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
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 09, 1999
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
Date: Sep 09, 1999
Subject: Re: transporting an Ultrastar
Dale, ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MitchMnD(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 09, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 09, 1999
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
Date: Sep 09, 1999
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 09, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 09, 1999
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
Date: Sep 09, 1999
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
Date: Sep 09, 1999
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WillU(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 09, 1999
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
Date: Sep 09, 1999
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
Date: Sep 09, 1999
>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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 09, 1999
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
Date: Sep 09, 1999
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>
Subject: HKS
Date: Sep 10, 1999
Does anyone on the list know what an HKS-700, 60 hp four stroke costs? I'm curious Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 10, 1999
From: Erich Weaver 805-683-0200 <sbaew(at)dames.com>
Subject: Re: HKS price
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>
Subject: unsuscribe
Date: Sep 10, 1999
Please unsuscribe me from th Kolb Mailing List and digest. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RLCPTL(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 10, 1999
Subject: Re: HKS
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RLCPTL(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 10, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RLCPTL(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 10, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BKlebon(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 11, 1999
Subject: Re: T.S. Dennis
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BKlebon(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 11, 1999
Subject: Re: HKS
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 1999
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: HKS
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 1999
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: HKS
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 1999
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Coax Cable
>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
Date: Sep 11, 1999
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 1999
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
Date: Sep 11, 1999
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 . . .
Date: Sep 11, 1999
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>
Subject: edge distance
Date: Sep 11, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 1999
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
Date: Sep 11, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 11, 1999
Subject: Re: 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: JRWillJR(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 11, 1999
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
Date: Sep 11, 1999
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
Date: Sep 12, 1999
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
Date: Sep 12, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 12, 1999
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 12, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 12, 1999
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)
Date: Sep 12, 1999
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)
Date: Sep 12, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 12, 1999
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Coax Cable
>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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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>
Subject: HKS
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 1999
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Coax Cable
>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>
Subject: Fw: FYI Info
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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
Date: Sep 13, 1999
Subject: 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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>
Subject: kolb storage
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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>
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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 > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RLCPTL(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 13, 1999
Subject: Re: HKS
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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>
Subject: Re: HKS
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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, > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 1999
Subject: Re: HKS
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" ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 1999
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: HKS
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) ;-) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 1999
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: HKS
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
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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>
Subject: Re: HKS
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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
Date: Sep 13, 1999
----- 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
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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-- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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
Date: Sep 14, 1999
I don't think I will put an instrument panel in my Kolb. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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]
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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>
Subject: No Bumps!!!
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 14, 1999
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: 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...)??? 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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 14, 1999
From: Arnwines <arnwine(at)toad.net>
Subject: Re: No Bumps!!!
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
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 14, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: 14v vs. 28v
>> 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
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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>
Subject: SOFT JAWS
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: SOFT JAWS
> > 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
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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!!) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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!!! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
From: Ron Hoyt <Ronald.R.Hoyt@gd-is.com>
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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>
Subject: Re: No Bumps!!!
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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. ;-) > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 1999
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
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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..
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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>
Subject: Miss P'fer
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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>
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Miss P'fer
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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>
Subject: Re: HKS
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ULDAD(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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>
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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
Date: Sep 16, 1999
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
Date: Sep 17, 1999
Subject: (no subject)
PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THE KOLB-LIST(at)MATRONICS.COM THANK YOU ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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!
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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>
Subject: 582 #s
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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
Date: Sep 17, 1999
Subject: Re: Dumb question of the day..
________________________________________________________________________________
From: JRWillJR(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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>
Subject: Re: 582 #s
Date: Sep 17, 1999
+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
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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 >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 17, 1999
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
Date: Sep 17, 1999
----- 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>
Subject: Painting prep
Date: Sep 18, 1999
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 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 1999
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
Date: Sep 18, 1999
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 > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 1999
From: Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net>
Subject: Mileage
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>
Date: Sep 18, 1999
Subject: Re: 75% .....
> 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 1999
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Mileage
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 1999
From: Bill Weber <bweber2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Radio Cabling
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
Date: Sep 18, 1999
-----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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 1999
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 1999
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Radio Cabling]
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 1999
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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 1999
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 * >*********************************************** > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BKlebon(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 19, 1999
Subject: Re: GAP SEAL
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 19, 1999
From: wood <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: 75% .....
> >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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 19, 1999
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: 75% .....
> 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
Date: Sep 19, 1999
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>
Subject: Re: 75% .....
Date: Sep 19, 1999
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 > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 19, 1999
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Subject: Re: 75% .....
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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 19, 1999
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
Date: Sep 19, 1999
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 19, 1999
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BKlebon(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 19, 1999
Subject: Re: Gap Seal
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 19, 1999
From: wood <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: Gap Seal
> > 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>
Date: Sep 19, 1999
************************************************** 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
Date: Sep 19, 1999
>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
Date: Sep 20, 1999
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
Date: Sep 20, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 20, 1999
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
Date: Sep 20, 1999
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
Date: Sep 20, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 20, 1999
From: Terry Swartz <tswartz(at)desupernet.net>
Subject: spades
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
Date: Sep 20, 1999
-----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 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 20, 1999
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
Date: Sep 20, 1999
Subject: 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 20, 1999
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 20, 1999
From: Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net>
Subject: Re: 20 gallons]
--------------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-- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 20, 1999
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: slips
From: Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Date: Sep 20, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BKlebon(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 20, 1999
Subject: Re: Gap Seal
My address is: Rick Klebon 26934 Nanticoke Road Salisbury, Md. 21801. Please let me know what I owe you (shipping ect.) Many thanks!! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 20, 1999
Subject: Re: slips
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
Date: Sep 20, 1999
Subject: remove me from your e mail list
please remove me from your e-mail list ....thank you ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Prosuper(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 20, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 20, 1999
From: Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: 75% .....
> 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
Date: Sep 20, 1999
Any tips on alignment of the wheels/gear legs of a Slingshot? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 1999
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: 75% .....
>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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 1999
From: The Labharts <njlabhart(at)kih.net>
Subject: Re: 20 gallons
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 20, 1999
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: 20 gallons
> 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
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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>
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 1999
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Kolb Flyin
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
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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
Date: Sep 21, 1999
Subject: Re:slipping in
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
Date: Sep 21, 1999
Subject: oil
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>
Subject: Land anywhere?
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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? > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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>
Subject: Re: oil
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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?
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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. > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 1999
From: wood <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: 20 gallons
> >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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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>
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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>
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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>
Date: Sep 21, 1999
Subject: Re: Kolb Flyin
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>
Subject: ultrastar
Date: Sep 21, 1999
dose any body know what the max gross wt of a ultrastar is Randy ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 1999
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Subject: Re: ultrastar
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 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 21, 1999
From: Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net>
Subject: Jabiru engine
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>
Subject: Re: ultrastar
Date: Sep 21, 1999
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>
Date: Sep 21, 1999
Subject: Re: 75% .....
> >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
Date: Sep 22, 1999
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
Date: Sep 22, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 22, 1999
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
Date: Sep 22, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ultrastar
From: Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Date: Sep 22, 1999
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 > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 22, 1999
From: "Richard neilsen" <NEILSENR(at)state.mi.us>
Subject: unsubscribe
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. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 22, 1999
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
Date: Sep 22, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 22, 1999
From: Skip Staub <skips(at)bhip.infi.net>
Subject: Re: ultrastar
> 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
Date: Sep 22, 1999
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>
Date: Sep 23, 1999
Subject: Re: Aircraft Spruce Co.
Aircraft Spruce Co. 1-800-824-1930 Customer Service 1-714-870-7315 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MitchMnD(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 23, 1999
Subject: Re: oil
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>
Date: Sep 23, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 1999
From: bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net>
Subject: Re: Aircraft Spruce Co.
Tim: http://www.aircraft-spruce.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 1999
From: TK <tkrolfe(at)epix.net>
Subject: Rough idle
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
Date: Sep 23, 1999
Subject: Oil tank ooze
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 1999
From: Lawrence Kruchten <lawrence.kruchten(at)gte.net>
Subject: kolb list
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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 1999
From: bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net>
Subject: Re: Rough idle
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 1999
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? > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 1999
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? > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 1999
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 * >*********************************************** > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 1999
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 > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rough idle
From: Ralph H Burlingame <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Date: Sep 23, 1999
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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 23, 1999
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>
Subject: Re: Rough idle
Date: Sep 23, 1999
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
Date: Sep 23, 1999
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
Date: Sep 23, 1999


September 09, 1999 - September 23, 1999

Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-bq