the fact
that I had to spend over $40 just to set foot in the place. At Sun n Fun
its $10. When I want to see UL planes fly at Osh... they cant. Its always
either 'air show time' or too windy or too wet. None of this happens at Sun
n Fun quite the way it does at Osh. So I am not surprised at how they
handled you there.... I share your anger and frustration. I did talk to a PR
rep with EAA and asked about the huge cost diff between the two shows,
expressing my concerns about the 'average' guy with average funds
participating in the UL sport. He said that Sun n Fun is sponsored by EAA
MEMBERS, and Osh Kosh is sponsored by the EAA CONVENTION. So that explains
it????
Sory about my soap box, but Ralph I give you credit for flying that distance
which is a feet in itself -- demonstrating the utmost in skill and spirit of
UL flying... and then to get treated like that. You can be sure I tore up
my mandatory 3 month EAA membership card... (which is not needed at Sun n
Fun). My hat off to all those voulunteers and vendors and pilots that made
the UL event fun... we'll have to live with the 'organization' in the mean
time.
Just blowing off steam!
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cutting Instrument Panel Holes |
| From: | Robert L Doebler <bobdoebler(at)juno.com> |
--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: BILLBEAM(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Cutting Instrument Panel Holes
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 16:07:52 EDT
Dennis,
I have similar question about instrument installation.
The previous owner or builder installed all the gages from
the rear of the panel. Can you see some logical reason for this?
I'm going to make a new panel on piano hinge like yours and thought
about putting the instruments in from the front. This will hide the
rough edges made by the extra 1/8 inch. Any thoughts?
Bill Beams
FS348
Wilmore, Ky
it will work just fine. Just a slightly different look is all. Bob
Doebler
--------- End forwarded message ----------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flaps reflex... |
While at oshkosh I was looking over the factory slingshot... it uses
flaperons like the firefly and my firestar II. THey had put an aileron
control stop on the end of the wing pivot bolt, which stoped the aileron
from over deflecting with 0 degrees flaperon setting. This stop location
also stoped the aileron from deflecting AT ALL when the flaperons were set
to full. I repeat it would not allow any left aileron at full flaperon!!!!!
If you are adjusting your ailerons to try out relex make sure you check your
motion and any stops you have installed before flight after each adjustment.
If you are putting in flaperons keep this in mind. I thought this was way
dangerous.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
| Subject: | HPC coatings--??? |
> -----Original Message-----
> Please elaborate on HPC coating of Kansas. I am interested
> please. Thanks. JR
> of Kansas
Dear JR:
I had my entire exhaust system coated silver by HPC, including the springs.
It was a quality job. I have run the 503 about 3 hours total time breaking
it in and trying to work out some electrical gremlins...so far not even a
hint of discoloration.
Without digging through drawers full of receipts and invoices my best recall
is that it cost me about $140 total including the shipping.
It looks so good, I'd do it again in a minute.
FRANK HODSON, OXFORD ME
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
"Sam Cox" ,
"Rutledge Fuller" ,
"Paul Spadin" ,
"Michael Highsmith" ,
"Kolb Builders" ,
"John Hauck" ,
"Greg Moloney" ,
"Glenn Rinck" , "Danny Day" ,
"Buddy Carilse" ,
"Bob Moorehead" ,
"Ben Cole" , "ASC2"
| Subject: | Fw: RegReps re USUA Topics |
----- Original Message -----
From: <Johnusua(at)aol.com>
; ; ;
; ; ;
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 3:06 PM
Subject: RegReps re USUA Topics
> August 5, 1999
>
>
> Dear Directors and Regional Representatives
>
> AT LAST,
> USUA has 3rd Party Liability Insurance Coverage FOR USUA MEMBERS
>
> Pre-Announcement: Not for distribution yet.
>
> The final tweaks to the application and information brochure are being
> accomplished right now. But we want you to be first to know that this
> coverage is available and to know the basics of what the insurance plan is
> and how it affects you and other ultralighters in the United States. You
> first heard about this program from Andy Kain at the 1999 Annual Meeting.
>
> This type of insurance pays your cost of defense and penalties if through
> your flying activity you injure someone or damage their property. The
plan
> provides up to $1,000,000 (One Million Dollars) each accident (combined
> aggregate of bodily injury and property damage).
>
> The insurance program is open to all USUA members who operate
> "Fat-ultralight" airplanes, trikes and hang gliders and have pilot and
> vehicle/aircraft registration through FAA or any FAA recognized ultralight
> safety program.
>
> The policy will cover all vehicles/aircraft having a stall speed not
> exceeding 35 knots (40 mph) Calibrated Air Speed and with a gross weight
of
> not more than 992 U.S. pounds.
>
> The policy costs only $154.50 ($150 plus 3% surplus lines tax).
>
> The coverage is intended for private owners and instructors. It is not
> intended for those involved in commercial flying such as towing of banners
&
> gliders; aerial seeding, aerial spraying or dusting or other for-hire
> operations except instruction.
>
> You will want this coverage to assure others that if you injure them or
> damage their property you are financially able to pay for the damage you
> accidentally did to them. Also, many state and municipal facilities employ
> financial responsibility laws and require such coverage. Without this
type
> of coverage, the cost of defense alone could significantly impact your
> financial future. There is great value in knowing you have protection in
case
> of an unplanned event. Besides, the coverage is easy to obtain and only
costs
> a fraction of your aircraft and yearly operating expenses.
>
> Pilots:
> IF FLYING A SINGLE-SEATER-
> A person must be at least 16 years old and a registered ultralight pilot
or
> instructor with the appropriate category/class privileges in any FAA
> recognized ultralight airman competency program.
>
> IF FLYING A TWO-SEATER-
> One of the following:
> 1) A USUA registered instructor need do nothing extra.
> 2) Instructors in other FAA recognized programs must simply include a
> photocopy of their ultralight instructor registration.
> 3) FAA private pilot certificate or better with ultralight pilot
> registration in any FAA recognized program.
>
> More than one pilot may be named on the policy. The standard policy
allows
> two pilots to be named for no extra fee. An unlimited additional number of
> pilots may be named on the same policy with an additional premium of
$25.75
> ($25 plus 3% surplus lines tax) per pilot.
>
> I will forward "sanitized" brochure language for wide distribution within
a
> few business days. At that time applications will be available from USUA
HQ.
>
> This is real. I have already purchased coverage and have received a
personal
> certificate of insurance from the underwriters. It is big news which I am
> delighted to present to you.
>
> John Ballantyne, President
> UNITED STATES ULTRALIGHT ASSOCIATION
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting Instrument Panel Holes |
What a job ! ! ! I AM Impressed ! ! ! Humble Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WillU(at)aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Cutting Instrument Panel Holes
>
> A picture so you can get an idea on cutting the instrument panel holes.
> http://member.aol.com/n8754k/page/ssdc170.jpg
>
> In a message dated 8/5/99 3:07:26 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Wally Hofmann
> writes:
>
> > I got it adjusted just right by drilling scrap
> > material. It left a very clean edge. The biggest problem was building
a
> > jig to hold the nose cone under the drill press.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flaps reflex... |
I wonder what the reasoning is ?? There must be a purpose in it somewhere.
Any one ?? Seems to me that a friends' Firefly has flaperons. Any Firefly
owners notice this ??
Puzzled Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher John Armstrong <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: RE: Flaps reflex...
>
> While at oshkosh I was looking over the factory slingshot... it uses
> flaperons like the firefly and my firestar II. THey had put an aileron
> control stop on the end of the wing pivot bolt, which stoped the aileron
> from over deflecting with 0 degrees flaperon setting. This stop location
> also stoped the aileron from deflecting AT ALL when the flaperons were set
> to full. I repeat it would not allow any left aileron at full
flaperon!!!!!
> If you are adjusting your ailerons to try out relex make sure you check
your
> motion and any stops you have installed before flight after each
adjustment.
> If you are putting in flaperons keep this in mind. I thought this was way
> dangerous.
>
> Topher
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Bruner" <brunerd(at)hvi.net> |
>
>Hello Folks:
>
> I would like some info if anyone could help please. When I bought the
>plane it didn't have any paperwork with it and I need to know the published
>VNE, stall speed, roc (single and double) and any other pertinent info.
John,
You're slightly ahead of me in air time - I got about 2 sec a few weeks ago
from a gust doing moderate taxiing. After refurbishing, it was test flown
recently and now I'm getting close!
I've got an original spec sheet for the Twinstar and a copy of a FAX on the
Twinstar Mk II I'd be happy to copy and mail to you. Not too descriptive,
more like advertising.
Until then:
Empty 320#
Gross 750#
ROC at gross with 47hp Rotax - 700fpm
Vne = 80
Max cruise = 73
Stall = 30
TO at gross wt on grass = 300'
These are straight from the sheet, "your values may vary".
I've also got the 2 booklets and next week will get a set of blueprints to
copy. Might as well do 2 copies if you want one.
Also, just found out from John Yates today how to set the Mk II up for CG
calculations - I was using 4-5 degrees and without 2 people I was aft of CG!
David Bruner
Mk II #M2-202
Kingston, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | lead in your tail, and HPC coatings |
>Why would using stronger tubing for bracing be a problem?
>The only reason I can imagine would be weight.
>Tom
Most Kolbs I have heard of experience weight and balance figures near the back
of the allowable CG range, adding weight at the tail makes for problems later,
keep it to a minimum. I don't think I am exagerating when I say: One pound at
the tail makes it possible you'll have to add ten or fifteen pounds in the nose
later for balance.
If I was going to add weight to the tail, it would be for compression springs
instead of extension springs for the tailwheel steering (comp springs can't fall
off!), and maybe a wider tailwheel that wouldn't cut into the soft grass so
badly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Please elaborate on HPC coating of Kansas. I am interested please. Thanks. >JR
>of Kansas
HPC (and similar products like Jet Hot) are GOOD STUFF! I have tried many kinds
of paints on 2-stroke exhaust tuners over the years and never found anything
that'd stay on. Now I have and it is HPC. My 582 Rotax exhaust with HPC
"CHROME" has 78 hours on it so far and looks as good as the day I opened the
box. They coated the inside and outside of the "Y" pipe and elbow, and the
outside only of the muffler, and the band clamps for about $105, plus shipping.
I should have sent them the springs too. It has not blued at all, even in the
"Y" pipe, which is amazing. Here is the web address, check it out and then give
them a call.
Tell them you have a SNOWMOBILE EXHAUST SYSTEM, or they may get nervous about
liability.
Best results will be attained using brand-new exhaust components. Tell them
they may bead blast but plug the muffler to keep the inside clean. Send them
the clamps too, and the brackets if you wish. I think they can even do bolts
and springs.
By the way, if you have a new Rotax exhaust, and think the black paint that came
on it looks good, kiss it goodbye because in three hours' running time your new
muffler will be rusting and ugly.
http://www.hpcoatings.com/
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flaps reflex... |
Yes, my FF has flaperons, at least last time I ckd.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
>
> Back to the heavy ailerons- I'm thinking about extending the stick
>upward. this alone should give a reduction in effort equal to the
>percentage of length increase. This is in a mk3. Thoughts?
On my FS, I cut the stick a little shorter after 2nd year. The primary
need for me to do this was to avoid the stick hitting the left side of
the 3/4 enclosure I made. However, I also appreciated the shorter stick
in flying, cuz the rubber grip is now right at my knees for hands-free
stuff (lunch, photos, maps). Also, when I get to playing with yankin
the plane around some, I found I like gripping the top of the stick
(hand facing down). Maybe this was just my getting used to a way
to deal with the heavier force, but I liked it. I even put my PTT
button on the front of the stick grip, about 5" down so that it
wouldn't be pushed when I was in Snoopy mode with hand on top,
yankin and bankin. Geez, I see that I'm writing in past tense
here -- shame on me -- I better go rebuild that thing. Still not
free quite yet.
-Ben
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flaps reflex... |
With deployment of flaperons you would want considerably more up aileron
movement (down control) on the inside wing and little additional down aileron
movement (up control) on the outside wing due to severe adverse yaw. JR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Rod ends and washers |
I noticed this on my friends Kolb 3 that the control rod ends did not have a
large area washer capturing them positively. This is basic stuff and is
something that should be done wherever a rod end is not trapped. The other
thing I noticed is that apparently Kolb supplied fiber locking nuts for the
elevator clevis at four places. At least as set up on this airplane it should
be a castellated nut and cotter key. Wherever a bolt is used as a bearing or
subject to rotation fiber lock nuts are not acceptable. Saw this mentioned in
another Kolb list post and I second it. Refer to AC 43-13 and other
references like AC 65 and Tony Bingellis books. JR, A&P
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wally Hofmann <wally(at)foxfibre.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting Instrument Panel Holes |
> From: WillU(at)aol.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Cutting Instrument Panel Holes
> A picture so you can get an idea on cutting the instrument panel
> holes.
> http://member.aol.com/n8754k/page/ssdc170.jpg
After seeing how Will drilled his panel holes
(http://member.aol.com/n8754k/page/ssdc170.jpg) all I can say is I
certainly did it the hard way.
I wish I had taken a picture of the Rube Goldburg contraption I built to
hold the nose under the drill press.
Wally Hofmann
Wickenburg, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Spades |
Hey Lar:
I talked to Dennis about spades a couple of years ago and he said "NO-NO".
Today, I cannot remember the technical reason for his strong negative
reaction. You might talk to the NEW KOLB AIRCRAFT people. They are very
accommodating, of course.
Ron Christensen
MKIII1/2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Spades |
Welcome back, Ron. How was OSH ?? 'Scuse me - AirVenture 99 ??
Envious Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: <RLCPTL(at)aol.com>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 1999 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Aileron Spades
>
> Hey Lar:
> I talked to Dennis about spades a couple of years ago and he said "NO-NO".
> Today, I cannot remember the technical reason for his strong negative
> reaction. You might talk to the NEW KOLB AIRCRAFT people. They are very
> accommodating, of course.
> Ron Christensen
> MKIII1/2
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Spades |
Ron & Lar,
I talked with Dennis about spades a couple years ago also & can't clearly
remember the reason for his concern. But I think it has to do with the limited
strength of the leading edge aileron tube. They were designed to handle the
amount of torque applied by the stick control stick. Adding spades also adds
more torque & depending on the spade setup it could be alot more toque. This
makes sense to me, but if is incorrect logic, please don't attribute it to
Dennis. Also, it seems we are adding a powerful unknown (to me) variable into
the flutter equation. Are there any compensations that need to be made besides
static balance? The length of the spades moment arm, the angle of the moment
arm, the angle of the spade on the moment arm, and the area of the spade-- all
would seem to be critical design factors that could determine the strength of
the added torque & whether it is applied gradually or (worst case scenario) if
it kicks in suddenly & then amplifies itself. These are some considerations
that have been bouncing around in my head. The technology exists & it works
well. We just have to figure out how to do it right! ...Richard S
RLCPTL(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Hey Lar:
> I talked to Dennis about spades a couple of years ago and he said "NO-NO".
> Today, I cannot remember the technical reason for his strong negative
> reaction. You might talk to the NEW KOLB AIRCRAFT people. They are very
> accommodating, of course.
> Ron Christensen
> MKIII1/2
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Flaps reflex... |
If a flaperon is allowed to deflect tooooo far it becomes all drag and is no
longer contributing lift for the wing banking effort.
Daniel Bindl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Bruner" <brunerd(at)hvi.net> |
> Hello and thanks for the info! Yes I would like the spec. sheet and
blue
>print. How about checking the center of gravity. What's involved to check
>the CG. Could you describe the procedure if it's not to much trouble.
> Let me know if you need some reimbursement for the sheet and plans and
>once again thank you very much.
John,
Sure, send me your address and I'll put together a care package.
The blueprints are big and might cost a bit to copy - I'll let you know.
Everything else I can do at work.
The CG procedure is described in 2 sheets, which now (Thank You John Y!)
has the crucial detail that establishes the datum from which all
measurements are taken.
Do you have the 2 booklets? One is the construction book and the other
is the Photo Assembly book.
Also, there are at least 2 ADs that were sent by Kolb to builders.
After I got my new-to-me Mk II, I called Kolb and they sent me a waiver to
sign so I can get technical support, parts and any future ADs that might be
required. Call 'em. In May, I automatically received one that reinforces
the aileron bell crank and the other one I know of is a bracket to reinforce
the tab on the wings that attach to the universal joint. It had already
been
done on mine.
David Bruner
Mk II, Kingston NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cutting Instrument Panel Holes |
Hi Wally
I can't take credit for the instrument holes cutting setup. The picture was
taken by Rusty when he was building his SlingShot.
http://members.aol.com/n8754k/page/index.htm
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
Will's FireStar II
>
> > From: WillU(at)aol.com
> > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Cutting Instrument Panel Holes
>
>
> > A picture so you can get an idea on cutting the instrument panel
> > holes.
> > http://member.aol.com/n8754k/page/ssdc170.jpg
>
> After seeing how Will drilled his panel holes
> (http://member.aol.com/n8754k/page/ssdc170.jpg) all I can say is I
> certainly did it the hard way.
>
> I wish I had taken a picture of the Rube Goldburg contraption I built to
> hold the nose under the drill press.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Spades |
I think you have a valid concern. We had a fly-in at VJI airport today,
and one of the guys brought in his Citabria with spades added to the ailerons.
The attach brackets are about as beefy as the wing spar attach
brackets on the MKIII!
After looking them over carefully, I decided that maybe spades would
be exploring too much unknown territory.
A couple of us got talking about reducing aileron force,
and the attention turned to the bellcrank that
comes out of the middle of the rear fuselage.
What about drilling another hole about 1" closer to the pivot,
making up longer aileron pushrod tubes, and trying that out?
Stick force would be less, and leverage would be better.
You would have less total aileron throw, but watching my
ailerons move in flight while coming back home today, most of
the time the ailerons only move an inch or two anyway.
May or may not work, but probably much less risky than
playing with unknown aerodynamic forces pulling on spades.
Just checked in the garage, I already have enough .035 x 1/2" chromoly
and will order the AN490 threaded rod ends Monday, will let you
know how it works, probably by next weekend.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Ron & Lar,
>
> I talked with Dennis about spades a couple years ago also & can't clearly
>remember the reason for his concern. But I think it has to do with the
>limited
>strength of the leading edge aileron tube. They were designed to handle the
>amount of torque applied by the stick control stick. Adding spades also adds
>more torque & depending on the spade setup it could be alot more toque. This
>makes sense to me, but if is incorrect logic, please don't attribute it to
>Dennis. Also, it seems we are adding a powerful unknown (to me) variable into
>the flutter equation. Are there any compensations that need to be made
besides
>static balance? The length of the spades moment arm, the angle of the moment
>arm, the angle of the spade on the moment arm, and the area of the spade-- all
>would seem to be critical design factors that could determine the strength of
>the added torque & whether it is applied gradually or (worst case scenario) if
>it kicks in suddenly & then amplifies itself. These are some considerations
>that have been bouncing around in my head. The technology exists & it works
>well. We just have to figure out how to do it right! ...Richard S
>
>RLCPTL(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey Lar:
>> I talked to Dennis about spades a couple of years ago and he said "NO-NO".
>> Today, I cannot remember the technical reason for his strong negative
>> reaction. You might talk to the NEW KOLB AIRCRAFT people. They are very
>> accommodating, of course.
>> Ron Christensen
>> MKIII1/2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Zutrauen" <peterz(at)zutrasoft.com> |
Hi folks,
I'm thinking of building a Slingshot.... but am discouraged about it's
apparent performance with the 912 (and the engine's cost). I understand the
Jabiru 4-stroke is 80 horsepower (5 min), direct-drive and light (120 fully
rigged).
How would this compare to the 2-stroke 582? What is the 582's weight fully
rigged (starter, reduction, exhaust etc.)?
Why aren't there more Jabiru users?
Thanks,
Pete Z.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Spades/bell crank |
>Subject: Re: what does 2" of throw in the bell crank do.
I have the old style "bell crank" off my old plane (Firestar). They used
to mount them behind your head. Rewelded the bottom bar and moved the holes
"out" 1 inch on each side for the aileron control bars. My new ailerons are
2 inches "narrower" than a regular Firestar-all the way down. It helps with
that "heavy stick control", so I could afford to move them a little faster
and a little more, without getting into trouble (they're stops on the stick
lever to keep from moving them too far} and counter weights like a
slingshot. Firestars really have a "lot" of aileron anyway, may a little
too much I don't know about MIII.
See at <http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | another bird in the sky |
Good day today. After 4 yrs (3 of which were in limbo) Andy's MK3 got some
air under its tires. All went well, the wheels come unstuck at 40 mph and
dropped back on at 40 mph. Made 3 flights to dial in the prop and almost
have it now. The Hirth ran smoothly but after the final pitch change started
running about 500* cht. on climb out. Allmost tempted to turn the darn thing
off and coast in. Hot enough to melt the heart of a rotax boy but Ok on a
Hirth for short periods. We may not have enough adjustment on the needle so
perhaps a jet change is in order. Did not do any performance checks but I
sure like that ESI gizmo on the dash. Soon as a peremiter was exceeded it
flashed a warning light and then the object of concern displayed. Perhaps we
can get Andy to tell us his version of the story of the first flight of the
MK 3. It sure felt good from the pilot seat.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
>Why aren't there more Jabiru users?
I heard rumers at oshkosh from several manufacturers who had tried the
Jabiru that it was not putting out the power claimed. I really like them,
though they are to big for my FSII. Just rumers but something to look into
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Spades |
Spades are area balances, the aerodynamic equivilent of mass balances, and
will reduce any tendency to flutter. (unless you do them wrong!) As far as
forces go, they are set to provide no force at center stick and to replace
some of the stick force as you go off center. so there will be no
additional total force in the system for a given amount of deflection.
Where you get into trouble is that it is now really easy to deflect your
ailerons, so you deflect them much more, and now they load up and cause very
high roll rates and that will cause more forces in the system. If you want
to try them start small and make them bigger till they reduce the forces the
amount you want. size the structure according to the amount of load that
that size piece of flat plate can generate at VNE when 90 degrees to the
airflow. That will be overkill. THen dont yank them around just because
you now can, cause that will put high forces throughout the aircraft, and
maybe get you a snaped wing with your snaproll.
ANother option is a servo tab. this is a trim tab that changes angle with
deflection so as to assist in the deflection. An ANtiservotab changes its
angle with deflection to hinder deflection.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Spades |
Very Good, thanks. Question; given your analysis of spades and forces
exerted, would it be easier on the structure (assuming normal flight
inputs, no aerobatics) to have spades on or about the center of the aileron
span
to reduce the torque twisting input to the tube caused by the normal
control system,
or would it be better to change the leverage at the bellcrank, and rely on
better
leverage to twist the aileron tube with stick inputs, and with out "spade aid"?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
>Spades are area balances, the aerodynamic equivilent of mass balances, and
>will reduce any tendency to flutter. (unless you do them wrong!) As far as
>forces go, they are set to provide no force at center stick and to replace
>some of the stick force as you go off center. so there will be no
>additional total force in the system for a given amount of deflection.
>Where you get into trouble is that it is now really easy to deflect your
>ailerons, so you deflect them much more, and now they load up and cause very
>high roll rates and that will cause more forces in the system. If you want
>to try them start small and make them bigger till they reduce the forces the
>amount you want. size the structure according to the amount of load that
>that size piece of flat plate can generate at VNE when 90 degrees to the
>airflow. That will be overkill. THen dont yank them around just because
>you now can, cause that will put high forces throughout the aircraft, and
>maybe get you a snaped wing with your snaproll.
>
>ANother option is a servo tab. this is a trim tab that changes angle with
>deflection so as to assist in the deflection. An ANtiservotab changes its
>angle with deflection to hinder deflection.
>
>Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Flew several times the last three days, solo and two up,
and it appears there is a certain eficiency limit that is
quickly reached by reflexing. Some reflex is good, lightens up
the ailerons and allows about 5 mph extra cruise speed at a
given throttle setting. More than that does not appear to do
any good for improving speed or reducing stick force.
Optimum all around was when the ailerons appeared to
be just above straight back looking along the bottom of the
lower surface, probably about 1/4" to 3/8" reflexed.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norman Labhart <njlabhart(at)kih.net> |
| Subject: | Oshkosh 99 photos on The New Kolb Aircraft website |
Hi Gang,
I have posted photos from Oshkosh '99 on the New Kolb
Aircraft website. There is a link on the Homepage to them:
http://www.tnkolbaircraft.com/index.html
It was a real pleasure meeting some of you in person.
Seems like Kolb people are as nice in person as they are online.
I hope a lot of you get to come to the Kolb Flyin at the factory
September 25th. As per many of your requests I have added
directions to the factory on the Contacts page:
http://www.tnkolbaircraft.com/contact.htm
In the next day or so I will post the Flyin webpage on
the site. It will have details on the Flyin.
Norm Labhart
Webmaster for The New Kolb Aircraft Co.
njlabhart(at)kih.net
1956 Cessna 172 7453A
Graham Lee Nieuport 11 replica
Serial Number 1080, On the Gear!
http://www.users.kih.net/~njlabhart/nieuport.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Reflex |
In a message dated 8/8/99 9:00:13 AM, rpike(at)preferred.com writes:
<< Flew several times the last three days, solo and two up,
and it appears there is a certain efficiency limit that is
quickly reached by reflexing. Some reflex is good, lightens up
the ailerons and allows about 5 mph extra cruise speed at a
given throttle setting. More than that does not appear to do
any good for improving speed or reducing stick force.
Optimum all around was when the ailerons appeared to
be just above straight back looking along the bottom of the
lower surface, probably about 1/4" to 3/8" reflexed.>>
Hi Richard:
I have been following the very interesting "reflex" thread and have a
comment/question for you and others who have reflexed. IMHO the lightening of
control forces probably comes from the fact that when an aileron is deflected
upward it is in a lower pressure position and when deflected downward it is
moving into a higher pressure airstream creating induced drag (thus adverse
yaw.) Reflexing then would increase the amount of deflection into the
"lighter" airstream and reduce the deflection into the "heavier" lower
stream. It would seem to me that the overall effectiveness of lateral
control, or roll rate per unit of stick deflection, would be reduced. Result:
lighter feel but less roll rate.
Do you think you have lost some roll rate or is about the same?
Thanks
Bill George
Mk-3 582 Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
I just looked at the pictures of the glider tug on the TNK web site ,
Oshkosh pictures. Did anyone notice that the center wing section was
painted different and also resembles (exactly) the center wing section that
is on the original Mark 3 prototype that is on all the brochures??? I
remember noticing in my info kit way back when , that the early M3 pictures
showed a cloth center wing section while the later ultralight flying write
up showed a plexiglass center section...
Just call me Columbo...
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Reflex |
In a message dated 8/8/99 4:14:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
WGeorge737(at)aol.com writes:
<< Reflexing then would increase the amount of deflection into the
"lighter" airstream and reduce the deflection into the "heavier" lower
stream. It would seem to me that the overall effectiveness of lateral
control, or roll rate per unit of stick deflection, would be reduced.
Result:
lighter feel but less roll rate.
Do you think you have lost some roll rate or is about the same? >>
I posted earlier that I had reflexed up my ailerons from 'level' with wing
bottom t o about 3/8" up and that ailerons were not as "heavy" with no
apparent pitch change.
After putting on about 3 hours I found that I did indeed have more aileron
authority with less "heaviness" but I did have to hold some forward stick-too
much for comfort. I took out about half of the reflex I put in and am
calling it a good compromise.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Tire leaks on Matco rims??? |
Hello group,
I am having trouble with the leak on one of my Matco rims. I have taken this
rim apart twice and checked the O-ring with no success. I was wondering how
many of you had a similar problem and just went on to an inner tube.
Thanks for any and all help,
John Bickham
St. Francisville, LA
Mark III (N308JB assigned)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tire leaks on Matco rims??? |
In a message dated 8/8/99 7:02:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, BICUM(at)aol.com
writes:
<< I was wondering how
many of you had a similar problem and just went on to an inner tube.
>>
Our field has lots of sand spurs so almost everyone here installs tubes. I
also went to a four-ply tire.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KHe1144783(at)aol.com |
I have a Jabiru engine and understand the differance between it and the 912.
The 912 has a reduction drive that increases the torque over the Jabiru and
increases the effeciancy of the propeller and allowing one to use a three
blade prop. The Jabiru weighs about 40 to 50 lbs. less than the 912
(depending who you talk to) all up weight because it is air cooled and no
redrive is used. What it boils down to by looking at the power/ Torque curve
is that to match the performance of the 912 you need to (1) Use a 2-blade
wood prop from the best company possible, Prince or Props. Inc. The best
choice depends on your particular application, eg. cruise speed, climb speed,
top speed, total drag etc. (2) You need to run the engine at higher rpm to
benifit from the design. About 3000 to 3150 cruise rpm. which is max.
continuous. Its O.K. just differant. If the prop choice was good, the
combination will click and you can match the 912 performance (your a good 40
lbs. lighter remember with no radiator out in the slipstream to slow you
down, no water hoses to leak and you saved a couple of grand to boot. Early
engines had "bugs' but have been addressed. Its a proud company now with
great factory support.
3-Wire Palm Springs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 08/06/99 |
In a message dated 8/7/99 1:58:02 AM Central Daylight Time,
kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
> Until then:
> Empty 320#
> Gross 750#
> ROC at gross with 47hp Rotax - 700fpm
> Vne = 80
> Max cruise = 73
> Stall = 30
> TO at gross wt on grass = 300'
>
> These are straight from the sheet, "your values may vary".
>
I'd just like to add that all of these stats have turned out to be correct on
my mk2 with the exception of empty weight. Mine came in at 380# with chute,
brakes, dual gas tanks, and all the little AD type mods the factory made
along the way (main wing pin reinforcement, reinforced outer wing ribs, heavy
duty landing gear. My guess is that without all these additional add-ons and
with a little less paint, I would probably have been very close to the 320#.
Steve Kroll
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Spades |
>or would it be better to change the leverage at the bellcrank, and rely on
>better
>leverage to twist the aileron tube with stick inputs, and with out "spade
aid"?
This will not change the forces on any part of the system except the
bellcrank itself. To get the same amount of aileron deflection you will
have to move the stick more, and after you move the stick more the forces
will be the same, except on the bell crank where they will be changed
relative to the amount you moved the lever arm. As far as where to put
spades I would put them center span cause the flow will be the most
consistent there. For structure see a structures guy, but I would think
that you can handle the loads since they are currently being generated by
the stick, and would just be devided between the stick and spade now.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tire leaks on Matco rims??? |
BICUM(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> I am having trouble with the leak on one of my Matco rims. I have
> taken this
> rim apart twice and checked the O-ring with no success. I was
> wondering how
> many of you had a similar problem and just went on to an inner tube.
> Thanks for any and all help,
> John Bickham
> St. Francisville, LA
> Mark III (N308JB assigned)
Hello there John,
There is a couple things you might checkout... First,you might check to
see if the two rims fit flush together. ( I was told to check this and
thought the idea crazy, but after a check I found they weren't
flush.)Every now and then, after a rough landing, a mild wave might
develope in the entire rim causing a misfit. This is easy to straighten
and may be your problem, but then there is another possibility.. I have
been putting vasolene petrolium jelly on the "O" ring to insure the seal
in the line between the rims.. If these two possibilities have already
been addressed by you,, you may just need the tubes. I even tried that
self sealing tire compound that you spray into the tire to seal
leaks...I don't recomend this proceedure as a cure.
Good Luck
Regards
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Weber <bweber2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Safety wire & Kill switch |
I am finally finishing up my Firestar and have a few loose ends. The
last 10% seems to take 90% of the time.
1. The turnbuckles for the elevator controls need to be safety wired.
How is the saftety wire routed?
2. I haven't decided which way I want the kill switch to move to kill
the engine. Pulling up to kill seems easiest if I need to do it in a
hurry. On the other hand, pulling up also seems like it could happen by
accident more easily. Any experiences that have pointed to one way or
the other?
--
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* Voiceboard Corp * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Reflex |
Roll rate seems about the same. Minor aileron inputs seem to
take a little less pressure. Big inputs seem about the same,
and roll response also seems about the same, but that's
pretty subjective. No hard data.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>I have been following the very interesting "reflex" thread and have a
>comment/question for you and others who have reflexed.
It would seem to me that the overall effectiveness of lateral
>control, or roll rate per unit of stick deflection, would be reduced. Result:
>lighter feel but less roll rate.
>
>Do you think you have lost some roll rate or is about the same?
>
>Thanks
>
>Bill George
>Mk-3 582 Powerfin
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
| Subject: | Rectifier replacement |
Dear John:
Thanks for the advice to swap out the rectifier, You were right in your
assessment. Even though the first rectifier was supplied new by the
original Kolb factory, it never made more than an average 8 volts.
The replacement unit has been installed and is operating the EIS perfectly
and registers in at approximately 14 volts.
As always technical advice continues to be an important factor in building
this project.
Respectfully: FRANK HODSON, OXFORD ME ( FS II, N6399J)
fwhodson@megalink.net http://www.megalink.net/~fwhodson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
| Subject: | Safety wire & Kill switch |
>
> I am finally finishing up my Firestar and have a few loose ends. The
> last 10% seems to take 90% of the time.
>
> 1. The turnbuckles for the elevator controls need to be safety wired.
> How is the safety wire routed?
>
> 2. I haven't decided which way I want the kill switch to move to kill
> the engine. Pulling up to kill seems easiest if I need to do it in a
> hurry. On the other hand, pulling up also seems like it could happen by
> accident more easily. Any experiences that have pointed to one way or
> the other?
Dear Bill:
1. If you have an AIRCRAFT SPRUCE catalogue, look in the turnbuckle
section for diagrams of the acceptable safety wire alternatives. If you
don't have a catalogue, send for one (I believe you'll find it to be the
best $5 spent on your project).
2. The kill switch(s) position is entirely preferential. I have a switch
box for the EIS and strobe unit on the left side of the cockpit. On is to
the left / off to the right. To make it easier on the simple pilot who
plans to fly it I made oriented the kill switches the same way in the
interest of uniformity (could avoid confusion under stress).
GOOD LUCK: FRANK HODSON, OXFORD ME (FS II, N6399J)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douglas G. Murray" <dgmurray(at)telusplanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety wire & Kill switch |
Bill Weber wrote:
>
> I am finally finishing up my Firestar and have a few loose ends. The
> last 10% seems to take 90% of the time.
>
> 1. The turnbuckles for the elevator controls need to be safety wired.
> How is the saftety wire routed?
>
> 2. I haven't decided which way I want the kill switch to move to kill
> the engine. Pulling up to kill seems easiest if I need to do it in a
> hurry. On the other hand, pulling up also seems like it could happen by
> accident more easily. Any experiences that have pointed to one way or
> the other?
>
Bill - Congratulations on your progress. It won't be long now before you are
having fun in the air. The safety wires can be installed in two or three
methods. I would suggest that you look in AC43 - 1B & 2B Accepted Aircraft
Building Practices or any of Tony Bingelus' books. Both demonstrate pictorially
the methods used to safety a turnbuckle. It is kind of hard to describe it in
words but you want to stop the barrel from rotating and changing the setting you
need. I usually start by cutting a piece of .032" stainless wire about ten
inches long. Fold it in half and put one leg of the wire though one end of the
turnbuckle yoke/clevis. Wrap each end of the wire two turns around the yoke/
clevis end in opposite directions and then insert each end of the wire through
the center barrel hole - again in opposite directions. Wrap the wire ends two
times around the yoke/ clevis on the other end of the turnbuckle from your
starting point and then put one of the wire ends through the end of the
yoke/clevis and then tie off the two ends of the safety wire. It is a lot
easier to see in a picture or in real life than to explain but I hope this
helps.
On your second question - Switches are always ON when FORWARD or UP. OFF
when REARWARD or DOWN. You may need to change the cover plate that comes with
your kit so it is labled correctly. If you cut off the little locator tab on the
inside of the hole, the cover label plate can be rotated around so that your
switch movement and operation are correct.
Have a safe first flight.
Doug Murray Firestar 1 flying since 1990
Southern Alberta
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | djwatson(at)olg.com |
User-Agent: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.10
| Subject: | Re: Kolb in St. Mary's County MD. |
Hi All
Club 109 had there meeting last night and two of our members reported seeing a
yellow and red Kolb in the area. One of the guys said he flew formation with
the Kolb for a while. Does anyone know who this might have been?? I would like
to get together with him and invite him to join our club. Shoot,I'll even pay
his dues for a year.
Dennis (Ridge,MD.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Re: Reflex, last post I'll need to make |
>In a message dated 8/8/99 9:00:13 AM, rpike(at)preferred.com writes:
><< Flew several times the last three days, solo and two up,
>and it appears there is a certain efficiency limit that is
>quickly reached by reflexing. Some reflex is good, lightens up
>the ailerons and allows about 5 mph extra cruise speed at a
>given throttle setting. More than that does not appear to do
>any good for improving speed or reducing stick force.
>Optimum all around was when the ailerons appeared to
>be just above straight back looking along the bottom of the
>lower surface, probably about 1/4" to 3/8" reflexed.>>>
Richard, my experience agrees with most of what you said here. There is a
limit, and your description is about where I would put it. On my mkiii, you may
recall I have adjusted flaps and Ailerons twice, once to about flat with wing
bottom, and found no flight differences, and again to about 5/8" high on the
ailerons and flaps just 1/8" high, with the following conclusions: I do beleive
that the minimal progress that was made in lowering the stick pressure was at
the expense of aileron effectiveness. After flight tests, I have concluded that
the stick pressure was decreased for small movements, but the aileron
effectiveness was decreased in this range also. I did not pick up any more top
speed at all. I MAY have increased efficiency at lower power settings/speeds,
but these numbers are hard to nail down exactly. And I lost climb rate BIG
TIME! Two-up it climbed like one blade had fallen off the prop. And
surprisingly, no solo trim bias was detectable. I will be going back to a
near-flat setting.
Then Bill George wrote:
>Hi Richard:
>I have been following the very interesting "reflex" thread and have a
>comment/question for you and others who have reflexed. IMHO the lightening of
>control forces probably comes from the fact that when an aileron is deflected
>upward it is in a lower pressure position and when deflected downward it is
>moving into a higher pressure airstream creating induced drag (thus adverse
>yaw.) Reflexing then would increase the amount of deflection into the
>"lighter" airstream and reduce the deflection into the "heavier" lower
>stream. It would seem to me that the overall effectiveness of lateral
>control, or roll rate per unit of stick deflection, would be reduced. Result:
>lighter feel but less roll rate.
>Do you think you have lost some roll rate or is about the same?
>.
>Thanks
>Bill George
Bill, yes, I agree. Some small reduction was made in stick force, for a small
movement because the control surface was not out in the airstream, it was tucked
into the top-side air. When the stick was moved further, the same old high
forces came back. Roll rate for the same (small) stick deflection was slower.
CG: Someone last week asked about CG. My minimum placarded pilot is 139 lbs.
I was wrong last week I said 150lbs, that was last year's data. So I guess that
my empty CG is further forward than Richards. Does this explain any of these
differences in our planes?
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com> |
Jeremy,
It doesn't just resemble the center wing section, it "is" the center wing
section from the first Mark III that was used in the promotions. It is the same
plane with different wings. It was built different than other Mark III's and
was purchased from Kolb specifically for the tug operation a year ago or so. It
flys out of a local airport and I have known the owner for 11 years.
John Jung
Jeremy Casey wrote:
>
> I just looked at the pictures of the glider tug on the TNK web site ,
> Oshkosh pictures. Did anyone notice that the center wing section was
> painted different and also resembles (exactly) the center wing section that
> is on the original Mark 3 prototype that is on all the brochures??? I
> remember noticing in my info kit way back when , that the early M3 pictures
> showed a cloth center wing section while the later ultralight flying write
> up showed a plexiglass center section...
>
> Just call me Columbo...
> Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | FireStar ll for sale |
All of us in the Tallahassee area mourn the loss of everybody's friend Leon
Friedman. He died 7/30 of cancer. I have been asked by the family to sell
his plane. It is a beautiful FireStar ll modified to carry a big pilot (no
jump-seat). Rotax 503, dual carbs, dual ignition,BRS canister parachute,100
Hours on plane and engine, built graduate engineer, always hangared and
ready to fly. Price $ 15,500. Call Duane Mitchell (850), 878-9047, 7AM 'till
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety wire & Kill switch |
"Bill Weber wrote:
>
> >
> > I am finally finishing up my Firestar and have a few loose ends. The
> > last 10% seems to take 90% of the time.
> >
> > 1. The turnbuckles for the elevator controls need to be safety wired.
> > How is the saftety wire routed?
> >
Safety wire methods for turnbuckles can be found in the Aircraft Space & Specialty
Co. catalogue on page 134 (1999 - 2000 edition) I picked up my catalogue about
a
week ago in Oshkosh.
I asked the Kolb company if they had a Kolb owners quest book. It would have been
interesting too see how many list members were at Oshkosh.
Kim Steiner (1990 Mark 111)
Saskatchewan, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Off/On switches |
I would like to comment on the off/on switch for your kolb. I have mine
installed inside of a plastic cap that comes with fuel jugs for RC airplane
engines - Glow Fuel. It has a a little bevel in it and it is perfect and is
also red. Makes it easy to see and use and you wont accidentally turn it
off. You can visit your local RC club (they seem to be everywhere) and bum
one off the jugs there. Hope this helps. Thanks G'day Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AUDREY LEWIS <audreylewis(at)planters.net> |
I have six inch wheels and mechanical individual heel brakes. The
slightest pressure on the pedal causes the brakes to grab and release. It
appears the drum is out of round from it's action. Can't adjust the brakes
properly for fear of ground looping! Anybody had this problem or has a
solution. Thanks.
Audrey Jr.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Spades |
Kolbers:
As I followed this thread, I noticed a couple inferences that spades do not
add additional forces to the aileron structure. The bottom line is that what
ever input you supply with your arm through the stick, the spade also adds more
input on its own, therefore the total potential or available force will always
be greater. The total force can be the same or less if the pilot uses
discretion & applies less force in a gradual manner, in order to achieve a given
role rate. But if you are attempting maximum role rate, then the possibility of
over stressing the stock system is not unthinkable. ...Richard S
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tire leaks on Matco rims??? |
Richard B:
Not wanting to add the extra weight of inner tubes, I lightly coated all the
mating surfaces of the wheel (even the O-ring) with RTV silicone sealant. I
even coated the rim and tire bead where they contact each other. It never
leaked again, even when I ran less than
10psi. ...Richard S
Richard Bluhm wrote:
>
> BICUM(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> > Hello group,
> >
> > I am having trouble with the leak on one of my Matco rims. I have
> > taken this
> > rim apart twice and checked the O-ring with no success. I was
> > wondering how
> > many of you had a similar problem and just went on to an inner tube.
> > Thanks for any and all help,
> > John Bickham
> > St. Francisville, LA
> > Mark III (N308JB assigned)
>
> Hello there John,
> There is a couple things you might checkout... First,you might check to
> see if the two rims fit flush together. ( I was told to check this and
> thought the idea crazy, but after a check I found they weren't
> flush.)Every now and then, after a rough landing, a mild wave might
> develope in the entire rim causing a misfit. This is easy to straighten
> and may be your problem, but then there is another possibility.. I have
> been putting vasolene petrolium jelly on the "O" ring to insure the seal
> in the line between the rims.. If these two possibilities have already
> been addressed by you,, you may just need the tubes. I even tried that
> self sealing tire compound that you spray into the tire to seal
> leaks...I don't recomend this proceedure as a cure.
> Good Luck
> Regards
> Doc
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Norman Labhart <njlabhart(at)kih.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety wire & Kill switch |
Hi Kim,
A guest book would have been a good idea. There was a sign-up
sheet for list members at the Kolb site. There was an informal gathering
at 7:00 each night. There was about 15 names on the list last time I
looked. Don't know how many actually got together.
Norm
Webmaster for the New Kolb Aircraft
>
>I asked the Kolb company if they had a Kolb owners quest book. It would
have been
>interesting too see how many list members were at Oshkosh.
>
>Kim Steiner (1990 Mark 111)
>
>Saskatchewan, Canada
njlabhart(at)kih.net
1956 Cessna 172 7453A
Graham Lee Nieuport 11 replica
Serial Number 1080, On the Gear!
http://www.users.kih.net/~njlabhart/nieuport.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Safety wire & Kill switch |
| From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Bill and others,
I would like to make a comment on the kill switch. I forgot how it is
positioned on the new FireStars, but on the Original FS it can be
installed with the toggle position right side up. You may think this is
OK for easy access, but on my second flight out, I was reaching under the
seat for my camera and inadvertently hit the kill switch with my jacket
sleeve. All I knew at the time was the engine quit and I made my first
deadstick landing. When I tried to start the engine, I realized what had
happened. From that time on, I simply turned the toggle switch upside
down which made it inaccessible for this type of situation.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
writes:
>2. I haven't decided which way I want the kill switch to move to kill
>the engine. Pulling up to kill seems easiest if I need to do it in a
>hurry. On the other hand, pulling up also seems like it could happen
>by
>accident more easily. Any experiences that have pointed to one way or
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
> -----Original Message-----
>
> I have six inch wheels and mechanical individual heel brakes. The
> slightest pressure on the pedal causes the brakes to grab and release. It
> appears the drum is out of round from it's action. Can't adjust
> the brakes
> properly for fear of ground looping! Anybody had this problem or has a
> solution. Thanks.
Dear Audrey:
I had a similar problem when I first installed the same brake setup. The
cure for me was to take the brake baking plate off where it bolts to the
axle. I then drilled the four bolt holes oversize to allow the brake shoe
assembly to move slightly to center themselves to the brake drums. I also
used slightly longer bolts so they would not have to be as tight and still
show some threads past the stopnuts.
This does not affect how the wheel is attached to the axle but does take
out the grab and release stuttering scenario.
Good luck: FRANK HODSON, OXFORD ME (FSII N6399J)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Geo/Suzuki Engine with Raven Redrive |
Am intrigued by this Raven Redrive on Geo combination. Has anyone tried it
on a Firestar I/II? I own a FS I with 503DCDI. Specs. show the 503 with "C"
Box to weigh 98.7 pounds [50 HP]. One of the Raven combinations yields 60 HP
at 118 pounds
[probably doesn't include radiator, hoses, or coolant]. Is a 503 the biggest
rated engine for the Firestar? Found nothing on this in the Archives.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire Fly Brakes |
Couple things. First have you changed the wheel bearings to the better
quality ones, if not just do it. They will cost you about $5 bearing. See
the archives for part number. If you can't find it email me direct and
I'll locate it for you.
This will make the wheel track straight and not wobble, it also reduced the
tendency for the brake to grab when you go to apply the brakes. We got
about 100 hours on our FireFly now and it made a lot of difference. It
allowed us to adjust the brakes up where they need to be to obtain the
proper braking effect.
Next, when you installed the drum to the wheel, did you get it well
centered. If not it will appear to be out of round, not the brake drum
them selves are not perfect but usually there good enough.
I used the washers placed inside the drum to align the drum to the wheels
bearing. I also found while being tedious, drilling one hole at a time and
disassembling putting in the bolt for that hole and then reassembling,
drilling disassembling, reassemble, and drill the next one to product the
truest alignment. (Got a spare wheel.)
Also check to make sure the wheel itself is true. That's part of the
reason why we have the spare, we had one that would wobble bad on it own
just spinning on the axle. The drum worst.
Jerryb
FireFly
>
>I have six inch wheels and mechanical individual heel brakes. The
>slightest pressure on the pedal causes the brakes to grab and release. It
>appears the drum is out of round from it's action. Can't adjust the brakes
>properly for fear of ground looping! Anybody had this problem or has a
>solution. Thanks.
>
>Audrey Jr.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Spades |
The bottom line is that what
>ever input you supply with your arm through the stick, the spade also adds
more
>input on its own, therefore the total potential or available force will
always
>be greater. The total force can be the same or less if the pilot uses
>discretion & applies less force in a gradual manner, in order to achieve a
given
>role rate. But if you are attempting maximum role rate, then the
possibility of
>over stressing the stock system is not unthinkable. ...Richard S
The aileron provides the forces via the air that is acting over it. the
pilot provides the deflection. That is why there is no force required to
deflect the aileron when you are not moving through the air. The spade
carries some of the force that the pilot would otherwise have to exert to
get a given amount of difflection. It becomes easier for the pilot to
deflect the stick and get bigger difflections but the forces on the aileron
for a given diflection are the same, cause they still come from the air flow
over them. to the aileron and the hinges and the wing structure nothing has
changed. If the aileron could withstand full deflections before it can
withstand them after spades are installed. the question is could the
aileron withstand full deflections before, or were full deflections not
possible cause of the limits of the pilots strength. if so then the max
difflection is greater and the loads would go up.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
In my previous post I didn't mention this but true, centering the brake pad
plate to the drum is part of the installation operation. We loosened our
bolts slightly and allow the plate to find its own stable location while
spinning the wheel. The tighten it down. I from the old school if you
leave it floating loose, it will cause wear on the mounting holes those
believe you should tighten the bolts back up once you feel you have it
centered.
Again I stress that much of our grabbing problem went away after swapping
out the wheel bearing with better quality units. Try the centering trick
first, if it doesn't help, then change the bearings.
Regarding the bearing. Ours and a number of others reported cases were
shot by time we approached 20 hours on the airplane. Their wheel barrow
wheels and bearings they come with are not designed to handle the speed and
stress there being placed under.
Jerryb
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> I have six inch wheels and mechanical individual heel brakes. The
>> slightest pressure on the pedal causes the brakes to grab and release. It
>> appears the drum is out of round from it's action. Can't adjust
>> the brakes
>> properly for fear of ground looping! Anybody had this problem or has a
>> solution. Thanks.
>
>Dear Audrey:
> I had a similar problem when I first installed the same brake setup. The
>cure for me was to take the brake baking plate off where it bolts to the
>axle. I then drilled the four bolt holes oversize to allow the brake shoe
>assembly to move slightly to center themselves to the brake drums. I also
>used slightly longer bolts so they would not have to be as tight and still
>show some threads past the stopnuts.
> This does not affect how the wheel is attached to the axle but does take
>out the grab and release stuttering scenario.
>
>Good luck: FRANK HODSON, OXFORD ME (FSII N6399J)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>Regarding the bearing. Ours and a number of others reported cases were
>shot by time we approached 20 hours on the airplane. Their wheel barrow
>wheels and bearings they come with are not designed to handle the speed and
>stress there being placed under.
>
>Jerryb
We have a Northern Equipment store locally, and I tried some of their
#13808 bearings in my MKIII wheels. They look slightly different, instead
of having a flange around one edge, they have a groove milled in them, and
a snap ring. This caused them to fit very slightly differently into the
wheel, and I had to make up an internal spacer a little longer than the old
internal spacer. ( I believe that having a spacer inside the wheels to
absorb the squeeze loads imposed by tightening the axle nuts will cut down
on bearing wear.)
Anyway, they cost $3.29 each locally and so far are doing better than
various others I have tried.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
For those who wanted drawings and data of the MKIII enclosure, Mustek
FINALLY sent me a new power supply for my scanner, and I can send out
copies. Whoever wants that, let me know and when I think I have got a full
list, I will send out the drawings as .jpg files. It will be a fairly big
down load, so don't freak.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vince Nicely" <vincenicely(at)intermediatn.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Spades |
Hi Gang,
I believe that I understand the argument below, but think there is another
angle to the effect of spades on the Kolb depending on where they are
placed. The forces on the wing and aileron could be increased considerably,
I believe. The reason is as follows. At least on my Firestar II, the
aileron spar twists as the stick is moved sidewise. As the speed increases,
the aileron deflection becomes less for a given stick motion because of the
twist in the spar. If a spade is placed in the area of the aileron's
working surface, then the deflection will be aided by a force applied at the
aileron rather than on the remote end of a rather limp tube. The aileron
will likely deflect more as well as more easily, and the forces on
everything will go up. This thinking has kept me from exploring spades, and
if it is wrong would like to hear why.
Vince
> The aileron provides the forces via the air that is acting over it. the
> pilot provides the deflection. That is why there is no force required to
> deflect the aileron when you are not moving through the air. The spade
> carries some of the force that the pilot would otherwise have to exert to
> get a given amount of difflection. It becomes easier for the pilot to
> deflect the stick and get bigger difflections but the forces on the
aileron
> for a given diflection are the same, cause they still come from the air
flow
> over them. to the aileron and the hinges and the wing structure nothing
has
> changed. If the aileron could withstand full deflections before it can
> withstand them after spades are installed. the question is could the
> aileron withstand full deflections before, or were full deflections not
> possible cause of the limits of the pilots strength. if so then the max
> difflection is greater and the loads would go up.
>
> Topher
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Johnston Jr." <wingmen(at)hotbot.com> |
Hi to all you Kolbers out there! I've taken the plunge and ordered the new Mark
III and have the Blueprints in hand and waiting on the arrival of Kit #1. Was
wondering if there is any other printed material on the construction of this
plane out there, just want all the info I can get my hands on before the materials
arrive! Lets here from all you Mark III drivers out there! Thanks in
advance
Bill (aka WingMan)
HotBot - Search smarter.
http://www.hotbot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Enclosure |
Please put me on your list. Thanks. Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 8:03 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: MKIII Enclosure
>
> For those who wanted drawings and data of the MKIII enclosure, Mustek
> FINALLY sent me a new power supply for my scanner, and I can send out
> copies. Whoever wants that, let me know and when I think I have got a full
> list, I will send out the drawings as .jpg files. It will be a fairly big
> down load, so don't freak.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul VonLindern <paulv(at)digisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Enclosure |
Add me to.
Paulv
Richard Pike wrote:
>
> For those who wanted drawings and data of the MKIII enclosure, Mustek
> FINALLY sent me a new power supply for my scanner, and I can send out
> copies. Whoever wants that, let me know and when I think I have got a full
> list, I will send out the drawings as .jpg files. It will be a fairly big
> down load, so don't freak.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
Richard Pike,
I have been meaning to suggest this the last few times someone has had
something to send a bunch of people. Why don't you send it to Matt Dralle
and get him to put it in the misc. stuff section of the Kolb-List web page
for a while. You want have to send it 400 times and keep up with all the
people to send it to in the first place. He offered to do that one time I
remember when someone whined about not being able to send attachments to the
entire list. If he is too busy to do it then send it to me and I will
upload it to a web page and just post the URL to the list for everybody to
go get it thereselves...
Just thought I'd mention it...
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
P.S. It would be good to get Matt to do it so this kind of "tips and tricks"
stuff can be archived for future builders...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "AWIA" <awia(at)vcn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 08/09/99 |
I have made several instrument panels for follow flyers using 1/8 inch
plywood purchased from local hobby shop. It comes in sheets of 12" by 24"
which is ideal for the Firestar. Look in the R/C airplane department.
The advantage of the plywood is that it is light and strong and is very easy
to work using ordinary wood working tools. One of my panels survived a
crash without any damage. I shock mount the panels with rubber grommets.
The plywood does not seem to "drum" with vibration like some aluminum
panels. I know that many Firestar builders extent their panels and plywood
works great for this.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Enclosure |
If you could add me to your list for the enclosure drawing that would be
helpful. Thanks. JR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Gallar" <MikeG(at)ij.net> |
Richard I would like a set
Thanks
Mike Gallar
MikeG(at)ij.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard Pike
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 11:03 AM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: MKIII Enclosure
>
>
> For those who wanted drawings and data of the MKIII enclosure, Mustek
> FINALLY sent me a new power supply for my scanner, and I can send out
> copies. Whoever wants that, let me know and when I think I have got a full
> list, I will send out the drawings as .jpg files. It will be a fairly big
> down load, so don't freak.
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
> ---------
>
> ---------
>
> ---------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wing Alignment and Grinding Metal ???? |
John, Group, and Support,
I've hit a big snag with my wing alignment. My head hurts from thinking
about this so much and trying to figure it out. This one is a litttle hard
to describe accurately with the written word so please bear with me. I
called TNK and John Yates is on vacation (everyone deserves one).
My basic problem is the interference (pieces butt together) between the wing
main spar tang and the 1" square tubing of the cage. I have the wings up on
H-sections, level both directions, in line spanwise, and within 1/4" tip to
tail both wings. To accomplish this the drag strut horns are sticking out ~1
1/4" vs. the specified 7/8". With the main spar tang butted up against the
square tubing of the cage, I'm pretty sure there is going to be a problem
with lifting the wing for diehdral and lowering the wing after strut removal
for folding. Plus I don't like the idea of the metal fatigue and torque
that could cause a catastrophic failure and hitting the ground hard at an
abrupt angle. Another problem is that right now the inboard steel tubes are
more than 36" apart and I'll have to make the gap seal greater than the 36"
specified in the plans to cover this up.
I'd like to get closer to the drag horn sticking out 7/8" to minimze the
distance between the bottom steel tube of the inboard ribs and the tube of
the cage that runs along side of it. I looked a few Kolbs over pretty
closely at a couple of Sun-N-Fun's and don't remember the gaps on the bottom
of the wing being as much as mine is right now. The only way I can see to
achieve this is to remove ~3/8" from each of the main spar tangs with a
grinder.
The main spar tangs on my inboard steel ribs stick out 1 3/8" from the
vertical square tubing of the inboard rib. The plans (Section U-U) are drawn
to scale and measure 1" for this dimension. I was wondering if some of you
with older kits have the same 1 3/8" here or smaller. That 3/8" seems to be
the problems to me. Has anyone else had this problem????
tang touching | |
square tubing | |
| |
\/ | |
| |
|-------------------- |
| | |
Inboard Steel
| | |
Rib Vertical Square Tubing
________--------------- | |
| | | |
Square Tubing of cage | | | |
________| | | |
--------------- | |
|_____________| |
| |
O
Sorry for the long note. Many of you have been a great help in the past when
Ive asked for help from the group during these moments of "air turbelance".
Much appreciation for that help past and future.
Thanks again,
John Bickham
St. Francisville, LA
Mark III (N308JB assigned)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Fletcher" <bwf(at)emailmn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parts for sale |
Anyone out there needing parts to finish there kolb lll
I have inst, inercom, headsets, elect trim, elect gear, chute, 912 (200
hrs) and more.
Bruce
Minneapolis MN
bwf(at)emailmn.com
612 545-8722
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parts for sale |
>
>Anyone out there needing parts to finish there kolb lll
>
>I have inst, inercom, headsets, elect trim, elect gear, chute, 912 (200
>hrs) and more.
>
>Bruce
>Minneapolis MN
>bwf(at)emailmn.com
>612 545-8722
I emailed you earlier before I spoke to you on the phone so you should have
another message from me as well. I am dropping this note to remind you that
we spoke. I am interested in possibly buying your parts. You told me that
you wanted about $8000 for the whole lot. I am going to see what I can work
out and will get back to you in a few days.
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Alignment and Grinding Metal ???? |
>
>John, Group, and Support,
>
>I've hit a big snag with my wing alignment. My head hurts from thinking
>about this so much and trying to figure it out.
The only way I can see to
>achieve this is to remove ~3/8" from each of the main spar tangs with a
>grinder.
>
>The main spar tangs on my inboard steel ribs stick out 1 3/8" from the
>vertical square tubing of the inboard rib. The plans (Section U-U) are drawn
>to scale and measure 1" for this dimension. I was wondering if some of you
>with older kits have the same 1 3/8" here or smaller. That 3/8" seems to be
>the problems to me. Has anyone else had this problem????
If you can grind off the metal inside of where the clevis pin would go
through the spar tang, and still have at least 5/16" of thickness left over
after you are done, you should be all right. The spar applies most of it's
loading in compression, and much less in tension at that point, so if you
presently have about 1/2" too much ( if I understand your situation
correctly), you should be able to grind some off. Do you have an EAA
technical counselor near by that you can call? This is a good situation to
get an "Old Hand" to come and look your situation over. Call your nearest
EAA chapter, and see if they can help you out.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
| Subject: | 503 OIL RESEVOIR VOLUME |
Dear Kolbers:
I am making my weight and balance sheet. I started with empty weight first,
I then fueled it with gas and oil for the engine break-in. ALAS, I know
that gas is 6# per gallon and I have 10 gallons total but I have no Idea how
much oil the pump reservoir holds. Anybody out there know the volume so I
can avoid draining the tank to measure it? I know it is not a big thing to
do but I thought I could possibly avoid the mess and having to purge the
line again.
THANKS IN ADVANCE: FRANK HODSON, OXFORD ME (503 ROTAX DCDI)
fwhodson@megalink.net http://www.megalink.net/~fwhodson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panels |
>
>I have made several instrument panels for follow flyers using 1/8 inch
>plywood purchased from local hobby shop. It comes in sheets of 12" by 24"
>which is ideal for the Firestar. Look in the R/C airplane department.
Just a note to those of you who haven't made or painted you intrument
panels yet.
"Flat black" is better. Anything that is left white, or "chrome" anywhere
near the panel or directly below it will show up on your windshield like a
"heads up" display.
Not a big problem, but gets old after a while,on a firestar anyway. Even
the white numbers on the instruments show up when the sun hits them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Alignment and Grinding Metal ???? |
BICUM(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> John, Group, and Support,
>
> I've hit a big snag with my wing alignment. My head hurts from
> thinking
> about this so much and trying to figure it out. This one is a litttle
> hard
> to describe accurately with the written word so please bear with me.
> I
> called TNK and John Yates is on vacation (everyone deserves one).
Hey John,
I think I know what you are talking about. I went and ordered extra
long drag-strut horns, but when I re-installed them, I noticed the
original length horns would have worked.
Here's what I would suggest:
Push the horns in to the recomended distance of 7/8", then make sure the
trailing edges are in line. ( You can sight-line this). This will back
off the closeness of the tangs in the front. If it doesn't work,, redo
it again... Sight line the trailing edge again. It should line up okay
without grinding any metal off. I know the feeling you are having as I
had a hard time explaining the situation to Dennis Sauder. My horns are
extra long, but you couldn't tell as they are inside the drag strut. I
didn't know what happened to get them in line that second time, but I
assume (the a word) it had something to do with lining up the trailing
edge.
Hope this helps
Regards
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Weber <bweber2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety wire & Kill switch |
Thanks for posting the method for safety wire on turnbuckles. Someone
also sent me an illustration. Between the two, it should be a piece of
cake.
"Douglas G. Murray" wrote:
>
>
> Bill Weber wrote:
>
> >
> > I am finally finishing up my Firestar and have a few loose ends. The
> > last 10% seems to take 90% of the time.
> >
> > 1. The turnbuckles for the elevator controls need to be safety wired.
> > How is the saftety wire routed?
> >
> > 2. I haven't decided which way I want the kill switch to move to kill
> > the engine. Pulling up to kill seems easiest if I need to do it in a
> > hurry. On the other hand, pulling up also seems like it could happen by
> > accident more easily. Any experiences that have pointed to one way or
> > the other?
> >
>
> Bill - Congratulations on your progress. It won't be long now before you are
> having fun in the air. The safety wires can be installed in two or three
> methods. I would suggest that you look in AC43 - 1B & 2B Accepted Aircraft
> Building Practices or any of Tony Bingelus' books. Both demonstrate pictorially
> the methods used to safety a turnbuckle. It is kind of hard to describe it in
> words but you want to stop the barrel from rotating and changing the setting
you
> need. I usually start by cutting a piece of .032" stainless wire about ten
> inches long. Fold it in half and put one leg of the wire though one end of the
> turnbuckle yoke/clevis. Wrap each end of the wire two turns around the yoke/
> clevis end in opposite directions and then insert each end of the wire through
> the center barrel hole - again in opposite directions. Wrap the wire ends two
> times around the yoke/ clevis on the other end of the turnbuckle from your
> starting point and then put one of the wire ends through the end of the
> yoke/clevis and then tie off the two ends of the safety wire. It is a lot
> easier to see in a picture or in real life than to explain but I hope this
> helps.
>
> On your second question - Switches are always ON when FORWARD or UP. OFF
> when REARWARD or DOWN. You may need to change the cover plate that comes with
> your kit so it is labled correctly. If you cut off the little locator tab on
the
> inside of the hole, the cover label plate can be rotated around so that your
> switch movement and operation are correct.
>
> Have a safe first flight.
>
> Doug Murray Firestar 1 flying since 1990
> Southern Alberta
>
--
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* Voiceboard Corp * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
"Tom Ferguson" , "Ted Cowan" ,
"Scott Sharon Wilcox" ,
"Sam Cox" ,
"Paul Spadin" ,
"Michael Highsmith" ,
"Kolb Builders" ,
"John Hauck" ,
"Greg Moloney" ,
"Glenn Rinck" ,
"Frank Kahn" ,
"Dave Thomas" , "Danny Day" ,
"Buddy Carilse" ,
"Bob Moorehead" ,
"Ben Cole" , "ASC2"
----- Original Message -----
From: Aniceto I Bagley <aibagley(at)juno.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 9:52 PM
Subject: Fw: Fw: Flying
>
> Aniceto I. Bagley
> 6013 Rickwood Dr., NW
> Huntsville, AL 35810-2569
> Tel: (256) 852-7973
> e-mail: aibagley(at)juno.com
>
> --------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ray Weinberg <raykw(at)juno.com>
> To: Oimon4(at)AOL.COM, IRVnLAKE(at)AOL.COM, aibagley(at)juno.com,
> desiree.weinberg(at)mcclellan.af.mil
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 08:56:50 -0500
> Subject: Fw: Flying
> Message-ID: <19990810.101904.-83377.26.RAYKW(at)juno.com>
>
>
>
> -
> Aviation 101
>
> Takeoffs are optional. Landings are mandatory.
>
> If you push the stick forward, the houses get bigger, if you
> pull the stick back they get smaller. Unless you keep
> pulling the stick back then they get bigger again.
>
> Flying is not dangerous; crashing is dangerous.
>
> The propeller is just a big fan in the front of the plane to
> keep the pilot cool. Want proof? Make it stop; then watch
> the pilot break out into a sweat.
>
> The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
>
> Every one already knows the definition of a 'good' landing
> is one from which you can walk away. But very few know the
> definition of a 'great landing.' It's one after which you
> can use the airplane another time.
>
> The probability of survival is equal to the angle of
> arrival.
>
> A helicopter is a collection of rotating parts going round
> and round and reciprocating parts going up and down -- all
> of them trying to become random in motion. Helicopters
> can't really fly -- they're just so ugly that the earth
> immediately repels them.
>
> Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long
> enough to make all of them yourself.
>
> There are three simple rules for making a smooth landing:
> Unfortunately, no one knows what they are.
>
> The only thing worse than a captain who never flew as
> copilot is a copilot who once was a captain.
>
> It's easy to make a small fortune in aviation. You start
> with a large fortune.
>
> A male pilot is a confused soul who talks about women when
> he's flying, and about flying when he's with a woman.
>
> Try to keep the number of your landings equal to the number
> of your takeoffs.
>
> Asking what a pilot thinks about the FAA is like asking a
> fire hydrant what it thinks about dogs.
>
> ******************************
> If you're not livin' on the edge,
> You're takin' up too much space!
> ******************************
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Get the Internet just the way you want it.
> Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
> Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 08/10/99 |
Hey, K-listers:
I have a nice FireStar KXP, DCDI, BRS VLS750 for sale. Fair price. E-mail
me at Tusky(at)aol.com. (Charlotte, NC)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Alignment and Grinding Metal ???? |
>
>John, Group, and Support,
>
>I've hit a big snag with my wing alignment. My head hurts from thinking
>about this so much and trying to figure it out. This one is a litttle hard
>to describe accurately with the written word so please bear with me. I
>called TNK and John Yates is on vacation (everyone deserves one).
>
>My basic problem is the interference (pieces butt together) between the wing
>main spar tang and the 1" square tubing of the cage. I have the wings up on
>H-sections, level both directions, in line spanwise, and within 1/4" tip to
>tail both wings. To accomplish this the drag strut horns are sticking out ~1
>1/4" vs. the specified 7/8".
Have you drilled the holes in the tang yet? If not then put a spacer on
the end of the tang with duct tape and realign the wings. This will push the
front tang out and the drag strut in. Other than that if you have the holes
drilled your idea of grinding may be the only way.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
Lar
Yuasa also has a web site showing their suit of batteries. I passed
through it in finding the Power Sonics.
Ron
>
>
>Thanks Ron: I went to their web-site, and found the batteries to be a
>little awkward. My old one was about 2 1/2 x 3 x 4, and was a perfect fit
>with the intercom in my fanny pack. Power Sonics 3 amp is too long, and
>their 5 amp is too deep and heavy. Seems to me the old one was a Yuasa, and
>I'm trying to find a dealer now. Thanks very much for your help.
>Lar.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 8/11/99 3:38:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net writes:
<< My old one was about 2 1/2 x 3 x 4, and was a perfect fit
with the intercom in my fanny pack. >>
Larry, I am in the burglar alarm business and have accessto lots of different
size batteries. Let me know if you still need one & I'll send you one at my
cost plus UPS;
you can then just send me a check. I have a cheap backpack strapped where
the rear seat used to hang with a 4 Amp-hour battery in it for GPS & Radio.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
Just a thought-
Seems to help a lot if you "ground" the battery-back to the engine or the
engine mount and "not" to the aircraft "frame". I know I get a "lot" more
kick that way
on a smaller Amp Hour battery. I even used a jumper cable because the
battery cables I found were too large, and it still works great.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Safety wire & Kill switch |
In a message dated 8/9/99 1:03:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca writes:
<< I asked the Kolb company if they had a Kolb owners quest book. It would
have been
interesting too see how many list members were at Oshkosh.
Kim Steiner (1990 Mark 111)
Saskatchewan, Canada
>>
Kim, I was the first one (except for John Hauck), to be at the kolb tent on
Wed.and talked to Bruce about organizing something for this newsgroup and he
gave me a piece of paper for me to sign, which I did and he pronounced me in
charge of the newsgroup list!!....I was honored ...indeed....except by 7pm, I
was still the only one on the list!!...I talked to JH for a half hour and
had to leave...completely!!
When I left, I was still the only one of this newsgroup with my name on the
yellow piece of paper at the Kolb tent....surprised me! ... Iwas hoping to
meet some of you folks.................GeoR38
In charge! :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Off/On switches |
In a message dated 8/9/99 3:35:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
TCowan1917(at)aol.com writes:
<< I would like to comment on the off/on switch for your kolb. I have mine
installed inside of a plastic cap that comes with fuel jugs for RC airplane
engines - Glow Fuel. It has a a little bevel in it and it is perfect and is
also red. Makes it easy to see and use and you wont accidentally turn it
off. >>
I did the same thing, Ted, but only after the horse left the barn,
unfortunately, namely I let a CFI fly my Firestar one day and he accidently
bumped the ignition toggle with his plump littly knee,and found himself
surrounded by trees on his downwind approach and......silence! He did ok on
this his first flight in an ultralight, but only after taking a few years off
his life from sheer terror!
I got a cap off a spray paint can and surrounded the toggle bat with
that.....and bought 2 more gear legs...one had broke off completely and the
other looked like a huge piece of someones curly hair!
The CFI was chalky white and had a pretty sore leg for a day or two.....no
real damage though.....happened a coupla years ago.
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
| Subject: | Geo/Suzuki Engine with Raven Redrive |
>
> Am intrigued by this Raven Redrive on Geo combination. Has
> anyone tried it
> on a Firestar I/II? I own a FS I with 503DCDI. Specs. show the
> 503 with "C"
> Box to weigh 98.7 pounds [50 HP]. One of the Raven combinations
> yields 60 HP
> at 118 pounds
> [probably doesn't include radiator, hoses, or coolant]. Is a 503
> the biggest
> rated engine for the Firestar? Found nothing on this in the Archives.
>
> Howard Shackleford
> FS I
> SC
Dear Howard:
I found this message in the archives: (Good luck, FRANK HODSON/OXFORD ME)
Match: #205 Message: #6620 From: DLSOUDER(at)aol.com Date: Sep 10, 1998
Subject: 4 Cylinder FireStar
Recived a call from the FAA about a FireStar crash, pilot was doing high
speed
taxi testing and he wound up in a tree. FAA wanted to know if it was an UL
or
experimental. Our records showed that he purchased the kit, but no engine.
We said we really didn't know because we don't know what engine he may have
used. The FAA investigator said he didn't know either, but he did know that
it had 4 cylinders!
In case you don't know - you shouldn't do that! Please don't do that! A
FireStar does not need more than 2 cylinders - 4 is way too many cylinders.
Please count your cylinders before installing ... remember 4 is too many.
Dennis (another sleepless night) Souder
Pres Kolb Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb in St. Mary's County MD. |
I have a Firestar that is painted international orange with yellow
stripes. I live in Salisbury and fly up and down the eastern shore. Have
never flown across the "big pond" so I doubt it was me. I you ever get to
this side of the bay, please call as I have found no other Kolbs here. Rick
Klebon 410-749-9495.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
To all that have asked about the MKIII enclosure: Matt has offered to put
it up in the archives as a bitmap file, so that it will be available to
anybody anytime. The drawings are copyrighted, and as soon as we get
permission, will be able to get it done.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard_Harris(at)albemarle.com |
Hi gang
Am new to the list. got a question about MK3 & 912 angle of
mount. I am getting some tail shake about 80 mph . don't know where its
coming from, but the 912 is mounted with the front about 1/2 in higher as
per kolb. Just thinking someone might something to do.
thanks
RH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert L Doebler <bobdoebler(at)juno.com> |
I was told when I bought my Firestar II that the largest engine I could
use was the 503 DCDI, and I had to install the heavier duty wing( larger
rib count) think its 7 rib versus 5.
Bob Doebler
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Had a shaking problem caused by too much weight on the trailing edge of the
rudder. Had a friend in another Kolb follow me up one day and watch and
discovered it was rudder flutter. One giveaway of rudder flutter is that
the rudder pedals move rapidly back and forth, and it quits when you hold
both feet tight against the pedals. A word of caution: it didn't seem too
bad from the cockpit, but the pilot watching said it looked very radical
and alarming from behind and above, (said the 6" fuselage boom tube apeared
to be in a sine wave!?!?) so I would think any flutter or shake might be
worse than you can accurately evaluate from the cockpit, and therefore
unacceptable for more than a few seconds at a time. Be careful.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Hi gang
>
> Am new to the list. got a question about MK3 & 912 angle of
>mount. I am getting some tail shake about 80 mph . don't know where its
>coming from, but the 912 is mounted with the front about 1/2 in higher as
>per kolb. Just thinking someone might something to do.
>thanks
>
>
> RH
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Geo/Suzuki Engine with Raven Redrive |
In a message dated 8/12/99 12:12:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com writes:
<< I found this message in the archives: (Good luck, FRANK HODSON/OXFORD ME)
Match: #205 Message: #6620 From: DLSOUDER(at)aol.com Date: Sep 10, 1998
Subject: 4 Cylinder FireStar >>
Thanks, Frank. I remember reading that message when Dennis wrote it. The
Geo engine I,m thinking about using is about 150LBS all up weight-about 30
pounds heavier than my 503 w/ "C" Box, so I am mostly concerned with the CG.
Right now I am right in the middle at 28%. The power is approx. 60 HP; not
too worried about that. I understand FS II's & Twinstars have been flying
for years with 532's & 582's & they use the same wing that that I have.
Comments?
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
Reference: Piano hinges, instructions say to cut the hinge pin 1/2" shorter
and crimp the hinge to retain the pin. I wonder if any one has a less
permanent idea. I would like to retain the option of removing the pins to
separate the hinges and the movable serfaces. I can't believe I'm the only
one who would like to keep that option open.
John Mallet
Working on a FS II in
Sulphur, La.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>
> Reference: Piano hinges, instructions say to cut the hinge pin 1/2"
shorter
>and crimp the hinge to retain the pin. I wonder if any one has a less
>permanent idea. I would like to retain the option of removing the pins to
>separate the hinges and the movable serfaces. I can't believe I'm the only
>one who would like to keep that option open.
>
>John Mallet
>Working on a FS II in
Yes, I have had the pins actually drill themselves out, even after you have
"crimped" the hinges. It always happens on the hinges nearest the engine
and has happened more than once to me, and on other planes besides mine. I
suppose it has something to do with the vibration of the engine. This time
I drilled small holes in the ends of the hinges and put in small "stainless
steel" cotter pins. It was a lot easier than I thought.
P.S. It is a good idea to "oil" the hinges like Mike Highsmith says.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | rudder oscillation |
| From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Hi Guys,
While on this subject of rudder flutter, I too have experienced a type of
rudder flutter, but I prefer to call it an oscillation induced by manmade
thermal activity.
I was flying one day with my feet off the pedals and on the floor when I
flew over a smokestack from a power plant. Immediately, the plane went
into a slow back and forth yawing action where the long fuse tube was
swaying and the wings were yawing. Putting my feet on the rudder pedals
would not stop it, so I pulled up hard to stall the plane and when the
speed dropped off, the yawing action also stopped. If this had continued,
I'm sure the cage would have suffered structural failure due to the
twisting from the yaw. This happened over 10 years ago and I have flown
regularly since but with both feet on the pedals. I believe this was a
very freak incident where the combination of initial slack in the rudder
system (from not having my feet on the pedals) and the shock of the
thermal hit the rudder just right to initiate this action. If it ever
happens again, I know what to do.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 447 powered
writes:
>
>Had a shaking problem caused by too much weight on the trailing edge
>of the
>rudder. Had a friend in another Kolb follow me up one day and watch
>and
>discovered it was rudder flutter. One giveaway of rudder flutter is
>that
>the rudder pedals move rapidly back and forth, and it quits when you
>hold
>both feet tight against the pedals. A word of caution: it didn't seem
>too
>bad from the cockpit, but the pilot watching said it looked very
>radical
>and alarming from behind and above, (said the 6" fuselage boom tube
>apeared
>to be in a sine wave!?!?) so I would think any flutter or shake might
>be
>worse than you can accurately evaluate from the cockpit, and therefore
>unacceptable for more than a few seconds at a time. Be careful.
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
I drilled small holes in each end and ran a loop of safety wire through the
holes to keep the hinge pin in. This way each year when I do my inspection, I
can remove each piano hinge pin, clean it, and re lube each hinge.
I also noticed on the new kolb Slingsjot at Oshkosh this year they have done
the same thing.
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | aquila33(at)webtv.net (dann mann) |
On the MINIMAX plans it says to cut the pins short, drill a small hole
and insert a cotter pin. This would prevent the long pin from coming
out.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 8/12/99 7:59:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, B708408(at)aol.com
writes:
<< I would like to retain the option of removing the pins to
separate the hinges and the movable serfaces. I can't believe I'm the only
one who would like to keep that option open. >>
Cut the pins 1/2" shorter than the hinge, drill the hinge on both ends &
install little cotter pins.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
>Yes, I have had the pins actually drill themselves out, even after you have
>"crimped" the hinges. It always happens on the hinges nearest the engine
>and has happened more than once to me, and on other planes besides mine. I
>suppose it has something to do with the vibration of the engine. This time
>I drilled small holes in the ends of the hinges and put in small "stainless
>steel" cotter pins. It was a lot easier than I thought.
THe big GA planes and homebuilts that use piano hinges to hold cowlings
together often make the hinge pins long, not short, turn a loop in the extra
length and put a screw through the loop into the hinge material or some
nearby metal. I think this is the direction I will go, as the twisted end
of the hing forms a spring that should withstand the vibratiions that tend
to drill through the crimped end of the hing or even a cotter pin. very
easy to remove too.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank & Winnie Hodson" <fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com> |
| Subject: | Geo/Suzuki Engine with Raven Redrive |
> -----Original Message-----
> The
> Geo engine I,m thinking about using is about 150LBS all up
> weight-about 30
> pounds heavier than my 503 w/ "C" Box, so I am mostly concerned
> with the CG.
Dear Howard:
You can calculate the new C.G. by measuring the arm to the center of your
present engine and multiplying it by the extra 30# to find the moment. Add
this to your present weight and balance to find if it will be within an
acceptable range ( this figure will not be totally accurate but will come
pretty close as long as you haven't underestimated the actual weight of the
Geo set-up).
Good Luck: FRANK HODSON, OXFORD ME
P.S.: Do you have any idea as to the volume of the 503's oil reservoir?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
"Charles Waller" ,
"Dan Dantzer" , "Danny Day" ,
"Dave Thomas" ,
"Glenn Rinck" ,
"Greg Moloney" ,
"John Hauck" ,
"Kolb Builders" ,
"Michael Highsmith" ,
"Paul Spadin" ,
"Rutledge Fuller" ,
"Sam Cox"
| Subject: | Fw: RegReps re USUA Topics |
----- Original Message -----
From: <USUAHQ(at)aol.com>
; ; ;
; ; ;
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 9:58 AM
Subject: RegReps re USUA Topics
> August 12, 1999
>
> Dear Directors and Regional Representatives:
>
> My last e-mail to you was confidential, this one is not. Interestingly
that
> confidential mail showed up on the KOLB chat group and, I presume, spread
> from there so it doesn't seem to matter how they are marked.
>
> This contains a number of topics which relate to the upcoming September
issue
> of Ultralight Flying! Magazine. It is being sent to you so you will have
> advance knowledge of the issues. Editorial comments are in italics.
>
> There will also be an insurance plan announcement. However, I will send
it
> to you in a separate e-mail along with detailed program specifics so you
can
> better answer member questions. You may want to contact the clubs in your
> region with this information as affordable third-party liability insurance
> has been desired by many for a long time.
>
> John Ballantyne, USUA President
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Ultralight Flying! magazine has raised USUA subscription prices by over
16%.
> This is not tolerable at current membership rates, and requires that we
raise
> dues as discussed by Directors in Knoxville. Here is the magazine blurb
> associated the dues increase:
>
> MEMBERSHIP DUES/MAGAZINE PRICES INCREASED
> USUA annual membership dues were raised a total of $7.00 when Ultralight
> Flying! magazine subscriptions increased $5.00 as of September 1st.
Members
> not receiving the magazine with membership saw a $2.00 increase. [Ed
note-UF!
> wants to delete USUA references to their subscription rate increase.]
>
> USUA dues have not increased during the 1990s.
>
> "USUA has done a spectacular job of keeping costs down while increasing
> services. But after a full decade with no dues increase it has finally
caught
> up with us," said USUA President John Ballantyne. "Averaging 3 percent
> inflation for each of the 10 years since USUA last increased dues would
> indicate the need for $53.69 in dues to simply stay even. However, USUA
has
> become more efficient and has developed non-dues revenue sources to offset
> the need for higher member dues increases. Members expect USUA to be
> financially sound and this step assures we stay in line with that plan."
>
> The new member dues still represent a significant bargain considering what
a
> member receives in return. On average, USUA members receive $76.00 in
> products, benefits and services for their annual $46.95 dues, including:
>
> -Ultralight Flying!, Ultralight Aviation's largest magazine
>
> -Merchandise Discount Coupon worth up to $25 off selected products
>
> -access to free technical advisors on USUA's Pilot and Owner Assistance
> Hotline
>
> -the USUA On-line system offering the latest news, club and instructor and
> Hall of Celebrities listings, and free aviation weather via personal
computer
>
> -access to internationally recognized achievement awards and flying
programs
>
> Also available are a myriad of special programs including the USUA
Ultralight
> Airmen & Vehicle Registration Program, Insurance and financing programs,
> discounts on rental cars and, for instructors, the USUA Student Rebate and
> training material discount programs.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Editorial for the September Ultralight Flying! magazine
> by John Ballantyne
>
> FAA Administrator-Public Meetings
> I would like to compliment FAA Administrator, Jane Garvey, for her stage
> presence and first-hand knowledge of FAA's activities at a recent, public
> meeting during which she answered many audience questions. She is
obviously
> paying attention and is aware of many issues of concern to FAA.
>
> FAA ARAC Rule Project
> However, it was disappointing to hear her answer a question about the
> progress of the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) "Sport
> Pilot" project. Without hesitation she responded that FAA was considering
a
> reduced medical certificate and, while she could not promise anything, FAA
> was trying real hard. The disappointing part was that she stopped there.
Her
> briefings have apparently been limited to medical issues as being the
> significant topic in the ARAC project.
>
> You may recall that he advisory group of representatives from many
> associations had drafted a request to FAA for a shell of standards under
> which new pilot certificate programs could be administratively created and
> modified. The medical requirement for pilots is one of many issues
associated
> with the draft request. As USUA has reported many times, the exclusive
focus
> on medicals came after large aviation groups began to participate in the
last
> few working groups meetings. Now it seems that the FAA Administrator is
not
> hearing much about anything thing else.
>
> EAA/ASC petitions to FAA?
> Meanwhile sources report that FAA is working to create a new FAA category
> specifically for trikes outside the FAA Sport Pilot ARAC project. Reports
> also indicate that FAA has recently received input from EAA and ASC as
well.
> Apparently ASC has submitted a petition although ASC has not responded to
my
> telephone message about their request. EAA is drafting a petition to FAA
for
> some form of commercial use with some experimental aircraft including
trikes.
>
> There has been no cooperation between the associations even though I
> personally telephoned EAA and ASC with an invitation/suggestion to work
> together with petitions to FAA. While both groups verbally agreed to share
> information, ASC then petitioned FAA in secret and EAA now says they will
> provide a copy their petition only after submitting it to FAA.
>
> I wonder if this is a good way for an industry to do business? There are
> serious implications to ultralighting in these exemption requests by
EAA/ASC.
> Have the members of those groups been consulted or even been told how they
> are being represented to FAA?
>
> FAA Internal Activity
> What is FAA doing and why do they appear to be ignoring the ARAC Sport
Pilot
> working group are additional questions which need answering. FAA created
the
> Sport Pilot ARAC working group to resolve such things.
>
> While the Sport Pilot ARAC working group awaits response from FAA legal
and
> FAA economists, there has been no expectation that FAA would take
unilateral
> action. USUA will continue to uncover these matters and report in upcoming
> issues of Ultralight Flying! magazine.
>
> WOW - USUA Insurance program like never before!
> USUA sets a new standard for affordable insurance with the announcement of
> one million dollar third party liability insurance for only $150.00 per
year.
> It covers pilots/instructors of "Fat" single-seaters and two place
> ultralights as well. I want to personally thank Willis Corroon
vice-president
> Andrew Kain who has devoted a huge amount of time to the creation of this
> program. Refer to the separate information on this program in this issue
of
> Ultralight Flying! magazine. Please participate.
>
> Highest Membership Ever
> Finally, I want to thank each USUA member for your membership and support
of
> USUA. This month the current, annual membership of USUA is higher than
ever
> before. While we are still a relatively small organization in the broad
view,
> our constant direction and business-like methods are effective.
>
> USUA is the only association in the world which is entirely dedicated to
> American ultralight aviation and is solidly connected all the way from the
> local club network to the member-elected regional representatives, to the
> full-time national headquarters near Washington DC, to the FAI
international
> microlight commission in Lausanne, Switzerland.
>
> USUA is a not-for-profit corporation which receives no advertising money
and
> is in debt to no one. No other organization controls or directs its
> activities. Every USUA Director is an active ultralight pilot/instructor
and
> cares very much about the health and direction of our air sport.
>
> Obviously more and more people are recognizing the value of this
association.
> We appreciate your increasing support and promise to squeeze every dollar
as
> much as possible to promote, protect and represent your interests in
> ultralight aviation.
>
> ps:
> When I use the word "ultralighting," I refer to the act of aviating by
> pilots of single and two-place craft that fly slowly and are primarily for
> recreation. "Ultralight" and "Microlight" are international terms which
are
> sometimes interchanged. Refer to FAR Part 103 for vehicle definitions and
> operating rules. Some flight operations are regulated by FARs 61 and 91.
Be
> sure you know the difference.
> ---------------------END--------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi John:
You asked - - quote - -
Piano hinges, instructions say to cut the hinge pin 1/2" shorter and crimp
the hinge to retain the pin. I wonder if any one has a less permanent idea. -
unquote.
I drilled a very small hole in each end of the hinge and inserted a small
cotter pin. Of course, the hinge pin is about 1/2" shorter than the hinge.
This way, the hinge can be disassembled very easily. Works for me!
Ron Christensen
MKIII1/2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com> |
"Rutledge Fuller" ,
"Paul Spadin" ,
"Michael Highsmith" ,
"Kolb Builders" ,
"John Hauck" ,
"Greg Moloney" ,
"Glenn Rinck" ,
"Frank Kahn" ,
"Dave Thomas" , "Danny Day" ,
"Charles Waller" ,
"Dan Dantzer" ,
"Buddy Carilse" ,
"Bob Moorehead" , "ASC2"
| Subject: | Fw: RegReps re USUA Topics |
----- Original Message -----
From: <USUAHQ(at)aol.com>
; ; ;
; ; ;
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 9:59 AM
Subject: RegReps re USUA Topics
> August 12, 1999
>
> Dear Directors and Regional Representatives:
>
>
> This information about the new USUA Insurance program is for general
> distribution. The following text comes from two sources: USUA
Headquarters
> News portion of the upcoming issue of Ultralight Flying! Magazine, and a
> brochure available from USUA HQ.
>
> You may want to contact the clubs in your region with this information as
> affordable third-party liability insurance has been desired by many for a
> long time.
>
> John Ballantyne, USUA President
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Text from upcoming Ultralight Flying! magazine:
>
> USUA INSURANCE PLAN
> INSURANCE FINALLY AVAILABLE
>
> Individual third party liability insurance coverage for single and two
seat
> "ultralight" operations is now available exclusively to USUA members.
This
> type of insurance covers your cost of defense and penalties, if through
your
> flying activity, you injure someone or damage someone's property but not a
> student or passenger or someone associated with the operation of the
> vehicle/aircraft. The plan provides a USUA member in good standing
coverage
> up to $1 million combined per accident. This breaks down to a maximum of
> $100,000 each person for bodily injury and $1,000,000 for property damage.
>
> USUA recently concluded the last details to put the program in motion.
"The
> long process to set up a program to provide members with their own
personal
> liability insurance plan is over," said USUA President John Ballantyne. "A
> special thanks to the Willis Company and specifically to Andy Kain,
> Vice-president, for seeing the value of this service to our community and
> partnering with USUA to develop this plan that has led ultralighting into
the
> new millennium."
>
> The insurance program is open to all who operate "ultralight" airplanes,
> trikes and hang gliders and have pilot and vehicle/aircraft registration
> through FAA or any FAA recognized ultralight safety program. The policy
will
> cover all vehicles/aircraft having a stall speed not exceeding 35 knots
(40
> mph) Calibrated Air Speed and with a gross weight of not more than 992
U.S.
> pounds. The policy costs only $154.50 per year ($150 plus 3% surplus lines
> tax).
>
> "USUA is pleased to offer this insurance coverage to many of our members,"
> Ballantyne commented. "This is the beginning. As the policy base grows and
> the underwriters can see how well we perform, the plan can be expanded to
> include more members such as those operating powered parachutes."
>
> The coverage is intended for private owners and instructors. It is not
> intended for those involved in commercial flying such as towing of banners
&
> gliders; aerial seeding, aerial spraying or dusting or other for-hire
> operations except instruction.
>
> To receive USUA Insurance Plan details and an application, visit the USUA
> Website or directly contact USUA Tel: (301) 695-9100, Fax: (301) 695-0763.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> The following text is from a tri-fold handout which is available from
USUA.
>
> Enjoy Peace of Mind,
>
> Financial Protection for Your Family and Your Future.
>
>
> With a USUA 3rd Party Insurance Policy In Hand
>
>
> USUA: PROTECTING YOUR
> PRIVILEGE TO FLY FOR FUN!
>
>
> USUA INSURANCE PLAN
> 3rd Party Liability Coverage For Pilots of Ultralights: Trike, Airplane
and
> Hang Glider
>
>
> AT LAST,
> 3rd Party Liability Insurance Coverage FOR USUA MEMBERS
>
> 8 $1 Million Per Accident
>
> 8 Open to "Fat Ultralights"
> - airplanes, trikes and hang gliders
>
> - stall speed not exceeding 35 knots (40 mph) Calibrated Air Speed
>
> - Gross weight of not more than 992 U.S. pounds
>
> 8 Registration through FAA or any FAA recognized ultralight safety
program.
>
> 8 Only Costs $154.50
> ($150 per year plus 3% surplus lines tax)
>
> The coverage is intended for private owners and instructors. It is not
> intended for those involved in commercial flying such as towing of banners
&
> gliders; aerial seeding, aerial spraying or dusting or other for-hire
> operations except instruction.
>
> ALL APPLICATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY WILLIS.
>
> The USUA Airmen Registration Program is the oldest and most widely known
and
> accepted program in the United States. It has been imitated by subsequent
> programs and has been used as a model for similar ultralight training
> programs worldwide. Program costs are recovered through participation.
>
> No USUA member dues are taken from other programs to subsidize this
program.
>
>
> ANSWERS TO COMMON QUESTIONS
>
> HOW MUCH COVERAGE DO I GET?
> Coverage subject to a deductible of $50 in respect of property damage each
> accident
> Bodily injury any one person any one accident-$100,000 USD:
> Property damage any one accident-$1,000,000 USD:
> Overall Combined Bodily injury and property damage shall not exceed any
one
> accident-$1,000,000 USD
>
>
> WHY DO I WANT THIS INSURANCE COVERAGE?
> This is the way you assure others that if you injure them or damage their
> property you are financially able to pay for the damage you accidentally
did
> to them. Also, many state and municipal facilities employ financial
> responsibility laws and require such coverage.
>
> Without this type of coverage, the cost of defense alone could
significantly
> impact your financial future. There is great value in knowing you have
> protection in case of an unplanned event. Besides, the coverage is easy to
> obtain and only costs a fraction of your vehicle/aircraft and yearly
> operating expenses.
>
>
> WHAT DOES THIRD PARTY LIABILITY MEAN?
> When, through your flying activity, you injure someone or damage someone's
> property but not a student or passenger or someone associated with the
> operation of the vehicle/aircraft.
>
>
> WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MY VEHICLE/AIRCRAFT?
> DEFINITION
> Fixed or flexible wing, engine powered vehicle/aircraft [airplane or trike
> configuration] of not more than 450 kilograms (992 U.S. pounds), which has
a
> power-off stall speed of not more than 35 knots calibrated airspeed (40
miles
> per hour) at maximum gross weight including hang gliders but excluding
> gliders.
>
> REGISTRATION AND MARKING
> The Vehicle/Aircraft must be registered in any FAA recognized ultralight
> vehicle registration program or registered with FAA. (Photocopy required
if
> not registered with USUA)
>
>
> WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ME?
> IF FLYING A SINGLE-SEATER-
> A person must be at least 16 years old and a registered ultralight pilot
or
> instructor with the appropriate category/class privileges in any FAA
> recognized ultralight airman competency program.
>
> IF FLYING A TWO-SEATER-
> One of the following:
> 1) A USUA registered instructor need do nothing extra.
> 2) Instructors in other FAA recognized programs must simply include a
> photocopy of their ultralight instructor registration.
> 3) FAA private pilot certificate or better with ultralight pilot
> registration in any FAA recognized program.
>
>
> CAN MORE THAN ONE PILOT BE NAMED ON A POLICY?
> Yes. The standard policy allows two pilots to be named at no additional
cost.
> An unlimited additional number of pilots may be named on the same policy
with
> an additional premium of $25.75 ($25 plus 3% surplus lines tax) per pilot.
>
>
> ARE INSTRUCTIONAL FLIGHTS COVERED?
> Yes.
>
>
> DOES THIS POLICY COVER DAMAGE TO MY VEHICLE/ AIRCRAFT OR INJURY TO MY
STUDENT
> OR PASSENGER?
> No. The coverage only applies to people and property not associated with
the
> operation of the vehicle/aircraft.
>
>
> HOW ABOUT STUDENT SOLO?
> No. Solo flight by a student is not covered under this program.
>
>
> I AM NOT A USUA MEMBER. CAN I GET THIS INSURANCE?
> Yes, by joining USUA. Annual dues are a required portion of the insurance
> application. In the case where a member asks and has a membership which
is
> valid beyond the insurance period, the requirement for renewal may be
waived.
>
>
> HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?
> Only $154.50 per year ($150 plus 3% surplus lines tax).
>
> FOR AN APPLICATION CONTACT:
> United States Ultralight Association
> PO Box 667, Frederick, MD 21705
> Tel: (301) 695-9100, Fax: (301) 695-0763
July 22, 1999 - August 13, 1999
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-bo