Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-bx

January 22, 2000 - February 14, 2000



      > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
      > http://im.yahoo.com
      >
      >
      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ballenger" <ballenger(at)gateway.net>
Date: Jan 22, 2000
Dan, I built a MiniMax in 1990. I covered it exactly like the TEAM manual explained with no rib stitching. The fabric is still attached to the ribs. Jim Virginia Beach ----- Original Message -----
From: "dann mann" <aquila33(at)webtv.net>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 11:01 PM > > On a related note, is it really necessary to stitch the fabric to the > ribs on an ultralight? In my case a Minimax. Perhaps a simplified system > has be devised other than relying on the Polytak alone. > Thanks > Dan > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2000
From: wood <duesouth(at)iname.com>
> >On a related note, is it really necessary to stitch the fabric to the >ribs on an ultralight? In my case a Minimax. Perhaps a simplified system >has be devised other than relying on the Polytak alone. >Thanks >Dan > I used the Hi-Pec system and the fabric is glued to the ribs. No problems so far. Official rule books do not really call for rib stitching at the speeds we travel. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: Brakes & Dual Controls
I experimented with a piece of foam pipe insulation on >the aileron torque tube, for an armrest, and it WILL be made permanent. >Very Comfy. DayDreamer Lar. If there are any upholstery making persons on the list, some one needs to come up with a naugahyde lace on pad for the arm rest/aileron torque tube like Lar mentions. I have used various goofy looking lengths of foam over the years, and would gladly spring for something that looked better. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: Two Things
Vamoose has been under construction for 3 years and a bit >now, and number N78LB has been reserved for about 1 1/2 or 2 yrs, just for >me. Today I got a form from the Riverside County, CA. Assessors office, >wanting to know all about my aircraft, that I haven't bothered telling them >about. Bothered ?? I didn't know I was supposed to, Honest Officer. >Mailman brings the damndest things, doesn't he ?? Disgusted Lar. I don't know about California, but in Tennessee, the state computer gets intimate with the FAA's computer about once every year and a half, and then the state queries the owner of any new N numbers, seeking to see if any sales tax needs to be paid. In Tennessee, there is a penalty if you go for too long without 'fessn up, but if you call and volunteer the info, then they don't assess it. (Guess how I know all this?) Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
> >On a related note, is it really necessary to stitch the fabric to the >ribs on an ultralight? In my case a Minimax. Perhaps a simplified system >has be devised other than relying on the Polytak alone. >Thanks >Dan If you are gluing fabric to a wide strip of wood, and you are really good at fabric work, and you always fly slow, it might be OK. Bear in mind that if the fabric comes loose on the upper side of a rib, it will loosen behind the high point of the rib, and the shape of your upper airfoil will change, raising the top curve and moving the high point of the airfoil aft, and it will raise the center of lift aft. If this happens, the big question suddenly becomes; "Do I have enough elevator authority to hold the nose up, or will this turkey begin to initiate an outside loop no matter what I do?" I am not a rib riviter, I am a rib stitcher, my wife and I did both wings of the MKIII in very little time. I would not fly a Kolb, or other metal ribbed airplane that did not have it's upper wing fabric positively attached to the rear 2/3's of it's ribs. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
Date: Jan 22, 2000
The Bluegrass Ultralight Group safety seminar is going on live on the web if any of you want to tune in. http://www.cvb-1.com/BUG ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2000
From: Herb Gearheart <herbgh(at)nctc.com>
Subject: Re: kolb prices
Possum and all Yep!! That prototyping can be expensive!! So when are you going to sell plans or a kit?? Nice machine! I knew as soon as I hit the return key that my cost estimated were probably too optimistic. Then, again, if we knew what the cost would be up front we would not make the effort. Herb Possum wrote: > > > > >To Gary and List > > Upon reading your post Gary, I was reminded of some thoughts I had > while > >rebuilding my MkIII a couple of years ago. I priced out most of the things I > >needed to see if it was better to build or buy. I found that I could build > ribs > >for 17 bucks or buy them from Kolb for 27. I chose the latter as I only > needed > >about 8 of them. The main spar tube I needed is no longer available from > Dillsburg > >in the 6 inch size so I ordered it from Kolb also. I don't believe it was > any more > >costly than it would have been from Dillsburg. The larger point is that ; > if it > >cost 10,000 bucks to buy, it probably cost 5,000 to manufacture. In small > >quantities this is reasonable, it seems to me. > > Lastly, I am astonished that there are no, plans only, knock off's of > any of > >these designs!! Legal of course, Pod and Boom design. The spar and ribs from > >Carlson aircraft are available to all and are perfectly good for these > airspeeds. > >The firefly,firestar fuselages are simplicity in themselves and could be > welded up > >for$ 400 to $600 in raw materials. I think that $6000 would get it done. > All up. > >Herb > > When I sunk my last Kolb Firestar in a nearby lake, I waited a few months > and bought the following: > Back-half of the dreaded "Ferguson" cage the had only been "tack" welded, > 5" wing spars, set of kolb ribs (had to rebuild 2/3s of them because of the > drag strut), about half of the hardware, had my old nose cone and stick, > some of my old hardware was still good, got the rest of it off a wrecked > Firestar II... all for $500. Had to build a "wooded jig" to fabricate the > front half of the cage to fit the back half and "tack welded it (copied the > angles of my old Firestar except a little wider). I can't weld, a least > not good enough for the cage, so paid a Lockheed welder for that - $600. > New 503 dual carb, instruments, fabric, turned own landing gear, BRS chute, > Etc. Etc. ....I still got over $12,000 (I quit counting after that) and a > heck of a lot of time in this thing. Go figure. > > <http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ggleiter(at)minn.net
Date: Jan 22, 2000
wood wrote: > > > > > >On a related note, is it really necessary to stitch the fabric to the > >ribs on an ultralight? In my case a Minimax. Perhaps a simplified system > >has be devised other than relying on the Polytak alone. > >Thanks > >Dan > > > > I used the Hi-Pec system and the fabric is glued to the ribs. No problems > so far. Official rule books do not really call for rib stitching at the > speeds we travel. In truth, it is more accurate to say that the "Official rule books..." simply do not address the question of these speeds, rather than that they "...do not reall call for rib stitching...". They actually never thought the question would come up as the idea of such low speeds seemed not to be a likelyhood. Whether it is needed or not is open to question. Maybe it is and maybe it is not. If it IS needed, it is not likely that failure would take place immediately, but could take some time. Penalty if it DOES FAIL could be pretty high, and the "insurance" premium (time to mechanically attatch fabric) to insure it will not fail is pretty low. gil leiter MAPLEWOOD, MN ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ggleiter(at)minn.net
Date: Jan 22, 2000
Subject: Re: More Lexan
Larry Bourne wrote: > > > Ogay. Standing by. Thanks. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: dann mann <aquila33(at)webtv.net> > To: > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 8:30 PM > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: More Lexan > > > > > I can't say for sure but in my experience with Lexan I would not use Goo > > Gone anywhere near it. Put the lexan in a garbage bag with the mineral > > sprits so it has plenty of time to soak in and loosen the adhesive. > > They may have changed goo gone since I last used it but I think it will > > fog and/or craze Lexan and Lucite. > > Sometimes warm soapy water is a safe alternative. > > Good luck > > Dan Have not had any problems with the protective paper and residue on Lexan, but for Lucite alcohol works fine. The pre-formed panels for my Playmate had set around a long time before I used them, and the paper was stuck very firmly. Alcohol works, but for some areas it has to soak a while to soften the adhesive. In the meantime, the alcohol tends to evaporate. Wet the paper surface down liberaly with alcohol, place a soft cloth in place and wet that also. Then cover the whole thing with an evaporation barrier. Saran or poly film wrapped around the whole thing will hold the alcohol in place until the adhesive softens. gil leiter MAPLEWOOD, MN ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ggleiter(at)minn.net
Date: Jan 22, 2000
Subject: Re: chaff
Possum wrote: > > > > > >Well, Woody, Ya see, uh..............I've kinda already wore some little > >holes over some of the rivet heads with my tender handling of the iron. > >Uh................ Sheepish Lar. > You'll get a lot more holes when you start to sand the Poly Spray/Silver > coat, if you use it. > Here's a hint. Before you sand anything on your plane-tape over all the > stringers, rivet heads, ribs etc. with 1/2 in. masking tape. It only takes > a second to cut thru the fabric when your sanding, no matter how careful > you are.. > I use 3M sanding pads and not sand paper. Comes in Medium, Fine and Ultra > fine-and used it wet. Used it on the Silercoat and the paint when applying > another color or coat. > > Hey I'll mail you the Teflon Monday-I found it today, I think you'll like > it, as picky as you are. I recommend 3M Wet-or-Dry paper for the wet sanding, cut into small pieces about 3 x 3. It comes in grits a LOT finer than the finest 3M sanding pads. Use LOTS of water, and replace the sand paper frequently and re-wet the area frequently. Buildup of sanding residue increases the abrasive action, and includes relatively large lumps that can really dig in and scratch. Wash thoroughly with lots of clean water when finished. I normally set up saw horses outside. Have a hose running slowly, and have a pan of water for wetting the sand paper nearby. Do sanding on a relatively small area (square meter or so), then wash it off with the water from the hose. Wipe down with paper towels (I would buy a dozen or so rolls at the start of the wet sanding project), then wash down again. DO NOT allow the sanded area to dry before washing sanding residue off. Surface tension of water can pull the sanding residue particles down into intimate contact with the surface as it dries, and they are sometimes hard to wash off later. Yes, indeed one must use a surgeons touch when doing the wet sanding. I feel that use of the sandpaper gives more control than do the sanding pads. Sort like picking up pins - easier with gloves than with mitts on. One really does have to be very careful around the rib, rib stitches, pop rivets, etc. One will naturally be cautious when working around the obvious areas where sanding through is a danger. One area that is a REAL danger that one might not expect. In some structures there are hidden dangers just BELOW the surface of the fabric. To give some examples of what I am talking about: 1. My Stits Playmate has a 1/8 " steel rod running between the leading edge and trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer. This is about 1/4 " below he surface of the fabric on both sides. 2. My Challenger has Al drab/anti-drag struts between the leading edge and trailing edge of the wing. This is about 1/2 " below the fabric on the bottom of the wing. 3. Similar situation on the fuselage side of my Challenger. Fortunately this hole was in a location where a patch could be applied inside and it will not show. When wet sanding these open bays, one is FAR from pop rivets or other VISIBLE areas and one is alert to be cautious. It does'nt take much pressure to depress the fabric enough so that the "hidden hard surface" is contacted. Can go through the fabric in the blink of an eye. My Playmate has a small patch on the vertical stabilizer can attest to that. If one does sand through, resist the temptation to ignore it due to its tiny size. Bite the bullet and put on a dollar patch with PolyBrush. gil leiter MAPLEWOOD, MN ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2000
From: wood <duesouth(at)iname.com>
>In truth, it is more accurate to say that the "Official rule books..." >simply do not address the question of these speeds, rather than that >they "...do not reall call for rib stitching...". They actually never >thought the question would come up as the idea of such low speeds seemed >not to be a likelyhood. I must be wrong but I thought the book said that if it flew at less than 110 it was not neccessary. This does not mean do not do it. I am satisfied with the safety of gluing the fabric to the ribs. When I build my next Mk111 (this year) I will use the rivits supplied in the kit. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RICKN106(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 22, 2000
Subject: Re: Brakes & Dual Controls
Richard I will try to tell you what I did in my MIII first of all you will need two piece of thin flat stock one that will be aprox. 4.5 -5" long put one down over the area where your cable goes through the short tube just behind the control stick.weld it their. Now right behind your right elbow you have two 3/16 or so tubes that go down to the ring that the tail boom goes in what you are trying to do is to get two piece of flat stock welded just over the tourk tube so that you have a place to rest your arm in flight and also when you get in or out of your aircraft you can steady your self on this and not the tube . Now that you have the 2 piece of flat stock welded you can get a piece of hard wood and on the elbow end it can be 4" wide and on the front side it can be 3" or so. Their will be no weight problem and it works great once you fly with this you will not be able to do without it sure hope all of this makes a little since. if your throt.is in the middle of the two seats just get out your router and cut in a slot for it Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
From: EnaudZ(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 22, 2000
Subject: FS2 fullenclosure
Hi all Two ??? Will wind shield fog up sometimes on FS2 fuull enclosure? How does one start the engine with D-handle inside?????? D.Z. FS2 503 ohio ps thanx in advance. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2000
Subject: KXP Cage
From: Bruce E Harrison <bharrison(at)juno.com>
I have some photos of my friend's KXP/original Firestar without covering. I'd be happy to e-mail these direct to you. In a pinch I could also measure some key parts if it would help any. Bruce > stripped down, ready for repair from the blow over > last May. I've planned on taking it to a local A&P > welding guru, but thought I'd first check with TNK -- > after all a repair there would presumably be to > original dimensions and done well. I finally called > TNK this week. They don't do repairs. New FS cage is > > for a KX/KXP cage in good shape, I'm interested. Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2000
Subject: upholstery
From: Bruce E Harrison <bharrison(at)juno.com>
I have a friend down the street who is a professional upholsterer. His dad is also an A&P with one of the major airlines. He does first class work and is very interested in expanding into the ultralight field. If you send him the upper portion of your FireFly or Firestar seat and the dimensions of the lower part of the seat, he can produce a nice vinyl/naugahyde cover complete with pleats, padding, and map pocket. Contact me off list if you want more details. He will be making the covers for my next plane. > I experimented with a piece of foam pipe insulation on > >the aileron torque tube, for an armrest, and it WILL be made > permanent. > >Very Comfy. DayDreamer Lar. > > If there are any upholstery making persons on the list, > some one needs to come up with a naugahyde lace on pad > for the arm rest/aileron torque tube like Lar mentions. > I have used various goofy looking lengths of foam over the years, > and would gladly spring for something that looked better. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2000
From: Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: kolb prices
> >Prices. Airplanes. That must be in Websters under >example of synonyms. > >A few have posted some inexpensive finds for a cage or >rebuilding. I guess the $500 cage somebody mentioned >was in ref to materials only. I finally called >TNK this week. They don't do repairs. New FS cage is >$2700, and they don't know if the current model FS >cage would fit the KXP wings and fuse tube. I know >I'm whining a little here I called the "Old" Kolb company after I twisted the heck out of my old Firestar cage back in '97 and was told they don't sell the cages in halves anymore like the old KXP's and the new ones were $2,600.00-- I thought I only need half, so why pay for a whole cage? At least that's what I remember. BTW it ain't easy to build a cage without the "Jig" they got up in Kentucky and they ain't got the old "KXP" jig anymore. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Coggins, Josh, NNO" <joshcoggins(at)att.com>
Subject: Introduction
Date: Jan 22, 2000
Hi everyone, my name is Josh, I am new to the Kolb list and have recently purchased a Firestar I. I fly it out of the Corvallis airport in Corvallis, Oregon and am looking for other Kolbers in the area to fly with. I am liking the Firestar more every day. It climbs like a homesick angel with my 447. However, I notice that my plane seems to be louder than the average ultralight with the same engine. I have the Rotax 447 with "B" gearbox and a T.P. 66x30 two blade wood prop. I am wondering if a three blade prop would quieten things down a bit? But, would going to a three blade prop lessen the performance? Also, if I do elect to buy a new prop, how is the Powerfin prop working for anybody that has one. I have heard good things about this prop. The other prop I am thinking about is the Warp drive. Also, I just wanted to say thank you to all of the people on this list, as I have been reading the archives and have had a lot of my questions answered by the conversation. Josh Firestar I, Oregon ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "mvollmer" <mvollmer(at)wireco.net>
Subject: Re: kolb prices
Date: Jan 21, 2000
-----Original Message----- From: ggleiter(at)minn.net <ggleiter(at)minn.net> Date: Friday, January 21, 2000 11:59 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: kolb prices > >Larry Bourne wrote: >> > > > > >> One Lister came up with the idea of using a squeeze bottle for >> the poly-tak, and that sounds like a real winner. > >This approach was worked out by Jim Droemeyer, PolyFiber dealer out of >Belle Plains, MN. > >> I intended all week to >> liberate a couple of them from work, suffered various brain farts and >> attacks of cranius rectitis, and forgot all about them. Now I have to go >> buy them, and try it tomorrow. Question.......when brushing poly-tak, put >> on 2 coats, let them dry, put the fabric in place, and re-activate the 'tak >> with MEK, right ?? Works wonderfully well, you bet. But, with the squoze >> bottle, do you need 2 coats, or just 1 thicker coat ?? > >First, the re-activate procedure is only for areas where it is not >possible to apply the second coat of PolyTak and immediately push the >fabric in place while working the PolyTak up through the weave. Example >might be if one wants to stick the fabric to the ribs (this, of course, >does NOT eliminate the need for rib stitching or other mechanical means >of holding fabric to top of ribs). Another example would be when one is >covering with an envelope, such as an aileron cover that is pre sewn and >slips over the surface like a sock. In these cases one has to apply two >good coats to the surfaces, put fabric in place, and then re-activate >with MEK. Again one should carefully work the adhesive up through the >fabric by rubbing it into place. > >For other areas one should first apply a coat and let it dry. Then >apply a wet coat and work the fabricx into place. Don't try to do too >much at one time. The beauty of the bottle approach is that the layers >of PolyTak are usually much smoother than if brushed on, and will have >far fewer "lumps" which would have to be worked out with the iron later. > > >> Tomorrow, ( my >> weekend is Fri. and Sat., then go in at 4 PM to Midnight on Sun. and Mon.), >> I plan on giving Vic's method of running finishing tape around the curves a >> try. Brilliant Lar went ahead and did the rudder 1st., which turns out to >> NOT be the proper sequence, and did fine - may I say Great ! ! !, ?? - until >> it came time for the finishing tape. I cut my own bias tape, folded it in >> 1/2, for a center line, > >I suggest marking a center line with a #2 pencil instead of folding. A >#2 pencil or a chalk line will NOT blead through and cause a problem, >but a pen would certainly be a problem. Believe there was an article in >EXPERIMENTER about a simple device a guy made to center line mark tapes. > >> and glued about a 1/4" around the perimeter of the >> curves, while stretching it tight, and let it dry. Then heated up the ole >> iron, and had at it. It had back at me, and taught me a little respect. >> Yes, you really do have to make the bias tape lots wider, and it looks much >> better if you taper the ends to fair it into the regular tapes. > >Yes, one should taper the ends to fair in and fasten these down with >PolyTak. After this is dry one can pull and stretch the bias tape as >required. > >> Then when >> shrinking it, be VERY careful ! ! ! Using the stir stick, like in the >> video, didn't work till I got the jack knife after it and tapered it down >> thin. My steam iron has holes that just happen to perfectly fit the >> rivets - thanks Possum - so I didn't have to drill the little iron. Works >> good, but I've still got some interesting little creases, folds, and wows >> around the curves that just don't cut it and will NOT come out. Think I'm >> gonna have to re-do them, and boy do I hate to, after all that fussing and >> fuming. Something like 10 hr. to cover the rudder through 1st coat of >> poly-brush. The right horiz. stab. went beautifully, till I started ironing >> it today after work, and realized I'd forgotten the re-inforcing tape on the >> edges of the gussets. Aaaarrrggghhhh ! ! ! Tom Margrave, who did such a >> beautiful, professional job on his FireFly is coming over this weekend to >> see if he can help me salvage some of it. Cross your fingers for me. >> That's about enuf ! ! ! I started this to say thanks for the compliment, >> and look what it led to. Those who know what they're doing, please bear >> with me. It just might help those coming up on this job, cause it ARE a >> miserable S.O.B. Mekky Lar. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Gary r. voigt <johndeereantique(at)uswest.net> > > > > >gil leiter >MAPLEWOOD, MN > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kenmead(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 23, 2000
Subject: Re: kolb prices
Hi Guys; I had Kolb build be a front section of a cage for my FS2 last June, I think the price was around $600. Don't know if they will still do it anymore. It was from the from front seat forward, had the cage back together in a day. Kent ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Sharp" <mlsharp_1(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 23, 2000
Kolb Gang.. Just wanted to express some praise in what sometimes has been a frustrating experience... I purchased Kit #1 from Kolb in 1997, I purchased the balance of the kits in 99, during the transition from "old" to "New" kolb. As I'm building along, I would find that there were several misc. pcs that were missing. I called the The New Kolb co. and the parts were sent, no question. Sue was very helpful and courteous on the phone. (she sounds so good that i asked if she was married. SHE WAS. dang.) the parts arrived asap. I want to express that the original Kolb used diligence in filling my order. There must have been some very trying times during the transition. I'm surprised that the missing parts were as few as they were. I would also express praise to the New Kolb, I was not questioned at all about the parts, They stood behind the order as if I had made it to them.. way to go.... I have copied John Yates to let him know about my feelings. Just wanted to let the rest of the virtual Kolb world know... Later, Rambling Mike ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)epix.net>
Subject: Introduction
Date: Jan 23, 2000
Josh, Sometimes people mis-label an earlier Firestar and call it a FireStar I. Just so there is no confusion as to what you have: measure the distance between the prop and the aileron tube. If it is about 2" then you have a FireStar I (which is the single seat version of the newer FireStar-II). The original FireStars and KX FireStars had about 5" of clearance. The best way to reduce noise if you have the FireStar I with the 2" of clearance, is to install an IVO prop with the 2-1/2" spacer. The closeness of the propeller to the aileron tube is what makes it noisy. The extra 2-1/2" made a noticeable difference. Whether you go to a 3-blade 60" or a 2-blade 68" is more a matter of how much power you need. It sounds like you have plenty, so you could go the 60" 3-blade route and lessen the noise a bit more. In my opinion I don't think the noise difference is great and you may wish to retain the superior climb of the 2-blade prop. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Coggins, Josh, NNO Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2000 11:50 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Introduction Hi everyone, my name is Josh, I am new to the Kolb list and have recently purchased a Firestar I. I fly it out of the Corvallis airport in Corvallis, Oregon and am looking for other Kolbers in the area to fly with. I am liking the Firestar more every day. It climbs like a homesick angel with my 447. However, I notice that my plane seems to be louder than the average ultralight with the same engine. I have the Rotax 447 with "B" gearbox and a T.P. 66x30 two blade wood prop. I am wondering if a three blade prop would quieten things down a bit? But, would going to a three blade prop lessen the performance? Also, if I do elect to buy a new prop, how is the Powerfin prop working for anybody that has one. I have heard good things about this prop. The other prop I am thinking about is the Warp drive. Also, I just wanted to say thank you to all of the people on this list, as I have been reading the archives and have had a lot of my questions answered by the conversation. Josh Firestar I, Oregon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2000
From: Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: kolb prices
You all probably saw Bruce Chestnut's reply to me on this ...a generous offer. I take back my whining; sorry about that Bruce. If I end up buying that cage from you I'll be a little concerned about future Kolb KX/P owners not having a dimension reference from TNK. I guess we could all help each other out via this list, but either way, I think it would be a great thing if TNK could track down Dennis' drawings to be able to provide original kit purchasers with accurate dimensions in time of need. Brings up another curiosity: I'm curious who has the original Kolb prototypes? Seems like it would be good if those could be kept in a Kolb museum (not necessarily moth-balled). Thanks again Bruce! -Ben > I'm whining a little here -- I could ask a few people, > notably Dennis, if the FS I/II cage would work with > the KX wings etc, but I was a little low after finding > out: a) no repairs b) no plans to give me some key KX > cage dimensions, and c) the big price of a cage'. No > doubt about it; we (slightly) older owners took a bit > of a hit in the company change. (Admittedly there are > probably pluses too.) Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Weekend Seminar Schedule for 2000
Our seminar schedule for 2000 is begining to take shape. Groton, CT is a firm date. Ft. Worth (George and Becky Orndorff's hangar) will be firm in a few days. We're working on accomodations for Hillsboro, OR; Chino, CA; and Livermore, CA for later in the summer. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/seminars.html Bob . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2000
From: b young <byoung(at)brigham.net>
Subject: need address
does anyone on the list have a direct email address for bruce chestnut? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Coggins, Josh, NNO" <joshcoggins(at)att.com>
Subject: RE: Introduction
Date: Jan 23, 2000
Dennis, Thanks for the reply. I checked and I do have the Firestar I. When I called TNK to order some parts they said my kit was bought in 96'. In the interest of saving money, I wonder if I could just get a spacer for my current prop to help with the noise? Since I am not an engineer, I don't know if that would cause problems with wearing out the gearbox's output bearing prematurely or not. The other question I have is concerning types of fuel to use in these Rotax engines. I have used both 100LL Avgas and premium unleaded auto fuel with the usual 50:1 oil mixing ratio. I have noticed that the spark plugs seem to accumulate a greyish looking material (which I assume is the lead ) when I use Avgas. This grey material does not accumulate when I use auto fuel. I am pretty sure my jetting is correct as my EGT temps are running at 1050 degrees and the plugs are brown when I use auto fuel. I am wondering if the lead in Avgas will accumulate and cause my rings to freeze early. I like the peace of mind in using Avgas, but will change to auto fuel and filter for water with my "MR Funnel" if I hear that Avgas is not a good idea. Josh Firestar I, Oregon ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ZepRep251(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 24, 2000
Subject: Re: Oil pump-arm return
Frank, according to my rotax manual section 13.4, the mark on the oil pump lever is to be aligned with the mark on the oil pump housing with the throttle lever set to the idle position. I purchased the engine from Kolb with the complete kit on 12/98 with all pieces delivered by 1/20/99.I noticed the Rotax manual is edition 06-1994. Is there a more current manual that changes the pump timing procedure or has field experience by owners shone that a change is necessary? I have only 35HRs on the engine using the above procedure, which gives a dark tan exhaust pipe color and a very light oil residue on the prop that you can't see, but you can feel it after about 3 hrs. running. Thanx G. Aman FS 1274 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: monte84(at)mindspring.com
Date: Jan 24, 2000
Subject: ELT and Transponder
Hi All, Two quick questions. I need an ELT in my Mark3 don't I? Number 2--How about a transponder under the 30 mile mode-c around Atlanta. Thanks for any input. Monte Dallas, GA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: ELT and Transponder
> >Hi All, > > Two quick questions. I need an ELT in my Mark3 don't I? Number 2--How >about a transponder under the 30 mile mode-c around Atlanta. Thanks for any >input. Monte > Dallas, GA You need an ELT for a MKIII. I have heard that the 30 mile mode-c around class B airspace now requires transponders, go to http://www.landings.com and check out their section on FAR's, that should tell you. Better to read the regs than ask opinions... Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Volum" <ibimiami(at)msn.com>
Subject: ELT and Transponder
Date: Jan 24, 2000
If and when you get one, please tell the group which you end up getting and why. I will have to get one myself soon, but the ones I've seen Ads for seem quite pricey. I want to comply with the regs., but don't want to spend any more than necessary to get the job done. Peter Volum Miami, FL > >Hi All, > > Two quick questions. I need an ELT in my Mark3 don't I? Number 2--How >about a transponder under the 30 mile mode-c around Atlanta. Thanks for any >input. Monte > Dallas, GA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: need address
Mornin b young: Go to this url: http://www.ckaviationfoundation.com/ Click on "Contact Bruce" in the menu on the left hand side of the first page. john h ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Watson" <djwatson(at)olg.com>
Subject: WACO TX
Date: Jan 24, 2000
I will be going to Waco on 31Jan and returning to D.C. on 4Feb is there anyone on the list that might be close enough for me to stop in and say Hi (howdy)?? Seems like I remember an UL club might be located in the area. Dennis in 30 Deg. Maryland ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TCowan1917(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 24, 2000
Subject: Re:spacers
I might sound like a dumy but I picked up on this spacer thing to quiet a firestar down. Mine is circa 1986 but was not built until four years ago. I had a bad drumming from the fuse but put fabric inside and took care of most of that. Am I supposed to put a spacer between the prop and flange to quiet it further or is it not necessary. I have an IVO with about 2" clearance. By the way, putting the fabric inside the cage was like trying to tuck a wet needle up a wild cats ___s through a screen door. Imput. g'day Ted ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com
Date: Jan 24, 2000
Subject: Re: Oil pump-arm return
If you have the standard Rotax with Bing carbs,either procedure will give the same results. It is just my opinion that the WOT throttle alignment is far more critical and also easier to set. I have experienced and heard many times on this list that it is harder to adjust the arm at the idle position mechanically(arm does not always return to the same spot without engine running) and also because of the vague description by Rotax of what their interpretation of the "idle" (3000rpm?) is and therefore think that it is the lesser of the two. I also think that Rotax build a lot of flexibility in this oilsupply system and you would have to be grossly off the alignment marks to see any effect. I would want to make sure that the oil supply is correct where the engine most needs it; at full output. I dont know about your dark tan exhaust pipe color The oil residue build up on your prop is normal Frank Reynen MKIII@565hrs Frank, according to my rotax manual section 13.4, the mark on the oil pump lever is to be aligned with the mark on the oil pump housing with the throttle lever set to the idle position. I purchased the engine from Kolb with the complete kit on 12/98 with all pieces delivered by 1/20/99.I noticed the Rotax manual is edition 06-1994. Is there a more current manual that changes the pump timing procedure or has field experience by owners shone that a change is necessary? I have only 35HRs on the engine using the above procedure, which gives a dark tan exhaust pipe color and a very light oil residue on the prop that you can't see, but you can feel it after about 3 hrs. running. Thanx G. Aman FS 1274 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re:spacers
> > Am I supposed to put a spacer between the prop and flange to quiet >it further or is it not necessary. I have an IVO with about 2" clearance. Ever been to a fly-in and listened to a Varieze go over and hear the odd noise, and then it lands, and when you go to look at it, there is only about 2" of clearance between the prop and the trailing edge of the wing? Same effect. The prop is "chopping" it's way through a defined airstream as it comes off the wing. On the MKIII, you can pull the nose up to approach a stall, and hear the prop making a really odd cavitation type sound just before stall as the airflow off the wing begins to break up. A lot of the noise we hear is the prop interacting with airflow off the wing center section. The further away you can get the prop, the less noise. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: wire size to 912 starter
> >can anyone on the list help me with the correct size wire to >go to the starting motor on the 912. the installation >manual states wire size of 16@ which is metric, the charts >i have seen only support steady state circuits, not circuits >of short duration. If your battery is close to the engine (4' or less wire total) you can use 6AWG. I'd recommend 4AWG . . . especially if your battery is located further away. Bob . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)epix.net>
Subject: RE: Introduction
Date: Jan 24, 2000
Josh, I would not use the spacer with any prop except the IVO. The IVO's have very flexible blades and this helps relieve the gear box of stress it would otherwise get with a more rigid prop. A more rigid blade (wood blades are quite rigid) will impart more vibration (stress) to the spacer and gear box. IVOs have a long track record using the spacer and it seems to me that it has been well proven in the real world. I have heard some of the Rotax experts say that it is better to use 100 LL than questionable auto gas - probably a good guideline to follow. I don't consider myself to be an authority on the gas issues. It is my recollection that more frequent replacement of plugs is the price one pays for using 100LL. If Amoco is available, I would use that most of the time; possibly not in the winter due to the additives in some areas. I don't know about lead buildup on the rings ... probably not - but I'd ask around some more if this is a big question in your mind. There has been a lot written about gas on the list. You might do well to search the archives. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Coggins, Josh, NNO Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 11:23 PM Subject: Kolb-List: RE: Introduction I wonder if I could just get a spacer for my current prop to help with the noise? I like the peace of mind in using Avgas, but will change to auto fuel and filter for water with my "MR Funnel" if I hear that Avgas is not a good idea. Josh Firestar I, Oregon ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ZepRep251(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 24, 2000
Subject: Re: FS2 fullenclosure
D.Z. If you have the wrap around vinyl rear window set up from Kolb, you can un Velcro the right-hand top attach material and push the D handle out and easily pullstart with your left shin against the right gear leg. I have started it resting the door on my stocking cap clad head and pulled from the inside while standing outside but when the temps fell below 30 my shoulder complained loudly. Now I stick the handle out the top of the rear window. By the way, where are you in Ohio? G Aman Akron Oh. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ZepRep251(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 24, 2000
Subject: Re: Oil pump-arm return
Frank, Thanks for the info.I can find only one mark on the pump housing and one on the lever. I have no idea how to find WOT position for the pump. The first engine inspection is only 15 hours away. I am also burning 100LL.Thats what I burn in the Bonanza and its easy to come by. I'll let you know about the carbon or lead build up then.Thanx. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: cjc0751(at)banet.net
Date: Jan 24, 2000
Subject: Re: ELT and Transponder
monte84(at)mindspring.com wrote: > Two quick questions. I need an ELT in my Mark3 don't I? Number 2--How about a transponder under the 30 mile mode-c around Atlanta. 1) yes. 91.207 2) yes. 91.131 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com>
Subject: Re: Introduction
Date: Jan 24, 2000
Dennis and Kolb Gang, Is there any reason you can't use a spacer with the Warp Drive prop. I know the Ivo is a good prop, but my personal preference is a Warp Drive. Welcome to the list Josh! There is much knowledge to be tapped into from some of the members of this list. I learn something new each day. Later, John Cooley Building a FS II >The best way to reduce noise if you have the FireStar I with the 2" of >clearance, is to install an IVO prop with the 2-1/2" spacer. The closeness >of the propeller to the aileron tube is what makes it noisy. The extra >2-1/2" made a noticeable difference. >Dennis ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Brain Kim Steiner" <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca>
Subject: Re: Introduction
Date: Jan 24, 2000
I have had an Ivo spacer between my C drive and my Warp Drive for over 100 hours with no problems Kim Steiner Saskatchewan, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 7:36 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Introduction > > Dennis and Kolb Gang, > > Is there any reason you can't use a spacer with the Warp Drive prop. I > know the Ivo is a good prop, but my personal preference is a Warp Drive. > Welcome to the list Josh! There is much knowledge to be tapped into from > some of the members of this list. I learn something new each day. > > Later, > John Cooley > Building a FS II > > > >The best way to reduce noise if you have the FireStar I with the 2" of > >clearance, is to install an IVO prop with the 2-1/2" spacer. The closeness > >of the propeller to the aileron tube is what makes it noisy. The extra > >2-1/2" made a noticeable difference. > > >Dennis > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WGeorge737(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 24, 2000
Subject: Re: Oil pump-arm return
In a message dated 1/24/00 8:56:02 AM, Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com writes: << I also think that Rotax build a lot of flexibility in this oilsupply system and you would have to be grossly off the alignment marks to see any effect. I would want to make sure that the oil supply is correct where the engine most needs it; at full output. >> Frank and Gang, Somewhere in my pile of documentation I saw a graph which shows pump output v.s. arm angle. What it showed was that there is a linear function from idle to some point that is about 2/3 or so short of max angle. The line peaks there and stays flat the rest of the way to WOT. This tells me Frank is right and you will be getting max flow for some position well below WOT to WOT. There is one mark on the housing and two on the arm. By the way, I installed a fairly stiff sheath with teflon coating and finer cable from a bicycle shop and, voila-- the arm returns smoothly to idle each and every time! So now I have a new pump and new cable. I threw a bit of two stroke oil in the tanks at 100:1 just in case. Ran it up and it had a static of 6400. Too high, but l did fly for a short time and climb power yielded 6800. Once again will have to re-pitch and check for proper oil usage. Bill George Mk-3 582 "C" Powerfin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2000
From: b young <byoung(at)brigham.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 01/23/00
mike wrote Kolb Gang.. Just wanted to express some praise in what sometimes has been a frustrating experience... ------------------------------------------ sorry my experience has not been so positive, on an order i placed last june of which most was delivered in sept------ well the parts that were backordered have not come yet , the brs chute took 7 months to get correct, etc etc etc etc frustrated boyd ________________________________________________________________________________
From: monte84(at)mindspring.com
Date: Jan 25, 2000
Subject: Transponder
After looking at the FAR's, Here is what I found. ( (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any aircraft which was not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, balloon or glider may conduct operations in the airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part provided such operations are conducted-- (i) Outside any Class A, Class B, or Class C airspace area; and (ii) Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower; and ...... Since my aircraft will not be certified with a transponder, I shouldn't need one as long as I stay out of the class B. Does anyone agree? Thanks, Monte P.S. This was in Far 91.215 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Flykolb(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 25, 2000
Subject: Re: Transponder
Monte That is why other "certified" aircraft like Cubs and Champs, etc without electrical systems can fly under the Class B airspace. Jim Mark III 103TS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Davis" <scrounge(at)gis.net>
Subject: kolb prices
Date: Jan 25, 2000
Ben, Ihave a flying KXP any measurements for the cage that you need , Ihve a tape measure, even if Icant type I can measure! Chris Davis ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2000
From: "Richard Neilsen " <NeilsenR(at)state.mi.us>
Subject: Re: Transponder
I have a strip under outer ring of the Lansing MI airspace and have a special exemption for my VW powered Kolb MKIII that allows flight under the controlled airspace without a transponder. I have to call the tower for approval one hour before entry into their air space. So far I haven't ventured into and don't plan to tempt fate by doing so. On trips I will have to stay clear or ask for special approval before entering into any controlled air space. My exemption was approved on the basis that I don't have a electrical system. I have to renew my exemption every year. The first year took some time to get approved but every year after it has been just a formality as long as I don't cause any trouble. I have talked to a number of people that have exemptions at a number of locations and for a number of reasons. I have heard of approved exemptions based on all the following (no electrical system, unsafe to add the load of a transponder, and can't afford a transponder). Give the control tower a call and test the water. As long as no one has abused this process you should be able get one approved for any reasonable request. Rick Neilsen 20hrs VW powered MKIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Sudlow" <suds77(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: ELT and Transponder
Date: Jan 25, 2000
I asked this before the old kolb was sold, and was told that if you don't have an electrical system, then you're exempt from both the ELT and the transponder...that is, if you don't have a starter, battery etc... you're exempt. I'm nearing completion of the covering on my MIII & getting ready to buy an engine, chute & instruments as cash becomes available. I looked at transponders - 2k+ - not cheap. I live right on the edge of mode c near chicago, so I'm planning on basing and flying somewhere outside of that airspace. If anyone else has information on what I've been told about this, I'ld love to hear it. chris -----Original Message----- From: cjc0751(at)banet.net <cjc0751(at)banet.net> Date: Monday, January 24, 2000 7:39 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: ELT and Transponder > > >monte84(at)mindspring.com wrote: > >> Two quick questions. I need an ELT in my Mark3 don't I? Number 2--How about a transponder under the 30 mile mode-c around Atlanta. > >1) yes. 91.207 >2) yes. 91.131 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Coggins, Josh, NNO" <joshcoggins(at)att.com>
Subject: RE: Introduction
Date: Jan 25, 2000
Dennis, I am going to switch to premium auto fuel, since there doesn't seem to be much support for Avgas. And as soon as I have the money, I will probably buy an Ivo prop with the spacer. Thanks for all the help! Also, I am moving to Riverside, CA and won't be flying out of Corvallis, OR anymore. Josh Firestar I destination unknown? -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Souder [mailto:flykolb(at)epix.net] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 4:41 PM Subject: RE: Kolb-List: RE: Introduction Josh, I would not use the spacer with any prop except the IVO. The IVO's have very flexible blades and this helps relieve the gear box of stress it would otherwise get with a more rigid prop. A more rigid blade (wood blades are quite rigid) will impart more vibration (stress) to the spacer and gear box. IVOs have a long track record using the spacer and it seems to me that it has been well proven in the real world. I have heard some of the Rotax experts say that it is better to use 100 LL than questionable auto gas - probably a good guideline to follow. I don't consider myself to be an authority on the gas issues. It is my recollection that more frequent replacement of plugs is the price one pays for using 100LL. If Amoco is available, I would use that most of the time; possibly not in the winter due to the additives in some areas. I don't know about lead buildup on the rings ... probably not - but I'd ask around some more if this is a big question in your mind. There has been a lot written about gas on the list. You might do well to search the archives. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Coggins, Josh, NNO Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 11:23 PM Subject: Kolb-List: RE: Introduction I wonder if I could just get a spacer for my current prop to help with the noise? I like the peace of mind in using Avgas, but will change to auto fuel and filter for water with my "MR Funnel" if I hear that Avgas is not a good idea. Josh Firestar I, Oregon ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net>
Subject: Re: Transponder
Date: Jan 25, 2000
Here is the FAA official form. I also have it as a PDF in which case the formatting is better... 0 90 11: FROM Airspace~ APPENDIX A Transponder and Automatic Altitude Reporting Equipment Deviation Request Form The information requested is for the purpose of documenting the inability to install a transponder and automatic altitude reporting equipment in an aircraft due to aircraft limitations or as justification for relief due to pending installation. Operators requesting authorization to deviate from Section 91.215(b) (4) of the Federal Aviation Regulations for those reasons must submit the following requested information to the manager of the air traffic control facility having jurisdiction over the affected airspace. Aircraft identification__________________________________________________ Aircraft Tittle: ________________________________________________________ Aircraft Based:__________________________________________________________ Operator: _______________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________ Telephone: ______________________________________________________________ FOR RELIEF PENDING INSTALLATION Provide a copy of the bill of sale or invoice showing proof of purchase of the required equipment. The equipment(s) is scheduled to be installed on ________________________ Date Person to perform installation: _________________________________________ Name Address Telephone FOR RELIEF DUE TO AIRCRAFT CAPACITY To be completed by a licensed Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic I, _______________________________________, have inspected the aircraft identified hereby and hereby certify that a transponder and automatic altitude reporting equipment as specified under Section 91.215 of the Federal Aviation Regulations cannot be installed on this aircraft for the following reason; _Electrical system capacity is inadequate. Present capability is __________ the minimum required is _____________. _Inadequate panel space due to aircraft design or the existence of other essential avionics. _Other (specify). Signature __________________________ Certificate Number________________ Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact! (Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2000
From: Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net>
Subject: Transponder and ELT Rules
Monte asked about transponders: <> Not exactly. It must be certified without an *electrical* system not just without a transponder. If you have a generator/alternator and a battery, let alone an electrical starter then you must have a Mode C transponder or get an exemption as described by Cy Galley. And the exemption is good only for the area which issued the exemption. Cy slightly misstated the exemption reasons. If you have no engine driven electrical system then FAR 91.215 gives you blanket permission to operate in any Mode C veil (outside of Class A, B or C airspace). The exemption is only needed if you do have an electical system but wish to claim it is too small or you don't have panel space or whatever. Chris Sudlow: <> The ELT rule, FAR 91.207, doesn't care whether an airplane has an electrical system or not. After all, the ELT is battery operated. If you have a US piston engine airplane, it must have an ELT. The only significant exception for us is for single place airplanes. Tom Kuffel ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
Date: Jan 25, 2000
Subject: Re: Transponder
Richard, I don't understand why you have to call the tower before you fly? I fly under Class B airspace here in the Twin Cities in the outer ring (floor is 4000' MSL). I've never had to call the tower and my Kolb is non-electrical. Are you at any time flying though controlled airspace? Is there something I don't know about? Ralph Original FireStar, 13 years flying > I have a strip under outer ring of the Lansing MI airspace and have > a special exemption for my VW powered Kolb MKIII that allows flight > under the controlled airspace without a transponder. I have to call > the tower for approval one hour before entry into their air space. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net>
Subject: Re: Transponder and ELT Rules
Date: Jan 25, 2000
I didn't describe reasons only put up the FAA form! Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact! (Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com) -----Original Message----- From: Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 2:48 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Transponder and ELT Rules > >Monte asked about transponders: > ><shouldn't need one as long as I stay out of the class B. Does anyone >agree? ..Far 91.215>> > >Not exactly. It must be certified without an *electrical* system not >just without a transponder. If you have a generator/alternator and a >battery, let alone an electrical starter then you must have a Mode C >transponder or get an exemption as described by Cy Galley. And the >exemption is good only for the area which issued the exemption. Cy >slightly misstated the exemption reasons. If you have no engine driven >electrical system then FAR 91.215 gives you blanket permission to >operate in any Mode C veil (outside of Class A, B or C airspace). The >exemption is only needed if you do have an electical system but wish to >claim it is too small or you don't have panel space or whatever. > >Chris Sudlow: > ><from both the ELT and the transponder>> > >The ELT rule, FAR 91.207, doesn't care whether an airplane has an >electrical system or not. After all, the ELT is battery operated. If >you have a US piston engine airplane, it must have an ELT. The only >significant exception for us is for single place airplanes. > >Tom Kuffel > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Sudlow" <suds77(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Transponder and ELT Rules
Date: Jan 25, 2000
Tom, Thanks for the input. What does an ELT run? chris -----Original Message----- From: Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 2:27 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Transponder and ELT Rules > >Monte asked about transponders: > ><shouldn't need one as long as I stay out of the class B. Does anyone >agree? ..Far 91.215>> > >Not exactly. It must be certified without an *electrical* system not >just without a transponder. If you have a generator/alternator and a >battery, let alone an electrical starter then you must have a Mode C >transponder or get an exemption as described by Cy Galley. And the >exemption is good only for the area which issued the exemption. Cy >slightly misstated the exemption reasons. If you have no engine driven >electrical system then FAR 91.215 gives you blanket permission to >operate in any Mode C veil (outside of Class A, B or C airspace). The >exemption is only needed if you do have an electical system but wish to >claim it is too small or you don't have panel space or whatever. > >Chris Sudlow: > ><from both the ELT and the transponder>> > >The ELT rule, FAR 91.207, doesn't care whether an airplane has an >electrical system or not. After all, the ELT is battery operated. If >you have a US piston engine airplane, it must have an ELT. The only >significant exception for us is for single place airplanes. > >Tom Kuffel > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)accessus.net>
Subject: Re: Transponder
Date: Jan 25, 2000
Just recently decided to enforce the REGs which they had been overlooking. Cy Galley - Editor, B-C Contact! (Click here to visit our Club site at http://www.bellanca-championclub.com) -----Original Message----- From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 3:43 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Transponder > >Richard, > >I don't understand why you have to call the tower before you fly? I fly >under Class B airspace here in the Twin Cities in the outer ring (floor >is 4000' MSL). I've never had to call the tower and my Kolb is >non-electrical. Are you at any time flying though controlled airspace? > >Is there something I don't know about? > >Ralph >Original FireStar, 13 years flying > > > >> I have a strip under outer ring of the Lansing MI airspace and have >> a special exemption for my VW powered Kolb MKIII that allows flight >> under the controlled airspace without a transponder. I have to call >> the tower for approval one hour before entry into their air space. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: ELT and Transponder
When I got mine, Gulf Coast Avionics had the best package deal. Also, I got a Terra, based on the salesman explaining to me that the Terra has no single little unobtanium part that can die and cost a small fortune to repair, unlike it's competitors. Supposedly it just has a bunch of little ordnarium parts, I haven't looked. When I got the package with the xponder, mode C, harness and tray, it was about $1350, 4 years ago. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) >I looked at >transponders - 2k+ - not cheap. I live right on the edge of mode c near >chicago, so I'm planning on basing and flying somewhere outside of that >airspace. > >If anyone else has information on what I've been told about this, I'ld love >to hear it. > >chris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MitchMnD(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 25, 2000
Subject: fullenclosure
I have installed full enclosures on all three of my Kolbs. Two were center-hinged rigid structures and the third (a FireFly) uses the flexibility of the 1/16" Lexan as the hinge. The first was a FireStar KXP. I formed a 3/4" aluminum bow that attached to the ring at the top (above the pilot's head) of the cage and to the metal tabs on the sides of the cage (near the pilot's hips). After the bow was installed I fitted a ~1" Al. tube from the top of the dash to the top of the bow. I made up a few dozen 1/2" wide Al "d" clips to attach the Lexan and installed the two Lexan panels aft of the bow. One side of the canopy forward of the bow was permanently attached (more clips). The other side was a Lexan covered hatch, framed with Al tubing, formed to fit and held together by riveted gussets. This all looked like an AN Spec structure but it was wa-a-a-y too much work. The second was my Mark lll. The structure was very similar to the FireStar but I had to build 2 hatches. This was also too much work but it worked out pretty well because I needed the hatch-door-size entrance to get my feet around the dual control sticks. Caution, dual controls make it harder to get in and out of the Marklll. The last is my FireFly. From the bow aft it is the same as the others. From the bow fwd to the dash on this one I used a single piece of 1/16" Lexan attached every 6" on the port side The S'bd side is reinforced along the bottom edge and held down with over-center latches. The flexibility of the Lexan serves as the hinge (idea borrowed from Glenn Rinck). My only problem with this one was that the ASI and Altim were way off until I installed static ports on both sides of the nosecone. All of these canopies require some kind of brace to hold the entrance open during entry and exit. I have always used 5/16" tubing that pivoted to a storage position along the framework when not in use. If you are planning to be able to pull the starter from in the cockpit you will find that the pull angle is much greater. The friction and rope wear from pulling the starter can be cut way down by installing another pully on the steel ring over the pilot's right shoulder. Duane the plane in Tallahassee ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2000
Subject: Re: fullenclosure
From: Bruce E Harrison <bharrison(at)juno.com>
Hear, hear! I've had some experience with this. Tested out the possiblity of in-air restarts in a FSII and reached the conclusion that, unless you are Superman or Charles Atlas, it is a waste of your time. I very much want to be able to restart, however, so I will be looking into the idea of another pulley or a method of routing the rope that doesn't require pulling straight down over your shoulder. > snip > If you are planning to be able to pull the starter from in the > cockpit you > will find that the pull angle is much greater. The friction and rope > wear > from pulling the starter can be cut way down by installing another > pully on > the steel ring over the pilot's right shoulder. > > Duane the plane in Tallahassee ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Oshkosh Air Venture 2000 Via Barrow, Alaska
Howdy Kolbers: Almost afraid to post a msg that included Barrow, Alaska, but here goes. Maybe Captain America has found a new List to monitor. Spent a few days at Chesnut Knolls Air Foundation and the Kolb Plant. Got home Sunday night, not a day too soon. London, Ky, is having Arctic weather. Maybe I should have stayed and conducted Arctic training in prep for flight next summer. Kolb has agreed to sponsor my flight, in addition to South Miss Lt Acft, and Warp Drive. Will fly to Barrow, Alaska, then return through Air Venture 2000, on or about 26 July 2000. Probably leave London, Ky, (Chesnut Knolls) 26 Jun 2000. Everybody is welcome to come to the send off which is still in the planning stages, and meet me in Oshkosh, if and when I get there. :-) Decided against making the flight with my old 912 (1,150 hours now) that would have had 1,200 hours on it by takeoff time. The main reason to fly the old engine was to try and get some support from Rotax, but they are not interested. So we decided to go with a new 912S. Lots of bennies with this engine that I did not have with the 912. It is the latest development and the culmination of all the hours flown on the 912 and 914 over the years by all us users. It has more displacement, new crank, cam, cases, wider gears, larger prop flange (my old prop hub and prop extension will not fit) and more. It develops 100 hp at 5800, and 95 at 5500 continuous. I'll prop for 5500 WOT straight and level flight since I do not have an in-flight adjustable prop. Will be turning a 3 blade 72 inch Warp Drive with nickel edges and fast taper. Prop will turn a little slower with a 2.43 to 1 gear box. Think the 912 had a 2.23 to 1. Dana Labhart, the Kolb Web Master, has put up a couple web pages about my flight. The third page will be up as soon as she gets my EAA Experimenter article about my 1994 flight scanned and posted. I get requests for copies of it now and then. Now folks can go to the web page and read it and see the color pics also. Here's the url for Kolb, and for my pages: http://www.tnkolbaircraft.com/johnhauck.htm http://www.tnkolbaircraft.com/wheresjohn.htm http://www.tnkolbaircraft.com/ Hope you all enjoy them. We will try and keep it updated during planning and prep. During the flight I will call Dana every day I have access to telephone to brief her on what I have been doing and where I am. She has pics from the 1994 flight from Dawson Creek, BC, to Dead Horse, Ak, that she can post to show where I am and where I have been flying. Well, I have 5 months to get ready and a lot to do. Reckon I better get busy so I won't be late. john h (freezing in hauck's holler, alabama, but not near as cold, snowy, and icey as London, Ky) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2000
From: Paul VonLindern <paulv(at)digisys.net>
Subject: Re: Transponder and ELT Rules
Chris, I just installed an "Ameri-King AK-450" ELT in my MKIII. I purchased it from Aircraft Spruce for $189.00. Has all bells and whistles: alkaline batteries, voice xmitting capability, remote panel, improved satellite detection, low drag antenna, portable antenna, coax, mounting tray and clamp. When I get off my lazy rear and update my web page I'll have some installation photos there. PaulV ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2000
From: Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net>
Subject: Re: Transponder and ELT Rules
I didn't describe reasons only put up the FAA form! >Cy >slightly misstated the exemption reasons. If you have no engine driven >electrical system then FAR 91.215 gives you blanket permission to >operate in any Mode C veil (outside of Class A, B or C airspace). The >exemption is only needed if you do have an electical system but wish to >claim it is too small or you don't have panel space or whatever. My mistake. Richard Neilsen, in the same thread, slightly mistated ..... Tom Kuffel ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2000
From: Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net>
Subject: Re: Transponder and ELT Rules
<> About $200. Get the kind which uses standard batteries, ACK and Ameriking are among the least expensive and meet this criteria. Tom Kuffel ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 25, 2000
Subject: Re: : Kolb-List:Flying from snow
As did most of the East, we had snow- a lot for SC. My wingman David Willis called me today and said "Let's go fly!" We met at Trenton at 2 PM. After a good pre-flight I watched David taxi out to 29; he got stuck in a little low place but was soon plowing on. Dave's Firestar I was in the air in just a few seconds as there was a good headwind, then it was my turn. I tried to follow Dave's tracks to the runway but found it's not that easy in 4" of snow. Someone had driven a pickup truck down the runway so I lined up my Firestar on his tracks, took a deep breath and eased the throttle forward. "QD Pi" was airborne in no time [all Kolbers know what I mean] and I turned to follow David to a private strip about 10 miles away. Hmmm... bumpier than I expected, and GPS say's 75 mph. When we got to the strip Dave drpped down to about 500' & did a fly-by but nobody came out so he headed back to Trenton. I started to do the same, but as I increased throttle the engine rpm's seemed to sag at 500'. I didn't hesitate; I made a quick 180 turn and made a downwind landing on the strip [ I knew I could do it because I can consistently make a 180 with less than 200' loss in altitude with throttle closed]. After I shut the 503 down I tried to imagine what could be the problem; never had one in 100 hours. First place I looked was the choke lever- it was actuated about 20%!! After I slapped myself, I ran the engine up and worked the throttle and it ran fine. Put on the helmet and turned her in to the wind; no tracks to get into here. Brakes on, ease throttle up, tail's coming up, brake off and I'm rouring down the runway!! Wait a second, she ain't rouring fast enough!!! Snow's almost up to the axles. She's acting like she want's to nose over so I compensate with full up elevator. Just before I'm about to abort, she lifts off. Boy, am I glad I got the 503. I grab 1200' AGL & head for home. GPS says 35mph. Land in same tracks I took off from. Great first experience in the snow, but I bet a feller' could put on some skii's and it'd be even better. Howard Shackleford FS I [QD Pi] SC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: : Kolb-List:Flying from snow
Date: Jan 25, 2000
Sure sounds like fun. Cold too, eh ?? Lar. Do not Archive. ----- Original Message ----- From: <HShack(at)aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 7:29 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List:Flying from snow > > As did most of the East, we had snow- a lot for SC. My wingman David Willis > called me today and said "Let's go fly!" > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Oshkosh Air Venture 2000 Via Barrow, Alaska
Date: Jan 25, 2000
Phooey ( or something ) to Captain America. Keep us posted, John. Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 5:50 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Oshkosh Air Venture 2000 Via Barrow, Alaska > > Howdy Kolbers: > > Almost afraid to post a msg that included Barrow, Alaska, > but here goes. Maybe Captain America has found a new List > to monitor. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 26, 2000
Subject: Re: : Kolb-List:Flying from snow
In a message dated 1/25/00 10:44:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net writes: << Sure sounds like fun. Cold too, eh ?? Lar. >> Yeah, cold [42 degrees] for here: not in the air though with snowmobile suit, Army field jacket with liner, ski mittens, and motorcycle helmet. Howard Shackleford FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2000
From: b young <byoung(at)brigham.net>
Subject: Re: avgas vs mogas
I like the peace of mind in using Avgas, but will change to auto fuel and filter for water with my "MR Funnel" if I hear that Avgas is not a good idea. Josh Firestar I, Oregon --------------------------------- i had the manager at the local Amoco station call the owner and i asked him to explain the additives in the gas. he was reluctant until i told him what i needed to know for and he sent a complete list. it did not give exact percentages because it changes according to the season. but it would let you know if there was something the rotax was allergic to. boyd ps dont expect the minimum wage help to know ________________________________________________________________________________
From: gerken(at)us.ibm.com
Date: Jan 26, 2000
Subject: Slingshot
Does the Slingshot have flaps? How big? Effective? Actuated the same as the ones on the MKiii? Thanks. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Russell" <jr(at)rometool.com>
Subject: Re: Slingshot
Date: Jan 26, 2000
Hey Jim, The SS has flaperons, the lever is just to the left of your right knee, this lever is pulled up to droop ailerons. The flaperons on the SS are somewhat effective (I personally use them on every landing) but they are not nearlly effective as the Mark III. With full flaperons the ailerons are still very effective. John -----Original Message----- From: gerken(at)us.ibm.com <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 9:19 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Slingshot > >Does the Slingshot have flaps? How big? Effective? Actuated the same as >the ones on the MKiii? Thanks. > >Jim > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Slingshot
Jim and Gang: Sling Shot uses flaperons activated by handle in right front of seat. Up is on and down is off, plus adjustments inbetween. john h > Does the Slingshot have flaps? How big? Effective? Actuated the same as > the ones on the MKiii? Thanks. > > Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 26, 2000
Subject: Re: avgas vs mogas
In a message dated 00-01-26 2:58:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, todd.thompson(at)dsl.net writes: << I have over 150 hours on our MKIII and only burn 89 octane >> Todd: The owner's manual says 93 octane minimum. As a result I have only used premium. What do you know that I don't? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ulflyer(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 26, 2000
Subject: Static ports
Guys, Here's another choice for static ports which I've used on my semi-enclosed Spitfire and enclosed Tierra II. I've made another assembly for the FS2 I'm refurbishing and expect it to work equally well. It's a little difficult to explain and a picture will do wonders for my feeble wordy description. The photos are at my equally-feeble beginnings of a web page at: http://members.aol.com/ulflyer/Shannon1.htm (be sure to use "S" not "s") If it doesn't load completely (which it doesn't at times for me) or the last two photos of the pitot stuff don't come up, go directly to: http://members.aol.com/ulflyer and click on the images - pitot0.jpg and pitot1.jpg and you should get right to the basic assembly and the installed photo.The static pressure can be adjusted by simply sliding the wheel collar along the static tube. Do it once through trial and error and you're through. Just ask if any more explanation is necessary. Hope this helps. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert E. Kearbey, D.D.S." <kearbey(at)cncnet.com>
Subject: Re: Transponder and ELT Rules
Date: Jan 26, 2000
Gentlemen, If you are not operating in class A,B,or C airspace you do not need a transponder, period. You can fly underneathe a class c or over the top of a class C without a transponder. Only if you INTEND to enter a class B or C airspace or if you are flying withing the 30 mile arc of a class B airspace do you need a transponder. It is within the B 30 mile circle that you are really talking about. Bob Kearbey cfii asmel ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 1:16 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Transponder and ELT Rules > > Monte asked about transponders: > > < shouldn't need one as long as I stay out of the class B. Does anyone > agree? ..Far 91.215>> > > Not exactly. It must be certified without an *electrical* system not > just without a transponder. If you have a generator/alternator and a > battery, let alone an electrical starter then you must have a Mode C > transponder or get an exemption as described by Cy Galley. And the > exemption is good only for the area which issued the exemption. Cy > slightly misstated the exemption reasons. If you have no engine driven > electrical system then FAR 91.215 gives you blanket permission to > operate in any Mode C veil (outside of Class A, B or C airspace). The > exemption is only needed if you do have an electical system but wish to > claim it is too small or you don't have panel space or whatever. > > Chris Sudlow: > > < from both the ELT and the transponder>> > > The ELT rule, FAR 91.207, doesn't care whether an airplane has an > electrical system or not. After all, the ELT is battery operated. If > you have a US piston engine airplane, it must have an ELT. The only > significant exception for us is for single place airplanes. > > Tom Kuffel > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2000
From: Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net>
Subject: Re: Transponder and ELT Rules
<> While the 30 mile Mode C veil was indeed what we were discussing, Robert's statements are not quite correct. First, intent to enter B or C airspace has nothing to do with the transponder rules. 91.215(b)(2): ".. all airspace within 30 nautical miles of [Class B] airport .. from the surface upward to 10,000 feet MSL." No mention of entering Class B or any other airspace except the veil itself. And 91.215(b)(3) does specify how you can operate in the veil without a tranponder and is the basis of my prior statements which remain accurate. Second, you may not fly above Class C without a transponder or exemption. 91.215(b)(4): "All aircraft in all airspace above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace .. upward to 10,000 feet MSL" and 91.215(b)(5)(i): "[unless no electrical system] .. all airspace .. at and above 10,000 feet MSL." While there are minor exceptions for mountains, Alaska, Billings Montana, etc.; for all practical purposes we may not fly within or over the 30 nautical mile veil or Class B or Class C airspace or, if electrically equipped, over 10,000 feet MSL without a Mode C transponder or Air Traffic Control's prior approval. We can fly under a Class C outer ring if no veil has been established for the Class C airport (ie, the airport has not been listed in Part 91, Appendix D, Section 1). While this type of arcana is the delight of Flight Instructor renewal courses, the general situation is if you fly in a densely populated area of the country and want an electrical system you will need a transponder. Otherwise your flight operations will be rather restricted. Tom Kuffel, also CFI ASEL ASES AMEL .... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Swartz" <tswartz(at)hydrosoft.net>
Subject: Transponder and ELT Rules
Date: Jan 26, 2000
Tom What does a densely populated area have to do with Mode C? Here in SE Pa we have densely populated areas that are not Mode C. We also have the Chesapeake Bay, all water, no one lives there, which is mostly Mode C. We have a lot of farm ground that is Mode C. As matter of interest, the old Kolb Co. private strip is Mode C. Did you ever ask Dennis or Dan how they flew their Mark III 912 out of there? Another question. Do the normal radar settings see a plane like a Kolb? I often fly through class D airspace with no transponder and it seams like they don't see me unless they adjust their radar. I think they have a remote hot screen radar which may make a difference. Any comments, Richard Pike or others? Terry -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tom Kuffel Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 10:08 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Transponder and ELT Rules <> While the 30 mile Mode C veil was indeed what we were discussing, Robert's statements are not quite correct. First, intent to enter B or C airspace has nothing to do with the transponder rules. 91.215(b)(2): ".. all airspace within 30 nautical miles of [Class B] airport .. from the surface upward to 10,000 feet MSL." No mention of entering Class B or any other airspace except the veil itself. And 91.215(b)(3) does specify how you can operate in the veil without a tranponder and is the basis of my prior statements which remain accurate. Second, you may not fly above Class C without a transponder or exemption. 91.215(b)(4): "All aircraft in all airspace above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace .. upward to 10,000 feet MSL" and 91.215(b)(5)(i): "[unless no electrical system] .. all airspace .. at and above 10,000 feet MSL." While there are minor exceptions for mountains, Alaska, Billings Montana, etc.; for all practical purposes we may not fly within or over the 30 nautical mile veil or Class B or Class C airspace or, if electrically equipped, over 10,000 feet MSL without a Mode C transponder or Air Traffic Control's prior approval. We can fly under a Class C outer ring if no veil has been established for the Class C airport (ie, the airport has not been listed in Part 91, Appendix D, Section 1). While this type of arcana is the delight of Flight Instructor renewal courses, the general situation is if you fly in a densely populated area of the country and want an electrical system you will need a transponder. Otherwise your flight operations will be rather restricted. Tom Kuffel, also CFI ASEL ASES AMEL .... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2000
From: "Johann G." <johann.g(at)centrum.is>
Subject: Re: Transponder and ELT Rules
Hi Terry. I may be able to answer your second question on ATC radar. If the radar is able to receive a primary radar signal, ATC will notice anything moving, even birds, weather and vehicles on ground. I fly my Kolb Firestar around Keflavik, and my co-workers are able to locate me on radar, no transponder, just cloth steel and aluminum :-) If the radar unit is receiving a computerized signal from a remote antenna, they are unable to locate you without a transponder. Code A or Code C. A= id code or call sign. C=altitude. Hope this helps. Johann G. ATC Iceland. Terry Swartz wrote: > > Tom > > Another question. Do the normal radar settings see a plane like a Kolb? I > often fly through class D airspace with no transponder and it seams like > they don't see me unless they adjust their radar. I think they have a > remote hot screen radar which may make a difference. Any comments, Richard > Pike or others? > > Terry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2000
Subject: Re: Static ports
From: Ray L Baker <rbaker2(at)juno.com>
Charlie, I'm new at this so please indulge me. Am I correct in assuming that moving the collar closer or further from the holes changes the characteristics? It is in the correct location when the ASI reads correctly as judged by some other means? L. Ray Baker Lake Butler, Fl Building Mark III, SN 312--N629RB > > Guys, > > to the basic assembly and the installed photo.The static pressure > can be > adjusted by simply sliding the wheel collar along the static tube. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2000
From: Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net>
Subject: Re: Transponder and ELT Rules
Terry, <> By "densely populated area", I mean those parts with established mode C veils. Looking from the perspective of northwest Montana they are one and the same. <> Don't know. By rule, with an electric starter, they need a transponder or an exemption. As a pratical matter they might have relied on benign neglect or ATC actions described below. <> As Johann G. states, radar can easily "see" a Kolb. ATC has the option, which they almost always use, of removing all targets except transponders. Tom ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2000
From: Dell Vinal <zoper(at)mint.net>
Subject: trans
Thanks for the control tower insights on radar and transponders. Do not archive. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ulflyer(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Subject: Re: Static ports
Ray, << ........ Am I correct in assuming that moving the collar closer or further from the holes changes the characteristics? >> Yep. Moving the wheel collar forward and aft changes the pressure that the holes see. << It is in the correct location when the ASI reads correctly as judged by some other means? >> Yep. I typically do the usual compare-with-GPS routine and do my calibrating on a calm day to make things easier. BTW, if you're one of the many that already have the pitot sticking out of the forward center of the nosecone, you can make only the static tube that protrudes from the bottom of the nosecone. It should be s few inches below the nosecone and pointing aft, essentially like the lower tube in the photo. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Transponder and ELT Rules
>Another question. Do the normal radar settings see a plane like a Kolb? I >often fly through class D airspace with no transponder and it seams like >they don't see me unless they adjust their radar. I think they have a >remote hot screen radar which may make a difference. Any comments, Richard >Pike or others? > >Terry Yes. Enroute radar (Center) only paints secondary beacon targets, but every body else should normally be painting primaries as well. If the airspace you are talking about is using what is called "Cenrap", that is the case, they are using a video signal derived from enroute radar and will not show primaries, period, the capability is just not there. I have seen controllers at approach control facilities, where I was, who will set their scope gain down to where it will barely show primary targets, or clutter, this gives a "cleaner" scope, but it is poor controller technique. Any ultralight shows up normally on radar, a Quicksilver type, with 100' of brace wires running in all directions, shows up better than the Goodyear blimp. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: Transponder and ELT Rules
> >As Johann G. states, radar can easily "see" a Kolb. ATC has the option, >which they almost always use, of removing all targets except >transponders. > >Tom Not at approach control facilities. If primary return capability is available, it is required to be used. However; some controllers choose to turn it way down, and some supervisors turn a blind eye, so be careful out there. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rick Hundley" <rhundley(at)erols.com>
Subject: Covering
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Hi, my name is Rick Hundley and I'm building a MK III QB in Vienna, Virginia. Is it worth the extra time, effort and frustration to put perimeter tapes and reinforcement tapes on all covered flight surfaces?(i.e.... vertical and hor. stabs, elevators and rudder, flaps and ailerons) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Oshkosh Air Venture 2000 Via Barrow, Alaska
Date: Jan 27, 2000
It's definite food for thought, John. A little warm air on those tootsies would make a big difference. Some of those little heaters don't take much room. A small heater in the nose cone, and a couple of hoses going to it might be workable for you. Good Luck ! ! ! Have you flown a 100hp Mk III yet ?? That should be a really go-gittum ride. What performance do you anticipate ?? Envious Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 6:00 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Oshkosh Air Venture 2000 Via Barrow, Alaska > > > > If it were me, I'd be looking for a cabin-heat sponsor ...or maybe some > > thermal undies company. Guess you'll run a big pipe down from that > > 100hp heater, eh? > > > > -Ben 'I hate flying cold' Ransom > > Ben and Gang: > > I have thought of a heater many times, especially when I was > cold flying, but always decide against it. > > I made it to the Arctic Ocean without thermals, but put them > on within minutes of arrival. With good thermals, polar ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Cabin Heat
Date: Jan 27, 2000
A couple of thoughts on my posting of a few minutes ago, about cabin heat. From '76 to '84, I lived in the mountains of Northern Idaho, little town called Weippe. ( Pronounce it "Wee-Yipe" ) About 70 miles east of Lewiston. In the winter, temps of 30 to 40 below zero F. were common. In Jan. '84, it got down to -54 F. I have a pic of the thermometer. Old timers there told me to "keep the floor warm, and that'll keep your feet warm, and you'll feel better all over." They were right. Even if the temp in the room was 70, heat being absorbed by the walls ( and you ) made you feel cold. Standing on the warm patch in front of the heater made a world of difference. A product that came available in the early '80's was called "Moon Boots." Light and inexpensive, and mostly air space, they worked amazingly well. They're pretty bulky, and might be awkward fitting onto the pedals, but 'tis food for thought. Big Lar. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Covering
Is it worth the extra time, effort and frustration to put > perimeter tapes and reinforcement tapes on all covered flight > surfaces?(i.e.... vertical and hor. stabs, elevators and rudder, flaps and > ailerons) Rick and Gang: There is a need for trim tape on the leading edges of vertical and horizontal stabs. Primarily because they catch a lot of stuff from the prop blast and the main wheels. Wouldn't recommend wasting time and material any wear else on the tail section. john h ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Cabin Heat
A product that came available in the early '80's was called > "Moon Boots." Light and inexpensive, and mostly air space, they worked > amazingly well. They're pretty bulky, and might be awkward fitting onto the > pedals, but 'tis food for thought. Big Lar. Lar and Kolbers: I got a pair back in the 80's to use for flying Ultrastar and Firestar. They were very warm and very bulky. Worked somewhat in US, but could not move my feet once inside the nose cone of the FS. Samo samo MK III. Just not enough room to move. john h ________________________________________________________________________________
From: gerken(at)us.ibm.com
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Subject: cabin heat, keeping John's toes warm
John, here's a couple ideas, starting with the easiest: 1. Buy a pair of electric sole inserts for your (hopefully Gortex) hiking boots, install them and wire them to the plane's electric supply 12 volts with a switch. 2. Another simple idea is to use the waste heat off the muffler, and duct warm air only, using the muffler-wrap idea (it has been described, in archives). I think Leaf sells a kit. There's a lot of heat on the muffler. 3. Call my friend Dick to buy a ready-made cabin heat solution for your water-cooled or air cooled Rotax engine. It is about a foot long, round, 8" across, and connects to your cooling system and then the heat is moved around your cabin with that ducting tubing stuff. Details: The Max Heater Designed & operational for water cooled engines in closed cockpit experimental & ultralight planes. specs. 12 volt 3.5 amps under 4 lbs of weight fan motor easy installation one is also available for a 503 fan cooled engine. Phone (507) 367-4559 ask for Dick 4. The most involved would be to build something yourself, and it is probably too late for that for your trip but I will repost this anyway, for the sake of someone else who may be wondering... I added heat last winter, here is a re-post of something I sent then: Cabin heat is coolant-heat supplied by tapping into the cooling system with a couple "T"s and a valve, about 25 feet of hose, and the heater core built of a 125 cc moto-bike radiator layed on its side and mated to a 2-speed 12volt blower with some custom-built ducting. The core and blower package must be very small in order to fit in the nose. A guy I know (Dick) sells these type of arrangements pre-built but they are too big to put in the nose of the MKiii, and so must be mounted in the back area. This results in much shorter coolant lines (This is a big advantage!), but also shifts the CG backwards. I needed 6-8 lbs up front anyway so my heater works out good. It was a lot of work to get it to fit and it does offer many more coolant-system failure points. The lines from the engine are Napa 5/8" heater hose, insulated the whole distance with closed-cell foam pipe insulation from the local furnace shop (airconditioning parts). I purchased Kynar plastic fittings from McMaster mail order for as many of the fittings as possible to save weight, and the remaining fittings had to be brass.For some piece of mind, I added a small coolant pressure gauge, to monitor it. If I spring a leak, I may notice the gauge and shut it down in time to avoid overheat. A two-speed blower was used, and ducted together with the core by custom fitting sheet aluminum parts and rivetting and then sealing gaps with caulk, painted black it disappears in the nose area, and is set to simply blast on my feet. The only other problem I see right now is that the 582 just does not make much heat. The block and exhaust pipe can cool about half of its needs, so the radiators don't get many BTUs. I added a valve so I could disable one of the two radiators when using cabin heat, and may partially block surface area of the other. Tests have shown that the cabin is very comfortable with the heater on, if the radiator area is sufficiently reduced to keep engine temp at about 180. To accomplish this, I turn off one radiator at ambient temps below 60, and below 40 I cover half of the remaining Rotax dual radiator with cardboard and ducttape, and below 30 I cover 2/3 of the radiator. I want to add a simple cable-operated louver to the radiator, to allow in-flight cooling adjustments but for now this works fine. I fly very comfortably with only a light jacket and no gloves, in temps below freezing for hours, so far. It is very effective. If you wish to heat the cabin to temps warm enough to wear only a light jacket, in very cold weather (below freezing), your cabin must seal pretty well. I still have two very small leaks and they suck a lot of heat. You will have to "seal" the fuselage tube somehow, because the negative pressure in the cabin will draw cold air in thru the tube if it is open. I have enclosed the rear of the cabin completely so my main leaks are the door hinges and doors in general (but they are not too bad). Keep warm John, whatever you do. And keep us posted. Good Luck to you. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Watson" <djwatson(at)olg.com>
Subject: Re: Static ports
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Good Morning everyone!! I usually just sit on the sidelines here on the list, but the discussion on the pitot/static system has prompted me to add my 2 cents worth. For years I have worked on military aircraft and the ones that have the pitot/static system on a probe have always had the static tube facing forward. One that comes to mind right away are the tubes mounted on helicopters. The probe is actually a pitot and static system built into one unit. The hole in the end of the probe is the "Pitot" portion and numerous tiny holes around the probe are the "static" portion. Of course, internally they are separated and there is two separate lines going to the probe. Some of these probes are used on different types of aircraft so, in order for them to work properly because of the dirrerent shapes of the aircraft and locations of the probes, there is a sleeve that is used to cover up a portion of the static holes so as to provide an accurate reading due to the different pressure waves that are caused by the aircraft shape or some other cause of airflow interference. These are well mapped out for the different aircraft so all we had to do was slide the sleeve to cover up a certain amount of holes as specified in the maint. manual and tighten down the clamps. If you are designing your own probe, you could very easily solder two tubes together side by side, one being the pitot and the other being the static. Of course, your static tube would be closed on the end and have a few small holes drilled on the side. As long as it was in front of the nose far enough to be out of the disturbed air (pressure wave) it should work fine. The design as described below would probably work fine but I believe the static pressure might be more susceptible to turbulence caused by the wheel collar being in front of the static holes. My Firestar has a pitot /static tube mounted on the port wing lift strut about 3/4 of the way up and has two tubes running down the back side of the strut to the lower strut connection. I trailer mine all the time so when I put the strut on, all I have to do is plug in the two rubber tubes to the two copper tubes sticking out the side of the plane. Works like a champ and the pitot probe is in clean air all the time. ---My Firestar has a full enclosure.--- Hope I didn't confuse the issue. Dennis (Freezing in MD.) ----- Original Message ----- From: <Ulflyer(at)aol.com> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 7:00 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Static ports > > Ray, > > << ........ Am I correct in assuming that moving the collar closer or further from the holes changes the characteristics? >> > > Yep. Moving the wheel collar forward and aft changes the pressure that the holes see. > > << It is in the correct location when the ASI reads correctly as judged by some other means? >> > > Yep. I typically do the usual compare-with-GPS routine and do my calibrating on a calm day to make things easier. > > BTW, if you're one of the many that already have the pitot sticking out of the forward center of the nosecone, you can make only the static tube that protrudes from the bottom of the nosecone. It should be s few inches below the nosecone and pointing aft, essentially like the lower tube in the photo. > > Charlie > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Subject: staying warm
John and others, Flying here in Minnesota without heat may seem nuts, but these snowmobile guys really know how to dress and stay warm. Thermal underwear, warm socks, and a sweatshirt is a must with an outer snowmobile suit. Since I'm behind a windscreen like John's old FireStar, I prefer a TNK windbreaker (bought this past summer at the Kolb booth) underneath my Columbia jacket that has neck protection. A pair of ski gloves and lightweight insulated Nike hiking boots take care of the hands and feet. An insulated head mask under my full-face helmet keeps my head and neck warm. Never tried them, but chemical warmers can be placed inside boots and gloves. They only last a few hours and have to be discarded. Since my flights are an hour or so at a time (draw the line at 20 deg) I stay plenty warm. Ralph Original FireStar, in cold Minnesota writes: > > A product that came available in the early '80's was > called > > "Moon Boots." Light and inexpensive, and mostly air space, they > worked > > amazingly well. They're pretty bulky, and might be awkward > fitting onto the > > pedals, but 'tis food for thought. Big Lar. > > Lar and Kolbers: > > I got a pair back in the 80's to use for flying Ultrastar > and Firestar. They were very warm and very bulky. Worked > somewhat in US, but could not move my feet once inside the > nose cone of the FS. Samo samo MK III. Just not enough > room to move. > > john h > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2000
From: Bill Weber <bweber2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: avgas vs mogas
I have been using nothing but Avgas for the last 2 years. Always had trouble with mogas if it sat in the tank for a month or more. Hard starting, hot running. Especially in winter when they add oxygenators. Several others here are of the same mind. If you use your gas within 2-3 weeks, go ahead and use the mogas. Its cheaper and more convenient. Otherwise you might consider the avgas. I don't believe there is any problem mixing them. b young wrote: > > > I like the peace of mind in using Avgas, but will > change to auto fuel and filter for water with my "MR Funnel" > if I hear that > Avgas is not a good idea. > > Josh > Firestar I, Oregon > --------------------------------- > i had the manager at the local Amoco station call the owner > and i asked him to explain the additives in the gas. he was > reluctant until i told him what i needed to know for and he > sent a complete list. it did not give exact percentages > because it changes according to the season. but it would let > you know if there was something the rotax was allergic to. > > boyd > ps dont expect the minimum wage help to know > -- **************************************************** * Bill Weber * Thunder's just the noise * * Simi Valley, CA * Lightning does the work * **************************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vic Worthington" <vicw(at)vcn.com>
Subject: Re: $5.00 Solder Pot
Date: Jan 27, 2000
I had a welder friend of mine weld a 1 inch long 1 inch steel tube to a scrap of flat steel. Looks like __I_I__ when done. Have your friend welder tube all around the bottom so it is sealed. Fill the tube with silver solder to about 3/4 by heating tube with propane torch until solder melts When you want to solder cable ends, heat solder until melted, dip cable end in ruby liquid flux and then dip in melted solder. PS: advise heating outside on concrete. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RICKN106(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Subject: Re: Brakes & Dual Controls
Lar this arm rest realy is nice think I may have some pic. if you need to see more Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: $5.00 Solder Pot
> >I had a welder friend of mine weld a 1 inch long 1 inch steel tube to a >scrap of flat steel. > >Looks like __I_I__ when done. Have your friend welder tube all around the >bottom so it is sealed. > >Fill the tube with silver solder to about 3/4 by heating tube with propane >torch until solder melts > >When you want to solder cable ends, heat solder until melted, dip cable end >in ruby liquid flux and then dip >in melted solder. see http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/big_term.pdf Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: DFW seminar date set . . .
Program date for George and Becky's hangar in Ft. Worth has been set for June 3/4 See http://www.aeroelectric.com/seminars.html Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RICKN106(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Subject: Re: ELT and Transponder
Chris I will try to not muddy up the water too much, On the electrical system, the FED'S say you have an elect. system only if you have an EXTERNAL alt,or gen. on the ROTAX you have internal voltage this means that as far as they are concerned you have no electrical even if you have elect starter and what ever, ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RICKN106(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Subject: Re: Oshkosh Air Venture 2000 Via Barrow, Alaska
John What about a G P S are you going to use one let me know ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Subject: Re: avgas vs mogas
Bill and others, This state (Minnesota) has MTBE's and ethanol in the gas and I've never had a problem even leaving the gas in the main tank for over 6 weeks once. I do fly often and am very religious about keeping the tank filled when finished flying for the day. I even attach a piece of duct tape over the tank vent hole which helps to reduce moisture buildup. Must remember to take it off before flight, of course. In the last year I've switched to ethanol-free gas, but most likely has the MTBE's still in it. Ralph Original FireStar writes: > > I have been using nothing but Avgas for the last 2 years. Always had > trouble with mogas if it sat in the tank for a month or more. Hard > starting, hot running. Especially in winter when they add > oxygenators. > Several others here are of the same mind. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2000
From: Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net>
Subject: Re: ELT and Transponder
RickN: <> Thompson, Todd: <> RickN may be depending on the ignorance of FAA inspectors. The transponder rule says "engine-driven electrical system". If the inspector doesn't see an external generator/alternater he might assume there is none but a knowledgeable one could ding you. In theory you could have a starter and a battery and still be exempt if the battery is charged with an external plug-in charger or solar cells or hand driven crank or whatever as long as the charger is not "engine-driven". Doesn't everyone just love this trivia? Tom ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Subject: cold weather flying
Here is another message from a local ultralight pilot here in Minnesota directed to John Hauck. Ralph Original FireStar From Ray Lujon: Ralph.........Once you try the chemical heat warmer bags, you will never go up in cold weather without them. Most are good for 7 hours or more. By putting them in an air tight plastic zip bag after an hours flight, the chemical reaction stops and they can be used over and over again for the full 7 hours. No waste. I wear a mitten with a removable glove inside. They come that way. Then I put a 2" x 3" x 1/4" heat warmer in each, between the glove and the mitten on the backside of hand. The bags are very rugged. I have never had one break open. And if they did there is no danger. The primary ingredient is carbon. And there is no danger of getting burned. They are not that hot. They can easily be handled in the bare hand. No danger of fire either. They can be stuffed in pockets and can be carried along and used only when needed. John Hauck should definitely take a dozen or so along on his Alaskan flight just in case. Weight and space is negligible. I pay $1 for two bags. You can pass this along to John if you like. Ray ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2000
From: b young <byoung(at)brigham.net>
Subject: pullstart in the air
when i started i was considering the 582 and went through the pull start issue. if you put the first pulley down near the bottom of the airframe below the engine and add a second pulley up near the front, then a person could pull the rope just like pulling the rope on a snowmobile. would need a longer rope and a second pulley, a small tradeoff for a restart in the air. boyd ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy" <yamaha(at)cvn.net>
Subject: Re: pullstart in the air
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Is it easier to start in the air verses on the ground -----Original Message----- From: b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> Date: Thursday, January 27, 2000 8:30 PM Subject: Kolb-List: pullstart in the air > >when i started i was considering the 582 and went through >the pull start issue. if you put the first pulley down >near the bottom of the airframe below the engine and add a >second pulley up near the front, then a person could pull >the rope just like pulling the rope on a snowmobile. >would need a longer rope and a second pulley, a small >tradeoff for a restart in the air. > >boyd > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Geoff Thistlethwaite" <geoffthis(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: avgas vs mogas
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Rotax will not warranty an engine run on avgas! I have a buddy who had a 503 blow a crank 20 hrs after a rebuild. The rotax warranty rebuilder that did the job found out that my buddy was running a 50-50 av-auto mix and refused to warranty the job. Run avgas at your own risk. Geoff Thistlethwaite -----Original Message----- From: Bill Weber <bweber2(at)earthlink.net> Date: Thursday, January 27, 2000 10:32 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: avgas vs mogas > >I have been using nothing but Avgas for the last 2 years. Always had >trouble with mogas if it sat in the tank for a month or more. Hard >starting, hot running. Especially in winter when they add oxygenators. >Several others here are of the same mind. > >If you use your gas within 2-3 weeks, go ahead and use the mogas. Its >cheaper and more convenient. Otherwise you might consider the avgas. I >don't believe there is any problem mixing them. > >b young wrote: >> >> >> I like the peace of mind in using Avgas, but will >> change to auto fuel and filter for water with my "MR Funnel" >> if I hear that >> Avgas is not a good idea. >> >> Josh >> Firestar I, Oregon >> --------------------------------- >> i had the manager at the local Amoco station call the owner >> and i asked him to explain the additives in the gas. he was >> reluctant until i told him what i needed to know for and he >> sent a complete list. it did not give exact percentages >> because it changes according to the season. but it would let >> you know if there was something the rotax was allergic to. >> >> boyd >> ps dont expect the minimum wage help to know >> > >-- >**************************************************** >* Bill Weber * Thunder's just the noise * >* Simi Valley, CA * Lightning does the work * >**************************************************** > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: aquila33(at)webtv.net (dann mann)
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Subject: Re: pullstart in the air
You guys might want to look at some of the very tough plastic pulleys used o home exercise equipment for these purposes.. They fit a cable just right and are lightweight. Most have a pressed in steel bushing which should be fine for the momentary use they will get I am going to use the doulble pulley arrangment in my Minimax with these an some aluminum U shaped brackets ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Injectors
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Sure had hoped someone could've helped me with the fuel injector question. The picture was apparently copied from a Lucas manual, and was a "Type 3." No one around here even wants to look. Keepin' 'em crossed. Big Lar. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2000
From: Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net>
Subject: Insurance
Hi Kolb Flyer's Has anyone on the list had experience with the insurance companys paying for damages. I'm asking because after attending an FAA seminar on insurance I wonder if they ever pay. They have a thousand and one ways to nullify your insurance. When they come to inspect a situation,according to the instructor, the first thing they look for is a way to negate your coverage. They may smile, wag their tail, but pee on your shoe. The insurance is high, but if you under insure, they total it and own the remains which they sell and could get a good price for, but they own it. I'm thinking about keeping only liability, and dropping the other. In a few years of saving the payment to them, I could have the amount for a new plane. I just can't see giving them a couple thousand a year for a Kolb. The Jabiru is more valuable then the plane now, but would likely not be damaged in an accident. Any thoughts out there on this? Dallas Shepherd Norfork, Ar. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 27, 2000
Subject: Re: Oshkosh Air Venture 2000 Via Barrow, Alaska
In a message dated 1/27/00 11:44:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes: << Yes, will be using my old 1993 Garmin 55 AVD, same one I used for 1994 flight. >> John: I flew for years on the Garmin 55 and I think it is a great machine. On the off chance you are not aware of this already there are two facts you should know about the 55. First, the data base is updatable, but you have to send it to Garmin. They charge about $125.00. Second, the old style "cigar" antenna on the 55 has been replaced with an amplified antenna from the Garmin 195. You can buy one direct from Garmin for about $100.00. The new style antenna is vastly superior to the old one. It is much more sensitive and the cable is quite a bit thinner and more flexible so it is easier to place it conveniently and then not have the cable get in your way. I have never had a "No GPS Position" message since I went to the new antenna. Mark Sellers ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2000
From: b young <byoung(at)brigham.net>
Subject: static ports
at the point where i put my peto tube i cut a small figure 8 , in the top i mounted my peto tube and in the lower i mounted a static tube, i glued the two tubes together so they look like one tube, the lower static tube was plugged in the front and small holes were drilled in the sides it was also a bit shorter than the peto. haven't tried it yet but will let you know. boyd ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Transponder Update
Date: Jan 27, 2000
More food for thought. I followed the Transponder thread, but figured "to each his own." I have a transponder and encoder, cause I plan on flying in L.A. airspace quite a bit, and don't want a hassle. But they are expensive, so I can sure understand the reluctance. I just now read an article about an in-flight collision between a CitationJet and a C-172 within the Mode C veil around DeKalb-Peachtree in Atlanta, on Apr. 4, 1998. It's on page 105 of the Jan. 2000 issue of AOPA Pilot magazine. Interesting reading. Thoughtful Lar. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Oshkosh Air Venture 2000 Via Barrow, Alaska
I should talk - still haven't > gotten around to seeing about an update. Lar. Lar and Gang: Thanks for all the tips everyone. I updated the 55AVD in 1997, that is when the internal battery died. Also lost all my user waypoints. Book said the internal battery would last 4 to 5 years. Garmin was right on the money. Will have it updated this year. Nothing more frustrating than trying to get it to accept an identifier and it spitting it back out at me. john h ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Keeboman2(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 28, 2000
Subject: Second Chantz Chute
Kolber Homies, I have been on this list for almost a year and read the list everyday, thanks so much for all the input. However i dont own a Kolb. I love Kolbs, have the t-shirts hats ect. but i have a Rans S-12 and plan to own a Kolb of sorts. My questions: 1.What do ya'll (sorry from Texas) think of Second Chantz Chutes 2. I found a this chute, 1200lb, that fits my plane for $1200.00 is that a good deal? 3. The company is out of buisness, I can get the chute repacked by any rigger dude, but what about the ballistic, how can i get that checked out? I know i will get lots of opinions on this one so thanks in advance to all, and to Alabama John, my southern homeboy, good luck to ya'll in Alaska Snowin in Texas? Keebo ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2000
From: "Steven S. Green" <GREENSS(at)Bowater.com>
Subject: Finishing Tapes
A1-type: MAIL Rick wrote, Hi, my name is Rick Hundley and I'm building a MK III QB in Vienna, Virginia. Is it worth the extra time, effort and frustration to put perimeter tapes and reinforcement tapes on all covered flight surfaces?(i.e.... vertical and hor. stabs, elevators and rudder, flaps and ailerons) Rick, I am also building a Mark III and in the covering process now. I chose to use finishing tapes on the perimeter of all surfaces and even on the ribs of the control surfaces. There was a thread some time back on the weight that finish tapes added so I took a 6' piece of 2" tape, saturated it with poly brush and let it dry then weighed it. A whopping 7 grams, so all the tapes you want to put on the Mark III shouldn't add 2 pounds at the most. Jim Miller with Aircraft Technical Support did a seminar at the Kolb fly-in in September and had a real neat way of putting finish tapes on the ribs of the control surfaces and on the leading edges across "Homers Bumps". You might want to give him a call. Steven Green East Tenn. N58SG (reserved) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: Second Chantz Chute
> >Kolber Homies, >I have been on this list for almost a year and read the list everyday, thanks >so much for all the input. However i dont own a Kolb. I love Kolbs, have the >t-shirts hats ect. but i have a Rans S-12 and plan to own a Kolb of sorts. My >questions: >1.What do ya'll (sorry from Texas) think of Second Chantz Chutes I have one in the MKIII. It fits, it makes no noise, and doesn't eat anything. >2. I found a this chute, 1200lb, that fits my plane for $1200.00 is that a >good deal? Better than no chute at all. >3. The company is out of buisness, I can get the chute repacked by any rigger >dude, but what about the ballistic, how can i get that checked out? You can check it yourself. Once. Then the resale price goes down... >I know i will get lots of opinions on this one so thanks in advance to all, >and to Alabama John, my southern homeboy, good luck to ya'll in Alaska > >Snowin in Texas? >Keebo I bought a Second Chantz softpack just before the company folded, (that's why I'm not in the stock market) it is a cold fire nitrogen bottle rocket thingy, and is still holding pressure. So I guess it's still good. I have the chute repacked periodically. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2000
From: Skip Staub <skipnann(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Static ports
Gents, >I'm new at this so please indulge me. Am I correct in assuming that >moving the collar closer or further from the holes changes the >characteristics? It is in the correct location when the ASI reads >correctly as judged by some other means? >> to the basic assembly and the installed photo.The static pressure >> can be >> adjusted by simply sliding the wheel collar along the static tube. The suggested method will allow you to change your airspeed indication at any particular speed, but it will only indicate correctly (or what you think to be correct) at one speed. For instance, many older GA aircraft (like my 1946 Swift) used this method to calibrate the airspeed indicator. . If one were to plot indicated airspeed vs true airspeed on a graph you will get a straight line. Now by moving the collar back and forth in small increments along the static tube you can make your airspeed read accurately at ONE speed. On the Swift, I set my collar for 100 mph which is the gear speed. That done, my indications are slower than actual at the low end of my flying envelope and faster than actual at the high end. (about 5mph slow at the low end and 15 mph high at the high end) It just might be the opposite on any other aircraft, but it still stands that indications will only be accurate at one speed using the sliding collar method. A GPS, on a calm day will give you accurate ground speed. For flight test purposes, in my case, the method preferred for calibrating the airspeed indicator by the FAA was to fly along a straight line distance over a course that they suggested which was about 2 miles long; timing yourself on each run at a constant indicated airspeed. About the only way that you're going to get accurate indications is to have a calibrated airspeed indicator with the pitot boom mounted in undisturbed air (usually several inches away from the leading edge of the wing or nose cone. The static system should lead to static ports, usually one on either side of the aft fuselage (best location determined by trial and error or factory info). Obviously, there can be no air leaks in the system. That said, in our aircraft why is having a truly accurate airspeed indicator necessary in the first place? IMO, as long as the indications are reasonably accurate and are repeatable; that is the only thing that really counts. Regards, Skip 1984 UltraStar ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WGeorge737(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 28, 2000
Subject: Trim tab tape?
Hi Gang, I have cut a rudder trim tab from a light gauge piece of aluminum. Plan is to temporarily attach for test. Thought of using duct tape, but don't want it to damage fabric on removal. (Tired of constant left rudder input) :-( Bill George Mk-3 582 "C" Powerfin ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry & Karen Cottrel" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net>
Subject: air speed
Date: Jan 28, 2000
Just sitting here reading the latest list and it occurred to me that checking airspeed to attempt to get the correct reading on the ASI should not be any more complicated than setting the throttle to what reads 60 mph flying a straight line and using a gps to measure a mile. If the land is flat then 60 mph would take 60 seconds- 55 mph 65 seconds, 65 mph 55 seconds. This sound right or is it too simple and therefore incorrect? Works in cars! Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RICKN106(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 29, 2000
Subject: Re: Oshkosh Air Venture 2000 Via Barrow, Alaska
JOHN If you want to use my GARMIN 90 you are more than welcome.The 90 is used for flight use it has all the airports, or most all, and during your flight if you need to get to an airport it will show you the 10 closes to you at any given time, your GPS may do this I don't know ..... but if you need the 90 just let me know Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com>
Subject: Test Msg
Date: Jan 29, 2000
Transmitting in the clear-4 previous rejects Lindy LA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WGeorge737(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 29, 2000
Subject: Re: air speed (yarn aoa)
In a message dated 1/29/00 12:16:47 PM, bilrags@world-net.net writes: << Did you build one? If you did, does it look like what I just described? >> Hi Bill-- No, I actually was making sort of a joke. Of course there is no reason to think that it wouldn't work fine if calibrated properly. It's just a yaw string in the vertical axis of the plane. <> If you add a gust correction factor (like we do in the jet) it would work just fine. I find that in smooth air 1.3 works well and 1.5 Vso works for gusty air. As you know the correction for airplanes with lots of inertia is 1.3 Vso plus half the wind and all of the gust. I found that if you try to use those numbers you are way too hot and spend too much time in the flare mode, thus exposing yourself to the vagaries of the wind. One of these days I will try to get a definitive formula made up. Bill George Mk-3 582 "C" Powerfin ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2000
From: bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net>
Subject: Re: Trim tab tape?
Now this suggestion isn't for you manly-men with hairy arms, but in a former life I painted a few AC. If you want to keep masking tape from pulling relatively new paint off--try this: before putting masking tape on, stick it on the inside of your forearm (arm, that is) and gently pull ot off. It will now have a very thin coat of oil (not Penzz or Ams) which reduces the stickiness. Don't know what that might do to duct or other tapes--especially the hairy part. bn ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2000
From: wood <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: air speed
. Average the groundspeeds and you >will have groundspeed. This is an old misconception that sounds logical at first. It dosn't quite work out that way. Taking an extreme scenario lets say you fly with a 60 mph tail wind and your cruise speed is 60. You will have a 120 mph ground speed. You will get to your destination real quick. Now it is time to come home. 60 mph cruise and a 60 mph headwind and you are staying still and never getting home. Your average groundspeed will get to almost zero for the round trip and you still never get home. This paradox exists at more practical airspeeds and wind speeds but I hope you get my drift. Each leg will have to be timed and averaged out. woody ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Re: air speed (yarn aoa)
Date: Jan 29, 2000
>No, I actually was making sort of a joke. Of course there is no reason to >think that it wouldn't work fine if calibrated properly. It's just a yaw >string in the vertical axis of the plane. This will work for well for aoa in 1 g flight and as a bad aoa /g meter when pulling g's. I have mentioned before that a vane type aoa indicator must be mass balanced to perform at elevated g levels. you might think that the string is so light that the g's wont matter. but it works much better to use a rigid mass balanced indicator. The yarn would actually take on a curved parabolic shape under g's, would be hard to tell where it was pointing. topher ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry & Karen Cottrel" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net>
Subject: Re: air speed
Date: Jan 29, 2000
Actually all you would have to do is to fly both directions, add the two together and divide. As for actually needing to know that particular piece of trivia, it is only impportant for the sake of pride in being accurate. As the man said it is much more important to know at what indicated air speed the darn thing stalls Larry -------- > From: wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: air speed > Date: Saturday, January 29, 2000 7:23 PM > > > . Average the groundspeeds and you > >will have groundspeed. > > This is an old misconception that sounds logical at first. It dosn't quite > work out that way. Taking an extreme scenario lets say you fly with a 60 mph > tail wind and your cruise speed is 60. You will have a 120 mph ground speed. > You will get to your destination real quick. Now it is time to come home. 60 > mph cruise and a 60 mph headwind and you are staying still and never getting > home. Your average groundspeed will get to almost zero for the round trip > and you still never get home. This paradox exists at more practical > airspeeds and wind speeds but I hope you get my drift. Each leg will have to > be timed and averaged out. > > woody > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 2000
From: Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: pullstart in the air
Randy, you are probably referring to the airflow past the prop as a help to turning it over for pull starting. My experience with several intentional in-flight shutdowns, is that an effort to restart within 15-20 seconds is usually, but not always successful. After that, there is enf cooling to the outside of the engine that it is a little tighter and harder to pull. (Yes, I had let my engine run at low power for a minute before shutting down.) A couple other important considerations: if it quit by itself without warning, something probably needs to be adjusted, and a restart attempt is not likely to work anyway. Two: paying attention to restarting is a distraction --bigger than you might think -- from flying your plane with its suddenly new glider characteristics -- you will (hopefully) notice the sudden lack of high center line thrust and prop wash over the tail, making the nose drift up quite easily. This a dangerous thing if you are instead focusing on a restart. In other words, my take on an engine out: Forget about it, just fly the plane(!) and concentrate on a perfect landing. -Ben Ransom --- Randy wrote: > > Is it easier to start in the air verses on the ground > -----Original Message----- Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 2000
From: Mike Pierzina <planecrazzzy(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Rudder control horn
On my firestar II , the rudder control horn has two side arms that has 2 holes in it on ea. side...the arms hit the vertical stabilizer tube,but the rudder still goes into the path of the elevators... question-what is supposed to be bolted to the arms to restrict travel of the rudder...does it come in the 2nd kit? Gotta Fly... Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vince Nicely" <vincenicely(at)intermediatn.net>
Subject: Re: air speed (yarn aoa)
Date: Jan 30, 2000
To Bill George, Bil Ragsdale and the List Your commets in part were: > Did you build one? If you did, does it look like what I just described? If you built it did you calibrate somewhat similar to my brainstormed procedure above? It's really your idea, would you mind if I built this setup for my > airship? Over last fall, I did some experimentation with a yarn angle of attack indicator. For those interested I will tell about my device and what I learned. First the Device. I got a piece of very light weight and fluffy yarn from my wife's hobby basket. It is about a quarter inch in diameter and mostly air. My Firestar II has a full enclosure, so I attached one end to the canopy outside just behind the nose cone. A little experimentation was needed to get it placed best, and it is about 1/2 up the side. The yarn is about 18 inches long. Then, I cut a few pieces of tape and placed them conveniently in my cockpit so they could be used to mark critical angles in the next stage. Calibration. This is the fun part because it is flying! I flew the airplane at various speeds and with different power levels to see what affected the yarn's position. The power level made little, if any, difference. Then, at 35, 45, 55, 65 mph, I placed a small piece of tape inside the canopy just behind the throttle to mark the yarn position. My ship stalls, power off, at about 35 mph. At about 14 inches behind the attach point, the 35 to 45 change in angle of attach is about 2 inches as I recall. Thus, at low speeds, this is a relatively sensitive indicator. I find it readable out of the corner of my eye so no large head motion is require to read it. How does it work? As noted, it is quite sensitive at low speeds where you need it most. It appears very repeatable straight and level. I did coordinated, accelerated stalls up to about 60 degree bank as I recall and in both directions. The indicator was right on stall mark when the break occured. However, with the placement on the canopy, I believe slips caused it a problem. About Slips. I have been experimenting with slips to shorten the glide. I know this has been discussed. Anyway, what I have found is that my most extreme slip can shorten the glide distance about 25%. I never made such careful measurements on any other plane so do not know how it compares, but that is what I found. However, in slips I believe my air speed indicator and the AOA yarn are both inacurate because of how the plane acts at various indicated speeds. I wish for a better measure under this condition if any one who has any ideas. Other Comments. The density of the yarn is important. I tried a dense nylon string and it was considerably less sensitive. The large cross section yarn gave good interaction with the air, and the low density made it less likely to sag along its length. During slow taxi and with a tail wind component, the yarn can get wrapped around things forward of it. Once you get going, there are no problems of that sort. Vince Nicely Firestar II with 254 hours ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 30, 2000
Subject: Re: Rudder control horn
In a message dated 1/30/00 1:38:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, planecrazzzy(at)yahoo.com writes: << On my firestar II , the rudder control horn has two side arms that has 2 holes in it on ea. side...the arms hit the vertical stabilizer tube,but the rudder still goes into the path of the elevators... question-what is supposed to be bolted to the arms to restrict travel of the rudder...does it come in the 2nd kit? Gotta Fly... >> My FS kit [#520] came with a 'rudder stop'; it is a short length of steel tubing about 1" ID that has been cut in half length-wise and has two short pieces of about 1/4" dia. tubing welded to it. It is to be painted & riveted to the vertical stab. where those rudder horns hit it. You should make a trial fit before riveting & grind the small tubing for proper rudder throw. Don't know which kit this comes with but it can be installed any time. Howard Shackleford FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WillUribe(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 30, 2000
Subject: Re: Rudder control horn
Greetings I didn't get this rudder stop with kit one or two but I have seen it on other firestars. I'm planning to ask for one when I order the engine kit. I uploaded pictures of the rudder stop to my web site. http://members.aol.com/fs2kolb/pictures/stop.jpg Regards, Will Uribe El Paso, TX Building a FireStar II http://members.aol.com/WillU/index.html In a message dated 1/30/2000 1:20:57 PM Mountain Standard Time, HShack(at)aol.com writes: > << On my firestar II , the rudder control horn has two > side arms that has 2 holes in it on ea. side...the > arms hit the vertical stabilizer tube,but the rudder > still goes into the path of the elevators... > question-what is supposed to be bolted to the arms to > restrict travel of the rudder...does it come in the > 2nd kit? Gotta Fly... >> > My FS kit [#520] came with a 'rudder stop'; it is a short length of steel > tubing about 1" ID that has been cut in half length-wise and has two short > pieces of about 1/4" dia. tubing welded to it. It is to be painted & > riveted > to the vertical stab. where those rudder horns hit it. You should make a > trial fit before riveting & grind the small tubing for proper rudder throw. > > Don't know which kit this comes with but it can be installed any time. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WGeorge737(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 30, 2000
Subject: Re: air speed
In a message dated 1/30/00 7:44:48 AM, Artdog1512(at)aol.com writes: << i think we argue about things which are insignificant to flying ul. >> Stall speed is significant to all airplanes. Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 2000
From: Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: pullstart in the air
> >Randy, you are probably referring to the airflow past the prop as a >help to turning it over for pull starting. >A couple other important considerations: paying attention to restarting is >a distraction --bigger than you might think -- -------------------------- Another thing to watch out for when cutting off and restarting your engine (on purpose)..at least the 1st time. Always turn your ignition back "on" as soon as your engine quits running. After having all that excitment of being a sailplane, and it's time to restart, you would be suprised how easy this is to forget. --------------------------- >--- Randy wrote: >> Is it easier to start in the air verses on the ground ---------------------------- In my limited experience - no. The engine needs to be restarted as if it were "cold" after about 30 seconds of gliding, that usually means coke, or primer etc. I've never noticed any "help" from the windmill effect even with the nose pointed down. I've got a starter now, so no big deal. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Malfunctioning contactor?
>Does anyone know if low battery voltage will cause either the master or >starter contactor (solenoid) to stick? That is, remain engaged when power >is shut off. BOTH contactors appeared to stick during an engine start >attempt. Seems like too much of a coincidence for both to malfunction at >the same time. My battery voltage was low. I cannot see why this would >happen, but did experience it in a system that has been working with no >apparent previous problems. Thanks. Ivan Kaiser > Yes. In fact this is the most likely scenario for sticking. Continuous duty contactors have two springs that must be overcome by battery voltage. The first is a low tension spring that provides about 0.1" of lift to open the contacts. A second spring is much higher force and becomes compressed only after the contactor's solenoid core has seated the contacts but about 0.03" short of bottoming out. The magnetic pull produced by the solenoid core rises sharply as it bottoms out providing the force needed to compress the second stage spring and insure a low resistance contact. If the battery voltage is too low, the contactor will close but the second stage spring won't get compressed. The resulting loss of contact pressure is conducive to burning and/or welding of the contacts. Many builders use the same class of contactor (Continuous Duty) for starting and with fair success . . . intermittant duty contactors have much higher initial and final actuation forces and are much less likely to weld under low battery conditions. Those of you interested in seeing the internal workings of a continuous duty contactor up close are invited to peek at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/c1.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/c2.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/c3.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/c4.jpg Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dale Seitzer <dale(at)gmada.com>
Subject: Minnesota SPort Aviation Conference
Date: Jan 31, 2000
[] Minnesota Sport Aviation Conference is 2/12/00 and 2/13/00 [] at the Minneapolis Convention Center. Go to www.flightexpo.org for more info. [] Dale Seitzer ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Thompson, Todd" <todd.thompson(at)dsl.net>
Subject: Weekend flight
Date: Jan 31, 2000
Thought you guys would enjoy a tale of weekend flying. Sunday morning was gorgeous blue sky and no winds, 25 degrees and a day reserved for The Connecticut Ultralight Pilots Service club members to fly in all our glory. We hadn't flown for over three weeks because of the intense cold and snow during the past month. So after making the coffee, filling the Thermos, making the bagels, getting all our flying stuff into the van, remembering to get the gas cans, gloves, hats, headsets, oil, donuts, my wife and we're off to the airport. An hours later we meet our friends in the unplowed parking lot and see that only one of the hangers two doors are open. It turns out that the ground has frost heaved and is preventing the doors from opening. Since we couldn't get the aircraft out of the hanger we decided to run the engines and check things out. Our hanger mate George used ether and pull started his 503 into life, rna to normal temps and pushed the aircraft back into the corner. We then tried to start the 912 and having sat for a month and supported by a 18 amp battery it just didn't want to start. SO out came the charger and ether. the 912 finally started. We had the tail of the plane sticking out the hanger door, wheels blocked and the brakes set. Once the temps came up to normal we pushed this plane into the corner and then fired up the other MKIII/ 582. Once again the little 18 amp battery supporting the electrical starter in this plane just couldn't spin the enigne over fast enough so we sprayed ether and gave it a charger boost of 50 amps and finally got the thing started. To help with getting the temps we covered the radiators leaving only 25-30% open for cooling. This worked really well since we could rev past 3400 rpms in the hanger. So for three hours of socializing, drinking coffee, donut holes our flying day consisted of running the engines only. Was it worth the trip. Yep! Half the fun of flying [UL's] is being with good friends. I would have loved to fly but heck, half the fun is being together. Todd - 29degrees, 6inches of slushy snow, grey overcast skies and two months to go before spring - Thompson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
Date: Jan 31, 2000
Subject: Re: air speed
Todd and others, I do glance at my airspeed when I'm cruising and on approach, but I very seldom look at it when I'm close to touchdown because I'm concentrating on the landing. I have flown without the ASI when I test flew a friends FS and it didn't work. The attitude and the feel of the breeze pretty much indicated the speed of the plane and it was no problem at all. The ASI in a partially enclosed FS is not as critical as one that is enclosed. This is why I like my open FS and I could get used to flying without one I'm sure. Ralph Original FireStar, 13 years flying writes: > > > Sorry Tim I disagree. AIrspeed is crutial to us as much as GA. I > say this because if your ASI is inaccurate down around stall speeds it > > could cause you problems in landings and slow speed flying. A +5 mph > ASI error could cause an accident. An accurate ASI seems to me to be > a must have item. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "flatwood" <flatwood(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Dick (Around the World Without Stopping) Rutan, Combat
Flying Episode
Date: Jan 31, 2000
Howdy. I think I have an excerpt from that tape. The aircraft involved was Strobe 1 and the back seat got out but the front seat didn't. I was told it resulted in a redesign of the RF-4 ejection seat system. If you don't already have it and are interested please let me know. Tucker Boys, Bien Hoa Productions ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2000
Subject: Invitation to surf on in
From: Bruce E Harrison <bharrison(at)juno.com>
Hello listers: I'd like to invite everyone to visit my new web site, where I have photos of past projects and will be chronicling the next one. Thanks, and enjoy. Surf to http: // bruceharrison.homestead.com. Don't put any spaces in the address and it should work fine. Bruce from Lexington, SC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Cooley" <johnc(at)datasync.com>
Subject: Re: upholstery
Date: Jan 31, 2000
Hi Bruce, Would you please email any details you have about the seat upholster. I am in the process of building a FS II and would like to do something different than what the factory supplied. Map pockets and a nice professional look would be nice. Thanks, John Cooley ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce E Harrison <bharrison(at)juno.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 1:58 AM Subject: Kolb-List: upholstery > > I have a friend down the street who is a professional upholsterer. His > dad is also an A&P with one of the major airlines. He does first class > work and is very interested in expanding into the ultralight field. If > you send him the upper portion of your FireFly or Firestar seat and the > dimensions of the lower part of the seat, he can produce a nice > vinyl/naugahyde cover complete with pleats, padding, and map pocket. > Contact me off list if you want more details. He will be making the > covers for my next plane. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Possible new engine
Date: Feb 01, 2000
Interesting, but I think I'd check it a little more thoroughly. I guess I'm a little out of touch with some of this new-fangled machinery, but I've always felt that 1 hp. per cu. inch is a strong engine. Vamoose's VW will be in that general range, with multi port fuel injection, and solid state ignition. Going to 100 hp per liter ( about 61 c.i.) has always been possible, even without turbo, or super, charging, but really strains things. Now these folks are talking about 50 hp from 250 cc. ( 1/4 liter ), which works out to 200 hp per liter. I realize it's a 2 stroke and all, but still..................... Skeptical Lar. P.S. That board sure looks like fun. Wish I was 30 again.................! ! ! Or even a little less creaky at the current level. Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Fletcher <bwf(at)emailmn.com> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 3:22 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Possible new engine > > Popular Mechanics this month has a article on a jet ski with a 2 stroke > motor that weighs 30 pounds for 40 HP. They also talk about a 4 stroke going > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Split switches
>> Here's a simple one for ya. I have been looking for listings on the split >> Main Power switch (battery/altenator). I find it listed in Aircraft >Spruce and Wicks catalog, says Cessna type. Bob's webb site doesn't list any. Is >> that what you guys have been using, or is there a better one, or way, and >> available where? The whole concept behind the "split rocker switch" for DC power master was created at Cessna about 1965 when the switch from generators to alternators was in full swing. Generators would run self-excited and did not need a battery on line to be a useful source of power. The battery master and generator switches could be separate, unrelated controls. Not so the alternator. Alternators would not come on line by themselves nor were they particularly stable without a battery. We needed a way to insure that the alternator would never be on by itself but still allow the battery to be on by itself. The style of switches used in Cessnas and most other singles was evolving to rockers so the interlocked split rocker switch was born. Over the decades, that switch has been endowed with some sort of mystical properties. I've seen hundreds of airplanes with every other kind of control switch where the red split rocker holds court from a prominant place on the panel looking like no other switch in the airplane. I personally object to rocker switches because they need a rectangular hole, they're style critical with respect to the original manufacturer (you can only replace the thing with exactly the same brand) and much more labor intensive to install. Further, in decades since the split rocker was birthed, RG battery performance for cranking engines has totally overshadowed an earlier requirement for relieving as much load on the battery as possible during cranking. Hence, our present recommendations for battery and alternator control is to use the simpler, less expensive and more widely manufactured 2-pole rocker switch to bring battery and alternator OFF and ON together. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/errata/z8_0299.pdf All of our power distribution concepts use crowbar ov protection which suggests use of a breaker rather than fuse for field supply. If this is a pullable breaker, then the very rare cases where an alternator needs to be off line while only the battery is on can be accomodated by pulling the breaker. That's why we don't offer this device from our website catalog. For those interested in independent yet interlocked toggle switch control of the alternator could consider a switch like our S700-2-10 that can be wired so that down is both OFF, mid position is battery only ON, and upper position is both ON. In any case, I cannot recommend the split rocker found in almost everybody's electrical parts catalog unless you're planning to use the same brand and style of rocker switch for all other applications and you'd like your panel to take on the look of a 1965 Cessna . . . Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: B&C Products
When our new shopping cart software goes on line, we'll feature many of B&C's fine products for aircraft. In the mean time, you may download B&C's price list through our present website catalog at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/catalog.html Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Alternator fuse location
>I know you extroll the virtues of getting the main fuse/breaker off the >panel to reduce noise in the system. I guess I don't understand how merely >moving its location will do this. >Looking at your wiring diagram the alternator output is connected to the hot >side of the starter contactor and then through the master contactor. The >feed then goes to the battery. Great except the main fuse block feed is >connected at the same battery terminal. Isn't this the same electrically as >running the feed to the main fuse block and then connecting to the battery? Noises generated by the alternator are in form of an AC ripple voltage that remains on the output after power passes through the rectifier diode array. This is a signeal with a voltage value of approx 700 mv peak to peak but and a current capability equal to 5% of the alternator's present load. . . 40A DC output is accompanied by 2A of pk-pk ripple noise. This is why ground-loop noise goes UP as loads on the alternator are increased. The best filter in the airplane is the battery. Especially if it's an RG battery with a very low internal impedance (on the order of 8 milliohms). The 2A pk-pk ripple current impressed across 8 milliohms is only 16 pk-pk. Obviously, connecting the alternator directly to the battery terminals is the way to go . . . indeed that's what I show in the Electric Panel on a Budget article on our website. Any intervening wires between the battery and the alternator increases the apparent impedance of the battery and reduces its effectiveness as a filter. So, the goal is to make the shortest possible, fatwire connections between battery and alternator b-terminal without taking it past the main bus! The goal is to reduce the amount of wire shared by both the alternator and mainbus feedline and to make the connections between battery and alternator as short and low a resistance as practical. Remember, we're talking millohms here and every wire and joint in the wire adds its little bit of ripple-noise amplifying resistance. The single point ground system we recommend is used to get as much of the airframe's resistance out of crictical systems power pathways. Moving the alternator b-lead to the starter contactor on the firewall is doing the same things for the hot side of the power system as we do for the ground side. Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Request for trim switch recommendation . . .
Sorry to bother everyone with this but the following message came in through our website catalog order form. The individual who sent it didn't fill out any return data like name and email address: > I have been looking for a "reasonable" source for a rocker switch to use >for electric trim - momentary on-off-on . like Piper uses for its electric >trim - mounted on the yoke. Do you have (or know) of how I can get ahold of >a similar switch? Thank You in advance. If anyone on this list is "guilty", I'd be pleased to advise . . . fess up now . . . I won't tell . . . reply directly to nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Engines
Date: Feb 01, 2000
Well Folks, I guess I stand corrected. Several people emailed me direct, and let me know - nicely - ( they're Kolbers, after all. ) - that there are quite a few engines out there now that go 200 or more hp per liter. Wow ! ! ! None seemed to want one on their airplane, but I guess they'd make for an exciting ride on a murdercycle. Educated Lar. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Oshkosh Air Venture 2000 Via Barrow, Alaska
Rick: Sorry for the delay in responding to your email. Just got home from Lucedale, Ms, and a three day Rotax 912 school presented by Eric Tucker. Also got my 912S in the back of the truck. Unable to wipe the grin off my face. :-) Thanks for the offer of your GPS. That was very considerate of you. I will use my old 55AVD if it is still working by 26 June 2000. How's the back? Are you ready to run some sprint races yet? Hope it is healing and your life is getting back to normal. john h RICKN106(at)aol.com wrote: > > > JOHN > If you want to use my GARMIN 90 you are more than welcome.The 90 is used for > flight use it has all the airports, or most all, and during your flight if > you need to get to an airport it will show you the 10 closes to you at any > given time, your GPS may do this I don't know ..... but if you need the 90 > just let me know > > Rick > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Split switches
<3.0.6.32.20000201231924.008d04b0(at)aeroelectric.com> >Bob, Regarding your idea that the switches should match. . . I would suggest >that there are some switches in the cockpit that should not match, and I >think the master/alt switch is one of them. When I look at the overhead >panel of the MD80 I fly at work, I see a myriad of different switch types. >Some twist, some toggle, some have round heads, some flat. A couple even >have a little row of "landing lights" fixed to their toggle. All this is >done for a reason. . . To help differentiate one from another at a glance. >Now the Kitfox certainly has fewer switches to worry about, but I would >argue that the MASTER switch should stand out (maybe this is why Cessna and >Piper paint it red). Whether it's because I want to shut everything down >quickly prior to a deadstick landing, or just to have it stand out in hopes >that I don't walk off and leave it on (never happened to me personally, but >I've heard. . . ), I see no reason, aesthetics aside, it should look like >the others. > >Okay, I guess I could paint your switch red, but I still think mine looks >pretty cool. Inadvertent switch operation is a factor we'll be addressing in the latest chapter to the book which I'm writing now. The easiest way to deal with this is in panel layout. Consider a single row of switches with a layout like l-mag, r-mag/start, dc power master, alt field breaker, e-bus alt feed (or aux dc power master, aux alt field breaker (if used) fuel boost/prime, pitot heat, landing/taxi lts, nav lights, strobes. When one is interested in killing everything in a hurry, the ship is made cold with the switches at the far left. Switches at the right are grouped in order of operation. Strobes on first. If it's dark, nav lites next, other exterior lights next. There's a buffer between power control switches and appliance switches with controls where inadvertent selection doesn't represent an immediate concern. One can put little plastic booties over switches to color code them. The recomendation for "sameness" is driven by several considerations. Low cost, ease of replacment (one nut and a few fast-ons), ease of initial fabrication, mutliple suppliers for the same switch. I'm trying to break the old paradigms where we EXPECT things on airplanes to be expensive to buy (unique, unsubstitutable, type certificated), expensive to replace (only your friendly $40/hr certified wrench twister is allowed to do it), and carved in stone by traditional-flyer-think that starts with us as pilots and becomes more viscous as you move up the ladder toward Jane Garvey's office. One of the reasons that the future of single engine airplanes is so bright is that amateur built aircraft already dominate the modern fleet and will soon dominate the total fleet. We can only improve on that by increasing people's comfort level with application of critical review to their own airplane based on how they plan to use it and without the "assistance" of government or traditionalists. Split-second, bad decision scenarios exaserbated by panel ergonomics has always been a heavy tool wielded by doom-sayers amoungst us. In fact, the vast majority of injury and death in airplanes comes from poor pilotage followed by sudden onset of situations from which there is no escape. The numbers of folk that met their demise cause they hit the wrong switch while on short final to a big rock are, I suggest, very tiny if indeed they even exist. Which brings up another point I've been pondering with respect to crashworthiness. An engineer I work with at Raytheon used to do accident investigations. He noted in passing one day that airplanes in which the battery was NOT ejected from the wreckage often caught fire. Not once in his experiece did he see an airplane burn if the battery was thrown out from the wreckage. We got to talking about a g-switch in the battery master contactor control circuit. Then I asked him, had the airplanes NOT burned, was the crash such that anyone MIGHT have gotten out. He thought for a time and said "no." When you hit the mountainside, pull the wings off, ice-up and stall, run out of gas, or hit another airplnae, I'll suggest that the position of your switches when you hit the ground is insignificant. We are in far greater danger from failures of pilot judgment, inattention and skills than from anything mechanical or ergonomic. Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Sticking contactors
>It comes up again - the battery condition is "important" - if that is strong >enough. You bet it is . . . >I have mentioned it before and would like to do so again. > >How do use simple fellows know that the battery is not up to it? Simply, the >first most of us know is that the battery won't start the engine. By then I >guess it's a bit late???? True. This is why the battery should be given the same kind of attention in terms of preventative maintenance as other things in the airplane. For example, we replace oil and filters based on a schedule . . . not because the engine is at risk of damage if the commodity is used a few hours longer but because "it's time to renew it to INSURE ongoing airworthiness." We replace tires not when they won't stay round any more but when the tread wear falls below a certain point. >Any plan to give "us" an article on battery care and covering vital signs as >to health, and when it's at it's "use by" date? A discussion on voltmeters v >ammeters might be helpful - I for one, as a layman, am confused by many >learned comments. It can be pretty simple. You have two choices: (1) build and use the battery capacity tester described in an article on my website at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf or (2) do periodic replacment of a battery based on time just like you do oil and air filters. Assuming that you plan to use the best kind of battery you can buy (recombinant gas) then every two years for the average day/vfr airplane is probably a good benchmark. For airplanes flown long cross-country at night or IFR might want to look at yearly replacment. I've suggested that some airplanes which benefit from dual battery installations get a new battery in the main slot and move the main battery to the aux slot yearly. For most folk this is a 60-75 dollar expense that is trivial compared to other operating costs of the airplane. If one objects to the "easy" methodology, then see suggestion (1). Variations on the theme arise when the battery has been inadvertently discharged . . . and sets for a long period of time (left the master switch on). Then a capacity test is in order. If the battery seems to be getting weaker in terms of cranking the engine, then a capacity test is in order. An accurate voltmeter that indicates an operating bus voltage no less than 13.8 and no greater than 14.6 will assure you that the battery is being maintained by ship's alternator. RG batteries do not need attention for long term (over winter storage). Put away charged, they're good for a year or more with no attention. Put away discharged and they're recycle material when you come back. Pay just a little more attention to battery selection and condition as described above and the problem of sticking contactors will be a long way down on your list of concerns. Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Radio noise
Date: Feb 02, 2000
Got a question here. I have a handheld Icom A-22 which I use as a backup in the spam cans I'm taking lessons in and will be primary radio in the Kolb when it's done. I tried to listen to air traffic driving through Atlanta, Ga. the other day , got out the sectional and looked up the freq. and much to my surprise the "traffic" sounded like my '89 Nissan pickup!!! Now I know you can get noise and such through a power lead or whatever but this radio's only connection to my truck was my hand!? What causes this and what can be done to fix it...and is it too much trouble to worry about??? Jeremy "I listen to engines" Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Panasonic Batteries
>This is a question for Bob Nuckolls. Are the Panasonic sealed lead acid >batteries that are for sale in the Digi Key catalogue suitable for aircraft >use, and are these RG batteries? Yes and yes. For engine cranking you need to pick a product that will allow you to draw hundreds of amps from the battery . . . fast-on tabs are just too small. There are gobs of places to buy batteries perfectly suited to light aircraft. Here are just a few: Powersonic: PS-12180 http://www.power-sonic.com/12180.html Hawker: Check out the first 6 batteries on this page . . . http://www.hepi.com/products/genesis/genprod.htm Panasonic: particularly the LCRD1271P http://www.panasonic.com/industrial_oem/battery/battery_oem/images/pdf/lc-rd 1217p.pdf http://www.panasonic.com/industrial_oem/battery/battery_oem/chem/seal/seal.htm Yuasa-Exide: Check out the NP18-12B at this site . . . http://www.yuasa-exide.com/np-prod.html Handle these like any other lead-acid battery. Bus volts no less than 13.8 - 14.2 is about ideal - no more than 14.6 Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RICKN106(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 02, 2000
Subject: Re: Oshkosh Air Venture 2000 Via Barrow, Alaska
John I bet the grin will still be their for some time.... the healing is going great ,but I will take you up on the race this spring. If for some reason your GPS koncs out just let me know and I will send you mine , I took mine out on a trip today and ,just like always it works like a champ .If you dont have an extrenal power jack ,might want to think about it sure save on the AA batteries ,called GARMIN and ask about a power surge and GARMIN said that the 90 (I guess the rest of the garmins also ) has a regulator good for 36 volts so that would help out on a power surge coming out of the 912S . Well good luck on puting the engine on . When you come off of the fuel pump and T off between the two carb's dose ROTAX say anything about a return line to the tank so their will not be pressure on the floats coming off the fuel pump?? Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Radio noise
> >Got a question here. I have a handheld Icom A-22 which I use as a backup in >the spam cans I'm taking lessons in and will be primary radio in the Kolb >when it's done. I tried to listen to air traffic driving through Atlanta, >Ga. the other day , got out the sectional and looked up the freq. and much >to my surprise the "traffic" sounded like my '89 Nissan pickup!!! Now I >know you can get noise and such through a power lead or whatever but this >radio's only connection to my truck was my hand!? What causes this and what >can be done to fix it...and is it too much trouble to worry about??? We're all blessed with a membership in one of the few institutions in the world where AM modulated radios are used for people to say important things to each other. While 99.999% of all other communciations are FM, digital, spread-spectrum, (you name it) aviation is by government decree, stuck in the Twilight Zone of technological stagnation. Hence, strong AM noise source like the ignitions of nearby automobiles, are happily dumped out the speaker along with any useful communications. Police departments and taxi cabs abandoned AM modulated communications in the 50's . . . only aviation continues to whip that ol' hoss . . . abeit with a solid state buggy whip. Now, when mode-s reaches its ultimate perfection, it will spit out important messages on little slips of paper. You think running out of paper in the copy machine is a bummer . . . Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: year-2000(at)mindspring.com
Date: Feb 02, 2000
Subject: Re: Split switches
<3.0.6.32.20000201231924.008d04b0(at)aeroelectric.com> >..P.S. Is anyone else getting sick of hearing from "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > >Inadvertent switch operation is a factor we'll be addressing >in the latest chapter to the book which I'm writing now. The >easiest way to deal with this is in panel layout. Consider >a single row of switches with a layout like l-mag, r-mag/start, >dc power master, alt field breaker, e-bus alt feed (or aux >dc power master, aux alt field breaker (if used) fuel boost/prime, >pitot heat, landing/taxi lts, nav lights, strobes. >AC ripple voltage that remains on the output after >power passes through the rectifier diode array. This >is a signeal with a voltage value of approx 700 mv peak to >peak but and a current capability equal to 5% of >the alternator's present load. . . 40A DC output >is accompanied by 2A of pk-pk ripple noise. >The first is a low tension >spring that provides about 0.1" of lift to open the contacts. >A second spring is much higher force and becomes compressed >only after the contactor's solenoid core has seated the >contacts but about 0.03" short of bottoming out. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Panasonic Batteries
>This is a question for Bob Nuckolls. Are the Panasonic sealed lead acid >batteries that are for sale in the Digi Key catalogue suitable for aircraft >use, and are these RG batteries? Yes and yes. For engine cranking you need to pick a product that will allow you to draw hundreds of amps from the battery . . . fast-on tabs are just too small. There are gobs of places to buy batteries perfectly suited to light aircraft. Here are just a few: Powersonic: PS-12180 http://www.power-sonic.com/12180.html Hawker: Check out the first 6 batteries on this page . . . http://www.hepi.com/products/genesis/genprod.htm Panasonic: particularly the LCRD1271P http://www.panasonic.com/industrial_oem/battery/battery_oem/images/pdf/lc-rd 1217p.pdf http://www.panasonic.com/industrial_oem/battery/battery_oem/chem/seal/seal.htm Yuasa-Exide: Check out the NP18-12B at this site . . . http://www.yuasa-exide.com/np-prod.html Handle these like any other lead-acid battery. Bus volts no less than 13.8 - 14.2 is about ideal - no more than 14.6 Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Oshkosh Air Venture 2000 Via Barrow, Alaska
> When you come off of the fuel pump and T off between the > two carb's dose ROTAX say anything about a return line to the tank so > their will not be pressure on the floats coming off the fuel pump?? > > Rick Rick and Kolbers: There is no requirement for a return line to the fuel tank if: Only the engine driven pump is used, or The engine driven pump is back up with an electric boost pump of no more than 2.5 to 4.5 psi. Facet makes a pump in this range. Also sold at Western Auto under Purolator brand. I have been using this setup from the beginning on my MK III. No problems. Boost pump on during landings, take-offs, or low level flight. Nice to have the boost pump to fill the float bowls before engine start. Saves battery and starter. john h BTW: My last post to Rick several days ago was intended to go bc, but I goofed, again........... This one is for info for all concerned. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2000
From: bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net>
Subject: Transponder and ARTCC radar coverage
Since I worked with developing the ATC beacon system, also the implementation of beacons with both Long and terminal radars, I'm interested in a past thread concerning beacon use. I'm using a Q & A form of explanation/ Does the FAA have a plan to eliminate Search Radars? Yes. Within the plan, the ASR data is to be provided to the ARTCC surveillance grids. (More on this last point later.) When is it to happen? The timetable established years ago *by 2000* is not being met First there was no funding provided to implement the plan. Secondly, there is no agreement within the FAA as to the desirability of doing this. (Beware of the ATC problems that could occur if an aircraft suddenly has inoperable transponder.) What is the current status of the plan? FAA is still working on it. At a few locations there is only beacon coverage. In addition, a proposal is being worked to make transponders mandatory above 6K feet across the entire country. Now about CENRAP. This is a capability to be provided to the ARTCCs for providing *Center Provided Radar Approach*. They have done this for years but only for low activity airports. With CENRAP, all terminal radars are to be tied into at least one host ARTCCs surveillance grid. In the event of a TRACON or ASR crapping out, Center provided tracking information could be fed to the TRACON/Tower displays to maintain some semblance of safe activity. The center would assume the radar approach function from the crapped out TRACON automation system. If the terminal's ASR crapped out the center would provide as much coverage as it could from its surveillance radar grid, although coverage to the ground would probably not be available. The center's surveillance grid is updated based on the sweep rate of the LRRs (10-12 seconds). The input from the ASRs would be reduced to every other scan to provide some semblance of synchronization since the sweep rates are close to 5 seconds. This was confirmed by information with folks in the Long Range Radar Program Office of the Surveillance Division thru an old Think Tank friend. Small apologies for taking so much band width. bn pee ess, Abt 30 yrs ago i wrote a paper, going to FAA, saying no more expensive hard-to-maintain LRRs--just put up simple beacons. Turned down. Guess what they are doing? What comes around.... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Sudlow" <suds77(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: looking for an engine
Date: Feb 03, 2000
Well, it's time to find an engine. I'm building the MIII & the covering & painting (except the cage) are about wrapped up ( yes, Larry, the covering does have a happy ending, although I've felt like MEKKKYchris more than a few times) . I've completed the flaps to accept the 582. Been watching the classifide ads in Ultralight Flying for a good used engine, or possibly another source to buy a new one. Seems like it's about $5700 for a new one. Used ones are few and far between, but the right used engine could be a good solution. Wondering what your thoughts are on buying used, buying new from someone other than TNK - remember something in the manual about having to weld the muffler springs if not bought from Kolb. Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Frank_R_Reynen(at)notes.seagate.com
Date: Feb 03, 2000
Subject: Re: looking for an engine
Hi Chris, If you find a good 582 engine and are looking to purchase an almost new IVO 66" 3-blade prop let me know as I still have my spare set complete with ground adjustable hub (shim type) from my old 582 before switching to the 912. The cost is $265 in the mail. For the MKIII you would still need the spacer and propbolts from IVO or I could furnish at cost. Frank Reynen MKIII@565hrs http://www.webcom.com/reynen Subject: Kolb-List: looking for an engine Well, it's time to find an engine. I'm building the MIII & the covering & painting (except the cage) are about wrapped up ( yes, Larry, the covering does have a happy ending, although I've felt like MEKKKYchris more than a few times) . I've completed the flaps to accept the 582. Been watching the classifide ads in Ultralight Flying for a good used engine, or possibly another source to buy a new one. Seems like it's about $5700 for a new one. Used ones are few and far between, but the right used engine could be a good solution. Wondering what your thoughts are on buying used, buying new from someone other than TNK - remember something in the manual about having to weld the muffler springs if not bought from Kolb. Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2000
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Subject: Re: Split switches
<3.0.6.32.20000201231924.008d04b0(at)aeroelectric.com> I personally appreciate anyone who takes the time to shares what they knpw. I hope you get over your sickness problem soon though, it sounds petty painfull. ...Richard S year-2000(at)mindspring.com wrote: > > > >..P.S. Is anyone else getting sick of hearing from "Robert L. ...... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2000
From: wood <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: new kit
Well guys I went and done it again. I ordered a new mk111 kit yesterday for a club project. Well kit 2 is new, kit 1 was previously owned. I should be picking it up in mid March. Hopefully flying by the end of summer. Does anyone have any good used parts out there? Instruments, engines, brakes? Let me know what is available. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vic Worthington" <vicw(at)vcn.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 02/03/00
Date: Feb 04, 2000
I always did like those cool split switches on the Cessna but didn't know what they were for until now. My Firestar will only have the two ignition switches. Anyone know how to mount those split switches in the round holes provided? PS: Use your mouse to place the curser on the little down arrow at the lower right hand corner of the screen. Hold down the left button until the offensive material has scrolled by on your screen. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2000
From: Eugene H Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net>
Subject: Terry Swartz
Terry, I have an old picture you may like to see. Send me your e-mail address and I'll send it. Eugene Zimmerman ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Watson" <djwatson(at)olg.com>
Subject: Re: looking for an engine
Date: Feb 04, 2000
Chris, My friend has a 582 for sale, try this link http://www.aero-sports.com/bb/ it's listed under "sales" for $3000.00. with gear box. Dennis ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Sudlow <suds77(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 6:56 PM Subject: Kolb-List: looking for an engine > > Well, it's time to find an engine. I'm building the MIII & the covering & > painting (except the cage) are about wrapped up ( yes, Larry, the covering > does have a happy ending, although I've felt like MEKKKYchris more than a > few times) . > > I've completed the flaps to accept the 582. Been watching the classifide ads > in Ultralight Flying for a good used engine, or possibly another source to > buy a new one. Seems like it's about $5700 for a new one. Used ones are few > and far between, but the right used engine could be a good solution. > Wondering what your thoughts are on buying used, buying new from someone > other than TNK - remember something in the manual about having to weld the > muffler springs if not bought from Kolb. > > Chris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2000
From: Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu>
Subject: air speed
> >Air speed indicators are not accurate. I do not rely only on the ASI for >operation of an ultralight. I use all my senses to monitor operation. This was my first thought too. I once had my ASI venturi partially obstructed with a spiderweb, which resulted in it being way off in flight. It was so tiny there would have been no way to tell in preflight either. Gave me an appreciation for having an ability to sense airspeed from the wind and feel of the plane. Early aviators (and designers) felt this so strongly that they favored open cockpits far longer than was otherwise justifiable. I don't subscribe to the senses only opinion tho. For one thing, your senses will vary according to weather and what you're wearing. Off the top of my head, I can think of 5 or 6 good safety reasons to have an accurate calibration of your ASI. And not just related to airplane handling: often a little performace problem is the first indication of an engine problem, one of us two-strokers' favorite subjects. :) One more vote for "yes, it's worth the bother." Another thought about air speed and ASI calibration. Seems to me that it should be done at very low altitude, unless you happen to have climb indicator. Otherwise, how can you really tell if you're climbing or desending (which affects your speed)? ...or in uplift/downdraft? On the other hand, I think that indicated stall speed ought to be measured not only a little higher, but actually *while* in a decent. This gives you the opportunity to approach the stall veerrry slowly so that you can measure accurately. This works because in a relatively constant decent, you stay very close to 1 G, the same as in level flight. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 05, 2000
Subject: Re: Weekend flight
In a message dated 1/31/00 11:03:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, todd.thompson(at)dsl.net writes: << So for three hours of socializing, drinking coffee, donut holes our flying day consisted of running the engines only. Was it worth the trip. Yep! Half the fun of flying [UL's] is being with good friends. I would have loved to fly but heck, half the fun is being together. Todd - 29degrees, 6inches of slushy snow, grey overcast skies and two months to go before spring - Thompson >> Todd......I can relate.....not because I have had the opportunity to Hangar Fly lately, but ...because I just KNOW I can......and have in the past....and it is great! Thanks for the story and ...... are we still on for the Kolb Konvoy? ............................. GeoR38 equally cold slushy and maybe worse in Akron Ohio ps..... I just got back from the villages in Fla.......sorry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lawrence Dorn" <ldorn(at)sinclair.net>
Subject: where to find mini volt/amp gages
Date: Feb 04, 2000
Anyone know were i can find mini volt and amp meters? I looking for ones that are smaller than the standard 2" type. smaller the better. And not the 60-70$ aircraft spruce sells :) Lawrence Silverdale,Wa ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 06, 2000
Subject: Re: A small flying story
Even though it was a little cold today [mid 50's] here in SC it was a beautiful flying day. After a careful pre-flight I taxied out to 29 and took off. I decided to not go anywhere but just do touch & go's. I was soon joined by two other Firestars, a Quick Sprint and a MXL II w/ BFI and student, and a Rans S-9 Chaos. There was a 10 mph cross wind at about 60 degrees from the left just to make things a little interesting. What a blast when 5 or 6 planes a buzzing round and round doing touch you soon get in to a rythm & you seem to just know what everyone is going to do. My 503 burned just over 4 gals fuel doing about 40 T&G's. A new pilot at our field just bought a low time original Firestar [I think] with a 377. It is unbelievable how that thing will climb. Runway is 3,000' long, he climbs more than 1,000' by end of runway. Of course this plane is real close to FAR 103 weight and pilot is only 165. We will soon have 6 Kolbs flying out of our field. Things are looking up. Howard Shackleford FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Split switches <3.0.6.32.20000201231924.008d04b0(at)aeroelectric.com>
Date: Feb 06, 2000
I've been gone for a few days, and just read this. Nuckolls got me P.O.ed when he wouldn't answer my battery question - 3 times - but that in no way diminishes the value of the info he's been presenting. Read it and learn something, it may come in handy some day. I know it will for me - very soon now. If you gotta bitch, go fight with your wife, that's what that license is for. Big Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: <year-2000(at)mindspring.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 8:41 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Split switches <3.0.6.32.20000201231924.008d04b0(at)aeroelectric.com> > > > >..P.S. Is anyone else getting sick of hearing from "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > > >Inadvertent switch operation is a factor we'll be addressing > >in the latest chapter to the book which I'm writing now. The > >easiest way to deal with this is in panel layout. Consider > >a single row of switches with a layout like l-mag, r-mag/start, > >dc power master, alt field breaker, e-bus alt feed (or aux > >dc power master, aux alt field breaker (if used) fuel boost/prime, > >pitot heat, landing/taxi lts, nav lights, strobes. > >AC ripple voltage that remains on the output after > >power passes through the rectifier diode array. This > >is a signeal with a voltage value of approx 700 mv peak to > >peak but and a current capability equal to 5% of > >the alternator's present load. . . 40A DC output > >is accompanied by 2A of pk-pk ripple noise. > >The first is a low tension > >spring that provides about 0.1" of lift to open the contacts. > >A second spring is much higher force and becomes compressed > >only after the contactor's solenoid core has seated the > >contacts but about 0.03" short of bottoming out. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dale Seitzer <dale(at)gmada.com>
Subject: Wing fold bracket tube
Date: Feb 07, 2000
I have an original Firestar--built in 1985. The wing fold bracket tube fell off, I ordered a new one but need some help and ideas. The rivet holes are enlarged and the hole throught the fuselage tube is elongated. The tube fell out because it was always loose to allow the slightly misaligned wing brackets to fit. The extra travelling must have worn it too much. Can I simply put in larger rivets?,, Should I install some sort of bushing or rubber or plactic so the alluminum does not wear? Should I build a seperate wing holder and eliminate the tube? Maybe another rivet flange on the other end to hold it in place and distribute the load? Any ideas would be helpful. Thank you, Dale Seitzer. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jon Croke" <joncroke(at)itol.com>
Subject: Re: Split switches <3.0.6.32.20000201231924.008d04b0(at)aeroelectric.com>
Date: Feb 07, 2000
Larry, I know wisdom and (nearly) poetry when I see it...............! > Read it and learn > something, it may come in handy some day. I know it will for me - very soon > now. If you gotta bitch, go fight with your wife, that's what that license > is for. Big Lar. > Jon from Greenbay ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ian Heritch" <heritch(at)connecti.com>
Subject: Ivo vs Warp
Date: Feb 07, 2000
I know this subject has been beaten to death but I would like to limit this discussion to the Rotax 912 on a Slingshot. I am ready to place the order with New Kolb for the 912 engine package. The New Kolb 912 package includes a 3 blade Ivo as the standard propeller. The "old" Kolb 912 engine package included the 3 blade Warp as the standard propeller. I would like to know if one is preferable over the other. The "old" Kolb Slingshot brochure states "For the Slingshot, the 3 blade Warp is the best all around selection". Opinions are appreciated. Ian Heritch ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
Date: Feb 07, 2000
Subject: Re: Wing fold bracket tube
Dale, I think the solution is to order another tube as you have done and this time fold the wings pinning them in to get the proper alignment into the tube. Mark the spot on the fuse tube and drill out the two holes to a larger size and add larger steel rivets to hold it. If the old holes do not align with the newly marked holes, then use the 1/8" rivets. The alignment will be very different if the tailwheel is on the ground vs the fuse tube supported by a cradle stand. You may want to try it both ways. Ralph Original FireStar > > > I have an original Firestar--built in 1985. The wing fold bracket > tube > fell off, I ordered a new one but need some help and ideas. The > rivet > holes are enlarged and the hole throught the fuselage tube is > elongated. > The tube fell out because it was always loose to allow the > slightly > misaligned wing brackets to fit. The extra travelling must have > worn it > too much. Can I simply put in larger rivets?,, Should I install > some > sort of bushing or rubber or plactic so the alluminum does not wear? > > Should I build a seperate wing holder and eliminate the tube? > Maybe > another rivet flange on the other end to hold it in place and > distribute > the load? Any ideas would be helpful. Thank you, Dale Seitzer. > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
Date: Feb 07, 2000
Subject: Re: Wing fold bracket tube
Dale, Another idea I had after I sent my response to the kolb-list is to insert the wing fold bracket into the fuse tube from the opposite direction of the old one. Then pin the wings into place and drill out the new holes using 1/8" rivets. You could go to larger rivets if you think they would last longer. I've had to replace both of those rivets this past spring. I didn't know what you were referring to in the last email. Ralph > > > I have an original Firestar--built in 1985. The wing fold bracket > tube > fell off, I ordered a new one but need some help and ideas. The > rivet > holes are enlarged and the hole throught the fuselage tube is > elongated. > The tube fell out because it was always loose to allow the > slightly > misaligned wing brackets to fit. The extra travelling must have > worn it > too much. Can I simply put in larger rivets?,, Should I install > some > sort of bushing or rubber or plactic so the alluminum does not wear? > > Should I build a seperate wing holder and eliminate the tube? > Maybe > another rivet flange on the other end to hold it in place and > distribute > the load? Any ideas would be helpful. Thank you, Dale Seitzer. > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2000
Subject: Question about 503 Carbs
From: Bruce E Harrison <bharrison(at)juno.com>
Hello list: Could I get some input from the list on the advantages/disadvantages of running the Rotax 503 Dual CDI engine with 1 or 2 carburetors. I want to take advantage of the dual CDI benefits without the extra weight, complexity, and cost of the dual carbs. The price difference between the engines appears to be just the cost of the second carb. Are there any overwhelming advantages with the dual carb setup? I am leaning toward the one carb model because that is what I am used to when it comes to plumbing the throttle cable and setting up the jetting. I welcome the input from any and all, especially some of you Rotax dealers and repair specialists out there. Thanks. Bruce ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2000
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Subject: Re: Question about 503 Carbs
Bruce, A fellow south of me had a 503 single carb on a Carerra (high wing, pusher). He converted to dual carbs because all his buddies in his club were doing it. He liked the extra power but went back to the single arrangement because his fuel consumption went up considerably & the extra weight of the extra gas for his x-country flying was not worth it to him. Everything is a compromise. ...Richard Swiderski Bruce E Harrison wrote: > > Hello list: > > Could I get some input from the list on the advantages/disadvantages of > running the Rotax 503 Dual CDI engine with 1 or 2 carburetors. I want to > take advantage of the dual CDI benefits without the extra weight, > complexity, and cost of the dual carbs. The price difference between the > engines appears to be just the cost of the second carb. Are there any > overwhelming advantages with the dual carb setup? > > I am leaning toward the one carb model because that is what I am used to > when it comes to plumbing the throttle cable and setting up the jetting. > I welcome the input from any and all, especially some of you Rotax > dealers and repair specialists out there. Thanks. > > Bruce > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2000
Subject: More record-breaking flights
From: Bruce E Harrison <bharrison(at)juno.com>
I was not aware of it, but a gentlemen flew a Firestar the length of South America, braving weather, crocodiles, and worst of all--latin american police officials. Lajos Jozsa flew more than 15,000 km on this particular expedition. Check it out at http: //www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Lagoon/2775/index.html. Quite an odyssey! Bruce Harrison ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: Question about 503 Carbs
The dual carb setup has one advantage: better climb rate. Assuming you repitch the prop so that the engine can turn the higher RPM necessary for the dual carbs to produce that higher horsepower. If you have a fixed pitch prop and just bolt on the second carb, the engine will likely bog down. You need to actually take a little pitch out, and let the engine turn up faster, then you get the extra power. You will also use more fuel. The biggest disadvantage of a 503 with dual carbs is that a smaller engine working harder uses more fuel than a bigger engine loafing. Summer before last, three of us flew to Oshkosh, two 503 Drifters, and my MKIII with a Rotax 532. The Drifters like to fly at 50 mph, the MKIII was loafing, most of the time my RPM's were right around 5000 so as not to run off and leave them. Normally, my fuel burn with the 532 was less than the dual carb 503, and about the same as the single carb engine. They were both running 5600-5800 RPM. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) > >Hello list: > >Could I get some input from the list on the advantages/disadvantages of >running the Rotax 503 Dual CDI engine with 1 or 2 carburetors. I want to >take advantage of the dual CDI benefits without the extra weight, >complexity, and cost of the dual carbs. The price difference between the >engines appears to be just the cost of the second carb. Are there any >overwhelming advantages with the dual carb setup? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry & Karen Cottrel" <lcottrel(at)kfalls.net>
Subject: Re: Wing fold bracket tube
Date: Feb 07, 2000
Hi, I lost my "hanger tube" due to the same problem that you describe.( not fitting well so you push, wobble and a bunch of other things that require a lot of cussin. Do yourself a favor and before you put the new one in, take it some where that has a heating torch and bevel the tube so that it looks like a blunderbuss barrell. That way once you get it set so that it is close, the wing brackets will slide into the holders much easier. That will reduce the tendency to loosen the holder. Larry ---------- > From: Dale Seitzer <dale(at)gmada.com> > To: 'kolb-list(at)matronics.com' > Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > Date: Monday, February 07, 2000 8:55 PM > > > > I have an original Firestar--built in 1985. The wing fold bracket tube > fell off, I ordered a new one but need some help and ideas. The rivet > holes are enlarged and the hole throught the fuselage tube is elongated. > The tube fell out because it was always loose to allow the slightly > misaligned wing brackets to fit. The extra travelling must have worn it > too much. Can I simply put in larger rivets?,, Should I install some > sort of bushing or rubber or plactic so the alluminum does not wear? > Should I build a seperate wing holder and eliminate the tube? Maybe > another rivet flange on the other end to hold it in place and distribute > the load? Any ideas would be helpful. Thank you, Dale Seitzer. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kenneth Glen Aubrey" <kgaubrey(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Questions
Date: Feb 07, 2000
Hi guys, I am in the middle of building a firestar II and I have a couple of question. The first question is about the oil injection systems. Does any one run a 503 with the oil injection. They have at least 15 UL in the area and no one uses the oil injection. I asked every one why not and they all say it is one more thing to fail, but no one has every seen one fail. So the question os should I get it and use it or trash it. The next question is about the prop, the people with wooden props say you can't beet a wooden prop for performance. The people with IVO props say there are less maintenance and take abuse better. Any thoughts are welcomed. My last question is regarding the Poly Fiber covering system. Some people are telling me that I can use the chemical UV protection, instead of the poly spray. The Poly Fiber manual just says it doesn't work as well. Does any one have any facts or examples on this matter. I do plan on keeping my airplane indoors except the many hours of fling I plan on doing. All answers are very welcomed. Glen ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2000
From: Bil Ragsdale <bilrags(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: tire sealant
Once again I must turn to the Kolb list for your experience and expertise. I live on a farm in South Texas. The land is sand planted in Coastal Bermuda. Unfortunately there is lots of native sticker burr plants growing in my field. In the "good ole days" when I was young my dad used something called Neverleak in the tires of the Cubs and Champs. Neverleak was a smoo for bicycles you put into the inner tubes through the valve stem to prevent thorn punctures. I don't remember any problem with the wheels on those old airships from the Neverleak. I do remember when we first got 172's and later 150's that we had to quit using it because it was corroding the inside of the wheels. My Mk III has the aluminum wheels and disk brakes. Anybody use or recommend some kind of sealant to prevent thorns from creating air leaks? Any problems with corrosion of the wheel halves? Getting ever closer to first flight, Thanks, Bil ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Wing fold bracket tube
Date: Feb 07, 2000
I would try the larger rivet. Also, go to a longer rivet, and put a washer on the inside, for the rivet to expand against. Works well for me. Big Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dale Seitzer <dale(at)gmada.com> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 8:55 PM Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > > > I have an original Firestar--built in 1985. The wing fold bracket tube > fell off, I ordered a new one but need some help and ideas. The rivet > holes are enlarged and the hole throught the fuselage tube is elongated. > The tube fell out because it was always loose to allow the slightly > misaligned wing brackets to fit. The extra travelling must have worn it > too much. Can I simply put in larger rivets?,, Should I install some > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Titanium
Date: Feb 08, 2000
A few weeks ago, the thread was started about Sonex offering the titanium landing gear for a special price, and it died an instant death. Today an engineer friend mentioned a magazine article - that he can't find - about someone flying a Mk III to South America, and having problems with the landing gear. Anyone know which magazine carried that article ?? He says the article is featured on the cover. This month or last, I think. Also, has anyone any more info on the titanium gear, that isn't speculation ?? I think I could get real interested real quick in the 3' gear legs. My friend is an aerospace consultant, and feels that the Ti legs would be flexible enuf to soak up the shock and save the frame, and still not bend. My main concern would be the gear whipping around on a bumpy runway. I watched Tom Margrave land his FireFly on a sand runway a couple years ago, with stock gear, and it bounced all over. It doesn't seem like that would be a good thing for the alignment. Thoughts ????? Curious Lar. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Wing fold bracket tube
Date: Feb 08, 2000
After I sent this, I remembered my previous post, about the hot dog salesman who gave me the idea of making an aluminum "sling" to sit on the tailboom. Picture taking about a 1/4" x 4' x 3" or 4" piece of Al, mark the center, pad it, and bend it over the tail boom ahead of the stabilizers, till the ends are pointed straight down. Then bend the last 4" or 6" or so of each side back up to the outside, to make "saddles" for the leading edges of the wings to sit in. Pad them appropriately, and when folding the wings, just lift the leading edges up, and set them down in the holders. No alignment problems, and no pins. When you rig the wings for flying, just lift the holder off the tail boom, and put it away. Food for thought. Don't know what's the matter with my head, I fully intend to give this a whirl on mine. Hafta figure some way to hold them in it to prevent chafing when hitting bumps, etc. Big Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: Larry Bourne <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 3:01 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > > I would try the larger rivet. Also, go to a longer rivet, and put a washer > on the inside, for the rivet to expand against. Works well for me. > Big Lar. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dale Seitzer <dale(at)gmada.com> > To: > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 8:55 PM > Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > > > > > > > > I have an original Firestar--built in 1985. The wing fold bracket tube > > fell off, I ordered a new one but need some help and ideas. The rivet > > holes are enlarged and the hole throught the fuselage tube is elongated. > > The tube fell out because it was always loose to allow the slightly > > misaligned wing brackets to fit. The extra travelling must have worn it > > too much. Can I simply put in larger rivets?,, Should I install some > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Wing fold bracket tube
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Ya know, I worked till midnight, and have to be back for a 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM shift tomorrow, and here I sit, with my sorry ole mind just a-buzzing. In my previous posting, ( below ), I thought of the wing chafing in the holder. Well, how about something on the order of a piece similar to the piece ( socket ) that we now rivet to the wing spar to hook onto the piece through the tail boom. Shape it to conform to the leading edge of the wing, rivet it on facing straight forward, parallel to the bottom of the wing, so that it would sit in my "stirrups," for want of a better word. Make a large plastic washer to fit over it, about 1/2" thick, to act as a spacer to keep the wing from actually touching the stirrup, and damaging the fabric. Drill through the stirrup, so the fitting pokes through, then drill the fitting for a pin that would go in crossways, to keep it from jumping out. Much easier than the present set-up. Another benefit that I've already looked at on mine, is that you could make it so that the wing sits a lot higher from the ground when folded. This would make it much easier to load in a trailer. I know Doc and Erich both could benefit from this, and probably quite a few others. John Wood from San Diego made an extremely slick tilting mechanism for his trailer, to ease loading his FireStar, and it works like a charm. Both Doc and Erich's trailers sit too high for this. Hmmmmmmmm............... Now it's time to pick holes in this. Genius Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: Larry Bourne <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 1:00 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > > After I sent this, I remembered my previous post, about the hot dog salesman > who gave me the idea of making an aluminum "sling" to sit on the tailboom. > Picture taking about a 1/4" x 4' x 3" or 4" piece of Al, mark the center, > pad it, and bend it over the tail boom ahead of the stabilizers, till the > ends are pointed straight down. Then bend the last 4" or 6" or so of each > side back up to the outside, to make "saddles" for the leading edges of the > wings to sit in. Pad them appropriately, and when folding the wings, just > lift the leading edges up, and set them down in the holders. No alignment > problems, and no pins. When you rig the wings for flying, just lift the > holder off the tail boom, and put it away. Food for thought. Don't know > what's the matter with my head, I fully intend to give this a whirl on mine. > Hafta figure some way to hold them in it to prevent chafing when hitting > bumps, etc. Big Lar. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Larry Bourne <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> > To: > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 3:01 PM > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > > > > > > > I would try the larger rivet. Also, go to a longer rivet, and put a > washer > > on the inside, for the rivet to expand against. Works well for me. > > Big Lar. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Dale Seitzer <dale(at)gmada.com> > > To: > > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 8:55 PM > > Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have an original Firestar--built in 1985. The wing fold bracket tube > > > fell off, I ordered a new one but need some help and ideas. The rivet > > > holes are enlarged and the hole throught the fuselage tube is elongated. > > > The tube fell out because it was always loose to allow the slightly > > > misaligned wing brackets to fit. The extra travelling must have worn > it > > > too much. Can I simply put in larger rivets?,, Should I install some > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Adam & Dee Violett" <aviolett(at)worldinter.net>
Subject: Titanium
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Lar The January issue of Kitplanes has the article. Adam Violett Original Firestar Spring Hill, Kansas -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry Bourne Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 2:40 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Titanium A few weeks ago, the thread was started about Sonex offering the titanium landing gear for a special price, and it died an instant death. Today an engineer friend mentioned a magazine article - that he can't find - about someone flying a Mk III to South America, and having problems with the landing gear. Anyone know which magazine carried that article ?? He says the article is featured on the cover. This month or last, I think. Also, has anyone any more info on the titanium gear, that isn't speculation ?? I think I could get real interested real quick in the 3' gear legs. My friend is an aerospace consultant, and feels that the Ti legs would be flexible enuf to soak up the shock and save the frame, and still not bend. My main concern would be the gear whipping around on a bumpy runway. I watched Tom Margrave land his FireFly on a sand runway a couple years ago, with stock gear, and it bounced all over. It doesn't seem like that would be a good thing for the alignment. Thoughts ????? Curious Lar. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: Questions
Use the oil injection. Use the Ivoprop. Is it important to you that (depending on your color scheme) the sun might show up light and dark areas of coverage on your paint job? Without the PolySpray, when the sun gets behind your airplane, it will shine through the color coats, and if you have light or heavy spots, they will show up as irregularities in the coverage. And also the Stits logo may show up, depending on color and coverage. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) > >Hi guys, I am in the middle of building a firestar II and I have a couple of >question. > >The first question is about the oil injection systems. Does any one run a >503 with the oil injection. They have at least 15 UL in the area and no one >uses the oil injection. I asked every one why not and they all say it is one >more thing to fail, but no one has every seen one fail. So the question os >should I get it and use it or trash it. > >The next question is about the prop, the people with wooden props say you >can't beet a wooden prop for performance. The people with IVO props say >there are less maintenance and take abuse better. Any thoughts are welcomed. > >My last question is regarding the Poly Fiber covering system. Some people >are telling me that I can use the chemical UV protection, instead of the >poly spray. The Poly Fiber manual just says it doesn't work as well. Does >any one have any facts or examples on this matter. I do plan on keeping my >airplane indoors except the many hours of fling I plan on doing. > >All answers are very welcomed. >Glen > ________________________________________________________________________________ Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
Date: Feb 08, 2000
From: "Spence, Steve" <Steve.E.Spence(at)usdoj.gov>
Subject: Wing fold bracket tube
That is the arrangement I have on mine. I use synthetic fleece, held on with rubber bands to pad the saddle. In addition, I have a cross piece at the top pinned to the aileron tubes, bungeed to the boom tube, which holds wings together and keeps them seated in the saddle. Seems to work well, no apparent chafing, nor have the wings fallen out of the saddles when trailering. Also, it is easy to set up and take down. Steve Spence FF013 Auburn Hills, MI -----Original Message----- From: Larry Bourne Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 4:04 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube After I sent this, I remembered my previous post, about the hot dog salesman who gave me the idea of making an aluminum "sling" to sit on the tailboom. Picture taking about a 1/4" x 4' x 3" or 4" piece of Al, mark the center, pad it, and bend it over the tail boom ahead of the stabilizers, till the ends are pointed straight down. Then bend the last 4" or 6" or so of each side back up to the outside, to make "saddles" for the leading edges of the wings to sit in. Pad them appropriately, and when folding the wings, just lift the leading edges up, and set them down in the holders. No alignment problems, and no pins. When you rig the wings for flying, just lift the holder off the tail boom, and put it away. Food for thought. Don't know what's the matter with my head, I fully intend to give this a whirl on mine. Hafta figure some way to hold them in it to prevent chafing when hitting bumps, etc. Big Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: Larry Bourne <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 3:01 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > > I would try the larger rivet. Also, go to a longer rivet, and put a washer > on the inside, for the rivet to expand against. Works well for me. > Big Lar. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dale Seitzer <dale(at)gmada.com> > To: > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 8:55 PM > Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > > > > > > > > I have an original Firestar--built in 1985. The wing fold bracket tube > > fell off, I ordered a new one but need some help and ideas. The rivet > > holes are enlarged and the hole throught the fuselage tube is elongated. > > The tube fell out because it was always loose to allow the slightly > > misaligned wing brackets to fit. The extra travelling must have worn it > > too much. Can I simply put in larger rivets?,, Should I install some > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: tire sealant
You can always put an inner tube inside your tires, that is guaranteed to keep the goo stuff off your rims. And also if you ever land with low tire pressure, it will keep the tire from going flat if you get sideways and roll the tire loose from the rim. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) > >Once again I must turn to the Kolb list for your experience and >expertise. I live on a farm in South Texas. The land is sand planted >in Coastal Bermuda. Unfortunately there is lots of native sticker burr >plants growing in my field. > >In the "good ole days" when I was young my dad used something called >Neverleak in the tires of the Cubs and Champs. Neverleak was a smoo for >bicycles you put into the inner tubes through the valve stem to prevent >thorn punctures. I don't remember any problem with the wheels on those >old airships from the Neverleak. I do remember when we first got 172's >and later 150's that we had to quit using it because it was corroding >the inside of the wheels. > >My Mk III has the aluminum wheels and disk brakes. Anybody use or >recommend some kind of sealant to prevent thorns from creating air >leaks? Any problems with corrosion of the wheel halves? > >Getting ever closer to first flight, > >Thanks, Bil > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2000
From: "Richard Neilsen " <NeilsenR(at)state.mi.us>
Subject: Re: Titanium
I posted this some time ago but.... I flew the Old Kolb MKIII (Fat Albert) with the prototype spring steel gear legs. They were super. There were two concerns expressed about them: 1. The factory people felt that they were some what stiffer which might cause other parts of the plane to be damaged in a hard landing. 2. The gear legs were longer which would make it more difficult to put the MKIII in a trailer. On the positive side the gear made for a MUCH smoother ride as the legs were very flexible at least at small bending movements, they had a wider track and the plane sat app. 3 inches higher with a higher angle of attack in 3 point attitude. Dennis also indicated they were no heaver than the stock gear. My opinion is that the Kolb spring steel legs is the way to go. The New Kolb has the steel legs and just says they are close but still developing them when I talked to them at the Kolb Fly in. You may want to talk to them to show that there is interest. If you purchase a set of gear legs made for another airplane it would seem that you would become the test pilot. And with the price of Titanium a whole lot $$$ lighter. Rick Neilsen VW powered MKIII ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RWilliJill(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Subject: Re: Titanium
In a message dated 2/8/00 3:51:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net writes: > Today an > engineer friend mentioned a magazine article -- that he can't find - about > someone flying a Mk III to South America, and having problems with the > landing gear. Anyone know which magazine carried that article ?? He says > the article is featured on the cover. This month or last, I think. The Feb. 2000 issue of Kitplanes has an article of a fellow that flies from Argentina to Brazil in a Firestar II. He ends up having a collapsed landing gear because of a modification that was necessary for the installation of a Full Lotus float system that was installed. Its a very interesting article and worth reading (10 pages) Also the picture doesn't appear on the cover of the magazine but it could be another one your friend is referring to. R. Williams ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: Wing fold bracket tube
Excellent idea. I built my MKIII w/o the factory setup because I: (a.) Didn't like it's looks. (b.) Didn't think I could get in to stick in the little pin thingy. (c.) Had talked to other Kolbers who said it let the wing sit too low, and drag the leading edges on the ground going over bumps while pushing it around, up trailer ramps, etc. But your idea sounds ideal. How about if you made the saddle that goes over the tube with a slot cut in it's tail-facing-side so that it could fit around the front lower bracket for the vertical fin? Or snug up against the front stab brackets instead? That would keep the whole thing from wanting to twist on the tube when you just have one wing in, and the weight of the other one is not there yet to balance it? Otherwise when you just have one wing in, would it try to spin around on your tail boom? Or would that not be a problem, you think? Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) > >Ya know, I worked till midnight, and have to be back for a 9:30 AM to 6:00 >PM shift tomorrow, and here I sit, with my sorry ole mind just a-buzzing. >In my previous posting, ( below ), I thought of the wing chafing in the >holder. Well, how about something on the order of a piece similar to the >piece ( socket ) that we now rivet to the wing spar to hook onto the piece >through the tail boom. Shape it to conform to the leading edge of the wing, >rivet it on facing straight forward, parallel to the bottom of the wing, so >that it would sit in my "stirrups," for want of a better word. Make a large >plastic washer to fit over it, about 1/2" thick, to act as a spacer to keep >the wing from actually touching the stirrup, and damaging the fabric. Drill >through the stirrup, so the fitting pokes through, then drill the fitting >for a pin that would go in crossways, to keep it from jumping out. Much >easier than the present set-up. Another benefit that I've already looked at >on mine, is that you could make it so that the wing sits a lot higher from >the ground when folded. This would make it much easier to load in a >trailer. I know Doc and Erich both could benefit from this, and probably >quite a few others. John Wood from San Diego made an extremely slick >tilting mechanism for his trailer, to ease loading his FireStar, and it >works like a charm. Both Doc and Erich's trailers sit too high for this. >Hmmmmmmmm............... Now it's time to pick holes in this. >Genius Lar. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Larry Bourne <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> >To: >Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 1:00 AM >Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > > > >> >> After I sent this, I remembered my previous post, about the hot dog >salesman >> who gave me the idea of making an aluminum "sling" to sit on the tailboom. >> Picture taking about a 1/4" x 4' x 3" or 4" piece of Al, mark the center, >> pad it, and bend it over the tail boom ahead of the stabilizers, till the >> ends are pointed straight down. Then bend the last 4" or 6" or so of each >> side back up to the outside, to make "saddles" for the leading edges of >the >> wings to sit in. Pad them appropriately, and when folding the wings, just >> lift the leading edges up, and set them down in the holders. No alignment >> problems, and no pins. When you rig the wings for flying, just lift the >> holder off the tail boom, and put it away. Food for thought. Don't >know >> what's the matter with my head, I fully intend to give this a whirl on >mine. >> Hafta figure some way to hold them in it to prevent chafing when hitting >> bumps, etc. Big Lar. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Larry Bourne <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> >> To: >> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 3:01 PM >> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube >> >> >> >> > >> > I would try the larger rivet. Also, go to a longer rivet, and put a >> washer >> > on the inside, for the rivet to expand against. Works well for me. >> > Big Lar. >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: Dale Seitzer <dale(at)gmada.com> >> > To: >> > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 8:55 PM >> > Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > I have an original Firestar--built in 1985. The wing fold bracket >tube >> > > fell off, I ordered a new one but need some help and ideas. The >rivet >> > > holes are enlarged and the hole throught the fuselage tube is >elongated. >> > > The tube fell out because it was always loose to allow the slightly >> > > misaligned wing brackets to fit. The extra travelling must have >worn >> it >> > > too much. Can I simply put in larger rivets?,, Should I install >some ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dale Seitzer <dale(at)gmada.com>
Subject: Wing fold bracket tube
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Great ideas for the wings--I have started drawing and will work on it as soon as possible because I enjoy winter flying as long as the temp is in the upper 20's or higher. I am more upset because I missed it on the pre flight--I will be more careful and look at everything. I skipped it because it is not crucial for flight and I took it for granted. Thanks, Dale Seitzer. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Thompson, Charles" <todd.thompson(at)dsl.net>
Subject: Questions
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Regrading a 503: 1. Use the Oil injection system 2. Use a Powerfin prop - doesn't need an extension and is lighter in mass so you don't have to worry about your B box gears and bearings. ________________________________________________________________________________ Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
Date: Feb 08, 2000
From: "Spence, Steve" <Steve.E.Spence(at)usdoj.gov>
Subject: Wing fold bracket tube
Again, that's is how I have mine. A hole is drilled through boom tube, just ahead of vert. stabilizer. A long 3/8 bolt drops through and is secured by a wing nut. Boom tube is protected by a block of wood to spread out the stress. I don't need to tighten the bolt very much, just enough to hold the saddle until the second wing is in place. Steve Spence FF013 Auburn Hills, MI -----Original Message----- From: Richard Pike Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 9:05 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube Excellent idea. I built my MKIII w/o the factory setup because I: (a.) Didn't like it's looks. (b.) Didn't think I could get in to stick in the little pin thingy. (c.) Had talked to other Kolbers who said it let the wing sit too low, and drag the leading edges on the ground going over bumps while pushing it around, up trailer ramps, etc. But your idea sounds ideal. How about if you made the saddle that goes over the tube with a slot cut in it's tail-facing-side so that it could fit around the front lower bracket for the vertical fin? Or snug up against the front stab brackets instead? That would keep the whole thing from wanting to twist on the tube when you just have one wing in, and the weight of the other one is not there yet to balance it? Otherwise when you just have one wing in, would it try to spin around on your tail boom? Or would that not be a problem, you think? Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) > >Ya know, I worked till midnight, and have to be back for a 9:30 AM to 6:00 >PM shift tomorrow, and here I sit, with my sorry ole mind just a-buzzing. >In my previous posting, ( below ), I thought of the wing chafing in the >holder. Well, how about something on the order of a piece similar to the >piece ( socket ) that we now rivet to the wing spar to hook onto the piece >through the tail boom. Shape it to conform to the leading edge of the wing, >rivet it on facing straight forward, parallel to the bottom of the wing, so >that it would sit in my "stirrups," for want of a better word. Make a large >plastic washer to fit over it, about 1/2" thick, to act as a spacer to keep >the wing from actually touching the stirrup, and damaging the fabric. Drill >through the stirrup, so the fitting pokes through, then drill the fitting >for a pin that would go in crossways, to keep it from jumping out. Much >easier than the present set-up. Another benefit that I've already looked at >on mine, is that you could make it so that the wing sits a lot higher from >the ground when folded. This would make it much easier to load in a >trailer. I know Doc and Erich both could benefit from this, and probably >quite a few others. John Wood from San Diego made an extremely slick >tilting mechanism for his trailer, to ease loading his FireStar, and it >works like a charm. Both Doc and Erich's trailers sit too high for this. >Hmmmmmmmm............... Now it's time to pick holes in this. >Genius Lar. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Larry Bourne <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> >To: >Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 1:00 AM >Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > > > >> >> After I sent this, I remembered my previous post, about the hot dog >salesman >> who gave me the idea of making an aluminum "sling" to sit on the tailboom. >> Picture taking about a 1/4" x 4' x 3" or 4" piece of Al, mark the center, >> pad it, and bend it over the tail boom ahead of the stabilizers, till the >> ends are pointed straight down. Then bend the last 4" or 6" or so of each >> side back up to the outside, to make "saddles" for the leading edges of >the >> wings to sit in. Pad them appropriately, and when folding the wings, just >> lift the leading edges up, and set them down in the holders. No alignment >> problems, and no pins. When you rig the wings for flying, just lift the >> holder off the tail boom, and put it away. Food for thought. Don't >know >> what's the matter with my head, I fully intend to give this a whirl on >mine. >> Hafta figure some way to hold them in it to prevent chafing when hitting >> bumps, etc. Big Lar. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Larry Bourne <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net> >> To: >> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 3:01 PM >> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube >> >> >> >> > >> > I would try the larger rivet. Also, go to a longer rivet, and put a >> washer >> > on the inside, for the rivet to expand against. Works well for me. >> > Big Lar. >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: Dale Seitzer <dale(at)gmada.com> >> > To: >> > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 8:55 PM >> > Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > I have an original Firestar--built in 1985. The wing fold bracket >tube >> > > fell off, I ordered a new one but need some help and ideas. The >rivet >> > > holes are enlarged and the hole throught the fuselage tube is >elongated. >> > > The tube fell out because it was always loose to allow the slightly >> > > misaligned wing brackets to fit. The extra travelling must have >worn >> it >> > > too much. Can I simply put in larger rivets?,, Should I install >some ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Howard Ping" <hping(at)hyperaction.net>
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Subject: Re: Question about 503 Carbs
Bruce It's the biggest horse power increase for the least bucks. Howard ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Wing fold bracket tube
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Looks like great minds run in the same circles. Thanks Steve. "Blessed are they who run in circles, for they shall be known as Big Wheels." Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: Spence, Steve <Steve.E.Spence(at)usdoj.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 5:45 AM Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > > That is the arrangement I have on mine. I use synthetic fleece, held on with rubber bands to pad the saddle. In addition, I have a cross piece at the top pinned to the aileron tubes, bungeed to the boom tube, which holds wings together and keeps them seated in the saddle. Seems to work well, no apparent chafing, nor have the wings fallen out of the saddles when trailering. Also, it is easy to set up and take down. > > Steve Spence FF013 > Auburn Hills, MI > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Bourne > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 4:04 AM > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com@inetgw2 > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > > > > After I sent this, I remembered my previous post, about the hot dog salesman > who gave me the idea of making an aluminum "sling" to sit on the tailboom. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Titanium
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Got it. Thanks. Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam & Dee Violett <aviolett(at)worldinter.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 5:06 AM Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Titanium > > > Lar > > The January issue of Kitplanes has the article. > > Adam Violett > Original Firestar > Spring Hill, Kansas > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry Bourne > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 2:40 AM > To: Kolb > Subject: Kolb-List: Titanium > > > > A few weeks ago, the thread was started about Sonex offering the titanium > landing gear for a special price, and it died an instant death. Today an > engineer friend mentioned a magazine article - that he can't find - about > someone flying a Mk III to South America, and having problems with the > landing gear. Anyone know which magazine carried that article ?? He says > the article is featured on the cover. This month or last, I think. > Also, has anyone any more info on the titanium gear, that isn't speculation > ?? I think I could get real interested real quick in the 3' gear legs. My > friend is an aerospace consultant, and feels that the Ti legs would be > flexible enuf to soak up the shock and save the frame, and still not bend. > My main concern would be the gear whipping around on a bumpy runway. I > watched Tom Margrave land his FireFly on a sand runway a couple years ago, > with stock gear, and it bounced all over. It doesn't seem like that would > be a good thing for the alignment. Thoughts ????? Curious > Lar. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Titanium
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Thanks Rick. Does TNK monitor the list ?? I'd be interested in their progress. Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Neilsen <NeilsenR(at)state.mi.us> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 5:53 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Titanium > > I posted this some time ago but.... > > I flew the Old Kolb MKIII (Fat Albert) with the prototype spring steel gear legs. They were super. There were two concerns expressed about them: > > 1. The factory people felt that they were some what stiffer which might cause other parts of > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Wing fold bracket tube
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Sounds good to me. Ain't this fun. Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 6:01 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tubeBut your idea sounds ideal. > How about if you made the saddle that goes over the tube with a slot cut in > it's tail-facing-side so that it could fit around the front lower bracket > for the vertical fin? Or snug up against the front stab brackets instead? > That would keep the whole thing from wanting to twist on the tube when you > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Wing fold bracket tube
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Sounds even better. On consideration, a slot might cause a stress point, and a later crack. I've already drilled the hole through the tube, so the bolt would work fine. Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: Spence, Steve <Steve.E.Spence(at)usdoj.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 6:43 AM Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > > Again, that's is how I have mine. A hole is drilled through boom tube, just ahead of vert. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Titanium
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Got it. Thanks. Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: <RWilliJill(at)aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 6:02 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Titanium > > In a message dated 2/8/00 3:51:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, > larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net writes: > > > Today an > > engineer friend mentioned a magazine article -- that he can't find - about > > someone flying a Mk III to South America, and having problems with the > > landing gear. Anyone know which magazine carried that article ?? He says > > the article is featured on the cover. This month or last, I think. > > The Feb. 2000 issue of Kitplanes has an article of a fellow that > flies from Argentina to Brazil in a Firestar II. He ends up having a ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Re: Titanium
Date: Feb 08, 2000
the deal for sonex legs is over by now. so they are back to the original price. The reasone that TI is so good for this use is because it is lighter then aluminum, stronger then steal, and more springy then either. it is the perfect material for a spring landing gear. I have always wondered why aircraft designers (wittman) started this tapered rod gear design. the flat spring has better drag characteristics and is more flexible in the direction you want to flex and stiffer in the direction you want stiff. The tapered rod fits nice in a tubing socket but it is equally springy for and aft as up and down. I am pretty sure we dont want the wheels moving significantly for and aft so to have the gear be stiffer in that direction is a good thing. i would like to see a Ti or 4130 gear leg that is tappered in the up and down direction only, sure you cant make that on a lathe but it would be awsome. the 4130 tube could be heated and squished flatter and flatter as you got down toword the gear, better for drag and stiffer for and aft and springyer up and down. what do you all think? topher ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Thompson, Charles" <todd.thompson(at)dsl.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List Digest: 02/06/00
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Check the RC industry: Model AIrplane News & RC Modeler Magazines and see what the electric flyers are using for support equipment. They routinely fly 10 - 15 volt system dumping 500 amps in very short order to their motors. A very good place to start looking. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "tony-deb" <tony.deb(at)prodigy.net>
Subject: output 582
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Hi All Does Anyone Know The Output In AMPS Of A 582? If Its 10 AMPS Or So There's A 12V Ceramic Heater That Fits On The Floor Behind The Stick That Works Very Well In A Car An Would Do A Good Job In A Kolb. Would Be An Easy Way Out For Heat. Thanks--Tony MK3 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: skeeve(at)excellentproducts.com (dave)
Subject: Re:Titanium
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Hello All! Just a few thoughts >the deal for sonex legs is over by now. so they are back to the original >price. The reasone that TI is so good for this use is because it is lighter >then aluminum, stronger then steal, and more springy then either. it is the >perfect material for a spring landing gear. For a given strength, some of the titanium alloys such as 3AL-2.5V are lighter than aluminum, but especially for 7075 aluminum, the difference is not great and the 3AL-2.5V alloy is way more expensive. By volume, say a 1" Diam. bar, the aluminum is significantly lighter than titanium. As far as "springyness" the titanium alloy would probably be "springier" than 4130 but not nearly as "springy" as one of the good spring steels, such as 5160 alloy (quenched and tempered properly). Having worked quite alot with titanium alloys, I would say that it is not the perfect material for landing gear. That is taking into account the factors that titanium alloy is very expensive, quite limited in the shapes of raw material available and a considerable pain in the ass to machine. Just not as good a choice as some of the alternatives :) My personal feeling is that a well designed spring steel gear leg would be just about unbeatable by other metals and perhaps outperfomed only by a well designed composite leg. (if weight is listed as a very important consideration and cost disregarded) (As a side note, the most common titanium material available is "CP" or "commercially pure" this material takes a set or bend very easily and would not be any good for gear legs. Only some of titanium alloys would be suitable for gear legs, such as 3AL-2.5V or 6AL-4V) In regards to the tapered leg discussion: >I am pretty sure we dont want the wheels moving significantly for and aft so to >have the gear be stiffer in that direction is a good thing. That would seem on the face of the issue to make sense, but if we consider that during taxi on unimproved fields, the wheel is liable to strike rocks, dips, or other obstructions, some fore and aft give really is desirable to prevent that very solid shock to the cage and socket that might result in some damage. A true taper might not be the best compromise of horizontal/vertical stiffness, but I think that some give is a good thing and the round taper is the least expensive to machine for the aluminum legs. Most likely the new spring steel gear legs will be (if well designed) the best performing, most practical gear legs available. :) :) dave ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re:Titanium
My personal feeling is that a well designed spring > steel gear leg would be just about unbeatable by other metals and perhaps > outperfomed only by a well designed composite leg. > That would seem on the face of the issue to make sense, but if we consider > that during taxi on unimproved fields, the wheel is liable to strike rocks, > dips, or other obstructions, some fore and aft give really is desirable to > prevent that very solid shock to the cage and socket that might result in > some damage. > dave Thanks Dave: You make a lot of sense, especially since I am an advocate of heat treated 4130 gear legs. In the archives should be a lot of my experience with 4130 heat treated gear legs for the Kolb Firestar and MK III. I have been banging these "el cheapo" gear legs around for 13 years. I haven't gone back to reread what I wrote in the past, but all the info to include size and Rockwell number (which is 48) should be included. Brother Jim and I experimented with gear legs til we got the right combination of material, heat treating, and how it should be fitted to the fuselage, i.e., gear legs should be shoved all the way up the gear leg socket until it bottoms out where the two sockets are welded together. That will spread the load of the gear leg out through the socket and fuselage. Not in shear at the midpoint and weakest point of the gear leg socket. How did we come up with this? In the beginning we pushed the gear leg about halfway in the socket like the factory did it. During a forced landing on Grand Island, NY, summer of 1988, I found out this was bad. I landed about 10 feet too high, sheared the left gear leg socket and took out the tube cluster around that socket. Heat treat (Rockwell) numbers are right. They are good hard springs, yet will bend 90 degrees in a super hard landing without breaking. I tested this on the MK III. Landed about 30 feet too high during the second engine out in about 15 minutes. No fuselage damage, but the left landing gear socket struts (mine are different from stock MK III) collapsed. Right was OK. Both gear legs bent 90 degrees. The gear legs and tailwheel strut (also 4130 heat treated) have been on the airplane since 1994, have many, many landings (talking about 1,000s) (cow pastures, river gravel bars, rough Alaskan and Canadian gravel strips, chest high weed fields, Alaskan bush, ruts, bumps, hard landings, etc., during the last 1145.8 flight hours. The have worn out one 912 and ready to wear out the new 912S. I have less than $100 in the gear legs and tail wheel strut. Biggest cost is heat treating. You can heat treat 100 legs for the same price as two. Must also make up axle and gear leg plugs for the MK III and axle and gear leg sockets for Firestar. I cut the gear legs for the original Firestar 35.5 inches, shoved all the way up the socket. Worked perfect. Still have those gear legs for a possibly new original Firestar someday. There is no landing gear designed for pilots that can not land an airplane. We must learn to do halfway decent landings, like I try to do most of the time, yet have a system that is a little forgiving when we screw up. But when I land a 600 plus lb airplane 30 feet high, there ain't no gear for that. The 800X6 golf cart tires (4 ply) with tubes take a tremendous amount of punishment and a lot of load and stress off the gear legs and airframe. I like my fat tires that looked extremely small when viewed next to a Super Cub in Dead Horse, Alaska, with "super duper" "for real" tundra tires. john h ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WGeorge737(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Subject: Prop clearance Mk-3
I am considering removing the 2" inch spacer between the Powerfin and gear box flange. This would reduce prop clearance from the flap arms, fuselage tail fairing from the existing 4 inches to two. Curious as to what kind of clearances are out there. The Powerfin doesn't flex much at the tips, around 1/8th or so, but of course I don't want to lop off any important parts ;-) Bill G ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Subject: Many thanks!
From: Bruce E Harrison <bharrison(at)juno.com>
Listers: Congratulations on the great advice concerning the issue of 1 versus 2 carburetors on a Rotax 503. I especially appreciated the hard facts on climb power, fuel burn, and so on. You've been a tremendous help. Bruce ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Subject: Re: Wing fold bracket tube
From: Bruce E Harrison <bharrison(at)juno.com>
Fellas: Please take and offer some photos of what you are working on. It sounds like a good concept, but I am having trouble visualizing it. Lying on the ground to slip the pins in to hold the wings securely gets real old, real fast. writes: > > > Sounds even better. On consideration, a slot might cause a stress > point, > and a later crack. I've already drilled the hole through the tube, > so the > bolt would work fine. Lar. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Spence, Steve <Steve.E.Spence(at)usdoj.gov> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 6:43 AM > Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Wing fold bracket tube > > > > > > > Again, that's is how I have mine. A hole is drilled through boom > tube, > just ahead of vert. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)epix.net>
Subject: Ivo vs Warp
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Ian, It is a no-brainer - Get the Warp! Ivo's are superb for the slower aircraft, but for the faster aircraft, SlingShot and faster, the Warp is the only way to go. You will be giving up 5-10 mph with the Ivo on the SlingShot. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ian Heritch Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 8:36 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Ivo vs Warp I know this subject has been beaten to death but I would like to limit this discussion to the Rotax 912 on a Slingshot. I am ready to place the order with New Kolb for the 912 engine package. The New Kolb 912 package includes a 3 blade Ivo as the standard propeller. The "old" Kolb 912 engine package included the 3 blade Warp as the standard propeller. I would like to know if one is preferable over the other. The "old" Kolb Slingshot brochure states "For the Slingshot, the 3 blade Warp is the best all around selection". Opinions are appreciated. Ian Heritch ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Flykolb(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Subject: Re: Ivo vs Warp
Dennis What prop do you suggest for the Mark III and do you favor a two or three blade? Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)epix.net>
Subject: Ivo vs Warp
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Depends upon which engine and what gear box ratio you are considering. Let me know and I'll get back to you. -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Flykolb(at)aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 8:31 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ivo vs Warp Dennis What prop do you suggest for the Mark III and do you favor a two or three blade? Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2000
From: wood <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: Questions
> >The next question is about the prop, the people with wooden props say you >can't beet a wooden prop for performance. The people with IVO props say >there are less maintenance and take abuse better. Any thoughts are welcomed. > If you have a wood prop use it. I flew one for years and did very little maintenance on it. Not near as much bother as I have read is required on the list. >My last question is regarding the Poly Fiber covering system. Some people >are telling me that I can use the chemical UV protection, instead of the >poly spray. The Poly Fiber manual just says it doesn't work as well. Does >any one have any facts or examples on this matter. I do plan on keeping my >airplane indoors except the many hours of fling I plan on doing. Lets say you match John Hauke and get about 2000 hrs on your aircraft. That is equal to about 6 months of tying it outside in the sun. I tied down a fabric covered ultralight protected only with house paint for 8 years and the fabric was still strong when I scrapped the whole plane. New fabrics are not near as susseptible to uv as the old linen covered machines 30 years ago. I do not think the UV barriers are needed with new fabrics and indoor storage. Just my opinion. Woody ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Brain Kim Steiner" <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca>
Subject: Re: Ivo vs Warp
Date: Feb 08, 2000
HI Dennis: A dealer advised me to change my 3 / 1 gears in my C drive to 2.62 / 1 gears for better take off performance. I fly a Mark 111, 582, 66 inch three blade Warp drive. I have completed the change and find very little improvement in performance. Do you have any other suggestions. I need all the take off thrust that is available from my 582. I fly with wheel-skis, two people, and deep snow. Kim Steiner Saskatchewan, Canada > > Depends upon which engine and what gear box ratio you are considering. Let > me know and I'll get back to you. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Keeboman2(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Subject: Re: Ivo vs Warp
Tim, Why dont u wait till the snow melts 1"? Keebo Dallas ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Prop clearance Mk-3
Date: Feb 08, 2000
On a related question recently, several people told me that reducing clearance would increase prop noise. Apparently 4" or more is an optimum. 2" was said to be noisy. Hope 2nd hand info helps. Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: <WGeorge737(at)aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 4:26 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Prop clearance Mk-3 > > I am considering removing the 2" inch spacer between the Powerfin and gear > box flange. This would reduce prop clearance from the flap arms, fuselage > tail fairing from the existing 4 inches to two. Curious as to what kind of > clearances are out there. The Powerfin doesn't flex much at the tips, around > 1/8th or so, but of course I don't want to lop off any important parts ;-) > > Bill G > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re:Titanium
Date: Feb 08, 2000
Well John, I sure hate to sound dumb and all, but now it's me having the trouble visualizing. I can see a 4130 tube that's a good fit up into the socket OK, but what wall thickness ?? Or do you shim a thinner tube to fit the socket ?? Now, with a tube that fits the socket, how do you adapt it to fit the wheel end, which is tapered down so much ?? Taper the steel leg ?? Full length ?? Or weld on an adapter at the bottom ?? If you have a close up picture, it'd sure help. Thanks. Dense Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 1:56 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re:Titanium , but all the info to include size and Rockwell number > (which is 48) should be included. > > Brother Jim and I experimented with gear legs til we got the > right combination of material, heat treating, and how it > should be fitted to the fuselage, i.e., gear legs should be > shoved all the way up the gear leg socket until it bottoms > out where the two sockets are welded together. That will > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2000
From: Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net>
Subject: Jabiru
Kolb Flyers: Finally got some good weather and the rpms right on the Jabiru. In a light wind I indicated 95mph at 3270 rpm and my gps said ground speed was 85. Best run I had at the time. At 3290rpms and indicating 60mph I was showing 900 feet per minute in a climb. Didn't try any at a lower speed as I was runing out of daylight. At 2600 rpms I would indicate 70 mph, gps showed about 61mph and the engine purred. The 80hp gave a lot of p-factor and with the addition of a 13inch piece of aluminum on the rudder, about 1.3 inches wide( second try) its now flying straight and the takeoffs are a lot less wild. The two blade warp drive,58", moves that Kolb like a scared cat on takeoff, or is that a kangaroo? I'm learning to push the throttle forward at a slower pace so I'm ready when the plane takes off. That piece of rudder trim is ugly. What else could be used that looks a little better? I don't have a pretty plane, but it flys nice and needs all the looks it can get. With the 582 in an hours flight I would use almost half of the ten gallons, with the Jabiru, I'm using about one third of the ten gallons, just by eyeballing the tanks. "Will be able to measure better when I get my fueling situation worked out better. Speed control seems to be much smoother, especially on the landings. I like that. Still got some things to work out and expect it to get better. The engine starts very easy, even in the 30 degree range after setting in the barn for a week. More later. Dallas Shepherd Norfork, Ar. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2000
From: Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:Titanium
Dave and all, I would agree with Topher on the idea of wanting greater stiffness in the fore-aft direction. Hitting a bump would still be absorbed by the up-down component simply allowing the wheel to move up or down past the bump. Cars don't allow fore-aft springs, not even off-road types. Granted, it may also be necessary to strengthen the cage socket in the fore-aft direction, or a simple way of doing this is JHauck's method of pushing the gear legs all the way up. (I also know this from direct experience, as the left gear leg on my FS struck something when my plane blew over, and bent/creased the cage tube right in the center where the gear leg ends -- blech!) Another subtle benefit of reducing fore-aft freedom is in the wheel shimmy department. I feel sure that the standard issue "grabby" brakes set up a fore-aft shimmy of the whole gear leg when the brake grabs just a little bit at each revolution of the wheel (non-concentric or low spot on the drum). At least that was what I experienced, and from my read, the same for others as well. I think tempered steel legs might be good, but they will weigh a bit more than spring AL. I'm of the opinion that composite legs should be relatively easy to design and make, but probably too expensive and hard to quality control for a standard kit item. Maybe somebody ought to dangle this iea in front of Stuart at PowerFin. They know composites and have the equipment to do this in an economic, repeatable fashion. Oh, and I'm also assuming something like the prop, where there is a metal hub that goes right inside the existing cage tube. -Ben Ransom > That would seem on the face of the issue to make sense, but if we > consider > that during taxi on unimproved fields, the wheel is liable to strike > rocks, > dips, or other obstructions, some fore and aft give really is > desirable to > prevent that very solid shock to the cage and socket that might > result in > some damage. A true taper might not be the best compromise of ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2000
From: David Bruner <brunerd(at)hvi.net>
Subject: Re:Titanium
>The 800X6 golf cart tires (4 ply) with tubes take a >tremendous amount of punishment and a lot of load and stress >off the gear legs and airframe. I like my fat tires that >looked extremely small when viewed next to a Super Cub in >Dead Horse, Alaska, with "super duper" "for real" tundra >tires. > john h - can you give me more info on your tires: brand and your favorite vendor? I had Carlisle 15x600x6 on a Mk II that were replaced when the sidewalls showed cracks. What I got from A/C Spruce was the same size 4ply certified tires by AirTrac and they weigh 3x as much. They're very stiff, so I lower the pressure to allow a bit of softness, but then they spin on the rims so that the valve stems look like they're about to be sheared off. On the other hand, I'm now based on a paved runway so I need something tougher than wheelbarrow tires. TIA, david bruner ________________________________________________________________________________
From: gerken(at)us.ibm.com
Date: Feb 09, 2000
Subject: Re: Kim "Brain" Steiner, deep snow performance
>A dealer advised me to change my 3 / 1 gears in my C drive to 2.62 / 1 >gears for better take off performance. I fly a Mark 111, 582, 66 inch three >blade Warp drive. I have completed the change and find very little >improvement in performance. Do you have any other suggestions. I need all >the take off thrust that is available from my 582. I fly with wheel-skis, >two people, and deep snow. >Kim Steiner >Saskatchewan, Canada Kim, what is your static RPM setting now? The higher you allow this setting, the more static thrust you will get. Set it at the max Rotax allows. For example, if I compare the performance of my 582 with "C" box and 2.62:1, 3-blade 66" Powerfin, at 6200rpm and 6500rpm static, the climb rate is about 25% better with the higher RPM (that's flatter pitch in prop of course). Fine adjustments here make big differences in climb and top speed. The higher the static RPM setting, the faster you will accelerate on the ground, thru the snow. Top speed is reduced a bit by doing this, but maybe in the deep snowy winter you aren't going on a long cross-country anyway. You may not want it set this way all year 'round, and you will have to be alert to overspeeding once at cruise altitude. Let us know how it works out, if you choose to try. PS, have you checked your tach lately? This is critical. A couple hundred RPM will make a big difference. Now would be a good time to verify its operation, before you set the pitch to the assumed redline. Who knows, maybe your tach reads high, indicates 6250, and you're Static is really only set at 5900 or something. You wouldn't be the first with this problem. Just a hint... Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: gerken(at)us.ibm.com
Date: Feb 09, 2000
Subject: Re: Composite gear legs?
>I think tempered steel legs might be good, but they will weigh a bit >more than spring AL. I'm of the opinion that composite legs should be >relatively easy to design and make, but probably too expensive and hard >to quality control for a standard kit item. Maybe somebody ought to >dangle this iea in front of Stuart at PowerFin. They know composites >and have the equipment to do this in an economic, repeatable fashion. >Oh, and I'm also assuming something like the prop, where there is a >metal hub that goes right inside the existing cage tube. >-Ben Ransom I was about ready to box up an old bent leg and some photos to send to Stuart when I stopped and thought about it Ben. Steel is the right choice. Composites fail by delaminating and fibers ripping, which is catastrophic. Aluminum creeps over time. Steel will never creep or take a set if not loaded beyond its capability. I want my gear to fail gradually, and bend under extreme pressure, not break off. I do agree that the fore-and-aft bending is undesirable. I think it adds to the bending force. Think about it, when it starts to bend backwards, the wheel starts to drag sideways, which increases the forces trying to bend the gear leg. And another thing, over time these legs sag, messing up the toe-in, which causes them to experience more bending forces, even on a good landing. I think the best gear leg of all would be machined of 4130, and it would be tapered for vertical deflection only, so could be aerodynamic shaped, and could also be tapered INSIDE the cage tube, to allow more deflection. It would also probably be a hollow tube. That sounds pretty fancy and tough to machine/forge/whatever. this issue used to be more important to me but I've gone a whole season without a bent leg so right now I have other broken stuff to worry about. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Kim "Brain" Steiner, deep snow performance
Date: Feb 09, 2000
A long while back, I mentioned Tom Margraves trick. He was unhappy with the protractor method of pitching his prop, and tried using a digital level. He says there is no comparison. The digital showed errors in the most careful protractor pitching, and also, vibration was less, since all blades were exactly the same. Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> allows. For example, if I compare the performance of my 582 with "C" box > and 2.62:1, 3-blade 66" Powerfin, at 6200rpm and 6500rpm static, the climb > rate is about 25% better with the higher RPM (that's flatter pitch in prop > of course). Fine adjustments here make big differences in climb and top > speed. The higher the static RPM setting, the faster you will accelerate ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re:Titanium
Ben and Kolbers: As you can tell I am a 4130 heat treated gear leg advocate. Let me address some of your comments. > Granted, it may also be necessary to strengthen the cage socket in the > fore-aft direction, or a simple way of doing this is JHauck's method of > pushing the gear legs all the way up. (I also know this from direct > experience, as the left gear leg on my FS struck something when my > plane blew over, and bent/creased the cage tube right in the center > where the gear leg ends -- blech!) No need to strengthen "the cage socket". Plans call for using only the first part of the socket. If you push the leg all the way in you will use all the socket which has proven to be strong enough. > > Another subtle benefit of reducing fore-aft freedom is in the wheel > shimmy department. No problem with wheel shimmy with steel legs. > > I think tempered steel legs might be good, but they will weigh a bit > more than spring AL. We compared weights of MK III legs and steel legs in 1991. They are about equal. Aluminum legs are solid. Steel gear legs are tubes. john h ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re:Titanium
> john h - can you give me more info on your tires: brand and your favorite > vendor? David and Gang: I use Armstrong, I think. Local purchase from tire dealer in Montgomery, Al. Also get tubes from same dealer. Can not remember how much I paid, but was inexpensive compared to LEAF and other vendors who sell the same tire. Most of the time I run 8 psi. Last time I was down at Mike Highsmith's in Panama City Beach, Florida, I made several landings on the beach in dry sugar sand with this same set up with no problems. john h PS: If you can not find them locally let me know. I'll check with Jerry Higgins Tires in Montgomery and have some sent your way, if you wish to. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re:Titanium
> Well John, I sure hate to sound dumb and all, but now it's me having the > trouble visualizing. Lar and Kolbers: I can empathize with you. Let me see if I can explain without photo. Would be nice to have a digital camera. For the Original Firestar: 4130 1 1/8 OD X 1.20 Wall X 35 1/2" long Now you have to make up axle with 7/8 OD socket welded to it, which slides up inside the bottom end of the gear leg. During the alignment process this is clamped and drilled. Top end slides all the way in the gear leg socket in the airframe until it butts against the end of the socket. Heat treat to 48 Rockwell (only after all drilling has been accomplished in the attachment and alignment process) ***************************************** OK. For the Firestar and my set up on my MK III this is how I do it. With the exception I use 22" legs of the very same material on my MK III that weighs over 600 lbs. Same material for Original Firestar that weighed 300 lbs. Both worked and are working great. Only problem I can see with the standard MK III is the flat angle the legs are positioned tend to put more side load on the legs. However, if I had a standard MK III I am sure I would have experimented with these 4130 legs long ago. This set up is simple, uses straight tubing, no machining involved, cheap, durable yet very springy and strong and resilient. One weld on the axle and socket, plus drill some holes when aligning, then have the leg heat treated. No need to heat treat axle, but I guess you can. I do remember bending the axles on my Firestar from hard landings, but was simple to straighten by putting a piece of water pipe over the axle with a block under it, stand on water pipe (aprx 5 or 6 feet long) to achieve desired bend in axle. Heat treating axle and socket may prevent this bending. BTW, I had to really work at bending the axles with hard landings. :-) Hope that helped explain a little better. If not, tell me and I will draw a "pitchure", scan and send to you bc. john h ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Brain Kim Steiner" <steiner(at)spreda.sk.ca>
Subject: Re: Brian "Kim" Steiner, deep snow performance
Date: Feb 09, 2000
> Kim, what is your static RPM setting now? The higher you allow this > setting, the more static thrust you will get. Set it at the max Rotax > allows. For example, if I compare the performance of my 582 with "C" box > and 2.62:1, 3-blade 66" Powerfin, at 6200rpm and 6500rpm static, the climb > rate is about 25% better with the higher RPM (that's flatter pitch in prop > of course). Fine adjustments here make big differences in climb and top > speed. The higher the static RPM setting, the faster you will accelerate > on the ground, thru the snow. Top speed is reduced a bit by doing this, > but maybe in the deep snowy winter you aren't going on a long cross-country > anyway. You may not want it set this way all year 'round, and you will > have to be alert to overspeeding once at cruise altitude. Let us know how > it works out, if you choose to try. > > PS, have you checked your tach lately? This is critical. A couple hundred > RPM will make a big difference. Now would be a good time to verify its > operation, before you set the pitch to the assumed redline. Who knows, > maybe your tach reads high, indicates 6250, and you're Static is really > only set at 5900 or something. You wouldn't be the first with this > problem. Just a hint... > > Jim I have set my prop pitch a number of times and get the best thrust when my static (tied up on the ground) rpm is 6,400 - 6,500. Maximum airborne rpm is 6,700 - 6,800 rpm. I should check my tach as it has been about 9 years since I checked it. I will have to do the old fluorescent light trick some night just outside my shop. I have phoned Warp drive and asked them if there would be any gain in performance if I purchased a two blade hub and converted my three blade prop to a two blade. They said that I would not get better take off performance but my cruise speed would increase and I would have a bit more prop noise. I have a heated cockpit, "Sears" heated car seat, and electric insoles and I make numerous substantial flights in the winter. Last Sunday I flew 60 miles north up to a lake, landed on the ice, talked to a number of ice fishermen, flew to another lake and then home. It was about a 150 mile round trip. Winter has the best flying days as landing sites are everywhere enhancing safety. Our area is covered with dense grain fields in the summer that do not provide friendly landing sites in the event of a power failure. Kim Steiner Saskatchewan, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2000
From: bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net>
Subject: Re: Prop clearance Mk-3
While I don't have a Mk 3, Dennis told me that the 4 inch spacer was on my FireFly to reduce noise. bn ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2000
From: Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net>
Subject: jabiru
Russ no oil cooler on this 2200. Don't know if I need one? Dallas ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Batt contactor
Hi Bob, I notice on your wiring schematics the inclusion of a diode between the large + and small terminals on the contactor. What is the reason for this and what type of diode is it. John, The solenoid coil that provides a force to close the contactor is an "inductive" load capable of storing electrical energy. The energy is dumped back into the system in the form of a high voltage spike when the switch that controls the contactor is opened. You'll see a diode across the coil terminals of all contactors in our diagrams. Take a peek at the photograph on our website at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s701-1l.jpg This shows how we install the diode on contactors we sell that do not have them built in. The intermittant duty starter contactors we sell have this diode built in. Just about any diode rectifier will work. 1N4000 series devices are electrically capable of doing the job. The diode you see in my photo is a 1N5400 series device selected because it's mechanically more robust. Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2000
From: Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Composite gear legs?
I guess I'd probably go along with you Jim on wanting to avoid catastrophic failure of composite legs. However, one thing that hasn't been stated in this thread, is that I think the standard design w/ AL legs has moved away from the original thought at Kolb, which was to have the legs bend or break before the cage, saving the really nasty repairs required for cage breaks. Kolb fliers have wanted the stronger gear legs, but I think we all better think how many cages have been saved by those bent AL legs. So, perhaps steel wins, because it won't take on a permanent bend as easily, is cheap, and can be shoved all the way up the socket (as could a longer AL leg). However, long ago on this thread I did a quick estimation of the weight diff between JH's 4130 tube legs and the standard spring AL tapered rods. The 4130 was slightly heavier. 4130 legs joins the list of nicities beyond FAR103, and since I have never had the problem of bent legs, I wasn't interested in changing. Remember, an original 447-FS used to be buildable at 254 lbs. By now, a FS with brakes, steel legs, a few goodies, is *way* fat, but capping the weight gains with a 503 (to pull all the other extra weight), is also a more robust airplane, albeit w/ faster landing speed. For those who bow to the weight gods, I still think it would be interesting to see what the weight and performance of composite legs would look like. Catastrophic leg failure could be designed for only extraordinarily rude landings (i.e. short of cage damage). The result would be rebuilding a wing tip plus the normal well-deserved humility. I just think it is worth considering anything for possible weight improvement. -Ben Ransom --- gerken(at)us.ibm.com wrote: > I was about ready to box up an old bent leg and some photos to send > to > Stuart when I stopped and thought about it Ben. Steel is the right > choice. > Composites fail by delaminating and fibers ripping, which is > catastrophic. > Aluminum creeps over time. Steel will never creep or take a set if > not > loaded beyond its capability. I want my gear to fail gradually, and > bend > under extreme pressure, not break off. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <quick503(at)aisp.net>
Subject: Stuff for sale
Date: Feb 09, 2000
Well, if you want to make a small fortune in aviation .......... start off with a large fortune. I didn't have a large fortune to start off with so all I have now is a lot of bills and some parts to sell. Anyone who has ever had a small business die a premature death knows how sad it can be, but ....... anyway here a list of the things I have for sale. I will consider almost any offer. Email me at quick503(at)aisp.net or call me @ (337) 365-3214. The only thing I won't part with is my MK III ! 1. Powerfin 3 blade prop, 65", 'B' blades. Less than 10 hrs use. I had it on my Quicksilver Sport II with a 503 and 3:1. Great prop! I kept it when I sold the airplane a few months ago. $395.00 2. Warp Drive 3 blade 66" with nickel leading edge Right turning tractor. Came off of a Kit Fox with a Rotax 532. Excellent condition. $375.00 3. New Warp Drive blade with nickel leading edge. Never used. 70" right turning pusher. $75.00 4. 3 1/4" VDO tach for point ignition. Very good condition. 2 5/8" hole. $ 40.00 5. Westach single EGT, new, 2 1/4 square. With threaded probe $50.00, without probe $40.00. 6. Single CHT, 2 1/4 square, used. Good condition. $30.00 with probe, $25.00 without probe. 7. Towable Rotax Engine Test Stand. First Class design. Comes with Powerfin 3 blade prop and extra 2 blade hub. About 90% complete. A steal at $1800.00. Email me for pictures. 8. Rotax 532 wit exhaust. Came off of a Kit Fox. Appears to be in very good condition. Owner said it was very low hours. Takes a prov 4 'B' box. $750.00 9. Sky-West David 620 V-Twin 4-stroke. 60 hp @ 6500 rpm. Bent intake valve but the rest is good. Less than 5 hrs. Uses stock Honda 620 parts. Includes Honda Manual. $250.00 or BO. 10. Warner Electric Linear Actuator. Used on amphib retract on my MK III. 12DC, 250 lb load. $75.00 11. 12V Stewart Warner fuel pump. $20.00 12. Mercury carb synchronizer sold by Bing. $30.00 13. Muffler assay p.n. 973-191 for 377-503. Very good condition. $125.00. 14.TEGAM Model 819 Digital Microprocessor Thermometer for Type K, J, and T thermocouples. Never used. Very accurate. Handheld and battery powered. Quit guessing if your CHT and Egt are accurate! $200.00 15. Shimpo DT-205B Hand held digital Tachometer. Battery operated, computer-circuitry-controlled, both contact and non-contact. Used 3 times. Very accurate and sturdy. Why guess if your tach is accurate? $200.00. 16. Rotax 503 single ignition, single carb for parts only. Has electronic ignition. Crank is bad and the intake flanges are damaged. Make Offer! Please let me know if any of this interest anyone. Cheers, Mike ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2000
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Subject: Re: Composite gear legs?
Ben & Gang, Every composite gear I've ever seen was heavier than our metal gears by a long shot. Maybe some exotic material like carbon fiber would be different, but the traditional fiberglass layups or fiberglass rods can't compete. ...Richard Swiderski Ben Ransom wrote: > > I guess I'd probably go along with you Jim on wanting to avoid > catastrophic failure of composite legs. However, one thing that hasn't > been stated in this thread, is that I think the standard design w/ AL > legs has moved away from the original thought at Kolb, which was to > have the legs bend or break before the cage, saving the really nasty > repairs required for cage breaks. Kolb fliers have wanted the stronger > gear legs, but I think we all better think how many cages have been > saved by those bent AL legs. > > So, perhaps steel wins, because it won't take on a permanent bend as > easily, is cheap, and can be shoved all the way up the socket (as could > a longer AL leg). However, long ago on this thread I did a quick > estimation of the weight diff between JH's 4130 tube legs and the > standard spring AL tapered rods. The 4130 was slightly heavier. 4130 > legs joins the list of nicities beyond FAR103, and since I have never > had the problem of bent legs, I wasn't interested in changing. > Remember, an original 447-FS used to be buildable at 254 lbs. By now, > a FS with brakes, steel legs, a few goodies, is *way* fat, but capping > the weight gains with a 503 (to pull all the other extra weight), is > also a more robust airplane, albeit w/ faster landing speed. > > For those who bow to the weight gods, I still think it would be > interesting to see what the weight and performance of composite legs > would look like. Catastrophic leg failure could be designed for only > extraordinarily rude landings (i.e. short of cage damage). The result > would be rebuilding a wing tip plus the normal well-deserved humility. > I just think it is worth considering anything for possible weight > improvement. > -Ben Ransom > > --- gerken(at)us.ibm.com wrote: > > I was about ready to box up an old bent leg and some photos to send > > to > > Stuart when I stopped and thought about it Ben. Steel is the right > > choice. > > Composites fail by delaminating and fibers ripping, which is > > catastrophic. > > Aluminum creeps over time. Steel will never creep or take a set if > > not > > loaded beyond its capability. I want my gear to fail gradually, and > > bend > > under extreme pressure, not break off. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2000
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
Date: Feb 09, 2000
Subject: gear legs
Kolb people, Steel, composites, and titanium are great ideas to strengthen the gear legs, but using these materials (in my humble opinion) will send the forces of those harder landings further up the chain eventually taking its toll on the cage, lift struts, and worst of all, the main spar. The aluminum gear legs are fine for a single seater and I've had mine for many years. The key to keeping them from bending is to practice making smooth landings. The AL gear legs will do just that. Ralph Original FireStar writes: > >However, one thing that hasn't been stated in this thread, is that I think >the standard design w/AL legs has moved away from the original thought >at Kolb, which was to have the legs bend or break before the cage, >saving the really nasty repairs required for cage breaks. Kolb fliers have >wanted the stronger gear legs, but I think we all better think how many >cages have been saved by those bent AL legs. > -Ben Ransom ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bil Ragsdale" <bilrags(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: gear legs
Date: Feb 09, 2000
I own am almost finished repairing Mk III sn 213. It was dropped in from , I was told, about 40 feet. It has solid 4130 gear legs. The left leg was bent upward so that it was horizontal compared to the fuselage. The cage was bent slightly where the nose skid was attached. The left "V" tube is bent so slightly that I can't tell it by eyeballing it. I sent the gear out to be straightened. When I reinstalled it it went in smoothly until it was about 4 inches from proper insertion depth. It went the rest of the way with a little twisting and shoving. It didn't take much force though. It appears the cage is a lot stronger than you might think. I believe the tubular 4130 legs are a viable alternative to the aluminum gear. I don't recommend legs like mine because the are too heavy since they are solid. Thanks, Bil =============== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: gear legs
Date: Feb 09, 2000
Well, I dunno guys. The point is well made about the Al legs bending and saving the cage, but as I understand John, the longer steel legs are very resilient as well, and will deform farther, soaking up more shock, without permanently bending. On heavy impact, the steel would probably bend too, and on Massive Impact, I think I personally would WANT the cage to bend, before Precious Me gets permanently deformed. I may be interpreting things wrong, but the longer steel legs sound to me like having your cake and eating it too. The longer legs will also give more angle of attack on the ground, which might just be nice for us power freaks. Yes, I know they're heavier. Ultralight planes probably don't need them, and for Mk III's the extra 1 or 2 pounds just may be well spent. Big Lar. ( With His Neck Stuck Waaaaayy Out There. ) ----- Original Message ----- From: <ul15rhb(at)juno.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 6:28 PM Subject: Kolb-List: gear legs > > Kolb people, > > Steel, composites, and titanium are great ideas to strengthen the gear > legs, but using these materials (in my humble opinion) will send the > forces of those harder landings further up the chain eventually taking ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Web page update
Date: Feb 10, 2000
Thought I'd let the list know that I have updated my web page. http://jrcasey.home.mindspring.com/home.htm or direct to the new stuff... http://jrcasey.home.mindspring.com/progress.htm Any comments , good or bad , would be appreciated. If you see something you think is a bad idea let me know (off list if you want to flame too bad...) Thanks, Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Clarify seats
Date: Feb 10, 2000
Just to clarify something...One person has asked about the seats I mounted in my Mark 3. I didn't make something clear , the SEATS were bought from RANS but the RAILS were custom machined and custom fitted. There was about 10 hours of playing with expensive toys to make them. The right rail under the left seat has to be clearanced about 4 inches right down the bottom to clear the tube that the throttle mounts to. If they were made out of 4130 the rail could have just been bent around the tube and not had to do all the clearancing. I think they could be made easier and maybe a little lighter out of 4130 tubes but I didn't have access to a welder at the time but I did have access to a machine shop... If your thinking about diong it yourself , then I suggest one thing....sit down before you call RANS's parts department. They (like everything else from RANS) ain't cheap!!! The frames , plates , quick pull pins , covers , foam , and everything was a tad shy of $300. That was about $75 more than a good set of fiberglass dune buggy seats with slip on covers and I decided the $75 bucks was justifyable with the added adjustment and ease of removal and all. The seats will come out in about 3 seconds with the pull of 2 pins. So if yuo were inclined you could put a aluminum pan under the right seat and whenever you were going to travel alone just remove the right seat for instant room (duffel bag , Playmate cooler , etc.) and just bungee it down. Thought I'd clarify that... Jeremy "through with add-ons ready to build the actual airplane now" Casey jrcasey(at)mindspring.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: aquila33(at)webtv.net (dann mann)
Date: Feb 10, 2000
Subject: Re: Clarify seats
Speaking of fiberglass dune bugg seats with slip on covers I have a seat and cover that I would like to sell for $45 plus shipping They are used but in good condition. The seat is a flat bottom low back type and the cover is a vinyl padded light brown slip fit. Pretty nice Thanks Dan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Thompson, Charles" <todd.thompson(at)dsl.net>
Subject: Re: Composite gear legs?
Date: Feb 10, 2000
Here's my thought on ALuminum legs: Use them for the first 50 hours of flying unltil you done stalling out a Kolb while in the learning mode. After you have enough experience move to the steel legs if you like. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Composite gear legs?
"Thompson, Charles" wrote: > Here's my thought on ALuminum legs: Use them for the first 50 hours of > flying unltil you done stalling out a Kolb while in the learning mode. > After you have enough experience move to the steel legs if you like. Charles and Kolbers: I am speaking only from my own comparison of alum and steel gear, no scientific data. 4130 in its normalized condition is very stiff, bends a little and returns to original shape, then bends a little more and stays bent. Now heat treat the same 4130 to 48 Rockwell and it becomes very flexible, more so than the 7075 Alum rods. The heat treated 4130 tube legs are easier on the fuselage than the alum legs. Heck, you can feel the difference as soon as you taxi out on my rough grass strip. Both the alum and steel gear are designed to land on, not crash on. The steel works for me, even through some severe landings/semi-controlled crashes. ;-) john h ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 10, 2000
Subject: Re: tire sealant
In a message dated 2/8/00 12:32:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, bilrags(at)earthlink.net writes: << Anybody use or recommend some kind of sealant to prevent thorns from creating air leaks? Any problems with corrosion of the wheel halves? >> We have lots of Sand Spurs but I don't have a problem because I use 4 ply tires with tubes. Howard Shackleford FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2000
From: Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Composite gear legs?
> Now heat treat the same 4130 to 48 Rockwell and it becomes > very flexible, more so than the 7075 Alum rods. The heat > treated 4130 tube legs are easier on the fuselage than the > alum legs. Heck, you can feel the difference as soon as you > taxi out on my rough grass strip. > Yeah, i know this is maybe getting beat to death, but just so you all don't think it is going to waste, I am now convinced to go with 4130. John (among others) has stated the positives, and one more above, that being greater springiness, better feel than the AL. I also feel it must be a great advantage to have the legs go all the way up the cage sleeves, perhaps sparing future cage damage. I will re-calc what the weight diff is when I get closer to that part of my (re)construction, but because I like to land in the sticks, I'll accept a couple pounds to save my teeth and cage a little rattling. Gotta say "holy cow" or something about that report (Bill) of solid(?!!) steel legs?? HOLY COW! I'm out on this one. (i think i hear a cheer going up somewhere) -Ben ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Artdog1512(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 11, 2000
Subject: Re: Landing Gear
In a message dated 2/11/00 10:49:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net writes: << Well Sports Fans, it turns out that "Sue" is from TNK, and the new steel landing gear legs are ready for sale. Good Deal. When I bust my stock ones, that's the way I will go. Big Lar. >> steel? is that band steel? aka - Piper Tomahawk ? ................ tim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: gerken(at)us.ibm.com
Date: Feb 11, 2000
Subject: Re: Pressure gauge to monitor coolant pressure
Lindy asked what gauge I recommended. This is the easiest thing you'll ever add to your instrument collection, and you'll wonder how you ever got along without it after that. Maybe 30 bucks and an hour's time invested to allow you to monitor your cooling system better. Coolant Pressure gauge: I have used two different hard-line gauges, both from McMaster-Carr catalog. My second one is the best one, and is liquid filled, stainless case, grade A gauge, in 1.5" dial, 0-30 psi. I am looking at McMaster catalog number 105, page 417, right in the middle of the page, the part number is 3850K2 specify 0-30 psi. This gauge costs $23.64. You can plumb it with 1/4" fuel line from the parts store (it must be braided so it holds pressure), and you will have to tap it into a 1/4" nipple somewhere. There you are on your own, but there are lots of choices on the 582. I did not take up valuable instrument panel space for this gauge, since I only refer to it occasionally. Just put it in sight. If it is going to be too far away, buy the 2.5" dial size instead, it will be easier to read if over four feet away from your eyes. 2.5" dial size is p/n 4053K1, $21.34 Go to www.mcmaster.com and if you see the left-hand side of the screen there is a space to enter a product, type in the part number I gave you above and then hit "FIND" with your mouse, it will take you to a picture and description. You can order it right from there, if you want. You must specify the pressure range, I reccommend 0-30, instead of a 0-15 which may eventually fatigue from running at the top of its range all day long. McMaster sells to anyone, but won't send you a catalog unless you're a company. Their catalog is fantastic, everything in the world in there, over 3000 pages. The liquid-filled gauges are filled with a gellatin-like stuff, and this somewhat damps the mechanism from vibration damage. You should also do what you can to isolate it from vibe when you mount it, for longest life. I used and adel clamp around the 1/4" hose, right next to the hose clamp, to secure mine, and added some self-adhesive foam stuff behind the gauge body to keep it from vibrating against the floor. Simple, get at it. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 11, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Landing Gear
> Shizzam!!! PHewwwwey, DAMN who prices this stuff? $340 for a pair of steel > legs? Charles and gang: The factory heat treated gear legs are pretty sophisticated. I do not know a lot about them, except just looking at them. They appear to be machinist intensive, tapered solid rod with axle and brake attachment all in one piece. The brake attachment is probably added to the assembly. If prices seem too steep, why not talk to the folks at Kolb and let them explain why. I should do the same for Rotax parts. I still have to scratch my head when a company wants $25.00 for a $2.50 oil filter. john h ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Keeboman2(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 11, 2000
Subject: Re: Landing Gear
I paid almost $200.00 a piece for my Rans S-12 gear legs, $340.00 sound pretty good to me! Keebo Dallas ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 11, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Landing Gear
Keebo, Doesn't Rans use straight tube gear legs on the S-12? I can't remember. john h > I paid almost $200.00 a piece for my Rans S-12 gear legs, $340.00 sound > pretty good to me! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)epix.net>
Subject: Ivo vs Warp
Date: Feb 11, 2000
Hi Kim, The only thing that would help would be to change the gears (again!) to the 3.47:1 ratio and install a 72" (probably Warp) propeller. On Kolb's Mark-III this did make more power than the 66" prop. I don't understand the reasoning that suggested the 2.62 vs. the 3:1 ratio. At 3:1 you could have probably installed a 72" propeller (tip speeds would be a little high, but it would still make more power). At 2.62:1 a 72" prop is out of the question. To install a 72" prop you would need to raise the engine 3". Like I said Kolb had done this and the power increase was noticeable. Hope this help Dennis -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brain Kim Steiner Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 9:48 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Ivo vs Warp HI Dennis: A dealer advised me to change my 3 / 1 gears in my C drive to 2.62 / 1 gears for better take off performance. I fly a Mark 111, 582, 66 inch three blade Warp drive. I have completed the change and find very little improvement in performance. Do you have any other suggestions. I need all the take off thrust that is available from my 582. I fly with wheel-skis, two people, and deep snow. Kim Steiner Saskatchewan, Canada > > Depends upon which engine and what gear box ratio you are considering. Let > me know and I'll get back to you. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dean Halstead" <deanbo(at)calweb.com>
Subject: Alternate Construction Method
Date: Feb 08, 2000
I'm in the process of building a MK-III. I have noted that some refer to an alternate method of attaching the rudder, stabilizer and aileron ribs to the trailing edge tubing of the above. My manual's revision date is March 1998. I haven't been able to find any reference to an "Alternate Method" even though this appears to be a more eloquent method of assembly. Does anyone know why Kolb would have dropped or discouraged this type of construction in its more recent publication of the MK-III manual? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: Alternate Construction Method
I suspect it tends to make the trailing edge of the control surfaces a little heavier, and that is not good. I made the trailing edge of the rudder heavier by putting the nav light back there, (bad mistake) and had to end up making a rudder counterbalance to stop rudder flutter. I used one of the alternate methods of attaching the ribs to the trailing edge, (curved tube method) and I think that (combined with the weight of the adjustable trim tab) is what is causing my right aileron to start to nibble at fluttering when I get up to around 90 MPH. Got my new aileron counterbalances from TNK yesterday, so will soon be busy retrofitting and balancing. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) > >I'm in the process of building a MK-III. I have noted that some refer to an >alternate method of attaching the rudder, stabilizer and aileron ribs to the >trailing edge tubing of the above. > >My manual's revision date is March 1998. I haven't been able to find any >reference to an "Alternate Method" even though this appears to be a more >eloquent method of assembly. Does anyone know why Kolb would have dropped >or discouraged this type of construction in its more recent publication of >the MK-III manual? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Landing Gear
Date: Feb 11, 2000
And thanks for that. It's appreciated. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis Souder <flykolb(at)epix.net> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 2:35 PM Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Landing Gear > manufacture it. I am surprised that they can do all that for $340. Of > course I am assuming New Kolb is doing it the way Old Kolb did. I am just > assuming this is the case, but they may have changed it too. Call TNK for > more details. > > BTW. I am not associated with TNK in any way. I am not paid for my time. > I am not sponsored in any way. Just in case anyone thought there might be > something in this for me. There is nothing in it for me - I am just trying > to be helpful from time to time with information that may not be easy to > come by. > > Dennis > > > -----Original Message----- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TCowan1917(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 12, 2000
Subject: Re: kolb legs
Hey, the legs may cost $340 bucks but look at it a different way. That is only about 230 gals of gas. I use that much a month during that summers and I dont have anything at all to show for it except worn out tires and maybe a picture or two. If you think it is too much, make your own. Makes me sick some time, businessmen who charge $100 to $200 bucks and hour bitch about a man making $20 an hour. Sorry. You either can afford it or you go without. If you go without, you will be asking a person usually making far less than you to bail you out of a field where you tweeked your legs and cant fly out. Where is the justice in that. If you really need to bitch, someone should look at the Rotax prices. G'day Ted ________________________________________________________________________________
From: aquila33(at)webtv.net (dann mann)
Date: Feb 12, 2000
Subject: Re: kolb legs
I'll second the gripe about Rotax prices. I have a damn fine Porsche 944 in my driveway that cost me about exactly what a new 503 dcdi is going for these days. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <quick503(at)aisp.net>
Subject: Stuff for sale
Date: Feb 12, 2000
I have 3 new tail wheels from Kolb that fit on a MK III. Also 2 tail wheel assemblies ( the steel tube part ) very slightly rusted. Any offers? Cheers, Mike ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Watson" <djwatson(at)olg.com>
Subject: Re: Stuff for sale
Date: Feb 12, 2000
Hey Mike, Will one of those tail wheels fit my Original Firestar?? Dennis ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike <quick503(at)aisp.net> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 9:37 AM Subject: Kolb-List: Stuff for sale > > I have 3 new tail wheels from Kolb that fit on a MK III. Also 2 tail wheel > assemblies ( the steel tube part ) very slightly rusted. Any offers? > Cheers, Mike > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <quick503(at)aisp.net>
Subject: Re: Stuff for sale
Date: Feb 12, 2000
----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis Watson <djwatson(at)olg.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 9:52 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Stuff for sale > > Hey Mike, > Will one of those tail wheels fit my Original Firestar?? > Dennis > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mike <quick503(at)aisp.net> > To: > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 9:37 AM > Subject: Kolb-List: Stuff for sale > > > > > > I have 3 new tail wheels from Kolb that fit on a MK III. Also 2 tail wheel > > assemblies ( the steel tube part ) very slightly rusted. Any offers? > > Cheers, Mike > > Now that I don't know. But I'm sure that someone on the list does. If not I'll call TNK Monday and ask. Cheers, Mike ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2000
From: wood <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: Other new items for M III
Hey Lar Seems like you are getting down on this whole buiding experience. Don't worry it will all be over soon and you will enjoy the freedom of flight. It may be hard to imagine but there are some guys like me who enjoy building more than flying. Perhaps it is because I simplify things as much as possible. I do not need to incorporate the fad of the day design changes into my machine or have the latest electronic widget. The basic kit and design is more than adequate for anything I will ever want to do with it. I am into ultralights for the simplicity. Relax a bit and it will all work out in the end. I have bent gear and replaced it, no big deal, all part of the learning curve. I use the skinny tail wheel on grass all the time with out problem. Sometimes if I don't calculate right I have to stop the engine and turn the plane around by hand but not often enough to make a big design change or purchase. Dennis and Homer did a fine job on the mk111, a lot of the improvements talked about are not needed and based on imaginary problems. If you let that interfere with the building process you will never finish. This is my opinion and part of my belief in the principles of K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) Good luck Lar. You will look back at this and laugh some day. Woody I've got >well over $25,000.00 in this awful thing, ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ballenger" <ballenger(at)gateway.net>
Subject: Mark III Power Plants
Date: Feb 12, 2000
Hello Fellow Kolbers, I currently have a Firestar KXP 447 that I really enjoy flying. I am thinking about purchasing a MK3 kit in the next year. I think I want to have a four cycle engine due to better fuel consumption and piece of mind which brings me to my questions for this group. What do you think about the Geo Metro engine with a Raven reduction drive kit attached? Would it be comparable to the Rotax 582 in performance? Any thoughts will be appreciated. Jim Virginia Beach Firestar KXP 447 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 12, 2000
Subject: Re: Mark III Power Plants
In a message dated 2/12/00 11:43:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, ballenger(at)gateway.net writes: << What do you think about the Geo Metro engine with a Raven reduction drive kit attached? Would it be >> Also check out the following site: b2engines(at)b2engines.com Howard Shackleford FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ballenger" <ballenger(at)gateway.net>
Subject: Re: Mark III Power Plants
Date: Feb 12, 2000
Howard, Thanks for the tip on the web site. It looks interesting. I'll keep an eye on it and see what the flight test prove out. Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: <HShack(at)aol.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 12:23 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Mark III Power Plants > > In a message dated 2/12/00 11:43:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, > ballenger(at)gateway.net writes: > > << What do you think about the Geo > Metro engine with a Raven reduction drive kit attached? Would it be >> > Also check out the following site: b2engines(at)b2engines.com > > Howard Shackleford > FS I > SC > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Re: Firestar II Power Plants
Date: Feb 12, 2000
has anyone looked into the Zanzottera engines. they make the following claims for their MZ 202 MZ 202 & MZ 202i - Technical Information Name MZ202 @ MZ202i Type Twin cylinder in-line two stroke engine Cooling By propeller or fan system Rotation Anticlockwise direction seen from power side Displacement 626 c.c. Stroke 69mm Bore 76mm Starter Electric Generator 180 Watt @ 350W (202i) Ignition Double electronic @ Inductive with program(202i) Fuel metering 2 carburetors @ Indirect injection(202i) Lubrication Unleaded and oil 2% Reduction ratio 1:2.11 - 1:2.55 - 1:2.88 - 1:3.11 - 1:3.66 Hp 65Hp-6250 rpm. Weight 39 Kg (88 lbs.) inc. reduction,electric starter, battery,muffler anyone heard of anybody flying one of these? I know they fly on a lot of trikes in europe. if these specs are accurate it is around the cost of a 503 with electric start, lighter, and 13 more HP. with the fuel injection option it will be another bunch of money but fuel flows are a fair bit better. getting closer to engine purchase time Topher ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Other new items for M III
Date: Feb 12, 2000
Kinda proves there's 2 types of us doesn't it. I enjoyed the building for the most part, tho' I have to admit I didn't realize quite what I was getting into. Slowly working on the fabric, but with relatives visiting, and so on, it's a long haul. I do know it'll be done one day, and yes, I will look back on it with pleasure, and probably a few shakes of the head. Thanks for the good words. Lar. Do not Archive. ----- Original Message ----- From: wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 8:29 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Other new items for M III > > > Hey Lar > Seems like you are getting down on this whole buiding experience. Don't > worry it will all be over soon and you will enjoy the freedom of flight. It > may be hard to imagine but there are some guys like me who enjoy building > more than flying. Perhaps it is because I simplify things as much as > possible. I do not need to incorporate the fad of the day design changes > into my machine or have the latest electronic widget. The basic kit and > design is more than adequate for anything I will ever want to do with it. I > am into ultralights for the simplicity. Relax a bit and it will all work out > in the end. I have bent gear and replaced it, no big deal, all part of the > learning curve. I use the skinny tail wheel on grass all the time with out > problem. Sometimes if I don't calculate right I have to stop the engine and > turn the plane around by hand but not often enough to make a big design > change or purchase. Dennis and Homer did a fine job on the mk111, a lot of > the improvements talked about are not needed and based on imaginary > problems. If you let that interfere with the building process you will never > finish. This is my opinion and part of my belief in the principles of > K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) > Good luck Lar. You will look back at this and laugh some day. > > Woody > > > I've got > >well over $25,000.00 in this awful thing, > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Wiring Question
>I am planning to install Aeroflash nav/strobes, Duckworth landing lights, >and a Gretz heated pitot tube in the wings. Is there an accepted method >for attaching to the frame for the ground return. In other words, should I >do something like drilling and tapping a #4 or#6 screw to the spar and >attach the ground wires to that? Would suggest #8 is smallest and #10 is better. Use PIDG terminal with appropriate hole for the wire you're going to ground. Buff area of contact between terminal and airframe with VERY fine sandpaper. Fasten to the airframe and tighten a #8 screw to 15 in-lb. The reason you want #8 or bigger is that the smaller screws don't have enough "meat" in their cores to force a gas tight joint between the airframe and the mating surface of the terminal. Ground failures are almost always traceable to inadequate mate up force when the joint was fabricated. Moisture gets into space between terminal and airframe . . . they ARE dissimilar metals after all. Add the ravages of time and electron flow and eventually the joint fails. Get it tight enough the first time and it will still be good the day your airplane gets scrapped. Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com>
Subject: Tail whells M3
Date: Feb 12, 2000
I an always use a spare one--how much-how do I get you the money-and how are you going to ship? Lindy La-Lower Alabama ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Keeboman2(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 12, 2000
Subject: Rans legs
John Tapered, heavy duty, quality. But too damm much. The originals where straight garbage, they improved and made it much better. Keebo Dallas ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2000
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Subject: Re: Mark III Power Plants
Jim, I think that little geo engine is one of the best kept secrets. Its reliable, light, sips fuel, easy to work on & get parts for. There are some exciting aftermarket accessories comming out, you can get them turbocharged (80-100hp). Beat of all, Raven has a redrive designed specifically for the Mklll or SlingShot. Also, Jeron at Raven is a very honest & down to earth guy who will always find the time to talk to you. The naturally aspirated Geo puts out 60hp which is a little less than the 582 but it puts out a lot more torque over a very broad range. The 582 will edge out the Geo in climbout, but the Geo will provide a higher cruise. I have a turbocharged version about 70% complete but I had to shelf it for the time being. Hopfully this summer I'll be able toget back on it. Its going on a SlingShot. I got waylayed by an enclosed trailer project & a some honey-do's. ....Some day I'll fly again Richard Swiderski ballenger wrote: > > Hello Fellow Kolbers, > I currently have a Firestar KXP 447 that I really enjoy flying. I am > thinking about purchasing a MK3 kit in the next year. I think I want to have > a four cycle engine due to better fuel consumption and piece of mind which > brings me to my questions for this group. What do you think about the Geo > Metro engine with a Raven reduction drive kit attached? Would it be > comparable to the Rotax 582 in performance? Any thoughts will be > appreciated. > Jim > Virginia Beach > Firestar KXP 447 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2000
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Subject: Re: Mark III Power Plants
Jim, I forgot to add to my previouss post, there's a guy just north of me who is flying a 3 cyl Geo with a Raven redrive. He uses it for UL instruction & flys the tar out of it. Its going on 500 hrs & he's does nothing put put gas in it & grin. He was parked next to Raven Redrive at Sun&Fun last year & will probably will be again this April. ...Richard ballenger wrote: > > Hello Fellow Kolbers, > I currently have a Firestar KXP 447 that I really enjoy flying. I am > thinking about purchasing a MK3 kit in the next year. I think I want to have > a four cycle engine due to better fuel consumption and piece of mind which > brings me to my questions for this group. What do you think about the Geo > Metro engine with a Raven reduction drive kit attached? Would it be > comparable to the Rotax 582 in performance? Any thoughts will be > appreciated. > Jim > Virginia Beach > Firestar KXP 447 > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 13, 2000
Subject: Re: Mark III Power Plants
In a message dated 2/12/00 11:20:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, swidersk(at)digital.net writes: << Jim, I think that little geo engine is one of the best kept secrets >> Jim, I did some research on the Raven Redrive on the Geo & was close to putting one on my Firestar I but the all-up weight [150 lbs] was just too much. You would have to find a '93 or early '94 engine and probably rebuild it; parts for this engine are expensive. The Redrive kit with dry sump and muffler will set you back about $3k. The plusses? You've got a four stroke that is fuel injected and sips fuel at about 2.5 gal per hr. and sounds like a miniature P-51. Should be dependable. Several of these are flying and I have heard that you will be seeing some soon doing trans-continental flights and such. I wanted a new engine [not rebuilt] and found the following prices from Chevrolet: Short block 2,000 Cylinder head [bare] 495 Long block is not available. You would still have to buy valves, camshaft,etc. Prices are same that a mechanic would pay. You pays your money & you takes your chances. Howard Shackleford FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 13, 2000
Subject: Re: Want to Buy-Firestar I
My friend, Chuck would like to buy a fresh, low time, good looking, well built Firestar I/II with a 503 DCDI that is flying and within 500 miles of SC. Has cash, will travel. He's a big ol' guy at 6'4 and 280 pounds so if your plane has anything to help accomodate him that's a plus. Email me with your name , phone #, and price; if deal sounds good I'll have him contact you. Howard Shackleford FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Alternate Construction Method
Date: Feb 13, 2000
Just a little food for thought..............I've had a 3 in 1 bender for years, and used it a lot, especially on the plane. It's a simple and rugged tool, and there's many places where it does a nicer job easier, with less stress and hassle. They're fairly spendy - A/C Spruce lists it as P/N 368-FH, for $36.75 in their '97-'98 catalog, page 402. I submit that it's well worth the price, and you won't regret it if you bite the bullet and order one. You could also try an A/C or refrigeration shop or supplier, or ditto plumbing. As for the alternate rib method, I did mine the old way, rivetted to the top of the trailing edges. Wish now that I'd done them the new way, even if a little heavier. It would give a smoother trailing edge, which to me would mean a better airfoil. Also neater and easier to cover. ( Ha, you guys knew I'd get THAT in there didn't you ?? ) Don't want to start a war, just my opinion. Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dean Halstead <deanbo(at)calweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 2:00 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Alternate Construction Method > > Richard, thank you for your input. The thought that the alternate method of > construction would place too much weight at the back of the airfoil did > cross my mind. > > Since I don't have a tube bender and can't locate one without ordering it, I > will likely use the standard construction method. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ballenger" <ballenger(at)gateway.net>
Subject: Re: Mark III Power Plants
Date: Feb 13, 2000
Richard, Thanks for your reply. I'd be most interested in hearing about the performance when you get it on your Slingshot. Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard" <swidersk(at)digital.net> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 11:16 PM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Mark III Power Plants > > Jim, > I think that little geo engine is one of the best kept secrets. Its > reliable, light, sips fuel, easy to work on & get parts for. There are some > exciting aftermarket accessories comming out, you can get them turbocharged > (80-100hp). Beat of all, Raven has a redrive designed specifically for the > Mklll or SlingShot. Also, Jeron at Raven is a very honest & down to earth guy > who will always find the time to talk to you. > The naturally aspirated Geo puts out 60hp which is a little less than the > 582 but it puts out a lot more torque over a very broad range. The 582 will > edge out the Geo in climbout, but the Geo will provide a higher cruise. > I have a turbocharged version about 70% complete but I had to shelf it for > the time being. Hopfully this summer I'll be able toget back on it. Its going > on a SlingShot. I got waylayed by an enclosed trailer project & a some > honey-do's. > ....Some day I'll fly again Richard Swiderski > > ballenger wrote: > > > > > Hello Fellow Kolbers, > > I currently have a Firestar KXP 447 that I really enjoy flying. I am > > thinking about purchasing a MK3 kit in the next year. I think I want to have > > a four cycle engine due to better fuel consumption and piece of mind which > > brings me to my questions for this group. What do you think about the Geo > > Metro engine with a Raven reduction drive kit attached? Would it be > > comparable to the Rotax 582 in performance? Any thoughts will be > > appreciated. > > Jim > > Virginia Beach > > Firestar KXP 447 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ballenger" <ballenger(at)gateway.net>
Subject: Re: Mark III Power Plants
Date: Feb 13, 2000
Howard, Great feedback. I do thank you for the information. If I can find a reliable 4 stroke such as the Geo for a reasonable amount of money and have a high confidence in performance, I might be tempted to install one. All of this is preliminary research as to the feasibility of an alternate power plant. Thanks again Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: <HShack(at)aol.com> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2000 12:01 AM Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Mark III Power Plants > > In a message dated 2/12/00 11:20:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, > swidersk(at)digital.net writes: > > << Jim, > I think that little geo engine is one of the best kept secrets >> > Jim, I did some research on the Raven Redrive on the Geo & was close to > putting one on my Firestar I but the all-up weight [150 lbs] was just too > much. > > You would have to find a '93 or early '94 engine and probably rebuild it; > parts for this engine are expensive. The Redrive kit with dry sump and > muffler will set you back about $3k. > > The plusses? You've got a four stroke that is fuel injected and sips fuel at > about 2.5 gal per hr. and sounds like a miniature P-51. Should be > dependable. Several of these are flying and I have heard that you will be > seeing some soon doing trans-continental flights and such. > > I wanted a new engine [not rebuilt] and found the following prices from > Chevrolet: > Short block 2,000 > Cylinder head [bare] 495 > Long block is not available. You would still have to buy valves, > camshaft,etc. Prices are same that a mechanic would pay. > > You pays your money & you takes your chances. > > Howard Shackleford > FS I > SC > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lawrence Dorn" <ldorn(at)sinclair.net>
Subject: Re: Firestar II Power Plants
Date: Feb 11, 2000
sound just like a hirth 2706 but the 2706 has a 250W generator. Lawrence Silverdale, Wa Fuel injected 2706 on the way! www.recpower.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher John Armstrong <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 1232 Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firestar II Power Plants > > has anyone looked into the Zanzottera engines. they make the following > claims for their MZ 202 > > MZ 202 & MZ 202i - Technical Information > > Name MZ202 @ MZ202i > Type Twin cylinder in-line two stroke engine > Cooling By propeller or fan system > Rotation Anticlockwise direction seen from power side > Displacement 626 c.c. > Stroke 69mm > Bore 76mm > Starter Electric > Generator 180 Watt @ 350W (202i) > Ignition Double electronic @ Inductive with program(202i) > Fuel metering 2 carburetors @ Indirect injection(202i) > Lubrication Unleaded and oil 2% > Reduction ratio 1:2.11 - 1:2.55 - 1:2.88 - 1:3.11 - 1:3.66 > Hp 65Hp-6250 rpm. > Weight 39 Kg (88 lbs.) inc. reduction,electric starter, battery,muffler > > anyone heard of anybody flying one of these? I know they fly on a lot of > trikes in europe. if these specs are accurate it is around the cost of a > 503 with electric start, lighter, and 13 more HP. with the fuel injection > option it will be another bunch of money but fuel flows are a fair bit > better. > > getting closer to engine purchase time > > Topher > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2000
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)execpc.com>
Subject: My absence and ice flying.
Hi guys! John Jung here. I'm still reading the list in the "digest mode". I used to be able to read and respond several times a day, because I was at a computer most of the day at work. But last April I took early retirement at 52 years old. Also, my current airplane project is a MiniMax, and it doesn't pertain to the list. But, I am still flying my Firestar II 503 (not as often in the winter). But yesterday our local ultralight club had a fly-in on a frozen lake. The temperature was 25 and the winds were 10-15. About 15 planes showed up and a lot more people drove there. It was really good to fly and also to visit with my flying friends. Let me tell you about the flying: I was more fun than usual because it was the second time that I flew since October. Plus the performance of the plane was amazing in 25 degree air. A 503 Firestar has great performance in the summer. It has to be seen (or felt) to be believed in the winter. Imagine flying 10 feet over a frozen lake a 100 mph. Yes, I am including a tail wind, but that is the speed that I felt. On my way home from the fly-in, I landed on three more lakes. We currently have only about 2" of snow, so I could do this without skiis. And talk about skiis. Would you believe that a 6X6 tire can be used as ski? When I turned on the runway for takeoff (where I hanger), I used my left heal brake for steering. It didn't work because the tire just slid. So I gave the rudder a blast of power to align the plane. Then I started my takeoff run on the 400 foot runway. The plane didn't accelerate normally so I glanced at the left wheel and it was sliding on the snow. I concidered aborting the takeoff, but the plane was already getting light. It lifted off in 200 feet with one wheel not turning. The brake was stuck. On my way to the fly-in, I thought about landing on ice with only one wheel turning. I figured that I might need more control than that, so I did a touch-and-go at an airport on the way. Problem solved. I'm looking forward to warmer weather, so that I can fly more frequently. John Jung Firestar II N6163J Wisconsin http://www.execpc.com/~jrjung/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
Date: Feb 13, 2000
Subject: in-flight mixture adjust
Guys, I attended Flight Expo in Minneapolis yesterday and Mike Jacober was the guest speaker at an all-day ultralight forum. If any of you have heard him speak, he is very interesting and knowledgeable about 2-cycle engines. In one of his seminars he talked about having over 3000 hours on one of his Rotax engines. His claim in this is the in-flight mixture control that he developed for the Rotax carb. It consists of a brass screw, with a cable attached, that is soldered to the jet needle and screws into the bottom of the carb slide. By turning the screw via the cable, the jet needle moves up or down thereby adjusting the mixture. It seems like a very ingenious way to control the mixture from the cockpit and keep the engine running at its peak. On a day to day basis, summer to winter, the mixture will never be optimal using fixed jetting, but with his setup it appears to increase the longevity of the engine. Is there anyone in the group who has the Jacober mixture control on their carburetor and/or what have you experienced with the setup? Comments please ...... Ralph Original FireStar ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 13, 2000
Subject: Re: Composite gear legs?
In a message dated 2/10/00 10:56:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes: << The heat treated 4130 tube legs are easier on the fuselage than the alum legs. Heck, you can feel the difference as soon as you taxi out on my rough grass strip. Both the alum and steel gear are designed to land on, not crash on. The steel works for me, even through some severe landings/semi-controlled crashes. ;-) john h >> John....please take us out of our misery and make these puppies for us and we will buy them from you ..... GeoR38, Driver of By George, the Firestar with 5 sets of bent aluminum legs since 1992 .... then we won't have to keep guessing on this alchemist business....thanks for going into business!! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lindy" <lindy(at)snowhill.com>
Subject: Rotax 582 Grease
Date: Feb 13, 2000
The grease used inside the Rotax is---Dow Corning 44,High Temp Bearing grease,light consistency,range --40c to 204C, Manufactured by Dow Corning Corp, Midland, MI 48686-0994, Phone (517) 496-6000 Bar Code on Box 77472 13063 I bought mine from Lockwood $19.95 for the tube(Inside the Box,approx. 150g. Common stuff-I found it all over the place here in this aviation community. I paid too much! Lindy LA-Lower Alabama ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DC8man2(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 13, 2000
Subject: Re: My absence and ice flying.
Hi Pal; Read this. Bet you would like to land on a frozen lake too. Say, where is my E-mail? You know I will get ya ifin you don't write soon. Cold and gray up here. Miss you. Mom tells me your Science grade is dropping to a D. Pick it up for me pal. Ask for the work and make it up if you can Dan. Thanks. Love Dad ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Sharp" <mlsharp_1(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: pre covering inspection
Date: Feb 13, 2000
folks, The EAA tech counselor from Corpus was out yesterday. Looked the mark III over real good, said i had good workmanship, he noted that i should cover the rib ends with anti-chaff tape.. also several places on the tail etc.... I noticed on several members web sites that it didn't look like there was tape in the areas that he mentioned.. How much do i need to tape? do i need to get some emry cloth the smooth out the tubes?? i filed them all down pretty smooth and rounded the ends... would like toknow before i start........ also, unpacked my poly fibre stuff and I don't have any poly spray.. Is that an adder that i need to call jim and dondi about???? later mike ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: pre covering inspection
Date: Feb 13, 2000
Yup, call them and have your card ready. Kit only goes to Poly Brush. Big Lar. ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Sharp <mlsharp_1(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2000 1:05 PM Subject: Kolb-List: pre covering inspection > > > folks, > > The EAA tech counselor from Corpus was out yesterday. Looked the mark III > over real good, said i had good workmanship, he noted that i should cover > the rib ends with anti-chaff tape.. also several places on the tail etc.... > I noticed on several members web sites that it didn't look like there was > tape in the areas that he mentioned.. > > How much do i need to tape? do i need to get some emry cloth the smooth out > the tubes?? i filed them all down pretty smooth and rounded the ends... > > would like toknow before i start........ > > also, unpacked my poly fibre stuff and I don't have any poly spray.. Is > that an adder that i need to call jim and dondi about???? > > later > mike > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <larrybiglar(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: pre covering inspection
Date: Feb 13, 2000
This might be the blind leading the blind Mike, but I polished the ends, then put a short piece of tape over them. Weighs nothing, can't hurt, will probably help, and looks slightly better. Putting the finishing tape on is a bitch either way. Whaddoo I know ?? Instant Expert Lar. P.S. Know the definition of an expert ?? An ex- is a has been, and a spurt is a little drip under pressure. Do not Archive. ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Sharp <mlsharp_1(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2000 1:05 PM Subject: Kolb-List: pre covering inspection > > > How much do i need to tape? do i need to get some emry cloth the smooth out > the tubes?? i filed them all down pretty smooth and rounded the ends... > > would like toknow before i start........ > mike > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: re: What's a PIDG terminal
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: Grant Corriveau > >> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> >... >> Would suggest #8 is smallest and #10 is better. Use PIDG terminal >> with appropriate hole for the wire you're going to ground. >> Buff area of contact between terminal and airframe with VERY > >... What is a PIDG terminal? That's an acronym for PreInsulated Diamon Grip, an AMP, Incorporated trade name. When I speak of PIDG style terminals, I'm talking about the better grade of terminal with the metal liners inside the plastic insulation grips. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ggleiter(at)minn.net
Date: Feb 13, 2000
Subject: Re: pre covering inspection
Michael Sharp wrote: > > > folks, > > The EAA tech counselor from Corpus was out yesterday. Looked the mark III > over real good, said i had good workmanship, he noted that i should cover > the rib ends with anti-chaff tape.. also several places on the tail etc.... > I noticed on several members web sites that it didn't look like there was > tape in the areas that he mentioned.. > > How much do i need to tape? do i need to get some emry cloth the smooth out > the tubes?? i filed them all down pretty smooth and rounded the ends... > > would like toknow before i start........ > > also, unpacked my poly fibre stuff and I don't have any poly spray.. Is > that an adder that i need to call jim and dondi about???? > > later > mike PolySpray is the "silver" coat. After the brush coat of PolyBrush and the sprayed coat of PolyBrush, on then applies the desired number of sprayed coats of PolySpray. This is then followed by the color coats of PolyTone. Be sure and get a PolyFiber manual and read throroughly before starting covering. Also recommend the Stits video. gil leiter MAPLEWOOD, MN ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2000
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: RE: Wiring Question
>Thank you for your reply. Is it permissible to put more than one PIDG >terminal under a grounding screw? Or perhaps several wires crimped in one >terminal? Yes and Yes . . . you can stack perhaps up to half dozen terminals on a stud. No problems from an electrical perspective but take care lest you stack multiple critical systems on the same stud which becomes single point of failure for all. You can fill up the wire grip volume of a terminal with more than one strand of wire. For example, a red PIDG terminal will accept two 22AWG wires. A blue PIDG will take three 22AWG wires or two 20AWG wires. Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( The only time you don't fail is the last ) ( time you try something, and it works. ) ( One fails forward toward success. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 13, 2000
Subject: Re: My absence and ice flying.
In a message dated 2/13/00 10:26:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, skipnann(at)earthlink.net writes: << John, I guess that there are some advantages to living in Florida. Yesterday I flew my 'lil UltraStar (where you sit completely out in the open) wearing jeans and a "T" shirt. It was quite comfortable as the temps were in the high 70F range. :-)) Skip >> Skip....just stop it!.....I'm in Ohio and I can't warm up either....but I just came back from a month stint at " the Villages" just below Ocala and couldn't find any ultralighters even to talk to...yeh the Fla Gators are 25 miles south and I did spend an hour there but ...that is a little too far......anyone out there know of some UL'rs near Lady Lake? GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RPayne1865(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 13, 2000
Subject: Re: 4130 gear legs
Dear Kolbers A friend of mine bought a firestar with 337 and I just bought a kxp 503 this winter. I have been monitoring the kolb list. Anyway we were noticing that both of our kolbs had aluminum landing gear and both had bent landing gear. We took them out of the sockets and the sockets were bent also. To make a long story short we ordered the 4130 tubing, had it heat treated to RC 48. I took mine out yesterday with the new gear on it and beat it around on the ground in the rough ice and snow and they seem to work great. I'll keep ya posted. Thanks to everyone for the tips Rodney ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: pre covering inspection
then applies the desired number of > sprayed coats of PolySpray. This is then followed by the color coats of > PolyTone. > gil leiter Gil and Kolbers: If you want "purty" colors on your airplane, spray the polyspray with a coat or two of white. This lets the true colors come out, rather than the mottled, ugly colors as the result of the silver overiding the true colors of the polytone or aerothane. john h ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2000
From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: 4130 gear legs
To make a long story > short we ordered the 4130 tubing, had it heat treated to RC 48. I took mine > out yesterday with the new gear on it and beat it around on the ground in the > rough ice and snow and they seem to work great. Rodney Rodney and Kolbers: No kidding? ;-) john h ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2000
From: Bil Ragsdale <bilrags(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Weight and balance
Did the weight and balance today. My weight and balance calculations come up with an empty weight of 488 pounds. I can't figure how to measure the pilots cg from the datum sitting in the seat. It is only listed in the Kolb manual as the distance "p". Everything else is straight forward and like any other airship I've ever weighed. Anybody got any ideas for the distance "p"? Cranked the engine up for the first time today. The EIS is not calibrated correctly for RPM and I got no indication of EGT or CHT. I was afraid to pull any power with it without temps showing. That Hirth sure sounds good though. Thought sure I'd be ready to fly today, but....... Always new problems to overcome. Maybe next weekend. Bil Kolb Mk III sn 213 The millennium bug ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2000
From: Richard <swidersk(at)digital.net>
Subject: Re: My absence and ice flying.
GeoR38, Ocala is just a hop, skip & a jump north of you. Give me a call sometime, I'd like to meet a fellow Kolber. ...Richard Swiderski, 352-622-4064 GeoR38(at)aol.com wrote: .. yeh the Fla Gators are 25miles south and I did spend an hour there but ...that is a little toofar......anyone out there know of some UL'rs near Lady Lake? > GeoR38 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: Weight and balance
In the Tony Bingelis books, he says you figure the CG of a pilot at the belly button. So sit in the airplane, get somebody to stand alongside and figure out what the datum line of your belly button is, and you're good to go! Richard Pike MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) > >Did the weight and balance today. My weight and balance calculations >come up with an empty weight of 488 pounds. I can't figure how to >measure the pilots cg from the datum sitting in the seat. It is only >listed in the Kolb manual as the distance "p". Everything else is >straight forward and like any other airship I've ever weighed. Anybody >got any ideas for the distance "p"? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2000
From: Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com>
Subject: Re: in-flight mixture adjust
We had one of the guys in our chapter put it on his Rotax 447, and absolutely loved it. He said he could put the temps right where he wanted them, and said it run smooth as silk. Unfortunately he died last week of a heart attack, so we are now trying to help his family dispose of a gorgeous Fisher FP303. This is the yellow and white one with a sliding canopy that was in the Fisher advertisements for several years. If anybody is interested, contact me off list. Richard Pike rpike(at)preferred.com MKIII N420P (42OldPoops) > >Guys, >Is there anyone in the group who has the Jacober mixture control on their >carburetor and/or what have you experienced with the setup? > >Comments please ...... > >Ralph >Original FireStar


January 22, 2000 - February 14, 2000

Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-bx