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> |
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
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)
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Herb Gearheart <herbgh(at)nctc.com> |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>
>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> |
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> |
-----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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
does anyone on the list have a direct email address for
bruce chestnut?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Coggins, Josh, NNO" <joshcoggins(at)att.com> |
Subject: | RE: Introduction |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
>
> 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)
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard Neilsen " <NeilsenR(at)state.mi.us> |
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 |
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 |
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> |
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)
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
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> |
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.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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)
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
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 |
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?
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 ....
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dell Vinal <zoper(at)mint.net> |
Thanks for the control tower insights on radar and transponders. Do
not archive.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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)
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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 |
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> |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
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.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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) |
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> |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Steven S. Green" <GREENSS(at)Bowater.com> |
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)
________________________________________________________________________________
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)
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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 |
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> |
Transmitting in the clear-4 previous rejects
Lindy
LA
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WGeorge737(at)aol.com |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
. 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) |
>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> |
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
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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) |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
[] 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> |
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 |
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
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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 |
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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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: | 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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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. ......
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
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 |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Eugene H Zimmerman <tehz(at)redrose.net> |
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 |
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mike Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
>
>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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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 |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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 |
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.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bil Ragsdale <bilrags(at)earthlink.net> |
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 |
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> |
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 |
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 |
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> |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Pike <rpike(at)preferred.com> |
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
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
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Richard Neilsen " <NeilsenR(at)state.mi.us> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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
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> |
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 |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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 |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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> |
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) |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | wood <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
>
>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> |
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 |
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 |
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> |
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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net> |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | David Bruner <brunerd(at)hvi.net> |
>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 |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> 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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> 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 |
> 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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dallas Shepherd <cen23954(at)centuryinter.net> |
Russ
no oil cooler on this 2200. Don't know if I need one?
Dallas
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
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> |
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> |
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> |
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> |
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) |
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? |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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 |
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: | 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 |
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 |
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) |
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> |
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 |
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 |
----- 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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
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,
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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 |
John
Tapered, heavy duty, quality. But too damm much. The originals where straight
garbage, they improved and made it much better.
Keebo
Dallas
________________________________________________________________________________
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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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"?
________________________________________________________________________________
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