Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-bp
August 13, 1999 - September 09, 1999
> E-mail: usuahq(at)aol.com
>
> -----------END----------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Geo/Suzuki Engine with Raven Redrive |
In a message dated 8/12/99 11:46:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
fwhodson(at)bigfoot.com writes:
<< P.S.: Do you have any idea as to the volume of the 503's oil reservoir? >>
Sorry, I mix mine. The reservoir is on a shelf in the hanger.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Howard Penny <penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se> |
| Subject: | PLEASE READ! - Weasel #WSN01613 |
Disposition-Notification-To: "Howard G. Penny"
Matt Dralle
Matronics
dralle(at)matronics.com
RV, Kolb, Zenith, Yak, EZ, Lancair, and Glasair List Administrator.
RE: Test from Matronics - Please Ignore - Weasel #WSN01613
This is totally unacceptable! I have requested several times that you
remove my e-mail address from your Spam "Weasel" and obviously it is falling
on deaf ears or eyes. We all get hit with SPAM but that does not make it
acceptable for you to contribute to it also. You have obviously assigned me
a serial number, PLEASE mark it for non-intrusive mode. I will notify you
when I am changing or canceling my e-mail address. Although I don't
contribute to the Kolb List very often, as a SlingShot builder I like to
keep up with the group. I do not wish to cancel my subscription to the
kolb-list, but please have understanding.
Howard G. Penny
Ericsson, Inc.
(919) 472-7216
penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se
-----Original Message-----
From: testmail(at)matronics.com [mailto:testmail(at)matronics.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 12:52 AM
Subject: Test from Matronics - Please Ignore - Weasel #WSN01613
User Serial Number: WSN01613
User Email Address: penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se
This is a test message to determine the source of bogus email addresses.
Please do *not* respond to this message as the test relies upon which email
addresses bounce this message. Your email address could be inadvertently
deleted from the List if you respond directly to this message.
This test is being done to locate bad email addresses currently on one of
the following email Lists sponsored by Matronics:
RV-List, Kolb-List, Zenith-List, Yak-List, EZ-List, Lancair-List, or
Glasair-List
The results of this test aid in purging bad email addresses from the Lists
and can increase the performance of the email list server substantially.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Matt Dralle
Matronics
dralle(at)matronics.com
RV, Kolb, Zenith, Yak, EZ, Lancair, and Glasair List Administrator.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FireStar ll price reduced |
I have been asked by my deceased friend's 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 by a graduate mechanical engineer, always hangared and ready to
fly. Price was $15,500 is now $13,500. Call Duane Mitchell (850), 878-9047,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ! - Email Weasel... |
>--------------
>RE: Test from Matronics - Please Ignore - Weasel #WSN01613
>
>This is totally unacceptable! I have requested several times that you
>remove my e-mail address from your Spam "Weasel" and obviously it is falling
>on deaf ears or eyes. We all get hit with SPAM but that does not make it
>acceptable for you to contribute to it also. You have obviously assigned me
>a serial number, PLEASE mark it for non-intrusive mode. I will notify you
>when I am changing or canceling my e-mail address. Although I don't
>contribute to the Kolb List very often, as a SlingShot builder I like to
>keep up with the group. I do not wish to cancel my subscription to the
>kolb-list, but please have understanding.
>
>Howard G. Penny
>Ericsson, Inc.
>(919) 472-7216
>penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se
>--------------
Howard,
I believe that you are substantially over-reacting to this situation. There
are nearly 3000 email addresses subscribed to the Email Lists hosted here at
Matronics with 200-300 email messages a day being forwarded to them. Because
many people do not unsubscribe from the email Lists when their address is no
longer valid, I receive megabytes worth of bounced email each day. Since I
have many other more important things to do with my life than pour over
thousands of bounced email messages trying to figure out just which List they
are subscribed to, I have written a number of automated tools to process this
excess of bounced email and automatically unsubscribe the bogus addresses.
These tools as a collection are called The Email Weasel and are divided into
two main tools - The Daily Weasel, and The Monthly Weasel. The Daily Weasel
looks through the 5 to 10mb of bounced email each day and makes a best-guess
at what the address was that caused the bounce and tries to automatically
remove the address. However, because many mailers on the Internet do not
conform to the "standard" email header layout, this process only affectively
catches about 70% of the bogus email addresses. There are cases where someone
has had their email forwarded from the email address that is subscribed to the
List and the second address is actually bouncing the email and often their
mailer gives no indication of what the original email address was. These and
other similar cases are handled by The Monthly Weasel and requires that a
single message be sent to each email address on all of the Lists with a unique
serial number so that the bounced email message's subscription to to respective
List can be asynchronously determined without the use of the header information
and therefore can removed from the Lists if necessary. The utility afforded by
the combination of these two tools has greatly reduced the amount of manual
labor involved in the day-to-day operation of these email Lists and more
importantly has substantially decreased the amount of time necessary to
redistribute any given message to each of the subscribers on a given List. One
polite automated Email Weasel message out of the 1000 to 2000 emails a month
seems like a very small price to pay for the continued efficient operation of
this service that is provided to you free of charge. Please remember that if
you feel that these policies are too intrusive for you, you may unsubscribe at
any time.
Respectfully,
Matt Dralle
Lists Admin.
Matronics
>--------------
>From: testmail(at)matronics.com [mailto:testmail(at)matronics.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 12:52 AM
>To: penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se
>Subject: Test from Matronics - Please Ignore - Weasel #WSN01613
>
>
>User Serial Number: WSN01613
>User Email Address: penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se
>
>This is a test message to determine the source of bogus email addresses.
>Please do *not* respond to this message as the test relies upon which email
>addresses bounce this message. Your email address could be inadvertently
>deleted from the List if you respond directly to this message.
>
>This test is being done to locate bad email addresses currently on one of
>the following email Lists sponsored by Matronics:
>
> RV-List, Kolb-List, Zenith-List, Yak-List, EZ-List, Lancair-List, or
>Glasair-List
>
>The results of this test aid in purging bad email addresses from the Lists
>and can increase the performance of the email list server substantially.
>
>Thank you for your patience and understanding.
>
>Matt Dralle
>Matronics
>dralle(at)matronics.com
>RV, Kolb, Zenith, Yak, EZ, Lancair, and Glasair List Administrator.
>--------------
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Zutrauen" <peterz(at)zutrasoft.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ! - Email Weasel... |
Hi Matt,
Any reason I am receiving every post three times?
(this just ocurred in the last few weeks I believe)
Just wondering if you could reduce that to one :)
Enjoy the list... thanks!
Pete Zutrauen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ! - Weasel #WSN01613 |
I for one have never found the delete key too difficult to push. I just
appreciate this free service and I certainly wouldn't want to discourage Matt
from providing it. Keep up the good work Matt! If someone doesn't like the
free gift you provide, take it back.
Terry
Howard Penny wrote:
>
> Matt Dralle
> Matronics
> dralle(at)matronics.com
> RV, Kolb, Zenith, Yak, EZ, Lancair, and Glasair List Administrator.
>
> RE: Test from Matronics - Please Ignore - Weasel #WSN01613
>
> This is totally unacceptable! I have requested several times that you
> remove my e-mail address from your Spam "Weasel" and obviously it is falling
> on deaf ears or eyes. We all get hit with SPAM but that does not make it
> acceptable for you to contribute to it also. You have obviously assigned me
> a serial number, PLEASE mark it for non-intrusive mode. I will notify you
> when I am changing or canceling my e-mail address. Although I don't
> contribute to the Kolb List very often, as a SlingShot builder I like to
> keep up with the group. I do not wish to cancel my subscription to the
> kolb-list, but please have understanding.
>
> Howard G. Penny
> Ericsson, Inc.
> (919) 472-7216
> penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ! - Weasel #WSN01613 |
Golly, I think you just caused yourself more junk messages by sending this
to the mail list and demanding a acknowledgement from each recipient
instead of sending it only to the list administrator directly. Too bad, I
think I would have done it differently.
>
>Matt Dralle
>Matronics
>dralle(at)matronics.com
>RV, Kolb, Zenith, Yak, EZ, Lancair, and Glasair List Administrator.
>
>RE: Test from Matronics - Please Ignore - Weasel #WSN01613
>
>This is totally unacceptable! I have requested several times that you
>remove my e-mail address from your Spam "Weasel" and obviously it is falling
>on deaf ears or eyes. We all get hit with SPAM but that does not make it
>acceptable for you to contribute to it also. You have obviously assigned me
>a serial number, PLEASE mark it for non-intrusive mode. I will notify you
>when I am changing or canceling my e-mail address. Although I don't
>contribute to the Kolb List very often, as a SlingShot builder I like to
>keep up with the group. I do not wish to cancel my subscription to the
>kolb-list, but please have understanding.
>
>Howard G. Penny
>Ericsson, Inc.
>(919) 472-7216
>penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: testmail(at)matronics.com [mailto:testmail(at)matronics.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 12:52 AM
>To: penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se
>Subject: Test from Matronics - Please Ignore - Weasel #WSN01613
>
>
>User Serial Number: WSN01613
>User Email Address: penny(at)rtp.ericsson.se
>
>This is a test message to determine the source of bogus email addresses.
>Please do *not* respond to this message as the test relies upon which email
>addresses bounce this message. Your email address could be inadvertently
>deleted from the List if you respond directly to this message.
>
>This test is being done to locate bad email addresses currently on one of
>the following email Lists sponsored by Matronics:
>
> RV-List, Kolb-List, Zenith-List, Yak-List, EZ-List, Lancair-List, or
>Glasair-List
>
>The results of this test aid in purging bad email addresses from the Lists
>and can increase the performance of the email list server substantially.
>
>Thank you for your patience and understanding.
>
>Matt Dralle
>Matronics
>dralle(at)matronics.com
>RV, Kolb, Zenith, Yak, EZ, Lancair, and Glasair List Administrator.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ! - Email Weasel... |
Hang in there, Matt ! ! ! We're with you. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Dralle 925-606-1001 <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 12:04 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: PLEASE READ! - Email Weasel...
925-606-1001)
>
>
> >--------------
> >RE: Test from Matronics - Please Ignore - Weasel #WSN01613
> >
> >This is totally unacceptable! I have requested several times that you
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Howard, that's the best offer I've had all week ! ! ! Thanks very much.
Yuasa tells me that the battery I need is an NP4-12 . Does that
sound like a good number to you ?? I'm leaving on vacation next Friday, so
hope it can be here by then. Thanks again. Relieved Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: <HShack(at)aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Batteries
>
> 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: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ! - Weasel #WSN01613 |
apparently he thinks matt is using the weasel to gather email addresses to
use for sending out junk mail... Which he isnt. Matt would never stoop to
releasing our list to, say a timeshare condo spam house!
TOpher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PLEASE READ! - Weasel #WSN01613 |
Goeff W--AMEN, and thanks for blowing the Whistle on that guy.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kegebeins" <paak(at)csinet.net> |
| Subject: | A new Kolb Wesite |
Hi Everyone,
This is Bruce, I have recently created a website for my KOLB MK III if
anyone would like to take a look:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/6653
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | olb-List:Unscribe |
off.........
Maxnwa(at)aol.com
too much trivia !!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 8/14/99 12:34:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net writes:
<< Yuasa tells me that the battery I need is an NP4-12 . Does that
sound like a good number to you ?? I'm leaving on vacation next Friday, so
hope it can be here by then. Thanks again. Relieved Lar. >>
Lar, send me privately your Mailing address & I should get it out Monday.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A new Kolb Wesite |
| From: | rick m libersat <rick106(at)juno.com> |
Bruce
Took a look at your M/3 and you sure did a goog job where are you going
to put the ant. for the ELT ? keep up the good work
Rick Libersat
>
>Hi Everyone,
>
> This is Bruce, I have recently created a website for my KOLB MK
>III if
>anyone would like to take a look:
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/6653
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Back Home in Alabama |
Hey Kolbers:
Got back from Oshkosh last Friday, after 26 days on the road
pulling my 5th wheel. Discovered it is much simpler to fly
Miss P'fer, my MK III, to OSH. Don't have to worry about
where I will set up my tent and don't have to deal with the
considerable traffic on the ground.
Detoured from regular route to spend a few days at New Kolb
in London, Ky. What a neat place in the Ky mountains.
Purpose of visit was to check out mods to prototype
(factory) Fire Fly and get some time in the new 912 powered
Sling Shot. Remember the old barn door ailerons on the Fire
Fly? Now they are much smaller and have greatly improved
the handling characteristics of that plane. Didn't get to
fly the Sling Shot cause it was still getting tweaked for
its maiden flight and I had to get to OSH early to get a
good spot in the UL Camping Area.
This was the best OSH I have been to in the UL/Lt Plane
area. We were not messed with by the powers to be and got
almost as much flight time as we could handle. I flew the
Sling Shot most of the time and alternated with the Fire
Fly. Also flew a really big man in Brian Blackwood's MK III
who claimed to weigh 240. Brian didn't want to fly him
cause he weighs 250, it was extremely hot and we were taking
off up hill with a cross wind. I got a feeling that this
gentleman was not absolutely honest about his actual weight
and the MK III let me know it. However, we gave him a ride
around the patch and got him back on the ground safely.
The Sling Shot with its red valve covers turned out to be a
80 horse 912 with red valve covers. It has been a long time
since I have flown a 582 powered Sling Shot so the
comparison between the two is not that good. However, the
912 powered SS is a delight to fly. I flew a couple hours
the first day and was a little disappointed at the slower
airspeeds, but was surprised at the lower stall speeds.
When I got back to the Kolb trailer I mentioned this and was
quickly informed that the air speed indicator was calibrated
in knots and not MPH. I flew the traffic pattern at 80
knots about 5200 rpm and 75K at 5000. Could also fly
comfortably at 40K. We landed and took off with 90 deg
cross winds that had the flags and wind socks standing
straight out. The SS will slip like a rock and land short.
I could start an approach to the south over the end of the
airstrip at 350 feet and turn around before the first gate
next to the announcers stand which is less than halfway down
the strip which runs downhill to the south. No problem
handling the X-wind and gobbled up the rough air with its
little wings and heavier engine. Performance was a little
better than the 582, as I remember, but there is a feeling
that changes the character of the airplane with the 912 that
I also got in my MK III after upgrading from 582 to 912. If
I ever build another airplane it will be a SS, unless I
can't pass my medical, then I will build a Fire Fly.
The Fire Fly did a super job. It feels like a little SS,
especially with the smaller ailerons. Playing with the wind
it would land on a dime, many times landing across the grass
strip into the wind rather than straight down it.
We had a safe flyin in the UL area with only one UL down
with an eng problem or someone said fuel starvation and no
one hurt. Can't beat that with the number of aircraft in
the pattern at one time.
Looked like the crowd was down this year compared to past
years. Maybe EAA is making too many changes, i.e., name and
super inflated prices.
Good to be home.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Gallar" <MikeG(at)ij.net> |
| Subject: | Elevator Bell Crank |
Anybody with a markIII, I am install my control sticks and assorted sub
systems
my question is the bell crank between the two seats, does it need a spacer
to keep
it from hitting the fuse tubes that it is mounted to.
Thanks,
Mike Gallar
Mark III N693MS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard_Harris(at)albemarle.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vic Worthington" <vicw(at)vcn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 08/13/99 |
To Matt Dralle, List administrator.
Thanks Matt for all your hard work on the Kolb-List Digest.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
I know that this has been beat to death on the list in the past , but after
an hour reading back through the archives , I think I see Matt Dralle's
concern about the use of the "Do not Ar_____" (not typing the last word for
fear of the filter cutting out this message..) function. There are holes
poked in the middle all through the threads and kind of like trying to talk
on a cell phone that is on the fringe of its range...BE PARTICULAR ABOUT THE
DNA LINE...NUFF SAID.
ANNNNYWAY , I had to get spam can renters insurance and decided to get a
quote on M3 insurance building and flying. Avemco quoted me $193/year for
building insurance and (Hold on to your shorts...) $1900/year for
liability/hull coverage. AND the hull coverage won't go in effect till the
FAA restrictions are flown off!!!! Like I said , I know this has been beat
to death , but these things change a lot so could I get some folks to drop
me a note with any help you can give me on this...(i.e. What your paying? ,
How much time you have , what limits of coverage or any exclusions you
have )
I think part of that quote might be due to low time pilot but $1900 ??? Give
me a break!!!
Any help with phone numbers for "other" aviation insurance companies would
be appreciated.
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
Mark 3 in little pieces in the basement...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>
>I know that this has been beat to death on the list in the past , but after
>I think part of that quote might be due to low time pilot but $1900 ??? Give
>me a break!!!
>Any help with phone numbers for "other" aviation insurance companies would
>be appreciated.
>
>-----Original Message-----
From: USUAHQ(at)aol.com [mailto:USUAHQ(at)aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999
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
E-mail: usuahq(at)aol.com
-----------END----------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard_Harris(at)albemarle.com |
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Harris/Magnolia/Chem/Albemarle
on 08/16/99 02:52 PM ---------------------------
Richard Harris
08/16/99 01:03 PM
cc:
Subject: MK3
John:
Glad you are back. sounds like a good trip. I have a question for you
about MK3
and a 912 install. Mine is ser# 236 I finished and first flew it in
May of 96. I installed the
912 from photos from kolb, and talking to Bill Martin. I have never
seen another MK3 in
person. Not many kolbs in this area !
My question as to do with the angle of the 912 , mine is about 1/2 in
higher in the front than the back. This was for air flow over the
tail, as per kolb. However my nose starts to yaw and move around
about 80mph. Thought you might have some ideas on what might be
causing this. I thought maybe the angle of the engine might have something
to do with it.
Any ideas or thoughts would be greatly appreciated
RH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Hey guys:
I answered Richard's msg bc then realized maybe some of the
info might help others on the List. Decided to go ahead and
fwd to List. Here tis:
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:35:37 -0500
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: MK3
> John:
> Glad you are back. sounds like a good trip. I have a question for you
> about MK3
> and a 912 install. Mine is ser# 236 I finished and first flew it in
> May of 96. I installed the
> 912 from photos from kolb, and talking to Bill Martin. I have never
> seen another MK3 in
> person. Not many kolbs in this area !
> My question as to do with the angle of the 912 , mine is about 1/2 in
> higher in the front than the back. This was for air flow over the
> tail, as per kolb. However my nose starts to yaw and move around
> about 80mph. Thought you might have some ideas on what might be
> causing this. I thought maybe the angle of the engine might have something
> to do with it.
>
> Any ideas or thoughts would be greatly appreciated
>
> RH
Richard:
That is about the way I have mine set up. In fact, I have
the prop about 90 deg to the bottom of the wing, which is
about 5/8 inch higher in front than in back of the engine
mounts.
Prop wash and high thrust line cause the MK III to drop the
nose and yaw left with the 912. Just the opposite with the
582. Mine is almost trimmed out in yaw by moving the
leading edge of the vertical stab as far left as I could get
it. This was done recently and is not as effective as if I
had done it before I covered by cutting and rewelding the
4130 socket to the correct angle. Now I have a curve in the
upper vertical stab that decreases a lot of the correction I
put into it.
Yawing and moving around, i.e., back and forth, is probably
caused by loose tailwires. The way the folding mechanism is
designed there is a built in side load on the elevator
hinges which wears them thru use. They take all the load
that tight tail wires place on them. As they wear
laterally, the wires automatically loosen. I used nylon
blocks between the inside rear edge of each horizontal stab
to act as thrust bearings. Also added turn buckles to top
and bottom wires, both sides. This way I can keep the wires
tight and reduce wear on the hinges.
80 mph is my most comfortable cruise depending on turbulence
and temperatures. My 912 at 5000 rpm usually runs out to 75
or 80 depending on how I am loaded.
Let me know how you come out.
I check the tail wire tension by pulling on the top of the
vertical stab and the outside edge of the horizontal stab.
If I get slack when I pull these two parts together, I
tighten the cables. Here is where the turn buckles pay off.
john h
PS: Just remembered something. The rudder on my MK III
will occillate if I forget and relax foot pressure on the
pedals. Occillation starts very mildly, hardly noticeable.
I usually notice it when I glance out at the wing tip and
see it moving a little back and forth. Usually no problem
except on XCs when flying straight and level for a while.
Make sure next time you fly you hold a little pressure on
the pedal that trims up the aircraft in yaw, the right
pedal. Do you have a slip/skid indicator? or a yaw string?
Need something to tell you when aircraft is trimmed
correctly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Reynolds" <rfreynol(at)mindspring.com> |
Jeremy, here are a few things that you can do to get the rate down:
1) Pull out the second seat and call it a single seater... much cheaper to
insure
2) Join the EAA. EAA members get a discount and if you use the Tech.
Counselor and Flight Advisor programs, they will insure it for the first 10
hours.
3) Only insure to hull up to the cost of the kit. Avemco commonly asks how
many hours it took to build the plane, then they multiply this time 15 bucks
and hour and add this into the coverage. If you break it, you are going to
have to fix it, so why do you need to pay yourself to fix your own airplane?
4) get at least 10 hours in type BEFORE getting the flight insurance. this
will make a difference in the rate. Also, get a tail-wheel signoff if you
don't have one and make sure you get at least 10-20 tail-wheel hours.
Airplanes that can gound-loop cost more to insure.
5) Log more hours. Avemco rates don't drop until you have over 200 hours.
The hours don't all have to be logged in GA aircraft, you can add your hours
from your ultralight log book to your GA hours to report to Avemco. They
never said "FAA Allowable Hours" on the form. UL's are cheaper to rent and
a great way to build hours.
-Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Casey <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 3:20 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Insurance
>
> I know that this has been beat to death on the list in the past , but
after
> an hour reading back through the archives , I think I see Matt Dralle's
> concern about the use of the "Do not Ar_____" (not typing the last word
for
> fear of the filter cutting out this message..) function. There are holes
> poked in the middle all through the threads and kind of like trying to
talk
> on a cell phone that is on the fringe of its range...BE PARTICULAR ABOUT
THE
> DNA LINE...NUFF SAID.
>
> ANNNNYWAY , I had to get spam can renters insurance and decided to get a
> quote on M3 insurance building and flying. Avemco quoted me $193/year for
> building insurance and (Hold on to your shorts...) $1900/year for
> liability/hull coverage. AND the hull coverage won't go in effect till
the
> FAA restrictions are flown off!!!! Like I said , I know this has been
beat
> to death , but these things change a lot so could I get some folks to drop
> me a note with any help you can give me on this...(i.e. What your paying?
,
> How much time you have , what limits of coverage or any exclusions you
> have )
>
> I think part of that quote might be due to low time pilot but $1900 ???
Give
> me a break!!!
> Any help with phone numbers for "other" aviation insurance companies would
> be appreciated.
>
> Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
> Mark 3 in little pieces in the basement...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leister <dleister(at)eriecoast.com> |
Jeremy Casey wrote:
>
>
> ANNNNYWAY , I had to get spam can renters insurance and decided to get a
> quote on M3 insurance building and flying. Avemco quoted me $193/year for
> building insurance and (Hold on to your shorts...) $1900/year for
> liability/hull coverage. AND the hull coverage won't go in effect till the
> FAA restrictions are flown off!!!! Like I said , I know this has been beat
> to death , but these things change a lot so could I get some folks to drop
> me a note with any help you can give me on this...(i.e. What your paying? ,
> How much time you have , what limits of coverage or any exclusions you
> have )
>
> I think part of that quote might be due to low time pilot but $1900 ??? Give
> me a break!!!
> Any help with phone numbers for "other" aviation insurance companies would
> be appreciated.
Jeremy: Try SkySurance. Agency Inc. Thomas A Dus 800-545-3262
Elyria
OH
I pay $1,025 per yr. for $20,000 hull and
liability.
David Leister
Mark III 912 powered. 185 Hrs
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Guess I'd better add to that, in light of a recent development. Last Sat.
nite, and Sunday, I developed a full blown case of Bell's Palsy on the right
side of my face. I've had to postpone my vacation for a few weeks until it
(hopefully) wears off. What a miserable, uncomfortable affliction, and what
an awful time for it to hit. Big Lar. Do not
Archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Bourne <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Batteries
>
> Howard, that's the best offer I've had all week ! ! ! Thanks very much.
> Yuasa tells me that the battery I need is an NP4-12 . Does that
> sound like a good number to you ?? I'm leaving on vacation next Friday,
so
> hope it can be here by then. Thanks again. Relieved Lar.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <HShack(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Batteries
>
>
> >
> > 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Over Voltage Question |
>I performed my first engine run in my RV-4 the other day,, and all went
>very well, except for a problem with excessive (excessive to me anyway)
>voltage. I have a standard, "Vans-issue 35amp alternator with a sealed,
>solid state voltage regulater,,, again, from Vans. I am using your crowbar
>OV protection module and I have a standard setup of a split-type master,
>with a field circuit protected with a 5amp breaker.
>
>The voltage ranged from 15.1 to as high as 15.8v. Now, I only ran it twice
>for five minutes per run so I didn't allow myself to much time for
>troubleshooting.
>I am fairly confident in the reliability of the voltmeter, curtesy of a
>VM1000 which shows a "normal" bus voltage of 12.3 with the engine not
>running. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe your OV module triggers at
>16v?? In any case, the field breaker did not trip but this still seems very
>odd to me as the regulator is pre-set at the factory at 13.8v,, or so I
>have been told.
A regulator can be confused into believing that the bus voltage
is too low and causing the system voltage to run too high. This
happens when there is excessive voltage drop between the alternator's
output terminals and the regulator. The problem is generally caused
You're correct that our OV modules are set for 16.0 to 16.5 volts
with 16.2 being the room temperaure nominal. The readings you were
getting are too low to cause the ovm to trip . . . but getting close.
Do you have a voltmeter with some long leads? There are a couple of
measurements that would be good to know:
While the engine is running and the VM1000 is reporting a high
bus voltage, what is:
(1) voltage at the regulator's input and ground terminals?
(2) voltage across the battery posts?
(3) voltage from alternator b-lead and alternator case?
If all these voltages are within a few hundred millivolts
of the VM1000 reading, then the regulator is bad. If the
regulator input voltage (1) is 13.8 and other voltages
high, then we need to diagnose some excessive wiring or
ground voltage drops.
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: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>ANNNNYWAY , I had to get spam can renters insurance and decided to get a
>quote on M3 insurance building and flying. Avemco quoted me $193/year for
>building insurance and (Hold on to your shorts...) $1900/year for
>liability/hull coverage.
You can get a big break if you insure the hull "not in motion"
That does not cover you in flight, but everywhere else.
I am paying about $540 a year.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
My Firestar made it's maiden flight this morning!
The sky was clear and the air was calm. I took the trailer to the airport
and set the plane up. After making a thorough inspection I was ready to
start the plane. Pulling the rope the engine came to life breaking the
silence of the calm morning. I taxied to the end of the runway and waited
for tower to give permission for take off. Receiving the OK for take off, I
entered the runway and proceed to apply power and nose the stick forward. As
the plane rolled forward and gained speed it let go of earth and climbed
toward the heavens. It was really wonderful how the plane took to the air. I
continued my climb to about 800 agl and made one pass around the pattern. My
hat was catching the wind and I was afraid of loosing it. I decided to land
the plane and remedy the situation. I reduced the power and lowered the nose
and my plane pointed back towards earth. As I neared the ground, I pulled
back on the power and the plane settled in and gently touched the ground.
The plane did everything I was hopping for. I took the plane up again and
did the same thing and she once again flew great. The cross winds were
starting to come so I ended to flight for today. I receive a lot help and
support from the folks at my EAA chapter my friends and all of the people
that contribute to this user group.
I thank all of you and God for making today a truly wonderful day.
John Wood
N670JW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight |
> My Firestar made it's maiden flight this morning!
Congratulations!!!! You have experienced something that few
people have or will ever experience. If it is you first
aircraft, you will probably never experience this feeling
again. I only got it on the first one. Numbers two and
three were exciting, but lacked the thrill and exhiliration
of the first.
Welcome to the club!!!
john h
PS: I still get that unexplainable charge and free feeling
everytime I break ground, especially after a extended time
without flying. It is still there after 31 years.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First Flight |
Good for you John ! ! ! I'm really looking forward to seeing your new toy.
Gives inspiration to keep going on mine. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wood, John T. <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 4:02 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: First Flight
>
>
> My Firestar made it's maiden flight this morning!
>
> The sky was clear and the air was calm. I took the trailer to the airport
> and set the plane up. After making a thorough inspection I was ready to
> start the plane. Pulling the rope the engine came to life breaking the
> silence of the calm morning. I taxied to the end of the runway and waited
> for tower to give permission for take off. Receiving the OK for take off,
I
> entered the runway and proceed to apply power and nose the stick forward.
As
> the plane rolled forward and gained speed it let go of earth and climbed
> toward the heavens. It was really wonderful how the plane took to the air.
I
> continued my climb to about 800 agl and made one pass around the pattern.
My
> hat was catching the wind and I was afraid of loosing it. I decided to
land
> the plane and remedy the situation. I reduced the power and lowered the
nose
> and my plane pointed back towards earth. As I neared the ground, I pulled
> back on the power and the plane settled in and gently touched the ground.
> The plane did everything I was hopping for. I took the plane up again and
> did the same thing and she once again flew great. The cross winds were
> starting to come so I ended to flight for today. I receive a lot help and
> support from the folks at my EAA chapter my friends and all of the people
> that contribute to this user group.
> I thank all of you and God for making today a truly wonderful day.
>
> John Wood
> N670JW
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Johnston Jr." <wingmen(at)hotbot.com> |
| Subject: | aircraft registration |
Does anybody out there know the process for obtaining an N-number for these aircraft?
I need to know where to write for the proper forms etc. Thanks in advance,
Bill
HotBot - Search smarter.
http://www.hotbot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
Jeremy,
Are we comparing to apples or oranges. Rather than playing a guessing
game, what did you ask for and what did you give them as time (hours),
ratings, hours last six months, any tail wheel time and level of coverage,
liability, hull, in and not in motion, deductibles etc. Maybe we also can
spot a few things that might caused the high cost. I'm a little surprised
about having to fly off the entire hours before coverage will take effect.
I have heard of some with immediate coverage other after 10 hours PIC in
the plane.
Jerryb
>
>I know that this has been beat to death on the list in the past , but after
>an hour reading back through the archives , I think I see Matt Dralle's
>concern about the use of the "Do not Ar_____" (not typing the last word for
>fear of the filter cutting out this message..) function. There are holes
>poked in the middle all through the threads and kind of like trying to talk
>on a cell phone that is on the fringe of its range...BE PARTICULAR ABOUT THE
>DNA LINE...NUFF SAID.
>
>ANNNNYWAY , I had to get spam can renters insurance and decided to get a
>quote on M3 insurance building and flying. Avemco quoted me $193/year for
>building insurance and (Hold on to your shorts...) $1900/year for
>liability/hull coverage. AND the hull coverage won't go in effect till the
>FAA restrictions are flown off!!!! Like I said , I know this has been beat
>to death , but these things change a lot so could I get some folks to drop
>me a note with any help you can give me on this...(i.e. What your paying? ,
>How much time you have , what limits of coverage or any exclusions you
>have )
>
>I think part of that quote might be due to low time pilot but $1900 ??? Give
>me a break!!!
>Any help with phone numbers for "other" aviation insurance companies would
>be appreciated.
>
>Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
>Mark 3 in little pieces in the basement...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: aircraft registration |
Call your local FSDO. They'll start you off. They did it for me, anyway.
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Johnston Jr. <wingmen(at)hotbot.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 9:00 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: aircraft registration
>
> Does anybody out there know the process for obtaining an N-number for
these aircraft? I need to know where to write for the proper forms etc.
Thanks in advance, Bill
>
>
> HotBot - Search smarter.
> http://www.hotbot.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 08/17/99 |
Subject: Ultrastar. I would like to let everyone know my ultrastar I had
put on the list in the spring was sold in the spring. I have had several
inquires about it since and I hate to disappoint anyone, so it is gone. I
have another but I will do my magic during the fall/winter and give forth a
new life early in the new year. I thank all. I will put it on the list when
it is close to complete. I understand it flies really good. Its a Kolb!
G'day Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard_Harris(at)albemarle.com |
Someone tell where to get those little rubber mounts for mounting the
muffler to top of
a 912, on a MK3.
Thanks, RH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Miller" <jim(at)aircrafttechsupport.com> |
| From: | Jim Miller jim(at)aircrafttechsupport.com |
Date: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 11:23 AM
Subject: Congratulations!!!!!! To John Wood!!
Good morning, read your GREAT write up of your first flight in your
Firestar!!
Dondi & I want to be among the first to send our congrats, it sounds
like the time spent building was well worth it!!
Would you mind e-mailing us a picture of you and your machine to put on
our web page?
Thanx and congrats again,
Jim & Dondi Miller
Poly-Fiber Suppliers for The New Kolb Conmpany
(Toll Free) (877) 877-3334
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: aircraft registration |
Procedure to Obtain an N number request
N number requests must be submitted in writing. List up to five numbers in
order of preference in the event the first choice is not available. Please
include a check or money order made payable to the U.S. Treasury for 10
dollars (U.S.). When requesting an assignment of an N number to a previously
unregistered aircraft, please include a complete description of the aircraft.
If your request has been approved, you will be notified that the number has
been reserved for 1 year. For more information call the FAA Aircraft
Registration Branch at:
Phone number: (405)-954-4206
Mailing address: FAA
Aircraft Registration Branch, AFS-750
PO Box 25504
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
The above is a copy of the this web page >
http://162.58.28.14/afs/afs700/nnum.html
Regards
Will Uribe
http://members.aol.com/WillU/index.html
In a message dated 8/18/99 12:19:15 PM Mountain Daylight Time, "Bill Johnston
Jr." writes:
> Does anybody out there know the process for obtaining an N-number for these
> aircraft? I need to know where to write for the proper forms etc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Flight |
<< My Firestar made it's maiden flight this morning!
>>
Congratulations John. You have just begun to enjoy the best flying
ultralight designed!
Bill Varnes
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Alignment and Grinding Metal ???? |
| From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
Ben,
Thanks for the info. I removed the do not ar***** from my original input
so your response would be archived.
Ray
writes:
>
>I thru a little sketch into the subject of wing alignment a long
>time ago; perhaps it might be helpful to some if I did so again.
>It doesn't help with the steel parts interference problems previously
>mentioned, but might shorten the insanity phase of wing alignment.
>
>Here tis, copied and pasted out of one of my web pages
>(http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom).
>-Ben Ransom, FS KXP
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is a very gratify stage, to get your plane all assembled, even
>tho' it is
>buck naked. I spent quite a bit of time aligning the wings before
>drilling the
>main spar Clevis pin holes. To aid in the alignment, Mike Ransom came
>up with
>the following helpful method of sketching the high or low parts with +
>or - as
>you tweak and shim toward that perfect alignment. In Planform, top
>view:
> ____________________ _____________________
> ( + - - | | + + ok )
> | | | | | front
> | + - ok| | + ok - |
> |____________________| |_____________________|
>
>This sketch, coming from measurements with a bubble level, would
>indicate that
>the port wing is too high on the outside and the starboard wing is too
>high on
>the inside front.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>John,
>>
>>How did you resolve your alignment problem? I am getting ready to
>tie
>>mine on, so any information is welcome.
>>
>L. Ray Baker
>>Lake Butler, Fl
>>Building Mark III, SN 312
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
---
>
---
>
---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fly in at Wautoma, Wi |
Hi Guys;
Is anyone in Wisconsin going to the Ultralight fly in at Wautoma this
weekend? The weather looks good so I thought I might go. Sounds like a fun
time.
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: aircraft registration |
| From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
Bill,
I copied this out of the FAA Reference (AC 20-27D) Appendix 2. This is
what I used. It has only been a couple of weeks so I cannot claim that
it works.
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
Building Mark III, SN 312
*************************************************************************
*******
Month, Day, Year
FAA AERONAUTICAL CENTER
FAA Aircraft Registry
P. O. Box 25504
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125
Gentlemen:
This is a request for a United States identification number assignment
for my home-built aircraft.
Aircraft description:
Make KOLB ; Type AIRPLANE ; Model MARK III ; Serial number XXX.
This aircraft has not been previously registered anywhere.
(FAR section 47.15)
________________ Normal Request - $5
______X______ Special Registration Number Request - $10 (Fee
attached).
Choices
1st _____123 XYZ_________
2nd ______OO7 XYZ___
3rd ______999 XYZ____
4th ____ Next Available XYZ
______________________________
Signature
Name
Street Address
City, State ZIP
Phone Number
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: aircraft registration |
| From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
Bill,
I just got my bank statement and the $10 check cleared, so I guess the
format must have been acceptable.
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
Building Mark III, SN 312
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Bill:
Please contact me bc. I need your email address.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
Hello Gang:
Big day for me. I went to South Mississippi Ultralight for and lesson
this morning and when I thought we were through my instructor ( Thomas
Smith) told me he was confident that I was ready to solo. So after 7 hrs of
dual instruction and plenty more ground instruction I took to the air by
myself. What a great feeling! I really wasn't worried or anything because I
had already done a bunch of landings with my instructor. Really after the
first hour of training I was pretty much flying the plane all the time with
some help on the rudder pedals taking off and some help on the first few
landings. Anyway I lined the plane up in the middle of the strip and eased
the throttle to full and was airborne in short order. The plane is much more
responsive solo and the climb out much quicker. I flew around over the main
airfield for 15 minutes or so and then I did four landings that seemed to be
smoother than when we were both in the plane. The plane is a 1988 model
Twinstar MK II that is fully enclosed and has a 503 dual carb engine on it.
Had a blast but I always remember to respect the plane and to keep in mind
that it will always be a learning process and make safety the number one
priority.
On a different note, just to show how crazy I am I traveled 18 hrs round
trip to South Carolina this past weekend to meet a guy from Reading, Pa. to
buy a plane from him. He had a Kolb FS II kits 1,2&3 that he bought new from
the old factory and has had sitting in his garage still unopened. He also
had the prebuilt ribs, brake package with heel pedals, streamlined struts &
swage tool. I got a very good deal on this plane and it is the plane that I
originally wanted. He just went through a divorce and had lost interest
(needed cash).Ya'll be prepared for lots of questions when I start building.
Ok I'm about through yaking but I also wanted to let John Hauck know it
was nice to see his name back on the list again. Also John, I was watching a
ultralight show on Speedvision last night and caught a glimpse of Miss
P'fer. Keep up the good work.
John Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Congratulations John, that's a tremendous feeling. Go for it, and bring on
the questions. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Cooley <johnc(at)datasync.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 7:48 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: First Solo
>
> Hello Gang:
> Big day for me. I went to South Mississippi Ultralight for and lesson
> this morning and when I thought we were through my instructor ( Thomas
> Smith) told me he was confident that I was ready to solo. So after 7 hrs
of
> dual instruction and plenty more ground instruction I took to the air by
> myself. What a great feeling! I really wasn't worried or anything because
I
> had already done a bunch of landings with my instructor. Really after the
> first hour of training I was pretty much flying the plane all the time
with
> some help on the rudder pedals taking off and some help on the first few
> landings. Anyway I lined the plane up in the middle of the strip and eased
> the throttle to full and was airborne in short order. The plane is much
more
> responsive solo and the climb out much quicker. I flew around over the
main
> airfield for 15 minutes or so and then I did four landings that seemed to
be
> smoother than when we were both in the plane. The plane is a 1988 model
> Twinstar MK II that is fully enclosed and has a 503 dual carb engine on
it.
> Had a blast but I always remember to respect the plane and to keep in mind
> that it will always be a learning process and make safety the number one
> priority.
> On a different note, just to show how crazy I am I traveled 18 hrs
round
> trip to South Carolina this past weekend to meet a guy from Reading, Pa.
to
> buy a plane from him. He had a Kolb FS II kits 1,2&3 that he bought new
from
> the old factory and has had sitting in his garage still unopened. He also
> had the prebuilt ribs, brake package with heel pedals, streamlined struts
&
> swage tool. I got a very good deal on this plane and it is the plane that
I
> originally wanted. He just went through a divorce and had lost interest
> (needed cash).Ya'll be prepared for lots of questions when I start
building.
> Ok I'm about through yaking but I also wanted to let John Hauck know
it
> was nice to see his name back on the list again. Also John, I was watching
a
> ultralight show on Speedvision last night and caught a glimpse of Miss
> P'fer. Keep up the good work.
>
>
> John Cooley
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Designing for Failure |
>Be aware that when you disconnect the battery from a vehicle or aircraft
>fitted with a alternator a sudden surge may occur. This can damage the
>alternator depending on the type of surge diodes fitted and can also in the
>case of motor vehicles damage electronic control units.
This rather generalized caveat has been floating around
in various forms for decades in transportation industries
where vehicles use battery/alternator DC power systems.
Many folk have interpreted it to have applicability under
all conditions, even when the engine is not running.
Others have enlarged the meaning to include the attachment
or disconnection of jumper cables between the vehicle's
power supply and that of another vehicle or exernal power
source.
I'd guess that the basis for the statement comes from what
we learned about alternator behavior when they first replaced
generators on airplanes back in the early 60's. While
a generator would willingly start up and provide stable,
useful power even when there was no battery on line, the
new fangled alternator would not. Depending on design
of the alternator/regulator combination, power supplied
by an alternator sans battery could be anything from
barely satisfactory to wildly hazardous to the health
of electro-goodies on the airplane.
This lays foundation for the birth of the split rocker,
battery master switch that found its way onto most of
the single engine airplanes flying today. The idea of
the split rocker was to prevent leaving an alternator
on line unless the battery was also on line. However,
it did allow leaving the alternator OFF until after
engine start and for battery-only ground ops. Of course,
it also allowed turning off the alternator in flight.
This last fact raised a new issue. 60 amp alternators
were standard equipment on most Cessnas . . . even the
lowly Day/VFR training ships like the C-150. As the
battery slid off toward oblivion, it's ability to
stabilize an alternator degraded too . . . especially
when the machine was a 60-amp, fire-breathing dragon.
Some folks experimenting with the alternator switch
in flight found that re-energizing the alternator at
cruise RPM, low system loads and a soggy battery produced
surge transients of wallet vacuuming proportions. Hence
the placard you see on many single engine certified
ships saying "DO NOT TURN ALTERNATOR OFF IN FLIGHT
EXCPET IN AN EMERGENCY".
Again, we find the certified side of the house "fixing"
a design problem with increased training and pilot workload.
It also shifts the blame for subsequent mishaps off onto
the pilot when the happless chap fails to observe the
placard. In conversations with a number of TC aircraft
owners, I've suggested that they superglue the halves
of their split rocker switches together if their airplane
has a pullable field breaker. This prevents inadvertent
operation of only the alternator side of the rocker switch
but still allows battery only ground ops and/or disabling
the alternator in flight should the situation warrant it.
Our recommended wiring diagrams for amateur built aircraft
show single operator, two pole switches for the DC power
master switch and a pullable breaker for the alternator
feeding the alternator field. Alternator and battery
come ON and OFF together.
Getting back to the original statement, we need to understand
also that as long as there is a battery of reasonably
good condition on the line (even if it's presently
discharged), there is no risk from adding or disconnecing
an external battery with or without the alternator on line
and/or engine running.
The risks associated with external power connection are
from inadvertent reversal of polarity and/or connection
of 28v ground power to a 14v airplane (unlike connectors
on the wall of your house for 120 versus 240 volts,
ground power connectors on airplanes are not mechanically
different for 14 versus 28v). The last risk associated
with ground power shows up on some TC aircraft where
the pilot has no control from his seat over the application
or removal of ground power from his aircraft's system.
All three of these gotchas have been addressed in the
recommended wiring we show for ground power jacks as
published on our website.
Bottom line is that there are valid reasons for people
to hand down these little bits of hangar wisdom. However
without an understanding of the physics and circumstances
behind the statement, it becomes more folklore than fact.
Educated pilots are much less likely to have a bad day -
in the air or on the ground. Education by sound byte
or excerpt can be worse than none at all. The politicians
and news anchors prove it every day.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca> |
| Subject: | Helena Montana Fly-In |
Is anyone on the Kolb list going to the the fly-in at Helena Montana?
I may be going (driving my car - it is a bit far to fly).
Kim Steiner
Saskatchewan, Canada
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1999 M.U.F.F. ANNUAL
FLY-IN
Sept. 3th - 6th
his year is sponsored by:
Montana Ultra Fun Flyers
Big Sky Flight
EAA U/L chapter #85
EAA chapter #344
and many Helena Business
Make plans now to attend the 8th annual Silver City Fly-In,
Walk-in, Drive-in.
This event just gets bigger and better each year, ask any one.
Visitors come from dozens of States, and Canada. Silver City Air Strip
is a country located grass strip, making it ideal for flyers and
spectators alike. 10 miles north west of Helena, Mt.
The field is surrounded by rolling hills and mountains, with
plenty of open space for pleasure flying and contests. No Fee
entrance, free camping & RV space, 15 minutes from motels and town.
Across the street from "Montana Al's" restaurant and bar. Snacks and
soft
drinks are available on the field. Every year brings changes, and
improvements. This year we'll have several vendors and dealers
of home built and ultra light aircraft. Scenic rides of the Helena
Valley
and area, and of course, power chutes. All types of aircraft are
welcome.
More questions ? Contact
Skyryder(at)uswest.net by E-mail
Brian or Linda Lee (406) 442-1707
Mike or Linda Kimes (406) 443-1548
Kacey Collins (406) 443-4044
or mail
Montana Ultra Fun Flyers
2202 N. Benton Ave.
Helena, Mt. 59601
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kim Steiner <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca> |
| Subject: | Helena Montana Fly-In |
Is anyone on the Kolb list going to the the fly-in at Helena Montana?
I may be going (driving my car - it is a bit far to fly).
Kim Steiner
Saskatchewan, Canada
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1999 M.U.F.F. ANNUAL
FLY-IN
Sept. 3th - 6th
his year is sponsored by:
Montana Ultra Fun Flyers
Big Sky Flight
EAA U/L chapter #85
EAA chapter #344
and many Helena Business
Make plans now to attend the 8th annual Silver City Fly-In,
Walk-in, Drive-in.
This event just gets bigger and better each year, ask any one.
Visitors come from dozens of States, and Canada. Silver City Air Strip
is a country located grass strip, making it ideal for flyers and
spectators alike. 10 miles north west of Helena, Mt.
The field is surrounded by rolling hills and mountains, with
plenty of open space for pleasure flying and contests. No Fee
entrance, free camping & RV space, 15 minutes from motels and town.
Across the street from "Montana Al's" restaurant and bar. Snacks and
soft
drinks are available on the field. Every year brings changes, and
improvements. This year we'll have several vendors and dealers
of home built and ultra light aircraft. Scenic rides of the Helena
Valley
and area, and of course, power chutes. All types of aircraft are
welcome.
More questions ? Contact
Skyryder(at)uswest.net by E-mail
Brian or Linda Lee (406) 442-1707
Mike or Linda Kimes (406) 443-1548
Kacey Collins (406) 443-4044
or mail
Montana Ultra Fun Flyers
2202 N. Benton Ave.
Helena, Mt. 59601
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | MKIII Aileron success |
Completed the mod to the aileron linkage today, and it was a total success!
Here is how it works: The aileron bellcrank at the rear of the cabin at the
end of the aileron tube gets two new holes drilled in it. My bellcrank had
the original holes 7" apart, 3.5 inches out from the center of the pivot
tube. I drilled a new hole in each side that was 1.25 inches closer to the
middle. This changes the leverage relationship of the stick movement to the
aileron movement, and it also reduces total aileron movement by about a
third. I had to make up new aileron pushrods, since my original pushrod
ends did not have enough thread left to allow extending them the necessary
amount.
Test flying showed the stick force to feel about half of what it was, but
that is a subjective evaluation. It no longer feels heavy, it just feels
"normal". To go from a 45 degree bank one way to a 45 degree bank the other
way seems to be about as quick as before, and requires much less muscle,
especially at higher speeds.
Have not yet had a chance to fly in any crosswinds, and that may not be as
satisfactory, total aileron deflection seems to be about a third less, and
that may be a problem in a severe crosswind. If I lived in an area that was
windy, (East Tennessee usually isn't) it might be better to move the holes
in just 1" instead of 1.25 inches.
If anyone wanted to try this, it would certainly be possible to check it
out incrementally, make the first new hole .75 of an inch closer to the
pivot and see how you like it, then move it in another .5 of an inch, the
bellcrank certainly looks beefy enough to stand the experimenting. My
results are satisfying enough that adding spades or counterbalences, etc.
is no longer a consideration.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Aileron success |
Logical and simple, Richard. I've already done that to my flaps, to cut
down the amount of movement, but never thought of it for the ailerons as
well. Thanks for the effort, and for sharing it. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 1999 8:20 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: MKIII Aileron success
>
> Completed the mod to the aileron linkage today, and it was a total
success!
> Here is how it works: The aileron bellcrank at the rear of the cabin at
the
> end of the aileron tube gets two new holes drilled in it. My bellcrank had
> the original holes 7" apart, 3.5 inches out from the center of the pivot
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Well today, for the first time, I committed aviation with my completed
Firestar (R503dc).
Sure was FUNNNNN!!!!!
Now for the tweeks....Flew very tail heavy, I suspect that my CG is too far
aft; the alerons are "hard" meaning they seem to take more muscles to move
than I'd like them to.
First landing was a trip, plopped it down from about 5 feet agl, very slight
bend in the right gear.....(sh**).
The heel brakes interfere with the rudder pedal movement.....need to find a
way to move the heel pedals back some...
any suggestions or even rasberrys accepted..
Geoff Thistlethwaite
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: first flight!!! |
writes:
<< First landing was a trip, plopped it down from about 5 feet agl, very
slight
bend in the right gear.....(sh**). >>
Well, congrats on your first flight, I guess. But Geoff, haven't you learned
anything from reading all these posts on the Kolb list? You're supposed to
bring it in with power the first few times to eliminate dropping it in. So,
you've bent a gear leg eh? Well, sooner or later it happens to even the best
of us.
Enjoy!
Bill Varnes
Audubon NJ
Original FireStar 377
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
My two cents. I realize that one size does not fit all but geese, everyone
out there seems to be aeronautical engineer right now. Do you people realize
there are forces at work you may not know about that D. S. did. You think an
easier feel on your stick is that important. The Kolb does not have a heavy
stick anyway. Have you guys every heard of applying the rudder slightly when
you re-bank in oposition? That brings it right in. I believe some of the
slug and might is caused by some yaw. By depressing the rud, you releave and
realign the fus. I want you to know (there were two witnesses to this event)
I came in on a contoured asphault runway with a storm on my heals and 35 mph
cross-winds (my stall is around 28) It was fast and then slow. I was like a
yo-yo for awhile. I kid you not, if it were not for the full deflection of
those wonderful barn door ails, I would be having someone else write about
this!
You guys do what you want, but I will tell you from experience, there could
be a time you will regret taking the swing out of the ails. Do yourself a
favor and take it up on a nose high stall and see what it takes to keep her
level. Just taxiing around in a cross wind or thermal day you might wish you
had the full swing back. I am sorry if I sound like sour grapes and you
think I am full of crap but I think the Kolb is one of the finest flying
machines out there and you can ask my buddies, I run an airstrip and have
access to and do fly many different types. You guys are playing with fire.
I dont blame Kolb or D.S. or anyone for not getting involved in what I would
call a dangerous occupation, second guessing a manufactered aircraft design.
Enough, and I hope you forgive my intrusion but newbees see this and believe
they can start changing things and then we will be back to the 70s with
people stacked like cord wood and the media all over us. It is bad enough
someone leaves their flight envelope and screws themselves into the ground.
Lets not do worse. Thanks. G'day Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Gallar" <MikeG(at)ij.net> |
| Subject: | Registration Numbers |
Bill,
I called a company by the name of aerospace and talked to a
gentleman by the name of Scott, he faxed me a list if N-numbers
that had not been taken yet. I picked a number filled out some
forms payed my money and I was done.
Mike Gallar
Mark III N693MS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J.R. Holbrook" <jrholbrook(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi All,
It is rare that I contribute to the list, but I must support Ted on this
issue. It is one thing to tinker with your flaps but to intentionally
restrict the movement of one of your primary flight control surfaces is
INSANE if you ask me...
Jim Holbrook
Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rcreec(at)ftw.rsc.raytheon.com |
07:57:17 AM
I just wanted to pass along a news flash. Yesterday around 6:30 in the
evening a 2 passenger ultralight crashed near Fort Wayne IN. killing both
31 year old pilot and 13 year old passenger. Eye witnesses reported
hearing the engine stall and aircraft going down. After watching the news
I believe it to be some sort of QuickSilver type aircraft. I can only
guess at that though due to the extent of the wreckage it was hard to tell
what it was. All I could see in the wreckage was a tail section that had a
nylon covering, not stits, and a large (5 or 6 inch) tube with no cabin per
say.
I don't know if they'll figure out what went wrong with the flight. The
news caster stated that the aircraft was not licensed so the FAA will not
be investigating. The Pilot was a high time pilot how has been flying
that aircraft for some 7 years.
I guess it's just a reminder to all of us that we should be very, very
careful when taking to the air with this love of ours.
Ron Reece
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Slingshot anyone? |
How many Slingshots are flying now, anyone know? For you on the List with
Slingshots and 582, would you please post your:
prop type and size,
gearbox ratio,
stall, cruise, and top level flight speeds,
empty weight (and include installed options),
for me and interested others?
Thanks again guys!
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
I had an opportunity to visit the New Kolb Facility recently. The new owners
are really nice folks and are dedicated to putting together a kit product of
the highest quality. They have also made a sizable investment with the new
buildings and a very nicely constructed grass airstrip. I had an opportunity
the talk with Bruce, one of the new owners, and he described all the work
they went through in just preparing the grass strip. By the way, it is in a
beautiful location with trees completely surrounding the airfield. I am from
San Diego where large rocks are the basic landscape. Bruce talked about some
of the things they are planning to do to improve the quality of the kits
including documentation and hardware inventory. I also talked with several
of the people working at the New Kolb factory. They seem to enjoy their work
and are enthusiastic about building Kolb kits. The new owners are really
looking forward to the flyin in September and if they have a good turn out
they make it an annual event. Bruce said that he already had a pretty good
response. There is a lot of work to do getting the new factory set up for
smooth operation. They are enthusiastic and we should see great things come
from the owners of the New Kolb.
I flew dual time with Jeff Fedor in the factory MkIII. Jeff is providing the
training for Kolb at this time. He is an experienced pilot and instructor
and provided some excellent training. Since I was near to flying my
airplane, I felt that getting experience in type would be a good thing to
do. I went home and flew my plane. Of all my training, that may have been
the best training I could have received.
The New Kolb's Slingshot is a really pretty red machine. I sure would have
liked to see it fly with the 912 power plant. The pictures do not really do
justice to plane.
For all you Kolbers who can make it to London Kentucky and the new factory,
should consider going to the flyin in September.
John
N670JW (-33 hours)
________________________________________________________________________________
From August. 23, 1999, newspaper report:
The FAA inspected a crash site Sunday at Kansas, OHIO, trying to find
out why a
single-engine plane crashed into a cornfield, killing two people on
board. The plane,
a Kolb Mark 3 two-seater that the pilot put together from a kit,
crashed just after
takeoff from a private airstrip, reported Dispatcher Kary Distel of
the State
Highway Patrol.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: first flight!!! |
Congratulations!!!!!
Welcome to the club.....done that......been there....You seem to have passed
the first part of the Kolb mystic and sacred initiation rite.
Rich 2 sets of gears Bragassa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "youngblood" <barry(at)hcis.net> |
| Subject: | Re: first flight!!! |
>The heel brakes interfere with the rudder pedal movement.....need to find a
>way to move the heel pedals back some...
>
>any suggestions or even rasberrys accepted..
I have a suggestion about the heel brake levers. My feet were always on mine
and it caused me to nose over at least once. I took mine off and bent the
stops forward a bit and readjusted the cables. Have to make an effort now to
use brakes which is good{MHO}.
Barry FSII 460hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
The ailerons are a bit heavy but not really that bad! I doubt also that a
whole lot of that AeroNUTical engineering went into the design. Probably more
eyeball, trial and error and experience. My simple opinion, feel free to vary
the rigging but do not get carried away. JR-can't find no armadillos in Kansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MKIII Aileron success |
On the other hand--reducing aileron travel by 1/3 may not be real smart. Many
times in my flying I have had to use full stick deflections--wake turbulence,
thermals at low level, cross winds, shear, slips. This is in an assortment of
bug smashers including the Kolb M3 I have gotten some time in--it has seen
the stop more than once. Nothing more useless than runway behind you, sky
over you and aileron you do not got when you need it. JR
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: first flight!!! |
In a message dated 8/23/99 12:09:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
geoffthis(at)worldnet.att.net writes:
<< Now for the tweeks....Flew very tail heavy, I suspect that my CG is too far
aft; the alerons are "hard" meaning they seem to take more muscles to move
than I'd like them to. >>
Raspberry!! Surely you did a Weight & Balance before you flew it. It is
comforting to know exactly where you are - especially when you go to add or
subtract some weight
-which you will.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Come to Florida, We have plenty. Tasty little critters too, especially with hot
sauce on 'm.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dama Riddick <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | RE: wing rigging |
Kolbers
I am finally going to rig the wings this weekend. Does anyone have any last minute
advice on the subject (suggestions, problems, ect.)
Thank you in advance
Kip Laurie
FS-705 Atlanta
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Ted, you are absolutely right about needing every bit of aileron throw
that is there. Some of you guys have never had the need to correct a bank
where a thermal was powerful enough to tip you over with that light wing
loading. The Original FireStar has full-span ailerons and there have been
times where I needed all the aileron throw I could muster with the stick
jammed to one side just to get my ship righted straight and level. I
wouldn't be tinkering with the aileron throw to lighten the force, not a
good idea.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 12 years flying
>
>My two cents. I realize that one size does not fit all but geese,
>everyone
>out there seems to be aeronautical engineer right now. Do you people
>realize
>there are forces at work you may not know about that D. S. did. You
>think an
>easier feel on your stick is that important. The Kolb does not have a
>heavy
>stick anyway. Have you guys every heard of applying the rudder
>slightly when
>you re-bank in oposition? That brings it right in. I believe some of
>the
>slug and might is caused by some yaw. By depressing the rud, you
>releave and
>realign the fus. I want you to know (there were two witnesses to this
>event)
>I came in on a contoured asphault runway with a storm on my heals and
>35 mph
>cross-winds (my stall is around 28) It was fast and then slow. I was
>like a
>yo-yo for awhile. I kid you not, if it were not for the full
>deflection of
>those wonderful barn door ails, I would be having someone else write
>about
>this!
>You guys do what you want, but I will tell you from experience, there
>could
>be a time you will regret taking the swing out of the ails. Do
>yourself a
>favor and take it up on a nose high stall and see what it takes to
>keep her
>level. Just taxiing around in a cross wind or thermal day you might
>wish you
>had the full swing back. I am sorry if I sound like sour grapes and
>you
>think I am full of crap but I think the Kolb is one of the finest
>flying
>machines out there and you can ask my buddies, I run an airstrip and
>have
>access to and do fly many different types. You guys are playing with
>fire.
>I dont blame Kolb or D.S. or anyone for not getting involved in what I
>would
>call a dangerous occupation, second guessing a manufactered aircraft
>design.
> Enough, and I hope you forgive my intrusion but newbees see this and
>believe
>they can start changing things and then we will be back to the 70s
>with
>people stacked like cord wood and the media all over us. It is bad
>enough
>someone leaves their flight envelope and screws themselves into the
>ground.
>Lets not do worse. Thanks. G'day Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slingshot anyone? |
Jim,
I have a SS but its not flying yet. It lacks a motor & a Trailer to haul
it. The original owner flew it with a 503 & didn't seem to be happy with the
lack luster performance. I'm about 90% finished with the trailer & will
temporarily mount a modified "582" out of a SeaDoo. The SS as she sits without
an engine, weighs 308lbs. That includes factory mechanical drum brakes, a heavy
duty full-swivel tail wheel, a 15gal. plastic marine gas tank, & a light coat of
paint without the aluminum base coat. Its beautifully built, by the book with no
mods. ...Richard Swiderski, Ocala FL
gerken(at)us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> How many Slingshots are flying now, anyone know? For you on the List with
> Slingshots and 582, would you please post your:
> prop type and size,
> gearbox ratio,
> stall, cruise, and top level flight speeds,
> empty weight (and include installed options),
> for me and interested others?
>
> Thanks again guys!
>
> Jim G
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff / Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)tetric.com> |
It is bad enough
>someone leaves their flight envelope and screws themselves into the ground.
It happens too often.
Your right Ted and your right too Richard. If it were not for the Richards
out there we might still be flying Wright Flyers. If I have the right
"Richard" in mind, he is constantly thinking up gizmos and mods. I think I
saw his plane at Osh last year (98) and kept going over it searching out
little goodies. BUT (as stated above), a caution is good to those who
might do some really radical things.
Chicken Little (here) always puts any idea to the test:
1. Is it really a good idea? really make it work or fly better?
2. Will it be UNSAFE? (Maybe this should be #1)
3. Will it be "oked" by the designer to try? ...and I have asked both
Dennis S. and Homer K. about a thing or two I wanted to do. Sometimes they
said yes... sometimes - maybe you shouldn't... It isn't always possible to
get a designer to do that, but it is worth a shot. Other builders and
flyers you respect and whose opinion you value can have input worth
listening to on an idea. That was part of the reason for starting this
mailing list. Keep up the ideas. Keep up the opinions.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling
801 Avenida Serena, Marble Falls, Texas 78654
Vista Del Rio (Central Texas Hill Country)
(830)693-9333 (voice) -7633 (fax)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Davis" <ldavis(at)gatem02.netusa1.net> |
Go to:
http://wpta.com/
for a report on the crash.
>
> I just wanted to pass along a news flash. Yesterday around 6:30 in the
> evening a 2 passenger ultralight crashed near Fort Wayne IN. killing both
> 31 year old pilot and 13 year old passenger. Eye witnesses reported
> hearing the engine stall and aircraft going down. After watching the news
> I believe it to be some sort of QuickSilver type aircraft. I can only
> guess at that though due to the extent of the wreckage it was hard to tell
> what it was. All I could see in the wreckage was a tail section that had
> a nylon covering, not stits, and a large (5 or 6 inch) tube with no cabin
> per say.
>
> I don't know if they'll figure out what went wrong with the flight. The
> news caster stated that the aircraft was not licensed so the FAA will not
> be investigating. The Pilot was a high time pilot how has been flying
> that aircraft for some 7 years.
>
> I guess it's just a reminder to all of us that we should be very, very
> careful when taking to the air with this love of ours.
>
> Ron Reece
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.matronics.com/subscribe Archive
> Search Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search Archive
> Browsing: http://www.matronics.com/archives List Support
> Contributions: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Other Email
> Lists: http://www.matronics.com/other
> --
>
>
>
--
Larry Davis
Marion, Indiana
Challenger 1 CW
http://www.netusa1.net/~ldavis/airplane.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Gorton" <pgorton(at)ozemail.com.au> |
| Subject: | Jabirus on Kolbs |
re posting: peterz(at)zutrasoft.com>
Why aren't there more Jabiru users?
Thanks, Pete Z.
Pete,
As a proud aussie, and budding FS11 user/builder, I have investigated - and
have reservations about - fitting a Jabiru. They are excellent engines, with
a great backup and strong development ongoing. The problem for us is the
engines have a deep sump, which would place the engine very high. Unlike
say the HKS, which is designed as Rotax hand grenade replacement - it has a
"bed" mount.
Jabs are designed for firewall mounting, like on the Laser 8{)
regards
pete gorton
Canberra, australia
(Matt, I hope this is the way to post to the Kolb list!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KHe1144783(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Jabirus on Kolbs |
Pete: Regarding the Jabiru engine, I have mine mounted on a factory made
chrome-moly bed mount which places the driveshaft exactly 12 inches above my
aircraft engine bed. Very similar to a 582 driveshaft distance. There is
still an inch of space below the wet sump casting if I wanted to drop it a
bit lower. Same weight as the 582, 15 more Hp. I thought it was a firewall
mount only engine too. Kris Henkel Palm Springs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff / Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)tetric.com> |
To all,
Today was the longest flight I have made so far. I moved my plane's home
base from Aerocountry airport near McKinney, Tx. down to Granite Shoals
Muni, Tx - a distance of about 230 miles. I purchased a auxillary 6 gallon
plastic tank from Walmart (I think) that just fits into the passenger seat.
I copied the idea from Rick L. down in Vidor, Tx. I strap it in with the
4-point harness and transfer the contents (so far) with a squeeze bulb to
the main tanks. I have purchased a 12V auto transfer pump, but have not
installed it yet. The arrangement worked well for this trip with the
exception of a weary hand. I had to stop once to refuel (the first dose of
100LL fuel) and arrived here with about 10 gallons on board. Let's see. I
burned 18 gallons of fuel in 4.4 hrs on the tach at 5800-6000 rpms for 250
miles with about a 8-10 mph headwind. There was the possibility of flying
into the outer weather bands of the hurricaine with rain, scattered thunder
storms and gusty higher winds than I am accustomed to. That turned out not
to be the case. The only excitement was flying above low broken cummulous
until it got too thick to stay on top. The winds and gusts did not
materialize. Although the terrain around here is not inviting to off
airport landings, I think I am going to like the new airport and the area.
Goodby to my friends out at Aerocountry... a couple of them belong to this
list. See you when we visit our family in Frisco.
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling
801 Avenida Serena, Marble Falls, Texas 78654
Vista Del Rio (Central Texas Hill Country)
(830)693-9333 (voice) -7633 (fax)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ailerons (YOU'RE DEAD) |
>
you wrote,
snipity snip snip,
>You think an easier feel on your stick is that important. The Kolb does
>not have a heavy stick anyway. Have you guys every heard of applying the
>rudder slightly when you re-bank in oposition? That brings it right in. I
>believe some of the slug and might is caused by some yaw.
You share some good advice about flying and modifying the Kolb planes.
I am long time member but a heavy duty lurker of this list. I have followed
this thread with interest. Please let me share a few comments based on my
experience as a Kolb flyer since 1982.
First comment,
I have done some extensive aileron modifying of two models of Kolbs, a
Mark 2, and a Firestar. Both of these planes come with full span ailerons.
I have reduced the aileron area to less than one third the original and added
flaps similar to the Mark 3. On the Firestar I increased aileron deflection
slightly also. The results on both models were very similar, lighter stick
pressure with similar or better roll authority than before.
Second comment,
It is my oninion that there exists a more inheritantly dangerous trait in our
planes than inadequate aileron controle. It is possible to experience some
very overpowering turbulance that the aileron authority can not overcome.
However if this turbulance is from thermal action. (not wake turb.) it is of
too short duration in any one direction as to cause a good pilot to lose
control.
Shook up? you bet! Lose control? I don't think so. Have you ever heard of a
Kolb pilot getting killed because inadequate roll control? I never have.
This is what KILLS Kolb pilots.
A high thrust line, a good climb angle, a sudden engine out, a deep stall,
****************** ****************** ******************* ************
inadequate altitude to recover , YOU'RE DEAD.
****************************** ***********
Many Kolb pilots learn this trait too late. Sudden engine outs require
major down elevator deflection IMMEDIATELY, especially if your cg is
in the aft part of the cg range as many Kolbs are. I believe many ga pilots
are unprepared for this high thrust line characteristic. Stay alive!
Back to lurk,
Eugene Zimmerman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
I don't think there's much question of us all thinking the Kolb is a great
little aircraft. After all, we're all building one, aren't we. Built
strictly to plans, you're assured of a good, stable, predictable plane.
That's not to say it's perfect. There's always a little different way to do
something, a little different parameter to aim for, and that's one of the
great joys of building your own. Within reason, of course. Richard's
postings in the past have given me the impression of a careful, thoughtful
man; not given to wild, harebrained schemes. I'm sure any testing he may
have done was well thought out in advance, and undertaken carefully under
good conditions. Even Cessna with their 172, which to my knowledge is the
single largest selling (most successful) plane of all time, is up to the "R"
model, which tells me that change was desirable there too. A lot of change,
not all cosmetic. In my own case, I've been slapped at a couple of times
for the list of modifications I've made to my own "Vamoose." It bears
keeping in mind, that the structure of Vamoose is built Exactly, Precisely,
to the plans. My changes have been of a personal nature - seats,
instruments, doors, engine, etc. I made a small mod to the flaps, after
reading several stories on this List of problems caused by the huge
authority of those flaps. Isn't that why we subscribe to the List - to
learn from others in the same boat ?? Quite a few people have agreed with
the comments about heavy aileron pressure. Some don't agree, which is fine,
but that shouldn't stop others from looking for a cure THEY find desireable.
I'm not sure any one should have been out in a 35 mph crosswind in ANY
airplane. I AM sure that going into a stall would be a lot safer, and more
stable by controlling attitude with the rudder, and not the ailerons.
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: <TCowan1917(at)aol.com>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 5:18 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: ailerons
>
> My two cents. I realize that one size does not fit all but geese,
everyone
> out there seems to be aeronautical engineer right now. Do you people
realize
> there are forces at work you may not know about that D. S. did. You think
an
> easier feel on your stick is that important. The Kolb does not have a
heavy
> stick anyway. Have you guys every heard of applying the rudder slightly
when
> you re-bank in oposition? That brings it right in. I believe some of the
> slug and might is caused by some yaw. By depressing the rud, you releave
and
> realign the fus. I want you to know (there were two witnesses to this
event)
> I came in on a contoured asphault runway with a storm on my heals and 35
mph
> cross-winds (my stall is around 28) It was fast and then slow. I was
like a
> yo-yo for awhile. I kid you not, if it were not for the full deflection
of
> those wonderful barn door ails, I would be having someone else write about
> this!
> You guys do what you want, but I will tell you from experience, there
could
> be a time you will regret taking the swing out of the ails. Do yourself a
> favor and take it up on a nose high stall and see what it takes to keep
her
> level. Just taxiing around in a cross wind or thermal day you might wish
you
> had the full swing back. I am sorry if I sound like sour grapes and you
> think I am full of crap but I think the Kolb is one of the finest flying
> machines out there and you can ask my buddies, I run an airstrip and have
> access to and do fly many different types. You guys are playing with
fire.
> I dont blame Kolb or D.S. or anyone for not getting involved in what I
would
> call a dangerous occupation, second guessing a manufactered aircraft
design.
> Enough, and I hope you forgive my intrusion but newbees see this and
believe
> they can start changing things and then we will be back to the 70s with
> people stacked like cord wood and the media all over us. It is bad enough
> someone leaves their flight envelope and screws themselves into the
ground.
> Lets not do worse. Thanks. G'day Ted
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | MKIII Control Authority |
Now that I have stirred up a hornet's nest, let me add fuel to the fire.
There is a perception that the MKIII is ideal as it comes from the factory,
and any tinkering is unwise. Perhaps. Let me go ahead in my heresy and say
that there is something else that needs fixing besides the heavy ailerons,
and that is elevator authority with full flaps. My weight and balance
figures allow me to haul a 300 pound passenger, and on one occasion I have
flown a guy that had to go 265. Flew fine. However...Anybody with a MKIII
ever been in the pattern with full flaps and had to go to full throttle for
any reason with a BIG passenger in the right seat? Did you happen to notice
that the up elevator authority has gone to mush? That the airplane is soggy
to respond to up elevator? Does that make it unsafe? Not necessarily. In my
case, since I come across tall tower powerlines to get into a 750' strip,
and neither the wife or I are skinny, my maximum flap extension angle is
now only 30 degrees, which gives much better elevator authority at gross
and high throttle settings. And the airplanes ability to slow down and quit
flying through the flare seems unchanged. Point of all this is; fly the
airplane a lot. Think about why it does what it does. Try something new in
a way that you can change it back if it doesn't work. And share it with
others.
I have right at 1000 hours in ultralight type aircraft, some of which had
no roll control devices at all except rudder. (Easy Riser, Weedhopper,
Quicksilver B) Did that make them unsafe? Not necessarily. The roll
authority I have now is 4 or 5 times better than the Hummer I flew for over
600 hours, and all it had was little spoilers. And as far as a lack of
aileron deflection degrading my ability to land in a strong cross wind... I
can't land in a strong cross wind anyway, so what difference will it make?
( When the wind is that strong, all my runways are 75' long and 2000' wide)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Maintenance Time |
Hi Gang:
Finally bit the bullet and started some serious maintenance
I have put off for as long as I could. The airframe of the
old MK III has 1,277.3 hours of primarily happy flying. A
little over 200 hours of that time with a 582 and the rest
with the 912.
Rudder cables: Both cables have worn thru several strands
of wire at the front fair leads. Pulled both and made up
some new ones. Used turn buckles when originally built
mounted on fwd end of cable.
Elevator cables: Both cables good shape. Over built with
1/8 inch cable originally. Replaced top cable with 3/32 and
made up new bottom cable with 1/8 inch. Not that much
difference in weight and twice the strength. Main thing, it
makes me feel a little more secure.
Based on the amount of time on these cables and fittings,
they were in outstanding shape, including the little 3/16
bolts that attach fore and aft. Up elevator bolts and right
rudder bolts showed the most wear, but were still along way
before a problem, like another 1,000 hours.
Rudder hinges: Pulled the rudder. About an 1/8 inch of
wear on piano hinges from thrust loads of gravity and spring
load of tailwheel springs. I make up hinges longer than the
plans call for. Again, makes me feel a little better and
the hinges last a little longer. Will go thru the process
of drilling out the old ones and replacing with new ones.
Have already driven all the mandrels out of rivets in prep
for drilling. Lower hinge half on tailpost: Rivets have
loosened up somewhat. About the first 6 or 8 from the
bottom up. Big load from the big Maule tailwheels I have
been flying with. When I replace the hinges I will give the
tail post a good double shot of "tube seal" oil, then use
some silicone seal or epoxy to seal the rivet heads. Any
that don't get sealed will eventually be sealed by the "tube
seal." Past experience from the Ultra Star and Fire Star
resulted in water in tailpost from improper sealing. Will
find out tomorrow if I have water in the MK III tailpost.
Hope not.
Elevator hinges: Worn from thrust load of tail wires. Will
also replace these hinges.
Removed center section: Everything looked good under here,
except the voltage reg/rectifier. Mud Daubers had filled
half the cooling fins with their happy homes. Have recently
noticed out put not to be about one volt lower than normal
at cruise. Could be a hot reg/rec or an old WalMart
battery. Will know for sure next time I fly.
Tomorrow will remove and replace windshield and door glass.
Time, dirt, and hours have taken their toll. Wish there was
some magic solution to spray on them and make them new
again, but......................
After I get the windshield out, doors are already out, I
will have a place to stand and replace the stator on the
912. Nothing wrong with the stator I now have, but Rotax
says there is a danger of fire from faulty wire insulation.
After 1,000 plus hours I will take the first free warranty
part from Rotax (had to pay freight both ways) and send them
my old but good stator. Wish they had been so free with the
AD for replacing rocker arms and shafts in my old 912.
Warp Drive is sending me new blades when they are built.
Just like the ones I have been flying since 1994, but 72" in
diameter, instead of 70. In 1994, 70 inches was as large as
they made. The nickel leading edges have also been extended
two inches to 11. This will cover the 1 1/2 area inboard of
the nickel edge that rain erodes. Am excited and anxious to
fly with the new prop. Warp Drive seems to think my climb
rate will improve and I should be able to get the same
cruise or a little better at a little less rpm.
This maintenance should keep me busy for a few days. I have
an old Maule tailwheel to overhaul, going from the 8 inch
pneumatic to a 6 inch solid tire. Can't keep the 8 inch
from shimmying when landing on pavement. Does fine on
grass. Grass strips that is. ;-)
Trying to get all this stuff done so I can go to London and
play next month. London, Ky, that is.
Thought I would share this info with you guys so you could
have a little idea of how long some of the parts on your
airplanes will last before you have to repair or replace.
My maintenance log for airframe is not very large. Well
neither is it for the 912. You have to remember we made a
lot of mods on ole serial number M3-011. During my 231.2
hour flight 5 years ago I had virtually no airframe
maintenance. All the mods worked and the other mechanical
parts of the airframe stayed together.
After I got the gap seal off I discovered that both drag
struts had been working fore and aft on the inboard rib
fitting. I don't have my plans here but I think we used a
1/4 inch bolt to secure the drag strut to the IB rib. It
was easy to see that they had been working because the dope
and paint was ready to come off the end of the drag strut
tubing like a washer. There is some fore and aft play in
the left wing at this point. All other attach points, both
ends of lift strut and main spar attach points are bolted
together with welded bushings and absolutely no free play.
This means I gotta cut some fabric to see inside to find out
what is going on. Probably drill out to 5/16 if it is a 1/4
inch bolt in there now. The IB rib drag strut fitting also
take all the up and down forces created by flying, operating
the flaps and ailerons. That little bolt and fitting get a
tremendous amount of force, fore and aft, from ground
handling, landing/taking off, etc. One of the fittings that
rotates with the universal joint shows some looseness, the
one that uses the big castelated nut that is hard to get
snugged just right with the cotter key inserted. Best not
to paint the mating surfaces cause the paint will eventually
wear thru here.
Didn't mean to run on but it took this much space to explain
what I have found and what I am doing. As I go thru this
maintenance session I will try and keep you all posted.
john h (To prevent bent gear legs, don't quit flying until
you land, on the ground.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Weight and Balance |
Man, you guys are gonna keep me going all night with this. 1st -
John Hauck, I thoroughly enjoyed your maintenance letter, and I want to
study it a bit, then ask for your suggestions, on such things as someone's
idea last week or so about teflon or nylon "biscuits" in the hinges to help
absorb wear, and a few other things.
Big thing on my mind right now though, is W/B. Seems like I'm
constantly reading about the tendency of the Kolbs to have an aft C.G. When
I went to school, I was taught that is deadly dangerous, because of the
possibility of getting into a non-recoverable flat spin. I'm not using a
standard engine, so don't know the configuration of standard engine mounts.
My own engine is heavier than standard, so, from reading the List, (again) I
know (!) that I'm going to have a C.G. problem. With that in mind, and not
knowing in advance just what all up weight is going to be, I bought 6061T6
aluminum to build my engine mounts. My thought is to build a mount 18"
long, with the engine mounted on the front of it. To let you know I'm
serious about this, I paid right at $200.00 for that one piece of metal.
I'll take that long mount, and temporarily bolt it down for initial running
in, etc., then when everything is ready - and before it ever sees an
airport - then I'll do the W/B., and use that long mount to adjust C.G., by
sliding the motor forward as necessary. Then cut off the excess. I've
already allowed for prop clearance on the flaps. Seems like something
similar should be possible with any engine. That aft C.G. business makes me
nervous. I'll have pics available of the mount, and engine w/redrive on the
engine stand by later this week. Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Ailerons, Flaps, Stalls, and Landings |
Hey Gang:
Been reading a lot of posts reference the subject of this
msg. Would like to comment just a little, and remember this
is John Hauck's on personal opinion, experience, preference,
etc.
Homer designed big ailerons on his airplanes so we could
have a lot of control authority at very slow speeds right
down to and thru the stall. Homer's airplanes are aileron
airplanes, not rudder airplanes. They will not fly without
ailerons. Big ailerons work great at slow speeds. Very
little stick force to move them thru their entire range. As
speed builds the effort to move them builds, but since they
are so big, we only have to think we want to roll and with a
little pressure the airplane will roll. The Sling Shot has
little ailerons. It has short wings and a fast roll rate.
However, at speeds at the top of its scale the little
ailerons also load up, but it doesn't take much input to
make the airplane do what you want it to. Homer told me one
time that when I was flying my old original Firestar at
higher speeds to just put in a little pressure and it would
respond. Sure enough it did. At slow speeds the old
Firestar ailerons could be flopped back and forth with
little or no effort. If you want an airplane that flies
like a Pitts Special, maybe ya got the wrong plane. If you
want an airplane that will haul anything you can put in it,
climb like an angel, land slow and short, plus have decent
XC ability, then you have the right airplane.
Flaps on MK IIIs and flaperons on the SS and FF increase the
overall capability of these airplanes. Primarily it helps
them descend at a very high rate while maintaining a
moderately slow airspeed. With a slight flare at the very
bottom it will land and stop short, with a little practice.
To me this is one of the biggest safety factors if you lose
an engine and have to stick it in a "confined area." Flaps
on takeoff will help you break ground sooner, in a more
level attitude, but should be immediately, but slowly
retracted once airborne. If anything, they reduce the
natural climbing ability of the Kolbs in a clean
configuration. It takes a lot of power to fly a MK III with
full flaps, climbing or straight and level. That is why I
use them primarily to land. Only takes a second to retract
and go around. I don't know about you guys and gals, but I
get a kick out of making full flap landings in the MK III.
First time I experienced this was flying with Dennis Souder
in ole "Fat Albert" in Pa, in 1991. We came in over the
trees to the south and landed beside the hanger. I knew we
would both be hurt when we hit the ground, we were going
what seemed like straight down. A few feet above the ground
he flared and landed. I was hooked. I couldn't do that in
my old Firestar.
Stalls in Kolbs at altitude are a snap. Not much to them.
However, inadvertent stalls at low altitudes, a 100 feet or
so will ruin your day. Even though you may be in a level
attitude after you stall, you are not flying but in a severe
mush condition. Only way to get out of a mush is push the
nose over and regain flying speed. It is an unnatural act
to push the nose over in a stall close to the ground.
Besides, you probably will have used up what little altitude
you had and have already bent your bird. I keep a keen
cross check on my ASI when I am landing and when I am
maneuvering (playing) near the ground. It is darn near
impossible to get into an accelerated stall in a Kolb, but
it can be done. If you maintain 5 to 10 mph over stall you
will most likely not have to worry about stalling and
breaking you plane.
Kolbs land themselves if you allow them to, but you must
keep them flying until it is time to land. Again, I keep a
cross check on my ASI, flare when I get close to the ground
(we ain't flying a B-52 or a 747) ride a little on that
"ground cushion" or "in ground effect" and I am home without
bent gear legs. It is amazing how fast a Kolb will fall
when it quits flying at 5 or 10 feet above the runway.
Kolbs with or without flaps and flaperons land like any
other airplane that I have flown. They may come down
steeper and not glide as far as "real" airplanes, but they
will not fall out of the sky if we push the nose over a
little to maintain our airspeed. We just have to push over
a little more and things happen a little sooner, but they
all work on the same principal. No airplane will fly
without airspeed, no matter how big or how small.
Since the beginning of my flight experience in Kolbs in
1984, I have shot my landings at or a little above idle
speed. Every landing is a practice engine out landing. I
only use power when I need it to make the field. I use the
same landing technique when flying Sun and Fun, and Oshkosh.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ailerons (YOU'RE DEAD) |
In a message dated 8/23/99 11:08:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
tehz(at)redrose.net writes:
<< inadequate altitude to recover , YOU'RE DEAD.
****************************** ***********
Many Kolb pilots learn this trait too late. Sudden engine outs require
major down elevator deflection IMMEDIATELY, especially if your cg is
in the aft part of the cg range as many Kolbs are. I believe many ga pilots
are unprepared for this high thrust line characteristic. Stay alive!
Back to lurk,
Eugene Zimmerman
>>
Thanks for your input Eugene....btdt.....been there done that....but not in
a Kolb....twice in a cuyunna driven Pterodactyl.......and the word
IMMEDIATELY is to be stressed to the Nth degree!!...I wasn't immediate
enough on one 75 foot flameout and pancaked into a broken gear (after
bouncing 6ft straight up in the air)....gear actually broke on the Dac
(fiberglas) after the crooked 6ft return to Earth!!
I was lulled into complacency by the incorrect reading on my Hall indicator
and pulled out too soon....(nose was rotating down causing indicator to read
higher in air speed than I was actually going ) I would call this THE MAIN
weakness of a Hall indicator.....or could it be spider webs....I've had that
too.....but they are more fail safe as the reading is usually too low!
............. just a little more absolutely brilliant insight into UL
safety!!.......:-) ..........GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ailerons, Flaps, Stalls, and Landings |
In a message dated 8/24/99 1:15:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
<< Since the beginning of my flight experience in Kolbs in
1984, I have shot my landings at or a little above idle
speed. Every landing is a practice engine out landing. I
only use power when I need it to make the field. I use the
same landing technique when flying Sun and Fun, and Oshkosh.
john h
>>
Ah- HAH! One of the main differences between Ul and GA!!....GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
Homer Kolb designed some pretty wonderful flying machines but they are not
perfect and there is always room for improvement. Richard's modification was
only done after many hours of flying and personal experience. He is the
builder, the test pilot and the engineer when he determines that there is
something that needs to be changed. That is the reason we are classified as
experimental aircraft. I agree that we should use caution when ever we start
redesigning anything that may change the performance and flight
characteristics of our planes but we should always have an open mind to
changes. Richard shares his experiences and knowledge with us so that we all
can learn them as well as being able to receive comments from our knowledge
and experience. The kolbs as they are today are much different than the ones
that originally designed in the early 80s by Homer and I am sure that his
reason for change were exactly the same as Richard's, to make a better
flying machine. I applaud the creative and enterprising spirit. This is why
we have all these wonderful flying machines today and are still not flying
Wright brothers turn the airplane by bending the wings "ailerons".
Back to listen mode
John N670JW FSII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
Richard, thanks for the info. By what you're telling me, your completed weight,
assuming recoil start and no battery, will be 440 or so (I am figuring 127 wet
for the 582 with Rotax exhaust and rotax twin radiators, that's what mine
weighs). That's almost a hundred pounds more than the New Kolb page says it can
be built with the 582 (they claim 345 empty with 582, and I thought it sounded
a
little optimistic when I read it the other day). Is there anything you forgot
to mention that would explain the extra weight? Thanks for the info. One other
thing: If you use the Seadoo motor, can you bolt on a rotax redrive? Is it the
"C" or "E", or the older box? I ask because I'd like to try a 600 twin and need
to find out if a "C" box will bolt up.
EVERYBODY, are there any other Slingshot owners out there? Care to share your
specs?
Jim,
I have a SS but its not flying yet. It lacks a motor & a Trailer to haul
it. The original owner flew it with a 503 & didn't seem to be happy with the
lack luster performance. I'm about 90% finished with the trailer & will
temporarily mount a modified "582" out of a SeaDoo. The SS as she sits without
an engine, weighs 308lbs. That includes factory mechanical drum brakes, a heavy
duty full-swivel tail wheel, a 15gal. plastic marine gas tank, & a light coat of
paint without the aluminum base coat. Its beautifully built, by the book with no
mods. ...Richard Swiderski, Ocala FL
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Eugene,
I have considered making smaller ailerons when I rebuild my FS KXP wings.
I would not bother with adding flaps though. Do you think shorter chord
ailerons on a KXP would produce the same results you found in your FS-I
modification? Reducing aileron area to less than 1/3 of original
seems like a radical change. That is not a misprint? And, by adding
flaps, was that essentially the same area (approximately) as taken from
the original aileron area? Lastly, you said "similar or better" roll
authority ...is that at stall as well as cruise speed?
Thanks in adv,
-Ben Ransom
PS: Maybe some of you remember that I experienced aileron flutter in
my stock built KXP. I believe I was the only one to ever have had this
on the earlier, stock Firestars (original, KX, and KXP). I also think
I know why it occurred and that I solved it ...but that is another story.
Let me know if you're interested.
>
>You share some good advice about flying and modifying the Kolb planes.
>I am long time member but a heavy duty lurker of this list. I have followed
>this thread with interest. Please let me share a few comments based on my
>experience as a Kolb flyer since 1982.
>
>First comment,
>I have done some extensive aileron modifying of two models of Kolbs, a
>Mark 2, and a Firestar. Both of these planes come with full span ailerons.
>I have reduced the aileron area to less than one third the original and added
>flaps similar to the Mark 3. On the Firestar I increased aileron deflection
>slightly also. The results on both models were very similar, lighter stick
>pressure with similar or better roll authority than before.
>
>Second comment,
>It is my oninion that there exists a more inheritantly dangerous trait in
our
>planes than inadequate aileron controle. It is possible to experience some
>very overpowering turbulance that the aileron authority can not overcome.
>However if this turbulance is from thermal action. (not wake turb.) it is of
>too short duration in any one direction as to cause a good pilot to lose
>control.
>Shook up? you bet! Lose control? I don't think so. Have you ever heard of a
>Kolb pilot getting killed because inadequate roll control? I never have.
>
>This is what KILLS Kolb pilots.
>
>A high thrust line, a good climb angle, a sudden engine out, a deep stall,
>****************** ****************** ******************* ************
>
>inadequate altitude to recover , YOU'RE DEAD.
>****************************** ***********
>
>Many Kolb pilots learn this trait too late. Sudden engine outs require
>major down elevator deflection IMMEDIATELY, especially if your cg is
>in the aft part of the cg range as many Kolbs are. I believe many ga pilots
>are unprepared for this high thrust line characteristic. Stay alive!
>
>Back to lurk,
>Eugene Zimmerman
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Omelchuck <jason(at)acuityinc.com> |
| Subject: | Jabiru in a MKIII? |
Kris wrote:
From: KHe1144783(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Jabirus on Kolbs
Pete: Regarding the Jabiru engine, I have mine mounted on a factory made
chrome-moly bed mount which places the driveshaft exactly 12 inches above my
aircraft engine bed. Very similar to a 582 driveshaft distance. There is
still an inch of space below the wet sump casting if I wanted to drop it a
bit lower. Same weight as the 582, 15 more Hp. I thought it was a firewall
mount only engine too. Kris Henkel Palm Springs
Do you have a Jabiru in a MKIII? If so please give us dome details. How
does it climb? How fast does it cruise? what is your empty weight and what
accessories do you have. Please give us your overall impressions of the
performance and installation.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
| Subject: | RE: wing rigging |
I built a vertical wing rigging fixture. It used less space and provided a
good method to ensure that wing was built without any twist in the airfoil.
Taking 3 4x4s and jam them between the floor and ceiling of the garage in a
straight line using plumb lines and long strait edge, Set the 3 poles
perfectly vertical to each other. Consider rib positions when setting the 3
poles so the "T"s won't interfere with the ribs. Attach a "T" section to
each of the poles which was used to support the main spar. Set the "T" at a
height that is comfortable for you to work with. It is easier if you can get
the spar perfectly level as it will make alignment of the ribs easier. Slide
all the ribs on the spare and fit both the leading and trailing spar and
secure with rubber bands or Velcro straps. I didn't think of this at the
time I built mine but if you can get a long enough straps, you can rap it
around the entire assembly and that should work pretty good. Use at least 3
but four would be better.
Use the leading and trailing spars to get a true plumb line and the wing is
ready to position and drill all the spar tabs and flanges. I clamped each of
the 6 points where the 2 spars crossed on the 4x4's. Be sure that you have
not introduced a bow in the spars from clamping as the 4x4s may have a
little bow.
The wing is perfectly flat, you have access to both sides and when you have
completed your wing, you have a place to store it until you ready to cover
it.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Dama Riddick [mailto:dama(at)mindspring.com]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 2:26 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: wing rigging
Kolbers
I am finally going to rig the wings this weekend. Does anyone have any last
minute advice on the subject (suggestions, problems, ect.)
Thank you in advance
Kip Laurie
FS-705 Atlanta
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KHe1144783(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru in a MKIII? |
Jason: The Jabiru in question is on a Titan II Tornado and a couple of months
away from getting air under its tires but a similar bed mount could be
fabricated by any good aircraft qualified welder, just give them some plans.
The C.G. would be about the same as a 582 and no radiators hanging the breeze
!! My buddie " BIG LAR " has a Mark III that would has a very adaquate engine
mount bed capable of the Jabiru. Hang in there !! Kris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Russell" <jr(at)rometool.com> |
Hey Jim,
How far along are you, I have Just over 100 hours on mine , 2 hours
since I decarboned. Mine has 582
electric start , B Box , 3-blade warp with prop extention , matco wheels &
brakes with 8.00 x 6 tires , steerable-
swivil type tailwheel , complete stits or poly fiber process with urethane
finish. Empty weight is #440 - cruise
at 5000 rpm 70mph - 5500 rpm 80+ 6000 rpm 90 6400-6500 rpm I see around
105. I can fly with around
4000 rpm and fly in the mid 30's doing shallow turns. Engine at idle it will
break around 40.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: gerken(at)us.ibm.com <gerken(at)us.ibm.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 12:04 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Slingshot
>
>Richard, thanks for the info. By what you're telling me, your completed
weight,
>assuming recoil start and no battery, will be 440 or so (I am figuring 127
wet
>for the 582 with Rotax exhaust and rotax twin radiators, that's what mine
>weighs). That's almost a hundred pounds more than the New Kolb page says
it can
>be built with the 582 (they claim 345 empty with 582, and I thought it
sounded a
>little optimistic when I read it the other day). Is there anything you
forgot
>to mention that would explain the extra weight? Thanks for the info. One
other
>thing: If you use the Seadoo motor, can you bolt on a rotax redrive? Is
it the
>"C" or "E", or the older box? I ask because I'd like to try a 600 twin and
need
>to find out if a "C" box will bolt up.
>
>
>EVERYBODY, are there any other Slingshot owners out there? Care to share
your
>specs?
>
>
>Jim,
>
> I have a SS but its not flying yet. It lacks a motor & a Trailer to
haul
>it. The original owner flew it with a 503 & didn't seem to be happy with
the
>lack luster performance. I'm about 90% finished with the trailer & will
>temporarily mount a modified "582" out of a SeaDoo. The SS as she sits
without
>an engine, weighs 308lbs. That includes factory mechanical drum brakes, a
heavy
>duty full-swivel tail wheel, a 15gal. plastic marine gas tank, & a light
coat of
>paint without the aluminum base coat. Its beautifully built, by the book
with no
>mods. ...Richard Swiderski, Ocala
FL
>
>
> Jim G
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Kolb Firestar S-N 97 |
There is an A&P in the local area that is selling his Firestar .
I watched him build it, and it is an excellent airplane.
He is selling it with a 24' trailer, if you know anybody
that wants a Firestar, this one is worth a look.
He has pictures and details at the address below:
http://home.wireco.net/~mvollmer/
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RWilliJill(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | "B" box or "C" box? |
Fellow Kolbers,
I attended Oshkosh for 12 days at the recent fly-in and airshow. While
there, I ordered kit's I & II for the firestar II. I haven't made up my mind
yet
on whether to get the "B" box or "C" box for the 503 Rotax engine. Could
someone share there opinion on the merit's, of both these units? I plan on
getting the warp drive prop as an option along with the engine purchase and
would also like to know the pro's & con's of the 2 blade prop verses the 3
blade.
As I undersand it, I think an electric start could be added to the "C" box,
is
that correct? The Kit's should be ready by the week of the fly-in at the new
Kolb
site in London Kentucky. I plan on attending the event and look forward to
meeting
some of the members on this list. I've been keeping up with all the post's
now for
about 8 months or so and really look forward to reading what different people
are
doing with there projects and the fun times they are having. I meat several
people
that are on the list while at Oshkosh, John Hauck being one of them. What a
real
fine fellow. He was very willing to share information and answered all the
questions
that I asked. I just wished now, that I had asked a whole lot more.
Thanks for any info someone could share
Ron Williams
Battleboro NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: wing rigging |
Sounds good John; as usual when you say something, you say it well. I
built my wings flat, but still had the question of making sure everything
was straight and not bowed, twisted, or warped. My solution would work with
your method as well. With leading and trailing edges held solidly in place,
I stretched a strong nylon cord from end to end of each, very tightly, and
pushed a 1/4" shim under each end, to space the cord out from the tube a
little. You can easily see the tiniest discrepancy. It would
be great if you could come to our fly-in in Oct. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wood, John T. <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 9:50 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: RE: wing rigging
>
> I built a vertical wing rigging fixture. It used less space and provided a
> good method to ensure that wing was built without any twist in the
airfoil.
>
> Taking 3 4x4s and jam them between the floor and ceiling of the garage in
a
> straight line using plumb lines and long strait edge, Set the 3 poles
> perfectly vertical to each other. Consider rib positions when setting the
3
> poles so the "T"s won't interfere with the ribs. Attach a "T" section to
> each of the poles which was used to support the main spar. Set the "T" at
a
> height that is comfortable for you to work with. It is easier if you can
get
> the spar perfectly level as it will make alignment of the ribs easier.
Slide
> all the ribs on the spare and fit both the leading and trailing spar and
> secure with rubber bands or Velcro straps. I didn't think of this at the
> time I built mine but if you can get a long enough straps, you can rap it
> around the entire assembly and that should work pretty good. Use at least
3
> but four would be better.
>
> Use the leading and trailing spars to get a true plumb line and the wing
is
> ready to position and drill all the spar tabs and flanges. I clamped each
of
> the 6 points where the 2 spars crossed on the 4x4's. Be sure that you have
> not introduced a bow in the spars from clamping as the 4x4s may have a
> little bow.
>
> The wing is perfectly flat, you have access to both sides and when you
have
> completed your wing, you have a place to store it until you ready to cover
> it.
>
> John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dama Riddick [mailto:dama(at)mindspring.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 2:26 PM
> To: 'kolb-list(at)matronics.com'
> Subject: Kolb-List: RE: wing rigging
>
>
> Kolbers
> I am finally going to rig the wings this weekend. Does anyone have any
last
> minute advice on the subject (suggestions, problems, ect.)
> Thank you in advance
> Kip Laurie
> FS-705 Atlanta
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slingshot/SeeDoo Motor |
Jim,
I too was surprised with the weight discrepency. The SeeDoo motor isn't a
bolt
on project. The case needs to be machined, The threaded pto end of the crank has
to
be pressed off & replaced with an aviation style tappered shaft. I got hold of
a
"core" crank which was messed up on the magneto end & used the good tappered end.
Or, you could go the easy route & put in in a aviation 582 or 618 crank. The
600
you reffered to is the same engine I have, but with the longer throw crank like
in
the 618. The early versions do not accept a rotax gear box, the newer models do.
If
I remember correctly, the older ones are white & the newer are yellow. All of
the
600's should work, but I've not worked with one. Once the mods are done, I feel,
you have a superior engine: The carburators are more efficient (also alttitude
compensating). It has an integral, tiny side mounted starter, as opposed to one
sticking out the front or back. It has an ignition advance curve, unlike the
aviation version that starts up at full advance (a case of the shakes). The heads
have superior cooling. The down side is that it has single ignition & requires
machining the case. I used the B drive as it was the lightest & handles the power
fine. ...Richard Swiderski
gerken(at)us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> Richard, thanks for the info. By what you're telling me, your completed weight,
> assuming recoil start and no battery, will be 440 or so (I am figuring 127 wet
> for the 582 with Rotax exhaust and rotax twin radiators, that's what mine
> weighs). That's almost a hundred pounds more than the New Kolb page says it
can
> be built with the 582 (they claim 345 empty with 582, and I thought it sounded
a
> little optimistic when I read it the other day). Is there anything you forgot
> to mention that would explain the extra weight? Thanks for the info. One other
> thing: If you use the Seadoo motor, can you bolt on a rotax redrive? Is it
the
> "C" or "E", or the older box? I ask because I'd like to try a 600 twin and need
> to find out if a "C" box will bolt up.
>
> EVERYBODY, are there any other Slingshot owners out there? Care to share your
> specs?
>
>
> Jim,
>
> I have a SS but its not flying yet. It lacks a motor & a Trailer to haul
> it. The original owner flew it with a 503 & didn't seem to be happy with the
> lack luster performance. I'm about 90% finished with the trailer & will
> temporarily mount a modified "582" out of a SeaDoo. The SS as she sits without
> an engine, weighs 308lbs. That includes factory mechanical drum brakes, a heavy
> duty full-swivel tail wheel, a 15gal. plastic marine gas tank, & a light coat
of
> paint without the aluminum base coat. Its beautifully built, by the book with
no
> mods. ...Richard Swiderski, Ocala FL
>
> Jim G
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 8/24/99 12:07:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bransom(at)ucdavis.edu writes:
<< PS: Maybe some of you remember that I experienced aileron flutter in
my stock built KXP. I believe I was the only one to ever have had this
on the earlier, stock Firestars (original, KX, and KXP). I also think
I know why it occurred and that I solved it ...but that is another story.
Let me know if you're interested. >>
Ben, I think I have the 1st KX and I don't think I have ever experienced
aileron flutter ....but I almost never exceed 65Mph as the speed caused me to
overdrive my EGT...recently I repitched my IVO - 3 blade and can't believe
the IMPROVEMENT to the egt and speed!!....and at much lower rpm!!......How
stupid I was....but I have reasons if anyone cares.............GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Kolbs and Aileron Flutter |
Hi Gang:
Ben Ransom mentioned aileron flutter.
I have experienced aileron flutter in my Ultrastar, 1984,
Firestar 1987, and MK III, 1993. The good folks at Kolb
Company, Inc., did not believe me or chose to ignore my
problem.
Any aileron, especially large ones, especially with a lot of
dope and paint to make them even more unbalanced are prone
and supseptible to flutter. Any sloppiness in the aileron
control system contributes to initiation of flutter,
especially unbalanced ailerons.
Aileron counterbalance weights are for one reason: Prevent
aileron flutter. They do not make ailerons lighter, more
effective, they just balance them.
I made some beautiful streamlined counterbalance weights for
my MK III when I was building, mounted to the inboard end of
the ailerons. They did not work. Aggrevated the problem
rather than solved it. Could not wait to get on the ground
to remove them. Flew to Lakeland, Pennsylvania, and
Oshkosh, in 1993, with an airplane that would go into
flutter between 80 and 85 mph indicated airspeed. My normal
cruise. Usually initiated by turbulence. That was a lot of
flying sitting on the edge of the seat, not being able to
relax a second for fear that the dreaded flutter would get
me. The "air to air" photo shoot at Oshkosh 93 was done
from a Cessna 210 trying to fly 85 and me trying to fly 85,
always right on the edge of aileron flutter.
Sun and Fun 1994, Dick Rahill flying the factory Firestar
was hauling ass back to Lakeland from Circle X. Guess
what? He scared the crap out of himself when all the sudden
he got into severe aileron flutter. That got Kolb's
attention and they developed some counterbalance weights for
the Firestar. I got a set for the Firestar and put them on
my MK III. I have never had even a hint of aileron flutter
since the day I installed them. Yes, they stick out a long
way compared to the way they look on the Firestar, but they
work. They did not change a thing about my ailerons but one
and that was to balance them. I would have never been able
to make my 1994 flight without them. Not in all the
turbulence I flew in on that flight.
All Kolbs do not experience aileron flutter. I have flown
many that do not flutter. Do you need them on your Kolb? I
guess I can compare them to a parachute. You don't need
them all the time, only when you need them. If I build
another Kolb I will have balance weights on it. Small price
to pay for additional safety.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
>
>Eugene,
>I have considered making smaller ailerons when I rebuild my FS KXP wings.
>I would not bother with adding flaps though. Do you think shorter chord
>ailerons on a KXP would produce the same results you found in your FS-I
>modification? Reducing aileron area to less than 1/3 of original
>seems like a radical change. That is not a misprint? And, by adding
>flaps, was that essentially the same area (approximately) as taken from
>the original aileron area? Lastly, you said "similar or better" roll
>authority ...is that at stall as well as cruise speed?
>Thanks in adv,
>-Ben Ransom
>
>PS: Maybe some of you remember that I experienced aileron flutter in
>my stock built KXP. I believe I was the only one to ever have had this
>on the earlier, stock Firestars (original, KX, and KXP). I also think
>I know why it occurred and that I solved it ...but that is another story.
>Let me know if you're interested.
>
>
Hello Ben,
I should have said "reduced the area to less than 1/2". My ailerons are 60
inches and the flaps are 78 inches long measured at the torque tubes.The
flaps are wider chord as per original full span plus the extra hinge and
tube. I have good roll control at all speeds. Stall speed with flaps is
5 to 7 mph slower than without flaps. I have no experience with reduced
chord ailerons but it is my opinion that the newer Firestar and perhaps
Firefly have narrower chord ailerons. It is my opinion that full span
ailerons require more stick pressure for a given roll response.
I'd love to hear about your flutter cause and fix.
Wishing you a sucessful and speedy rebuild.
Eugene Z
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ailerons, Flaps, Stalls, and Landings |
<< Since the beginning of my flight experience in Kolbs in
1984, I have shot my landings at or a little above idle
speed. Every landing is a practice engine out landing. I
only use power when I need it to make the field. I use the
same landing technique when flying Sun and Fun, and Oshkosh.
john h
>>
Ah- HAH! One of the main differences between Ul and GA!!....GeoR38
please allow me to insert my "two cents worth" - when i took GA lessons, at
the point we
were at the proverbial 45 degree angle on downwind we had to pull the power back
to idle and
were not allowed to touch the throttle until the wheels touched the ground. the
idea behind this was
to get the student proficient at dead stick landings. ........................
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slingshot/SeeDoo Motor |
Hey Richard, take a look at the Sept. '99 U/L Flying, in Jack McCornack's
Sky Writer section on page 50, for the 2si view of dual ignition. I'm not
real sure what to think at this point, but it is interesting. Big
Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 5:52 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Slingshot/SeeDoo Motor
>
you have a superior engine: The carburators are more efficient (also
alttitude
> compensating). It has an integral, tiny side mounted starter, as opposed
to one
> sticking out the front or back. It has an ignition advance curve, unlike
the
> aviation version that starts up at full advance (a case of the shakes).
The heads
> have superior cooling. The down side is that it has single ignition &
requires
> machining the case. I used the B drive as it was the lightest & handles
the power
> fine. ...Richard Swiderski
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com |
here's a question for all you listers - i have a firestar with a 377 and an
Ultraprop.
i have the pitch at 16 degrees. do ya think if i went one degree higher, to 17,
i would cause
the propeller to stall or maybe out too much load on the engine? ..............
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AAMRELECTR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Electrical How To's |
Hello List members. We are AAMR/AirCore.
We have a site that is Experimental Aircraft Builder friendly.
The index for our HOW TO index is
http://members.aol.com/aamrelectr/Page44.html
Regards.
John @AAMR/AirCore
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron flutter on KXP |
Howdy y'all, this is a long one.
First, a small piece of background... When the FS I and II came out, Kolb
found that these models required aileron counter-balances to avoid a
predictable aileron flutter.
When I first heard about this, I contacted Dennis to verify that this
really was only on the FS-I and -II, and not new information regarding
earlier FS models. This was confirmed, so, I happily put it out of my mind.
However, I experienced the big surprise of aileron flutter during a fast
fly-by at the end of the 1998 Turlock UL fly-in, in front of lots of
people, and on video. (Just when you're feeling proud and a bit cocky,
right?) I had only a couple hours on the plane after having added my
second version of a 3/4 wind-screen. This wind-screen improved XC comfort
considerably, and also increased my speed, threw off my IAS (static port
was now in a reduced pressure cockpit), and changed airflow around the pod
and back. So, things were different, but in rather subtle ways. Sometimes
I think that is all that it takes. I had just taken off, climbed to
~800agl, and stayed in the pattern for a relatively fast fly-by. I
continuously bled off altitude and throttle to maintain about 80 indicated
as I rounded base and final. I knew my IAS was reading about 10mph high
compared to TAS and the previous configuration with standard KXP
windscreen, so was not worried about Vne. (Recalibrating IAS was new on my
to-do list.)
After being at that 80mph IAS/ 70TAS for maybe a 45 second period, I got
the sudden scare that I almost immediately recognized as flutter. I
immediately cut power and gently pulled up (hey, just like Reno I thought!)
and the quickly dissapated speed eliminated the flutter.
In follow-up, I closely went over the whole plane, checking in detail
against plans to see where I could have done something different from
plans. I knew from the outset that I had made each hinge in the
aileron-wing attachment about one inch longer than called for, simply
because I had the material available to do that at initial construction,
but found no other differences from plans. However, what I did find
interesting, and I think part of the problem, was that the KXP model calls
for hinge placement very slightly different from the KX. This was a result
of the 7-ribs as opposed to 5, and what was probably an aesthetic to have
the hinge positions line up with ribs. This results in the outside edge of
the outermost hinges being 22" from the wing-end in the KXP, as opposed to
18" in the KX (and I assume 18" in the original FS and perhaps Ultrastar
too). In short, the KXP is a rare breed in that the last 22" of aileron
are past hinge support, which I think is longer than any other Kolb model.
With my hand on the leading edge of the aileron (at the far end), I could
easily move it up or down perhaps a whole inch -- referring here to the
leading edge itself, not controlled aileron deflection!
I reported this to Dennis, and told him I thought it could be fixed by
adding another 6" hinge strip out near the aileron-wing end. He sent me
the material and that's what I did.
I must also say that I think the reason I found flutter on the KXP, is just
a numbers game. A) there aren't a zillion KXPs out there, and B) I think
flutter is maybe an odd thing in that it *may* develop only after a
*sustained* period of flight at some magic airspeed, combined with some odd
little perturbation. C) There are subtle differences in how each builder
attaches ailerons to the wing, some of which are dependant even on how much
the aileron fabric is shrunk (as even modest ironing temps put a small bend
on the thin aileron structure). Heck, there are even differences in each
planes flying weight and wing incidence angles that could be factors here.
More generally though, there may not be very many KXP's that have tried
*sustained runs* at the right speed and other conditions to produce
flutter. There are no other Kolbs with the same aileron configuration as
the KXP --- unlucky, but easily fixable.
It took me a long long time to broche that speed area again to see if my
flutter problems were resolved. (At the time, I had some worsened health
problems and felt I was pushing the envelope just to fly at all.) However,
I did replicate the speed runs as identically as I could on two occassions
last year and everything remained "nominal", as the big boys say. That is
far from extensive, but I can also say that intuitively, from my hand
forces on the leading edge aileron ends, that they essentially do not move
hardly at all even with "a lot" of hand force. My best guess is that the
flutter started out there at the 22" of aileron and immediately propagated
to the whole aileron and thru the linkage to the other side as well.
Dennis had told me that in their -I and -II testing, that they easily
experienced aileron flutter 6 or 7 times, predictably at 70mph (i think
that was the number). In all cases, the flutter quit immediately at speed
reduction as it did for me, and with no secondary flight or structural
problems.
Maybe there are legal problems for a kit supplier to put out an AD; perhaps
it implies they hold more responsibilty for the completed plane. However,
I would advise all KXP owners to look at their own plane on this. Further,
for me, I now know better that subtleties can really surprise you ...even
in the best and most popular planes available.
So now you know how long-winded I really can be. Hope this can be helpful
to some.
-Ben Ransom
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron flutter on KXP |
...snip
>Dennis had told me that in their -I and -II testing, that they easily
>experienced aileron flutter 6 or 7 times, predictably at 70mph (i think
>that was the number).
Clarifiction: I meant to say they experienced this in the -I and -II
in early testing, before specifying and including counter-balances on
those models. Good night, it is late!
-B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff R Erekson <flybug1(at)juno.com> |
how can you stall a propeller?
Jeff Erekson flybug1(at)juno.com
Lazair Series II ultralight owner, Beaver Student pilot
Ragwing Sport Parasole Ultralight Builder (RW6)
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/ultralights/
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/ragwing6/
>
>
> here's a question for all you listers - i have a firestar with a
>377 and an
>Ultraprop.
>i have the pitch at 16 degrees. do ya think if i went one degree
>higher, to 17,
>i would cause
>the propeller to stall or maybe out too much load on the engine?
>..............
>tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alice and Robert Berrie <rberrie(at)snet.net> |
First flight of my 912 powered mk111 took place on 8/23/99 and went very
well, performance was to factory specks. My thanks go out to bfi Todd
Thompson [also on this list] for the instruction I was given in his
mk111. transition from ga planes to the mk111 was at times trying for
me. Great to finally have my plane in the
air.
Bob Berrie
N350RB
Higganum, CT.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
Hey Richard, take a look at the Sept. '99 U/L Flying, in Jack McCornack's
Sky Writer section on page 50, for the 2si view of dual ignition. I'm not
real sure what to think at this point, but it is interesting. Big
Lar.
Yea, this was an interesting article and I was trying hard to believe Jack,
until he made the statement that snowmobile engines are getting more power
BECAUSE of single ignition. He maybe doesn't know that they run those engines
1500 RPM higher than our rated redline.
What is that equation?: Horsepower = Torque X RPM.? Is that right?
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | rotax seadoo motor app |
Richard, Thanks again. I am encouraged by your progress. Are the Seadoo motors
using the rotary valve? How about the exhaust RAVE? The 600 I was hoping to use
is the newest engine in the snowmobile lineup. It is a liquid 600 twin, NO
rotary valve, case reeds instead, much shorter crankshaft length, ignition
advance curve... It is appealing to get away from the rotary valve
complication, and the shorter crank results in less stress due to crank
torsioning along its length. That also means better ignition timing, especially
to the rear cylinder while under large load, since the ignition system triggers
off the front end of the crank and the load is off the back.
I think I understand the crank mods (it is multi-pc pressed together unit and
you are pressing on a new PTO end only, correct?), but did you also say you need
to machine the case to allow the gearbox to bolt on? Is this major, or simply
drilling holes and tapping? Is there plenty of metal here?
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Slingshot/SeeDoo Motor
Jim,
I too was surprised with the weight discrepency. The SeeDoo motor isn't a
bolt
on project. The case needs to be machined, The threaded pto end of the crank
has to
be pressed off & replaced with an aviation style tappered shaft. I got hold of
a
"core" crank which was messed up on the magneto end & used the good tappered
end.
Or, you could go the easy route & put in in a aviation 582 or 618 crank. The
600
you reffered to is the same engine I have, but with the longer throw crank like
in
the 618. The early versions do not accept a rotax gear box, the newer models do.
If
I remember correctly, the older ones are white & the newer are yellow. All of
the
600's should work, but I've not worked with one. Once the mods are done, I
feel,
you have a superior engine: The carburators are more efficient (also alttitude
compensating). It has an integral, tiny side mounted starter, as opposed to one
sticking out the front or back. It has an ignition advance curve, unlike the
aviation version that starts up at full advance (a case of the shakes). The
heads
have superior cooling. The down side is that it has single ignition & requires
machining the case. I used the B drive as it was the lightest & handles the
power
fine. ...Richard Swiderski
gerken(at)us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> Richard, thanks for the info. By what you're telling me, your completed
weight,
> assuming recoil start and no battery, will be 440 or so (I am figuring 127 wet
> for the 582 with Rotax exhaust and rotax twin radiators, that's what mine
> weighs). That's almost a hundred pounds more than the New Kolb page says it
can
> be built with the 582 (they claim 345 empty with 582, and I thought it sounded
a
> little optimistic when I read it the other day). Is there anything you forgot
> to mention that would explain the extra weight? Thanks for the info. One
other
> thing: If you use the Seadoo motor, can you bolt on a rotax redrive? Is it
the
> "C" or "E", or the older box? I ask because I'd like to try a 600 twin and
need
> to find out if a "C" box will bolt up.
>
> EVERYBODY, are there any other Slingshot owners out there? Care to share your
> specs?
>
>
> Jim,
>
> I have a SS but its not flying yet. It lacks a motor & a Trailer to haul
> it. The original owner flew it with a 503 & didn't seem to be happy with the
> lack luster performance. I'm about 90% finished with the trailer & will
> temporarily mount a modified "582" out of a SeaDoo. The SS as she sits
without
> an engine, weighs 308lbs. That includes factory mechanical drum brakes, a
heavy
> duty full-swivel tail wheel, a 15gal. plastic marine gas tank, & a light coat
of
> paint without the aluminum base coat. Its beautifully built, by the book with
no
> mods. ...Richard Swiderski, Ocala FL
>
> Jim G
>
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron flutter on KXP |
Hi Ben: When I read your letter about aileron flutter, and the leading
edge of the aileron moving, I immediately thought of the X - hinges that
someone was talking about a while back. Do you think something like that
might be enough to hold that leading edge solid ?? Or would it even be
worth trying, since the counterbalances seem to work so well ??
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 11:45 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Aileron flutter on KXP
>
> ...snip
> >Dennis had told me that in their -I and -II testing, that they easily
> >experienced aileron flutter 6 or 7 times, predictably at 70mph (i think
> >that was the number).
>
> Clarifiction: I meant to say they experienced this in the -I and -II
> in early testing, before specifying and including counter-balances on
> those models. Good night, it is late!
> -B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
John, I am sorry I mislead you, I am not building a Slingshot--- yet. But am
considering it because I fly alone most of the time and would like to go faster
than MKiii cruise speed. I am fishing for info and yours is the only response
so far, so it is very much appreciated. It appears you are getting 20 mph more
speed at every RPM comparison. My top speed is 84, and it cruises at 5900 at
70. This is 582 MKiii with "C" box, Powerfin 3-blade, enclosed stramlined
cabin, streamlined struts and streamed jury struts, hubcaps. It also has Matcos
and hyd brakes, 7 instruments, intercomm, upholstery, recoil start (no battery),
cabin heat, HAC, HPC, more. Empty weight grew to 520 this year.
Maybe you would consider a trade? 8)
Hey Jim,
How far along are you, I have Just over 100 hours on mine , 2 hours
since I decarboned. Mine has 582
electric start , B Box , 3-blade warp with prop extention , matco wheels &
brakes with 8.00 x 6 tires , steerable-
swivil type tailwheel , complete stits or poly fiber process with urethane
finish. Empty weight is #440 - cruise
at 5000 rpm 70mph - 5500 rpm 80+ 6000 rpm 90 6400-6500 rpm I see around
105. I can fly with around
4000 rpm and fly in the mid 30's doing shallow turns. Engine at idle it will
break around 40.
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
Hello guys and gals. I would like to make a clearification to my statement a
few days ago. I did not and do not want to ever imply that someone out there
does not have the knowledge and experiece to repair, fix, adjust or otherwise
tamper with a proven design. You all are absolutely correct, just about
everything can be improved. I just did not want it to seem that anyone with
a desire can change something and is governed by the laws of mother nature
and physics. I was more concerned over newbees thinking they can change a
design without it being FULLY tested and approved by the masses and is proven
to be the CURE. This is a great industry because of the fact we CAN change
things -sometimes good, sometimes bad but we have the ability and right to do
so. Please do not take offense at my statements. They were not intended to
insult or belittle. We must all error to the side of caution.
One thought I had about your ail. problems though. On model aircraft, RC,
even or especially large ones, flutter is a fact of life because of the
excessive speeds and power of the crafts. One cure we found was to cut the
ail. at the outter end of the wing back at about a forty-five degree angle.
The wing didnt look quite as nice but it changes the wing tip vortex as it
leaves the wing tip. I believe that is where the flutter comes from. In
other words in a Kolb, make the outer ail tip look like the inner ail. (No
flaps). just a thought.
This has to be the deadest horse on the face of the earth!!! G'day Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolbs and Aileron Flutter |
John,
I just got my counterbalances in the mail for my Mk lll w/912. I have 56
hours on the plane so far without one complaint, except the heavy ailerons.
Our mutual friend in north Florida (who has built approx 26 Kolb's) says the
counterbalances really help.
I was wondering if because now their balanced they "feel" lighter?..... What
do you think?
Rich Bragassa
Mk lll
Miami, Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> how can you stall a propeller?
>
> Jeff Erekson flybug1(at)juno.com
Hi Jeff:
I think you can stall a prop just like a wing. It is also
an airfoil. Too much angle of attack and it will quit
flying.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: first flight |
> First flight of my 912 powered mk111 took place on 8/23/99 and went very
>
> Bob Berrie
Bob and Kolb Gang:
Congratulations Bob!!! Glad everything went well for you.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Davis" <cdavis2(at)capecod.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron flutter on KXP |
Hi Ben and all , I didn't have an experience with flutter but I also added
another hinge to the outboard end of my ailerons as they appeared to be a
little too flexable to me . My hinges are only about 4 inches long ,thats
all the hinge I had left but they seem to work fine, no flutter anyway!
Chris KXP just went over 400hrs !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron flutter on KXP |
I doubt X hinges would help. The per-plans hinge method holds the control
surface (aileron in this case) solidly. IMO the problem on the KXP is
that the last 22" of aileron is too long to be unsupported and needs added
hinge in that 22" region. Any hinge.
Counterbalances work well, yes, but I'm not aware of them ever being tried
or even recommended on the *earlier* Firestars. Although CB might have solved
it on my KXP, there would be no reason to add that ~8lbs if the 22" problem
is a more basic and easily corrected problem.
-Ben
>
>Hi Ben: When I read your letter about aileron flutter, and the leading
>edge of the aileron moving, I immediately thought of the X - hinges that
>someone was talking about a while back. Do you think something like that
>might be enough to hold that leading edge solid ?? Or would it even be
>worth trying, since the counterbalances seem to work so well ??
>Big Lar.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron flutter on KXP |
> > Hi Ben: When I read your letter about aileron
flutter, and the leading
> edge of the aileron moving, I immediately thought of the X - hinges that
> someone was talking about a while back. Do you think something like that
> might be enough to hold that leading edge solid ?? Or would it even be
> worth trying, since the counterbalances seem to work so well ??
> Big Lar.
Big Lar, Ben, and Kolb Gang:
In my post last night, I hope it was clear enough to
understand cause I wrote it late and I was tired of trying
to drill out rivets in rudder hinges and windshield, I
indicated aileron flutter with all my airplanes way back to
1984. I haven't gone back and reread it this morning but I
want to try and explain my feelings about aileron flutter
and how to fix it.
The Ultrastar started getting into flutter after a few
months of flying. The trigger was the upper aileron
bellcrank. As crank bushings wore allowed more slop in
aileron control. Didn't take much when flying with large
unbalanced ailerons. Did a fix on the crank slop and fixed
flutter problem temporarily. I too went the same route as
Ben and put the hinges right out to the end to help
stabilize the leading edge. That probably did not play any
part in the problem. The problem was big heavy unbalanced
ailerons trying to streamline in the wind stream coming over
the top and bottom of the wing. Big old ailerons just
hanging out there in the wind. Gravity plays a big part
here also. With super tight, no slack aileron push/pull
tubes and their related rod end bearings, one can feel and
prevent/control flutter before it starts. This is only a
temporary remedy just waiting for the system to wear a
little and then experience the right conditions to trigger
flutter. No matter what you do to prevent flutter you are
still susceptible to it if you do not balance the ailerons.
Again, experienced flutter with all my Kolbs, ultrastar,
firestar, MK III. I fly hard, fast, in a lot of weather
conditions that most people do not fly in. However, all my
flutter experience was not in turbulent weather screeching
thru the sky.
Severe/violent flutter will immediately snatch the stick out
of you hand and beat you to death before you can get the
power off and regain control. It is not a matter in every
case of pulling off the power, pulling back and to right and
left to load the ailerons. When it goes past that invisible
line the stick will be beyond your control. You will not be
able to hold on to it. That reminds me of an important
point: As long as the ailerons are loaded they don't
normally flutter. To get out of flutter I learned to chop
power, pull the nose up rapidly to bleed off air speed, and
at the same time push the stick right or left to load the
ailerons.
answer. Replacing rod end bearings every 10 hours is not
the answer. Flying cross controlled to keep the ailerons
loaded all the time is not the answer. The answer (as I
have learned thru 15 years experience and three Kolbs) is to
balance the great big ole unbalanced ailerons that are
hanging on the trailing edge of the wing by their leading
edge.
The simplest way to balance is with the counter balance
weights that Kolb Aircraft designed and built. They are
simple to install, even after the wing has been covered,
doped, painted, and installed. That is the way I had to do
it. If interested I will explain how to install without
screwing up your wing, fabric, and paint. It is an easy
simple fix to a possibly serious problem.
Before I got the ailerons balanced correctly I was replacing
rod end bearings every 20 to 25 hours, snugging all aileron
controls to put friction on them, slightly drooping or
reflexing ailerons, and installed two large lexan trim tabs,
one on each aileron, to fly them up and keep them loaded the
same direction at all times. Even then, I was still getting
into flutter. This was on the MK III. Got those
counterbalance weights and have never come close to flutter
again. That was over 1,000 hours ago. I have over 1,000
hours on the aileron rod end bearings now without replacing
or flutter. I have slop in aileron control system. I have
almost twice as much aileron hinge on my MK III, did the
same on Ultrastar and Firestar, to make it stiffer and
stronger. I have flown in tremendous weather conditions,
above vne, in rain, snow, desert and Arctic conditions since
I installed counterbalance weights, and I have not
experienced flutter. That tells me that they work. The
"wheel does not need to be reinvented."
However, I understand the name of our game, "experimental
aircraft." We do not have to take someone else's word for
the fix. We have the freedom to find out for ourselves. We
may want to do it another way. That is ok also. I am that
way at times and I love my freedom. However, in this case
aileron flutter can bite you in the ass. If the Kolb
aircraft were not as strong as they are with damn near
"bullet proof" wings, some of us would probably be doing
something else less desirable now. A lesser built wing will
disintegrate in a flash during flutter. When ailerons go
into flutter they can create a condition to cause the wings
to flutter. Jerry Ritz, designer of the wooden ultralight,
the Ritz Model A, died flying one of his aircraft the went
thru aileron flutter into wing flutter and disintegration.
Remember: The problem is unbalanced ailerons. The fix is
balance those little suckers. Everything else about the
aileron is ok. Does not need to be fixed. Just the
balance. OK? Making them smaller, larger, lighter, and
heavier, are still nuther subjects that can be discussed
later.
Why doesn't the elevator flutter? I don't know. Never
experienced it. Has anyone experienced or heard of elevator
flutter on a Kolb? The Hornet experienced it on several
aircraft. I haven't looked up any reports on that aircraft
of the FAA data base, but I believe I read of at least one
Hornet going down after elevator flutter.
Rudders will start occilating and probably go into flutter
if allowed to go far enough. Mine does on the MK III.
Ultrastar and Firestar could fly with feet on the deck. My
MK III needs some pressure on pedals to keep from
occilating. I don't know why, cept it does. Rudder is
certainly not balanced.
Hope this one makes more sense than the one I wrote last
night.
john h (up to his ears in drilling stainless steel rivets,
hinges, and windshields, in hauck's holler, alabama)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolbs and Aileron Flutter |
Lrb1476(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> John,
>
> I just got my counterbalances in the mail for my Mk lll w/912. I have 56
> hours on the plane so far without one complaint, except the heavy ailerons.
> Our mutual friend in north Florida (who has built approx 26 Kolb's) says the
> counterbalances really help.
> I was wondering if because now their balanced they "feel" lighter?..... What
> do you think?
>
> Rich Bragassa
> Mk lll
> Miami, Fl
Rich:
To the best of my knowledge aileron counterbalance weights
do one thing. They balance unbalanced ailerons. That is
all they do.. Yes, they really help..........balance the
ailerons.
To make ailerons lighter or feel lighter, build smaller or
change the mechanical advantage. Spades, bell crank throw,
longer sticks will change the feel, but could also overload
the system. I said this the other day, if you want Pitts
Special flight characteristics buy a Pitts. If you want a
Kolb, be happy with it. It will never be a Pitts. But it
can do many more things well that a Pitts can't do. ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
>> how can you stall a propeller?
>>
>> Jeff Erekson flybug1(at)juno.com
>
>Hi Jeff:
>
>I think you can stall a prop just like a wing. It is also
>an airfoil. Too much angle of attack and it will quit
>flying.
>
>john h
>
Thought I would put my $.02 worth in on this point..."I'm not an engineer
nor do I play one on T.V.!!!"
John H. is 100% correct about stalling a prop..they even have a fancy name
for it..."cavitating" simply put the prop starts bleeding off that power
that the crankshaft is pumping into it as "noise" instead of thrust. (This
is oversimplifying some fairly serious discussions on fluid dynamics but it
should get the point across. Maybe some more learned than me can correct or
clarify me if need be..) In a boat application this cavitating produces
cute little bubbles but very little thrust. To further muddy the waters ,
since the prop disk is fixed in relation to the wing and the wing changes
angle of attack then that adds another wrinkle to the equation. At any
given time there is one blade going up and one going down (assuming 2 blade
prop , 3 blade is similar in effect) so since the angle of attack changes
vary the direction of the airstream going into the prop then you can
actually have HALF the prop disk "stalled" or stating that differently you
can have HALF of the prop disk greating greater "lift" (i.e. thrust) and
hence pulling (or pushing , whichever the case maybe) harder than the other
. The cute name for this is P-factor which means in something like a Cessna
or some other tractor design , in a high power, high angle of attack
situation you have to stand on the right rudder to keep it straight. Now
after that line of stuff I just laid down I want to ask a question. How
does P-factor affect Kolbs , or even does it??? There are so many varibles
that effect it that I will give myself a migraine trying to figure it
logically. I have not got to really fly one yet and I didn't remember seeing
Jeff do much of anything for that during my demo ride.
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Zutrauen" <peterz(at)zutrasoft.com> |
| Subject: | Kolbs and Aileron Flutter |
WRT counterbalances:
There was a very good write-up by Bill Welch in the March 1999 kitplanes
magazine on the the whole issue of static and dynamic balancing of control
surfaces. I'd strongly recommend the article to anyone thinking of changing
the design of any plane. Bottom line: don't dynamically overbalance a
control surface with outboard counterweights, as the the flutter speed will
be drastically reduced beyond what one might expect. Worth mentioning is
that if the control surface is 100% statically balanced with an ouboard
counterweight, then it will be inherently dynamically overbalanced - and
prone to flutter, and "dangerous" as per the Mr. Welch's description.
It's a very good read. (i'd post it in here, but I'd likely be violating
their copyright.)
Cheers!
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Hauck
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Kolbs and Aileron Flutter
Lrb1476(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> John,
>
> I just got my counterbalances in the mail for my Mk lll w/912. I have 56
> hours on the plane so far without one complaint, except the heavy
ailerons.
> Our mutual friend in north Florida (who has built approx 26 Kolb's) says
the
> counterbalances really help.
> I was wondering if because now their balanced they "feel" lighter?.....
What
> do you think?
>
> Rich Bragassa
> Mk lll
> Miami, Fl
Rich:
To the best of my knowledge aileron counterbalance weights
do one thing. They balance unbalanced ailerons. That is
all they do.. Yes, they really help..........balance the
ailerons.
To make ailerons lighter or feel lighter, build smaller or
change the mechanical advantage. Spades, bell crank throw,
longer sticks will change the feel, but could also overload
the system. I said this the other day, if you want Pitts
Special flight characteristics buy a Pitts. If you want a
Kolb, be happy with it. It will never be a Pitts. But it
can do many more things well that a Pitts can't do. ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RWilliJill(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron flutter on KXP |
John H
I will be starting on my Firestar II in a month or so when my kit is ready.
After following this aileron post for several weeks now, and after considering
your experiences with the flutter problem and seemingly simple fix that the
counter balances would do to elevate a potential catastrophic in-flight
failure,
I'd like to know were to get them. I've never seen the option of getting them
from
the Kolb information packet that I have. Are they made so they can be
adjusted
to each individual aileron, or are they a set length and weight? In other
words,
would I have to tweak them, or are they prefigured for say each model of Klob
aircraft? Excuse my ignorance on this, but when it comes to keeping my butt
in one piece, I what to get educated feel fast.
Thanks for a reply when you have time
Ron Williams
NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: pitch (P-factor) ... |
Ah, ...fun to get into this stuff! (i enjoy it anyway)
P-factor is there on our Kolbs as it is on any prop plane.
When nobody is around to see you, put both hands up in front of you
and pretend they are the two prop blades. The Rotaxes spin clockwise
looking forward, so get your hands pitched to make you go forward.
Now lean back in your chair and you'll see the pitch (relative to
your desk) increase on your right hand ...er, prop, and decrease on
your left. So, P-factor on a rotax yaws the plane left. Pusher,
or tractor don't matter.
The reality on a Kolb though is that the swirling mass of air striking
the verticle stabilizer has a greater effect on yaw than P-factor OR
prop torque. Usually(?), the bottom half of the prop swirl is striking
the right side of the vert stab, pushing the tail left, and therefore
yawing the plane right. This counters the left yaw forces of P-factor
and prop torque ...on my plane at least. (I need left rudder on
take-off roll and climbout ...your milage may vary.) Here again is
a little item that can cause a Cessna driver some trouble getting
into an ultralight without instruction.
>situation you have to stand on the right rudder to keep it straight. Now
>after that line of stuff I just laid down I want to ask a question. How
>does P-factor affect Kolbs , or even does it??? There are so many varibles
>that effect it that I will give myself a migraine trying to figure it
>logically. I have not got to really fly one yet and I didn't remember seeing
>Jeff do much of anything for that during my demo ride.
>
>Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: pitch (P-factor) ... |
nd pretend they are the two prop blades. The Rotaxes spin
clockwise
> looking forward, so get your hands pitched to make you go forward.
> Now lean back in your chair and you'll see the pitch (relative to
>
Ben:
I'm not nit pickin, but all Rotax engs don't turn right when
viewed from the rear forward. Just the ones that go "ringy,
dingy, dingy". :-)
912s turn left or counterclockwise.
Adverse yaw, whether P-Factor or prop wash on vertical stab
and rudder, is increased by going full throttle quickly from
a dead stop. The bigger the prop and eng on different Kolb
models increases this adverse yaw effect to the point of
requiring full opposite rudder to compensate if the pilot
slams the throttle forward at a dead stop. This is a habit
us two strokers get into cause they will allow us to do
that. They spool right up 99% of the time without
complaint. 912s will also allow this most of the time, but
if a particular day and time tell the 912 it is running on
the lean side a little and it is running around 4000 rpm, or
in that general vicinity, it will hesitate momentarily til
you come back on the throttle and try again in a more
moderate manner. The darn 912s usually run so well that
when this does happy my blood runs cold and I get the "oh
s--t quiver." Happened the other day when I was horsing
around at low level with a Firestar and a Sling Shot. I was
in my MK III. When something like that happens it is
generally some place and time when it is not the best place
and time for it to happen. ;-)
Adverse yaw for new guys may be a little problem initially,
but as you gain experience you won't even think about it.
It comes automatically. The way to make this situation a
little less frightening is to slowly advance the throttle
til you get that rascal rolling and then push the power in
smoothly to full throttle. Only takes a couple seconds
instead of a split second.
Helicopters give us the same problem with adverse yaw. Most
US helicopters turn the main rotor left, Europen right. I
learned to fly US. Pull in power/collective and add left
pedal. Roll off power/collective and add right pedal.
European is just the opposite. In VN flying AH-1G Cobras we
often ran out of left pedal attempting to get the aircraft
light on the skids and hovering out of revetments. We flew
with max ordnance and cut our fuel load from full/2400 lbs
to one half/1200 lbs so we could hover, but the revetment
walls killed our ground cushion which required more power to
hover, thus power overrode the tailrotors ability to keep
the aircraft from yawing. After my last tour in VN they
moved the tailrotor from the left to the right side of the
vertical stab to increase its efficiency. Just like us
doing things to try and improve our little airplanes. I bet
they had a second or third or fourth opinion before they
made that major change though. ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: pitch (P-factor) ... |
>Ben:
>
>I'm not nit pickin, but all Rotax engs don't turn right when
>viewed from the rear forward. Just the ones that go "ringy,
>dingy, dingy". :-)
>
>912s turn left or counterclockwise.
Ohhhhh Yeaaaaahhh. :)
>Adverse yaw, whether P-Factor or prop wash on vertical stab
>and rudder, is increased by going full throttle quickly from
>a dead stop. The bigger the prop and eng on different Kolb
...and in the same bit of keeping us on the same field here...
Are you sure you want to be using the term "adverse yaw" in this
"discussion"? That is usually reserved for the aileron discussion
(argh), and not to be mixed with the prop discussion.
-Ben
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff / Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)tetric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron flutter on KXP |
>I immediately thought of the X - hinges that
>someone was talking about a while back. Do you think something like that
>might be enough to hold that leading edge solid ?? Or would it even be
>worth trying, since the counterbalances seem to work so well ??
Big Lar and all,
The X hinges are rock solid. I installed a few inches more hinge than the
plans called for including at the outer tip of the ailerons. I also
installed the counter balances. I have not had any flutter up to 100 mph.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling
801 Avenida Serena, Marble Falls, Texas 78654
Vista Del Rio (Central Texas Hill Country)
(830)693-9333 (voice) -7633 (fax)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: pitch (P-factor) ... |
> ...and in the same bit of keeping us on the same field here...
> Are you sure you want to be using the term "adverse yaw" in this
> "discussion"? That is usually reserved for the aileron discussion
> (argh), and not to be mixed with the prop discussion.
> -Ben
Ben and Kolb Gang:
hahahahahahahahahah....................ha!!!
Have it your way, but when the throttle is slammed home
something is gonna happen. ;-)
Yep, sorta like landing a Kolb, with or without flaps or
flaperons, compared to landing a "real" airplane. ;-) They
all fall out of the sky when they quit flying. We are
supposed to have them at the right altitude when that
happens, you know, like push the damn stick forward before
they stall too high. ;-)
john h (hauck's holler, alabama)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: first flight |
Congratulations Bob. With every one of you lately who've announced your
1st flight, my envy ratio goes higher. What were the main differences you
found between GA planes and your Mk III ?? Hopefully this year for mine.
( Been saying that for 3 yrs now) Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alice and Robert Berrie <rberrie(at)snet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 3:37 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: first flight
>
> First flight of my 912 powered mk111 took place on 8/23/99 and went very
> well, performance was to factory specks. My thanks go out to bfi Todd
> Thompson [also on this list] for the instruction I was given in his
> mk111. transition from ga planes to the mk111 was at times trying for
> me. Great to finally have my plane in the
> air.
> Bob Berrie
> N350RB
> Higganum, CT.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Calm down Doc. We're all entitled to our opinions here, and I'll stand by
mine, with the added support of the excellent message from John Woods, and
the follow up by Richard Pike. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: ailerons
>
> Larry Bourne wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > Richard's
> > postings in the past have given me the impression of a careful,
> > thoughtful
> > man; not given to wild, harebrained schemes. ---------------------
> > ------------ Even Cessna with their 172,
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > but that shouldn't stop others from looking for a cure THEY find
> > desireable.
> > I'm not sure any one should have been out in a 35 mph crosswind in
> > ANY
> > airplane.--------------------------------------------------
> > .
> > Big Lar.
>
> My God Lar, but you are wrong here!!!
> I'll try not to mention your ebiquitious Cessna's here...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Jack McCornack |
Larry & Jim,
My subscription to UL Flying expired, so I'm out of the loop on this one.
It
is not uncommon to lose performance with the addition a 2nd spark plug. Flame
propagation can be quirky stuff. I believe dual ignition is valuable, but no
where near as valuable as it is generally hyped up to be.
gerken(at)us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>
> Hey Richard, take a look at the Sept. '99 U/L Flying, in Jack McCornack's
> Sky Writer section on page 50, for the 2si view of dual ignition. I'm not
> real sure what to think at this point, but it is interesting. Big
> Lar.
>
> Yea, this was an interesting article and I was trying hard to believe Jack,
> until he made the statement that snowmobile engines are getting more power
> BECAUSE of single ignition. He maybe doesn't know that they run those engines
> 1500 RPM higher than our rated redline.
> What is that equation?: Horsepower = Torque X RPM.? Is that right?
> Jim G
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron flutter on KXP |
In a message dated 8/25/99 12:41:39 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
bransom(at)ucdavis.edu writes:
<< I experienced the big surprise of aileron flutter during a fast
fly-by at the end of the 1998 Turlock UL fly-in, in front of lots of
people, and on video. >>
Ben:
I read your message with interest as I have a KXP and have also experienced
aileron flutter, although, it has only occurred once in over 400 hours of
flight. Mine happened at app. 90 mph when crossing the path of turbulent air
behind another aircraft. When speed was reduced the flutter went away. More
than once I have looked at the distance of the outermost aileron hinge to the
wing-tip and wondered why there is no support near the wing-tip.
I have exceeded 90 mph many times since with no problems so I assumed the
flutter was started by the turbulent air in the wake of another airplane.
I've considered trying to add counter weights but my ailerons operate so
smoothly without them I hate to add the extra weight. I still have vivid
memories of my experience and would like to do something to eliminate the
possibility of it happening again. Maybe outer hinges would be the ticket.
Thanks!
Steve Anderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: rotax seadoo motor app |
Jim,
Yes, I did press on a new pto end. Mine has a rotary valve, no rave. The 600
sounds like a winning combination. On the new style 587 case, the holes for the
redrive bolts were present & only had to be tapped. But you have to use a special
lettered metric tap or its a sloppy fit. I can provide that info if you need it.
The case also has to have the pto end milled to recieve the gear box. None of
this
might apply to the 600 as it now clear to me that it is a different family engine.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if it is adaptable to the rotax box as I heard
at
sun & fun that at least one other engine brand (I think it was Yamaha) has the
same
configuration. There is a huge amount of research & $ going into the personal
watercraft industry, and unlike the motorcycle or snowmobile, watercraft are a
direct match to our power conditions. We should be looking more in their direction
as they have evolved tremendously in the last decade while the ultralight motor
has
remained relatively unchanged. Your 600 is a great example. ...Richard
Swiderski
gerken(at)us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> Richard, Thanks again. I am encouraged by your progress. Are the Seadoo motors
> using the rotary valve? How about the exhaust RAVE? The 600 I was hoping to
use
> is the newest engine in the snowmobile lineup. It is a liquid 600 twin, NO
> rotary valve, case reeds instead, much shorter crankshaft length, ignition
> advance curve... It is appealing to get away from the rotary valve
> complication, and the shorter crank results in less stress due to crank
> torsioning along its length. That also means better ignition timing, especially
> to the rear cylinder while under large load, since the ignition system triggers
> off the front end of the crank and the load is off the back.
>
> I think I understand the crank mods (it is multi-pc pressed together unit and
> you are pressing on a new PTO end only, correct?), but did you also say you need
> to machine the case to allow the gearbox to bolt on? Is this major, or simply
> drilling holes and tapping? Is there plenty of metal here?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron flutter on KXP |
> I'd like to know were to get them. I've never seen the option of getting them
> from
> the Kolb information packet that I have. Are they made so they can be
> adjusted
> to each individual aileron, or are they a set length and weight? In other
> words,
> would I have to tweak them, or are they prefigured for say each model of Klob
> aircraft? Excuse my ignorance on this, but when it comes to keeping my butt
> in one piece, I what to get educated feel fast.
>
> Thanks for a reply when you have time
> Ron Williams
> NC
Ron and Kolbers:
The New Kolb Acft has them for most models, I assume. The
counterbalance weights on my MK III are for the Firestar.
Even though the ailerons, flaps and push/pull tubes are
heavier than the Firestar they worked out ok. Weights are
slightly shy of balancing everything, which works out well.
I have given them many chances to flutter in last 1,000+
hours, but to no avail. They will not flutter. ;-)
The set up slips into the outboard end of the leading edge
of the aileron. If aileron is already build it is a simple
matter to carefully cut the fabric out of the inside of the
leading edge tube. Then take a die grinder with carbide
burr and grind the ends of the pop rivets that extend thru
the outboard rib into the leading edge tube until they are
flush. The fabric will keep the rivets and ribs in their
places, no sweat! Orient the counterbalance weight with the
neutral position of ailron and rivet in place, usually
bottom leading edge so it won't show, but it does not
matter. I think I used 4 rivets, equally spaced. Then
seperate lower rod ends from aileron crank. Balance
ailerons by sliding solid steel rod in or out til you get it
where it balances, or just a tab before it balances. Mark
it and drill for a 3/16 machine screw or bolt to lock in
place. You are now finished and will not have to fear the
"flutter monster" again. ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jack McCornack |
Richard wrote:
>
> Larry & Jim,
> I believe dual ignition is valuable, but no
> where near as valuable as it is generally hyped up to be.
>
Richard S:
You are absolutely right. Valuable only when you need it.
;-)
I went down on Grand Island, NY, in the middle of the Niagra
River, r minutes or less after I was flying over Niagra
Falls, summer 1988. Lost the electrode off a BR8EV
(platinum tip) spark plug just as I went full power to get
altitude to get across to the mainland north of Buffalo.
Lost the engine as a result and tore out the entire left
gear leg socket and tube cluster in my Firestar because of a
botched forced landing, about 10 feet too high. hehehe Had
I had dual ignition I probably could have flown til I found
a good place to land and change plugs.
Mag check on 582, 503, and my 912 result in a hundred or so
rpm loss. Could be placement of the plugs in the cylinder
head causing the drop, but Continentals and Lycomings do the
same or similar.
Never fouled a plug in the Cuyuna, but several in the 447
(old point ign). 912 have lead fouled plug after extended
diet of 100LL, like 75 hours on LL without change. Usually
pull them out, pick with a small knife blade and put 'em
back in and fly some more.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron flutter on KXP |
I still have vivid
> memories of my experience and would like to do something to eliminate the
> possibility of it happening again. Maybe outer hinges would be the ticket.
> Thanks!
>
> Steve Anderson
Steve and Kolbers:
This has nothing to do with airplanes, but the next time the
front wheels on my old Dodge truck start bouncing at 65 or
70 mph I will look for a hundred other reasons and try them
first rather than take it to the tire shop and have the
tires balanced.
Steve, your ailerons didn't flutter because you crossed
someone else's wake at 90 mph. They fluttered because they
were not balanced. Am I making any sense at all? I don't
think so. But adding more hinge will not balance an aileron
any more than snugging up all the slop in the aileron system
will balance them. I have done all these things and all
they did was mask the real problem temporarily.
Again, my own personal experience and experimentation. I
think my ailerons are worn out. hehehe
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: pitch (P-factor) ... |
In a message dated 8/25/99 7:56:49 AM, bransom(at)ucdavis.edu writes:
<< So, P-factor on a rotax yaws the plane left. Pusher,
or tractor don't matter.
The reality on a Kolb though is that the swirling mass of air striking
the verticle stabilizer has a greater effect on yaw than P-factor OR
prop torque. Usually(?), the bottom half of the prop swirl is striking
the right side of the vert stab, pushing the tail left, and therefore
yawing the plane right. This counters the left yaw forces of P-factor
and prop torque ...on my plane at least. (I need left rudder on
take-off roll and climbout ...your milage may vary.) >>
Right on Ben
While my Mk-3 takes considerable LEFT rudder on takeoff and climb, and even a
touch at cruise, I have read some Mk-3 posts indicating the strong need for
RIGHT rudder. I'm in the process of finishing the pitch adjustment for my new
Powerfin. Once done I will make a definitive evaluation of rudder
requirements. I think I may be needing less left rudder with this prop
compared to the Ivo.
A strong X-wind from the right can nearly use up rudder authority if you are
not careful in bringing up the power.
Bill George
MK-3 582
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robodres <robodres(at)cmn.net> |
| Subject: | Re: first flight |
As a dedicated Lurker, fellow Vet, and recovering Quicksilver pilot, I'd
like to take time on this list to thank John Hauck for his insight and
dedication to our sport. Congratulations on you're appointment to the
Ultralight Hall of Celebrities, John. And keep those cards and letters
coming!
Tally Ho!
Bob Dresden
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slingshot/SeeDoo Motor |
> Hey Richard, take a look at the Sept. '99 U/L Flying, in Jack McCornack's
> Sky Writer section on page 50, for the 2si view of dual ignition. I'm not
> real sure what to think at this point, but it is interesting. Big
> Lar.
OK...here's what you should think. Dual ignition, short of it's sales
point as a redundant system, was designed specifically to combat
detonation. There have ben experiments with cylinder heads with
as many as 17 (yes, 17) spark plug locations (Caris, et al,
Mechanical Octanes for Higher Efficiency, SAE 64, 76). Plug
location generally had little effect on octane requirements which is
the driving factor concerning detonation suppression. Multiple plugs
reduce the octane requirement because of the reduced combustion
time, provided the spark is retarded to hold peak pressure at the
optimum value, but only to a point. Should one plug fail, detonation
will re-occur because the timing is effectively retarded for a given
RPM ( Taylor, The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and
Practice, Vol 2 pp76, M.I.T Press 1985).
J.Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: spinning a prop to fast...what happens |
| From: | Jeff R Erekson <flybug1(at)juno.com> |
Group,
What happens when you run a prop to fast? Like when you run a
direct drive prop with like a 45" prop or longer. Do the tips reach the
speed of sound and become inefficient? Like my ragwing that I'm
buildling, I'm supposed to have a 2.9:1 gear reduction with a 72" prop on
my Kawasaki, what would happen if I turned an 80" prop?
Jeff Erekson flybug1(at)juno.com
Lazair Series II ultralight owner, Beaver Student pilot
Ragwing Sport Parasole Ultralight Builder (RW6)
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/ultralights/
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/ragwing6/
writes:
>
>
>>> how can you stall a propeller?
>>>
>>> Jeff Erekson flybug1(at)juno.com
>>
>>Hi Jeff:
>>
>>I think you can stall a prop just like a wing. It is also
>>an airfoil. Too much angle of attack and it will quit
>>flying.
>>
>>john h
>>
>
>
>Thought I would put my $.02 worth in on this point..."I'm not an
>engineer
>nor do I play one on T.V.!!!"
>
>John H. is 100% correct about stalling a prop..they even have a fancy
>name
>for it..."cavitating" simply put the prop starts bleeding off that
>power
>that the crankshaft is pumping into it as "noise" instead of thrust.
>(This
>is oversimplifying some fairly serious discussions on fluid dynamics
>but it
>should get the point across. Maybe some more learned than me can
>correct or
>clarify me if need be..) In a boat application this cavitating
>produces
>cute little bubbles but very little thrust. To further muddy the
>waters ,
>since the prop disk is fixed in relation to the wing and the wing
>changes
>angle of attack then that adds another wrinkle to the equation. At
>any
>given time there is one blade going up and one going down (assuming 2
>blade
>prop , 3 blade is similar in effect) so since the angle of attack
>changes
>vary the direction of the airstream going into the prop then you can
>actually have HALF the prop disk "stalled" or stating that differently
>you
>can have HALF of the prop disk greating greater "lift" (i.e. thrust)
>and
>hence pulling (or pushing , whichever the case maybe) harder than the
>other
>. The cute name for this is P-factor which means in something like a
>Cessna
>or some other tractor design , in a high power, high angle of attack
>situation you have to stand on the right rudder to keep it straight.
>Now
>after that line of stuff I just laid down I want to ask a question.
>How
>does P-factor affect Kolbs , or even does it??? There are so many
>varibles
>that effect it that I will give myself a migraine trying to figure it
>logically. I have not got to really fly one yet and I didn't remember
>seeing
>Jeff do much of anything for that during my demo ride.
>
>Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com |
ya know, all this brew haha about pitch is o.k. to an extent. many a true
word spoke
on this thread about this subject. however, in everyone's zest to give each
other a lecture on
P-factor my question was never answered. i have a 377 on a firestar with a 3
blade prop with
the pitch set at 16 degrees. can i go to 17 degrees of pitch ?
and don't beat me over the head with aileron flutter, my plane doesn't go
fast
enough for that to be a problem .................. tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ailerons, Flaps, Stalls, and Landings |
In a message dated 8/25/99 12:12:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com writes:
1984, I have shot my landings at or a little above idle
speed. Every landing is a practice engine out landing. I
only use power when I need it to make the field. I use the
same landing technique when flying Sun and Fun, and Oshkosh.
john h
>>
Ah- HAH! One of the main differences between Ul and GA!!....GeoR38
please allow me to insert my "two cents worth" - when i took GA
lessons, at
the point we
were at the proverbial 45 degree angle on downwind we had to pull the power
back
to idle and
were not allowed to touch the throttle until the wheels touched the ground.
the
idea behind this was
to get the student proficient at dead stick landings.
........................
tim
>>
Yes, but did you increase speed to land to punch through any ground
turbulance as we did in glider school?........ . GeoR38
From: Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:06:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ailerons, Flaps, Stalls, and Landings
<< Since the beginning of my flight experience in Kolbs in
1984, I have shot my landings at or a little above idle
speed. Every landing is a practice engine out landing. I
only use power when I need it to make the field. I use the
same landing technique when flying Sun and Fun, and Oshkosh.
john h
>>
Ah- HAH! One of the main differences between Ul and GA!!....GeoR38
please allow me to insert my "two cents worth" - when i took GA lessons, at
the point we
were at the proverbial 45 degree angle on downwind we had to pull the power back
to idle and
were not allowed to touch the throttle until the wheels touched the ground. the
idea behind this was
to get the student proficient at dead stick landings. ........................
tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | djwatson(at)olg.com |
User-Agent: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.10
Tim,
I would think your rpm and eng temps would tell you if you can increase your
pitch. From what I have read in the past, you should set your pitch to acheive
a certain rpm on the ground, I not sure what the max rpm is on a 377 but, I
remember reading that 6200 on the ground at WOT should give you 6500 in the air
due to the prop being unloaded. If you are exceeding your Max RPM in flight
now, then I would think that you should be able to increase the pitch to load
up the eng. more. You might also have to adjust your carb to get your temps
in the proper range.-----What is your max rpm that you are getting now, and how
are your temps?
Dennis (Ridge MD)
Quoting Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com:
>
>
> ya know, all this brew haha about pitch is o.k. to an extent. many a
> true
> word spoke
> on this thread about this subject. however, in everyone's zest to give each
> other a lecture on
> P-factor my question was never answered. i have a 377 on a firestar with a
> 3
> blade prop with
> the pitch set at 16 degrees. can i go to 17 degrees of pitch ?
>
> and don't beat me over the head with aileron flutter, my plane doesn't
> go
> fast
> enough for that to be a problem .................. tim
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
I am sorry no one answered you query about 377 blade pitch. I had a 377 on
my Kolb firestar and recently changed to a 447. I was told a 377 cannot
sustain a decent pitch with a three blade prop. You must use a two blade.
My 447 I understand can sustain a three blade but not as well as a two blade.
I am referring to IVO. I went from wood to ground adjust two blade and am
happy as a skunk eating vegies in a cabage patch. I think if you go to a two
blade adjust you will be a little happier in the end. G'day Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Try it and see. If the RPM's drop off too much, the answer is no.
If the EGT's go down too much and the CHT goes up too much,
the answer is no. Otherwise, the answer is yes. (That is the
generic answer to the question, since I don't have a 377
with your brand of prop, that is the best I can do)
Good luck
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
> ya know, all this brew haha about pitch is o.k. to an extent. many a true
>word spoke
>on this thread about this subject. however, in everyone's zest to give each
>other a lecture on
>P-factor my question was never answered. i have a 377 on a firestar with a 3
>blade prop with
>the pitch set at 16 degrees. can i go to 17 degrees of pitch ?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: spinning a prop too fast...what happens |
Don't know about a 45" prop, but years ago, I had built and flown several
Hummers, and one of them had a Zenoah 250 with a 36" direct drive prop.
The prop tips were supersonic at cruise and that was one of the noisiest
airplanes I
have ever been in. My wife could hear me coming home when I was 3 miles away.
As far as using an 80" prop instead of a 72"; the tips would go much faster,
and the torque required to turn it would be much greater. Normally, it is
easier
to get an engine/reduction combination to accept an increase in pitch
rather than an increase in length. But if you can turn it slow enough,
then you
can make it work. A 2.9:1 ratio would not turn it slow enough, IMO.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Group,
>
> What happens when you run a prop to fast? Like when you run a
>direct drive prop with like a 45" prop or longer. Do the tips reach the
>speed of sound and become inefficient? Like my ragwing that I'm
>buildling, I'm supposed to have a 2.9:1 gear reduction with a 72" prop on
>my Kawasaki, what would happen if I turned an 80" prop?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Tim,
Crank the prop to 17 degrees and tie your plane down, throttle it up and see if
you have max rpm or close to it. If you do get the RPMs go out and fly it, if
you don't then turn it back a little until you do. With the 377 you need all
the RPM it will give you up to max. That's where the power is and it don't hurt
to run that little engine at 5800-6000 all day. You may just find a way to answer
the question yourself and learn something in the process. Besides no one
can tell you exactly how to set your prop pitch unless they know exactly all
the necessary information. It will be easier to do the little test above and
save yourself some time. We aren't trying to build a rocket for the moon we just
want to go fly low and slow.
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron flutter on KXP |
In a message dated 8/25/99 4:22:22 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
<< Steve, your ailerons didn't flutter because you crossed
someone else's wake at 90 mph. >>
John:
Always interested in your opinion. I experienced aileron flutter only once
in over 400 hours of flight. I, like you, fly fast and furious a lot of the
time. It is not uncommon for me to exceed 90 mph with a 503 on the single
seat KXP. I hate to add the extra weight to balance the ailerons and am also
concerned about adding that weight to a fairly flimsy aileron 22" from the
nearest support point. On the other hand I'm always nervous at high speeds
that flutter may occur. It is an intense experience to say the least.
Steve Anderson
Black Hills of SD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEBORAH CORNETT" <TONY.DEB(at)prodigy.net> |
Hi All
My Comtronics Dynamic Mic Died On Me--Any One Know Where I Can Get A
Replacement ? Used Would Be Fine.
Thanks Tony Original Message -----
From: Rob Reynolds <rfreynol(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Insurance
>
> Jeremy, here are a few things that you can do to get the rate down:
>
> 1) Pull out the second seat and call it a single seater... much cheaper to
> insure
> 2) Join the EAA. EAA members get a discount and if you use the Tech.
> Counselor and Flight Advisor programs, they will insure it for the first
10
> hours.
> 3) Only insure to hull up to the cost of the kit. Avemco commonly asks
how
> many hours it took to build the plane, then they multiply this time 15
bucks
> and hour and add this into the coverage. If you break it, you are going
to
> have to fix it, so why do you need to pay yourself to fix your own
airplane?
> 4) get at least 10 hours in type BEFORE getting the flight insurance.
this
> will make a difference in the rate. Also, get a tail-wheel signoff if you
> don't have one and make sure you get at least 10-20 tail-wheel hours.
> Airplanes that can gound-loop cost more to insure.
> 5) Log more hours. Avemco rates don't drop until you have over 200 hours.
> The hours don't all have to be logged in GA aircraft, you can add your
hours
> from your ultralight log book to your GA hours to report to Avemco. They
> never said "FAA Allowable Hours" on the form. UL's are cheaper to rent
and
> a great way to build hours.
>
> -Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeremy Casey <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
> To: Kolb-List
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 3:20 PM
> Subject: Kolb-List: Insurance
>
>
> >
> > I know that this has been beat to death on the list in the past , but
> after
> > an hour reading back through the archives , I think I see Matt Dralle's
> > concern about the use of the "Do not Ar_____" (not typing the last word
> for
> > fear of the filter cutting out this message..) function. There are
holes
> > poked in the middle all through the threads and kind of like trying to
> talk
> > on a cell phone that is on the fringe of its range...BE PARTICULAR ABOUT
> THE
> > DNA LINE...NUFF SAID.
> >
> > ANNNNYWAY , I had to get spam can renters insurance and decided to get a
> > quote on M3 insurance building and flying. Avemco quoted me $193/year
for
> > building insurance and (Hold on to your shorts...) $1900/year for
> > liability/hull coverage. AND the hull coverage won't go in effect till
> the
> > FAA restrictions are flown off!!!! Like I said , I know this has been
> beat
> > to death , but these things change a lot so could I get some folks to
drop
> > me a note with any help you can give me on this...(i.e. What your
paying?
> ,
> > How much time you have , what limits of coverage or any exclusions you
> > have )
> >
> > I think part of that quote might be due to low time pilot but $1900 ???
> Give
> > me a break!!!
> > Any help with phone numbers for "other" aviation insurance companies
would
> > be appreciated.
> >
> > Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
> > Mark 3 in little pieces in the basement...
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEBORAH CORNETT" <TONY.DEB(at)prodigy.net> |
hi again--i'm new to the list an i'm not sure how to e-mail on my own with
out answering someone elses post like i think i'm doing now --please
advise--tony
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Reynolds <rfreynol(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Insurance
>
> Jeremy, here are a few things that you can do to get the rate down:
>
> 1) Pull out the second seat and call it a single seater... much cheaper to
> insure
> 2) Join the EAA. EAA members get a discount and if you use the Tech.
> Counselor and Flight Advisor programs, they will insure it for the first
10
> hours.
> 3) Only insure to hull up to the cost of the kit. Avemco commonly asks
how
> many hours it took to build the plane, then they multiply this time 15
bucks
> and hour and add this into the coverage. If you break it, you are going
to
> have to fix it, so why do you need to pay yourself to fix your own
airplane?
> 4) get at least 10 hours in type BEFORE getting the flight insurance.
this
> will make a difference in the rate. Also, get a tail-wheel signoff if you
> don't have one and make sure you get at least 10-20 tail-wheel hours.
> Airplanes that can gound-loop cost more to insure.
> 5) Log more hours. Avemco rates don't drop until you have over 200 hours.
> The hours don't all have to be logged in GA aircraft, you can add your
hours
> from your ultralight log book to your GA hours to report to Avemco. They
> never said "FAA Allowable Hours" on the form. UL's are cheaper to rent
and
> a great way to build hours.
>
> -Rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeremy Casey <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
> To: Kolb-List
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 3:20 PM
> Subject: Kolb-List: Insurance
>
>
> >
> > I know that this has been beat to death on the list in the past , but
> after
> > an hour reading back through the archives , I think I see Matt Dralle's
> > concern about the use of the "Do not Ar_____" (not typing the last word
> for
> > fear of the filter cutting out this message..) function. There are
holes
> > poked in the middle all through the threads and kind of like trying to
> talk
> > on a cell phone that is on the fringe of its range...BE PARTICULAR ABOUT
> THE
> > DNA LINE...NUFF SAID.
> >
> > ANNNNYWAY , I had to get spam can renters insurance and decided to get a
> > quote on M3 insurance building and flying. Avemco quoted me $193/year
for
> > building insurance and (Hold on to your shorts...) $1900/year for
> > liability/hull coverage. AND the hull coverage won't go in effect till
> the
> > FAA restrictions are flown off!!!! Like I said , I know this has been
> beat
> > to death , but these things change a lot so could I get some folks to
drop
> > me a note with any help you can give me on this...(i.e. What your
paying?
> ,
> > How much time you have , what limits of coverage or any exclusions you
> > have )
> >
> > I think part of that quote might be due to low time pilot but $1900 ???
> Give
> > me a break!!!
> > Any help with phone numbers for "other" aviation insurance companies
would
> > be appreciated.
> >
> > Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
> > Mark 3 in little pieces in the basement...
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard_Harris(at)albemarle.com |
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Harris/Magnolia/Chem/Albemarle
on 08/26/99 10:11 AM ---------------------------
Richard Harris
08/24/99 01:15 PM
cc:
Subject: MK3
Its me again John;
I climb at 60 to 65 & 5600rpm . Straight & level will be about 5800 ,but
the airspeed gets over 100 so I don't know for sure. Are you using a wrap
drive, or something else? The reason I mention props and angle of engine
is be cause mine is so close to the flap tube now I don't know if I can
move it any closer by rising the front of the engine. However I think now
that you have told me about the tail wires, that may be what's causing my
nose to wander at high speed. Please respond with any thoughts.
Thanks RH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard neilsen" <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us> |
I would like to extend the thread on flutter to include the proper way to balance
an aileron. In the construction manual for the MKIII there is talk about keeping
the ailerons light to avoid flutter. I read this say that if they are heavy
then you may not need to totally balance the aileron but just offset some
of the weight of the aileron. There was also a earlier comment that it may not
be good to fully static balance the aileron. Also, on the MKIII the flapps hang
on the torque tube of the aileron. Do you really need to balance this flap
weight also?
On my VW powered MKIII I used GA trailing edge material on my flaps and ailerons.
Dennis Souder said I would NEED the balance weights with this setup which I
did install. When I installed my aileron balance weights I cut app. two inches
of balance weight (the solid steel bar stock) and put it in the balance arm.
The balance weight sticks out one inch and one inch in the balance arm. This
way I get the most balance effect with the least total weight. I have not static
BALANCED the ailerons but I did offset all the additional weight I added to
the original design plus a whole lot more. I assumed that I have eliminated any
flutter chances that might occur in our speed ranges. I have flight tested
the plane to app. 85mph and haven't experienced any flutter yet.
The bottom line is if you fully static balance the ailerons and some of the flap
weight you are adding a lot of weight. You can then maybe go 200-500mph with
no flutter but... At the very least if you feel the need to fully static balance
the ailerons don't slide more than one inch into the balance arm, if it over
balances cut it off.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
At 11:22 AM 8/26/99 +0430, you wrote:
>
>hi again--i'm new to the list an i'm not sure how to e-mail on my own with
>out answering someone elses post like i think i'm doing now --please
>advise--tony
>
2 ways to do this 1. just type in kolb-list(at)matronics.com in the to box,
type in a subject and than your message.
Second way is the way I do it is to hit reply to any message and erase the
current message and subject heading and then put in my own.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mic replacement |
I called George at Comtronics. He will be glad to send you another one. Mine was
about $40. Their number is 715 366 7093
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ajvann" <redhill(at)rose.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 08/25/99 |
Richard wrote:
Larry & Jim,
I believe dual ignition is valuable, but no
where near as valuable as it is generally hyped up to be.
Richard S:
I agree with John Hauk on the dual ignition. I fly the 503dcdi. I had one
ignition mag slowly fail because of a defective lighting coil at 300 hours.
I discovered this right after flying about 250 feet AGL over 100foot tall
pine trees, while inspecting the ground for pine regeneration from a seed
tree operation. I did have a BRS in case of complete engine failure; but my
heart sank when I landed, checked my mags upon shutdown to discover that
number two mag was not working. I, for one, was very thankful for dual
ignition.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Maurice Shettel <mshettel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron flutter on KXP |
Steve when your ready Id put the extra hinges on per Ben Ransom. Then
the balance weights if you decide you need them. Just my opinion.
This might interest those following the flutter thread.
The aileron off a BAE 700 Hawker Jet should weigh between 7 and 15oz.
at the trailing edge. This is checked by supporting the aileron at the hinge
points, tape the trim and servo tabs up flush with the aileron, then using
a spring scale, lift the trailing edge until the chord line is horizontal.
And on the other hand, none of the flight controls on Dassult's Falcon 50
tri jet get balanced. No procedures, no provisions. The Tech. Rep. tells
me the 3000psi hydraulic control actuators are the reason.
Now where did Rotax put that hydraulic pump mounting pad?
Maurice
STAECS(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/25/99 4:22:22 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
> hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
>
> << Steve, your ailerons didn't flutter because you crossed
> someone else's wake at 90 mph. >>
> John:
>
> Always interested in your opinion. I experienced aileron flutter only once
> in over 400 hours of flight. I, like you, fly fast and furious a lot of the
> time. It is not uncommon for me to exceed 90 mph with a 503 on the single
> seat KXP. I hate to add the extra weight to balance the ailerons and am also
> concerned about adding that weight to a fairly flimsy aileron 22" from the
> nearest support point. On the other hand I'm always nervous at high speeds
> that flutter may occur. It is an intense experience to say the least.
>
> Steve Anderson
> Black Hills of SD
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 08/25/99 |
Your point is very well taken, and I can't help but agree. Now my problem
is this: Because cutting the 2nd plug hole in my VW heads would remove
metal that I'd prefer to leave intact, I had decided to stay with single
plugs, with crank fired ignition. "That modern solid state dependability,"
you know. Adding a 2nd crank fired system would be very light, & simple,
and I noodled the idea for a while, because of the "just in cases." Does
anyone on the list know if it would work to have 2 leads to each plug, each
from a separate ignitor module ?? Could you run 1, or the other, or both at
once ?? Would they interfere with each other, ignore each other, does it
matter, or what ?? I'd really prefer the back up, but don't want to cause
more problems than I solve. I hope someone has an answer.
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: ajvann <redhill(at)rose.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 1:23 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 08/25/99
>
> Richard wrote:
>
> Larry & Jim,
> I believe dual ignition is valuable, but no
> where near as valuable as it is generally hyped up to be.
>
> Richard S:
>
> I agree with John Hauk on the dual ignition. I fly the 503dcdi. I had
one
> ignition mag slowly fail because of a defective lighting coil at 300
hours.
> I discovered this right after flying about 250 feet AGL over 100foot tall
> pine trees, while inspecting the ground for pine regeneration from a seed
> tree operation. I did have a BRS in case of complete engine failure; but
my
> heart sank when I landed, checked my mags upon shutdown to discover that
> number two mag was not working. I, for one, was very thankful for dual
> ignition.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Adam Violett" <aviolett(at)worldinter.net> |
Old Man
An old couple was sitting in the waiting room of the doctor's office when
the
nurse came out and said, "Mr. Jones, the doctor told me that he needs you
to give a urine sample, a stool sample and a sperm sample before he
examines you."
The old man looked up at the nurse, cupped his right ear and said, "What
did you say?"
The nurse came a little closer and said very loudly, "We're going to need
you
to give a urine sample, a stool sample and a sperm sample, Mr. Jones."
The old man leaned forward and said, "What did you say, young lady?", then
turning to his wife next to him he shouted, "what'd she say?"
His wife leaned over and shouted in his ear, "She said she wants your
shorts!"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Adam Violett" <aviolett(at)worldinter.net> |
I have no idea how the last message happened. Please excuse me.
Adam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Adam Violett" <aviolett(at)worldinter.net> |
This is the posting I had intended rather than the rude thing that came
across. The first time I tried to send it, it came back because It was in
html form and in the process of re sending it ... well I don't know what
happened. again I apologize.
A couple of questions and a quick story:
1)Are the pins used at the wing spare attach points and wing strut attach
points etc. just normal aircraft type "clevis pins" as are available from
most suppliers?
2)Where can I find brake cables for my Firestar? The cables are fairly heavy
duty with a 1/4" round by 1/4" thick button on one end.
This last Saturday I flew my Original firestar to a local fly in (50 miles
one way).
When I left in the afternoon the Firestar climbed like usual and made the
pattern altitude of 500 feet (agl) quickly (mandatory pattern altitude,
restricted airspace above).
I was about 1/2 mile outbound and starting to climb to the allowed 1000 feet
when the engine went to idle. I worked the throttle several times with no
response. Then tried the enrichener and got a little more rpm's, about 3500,
so I opted to make the turn back for the airport and try to prolong the
descent long enough to make the runway. Very shortly after making my turn
the engine again went to idle, while furiously trying throttle and
enrichener the altitude bled off quickly.
It became apparent I was not going to make the airport and my options were
now very bad. Trees to the left, Four lane highway under me and houses to
the right.
The trees sounded like a real bad idea, the highway and housing were full of
innocent folks who didn't accept the risks of ultralighting so I kept
looking. Ahead I saw a weigh station beside the highway so I made a try for
it. The ramp side had poles between the lanes which would have been bad so I
veered for the gravel behind the station. What I almost didn't see was the
power line coming out of the trees on the other side of gravel area, the
pole was hidden in the trees. The last few seconds involved several FULL
deflection control inputs. In the last approx. 600 feet of flight before
touch down I moved the airplane approx. 500 feet left and 200 feet down most
of the down happened in the last 150 feet or so.
Bent the gear when I slammed it down under the power lines but other than
that and needing a trip to the laundry the plane and I came thru it ok. Them
big ailerons can make the difference and that's one tough little plane!!
No cause for the engine failure was found. The engine was thoroughly
checked, restarted and run extensively with out a problem. I flew the plane
back out of the weight station and on home. Boy was that a no joy trip home,
I spent the whole trip checking and double checking for the next best place
to land.
Happy Landings!!
Adam Violett K.C. Kansas area
Original Firestar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Olendorf" <olendorf(at)earthlink.net> |
I think I liked the first posting better! (the joke about the shorts)
That's one scary story. Sounds like maybe it was running on one cylinder.
Scott Olendorf
Original Firestar, Rotax 377
Schenectady, NY http://members.aol.com/olefiresta
----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Violett <aviolett(at)worldinter.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 9:50 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Clevis pins
|
| This is the posting I had intended rather than the rude thing that came
| across. The first time I tried to send it, it came back because It was in
| html form and in the process of re sending it ... well I don't know what
| happened. again I apologize.
|
| A couple of questions and a quick story:
|
| 1)Are the pins used at the wing spare attach points and wing strut attach
| points etc. just normal aircraft type "clevis pins" as are available from
| most suppliers?
| 2)Where can I find brake cables for my Firestar? The cables are fairly
heavy
| duty with a 1/4" round by 1/4" thick button on one end.
|
| This last Saturday I flew my Original firestar to a local fly in (50 miles
| one way).
| When I left in the afternoon the Firestar climbed like usual and made the
| pattern altitude of 500 feet (agl) quickly (mandatory pattern altitude,
| restricted airspace above).
| I was about 1/2 mile outbound and starting to climb to the allowed 1000
feet
| when the engine went to idle. I worked the throttle several times with no
| response. Then tried the enrichener and got a little more rpm's, about
3500,
| so I opted to make the turn back for the airport and try to prolong the
| descent long enough to make the runway. Very shortly after making my turn
| the engine again went to idle, while furiously trying throttle and
| enrichener the altitude bled off quickly.
| It became apparent I was not going to make the airport and my options were
| now very bad. Trees to the left, Four lane highway under me and houses to
| the right.
| The trees sounded like a real bad idea, the highway and housing were full
of
| innocent folks who didn't accept the risks of ultralighting so I kept
| looking. Ahead I saw a weigh station beside the highway so I made a try
for
| it. The ramp side had poles between the lanes which would have been bad so
I
| veered for the gravel behind the station. What I almost didn't see was the
| power line coming out of the trees on the other side of gravel area, the
| pole was hidden in the trees. The last few seconds involved several FULL
| deflection control inputs. In the last approx. 600 feet of flight before
| touch down I moved the airplane approx. 500 feet left and 200 feet down
most
| of the down happened in the last 150 feet or so.
| Bent the gear when I slammed it down under the power lines but other than
| that and needing a trip to the laundry the plane and I came thru it ok.
Them
| big ailerons can make the difference and that's one tough little plane!!
| No cause for the engine failure was found. The engine was thoroughly
| checked, restarted and run extensively with out a problem. I flew the
plane
| back out of the weight station and on home. Boy was that a no joy trip
home,
| I spent the whole trip checking and double checking for the next best
place
| to land.
|
| Happy Landings!!
| Adam Violett K.C. Kansas area
| Original Firestar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 08/25/99 |
In a message dated 08/26/1999 9:02:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net writes:
> Adding a 2nd crank fired system would be very light, & simple,
> and I noodled the idea for a while, because of the "just in cases."
Does
> anyone on the list know if it would work to have 2 leads to each plug, each
> from a separate ignitor module ?? Could you run 1, or the other, or both
at
> once ?? Would they interfere with each other,
Feeding two ignition leads to a single spark plug causes interference and is
not reliable.
To get two spark plugs has at least two solutions:
1. Try to purchase a VW head that has two spark plug holes in it already.
2. Modify your cylinder heads as I did mine. The heads were for a Scorpion
Helicopter which had liquid cooling.
I milled out enough space to allow a half inch thick 6160 aluminum piece to
be helio arced in, while also filling in the existing spark plug hole. Then
two diagonal new spark plug holes were drilled and tapped with the objective
of getting the firing tips close, but still allowing socket wrenches to fit.
Next both surfaces were planed a few mils to defeat any slight warping that
may have taken place. (Because of the liquid cooling I also had to make a new
head cover plate and gasket, but this would not apply to you.)
The plugs were fired by two independent magnetos, which gave a symmetric 75
RPM drop during the Mag Check. My cost to do four heads was less than $50,
but then I had the free support of a machine shop.
BTW, the engine was the power head from an Evenrude outboard motor, 125HP.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: spinning a prop too fast...what happens |
| From: | Jeff R Erekson <flybug1(at)juno.com> |
well my lazair turnes 36" props (i think??) on two driect drive engines.
I've only got one started..(the other has some work to do) But one is
plenty loud. Much louder than the othe plans.
Jeff Erekson flybug1(at)juno.com
Lazair Series II ultralight owner, Beaver Student pilot
Ragwing Sport Parasole Ultralight Builder (RW6)
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/ultralights/
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/ragwing6/
writes:
>
>Don't know about a 45" prop, but years ago, I had built and flown
>several
>Hummers, and one of them had a Zenoah 250 with a 36" direct drive
>prop.
>The prop tips were supersonic at cruise and that was one of the
>noisiest
>airplanes I
>have ever been in. My wife could hear me coming home when I was 3
>miles away.
>As far as using an 80" prop instead of a 72"; the tips would go much
>faster,
>and the torque required to turn it would be much greater. Normally, it
>is
>easier
>to get an engine/reduction combination to accept an increase in pitch
>rather than an increase in length. But if you can turn it slow
>enough,
>then you
>can make it work. A 2.9:1 ratio would not turn it slow enough, IMO.
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
>>
>>Group,
>>
>> What happens when you run a prop to fast? Like when you run a
>>direct drive prop with like a 45" prop or longer. Do the tips reach
>the
>>speed of sound and become inefficient? Like my ragwing that I'm
>>buildling, I'm supposed to have a 2.9:1 gear reduction with a 72"
>prop on
>>my Kawasaki, what would happen if I turned an 80" prop?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <joncroke(at)itol.com> |
| Subject: | UltralightPilot.com |
Fellow Kolb Pilots,
Just a quick note to thank all that have registered to date in the
www.UltralightPilot.com database...
There are now enough pilot entries now to make it kind of interesting to
perform 'searches' on the database regarding location, plane type, etc.
I invite everyone (registered or not) to give it a try and see how someday
this 'experiment' might just prove beneficial to all UL enthusiasts in
assessing activity in a particular geographical area... Search the database
as often as you wish as each day brings more and more pilots into view!
What is kinda interseting at this time is that if you perform a search on
'KOLB' or 'MARK' , or 'FIRESTAR' for plane type owned you will find that by
far there are more Kolbs than other brands of UL !! While this does not
accurately reflect the true distribution of owned plane models in the world,
it does say something about, I think, the dedication and ferver of the Kolb
community!
Be sure to check and see if there are fellow Kolbers near you that you were
unaware, and be sure to add yourself to the growing list! Its actually a
lot of fun, and becomes more so as more of us participate.
As a final note, there is no hidden motive to this 'database' .. everyone
that registers has complete control to remove or alter their own info at any
time... your info will never be sold/given/exchanged to anyone, and no
marketing purposes are allowed! Period. Im just the moderator and it keeps
me outta trouble when Im not flying.
Thanks again to all!
Jon (near Greenbay)
FS (thinking about fall and full enclosure time)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
stalling a prop..they even have a fancy name
>for it..."cavitating" simply put the prop starts bleeding off that power
>that the crankshaft is pumping into it as "noise" instead of thrust
In a boat application this cavitating produces
>cute little bubbles but very little thrust
Cavitation is the production of bubbles when a prop or pump rotor spins in
a liquid and lowers the pressure of the liquid below its current vapor
pressure. It has nothing (well little) to do with stall, but it does
reduce the generation of thrust , or more usually pressure differential in a
pump.
Prop blades will stall at exactly the same angle of attack for the airfoil
section as a wing does. For typical prop blade airfoils that would be 12 to
16 degrees. this is not the prop pitch angle though! Very different ,
since the prop is moving through the air, and the air is being accelerated
past and through the prop the wind makes the angle of attack less then the
prop pitch, which is why the faster you go the more prop pitch you want and
there fore they invented controllable pitch props.
The best way to find the best prop for your application is to try several so
try several!
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 08/25/99 |
> I believe dual ignition is valuable, but no
> where near as valuable as it is generally hyped up to be.
I think that the main argument against dual ignition is that the spark plugs
end up in a less then optimum lcation. Since plug fouling is a very rare
occurance these days ( unless your buringing avgas) I think a good
compromise would be two ignition systems firing only one set of plugs. You
get the good spark location, and two sources of spark voltage. What do you
think?
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Howard Ping" <hping(at)hyperaction.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UltralightPilot.com |
Jon
I noticed your thread,.Sounds good.The only problem I am
having problems getting into the database,too register.
If you would send me a message that way I can double-click
on it.
thanks
Howard
ck out my home page
http://www.hyperaction.net/hping
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale L Langley" <dlangl01(at)kcinter.net> |
| Subject: | UltralightPilot.com |
Disposition-Notification-To: "Dale L Langley"
I performed a search on all three of those words listed and came up with
only one person. What am I doing wrong. I entered in uppercase with wild
card.
Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon Croke
Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 12:26 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: UltralightPilot.com
Fellow Kolb Pilots,
Just a quick note to thank all that have registered to date in the
www.UltralightPilot.com database...
There are now enough pilot entries now to make it kind of interesting to
perform 'searches' on the database regarding location, plane type, etc.
I invite everyone (registered or not) to give it a try and see
how someday
this 'experiment' might just prove beneficial to all UL enthusiasts in
assessing activity in a particular geographical area... Search
the database
as often as you wish as each day brings more and more pilots into view!
What is kinda interseting at this time is that if you perform a
search on
'KOLB' or 'MARK' , or 'FIRESTAR' for plane type owned you will
find that by
far there are more Kolbs than other brands of UL !! While this does not
accurately reflect the true distribution of owned plane models
in the world,
it does say something about, I think, the dedication and ferver
of the Kolb
community!
Be sure to check and see if there are fellow Kolbers near you
that you were
unaware, and be sure to add yourself to the growing list! Its
actually a
lot of fun, and becomes more so as more of us participate.
As a final note, there is no hidden motive to this 'database'
.. everyone
that registers has complete control to remove or alter their
own info at any
time... your info will never be sold/given/exchanged to anyone, and no
marketing purposes are allowed! Period. Im just the moderator
and it keeps
me outta trouble when Im not flying.
Thanks again to all!
Jon (near Greenbay)
FS (thinking about fall and full enclosure time)
-----------
-----------
-----------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | MK III First Flight, Andy Bondy |
Congratulations Andy:
Was a long time coming, but I bet it was worth every hour
you put into it to see it fly. Words can not describe those
wonderful feelings.
Appologise for being late. On my return from Oshkosh,
somehow overlooked the post reference your first flight, as
I waded thru 1300+ msgs from several lists I subscribe to.
Hope you get the Hirth sorted out and performing the way it
is supposed to. Please let the Kolb List know how you are
progressing.
john h (hauck's holler, alabama)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UltralightPilot.com |
Dale,
I did the same thing, then I selected "like" from the pull down menu on the
left, & it produced a good search. ...Richard S
Dale L Langley wrote:
>
> I performed a search on all three of those words listed and came up with
> only one person. What am I doing wrong. I entered in uppercase with wild
> card.
>
> Dale
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon Croke
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 12:26 AM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: UltralightPilot.com
>
>
> Fellow Kolb Pilots,
>
> Just a quick note to thank all that have registered to date in the
> www.UltralightPilot.com database...
> There are now enough pilot entries now to make it kind of interesting to
> perform 'searches' on the database regarding location, plane type, etc.
>
> I invite everyone (registered or not) to give it a try and see
> how someday
> this 'experiment' might just prove beneficial to all UL enthusiasts in
> assessing activity in a particular geographical area... Search
> the database
> as often as you wish as each day brings more and more pilots into view!
>
> What is kinda interseting at this time is that if you perform a
> search on
> 'KOLB' or 'MARK' , or 'FIRESTAR' for plane type owned you will
> find that by
> far there are more Kolbs than other brands of UL !! While this does not
> accurately reflect the true distribution of owned plane models
> in the world,
> it does say something about, I think, the dedication and ferver
> of the Kolb
> community!
>
> Be sure to check and see if there are fellow Kolbers near you
> that you were
> unaware, and be sure to add yourself to the growing list! Its
> actually a
> lot of fun, and becomes more so as more of us participate.
>
> As a final note, there is no hidden motive to this 'database'
> .. everyone
> that registers has complete control to remove or alter their
> own info at any
> time... your info will never be sold/given/exchanged to anyone, and no
> marketing purposes are allowed! Period. Im just the moderator
> and it keeps
> me outta trouble when Im not flying.
>
> Thanks again to all!
>
> Jon (near Greenbay)
> FS (thinking about fall and full enclosure time)
>
> -----------
>
> -----------
>
> -----------
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
Quick question...
FINALLY about to get started on my M3. Was about to call Aircraft Spruce
and order some clecos , cleco pliers , and a deburring tool. Is there
anymore of these "aircraft specific" kind of tools that I will need and how
many of each size clecos will I need???
Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy" <yamaha(at)cvn.net> |
| Subject: | Kolb Firestare: clevis pins |
Can anyone tell me if clevis pins are the correct thing to use on the Kolb
wing and wing strut, and are there different grades of pins. Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Jeremy: Last year the same subject came up, and I archived the letter
I sent. I'll attach it to this posting. Only thing I'd like to add regards
the Clecos. While you Can do without them, there are areas where nothing
else works quite as well, or as conveniently. Screws work too, especially
when fitting doors, etc., but you must be very careful not to enlarge the
holes, and it's easy to do. I bought 10 each of the 5/32", and 3/16", and
30 of the 1/8". They aren't that expensive, and I kinda wish I'd bought
more of the 1/8". Very, very useful. I put the flex-drive on my Dremel
tool, and found it to be indispensable. A real joy to work with. Biggest,
and I mean BIGGEST thing was the belt sander in the attachment. Absolutely
indispensable. Whoops, no attachments. Hmmmm..................I'll send
this, then forward the other letter separately. Not sure if I can figure
out how to splice them at this point. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Casey <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 2:55 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Clecos
>
> Quick question...
>
> FINALLY about to get started on my M3. Was about to call Aircraft Spruce
> and order some clecos , cleco pliers , and a deburring tool. Is there
> anymore of these "aircraft specific" kind of tools that I will need and
how
> many of each size clecos will I need???
>
> Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: KOLB: Mark III Newbee |
Okay Jeremy, here's the rest of it.
>
>
> > Good luck on your new project. There's a couple of things I found when
> > building mine that I haven't seen on the group. The biggest thing is a
4"
> > belt / 6" disk, bench sander with a fine grit belt. Mine is a Delta
Mod.
> > 31-460, Type 2. Around $130.00, but it quickly became indispensable.
> > Seldom use my bench grinder any more. With care you can do fairly fine
> > polishing, and with a medium belt and some pressure, you can really cut
> > metal. Also very handy is a snap punch. Don't get the $20.00 one with
> the
> > wooden knob on it from Home Depot. They're junk. General Hardware's #
79
> > snap punch is in the same price range from the same store, and lasts
> > forever. Takes a little knack to use it right. To pick up the dot from
> > the punch, try a Black + Decker "Bullet Bit". It has a little tip on it
> to
> > act as a starter drill. Much easier to start an accurate hole. Then,
> when
> > you have a hole in sheet metal, and want to drill a piece accurately
> behind
> > it, e.g. - hinges, try a "Turbomax" bit from Chief Auto Parts. I think
> > they're made by Irwin, p.n. 73308. They resemble a woodworking Forstner
> > bit, with a shrouded tip. Otherwise, I have a real bad time trying to
> pick
> > the center of the hole for a standard bit. Neither of the above bits
> holds
> > up very well on 4130, especially the Turbomax. For 4130 steel, I like
> the
> > standard Titanium or Cobalt twist drills. Good luck.
> > Big Lar.
> > ----------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
I think this Palsy is affecting my brain, as well as my face. I forgot to
mention on my earlier posting, that the drill bit works very well for
deburring, and I almost got blisters from using one so much. However, it
doesn't work on the inside of tubing, etc. To deburr the inside of those,
the red handled deburring tool from A/C Spruce does a good job, though
you'll break a few bits getting the hang of it. And then a few more, but
still no great expense. I too developed a "mighty right" from hand pulling
all those rivets, but it's not that bad. Glad there weren't more 3/16".
They were a real Bear. Good Luck. Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firestare: clevis pins |
I don't know about anybody else but for me personally, I use stainless steel pins
I bought from E&B Marine. After 765 hours none have shown any sign of wear.
I also use the stainless steel safety rings that go with them. Easier to get
in and out on purpose but near impossible to loss on their own. I also slip a
measured piece of fuel line over the pin after installing it and then a washer
next to the ring. This holds the pin snug and prevents it from spinning around
from vibration. If for some strange reason one of the safety rings are ever
lost, ie those that just don't like you or kids that might removing them, the
snug fit of the fuel line will prevent it from coming out until your next walk
around. The fuel line seems to hold the pin lubricate a little longer also.
Make sure that you use a snug fitting fuel line and cut it tight enough that
you have to use a little force to get the washer and ring in place. They will
stay right where you put them and it will reduce the amount of wear on all the
pin holes over time.
Just passing it along. Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>
>Quick question...
>
>FINALLY about to get started on my M3. Was about to call Aircraft Spruce
>and order some clecos , cleco pliers , and a deburring tool. Is there
>anymore of these "aircraft specific" kind of tools that I will need and how
>many of each size clecos will I need???
>
>Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
>
Clecos are like cubic inches: more is better, and sooner or later you don't
have enough. Helped my nephew replace a quarter panel on his Chevy Blazer
last week, and we used a pint butter tub full of 1/8 clecoes getting that
thing jigged. Other things will work, but you will never regret having a bunch.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jack McCornack |
Years ago I added a second ignition system on my Rotax 277 powered Hummer.
Milled off fins, heliarced a flat spot, drilled and tapped a 2nd plug hole
opposite the original. Used a Power Start module wired to the small
lighting coil to drive a Zenoah high tension coil to the 2nd plug.
Interestingly, the Power Start retarded to TDC at idle, and the 277 idled
much better than stock. But it also advanced 10 degrees or so more at full
throttle than stock, and should have caused major preignition, but didn't,
and the engine always lost about 500 RPM's running on that ignition
relative to the stock setup. One of our old mechanics decided that it was
because the spark plug was in the wrong place to make good power relative
to the transfer port location.
Ended up having that ignition strictly as a backup system in the event I
lost the stock system since I did not want it constantly on with that much
spark advance. Left it off 99% of the time, just checked it during run-up,
and again entering the pattern in case it might be needed, and it always
ran the engine smoothly, but with about a 500 RPM loss, which was tons
better than having nothing.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Larry & Jim,
> My subscription to UL Flying expired, so I'm out of the loop on this
>one. It
>is not uncommon to lose performance with the addition a 2nd spark plug. Flame
>propagation can be quirky stuff. I believe dual ignition is valuable, but no
>where near as valuable as it is generally hyped up to be.
>
>
>gerken(at)us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hey Richard, take a look at the Sept. '99 U/L Flying, in Jack McCornack's
>> Sky Writer section on page 50, for the 2si view of dual ignition. I'm not
>> real sure what to think at this point, but it is interesting. Big
>> Lar.
>>
>> Yea, this was an interesting article and I was trying hard to believe Jack,
>> until he made the statement that snowmobile engines are getting more power
>> BECAUSE of single ignition. He maybe doesn't know that they run those
>engines
>> 1500 RPM higher than our rated redline.
>> What is that equation?: Horsepower = Torque X RPM.? Is that right?
>> Jim G
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UltralightPilot.com |
In a message dated 8/27/99 1:26:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
joncroke(at)itol.com writes:
<< www.UltralightPilot.com database... >>
jon, I tried to go there and it wouldn't go....otherwise I would have signed
up!!........GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MK III First Flight, Andy Bondy |
In a message dated 8/27/99 2:41:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
<< I waded thru 1300+ msgs from several lists I subscribe to.
>>
John, anything over 1153 messages is abominable!......GeoR38
btw that fella I told you about at Oshkosh who was going to but a rotoway
helicopter responded to your lack of enthusiasm and decided not to....I told
him it will be nice to have him around a little longer..........GeoR38 do
not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Howard Ping" <hping(at)hyperaction.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UltralightPilot.com |
Bill,
Just wanted to drop you a quick note to say hello to another
brother. My dad said you were a chop. I initiated at Eastern back
in 1991. If you are interested in seeing another ritual or getting
involved in brotherhood activities if you aren't already let me know.
You can reach me at gping(at)lexmark.com.
In ZAX,
allan ping
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
For aircraft type building tools, you usually pay more through places like
Aircraft Spruce. There are other places with wide selection you might want
to consider. Here's a URL for one that been supplying tools to RV builders
for long time. Good selection, service and fair prices.
http://www.averytools.com/
jerryb
>
>>
>>Quick question...
>>
>>FINALLY about to get started on my M3. Was about to call Aircraft Spruce
>>and order some clecos , cleco pliers , and a deburring tool. Is there
>>anymore of these "aircraft specific" kind of tools that I will need and how
>>many of each size clecos will I need???
>>
>>Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
>>
>
>Clecos are like cubic inches: more is better, and sooner or later you don't
>have enough. Helped my nephew replace a quarter panel on his Chevy Blazer
>last week, and we used a pint butter tub full of 1/8 clecoes getting that
>thing jigged. Other things will work, but you will never regret having a
bunch.
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thomas L. King" <kingdome(at)tcac.net> |
Clecos have other uses also. The 1/8 inch worked very well as a tool to
reach in, grip and remove hydraulic valve lifters in a Ford V8 that had been
coked up to the point that they did not want to come out easily.
Tom King
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Double Leads to Spark Plug |
In a message dated 08/27/1999 10:12:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net writes:
> At this stage,
> I don't think I'm going to go with the dual plugs. For now, I've installed
> separate switches for power to each ignition module, so if I just power up
> one at a time, I should be OK. (??) Check them both on pre-flight, of
> course. Is my reasoning good, or am I fooling myself ??
Having two ignition leads go to a single plug, even with just one powered up
is not a workable solution you find anywhere. Reason is, the dead coil will
absorb a lot of the energy and you will be operating with a system that has
poor spark power. This arrangement is worse than having a straight single
ignition. Most of the time it does not work at all, but definitely shows
itself in poor starting, early carboning problems, and skips at RPM ranges.
Powering both coils does not help either, since the spark power really comes
from a damped AC voltage, created by self induction (determined by the LC
values, which you will change by reducing the L). Synchronizing such spark
signals at all RPM ranges is impossible.
You are not the first to try this experiment, I, and certainly others have
been there.
But, since you are in the mood of experimentation, here is an idea. If it
works, we can share in a patent.
Use an oscilloscope to determine if the initial AC waveform, the one that
actually fires the plug, is positive or negative. Then, using a high
voltage rectifier, (the kind one can find in the high voltage section of TV
sets), in line with the two ignition leads, the spark could possible be
separated. Just observe proper polarity. This may just be an answer, except
for problems of vibration breaking the dang things off, etc.
Which brings to mind a long ago problem of trying to eliminate terrible radio
noise. Already I had put in aircraft type plugs with shielded wires, etc. But
to no avail, the P lead from the mag was throwing off still lots of noise.
So, with three small coils and interposed capacitors in line with the P-lead,
at the mag, I was finally able to enjoy an almost quiet radio. A repeated
problem though occurred in that the coil arrangements would break from
vibration.
I happen to get a bright idea, which worked great and gave me totally quiet
radio reception. Putting just a diode in line with the P-lead, plus a
decoupling capacitor, did the trick. The mag will charge the capacitor to the
highest voltage (noise) value, creating a back voltage in effect
disconnecting the P-lead. Grounding the P-lead with the ignition switch still
killed the mag through the diode.
Well, enough, happy experimenting. Herb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff R Erekson <flybug1(at)juno.com> |
Group,
I need to learn to weld. Whats the best way? Can I use those
welders sold at the hard ware store that cost like $50. And run off of
small accetaline and oxygen bottles?
Jeff Erekson flybug1(at)juno.com
Lazair Series II ultralight owner, Beaver Student pilot
Ragwing Sport Parasole Ultralight Builder (RW6)
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/ultralights/
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/ragwing6/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Double Leads to Spark Plug |
Well Herb, it certainly sounds like you know what you're talking about, so
I'm certainly not going to argue. Looks like Vamoose will have single
ignition to begin with, and an extra, unused, switch on the panel. Thanks
for your help, I do appreciate it. Resigned Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: <HGRAFF(at)aol.com>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 10:06 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Double Leads to Spark Plug
>
> In a message dated 08/27/1999 10:12:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
> > At this stage,
> > I don't think I'm going to go with the dual plugs. For now, I've
installed
> > separate switches for power to each ignition module, so if I just
power up
> > one at a time, I should be OK. (??) Check them both on pre-flight, of
> > course. Is my reasoning good, or am I fooling myself ??
>
> Having two ignition leads go to a single plug, even with just one powered
up
> is not a workable solution you find anywhere. Reason is, the dead coil
will
> absorb a lot of the energy and you will be operating with a system that
has
> poor spark power. This arrangement is worse than having a straight single
> ignition. Most of the time it does not work at all, but definitely shows
> itself in poor starting, early carboning problems, and skips at RPM
ranges.
> Powering both coils does not help either, since the spark power really
comes
> from a damped AC voltage, created by self induction (determined by the LC
> values, which you will change by reducing the L). Synchronizing such spark
> signals at all RPM ranges is impossible.
>
> You are not the first to try this experiment, I, and certainly others have
> been there.
>
> But, since you are in the mood of experimentation, here is an idea. If it
> works, we can share in a patent.
>
> Use an oscilloscope to determine if the initial AC waveform, the one that
> actually fires the plug, is positive or negative. Then, using a high
> voltage rectifier, (the kind one can find in the high voltage section of
TV
> sets), in line with the two ignition leads, the spark could possible be
> separated. Just observe proper polarity. This may just be an answer,
except
> for problems of vibration breaking the dang things off, etc.
>
> Which brings to mind a long ago problem of trying to eliminate terrible
radio
> noise. Already I had put in aircraft type plugs with shielded wires, etc.
But
> to no avail, the P lead from the mag was throwing off still lots of noise.
> So, with three small coils and interposed capacitors in line with the
P-lead,
> at the mag, I was finally able to enjoy an almost quiet radio. A repeated
> problem though occurred in that the coil arrangements would break from
> vibration.
>
> I happen to get a bright idea, which worked great and gave me totally
quiet
> radio reception. Putting just a diode in line with the P-lead, plus a
> decoupling capacitor, did the trick. The mag will charge the capacitor to
the
> highest voltage (noise) value, creating a back voltage in effect
> disconnecting the P-lead. Grounding the P-lead with the ignition switch
still
> killed the mag through the diode.
>
> Well, enough, happy experimenting. Herb
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Double Leads to Spark Plug |
>Well Herb, it certainly sounds like you know what you're talking about, so
>I'm certainly not going to argue. Looks like Vamoose will have single
>ignition to begin with, and an extra, unused, switch on the panel. Thanks
>for your help, I do appreciate it. Resigned Lar.
>
If I remember right the Soob guys run 2 ignition systems thru one plug
(cause the heads and cylinders are water cooled and hence water jacketed ,
so you can't just drill and tap another hole...it would leak something
awful!!!) I THINK that NSI and Stratus both do this. You might if you
really want to be curious and postpone Vamoose a good while longer make some
inquirys to the AirSOOB mail list. They are a HUGE list and some of those
guys are a few steps shy of genius , and since I'm not I'll shut up...
Jeremy Casey
P.S. Here are the URL's
AirSOOB list http://www.lists.kz/airsoob/
A redrive designed and built by a guy name Mantila (off topic but can be
adapted to a VW application and is interesting none the less
http://www.intellisys.net/users/inet/vw.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Forced Landing |
>aviolett(at)worldinter.net writes:
><< I flew the plane
> back out of the weight station and on home. Boy was that a no joy trip home,
Congratulations on getting yourself and your aircraft home safe and sound.
It's hard to knock success! :-)
That said, I would think that under the circumstances that you described
and the fact that you hadn't been able to determine the reason for the
engine failure, it would have been more prudent to trailer the plane home.
(IMO)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UltralightPilot.com |
GeoR38,
I did that too, then I deleted "database" from address & it took me right
there.
...Richard S
GeoR38(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/27/99 1:26:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> joncroke(at)itol.com writes:
>
> << www.UltralightPilot.com database... >>
> jon, I tried to go there and it wouldn't go....otherwise I would have signed
> up!!........GeoR38
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Double Leads to Spark Plug |
Thanks Jeremy: Vamoose is still months away from flying, so there's lots
of time for more research. I'll definitely check out the "Soob Site," and I
did check the redrive. Looks interesting, and the price is certainly right.
Another redrive that I was shown on the List is the Marcotte, made in
Quebec, Canada. I don't have their website, but it's one of the best
looking drives I've seen. Was it Jason who showed it to me ?? Back to
the drawing board. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Casey <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 1999 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Double Leads to Spark Plug
>
cause the heads and cylinders are water cooled and hence water jacketed ,
> so you can't just drill and tap another hole...it would leak something
> awful!!!) I THINK that NSI and Stratus both do this. You might if you
> really want to be curious and postpone Vamoose a good while longer make
some
> inquirys to the AirSOOB mail list. They are a HUGE list and some of those
> guys are a few steps shy of genius , and since I'm not I'll shut up...
> Jeremy Casey
>
> P.S. Here are the URL's
>
> AirSOOB list http://www.lists.kz/airsoob/
>
>
> A redrive designed and built by a guy name Mantila (off topic but can be
> adapted to a VW application and is interesting none the less
>
> http://www.intellisys.net/users/inet/vw.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Adam Violett" <aviolett(at)worldinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Forced Landing |
I probably agree with you, I should have trailered it out. However after
more than 15 minutes of hard ground running (better than 10 minutes at full
throttle) I found it hard to disagree with the 2 A&P's and the club's
mechanic guru who makes a living rebuilding airplanes. They said they would
fly it, I couldn't make it so much as burp, and I wanted to minimize the
exposure of the event to the public for the sake of the sport of
Ultralighting in general. I left before any "authorities" happened to hear
about it or find it.
You're probably right but I'll stand by my decision.
Respectfully
Adam
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
> ><< I flew the plane
> > back out of the weight station and on home. Boy was that a no joy trip
home,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
>
> That said, I would think that under the circumstances that you described
> and the fact that you hadn't been able to determine the reason for the
> engine failure, it would have been more prudent to trailer the plane home.
> (IMO)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Zutrauen" <peterz(at)zutrasoft.com> |
| Subject: | RE: marcotte redrive web site |
http://www.psrumarcotte.com/
cheers!
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry Bourne
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 1999 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Double Leads to Spark Plug
Thanks Jeremy: Vamoose is still months away from flying, so there's lots
of time for more research. I'll definitely check out the "Soob Site," and I
did check the redrive. Looks interesting, and the price is certainly right.
Another redrive that I was shown on the List is the Marcotte, made in
Quebec, Canada. I don't have their website, but it's one of the best
looking drives I've seen. Was it Jason who showed it to me ?? Back to
the drawing board. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Casey <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 1999 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Double Leads to Spark Plug
>
cause the heads and cylinders are water cooled and hence water jacketed ,
> so you can't just drill and tap another hole...it would leak something
> awful!!!) I THINK that NSI and Stratus both do this. You might if you
> really want to be curious and postpone Vamoose a good while longer make
some
> inquirys to the AirSOOB mail list. They are a HUGE list and some of those
> guys are a few steps shy of genius , and since I'm not I'll shut up...
> Jeremy Casey
>
> P.S. Here are the URL's
>
> AirSOOB list http://www.lists.kz/airsoob/
>
>
> A redrive designed and built by a guy name Mantila (off topic but can be
> adapted to a VW application and is interesting none the less
>
> http://www.intellisys.net/users/inet/vw.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cliff / Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)tetric.com> |
| Subject: | Take off engine out |
To all,
This is an experience I had a few weeks ago. I had not flown my plane
since Dec/98 while I was furiously working building our new house. My
bieneal run out in Jan/99. I didn't want to fly illegally and I didn't
have time to get it updated. I ran the engine about every 6 weeks to 2
months or so thinking I was doing right by flushing the fuel and lubing it.
After finishing the house and updating my bienneal in Aug/99, I fired it
up on the first pull (always starts quick and easy) with the intent to fly,
warmed it up like always and ran it as fast as I could while the chocks and
I were straining against the prop blast. I can do that only up to about
4700 rpms. Everything sounded fine I taxied down to the end of the runway
and then started my take off run. I did not slam on full throttle but
brought it up slowly raising the tail. When I did get to the main jets at
just about lift off, the engine stalled. When I brought the throttle back
it picked up again. I knew immediately I had a big problem and aborted the
take off. Before I got back to the hanger I had figured pretty much what
the problem was - clogged main jets. I removed the carb bowl and floats
and noticed some (not much) fine thin layer of white/gray precipitate on
the walls, strainer and floor of the bowl. I removed the main jets and
sure enough they were almost plugged with the same stuff. I removed the
needle valve jets and cleaned them as well as the bottom portion of the
needles themselves. I replaced all of the fuel with new fuel and cranked
up again. Just like before it ran fine in the low to mid range. I taxied
back down to the end and this time I pushed the trottle smoothly past
midrange fairly soon in the ground run - FULL POWER - great. I flew around
for awhile (staying real close to the airport and at plenty of altitude).
The point of the story is that you might think you have kept your engine up
to snuff when you haven't. I am not a Rotax expert (as you all can see).
Maybe there are some more out there like me. Check out the engine running
on the main jets before you break ground.
Later,
--
Cliff & Carolyn Stripling
801 Avenida Serena, Marble Falls, Texas 78654
Vista Del Rio (Central Texas Hill Country)
(830)693-9333 (voice) -7633 (fax)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Take off engine out |
In a message dated 8/28/99 8:04:55 AM, striplic(at)tetric.com writes:
<< I removed the carb bowl and floats
and noticed some (not much) fine thin layer of white/gray precipitate on
the walls, strainer and floor of the bowl. I removed the main jets and
sure enough they were almost plugged with the same stuff. >>
Heck of a story Cliff-
But what do think the "stuff" is/was?? Do you pre-mix your oil or do you use
the auto injection?? Good advice to power up all the way early on.
Bill George
Mk-3 582 Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Double Leads to Spark Plug |
I'll definitely check out the "Soob Site," and I
>did check the redrive. Looks interesting, and the price is certainly
right.
>Another redrive that I was shown on the List is the Marcotte, made in
>Quebec, Canada
Powersport Aviation is developing a reduction drive for the Mazda Rotary
engine that can handle up to 225 HP. it will weight around 40 pounds.
Might be to big for your application.
www.Powersportaviation.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: marcotte redrive web site |
Thanks Pete, that sure looks like a good piece of equipment to me. Contact
! had a real good article about it a couple of months ago.
Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Zutrauen <peterz(at)zutrasoft.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 1999 9:38 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: RE: marcotte redrive web site
>
> http://www.psrumarcotte.com/
>
> cheers!
> Pete
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry Bourne
> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 1999 9:47 AM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Double Leads to Spark Plug
>
>
>
> Thanks Jeremy: Vamoose is still months away from flying, so there's
lots
> of time for more research. I'll definitely check out the "Soob Site," and
I
> did check the redrive. Looks interesting, and the price is certainly
right.
> Another redrive that I was shown on the List is the Marcotte, made in
> Quebec, Canada. I don't have their website, but it's one of the best
> looking drives I've seen. Was it Jason who showed it to me ?? Back to
> the drawing board. Big Lar.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeremy Casey <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 1999 6:16 AM
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Double Leads to Spark Plug
>
>
> >
> cause the heads and cylinders are water cooled and hence water jacketed ,
> > so you can't just drill and tap another hole...it would leak something
> > awful!!!) I THINK that NSI and Stratus both do this. You might if you
> > really want to be curious and postpone Vamoose a good while longer make
> some
> > inquirys to the AirSOOB mail list. They are a HUGE list and some of
those
> > guys are a few steps shy of genius , and since I'm not I'll shut up...
> > Jeremy Casey
> >
> > P.S. Here are the URL's
> >
> > AirSOOB list http://www.lists.kz/airsoob/
> >
> >
> > A redrive designed and built by a guy name Mantila (off topic but can be
> > adapted to a VW application and is interesting none the less
> >
> > http://www.intellisys.net/users/inet/vw.html
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Firestare: clevis pins |
Yes there are different grades of clevis pins. I had some that were too long
for an application on my tractor and just sawed them off with no problem. I
later tried the same trick with a clevis pin I bought at Lakeland (aircraft
grade I presume) and it took the teeth right off my best quality hacksaw
blade. Make sure you have the hard ones. Duane the plane in Tallahassee.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gray, Richard (RICG)" <RICG(at)chevron.com> |
Gray, Richard (RICG) would like to recall the message, "Kolb-List: Clevis
pins".
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 08/29/99 |
I had a thought about the engine out and forced landing. Particularly that a
reason could not be found. Is it possible the (assuming you use a single
stage pump) pump valves(just little pieces of rubber flaps) got something
very small in one of them and came out when the pressure was released? I had
bubbles in my gas line of my 377 at one time and leaned me out. It was the
pump. It was accumulative. Once I was on the ground it was okay. Thank
goodness for an enricher valve! Mine was a one time happening also. I
replaced it witha good two stage pump (the round one) and have never had
bubbles again. Hope it helped.. G'day Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 582 hot starts |
Well Clive, you should get a batch of answers from this one. I know what you are
going through and so does my wingman, he's the one who had to help hold my
plane while I hand propped it for more than a couple hundred times. For those
that think the starter will spin the engine faster than you can handprop, it is
not true I proved it too many times. We are going to need more precise information
to determine the exact cause though.
1.Do you change the plugs every 25 hours? ( The gap is about right.)
2. Do you premix with no more than 50-1? ( Pennzoil air-cooled 2 cycle is highly
recommended here)
3. What kind of oil are you using-exactly?
4. Have you done a low rpm compression test with a compression gauge and compared
it with a 582 that is starting properly? (Same rpm, same throttle setting,
same temperature, same oil, same day if possible to get a good comparison) If
they are the same or real close you probably don't have a piston and ring problem,
if yours is showing low, well, that's coming. There is another test you
can perform if you don't have a compression gauge or another 582 to compare yours
to. Try this after you cannot start it after it has been sitting. Pull a
plug from each cylinder, pour about 1/2 ounce of oil into the cylinders ( this
doesn't have to be exact) then reinstall the plugs. turn it through by hand
slowly a couple turns, then hit the starter. If it starts it will be low compression.
Another thing here is that new plugs will fire the fuel/air mixture at
lower compression than will plugs with time on them (usually for me it was over
10 hours before the hard starting would begin again), don't ask me why I just
know they do, again experience.
5. When was the last time you decarboned the top end? ( Partially stuck rings will
sometimes cause hard starting due to low compression at low rpm, and you must
pull the cylinders off to determine this, looking up into the exhaust port
want do it.) Another thing here is that a 582 will run perfectly if you can get
it started even though the rings are stuck and the plugs are way over due for
a change. Been there, done that.
6.Have you tried to or been able to hand prop it after you couldn't start it by
electric starter? ( I assume you have electric start.)
7. Have you ever pulled any of the plug wires out at either end of the cap or coil?
( I had one plug wire burn off up into the insulation at the coil end to
the point that the gap was so wide it would not fire anymore.)
8. Have you checked the values of the ignition charging coils ( there are two per
side on the stator) to determine if you have one going bad? ( I had one go
out but it was hard to find because when it was cold it worked perfect and when
it got hot it wouldn't fire a lick at starting rpm, but after I did get it started
it didn't show up in the ignition check. Then one day on an XC it quit
all together and killed one side of the ignition, this is where it showed up.
I flew home on one ignition. I'm like Hauck, you don't need it until you need
it, then you really need it. Having two ignitions has nothing to do with power
and performance it has to do with getting you home after one quits. I must admit
though that two ignitions makes for easier starting on the 582.
I am only speaking from experience here and after 770 hours on one 582 I have had
my share of starting problems and no one ever gave me the information or asked
me all the questions I've given you here. These are only the things I had
problems with as far as the starting goes and I'm sure there are those that have
had there own special ones. Now if you would like I can go on for another
day or two with the other problems concerning the 582.---Nah!
9. How many hour do you have on it now?
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Jeremy,
I found that an electric miter box, from Sears, was a big help. Put a metal
blade on it. A deburring tool was better for me than a drill bit, cause you
can clean the ends of the tubes easier. I used clecos, didn't have to buy
them, they are faster to use than screws. I don't think I used more than 20
at a time.
hope this helps and ENJOY the building,
Geoff Thistlethwaite
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Casey <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 4:55 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Clecos
>
> Quick question...
>
> FINALLY about to get started on my M3. Was about to call Aircraft Spruce
> and order some clecos , cleco pliers , and a deburring tool. Is there
> anymore of these "aircraft specific" kind of tools that I will need and
how
> many of each size clecos will I need???
>
> Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Hi Gang:
The memory fades quickly, especially after 6 years. Have
not done any real building and serious maintenance work
since I rebuilt the MK III.
Just finished up replacing the Lexan in the right door of
Miss P'fer. The clecos were indispensable in fitting,
drilling, and riveting the Lexan to the frame. The fact
that I had a good pattern with rivet holes already drilled
helped tremendously, but without 38 clecos to hold the Lexan
in its compound curve position I could not have done an
acceptable job to my personal standards.
Still got another door and windshield to do. Use aluminum
rivets in doors and windshield to facilitate replacement in
5 or 6 years. Drilling SS rivets out of aluminum tubing can
be less than satisfactory.
When I build airplanes I put them together with clecos then
rivet. Saves a lot of heartache. Lot easier to remove a
cleco than a SS rivet.
I used closed in pop rivets on the windshield last time.
Hardest rivets to remove even though they are aluminum. The
mandrels are hardened steel and very difficult to tap out as
compared to steel rivets. I could not get some of them
tapped out and have rather large holes that will have to be
filled with 5/32 or 3/16 rivets. I won't tell if you won't.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Cables & Ground Straps |
>--> RV-List message posted by: pcondon(at)csc.com
>
>
>I crimped my battery cables with a bottle jack ( or sissor jack ) , a sorta
>sharp-angled piece of STEEL angle iron ( bed frame angle iron ) & #2 copper
>lugs. I simply positioned the cable--stripped- into the copper lug, shimmed
>under my car, found a stout frame member and placed the cable/copper lug
between
>the angle iron and the frame member of the car and jacked up to squash-- I
mean
>crimp- the assembly together. Took 5 minutes & cost nothing. I did this
for a
>friend a few weeks later but walked up the street & crawled under a truck to
>jack-crimp the cable(the truck was much heaver & produced a perfect crimp).
>Don't over jack to distort the copper lug.............happy crimping
It's also very easy to solder large terminals
onto fat wires . . .
see: http://www.aereoelectric.com/articles.html and page
down to "Big Connections" . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "b.charlton" <bambo(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Twinstar wing failure |
Hi
A twinstar Mk 2 recently had a wing failure in New Zealand, I think the
2 occupants were killed. A CAA inspector I talked to the other day said
it was a failure of the bracket weld that held the universal joint for
the rear of the wing. Does anybody know of a Kolb mod for this area. Do
Kolb know of this problem, coming after the aileron pivot failure that
was experience recently, its got me worried! My Twinstar Mk 2 has about
500hrs on it and is about 1990 vintage.
Regards Barry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | djwatson(at)olg.com |
User-Agent: IMP/PHP3 Imap webMail Program 2.0.10
| Subject: | Re: Twinstar wing failure |
Barry,
Was it the left wing? And are you talking about the actual frame where the
universal is bolted?
Dennis (Ridge MD.)
Quoting "b.charlton" :
>
> Hi
> A twinstar Mk 2 recently had a wing failure in New Zealand, I think
> the
> 2 occupants were killed. A CAA inspector I talked to the other day said
> it was a failure of the bracket weld that held the universal joint for
> the rear of the wing. Does anybody know of a Kolb mod for this area. Do
> Kolb know of this problem, coming after the aileron pivot failure that
> was experience recently, its got me worried! My Twinstar Mk 2 has about
> 500hrs on it and is about 1990 vintage.
>
> Regards Barry
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Barton <barton(at)ameslab.gov> |
| Subject: | To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com |
Barry, Have not heard of a fix but since our MK II (#4) is older
than yours I sure would like to learn of any things that have
been tried to secure the wings better. The single clevis pin
holding each wing is not a confidence builder.
Tom
>From: "b.charlton" <bambo(at)xtra.co.nz>
>Subject: Kolb-List: Twinstar wing failure
>
>
>Hi
> A twinstar Mk 2 recently had a wing failure in New Zealand, I
think the
>2 occupants were killed. A CAA inspector I talked to the other day said
>it was a failure of the bracket weld that held the universal joint for
>the rear of the wing. Does anybody know of a Kolb mod for this area. Do
>Kolb know of this problem, coming after the aileron pivot failure that
>was experience recently, its got me worried! My Twinstar Mk 2 has about
>500hrs on it and is about 1990 vintage.
>
> Regards Barry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Twinstar wing failure |
>
> Hi
> A twinstar Mk 2 recently had a wing failure in New Zealand, I think the
> 2 occupants were killed. A CAA inspector I talked to the other day said
> it was a failure of the bracket weld that held the universal joint for
> the rear of the wing. Does anybody know of a Kolb mod for this area. Do
> Kolb know of this problem, coming after the aileron pivot failure that
> was experience recently, its got me worried! My Twinstar Mk 2 has about
> 500hrs on it and is about 1990 vintage.
>
> Regards Barry
Barry:
Can you be more specific in the "failure of the bracket weld
that held the universal joint for the rear of the wing?"
There are a lot of welded parts in that area: Drag strut
end fitting, universal joint pieces, then the rotating
fitting that fits on the half inch drilled bolt welded in
the fuselage.
I am working in that area of my MK III right now. Have wear
in end of drag strut where it is secured with 1/4 inch bolt
in the socket in inboard rib of left wing. It has worn
radially which gives fore, aft, up and down play. Only
slightly, but it has worn in the last 1,277 hours. Right
wing is a tad loose, but nearly so as the left. No other
wear noticed in that area except the 1/2 inch castelated nut
has loosed a little on each side, which I consider normal
wear. If I had it to do over again I would have gone to a
5/16 bolt to secure drag strut end when I was building.
However, hindsight is............................
Was unaware of aileron pivot failure. Can you describe that
incident please?
Looking forward to more info.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com |
Amen to that ! ! ! I've come up with some wierd and wonderful ideas for
putting some kind of fail-safe to back up those little pins, but nothing
really workable. Has anyone come up with something practical ?? Cable
loops or whatever ?? Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Barton <barton(at)ameslab.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 7:05 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Barry, Have not heard of a fix but since our MK II (#4) is older
> than yours I sure would like to learn of any things that have
> been tried to secure the wings better. The single clevis pin
> holding each wing is not a confidence builder.
> Tom
>
> >From: "b.charlton" <bambo(at)xtra.co.nz>
> >Subject: Kolb-List: Twinstar wing failure
> >
> >
> >Hi
> > A twinstar Mk 2 recently had a wing failure in New Zealand, I
> think the
> >2 occupants were killed. A CAA inspector I talked to the other day said
> >it was a failure of the bracket weld that held the universal joint for
> >the rear of the wing. Does anybody know of a Kolb mod for this area. Do
> >Kolb know of this problem, coming after the aileron pivot failure that
> >was experience recently, its got me worried! My Twinstar Mk 2 has about
> >500hrs on it and is about 1990 vintage.
> >
> > Regards Barry
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clive Hatcher" <clive_hatcher(at)connectfree.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Rotax 582 hot starts |
Michael,
Thank you for your very full answer to my 582 hot start problem the
quick answers to your questions are :
> 1.Do you change the plugs every 25 hours? ( The gap is about right.)
I normally change the plugs between 15 and 20 hours. The present ones
have been in only 5 hours.
> 2. Do you premix with no more than 50-1? ( Pennzoil
> air-cooled 2 cycle is highly recommended here)
Yes, 50 - 1 exactly
> 3. What kind of oil are you using-exactly?
I use Shell VSX premix semi-synthetic (a very high grade 2-cycle oil -
Pennzoil is not available in UK)
> 4. Have you done a low rpm compression test with a
> compression gauge and compared it with a 582 that is
> starting properly? (Same rpm, same throttle setting, same
> temperature,
Yes, hand cranking I get 10 Bar ( 150 psi ) on both cylinders both
with new piston rings and clean cylinders/heads and now 27 hours later
it is still the same. I have not checked this out with other 582's but
I am told that it is good.
> 5. When was the last time you decarboned the top end?
I did a major overhaul at 150 hrs. (new crankshaft assembly, piston
rings etc.) a further top end decarbonisation at 200 hrs (no heavy
build up found on the rings/grooves or head). The current time on the
engine is 227 hrs.
> 6.Have you tried to or been able to hand prop it after you
> couldn't start it by electric starter? ( I assume you have
> electric start.)
Yes, I have tried hand swinging the prop but with no better results.
> 7. Have you ever pulled any of the plug wires out at either
> end of the cap or coil? ( I had one plug wire burn off up
> into the insulation at the coil end to the point that the
> gap was so wide it would not fire anymore.)
I have not checked this yet
> 8. Have you checked the values of the ignition charging
> coils ( there are two per side on the stator) to determine
> if you have one going bad?
No, but I will.
> 9. How many hour do you have on it now?
227 Hours.
I will try to get the more detailed information that I have missed
here.
Thanks again,
Clive.
Twinstar Mk III
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
As for backup to pin failure, there is the BRS (ugh). The pins are
probably way stronger than required, and I doubt would ever break.
In fact, I found it interesting to see that the force of impact when
my flipped over last May caused the lower lift strut 1/4" pin to bend,
not break. One thing I've wondered about
is a backup to the little split-rings or cowling pins used to keep the
clevis pins in place. Some people bypass the whole deal by changing
to bolts and nylocks -- although there you'd have to change nylocks
periodically. Another option would be to use a slightly longer
clevis pin and drill a second hole to allow for a second cowling pin.
Those are just ideas ...I've taken the simpler route of buying new
cowling pins every year or 2, and looking at them very closely from
time to time. I think the split-rings may be better as the long-term
wear doesn't end up in any one place as it can on the cowling pins.
I'd just make sure to get stainless split-rings, not some cheapo Ace
key-ring things.
-Ben Ransom
>
>Amen to that ! ! ! I've come up with some wierd and wonderful ideas for
>putting some kind of fail-safe to back up those little pins, but nothing
>really workable. Has anyone come up with something practical ?? Cable
>loops or whatever ?? Big Lar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Ben and others, this may sound dumb, but my 1/4" wing strut clevis pins
are the originals on the Original FireStar. I have never seen a reason to
change them because each and everytime I inspect them, they look fine.
Just before my trip to Oshkosh, I took them out and stared at them for 30
seconds each. No appreciable wear. I have changed the main 5/16" clevis'
twice. I'm sure the shear strength is in the thousands of pounds for the
1/4" and it sees about 300 lbs at
1 G.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 12 years flying
writes:
>As for backup to pin failure, there is the BRS (ugh). The pins are
>probably way stronger than required, and I doubt would ever break.
>-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Seems to me we had this conversation a year or so ago. Ben, didn't you
tell me at that time that you put a spacer on the pin to hold the strut
against the side of the bracket, to prevent flexing ?? I know I plan on
doing just that, and seems like.............................
Nervous Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 4:02 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Clevis Pins
>
> As for backup to pin failure, there is the BRS (ugh). The pins are
> probably way stronger than required, and I doubt would ever break.
> In fact, I found it interesting to see that the force of impact when
> my flipped over last May caused the lower lift strut 1/4" pin to bend,
> not break. One thing I've wondered about
> is a backup to the little split-rings or cowling pins used to keep the
> clevis pins in place. Some people bypass the whole deal by changing
> to bolts and nylocks -- although there you'd have to change nylocks
> periodically. Another option would be to use a slightly longer
> clevis pin and drill a second hole to allow for a second cowling pin.
> Those are just ideas ...I've taken the simpler route of buying new
> cowling pins every year or 2, and looking at them very closely from
> time to time. I think the split-rings may be better as the long-term
> wear doesn't end up in any one place as it can on the cowling pins.
> I'd just make sure to get stainless split-rings, not some cheapo Ace
> key-ring things.
> -Ben Ransom
>
>
> >
> >Amen to that ! ! ! I've come up with some wierd and wonderful ideas for
> >putting some kind of fail-safe to back up those little pins, but nothing
> >really workable. Has anyone come up with something practical ?? Cable
> >loops or whatever ?? Big Lar.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>
>Seems to me we had this conversation a year or so ago. Ben, didn't you
>tell me at that time that you put a spacer on the pin to hold the strut
>against the side of the bracket, to prevent flexing ?? I know I plan on
>doing just that, and seems like.............................
>Nervous Lar.
>
We just put aircraft bolts instead of all these pins and don't worry about
it. Unless your going to fold the wings back all the time.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
I do just about all that was mentioned for a cure. I replaced my clevis pins
on my wing with bolts and nylocks, replace them at least every 18 months (all
pins and bolts to the wing assemblys) I use the regular safety pins on
struts but I use tie straps to hold the safety pins from moving on the clevis
pins. No movement, no wear! It is an easy inspection preflight, you can turn
the pins, now tight because of the tie straps and see (even in flight) their
location. If they move, you can see it. I think I worry more about the
cables holding the tail section. The bolts that hold the cables at the bottom
of the fin are subjected to much more wear, grass, oils, water, etc. I use a
bolt with nylock AND a pin through a hole in the bolt. I dont want to think
about that one. - my two cents - G'day Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 08/31/99 |
Please remove my mention of my ultrastar for sale placed sometime in the
spring. It was sold back in May of this year. I appreciate all the inquires
but I cannot help you at this time. Thank you. G'day Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | RE: drag&strut&fitting&repair |
John H wrote:
>I am working in that area of my MK III right now. Have wear
>in end of drag strut where it is secured with 1/4 inch bolt
>in the socket in inboard rib of left wing.
John, and others, if you are interested in a fix, go to the Matronics Search
engine, click on Kolb, and search for
drag&strut&fitting&repair
After I posted this, Dennis S. noted me for more detail, and he was considering
specifying heavier material in the
tubing used for the drag strut fitting, to help minimize this wear.
Mine happened after only 20 hours, but it was trailering aggravated.
If you have any questions after reading the archive, please ask.
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
| Subject: | RE: drag&strut&fitting&repair |
John H wrote:
>I am working in that area of my MK III right now. Have wear
>in end of drag strut where it is secured with 1/4 inch bolt
>in the socket in inboard rib of left wing.
John, and others, if you are interested in a fix, go to the Matronics Search
engine, click on Kolb, and search for
drag&strut&fitting&repair
After I posted this, Dennis S. noted me for more detail, and he was considering
specifying heavier material in the
tubing used for the drag strut fitting, to help minimize this wear.
Mine happened after only 20 hours, but it was trailering aggravated.
If you have any questions regarding this modification after reading the archive,
please ask.
Re-reading some posts and giving it a little more thought has jogged my memory.
It seems that we hashed this out
a few times before, and one of the probable contributors to the cause of the
pins and bolts wearing was engine weight
and engine vibration, and prop imbalance forces causing vibrational input to the
airframe. That also seems to help
explain why the smaller motors may typically never have the problems with worn
pins and loose bolts.
Sources of vibration due to imbalance should be minimized. Some is
unavoidable of course. Vibration will cause
wear in rivetted, bolted and especially pinned joints.
For pin wear, you can lube the pins, if that meets Standard Aircraft
Construction Practices. Lube will help minimize
the friction produced by the weight, forces and vibration.
For our bolted connections, I guess we have to periodically inspect, observe
solid construction practices to allow the
torque applied to actually clamp things together (instead of the torque just
squashing the tubes oblong, as the stock drag-
strut assembly design does), and keep them tight /or epoxy the joints before
bolting them.
My 2.5 cents' worth....Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
I think I worry more about the
> cables holding the tail section. The bolts that hold the cables at the bottom
> of the fin are subjected to much more wear, grass, oils, water, etc. I use a
> bolt with nylock AND a pin through a hole in the bolt. G'day Ted
Ted and Kolbers:
Your post reminded me of the old days of the Ultra Star. We
used 1/16 tailwires on it.
Ted is right about the wire brace bolt in the lower vertical
stabilizer. It catches a lot of fair wear and tear back
there. Plans used to call for a wing nut and drilled bolt
with safety pin. I personally don't think that is a good
idea. A castellated (sp) nut and safety pin would be
better.
Being a good builder and maintainer I alway put all the
bolts in the airframe in the same direction. Therefore,
since I started at the top of the upper vertical stabilizer
with bolt from right to left, so be it for the lower
vertical stabilizer and the bottom tailwire bolt. I used a
nyloc nut since I don't fold my airplane. This procedure on
the lower bolt almost cost me dearly.
First day in Alaska during my flight in 1994. Went thru
customs at Northway and was headed for Fairbanks. Drank a
lot of coffee at Northway and needed some relief. Found a
private strip a hundred yards off the Alaska Highway. In
fact, two private strips, one on each side. The one on the
west side had a couple houses, so I chose the one on the
east for privacy. The strip was over grown with what I
thought were weeds and grass. Turned out to be Alaska bush
about waist high. I already had the main gear in this stuff
before I realized what it was. To make a long story very
short, after a long and tedious flight, more than half way
down this "bush" strip, I finally broke out and flew again.
I had no rudder, locked up tight, but the Kolbs fly well
without one. Managed to find a trail to land on. Checked
out the airplane to find the tailwires extremely loose. The
3/16 nyloc nut was barely on the end of the bolt, hanging on
by a couple threads. The bush had backed it off. Lesson
learned: Always put the lower bolt in from left to right.
As the tail goes thru weeds, grass, bushes, etc, it will
tighten instead of loosen. You all know the results if the
little nut fell off!!!
Tailwheel was MATCO. The bush reversed the arms on the
tailwheel and effectively locked the tailwheel in the
staight ahead position. This is another reason for
differential brakes. No problem putting it down on a tiny
trail and keeping it there. Remember, this airplane and me
weighed oveer 1100 lbs on takeoff on this trip. I probably
burned off only 10 lbs of fuel at this point.
john h
PS Trying to get the MK III ready for this weekend and
Etowah Bend, Ga. Got the slop out of the drag strut fitting
and inboard end of drag strut. Cut two small slits in
inboard rib fabric. Discovered washers had worn from a lot
of hours flying. Replaced washers and torqued it down. No
slop. We have to fly some now to see if it loosens up. If
it does we will replace with a 5/16 bolt. Was good idea to
drill this fitting fore and aft rather than down thru the
top to bottom. Negated cutting fabric on top and bottom of
wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
Larry,
Yes, I do use a spacer to hold the strut against the side of the bracket
on the bottom of the lift struts.
John H, You mention the idea of a castle nut on the bottom of the tail
wire group. I find that I like to tighten up the wingnut down there
with more umph than I could get with a castle nut, unless of course
I used a wrench. If the nut isn't tightened, the tangs aren't held
directly against the verticle tube, and this is undesirable. For me,
a hard finger tight on the wingnut works well. I also sorta baby the
wingnut to just the right position so that even the slightest turn
backward would be up against the safety pin. I will change to your
idea of putting the bolt in from left to right. ...thanks
To any newbies reading this thread, I think you should not infer that
the clevis and safety pins are a risky area. I think the bolt-nylock
method is only reasonable if you usually leave the wings up. Just have a
good check list so the clevis and safety pins are always good, and the
design is safe and sound.
-Ben Ransom
>
>Seems to me we had this conversation a year or so ago. Ben, didn't you
>tell me at that time that you put a spacer on the pin to hold the strut
>against the side of the bracket, to prevent flexing ?? I know I plan on
>doing just that, and seems like.............................
>Nervous Lar.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Ben Ransom <bransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 4:02 PM
>Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Clevis Pins
>
>
>>
>> As for backup to pin failure, there is the BRS (ugh). The pins are
>> probably way stronger than required, and I doubt would ever break.
>> In fact, I found it interesting to see that the force of impact when
>> my flipped over last May caused the lower lift strut 1/4" pin to bend,
>> not break. One thing I've wondered about
>> is a backup to the little split-rings or cowling pins used to keep the
>> clevis pins in place. Some people bypass the whole deal by changing
>> to bolts and nylocks -- although there you'd have to change nylocks
>> periodically. Another option would be to use a slightly longer
>> clevis pin and drill a second hole to allow for a second cowling pin.
>> Those are just ideas ...I've taken the simpler route of buying new
>> cowling pins every year or 2, and looking at them very closely from
>> time to time. I think the split-rings may be better as the long-term
>> wear doesn't end up in any one place as it can on the cowling pins.
>> I'd just make sure to get stainless split-rings, not some cheapo Ace
>> key-ring things.
>> -Ben Ransom
>>
>>
>
>> >
>> >Amen to that ! ! ! I've come up with some wierd and wonderful ideas for
>> >putting some kind of fail-safe to back up those little pins, but nothing
>> >really workable. Has anyone come up with something practical ?? Cable
>> >loops or whatever ?? Big Lar.
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Croke" <joncroke(at)itol.com> |
| Subject: | Kolb Factory Photos |
2 days ago UltralightPilot.com sent a photographer to the New Kolb factory
in London KY to takesome pictures. (OK, really I was just vacationing 'down
south' and dropped in!)
Feel free to visit
www.ultralightpilot.com
and click on factory visits to see these photos! These are some of the
people building your planes!
Of special interest is the LAST photo which depicts a Firestar being built
for an undertaking that most of us would be envious..... complete with
sponsors and a great paint job! I have little additional info on this but I
bet those of you going to the fly-in could bring us back more info on this.
Be sure to register (if you havent already) and perform some 'searches' to
see a great number of Kolb pilots all over the US (and the world, actually)
Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Ben and others,
For years I used the wingnut on the lower tail-bracing because I fold my
plane up everytime I fly. I could never get the tail-bracing tight
enough. Over the years, the thimbles began to wear on the tangs from the
movement in the wind. After 400 hours, I had to replace them because the
thimbles were being cut by the tangs.
I now use a 3/16 nylock nut with a safety ring that keeps it very tight.
A wrench must be used to tighten the nut, but this is a small sacrifice
to make in the interest of safety.
I have always used marine stainless safety rings that have the
"easy-start" in the center. Never had one even hint of coming off.
No worries, just happy .....
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 12 years flying
writes:
> For me,
>a hard finger tight on the wingnut works well. I also sorta baby the
>wingnut to just the right position so that even the slightest turn
>backward would be up against the safety pin. I will change to your
>idea of putting the bolt in from left to right. ...thanks
>
>To any newbies reading this thread, I think you should not infer that
>the clevis and safety pins are a risky area. I think the bolt-nylock
>method is only reasonable if you usually leave the wings up. Just
>have a
>good check list so the clevis and safety pins are always good, and the
>design is safe and sound.
>-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
Hey Lar:
In a message, you wrote:
"I've come up with some weird and wonderful ideas for putting some kind of
fail-safe to back up those little pins, but nothing really workable. Has
anyone come up with something practical ?? Cable loops or whatever ?? "
Hey Lar; How about bolts? Are you going to fold your wings very often?
Ron Christensen
MKIII1/2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "william rayfield" <billyray00(at)hotmail.com> |
Anyone using or know of someone using a 912(80 or 100hp) on a Slingshot?
thanks,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
the new factory slingshot has a 912.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: william rayfield [mailto:billyray00(at)hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 7:19 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: slingshot
Anyone using or know of someone using a 912(80 or 100hp) on a Slingshot?
thanks,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> Anyone using or know of someone using a 912(80 or 100hp) on a Slingshot?
>
> thanks,
> Bill
Bill and Kolbers:
The New Kolb Aircraft Company is currently flying a brand
new Sling Shot powered by a Rotax 912, 80 HP. Plum fun to
fly, either 912 or 582. ;-)
john h (hauck's holler, alabama)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Listers, and listerines!
Good wife sez I gotta have a helmet 'fore I can aviate anymore. Need a
used one, w/o too bigga dents. Expected life (odd term) abt a coupla
years. Like a headset thing-y too. Reply my e mail, pls. Thanks.
Bob, Spirit of '76
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)csrlink.net> |
Hi All,
This evening I put an hour on the Fierstar II, it was calm here in Pa.
with clouds from tropical storm Dennis overhead.
I thought it might be once in a lifetime that I would fly this close to a
tropical storm. ( still several hundred miles away ) Just thought I would
share this with everyone and maybe start a thread about bad weather flying
experinces
Lan F.S.II 598
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | MK3-Wings-Rigging |
| From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
To any and all experienced and knowledgeable,
I am approaching the moment of truth and I would like to express my
understanding of this procedure. If I have it wrong in any aspect,
please shoot me down before I shoot myself in the foot.
The object is to place the holes so that the pin penetrates the wing tab
at a point 7/8th of an inch above the bottom of the wing, no less than
3/16th of an inch from the outer edge of the tab. As near as possible
the hole in the cage tabs should be near the center of the tab, no less
than 3/16th of an inch from the outer end of the tabs. Getting the hole
to fall in the vertical center of the cage tabs is achieved by raising or
lowering the tail from it's initial level position. Having the wings
level assures that they will be at the same angle of attack. The cage is
maintained in a level sideways condition thru out.
Measurements to the tail and alignment across the span of the wings (by
sight line) determine the inward or outward location of the hole in the
cage tabs, in conjunction with the position of the drag strut fittings.
I hope I have said what I mean:-) I am submitting this on the premise
that the only dumb questions are the ones not asked.
Thanks for any input.
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
Building Mark III, SN 312--N629RB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MK3-Wings-Rigging |
>
>To any and all experienced and knowledgeable,
>
>I am approaching the moment of truth and I would like to express my
>understanding of this procedure. If I have it wrong in any aspect,
>please shoot me down before I shoot myself in the foot.
>
Good luck.
Check back when you figure out that everything doesn't always work out like
it should.
Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all
of them yourself.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard neilsen" <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | MK3-Wings-Rigging -Reply |
My understanding of this procedure was: Don't be too concerned were you put the
hole in the wing tab just don't put it within 3/16 in. of the edges. The wing
tab is large so that you can put the holes for the attachment pin any were you
need to, to get the alignment correct. Follow the instructions for wing alignment
and every thing else. Then drill the holes were they need to. If they miss
the safe area of the tabs then find out were you went wrong before you drill.
I took the advice of setting the plane in a jig so that it is all ready to start
drilling then walk away from it for some time, maybe over night. Then check
it ALL over again then drill. I highly recommend you do the same.
>>> Ray L Baker 09/02/99 10:31pm >>>
Building Mark III, SN 312--N629RB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Henry <chhenry(at)plains.nodak.edu> |
I have a couple of questions for Richard neilsen and others that used VW
power . If I remember correctly you went with a Great Plains engine. Have
you gone to a PSRU or are you using direct drive.
What is your performance figures with the VW power? TO roll , Cruise,
Vibration, Fuel burn, Vibration/ noise ,
Thanks
Charles Henry
Firestar I in ND
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Photos for you on Kodak PhotoNet online |
Ron Hoyt has some great photos to share with you. They're on the
Internet at the Kodak PhotoNet online web site. A complimentary
account has been created in your name so that you can view
Ron Hoyt's photos.
Your account has been created with the e-mail address:kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Your temporary PhotoNet password is: sigcwqko503 That can be
changed once you get online if you'd like.
To see the photos that Ron Hoyt wants to share with you, visit
http://signature.photonet.com
and login with the information provided above.
After filling out some basic information, you will be able to view
Ron Hoyt's photos. For future reference:
Ron Hoyt hopes you enjoy these photos. They will be available
online until Saturday, Oct 2, 1999. You have full access to ordering
reprints, enlargements, photo gifts and all the other great services on
Kodak PhotoNet online, so have fun trying new ways to use photos!
For reference the access code for the roll that has been shared is:
SIGCWQ3VEZ8C
After logging into your account, all of your online rolls will appear.
You'll have four fun areas to choose from including:
VIEW AND SHARE: View your photos in thumbnail size and larger views,
share a roll, e-mail select pics, download photos, send a photo
postcard, or add a caption
SHOP: Buy reprints and photo gifts, buy a roll of space for uploading,
or download high res photos
PLAY: Take a break and have some fun with your photos. Try morphing a
pic or learning about editing your pictures
MANAGE: Delete a pic, delete a roll from your account, add more time
to a roll, rename a roll, buy a new roll or add a few spaces to an
existing roll for uploading, or upload digital photos.
Simply select the roll you wish to view, and then click on one of the 4
options presented to you. If you should have any questions or concerns,
please feel free to contact our customer service department at
netpics(at)photonet.com.
Need a vacation? Win a "Reunion to Remember" for 10 family members or
friends to Orlando, FL, compliments of KODAK PHOTONET online, WALT
DISNEY WORLD SWAN and WALT DISNEY WORLD DOLPHIN, and Delta Vacations.
For your chance to win, just try KODAK PHOTONET online! No purchase
necessary. Learn more at:
http://signature.photonet.com/1S_promo_disney.htm
Signature Color
http://signature.photonet.com
-------------------
Progress on my Mark III wing fuel tank and cooling system
for a 912. These photos are available to look at on the
the film developer's server.
The developer is suposed to include directions and codes to
access them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Photos for you on Kodak PhotoNet online |
>Progress on my Mark III wing fuel tank and cooling system
>for a 912. These photos are available to look at on the
>the film developer's server.
>The developer is suposed to include directions and codes to
>access them.
>
Good looking tank and radiator mount, and a good way to look at them. Thanks!
Having built an alternative fuel tank for a MKIII, I know what you went
through.
You will enjoy having the extra space behind the seat.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Photos for you on Kodak PhotoNet online |
I thought this might be a way to show some photos. Now I think it might
have been a mistake. I hope this dosn't open the list to a bunch of spam.
Ron
>
>
>Ron Hoyt has some great photos to share with you. They're on the
>Internet at the Kodak PhotoNet online web site. A complimentary
>account has been created in your name so that you can view
>Ron Hoyt's photos.
>
>Your account has been created with the e-mail address:kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Your temporary PhotoNet password is: sigcwqko503 That can be
>changed once you get online if you'd like.
>
>To see the photos that Ron Hoyt wants to share with you, visit
>
>http://signature.photonet.com
>
>and login with the information provided above.
>
>After filling out some basic information, you will be able to view
>Ron Hoyt's photos. For future reference:
>
>Ron Hoyt hopes you enjoy these photos. They will be available
>online until Saturday, Oct 2, 1999. You have full access to ordering
>reprints, enlargements, photo gifts and all the other great services on
>Kodak PhotoNet online, so have fun trying new ways to use photos!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: WHEELS AND WINGS |
Saturday is also Wheels and Wings in Osceola WI. There will be a wide array
of aircraft including two harriers! I will be there displaying the
Powersport 210 engine including running the engine up every hour or so.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)csrlink.net> |
Bill and All,
I live in north eastern Pa. and fly out of a private airstrip in Numidia,
just south of Bloomsburg. Numidia International is ultralight friendly with
an 1800' grass runway.
Lan A.S.C. # A10LRF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MK3-Wings-Rigging |
>The object is to place the holes so that the pin penetrates the wing tab
>at a point 7/8th of an inch above the bottom of the wing, no less than
>3/16th of an inch from the outer edge of the tab.
We had trouble doing Andy's plane to keep the hole within a safe distance
from the edge. We ended up tackling the problem from the other end. We were
able to set the vertical location but the horizontal location we drilled as
per dimensions in the plans. We did the fine adjustments by moving the wings
in and out by sliding the tube out at the drag strut fitting. It worked for
us and did not change the amount of tube in the fitting more than a 1/4
inch. I can feel the flames coming but it flys great and it simplified the
rigging immensely. As for worrying about the strength in that part now, the
forces acting on that location are mostly compressive forces and thus is
determined by the number of rivits and bolts you put in and that was done
according to Kolb recommendations.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AUDREY LEWIS <audreylewis(at)planters.net> |
I would like to thank everyone who responded to my question concerning
intermittent grabbing brakes on my Fire Fly. First I checked the
bearings and they were fine. Next I loosened the four bolts that hold the
brake shoe mounting plate until the lock washers were free to rotate.
Replaced the wheel on the axle, adjusted the brakes and now I have a firm
pedal at half depression without any grabbing. Thanks again.
Audrey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [c-a] Com/Vor Antena |
>>> The COMM antenna must be vertical, while the NAV antenna must be
>>> horizontal.
>
>> Interesting! So what do we do if we want to connect one of the new
handheld
>> navcomms to an external antenna to use as an emergency backup for BOTH
navigating
>> and communicating? The new Yaesu has only one antenna connection.
>
>
>The proper solution is two antennas and a switch.
>
>However, if you're determined to do it with one antenna and are willing to
>settle for some loss of signal strength on both NAV and COMM, you could mount
>a single antenna on a 45 angle. This is effectively what you get if you
mount
>one element of the antenna on a vertical surface and one element on a
>horizontal surface as John Rippengal suggests. With this setup, you'd
probably
>pick up NAV signals fore and aft, but have increasing difficulty as they
>approached 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock.
>
>I'd recommend separate antennas if at all possible.
While it is true that a vertical comm and horizontal
VOR antenna represent optimum performance, you would
he hard pressed to "see" it without test equipment.
The hand-held VOR/Comm transceivers will work quite
satisfactorily on the Comm antenna. Given the limited
power output of your hand held comm transmitter and
the VERY HEALTHY vor signal strength at cruise altitudes,
I'd give weight to the communications performance and
use the Comm antenna on your hand held.
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: battery location |
>Is there any reason that you would want to put the battery in the rear of
>the other than getting it away from the heat up front,will it effect
>balance that much, or is it just personal preference.
The battery is about the only accessory
with any weight that is also endowed with optional
locations for installation. If your configuration
is very close to one that's already flying such that
weight and balance issues are not in question, then
duplicating the system that's flying presents you
with no new problems.
Some of my builders are doing automotive and/or
otherwise untried engine configurations and I advise
them to PLAN for battery installations both for
and aft but wait until they're sure what the weight
an balance looks like before deciding. I know several
folk who reinstalled their battery after the first
trip to the scales.
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: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Photos for you on Kodak PhotoNet online |
Ron
Nice job on the BRS mounts. Fuel tank looks good too. I have the 2, 5 gal.
tanks that come with the kit and I have often wished for more fuel capacity. You
will like the free space in the back also.
Terry
Ron Hoyt wrote:
>
> Ron Hoyt has some great photos to share with you. They're on the
> Internet at the Kodak PhotoNet online web site. A complimentary
> account has been created in your name so that you can view
> Ron Hoyt's photos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Leoniron(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb Factory Photos |
In a message dated 9/1/99 4:14:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, joncroke(at)itol.com
writes:
Please remove leoniron(at)aol.com for all mailing lists.
Thank You
<< kolb >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rick m libersat <rick106(at)juno.com> |
Bill
are you wanting to go with the 912 on your sling shot
Rick Libersat
writes:
>
>
>Anyone using or know of someone using a 912(80 or 100hp) on a
>Slingshot?
>
>thanks,
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 925-606-1001) |
| Subject: | New Email Lists Added to the Matronics Server!! |
Dear Listers,
In the spirit of the existing and extremely popular Internet Email Lists
currently hosted at Matronics such at the RV-List, Zenith-List, and Kolb-List,
I have just added a number of new Lists and cordially invite everyone to have a
look at the long list of Forums now available. Email Discussion Lists now
include the following categories:
aerobatic-list
aviation-list
beech-list
cessna-list
ez-list
glasair-list
homebuilt-list
kolb-list
lancair-list
piper-list
rocket-list
rv-list
sailplane-list
seaplane-list
ultralight-list
warbird-list
yak-list
zenith-list
These Lists all include both a real-time distribution as well as a daily
"digest" version. All Lists also include archive files that can be searched
using the custom designed high speed web search engine. The archives may also
be viewed directly using the custom browsing interface.
All of these services are brought to you Free of Charge compliments of
Matronics, although voluntary contributions are always graciously accepted
using a Secure Web Contribution Web Page.
I encourage you to surf over and have a look at the Email List Web sites
and subscribe to as many of the available Lists as you wish. There is an
extremely handy and easy to use web page now for subscribing and unsubscribing
to your favorite Forums. Here are a couple of URLs to check out:
http://www.matronics.com/other.html Main Email List Web Site
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe List Subscription Form
http://www.matronics.com/contribution Secure Contribution Site
I look forward to seeing you on the Lists and to our future discussions. If
you've ever been subscribed to the RV-List or any of the other Lists at
Matronics, you already know the quality and "family" atmosphere that is
typified by these Lists.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>Bob,
>
>Fred Hulen here, off the net. I have purchased one of your manuals, so
>maybe you wouldn't mine answering a quick question for me.
My plesure sir . . .
>I am ready to mount a Comant CI-292-2 (BOTTOM MOUNT type, steeply swept
>back Com antenna) on my Zenith 601. I see in the archives that most 601
>builders mount their transponder antenna immediately behind the rear "Z" of
>the center wing section (I must assume you are not familiar with the 601,
>so the rear Z is the last structural member going from left to right at the
>very rear of the center wing section where it attaches to the rear
>fuselage.) Anyway... my questions is this: Due to limitations in ground
>clearance there is a limit as to how far I can mount the Com antenna toward
>the rear away from the transponder antenna, and, in trying to stiffen the
>mounting area for the com antenna near on of the "L" crossmembers, the
>forward base of the com antenna will be about 23" away from the transponder
>antenna. Is this OK? Otherwise I'll have to find a different location for
>the transponder antenna.
The risk for mounting them closer together is that the transponder
transmitter will put little buzzes into the comm receiver every time
it replies to a radar interrogation. I would suggest this:
Go ahead and mount the comm antenna further forward and see how
well it works. If the transponder's interferrence with the comm
receiver is small (meaning tollerable) or non-existant, then you're
off and running. The worst thing that happens is that you have to
find a new, more remote location for the transponder antenna later
which is no worse than you are considering right now.
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inst. lamp dimmers |
>I built the dimmer you designed, mentioned in the RV-List, some time ago.
>It worked! I played around with an idea I had that would make the
>instrument light level vary with ambient light intensity. By using a
>photoresitor (RS part), I got the light to dim when the ambient light was
>high, ie, daylight. This was the opposite of what I was looking for, so I
>wired a 2N2222 transistor across the pot, controlled by the photoresistor.
>This worked fairly well, dimming the instrument light as the ambient light
>decreased. The pot still operated to trim the light level. I suppose with
>more tinkering, I could install a trim pot to vary the response rate of the
>photoresitor.
Good for you! Autodimming has been with us for awhile. The
Cessna 400 series radios and some of the earlier autopilots
produced some of industry's first whacks at the problem.
I think it was fairly successful . . . you will probably have
to tinker with the resistors associated with the photoresistor
to set min-max ratios . . . but you can do this on the bench
using a wall-dimmer on an overhead bulb to simulate approaching
darkness.
Turn down ambient lighting down all the way and let your eyes
dark adapt for about 5 min . . . bring lighting up until you
can just read the panel with no additional lighting . . . this
is the light level where panel lighting wants to be "max" . . .
then dim room lighting to full dark and adjust the "min" to
the right level. . . . doing this on the bench (or in the
shop sitting in the cockpit) will get you in the ballpark
making it unlikely that further fiddling will be needed later.
>This is all just benchtop tinkering....It hasn't been installed in any
>cockpit, so the variables of cockpit brightness, photoresistor location,
>etc., would have to be worked out. I don't know if you could get ideal
>automatic instrument light dimming, but I'm forwarding you this as food for
>thought.
Of course radios have photo-resistors right on their
front panels . . . a bit of a pain in the whatsit since
your hand shades the photodetector when you reach for
controls . . . just when you most want to see what's going
on, the lights on the device dim down! Your notion of
finding a suitable photo detector location NOT on the
panel is a sound one.
Your efforts are a good example of ways amateur builders
can provide bells and whistles that spam can drivers
can only wish for. . . Let us know how it works out.
Better yet, write up an article and share the knowledge.
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: | "Larry & Karen Cottrel" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
| Subject: | dacron fabric coatings |
Hi.
I have a friend that has a Hummingbird with dacron sails. He is replacing
them and is finally listening to me about uv coatings. Now he wants to know
what to use and I am having a hard time supplying him with the information
that he needs. The only thing that I can find is Stits AO-100 uv protectant
from CPS. I would really prefer to not have to deal with them if possibile.
Can anybody in that vast fount of diversified builders knowledge bail me
out?
Oh by the way, the Alvord Desert flyin is coming up the 18th and 19th of
Sept. Its a lot of fun and a great place to fly. Last year there were two
Kolbs there, he has since crashed, but I will be there. Let me know if you
need coordinates.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | MK111 cross country |
Solved all the problems with Andy's new Mk111. We needed a new fan and
rejetted the carb. Runs great now. I did the first cross country on it
yesterday. Flew about 30 miles to a Flyin. Poor Andy had to drive as I did
not want a passenger untill there are a few hours on the airframe and I know
how to fly the darn thing. Most landings are made with out bouncing but
still not greasers. Was able to cruise about 65-70 mph at 5700 rpm. Did not
do much more than that as I wanted to keep a real close eye on the temps.
There was a 50 degree difference in cht going there but was down to 25
degrees on the way back. Hopefully it will get closer as it wears in. No
other problems and it flew great. Seems noisier than my Twinstar and the
ailerons are heavier but no problem transitioning to the MK 111. Haven't
tried a balls out Kolb climb but I think it will be impressive with that 65
hp Hirth. Now to get some more hours in it and start training Andy how to
commit aviation.
Concerning my problem I mentioned last month about getting the flywheel
off. I tried heating, Beating, pulling, tapping, dropping and a 6 ton jack
in a special fixture and nothing worked. Ended up taking a saw to it at the
keyway smashed a chisel in the gap and with a bit more pressure from the 6
ton jack it popped. Been down all summer for what started off as a 1/2 hour
check the points job. Hopefully I will be up next week. Big problem will
then be do I fly my Twinstar or Andy's Mk111. It's a rough life I'll tell
ya. Now don't go feelin sorry for me, I will get through this crisis ;)
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TK <tkrolfe(at)epix.net> |
I'm a newbie at this! I just got my FireFly in the air about four weeks
ago and have finally realized a life long dream flying it. Have now
logged 15 1/2 hr. on it. I spent nine months building it from a basic
kit that I bought from the old Kolb Aircraft Co. at Phoenixville, PA.
You might have seen it on the New Kolb web page from Oshkosh 99. I gave
them some pictures.
My question is: I have been able to trim the FireFly to a hands off
flight at 5,000 rpm ( cruise speed) by placing 17 1/2 pounds of shot in
the nose to compensate for my weight. Would I be better off applying a
trim tab to the elevator or leaving the shotgun shot in the nose? What
effect would the trim tab have on the stick at other rpm's and speed? I
don't want to put rivet holes in the elevator of my new bird only to
find out later that I don't like the results. I don't want to carry the
extra weight in the nose if not needed.
Thanks Terry K. Frantz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene H Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
TK wrote:
>
>
> I'm a newbie at this! I just got my FireFly in the air about four weeks
> ago and have finally realized a life long dream flying it. Have now
> logged 15 1/2 hr. on it. I spent nine months building it from a basic
> kit that I bought from the old Kolb Aircraft Co. at Phoenixville, PA.
> You might have seen it on the New Kolb web page from Oshkosh 99. I gave
> them some pictures.
>
> My question is: I have been able to trim the FireFly to a hands off
> flight at 5,000 rpm ( cruise speed) by placing 17 1/2 pounds of shot in
> the nose to compensate for my weight. Would I be better off applying a
> trim tab to the elevator or leaving the shotgun shot in the nose? What
> effect would the trim tab have on the stick at other rpm's and speed? I
> don't want to put rivet holes in the elevator of my new bird only to
> find out later that I don't like the results. I don't want to carry the
> extra weight in the nose if not needed.
>
> Thanks Terry K. Frantz
>
Terry,
You can get nose down trim by adjusting both ailerons down.
Eugene Z
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Hi Terry and Kolbers:
Adding weight to a little airplane has never appealed to me
in order to trim. I usually go for a trim tab or some kind
of forced trim. Not particularly fond of trimming pitch
with ailerons or flaps either, but remember this is my own
personal opionion.
If you want to experiment with elevator trim tabs, you can
do so without drilling a hole in any thing. That's why we
have duct tape and scrap .016 or .020 alum. Make yourself a
trim tab or even two if you desire. Tape those buggers on
your elevator. Then go out and do some experimenting at
different settings. Don't forget to remove the trim anchor
you placed in the nose of the Firefly. hehehe
Forced trim with a little 1/16 inch cable, spring, and a
homemade lever popped to the floorboard also works well.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Have you done a weight and balance check ?? Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: TK <tkrolfe(at)epix.net>
Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 5:25 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Trim tabs.
>
> I'm a newbie at this! I just got my FireFly in the air about four weeks
> ago and have finally realized a life long dream flying it. Have now
> logged 15 1/2 hr. on it. I spent nine months building it from a basic
> kit that I bought from the old Kolb Aircraft Co. at Phoenixville, PA.
> You might have seen it on the New Kolb web page from Oshkosh 99. I gave
> them some pictures.
>
> My question is: I have been able to trim the FireFly to a hands off
> flight at 5,000 rpm ( cruise speed) by placing 17 1/2 pounds of shot in
> the nose to compensate for my weight. Would I be better off applying a
> trim tab to the elevator or leaving the shotgun shot in the nose? What
> effect would the trim tab have on the stick at other rpm's and speed? I
> don't want to put rivet holes in the elevator of my new bird only to
> find out later that I don't like the results. I don't want to carry the
> extra weight in the nose if not needed.
>
> Thanks Terry K. Frantz
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TK <tkrolfe(at)epix.net> |
Yes I did. It was in the range they said it should be, greater than 20% and
less than 35%. It calculated at 33% without nose weight and 28.5% with the 17.5
pounds of nose weight. I weigh 172 pounds and I think the plane was designed
for a little more weight.
Larry Bourne wrote:
>
> Have you done a weight and balance check ?? Big Lar.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: TK <tkrolfe(at)epix.net>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 5:25 PM
> Subject: Kolb-List: Trim tabs.
>
> >
> > I'm a newbie at this! I just got my FireFly in the air about four weeks
> > ago and have finally realized a life long dream flying it. Have now
> > logged 15 1/2 hr. on it. I spent nine months building it from a basic
> > kit that I bought from the old Kolb Aircraft Co. at Phoenixville, PA.
> > You might have seen it on the New Kolb web page from Oshkosh 99. I gave
> > them some pictures.
> >
> > My question is: I have been able to trim the FireFly to a hands off
> > flight at 5,000 rpm ( cruise speed) by placing 17 1/2 pounds of shot in
> > the nose to compensate for my weight. Would I be better off applying a
> > trim tab to the elevator or leaving the shotgun shot in the nose? What
> > effect would the trim tab have on the stick at other rpm's and speed? I
> > don't want to put rivet holes in the elevator of my new bird only to
> > find out later that I don't like the results. I don't want to carry the
> > extra weight in the nose if not needed.
> >
> > Thanks Terry K. Frantz
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centuryinter.net> |
You should be setting your cg with weight in the nose but not using weight
for trim. Not the way to trim an airplane. If you need some nose down trim
check that the incidence of the tail is correct. if it is ajustable then
raise it a bit or add a trim tab to the elevator. you could use the
flaperons to trim since the fire fly has them already built in. but you
should really set those for max cruise speed and trim with the tail, thats
why the tail is there.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com |
| Subject: | Prop for Mark III |
Hi listers,
My friend is near completion of his Mark III, with Rotax 912 engine and
a 3 blade IVO prop ground adjustable. His concern is that the propeller
will flex and hit the flap tube.
What is the propeller size for this setup,( 64" ???) and does he need
a spacer for the prop?
What is the required space between the prop track and the flap tube?
The propeller he received from IVO is 91 cm or around 36" from center
to the prop tip.
Hope you can help,
Best regards,
Johann G.
Firestar II (Building a Zenith 701)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com |
| Subject: | Re: Prop for Mark III |
You need a 3"min. spacer and you can get this from IVO including the longer
bolts.Include the extra spacer from Rotax in specifing the bolt lenght with
enough space for the Nyloc nuts since the 912 propflange is not threaded.
The propeller is the right size; 36" blades which will give a 72" dia Prop.
The min. clearance between prop and flap brackets must be 4" and 5"
clearance is required at the tips. Max flapbracket angle is 30 degr from
the vertical with the flaps up.
Frank Reynen 912MKIII@545hrs
http://www.webcom.com/reynen/mark3.html
Subject: Kolb-List: Prop for Mark III
Hi listers,
My friend is near completion of his Mark III, with Rotax 912 engine and
a 3 blade IVO prop ground adjustable. His concern is that the propeller
will flex and hit the flap tube.
What is the propeller size for this setup,( 64" ???) and does he need
a spacer for the prop?
What is the required space between the prop track and the flap tube?
The propeller he received from IVO is 91 cm or around 36" from center
to the prop tip.
Hope you can help,
Best regards,
Johann G.
Firestar II (Building a Zenith 701)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale L Langley" <dlangl01(at)kcinter.net> |
| Subject: | transporting an Ultrastar |
I am wanting to buy a Kolb Ultrastar that is 1100 miles from my location. I
could use some advice on transporting it. It has an open trailer but am
concerned about towing that far. Has anyone ever shipped a plane that far
and have any idea what it might cost? Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Dale Langley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)csrlink.net> |
Hi All
Numidia airport is located at Lat. 040* 51.9 north, Long. 076* 24.0
west.(I think I stated that correctly). It's claim to fame, is that it was
a stop on the mail route when pilots flew from one beacon light to another.
The owner has reconstructed a 3/4 scale beacon tower, about 40 feet tall,
with a rotating beacon light next to the hanger. REAL COOL that half hour
after sundown.(THERE ARE NO RUNWAY LIGHTS HOWEVER, IF ANY G.A. PILOTS EVER
FLY BY AT NIGHT)
He has also built a small shandy to the same spects. as that which housed
the poor guy that had to make sure the beacon stayed lit. (Battery powered
I think).
I have talked to a senior citizen that can remember taking rides in a Ford
Trimotor that use to fly in on weekends. He said it shook like heck and
just bearly lifted off before the end of the runway.
Lan, F.S.II 598
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 9/7/99 11:47:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com writes:
<< ............... Would I be better off applying a
trim tab to the elevator or leaving the shotgun shot in the nose?.........
terry frantz, i have a trim tab attached to the elevator of my
firestar.
it doesn't
hurt the structural integrity of the elevator. it gets to be a bit of a pain
sometimes trying
to figure out how much to bend the tab up or down since this has to be done
whilst the plane is on the ground but it won't hurt the elevator. as to
whether
a tab on the elevator is better than
a bag of shot in the nose i don't know. ..................... tim >>
I put a trim tab on my elevator to provide "up" at a reasonable speed of
50mph instead of the "down" condition I experienced without it. I did this to
enable throttle up down capability in case I lose control over the elevator.
.... it is just one of those "just in case circumstances" .... just like
the parachute that I have....... "just in case" ........ If I lose a
wing...who cares..... if I lose an elevator ....who cares.... if I lose the
engine noise...who cares....I fly gliders anyway....If I
lose.......etc....Yea....I really do care....but I have options now!
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
--I used a tube mounted, 10 speed bicycle derailer lever (clamped around a rubber
hose on my fuselage tubing) and 1/16th" cable that ran to a spring return trim
tab, a la TwinStar. I rivoted the aluminum piano hing to the trailing edge of
the elavator with 3/32 Alum rivots with no problems. It worked as an auxillary
elavator control system as well. I could fly with just the rudders & trim tab,
with or without power. If the elevator cable ever broke, I could muster a pretty
good landing, & fly the pattern too. There is a big lag in pitch that has to be
anticipated. GeoR38 has the right idea... just set trim tab for level flight at
a safe controlable speed & use throttle for pitch control. A fixed tab will do
this fine. An in-flight adjustable tab &/or flaperons will give you pitch
control under dead stick conditions as well. Richard S
GeoR38(at)aol.com wrote:
> --I put a trim tab on my elevator to provide "up" at a reasonable speed of
> 50mph instead of the "down" condition I experienced without it. I did this to
> enable throttle up down capability in case I lose control over the elevator.
> .... it is just one of those "just in case circumstances" .... just like
> the parachute that I have....... "just in case" ........ If I lose a
> wing...who cares..... if I lose an elevator ....who cares.... if I lose the
> engine noise...who cares....I fly gliders anyway....If I
> lose.......etc....Yea....I really do care....but I have options now!
> GeoR38
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Both these systems sound very good. George's idea is simple and direct.
The idea of trimming for a speed is great, and one I haven't heard before.
Richard's sounds more sophisticated and verstatile, but also more complex to
build. Both give the option of getting down in one piece if the up elevator
cable breaks, and That was one of my main concerns in setting up mine. It's
very unlikely, but ..................! ! ! I decided to stay with the
stock spring trim system, but ran a separate cable back to a separate
attachment on the up side of the elevator pivot. That way, if a cable
breaks, I've got a back-up. If the spring trim isn't strong enough, I can
grab hold of it, and pull. Either way, you've got an option.
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Trim tabs.
>
> --I used a tube mounted, 10 speed bicycle derailer lever (clamped around a
rubber
> hose on my fuselage tubing) and 1/16th" cable that ran to a spring return
trim
> tab, a la TwinStar. I rivoted the aluminum piano hing to the trailing
edge of
> the elavator with 3/32 Alum rivots with no problems. It worked as an
auxillary
> elavator control system as well. I could fly with just the rudders & trim
tab,
> with or without power. If the elevator cable ever broke, I could muster a
pretty
> good landing, & fly the pattern too. There is a big lag in pitch that has
to be
> anticipated. GeoR38 has the right idea... just set trim tab for level
flight at
> a safe controlable speed & use throttle for pitch control. A fixed tab
will do
> this fine. An in-flight adjustable tab &/or flaperons will give you pitch
> control under dead stick conditions as well. Richard S
>
> GeoR38(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> > --I put a trim tab on my elevator to provide "up" at a reasonable speed
of
> > 50mph instead of the "down" condition I experienced without it. I did
this to
> > enable throttle up down capability in case I lose control over the
elevator.
> > .... it is just one of those "just in case circumstances" .... just
like
> > the parachute that I have....... "just in case" ........ If I lose a
> > wing...who cares..... if I lose an elevator ....who cares.... if I lose
the
> > engine noise...who cares....I fly gliders anyway....If I
> > lose.......etc....Yea....I really do care....but I have options now!
> > GeoR38
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: transporting an Ultrastar |
Dale Langley wrote -- quote -
August 13, 1999 - September 09, 1999
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-bp