Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-bq
September 09, 1999 - September 23, 1999
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? -- unquote
==============
Dale:
Tomorrow I am shipping my MKIII in an enclosed semitrailer from CA to PA;
cost is $1,800.
Ron Christensen
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
Subject: | Re: transporting an Ultrastar |
Ron
Where are you or your plane going in PA? I have a MK III at Lancaster PA.
Terry
>
> Dale:
> Tomorrow I am shipping my MKIII in an enclosed semitrailer from CA to PA;
> cost is $1,800.
> Ron Christensen
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: transporting an Ultrastar |
Dale,
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: transporting an Ultrastar |
Sorry for the double address, I am working on my laptop while the desk top is
out of service and it's not as easy to use. I hauled my Mklll about 35 miles
to the airport after it was finished. I did not want my brand new machine all
scuffed up before I got to fly it. I rented a 24' Ryder truck and with some
help from neighborly muscle got it loaded ok. The Ryder truck has a full 24'
of floor length where some of the others are measured to include over-the-cab
space which is useless for this job. I installed some temporary screwed-down
rings and chocks and a tail boom support. The bottom line is that for about
$75 and very little effort there was not a scratch on it when she was ready
to fly. Duane the plane in Tallahassee
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net> |
Subject: | Mark111 intercom |
Kolbers: Are any of you using a successful intercom in the Mark111 high
noise environment. I have a flightcom set up and its useless.
Sigtronics has been suggested, but i would like to have someones
experience and not another useless set. Also, still looking for someone
that put a Jabiru 80hp on a Mark111 with an inflight adjustable prop. I
know thats a lot for this type of flying machine, but its intriguing.
John H., you must have run into something in your travels?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Mark111 intercom |
In a message dated 99-09-09 12:10:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
cen23954(at)centuryinter.net writes:
<< Are any of you using a successful intercom in the Mark111 high
noise environment. >>
I have been using a Softcom two place intercom for years and think it
works fine in the mark 3. It's best design feature, I think, is that when
you unplug the headsets it is automatically turned off. Others which I have
used always had dead batteries because I would consistently forget to turn it
off at the end of a flight. It also accepts two 9 volt batteries. I made a
little bracket which attaches it to the spar carry though so it is overhead
and out of the way.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Mark111 intercom |
>
> Kolbers: Are any of you using a successful intercom in the Mark111 high
> noise environment.
I have been using a Sigtronics SPA400 since the get go,
1992. It is fine til I crank up the power. Cockpit noise
comes close to defeating the intercom. Sigtronics told me
two or three or four years ago to send it back and they
would upgrade it to a SPA400N, designed for high noise
environments, but I never got around to it. So can not
report on it.
Also, still looking for someone
> that put a Jabiru 80hp on a Mark111 with an inflight adjustable prop.
Don't know of anyone that has that set up. Might want to
talk to the Jabiru folks and ask them. I know the 912 is
expensive, but it has proven to be a good engine with a
proven integral gear box. I don't particularly care for the
Rotax Company per se, but I have to admit my 912 with 1045.0
hours is still cranking out power like it did since day
one. Again, I have shared this before, if you fly a lot the
difference in fuel and oil burn in the 912 and 582 will soon
close the gap on purchase price. Also much too quick
overhauls on the two strokes. Don't know a thing about the
Jabiru. Never talked to anyone who flew in front of or
behind one.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
Subject: | Re: Mark111 intercom |
Dallas
Get the highest passive db rating possible on the headsets. Get an intercom
designed for high noise. I'm using a Sigtronics SPO 22N made for high noise.
I
got custom headsets from John Meyer, 616-896-9858 jomeyer(at)msn.com. He used
David Clark helicopter ear cups rated at 27 db passive. He uses a high output
speakers in the headsets. This combination works good for me. I tried a set of
David Clark ANR's and they did not work well in my Mark III. I tried to get a
set of David Clark helicopter headsets with GA plugs but David Clark doesn't
make them. David Clark gave me the name of John Meyer and he made just what I
wanted.
Terry
Dallas Shepherd wrote:
>
> Kolbers: Are any of you using a successful intercom in the Mark111 high
> noise environment. I have a flightcom set up and its useless.
> Sigtronics has been suggested, but i would like to have someones
> experience and not another useless set. Also, still looking for someone
> that put a Jabiru 80hp on a Mark111 with an inflight adjustable prop. I
> know thats a lot for this type of flying machine, but its intriguing.
> John H., you must have run into something in your travels?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard_Harris(at)albemarle.com |
Subject: | Re: Mark111 intercom |
Hi all
I am using sigtronics 22n & s58 headsets works great.
RH
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bruce Fletcher" <bwf(at)emailmn.com> |
Subject: | Re: Mark111 intercom |
Had the same problem. I had Telex turn down the gain down on the Mic and it
did wonders.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Mark111 intercom
>
>
> >
> > Kolbers: Are any of you using a successful intercom in the Mark111 high
> > noise environment.
>
> I have been using a Sigtronics SPA400 since the get go,
> 1992. It is fine til I crank up the power. Cockpit noise
> comes close to defeating the intercom. Sigtronics told me
> two or three or four years ago to send it back and they
> would upgrade it to a SPA400N, designed for high noise
> environments, but I never got around to it. So can not
> report on it.
>
>
> Also, still looking for someone
> > that put a Jabiru 80hp on a Mark111 with an inflight adjustable prop.
>
> Don't know of anyone that has that set up. Might want to
> talk to the Jabiru folks and ask them. I know the 912 is
> expensive, but it has proven to be a good engine with a
> proven integral gear box. I don't particularly care for the
> Rotax Company per se, but I have to admit my 912 with 1045.0
> hours is still cranking out power like it did since day
> one. Again, I have shared this before, if you fly a lot the
> difference in fuel and oil burn in the 912 and 582 will soon
> close the gap on purchase price. Also much too quick
> overhauls on the two strokes. Don't know a thing about the
> Jabiru. Never talked to anyone who flew in front of or
> behind one.
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Working in Oklahoma City |
Greetings
I'm working in Oklahoma City, does anyone here know of someone giving dual
instructions in a Kolb?
Thanks
Will Uribe
http://members.aol.com/WillU/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "mvollmer" <mvollmer(at)wireco.net> |
Subject: | Re: transporting an Ultrastar |
Pick it up with a U-Haul
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale L Langley <dlangl01(at)kcinter.net>
Date: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 7:31 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: 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: | "David Bruner" <brunerd(at)hvi.net> |
Subject: | Re: Mark111 intercom |
>Kolbers: Are any of you using a successful intercom in the Mark111 high
>noise environment. I have a flightcom set up and its useless.
>Sigtronics has been suggested, but i would like to have someones
>experience and not another useless set.
I've not got a lot to go on but the two i/c setups I've "heard" have only
eliminated the need to lean over before you holler. Glad were not tandem!
Anyone tried the "Cadillac" of i/c's - Lynx?
Comes right down to it - it appears to be an impossible job (not considering
interference, which can be eliminated) with 'open air' type mics. Haven't
tested any ANR type sets, but a ~20db reduction doesn't sound like it's
worth all the extra $$. Isn't there some kind of mic that attaches directly
to the throat that would eliminate most of the ambient noise?
David (gonna get my Mk II reliably into the air someday) Bruner
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Main battery cable size |
>What size wire are people using for the main battery cable. I gotta
>get mine. Richard says his (#2) cable sometimes doesn't seem to
>"carry the load."
For airplanes where the battery is on or just behind
the firewall, 4AWG is fine for all the "fat" wires.
If the battery has to be further away, like on the
other end of the airplane from the engine, #2 is better.
I have dozens of Ez builders who have run 2 strands
of #2 full length of the airplane to crank an O-320.
4AWG is about .00025 ohms per foot. A 24 foot round
trip in an Ez is .006 ohms. A 200 amp cranking current
will drop 1.2 volts or about 12 to 15% of your total
cranking energy. 2AWG drops to .004 ohms total
for a voltage drop of 0.8 volts in the wire. Of
course each terminal joint and set of contactor
contacts will ADD to this resistance but our experience
has shown good performance for even the long circuits
just cited when 2AWG is used.
If someone is having difficulties with a 2AWG
wired starter, I strongly suspect a combination
of tired battery, high resistance joints or high
resistance contactors are the major contributors
to the problem. Some measurements with a
voltmeter while loading the system with an
automotive load-type battery tester will quickly
isolate the causes.
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: | "Keith and Laura Middleton" <klmidd97(at)bossig.com> |
Subject: | Re: transporting an Ultrastar |
Tomorrow I am shipping my MKIII in an enclosed semitrailer from CA to PA;
> cost is $1,800.
> Ron Christensen
Ron, is this a private carrier or a commercial carrier, because that is a
pretty good price. I thought about buying a plane in TX and shipping it to
WA and I got a quote of about 5K. Maybe the gentleman misunderstood me or
who knows, but that idea went out the door.
Keith Middleton
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "william rayfield" <billyray00(at)hotmail.com> |
Does anyone on the list know what an HKS-700, 60 hp four stroke costs? I'm
curious
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 <sbaew(at)dames.com> |
I seem to remember the HKS goes for about $6000 - $6500. Someone correct
me if Im off base. Check with the dealers listed in "Ultralight Flying"
ads for a quote.
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeff Wilde" <jeffwilde(at)mpinet.net> |
Please unsuscribe me from th Kolb Mailing List and digest.
________________________________________________________________________________
Does anyone on the list know what an HKS-700, 60 hp four stroke costs? I'm
curious
Bill
=======================
Hey Bill:
I looked at this engine at Oshkosh this year; they were being sold by the
Flight Star people. They cost $6,250. Nice engine, but a bit pricey.
Ron Christensen
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Shipping vs. Flying |
John Hauck wrote regarding shipping my MKIII from CA to PA:
I would have flown it for nothing but fuel and a few days.
=========================================
John;
Thanks for your kind offer, but when the cost of fuel, accommodations, food,
return commercial ticket and risk to the aircraft is taken into account, I
think that $1,800 is a pretty reasonable cost. Nice of you to offer though.
Warm regards,
Ron Christensen
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: transporting an Ultrastar |
Hi Keith:
============
Tomorrow I am shipping my MKIII in an enclosed semitrailer from CA to PA;
cost is $1,800.
Ron Christensen
=============
Ron, is this a private carrier or a commercial carrier, because that is a
pretty good price. I thought about buying a plane in TX and shipping it to
WA and I got a quote of about 5K. Maybe the gentleman misunderstood me or
who knows, but that idea went out the door.
Keith Middleton
=============
I contacted a commercial carrier called "Best Way" (creative name, hummm?)
from Grand Junction, CO @ 1-800/500-1292 and talked to "AJ". He initially
quoted $2,000, but after asking/negotiating he reduced the price to $1,800
including insurance. The truck left today and the driver expects to deliver
the plane in PA next Monday afternoon, Sept. 13th.! I believe the cost is
based upon the amount of floor space taken in the trailer. In the case of
the MKIII, it requires 24 ft. including safety margins at each end. In my
case, the load is not exclusively the airplane; this truck is also loaded
with computer monitors, but the loads do not interfere with each other. An
exclusive load costs a lot more of course.
I contacted Best Way because several businesses have used them to ship
airplanes and airplane equipment from Chino, CA airport where I kept my
plane. They really seemed to know what they are doing. Having said this,
it's clear that they subcontracted the job to a local mover, but Best Way
retains responsibility for a safe delivery.
Ron (sad to see her go) Christensen
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Lanny!. I spoke to you on the phone several months ago. I will be in
the Shamokin/Bloomsburg are on 9-26 and 9-27 (to pick up some MG parts and
visit the Bloom Fair.) If you have the time I would enjoy stopping by and
looking at your Firestar. Do you keep it at Beaver Field? Rick Klebon
________________________________________________________________________________
I believe it was about two years ago that Dennis at the "old" Kolb tried
the HKS (I believe it was on the Slingshot) and was disappointed in its
performance. He had serious doubts that it put out the claimed 60HP.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
BKlebon(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> I believe it was about two years ago that Dennis at the "old" Kolb tried
> the HKS (I believe it was on the Slingshot) and was disappointed in its
> performance. He had serious doubts that it put out the claimed 60HP.
Hey Kolbers:
Please do not take this msg the wrong way. These are my
opinions only. I have not flown with the HKS, but have seen
it fly at OSH and Lakeland on the Flight Star with two
passengers many times. In the traffice pattern at either
place it is one of the slower aircraft.
The Sling Shot with the 582 and 65 horses is a lot of fun to
fly. Downgrading to a 60 HP two cyl four stroke would
probably degrade performance until it was not any fun any
more.
However, Dennis also prefers the 582 to the 912 (80 HP) on
the Sling Shot. I flew the 912 powered SS all week at OSH
this year and I would rather fly it with the 912. Again,
personal preferences. I must say I enjoy flying the SS with
either eng, but if I had my druthers I'd go with the 912.
Mark Brierly (sp) of Thunder Gull fame is flying with the
HKS and he has nothing but praise for it. Mark has a
reputation for flying his airplane to get where he want to
go. Does not believe in trailering. Where have I heard
that before. hehehe
I till think all the companies want wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy
ttooooooooooo much for those little engines.. Last year I
put a brand spanking new Ford 351W V8 260 HP for less than
$3,000.00. Go figure.
john h (dreaming of cheap engines and fuel)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Last year I
> put a brand spanking new Ford 351W V8 260 HP for less than
> $3,000.00. Go figure.
>
> john h (dreaming of cheap engines and fuel)
Hey Gang:
That's what I get for not proof reading. Should have said
put the engine in an ole 25 foot Sea Ray I try to keep
running. Not a Fire Star or MK III. ;-) hehehe
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>Can you tell me the difference between RG142 and RG400
>cable except that one has solid center conductor and the
>other stranded. Their electrical performance seems to
>be the same, and their physical dimensions also seem
>equivalent but I was wondering if the RG400 might be
>more flexible and have a smaller bend radius. That
>might be an advantage when threading through the
>airframe, but it might have other disadvatages! Since
>both cables are fairly pricy, I don't want to buy the
>wrong cable!
>
>Thanks again for you helpful advice,
>
>Will Chorley
>
>PS. Do you sell the fiberglass isulation material for
>fuseable link construction, it doesn't seem to be listed
>on your Web pages?
Why use either of these cables? The good ol' RG-58
has been used with great success for about a half
century. The reason the BIG guys (al la 747, DC-10
etc) use this kind of cable is that their coax runs
can be quite long . . sometimes. In a single engine
a/c the longest run is generally to a VOR antenna
on tail (perhaps 20'). Losses in RG-58 at 110 MHz
are about 1.2 dB per 100' (3db is loss of 1/2
the power). A 10' chunk of RG-58 looses .12 dB
and a 20' chunk is .24 dB . . . not worth
worrying about.
Transponders at 1000 mHz will loose 18-22 dB
per 100 feet or 2.2 dB for 10' and 1.1 dB for
5 foot. Here, it's obviously more critical but
even when you go to a twice diameter, lower
loss coax like RG-8 or RG-214, the looses only
go down by about half.
The modern RG cables like 400 and 142 are still
small diameter cables and have losses comparable
to RG-58. They ARE made from Teflons, et. als.
which increases their resistance to temperature
effects but give the very long history of RG-58
and RG-8 in airplanes, I'd suggest that the time
and effort to upgrade your small airplane's coax
cables isn't going to produce any perceivable
value in return.
Another thing to consider for bigger cables are
connectors. The larger (.35 to .4" diameter) cables
take special connectors. I've seen a number of
installations where a builder used straight
coax connectors on his fat coax than added
right angle adapters at each end for installation.
The losses in the adapters may have increased
his total system losses by as much as he saved
by not using smaller RG-58 with the proper
right angle connectors.
Bottom line is that much is said and recommended
with respect to "modernizing" one's anteanna
feedlines in amateur built airplanes. My recommendation
is to save the time and dollars for things that
will make a difference.
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: | Dirk4315(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Looking for Progressive Aerodyne |
Hello fellow Kolbers,
I am looking for the location and telephone number of Progressive Aerodyne.
They manufacture a header exhaust system for the Rotax 912.
Thank you all.
Dirk Davis MkIII in Ca.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Alternator/Battery issues . . . |
>OK, A&P's and EE's, jump in here and correct my thinking. This could be the
>case if you were talking about a car, but I'm not 100% sure about alt's in
>aircraft. Automobile alt's have diodes in them, that when they go bad will
>allow a battery to completely discharge back through the alternator.
When the diodes in an alternator go "bad" they either open
(do nothing) or short (lots of smoke) . . . actually, you
have to fail a minimum of two of the six to eight diodes
in an alternator to effect the reverse feed of energy from
battery back into alternator and it will not be any whimpy
current flow . . . we're talking HUNDREDS of amps.
This is why your b-lead on the alternator has a circuit breaker
or fuse in it . . .
>. . . . . When
>this happens, depending on how long the battery as sat (or discharged), you
>may never get it to come back to life with just a battery charger.
First, alternator diode failure is a VERY rare event. This is one
of the reasons why I've recommended firewall mounted fuses in
the alternator b-lead for homebuilts . . . if the fuse is properly
sized to eliminate nuisance trips, then most likely it will
NEVER trip for the lifetime of the airplane.
> . . . To keep
>things simple, think of batteries as having a "memory". When they lose it,
>through complete discharge, they don't know which side is positive and which
>is negative (and can't be recharged until pos and neg are established). One
>way to overcome this (sometimes) is by simply hooking another battery to the
>dead one, to reestablish neg and pos sides. Once this is done, the battery
>"may" be able to be fully charged with a charger. Alternators can also be
>checked to see if the diodes are bad. Again, whether or not this applies to
>aircraft type or not...I don't know.
The MEMORY effect alluded to was first improperly applied to liquid
Ni-Cads used mostly in BIG airplanes. I could cite about a half
dozen articles that appeared in various electronics journals over
the past 15 years debunking the memory theory but suffice it to say
here that "memory" doesn't happen in other batteries . . . and
especially in lead acid ones.
Lead acid batteries have a shelf life . . . meaning that once a battery
has acquired a certain age, it's capacity has degraded to a non-useful
level. The RATE at which a battery degrades to useless is a function
of state of charge and where in the life cycle the battery presently
resides. For example, a 3 year old battery that's down to
40% of capacity already may loose half of that by sitting in
a totally dischaged for a week and become NON-recoverable. While
a brand new battery can take that 20% whack and still appear to have
"recovered" . . . .
It's true that a totally discharged battery can be charged up reversed
with some apparent capacity of a reverse polarity but it doesn't
take another battery to properly "polarize" a totally discharged
battery . . . just hook your charger to it in the normal manner
and say a few kind words over it, . . and hope you get back some
utility for having done so.
If you have bad diodes in an alternator that are at risk of
discharging the battery, you're going to know it in a hurry.
If you have open diodes, you may NOT know it. I bought a used
car a few years back with a crippled alternator. The car seemed
to have a pretty noisy bus and I filtered the +14V lead going
into my ham rig to control the noise. It wasn't until I got
the a/c fixed and had the blower running on HI along with
headlights at night that I discovered the alternator's output
was insufficient to keep the battery charged. I must have driven
the car six months or more with a funky alternator.
If you have a 60 amp alternator and fly only day/vfr, you might
fly for years with a half dead alternator and not know it.
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: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Looking for Progressive Aerodyne |
>
> Hello fellow Kolbers,
> I am looking for the location and telephone number of Progressive Aerodyne.
> They manufacture a header exhaust system for the Rotax 912.
> Thank you all.
> Dirk Davis MkIII in Ca.
Dirk and Kolbers:
They don't manufacture, but in fact buy them from a header
shop in Arkansas. I have been flying their product for a
while. They are better than the system RANS built, went
thru several of those first. But they are carbon steel with
cermi coating that will not last. I don't. I don't think
hours of flight, but time sitting in a hanger will cause
them to start turning red.
I am waiting on a new system from John Henderson, Titan
Aircraft. It is SS, compact (fits close to the engine) and
used a Super Trap Silencer. I flew with one on the factory
SS and Brian Blackwood, co-owner of Kolb, has one on his MK
III. I think prices are very comparable, expensive!
http://www.exp-aircraft.com/aircraft/aircrafA.html#p]
The above url will take you to Prog Aerodyne's info, or
Titan's.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Randy and Joni Tolvstad" <tolvstad(at)nvc.net> |
Subject: | WANTED: Trouble shooters, diagnosers, motor gurus, and wizzards |
I have a 440 Kawasaki motor I just purchased as rebuilt. The motors start
fine, but after running for a few minutes it will sputter a bit and loose a
few RPMs and about 15 seconds later stops (sometimes with a backfire or two
as the thing starts to slow down to a stop). This seems to happen at around
200CHT. EGT seems normal (around 1100). I can then start the motor
immediately after it comes to a stop and it will run for about 10 to 20
seconds and then stop again. I can continue to restart it, but the time it
takes for it to grind to a halt gets shorter. I have contacted the place I
bought it from and had no luck trying his suggestions.
Here is a list of the what has been done so far.
--gas has been drained tank cleaned out and new gas mixed and installed
--new carberator installed
--vent to gas tank checked (not plugged)
--fuel pump bypassed(no difference but I did notice by the direction of the
air bubbles after in reinstalled it that it is working)
--muffler taken off
--air cleaner removed
--Leaning out the midrange in the carb(raised the clip up to the top notch.)
--installing different high speed jets(this changed the temps...a 280 seems
to keep the temps right)
--checked the fuel filter(took it off and I can blow through it with ease)
--new spark plugs
--kill switch disconnected
--tach disconnected
I sent the motor back requesting a different one. He claims the one I have
is a different one but I have the same exact symtoms and have went through
the ritual above once more. He absolutely refuses to beleave it is
electrical, but I would like your opinions on this.
Today I tried choking the carb after it began to quit without any luck. I
then tried spraying starting fluid into the carb as it was quiting without
any change. I then took a inductive style timing light ( the kind you hook
up to a 12 volt battery and it lights the timing light when the spark is
sent down the spark plug wire. This will tell you if spark is coming down
the wire even if the plug is fouled out.) When the motor started to quit,
sure enough, the light went out right at the time it started losing RPM. If
a back fire occured as it was winding to a stop, I would see the light on
the timing light momentarily. This would make me think that the problem is
definatley electrical.......the guy I bought the motor from disagrees and
says I may be hurting the electrical system!!!
I have been a reader of this group for over a year and have learned much.
This motor problem has me very concerned because it would allow me to take
off (it starts on the second pull every time and runs great until the
problem occurs) and get into the air just high enough to make a rather deep
dent in the earth.
ANY IDEAS???
Rather be in the air than on the ground......(going bald from scratching my
head so much!!)
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry & Karen Cottrel" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net> |
Subject: | Re: Alternator/Battery issues . . . |
Does anyone other than myself feel that this guy belongs on some other
list? I am not saying that he wrong or anything else, just that it isn't
revelant.
larry
----------
> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
> To: Recipient list suppressed
> Subject: Kolb-List: Alternator/Battery issues . . .
> Date: Saturday, September 11, 1999 12:44 PM
>
>
> >OK, A&P's and EE's, jump in here and correct my thinking. This could be
the
> >case if you were talking about a car, but I'm not 100% sure about alt's
in
> >aircraft. Automobile alt's have diodes in them, that when they go bad
will
> >allow a battery to completely discharge back through the alternator.
>
> When the diodes in an alternator go "bad" they either open
> (do nothing) or short (lots of smoke) . . . actually, you
> have to fail a minimum of two of the six to eight diodes
> in an alternator to effect the reverse feed of energy from
> battery back into alternator and it will not be any whimpy
> current flow . . . we're talking HUNDREDS of amps.
> This is why your b-lead on the alternator has a circuit breaker
> or fuse in it . . .
>
> >. . . . . When
> >this happens, depending on how long the battery as sat (or discharged),
you
> >may never get it to come back to life with just a battery charger.
>
> First, alternator diode failure is a VERY rare event. This is one
> of the reasons why I've recommended firewall mounted fuses in
> the alternator b-lead for homebuilts . . . if the fuse is properly
> sized to eliminate nuisance trips, then most likely it will
> NEVER trip for the lifetime of the airplane.
>
> > . . . To keep
> >things simple, think of batteries as having a "memory". When they lose
it,
> >through complete discharge, they don't know which side is positive and
which
> >is negative (and can't be recharged until pos and neg are established).
One
> >way to overcome this (sometimes) is by simply hooking another battery to
the
> >dead one, to reestablish neg and pos sides. Once this is done, the
battery
> >"may" be able to be fully charged with a charger. Alternators can also
be
> >checked to see if the diodes are bad. Again, whether or not this
applies to
> >aircraft type or not...I don't know.
>
> The MEMORY effect alluded to was first improperly applied to liquid
> Ni-Cads used mostly in BIG airplanes. I could cite about a half
> dozen articles that appeared in various electronics journals over
> the past 15 years debunking the memory theory but suffice it to say
> here that "memory" doesn't happen in other batteries . . . and
> especially in lead acid ones.
>
> Lead acid batteries have a shelf life . . . meaning that once a battery
> has acquired a certain age, it's capacity has degraded to a non-useful
> level. The RATE at which a battery degrades to useless is a function
> of state of charge and where in the life cycle the battery presently
> resides. For example, a 3 year old battery that's down to
> 40% of capacity already may loose half of that by sitting in
> a totally dischaged for a week and become NON-recoverable. While
> a brand new battery can take that 20% whack and still appear to have
> "recovered" . . . .
>
> It's true that a totally discharged battery can be charged up reversed
> with some apparent capacity of a reverse polarity but it doesn't
> take another battery to properly "polarize" a totally discharged
> battery . . . just hook your charger to it in the normal manner
> and say a few kind words over it, . . and hope you get back some
> utility for having done so.
>
> If you have bad diodes in an alternator that are at risk of
> discharging the battery, you're going to know it in a hurry.
> If you have open diodes, you may NOT know it. I bought a used
> car a few years back with a crippled alternator. The car seemed
> to have a pretty noisy bus and I filtered the +14V lead going
> into my ham rig to control the noise. It wasn't until I got
> the a/c fixed and had the blower running on HI along with
> headlights at night that I discovered the alternator's output
> was insufficient to keep the battery charged. I must have driven
> the car six months or more with a funky alternator.
>
> If you have a 60 amp alternator and fly only day/vfr, you might
> fly for years with a half dead alternator and not know it.
>
> 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: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mail.direcpc.com> |
I thought the list could save me a lot of looking. What is the minimum edge
distance for rivet holes in gusset plates. I seem to remember AC 43.13-1B
saying 2 times the rivet diameter as a rule of thumb. Is this right ? It
is probably in the plans somewhere I just can't spot it right now...
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey(at)mail.direcpc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: WANTED: Trouble shooters, diagnosers, motor |
gurus, and wizzards
Never had a 440 Kawasaki engine for an u/l, but I had a 175 Kawasaki dirt
bike with CDI that did the same thing when one of the CDI coils started
going bad. It has been long enough since I had it (25 years) that I can't
remember if it was the source coil, or trigger coil, or which, and it was
probably not exactly the same anyway, but what you are describing sounds
familar.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>I have a 440 Kawasaki motor I just purchased as rebuilt. The motors start
>fine, but after running for a few minutes it will sputter a bit and loose a
>few RPMs and about 15 seconds later stops (sometimes with a backfire or two
>as the thing starts to slow down to a stop). This seems to happen at around
>200CHT. EGT seems normal (around 1100). I can then start the motor
>immediately after it comes to a stop and it will run for about 10 to 20
>seconds and then stop again. I can continue to restart it, but the time it
>takes for it to grind to a halt gets shorter. I have contacted the place I
>bought it from and had no luck trying his suggestions.
>
>Here is a list of the what has been done so far.
>
>--gas has been drained tank cleaned out and new gas mixed and installed
>--new carberator installed
>--vent to gas tank checked (not plugged)
>--fuel pump bypassed(no difference but I did notice by the direction of the
>air bubbles after in reinstalled it that it is working)
>--muffler taken off
>--air cleaner removed
>--Leaning out the midrange in the carb(raised the clip up to the top notch.)
>--installing different high speed jets(this changed the temps...a 280 seems
>to keep the temps right)
>--checked the fuel filter(took it off and I can blow through it with ease)
>--new spark plugs
>--kill switch disconnected
>--tach disconnected
>
>I sent the motor back requesting a different one. He claims the one I have
>is a different one but I have the same exact symtoms and have went through
>the ritual above once more. He absolutely refuses to beleave it is
>electrical, but I would like your opinions on this.
>
>Today I tried choking the carb after it began to quit without any luck. I
>then tried spraying starting fluid into the carb as it was quiting without
>any change. I then took a inductive style timing light ( the kind you hook
>up to a 12 volt battery and it lights the timing light when the spark is
>sent down the spark plug wire. This will tell you if spark is coming down
>the wire even if the plug is fouled out.) When the motor started to quit,
>sure enough, the light went out right at the time it started losing RPM. If
>a back fire occured as it was winding to a stop, I would see the light on
>the timing light momentarily. This would make me think that the problem is
>definatley electrical.......the guy I bought the motor from disagrees and
>says I may be hurting the electrical system!!!
>
>I have been a reader of this group for over a year and have learned much.
>This motor problem has me very concerned because it would allow me to take
>off (it starts on the second pull every time and runs great until the
>problem occurs) and get into the air just high enough to make a rather deep
>dent in the earth.
>
>ANY IDEAS???
>
>Rather be in the air than on the ground......(going bald from scratching my
>head so much!!)
>Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Pitch/EGTs&voodoo |
Hi John and all the Rotax wizards in Kolb land.
Put one more degree of pitch in the 68 inch 3 blade Powerfin today, to 13.5
degrees, needles at stock position. (Previous test was at 12.5 degrees pitch
and needle clips lowered one notch. raised needles)
Climb rpm is 6300 at 70 mph (airspeed reads about ten fast). Temps
are1000/1040
Cruising at 5600 yields 1080/1100.
BUT-- a fast descent at 80 or so and 4200 rpm puts both EGTs right at 1200
This rise is of course not surprising as the engine has little load under
these conditions.
My question is-what kind of temps do you guys see at 4 to 5 k rpm on high
airspeed descents??
Thanks
Bill George
MK-3 582 Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
Subject: | Re: WANTED: Trouble shooters, diagnosers, motor |
gurus, and wizzards
>
>I have a 440 Kawasaki motor I just purchased as rebuilt. The motors start
>fine, but after running for a few minutes it will sputter a bit and loose a
>few RPMs and about 15 seconds later stops
First thing is quit talking to that guy. Next try new ignition coils.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Pitch/EGTs&voodoo |
Hello Bill; Just got back in from a most excellent twilight flight, so here
are the current numbers. Bearing in mind that the book calls for the 532 to
run hotter than the 582, I climb out at 6400 RPM, (66" Ivo 2-blade, 2.58:1
B box) showing 1000' FPM at 45 MPH, EGT's at 1050. Cruise is at 70 @
5800rpm, EGT's 1150-1200. Cruise at 65 MPH and 5600 RPM gives EGT's around
1150. Cruise at 4800 RPM and 50 MPH gives EGT's around 1100. Descent at 80
MPH and 4200 rpm is around 1200-1250 EGT.
Plugs look good, and pistons and rings look about right during the winter
cleanup if I can keep it at around those temps. Using Amoco Premium and
Phillips Injex 2-cycle oil.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>Hi John and all the Rotax wizards in Kolb land.
>
>Put one more degree of pitch in the 68 inch 3 blade Powerfin today, to 13.5
>degrees, needles at stock position. (Previous test was at 12.5 degrees pitch
>and needle clips lowered one notch. raised needles)
>
>Climb rpm is 6300 at 70 mph (airspeed reads about ten fast). Temps
>are1000/1040
>
>Cruising at 5600 yields 1080/1100.
>
>BUT-- a fast descent at 80 or so and 4200 rpm puts both EGTs right at 1200
>
>This rise is of course not surprising as the engine has little load under
>these conditions.
>
>My question is-what kind of temps do you guys see at 4 to 5 k rpm on high
>airspeed descents??
>
>Thanks
>
>Bill George
>MK-3 582 Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 9/11/99 11:31:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, BKlebon(at)aol.com
writes:
<< I believe it was about two years ago that Dennis at the "old" Kolb tried
the HKS (I believe it was on the Slingshot) and was disappointed in its
performance. He had serious doubts that it put out the claimed 60HP. >>
Wonder how it would do on a Firestar ll?
Howard Shackleford
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: edge distance |
Usually the minimum rivet edge distance is 2 X hole diameter. For the sake of
repairability--ie--going to a larger rivet at a later date for a
repair----one would want about 2.5 X hole diameter. An absolute minimum
number for 3/32 and 1/8 diameter rivets would be 1.7 X hole diameter. Except
where the designer calls for something different these will keep you out of
trouble. Also, it is basically the same for steel, aluminum etc. JR,
A&P-Kitfox done and RV4 building
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Pitch/EGTs&voodoo |
Anything beyond 1200 degrees--assuming your temps are accurate--is asking for
it. Bad things begin to happen around 1300 degrees. High temps especially on
descent when the engine is getting little fuel and oil can lead to a exhaust
side seizure (hot seizeure). Up to and including 1200 is good--I like
anything between 1050 and 1175. I go for static of 6200 and climb about 6500
and max 67 to 6800. Warp Drive three blade with swept tips.Leaning in the
midrange is normal the way the Bings are delivered but leads to problems
during descents at medium power settings. Best to richen that midrange a bit
so that it does not squirt past 1200 degrees or descend at yet lower power
levels where the Bing richens back up normally. JR, A&P, 582 Kitfox pushing
200 hours now
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Darren L Smalec" <smald(at)shianet.org> |
Subject: | Engine-- Stoppage |
Randy-- Had a UL-ll02 (cyuna) that ran fine for about 1-2 min. then
would stop. The CDI box was bad. Replaced it, ran good. 8hrs. later,
burnt hole in piston. (not related i think).
Good luck, DarrenSmalec FS-1 --101.5hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Darren L Smalec" <smald(at)shianet.org> |
Subject: | Pitch/ Egt/Descent |
Bill:
I run a 2SI-460-40 on a FS1 64" Warp 2 blade @ 10 deg., and running
4200-5000 rpms on descent always puts my EGT up to 1200 if I don't
watch it. Load the prop (climb) , and it runs cooler, around 1100.
Rejet, and it won't come off midrange (too rich).
Watch that EGT !!!! Darren Smalec
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: WANTED: Trouble shooters, diagnosers, motor |
gurus, and wizzards
>My wife (who has been in too happy of a mood since this problem has arose)
>has advised me that this is proof that all men were created to stay on the
>ground and birds were created to fly. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A FIX FOR THAT??
>
>still baffled and getting balder,
>
>Randy
Ecclesiastes 7:29 tells us:
"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright;
but they have sought out many inventions."
That may not help with the fix, but it might explain some things...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
Subject: | Re: Engine-- Stoppage |
>
>Randy-- Had a UL-ll02 (cyuna) that ran fine for about 1-2 min. then
>would stop. The CDI box was bad. Replaced it, ran good. 8hrs. later,
>burnt hole in piston. (not related i think).
>Good luck, DarrenSmalec FS-1 --101.5hrs.
>
It would if he did not set up the timing right.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Coax Cable for transponders |
>>>Can you tell me the difference between RG142 and RG400
>>>cable except that one has solid center conductor and the
>>>other stranded.
>>
>>bn: Why use either of these cables?
>
>Well, for one reason, the Bendix/King KLX-135A Installation Manual
>specifies that if the length of the coax is to be longer than 9 feet (as I
>recall), RG-142 or RG-400 is to be used.
>
>
>bn: The modern RG cables like 400 and 142 are still
>bn: small diameter cables and have losses comparable
>bn: to RG-58.
>
>NOT TRUE.
>RG58 has a nominal attenuation of 20db per 100 feet at 1GHz.
>RG142 has a nominal attenuation of 13db per 100 feet at 1GHz.
bn:
I stand corrected . . . but for a run of say 15' (very
long in a single engine airplane) we're talking
3db for RG58 versus 2db for RG142 . . . which is
still trivial. I encourage my readers to put the xponder
antenna as close to the instrument panel as they can.
Given that very few antennas are on the belly of any
airplane, a coax length of 5-6 feet is possible for
most airplanes . . . a GOOD thing to shoot for irrespective
of the kind of coax you use. Losses in this length
of coax are insignificant.
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: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
Subject: | Kolb Aircraft Website...? |
Hi Kolb Listers,
Someone pointed out that the Kolb Aircraft factory homepage doesn't respond.
Did they change the URL or something else??
Thanks,
Matt Dralle
List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
Subject: | Two MORE Email Lists at Matronics... |
Dear Listers,
At the request of a couple of members, I have added two more Email Lists to
the Servers here at Matronics. These include:
avionics-list(at)matronics.com
Aircraft Avionics related topics such as Radios, GPSs, VSIs, DMEs, etc.
engines-list(at)matronics.com
Aircraft Engine related topics such as Lycomings, Auto conversions, etc.
As usual, the new lists have full archive searching and browsing capabilities.
You may subscribe to the new lists by using the Web-Based subscription form
at the following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>Thanks for the helpful advice. . . . . . Maybe
>you might expand on your explanation and suggest or remind those
>interested that a stranded center conductor coaxial cable is the best way
>to go in a mobile installation.
Excellent point. About 33 years ago we had a rash of
VOR antenna system failures in the Cessna singles.
Seems the coax cable from panel to antenna back on the
vertical fin became shorted.
It took some digging to figure out why. The coax had
been routed through an area of structure where the
bend radius was too tight. Over time, the pressure
of a single strand conductor on the plastic caused
the wire to cold-flow through the insulation and short
out on the outer conductor! Replacment of the coax with
stranded center conductor -AND- rerouting for a larger
bend radius prevented this from happening again . . .
Further, a stranded conductor is more resistant to
breakage from flexing and is preferable for that
reason also.
Thanks for the reminder!
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: | The Labharts <njlabhart(at)kih.net> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb Aircraft Website...? |
Matt,
I wonder if they are trying the "old" Kolb site? The "New"
Kolb site is alive and well.
http://www.tnkolbaircraft.com/
Norm Labhart
Webmaster for the New Kolb Aircraft Company
>
>
>Hi Kolb Listers,
>
>Someone pointed out that the Kolb Aircraft factory homepage doesn't respond.
>Did they change the URL or something else??
>
>Thanks,
>
>Matt Dralle
>List Admin.
>
>
>--
>
>Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
>925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
>
njlabhart(at)kih.net
1956 Cessna 172 7453A
Graham Lee Nieuport 11 replica
Serial Number 1080, On the Gear!
Kolb FireStar II, 11 Ribs built
http://www.users.kih.net/~njlabhart/nieuport.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "william rayfield" <billyray00(at)hotmail.com> |
Thanks for the response on the HKS prices, guys. I was wondering, like
Howard S. did, about how a FII might handle with an HKS. I think the HKS
would be a better replacement of the 503 than the 582. It's a heavier
four-stroke that makes more horsepower (kind of like replacing the 582 with
a 912). What do you guys think?
Bill Rayfield
-still finishing a trailer for a brand new ultrastar-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>I have a Narco Transponder on my Europa, connected to its aerial on a
>ground plane about 6 foot away. Although my VHF radio (Garmin GNC 250) is
>fed from a separate bus, with widely separated aerial cables, I get
>intermittent interference when the Narco responds to a radar - just a short
>buzz as the identification lamp lights on the Transponder.
>Any ideas on what I can do to suppress the interference?
A very common problem . . . especially with "plastic"
airplanes. Your transponder puts out a stream of
very narrow, high power pulses that carry the digitally
encoded data for your squawk, altitude, etc. Common
propogation modes for the transponder to interfere
with other radios are coupling between antenna feedlines
(not case here because you've separated them), direct
radiation of transponder energy into the antenna of
the victim radio and radiation of transponder energy
into wiring associated with victim radio.
Try turning down the volume on your VHF comm and see if
the transponder noise is still there (of course you
have to do this while the transponder is being iterrogated
by a ground radar). If the noise goes away, then it's
most likely getting into the comm receiver's antenna.
Moving either or both of the antennas to increase
separation may do the trick.
If the noise does NOT go away, then it's getting into
the wiring. You can try ferrite filter "beads" on wire
bundle going into back of comm receiver, also shielding
may help. If push comes to shove, a filter assembly
consisting of inductors and capacitors on each pin of
the wiring to the comm receiver may be necessary.
Metal airplanes dont have the latter problem very
often due to the isolating effect of the aircraft's
skin . . .
Wish there was a "magic bullet" but what you're experiencing
can be one of the hardest problems to fix.
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: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Passing it on. Have you ever noticed how close cars are to you on the street after
you have just come back from a long XC in you plane? Have you ever thought
about the fact that everytime you pass a vehicle on the road in the opposite
direction that your life is only 50% yours and 50% the other drivers'. Have
you ever thought of the fact that when you approach a vehicle in the opposite
direction on a two way road at highway speeds you pass each other in less than
20' with a combined speed usually over 120 mile per hour? Just think'n Firehawk
-----Original Message-----
From: J.R. Holbrook <jrholbrook(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, September 13, 1999 9:53 AM
Subject: FYI Info
|IT'S STILL SAFE TO FLY: Don't we all just love to tell nonpilot friends
|that other forms of transportation are more dangerous than airplanes?
|Here are the latest numbers, straight from the NTSB, to back you up. In
|1998 in the United States and its territories, 43,920 people died in
|transportation-related accidents. Aviation accounted for 683 deaths,
|with 621 of them in GA. Bicyclists, recreational boaters, and people
|walking in front of trains notched 794, 808, and 831 fatalities,
|respectively.
|
|______________________________________________________
|Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Peter Volum" <ibimiami(at)msn.com> |
Subject: | RE: Accident Stats |
I've had multiple "discussions" with my wife along these lines lately and I
use all the usual arguments, but I'm curious about one thing.
Does anybody out there know what the actual numbers are in terms of
accidents and/or fatalities per person-mile by car versus the same for
private (non-commercial) aircraft?
That would be a more significant comparison that to group all air and
compare with all ground.
Please... if the numbers don't look so good that way, DON'T TELL MY WIFE!
Peter Volum
-----Original Message-----
|IT'S STILL SAFE TO FLY: Don't we all just love to tell nonpilot friends
|that other forms of transportation are more dangerous than airplanes?
|Here are the latest numbers, straight from the NTSB, to back you up. In
|1998 in the United States and its territories, 43,920 people died in
|transportation-related accidents. Aviation accounted for 683 deaths,
|with 621 of them in GA. Bicyclists, recreational boaters, and people
|walking in front of trains notched 794, 808, and 831 fatalities,
|respectively.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | pauldev(at)us.ibm.com |
I am thinking about buying a Kolb, but they all seem too large
to store on a trailor in a one-car garage... Even the sling-shot will be too
tall when on a trailor.
I am interested in any advice anyone has in how you store you kolb at-home...
Thanks,
Paul Devenport
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tim Gherkins" <rp3420(at)EMAIL.SPS.MOT.COM> |
Subject: | Re: RE: Accident Stats |
Hey kolbers,
A quick update and some thoughts on accident stats.
I have received my first Firestar kit these last few weeks(I'm the guy with
the bee story posted last spring). I'm one step closer to out flying those
wondrous little creatures.
I have loved aviation since I was a boy. Lost a close family member in a
plane crash back in '87'. He was flying from Prescott, AZ to Rexberg Idaho.
Started icing up in one of those bad southern Utah storms. Salt lake tower
vectored him to a small airport to the west of his known site. 17 seconds
later his blip left the radar screen. 4 days later a search and rescue crew
located the wreckage. The plane(Cessna 182 RG cutlass) cut a swath through
large timber, left wing first struck a tree blowing fuel in the back of the
cabin and igniting a 22 yr old female on fire moments before the plane
impacted the ground. The plane was not at a high angle of attack, but the
ground was. The crash was intense with energy. The engine firewall kept
bouncing up the mountainside for another 150 yards. Pilot- my family member
had his heart and lung pounded into his throat from hitting the instrument
panel so hard. Co-pilot was thrown from the wreckage still seat belted to his
seat. Managed to struggle out of his seat and lean up against a tree before
dying.
Sorry for being so graphic.... but events like this told every so often, I
believe gives us all a reality check, and keeps us from getting to comfortable
and cocky.
One thing I have noticed from reading and studying reports such as the one I
just shared with you. This sport of aviation is not very forgiving. Sure I
have been in a few car crashes and played some brutal heavy contact sports and
survived, but, add that third dimension (altitude, and what comes with it-
wind, shears, ice, drafts, etc.), and it's a whole new ball game.
Keep safe, and don't let your wives read this! Boy oh boy!
Tim
adr;dom: ;;;CH305;;;
tel;work: 6028144651
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ian Heritch <heritch(at)connecti.com> |
Subject: | Slingshot Construction |
Recently received kit #3 including hydraulic brake option.
The Slingshot plans do not address the Matco/hydraulic brake system.
Are there supplemental plans for the Matco/hydraulic brake system?
Questions regarding the Matco wheels:
1. There is a large rubber "O" ring in a bag with the valve stem. Is
this "O" ring to be stretched over the rim and set into the
groove where the two rim halves meet?
2. What is the rule on tightening the axle bolt.
3. Do you slide the axle into the axle fitting until it butts the
fitting?
4. How do you mount the wheels? Do you split the rims?
Are there any tips to drilling the gear leg and the axle?
Thank you for your help.
Ian Heritch
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "J.R. Holbrook" <jrholbrook(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Fw: FYI Info |
Pretty wild stuff to think about...
What I would like to see to really put it in perspective is the number of
ACCIDENTS PER HOUR of operation. In other words, the average person spend
200 hrs behind the wheel of their car per year and is involved in X number
of accidents and X number of deaths result. Or, for a pilot, the average is
X number of accidents per flight hr and X number of deaths per hr/accident.
The fact that there was 62 aviation related deaths aside from GA sounds
pretty good to me. But it really doesn't give an accurate picture unless it
is related to the number of hours/pilots/flights involved.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
Subject: | Re: RE: Accident Stats |
>
>Does anybody out there know what the actual numbers are in terms of
>accidents and/or fatalities per person-mile by car versus the same for
>private (non-commercial) aircraft?
>
>
One other important number is crash speed. I am unsure of the exact speeds
now but it is like if you crash at under 45 mph you have a 90% chance of
walking away. If you crash at over 60 mph you have a 90% chance of not
walking away. As allways speed kills so if your aircraft can be slowed down
to 40 mph before it hits anything you have a good chance of telling the tale.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Preferred Customer" <sk8er(at)inreach.com> |
Subject: | Re: kolb storage |
Sir. I have a trailer for a kolb firestar, that when folded it fits right
inside, the trailer It's 25ft long, and 8 ft wide, it is enclosed. and has
a hydraulic system on the front of the trailer that tilts the trailer for
easy loading and unloading. By the way, the kolb and the trailer are for
sale, if you would like more info, please e-mail me. mike
----------
> From: pauldev(at)us.ibm.com
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: kolb storage
> Date: Monday, September 13, 1999 5:04 PM
>
>
>
> I am thinking about buying a Kolb, but they all seem too large
> to store on a trailor in a one-car garage... Even the sling-shot will be
too
> tall when on a trailor.
>
> I am interested in any advice anyone has in how you store you kolb
at-home...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Devenport
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
Paul;
I built a custom trailer 8' x 24' and store my Firestar in it in my
Driveway. This was my solution since I too do not have enough room in my
garage.
John FSII (24.1 hrs to go)
N670JW
-----Original Message-----
From: pauldev(at)us.ibm.com [mailto:pauldev(at)us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 10:04 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: kolb storage
I am thinking about buying a Kolb, but they all seem too large
to store on a trailor in a one-car garage... Even the sling-shot will be
too
tall when on a trailor.
I am interested in any advice anyone has in how you store you kolb
at-home...
Thanks,
Paul Devenport
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dale Langley <dlangl01(at)kcinter.net> |
Subject: | Re: kolb storage |
Email me privately with your information about your Kolb. Where are you
located? Thanks,
Dale
Preferred Customer wrote:
>
>
> Sir. I have a trailer for a kolb firestar, that when folded it fits right
> inside, the trailer It's 25ft long, and 8 ft wide, it is enclosed. and has
> a hydraulic system on the front of the trailer that tilts the trailer for
> easy loading and unloading. By the way, the kolb and the trailer are for
> sale, if you would like more info, please e-mail me. mike
>
> ----------
> > From: pauldev(at)us.ibm.com
> > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Kolb-List: kolb storage
> > Date: Monday, September 13, 1999 5:04 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > I am thinking about buying a Kolb, but they all seem too large
> > to store on a trailor in a one-car garage... Even the sling-shot will be
> too
> > tall when on a trailor.
> >
> > I am interested in any advice anyone has in how you store you kolb
> at-home...
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Paul Devenport
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Wally Hofmann <wally(at)foxfibre.com> |
Subject: | transporting an Ultrastar |
I'm chiming in a little late on this subject on transporting a UL. I
recently rented a 24' (inside the box) Ryder truck in Phoenix and drove
it 800+ miles to Northern California. It rented for under $150 for 4
days and I paid an additional $120 for diesel (I was hauling a heavy
load and pulling a trailer).
Wally Hofmann
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: kolb storage |
From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Paul, I've been setting up and storing my Kolb for 12 years most of which
was in a single car garage, 23' X 12'. The trailer is 5" X 8' and it
also folded up and stood on little wheels. The garage is a perfect place
to store it since you have all your tools and comforts of home and saves
alot of money. Your next question, I'm sure, is: "Will trailering and
setting up everytime put added wear on the airframe?" The answer is:
Not, if you have a $300 trailer like the one I described above because of
its ability to absorb shock. Unless you have invested a great deal into a
large framed trailer with good shocks, you can't beat these little ones.
I have seen no detectable wear in the airframe except for the 2 rivets
below the stab that holds the tube that supports the wings. I had to
replace those once and this has no effect on the airframe structure. I
see no wear in the universal swivel for the wings and I took it apart
last year for the first time since new. I cannot see paying bucks for
hanger rental, especially during the winter months when we don't fly as
often.
I now have a double car garage and I don't need to fold the trailer, but
the FireStar is taken out on a weekly basis for a ride. It got me to
Oshkosh and back this summer and I'm sure it has many more years left in
it. All the bolts that I've replaced have been unnecessary. The plane
doesn't seem to wear out!
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 12 years flying
>
>
>I am thinking about buying a Kolb, but they all seem too large
>to store on a trailor in a one-car garage... Even the sling-shot will
>be too
>tall when on a trailor.
>
>I am interested in any advice anyone has in how you store you kolb
>at-home...
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul Devenport
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Hey Guys;
In my earlier response regarding the HKS price quoted by the Flight Star
people at Oshkosh, I failed to mention that I took a ride in a 2 place FS
just to check out the HKS performance. I was really impressed; the FS is a
pretty dirty airplane aerodynamically, but the little HKS pushed the FS up to
about 90 Kt. indicated with 2 big boys on board. Not bad ! !
Ron Christensen
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Cliff / Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)tetric.com> |
Subject: | Re: Pitch/EGTs&voodoo |
Bill and all,
>My question is-what kind of temps do you guys see at 4 to 5 k rpm on high
>airspeed descents??
I do also. I think it is the normal nature of the engine - running lean
with throttle reduced and prop still spinning fast unloaded like it is. I
try to keep my descents shallow with some power which will not put the
EGT's up that high or I pull the elevator handle (flaps) and come down
really quick.
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: | "Preferred Customer" <sk8er(at)inreach.com> |
Subject: | Re: kolb storage |
Dale; I'm located in Fresno,Calif..My Kolb is a 92model,Firestar KXP
I,503,dual carbs,dual ign.,BRS,full enclosure,toe brakes,charging
system,stits,80tt.Am asking
$10,500 for plane,and $2,500 for the trailer.For more info call (559)
332-2064 ask for Mike.
----------
> From: Dale Langley <dlangl01(at)kcinter.net>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: kolb storage
> Date: Monday, September 13, 1999 10:16 PM
>
>
> Email me privately with your information about your Kolb. Where are you
> located? Thanks,
> Dale
>
> Preferred Customer wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sir. I have a trailer for a kolb firestar, that when folded it fits
right
> > inside, the trailer It's 25ft long, and 8 ft wide, it is enclosed. and
has
> > a hydraulic system on the front of the trailer that tilts the trailer
for
> > easy loading and unloading. By the way, the kolb and the trailer are
for
> > sale, if you would like more info, please e-mail me. mike
> >
> > ----------
> > > From: pauldev(at)us.ibm.com
> > > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Subject: Kolb-List: kolb storage
> > > Date: Monday, September 13, 1999 5:04 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am thinking about buying a Kolb, but they all seem too large
> > > to store on a trailor in a one-car garage... Even the sling-shot
will be
> > too
> > > tall when on a trailor.
> > >
> > > I am interested in any advice anyone has in how you store you kolb
> > at-home...
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Paul Devenport
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Seems to me the HKS is a heavier engine with LESS horses. Several people
have said the engine seems to run very well, etc., but 60 hp is optimistic.
In that vein, my feeling is that 1 hp per cubic inch is OK for short
periods, but that's a lotta snoose, and I don't feel it would be dependable
for long periods. For example, give 'er hell for take-off, then throttle
back for cruise. Then again, I guess the 912 & 912S put the lie to that,
don't they ?? These outfits that advertise 100 hp per liter of
displacement - - - well................ It can be done all right, but in
my opinion, not for very long. Can't remember the name of the new British 4
banger that claims 80 hp out of 850 cc, but I'd sure like to see some long
term stats before I plunk down that much money for a screamer. In the same
vein again, when I first started researching engines several yrs ago, a
foreign car mechanic friend told me to stay away from the 3 cyl. turbo
Suzuki / Geo. He said they're constantly in the shop for work, and in a
car they're not running full bore all the time. The numbers sure look good
on paper, though. Food for thought. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: william rayfield <billyray00(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 5:13 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: HKS
>
> Thanks for the response on the HKS prices, guys. I was wondering, like
> Howard S. did, about how a FII might handle with an HKS. I think the HKS
> would be a better replacement of the 503 than the 582. It's a heavier
> four-stroke that makes more horsepower (kind of like replacing the 582
with
> a 912). What do you guys think?
>
> Bill Rayfield
> -still finishing a trailer for a brand new ultrastar-
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ian Heritch" <heritch(at)connecti.com> |
Subject: | Slingshot Construction |
Recently received kit #3 including hydraulic brake option.
The plans do not address the hydraulic brake system, are there supplemental
plans that cover the hydraulic brake system?
Regarding the Matco wheels:
1. There is a large rubber "O" ring in a plastic bag with the valve stem.
Does this "O" ring get stretched over the rim and then placed in the grove
where the two rim halves come together?
2. What is the rule on tightening the wheel to the axle.
3. How do you mount the tire? Split the rims?
Do I insert the gear leg into cage until it stops? And then level from left
to right (neither the construction manual nor the plans give me a hint)?
Do I insert the axle into the gear leg until it stops?
Any hints on drilling the gear leg and the axle?
Not crazy about the stock tail wheel on an aircraft that will live on an
asphalt runway, any thoughts?
Thank you for answering my many questions.
Ian Heritch
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Speaking of trailers |
From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
Fellow Kolbers,
Ran across an interesting trailer at . Click on
the picture of the Firestar and page down the page, with the brown
background, that comes up. Near the bottom is a picture of the trailer.
Attached is the response to my inquiry.
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
Building Mark III, SN 312--N629RB
************************************************
>Hello Kolb enthusiast.
Thank you for inquiring about our Kolb trailers. We offer a trailer for
the
Kolb Fire Fly, Fire Star, Sling Shot, and the Kolb MK 3. All trailers are
complete, lights, fenders, wiring, paint, ect.
Prices are as follows.
FireStar and Fire Fly trailers are $1300.00 and weighs 440 lbs.
MK 3 and Sling Shot are $1400.00 and weighs 486 lbs.
A 50% deposit is required to place your trailer order, and the balance
due
after completion.
Any further questions feel free to call. 717-362-1057 Mon - Fri 8:00
AM
till 4:00 PM.
Ask for John.
Shipped from PA outside Harrisburg.
John,
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Speaking of trailers |
From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
Listers,
Ran across a trailer that looks interesting.
Click on the picture of the FireStar and page
to the bottom of the page that results (brown background).
FireStar and Fire Fly models $1300 weight 440 lbs.
Mk III and Sling Shot $1400 weight 486 lbs.
They are located near Harrisburg, PA
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
Building Mark III, SN 312--N629RB
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
Big L,
The British 4 Banger is the Ultratec by Motavia. It sure is a neat
looking unit and I saw a little of its operation at SNF this spring.
Sure wish it had some performance history. Even at 70 HP it would be a
nice fit for the MK III. I worry about the rpms it take to produce the
70/80 HP.
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
Building Mark III, SN 312--N629RB
Big Lar wrote:
"displacement - - - well................ It can be done all right,
but in
my opinion, not for very long. Can't remember the name of the new
British 4
banger that claims 80 hp out of 850 cc, but I'd sure like to see some
long
term stats before I plunk down that much money for a screamer. In the"
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
but the little HKS pushed the FS up to
> about 90 Kt. indicated with 2 big boys on board. Not bad ! !
> Ron Christensen
Ron and Kolbers:
That sounds pretty impressive. I don't remember ever having
the Flight Star pass me in the Sling Shot during the entire
week. I had to hold my speed down to 80 kts to keep the
windshield from trying to depart the aircraft. It is not
hard to make an aircraft look very impressive at airshows.
Especially airspeed. I'd be willing to bet my week's pay at
Oshkosh this year, the only way the Flight Star with two
soles on board would see 90 kts is straight down. Most
especially with a 60 hp eng.
Just my own little humble opinion.
john h (ain't gonna get outrun by a Flt Star) ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
I'd be willing to bet my week's pay at
> Oshkosh this year,
john h
Hey Kolbers:
Forgot to mention, I would not be losing much, aaaaaaah,
nothing. hehehe Even if I lost the bet. ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Pitch/EGTs&voodoo |
In a message dated 9/13/99 3:20:06 PM, striplic(at)tetric.com writes:
<< >My question is-what kind of temps do you guys see at 4 to 5 k rpm on high
>airspeed descents??
I do also. I think it is the normal nature of the engine - running lean
with throttle reduced and prop still spinning fast unloaded like it is. I
try to keep my descents shallow with some power which will not put the
EGT's up that high or I pull the elevator handle (flaps) and come down
really quick. >>
Thanks. I got it fixed today. Pitched the prop back to 13.0 degrees. Set idle
mix screws a hair richer and raised the needle to the bottom clip. All temps
are good at all throttle settings including power on descents and engine will
pull red line at WOT in level flight and 6400 in climb. Later will check the
plugs to get the full story. Phew!!
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Fw: FYI Info |
In a message dated 9/13/99 12:23:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net writes:
<< Passing it on. Have you ever noticed how close cars are to you on the
street after you have just come back from a long XC in you plane? Have you
ever thought about the fact that everytime you pass a vehicle on the road in
the opposite direction that your life is only 50% yours and 50% the other
drivers'. Have you ever thought of the fact that when you approach a vehicle
in the opposite direction on a two way road at highway speeds you pass each
other in less than 20' with a combined speed usually over 120 mile per hour?
Just think'n Firehawk >>
and now, imagine someone 100 years ago ...standing on a "highway" of the
times, suggesting to a contemporary that in a 100 years such things as you
describe will come to pass!! Imagine the reaction of the listener, as he/she
PERCIEVES the consequences. Perception is the biggest obstical here. But
everyone already drives a car, so they don't even give it a second thought!!
GeoR38 ..........I teach this concept exactly, in my classes
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Teal, David" <Teald(at)diebold.com> |
Subject: | First Ultralight Advice |
I am new to this list and don't currently own a Kolb, but really like the
way they look, especially the Firefly. My question or actually concern is:
these Kolbs take a while to build - even getting the quick build option,
you're looking at 200 hrs according to the manufacturer. Compare that to a
Quicksilver at 65 or so hrs, and it makes a person think twice. Basically, I
was wondering if I need a full machine shop to build a Kolb, or does it come
ready to bolt together?
Thanks,
D.C. Teal
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
One ? How do you know if the ASI is accurate? You may have only been going 80 mph.
We have Firestars with 503s that indicate 90 but the ASIs are a little fast.
Firehawk
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | Re: Pitch/EGTs&voodoo |
Strange? My EGTs usually drop along with the CHT and Water Temps on descent. 582
Firehawk
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Vince Nicely" <vincenicely(at)intermediatn.net> |
Subject: | Re: kolb storage |
----- Original Message -----
From: <pauldev(at)us.ibm.com>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 1:04 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: kolb storage
>
>
> I am thinking about buying a Kolb, but they all seem too large
> to store on a trailor in a one-car garage... Even the sling-shot will be
too
> tall when on a trailor.
>
> I am interested in any advice anyone has in how you store you kolb
at-home...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Devenport
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "william rayfield" <billyray00(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | first ultralight advice |
David,
How fast it goes together depends on you. It will take some work, mostly
cutting tubing, fitting, and a whole lot of drilling and pop-riveting. For
your effort though, you'll have a good looking, good flying airplane that is
very tough - much more so than bolt together designs like a Quicksilver.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net> |
Subject: | First Ultralight Advice] |
--------------40962C7628A5
David Teal:
The Kolb is not a bolt together plane by a long shot. It takes
some planning and work, but you will have a strong flying machine when
you get done. I built my Mark 111 in my garage with two small battery
powered drills, a cut off saw with a metal cutting blade, a four foot
level, hand shears(good pair),lots of good 1/8 inch bits(black and
decker bullets) a compresser to run an air powered riveter and a hand
riveter. I had never built anything like this before, so spent a lot of
time staring at the wall wondering what the prints mean. If you have
an EAA chapter close,join it, and you will find lots of good help and
advice. They kept me on the ground for an extra two months with things
I needed to correct, but the big surprise on the first flight was a
hands off straight and level flight and no problems to correct. I have
100 hours on it now. I retired to Arkansas and have a short grass strip
in front of my house and what a joy to walk out and just fly around.
Dallas Shepherd
Norfork, Arkansas
--------------40962C7628A5
From: "Teal, David" <Teald(at)diebold.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: First Ultralight Advice
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 09:44:06 -0400
I am new to this list and don't currently own a Kolb, but really like the
way they look, especially the Firefly. My question or actually concern is:
these Kolbs take a while to build - even getting the quick build option,
you're looking at 200 hrs according to the manufacturer. Compare that to a
Quicksilver at 65 or so hrs, and it makes a person think twice. Basically, I
was wondering if I need a full machine shop to build a Kolb, or does it come
ready to bolt together?
Thanks,
D.C. Teal
--------------40962C7628A5--
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | Ground Systems was: Main battery cable size |
>The point here is that ALL of the metal in the airplane should be at the
>same potential. This includes wings, tail surfaces, ailerons, flaps, just
>whatever is made out of metal.
>
>There is a current AD note on the Beech King Air series to install ground
>straps on the rudder of the airplane. The reason for this is that static
>electricity would build up charges on the rudder and then discharge to the
>fuselage. In the process of doing this the hinges would become eroded.
>
>Now our little GStars are not in the same speed range, and will not be
>flying through the same kinds of weather, but the point here is that you do
>not want different parts of the airplane to be at different potentials.
>
>What Bob suggested earlier is a fine way to go about doing that, but I
>suspect it is a bit of overkill. In our case we have a bonding strap that
>runs from the engine to the cage to the wings to the vertical tail and to
>the horizontal tail. To accomplish this a #2 copper wire runs from one of
>the starter mounting bolts to the lower left side engine to cage mounting
>bolt. The negative pole of the battery is grounded to the cage using a #2
>copper wire to the bolt that secures the cage to the shell underneath the
>baggage compartment floor. Short pieces of braided strap ground the wings
>to the cage and one long strap runs from the bolt under the baggage
>compartment floor to the tail section of the airplane.
Were talking about two different issues here. The "bond-everything-
to-everything-else mania swept through the Ez crowd about 10 years
ago. These efforts are to elminate and/or reduce noises in radios
due to static build up on surface of aircraft that causes tiny
currents to flow in not-so-well connnected joints like control
surface hinges. I've yet to see any confirmed case where this
was useful on a homebuilt and I doubt that it's going to show up
on anything less than a Lancair or Glasair in the 200 kts range.
The DC POWER DISTRIBUTION ground system is another thing all together.
Here, we're trying to (1) reduce the resistance in the starter
cranking pathways to the lowest practical value, (2) avoid running
battery currents through structure . . . especially welded steel
where unwanted magnetization can take place, and (3) avoid the
fabrication of ground loops where alternator and/or battery
currents flowing in airframe can induce noises in other systems
not well thought out with respect to installation and grounding.
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: | "Vic Worthington" <vicw(at)vcn.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 09/13/99 |
I don't think I will put an instrument panel in my Kolb.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
Subject: | Re: First Ultralight Advice |
>
>I am new to this list and don't currently own a Kolb, but really like the
>way they look, especially the Firefly. My question or actually concern is:
>these Kolbs take a while to build - even getting the quick build option,
>you're looking at 200 hrs according to the manufacturer. Compare that to a
>Quicksilver at 65 or so hrs, and it makes a person think twice. Basically, I
>was wondering if I need a full machine shop to build a Kolb, or does it come
>ready to bolt together?
>Thanks,
>D.C. Teal
>
>
I was able to get a great deal on my unbuilt Twinstar because the first
owner bought the kit then let his mind be boggled while reading the prints.
Think of the Kolb as a hundred little projects that add up to 1 aeroplane
when you are finished. If something seems complicated to do stop and think
or ask some one on the list for the easy way. There is no real complicated
step in the whole project. It will take time but I have seen guys with bolt
together kits take ten times longer to build than the manufacturers claims.
I have documented 150 hrs to get my Kolb off the ground. That is quicker
than most but it was not my first Kolb. Spend the time building and you will
get a lot better aircraft than a Quicksilver. Or you could bypass the whole
building stage and buy a used one but you would miss the fun of building.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: First Ultralight Advice] |
Another aspect too, is the flying qualities. The Quicksilver will get you
into the air, and you kind of yard it around. The Kolb is a delight to fly,
far superior. Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 7:55 AM
Subject: [Fwd: Kolb-List: First Ultralight Advice]
>
>
> --------------40962C7628A5
>
> David Teal:
> The Kolb is not a bolt together plane by a long shot. It takes
> some planning and work, but you will have a strong flying machine when
> you get done. I built my Mark 111 in my garage with two small battery
> powered drills, a cut off saw with a metal cutting blade, a four foot
> level, hand shears(good pair),lots of good 1/8 inch bits(black and
> decker bullets) a compresser to run an air powered riveter and a hand
> riveter. I had never built anything like this before, so spent a lot of
> time staring at the wall wondering what the prints mean. If you have
> an EAA chapter close,join it, and you will find lots of good help and
> advice. They kept me on the ground for an extra two months with things
> I needed to correct, but the big surprise on the first flight was a
> hands off straight and level flight and no problems to correct. I have
> 100 hours on it now. I retired to Arkansas and have a short grass strip
> in front of my house and what a joy to walk out and just fly around.
> Dallas Shepherd
> Norfork, Arkansas
>
> --------------40962C7628A5
>
> From: "Teal, David" <Teald(at)diebold.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: First Ultralight Advice
> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 09:44:06 -0400
>
>
> I am new to this list and don't currently own a Kolb, but really like the
> way they look, especially the Firefly. My question or actually concern is:
> these Kolbs take a while to build - even getting the quick build option,
> you're looking at 200 hrs according to the manufacturer. Compare that to a
> Quicksilver at 65 or so hrs, and it makes a person think twice. Basically,
I
> was wondering if I need a full machine shop to build a Kolb, or does it
come
> ready to bolt together?
> Thanks,
> D.C. Teal
>
>
> --------------40962C7628A5--
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
I am going to take a litle extra time and use the other methods for
fabricating my control surfaces to get a "no bump" finish. (Actually I have
a tube bender and want to play with it...hehehehe) Anyway the plans show
the 2 other methods of building the control surfaces as "bent end" and
"gusset" . The diagram shows what would be the trailing edge of the
surfaces 5/16 to 5/16 tubing. I am going to use the bent end method for the
trailing edge but I was wondering what to do at the leading edge??? Can you
use the gusset method on the LEADING edge (using a seperate gusset for top
and bottom of course...)??? I saw pictures of Cliff Stripling's plane on
the web and couldn't tell if there were any bumps on the leading edge or
not. Push come to shove I will have a bumpy leading edge , but would rather
use gussets...
Thanks for the help..
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey(at)mail.direcpc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Pitch/EGTs&voodoo |
In a message dated 9/14/99 3:48:06 AM, michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net
writes:
<< Strange? My EGTs usually drop along with the CHT and Water Temps on
descent. 582
Firehawk >>
Really depends on throttle position. A more open throttle going downhill will
raise the EGTs. If your are at idle they will drop. I have my numbers if you
want them.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Matco brakng power? |
Hi Gang:
Just finshed installing my new steerable/full swivel tailwheel. Looks great
and taxi tests indicate it works fine. Too windy to fly today though.
Attempts at full swivel at low speed work OK but only serve to accentuate the
weak braking power of the hydraulic heel brakes. Braking has been poor since
I purchased the plane but hasn't been a problem as they will stop. Discs are
smooth and there is plenty of pad on the pucks. Any thoughts?
Thanks
Bill George
MK-III 582 "C", Powerfin 3 blade "F"
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BILLBEAM(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 09/13/99 |
Vic,
I agree with no instrument panel. Never fly at night. Never fly in weather.
Cant fix engine if it has problem. Think Ill just use an Airspeed Indicator.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Robert Dorsey <rmd-mcse(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: First Ultralight Advice |
Bravo on the "fun of building" part!
The saying "time flies when you are having fun" must have been first quoted
by a Kolb builder!
> I was able to get a great deal on my unbuilt Twinstar because the first
>owner bought the kit then let his mind be boggled while reading the prints.
>Think of the Kolb as a hundred little projects that add up to 1 aeroplane
>when you are finished. If something seems complicated to do stop and think
>or ask some one on the list for the easy way. There is no real complicated
>step in the whole project. It will take time but I have seen guys with bolt
>together kits take ten times longer to build than the manufacturers claims.
>I have documented 150 hrs to get my Kolb off the ground. That is quicker
>than most but it was not my first Kolb. Spend the time building and you will
>get a lot better aircraft than a Quicksilver. Or you could bypass the whole
>building stage and buy a used one but you would miss the fun of building.
>
>
> Woody
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | Re: Pitch/EGTs&voodoo again George |
Hey George.
I know it sounds impossible, but even if I slowly back off the throttle and at
any setting on descent the temps drop with the engine speed. Sometimes there might
be a slight increase in temps but only for a few seconds. I have tried to
figure this one out since the engine was new but all the temps are lower than
normal. I even run 150 main jets and one size smaller idle jet with the clip
at the top of the stock needles. I have only seen 1125 on the EGT a few times
in real cool weather, which tells me that it is the gauge. The normal head temps
run around 180-200 with it hitting 225-240 in a long climb and the EGT runs
between 975-1050. I've already changed both EGT and CHT probes with no change
in gauge reading. I have the strangest 582. It thinks it is a 503 by the fuel
burn, 3-3.6 GPH, and a 618 on climbout. It could be the gauges but I'm not going
to buy anymore for this plane. With 770 hours on it you would think it would
be getting tired but it is still as tight and strong as the first day I flew
it. I attribute that to keeping all the pivots oiled including all the places
that have any potential for metal to metal movement.
If there is anyone that has had a similar 582 I sure would like to know it. The
only thing that is different on mine is a small exhaust deflector at the stinger
pipe to keep the hot exhaust off the prop.
Go figer, Firehawk
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>
>I am going to take a litle extra time and use the other methods for
>fabricating my control surfaces to get a "no bump" finish. (Actually I have
>a tube bender and want to play with it...hehehehe) Anyway the plans show
>the 2 other methods of building the control surfaces as "bent end" and
>"gusset" . The diagram shows what would be the trailing edge of the
>surfaces 5/16 to 5/16 tubing. I am going to use the bent end method for the
>trailing edge but I was wondering what to do at the leading edge??? Can you
>use the gusset method on the LEADING edge (using a seperate gusset for top
>and bottom of course...)??? I saw pictures of Cliff Stripling's plane on
>the web and couldn't tell if there were any bumps on the leading edge or
>not. Push come to shove I will have a bumpy leading edge , but would rather
>use gussets...
>
>Thanks for the help..
>
>Jeremy Casey
>jrcasey(at)mail.direcpc.com
I used the curved trailing edge method, and liked it, but keep the trailing
edges of those control surfaces light, especially the rudder.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 09/13/99 |
>I agree with no instrument panel. Never fly at night. Never fly in weather.
>Cant fix engine if it has problem. Think Ill just use an Airspeed Indicator.
Hmmm, that works for me. No altimeter or compass hasn't affected the
flight chararacteristics of my UltraStar. Next weekend a "long" cross
country is planned with a group of trike drivers and the 30 mile treck will
require an extra gallon of fuel to augment my 3 gallon supply (to be on
the safe side). One of the trike pilots said he'd carry it for me. :-)
Skip
1984 UltraStar
p.s.
I do have an airspeed indicator, a EGT (most valuable instrument) and an
CHT as well as a tach all mounted in a 4 into 1 instrument cluster. No
cabin, windshield or brakes to say nothing of no radio or GPS. The above
are unecessary if you just wish to fly for fun. :-)
BFS
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Arnwines <arnwine(at)toad.net> |
CURVED TRAILING EDGES ON ELEVATORS AND RUDDER
Jerome, I chose the method you talk of. And found by experience that it
is extremely useful to make yourself a wooden jig to keep the two tubes
in alighment when drilling for the rivet.
I made mine from hard wood 1 1/2 inches high. The same length long is
adequate and actually perferabel as it allows you to get into or near the
corners of the bent tubing more easilly. It needs to be wide enough to hold
two tubes in alignment one on top of the other in the normal riveting
configuration. You simply make a grove in the bottom the length of the
piece of wood deep enough for the two tubes and drill your pilot hole for
the drill bit from the other side, making sure it is perfectly centered, to
drill perfectly centered holes.
What the jig does is keep the tubes in alignment when drilling, therefore
not introducing unwanted warpage from improperly aligned tubes when they are
drilled. The warpage will not be obvious at first, and you may go ahead and
drill several tubes for attachmet to the trailing edge, Well, when you
finally set the rivets, thats when the warping occurs. And IT's TOO Late.
Please learn form my mistakes, and you will have a more pleasing trailing
edge to be proud of.
Hank Arnwine, Harwood Md.
>
>>
>>I am going to take a litle extra time and use the other methods for
>>fabricating my control surfaces to get a "no bump" finish. (Actually I have
>>a tube bender and want to play with it...hehehehe) Anyway the plans show
>>the 2 other methods of building the control surfaces as "bent end" and
>>"gusset" . The diagram shows what would be the trailing edge of the
>>surfaces 5/16 to 5/16 tubing. I am going to use the bent end method for the
>>trailing edge but I was wondering what to do at the leading edge??? Can you
>>use the gusset method on the LEADING edge (using a seperate gusset for top
>>and bottom of course...)??? I saw pictures of Cliff Stripling's plane on
>>the web and couldn't tell if there were any bumps on the leading edge or
>>not. Push come to shove I will have a bumpy leading edge , but would rather
>>use gussets...
>>
>>Thanks for the help..
>>
>>Jeremy Casey
>>jrcasey(at)mail.direcpc.com
>
>I used the curved trailing edge method, and liked it, but keep the trailing
>edges of those control surfaces light, especially the rudder.
>Richard Pike
>MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BILLBEAM(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 09/13/99 |
Skip,
Now that does sound like fun flying.
You know Orville and Wilbur only had a bunch of sticks and cloth
and their only instrument was an Angle of Attack indicator. Think
of the excitement they had.! ! !
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Tim.Hrib(at)carefirst.com |
Subject: | Re: First Ultralight Advice] |
I retired to Arkansas and have a short grass strip
in front of my house and what a joy to walk out and just fly around.
Dallas Shepherd
Norfork, Arkansas
to read that makes me jealous. ................ tim
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Pitch/EGTs&voodoo again George |
In a message dated 9/14/99 6:16:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net writes:
<< I have only seen 1125 on the EGT a few times in real cool weather, which
tells me that it is the gauge. The normal head temps run around 180-200 with
it hitting 225-240 in a long climb and the EGT runs between 975-1050. I've
already changed both EGT and CHT probes with no change in gauge reading. I
have the strangest 582. It thinks it is a 503 by the fuel burn, 3-3.6 GPH,
and a 618 on climbout. It could be the gauges but I'm not going to buy
anymore for this plane. With 770 hours on it you would think it would be
getting tired >>
firehawk....you left out the most important number...what was the rpm....if
the prop is pitched too high the rpms won't go up enough to tilt the egt
above 1150....I had an egt problem for 5 years til I got smart and remembered
that Horsepower is a product of torque and speed and a constant. The hp
generated is proportional to the exhaust gas temperature (which is the
POTENTIAL) for energy. In a nutshell if the rpm doesn't come up, then neither
does the HP or EGT! and if they don't come up, you aren't using the capacity
of the engine...it is loafing!! ................. GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>> I think the only place that wire size is an issue is the high amp
>> portion of the system & then only because the large wire gets
>> stiff & hard to route. This applies to systems with batteries in
>> the fuselage, etc. On the other hand, all new airplanes are going
>> to 28v systems, as far as I can tell.
Most of all "new" airplanes have been 28v for decades, the
type certificiated ones that is. The trend was started
when Cessna observed that buying one kind of thing in one
voltage version only was less expensive than buying the
same thing in two versions. Even the lowly C-150 went to
28v. It had almost nothing to do with weight since all of
the 28v hardware with the exception of wire was the same weight
as the 14v stuff. It was 95% driven by purchasing economics.
Many of my readers building big Glasairs and Lancairs would
LIKE to go 14V but their engine came with EXPENSIVE 28V
alternators and starters installed. EVERY voltage sensitive
part they have to purchase is uniquely "aircraft" which
will never be priced according to consumer driven economics
nor will they experience the product improvements we enjoy
in an unregulated, free market atmosphere . . .
>> . . . . This will surely affect the
>> future availability of avionics for replacements & etc. Remember,
>> the avionics manufacturers can pack more "stuff" on 28v boards than
>> they can 14v boards & can create smaller packages for transmitters.
The differences in electro-goodies between voltages is trivial
to none. The major drivers of volume and weight have to do more
with packaging and human interface aspects. A transmitter, for
example, can be quite tiny except for the need to get heat out
of it. While a 28v transmitter may be a couple of percent
more efficient than its 14v cousin, it's by only a very few
percent . . . given that the output stages have similar
efficiencies and output power, their size doesn't materially
change with voltage. BTW, most small signal stuff in avionics
needs to run a voltages much below 14v . . . this is good and
bad . . . it allows for power conditioning to take all the noises
and perturbations off DC power before it's applied to sensitive
electronics . . . it also drives up parts count and volume
of the system without much effect on its overall efficiency.
>> The only items from the auto industry are the alternator & the
>> battery & perhaps some lights.
. . . . and relays, electronic controlled fuel injection
systems, ignition systems, fuel pumps, blowers and fans,
contactors, and most important LOW COST SEALED GAS RECOMBINANT
LEAD ACID BATTERIES.
. . . . .The voltage regulator is now mostly
>> in the alternator. 28v alternators & batteries cost about twice as
>> much. Even the emergency starting issue is perhaps not such a big
>> deal as batteries can be hooked in series, even while in autos.
>> This would require two autos, however. This is all about a dead
>> heat right now, it seems to me, but don't forget that it is very
>> easy to step down voltage for lights & etc.,
. . . not really. It's the same problem for lights as it is for
radios . . . power conditioning of some type between the
bus and the working parts of the product. More parts count
and less efficiency. Your nav lights are the most energy
consuming system on the airplane . . . while a starter takes
a lot of POWER for 5 seconds (200A X 11V X 5S = 11K watt-seconds)
the nav lights are 6A X 14V X 7200S = 604K watt-seconds for
a two hour flight). Having a 30% efficient starter isn't nearly
as bad as having an 80% efficient lighting system when you
start tallying up the ENERGY budget required to utilize each
system.
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: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | Re: Pitch/EGTs&voodoo again George and again |
That is the strangest part. The RPM on climbout is between 6250-6350 depending
to the temperature of the air. The flat out wide open RPM is 6500-6600 which puts
me beyond VNE. I have checked the tach with a hand held meter at the prop
and it shows that it is correct at several different RPMs. I may be missing something
but I don't know what it is. I can't complain about the power or the torque.
Don't misunderstand, I've had more than my share of problems with this
engine. It is scary at times.
I fly along with other MKIIIs and I believe my plane outperforms them although
only by a little. Maybe we all think this. Climbout is close to the same but the
top speed is higher. I am told that if I used a warpdrive prop the performance
would be even better, it can't be any smoother. I have an IVO on 3/1 reduction.
Did you get the part about the cockpit temps effecting the instruments? Mine get
way off if the cockpit temps go way up or down. Sometimes it is 15-20 minutes
into a flight after it has set in the sun before the instrument temps start
reading (properly) again.
I have checked the climb performance on several occasions with a hand held ASI.
It climbs at over 1000' per minute single and 700-800' per minute with two up.
I know how much this can change with different ramp weight. I haven't had the
opportunity to check it on a real smooth air day so these figures may be off.
Maybe you know something I don't?????.
I still don't have your numbers????
Firehawk
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
What is the easiest way to make "soft" jaws for my shop vise??? will a
piece of bent aluminum do the trick or does it need to be rubber or wood or
???
Dumb question but the only set I can find in my catalogs is about $9 And it
doesn't say what they are made out of...
Jeremy Casey
jrcasey(at)mail.direcpc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Pitch/EGTs&voodoo again George and again |
Mike and Gang:
Shouldn't the eng/acft be propped to bump the red line, 6800
rpm, WOT, straight and level? That is how I prop my
airplanes with two strokes.
> The flat out wide open RPM is 6500-6600 which puts me beyond VNE.
912 is propped a little different with a ground adjustable
prop. Red line is 5800 rpm for 5 minutes, sorta like
"military power" for all you old military pilots. However,
max cruise rpm is 5500 rpm. That is where I prop, 5500-5600
rpm, WOT, straight and level flight.
> I fly along with other MKIIIs and I believe my plane outperforms them although
only by a little.>
This sounds like a challenge to me. ;-) I don't think
think I have had the pleasure of out climbing and out
running your Fergy. hehehe Well, if I can't, then maybe I
can beat in for the "endurance trophy."
Got a customer for you aprx 21-25 Oct 99. Talk to you about
that later.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
>
> What is the easiest way to make "soft" jaws for my shop vise???
Jeremy:
Make some out of .032 alum. Save those dollars. Before you
spend bucks, ask. Probably somebody on the List has already
done it for free or a little more. ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Pitch/EGTs&voodoo |
Hi Michael, John and Gang:
My take on Prop pitch EGT and vood
Performance depends on altitude and temperature. High and/or hot = poor. Low
and/or cool = good. Humidity is a factor too but for our purposes we can
neglect it. That said, the best way for us Kolbers to exchange meaningful
data is to include altitude and OAT with the numbers. OAT will have to be a
bit of a wag as most of us don't have a gauge and will have to use the ground
reference temp and interpolate for altitude. Next big variable is
instrumentation. Probably a big variation here, particularly with airspeed.
In my case I am venting the static port to cabin and I have half doors. As
speed build there is going to be a negative pressure created behind the
windscreen thus causing the airspeed to read high. A little high at stall and
more as the speed builds up. I am presently trying to locate a suitable place
to install two static ports
Some numbers
In my case stall solo is at 40 indicated and 44 two up. A recent flight
showed a cruise indicated of 70 mph at 4500 ft. 5800 rpm two up, with a
surface temperature of 73 degrees. GPS ground speed showed 31 mph up wind and
91 mph downwind. (Yes, it usually blows pretty good around here. And this was
a "good" day) Average ground speed then was around 60 mph which roughly
translates to true air speed. Considering that my 70 indicated should be
about 75 this would give an error of +15 at cruise speed. More investigation
is needed because a cross check with a Hall hand held shows agreement with
the panel ASI.
Climb performance. I depart an airport that is at 2700 msl with a density
altitude of 3500 or more. Rate of climb is just under 1000fpm solo and
500-700fpm dual. Me=220 pax =185. Dual climb at 4500 ft is 400 fpm.
Engine. Climb 6400 rpm EGT 1080/1100 (#1/#2 cyl). WOT level 6800 1050/1100.
Cruise 5800 1050/1100. Cruise 4800 1050/1100. High speed descent 4000rpm
1080/1100. 6000 rpm 1080/1100. Cyl heads run 220/240 pretty much the same
climb and cruise.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Update On 1992 MK III, SN M3-011 |
Hey Kolbers:
If I can get up and get going, it is time to do a super good
preflight and see if Miss P'fer will fly.
Finished a very comprehensive update on her yesterday.
Here's a partial list of what I did at 1,277.0 hours:
Replaced windshield and door glass. Did not do quater
panels even though they probably need it, but do not look
out of them much.
Replaced elevator and rudder hinges. For one reason or
other, probably a little misalignment and abuse, several
tangs on one end of one hinge on the rudder and elevator
broke. Been that way for many hours. Other than that the
old hinges and pins were in good shape. Plus I cut them a
couple inches longer than the plans called for to use up all
the hinge supplied with the kit. I squirt a little WD40 on
them once in a great while. There was plenty lube residue
visible on the hinge pins.
Replaced elevator and rudder cables. Rudder cables had worn
thru several strands of wire at the forward fairlead.
Elevator cables (I had used 1/8 inch initially) had been
extended 12 inches after a tailboom replacement (initial
build with tailboom shortened 12 inches. That experiment
did not work well. Aircraft never felt good til I got the
tailboom back to the length the plans called for.) I used
3/32 inch cable for the down elevator and 1/8 inch for up.
I know it is not in the plans, but based on my kind of
flying, especially in Alaska, I went with 1/8 inch. Not
that much difference in weight for the one cable.
Overhauled Maule tailwheel. Replaced 8 inch pneumatic wheel
with solid rubber 6 inch. This shortened the fork 2 inches
and lowered the tail another two inches. That in effect
will take a little load off the tailwheel bushing (got about
100 lbs on the tailwheel). I think the Sling Shot has about
80 on the tailwheel).
Replaced the stator in the 912, per Rotax AD. This proved
to be a hassle because my stator had been on the engine for
many hours and thru a lot of rain and engine gunkings and
rinsings. Had to destroy the stator to get it off. My
buddy, with a 912, reached in and pulled his off by hand.
;-)
Inspected and tightened both left and right inboard drag
strut fitting bolts. Required making two small cuts in the
inboard rib fabric. Both had loosened up over the hours.
Patched fabric cuts with two inch electrical tape to keep
the critters out of the wing. Quick fix! Doesn't show.
During all this work I had the opportunity to give
everything a good inspection. First time the wings had been
off the aircraft since 1994. Replaced a lot of 3/16 bolts
in control cables. Also 1/4 pivot bolts in elevator control
mechanism on aft end of tailboom. Replaced 3/16 bolts that
attach tailwheel strut to lower vertical stab.
Probably forgot somethings, but they were minor. This
project doesn't sound like much on paper. I was surprised
how much time it took to accomplish. That is what I get for
flying an airplane that has not required much maintenance
over the years. I still remember the feelings I had on my
Alaska flight in '94. I was always surprised after my
morning preflight inspection that there was not anything to
do. That went on every morning for the 41 days I spent on
that flight. This says a lot for the basic design and for
the modifications we made (with Homer Kolb's blessing) to
accomplish the flight.
Weatherman says we are gonna have 25 mph winds here in
Central Alabama today and for the next couple days. May or
may not get my test flight in til Floyd goes home. hehehe
john h (hauck's holler, alabama, and Gantt International
Airport)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Subject: | Instrument problems |
Recently, during a very hot spell when the air temp was 95-100 (and 126
a foot above the black hardstand) my EIS had all erroneous
readings---and was frozen (fixed, not iced!) at some very off values.
FireFly was sitting there abt an hour. Stayed frozen even while taxiing,
so I put it back in hangar. Next day all was OK. Glad we have cooler wx.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Darren L Smalec" <smald(at)shianet.org> |
Subject: | Re: Unfortunates |
Group:
Had 2 incidents in Central MI. recently.
One was a 3/4 scale P-51 at Owosso Community Airport. The pilot took
off, started losing oil (ground witnesses stated), lost power over a
highly populated area, turned tightly to return to the airport, &
crashed on the west end of the runway. The pilot did not survive.
The other incident involved a ultralight aircraft, (unknown type)
that lost power and hit a power line. The pilot received stitches,
BUT-- 4,200 customers were without power for 4 or so hrs, including
Zhenders, and the Bavarian Inn (restraunts) in Frankenmuth, a tourist
town, on a busy Labor Day weekend. ONE of the restraunts estimated its
lost business to be around $18,000 and both are seriously considering
legal action against the pilot.
Another good reason to stay away from those power lines!!!
Fly Safe,
Darren Smalec (860 feet of runway between two powerlines!!)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Unfortunates |
ONE of the restaurants estimated its
> lost business to be around $18,000 and both are seriously considering
> legal action against the pilot.
>
> Another good reason to stay away from those power lines!!!
>
> Fly Safe,
> Darren Smalec (860 feet of runway between two powerlines!!)
>
Darren and Kolbers:
Also, another reason to have liability insurance!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
Subject: | Re: Update On 1992 MK III, SN M3-011 |
John
Did you use the puller from Rotax made for removing the stator? Just
wondering. I've got to replace mine next month.
Terry
John Hauck wrote:
> Replaced the stator in the 912, per Rotax AD. This proved
> to be a hassle because my stator had been on the engine for
> many hours and thru a lot of rain and engine gunkings and
> rinsings. Had to destroy the stator to get it off. My
> buddy, with a 912, reached in and pulled his off by hand.
> ;-)
>
> I
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Slingshot Construction |
Ian
I have installed the Matco / hydraulic system although it hasten't flown
yet the tires have been inflated for a year.
>
>
>Regarding the Matco wheels:
>1. There is a large rubber "O" ring in a plastic bag with the
valve stem.
>Does this "O" ring get stretched over the rim and then placed in the grove
>where the two rim halves come together?
My experience was that stretching the O ring put a semi permanent stretch
in it before I got it over the lip of the hub. I had to disassemble the
hub and place the O ring on one side of the hub along with the tire, then
bolt the hub together. I did this a couple of times since the tires leaked
the first time and I located the leak between the hubs (stretched o ring).
I applied a tire seal used on the bead of tubes tires to seal the O ring.
I later changed the bolts to stainless steal when someone on this list
reported the bolts supplied rusted on him.
>
>2. What is the rule on tightening the wheel to the axle.
I handled them the same as on an automobile front wheel. Snug the bolt
finger tight and back off to the nearest cotter pin hole.
>3. How do you mount the tire? Split the rims?
I put one of the tire beads on one hub side, slid the O ring on the hub
side next, then bolted the other hub side through the tire. After the hub
was bolted together I smeared the tire sealant around the hub seam and slid
the O ring into the seam crack. I then used sealant on the hub rims and
ran compressed air into the valve (without its core) while trying to
compress the tire diameter to get the bead to contain the air. A belt
helps a lot. Once the bead catches the air the tire fills and mounts the
hub rims. After that the valve core may be replaced.
>
>Do I insert the gear leg into cage until it stops?
I did
>And then level from left to right (neither the construction manual nor the
plans >give me a hint)?
>
>Do I insert the axle into the gear leg until it stops?
I left an overhang. I have a small amount sticking out the inside. Maybe
someone else has better data on this.
>
>Any hints on drilling the gear leg and the axle?
In the archives you should find discussions on the alignment of the wheels
- toe in. There are easy ways and the technique outlined in the manual.
The trick is to align the axles with a straight device able to span the
distance between the tires. Clamp the axles to the straight edge and drill.
The problem with this simplistic approach is that the axles have camber
and won't allow the clamping except in a vertical plane. Some people used
rods and sprung them within their elastic limit. Others used steel sections
and clamped accordingly. You can pre-drill the pilot hole for the axe
holder on your starting side only to facilitate the drillings
>
>Not crazy about the stock tail wheel on an aircraft that will live on an
>asphalt runway, any thoughts?
I have heard that the Kolb is required to carry nose weight. Bigger tail
wheels exacerbate this by the boom length and weight differential.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Stator Removal On 912 |
> Did you use the puller from Rotax made for removing the stator? Just
> wondering. I've got to replace mine next month.
>
> Terry
Terry and Kolbers:
I used the puller that comes with the stator replacement kit
to pull the flywheel. To get the stator off requires
removing four hex head screws and pulling off the stator.
However, mine had been on there for a long, long time.
Steel stator on aluminum hub equals STUCK!!!. Now they
recommend putting grease on the hub before installation of
stator. There is no puller for the stator in the kit. My
buddy replaced his with no problem. Newer engine, less
hours out flying in the rain, etc.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | MATCO Wheels and Tubeless Tires |
Hi Guys:
I did the old tubeless tire thing for a while. Always had
one tire with slow leak.
I fixed that very simply. Installed tubes. Don't weigh
that much, can run less air, do not have slow leaks, and I
am now happy.
Some folks, like myself, tend to get hardheaded and try to
make something work because it is supposed to work a certain
way. If I butt my head up against the wall long enough I
will get a headache. Give up. Get a couple tubes. Your
problems will be solved without all the goop and goo. ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
Subject: | Re: Matcos, tailwheel, Powerfin |
BILL WROTE:
>Just finshed installing my new steerable/full swivel tailwheel. Looks great
>and taxi tests indicate it works fine. Too windy to fly today though.
>Attempts at full swivel at low speed work OK but only serve to accentuate the
>weak braking power of the hydraulic heel brakes. Braking has been poor since
>I purchased the plane but hasn't been a problem as they will stop. Discs are
>smooth and there is plenty of pad on the pucks. Any thoughts?
>
>Thanks
>
>Bill George
>
>MK-III 582 "C", Powerfin 3 blade "F"
Bill, refresh my memory, whose tailwheel did you get and how much more than
stock does it weigh?
I too have the Matco brakes, and have found that they are adequate, to a point.
They won't hold the
force of the engine reving over about 4500 RPM. But they turn and stop me OK.
I don't think they'd
lock up the wheels though. Is this about what you are experiencing? If it is
and you want more, you
could increase the mechanical leverage at the pedal area, OR, do what we used to
do to our racing ATVs:
We would take brand new pads and put 6-7 hacksaw blade cuts right down thru the
pad almost to the backing steelplate. This increased the pressure (I guess).
It worked but they wore out faster.
How is the "F" Powerfin working out? You used to have an Ivo, right? Is the
Powerfin almost as smooth? Can you make any performance comparisons yet? I am
using a Powerfin "A" model, 3-blade, 2.62:1, 582. Love it.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Matcos, tailwheel, Powerfin |
In a message dated 9/15/99 9:55:21 AM, gerken(at)us.ibm.com writes:
<< Bill, refresh my memory, whose tailwheel did you get and how much more than
stock does it weigh? >>
Don't have the weight in front of me but I believe the whole thing, including
the 4130 tube, was a little over a pound more than stock. You can see an
example in the LEAF catalog page 206. However, I got mine direct from the
manufacturer because Leaf didn't stock the assembly with a 3/4 round hole.
Call Karen at Aviation Products Inc. and they can fix you up with what you
need. 805-6466042 Mine is 4" wheel on 20 degree assembly with 3/4 hole. Zero
noticeable effect on CG, same trim.
<>
Exactly. Might try the hacksaw route to get more whoa.
<>
Once I got it pitched correctly it is fine. Perhaps slightly more performance
in climb. But since I never got my Ivo to turn up above 6k direct comparison
wouldn't be fair. I do believe it is not quite as smooth as the Ivo and maybe
a teeny bit noisier.
Had a really nice flight early this morning. Still blowing 22 at the surface
and 30 aloft but smooth as glass. Played with some slow flight at 20 flaps.
Airspeed doe to 30 and ground speed was 10. Next time I will try to fly with
backwards ground track. Simply amazi'n.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | The ByteWrites <bytewrite(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Sender: owner-kolb-list-server |
I'm new to the list, so pardon me if this is inappropriate. Is this list
the right place to buy and sell Kolb aircraft? I'm looking for a 912 -
powered Mk III. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Slingshot Construction |
Sealer on the rim is good, but you might also want to try putting a little
silicone grease on the O-ring as well. Make sure there are no mold marks,
or flashing on the O-ring. Mine have been assembled for over 2 yrs. and
hold air fine. Big Lar.
>
> >Regarding the Matco wheels:
> >1. There is a large rubber "O" ring in a plastic bag with the
> valve stem.
> >Does this "O" ring get stretched over the rim and then placed in the
grove
> >where the two rim halves come together?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Update On 1992 MK III, SN M3-011 |
Quite a while back, we had a good discussion about Anti-Sieze lubricant.
This is exactly what it's intended for. Several yrs. ago, I bought a 6 oz.
can of Bostich anti-sieze, use it a lot, and still have some left. Permatex
is good, too. It's greatest claim to fame is on exhaust studs, and nuts.
Big Lar.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 8:58 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Update On 1992 MK III, SN M3-011
>
> Replaced the stator in the 912, per Rotax AD. This proved
> to be a hassle because my stator had been on the engine for
> many hours and thru a lot of rain and engine gunkings and
> rinsings. Had to destroy the stator to get it off. My
> buddy, with a 912, reached in and pulled his off by hand.
> ;-)
>
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | Re: Max RPM for 582 -John |
Well John,
I believe you are right about the max RPM for the 582 being 6800 but it is only
the max RPM according to my owners manuel. It states that the 582 makes max
power (64.4 hp) at 6500 RPM and that the max torque (55.3 ft. lbs.) is made
at 6000 RPM. None of these RPMs are suppose to be run more than 1 minute. I
am going to recheck the tach at 6000 and at 6500 RPM again to be sure I am getting
the proper reading. If the tach is reading high that will explain the low
temps at cruise and climb out. If it's right, I'm stumped again.
When I say wide open straight and level I am guessing on the S and L. I don't have
a VSI. I can get it to 6800 if I just lower the noise slightly and let the
speed build but by then I'm in the scary range. The temps are still lower than
normal though.
Remember I'm not complaining, it runs just fine , I would just like to know what
the deal is with the temps.
Oh yes, I have pitch the prop so that it will turn 6800 RPM on climbout just to
see how well it would climb, but the temps were still below normal. The climb
was a little better but the top end was terrible. As long as I can make 40
MPH for lift off in 200-300 feet with two up, I'll level the pitch in the prop
and deal with the lower temp readings.
Firehawk
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Update On 1992 MK III, SN M3-011 |
> This is exactly what it's intended for. Several yrs. ago, I bought a 6 oz.
> can of Bostich anti-sieze, use it a lot, and still have some left. P Big Lar.
Big Lar and Gang:
I agree with everything except on the stator and primary
case hub marriage. The anti seize I have in a little half
pint can (like a paint can) is primarily graphite/lead and
some kind of oily stuff to keep it together. Did not see it
in writing in the instructions with the stator replacement
kit, but graphite/lead is highly conductive. If a little
got in the wrong place could cause me a problem while I am
trying to defy gravity. There are all the pickups for ign,
tach, etc., all lumped together there. For this application
we used a little grease and let it go.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | I Got My Reward Today |
Hi Kolbers:
With the weather man forecasting 15 to 25 mph winds today, I
got to test fly my MK III after working on it for the last
month.
What a delight to fly!!! The airplane took off before I
expected it too, with the aid of a lot of wind and the tail
sitting 2 inches plus lower than the last time I flew it.
Removed an 8 inch Maule pneumatic tail wheel and the long
fork, replaced with a two inch shorter fork and a smaller 6
inch solid tire.
Rudder has more control. Repositioned rudder pedals closer
to me, shortened the cables via turn buckles.
Elevator is more responsive. Flying with the cables much
tighter. Not over tight, just a lot tighter. They were
extremely loose before.
Can not tell any significant difference between alternator
or ignition output since installation of new stator.
I believe tightening the inboard drag strut fitting bolt on
both wings contributed to the "good" tight feel of my MK
III.
If things work out I will be giving demonstration rides in
Miss P'fer at Chesnut Knolls Airpark weekend after next. I
haven't decided whether to put the second stick back in the
left side or not. It is a lot easier to get folks in and
out without the stick, but if you want to get an idea how
she feels it is better to have the second stick.
john h (1279.0 hrs airframe and 1047.5 hrs on the raggedy
ole Rotax 912)
PS Seriously considering flying this ole airplane and
engine back to Alaska next summer. I missed my ultimate
destination by 205 sm last time I was up there. At 75 mph
that is only 2hrs and 45 min. Sounds pretty easy,
but................ Was planning on spending the summer up
there with gal friend and 5th wheel, but I think those plans
are changing. This will give me the opportunity close the
book on something I started the Summer of 1994. Keep your
fingers crossed for me. ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Max RPM for 582 -John |
In a message dated 9/15/99 2:29:49 PM, michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net
writes:
<< None of these RPMs are suppose to be run more than 1 minute >>
No so. I thought that also when I first read the manual but that simple means
revs per minute Austrian style. You'd be soon falling out of the sky if you
adhered to the "one minute rule."
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Max RPM for 582 -John |
> No so. I thought that also when I first read the manual but that simple means
> revs per minute Austrian style. You'd be soon falling out of the sky if you
> adhered to the "one minute rule."
>
> Bill
Bill: Thanks for the memory. But I can not relate to what
the problem was. I do remember the Australian system. As
far as I know and understand the operational range is up to
6800 rmp for all the Rotax two strokes. No "mil pwr"
restriction like the 912. 912 is good to 5800 for 5 min.
Cruise rpm from now on is 5500. For those with in flight
adjustable props, the 5800 rpm for 5 min is nice. Take off
turning 5800, climb out for 5 min, then pull in pitch and
come back on the throttle to cruise rpm.
In response to Mike Highsmith: The best place "for me" to
fly a 582 is 6000 where I am producing the max torque at the
lowest rpm. That is when the engine should really be happy.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
Hey Gang:
I will also be facing this dilemma when I start building my FS II and
would like the "no bump" finish. Jeremy didn't get much response from some
of you experienced people. Could ya'll please shed some light on this
subject if you have any experience with it, especially on the leading edge
as the plans make no reference to this method. Any info would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks,
John Cooley
Currently flying (13 hrs solo time) MK II Twinstar and having a blast.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Casey <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 2:23 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: No Bumps!!!
>
> I am going to take a litle extra time and use the other methods for
> fabricating my control surfaces to get a "no bump" finish. (Actually I
have
> a tube bender and want to play with it...hehehehe) Anyway the plans show
> the 2 other methods of building the control surfaces as "bent end" and
> "gusset" . The diagram shows what would be the trailing edge of the
> surfaces 5/16 to 5/16 tubing. I am going to use the bent end method for
the
> trailing edge but I was wondering what to do at the leading edge??? Can
you
> use the gusset method on the LEADING edge (using a seperate gusset for top
> and bottom of course>
> Jeremy Casey
> jrcasey(at)mail.direcpc.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
Subject: | Re: I Got My Reward Today |
John,
Regarding the turn buckles, tell us you used the aircraft type hardware
ones and the hardware store variety.
Jerryb
>
>Hi Kolbers:
>
>With the weather man forecasting 15 to 25 mph winds today, I
>got to test fly my MK III after working on it for the last
>month.
>
>What a delight to fly!!! The airplane took off before I
>expected it too, with the aid of a lot of wind and the tail
>sitting 2 inches plus lower than the last time I flew it.
>Removed an 8 inch Maule pneumatic tail wheel and the long
>fork, replaced with a two inch shorter fork and a smaller 6
>inch solid tire.
>
>Rudder has more control. Repositioned rudder pedals closer
>to me, shortened the cables via turn buckles.
>
>Elevator is more responsive. Flying with the cables much
>tighter. Not over tight, just a lot tighter. They were
>extremely loose before.
>
>Can not tell any significant difference between alternator
>or ignition output since installation of new stator.
>
>I believe tightening the inboard drag strut fitting bolt on
>both wings contributed to the "good" tight feel of my MK
>III.
>
>If things work out I will be giving demonstration rides in
>Miss P'fer at Chesnut Knolls Airpark weekend after next. I
>haven't decided whether to put the second stick back in the
>left side or not. It is a lot easier to get folks in and
>out without the stick, but if you want to get an idea how
>she feels it is better to have the second stick.
>
>john h (1279.0 hrs airframe and 1047.5 hrs on the raggedy
>ole Rotax 912)
>
>PS Seriously considering flying this ole airplane and
>engine back to Alaska next summer. I missed my ultimate
>destination by 205 sm last time I was up there. At 75 mph
>that is only 2hrs and 45 min. Sounds pretty easy,
>but................ Was planning on spending the summer up
>there with gal friend and 5th wheel, but I think those plans
>are changing. This will give me the opportunity close the
>book on something I started the Summer of 1994. Keep your
>fingers crossed for me. ;-)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
Subject: | Re: Instrument problems |
New or older modle EIS?
>
>Recently, during a very hot spell when the air temp was 95-100 (and 126
>a foot above the black hardstand) my EIS had all erroneous
>readings---and was frozen (fixed, not iced!) at some very off values.
>FireFly was sitting there abt an hour. Stayed frozen even while taxiing,
>so I put it back in hangar. Next day all was OK. Glad we have cooler wx.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Max RPM for 582 -John |
My 582 runs great at 6000/6200 and that is where I fly it. Pushing 200 hours.
Jr, Kitfox
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Cliff / Carolyn Stripling <striplic(at)tetric.com> |
Subject: | Trailing edge gussets & etc. |
To all,
Probably a lot of this is in the archives...
I used the gussets on the trailing edges only. I like the way it turned
out... and I also radiused all outside corners of the control surfaces as
well (except where aileron and flap met). The bent tube method looks just
as good (maybe better as you don't see even the gussets & rivets), but it
is not as strong (in my opinion). You will get the lightest trailing edges
using the tube over tube method. Either of the other methods is heavier.
I don't remember anyone telling me directly (for sure), but it seemed like
I heard that gussets were not recommended on the leading edges because the
ribs themselves need to be directly secured due to the twisting forces put
on the leading edge tubes. If the ribs themselves are not directly
connected the gussets could flex some... not good. The trailing edge tubes
don't have any torque on them. They do have a BIG side load though and
that is where the gussets show their strength. The trailing edge is less
likely to dish in due to the shrinking of the fabric. The bottom line is
that if I had it to do over again... gussets for sure, just like before.
If you do decide to make gussets, determine the smallest size you need (a
basic triangle) that will support the end of the tube (I allowed room for 4
rivets - 2 on the rib and 2 on the trailing edge). Take that triangle and
duplicate it on tracing paper so that you have a matrix of triangles. Use
the tracing paper and carbon paper transfer the design to your stock
aluminum. Then you can cut out many gussets and not waste a bit of
aluminum. Round off the sharp corners on your grinder/wire wheel and bend
down the trailing edge side a little bit in your vice to follow the surface
of the 5/16" trailing edge tube and you are ready to snap some hole points
and drill. Before you cover you will have to go over all outside edges
with a file and emory cloth to remove any burrs or sharp edges. I also
used some Stits adhesive tape on a few edges I thought would eventually
wear through.
>What is the easiest way to make "soft" jaws for my shop vise???... I used
a couple of scrap pieces of the 3/4" alum. angle supplied with the kit.
You also need to make you a squeeze gap jig out of a piece of welding rod
(or other metal rod or stock) so that you can crank down on the 5/16"
tubing in the vice and be accurate each time. Bend a 90 degree in it so it
will lay on a vice half with one end hanging between the jaws.
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: I Got My Reward Today |
> John,
> Regarding the turn buckles, tell us you used the aircraft type hardware
> ones and the hardware store variety.
>
> Jerryb
Jerry and Gang:
Yes. I used aircraft turnbuckles. Made up new rudder
cables. The turnbuckles simplify pedal/rudder position
adjustment.
I also use turnbuckles on tail wire bracing, one on each
wire. Greatly simplifies adjustment and allows tightening
of cable "on down the road" as they stretch and hinges
wear. Allows infinite adjustment.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | LIVING aircraft batteries . . . (was 14 vs. 28v) |
>Twice in the last 20 years I have been stuck with a
>dead battery. The first time happened at a middle-of-nowhere . . .
> . . . .Because I was in airplanes with 14 volt systems,
>their vehicles were able to provide jump starts which got me
>home . . . A 28 volt airplane has far fewer rescue options.
May I suggest that over half of all s.e. airplanes
flying today departed with a FAILED battery? We
tend to treat batteries in our airplanes like
batteries in our cars . . . it gets replaced when
it fails to crank the engine for perhaps the
4th or 5th time?
This means that the battery has been useless as
a source of backup energy for perhaps years before it
finally gets replaced. RG batteries are going to
make this situation worse, they maintain a lower
internal resistance than their wet and gel cousins.
They'll still get an engine started even futher
down the slide toward the recycle bin.
Please learn and observe some peventative maintenance
techniques almost unheard of in certified aviation.
KNOW (by measurement) or BE SURE (by periodic
replacement) or DON'T CARE (with dual alternators)
that the battery is capable of getting you home in
the situations which you fly.
You can find a lot of mechanics out there that curse
batteries for their various faults but very few
that understand how to live with them.
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: | "Vic Worthington" <vicw(at)vcn.com> |
Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 09/15/99 |
I made soft jaws out of scarps of aluminum angle. Stuck them to the vice
with GE Silicon Seal that way the stay on but come back off when done. It
will take about two sets to build a Firestar but they are cheap.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Max RPM for 582 -John |
In a message dated 9/15/99 5:32:31 PM, hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
<< The best place "for me" to
fly a 582 is 6000 where I am producing the max torque at the
lowest rpm. >>
Hi John:
So 6k is where you cruised your bird when you had the 582? What kind of speed
did you get?
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Max RPM for 582 -John |
>
> So 6k is where you cruised your bird when you had the 582? What kind of speed
> did you get?
>
> Bill
Bill and Gang:
At the beginning of long XCs I tried to maintain 5800 rpm.
This was the rpm where airframe, engine, and pilot came
together most comfortably. This usually gave me 75 to 80
mph indicated (which was very close to being accurate, after
calibrating static system). However, the closer I got to my
destination the faster the engine ran, especially if I was
headed home. It was not uncommon to run 6000 or 6200 rpm.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Operating Experience 912 |
Hey Guys:
Just a note and then I got to get busy and do all the things
I have neglected the last month cause I was having so much
fun working on Miss P'fer ("P" fer plane).
I have to admit I have not been the most gentle operator of
my 912 over the last 1,047.5 hours. It has been well
maintained, for what that is worth, i.e., oil change at 100
hour intervals, use Mobil I 15W50 Full Synthetic Oil,
sparkplugs at 200 hour intervals (they will go a lot longer
than that), clean the air filters once in a while, replaced
rocker arms and shafts (Rotax AD), also stator, change
antifreeze Spring and Fall (run 100% antifreeze in winter to
bring temps up and 50% in summer to bring em back down), and
inspect for stuff falling or getting ready to fall off and
go thru the prop. All in all (even though I could get no
support from Rotax for my flight) the 912 has been an
excellent engine, performing today as it did in the
beginning of its life.
My 912 is propped for 5500 to 5600 rpm straight and level
WOT flight.
Normal cruise is 5000. 4.0 gph
In a hurry cruise is 5200 to 5400. 4.25 to 4.5 gph
Does not use oil, to speak of. That means don't have to add
any between 100 hour change interval.
Ten days after flying 231.2 hours in 41 days, I hopped back
in the MK III to fly nearly 2,000 miles to Oshkosh and
back. By this time I had a great deal of confidence in the
912. I decided to do a "hauck's holler test" and fly the
912 to OSH and home at 5,400 rpm. I did and the only change
from 5,000 was increased fuel burn, noise, and vibration. I
was still 100 rpm under the redline for maximum cruise rpm
which is 5,500.
By now I am inclined to believe what the engineers at Rotax
tell me when they establish operating parameters for their
engines, both two and four stroke. I do not think they are
arbitrary numbers. However, I have been told and instructed
over the years that the best place to operate an engine is
at 75% power, which is about 5,000 rpm with the 912. I am
not looking at the charts, but I beleive the 912 is making
60 hp at 5,000 which puts it right in the ball park. This
is where the 912 operates smoothest in combination with the
airframe and me.
Gotta get some work done. Later.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Dumb question of the day.. |
I am plain 'ol ashamed to ask this , but here goes anyway.. What can you
use to clean the alum. tubing while your working on it??? It has that
wonderful film on it the gets on everything (oxides?) and stains your
clothes. I know you clean it with MEK before you cover but what works in
the meantime??? I have a big jug of simple green that will take ugly of an
ape but I wondered about residues that might affect the covering process
later..? Windex maybe? Soap and water?
Jeremy "ignorant" Casey
jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
jrcasey(at)mail.direcpc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Sylph" <sylph(at)uswest.net> |
John,
I'm new to this list, so, do you have a web site to hear more about your 41
day adventure and to have a look at Miss P'fer?
Thanks
Michael in Portland, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Davis" <ldavis(at)gatem02.netusa1.net> |
Subject: | Re: Operating Experience 912 |
I'm interested in the Rotax 912 engine. After reading your engine
numbers, I'm not clear on the rpm range used. Literature I've read
says the 912 maximum rpm is 6000. Maximum horsepower is 80
@ 5500 rpm. Maximum rpm for five minutes is 5800rpm. It would
seem to me that 5500rpm is a safe, maximum, cruise rpm. If these
numbers are correct, then 75% power( 5500rpmx.75) would be
something like 4125rpm. So wouldn't 4000rpm to 4500rpm be a
good cruise rpm? Where am I going wrong, here?
Thanks,
> By now I am inclined to believe what the engineers at Rotax
> tell me when they establish operating parameters for their
> engines, both two and four stroke. I do not think they are
> arbitrary numbers. However, I have been told and instructed
> over the years that the best place to operate an engine is
> at 75% power, which is about 5,000 rpm with the 912. I am
> not looking at the charts, but I beleive the 912 is making
> 60 hp at 5,000 which puts it right in the ball park. This
> is where the 912 operates smoothest in combination with the
> airframe and me.
>
> Gotta get some work done. Later.
>
> john h
--
Larry Davis
Marion, Indiana
Challenger 1 CW
http://www.netusa1.net/~ldavis/airplane.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Dumb question of the day.. |
What can you
> use to clean the alum. tubing while your working on it???
> Jeremy "ignorant" Casey
Jeremy and Gang:
I use MEK. Just a little goes a long way. If you really
want to get it cleaned and prepped for priming and painting,
use phosphoric acid to etch it. I also use phosphoric acid
to clean and etch 4130.
john h
PS: 409, simple green, etc., leave residues and may have a
reaction to the alum further down the road. MEK justs
cleans it up nice and leaves nothing but your skin behind.
;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Peter Volum" <ibimiami(at)msn.com> |
Subject: | Safety Issue - not for wives eyes |
A few of the recent messages dealt with safety issue. Although not directly
related to Kolbs, it was interesting to read an article about air safety in
the latest issue of Popular Science.
I quote a couple of lines from the article titled "If Airplanes Had
Parachutes":
"Three or four planes a day are lost to spatial disorientation" (This was
quoted from Burt Rutan. Doesn't really apply to ultralights unless you are
a total nut, but interesting just the same).
..."the odds of a fatal accident are 225 times higher in a private plane
than in commercial craft".
"And driving a car - statistically more dangerous than airline flight -is
hundreds of times safer than flying in a private plane."
The last two weren't attributable to anybody in particular, and I have to
wonder about the integrity of the numbers. "Hundreds" isn't exactly a very
precise term.
All I can say is that given the choice, I would much rather have an
"accident" in my 912 powered Mk III with mounted BRS Chute than I would in
any car or commercial airliner.
Peter Volum
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
Subject: | Re: Safety Issue - not for wives eyes |
>"Three or four planes a day are lost to spatial disorientation" (This was
>quoted from Burt Rutan. Doesn't really apply to ultralights unless you are
>a total nut, but interesting just the same).
>..."the odds of a fatal accident are 225 times higher in a private plane
>than in commercial craft".
>"And driving a car - statistically more dangerous than airline flight -is
>hundreds of times safer than flying in a private plane."
I too question the accuracy of those quoted numbers. I have a feeling that
EAA and AOPA will have something definitive to say about that Popular
Science article. I think that it was quite inaccurate and certainly
written by a person who was not informed when it comes to General Aviation.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard neilsen" <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us> |
Subject: | Re: No Bumps!!! -Reply |
> trailing edge but I was wondering what to do at the leading edge??? Can
you
> use the gusset method on the LEADING edge (using a seperate gusset for top
> and bottom of course>
> Jeremy Casey
> jrcasey(at)mail.direcpc.com
Well I'm a builder and like most of us we aren't aircraft designers. I used a V
shaped trailing edge material from Aircraft Spruce on my flaps and ailerons and
used the Kolb supplied balance weights to allow for the additional weight.
I did this ONLY AFTER talking to Dennis Souder. As for moving the ribs on the
leading edge of the control surfaces so that they don't show or "bump"........
I wouldn't do it. There is a leverage thing here and if you move the ribs in
to the point were they don't "bump" you better find a real secure way to hook
them to the leading edge and you might need to use larger/stronger ribs. In any
case talk to Kolb.
Rick Neilsen
VW powered MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
I'm new to this list, so, do you have a web site to hear
more about your 41
> day adventure and to have a look at Miss P'fer?
>
> Thanks
>
> Michael in Portland, OR
Sorry Mike:
I do not have a web site. Wish I did so I could post pics
occasionally. I wrote an article that was published in the
May, June, July, and August 1995 issues of Experimenter
Magazine, an EAA publication. Back copies are available
thru the EAA we site, to the best of my knowledge.
Maybe we can get New Kolb Company to reproduce the articles
on their web site. They have copies of the mags with color
pics. How about it Bruce??
john h (still very much computer illiterate)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Operating Experience 912 |
Larry and Gang:
> I'm interested in the Rotax 912 engine. After reading your engine
> numbers, I'm not clear on the rpm range used.
I believe I prefaced my comments with "off the top of my
head". At this point I don't know if I am clear on the rpm
range either. hehehe
> Literature I've read
> says the 912 maximum rpm is 6000.
I can quote out of my operators manual: Red line is 5800
for 5 minutes (takeoff power).
> Maximum horsepower is 80
> @ 5500 rpm. Maximum rpm for five minutes is 5800rpm. It would
> seem to me that 5500rpm is a safe, maximum, cruise rpm.
Nope, maximum horses at 5800 is 81. 80 at 5500. 5500 is
max continuous cruise. Max torque is at 4800 rpm. I was
wrong in my first msg. Doesn't matter though for my
purpose. I use 5,000 as my best cruise rpm. I base that on
the way the airplane, eng and I perform together at that
rpm. We are more comfortable there than at 4800. Can't
remember what my cruise speed is at 4800 cause I don't fly
there. Will check it out next time I fly if I can
remember. :-)
> If these
> numbers are correct, then 75% power( 5500rpmx.75) would be
> something like 4125rpm. So wouldn't 4000rpm to 4500rpm be a
> good cruise rpm? Where am I going wrong, here?
I do not think the hp curve is "straight", so one would have
to use a chart to determine what rpm 60 hp falls or to be
more accurate, I theeeennnnnk, 75% of 81 hp, or 60.25 hp. I
looked at a chart if LEAF catalog, but can not determine
anything cause it ain't that detailed. Lemme look in a CPS
catalog. CPS charts are worse. Maybe we can find something
on ROTAX web page. This is the best I can do right now.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
Hey Gang:
I know it's kind of late to be responding to this thread but I was
looking through my Kolb literature and found this info on the HKS. Dennis S.
talks about trying the HKS on a Slingshot in the "Book of Kolb" and said it
appears to be on par with a Rotax 503 in the power department and did not
appear to make the claimed 60 hp in their test engine. He went on to say
that it could be installed on the Mark III or the Slingshot models and
would not be suitable for the Firestar or Firefly.
Thanks to everone for responding to the "no bumps" issue. I have tried
to find info on it before in the archives and just gave up.
Later,
John Cooley
Fixin to build FS II
----- Original Message -----
From: <HShack(at)aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 1999 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: HKS
>
> In a message dated 9/11/99 11:31:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
BKlebon(at)aol.com
> writes:
>
> << I believe it was about two years ago that Dennis at the "old" Kolb
tried
> the HKS (I believe it was on the Slingshot) and was disappointed in its
> performance. He had serious doubts that it put out the claimed 60HP. >>
> Wonder how it would do on a Firestar ll?
>
> Howard Shackleford
> SC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Homer Kolb Bumps! |
Hi Gang:
I love bumps, Homer Kolb bumps.
All three of my Kolb's have been bumpy. I think it is a
Kolb trait and I am sticking with it. This last aircraft,
MK III, I did venture out a little. Did flaps, ailerons,
elevators, and rudder, side and trailing edges with one
continuous piece of tubing. I think that looks ok and
maintains Homer's bumps.
I had not taken into consideration the strength issue of
leaving the leading edge end of ribs attached top and bottom
until someone on the List mentioned it. I have found thru
experience that both left and right elevators on my MK III
have loosened up the single top and bottom inboard leading
edge 1/8 X 1/2 inch rib attach rivet. I have replaced these
(with considerable luck) which tightened them back up til
they loosen up again from use. I had considered installing
a nice gusset in that corner, top and bottom, to help with
the torque at those particular points. Got lazy and anxious
to get my plane going, so did not get that project done.
Even though it will be on top of fabric, I think it will add
to the strength of the control surface.
Over the years the Judges at S&F and OSH weren't too
concerned whether I had Homer bumps or not. ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dave Carr" <dcarr(at)uniontel.net> |
Subject: | New UL enthusiasts |
Hi Group, I have been lurking around this list while I have been making my
mind up on whether to get into ultralight airplanes or not. I have decided
to get into ultralights and have settled on the Kolb ultralight. I want a
Part 103 ultralight so I dont have to fool with the FAA and have decided on
the FireFly as the ship for me. The problem I have is I am 6 feet 1 inch
tall and weigh 230 - 240 pounds. I also have bad legs do to arthritis. Am I
dreaming that the little Firefly can drag my size and weight into the wild
blue? I live in Wisconsin on my 40 acre retirement farm and have room enough
for a runway 800-900 feet long and as wide as I want it. I love the idea of
the firefly as it is 103 compliant and has folding wings so I could keep it
in my pole barn. I am a pilot and an A&P who just wants to fly in the
evenings close to home without all the fuss of a licensed plane and big
brother watching over me. Thanks for your advice.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Randy" <yamaha(at)cvn.net> |
Subject: | Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:02:13 -0400 |
I would like to know where everyone is mounting their BRS chutes on the
original kolb firestar, and if anyone has ever mounted it under the fuel
tank pointing out the side. Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Dennis Watson" <djwatson(at)olg.com> |
Subject: | Re: Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:02:13 -0400 |
Randy,
That is exactly the way mine is mounted
Dennis (MD.) Original Firestar
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy <yamaha(at)cvn.net>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 1999 8:59 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:02:13 -0400
>
>I would like to know where everyone is mounting their BRS chutes on the
>original kolb firestar, and if anyone has ever mounted it under the fuel
>tank pointing out the side. Thanks
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:02:13 -0400 |
In a message dated 9/16/99 8:03:38 PM Central Daylight Time, yamaha(at)cvn.net
writes:
<<
I would like to know where everyone is mounting their BRS chutes on the
original kolb firestar, and if anyone has ever mounted it under the fuel
tank pointing out the side. Thanks
>>
Hi Randy,
I mounted my Second Chantz Chute inside the fuseleage under the gas tank and
cut a small slit in the fabric where it will exit (left side of fuselage).
Covered the slit with clear box tape. The bridle cable can be routed so that
it only crosses over the cage tubing in one spot at the rear. When covered
with fabric, you don't even notice it.
I sometimes wonder if mounting the chute right behind my seat and under the
gas tank was a good decision. Don't know 'cause I haven't had to use it in
600 hrs. I just couldn't stand that thing hanging out of the fuselage of my
"beautiful airplane". I think a soft pack in the center section would be
good. But it's also a good spot for an extra 4 gal of gas!
Bill Griffin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Subject: | Re: New UL enthusiasts |
Dave Carr,
Altho my bro in law isn't a pilot, he's 6'3",200#, and could get into my
FireFly easier than I can. Of course he's 40 and I'm 76. I have a
section of spine welded together, making me a bit stiff. If you go the
FF route, and since you're A&P, you could put the rudder pedals a bit
more forward. I have some extenders, I'm so short. BIL could just abt
see past his knees!
Be glad to make some measurements for you; lemme know. I have some FF
brochures if you want--need PO address.
PS And the FF will get you up OK as it's rated at 500# AUW and a real
pocket rocket w/ that 40 hp Rotax. Be sure you get some dual, especially
in landing--3 hrs ok. I've been flying larger planes since '41, and
landing IS DIFFERENT if you have a lot of time in Planes, not Vehicles!
We are worse than the people who have never flown bigger planes. bn
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: New UL enthusiasts |
The problem I have is I am 6 feet 1 inch
> tall and weigh 230 - 240 pounds. I also have bad legs do to arthritis. Am I
> dreaming that the little Firefly can drag my size and weight into the wild
> blue?
Dave Carr
Dave and Kolbers:
You bet that little Fire Fly will haul you skyward. Brian
Blackwood, co-owner of New Kolb Aircraft, weighs 250 and
goes a good 6 feet. The little factory Fire Fly never
complains about hauling him around the big blue.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Dumb ? Clean metal |
From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
Jeremy,
I do not recall who put me on to it, but in my mind it was someone I
considered knowledgeable in airplane lore. A strong solution of liquid
Tide detergent and water. It must be Tide. I have no idea why only
Tide, but, It seems to work. I use it as the first step in preparing for
paint.
I also wear latex examination gloves when handling/working on the plane.
It protects the hands from the metal and the metal from the corrosive
excretions from the hands. They are about $7 for a box of 100 and often
can be used several times. They are usually wet inside when I take them
off (hands sweat). I let them dry out and then toss them in a small
plastic bag with a little baby powder, shake well and they are ready to
use again. It only takes a little while to get used to them and it is
nice to be able to peel them off and have clean hands, to answer the
phone, take a picture,write in the log etc.
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
Building Mark III, SN 312--N629RB
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
Subject: | Re: No Bumps!!! -Reply |
> Well I'm a builder and like most of us we aren't aircraft designers.
>I used a V shaped trailing edge material from Aircraft Spruce on>
>my flaps and ailerons and used the Kolb supplied balance
>weights to allow for the additional weight. I did this ONLY AFTER
>talking to Dennis Souder. As for moving the ribs on the leading
>edge of the control surfaces so that they don't show or
>"bump"........ I wouldn't do it. There is a leverage thing here and if
>you move the ribs in to the point were they don't "bump" you
>better find a real secure way to hook them to the leading edge
>and you might need to use larger/stronger ribs. In any case talk
>to Kolb.
I've often thought that it might be possible with care, and without
too much of a weight penalty, to bend all the ribs of elevators and
rudder from a single tube section at the leading edge and terminate
with opposite bend at the trailing edge. Continuous support up front
and could be dropped down sufficiently---could also add a couple
more rivets.
J.Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
Subject: | Re: Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:02:13 -0400 |
Hello Randy:
You may want to check out Ben Ransom's website as he mounted his BRS
similar to what your talking about. Here's the link that goes to the picture
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom/build/a1brsinst.html of the BRS. He has lots
more very good pictures on his web site. Check it out at
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom/
While searching for the BRS picture I saw that Ben had updated his site with
some not very good pictures ( upside down Firestar) sorry again Ben.
Later,
John Cooley
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy <yamaha(at)cvn.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 8:01 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:02:13 -0400
>
> I would like to know where everyone is mounting their BRS chutes on the
> original kolb firestar, and if anyone has ever mounted it under the fuel
> tank pointing out the side. Thanks
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WEBEFLYRS(at)aol.com |
PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THE KOLB-LIST(at)MATRONICS.COM THANK YOU
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
Subject: | Re: Operating Experience 912 |
>............................. I have been told and instructed
>over the years that the best place to operate an engine is
>at 75% power, ......................
>
> maybe you can help me on this one - if my 377 redlines at 6500 then
what is
>75% of that ?
>
I was told it works like this. If idle is 2000 and max is 6500 then there
is a 4500 diffenence in rpm. 75% of that is about 3400 add that back to the
idle speed and that is 5400 rpm. Sounds kind of low for a 2 cycle. maybe ok
on a 4 cycle.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | ldavis <ldavis(at)gatem02.netusa1.net> |
Subject: | Re: Operating Experience 912 |
Wouldn't it make more sense if you used horsepower rather than rpm? John H. makes
the
point that 75% of horsepower is really what we are talking about. A 377 produces
35hp @
6500rpm. 35 x .75=26hp. The 377 makes 26hp at about 5300-5400 rpm, according
to the
LEAF chart. If this is true, and I think it is, then most of us run our engines
at 80-90% of
maximum horsepower, not 75%.
>
> >............................. I have been told and instructed
> >over the years that the best place to operate an engine is
> >at 75% power, ......................
> >
> > maybe you can help me on this one - if my 377 redlines at 6500 then
> what is
> >75% of that ?
> >
>
>
> I was told it works like this. If idle is 2000 and max is 6500 then there
> is a 4500 diffenence in rpm. 75% of that is about 3400 add that back to the
> idle speed and that is 5400 rpm. Sounds kind of low for a 2 cycle. maybe ok
> on a 4 cycle.
>
>
> Woody
>
>
>
Larry Davis
http://www.netusa1.net/~ldavis
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Operating Experience 912 |
> i may be wrong , but i've heard, or rather i
was taught long ago in
> air force mechanic school that
> using straight anti-freeze is caustic to the engine and radiator.
>
> maybe you can help me on this one - if my 377 redlines at 6500 then what
is
> 75% of that ?
>
> what do i know ? ........................... tim
Mornin Tim and Kolbers:
912 owners have to develope ways to manage eng/oil temps.
The factory failed to do that for us. 100% and 50%
antifreeze helps me to that. Do not no of any harmful side
effects. Maybe that is for AF equipment. ;-)
Need the HP curve for 377 to figure that out. The more I
look at different engines the more I am convinced that the
75% rule does not apply to all engines. Two strokes run
best at 5800. 912s run best at 5000. That is my humble
opinion only.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | dplewis(at)gnwmail.com |
Subject: | Refinance and SAVE! |
Home loans are available for EVERY credit and equity situation!
Whether your credit rating is A+ or you are "credit challenged"
we have thousands of loan programs through hundreds of
lenders. If you are in the market for a new home, want to
save money by refinancing, or get a second mortgage, fill in
our quick pre-qualification form and we will forward your
information to the lender most able to make a loan on YOUR terms.
-Save Time
-Save Money
-Save Aggrevation
There is NEVER any fee to consumers for using this service.
Second Mortgages - Up to 125% of your homes value!
Refinancing - Reduce your monthly payments and get cash back!
Home Improvement Loans - Add that deck or pool!
Debt Consolidation - Get rid of those high interest cards!
New Purchases - Buy a home with NO MONEY DOWN! and get cash back too.
http://3%36%32%36%30%34%36%34%36%38%2f%62%69%7a%34%2f%62%69%7a%34%33%33%33/start.html
Click on the link above for your FREE Mortgage Evaluation.
If the link is dead please reply with "more info" in
the subject.
-------------------------------------------------
This email complies with ALL Federal and State laws.
To be removed from the mailing list send
mailto:dplewis(at)gnwmail.com?subject=remove_ddc9
Home loans are available for EVERY credit and equity situation!
Whether your credit rating is A+ or you are "credit challenged"
we have thousands of loan programs through hundreds of
lenders. If you are in the market for a new home, want to
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Subject: | RG-400 coax, crimp tools and other goodies . . . |
For those who are looking for the RG-400 coax cable, we'll have it
in stock Monday (9-20) at $1.75/ft
We will custom assemble RG-400 assemblies with BNC male
connectors for $4.00 per connector additional.
We'll be stocking crimp on BNC connectors -and- tools to
install the connectors . . . the tools will be $40.00 each.
Connectors will be $10.00 for a bag of six.
For those who missed out on the refurbished machine pin crimp
tools for D-sub connectors last spring, we have located another
source for NEW, low cost tools. These will be $38.00 each and
will show up in our website catalog next week.
We have heatguns for installing heat shrink tubing at $23.00 ea.
We'll be posting wire marking kits which will include a pre-
printed sheet of adhesive backed numbers and an assortment
of CLEAR heatshrink . . . probably enough to do a complete
airframe. Haven't decided on the cost yet . . . somewhere
around $16.00.
A BIG expansion of our inventory and website catalog is in
the works. We're debugging new shopping cart software for
our website. After a contractor gets done with some basement
repairs which includes our shop area, we'll be putting up
about 400 square feet of shelving to hold LOTS of electro-
goodies.
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: | Bill Weber <bweber(at)voiceboard.com> |
Subject: | Re: Dumb question of the day.. |
I used laquer thinner and paper towels (the really thick
kind called box 'o rags)
Jeremy Casey wrote:
>
>
> I am plain 'ol ashamed to ask this , but here goes anyway.. What can you
> use to clean the alum. tubing while your working on it??? It has that
> wonderful film on it the gets on everything (oxides?) and stains your
> clothes. I know you clean it with MEK before you cover but what works in
> the meantime??? I have a big jug of simple green that will take ugly of an
> ape but I wondered about residues that might affect the covering process
> later..? Windex maybe? Soap and water?
>
> Jeremy "ignorant" Casey
> jrcasey(at)mindspring.com
> jrcasey(at)mail.direcpc.com
>
--
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* Voiceboard Corp. * the shiny *
* Ventura, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
John and all,
I was just looking over the charts for the 582 in a Rotax book. . You are right
again in that Rotax must have done a lot of testing to get these numbers. The
1/min makes sense to me. Maybe there isn't a max run time for rpm on these two
strokes.
This is what I have found:
Max rpm is 6800
Max HP is 64.4 at 6500 rpm
Max torque is 55.3 at 6000 rpm
64.4 x 75+ACU- power +AD0- 48.3 HP
48.3 HP is attained at 5300 rpm, I got this from the chart also, which seems to
be where the engine power wants to flatten out a little until it reaches 5800
rpm. Then it seems to be happy again. I run 5100-5300 when we are not in a hurry.
The fuel burn at 5300 rpm / chart is around 3.4-3.6 gph. I burn 3.2- 3.4 gph at
5300 rpm.
When you stated that your engines always ran a little faster on the way home (6000
rpm) I agree. I don't know why???? but mine does too if the air is smooth.
It must be because we are going down hill.:-)
All and all it is running real close to the performance numbers I just don't know
where the low temps are coming from unless it is gauges. The numbers kind'a
rule out the tach being off. Hmmmm+ACE-
Firehawk
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:02:13 -0400 |
In a message dated 9/16/99 9:03:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yamaha(at)cvn.net
writes:
<< I would like to know where everyone is mounting their BRS chutes on the
original kolb firestar, and if anyone has ever mounted it under the fuel
tank pointing out the side. Thanks >>
Randy....this is George RANDOLPH and sometimes called Randy as well.
I have a Firestar KX built in '92 and I mounted my BRS under the fuel
tank...way under...actually right under the tube and built a box around it
out of sheathed polystyrene foam... the same stuff I make my aerotoys out
of.....
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | 377#s Larry Davis |
Larry and all,
I found this in an old 1990 LEAF catalog for the 377:
Max rpm is 6800rpm
Max HP is 35 at 6500rpm
max torque is 25 lbs at 5600 rpm
75+ACU- power would be 26.25 HP at 5300 rpm
Fuel burn at 5300 rpm would be 2.5 gph
It sure want hurt to run that little engine all day long at 5800-6000 rpm but
it burns a lot more fuel. 3.5 gph
Firehawk
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Dumb question of the day.. |
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Dumb question of the day.. |
I would not use simple green as a cleaner for aluminum. JR
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael Highsmith" <michael.highsmith(at)worldnet.att.net> |
+ACU- means percent
+ADO-means equals
+ACE- means exclamation point
If anyone can tell me how to get these gremlins out of my 'puter I would greatly
appreciate it.
Firehawk
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Operating Experience 912 |
In a message dated 9/17/99 2:32:31 AM, duesouth(at)iname.com writes:
<< >............................. I have been told and instructed
>over the years that the best place to operate an engine is
>at 75% power, ......................
>
> maybe you can help me on this one - if my 377 redlines at 6500 then
what is
>75% of that ? >>
Seventy five per cent of 65 horsepower is 49. Go to the graph in the manual
set your pencil point on 49 and go straight down to the RPM. That's it.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Dumb question of the day.. |
>
>I would not use simple green as a cleaner for aluminum. JR
Also: Be careful of anything with a lot of phosphates.
"Purple Stuff" will leave a layer of corrosion on your
aluminum quicker than you would believe.
My daughter and I ignorantly used it on the lift struts of my J-6
several years ago, and then spent the next week trying
to polish them back to a semblance of decency.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Dumb question of the day.. |
Recardo and Kolbers:
> Also: Be careful of anything with a lot of phosphates.
> > Richard Pike
How about phosphoric acid?
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Dumb question of the day.. |
If you are prepping for paint then an acid wash would be appropriate,
however, I would not want to use phosphoric acid to wash my pretty little
airplane or to clean parts except as noted for painting, alodining,
conversion coating etc. JR, A&P
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Dumb question of the day.. |
>
>
> Recardo and Kolbers:
>
>> Also: Be careful of anything with a lot of phosphates.
>> > Richard Pike
>
>
>How about phosphoric acid?
>
>john h
>
Don't know. I was just referring to soap clones.
Learned years ago the hard way not to use dish soap to
mount the tires on my motorcycle's cast aluminum wheels.
Fail to rinse it all off, or even worse,
come back a couple years later to change tires,
and that stuff has done a number on the inside of the wheel.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | pauldev(at)us.ibm.com |
Subject: | slingshot height |
Slingshot builders:
How easy/realistic/doable/safe would it be to alter a slingshot by shortening
the landing gear by about 12"?
Seems like no big deal, except that there would not be as much side-to-side
support.
Trying to figure if it will fit into a garage on a trailer.
Thanks,
Paul Devenport
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: New UL enthusiasts |
In a message dated 9/16/99 8:41:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dcarr(at)uniontel.net writes:
<< I want a
Part 103 ultralight so I dont have to fool with the FAA and have decided on
the FireFly as the ship for me. The problem I have is I am 6 feet 1 inch
tall and weigh 230 - 240 pounds. I also have bad legs do to arthritis. Am I
dreaming that the little Firefly can drag my size and weight into the wild
blue? I live in Wisconsin on my 40 acre retirement farm and have room enough
>>
Hi, Dave. Before you decide anything, find a Firefly that's flying and go
sit in it; as ULs go it's not extra hard to get in to but it does require a
little flexability.
I have seen a Firefly up close and it's just a miniature Firestar [about 7/8
scale]. It should handle your weight with a 447 O.K., but if you add brakes
or more than a few instruments or[?]..... you'll likely be over 254; you may
as well go to the FS I with a 503 and get some more room, comfort, and great
climb. And if you need to it's easy to stick in the second 5 gal. gas tank
for those cross countries, and room for a sleeping bag for that
overnighter.....Well, you can probably tell I love my FS I.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: New UL enthusiasts |
In a message dated 9/16/99 8:41:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dcarr(at)uniontel.net writes:
<< I want a
Part 103 ultralight so I dont have to fool with the FAA and have decided on
the FireFly as the ship for me. The problem I have is I am 6 feet 1 inch
tall and weigh 230 - 240 pounds. I also have bad legs do to arthritis. Am I
dreaming that the little Firefly can drag my size and weight into the wild
blue? I live in Wisconsin on my 40 acre retirement farm and have room enough
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
Subject: | Re: slingshot height |
Paul,
Your angle of attack (relative to the runway) would be decreased, which would
compromise your take-off & landing capability. ...Richard Swiderski,
SlingShot
pauldev(at)us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> Slingshot builders:
>
> How easy/realistic/doable/safe would it be to alter a slingshot by shortening
> the landing gear by about 12"?
> Seems like no big deal, except that there would not be as much side-to-side
> support.
>
> Trying to figure if it will fit into a garage on a trailer.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Devenport
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dennis & Diane Kirby <kirbyd(at)flash.net> |
Subject: | 4-stroke Engines |
Dear Fellow Kolbers
I have been reading with interest the latest thread on four-stroke
engines that was prompted by the question about installing the HKS-700
in a Mark-3.
Since I have not yet selected an engine for my almost-completed Mark-3,
I have been busy this past year researching various 4-stroke engine
options. (Note I have already made the decision that my Twinstar will
be powered by a 4-stroke engine. My intent here is not to argue about
the perceived reliability differences between the two-stroke and
four-stroke engines. Rather, going with a 4-stroke is simply a personal
choice and I'm prepared to spend a few extra bucks for one.)
That said, I'd like to share a few findings with you that I've dug up.
Again, these are based on my own research and observations. If any of
you see that I'm way off-base here, please enlighten me and the rest of
the Group.
ROTAX-912. Undeniably a good engine. More or less the standard of
comparison for all other 4-stroke engines in the light-aircraft market.
The seller for me was reading about John Hauck's adventure from Alabama
to Alaska in 1994 in his 912-powered Mark-3. 19,400 miles in 260 hours
with only a change of spark plugs midway thru his trip. Sounds pretty
reliable to me. Downside (I've heard) is the complexity of the engine
for working on it yourself. Any comments from you 912-owners out
there? The other thing would be cost. At over $10,000 for the complete
package ouch! 140 lbs.
JABIRU-80. I've seen some discussion on the List in the recent past on
this engine from someone looking for any Kolb-flyers with experience
with this engine. Somebody described it as "a jewel of an engine" with
its radiused corners and precisely machined surfaces. Sounds nice.
Being a direct-drive, the max prop size you could go with is 61 inches,
if that matters to you. $7500, 123 lbs.
HKS-700. I, too, have heard stories from pilots about this engine being
over-rated on power, that the claimed 60 hp in reality behaves more like
50 or 55. Probably a reliable engine, coming from a Japanese company
involved for many years in automotive after-market accessories like
turbochargers and such. I've heard of incidents of valve problems,
also. $7200 and 116 lbs, they claim to be the first 4-stroke aircraft
engine to have achieved the power-to-weight ratios on par with the
2-strokes (assuming you believe it's truly delivering 60 hp).
MOTAVIA ULTRATEC. This is the one made in England. 80 hp and
water-cooled, it sounds like good power-to-weight at 121 lbs, and the
pictures on their website look impressive. Spoke with the company
owner; he said they have experienced "setbacks" in testing in the past
two years, resulting in delayed deliveries of production engines. Then
I spoke to the guy in Washington state who was the original
importer/supplier for the US in 1996, who had a somewhat different
story. He told me Motavia misled him regarding the amount of testing
that was done on the engine, and that he's had many problems with the
engine. He has since abandoned his role as distributor for the engine.
Another source relayed a story to me about a brand-new Motavia (a couple
of years ago) who's gearbox disintegrated in the first 30 minutes of
operation. With its fuel injection and dual electronic ignition, it
could be a good engine if they've fixed the bugs. July 99 issue of
Ultralight Flying! reports the price at $8900.
GEO METRO. These are being offered by a guy who's original motive was
the reduction unit, which he's called the Raven Redrive. Essentially,
it's a stock 60 hp Suzuki 3-cylinder single-ignition car engine, mated
to his cog-belt redrive unit. No reliability info, other than what I've
seen on this List, where someone reported this engine spending lots of
time in the shop. $7800, 160 lbs.
GREAT PLAINS. Claimed to offer the most power for the money (70 hp for
$5000,), this VW variant engine, at 165 lbs, is about the heaviest
engine the Mark-3 can accommodate. Although I know of several
homebuilders who've used this engine, the only guy I know of using one
on a Kolb is our very own Richard Nielsen. He'll have specifics on
installation details and performance. (So, Richard, are you happy with
the VW installation in your Mark-3?)
VERNER SVS-1400. This two-cylinder air-cooled 80 hp motor is built in
the Czech republic with the underlying intent of being simple and
reliable. Verner Motorworks was originally commissioned about ten years
ago by the Soviet Union to produce a light aircraft engine, as the
Eastern European nations were unable to import western engines at the
time. Fully-funded by the Soviets to tool up for mass production, the
fall of the iron curtain effectively eliminated Verner's intended
market. So they went public, and are selling engines mostly in Europe.
The SVS-1400 is JAR-22 certified, which gives confidence that it is a
well-tested engine. At 160 lbs, it offers the same power and torque as
the Rotax-912. $7500 includes the cog-belt reduction unit, a tach and
engine instruments. I have learned that there are two Kolb Mark-3s
flying with this engine, both in Florida. One is owned by the US
distributor of the SVS-1400, based at South Florida Flyers in Coleman,
FL. Anyone out there know the owners?
As I mentioned, this information is simply a summary of what I have
collected in my quest for deciding which engine to install in my
Mark-3. It is not intended to promote or "bash" a particular
manufacturer's engine. If you found this bit of rambling interesting,
then I feel like I've helped the Group.
Dennis Kirby
Mark-3, s/n 300, 75 percent complete and yet to choose an engine
Cedar Crest, New Mexico
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Teal, David" <Teald(at)diebold.com> |
Subject: | New UL enthusiasts |
Speaking of cross countries, how far can you expect to fly in an ultralight
with say, a 10 gallon tank? I know that it depends on alot of things, speed,
weather, altitude, etc. But, ball-park, what can a person expect?
P.S. I want to thank all those that responded to my question of building vs
buying - I have not yet decided what to do, but I now have a solid grasp on
what it takes to go the build-it route.
Thanks,
D.C. Teal
> ----------
> From: HShack(at)aol.com[SMTP:HShack(at)aol.com]
> Reply To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 6:31 PM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: New UL enthusiasts
>
>
> I have seen a Firefly up close and it's just a miniature Firestar [about
> 7/8
> scale]. It should handle your weight with a 447 O.K., but if you add
> brakes
> or more than a few instruments or[?]..... you'll likely be over 254; you
> may
> as well go to the FS I with a 503 and get some more room, comfort, and
> great
> climb. And if you need to it's easy to stick in the second 5 gal. gas
> tank
> for those cross countries, and room for a sleeping bag for that
> overnighter.....Well, you can probably tell I love my FS I.
>
> Howard Shackleford
> FS I
> SC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: slingshot height |
> How easy/realistic/doable/safe would it be to alter a slingshot by shortening
> the landing gear by about 12"?
> Seems like no big deal, except that there would not be as much side-to-side
> support.
>
> Trying to figure if it will fit into a garage on a trailer.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Devenport
Hi Paul and Kolbers:
The Sling Shot sits in that beautiful 3 point stance for a
very good reason. Most of the angle of attack was taken out
of the wings so it would fly with less drag in a more level
attitude, unlike the FS and MK III that fly tail high.
Getting the tail boom parallel to the line of flight reduces
a lot of drag. The main gear are long and the nose is
jacked up high so there is a good angle of attack to take
off. I am a long gear guy. No way would I shorten those
beautiful long legs. ;-)
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: New UL enthusiasts |
In a message dated 9/17/99 9:28:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Teald(at)diebold.com writes:
<< Speaking of cross countries, how far can you expect to fly in an ultralight
with say, a 10 gallon tank? I know that it depends on alot of things, speed,
weather, altitude, etc. But, ball-park, what can a person expect? >>
Being fairly new at this UL business, I don't like to let my tanks[2 five
gallons from which fuel is drawn at the same time] get below one gallon in
each; that means I can burn about 8 gallons on a X-country. About 50 miles
to a fly-in & then back really is about my limit. My cruise is around 60MPH
at 5400RPM.
I'm in a Firestar I with a 503DCDI at a gross weight of 690 LB. Could
probably stretch the 50 miles to 65 or so but I get edgy when that fuel gets
low. You never know what that wind will do on the way back.
Howard Shackleford
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "plane" <plane(at)atomic.net> |
Subject: | Re: 4-stroke Engines |
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis & Diane Kirby <kirbyd(at)flash.net>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 9:29 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: 4-stroke Engines
>
> Dear Fellow Kolbers
>
> I have been reading with interest the latest thread on four-stroke
> engines that was prompted by the question about installing the HKS-700
> in a Mark-3.
>
> Since I have not yet selected an engine for my almost-completed Mark-3,
> I have been busy this past year researching various 4-stroke engine
> options. (Note I have already made the decision that my Twinstar will
> be powered by a 4-stroke engine. My intent here is not to argue about
> the perceived reliability differences between the two-stroke and
> four-stroke engines. Rather, going with a 4-stroke is simply a personal
> choice and I'm prepared to spend a few extra bucks for one.)
>
> That said, I'd like to share a few findings with you that I've dug up.
> Again, these are based on my own research and observations. If any of
> you see that I'm way off-base here, please enlighten me and the rest of
> the Group.
>
> ROTAX-912. Undeniably a good engine. More or less the standard of
> comparison for all other 4-stroke engines in the light-aircraft market.
> The seller for me was reading about John Hauck's adventure from Alabama
> to Alaska in 1994 in his 912-powered Mark-3. 19,400 miles in 260 hours
> with only a change of spark plugs midway thru his trip. Sounds pretty
> reliable to me. Downside (I've heard) is the complexity of the engine
> for working on it yourself. Any comments from you 912-owners out
> there? The other thing would be cost. At over $10,000 for the complete
> package ouch! 140 lbs.
>
> JABIRU-80. I've seen some discussion on the List in the recent past on
> this engine from someone looking for any Kolb-flyers with experience
> with this engine. Somebody described it as "a jewel of an engine" with
> its radiused corners and precisely machined surfaces. Sounds nice.
> Being a direct-drive, the max prop size you could go with is 61 inches,
> if that matters to you. $7500, 123 lbs.
>
> HKS-700. I, too, have heard stories from pilots about this engine being
> over-rated on power, that the claimed 60 hp in reality behaves more like
> 50 or 55. Probably a reliable engine, coming from a Japanese company
> involved for many years in automotive after-market accessories like
> turbochargers and such. I've heard of incidents of valve problems,
> also. $7200 and 116 lbs, they claim to be the first 4-stroke aircraft
> engine to have achieved the power-to-weight ratios on par with the
> 2-strokes (assuming you believe it's truly delivering 60 hp).
>
> MOTAVIA ULTRATEC. This is the one made in England. 80 hp and
> water-cooled, it sounds like good power-to-weight at 121 lbs, and the
> pictures on their website look impressive. Spoke with the company
> owner; he said they have experienced "setbacks" in testing in the past
> two years, resulting in delayed deliveries of production engines. Then
> I spoke to the guy in Washington state who was the original
> importer/supplier for the US in 1996, who had a somewhat different
> story. He told me Motavia misled him regarding the amount of testing
> that was done on the engine, and that he's had many problems with the
> engine. He has since abandoned his role as distributor for the engine.
> Another source relayed a story to me about a brand-new Motavia (a couple
> of years ago) who's gearbox disintegrated in the first 30 minutes of
> operation. With its fuel injection and dual electronic ignition, it
> could be a good engine if they've fixed the bugs. July 99 issue of
> Ultralight Flying! reports the price at $8900.
>
> GEO METRO. These are being offered by a guy who's original motive was
> the reduction unit, which he's called the Raven Redrive. Essentially,
> it's a stock 60 hp Suzuki 3-cylinder single-ignition car engine, mated
> to his cog-belt redrive unit. No reliability info, other than what I've
> seen on this List, where someone reported this engine spending lots of
> time in the shop. $7800, 160 lbs.
>
> GREAT PLAINS. Claimed to offer the most power for the money (70 hp for
> $5000,), this VW variant engine, at 165 lbs, is about the heaviest
> engine the Mark-3 can accommodate. Although I know of several
> homebuilders who've used this engine, the only guy I know of using one
> on a Kolb is our very own Richard Nielsen. He'll have specifics on
> installation details and performance. (So, Richard, are you happy with
> the VW installation in your Mark-3?)
>
> VERNER SVS-1400. This two-cylinder air-cooled 80 hp motor is built in
> the Czech republic with the underlying intent of being simple and
> reliable. Verner Motorworks was originally commissioned about ten years
> ago by the Soviet Union to produce a light aircraft engine, as the
> Eastern European nations were unable to import western engines at the
> time. Fully-funded by the Soviets to tool up for mass production, the
> fall of the iron curtain effectively eliminated Verner's intended
> market. So they went public, and are selling engines mostly in Europe.
> The SVS-1400 is JAR-22 certified, which gives confidence that it is a
> well-tested engine. At 160 lbs, it offers the same power and torque as
> the Rotax-912. $7500 includes the cog-belt reduction unit, a tach and
> engine instruments. I have learned that there are two Kolb Mark-3s
> flying with this engine, both in Florida. One is owned by the US
> distributor of the SVS-1400, based at South Florida Flyers in Coleman,
> FL. Anyone out there know the owners?
>
> As I mentioned, this information is simply a summary of what I have
> collected in my quest for deciding which engine to install in my
> Mark-3. It is not intended to promote or "bash" a particular
> manufacturer's engine. If you found this bit of rambling interesting,
> then I feel like I've helped the Group.
>
> Dennis Kirby
> Mark-3, s/n 300, 75 percent complete and yet to choose an engine
> Cedar Crest, New Mexico
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
Hello Gang:
My turn for the "dumb question of the day". I'm about ready to apply the
Poly Fiber Epoxy primer on the wing root rib and the drag strut braces etc
that has to be done before building the wings. Does the black coating that
is on the metal have to be cleaned completely off or just any rusting that
may be present. I bought a scotch brite type wheel that can be chucked up in
a drill and cleaned the metal parts up pretty good, but not to the shiny
metal stage. If it's necessary to get to the shiny metal stage, I will just
have to use good ole elbow grease so that I can get into all the nooks and
crannies. Actually the fuselage cage is the only thing that has a light coat
of rust on it and I plan on having it powder coated. All the miscellaneous
metal parts still look new even though it is a 1994 model plane.
Thanks,
John Cooley
Building FS II
----- Original Message -----
From: Teal, David <Teald(at)diebold.com>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 8:26 PM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: New UL enthusiasts
>
> Speaking of cross countries, how far can you expect to fly in an
ultralight
> with say, a 10 gallon tank? I know that it depends on alot of things,
speed,
> weather, altitude, etc. But, ball-park, what can a person expect?
>
> P.S. I want to thank all those that responded to my question of building
vs
> buying - I have not yet decided what to do, but I now have a solid grasp
on
> what it takes to go the build-it route.
> Thanks,
> D.C. Teal
>
> > ----------
> > From: HShack(at)aol.com[SMTP:HShack(at)aol.com]
> > Reply To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 6:31 PM
> > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: New UL enthusiasts
> >
> >
> > I have seen a Firefly up close and it's just a miniature Firestar [about
> > 7/8
> > scale]. It should handle your weight with a 447 O.K., but if you add
> > brakes
> > or more than a few instruments or[?]..... you'll likely be over 254; you
> > may
> > as well go to the FS I with a 503 and get some more room, comfort, and
> > great
> > climb. And if you need to it's easy to stick in the second 5 gal. gas
> > tank
> > for those cross countries, and room for a sleeping bag for that
> > overnighter.....Well, you can probably tell I love my FS I.
> >
> > Howard Shackleford
> > FS I
> > SC
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: 4-stroke Engines |
From: | Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com> |
Dennis,
You and I have trod the same path in evaluating the 4 cycle power plants
available for the Mark III. I would add a couple of comments.
I am 70, so it is reasonable to assume that within the next 10 years
which ever I use will be up for sale. How many used 912's do you see
listed? I think a greater portion of the cost will be more readily
recovered.
In my case there is Rotax service/dealer (Lockwood) within a couple of
hours drive time. Plus all that nice reliability gives me a warm fuzzy
feeling.
The current price listed on the TNK, MK III price list for the 912, is
$11,820. Although the price list does not give the details, the sheet I
have from last fall when I ordered my airframe kit, a 3 blade IVO prop,
the prop extension etc. were included in the kit price.
I have e-mailed TNK customer support twice for details and lead time on
the 912, but have not received a reply. The messages did not bounce, so
I assume they went down the tube at TNK. This reminds me so I am going
to send it again.
L. Ray Baker
Lake Butler, Fl
Building Mark III, SN 312--N629RB
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "michael highsmith" <firehawk54(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: New UL enthusiasts |
Kolbers and all,
I've been to many fly-ins and have found that there is always someone that
is willing to get fuel for me. Most Fly-ins provide a fuel source on the
field.
10 gals usually last longer than my blatter (2.5 hours with reserve)so I
don't have to worry about running out of gas. Normally we fly 1-1.5 hours
before we land for fuel. This gives us a range of 50-100 miles depending on
the wind. Plan your trip and call ahead. There won't be a problem you can't
overcome with the help you usually find at fly-ins. It is also very
important to file a flight plan with someone responsible and sympathetic to
your addiction. Let them know when you depart and when you expect to be
back. Then call and close the plan. It's a simple concept but it makes a
world of difference if you have a problem.
Flying with a buddy is probably the next safest thing you can do on an XC,
assuming you have done your best preflight. Someone to be there if either of
you go down. It has happened at least seven times with different members of
our club in the last 5 years. Not a problem if there is someone else there
that can get help and fast or to know that you are OK.
Plan ahead for all the possible problems you may have and after a few XCs
you will know what is important.
XCs are the most fun to me because of all the planning that goes into them.
The more you can get to go the more planning and safety is added.
Have fun on your XCs. There is a lot to learn.
Firehawk
>From: HShack(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: New UL enthusiasts
>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 23:09:26 EDT
>
>
>In a message dated 9/17/99 9:28:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>Teald(at)diebold.com writes:
>
><< Speaking of cross countries, how far can you expect to fly in an
>ultralight
> with say, a 10 gallon tank? I know that it depends on alot of things,
>speed,
> weather, altitude, etc. But, ball-park, what can a person expect? >>
>Being fairly new at this UL business, I don't like to let my tanks[2 five
>gallons from which fuel is drawn at the same time] get below one gallon in
>each; that means I can burn about 8 gallons on a X-country. About 50
>miles
>to a fly-in & then back really is about my limit. My cruise is around
>60MPH
>at 5400RPM.
>
>I'm in a Firestar I with a 503DCDI at a gross weight of 690 LB. Could
>probably stretch the 50 miles to 65 or so but I get edgy when that fuel
>gets
>low. You never know what that wind will do on the way back.
>
>Howard Shackleford
>FS I
>SC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net> |
David:
In my Mark111 with the 582 rotax engine I figure 120 to 140 miles with
no wind and not climbing over a 1000 feet and little bit to find an
airport with gas. A head wind can drasticly change this with all that
drag. The fartherest I have flown my Mark 111 on a trip was 350 miles
with a large headwind which had me looking for gas constantly as it
changed my whole flight plan. I used almost twice the gas I usually do
with an average 25 mile an hour head wind. Started at 7AM, didn't run
into the wind until 9AM and it wasn't weather predicted. I would like
to have a 20 gallon tank for cross country, but can't figure how to get
one to fit the Kolb without taking the frame apart.
Dallas Shepherd
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
> Wouldn't it make more sense if you used horsepower rather than rpm? John H.
> makes the
> point that 75% of horsepower is really what we are talking about. A 377
> produces 35hp @
> 6500rpm. 35 x .75=26hp. The 377 makes 26hp at about 5300-5400 rpm, according
> to the
> LEAF chart. If this is true, and I think it is, then most of us run our engines
> at 80-90% of
> maximum horsepower, not 75%.
>
> larry davis,
Precicely why I choose the Hirth 2704. I cruise at 3900 and top is
5200 which comes to 75%......
J.Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
I would like
> to have a 20 gallon tank for cross country, but can't figure how to get
> one to fit the Kolb without taking the frame apart.
> Dallas Shepherd
>
>
Dallas and Kolbers:
That is exactly what my big Brother Jim and I did at the
Kolb Factory in Feb 91. Jim designed and built me a 25 gal
(usable) 5052 Alum .050 tank. We had to a few tubes out of
the side of the fuselage to slip the tank into its new
mounts in the normally open area of the MK III. Plates were
welded and bolted together with 3/16 bolts. I covered the
area around the fuel tank, just like the original Fire Star
(my favorite). This opened up all the area from the middle
longeron down for cargo, with the exception of the area
taken up by the tailbone. I ended up with an airplane that
I could live out of for 41 days, and more if I had time and
money. ;-)
We came up with a 25 gal tank, originally powered by the 582
which burned 5 to 5.5 gph at cruise. May have been able to
go smaller had I know I would end up with the 912 for the
long flight. However, 25 gal useable is very convenient,
adds to the safety of the aircraft on XCs, and the MK III
handles the weight of a full fuel tank (150 lbs) plus all my
gear, with no problem.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Weber <bweber2(at)earthlink.net> |
I am about ready to install my radio, and have everything planned out
except for one thing. The push-to-talk switch. I would like to mount it
on the stick, but the PTT that came with the Comtronics patch cord isn't
conducive to mounting this way. The button itself is tiny, about 1/4"
across, almost not usable with gloves. Also, it is designed to be
mounted in a panel. The wires come out in-line with the switch.
I've looked for a replacement, but the intermittent switches I found at
Radio Shack were all the same design so it can only be mounted through a
surface rather than on it.
How have some of you hooked up the PTT and what have you used? Any
cockpit photos on-line showing radio wiring?
Thanks.
--
***********************************************
* Bill Weber * Keep *
* Voiceboard Corp * the shiny *
* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
***********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "David Bruner" <brunerd(at)hvi.net> |
Subject: | Re: 4-stroke Engines |
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis & Diane Kirby <kirbyd(at)flash.net>
Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 9:34 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: 4-stroke Engines
>
>Dear Fellow Kolbers
>
>I have been reading with interest the latest thread on four-stroke
>engines that was prompted by the question about installing the HKS-700
>in a Mark-3.
>
>Since I have not yet selected an engine for my almost-completed Mark-3,
>I have been busy this past year researching various 4-stroke engine
>options. (Note I have already made the decision that my Twinstar will
>be powered by a 4-stroke engine. My intent here is not to argue about
>the perceived reliability differences between the two-stroke and
>four-stroke engines. Rather, going with a 4-stroke is simply a personal
>choice and I'm prepared to spend a few extra bucks for one.)
Very nice roundup of alternatives, thanks!
I'd like to add another motor, though how it's described as "four cycle"
is a mystery to me - the Wankel rotary. There are 2 versions available,
single rotor, 35hp and 2 rotor, 75hp. Both have electronic fuel injection
that compensate for density alt., dual ignition, starter, generator. 77lbs
and 101 lbs, respectively. No sump, so they use 2 cycle premix at 80:1.
2000hr TBO. Weight and price don't include exhaust, radiator or
reduction drive. From Germany the 2 rotor is $10k and the single rotor
is around $7k. Though I've been told that an outfit called RotorPower
will begin making them under license cheaper in Canada. They've
quoted a price of $3780 for the single rotor, once they get the plant
going, which puts the price of the 75hp under $6k. This is the same
engine that Atkins Aviation has. Don't know if RotorPower is another
pipe dream or not. And don't know of much history using this motor.
But it's certainly tempting!
David Bruner
Kingston, NY
Mk II
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Paul VonLindern <paulv(at)digisys.net> |
Subject: | Re: Radio Cabling |
Bill,
I cut approximately 1" off the top of my control stick and drilled a hole in the
top of the 1" piece. I purchased a switch similar to the radio shack switch you
spoke of and mounted it in the 1" piece of the stick. I then fabricated a sleeve
out of plastic that fit inside the control stick and epoxied it into the control
stick. Now the 1" piece with the switch mounted in it fits snugly on the sleeve
and the rubber stick grip holds it in place firmly.
The wiring is routed from the bottom of the stick ( internally ) up to the
switch. Makes a very clean installation.
I don't have a pic but can get one and email it to you if you would like.
PaulV
Bill Weber wrote:
>
> I am about ready to install my radio, and have everything planned out
> except for one thing. The push-to-talk switch. I would like to mount it
> on the stick, but the PTT that came with the Comtronics patch cord isn't
> conducive to mounting this way. The button itself is tiny, about 1/4"
> across, almost not usable with gloves. Also, it is designed to be
> mounted in a panel. The wires come out in-line with the switch.
>
> I've looked for a replacement, but the intermittent switches I found at
> Radio Shack were all the same design so it can only be mounted through a
> surface rather than on it.
>
> How have some of you hooked up the PTT and what have you used? Any
> cockpit photos on-line showing radio wiring?
>
> Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 21:59:58 -0500
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Radio Cabling
> How have some of you hooked up the PTT and what have you used? Any
> cockpit photos on-line showing radio wiring?
Bill Weber
Bill and Kolbers:
Yes. I use little momentary switches mounted in the top of
the control stick. Run the wire down the stick and out the
bottom. Works great.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
Subject: | Re: 4-stroke Engines |
You over looked what might be one very good candidates, the Jabiru engine
produced in Australia.
http://www.jabiru.co.uk/
They have a US distributor. Not water and oil system plumbing like the
Rotax 912.
The produce a 4 cylinder of 80 HP at 123#. They now also have a higher HP
6 cylinder version.
Check them out, verify they can handle a pusher configuration.
jerryb 8)
>
>Dear Fellow Kolbers
>
>I have been reading with interest the latest thread on four-stroke
>engines that was prompted by the question about installing the HKS-700
>in a Mark-3.
>
>Since I have not yet selected an engine for my almost-completed Mark-3,
>I have been busy this past year researching various 4-stroke engine
>options. (Note I have already made the decision that my Twinstar will
>be powered by a 4-stroke engine. My intent here is not to argue about
>the perceived reliability differences between the two-stroke and
>four-stroke engines. Rather, going with a 4-stroke is simply a personal
>choice and I'm prepared to spend a few extra bucks for one.)
>
>That said, I'd like to share a few findings with you that I've dug up.
>Again, these are based on my own research and observations. If any of
>you see that I'm way off-base here, please enlighten me and the rest of
>the Group.
>
>ROTAX-912. Undeniably a good engine. More or less the standard of
>comparison for all other 4-stroke engines in the light-aircraft market.
>The seller for me was reading about John Hauck's adventure from Alabama
>to Alaska in 1994 in his 912-powered Mark-3. 19,400 miles in 260 hours
>with only a change of spark plugs midway thru his trip. Sounds pretty
>reliable to me. Downside (I've heard) is the complexity of the engine
>for working on it yourself. Any comments from you 912-owners out
>there? The other thing would be cost. At over $10,000 for the complete
>package ouch! 140 lbs.
>
>JABIRU-80. I've seen some discussion on the List in the recent past on
>this engine from someone looking for any Kolb-flyers with experience
>with this engine. Somebody described it as "a jewel of an engine" with
>its radiused corners and precisely machined surfaces. Sounds nice.
>Being a direct-drive, the max prop size you could go with is 61 inches,
>if that matters to you. $7500, 123 lbs.
>
>HKS-700. I, too, have heard stories from pilots about this engine being
>over-rated on power, that the claimed 60 hp in reality behaves more like
>50 or 55. Probably a reliable engine, coming from a Japanese company
>involved for many years in automotive after-market accessories like
>turbochargers and such. I've heard of incidents of valve problems,
>also. $7200 and 116 lbs, they claim to be the first 4-stroke aircraft
>engine to have achieved the power-to-weight ratios on par with the
>2-strokes (assuming you believe it's truly delivering 60 hp).
>
>MOTAVIA ULTRATEC. This is the one made in England. 80 hp and
>water-cooled, it sounds like good power-to-weight at 121 lbs, and the
>pictures on their website look impressive. Spoke with the company
>owner; he said they have experienced "setbacks" in testing in the past
>two years, resulting in delayed deliveries of production engines. Then
>I spoke to the guy in Washington state who was the original
>importer/supplier for the US in 1996, who had a somewhat different
>story. He told me Motavia misled him regarding the amount of testing
>that was done on the engine, and that he's had many problems with the
>engine. He has since abandoned his role as distributor for the engine.
>Another source relayed a story to me about a brand-new Motavia (a couple
>of years ago) who's gearbox disintegrated in the first 30 minutes of
>operation. With its fuel injection and dual electronic ignition, it
>could be a good engine if they've fixed the bugs. July 99 issue of
>Ultralight Flying! reports the price at $8900.
>
>GEO METRO. These are being offered by a guy who's original motive was
>the reduction unit, which he's called the Raven Redrive. Essentially,
>it's a stock 60 hp Suzuki 3-cylinder single-ignition car engine, mated
>to his cog-belt redrive unit. No reliability info, other than what I've
>seen on this List, where someone reported this engine spending lots of
>time in the shop. $7800, 160 lbs.
>
>GREAT PLAINS. Claimed to offer the most power for the money (70 hp for
>$5000,), this VW variant engine, at 165 lbs, is about the heaviest
>engine the Mark-3 can accommodate. Although I know of several
>homebuilders who've used this engine, the only guy I know of using one
>on a Kolb is our very own Richard Nielsen. He'll have specifics on
>installation details and performance. (So, Richard, are you happy with
>the VW installation in your Mark-3?)
>
>VERNER SVS-1400. This two-cylinder air-cooled 80 hp motor is built in
>the Czech republic with the underlying intent of being simple and
>reliable. Verner Motorworks was originally commissioned about ten years
>ago by the Soviet Union to produce a light aircraft engine, as the
>Eastern European nations were unable to import western engines at the
>time. Fully-funded by the Soviets to tool up for mass production, the
>fall of the iron curtain effectively eliminated Verner's intended
>market. So they went public, and are selling engines mostly in Europe.
>The SVS-1400 is JAR-22 certified, which gives confidence that it is a
>well-tested engine. At 160 lbs, it offers the same power and torque as
>the Rotax-912. $7500 includes the cog-belt reduction unit, a tach and
>engine instruments. I have learned that there are two Kolb Mark-3s
>flying with this engine, both in Florida. One is owned by the US
>distributor of the SVS-1400, based at South Florida Flyers in Coleman,
>FL. Anyone out there know the owners?
>
>As I mentioned, this information is simply a summary of what I have
>collected in my quest for deciding which engine to install in my
>Mark-3. It is not intended to promote or "bash" a particular
>manufacturer's engine. If you found this bit of rambling interesting,
>then I feel like I've helped the Group.
>
>Dennis Kirby
>Mark-3, s/n 300, 75 percent complete and yet to choose an engine
>Cedar Crest, New Mexico
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jerry Bidle <jbidle(at)airmail.net> |
Subject: | Re: Radio Cabling |
Not sure what your problem is mounting the switch in the stick.
The method I describe below is how to mount the push to talk switch in the
top of stick.
First you need to select a push button. I have used those Radio Shack push
button switches you describe that mount in a 1/4" hole in a panel. They
work fine even with gloves. Doesn't take much to depress them.
Next measure the inside diameter of the hole in your stick. Go to the
local hardware store and buy a metal hole plug that fits in the size of the
hole. If your stick is solid, you can drill a hole say 3/8" and use a
small 3/8" plug. Your hole needs to be large enough to accommodate the
switch mounted in the hole plug.
Depending upon how your stick is made it either open at the bottom or
sealed. If sealed you will need to drill a small hole in the side or 10-11
o'clock position to pass two small wires thru, between 1/8 & 3/16". Try to
position it where the wires will remain clean and will not be pinched.
I drilled a hole in the hole plug in which I mount the PB switch. I then
feed two small wires up the stick from the bottom to the top. You can use
a piece of safety wire to feed the wires into the stick either from the top
or the bottom. Once I know the length required I put a small length of
heat shrink tubing over the two wires at the point where they enter/exit
the side of the stick.
I then solder the wires to the switch contacts, cover them with heat
shrink. Then I insert the hole plug with the switch mounted in it into the
top of the stick. I then terminate the wires at the other end to jack or
plug as necessary to mate with the headset adapter for the make of radio
being used.
For my King KX-99 hand held radio I had to wire in jacks because it was
difficult to break the push to talk wires out of the head set adapter. I
wired in standard aircraft headset and mike jacks to small plugs which plug
directly into the radio.
The King KX-99 has been a good radio but it does have couple weaknesses.
The power connect only provides a tickle charge thus in use it can actually
discharge faster than it will charge plus it must be operated with its
battery. It is also large and heavy compared to the ICOM A22. My partner
has a ICOM with use in the Kolb. While I don't like listening to it
directly due to it small speaker, it works very well in the airplane on a
headset.
Should work like a charm.
If you concerned about you planes regulation and voltage, you can purchase
a small car power supply for CD players at Target stores for about $15. It
has a short cord with a cigrate lighter plug whcih you cut off and connect
to output of your primary regular. The other end has long cord which
allows various size plugs which come with the unit to be pluged in to match
your radios power plug.
Good luck,
jerryb
>
>I am about ready to install my radio, and have everything planned out
>except for one thing. The push-to-talk switch. I would like to mount it
>on the stick, but the PTT that came with the Comtronics patch cord isn't
>conducive to mounting this way. The button itself is tiny, about 1/4"
>across, almost not usable with gloves. Also, it is designed to be
>mounted in a panel. The wires come out in-line with the switch.
>
>I've looked for a replacement, but the intermittent switches I found at
>Radio Shack were all the same design so it can only be mounted through a
>surface rather than on it.
>
>How have some of you hooked up the PTT and what have you used? Any
>cockpit photos on-line showing radio wiring?
>
>Thanks.
>--
>***********************************************
>* Bill Weber * Keep *
>* Voiceboard Corp * the shiny *
>* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
>***********************************************
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
I trailer my Firestar II and set it up each time I fly. As I was zipping
up the gap seal yesterday it ripped where the fabric attaches to the zipper.
The rip is about 1' long and is in the mid portion of the wing. Short of
replacing the entire gap seal does anyone out there have any suggestions on a
repair? Rick Klebon
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
>
>Precicely why I choose the Hirth 2704. I cruise at 3900 and top is
>5200 which comes to 75%......
>
>
>J.Baker
>
>
As I mentioned before I am testing a Mk111 with a Hirth 2706. Could you
please give me some information on performance numbers,Temps,rpm etc.
We have a problem that when we push the throttle to quick it bogs the
engine and you have to go back to idle before you can get back in the normal
mode. What causes this and how can it be fixed. This probably could happen
to a rotax also.
On my Hirth 2703 I have a problem I am having a problem tracing. I have a
bad cough in the engine where it seems to die then catch on again. I will
try new sparkplugs and gas and perhaps a timing change next but would like
to hear if there are any other ideas out there. Would a spot of grease on
the points cause this? Inquiring minds want to know.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> We have a problem that when we push the throttle to quick it bogs the
> engine and you have to go back to idle before you can get back in the normal
> mode. What causes this and how can it be fixed. This probably could happen
> to a rotax also.
Woody and Kolbers:
From personal experience with different engines, especially
ones that are loaded all the time like an airplane engine,
it is normally the throttle pusher and not the engine that
is the problem. UL pilots get spoiled because we can get
away with jamming the throttle full open, the engine spools
up quickly and we are gone. Not a good habit to get in,
IMHO. Going full throttle with the 912 quickly usually gets
the job done. It is on those occassions where things get a
little tight and I unconsciously go full throttle too fast
that can get me in trouble. First, when the engine bogs or
hesitates momentarily, I am startled primarily cause I need
that power now. Then I have to come back off the throttle
and slowly advance to get the power back in (like I should
have done initially). I have lost valuable reaction time
that I might need, especially at low altitude.
The other reason for bogging may be idle or midrange mixture
a little lean or close to being too rich. My Cuyuna UL 2OII
would quit running right now if I got a little too rich with
the in flight adjustable mixture screw.
john h
> On my Hirth 2703 I have a problem I am having a problem tracing. I have a
> bad cough in the engine where it seems to die then catch on again. I will
> try new sparkplugs and gas and perhaps a timing change next but would like
> to hear if there are any other ideas out there. Would a spot of grease on
> the points cause this? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> Woody
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BILLUPSHUR(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: 4-stroke Engines |
Fellow Kolb Folk,
I discussed the use of the Jabiru 2200 cc 80 hp aircraft engine with
Homer Kolb at Sun' N Fun several years ago. At that time he thought that it
may be a good engine for the tractor Kolb, but not for the pusher
installation on the Kolb Mark 3 because the high rpms of the straight drive.
He felt that if it were geared down it would be more suitable for slower
flying aircraft. It would be great if Homer Kolb would inform the list what
his current ideas are about engines and what he thinks would improve his Mark
3.
Bill Upshur
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "michael highsmith" <firehawk54(at)hotmail.com> |
It sounds to me that you may have a tad too much pitch in the prop. If you
have an adjustable pitch prop take a degree out and try it again. The engine
may be loaded too much at lower rpm to turn up the power as you open the
throttle. Take John's advice and try never to throw open or close the
throtle too fast. If the climbout rpm is right for your engine and you have
confirmed that your tach is reading correctly and as long as you aren't over
reving on climbout it should not be a problem. Too much load at low rpm +
wot = a very lean mixture due to a rise in venturi pressure, therefore there
is not enough fuel in the fuel/air mixture. The air passing through the Carb
does not have the velocity to create the low pressure needed to draw the
fuel out of the bowl in sufficient amounts for proper fuel/air mixture.
Although I could be wrong, I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last
night.
Firehawk
>From: wood <duesouth(at)iname.com>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 75% .....
>Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 09:52:56 -0400
>
>
> >
> >Precicely why I choose the Hirth 2704. I cruise at 3900 and top is
> >5200 which comes to 75%......
> >
> >
> >J.Baker
> >
> >
>
> As I mentioned before I am testing a Mk111 with a Hirth 2706. Could you
>please give me some information on performance numbers,Temps,rpm etc.
> We have a problem that when we push the throttle to quick it bogs the
>engine and you have to go back to idle before you can get back in the
>normal
>mode. What causes this and how can it be fixed. This probably could happen
>to a rotax also.
> On my Hirth 2703 I have a problem I am having a problem tracing. I have
>a
>bad cough in the engine where it seems to die then catch on again. I will
>try new sparkplugs and gas and perhaps a timing change next but would like
>to hear if there are any other ideas out there. Would a spot of grease on
>the points cause this? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
>
> Woody
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
Woody,
Re: The bogging on the 2706, this is a symptom of an engine that is jetted
near its maximum richness. If you noticed that it gets worse in hot weather &
better in cool weather then that is another clue that it is over rich. Your
EGT's should tell you what is happening also: If they are in the mid to upper
recommended range, then you are probably not too rich, but if they are in the
lower or below the recommended range then you are probably too rich. Lowering
you mid-range needle position, or going to a smaller main jet might be the way
to go. Or you could take some pitch out of your prop as this will always lean
out your engine. Once, I was tooling around in ground effect, at about
4500rpm, over a remote & desolate pasture, looking for a cow skull to hang in my
trailer. The temperature had risen about 15 degrees since I took off, & when I
gave it throttle to go home, the engine died, giving me an immediate unplanned
landing. My engine peviously had the same symptoms you gave below. God does
look out for fools & in that situation I thankfully qualified for his help.
After an uneventful landing I raised the clip a notch, took off & never flew
again with my engine in that condition. If you can rule out an over rich fuel
mixture, then you might have a restriction in your exhaust system or a
mismatched exhaust system.
Re: the 2703, First I would check for debree or water in your fuel, look in
your float bowl & under the float needle. Next I would change the plugs, points
& condensor. If it still persistsI would suspect the electrical system: Loose
connections; a shorting wire, a coil that is openning or shorting, failing
resistor sparkplug caps or plug wires that are leaking, a tachometer that has an
internal short. These are some things I've run across, hope they help. If
nothing seems to help, it might be the dreaded 2 cycle gremlins, in which case
there is no cure & you will end up throwing the engine over a bridge with
unwholesome words coming out of your mouth. That almost happened to me a couple
of times & I read about it happening to a ex-582 owner who ended up with a hole
in his marble bag. An inquiring mind is what started it all.
...Richard Swiderski
wood wrote:
>
> >
> >Precicely why I choose the Hirth 2704. I cruise at 3900 and top is
> >5200 which comes to 75%......
> >
> >
> >J.Baker
> >
> >
>
> As I mentioned before I am testing a Mk111 with a Hirth 2706. Could you
> please give me some information on performance numbers,Temps,rpm etc.
> We have a problem that when we push the throttle to quick it bogs the
> engine and you have to go back to idle before you can get back in the normal
> mode. What causes this and how can it be fixed. This probably could happen
> to a rotax also.
> On my Hirth 2703 I have a problem I am having a problem tracing. I have a
> bad cough in the engine where it seems to die then catch on again. I will
> try new sparkplugs and gas and perhaps a timing change next but would like
> to hear if there are any other ideas out there. Would a spot of grease on
> the points cause this? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> Woody
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
Subject: | Re: 4-stroke Engines |
> Listers;
Every mechanic has an opinion, I talked with 2 that said the Suzuki
based engine (Geo Metro/Chevy Sprint) have an excellent track record & one that
described them as "bullet proof". I've found none to say they were an inferior
engine. I talked with 3 pilots who are flying them (with Raven Redrives, all
pushers) & they are thrilled. ...Richard Swiderski
> >snip>>
> >GEO METRO. These are being offered by a guy who's original motive was
> >the reduction unit, which he's called the Raven Redrive. Essentially,
> >it's a stock 60 hp Suzuki 3-cylinder single-ignition car engine, mated
> >to his cog-belt redrive unit. No reliability info, other than what I've
> >seen on this List, where someone reported this engine spending lots of
> >time in the shop. $7800, 160 lbs.
> >snip>>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DRMusgrove(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: 10 gal. tanks/75% power/carboning |
Hi all,
I am commenting on 3 different messages to save bandwidth :-)
A) 10 gallon tanks in an "ultralight" - My 2 cents about this is not what
your question was - different point that rarely gets mentioned. If you are
building an Experimental aircraft or UL Trainer, fine, else: In the US, FAR
Part 103 is very specific as to what is and is not an 'ultralight'. Many
dishonest pilots and owners hide behind the 103 curtain while others
unknowingly violate the law. Sure - you'll probably fly forever without
getting caught. Your choice. Your loss if so. I don't care.
However, those who conduct operations that may affect the remaining freedoms
under the rules, are not well regarded by those that want to fly legal and
hassle-free. The legal ULers in my area have (in the past) been hassled by
the Feds because of infractions by illegal fliers. I don't appreciate that.
My whole reason for flying ULs is to get AWAY from the hassle.
I won't rat on you or hassle you - but if you bring rain on me - you will
take the hit from the Feds and my claws will come out in self-defense. Don't
try to trick yourself or anyone else that you are flying an ultralight.
You're not. Enough said.
B) 75% power - the relationship between rpm's and power are not linear.
Therefore, when looking for 75% POWER you must refer to the data for your
particular engine to find it. Also, the 75% power statement is an old one
based upon the requirements of certified engines to achieve their rated TBO
with the government certifiers or match their sales brochures. Stress and
strain is greatly reduced at that setting to achieve the stated lifespan.
If your engine is not required to be run at that power setting for longevity
- then no problem. You may wish to run at lower settings based on your
personal wishes to 'baby' you engine. I do. Sometimes. :-)
C) Carboning at reduced power settings - You should not have any excessive
carboning if your engine is properly adjusted for those rpm's. My engines
(Rotax, Cuyuna/2si, etc.) are (sometimes tediously) adjusted for 1150F temps
across the range with the exception of idle and the last few hundred
full-power rpm's. No carboning problems. No throttling problems. Nice.
This requires a bag of jets and needles, a full understanding of your
carburetor's operation and a lot of patience - but the rewards are well worth
it in terms of user-friendly and reliable engine operations. I highly
recommend it.
Hopping off the soapbox...
David M.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: 10 gal. tanks/75% power/carboning |
>
>Hi all,
>
>I am commenting on 3 different messages to save bandwidth :-)
>
>A) 10 gallon tanks in an "ultralight" - My 2 cents about this is not what
>your question was - different point that rarely gets mentioned. If you are
>building an Experimental aircraft or UL Trainer, fine, else: In the US, FAR
>Part 103 is very specific as to what is and is not an 'ultralight'.
What kind of "ultrlight" are you flying.
________________________________________________________________________________
I thought I had posted this, but now I don't see. Forgive me if this is
redundant. I trailer my Firestar II and set it up each time I fly. As I set
the plane up yesterday the gap seal ripped. The rip is where the fabric meets
the zipper, is about a foot long at the mid-point of the wing. Short or
replacing the entire gap seal, I'm looking for any suggestions for a repair.
Thanks in advance. Rick Klebon.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
>
> I thought I had posted this, but now I don't see. Forgive me if this is
>redundant. I trailer my Firestar II and set it up each time I fly. As I set
>the plane up yesterday the gap seal ripped. The rip is where the fabric meets
>the zipper, is about a foot long at the mid-point of the wing. Short or
>replacing the entire gap seal, I'm looking for any suggestions for a repair.
>Thanks in advance. Rick Klebon.
There is no easy way as the fabric ripped probably because it is old and
weak. A patch today and another tomorrow. There probably is no easy way. I
would use a needle and thread to sew a patch on if the fabric is still good.
Mine tore on my Twinstar. I made another out of plexiglass. After I decided
to do it it didn't take very long to do the whole job.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | FireStar for Sale |
From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
**************************************************
1986 Original FireStar
447 Rotax 300 hrs
ASI, altimeter, digital tach, EGT
Nice paint job of red, with yellow lightning bolt, and white
with trailer, $7000
612-424-9787
near Minneapolis, Minnesota
****************************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
Subject: | Re: 4-stroke Engines |
>I'd like to add another motor, though how it's described as "four cycle"
> is a mystery to me - the Wankel rotary.
The wankel is a 4 cycle because the charge (fuel and air mixture) goes
through 4 distinct phases... intake compression, power and exhaust... They
are ported like 2 stroke engines and if the ports overlap they must be tuned
for intake and exhaust to make power, just like a 2 stroke.
>.....There are 2 versions available,
>From RotorPower This is the same
>engine that Atkins Aviation has......
Atkins also sells modiffied Mazda 13b engines
I believe that Rotorpower is another company entirely, making a very
different, though still wankel type,engine as an offshoot of Moller's VTOL
program... Maybe they are Rotopower... which has shown very slow progress
over the years.
I work for Powersport Aviation and we also make a mazda 13B engine
conversion for aircraft use. but 210 HP is to much for MKIII's!
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: 4-stroke Engines-Wankel what? |
Not to create an argument but a Wankel is not a 4-stroke engine. All
conventional engines have 4 cycles but in a 4-stroke they occur over 4
strokes or better put two complete revolutions of the crank. A two-stroke
engine completes all four cycles in two strokes or again better put one
complete revolution of the crank. The Wankel engine is a rotary "vane" engine
and does not have strokes but like all internal combustion engines it has
four cycles. The four cycles/phases are intake--compression--power--exhaust,
same as a four-stroke or a two-stroke engine or for that matter a turbine
engine. JR, A&P
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
Subject: | 4-stroke Engines |
This has been a nice discussion on the different "4 stroke" engines
available for the mark III. I thought you might be interested in another one
thrown into the mix. The Wankel folks in Germany have come out with a
couple of rotary engines that are available for light aircraft. A 35
horsepower and a 75 horsepower engine. It comes complete with reduction
system. The exclusive reseller for these engines is Atkins Aviation. IF
anyone is interested in more specific information his web sight is
http://www.atkinsrotary.com/. The 75 hp engine is comparable in price to the
Jabiru 80.
John Wood -22.2 hours
N670JW
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis & Diane Kirby [mailto:kirbyd(at)flash.net]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 6:29 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: 4-stroke Engines
Dear Fellow Kolbers
I have been reading with interest the latest thread on four-stroke
engines that was prompted by the question about installing the HKS-700
in a Mark-3.
Since I have not yet selected an engine for my almost-completed Mark-3,
I have been busy this past year researching various 4-stroke engine
options. (Note I have already made the decision that my Twinstar will
be powered by a 4-stroke engine. My intent here is not to argue about
the perceived reliability differences between the two-stroke and
four-stroke engines. Rather, going with a 4-stroke is simply a personal
choice and I'm prepared to spend a few extra bucks for one.)
That said, I'd like to share a few findings with you that I've dug up.
Again, these are based on my own research and observations. If any of
you see that I'm way off-base here, please enlighten me and the rest of
the Group.
ROTAX-912. Undeniably a good engine. More or less the standard of
comparison for all other 4-stroke engines in the light-aircraft market.
The seller for me was reading about John Hauck's adventure from Alabama
to Alaska in 1994 in his 912-powered Mark-3. 19,400 miles in 260 hours
with only a change of spark plugs midway thru his trip. Sounds pretty
reliable to me. Downside (I've heard) is the complexity of the engine
for working on it yourself. Any comments from you 912-owners out
there? The other thing would be cost. At over $10,000 for the complete
package ouch! 140 lbs.
JABIRU-80. I've seen some discussion on the List in the recent past on
this engine from someone looking for any Kolb-flyers with experience
with this engine. Somebody described it as "a jewel of an engine" with
its radiused corners and precisely machined surfaces. Sounds nice.
Being a direct-drive, the max prop size you could go with is 61 inches,
if that matters to you. $7500, 123 lbs.
HKS-700. I, too, have heard stories from pilots about this engine being
over-rated on power, that the claimed 60 hp in reality behaves more like
50 or 55. Probably a reliable engine, coming from a Japanese company
involved for many years in automotive after-market accessories like
turbochargers and such. I've heard of incidents of valve problems,
also. $7200 and 116 lbs, they claim to be the first 4-stroke aircraft
engine to have achieved the power-to-weight ratios on par with the
2-strokes (assuming you believe it's truly delivering 60 hp).
MOTAVIA ULTRATEC. This is the one made in England. 80 hp and
water-cooled, it sounds like good power-to-weight at 121 lbs, and the
pictures on their website look impressive. Spoke with the company
owner; he said they have experienced "setbacks" in testing in the past
two years, resulting in delayed deliveries of production engines. Then
I spoke to the guy in Washington state who was the original
importer/supplier for the US in 1996, who had a somewhat different
story. He told me Motavia misled him regarding the amount of testing
that was done on the engine, and that he's had many problems with the
engine. He has since abandoned his role as distributor for the engine.
Another source relayed a story to me about a brand-new Motavia (a couple
of years ago) who's gearbox disintegrated in the first 30 minutes of
operation. With its fuel injection and dual electronic ignition, it
could be a good engine if they've fixed the bugs. July 99 issue of
Ultralight Flying! reports the price at $8900.
GEO METRO. These are being offered by a guy who's original motive was
the reduction unit, which he's called the Raven Redrive. Essentially,
it's a stock 60 hp Suzuki 3-cylinder single-ignition car engine, mated
to his cog-belt redrive unit. No reliability info, other than what I've
seen on this List, where someone reported this engine spending lots of
time in the shop. $7800, 160 lbs.
GREAT PLAINS. Claimed to offer the most power for the money (70 hp for
$5000,), this VW variant engine, at 165 lbs, is about the heaviest
engine the Mark-3 can accommodate. Although I know of several
homebuilders who've used this engine, the only guy I know of using one
on a Kolb is our very own Richard Nielsen. He'll have specifics on
installation details and performance. (So, Richard, are you happy with
the VW installation in your Mark-3?)
VERNER SVS-1400. This two-cylinder air-cooled 80 hp motor is built in
the Czech republic with the underlying intent of being simple and
reliable. Verner Motorworks was originally commissioned about ten years
ago by the Soviet Union to produce a light aircraft engine, as the
Eastern European nations were unable to import western engines at the
time. Fully-funded by the Soviets to tool up for mass production, the
fall of the iron curtain effectively eliminated Verner's intended
market. So they went public, and are selling engines mostly in Europe.
The SVS-1400 is JAR-22 certified, which gives confidence that it is a
well-tested engine. At 160 lbs, it offers the same power and torque as
the Rotax-912. $7500 includes the cog-belt reduction unit, a tach and
engine instruments. I have learned that there are two Kolb Mark-3s
flying with this engine, both in Florida. One is owned by the US
distributor of the SVS-1400, based at South Florida Flyers in Coleman,
FL. Anyone out there know the owners?
As I mentioned, this information is simply a summary of what I have
collected in my quest for deciding which engine to install in my
Mark-3. It is not intended to promote or "bash" a particular
manufacturer's engine. If you found this bit of rambling interesting,
then I feel like I've helped the Group.
Dennis Kirby
Mark-3, s/n 300, 75 percent complete and yet to choose an engine
Cedar Crest, New Mexico
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | 4-stroke Engines |
The web site wouldn't let me in.
My credentials were inadequite. Makes you wonder...
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
>
>This has been a nice discussion on the different "4 stroke" engines
>available for the mark III. I thought you might be interested in another one
>thrown into the mix. The Wankel folks in Germany have come out with a
>couple of rotary engines that are available for light aircraft. A 35
>horsepower and a 75 horsepower engine. It comes complete with reduction
>system. The exclusive reseller for these engines is Atkins Aviation. IF
>anyone is interested in more specific information his web sight is
>http://www.atkinsrotary.com/. The 75 hp engine is comparable in price to the
>Jabiru 80.
>
>John Wood -22.2 hours
>N670JW
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DRMusgrove(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Possum's 'ultralight' Q |
Hi Possum!
Currently in the stable are a Mitchell A-10 (Zenoah 22hp), a Kolb Ultrastar
(ULIIO2) and a QS Sprint II trainer (R582) with a composite twin-engine UL on
the drawing board. All of the flying craft have been inspected to Part 103
and the Feds that used to look at me with a squinting eye no longer do. Was
quite a hassle while they did, tho. Nearly crushed the local flying club.
:-( Also, taking my responsibilities seriously, the trainer uses a BRS, my
training, certificates, endorsements, registrations and waivers are current
and valid, recommended maintenance is on time and verifiable by a certified
Tech (me) and insurance and hangaring is voluntarily applied at an alarming
co$t. But, hey - I have fun when I fly, I don't get hassled, I enjoy helping
others when I can and I sleep well. :-) Hope that answers your question - I
kind-of read between the lines....
David M.
> From: Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: 10 gal. tanks/75% power/carboning
>
>
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I am commenting on 3 different messages to save bandwidth :-)
> >
> >A) 10 gallon tanks in an "ultralight" - My 2 cents about this is not what
> >your question was - different point that rarely gets mentioned. If you
are
>
> >building an Experimental aircraft or UL Trainer, fine, else: In the US,
> FAR
> >Part 103 is very specific as to what is and is not an 'ultralight'.
>
> What kind of "ultrlight" are you flying.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DRMusgrove(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: 4-stroke Engines-Wankel what? |
JR:
Thank you, and well said. It has always been a mild irritant to see
incorrect terminology used. Although we know what the oil bottle means when
it states '2-cycle', it causes (as in this case) unnecessary confusion at a
later, often unexpected time. I hope I don't sound anal-retentive, but it is
very frustrating having to revisit muddied subjects when the whole situ could
have been easily avoided.
Thanks again...
David M.
In a message dated 9/20/99 2:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
> From: JRWillJR(at)aol.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 4-stroke Engines-Wankel what?
>
>
> Not to create an argument but a Wankel is not a 4-stroke engine. All
> conventional engines have 4 cycles but in a 4-stroke they occur over 4
> strokes or better put two complete revolutions of the crank. A two-stroke
> engine completes all four cycles in two strokes or again better put one
> complete revolution of the crank. The Wankel engine is a rotary "vane"
> engine
> and does not have strokes but like all internal combustion engines it has
> four cycles. The four cycles/phases are
intake--compression--power--exhaust,
>
> same as a four-stroke or a two-stroke engine or for that matter a turbine
> engine. JR, A&P
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net> |
Richard
Are you still interested in photos of spades? If so let me know and I
will take some. A Super Decathlon just made it's home at a local
airport and it is equipped with spades. They look quite simple to build
actually.
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "TONY DEB" <tony.deb(at)prodigy.net> |
Subject: | rotary shaft-- 582 |
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com>
Date: Monday, September 20, 1999 6:58 PM
Subject: rotory shaft-582
Hi All
44 hours later i find water in the small oil bottle feeding the rotary shaft
on my 582 (make checking for discoloration a must). called CPS an Ordered
The 2 seals a nut an a few washers cost with shipping $44. Thats a buck an
hour not counting my labor. Anyway any hints as to how I repair this? I have
the repair manual.
Thanks Tony--mark 111 --582
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard neilsen" <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us> |
Subject: | 4-stroke Engines -Reply |
Yes I'm very happy with my VW powered MKII but it's still a bit early to say for
sure and give many details. I have had a period were I haven't flown (10 months
- long story- not aircraft related). The main problem is that there isn't
a engine kit to put the VW on a Kolb. The climb performance is a bit slow but
I'm primarily a spam can pilot so it feels about right. The engine runs slow
(2500 - 3500 in the air) and very smooth but is still very loud. I plan on welding
up a 4 into 1 exhaust system this winter but?? Flying solo it flies about
like a 912 with another 200 lbs. on board. The full engine weight is close to
the weight of a 912.
Rick Neilsen VW powered MKIII
>>> Dennis & Diane Kirby 09/17/99 09:29pm >>>
Dear Fellow Kolbers
I have been reading with interest the latest thread on four-stroke
GREAT PLAINS. Claimed to offer the most power for the money (70 hp for
$5000,), this VW variant engine, at 165 lbs, is about the heaviest
engine the Mark-3 can accommodate. Although I know of several
homebuilders who've used this engine, the only guy I know of using one
on a Kolb is our very own Richard Nielsen. He'll have specifics on
installation details and performance. (So, Richard, are you happy with
the VW installation in your Mark-3?)<<<<
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
I would like
> to have a 20 gallon tank for cross country, but can't figure how to get
> one to fit the Kolb without taking the frame apart.
> Dallas Shepherd
>
I too would like 20 gallons on the MKiii, especially with that thirsty 582.
My plan is to add about 8 gallons capacity in the form of a third tank.
I figure the total of 19 gallons will give me 200 miles plus a small reserve,
disregarding wind. The tank will take the form of a replacement gap seal, and
form a fairing for the front side of the engine. It will be of composite
construction and the goals will be to add fuel capacity, improve performance by
reducing drag at the front of the engine and at the interface with the
windshield, , and decrease cabin noise by adding better-damping and mass
between the occupants and the engine, all while adding a minimum of weight. The
weight will be kept down by using last-a-foam and Kevlar. A third fill-cap will
be used, and the new tank will simply dump into the stock double five tanks thru
a valve and a "T". So it will be like reserve, upon demand the valve could be
reached and opened to dump more fuel from Aux tank to mains. This is the least
complicated way I can think of to add capacity without having venting problems,
etc. Any suggestions will be appreciated. I will post progress as I start,
once there's too much snow on the ground (December).
Flight report: Saturday , the winds at 1200' AGL were 30-35 mph. Not quite
enuf to fly backwards, but close. If they were not gusty I could have done it.
Cross-wind landing at estimated 25 mph from the left went smooth as glass,
believe it or not. I was surprised.
My Dad asked me last night why I don't slip the Kolb. I told him that slips are
ineffective in the Kolb because of the small fuselage area. Did I tell him the
truth, is anybody slipping? Does this give any advantage over the flaps. I
can't imagine coming in any steeper than full flaps, but I'll try it sometime
(at altitude of course).
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard neilsen" <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us> |
Subject: | New Kolb Flyin & Other |
I'm planning to attend the New Kolb flyin this weekend if the Kolb instructor doesn't
get called away on a charter. Is anyone else going to make it to the flyin?
The instructor claims he can't give me my biannual in the factory MKIII because
the MKIII is a experimental aircraft. When I was at the Kolb factory in PA. I
was given a biannual by Dan and he said there was a special exemption for factory
aircraft so that pilots/aircraft owners could get training in their type
aircraft. Does anyone have any info on these FAA regulations.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net> |
--------------2D8449EB2CE9
Jim:
Want to make two of them??
Dallas (all legal) Shephed
--------------2D8449EB2CE9
From: gerken(at)us.ibm.com
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:15:44 -0500
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: 20 gallons
I would like
> to have a 20 gallon tank for cross country, but can't figure how to get
> one to fit the Kolb without taking the frame apart.
> Dallas Shepherd
>
I too would like 20 gallons on the MKiii, especially with that thirsty 582.
My plan is to add about 8 gallons capacity in the form of a third tank.
I figure the total of 19 gallons will give me 200 miles plus a small reserve,
disregarding wind. The tank will take the form of a replacement gap seal, and
form a fairing for the front side of the engine. It will be of composite
construction and the goals will be to add fuel capacity, improve performance by
reducing drag at the front of the engine and at the interface with the
windshield, , and decrease cabin noise by adding better-damping and mass
between the occupants and the engine, all while adding a minimum of weight. The
weight will be kept down by using last-a-foam and Kevlar. A third fill-cap will
be used, and the new tank will simply dump into the stock double five tanks thru
a valve and a "T". So it will be like reserve, upon demand the valve could be
reached and opened to dump more fuel from Aux tank to mains. This is the least
complicated way I can think of to add capacity without having venting problems,
etc. Any suggestions will be appreciated. I will post progress as I start,
once there's too much snow on the ground (December).
Flight report: Saturday , the winds at 1200' AGL were 30-35 mph. Not quite
enuf to fly backwards, but close. If they were not gusty I could have done it.
Cross-wind landing at estimated 25 mph from the left went smooth as glass,
believe it or not. I was surprised.
My Dad asked me last night why I don't slip the Kolb. I told him that slips are
ineffective in the Kolb because of the small fuselage area. Did I tell him the
truth, is anybody slipping? Does this give any advantage over the flaps. I
can't imagine coming in any steeper than full flaps, but I'll try it sometime
(at altitude of course).
Jim G
--------------2D8449EB2CE9--
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: New Kolb Flyin & Other |
Richard:
I have been getting my BFR from Dan at Sun & Fun since 1994
in the factory MK III.
I will be at the Kolb Flyin Lord willing, weather and
airplane permitting. I plan on flying up day after
tomorrow, Wed, and stay til next Sunday or Monday.
Ya'll come!
john h
PS Bill Griffin, Fire Star owner/flyer, MK III builder, and
our buddy Stan Tew are driving up Fri.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Jim, yes you can slip the Kolb and it comes down like an elevator. It's
the added drag from the side of the cockpit, fin/rudder, and side wing
drag that causes it to sink without increasing airspeed. Slips close to
stall can be dangerous and from that standpoint flaps have the advantage.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 12 years flying
>My Dad asked me last night why I don't slip the Kolb. I told him that
>slips are
>ineffective in the Kolb because of the small fuselage area. Did I
>tell him the
>truth, is anybody slipping? Does this give any advantage over the
>flaps. I
>can't imagine coming in any steeper than full flaps, but I'll try it
>sometime
>(at altitude of course).
>
> Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
My address is: Rick Klebon 26934 Nanticoke Road Salisbury, Md. 21801.
Please let me know what I owe you (shipping ect.) Many thanks!!
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 9/20/99 4:10:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ul15rhb(at)juno.com
writes:
<< My Dad asked me last night why I don't slip the Kolb. I told him that
>slips are
>ineffective in the Kolb because of the small fuselage area. Did I
>tell him the
>truth, is anybody slipping? Does this give any advantage over the
>flaps. I
>can't imagine coming in any steeper than full flaps, but I'll try it
>sometime
>(at altitude of course).
>
> Jim G
>>
I slip too, and I've heard the same as you, but I have no other frame of
reference as the Firestar is the only plane I've ever slipped..... the
gliders I've flown before all had spoilers and the pterodactyl....well it was
a canard and we would just go sloooooow and it would drop like a
leaf...can't remember it ever stalling , just dipping ...sorta.... it had a
very unusual multiangle of attack wing....very draggy ...but very safe....for
stalling. GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WEBEFLYRS(at)aol.com |
Subject: | remove me from your e mail list |
please remove me from your e-mail list ....thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Prosuper(at)aol.com |
Subject: | remove me from your e mail list |
Please remove me from your email list .Thank You
From: WEBEFLYRS(at)aol.com
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 21:16:04 EDT
Subject: Kolb-List: remove me from your e mail list
please remove me from your e-mail list ....thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
> possum,
> it doesn't happen. i use AMSOIL at 100 to 1. in fact i changed my
>exhaust
>gasket this summer and while i had the muffler off i looked inside the engine
>and found no
>carbon and/or stuck rings. i could still see the hash marks on the cylinder
>walls .
> ..................... tim
So did one of us, untill he took the jugs off and found the rings stuck in
two spots.
He could still see the hash marks too after 100 hours.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ian Heritch" <heritch(at)connecti.com> |
Subject: | Slingshot wheel/gear leg alignment |
Any tips on alignment of the wheels/gear legs of a Slingshot?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>Your "cruising" too slow. Your going to carbon up your engine & stick you
>rings. ..............
If your EGT is up where it is supposed to be, if you are using good oil and
unleaded gas, and all your temps are correct, why would it matter what
speed the engine is turning over, or how much power it is producing? In my
meagre experience of 17 years with Rotax engines, it appears that it is not
running an engine too slow to be what cruds it up, but running it too rich
and too cold.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | The Labharts <njlabhart(at)kih.net> |
Hi Jim,
I fly the factory Mark III a lot. It slips very well. I think it
is due to turning the broadside of the windshield/fuselage nearly
perpendicular to the relative wind.
My frame of reference is my ole '56 Cessna 172. I love slipping
that plane as well. It's just good fun!
The FireStar doesn't seem to lose much in a slip. Not much
fuselage to it. But, for some reason, the little FireFly likes to come
down sideways. Maybe more fuselage to wing ratio than the FireStar.
I wonder what the difference slipping the Mark III would be
without the doors on? Wind right in the face I'll bet. John H. can you
comment on with/without doors?
>My Dad asked me last night why I don't slip the Kolb. I told him that
slips are
>ineffective in the Kolb because of the small fuselage area. Did I tell
him the
>truth, is anybody slipping? Does this give any advantage over the flaps. I
>can't imagine coming in any steeper than full flaps, but I'll try it sometime
>(at altitude of course).
>
> Jim G
njlabhart(at)kih.net
1956 Cessna 172 7453A
Graham Lee Nieuport 11 replica
Serial Number 1080, On the Gear!
Kolb FireStar II, 11 Ribs built
http://www.users.kih.net/~njlabhart/nieuport.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Saturday the 25th |
Hoping to see a bunch of youse guys at the New Kolb Factory if the weather
is not impossible. Will be flying up Saturday morning, hopefully with about
three more in the flight, and coming back that evening.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> I wonder what the difference slipping the Mark III would be
> without the doors on? Wind right in the face I'll bet. John H. can you
> comment on with/without doors?
>
Norm and Gang:
Don't know. Have not tried. Like my doors on and locked.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Russell" <jr(at)rometool.com> |
Subject: | Re: Slingshot wheel/gear leg alignment |
Hey Ian,
I ended up using 2-pieces of .625 dia. x 24" long c.r.s. round stock
. I inserted these through
gear legs where axles fit. Then I used a straight 2 x 4 and layed it
horizontally next to the 24" stock
and turned gear legs untill they were parallel with 2 x 4. This worked well
for me. Tracks real well
even on pavement.
John R.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Heritch <heritch(at)connecti.com>
Date: Monday, September 20, 1999 11:41 PM
Subject: Kolb-List: Slingshot wheel/gear leg alignment
>
>Any tips on alignment of the wheels/gear legs of a Slingshot?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Howard Ping" <hping(at)hyperaction.net> |
Subject: | Re: Saturday the 25th |
Richard
Look forward to seeing you
Sat.It's a really big cross-country
for me 12 miles (did I ever luck
out on the TNK move)
Weather is supposed to be sunny and
mid 70's
Howard
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Morning Gang:
Will be departing Gantt International Airport, all 750 feet
of it, in the morning, weather permitting. Lunch in
Collegedale, Tn, just outside Chattanooga, Tn, and then on
up to Chessnut Knolls Air Foundation, London, Ky. Will be
playing with a headwind all the way, according to the
weather guesser. Situation normal. ;-)
Plan on doing a lot of flying after I get there. Already
have Pucker Patch International Airport in my GPS data
base. Can't wait to land there. If you haven't seen Howard
Ping's Pucker Patch air strip in the mountains of Kentucky,
go to his web site:
http://www.hyperaction.net/hping/
Looking forward to seeing everybody this week in London.
Gonna be a lot more fun (and up close) than Lakeland and
Oshkosh. I like smaller flyins.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "michael highsmith" <firehawk54(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: rotary shaft-- 582 |
Tony, I have a 582 also and you may as well know that you have a more
serious problem than the seal leaking. If you don't find the other problem
and correct it you will be replacing the seal again and again.
The problem will have to do with too much coolant pressure. Your system
somehow is not able to relieve the pressure or your system is creating the
higher pressure abnormally.
A water pressure gauge is a very important part of the 582 and will tell you
exactly when it is creating too much pressure. It will give you the warning
you will need to save the next seal without having to replace it. A good
water pressure gauge kit only cost around $50 and it is worth every cent. I
bought mine at a Marine parts/supply store.
Some in our club run the pressure at 15 lbs. and don't seem to have a
problem. I run mine at 7 lbs. and haven't had to touch the coolant system
for over 120 hours now. I assume that 15 lbs. would be ok being the 582s
don't run hot enough to boil the coolant anyway. The pressure cap you choose
will determine how much pressure you are running unless the head gasket
O-rings are leaking compression gases into the system. In this case the
pressure will over load the system and it will blow all the coolant out in a
very short time. This is where a gauge comes in handy in that it give you
plenty of warning..
You will need to flush the RV oil system with mineral spitits until you are
sure all the water is out. If you let it sit for any time the water will
seperate and corrode the metal parts in the system. Then it gets real
costly.
Sometimes it is nothing more than replacing the radiator cap. If you cannot
find the cause it will most likely happen again and soon.
Firehawk
>From: "TONY DEB" <tony.deb(at)prodigy.net>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Kolb-List: rotary shaft-- 582
>Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:57:30 +0430
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com>
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Date: Monday, September 20, 1999 6:58 PM
>Subject: rotory shaft-582
>
>Hi All
>44 hours later i find water in the small oil bottle feeding the rotary
>shaft
>on my 582 (make checking for discoloration a must). called CPS an Ordered
>The 2 seals a nut an a few washers cost with shipping $44. Thats a buck an
>hour not counting my labor. Anyway any hints as to how I repair this? I
>have
>the repair manual.
>Thanks Tony--mark 111 --582
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "michael highsmith" <firehawk54(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: 75% .....stuck rings |
Possum is right.
One cannot determine if the rings are stuck or not unless the cylinders are
pulled. The rings (usually) stick on the intake side from the ring end gap
out.The hash marks can be visible after 600 hours with no sign of wear on
the cylinders and the rings can still be stuck. Besides a 2 stroke wears at
the ports first. This is where the least amount of surface metal is for the
rings and pistons to land. A measurement across the port area will tell you
if you cylinder is wearing not looking at the hash marks. Your engine will
stop running long before the hash marks are gone.
Firehawk
>From: Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 75% .....
>Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:40:31 -0400
>
>
> > possum,
> > it doesn't happen. i use AMSOIL at 100 to 1. in fact i changed
>my
> >exhaust
> >gasket this summer and while i had the muffler off i looked inside the
>engine
> >and found no
> >carbon and/or stuck rings. i could still see the hash marks on the
>cylinder
> >walls .
> > ..................... tim
> So did one of us, until he took the jugs off and found the rings stuck in
>two spots.
>He could still see the hash marks too after 100 hours.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: rotary shaft-- 582 |
In a message dated 99-09-21 9:57:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
firehawk54(at)hotmail.com writes:
<< Some in our club run the pressure at 15 lbs. and don't seem to have a
problem. I run mine at 7 lbs. and haven't had to touch the coolant system
for over 120 hours now. I assume that 15 lbs. would be OK being the 582s
don't run hot enough to boil the coolant anyway. The pressure cap you choose
will determine how much pressure you are running >>
Gentlemen:
I find this discussion interesting. I have the westberg electronic water
pressure gauge with the sender installed between the pump and the radiator on
my 582. I have the standard 9 pound (I think) radiator cap that came with
the engine from Rotax. At idle I get about 5 lbs. As the engine heats up
the water pressure goes up, sometimes it pegs the needle at 13. I have the
Rotax overflow bottle and know that occasionally after shut down the cap
releases and coolant flows into the bottle.
My question is this: if the cap is supposed to let go at 9 lbs how do I
see 13 on the gauge? If I understand the system correctly I should never see
more than 9, right? I'm more inclined to believe the gauge than the rating
on the cap, which is probably just someone's guess at when the spring
compresses enough to open the valve. Any thoughts from the group?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
Back again with my two cents worth. You all may think a Kolb Firestar wont
slip much but I gotta tell ya, I believe its ability to slip probably sasved
my life and/or the airframe. Had to come down from 2800'ag with dead engine.
Picked only place on earth without trees and started down. I did a zig zag
ri0ght and left pattern on approach with heavy nose down, maximum slip each
direction. Did not gai0n air speed buyt lost a ton of alt. When I got
close, I straighted out the slip to put her 0in on the rough but landable
terrain. My buddies and I were 24 miles from Etawah Bend, Ga and they took a
gps fix and came back with a trailer and we got her home. I practice the
slip all the ti0me and I always practice landing 1000' right under me. If
you have trouble landing a Kolb of any sort you had better start practicing
cause I will guarantee you, you WILL need the experience some day. J Hauck
told me many years ago the importance of practice landings and whqt he called
the "corn field landing". If you practice you will have experience and
knowledge to carry it off and the Ksolb will do it for you if you ask it.
You just have to know how to talk to her. my two cents.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
Gotta knee jerker for someone out there. Maybe I am nuts or whatever but
after using it for years, I finally checked to see how acurate my measuring
cup from Ratio Rite was. Guess what, 50-1 is actually more closely measured
using their 44-1mark. That is not much oil but it makes a whole gallon of gas
difference per can. Another thing, did anybody out there there know that
pensoil puts asbout an extra once of oil in their containers. I measured 5
and all had too much oil. Probably would not make a diffence to the state of
the world but it meanss if you use the scale on the bottle you will use too
much oil and it does change your mix ratio - imagine mixing just one gal from
the bottle with an extra once at the top! Think about it. I guess Pensoil
lthinks more oil is better than less oil. Maybe my measurements are offf.
Anybody care to comment. How about checking your measuring cup? G'day Ted
One more thing. Amsoil. 100:1 mix. Is it better? Can you start using it
after about 40 hours or so. Does it do better in a wet climate and dew? Is
it really worth the effort. I had 190 hours on a 447 and it was still clean
inside. No ring sludge or anything. Care to comment. G'day Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Teal, David" <Teald(at)diebold.com> |
Here's another dumb question from someone who has never flown, or taken any
lessons, but is champing at the bit to get started: can you just take off
and land anywhere or does it have to be a regular airport. I know a couple
of people that take off from their back yard (a big back yard), but what
about landing for a stretch break, to explore the wilderness, etc.? Do you
have to get permission from someone? There's a college close by that has a
really big grassy area that would be perfect for touch-n-go's, but I'm not
sure if permission is needed.
Thanks,
D.C. Teal
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: rotary shaft-- 582 |
. I have the standard 9 pound (I think) radiator cap that came with
>the engine from Rotax. At idle I get about 5 lbs. As the engine heats up
>the water pressure goes up, sometimes it pegs the needle at 13. I have the
>Rotax overflow bottle and know that occasionally after shut down the cap
>releases and coolant flows into the bottle.
>
> My question is this: if the cap is supposed to let go at 9 lbs how do I
>see 13 on the gauge? If I understand the system correctly I should never see
>more than 9, right? I'm more inclined to believe the gauge than the rating
>on the cap, which is probably just someone's guess at when the spring
>compresses enough to open the valve. Any thoughts from the group?
Your understanding would agree with my understanding.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "michael highsmith" <firehawk54(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: rotary shaft-- 582 |
If you have a CPS catolog, go to Proper care and feeding of a Rotax motor
and turn to page 49. It gives all the information you will need to answer
your questions. Your cap is not relieving the pressure properly which should
be no more than 8 lbs.
Firehawk
>From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: rotary shaft-- 582
>Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:19:56 EDT
>
>
>In a message dated 99-09-21 9:57:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>firehawk54(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
><< Some in our club run the pressure at 15 lbs. and don't seem to have a
> problem. I run mine at 7 lbs. and haven't had to touch the coolant system
> for over 120 hours now. I assume that 15 lbs. would be OK being the 582s
> don't run hot enough to boil the coolant anyway. The pressure cap you
>choose
> will determine how much pressure you are running >>
>
>
>Gentlemen:
>
> I find this discussion interesting. I have the westberg electronic
>water
>pressure gauge with the sender installed between the pump and the radiator
>on
>my 582. I have the standard 9 pound (I think) radiator cap that came with
>the engine from Rotax. At idle I get about 5 lbs. As the engine heats up
>the water pressure goes up, sometimes it pegs the needle at 13. I have the
>Rotax overflow bottle and know that occasionally after shut down the cap
>releases and coolant flows into the bottle.
>
> My question is this: if the cap is supposed to let go at 9 lbs how do
>I
>see 13 on the gauge? If I understand the system correctly I should never
>see
>more than 9, right? I'm more inclined to believe the gauge than the rating
>on the cap, which is probably just someone's guess at when the spring
>compresses enough to open the valve. Any thoughts from the group?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Land anywhere? |
>
>Here's another dumb question from someone who has never flown, or taken any
>lessons, but is champing at the bit to get started: can you just take off
>and land anywhere or does it have to be a regular airport. I know a couple
>of people that take off from their back yard (a big back yard), but what
>about landing for a stretch break, to explore the wilderness, etc.? Do you
>have to get permission from someone? There's a college close by that has a
>really big grassy area that would be perfect for touch-n-go's, but I'm not
>sure if permission is needed.
>
>Thanks,
>D.C. Teal
>
Permission is a good idea. Some people may not care, especially private
individuals, but it has been my experience that any place big enough to
employ a law firm will tell you no. Liability concerns. However, if your
engine was not behaving itself well, and you had to land to check it out,
or adjust something, then most people will be pretty civil. At least that's
what I have always told the hostile ones, and it has worked so far.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (42OldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "michael highsmith" <firehawk54(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Ted ol' pal,
Please tell us what you found that caused your engine out. I still don't
know. It would be good to put in my 2 stroke file.
As far as Pennzoil putting too much oil in the bottles, I think
Dodo-1 told us about this a couple years ago, if you mix 6 gallons to one
pint everytime you are only adding .27 oz. per gallon if the bottle has 17
ozs. in it. This would bring your mixture up to 45.2-1
It isn't a good thing to run rich with oil but I don't think it would cause
any lubrication or wear problems. But then who tries to get every drop out
of the bottle anyway.
Are you guys coming down to Quincy this weekend?
Firehawk
>From: TCowan1917(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: oil
>Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:50:40 EDT
>
>
>Gotta knee jerker for someone out there. Maybe I am nuts or whatever but
>after using it for years, I finally checked to see how acurate my measuring
>cup from Ratio Rite was. Guess what, 50-1 is actually more closely
>measured
>using their 44-1mark. That is not much oil but it makes a whole gallon of
>gas
>difference per can. Another thing, did anybody out there there know that
>pensoil puts asbout an extra once of oil in their containers. I measured 5
>and all had too much oil. Probably would not make a diffence to the state
>of
>the world but it meanss if you use the scale on the bottle you will use
>too
>much oil and it does change your mix ratio - imagine mixing just one gal
>from
>the bottle with an extra once at the top! Think about it. I guess Pensoil
>lthinks more oil is better than less oil. Maybe my measurements are offf.
>Anybody care to comment. How about checking your measuring cup? G'day Ted
>
>One more thing. Amsoil. 100:1 mix. Is it better? Can you start using it
>after about 40 hours or so. Does it do better in a wet climate and dew?
>Is
>it really worth the effort. I had 190 hours on a 447 and it was still
>clean
>inside. No ring sludge or anything. Care to comment. G'day Ted
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Land anywhere? |
You would need permission from that college to land on their property except
for emergency of course. Public owned land such as BLM, National Forest often
have airstrips but I think it is allowable to land where no hazard would be
created--not National Parks and Monuments however. Be careful about landing
"on nice grassy spots"--they may not be so smooth and grassy and may hide
farm implements, holes, ditches, expired possums etc. JR
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "michael highsmith" <firehawk54(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Land anywhere? |
Yes, you have to get permission from the land owner to land unless it is an
emergency, then you have to answer to the FAA if the land owner is a jerk or
you break something or someone. If you are out away from people and
structures you may can get away with it but it won't make it legal and there
is the potential for bending something in an un- familiar field. You don't
have to always land at airports though. It is a liability issue. Without a
signed release to the land owner, it makes him almost as responsible as you
are for the safe operation of your ultralight if you are on his property.
That's the way I read the law here in Florida.
USUA has great third party insurance that can help appease the land owner.
Check it out.
Firehawk
>From: "Teal, David" <Teald(at)diebold.com>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: Land anywhere?
>Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:25:37 -0400
>
>
>Here's another dumb question from someone who has never flown, or taken any
>lessons, but is champing at the bit to get started: can you just take off
>and land anywhere or does it have to be a regular airport. I know a couple
>of people that take off from their back yard (a big back yard), but what
>about landing for a stretch break, to explore the wilderness, etc.? Do you
>have to get permission from someone? There's a college close by that has a
>really big grassy area that would be perfect for touch-n-go's, but I'm not
>sure if permission is needed.
>
>Thanks,
>D.C. Teal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Vince Nicely" <vincenicely(at)intermediatn.net> |
Subject: | Re: 75% .....stuck rings |
Hi Gang,
I have a couple of questions. The following comment:
> One cannot determine if the rings are stuck or not unless the cylinders
are
> pulled.
makes me want to ask:
Is a compression test of any value in telling of stuck rings. It seems a
lot easier to do than pulling cylinders. Because I have no experience, I
wonder if any of you do and know what can be learned from compression on a
Rotax.
Also, is it OK to pull a spark plug out of a hot engine? I seem to
remember that some engines tend to strip head threads if plug is removed
hot. Is pulling a plug and measuring compression hot possible and useful?
Thanks.
Vince
Firestar II (235 hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "michael highsmith" <firehawk54(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re:slipping in while circling |
I was there. Saw the whole thing from 1000'. You all should be proud of Ted.
He put that little Kolb in a place that would have eaten most of us. This
is also a perfect example of an understanding property owner. He even
unlocked his gate so we could retrieve the Firestar from the field, which by
the way didn't have a flat spot in it.
Firehawk
>From: TCowan1917(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: Re:slipping in
>Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:45:22 EDT
>
>
>Back again with my two cents worth. You all may think a Kolb Firestar wont
>slip much but I gotta tell ya, I believe its ability to slip probably
>sasved
>my life and/or the airframe. Had to come down from 2800'ag with dead
>engine.
> Picked only place on earth without trees and started down. I did a zig
>zag
>ri0ght and left pattern on approach with heavy nose down, maximum slip each
>direction. Did not gai0n air speed buyt lost a ton of alt. When I got
>close, I straighted out the slip to put her 0in on the rough but landable
>terrain. My buddies and I were 24 miles from Etawah Bend, Ga and they took
>a
>gps fix and came back with a trailer and we got her home. I practice the
>slip all the ti0me and I always practice landing 1000' right under me. If
>you have trouble landing a Kolb of any sort you had better start practicing
>cause I will guarantee you, you WILL need the experience some day. J Hauck
>told me many years ago the importance of practice landings and whqt he
>called
>the "corn field landing". If you practice you will have experience and
>knowledge to carry it off and the Ksolb will do it for you if you ask it.
>You just have to know how to talk to her. my two cents.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Land anywhere? |
D.C.:
Any time you land on someone else's property without their
permission, you are trespassing, even if the engine stops
and you have no other choice.
I have been fling my local area for 15 years. I have
landing rights in many places on private, state, and country
property. Permission was granted prior to landing in most
cases. Once in a while I would land next to "Farmer Brown"
in his hay field, then ask about landing in the future.
Would be very leery about landing on a college campus
without official prior permission.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
>
>My Dad asked me last night why I don't slip the Kolb. I told him that
slips are
>ineffective in the Kolb because of the small fuselage area. Did I tell him the
>truth, is anybody slipping? Does this give any advantage over the flaps. I
>can't imagine coming in any steeper than full flaps, but I'll try it sometime
>(at altitude of course).
>
> Jim G
My Twinstar does not slip well at all. The wind whistles right through
the frame. Comes in handy in those severe cross wind conditions that leave
other ul pilots with their jaws dropping into the dirt as you do cross wind
touch and goes they could not dream of even attempting.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: 75% .....stuck rings |
>Hi Gang,
>I have a couple of questions. The following comment:
>> One cannot determine if the rings are stuck or not unless the cylinders
>are pulled.
> makes me want to ask:
>Is a compression test of any value in telling of stuck rings. It seems a
>lot easier to do than pulling cylinders. Because I have no experience, I
>wonder if any of you do and know what can be learned from compression on a
>Rotax.
>Also, is it OK to pull a spark plug out of a hot engine? I seem to
>remember that some engines tend to strip head threads if plug is removed
>hot. Is pulling a plug and measuring compression hot possible and useful?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Vince
>Firestar II (235 hrs)
I suspect that since aluminum expands a lot more than steel, it is possible
that rings that are not totally stuck at operating temperature could appear
stuck worse when cold, after the aluminum shrinks around them. Therefore
the results might be different hot than cold. I suspect it is also possible
that an engine could have partially stuck rings and still have good
compression.
As far as pulling the threads out of a hot head, with the long thread
length on the NGK B8ES type plugs that Rotax uses, probably not a problem.
What really ruins threads is carbon buildup on the end of a plug that
sticks down into the combustion chamber too far, and then trashes the
threads the next time it is removed. If it is a concern, put a TINY dab of
anti seize on the plug threads when you put it in.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (N420ldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | no more stuck rings |
From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
If you guys would use the synthetics and then treat it with Seafoam (this
is not meant to be an add for Seafoam or to start another thread) every
10-15 hrs, stuck rings would be a thing of the past. I've been doing this
way for the last 155 hours and this is the solution. Synthetics produce
less carbon deposits and the Seafoam takes care of what's left.
I use Klotz KL-216 at 50:1 and change plugs annually.
There you have it guys, why mess around?
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 12 years flying
>> it doesn't happen. i use AMSOIL at 100 to 1. in fact i changed my
>>exhaust gasket this summer and while i had the muffler off i looked
inside
>>the engine and found no carbon and/or stuck rings. i could still see
the hash >>marks on the cylinder walls .
>> ..................... tim
> So did one of us, untill he took the jugs off and found the rings
>stuck in two spots. He could still see the hash marks too after 100
hours.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Land anywhere? |
From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
Dave, you should have permission to make an off-field landing unless it's
an emergency situation. It's best to make all your takeoff and landings
on a private grass strip that is long enough, 1000' if possible. In the
past, ultralights used to takeoff and land on school, park, and other
open properties, but this is a thing of the past. There are enough grass
strips around this state (Minnesota) and many owners don't mind an
"experienced" pilot flying his Kolb into it occasionally. I fly out of
one, and the owner knows that I maintain a safe attitude and this is why
he lets me use it. Other ultralighters around the cities do the same.
This state is working on a proposal to allow ultralights to fly out of a
few GA airports close to the metro area that see less traffic because we
have a proven safety record. Most all of the other state airports are
open to ultralight traffic. Of course during the winter months, every
public frozen lake is game to use because there are no laws preventing
it, they are owned by the state, and there are 15,000 of them. These
frozen lakes are ideal places to learn to fly from, no x-wind landings
and no thermals to deal with. Those northern wannabe pilots should
seriously consider this when going through the teething stage. This is
how I started out.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 12 years flying
writes:
>Here's another dumb question from someone who has never flown, or
>taken any lessons, but is champing at the bit to get started: can you
just take
>off and land anywhere or does it have to be a regular airport.
>
>Thanks,
>D.C. Teal
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Howard Ping" <hping(at)hyperaction.net> |
John
The Pucker Patch would be honored to have such a world
traveler.I rode my bike to Alaska last month but I don't think
I'm up to it in my Firestar.
I think we're going to have a great fly-in!
Howard
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "plane" <plane(at)atomic.net> |
dose any body know what the max gross wt of a ultrastar is
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net> |
Randy,
I saw one at Sun & Fun with 5 gal. of gas & a 290lb. pilot playing in the
sky like an otter in the water. I don't know the technical suggested limit,
Kolb was always very conservative, but I'd guess its around 500lbs.
... Richard S
plane wrote:
>
> dose any body know what the max gross wt of a ultrastar is
>
> Randy
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net> |
Why would Homer Kolb say the Jabiru could pull, but might not push
properly. With the right RPMs and prop, what would be the difference??
Anyone have an answer? Also, can anyone tell me just what is the
difference in the Rotax gearboxes. What does a C do that the B doesn't
do. I have never heard an explanation on that. I know they cost more.
Still looking for someone thats put a Jabiru on a Mark 111. Thanks
to all for the advice on intercoms. Looks like the sigtronics have what
it takes.
Dallas Shepherd
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Arlyn Moen" <amoen(at)ndak.net> |
I can't find anything on the plans or the service bulitins about gross
weight on the ultrastar.
mine weighs 252# without gas and i weigh 220. It handles great for me. I
have the cuyuna ul II engine and nova gear reduction.
Arlyn
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
> >Your "cruising" too slow. Your going to carbon up your engine & stick you
> >rings. ..............
>
> If your EGT is up where it is supposed to be, if you are using good oil and
> unleaded gas, and all your temps are correct, why would it matter what
> speed the engine is turning over, or how much power it is producing? In my
> meagre experience of 17 years with Rotax engines, it appears that it is not
> running an engine too slow to be what cruds it up, but running it too rich
> and too cold.
> Richard Pike
Or, "A little oil is good, more is better." syndrome.....
J.Baker
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Publishers-Company(at)excite.com |
Subject: | Publishing Company for Sale! |
See information about Free Credit Application Below!
My Multi-Million Dollar
Publishing Company
ONLY $149
Free Pre-Approved Merchant Account Application with Order!!
To Start Your Business Out Right!!
If you ever wanted "the easy way out" to make a lot of money
with a business of your own....
Here is the EASIEST WAY TO START!
I'm writing this letter to let you in on something that'll blow
you away. What I'm about to present is something I've
never done before...something that I'll never do again....
So PAY ATTENTION!
For the past few years...I've have been running ads in
newspapers & magazines, by direct mail, and throughout
the internet. These ads were always small and very cheap...
On these ads, we have been selling little manuals. These
manuals have sold for anywhere between $10 to $99 each.
We always ran different ads for each manual we were selling.
I like selling information because NOBODY can put a price on
it...ESPECIALLY when it is your own...The Sky is the Limit!
Plus it is very cheap to reproduce How-To manuals. It costs
between 40 cents and $3 to print the entire print manuals and
around 35 cents to copy the manuals on disk. AND you can
sell them for up to $99 each. That is one hell of a markup!
These manuals tell you how to get a car with no money down
and no credit...another one tells you how to avoid taxes by
depositing income offshore...now you may not be interested in
saving money by going offshore...but believe me....there are
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DO...and they are willing to pay
me to teach them!!!
Well this is where the unbelievable offer comes in...I hope you
are sitting down for this one...because this is a once in a
lifetime chance for you. I do not know of an easier way to
become financially independent...In fact THERE IS NO EASIER WAY!!!
The next few paragraphs will reveal everything to you.
I am willing to sell you my entire informational product line
with FULL REPRINT RIGHTS and complete step-by-step instructions
on how to start your mail order information business with very
little money.
Remember, these are PROVEN WINNERS. If you are stumped on
something to sell or if you are having trouble writing a
good ad, I have also included an entire book on disk to
help you produce KILLER ads!
This entire package which I call a Publishing Company in a
Box will come on 1 CD containing over 2000 'Hot-Selling'
Books, Reports And Manuals ready to print and sell, Sell,
SELL! It also will come with a signed letter giving YOU FULL
REPRINT RIGHTS allowing you to sell them for as much as
you want and however you want. You Can even sell the entire
kit to someone else to resale on their own! You also receive
copies of KILLER ads which can fill your mailbox with cash!
I am not even going to ask you for any of the money either...
What you make is yours to keep . In fact...you get to make a
ton of money on these manuals for as long as you wish...and
you will never have to pay me another red cent in royalties!
I am even going to print out and prepare our #1 selling report
which contains the secrets of starting and operating your own
million dollar mail order business on a shoestring budget so that
you will be able to take it down to your local copy shop and be
ready to sell it the same day you have received it. Watch out
though - one individual is making $30,000 a month on this report
alone! (Why - Because you can also include a special report On
How to Write Order Pulling Ads that practically force people to
whip out their checkbooks and order!)
Note: THIS REPORT IS INCLUDED!
All I ask for is...$149 and I will include FREE Priority Mail
Shipping! Yes, I said $149. There are no zeros missing.
Plus if you order before Sept 28, 1999 I will include
4 extra special bonuses...
Bonus #1 - "Search Engine Magic" on disk. This report will
shoot your web site up to the top of the search engine listings.
Other web advertisers are selling this manual for $99 by
itself - But I will give it to you for FREE with this package.
Bonus #2 - The report "How to Make at least $1,600 a week
online...Starting Now!" which is taking the internet by storm
will be included absolutely FREE!
Bonus #3 - I will include special details about a secret source
for creating Your own direct mail leads and how you can get your
own mail order business up and running for just a few bucks!
Bonus #4 - I also will include a pre-approved application for
a merchant account for your business benefit. Taking credit
cards will increase your business up to 100%. The normal
$195 application fee will be waved with this pre-approved
application.
But there is one drawback... I am sending this ad to 10,000
other people...and I will only allow 50 kits to be sold. It
wouldn't make much sense if I sold this kit to 1,000 or 2,000
people...The market would be saturated with these same manuals...
and I don't want to do that. To make sure that the people in
this offer get the same results I have...ONLY 50 people can have
it for $149.00!
Chances are, I will get all 50 within a week's time. So if this
is something you are interested in...RUSH me a check or money
order for $149.00 TODAY to insure your future business.
But, even if you decide to pass this up...Don't sweat it. It's
not like I am going to be mad or anything like that. I know I
will get my 50 order limit really fast. And anyone who gets
their check into me late... I will simply send it back.
For only $149.00, I am going to let you have the easiest money
you will ever make. The manuals are written, the ads are
presented, the advertising plan is laid out, and all you have
to do is print them out for pennies and place the ads.
Do it today! Rush me your payment of $149.00 right now...and
get your very own MILLION DOLLAR publishing company going!
You can start with one or two manuals...even the day you
receive the package...and then expand to include ALL of them!
For $149.00, you have everything you need to make a killing
with your very own business. If you want to make real
money - then this offer is for you!
"I took the report "Search Engine Magic" and sold over 50
copies on disk within 2 weeks! They sold for $99 and I was
able to copy them for under 50 cents each. Wait till I start
marketing the other products included in this line!!!"
Joe Fisher - Internet Marketer
To rush order this "MILLION DOLLAR Publishing Company in
a Box" simply fill out the order form below and fax it to
our 24 hour order line at:
FAX ORDER LINE:
1 (212) 504-8032
Regular Mail to:
Financial Systems
P.O. Box 301
Orange, Ma 01364
ORDER FORM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please send to:
Your Name_____________________________________________
Your Address__________________________________________
Your City_____________________________________________
State / Zip___________________________________________
Phone #: _____________________________________________
(For problems with your order only. No salesmen will call.)
Email Address________________________________________
We Accept Checks or Money Orders along with all Major Credit Cards
including Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover. (NOTE -
We only ship to the address listed on the credit card)
(Please Fill Out Below Section and Make sure that the above name
and address are listed as it appears on the card) for $149.00
Credit Card Number:________________________________
Expiration Date:___________________________
Signature:_________________________
Date:____________________
[ ] YES! Please rush my Publishing Company in a Box. I
understand I have FULL REPRINT Rights and can sell any of
the items for whatever price I desire, even the entire kit.
[ ] DOUBLE YES! I am ordering before Sept 28, 1999!
Please include the extra special bonuses!
* Please check one of the following payment options:
[ ] I am faxing a check (Do not send original, we will make a
draft from the faxed check)
[ ] I am faxing or mailing my credit card number. (Note your
card will be charged for $149.00 and we only ship to the address
on the card)
[ ] I am enclosing a check or money order for $149.00!
Note - If ordering outside continental US, please add $5 to S&H
P.S. Don't forget you will receive 2,000 Manuals, Books, and
Reports (Some of which are up to 200 pages each)...all for
$149...You have full reprint and resale rights to make as much
money as you want without ever paying any royalties whatsoever!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You have been carefully selected to receive the following as
a person obviously interested in this subject based upon your
previous internet postings, or visits to one of our affiliate
web sites. If you have received this message in error,hitl
Reply with the word unsubscribe in the subject.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
Subject: | RE: Under pressure |
(See the appends below),
My Rotax radiator came with a pressure cap and it has a "9" on it, BUT LOOK
CLOSELY, because it actually says "0,9 bar" . In Europe, the comma is used like
the U.S. uses a decimal point. So they are saying the nominal pressure is 0.9
bar. My conversion table shows that 1 bar = 14.5 psi, or 27.7" water column.
So, a 0.9 bar cap should open at about 13.05 psi. To that figure, add any
"head" or vertical distance of cooling system capacity above your gauge which is
also adding pressure to the gauge reading. For example, I have a $7 gauge
mounted on the cabin heat radiator, on the floor of the cabin of the MKiii.
Because there is about 5 feet of cooling system above the gauge, the weight of
60" of water column rests against the gauge, even with the engine off and cold.
So I never see less than 2 psi, and can see as high as 15 psi in flight (13 lb
cap plus 2 psi water column = 15 psi max).
>
>In a message dated 99-09-21 9:57:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>firehawk54(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
><< Some in our club run the pressure at 15 lbs. and don't seem to have a
> problem. I run mine at 7 lbs. and haven't had to touch the coolant system
> for over 120 hours now. I assume that 15 lbs. would be OK being the 582s
> don't run hot enough to boil the coolant anyway. The pressure cap you
>choose
> will determine how much pressure you are running >>
>
>
>Gentlemen:
>
> I find this discussion interesting. I have the westberg electronic
>water
>pressure gauge with the sender installed between the pump and the radiator
>on
>my 582. I have the standard 9 pound (I think) radiator cap that came with
>the engine from Rotax. At idle I get about 5 lbs. As the engine heats up
>the water pressure goes up, sometimes it pegs the needle at 13. I have the
>Rotax overflow bottle and know that occasionally after shut down the cap
>releases and coolant flows into the bottle.
>
> My question is this: if the cap is supposed to let go at 9 lbs how do
>I
>see 13 on the gauge? If I understand the system correctly I should never
>see
>more than 9, right? I'm more inclined to believe the gauge than the rating
>on the cap, which is probably just someone's guess at when the spring
>compresses enough to open the valve. Any thoughts from the group?
>
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
Subject: | Re: Jabiru engine |
>can anyone tell me just what is the
>difference in the Rotax gearboxes. What does a C do that the B doesn't
>do.
> Dallas Shepherd
>
The C will take more torque, and it will go to higher ratios than the B,
for a slower turning prop.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: RE: Under pressure |
In a message dated 99-09-22 7:53:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gerken(at)us.ibm.com writes:
<< In Europe, the comma is used like
the U.S. uses a decimal point. So they are saying the nominal pressure is
0.9
bar. My conversion table shows that 1 bar = 14.5 psi, or 27.7" water column.
So, a 0.9 bar cap should open at about 13.05 psi >>
I frequently demonstrate my stupidity in public. I didn't realize the
system was metric. Duh. A more interesting question now is how to get the
Westberg folks to recalibrate my gauge to go to, say, 20 lbs. Thanks, guys.
That's why I'm on this list.
Mark Sellers
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
I have the info right out of Kolbs data sheet for the UltraStar and the
ULTRALIGHT FLYING 1988 Buyers Guide.
Kolb 1988 model UltraStar:
Empty weight 252 lbs
Wing Span 27.5 ft
Wing Cord 5.5 ft
Wing Area 145 sq ft
Width 59 in
Length 21 ft
Height (folded) 7 ft 4"
G- Load 4+ 2-
Tail Width 7ft 8"
Propeller 50" dia
Max Speed 63 mph (approx)
Cruise Speed 45-50 mph (approx)
Stall Speed 25 mph (approx)
Climb Rate 80-1000 ft/min (approx)
Pilot Weight 250 lbs max (approx)
Building Time 300 hours (approx)
Fuel Consumption 2 gal/hr (approx)
$4795 with Rotax 377 engine and prop
1988 Buyers Guide
Empty Weight 245 lbs
Gross Weight 525 lbs
Wing Loading 3.55 lbs/sq ft
Power Loading 15.28 lbs/hp
Engine Rotax 377
Vne 75 mph
I had a chance to fly an UltraStar once and it handles like a FireStar
except the center of drag and thrust forces are inline which, ideally, is
better. The cruise is faster than one would think because the pilot
profile drag is inline with the engine profile drag. The FireStar overall
drag makes up for this with a faring, but my experience flying the
UltraStar proved it to have a constant 60mph cruise at the same rpms to
fly my FireStar with the 377 Rotax, 5800rpm.
Nice plane, I wish they would bring it back along with the 1986 model
Original FireStar.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 12 years flying
>
>I can't find anything on the plans or the service bulitins about gross
>weight on the ultrastar.
> mine weighs 252# without gas and i weigh 220. It handles great for
>me. I
>have the cuyuna ul II engine and nova gear reduction.
> Arlyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard neilsen" <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us> |
Please don't SPAM or list.
>>> 09/22/99 05:20am >>>
See information about Free Credit Application Below!
My Multi-Million Dollar
Publishing Company
ONLY $149
Free Pre-Approved Merchant Account Application with Order!!
To Start Your Business Out Right!!
If you ever wanted "the easy way out" to make a lot of money
with a business of your own....
Here is the EASIEST WAY TO START!
I'm writing this letter to let you in on something that'll blow
you away. What I'm about to present is something I've
never done before...something that I'll never do again....
So PAY ATTENTION!
For the past few years...I've have been running ads in
newspapers & magazines, by direct mail, and throughout
the internet. These ads were always small and very cheap...
On these ads, we have been selling little manuals. These
manuals have sold for anywhere between $10 to $99 each.
We always ran different ads for each manual we were selling.
I like selling information because NOBODY can put a price on
it...ESPECIALLY when it is your own...The Sky is the Limit!
Plus it is very cheap to reproduce How-To manuals. It costs
between 40 cents and $3 to print the entire print manuals and
around 35 cents to copy the manuals on disk. AND you can
sell them for up to $99 each. That is one hell of a markup!
These manuals tell you how to get a car with no money down
and no credit...another one tells you how to avoid taxes by
depositing income offshore...now you may not be interested in
saving money by going offshore...but believe me....there are
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DO...and they are willing to pay
me to teach them!!!
Well this is where the unbelievable offer comes in...I hope you
are sitting down for this one...because this is a once in a
lifetime chance for you. I do not know of an easier way to
become financially independent...In fact THERE IS NO EASIER WAY!!!
The next few paragraphs will reveal everything to you.
I am willing to sell you my entire informational product line
with FULL REPRINT RIGHTS and complete step-by-step instructions
on how to start your mail order information business with very
little money.
Remember, these are PROVEN WINNERS. If you are stumped on
something to sell or if you are having trouble writing a
good ad, I have also included an entire book on disk to
help you produce KILLER ads!
This entire package which I call a Publishing Company in a
Box will come on 1 CD containing over 2000 'Hot-Selling'
Books, Reports And Manuals ready to print and sell, Sell,
SELL! It also will come with a signed letter giving YOU FULL
REPRINT RIGHTS allowing you to sell them for as much as
you want and however you want. You Can even sell the entire
kit to someone else to resale on their own! You also receive
copies of KILLER ads which can fill your mailbox with cash!
I am not even going to ask you for any of the money either...
What you make is yours to keep . In fact...you get to make a
ton of money on these manuals for as long as you wish...and
you will never have to pay me another red cent in royalties!
I am even going to print out and prepare our #1 selling report
which contains the secrets of starting and operating your own
million dollar mail order business on a shoestring budget so that
you will be able to take it down to your local copy shop and be
ready to sell it the same day you have received it. Watch out
though - one individual is making $30,000 a month on this report
alone! (Why - Because you can also include a special report On
How to Write Order Pulling Ads that practically force people to
whip out their checkbooks and order!)
Note: THIS REPORT IS INCLUDED!
All I ask for is...$149 and I will include FREE Priority Mail
Shipping! Yes, I said $149. There are no zeros missing.
Plus if you order before Sept 28, 1999 I will include
4 extra special bonuses...
Bonus #1 - "Search Engine Magic" on disk. This report will
shoot your web site up to the top of the search engine listings.
Other web advertisers are selling this manual for $99 by
itself - But I will give it to you for FREE with this package.
Bonus #2 - The report "How to Make at least $1,600 a week
online...Starting Now!" which is taking the internet by storm
will be included absolutely FREE!
Bonus #3 - I will include special details about a secret source
for creating Your own direct mail leads and how you can get your
own mail order business up and running for just a few bucks!
Bonus #4 - I also will include a pre-approved application for
a merchant account for your business benefit. Taking credit
cards will increase your business up to 100%. The normal
$195 application fee will be waved with this pre-approved
application.
But there is one drawback... I am sending this ad to 10,000
other people...and I will only allow 50 kits to be sold. It
wouldn't make much sense if I sold this kit to 1,000 or 2,000
people...The market would be saturated with these same manuals...
and I don't want to do that. To make sure that the people in
this offer get the same results I have...ONLY 50 people can have
it for $149.00!
Chances are, I will get all 50 within a week's time. So if this
is something you are interested in...RUSH me a check or money
order for $149.00 TODAY to insure your future business.
But, even if you decide to pass this up...Don't sweat it. It's
not like I am going to be mad or anything like that. I know I
will get my 50 order limit really fast. And anyone who gets
their check into me late... I will simply send it back.
For only $149.00, I am going to let you have the easiest money
you will ever make. The manuals are written, the ads are
presented, the advertising plan is laid out, and all you have
to do is print them out for pennies and place the ads.
Do it today! Rush me your payment of $149.00 right now...and
get your very own MILLION DOLLAR publishing company going!
You can start with one or two manuals...even the day you
receive the package...and then expand to include ALL of them!
For $149.00, you have everything you need to make a killing
with your very own business. If you want to make real
money - then this offer is for you!
"I took the report "Search Engine Magic" and sold over 50
copies on disk within 2 weeks! They sold for $99 and I was
able to copy them for under 50 cents each. Wait till I start
marketing the other products included in this line!!!"
Joe Fisher - Internet Marketer
To rush order this "MILLION DOLLAR Publishing Company in
a Box" simply fill out the order form below and fax it to
our 24 hour order line at:
FAX ORDER LINE:
1 (212) 504-8032
Regular Mail to:
Financial Systems
P.O. Box 301
Orange, Ma 01364
ORDER FORM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please send to:
Your Name_____________________________________________
Your Address__________________________________________
Your City_____________________________________________
State / Zip___________________________________________
Phone #: _____________________________________________
(For problems with your order only. No salesmen will call.)
Email Address________________________________________
We Accept Checks or Money Orders along with all Major Credit Cards
including Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover. (NOTE -
We only ship to the address listed on the credit card)
(Please Fill Out Below Section and Make sure that the above name
and address are listed as it appears on the card) for $149.00
Credit Card Number:________________________________
Expiration Date:___________________________
Signature:_________________________
Date:____________________
[ ] YES! Please rush my Publishing Company in a Box. I
understand I have FULL REPRINT Rights and can sell any of
the items for whatever price I desire, even the entire kit.
[ ] DOUBLE YES! I am ordering before Sept 28, 1999!
Please include the extra special bonuses!
* Please check one of the following payment options:
[ ] I am faxing a check (Do not send original, we will make a
draft from the faxed check)
[ ] I am faxing or mailing my credit card number. (Note your
card will be charged for $149.00 and we only ship to the address
on the card)
[ ] I am enclosing a check or money order for $149.00!
Note - If ordering outside continental US, please add $5 to S&H
P.S. Don't forget you will receive 2,000 Manuals, Books, and
Reports (Some of which are up to 200 pages each)...all for
$149...You have full reprint and resale rights to make as much
money as you want without ever paying any royalties whatsoever!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You have been carefully selected to receive the following as
a person obviously interested in this subject based upon your
previous internet postings, or visits to one of our affiliate
web sites. If you have received this message in error,hitl
Reply with the word unsubscribe in the subject.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard neilsen" <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us> |
Subject: | 4-stroke Engines -Forwarded |
(mail.matronics.com [207.171.250.179])
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:29:26 -0700
From: Dennis & Diane Kirby <kirbyd(at)flash.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: 4-stroke Engines
Dear Fellow Kolbers
I have been reading with interest the latest thread on four-stroke
engines that was prompted by the question about installing the HKS-700
in a Mark-3.
Since I have not yet selected an engine for my almost-completed Mark-3,
I have been busy this past year researching various 4-stroke engine
options. (Note I have already made the decision that my Twinstar will
be powered by a 4-stroke engine. My intent here is not to argue about
the perceived reliability differences between the two-stroke and
four-stroke engines. Rather, going with a 4-stroke is simply a personal
choice and I'm prepared to spend a few extra bucks for one.)
That said, I'd like to share a few findings with you that I've dug up.
Again, these are based on my own research and observations. If any of
you see that I'm way off-base here, please enlighten me and the rest of
the Group.
ROTAX-912. Undeniably a good engine. More or less the standard of
comparison for all other 4-stroke engines in the light-aircraft market.
The seller for me was reading about John Hauck's adventure from Alabama
to Alaska in 1994 in his 912-powered Mark-3. 19,400 miles in 260 hours
with only a change of spark plugs midway thru his trip. Sounds pretty
reliable to me. Downside (I've heard) is the complexity of the engine
for working on it yourself. Any comments from you 912-owners out
there? The other thing would be cost. At over $10,000 for the complete
package ouch! 140 lbs.
JABIRU-80. I've seen some discussion on the List in the recent past on
this engine from someone looking for any Kolb-flyers with experience
with this engine. Somebody described it as "a jewel of an engine" with
its radiused corners and precisely machined surfaces. Sounds nice.
Being a direct-drive, the max prop size you could go with is 61 inches,
if that matters to you. $7500, 123 lbs.
HKS-700. I, too, have heard stories from pilots about this engine being
over-rated on power, that the claimed 60 hp in reality behaves more like
50 or 55. Probably a reliable engine, coming from a Japanese company
involved for many years in automotive after-market accessories like
turbochargers and such. I've heard of incidents of valve problems,
also. $7200 and 116 lbs, they claim to be the first 4-stroke aircraft
engine to have achieved the power-to-weight ratios on par with the
2-strokes (assuming you believe it's truly delivering 60 hp).
MOTAVIA ULTRATEC. This is the one made in England. 80 hp and
water-cooled, it sounds like good power-to-weight at 121 lbs, and the
pictures on their website look impressive. Spoke with the company
owner; he said they have experienced "setbacks" in testing in the past
two years, resulting in delayed deliveries of production engines. Then
I spoke to the guy in Washington state who was the original
importer/supplier for the US in 1996, who had a somewhat different
story. He told me Motavia misled him regarding the amount of testing
that was done on the engine, and that he's had many problems with the
engine. He has since abandoned his role as distributor for the engine.
Another source relayed a story to me about a brand-new Motavia (a couple
of years ago) who's gearbox disintegrated in the first 30 minutes of
operation. With its fuel injection and dual electronic ignition, it
could be a good engine if they've fixed the bugs. July 99 issue of
Ultralight Flying! reports the price at $8900.
GEO METRO. These are being offered by a guy who's original motive was
the reduction unit, which he's called the Raven Redrive. Essentially,
it's a stock 60 hp Suzuki 3-cylinder single-ignition car engine, mated
to his cog-belt redrive unit. No reliability info, other than what I've
seen on this List, where someone reported this engine spending lots of
time in the shop. $7800, 160 lbs.
GREAT PLAINS. Claimed to offer the most power for the money (70 hp for
$5000,), this VW variant engine, at 165 lbs, is about the heaviest
engine the Mark-3 can accommodate. Although I know of several
homebuilders who've used this engine, the only guy I know of using one
on a Kolb is our very own Richard Nielsen. He'll have specifics on
installation details and performance. (So, Richard, are you happy with
the VW installation in your Mark-3?)
VERNER SVS-1400. This two-cylinder air-cooled 80 hp motor is built in
the Czech republic with the underlying intent of being simple and
reliable. Verner Motorworks was originally commissioned about ten years
ago by the Soviet Union to produce a light aircraft engine, as the
Eastern European nations were unable to import western engines at the
time. Fully-funded by the Soviets to tool up for mass production, the
fall of the iron curtain effectively eliminated Verner's intended
market. So they went public, and are selling engines mostly in Europe.
The SVS-1400 is JAR-22 certified, which gives confidence that it is a
well-tested engine. At 160 lbs, it offers the same power and torque as
the Rotax-912. $7500 includes the cog-belt reduction unit, a tach and
engine instruments. I have learned that there are two Kolb Mark-3s
flying with this engine, both in Florida. One is owned by the US
distributor of the SVS-1400, based at South Florida Flyers in Coleman,
FL. Anyone out there know the owners?
As I mentioned, this information is simply a summary of what I have
collected in my quest for deciding which engine to install in my
Mark-3. It is not intended to promote or "bash" a particular
manufacturer's engine. If you found this bit of rambling interesting,
then I feel like I've helped the Group.
Dennis Kirby
Mark-3, s/n 300, 75 percent complete and yet to choose an engine
Cedar Crest, New Mexico
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | gerken(at)us.ibm.com |
Subject: | RE: Under pressure, CORRECTION |
I corrected the reference to convert from psi to inches water column. 1 psi
27.7" water column. Sorry for any confusion it may have created.
Jim G
---------------------- Forwarded by Jim Gerken/Rochester/IBM on 09/22/99 12:00
PM ---------------------------
Jim Gerken
09/22/99 06:50 AM
cc:
From: Jim Gerken/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
Subject: RE: Under pressure
(See the appends below),
My Rotax radiator came with a pressure cap and it has a "9" on it, BUT LOOK
CLOSELY, because it actually says "0,9 bar" . In Europe, the comma is used like
the U.S. uses a decimal point. So they are saying the nominal opening-pressure
is 0.9 bar.
My conversion table shows that 1 bar = 14.5 psi , and 1 psi = 27.7" water
column.
So, a 0.9 bar cap should open at about 13.05 psi. To that figure, add any
"head" or vertical distance of cooling system capacity above your gauge which is
also adding pressure to the gauge reading.
For example, I have a $7 (from McMaster Carr catalog) gauge mounted on the
cabin heat radiator, on the floor of the cabin of the MKiii. Because there is
about 5 feet of cooling system above the gauge, the weight of 60" of water
column rests against the gauge, even with the engine off and cold. So I never
see less than 2 psi, and can see as high as 15 psi in flight (13 lb cap plus 2
psi water column = 15 psi max).
>
>In a message dated 99-09-21 9:57:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>firehawk54(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
><< Some in our club run the pressure at 15 lbs. and don't seem to have a
> problem. I run mine at 7 lbs. and haven't had to touch the coolant system
> for over 120 hours now. I assume that 15 lbs. would be OK being the 582s
> don't run hot enough to boil the coolant anyway. The pressure cap you
>choose
> will determine how much pressure you are running >>
>
>
>Gentlemen:
>
> I find this discussion interesting. I have the westberg electronic
>water
>pressure gauge with the sender installed between the pump and the radiator
>on
>my 582. I have the standard 9 pound (I think) radiator cap that came with
>the engine from Rotax. At idle I get about 5 lbs. As the engine heats up
>the water pressure goes up, sometimes it pegs the needle at 13. I have the
>Rotax overflow bottle and know that occasionally after shut down the cap
>releases and coolant flows into the bottle.
>
> My question is this: if the cap is supposed to let go at 9 lbs how do
>I
>see 13 on the gauge? If I understand the system correctly I should never
>see
>more than 9, right? I'm more inclined to believe the gauge than the rating
>on the cap, which is probably just someone's guess at when the spring
>compresses enough to open the valve. Any thoughts from the group?
>
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net> |
> dose any body know what the max gross wt of a ultrastar is
My experience is that the UltraStar will fly with just about any size pilot
that you wish. The landing gear, however, won't take a landing with a
260# pilot if that pilot decides to drop it in from about 10'. (no, it
wasn't I :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | BILLUPSHUR(at)aol.com |
Subject: | lb-List:Jabiru engine |
Dallas Shepherd ask "Why would Homer Kolb say the Jabiru could pull, but
might not push properly?" What Homer Kolb was saying was that the Jabiru
might work on the faster Laser, but not on the slower Mark 3. My
understanding was that the best horsepower for the Jabiru was at an rpm that
he felt would not work well on the Mark 3 because of the slower speed needed
for the Mark 3. The Laser or tractor Kolb (I referred to the Laser as the
tractor Kolb because at the time I could not remember the name 'Laser') is a
much faster plane and could utilize the higher spinning prop and the power of
the engine at its best rpm. The Rotax 912 engine is geared down so that at
its best power engine rpm the prop is turning at a speed that is compatible
for the speed of the Mark 3. Homer Kolb did not imply that the Jabiru might
not push properly.
Bill Upshur
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ron C Reece" <rcreec(at)ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> |
Subject: | Re: Aircraft Spruce Co. |
Aircraft Spruce Co.
1-800-824-1930
Customer Service
1-714-870-7315
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MitchMnD(at)aol.com |
Amen on Tcowan's post on oil containers being overfilled. I did some sampling
on how much oil was in those "16 Oz" containers and I also found that they
were overfilled. In fact I compared every measuring device in my work shop
and my wife"s kitchen and was amazed at the variation in the 12.7 Oz volume
amounts. Short of a laboratory graduate vessel the measurers used in the
photography supply stores was about the best. Duane the plane in Tallahassee,
PS those of you in N Florida may want to think about our
Quincy airport (25 miles W of Tallahassee) appreciation party this Saturday,
hangars open, lots of ULs.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Davis" <ldavis(at)gatem02.netusa1.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aircraft Spruce Co. |
Their website is at:
http://www.aircraft-spruce.com/main.html
>
> Aircraft Spruce Co.
>
> 1-800-824-1930
>
> Customer Service
> 1-714-870-7315
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Larry Davis
Marion, Indiana
Challenger 1 CW
http://www.netusa1.net/~ldavis/airplane.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aircraft Spruce Co. |
Tim: http://www.aircraft-spruce.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | TK <tkrolfe(at)epix.net> |
Since I first fired up the 447 Rotax on my new FireFly it has been
impossible to get it to idle smoothly. I have done everything that more
experienced owners have told me. Talked to the Rotax dealer at Oshkosh.
I'm swinging a Tennessee wood prop, 66" dia. x 30 pitch, supplied by
Kolb. When first operating the engine, had to turn out air mixture
screw to 2 1/2 turns to stop the shaking. Also had to keep the rpm at
2200 or above. Have since installed a smaller, #40, idle jet and have
been able to turn the air mixture screw to 3/4 to 1 turn open for best
idle, but must still maintain 2200 rpm. Still not smooth like the other
guys when theirs are at idle. Engine runs fine at all other settings,
staying within cylinder temp limits Rotax recommends.
That the other question. I am getting conflicting information on
exhaust gas temp. My Rotax manual doesn't even mention this temp.
Could use some good guide lines.
Thanks: Terry K.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
Hi Gang:
I am using AV-2 two stroke oil in my 582. Must be good stuff as piston/rings
look brand new after 126 hours. BUT the stuff does not like to be contained.
It flows up around and down the threads on oil tank caps. Both the main oil
tank and the rotary valve tank show the same seep out around the bottom of
the caps. I'm thinking it might be the oil because a container had tipped on
its side in my truck and, though the cap was on tight, a bit of oil seeped
out. I have tried a rubber gasket on the main oil tank (leaving the air hole
open of course) but still get the ooze.
Bill George
Mk-3 582 "C" Powerfin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Bluhm <irena(at)ccis.com> |
Subject: | Re: Oil tank ooze |
WGeorge737(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi Gang:
>
> I am using AV-2 two stroke oil in my 582. Must be good stuff as piston/rings
> look brand new after 126 hours. BUT the stuff does not like to be contained.
> It flows up around and down the threads on oil tank caps. Both the main oil
> tank and the rotary valve tank show the same seep out around the bottom of
> the caps. I'm thinking it might be the oil because a container had tipped on
> its side in my truck and, though the cap was on tight, a bit of oil seeped
> out. I have tried a rubber gasket on the main oil tank (leaving the air hole
> open of course) but still get the ooze.
>
> Bill George
> Mk-3 582 "C" Powerfin
Hello Bill,
I have had to order a new cap for my oil-tank as I cracked my original one by
over tightening it to try and forbid any oozing. Have you checked for any cracks
in yours?
I now find I only make it finger-tight and use a safety wire to assure it's
placement. It's amazing, but this "not-so-tight" aspect doesn't ooze ( Or I
should say it hasn't oozed yet)
My rotary valve has never oozed, even after refilling it as needed. If you have
some problem here, I have no experience that can be usefull. Sorry!
I too use AV-2 oil, but store mine is old plastic Pepsi bottles.. They don't leak
if turned over in the trailer.
Regards
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Lawrence Kruchten <lawrence.kruchten(at)gte.net> |
please remove my name from the e-mail kolb-list at this time. Thanks
Too much mail coming in and not enough time to read it.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Terry K,
My fairly new 447 starts and initially idles, if you could it that, at
abt 1650, BUT shakes like a dawg crappin' peach pits. Shakes SO bad I
fear for the Lords, so come up to at least 2000 to save the plane from
coming apart. After a few mins. at 2000-2100, still not at all smooth, I
go to 2500 where it sarts to get decent. Above that it really hums. Does
the same initial shaking at startup even after a half hr shutdown,
minding to cooldown gradually.
I await cooler, or hotter, heads for an answer--unless this is a fact of
447s. bn
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 <sbaew(at)dames.com> |
Subject: | Re: half-doors on Mark III |
Hey gang:
Want some doors on my Mark III to reduce wind and improve intercom
communications. Ive seen some references to half-doors, and would like
to get some particulars on what they look like, their effectiveness, how
to do it. Saw a reference to a picture at
http://www.bentley.com/scott/kolbdoor.jpg in the archives, but thats
apparently no longer on the web.
Can someone provide a little info and/or alternative web sites?
If all else fails Ill have to resort to stealing Big Lar's gull-wings I
guess.
Regards,
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Mark111 intercom |
From: | rick m libersat <rick106(at)juno.com> |
DALLAS
Hope I am not to late on this reply this is what I have done.I went out
and bought a flightcom with a few bells and whistles works ok when you
are the only person in the A/C but it was the worst intercom I have ever
used , then I got a HUSH-A-COM
it was .....ok but a weak ok , then I went to COMTRONICS and bingo by far
the best that I have had or heard I am sure that the one's the other guys
are using are good but the comtronics dual com is better
Rick Libersat
writes:
>
>
>Kolbers: Are any of you using a successful intercom in the Mark111
>high
>noise environment. I have a flightcom set up and its useless.
>Sigtronics has been suggested, but i would like to have someones
>experience and not another useless set. Also, still looking for
>someone
>that put a Jabiru 80hp on a Mark111 with an inflight adjustable prop.
>I
>know thats a lot for this type of flying machine, but its intriguing.
>John H., you must have run into something in your travels?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: rotary shaft-- 582 |
From: | rick m libersat <rick106(at)juno.com> |
Cavuontop
I ran into this some tine back put in a call to CPS and they told me that
the rad.cap is 13# and to make sure that that is what I had .
Rick Libersat
>
>In a message dated 99-09-21 9:57:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>firehawk54(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
><< Some in our club run the pressure at 15 lbs. and don't seem to have
>a
> problem. I run mine at 7 lbs. and haven't had to touch the coolant
>system
> for over 120 hours now. I assume that 15 lbs. would be OK being the
>582s
> don't run hot enough to boil the coolant anyway. The pressure cap you
>choose
> will determine how much pressure you are running >>
>
>
>Gentlemen:
>
> I find this discussion interesting. I have the westberg electronic
>water
>pressure gauge with the sender installed between the pump and the
>radiator on
>my 582. I have the standard 9 pound (I think) radiator cap that came
>with
>the engine from Rotax. At idle I get about 5 lbs. As the engine
>heats up
>the water pressure goes up, sometimes it pegs the needle at 13. I
>have the
>Rotax overflow bottle and know that occasionally after shut down the
>cap
>releases and coolant flows into the bottle.
>
> My question is this: if the cap is supposed to let go at 9 lbs
>how do I
>see 13 on the gauge? If I understand the system correctly I should
>never see
>more than 9, right? I'm more inclined to believe the gauge than the
>rating
>on the cap, which is probably just someone's guess at when the spring
>compresses enough to open the valve. Any thoughts from the group?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Radio Cabling |
From: | rick m libersat <rick106(at)juno.com> |
Bill
In my Mk.III I put the push/talk switch in the control stick like you I
have the comtronics and what I did was to cut their switch off and I got
one from raido shack the best thing to do is to get a cat. from rat.shack
and order one.What you are looking for is a switch that single pole
double throw the reason is that when you transmit you can hear your self
through the head set .if you look in a new Radio Shack catalog on page213
on the lower left side of that page the one you need is 1SPDT On - (on)
cat.no RSU11336328........the price $9.69 make sure that when you order
that what ever color you go with that it has On-(on) this means
momentary when depressed
hope I have not been to long winded .
Rick Libersat
writes:
>
>I am about ready to install my radio, and have everything planned out
>except for one thing. The push-to-talk switch. I would like to mount
>it
>on the stick, but the PTT that came with the Comtronics patch cord
>isn't
>conducive to mounting this way. The button itself is tiny, about 1/4"
>across, almost not usable with gloves. Also, it is designed to be
>mounted in a panel. The wires come out in-line with the switch.
>
>I've looked for a replacement, but the intermittent switches I found
>at
>Radio Shack were all the same design so it can only be mounted through
>a
>surface rather than on it.
>
>How have some of you hooked up the PTT and what have you used? Any
>cockpit photos on-line showing radio wiring?
>
>Thanks.
>--
>***********************************************
>* Bill Weber * Keep *
>* Voiceboard Corp * the shiny *
>* Simi Valley, CA * side up *
>***********************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Accident Stats |
From: | rick m libersat <rick106(at)juno.com> |
T im
Good story and sorry to hear about the misfortune but one thing that
you forgot to talk about is the F A A ,THEY JUST GOT FINISHED WITH ME
THIS WEEK
they drove in from 95 miles away to give me a test to see if I was going
to keep my lic.
I still got if
Rick Libersat
writes:
>
>
>
>Hey kolbers,
>
>A quick update and some thoughts on accident stats.
>I have received my first Firestar kit these last few weeks(I'm the guy
>with
>the bee story posted last spring). I'm one step closer to out flying
>those
>wondrous little creatures.
>
>I have loved aviation since I was a boy. Lost a close family member
>in a
>plane crash back in '87'. He was flying from Prescott, AZ to Rexberg
>Idaho.
>Started icing up in one of those bad southern Utah storms. Salt lake
>tower
>vectored him to a small airport to the west of his known site. 17
>seconds
>later his blip left the radar screen. 4 days later a search and
>rescue crew
>located the wreckage. The plane(Cessna 182 RG cutlass) cut a swath
>through
>large timber, left wing first struck a tree blowing fuel in the back
>of the
>cabin and igniting a 22 yr old female on fire moments before the plane
>impacted the ground. The plane was not at a high angle of attack, but
>the
>ground was. The crash was intense with energy. The engine firewall
>kept
>bouncing up the mountainside for another 150 yards. Pilot- my family
>member
>had his heart and lung pounded into his throat from hitting the
>instrument
>panel so hard. Co-pilot was thrown from the wreckage still seat
>belted to his
>seat. Managed to struggle out of his seat and lean up against a tree
>before
>dying.
>
>Sorry for being so graphic.... but events like this told every so
>often, I
>believe gives us all a reality check, and keeps us from getting to
>comfortable
>and cocky.
>
>One thing I have noticed from reading and studying reports such as the
>one I
>just shared with you. This sport of aviation is not very forgiving.
> Sure I
>have been in a few car crashes and played some brutal heavy contact
>sports and
> survived, but, add that third dimension (altitude, and what comes
>with it-
>wind, shears, ice, drafts, etc.), and it's a whole new ball game.
>
>Keep safe, and don't let your wives read this! Boy oh boy!
>Tim
>
>adr;dom: ;;;CH305;;;
>tel;work: 6028144651
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
Subject: | Sender: owner-kolb-list-server |
Whats the weather supposed to be doing for the flyin this weekend? I hope
to be there.
Woody
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> |
I had a similar problem with my 447, the idle was very rough and would
not idle at 2000 rpm. I discovered the long time rubber donuts holding
the muffler to the brackets were worn out and the aluminum bracket was
cracked under one of the donuts. This may sound unrelated to the idle
problem, but apparently the vibrating muffler on top of the engine shook
the plane to make it appear like a rough idle. I replaced both rubber
donuts and the bracket. Another thing is to make sure the carb slide is
resting on the idle speed screw, otherwise the slide will be moving up
and down unable to make it idle properly. These two things cured my rough
idle problem.
Ralph Burlingame
Original FireStar, 12 years flying
>
>Terry K,
>
>My fairly new 447 starts and initially idles, if you could it that, at
>abt 1650, BUT shakes like a dawg crappin' peach pits. Shakes SO bad I
>fear for the Lords, so come up to at least 2000 to save the plane from
>coming apart. After a few mins. at 2000-2100, still not at all smooth,
>I
>go to 2500 where it sarts to get decent. Above that it really hums.
>Does
>the same initial shaking at startup even after a half hr shutdown,
>minding to cooldown gradually.
>
>I await cooler, or hotter, heads for an answer--unless this is a fact
>of
>447s. bn
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Lee Friend <lfriend47(at)pol.net> |
Subject: | MK III, kit 1 in box |
Hi guys,
Would anyone out there be interested in a MK III kit1, still in
the box. It was powder coated by factory, around 3500. Make an offer
to "lfriend47(at)pol.net". Thanks, Lee
------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "michael highsmith" <firehawk54(at)hotmail.com> |
There is a rule that you should follow when setting a Rotax engine for idle
after starting. Warm up above 2500 and set the idle speed no less than 2200
rpm. If it doesn't run smooth at that setting and you know your idle jet is
sized right turn it up until it does. That is where your particular engine
should idle. You can do damage to the whole drive line if you let it chatter
for very long.
Do your engine a favor and keep the idle above 2200 or what ever rpm that
keeps it running smooth.
Firehawk
>From: bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net>
>Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Rough idle
>Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:04:02 -0500
>
>
>Terry K,
>
>My fairly new 447 starts and initially idles, if you could it that, at
>abt 1650, BUT shakes like a dawg crappin' peach pits. Shakes SO bad I
>fear for the Lords, so come up to at least 2000 to save the plane from
>coming apart. After a few mins. at 2000-2100, still not at all smooth, I
>go to 2500 where it sarts to get decent. Above that it really hums. Does
>the same initial shaking at startup even after a half hr shutdown,
>minding to cooldown gradually.
>
>I await cooler, or hotter, heads for an answer--unless this is a fact of
>447s. bn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: half-doors on Mark III |
In a message dated 9/23/99 2:31:00 PM, sbaew(at)dames.com writes:
<< Want some doors on my Mark III to reduce wind and improve intercom
communications. Ive seen some references to half-doors, and would like
to get some particulars on what they look like, their effectiveness, how
to do it. >>
I've got 'em, they work great and I don't have a clue as to how to make 'em.
I think you can get a view of them on my web page but I just tried to access
it and get the "timed out" message. AOL strikes again. Perhaps later you can
try it. Here it is:
Bill
George's Kolb Pg.
Hope this helps
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Peter Hudson <phudson(at)iwvisp.com> |
Subject: | Introducing myself |
September 09, 1999 - September 23, 1999
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-bq