Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-df

October 25, 2001 - November 08, 2001



      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 25, 2001
Subject: Re: Cavuontop legal stuff
In a message dated 10/25/01 10:22:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, PVolum(at)etsmiami.com writes: > Mark, How about this for a possible solution then? > > 1: Form a corporation (which you can do for about $50.00) > 2: Sell an airplane under the corporation name. > 3: Dissolve the company. > Would that do the trick? > Sorry. A corporation is nor supposed to be the initial registrant of a homebuilt experimental plane. Only individuals. A corporation can buy an experimental plane from an individual, but only individuals are supposed to qualify from the exemption from the certification rules. Remember, we are supposed to be doing this for our "recreation and education." Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 25, 2001
From: b young <byoung(at)brigham.net>
Subject: Re: antenna length
CAW wrote: > pertaining to the diapole antenna does it make any > difference of the > length of the coax overall > thanks > tony webster > > NO and yes in the legnts that we are using it makes so small a diference that it is nothing to worry about for example if you were to use 100 ft then 1/2 of your signal (depending on coax type ) would be attinuated ( converted to heat, used up, wasted ) inside the coax. it seams that my coax was about 5 or 6 ft. the loss in that amount of coax is so small that it is not a factor. to say that is has to be 48" or 72" or 93" or some number, not so just cut off what you need to get from the radio to the antenna location and you have just the corect amount. boyd ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 25, 2001
Subject: Re: RE: Kolb-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 10/24/01
Topher: I enjoyed your rant. I talk to people like you at parties all the time. Everyone else has your four ideas. I'll address them in order. But first let me make this observation. I have the great good fortune to be engaged to a surgeon. If you think its tough to be a lawyer around pilots you ought to try it around doctors. They all say same thing-- the tort system is wrecking the country blah blah blah-- old ladies with McDonalds coffee in the crotch get millions-- blah blah blah-- people with hangnails sue their doctors for zillions blah blah blah. I had this conversation with a surgeon so famous he has an endowed chair in surgery at a major university named after him. And when I asked this genius where he got the idea that personal injury lawyers were ruining the country you know what this paragon of scientific objectivity said? THE NEWSPAPERS!!!! my entire career. When an insurance company takes a big hit because they used crapppy engineering on the gas tank and it blew up and incinerated the passengers and their insurance carrier pays out big the P.R. department puts out a press release wringing their hands and moaning that the tort system is just like the lottery, highlighting the fact that some poor person (who is typically seriously screwed up) just got millions and conveniently not mentioning that they settled the case because they knew they were in the wrong. So lets take a look at your 4 points. 1) "If you fly an unairworthy aircraft, you are the pilot in command and you were responsible to determine if it was airworthy, no one is to blame but you, and you should not be able to sue anybody." You should go to work for Piper, they'd love you!!!!! Have you been following the situation with Malibu engines? I bet the poor slobs who spent 6 figures for their planes would be really happy to hear that its actually all their problem. 2) Looser pays the legal fees? Dumb. That means only rich people have access to the courts. Do you think those folks who took on the tobacco companies (who did all the rest of us a huge favor) should have been forced to risk total financial ruin in the event that cigarettes turned out not to cause cancer (like those big companies with all their scientists insisted for so many years)? C'mon. 2a.) Only plaintiff's counsel makes the big money? What rock have you been under? Defense guys bill by the hour. They get paid whether they win or lose. Plaintiff's lawyers only get paid if they win. A very important check built into the system. No plaintiff's lawyer wants a meritless case-- in the end they are losers and then you don't get paid. 3) Punitive damages don't go to the plaintiff or their lawyer. Interesting point. We should have that conversation after your mom's homeowners insurance carrier refuses to pay for her to stay in a hotel (as required by the policy) when the home heating oil delivery guy accidentally fills up her basement with oil and she gets a cardiac condition from breathing the fumes. (Don't laugh . . I'm working on that one now). My point-- sometimes folks deserve to be punished-- and why shouldn't the innocent little old lady get the benefit of it? 4) Actual, or what we call consequential, damages are limited to what is reasonable You only get what you can prove. Punitive damages are more interesting. The purpose is to get the attention of the evil corporation that did the bad thing. A couple of million bucks (your suggested number) is a rounding error on GM's or GE's balance sheet. They spend more than that a year on flowers for their offices. Corporations Comit crimes just like the rest of us-- but we can't put them in jail. A swift kick to the bottom line works real good. Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 25, 2001
Subject: Re: Droop tips
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
on 10/25/01 6:57 PM, Cavuontop(at)aol.com at Cavuontop(at)aol.com wrote: > Wrong. The claims for improved performance on drooped tips all come > from the manufacturers and are WAY overstated. I've flown both a 152 and a > Tomahawk with Demmers tips and they did squat. Their advertising claims are > total hot air. What is your problems with the stock tips? No problem with the stock tips. Im just always looking for ways to make improvements. 20 years ago I built droop tips for my Cherokee 140 before anyone was really selling them and they made a huge difference. I kept is at a 700 ft grass strip so STOL performance was a must. I was just curios if anyone had built a set for a Twinstar ind if so...How they worked out. If they wont help then Ill direct my time and efforts elsewhere. Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 25, 2001
From: b young <byoung(at)brigham.net>
Subject: fuel tank
mekey, baffled, impatient, troubled, angry, , , , , , lar larry got some ideas for you......but first some questions...... is the tail down?? if so it may be that the fuel is in the back of the tank and not yet come up to the level of the front of the tank..... the fuel may be in the tube still under the tank and not up where you can see it..... lift the tail off the ground to flight attitude and see what happens..... the super cub has a sight glass and is calibrated for 3 point and again for level flight the calibrations are about 1/4 of a tank off..... did you put in unleaded gas??? it is so clear that it is hard to see..... i cut a piece of tubing about 1/4 inch long and inserted it in the fuel line side wards... then i put in a small colored cork ball,,, then another 1/4 in of tubing..... the floating ball is easy to see and the small pieces of tubing keep the ball captive in the corect range and from plugging something else up. is the line free and clear???? try unhooking it at the top and with a syringe or something else to suck with make sure that the line is clear and that the fuel comes up the tube.... don't use your mouth... you will be spiting gas for 30 min.... besides it can cause cancer.... and i dont need any of you to ask how i know about the 30 min. nasty stuff boyd ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 25, 2001
Subject: Re: Twinstar Specs
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
on 10/25/01 6:16 PM, Woody at duesouth(at)iname.com wrote: > Here is my experience with the Twinstar > I weight 190. I do not fly more than 230 lbs. It is powered by a Hirth > 2703 rated at 55 hp. The main problem with increasing the passenger weight > is that it is harder to keep the nose from digging a furrow in the ground > as you try and take off. I did fly a 300 lb guy once. I needed a practice > run down the runway to get the hang of balancing the throttle and > acceleration. Once up it flew fine but only had a climb of 400 fpm. These > are just my experiences and others may differ. I do wonder about the guy > that made the death wish statement. Thanks Woody...By looking at how the plane is built, this is about what I would expect. Im going to order a tuned pipe tomorrow. That will get me 65HP. Did I read that right? You and a 300 pounder? 490 pounds plus fuel. At that weight Im acually a bit impressed with 400fpm. If I could fly me and a 200 pounder Id be happy. I also started my diet today. Im hoping that the new plane will be motivation. Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 25, 2001
Subject: Re: Droop tips
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
on 10/25/01 6:36 PM, Jack & Louise Hart at jbhart(at)ldd.net wrote: > They might not be as "cool", but vortex generators will give you a lot more > lift for the added weight that will droop tips. I remember seeing some info on how to install vortex generators. I think the guy was even installing them on a Kolb. How exactly do the work? I know they disrupt airflow over the wings/ailerons and increase aileron effectiveness, but how/why do they increase lift? Also...Do you have any links on the subject... Thanks...Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Droop tips
Date: Oct 25, 2001
Ron Christensen put droop tips on his Mk III 1/2, several years ago. Performance was badly degraded. He tried several other configurations, and finally found that the factory wingtips outperformed the others, by a long way. I really give him credit..................he worked real hard at it, and didn't give up. Lar. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, Ca. Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" http://www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: <Cavuontop(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Droop tips > > In a message dated 10/25/01 5:19:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > rrcarl(at)concentric.net writes: > > Has anyone ever tried drooped wingtips on a Twinstar? Might be something > cool to try. They should vastly improve the STOL characteristics and help > with lift when you are flying a bit on the heavy side. > > Wrong. The claims for improved performance on drooped tips all come > from the manufacturers and are WAY overstated. I've flown both a 152 and a > Tomahawk with Demmers tips and they did squat. Their advertising claims are > total hot air. What is your problems with the stock tips? > > > Mark R. Sellers > Kolb Twinstar Mark III > N496BM > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 26, 2001
Subject: Re: RE: Kolb-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 10/24/01
In a message dated 10/25/01 10:00:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Cavuontop(at)aol.com writes: > > Topher: > > I enjoyed your rant. I talk to people like you at parties all the > time. Everyone else has your four ideas. I'll address them in order. > > But first let me make this observation. I have the great good > fortune > to be engaged to a surgeon. If you think its tough to be a lawyer around > pilots you ought to try it around doctors. They all say same thing-- the > tort system is wrecking the country blah blah blah-- old ladies with > McDonalds coffee in the crotch get millions-- blah blah blah-- people with > hangnails sue their doctors for zillions blah blah blah. I had this > conversation with a surgeon so famous he has an endowed chair in surgery at > a > major university named after him. And when I asked this genius where he > got > the idea that personal injury lawyers were ruining the country you know > what > this paragon of scientific objectivity said? THE NEWSPAPERS!!!! > > my entire career. When an insurance company takes a big hit because they > used crapppy engineering on the gas tank and it blew up and incinerated the > passengers and their insurance carrier pays out big the P.R. department > puts > out a press release wringing their hands and moaning that the tort system > is > just like the lottery, highlighting the fact that some poor person (who is > typically seriously screwed up) just got millions and conveniently not > mentioning that they settled the case because they knew they were in the > wrong. > > So lets take a look at your 4 points. > > 1) "If you fly an unairworthy aircraft, you are the pilot in command > and you were responsible to determine if it was airworthy, no one is to > blame > but you, and you should not be able to sue anybody." You should go to work > for Piper, they'd love you!!!!! Have you been following the situation with > Malibu engines? I bet the poor slobs who spent 6 figures for their planes > would be really happy to hear that its actually all their problem. > > 2) Looser pays the legal fees? Dumb. That means only rich people > have access to the courts. Do you think those folks who took on the > tobacco > companies (who did all the rest of us a huge favor) should have been forced > to risk total financial ruin in the event that cigarettes turned out not to > cause cancer (like those big companies with all their scientists insisted > for > so many years)? C'mon. > > 2a.) Only plaintiff's counsel makes the big money? What rock have > you > been under? Defense guys bill by the hour. They get paid whether they win > or lose. Plaintiff's lawyers only get paid if they win. A very important > check built into the system. No plaintiff's lawyer wants a meritless > case-- > in the end they are losers and then you don't get paid. > > 3) Punitive damages don't go to the plaintiff or their lawyer. > Interesting point. We should have that conversation after your mom's > homeowners insurance carrier refuses to pay for her to stay in a hotel (as > required by the policy) when the home heating oil delivery guy accidentally > fills up her basement with oil and she gets a cardiac condition from > breathing the fumes. (Don't laugh . . I'm working on that one now). My > point-- sometimes folks deserve to be punished-- and why shouldn't the > innocent little old lady get the benefit of it? > > 4) Actual, or what we call consequential, damages are limited to > what > is reasonable You only get what you can prove. Punitive damages are more > interesting. The purpose is to get the attention of the evil corporation > that did the bad thing. A couple of million bucks (your suggested number) > is > a rounding error on GM's or GE's balance sheet. They spend more than that > a > year on flowers for their offices. Corporations Comit crimes just like the > rest of us-- but we can't put them in jail. A swift kick to the bottom > line > works real good. > > Mark R. Sellers > Kolb Twinstar Mark III > N496BM > Jeeeze! ...when I read Topher's rants, I was totally on his side, and now that I've read Cavuontop's side...he seems to make a lot of sense too! Course I've noticed that he ALWAYS makes a lot of sense, usually about viewpoints not so evident to the rest of us. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Cav is smarter than us......just .....different...somehow. Concerns drums and beats I think. I think like you Topher, but I must say I respect Cavontop a lot because he is the first lawyer that I have ever heard stick up for .....lawyers. I say that takes balls in this society. It must cause none of the other ones seem to do it. So my hat is off to you Cavuontop, and keep it up, you obviously know your business. GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 26, 2001
From: jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net>
Subject: Master Switch
Hey Lar, What kind of "master switch" are you running, a Ford or a .... Note there is a difference between a relay contactor functioning as a master switch and one functioning as a starter solenoid. You probably know this but others may not. A master switch is designed for the coil to be activated full time. The starter solenoid coil is designed to produce a hard rapid snap action thus draws more current and would run hotter if on continuously. Actually they can get hot enough that the magnetic field weakens and the contactor can drop out. Depending upon make and model, the contactor coil may have separate terminals for the connections to the activator coil, one would have either ground or +12 connected to it, and the other just the other thru a panel switch to active it. When the panel switch is closed, the current flows through the coil activating and closing the contractor. Others solenoids may only have only one coil terminal - some have the other side of the coil connected to the mounting bracket (ground) which takes a +12V on the coil terminal to activate it, or it may be internally connected to the battery supply terminal which then requires a ground applied to the coil terminal to active the contactor. jerryb > >This afternoon, I took the hoses off the fuel manifold, and tried each >one.................lots of flow, from both sides. Put the hoses back >in place, and added another gallon of gas, and it slooooowwwly came up >in the tube - about 10 - 15 minutes. Still slow, but better than >yesterday. ( ??? ) Gallon 4 brought it up to the top of the divider, so >that's the end of that experiment. All this with the tail up on blocks. > Thanks to those who gave thought and assistance. Now, there's >another one................but it's ol' boneheaded Lar's >fault...............guess which brilliant, intelligent, not so young, >never egotistical, self taught, aircraft designer/engineer decided when >wiring his mighty effort, to run the power lead to the master switch >from the 'Output Side' of the master relay ???????? Hooked up the >battery, hit the master >switch..............nothing........nada.........zip ! ! ! Neighbor >watching and grinning at ol' Lars' red face. Ayyyy-yyyyiiii-yiiiiii >! ! ! Gogittum Lar. > >Larry Bourne >Palm Springs, Ca. >Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" >http://www.gogittum.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: fuel tank
Date: Oct 25, 2001
Larry Bourne Palm Springs, Ca. Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" http://www.gogittum.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: fuel tank > Forgot to mention.................I, too, have used an Oklahoma credit card > in my mis-spent youth. Gas, you can wash and gargle off, and it's only > sorta unpleasant........................try it with diesel one time ! ! ! > > Larry Bourne > Palm Springs, Ca. > Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" > http://www.gogittum.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "b young" <byoung(at)brigham.net> > To: ; > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 7:29 PM > Subject: Kolb-List: fuel tank > > > > > > mekey, baffled, impatient, troubled, angry, , , , , , lar > > > > larry > > got some ideas for you......but first some > > questions...... is the tail down?? if so it may be > > that the fuel is in the back of the tank and not yet come up > > to the level of the front of the tank..... the fuel may be > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 26, 2001
Subject: Re: Droop tips
In a message dated 10/25/01 10:31:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rrcarl(at)nhvt.net writes: > I remember seeing some info on how to install vortex generators. I think > the guy was even installing them on a Kolb. How exactly do the work? I > know they disrupt airflow over the wings/ailerons and increase aileron > effectiveness, but how/why do they increase lift? > > Also...Do you have any links on the subject... > > Thanks...Ross > > > Ross, if you will email me off list I will send you my Vortex Generator plan by attachment. Howard Shackleford FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 26, 2001
From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net>
Subject: Re: static source ....
-------Original Message------- From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com Date: Thursday, October 25, 2001 08:32:07 Subject: Kolb-List: static source .... > : DCREECH3(at)aol.com > > Cold weather being on the way, I would like to install the cockpit > enclosure on my Firestar II that I bought earlier this year. The previous > owner-builder had a problem with this installation causing the airspeed > indicator, which is not connected to a remote static air source, to be > unreliable due to vacuum effects. He experimented with a homemade static > intake port at the front of the nose bowl, but never really solved the > problem. I doubt that location will work, but I could use some advice from > other people who have dealt with this issue. Any ideas on the > design/location of a static air source willbappreciated On the recommendation of Bill Futtrel, I purchased a combination pitot and static air from Aircraft Spruce. It has two tubes, one being the pitot tube and the other the static air tube. It has a mounting plate that will bolt to the nose cone. It is bent at a 90 degree angle so a tapered shim will have to be used to align it to the air flow. It can be mounted to the top, side or bottom as you choose. This thing has been engineered so I am sure it will work. It costs less than $15.00 so I feel it is the best way to go. Ron Payne 75% on FireStar ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 26, 2001
Subject: Re: Cavuontop legal stuff
In a message dated 10/25/01 10:27:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cjcullen(at)mediaone.net writes: If the FAA gave us an N number then it seems to me that it is OK for an experimental to be registered to a corporation. Am I misunderstanding your statement? You have to distinguish between registration and initial registration with application for airworthyness certificate. Of course a corporation can own an experimental aircraft, but that is different than being the initial registrant or applicant for the experimental airworthyness certificate. Keep in mind that the experimental category is an exception carved out of the overall requirement of certification for all aircraft. We got a break to build and fly our own planes for the purposes of "education and recreation". The intent of the exception was to allow homebuilders (read individuals) to build and fly. How could a corporation make the representations necessary in the application process that it built 51% of the plane, or that the purpose of the plane was for the corporation's education and recreation? Keep in mind that only the builder of the experimental plane is permitted to apply for the repairman certificate. If a corporation built the plane how could it apply for one? I've heard that some folks have actually slipped corporate applications for airworthyness through, but never actually seen one myself. Its not supposed to happen. Maybe you could pull it off with a cooperative DAR. If you have one its like money in the bank. You wouldn't have to go through any of this crap about deregistering the plane at sale. Just sell it like a regular GA plane with an airworthyness certificate originally issued to Piper or Cessna. All the gyrations we go through with the sale of experimental aircraft result from the fact that folks are trying to avoid PERSONAL liability for the construction of the plane. If corporations could register experimental aircraft it would solve some problems and create others. The whole sport plane thing will address some of these regulatory oddities. As I understand the proposed regulatory scheme companies like TNK will be able to sell you a complete plane, right out of the show room. Just come on in and hand them a check. On one hand that might be good for business. It sure would make it easy for folks to fly cheap. On the other hand it is an enormous invitation to problems if the company can't buy insurance at reasonable prices (which they can't). When the first factory built and sold "Sportplane" goes down in flames piloted by the rich bozo who woke up that morning and said "Gee whiz-- I wanna fly, think I'll go buy me an airplane!!" The manufacturer will be in a world of hurt, and won't have any sort of defense to the claim of manufacturing or design defect. When I was defending old Kolb the lawyers on the other side would always insinuate the Kolb was the manufacturer of the crashed plane. I would cut them short and say "Hey, YOUR CLIENT manufactured the plane. Look at this registration statement right here which is on file with the US government. He said under oath he built the majority of it himself. All we did was ship him some tubing and some drawings." That approach was frequently successful. It will be interesting to see whether any of the serious kit plane players like the kitfox folks get into sale of completed planes once the sport plane thing goes through. Tough risk reward calculation to do there. Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Re: Cavuontop legal stuff
Date: Oct 26, 2001
> It will be interesting to see whether any of the serious kit plane > players like the kitfox folks get into sale of completed planes once the > sport plane thing goes through. Tough risk reward calculation to do there. I currently am helping Powersport aviation. we sell engines to the kit market. Our best defense is we are so poor that there is nothing to get from it!!! It scares us all the time to think that even though we have done our best to make a good product, if one fails (or maybe even if it doesn't) a jury might take every little bit we have. The system does not seem to understand that engineering cant be perfect. we do the best we can and test and then we see how it turns out. we are not always evil corporations trying it get away with something. sometimes things just fail. individuals who want to fly need to accept that as part of the risk. Topher nearly ranted out! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Sudlow" <sudlow77(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: rotax muffler for sale
Date: Oct 26, 2001
Hi Listers, I have a used rotax muffler for a 582 for sale. It's for a tractor mount with a 35 degree bend coming off the maifold, and then straight back. It has a flat black finish with little or no rust and is in good to very good condition. I'll sell for $175.00. If anyone's interested please contact me off list at: sudlo77(at)earthlink.net Also have a radiator that's 22" x 13" that's in good shape, and will throw in for free with the sale of the muffler. Safe flying. chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 26, 2001
From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net>
Subject: Cables
I am running the control cables for the elevator and rudder inside the fuselage tube on my FireStar. The cables rub the inside of the tube at the forward end inside the cockpit area. The book says to use a piece of lexan to act as a rubbing pad. If I raise the cables by as much as 1/8 inch, they will hit the bottom of the bar that goes across for the landing gear sockets The one that has a slip fit on one end. Also the rudder cables hit the heads of the bolts that hold the 5 inch fuselage tube in the socket at the cockpit end. These holes were pre-drilled at Kolb so I had no control over their location. Anyone have any solutions to this problem? Ron Payne Gilbertsville, Ky. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 25, 2001
From: Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: Twinstar Specs
Gosh Lar that is a lot different from my experience but then again I am 600' asl I break ground about 35, climb at 45 and cruise around 65 "solo" >. I don't remember the exact speeds, >so, you guys, don't jump all over me for this, but seems like the stall >speed was close to 50 mph, top speed was under 65 mph, and cruise around 57 >mph. I wouldn't want to go thru much of that................you've got no >reserves at all. I believe the plane needs at least a 582 for power. >Big Lar. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: GeoR38(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 26, 2001
Subject: Re: Cavuontop legal stuff
In a message dated 10/26/01 11:24:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Tophera(at)centurytel.net writes: > I currently am helping Powersport aviation. we sell engines to the kit > market. Our best defense is we are so poor that there is nothing to get > from it!!! It scares us all the time to think that even though we have done > our best to make a good product, if one fails (or maybe even if it doesn't) > a jury might take every little bit we have. The system does not seem to > understand that engineering cant be perfect. we do the best we can and test > and then we see how it turns out. we are not always evil corporations > trying it get away with something. sometimes things just fail. individuals > who want to fly need to accept that as part of the risk. > > and you are doing .....GREAT!! GeoR38 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 26, 2001
Subject: The first Twinstars
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
I ordered a new BRS 900 for the Twinstar today. When I was on the phone with BRS, Greg found an old book listing the performance specs of the first Twinstars. Empty weight was 285 and max gross was 625. Yep...I said 625. Those are based on the original open cockpit Twinstar with a 447. At 625 a good sized guy and full fuel would put you over gross. BRS recommmends a 900 even though the placarded gross on the older models was typically less than 750. The reasoning is that everyone flys these planes over published gross weight and the BRS should be compatible with the acual flying weight, not the published specs. Im all done dwelling on the gross weight issue. Im comfortable with the fact that this plane will carry me and an average size passenger. Today I took off the gear legs and straightened them. 15 tears of hard landings had bent them up pretty good. The ground handling is now much better since the wheels are now aligned. Tomorrows project is to build a new tailweel with a steel tailwheel spring. The fibergalss rod that's there now has completely lost its rigidity. I bought a Matco 6" tailwheel, but I think now that I have it in my hand, it may be too heavy. 3.7lbs plus another 2lbs for the spring. Im thinking that that much weight that far out on the tail might effect CG too much...But then again...Maybe not. Its a really nice tailwheel and Id like to use it. Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 26, 2001
From: bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net>
Subject: Re: Cost of new Cessnas
At last year's Fall Fly-In we had a new 172 and 182 with factory reps expounding on their virtues. I wandered up and asked about prices.....a lot of heming and hawing brought forth two VARY large nos. Guy with me (my staight man) sez WHY? I said just add up the parts prices outa the catalog and there you have it. bn ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 26, 2001
Subject: Flaps or flaperons
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
Does the Mark 3 have real flaps or flaperons? If they have flaps, How long are they? Thanks...Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 26, 2001
From: Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: Twinstar Specs
> That was a scary flight but it did work. A friend of mine is building a Quicky 2. He decided the only remaining weight reduction he could do was in the cockpit. He lost a lot of weight and is all the happier for it. All it takes is the right motivation. Often the question of Kolb going to a nose picker aircraft rather than a tail dragger. Perhaps in a case like my overweight flight a swivelling nose wheel under the pod would have been very handy. Usually it wouldn't touch ground but on occasion it may be real handy. >Did I read that right? You and a 300 pounder? 490 pounds plus fuel. At >that weight Im acually a bit impressed with 400fpm. If I could fly me and a >200 pounder Id be happy. I also started my diet today. Im hoping that the >new plane will be motivation. > >Ross > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "cjcullen" <cjcullen(at)mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: Droop tips
Date: Oct 26, 2001
> > ...vortex generators. > ... > know they disrupt airflow over the wings/ailerons and increase aileron > effectiveness, but how/why do they increase lift? In my meager understanding of the effect, vg's effectively move the separation bubble back towards the trailing edge a little bit. The vg's accomplish this by creating vortices which throw air around and back down on the top of the wing. This sort of has the same effect as increasing laminar flow ( even though the vg's are interrupting laminar flow). Increasing laminar flow increases wing efficiency and lift. Sorry no references. All this hand waving is what I recall from a short thread on rec.aviation.homebuilt. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Re: Droop tips
Date: Oct 26, 2001
> In my meager understanding of the effect, vg's effectively move > the separation bubble back towards the trailing edge a little bit. > The vg's accomplish this by creating vortices which throw air > around and back down on the top of the wing. > This sort of has the same effect as increasing laminar flow > ( even though the vg's are interrupting laminar flow). > Increasing laminar flow increases wing efficiency and lift. VG's mix the fast flowing air above the wing with the slow flowing air in the boundary layer at the surface, speeding it up and delaying separation. There is almost no laminar flow on a Kolb wing, except maybe around the first 2 inches of the leading edge. The vibrating of the fabric transitions the flow to turbulent almost immediately. but at stall the turbulent flow changes to separated flow, and that is what you delay with the energy that the VG's bring down into the boundary layer. Droop tips can work on certain planes, but not usually to reduce stall speed. they are an attempt to increase effective aspect ratio by throwing the wing tip vortex outboard. this increases the span efficiency, and reduces induced drag. induced drag is a very small percentage of drag on a Kolb, so you wont see much effect. On a fairly clean airplane where induced drag (drag due to lift) is a larger percentage, then they can do something. More modern wing tips have been designed that do a better job at this then the droop tips. Look at Rutans newest planes to see them, they are called shear tips and are based sort of on shark fins. surprisingly they look a bit like the standard tip on a Kolb, hence the Kolb tips work real well. Topher ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "rbaker(at)shop4zero.com" <rbaker(at)ccgnv.net>
Subject: Re: Flaps or flaperons
Date: Oct 27, 2001
Real flaps. 79 inches each. L Ray Baker Lake Butler, FL Mark III, 912, BRS, N629RB rbaker(at)ccgnv.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> Subject: Kolb-List: Flaps or flaperons > > Does the Mark 3 have real flaps or flaperons? If they have flaps, How long > are they? > > Thanks...Ross > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TAILDRAGGER503(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 27, 2001
Subject: FSII WHEELS
Did anyone have a problem installing the wheels on the axles ? David Snyder Building FSII Long Branch N.J. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 27, 2001
Subject: Re: Flaps or flaperons
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
Do any Kolb models have flaperons? Does anyone think flaperans would work well on an older Twinstar. I was looking at it today. A flaperon mixer would be easy to make and alot easier than building real flaps. Ross > From: "rbaker(at)shop4zero.com" <rbaker(at)ccgnv.net> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:15:13 -0400 > To: "list kolb" > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Flaps or flaperons > > > Real flaps. 79 inches each. > > L Ray Baker > Lake Butler, FL > Mark III, 912, BRS, N629RB > rbaker(at)ccgnv.net > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> > To: Kolb List > Subject: Kolb-List: Flaps or flaperons > > >> >> Does the Mark 3 have real flaps or flaperons? If they have flaps, How > long >> are they? >> >> Thanks...Ross >> >> > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 27, 2001
From: b young <byoung(at)brigham.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 50 Msgs - 10/25/01
<<<<<<< the velcroed in place rear window can only be used with the full enclosure installed. I will probably use it but tie it on with some safeties in addition to the velcro. In my opinion velcro is not an airworthy attachment for anything on a plane that might fly through a prop. Topher>>>>>>>> i have flown with the velcro and plastic rear enclosure and there was no reason to add more attachments to it....... while in flight at 90 mph the plastic just hung there. it did not try to blow in or out.... just hung there as if we were sitting still..... boyd ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 27, 2001
From: b young <byoung(at)brigham.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 50 Msgs - 10/25/01
<<<>>> i saw a set of wing tips in washington state that were basically end caps that extended about 2 inches larger in all directions than the wing tip cross section...... they were made of about .060 alum and riveted on to specially mounted gussets in the end rib.... the porpoise was to make a wing tip skid in the event of a wing tip contact with the ground.... interesting enough he mentioned that it made no noticable difference in lift to the stock wing tip....... this was determined by flying with one wing of each design... the theory of reducing wing damage was proven when he landed on a sand bar in the columbia river... he dented up the wing cap but no other damaged reported..... boyd ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TAILDRAGGER503(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 28, 2001
Subject: Re: wheels/axles
Bob, I have no brakes at this point.My problem is that the wheel bearing slip over the threaded end of the axle but stops at that point.Should it be pressed on ? David Snyder Building FSII Long Branch N.J. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 28, 2001
From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net>
Subject: Re: wheels/axles
-------Original Message------- From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com Date: Sunday, October 28, 2001 05:06:41 Subject: Re: Kolb-List: wheels/axles I didn't have to press mine on. I don't think I would want to press on these bearings. There was a little bur at the bace of the threads that was left over from the machining process. I sanded this down and the wheels slipped all the way on with no problem. Ron Payne Bob, I have no brakes at this point.My problem is that the wheel bearing slip over the threaded end of the axle but stops at that point.Should it be pressed on ? David Snyder Building FSII Long Branch N.J. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Fw: fuel flow
Date: Oct 28, 2001
This time I did it the other way around. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, Ca. Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" http://www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> Subject: Re: fuel flow > Brace yourselves..............here comes a long one...............remember > the delete key ! ! ! > > The fuel flow problem..............I think it must have been lack of head on > the fill side of the tank. When I pulled the hoses off the manifold that > feeds the fuel pumps, I opened the valves one at a time, and had gas > everywhere. The anti-reverse valves are on the output ends of the fuel > pumps, and would not have had an effect here. On the web page, click on the > "Link" tabs on the pictures to open them up full size, and you'll see what I > mean. Between the 2 tank valves is just wide open tubing, tho' not very > big. ( 5/16" ) With only an inch or so ( 1 gal ) of gas on 1 side of the > tank, I think it just wasn't enuf weight to force it thru to the other side. > Now, later news.......... I don't know what the answer is to the rest > of this................just have someone else double-check your work, I > guess, and test each component before you install it. ( I didn't ) When > John was here, gas leaked out of the injector o-rings. They were the > temporary injectors that I'd installed to catch any grit when I first > started the pumps, and weren't tightened down properly. Also didn't have > the shims to keep them square, so they were loose, and they tipped a bit. > New injectors, shims, torque wrench, and safety wire today ended Those Leaks > ! ! ! Now, I'm finding that Permatex lied to me, I think. The can of > Aviation Permatex says it can be used for gasoline, but it seems like it > might be getting dissolved in the fuel fittings. Not definite yet, but > don't look good. Battery doesn't want to hold a charge, and had to jump i t, > even after charging all morning. My brand new master relay from ACS won't > hold in solid at 14.5 VDC.........it buzzes like crazy, and indicator > lights flicker with it. Also, brand new start relay from ACS is shorted > from input terminal to + side of coil...........won't pull in at all. Brand > new UMA oil press gauge is defective............needle slams to max, even > with probe dis-connected, same with UMA oil temp gauge, except it slams to > the left side..................and yes, I double checked, and they are wired > correctly. Jumped the master relay, jumped the start relay, jumped the > battery, and engine is so tight, the starter couldn't turn it over. Friend > with hand propped gyrocopter is coming over tomorrow, to help it out. Ol' > Brains Bourne cross wired one master switch lead, and the tail strobe lead, > and came up with some weird and wonderful effects all over the panel. Took > hours to sort that one out. Also forgot to hook up the ECU power supply > from the master, and forgot to put in the electronics fuses. Had to go to > work this afternoon, before I got that one done...........so will hit it 1st > thing tomorrow. Suffering mercy on me ! ! ! Both fuel pumps work great, > fuel pressure gauge ( UMA ) reads right on, fuel pressure regulator is right > on, ( 45 psi ) ammeter ( Westach ) is right on the button, same with > voltmeter ( Westach ), tail strobe works ( now ), no oil leaks > anywhere....................... Migawd, what a weekend ! ! ! > .........................and it's not over yet ! ! ! Can I stand it ????? > Oh Yeah ! ! ! > I enjoyed John and Nell................nice folks..................and > I got the feeling that Nell is quite capable of taking care of herself, > thanks, and was here cause she wanted to be. Also really liked that diesel > pickup and 5th wheel trailer (5er) of his. Gonna have one each of them > pretty soon, you watch ! ! ! When he's off gadding about in Miss P'fer, she > keeps busy at home. Gotta find me one like that. > Lonesome Lar. > > Larry Bourne > Palm Springs, Ca. > Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" > http://www.gogittum.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike and Dixie Shackelford" <dixieshack(at)webtv.net> > To: > Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 8:11 AM > Subject: fuel flow > > > > Hey, Lar....what was the fuel flow problem? > > Not enough head pressure to crack the check valves? Ya got us all > > curious. > > John is a helluva guy ain't he? I can't believe he's 62!! Tough as a > > pine knot. I met him at Lakeland last spring and shot the breeze a > > little. > > Great guy. Nell has to be real understanding what with John taking off > > (no pun intended) for all sorts of places in Miss P'fer. > > Let the listers know the results puleeez...... > > and good luck on start-up. Don't forget a fire extinguisher.....Lordy, > > those VW's sound good. > > > > Mike in WV > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 28, 2001
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: List Web Server Upgraded! Blazingly Fast Archive Searches!!
Dear Listers, As of this weekend, the Matronics Email List Web Server is now running on a brand new hardware platform and the latest version of RedHat Linux! The new hardware includes Dual 1.7GHz Xeon Processors, a 400MHz FSB motherboard, 1GB of 800MHz RAM, a Dual-Channel 160 MB/Sec Ultra-160 SCSI Controller, and an Ultra 160 36GB 15,000 RPM Seagate Cheetah hard drive. The performance of the new system is, in a word, breathtaking! In a variety of benchmark tests against the previous server, the new system is at *least* six times faster! This means that your Archive Search Engine queries will now come back in what seems like an instant! Single word searches of the 113MB RV-List Archive now return in 2-3 seconds, and searches of all other List Archives return in 1 second or less!! Performance enhancements in the download and viewing of all other web-based tools should also be noticeably improved as well. Please enjoy the new system performance and don't forget, the Annual Email List Fund Raiser is just around the corner!! :-) Best regards, Matt Dralle Email List Administrator Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Vamoose
Date: Oct 28, 2001
VAMOOSE LIVES ! ! ! ! ! Engine start at 2:20 PM today. Migawd ! ! ! 13 deg of pitch in the prop - 72", 3 blade Warp Drive, at less than 2000 rpm the tail came up, 3000 rpm (1500 prop rpm) I was afraid of breaking the tie down rope...........it was lunging and shaking..............neighbors came running. Had to replace the master relay, jump the start relay, cranking was too slow, so jumped it from my car...................wham..............all hell broke loose. Now there's a whole new set of problems.............oil pressure is over 100 psi - way too much, and oil is leaking all over the place. Neither EGT nor CHT gauges are working, so only ran it for a few minutes. Yeeeee-Haaaaawww ! ! ! Big Grinnin' Lar. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, Ca. Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" http://www.gogittum.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Vamoose
Date: Oct 28, 2001
Ha.............think I'd better amend that a little..............I think it was a little OVER 2000 rpm that the tail came up. There was a fair bit of excitement going on. Chickened out at 3000 engine rpm, it was getting violent. Idle started getting ragged below 1500, but no shaking at all from the re-drive. More tuning to do, but I doubt if it'll ever idle below 1000............9.5 - 1 compression, and a pretty healthy cam in there. That electronic fuel mixture sensor is great..............little LED bar shows just what the mixture is, the knob adjusts it instantly. Beautiful toy............works off an oxygen sensor. Lar. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, Ca. Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" http://www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> Subject: Kolb-List: Vamoose > > VAMOOSE LIVES ! ! ! ! ! Engine start at 2:20 PM today. Migawd ! ! ! > 13 deg of pitch in the prop - 72", 3 blade Warp Drive, at less than > 2000 rpm the tail came up, 3000 rpm (1500 prop rpm) I was afraid of > breaking the tie down rope...........it was lunging and > shaking..............neighbors came running. Had to replace the master > relay, jump the start relay, cranking was too slow, so jumped it from my > car...................wham..............all hell broke loose. Now > there's a whole new set of problems.............oil pressure is over 100 > psi - way too much, and oil is leaking all over the place. Neither EGT > nor CHT gauges are working, so only ran it for a few minutes. > Yeeeee-Haaaaawww ! ! ! Big Grinnin' Lar. > > Larry Bourne > Palm Springs, Ca. > Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" > http://www.gogittum.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 28, 2001
From: Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Vamoose
> >VAMOOSE LIVES ! ! ! ! ! Engine start at 2:20 PM today. Migawd ! ! ! > 13 deg of pitch in the prop - 72", 3 blade Warp Drive, at less than >2000 rpm the tail came up, 3000 rpm (1500 prop rpm) I was afraid of >breaking the tie down rope...........it was lunging and >shaking..............neighbors came running. Had to replace the master >relay, jump the start relay, cranking was too slow, so jumped it from my >car...................wham..............all hell broke loose. Now >there's a whole new set of problems.............oil pressure is over 100 >psi - way too much, and oil is leaking all over the place. Neither EGT >nor CHT gauges are working, so only ran it for a few minutes. >Yeeeee-Haaaaawww ! ! ! Big Grinnin' Lar. > There goes the neighborhood. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Vamoose Lives!
Date: Oct 28, 2001
Congrats, Lar! Look out, you could be committing aviation any day now after the fixin's done. Your dunebuggy buds will show you how to change the oil pressure via the spring 'n check-ball, then get busy with the Permatex. ;>) Good Show! Ed in JXN MkII/503 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> Subject: Kolb-List: Vamoose > > VAMOOSE LIVES ! ! ! ! ! Engine start at 2:20 PM today. Migawd ! ! ! > 13 deg of pitch in the prop - 72", 3 blade Warp Drive, at less than > 2000 rpm the tail came up, 3000 rpm (1500 prop rpm) I was afraid of > breaking the tie down rope...........it was lunging and > shaking..............neighbors came running. Had to replace the master > relay, jump the start relay, cranking was too slow, so jumped it from my > car...................wham..............all hell broke loose. Now > there's a whole new set of problems.............oil pressure is over 100 > psi - way too much, and oil is leaking all over the place. Neither EGT > nor CHT gauges are working, so only ran it for a few minutes. > Yeeeee-Haaaaawww ! ! ! Big Grinnin' Lar. > > Larry Bourne > Palm Springs, Ca. > Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" > http://www.gogittum.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderskir(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Flaps or flaperons
Date: Oct 28, 2001
Ross, Yes, SlingShots & FireFlys come with flaperons. I & many others have modified their Kolbs for flaperons as you can get the maximum amount of performance with them, eg, slowest stall & maximum climb. Like flaps, they increase your coefficient of lift, but they do so over a greater percent of the wing. ...Richard Swiderski ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Carlisle" <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Flaps or flaperons > > Do any Kolb models have flaperons? Does anyone think flaperans would work > well on an older Twinstar. I was looking at it today. A flaperon mixer > would be easy to make and alot easier than building real flaps. > > > Ross > > > From: "rbaker(at)shop4zero.com" <rbaker(at)ccgnv.net> > > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > > Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:15:13 -0400 > > To: "list kolb" > > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Flaps or flaperons > > > > > > Real flaps. 79 inches each. > > > > L Ray Baker > > Lake Butler, FL > > Mark III, 912, BRS, N629RB > > rbaker(at)ccgnv.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> > > To: Kolb List > > Subject: Kolb-List: Flaps or flaperons > > > > > >> > >> Does the Mark 3 have real flaps or flaperons? If they have flaps, How > > long > >> are they? > >> > >> Thanks...Ross > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Vamoose
Date: Oct 28, 2001
Naw.................here CAME the neighborhood..........at a dead run. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, Ca. Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" http://www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Possum" <possums(at)mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Vamoose > > > > >VAMOOSE LIVES ! ! ! ! ! Engine start at 2:20 PM today. Migawd ! ! ! > > 13 deg of pitch in the prop - 72", 3 blade Warp Drive, at less than > >2000 rpm the tail came up, 3000 rpm (1500 prop rpm) I was afraid of > >breaking the tie down rope...........it was lunging and > >shaking..............neighbors came running. Had to replace the master > >relay, jump the start relay, cranking was too slow, so jumped it from my > >car...................wham..............all hell broke loose. Now > >there's a whole new set of problems.............oil pressure is over 100 > >psi - way too much, and oil is leaking all over the place. Neither EGT > >nor CHT gauges are working, so only ran it for a few minutes. > >Yeeeee-Haaaaawww ! ! ! Big Grinnin' Lar. > > > > There goes the neighborhood. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kottke, Dwight" <dkottke(at)scherping.carlisle.com>
Subject: Flaps or flaperons
Date: Oct 29, 2001
Does anyone have flaperon plans on how I can modify my older Firestar? -----Original Message----- From: Richard Swiderski [mailto:swiderskir(at)earthlink.net] Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Flaps or flaperons Ross, Yes, SlingShots & FireFlys come with flaperons. I & many others have modified their Kolbs for flaperons as you can get the maximum amount of performance with them, eg, slowest stall & maximum climb. Like flaps, they increase your coefficient of lift, but they do so over a greater percent of the wing. ...Richard Swiderski ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Carlisle" <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Flaps or flaperons > > Do any Kolb models have flaperons? Does anyone think flaperans would work > well on an older Twinstar. I was looking at it today. A flaperon mixer > would be easy to make and alot easier than building real flaps. > > > Ross > > > From: "rbaker(at)shop4zero.com" <rbaker(at)ccgnv.net> > > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > > Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:15:13 -0400 > > To: "list kolb" > > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Flaps or flaperons > > > > > > Real flaps. 79 inches each. > > > > L Ray Baker > > Lake Butler, FL > > Mark III, 912, BRS, N629RB > > rbaker(at)ccgnv.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> > > To: Kolb List > > Subject: Kolb-List: Flaps or flaperons > > > > > >> > >> Does the Mark 3 have real flaps or flaperons? If they have flaps, How > > long > >> are they? > >> > >> Thanks...Ross > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "twistedclicks" <todd(at)twistedclicks.com>
Subject: 1050 VLS/BRS chute for sell
Date: Oct 29, 2001
I have a 1050 VLS for sell. It has three years left on the pack. I live in CT so if your close by we can arrange to meet rather than shipping it. Shipping can be arranged however if needed. Sales price is $1500 or best offer. The VLS was never in the rain and always hangered. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2001
From: John Richmond <twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: throttle help ??
Has anyone got a trusy dual trottle arrangement for a Mk III? With a dual stick in the middle, I'm looking to have a throttle at each door. I already moved the center throttle to my (left) side. Thanks ===== John & Lynn Richmond :-) Palm Coast, Fl. Mk3 269LJ, 582, 41 hrs 1,400 miles, longest=270 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: throttle help ??
Date: Oct 29, 2001
I thought about a dual throttle, John, and decided against it, since I'll mostly be flying alone, or giving rides to non-pilots. When I looked it over, it seemed like there's an easy (???) area. Look at the pics of mine on the website, and you'll see that I moved the throttle down beside my left thigh, right behind the up-turn at the back of the floor pan. Rivetted a bracket there to mount it to, but if I were going to do it again, I'd use a bigger plate, and 4 Adell clamps ( P-clamps ) to hold it. For a really tight grip, use a clamp a couple of sizes small, and take the rubber insert out of it. ( I know, I know........they're neoprene, or nitrile ) If you get down ( I hope yours isn't covered yet ) and look on yours, from where I have my throttle mounted, I think you'll see a clear shot right thru to the other side. A little fabrication with a rigid tube could give a throttle pull right in the center of the tube, with a throttle lever on each side. With a fairly large diameter, thin wall tube, it would be stiff, without too much weight penalty. Lar. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, Ca. Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" http://www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Richmond" <twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com> Subject: Kolb-List: throttle help ?? > > Has anyone got a trusy dual trottle arrangement for a Mk III? With a > dual stick in the middle, I'm looking to have a throttle at each door. > I already moved the center throttle to my (left) side. > > Thanks > > ===== > John & Lynn Richmond :-) > Palm Coast, Fl. > Mk3 269LJ, 582, 41 hrs > 1,400 miles, longest=270 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: KHe1144783(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 29, 2001
Subject: Re: Vamoose
Lar: Tractor pull on Friday at the Fairgrounds !!! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2001
Subject: Registering experimental...
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
Im not sure how to go about this. The plane has been registered and has an N number. It had a permanent airworthyness cert. When I bought it, the previous owner/builder would not sell it with the airworthiness cert of registration. So how should I do this? Should I just tell the FAA that I bought the plane but the owner would not give me the paperwork? I know the aircraft serial# and N number and the experimental manufacturers placard is there showing the previous owner as the builder. I have a bill of sale stating that the aircraft was not sold in airworthy condition. Thanks...Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
Date: Oct 29, 2001
Subject: Cool Graph on Archive Search Times...
Hi Listers, Below is a link to an interesting graph of the current Archive Search Engine ( http://www.matronics.com/search ) search times done on the 113Mb RV-List Archive file. The graph shows searches back through about Thursday. Based on the search times (shown in the Y axis), see if you can pick out the point at which the new Web Server hardware was installed... Impressive? :-) http://www.matronics.com/rv-list/RV-ListArchiveSearchTimes.jpg Best regards, Matt Dralle EMail List Admin. -- Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 29, 2001
Subject: The Tort System
In a message dated 10/26/01 10:05:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, Tophera(at)centurytel.net writes: Topher: =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0I will address your points, but permit me a digression that I think will illuminate our discussion of the so-called tort law crisis.My brother has a Cessna Cardinal.He recently ordered a new bracket from Cessna for=20the elevator assembly.Over the course of a month he got four of them from Cessna.They all had the same part number and were supposedly correct for his plane.They were all four different from each other, and none of them fit his plane.And by the way, the price was nearly $400.00 for what appeared to me to be a piece of U shaped sheet metal. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0From this should I conclude that there is a crisis in general aviation? =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Obviously a more thoughtful consideration of this problem=20would have to take into account the fact that Cessna is supporting an aircraft they haven't made in 20 years, and that they successfully and correctly produce thousands of parts every day. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The same is true in large measure of Justice.It is a hand made product, produced in small shops spread out geographically all over the country, by a large number of people with widely varying levels of competence.The American justice system produces thousands and thousands=20of results every day, the same way Cessna does parts.To conclude from a couple of data points that the whole system is screwed up would be as dumb as saying that because Cessna can't seem to make a Cardinal elevator bracket for my brother that the Citation is unsafe. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Now to address your points: =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"the problem is that the juries are usually unable to understand the issues well enough to make that distinction, or just don't care.so they often just give the plaintiff the money figuring the big guys can afford it." =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Boy . .I keep wishing I could find the dumb juries that folks like doctors and you keep telling me about.I've been a trial lawyer for 12 years, most of it in the aviation defense business, and I haven't seen a dumb jury yet.And certainly never one I was able to fool. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The truth be told, I find the arrogance of your position astonishing. =A0But I'm happy to put that aside.In fact, I'm glad I found you.A man with the common sense to cut through the bullshit.Do you remember the grandmother I mentioned in my last post?The one with the cardiac condition resulting from the heating oil spilled in her basement?Please . . . . just tell me what her insurance company should pay for forcing her to stay in her house and breathe those fumes that screwed up her lungs?I sure don't know. =A0And neither do the other lawyers or the judge.And, like, we all went=20to college, and stuff. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0When you figure that one out I have another.A woman who was already paraplegic from an earlier car accident gets the wrong sort of wheelchair pads from her HMO.The circulation in her non-working legs (remember she=20was already paraplegic) gets screwed up and they have to be amputated.I have NO IDEA how to deal with that.If you can help me get these two matters off=20my desk I could take most of next week off and go fly my Kolb. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Summary of my point #1:a. Legal disputes are ALWAYS more complicated than they appear from reading the newspapers.b. Paradoxically, what juries have to decide usually boils down to fairly simple questions. c. There is no dispute in this world so complicated that it can't be explained to average folk, who can then use their common sense and human experience to give you a result.(You may not agree with that result.But that is different from the result being irrational.) =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Related proposition:You must attempt to distinguish between judicial results that are wrong, and those you merely disagree with.OJ, the example you used, is a perfect test.I disagreed with the result, but it was not clearly wrong.Like it or not, a significant minority of citizens in this country, and that particular jury, could not say with certainty he did it.=20=A0I disagreed.Maybe I would have decided it differently.But it wasn't irrational. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0And of course you, like every one else I talk to parties about this, has a great story of some seemingly wild irrational result reached by some jury some place.The drunk guy who flies his plane into the side of a canyon and gets millions.I collect these stories.They are the urban myths of the justice system.Like huge albino alligators in the sewers in New York. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0I was not involved in the defense of Cessna on the case you mentioned so I can't comment specifically.But there are a few things you need to keep in mind.First,my related proposition from above.Was it irrational, or do you merely disagree with the result? =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The second thing you have to keep in mind is best illustrated by a hypothetical.Imagine a guy driving a car with Goodyear tires while shooting heroin and looking at kiddy porn and talking on his cell phone plotting with Osama bin Laden.The tires explode and he dies a horrible death in a fiery wreck.What do his errors have to do with Goodyear's?If you are intellectually honest you will have to admit there is no connection at all. =A0Whatever Goodyear should pay for hurting him has nothing to do with him being a bad person. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Again, I don't know the specifics of the case you mentioned, but invariably when you dig into them you find that the moaning, teeth gnashing company press release spin, happily picked up by the newspapers, does not keep its eye on the ball. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0You may think the justice system is making lottery millionaires from undeserving people.Maybe you think the guy in my hypothetical deserves nothing, but in my personal experience I see alot more folks who are deserving that get hosed, than I see folks walk out of court with millions. =A0Here's one from the real life files.Doctor leaves the surgical sponge in the belly of an 80 year old guy with cancer.Guy dies because of the sponge. =A0Clearest case of malpractice screw up you can find.Somebody oughta pay for the fact this guy's life was shortened.The law firm turns down the case from the outraged family.Why?He was gonna die anyway in a couple of=20weeks from the cancer. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Summary of point #2:Consider whether your ox is being=20gored when you say the system needs fixing. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Consideration related to point #2:In all the years I have been doing this I have never lost a jury trial.Why?I'm nothing special.But=20I've never tried to put one over on a jury.Its the guys with your attitude--=20who think that regular folks aren't smart enough to understand and can be fooled-- who get their heads handed to them.And keep in mind when one of these aviation defense geniuses with tasseled loafers and an expensive suit looses big and his client gets whacked with some huge verdict he never says to his client, "Gee, I totally miscalculated this thing and you paid me and 20 other guys like me $300.00 per hour for a year just so you could lose millions. Boy are we idiots."What do they do?They start yelling that the jury is a bunch of morons, when actually what happened is they pissed the jury off by not only being wrong, but being pompous asses. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"I disagree completely, your way only rich people have access to defense!!!!! . . . Here we have a situation where you have to spend all your own money just to try to keep it.its nuts." =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Again, you misunderstand the system, insurance is the answer to that problem. =A0Your insurance premium buys you a defense. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Topher:You are mad.The small company I work for making re-drives for the experimental aircraft market can't afford insurance. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Mark the Lawyer:Well then raise your prices so you can pay the premiums. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Topher:If we did no one could afford our product.Besides, we can't buy insurance at any price.No one will sell it to us. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Mark the Lawyer:True.True. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The above fictional exchange points out a sad reality.=20=A0This thing we love called sport aviation is 1) so economically marginal and 2) so dangerous, that it can't operate on the same economic footing as other businesses which can afford to cover the costs of their screwups with insurance. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0As much as I love flying I don't think aircraft companies=20are entitled to some special protected status.Car companies and appliance makers and drug companies and butchers, bakers and candlestick makers all get sued and simply cover the costs of their errors with insurance. They fold the price of their premiums into the cost of their product and we all go about our business.If a business can't do that there is something wrong. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Summary of point 3#:If an economic enterprise cannot generate enough profit to cover the costs of the damage it does (translation: buy insurance) it is not a real business. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0And what would a discussion like this be without talking about the tobacco case: =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"The Tobacco case was a disaster.Our government was too cowardly to act directly so they did it in the form of a suit.the lawyers got rich. =A0the state gets money to play with, and the consumer gets a price hike to cover it all." =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0You, my friend, have discovered the inner logic of the tort system. =A0The system addresses the big picture costs of a product.When you add=20up all the cancer deaths and work days lost from emphysema and so forth you can see that for decades the tobacco industry was getting a free ride.When you factor in the health risks you can see that the actual costs of a pack of cigarettes to society might be more like ten bucks a pack. The tort system merely seeks to return those costs to the industry. What is your objection to the aviation industry being treated the same way as the rest of the economy? Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 29, 2001
Subject: Re: Registering experimental...
In a message dated 10/29/01 6:19:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, rrcarl(at)concentric.net writes: So how should I do this? Should I just tell the FAA that I bought the plane but the owner would not give me the paperwork? I know the aircraft serial# and N number and the experimental manufacturers placard is there showing the previous owner as the builder. I have a bill of sale stating that the aircraft was not sold in airworthy condition. Ross: You are in a bad spot. You cannot re-register the aircraft as a homebuilt experimental, because you didn't build it. You would be unable to truthfully fill out the application where you have to swear you built 51%. Nor can you apply to receive a repairman certificate so you could do your own annual condition inspection. If you have been following the discussions on this list about how to avoid personal liability in the sale of a homebuilt you would have seen that the buyer who gets a plane with no airworthyness certificate is buying a pig in a poke. The right move for the seller is not necessarily such a great deal for the buyer. You could re-register your aircraft in experimental exhibition category number 4. But that is such a regulatory nightmare I wouldn't bother with it. Go ultralight or wait around to see that the sport pilot proposal will do for you. Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "michael mcalister" <michaelmcalister(at)mediaone.net>
Subject: landing gear
Date: Oct 29, 2001
well, my new (used) firestar and I went around the pattern for the first time today. Quite a wonderful feeling to actually go flying, after so many practice runs up to 100 feet and down to land. but sadly, I bent the right landing gear leg and the poor right wing droops 8 inches lower now.... poor baby. my question is, are there any "tempered" AL landing gears around?? mine is 1 1/8 inch diameter, as best as i can tell with my myopic eyeballs. has anyone tried nested chrome moly tubes?? thanx michael ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2001
From: "Gary r. voigt" <johndeereantique(at)uswest.net>
Subject: Re: landing gear
Michael, I'am not sure what year or what type of spring aluminum or steel you have on your kolb, but whatever you have is good enough, just need to come down softly, i have been lucky so far. hope this helps. thanks, Gary r. voigt kxp/447 michael mcalister wrote: > > well, my new (used) firestar and I went around the pattern for the first > time today. > Quite a wonderful feeling to actually go flying, after so many practice runs > up to 100 feet > and down to land. but sadly, I bent the right landing gear leg and the poor > right wing > droops 8 inches lower now.... poor baby. > > my question is, are there any "tempered" AL landing gears around?? > mine is 1 1/8 inch diameter, as best as i can tell with my myopic eyeballs. > > has anyone tried nested chrome moly tubes?? > > thanx > > michael > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H MITCHELL" <mitchmnd(at)msn.com>
Subject: 912-powered Mark 3
Date: Oct 29, 2001
This is to inform any of you that read my posts that I am now the proud owner of a 912-powered Mark 3 project. There is a lot of work to be done but all of the parts are there. I have had it for a week now and have been reading all the literature about the engine. I knew it was different but this engine is wa-a-ay more complex than my 447! I'll be reading all that 912-related E-mail from now on. I am going to hang on to my FireFly while I finish the Mark 3 so that I can maintain my flying skills and will still report on these flights. Keep your air speed, Duane the plane in Tallahassee, FL, FireFly, 447, Ivo,103 Hrs ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2001
Subject: Re: landing gear
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
> > but sadly, I bent the right landing gear leg and the poor > right wing droops 8 inches lower now.... poor baby. > thanx > > michael Michael, there is really no need for stronger landing gear, the 7075 tapered gear is plenty strong enough. I've been flying off the same ones for many years. What you have to do is learn how to come in soft and put it down like a feather. This makes a good pilot out of you and keeps you on your toes (and elevator). There is a technique to landing soft and once you learn that technique, you will not have to bend any more gear. Ralph Burlingame Original Firestar 14 years flying it ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2001
Subject: Re: landing gear
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
The gear on my new (used) Twinstar was so mangled that I couldnt fly it off of asphault. The alignment was so far out that the plane would not accelerate to takeoff speed...Like the brakes were locked up. I took off from the grass and when I tried to land on the asphault the plane hooked a left. Anyway...I took the gear legs off, put them in a hydraulic press and got them to within .010 of true. They were bent badly. One was a good 2.5 inches out of true. If you dont want to straighten the aluminum gear, Kolb is selling the Mark 3 gear legs on thier web site for $380 (I think). The mark 3 gear is tempered steel, not aluminum. I opted to keep the aluminum becuase of the cost and the weight of the steel legs. Since then, Ive been fooling around practicing landings (alittle trickier than the Phantom) and have done everything from basically not flaring and flying into the ground to flaring too high and dropping in from 6 feet. I have not re-bent the gear. You must have hit real hard to bend it. Its funny...Ive been flying GA for 20 years and my Phantom for 2 years. Ive never made a bad landing in the Phantom...and Ive yet to make a good one in the Twinstar. This plane doesnt fly or land like any other plane Ive flown. It takes some practice to get proficient with it. Ross > From: "michael mcalister" <michaelmcalister(at)mediaone.net> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:07:16 -0500 > To: > Subject: Kolb-List: landing gear > > > > well, my new (used) firestar and I went around the pattern for the first > time today. > Quite a wonderful feeling to actually go flying, after so many practice runs > up to 100 feet > and down to land. but sadly, I bent the right landing gear leg and the poor > right wing > droops 8 inches lower now.... poor baby. > > my question is, are there any "tempered" AL landing gears around?? > mine is 1 1/8 inch diameter, as best as i can tell with my myopic eyeballs. > > has anyone tried nested chrome moly tubes?? > > thanx > > michael > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2001
From: Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: throttle help ??
I will see if I can find a photo of my setup. I placed a tube in front of the original throttle location and it reached either side of the cockpit. I was able to weld in a couple bushings on the main frame and I drilled and tapped either end of this tube for a small throttle handle. In the center of this tube I welded a tang which connected to the original throttle arm by a small link. I now have 3 throttle handles but the center one has been cut down a lot and I can still use it if I needed it. Let me know if you don't understand this arrangement and I will draw you a picture. > >Has anyone got a trusy dual trottle arrangement for a Mk III? With a >dual stick in the middle, I'm looking to have a throttle at each door. >I already moved the center throttle to my (left) side. > >Thanks > >===== >John & Lynn Richmond :-) >Palm Coast, Fl. >Mk3 269LJ, 582, 41 hrs >1,400 miles, longest=270 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2001
Subject: Re: Registering experimental...
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
This si what I thought. When he said he wouldnt sell it with the paperwork, I didnt think it was a big deal because I had planned on operating in the UL catagory. After thinking about it...I decided registering would be better. I have a PPL but I dont have a BFI. Technically, I would be illegal in the UL catagory. Im going to contact the previous owner this weekend and try to get the paperwork. I think he might give in. I wonder if a complete airframe overhaul would qualify as 51%. In another month the plane will be completely disassembled. Every bolt removed and every rivet drilled out. What happens if you buy a UL thats never been registered and decide you want to register it? I know that has been done before. Ross > From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:20:07 EST > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Registering experimental... > > > In a message dated 10/29/01 6:19:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, > rrcarl(at)concentric.net writes: > > So how should I do this? Should I just tell the FAA that I bought the plane > but the owner would not give me the paperwork? I know the aircraft serial# > and N number and the experimental manufacturers placard is there showing the > previous owner as the builder. I have a bill of sale stating that the > aircraft was not sold in airworthy condition. > > Ross: > > You are in a bad spot. You cannot re-register the aircraft as a > homebuilt experimental, because you didn't build it. You would be unable to > truthfully fill out the application where you have to swear you built 51%. > Nor can you apply to receive a repairman certificate so you could do your own > annual condition inspection. > > If you have been following the discussions on this list about how to > avoid personal liability in the sale of a homebuilt you would have seen that > the buyer who gets a plane with no airworthyness certificate is buying a pig > in a poke. The right move for the seller is not necessarily such a great > deal for the buyer. > > You could re-register your aircraft in experimental exhibition > category number 4. But that is such a regulatory nightmare I wouldn't bother > with it. Go ultralight or wait around to see that the sport pilot proposal > will do for you. > > Mark R. Sellers > Kolb Twinstar Mark III > N496BM > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderskir(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: landing gear
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Ross, If I had to bet $ on it, I'd say your TwinStar is out of trim or the cg is off. I've flown lots of GA aircraft & other model UL's, as well as most Kolb models. The Kolbs I've flown have all been predictable & easy to fly. My previous Kolb was a TwinStar & she was extremely well mannered. Do a weight & balance & check the angle of incidence between the wing & horizontal stab. ...Richard Swiderski ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Carlisle" <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: landing gear <<>> > Since then, Ive been fooling around practicing landings (alittle trickier > than the Phantom) and have done everything from basically not flaring and > flying into the ground to flaring too high and dropping in from 6 feet. I > have not re-bent the gear. You must have hit real hard to bend it. > > Its funny...Ive been flying GA for 20 years and my Phantom for 2 years. Ive > never made a bad landing in the Phantom...and Ive yet to make a good one in > the Twinstar. This plane doesnt fly or land like any other plane Ive flown. > It takes some practice to get proficient with it. > > Ross > > > > From: "michael mcalister" <michaelmcalister(at)mediaone.net> > > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > > Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:07:16 -0500 > > To: > > Subject: Kolb-List: landing gear > > > > > > > > well, my new (used) firestar and I went around the pattern for the first > > time today. > > Quite a wonderful feeling to actually go flying, after so many practice runs > > up to 100 feet > > and down to land. but sadly, I bent the right landing gear leg and the poor > > right wing > > droops 8 inches lower now.... poor baby. > > > > my question is, are there any "tempered" AL landing gears around?? > > mine is 1 1/8 inch diameter, as best as i can tell with my myopic eyeballs. > > > > has anyone tried nested chrome moly tubes?? > > > > thanx > > > > michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org>
Subject: Re: The Tort System
I have a first hand question. Many years ago, my first few hours as a radar controller, in training, I had the great misfortune of working a moron who persisted in departing VFR into marginal VFR conditons. It was a man, his wife, and college age son, from Louisana, come up into the mountains, and wanted to get to Roanoke. Departed TRI VFR, flew east until out of the TRSA, terminated Stage Three, and squawked VFR. Several minutes later, this idiot had climbed into the soup, suddenly saw Holston Mountain, (atop which sits Holston Mountain VOR, duh) , and tried to do a 180 in his Cessna 177 Cardinal. He didn't make it, ripped through the trees, and killed himself and his wife. His college aged son survived, and crawled out of the wreckage, and died leaning against a tree. His daughters sued the FAA for malfeasance, and Cessna, Continental Teledyne, and Marvel Schebler for providing this noble pilot with faulty equipment. I had to sit through several hours of depositions, as did another controller who was then at Louisville, and was brought at taxpayer expense to the deposition, and then to the trial. The FAA provided (at taxpayer expense) lawyers to defend the case, which ended up being thrown out by the judge because of its obvious irrationale. But in the meantime it probably cost the taxpayers many thousands of dollars, plus the loss of several useful air traffic controllers for several days, plus what ever it cost Cessna and Marvel Schebler carburetors for their part in the whole bit. The pilot was a stupid and incompetent jerk who flew VFR into IFR conditions, straight toward a 5400' high mountain at 4500', and killed himself, his wife and his son. I came close to being terminated from a career I loved, my instructor, (the other training controller) was majorly jerked around because of the lawsuit and it's sword hanging over his head, and the taxpayers lost a bundle, and the plaintiffs (the daughters of the deceased of the moron pilot) were on contingency, and it didn't cost them a thing. They took a free shot at the government, Cessna, and a carburetor factory for nothing, and after the dust had settled, they went home none the worse for wear. And all the rest of us footed the bill. Maybe that is the best system, but it still stinks. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) Retired Controller You, my friend, have discovered the inner logic of the tor>t system. >=A0The system addresses the big picture costs of a product.When you add=20>up >all the cancer deaths and work days lost from emphysema and so forth you can> >see that for decades the tobacco industry was getting a free ride.When y>ou >factor in the health risks you can see that the actual costs of a pack of >cigarettes to society might be more like ten bucks a pack. The tort system >merely seeks to return those costs to the industry. > > What is your objection to the aviation industry being treated the sam>e >way as the rest of the economy? > >Mark R. Sellers >Kolb Twinstar Mark III >N496BM > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: The Tort System
In a message dated 10/30/01 1:43:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, richard(at)BCChapel.org writes: They took a free shot at the government, Cessna, and a carburetor factory for nothing, and after the dust had settled, they went home none the worse for wear. And all the rest of us footed the bill. Maybe that is the best system, but it still stinks Mr. Pike: Sorry you had a bad judicial experience. But keep your eye on the architecture of the system. Somebody had their day in court, had a chance to tell their story and had it appraised by an impartial judge. That is a good thing. Its always easy to say that someone's position was irrational or stupid at the end when we have had the benefit of thinking over all the facts. But at the beginning things are never that clear. Every attorney has had the experience of having what looks like a slam dunk case evaporate on him, and similarly, some things that look really dumb at the outset turn around completely. You often can't know until the end. I love your notion that somebody took a free shot. The system is set up to punish everyone for their bad judgment. Even lawyers. Those guys who took a free shot at you lost quite a bit of their own money. The office I work in lost 2 trials last week (I had nothing to do with either one). They were minor contingent matters. When you add up the copying charges, postage, deposition transcript fees, travel expenses they amounted to roughly $50,000 per case, and that doesn't include the salary's for the attorneys working on them. Looks like my Christmas bonus just went out the window-- have to wait till next year for the 912 engine for my Mark 3. It may hurt me occasionally, but I think the logic of the system is good. Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: Registering experimental...
In a message dated 10/29/01 11:04:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, rrcarl(at)concentric.net writes: > wonder if a complete airframe overhaul would qualify as 51%. In another > month the plane will be completely disassembled. Every bolt removed and > every rivet drilled out. If you work with a cooperative DAR this can be done. > > What happens if you buy a UL thats never been registered and decide you > want > to register it? I know that has been done before. You still have to truthfully say you made 51% of it on the application. Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: Registering experimental...
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
> From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:41:16 EST > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Registering experimental... > >> >> What happens if you buy a UL thats never been registered and decide you >> want >> to register it? I know that has been done before. > > You still have to truthfully say you made 51% of it on the > application. Even if you buy a UL trainer already built? Lets say I found a nice Flightstar that has been a UL trainer its whole life. Never FAA registered. There is no way I can register this plane unless I am the original builder? This doesnt make sense. Do you know how the Sport Pilot deal will work? Will "Sport Pilot" planes still need to be FAA registered? Or will they be treated as UL's (no registration) but you must have the sport pilot cert? It might be easier to get my BFI than to register this plane...But then Im still not legal flying for recreational purposes. Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: landing gear
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
Acually...Quite a few BFI/CFI's with time in Kolbs, Drifters and Flightstars advised me against buying the Kolb. They said that because Im used to the more high performance planes, both GA and UL, that I would find that the Kolb flies like a pig. I do think it flies like a pig, but I think once I get used to the poor control response, it will be a fun plane. I just need to get used to flying slow again...Its been a while. Im used to burning up the landscape at 80+ in my Phantom. The problem I have with landing is that Im used to more of a flare on landing. Your average taildragger sits in more of a tail low attitude than the Kolb does. I find that you have to land the Kolb pretty flat. If you try to flare a lot, the tail touches first, then it bounces on the mains. It seems to take a bit of presision to do a smooth full stall landing. Im not saying that a bad thing, Its just different and takes some getting used to. Also consider that I have yet to fly this plane in less than 15 knots of gusting crosswind. The wind here has been averaging 15+ day and night for the past 2 weeks. I think in calm conditions this could be a real fun plane, but in turbulence it's a handful. I think the mods I have planned this winter will help alot. My last flight I made a vertical landing. I took off in winds of 10 - 15 and landed 20 minutes later in (Im guessing) 30+. I landed on the taxiway so I could get pointed straight into the wind, kept alittle power on (3500RPM) and touched down with 0 ground speed. The guys at the airport call it the Harrier now. One of them wanted me to do it again so he could video tape it. I tried but the wind settled back down to 15 or so. The CG seems on the tail heavy side of OK (22% of chord). Of course I can weigh the plane all day long, but unless someone can tell me what the allowable CG envelope is it wont do much good. All I can do is put on the test pilots hat see how it handles in the air. It feels slightly on the tail heavy side, which may account for some of my handling issues. On the other hand...It stalls and spins without going flat and recovers OK...So I have to think that the CG is not too far out the back. Once I get my new prop and tuned pipe installed, Im going to re-weigh...Hopfully this weekend. Then I need to get busy on the enclosure so I can fly in the winter. My hat's off to you guys that fly open cockpit UL's in the winter. I tried it...I dont have the stones for it... Ross > From: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderskir(at)earthlink.net> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:39:31 -0500 > To: > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: landing gear > > > > Ross, > > If I had to bet $ on it, I'd say your TwinStar is out of trim or the cg > is off. I've flown lots of GA aircraft & other model UL's, as well as most > Kolb models. The Kolbs I've flown have all been predictable & easy to fly. > My previous Kolb was a TwinStar & she was extremely well mannered. Do a > weight & balance & check the angle of incidence between the wing & > horizontal stab. ...Richard Swiderski > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Carlisle" <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> > To: > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: landing gear > > > <<>> >> Since then, Ive been fooling around practicing landings (alittle trickier >> than the Phantom) and have done everything from basically not flaring and >> flying into the ground to flaring too high and dropping in from 6 feet. I >> have not re-bent the gear. You must have hit real hard to bend it. >> >> Its funny...Ive been flying GA for 20 years and my Phantom for 2 years. > Ive >> never made a bad landing in the Phantom...and Ive yet to make a good one > in >> the Twinstar. This plane doesnt fly or land like any other plane Ive > flown. >> It takes some practice to get proficient with it. >> >> Ross >> >> >>> From: "michael mcalister" <michaelmcalister(at)mediaone.net> >>> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com >>> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:07:16 -0500 >>> To: >>> Subject: Kolb-List: landing gear >>> >>> >>> >>> well, my new (used) firestar and I went around the pattern for the first >>> time today. >>> Quite a wonderful feeling to actually go flying, after so many practice > runs >>> up to 100 feet >>> and down to land. but sadly, I bent the right landing gear leg and the > poor >>> right wing >>> droops 8 inches lower now.... poor baby. >>> >>> my question is, are there any "tempered" AL landing gears around?? >>> mine is 1 1/8 inch diameter, as best as i can tell with my myopic > eyeballs. >>> >>> has anyone tried nested chrome moly tubes?? >>> >>> thanx >>> >>> michael >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net>
Subject: The Tort System
Date: Oct 30, 2001
They took a free shot at the government, Cessna, and a carburetor factory for nothing, and after the dust had settled, they went home none the worse for wear. And all the rest of us footed the bill. Maybe that is the best system, but it still stinks Mr. Pike: Sorry you had a bad judicial experience. But keep your eye on the architecture of the system. Somebody had their day in court, had a chance to tell their story and had it appraised by an impartial judge. That is a good thing. Its always easy to say that someone's position was irrational or stupid at the end when we have had the benefit of thinking over all the facts. But at the beginning things are never that clear. Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM Huh? Never that clear??? Sometimes things are EXACTLY THAT CLEAR! I would be curious if the lawsuit was filed before the NTSB released the findings from their investigation? (I hope a judge wouldn't even think about hearing the case till it came in...) Anyway, the investigation report would have stated clearly that the prop was spinning under power on impact, that the pilot deviated in known IMC conditions, etc., etc. etc.... Anyone could realize that Cessna wasn't at fault (unless you can charge them with not making the "idiot" proof airplane...) and certainly that big Lycoming was doing its thing when it was so rudely forced into the ground...so why were they even named in the suit??? I ate dinner with one of my best friends who is an attorney himself last night and told him about the Cardinal incident that Topher passed along...his remark was that he believed that "best" by your client isn't always "right" and that advising a client that "we will get you "justice"" by taking a shot at the guys with the deep pockets even though they weren't at fault was not an option in his opinion. I believe that is really how he feels, cause I'm not so jaded to think that the entire legal profession is money hungry and willing to slit anyone's throat for a buck..........but there are some.... Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)ldl.net P.S. Mark, you have given an enormous amount of good advice on this list, and I think I speak for everybody when I say "Thanks". I just happen to disagree with you in basic principal about this issue. I look forward to hearing good advice in the future... 8-) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net>
Subject: landing gear
Date: Oct 30, 2001
, that I would find that the Kolb flies like a pig. I do think it flies like a pig, but I think once I get used to the poor control response, it will be a fun plane. Did you get that line out of how to win friends and influence people, or how to give a good "back-handed" compliment??? This is the KOLB-LIST(at)Matronics.com .... think about it. The Phantom must be a heck of an airplane...cause I've flown several planes (not a Phantom, I must say...) that are like a lead-sled compared to the Mark 3...maybe someone who has flown the Mark2 and Mark3 could enlighten us as to whether the Mark 2 is the member of the Kolb family that none of the other family members like to talk about or whatever... 8-) Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)ldl.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net>
Subject: Re: landing gear
Just because you bought a pig is no reason for it stay that way. My FireFly was not fun to fly at first but by making small adjustments it has become a pure joy to fly. If you are experiencing poor control response, fix it. That is what experimental and ultra light is all about. Why settle for less? Jack B. Hart FF004 Jackson, MO > >Acually...Quite a few BFI/CFI's with time in Kolbs, Drifters and Flightstars >advised me against buying the Kolb. They said that because Im used to the >more high performance planes, both GA and UL, that I would find that the >Kolb flies like a pig. I do think it flies like a pig, but I think once I >get used to the poor control response, it will be a fun plane. I just need >to get used to flying slow again...Its been a while. Im used to burning up >the landscape at 80+ in my Phantom. Jack & Louise Hart jbhart(at)ldd.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: landing gear
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: "Seitzer, Bettie (TEK Systems)" <Bettie.Seitzer(at)AndersenCorp.com>
I have to agree with Ralph about learning to land soft. It takes practice and I flew for about 60 hours before I bent a gear leg, using the same technique that I had been working hard to perfect. Flying into a nice 10 mph headwind, lost it 10 feet off the runway and pancaked in. Felt really humbled and very sad at first, but many have reassured me that a bent gear leg is not the end of the world. Fix it or replace it and go back to practicing. By the way, Ralph does a great job of verbalizing that landing technique. -----Original Message----- From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com [mailto:ul15rhb(at)juno.com] Subject: Re: Kolb-List: landing gear > > but sadly, I bent the right landing gear leg and the poor > right wing droops 8 inches lower now.... poor baby. > thanx > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Registering experimental...
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: "Seitzer, Bettie (TEK Systems)" <Bettie.Seitzer(at)AndersenCorp.com>
You might consider getting the BFI endorsement. Not too big a deal. EAA, ASC or USUA can all certify you. Dale and I are going through ASC. You can get more information about it on your website. Of course as a BFI anyone you take up must be a "student" but that may not be too big an issue. Some guys have given their wives dozens of hours of training. You would be covered until the "Sport Pilot" gets finalized. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Carlisle [mailto:rrcarl(at)concentric.net] Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Registering experimental... ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: The Tort System
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: "Seitzer, Bettie (TEK Systems)" <Bettie.Seitzer(at)AndersenCorp.com>
Since we are in the middle of the process of trying to buy a used plane, this conversation is very much of interest. WE also just sold a used plane that was originally built by a group of people. That plane has changed hands several times. Until this conversation started I had not even thought about the liability issues related to it. (And let me just say that ignorance truly is bliss! I am the most blissful person I know.) Now, I am aware that there are some liability issues, still not sure exactly what our liability is, not sure what the liability of the previous owners and the builders would be either. Mark, you make an excellent point about keeping your eye on the architecture of the system and not on outcomes with which one does not agree. I have also become more aware of the liability issues related to instructing and how that liability reflects back to the original builder of a plane. Dale always says that I get by on luck and guile - but really it is faith. I think that we have to live every day fully, support the democratic systems, love and trust each other, and be grateful everyday that we live in a country where we can fly these wonderful planes and discuss these difficult issues. We can improve the system if we stay involved and educated. -----Original Message----- From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com [mailto:Cavuontop(at)aol.com] Subject: Re: Kolb-List: The Tort System In a message dated 10/30/01 1:43:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, richard(at)BCChapel.org writes: They took a free shot at the government, Cessna, and a carburetor factory for nothing, and after the dust had settled, they went home none the worse for wear. And all the rest of us footed the bill. Maybe that is the best system, but it still stinks Mr. Pike: Sorry you had a bad judicial experience. But keep your eye on the architecture of the system. Somebody had their day in court, had a chance to tell their story and had it appraised by an impartial judge. That is a good thing. Its always easy to say that someone's position was irrational or stupid at the end when we have had the benefit of thinking over all the facts. But at the beginning things are never that clear. Every attorney has had the experience of having what looks like a slam dunk case evaporate on him, and similarly, some things that look really dumb at the outset turn around completely. You often can't know until the end. I love your notion that somebody took a free shot. The system is set up to punish everyone for their bad judgment. Even lawyers. Those guys who took a free shot at you lost quite a bit of their own money. The office I work in lost 2 trials last week (I had nothing to do with either one). They were minor contingent matters. When you add up the copying charges, postage, deposition transcript fees, travel expenses they amounted to roughly $50,000 per case, and that doesn't include the salary's for the attorneys working on them. Looks like my Christmas bonus just went out the window-- have to wait till next year for the 912 engine for my Mark 3. It may hurt me occasionally, but I think the logic of the system is good. Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: landing gear
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: "Seitzer, Bettie (TEK Systems)" <Bettie.Seitzer(at)AndersenCorp.com>
Open cockpit in the winter can be delightful, but you gotta dress right. We have the advantage of being in the land of ice fisher people who have raised winter dressing to an art form. Being a boy scout mom and doing that winter camping helped educate me. It is all in the layering!!! -----Original Message----- From: Richard Carlisle [mailto:rrcarl(at)concentric.net] Subject: Re: Kolb-List: landing gear Once I get my new prop and tuned pipe installed, Im going to re-weigh...Hopfully this weekend. Then I need to get busy on the enclosure so I can fly in the winter. My hat's off to you guys that fly open cockpit UL's in the winter. I tried it...I dont have the stones for it... Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: landing gear
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
I agree...Half the fun is experimenting and improving. If was willing to settle on someone elses idea of a good design, Id still be flying certified planes. This will be a good flying plane when I get done with it. Ross > From: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:29:38 -0600 > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: landing gear > > > Just because you bought a pig is no reason for it stay that way. My > FireFly was not fun to fly at first but by making small adjustments it has > become a pure joy to fly. If you are experiencing poor control response, > fix it. That is what experimental and ultra light is all about. Why > settle for less? > > Jack B. Hart FF004 > Jackson, MO > > >> >> Acually...Quite a few BFI/CFI's with time in Kolbs, Drifters and Flightstars >> advised me against buying the Kolb. They said that because Im used to the >> more high performance planes, both GA and UL, that I would find that the >> Kolb flies like a pig. I do think it flies like a pig, but I think once I >> get used to the poor control response, it will be a fun plane. I just need >> to get used to flying slow again...Its been a while. Im used to burning up >> the landscape at 80+ in my Phantom. > > > Jack & Louise Hart > jbhart(at)ldd.net > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: landing gear
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
I didnt mean to offend. Im just being honest about my initial reactions to first flights in the Twinstar. I think once I get used to it, it will be a lot of fun. Its just different and takes some adjustment. The Phantom is highly aerobatic with very crisp control response. I've done aileron rolls with as little as 2" of stick movement. I like the Twinstar for alot of reasons. The little quirks can be worked out...and my have been on the Mark 3. The one thing I really dont like is the lack of good reliable data on the older planes. I really feel like a test pilot every time I strap into this thing. Ross > From: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:38:31 -0500 > To: > Subject: RE: Kolb-List: landing gear > > > , that I would find that the > Kolb flies like a pig. I do think it flies like a pig, but I think once I > get used to the poor control response, it will be a fun plane. > > > Did you get that line out of how to win friends and influence people, or how > to give a good "back-handed" compliment??? This is the > KOLB-LIST(at)Matronics.com .... think about it. The Phantom must be a heck of > an airplane...cause I've flown several planes (not a Phantom, I must say...) > that are like a lead-sled compared to the Mark 3...maybe someone who has > flown the Mark2 and Mark3 could enlighten us as to whether the Mark 2 is the > member of the Kolb family that none of the other family members like to talk > about or whatever... > > 8-) > > Jeremy Casey > jrcasey(at)ldl.net > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: topher vs cavuontop message of Mon, 29 Oct 2001
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: "Seitzer, Bettie (TEK Systems)" <Bettie.Seitzer(at)AndersenCorp.com>
It is always interesting to me that people love to bash lawyers, but when they believe they have been wronged they turn immediately to the law to get what they believe is due them. Not a lawyer myself, but I have know enough of them to realize that there are good ones and bad ones - much like pilots...... Meanwhile, on the liability issue. I will sign a waiver with anyone we buy a plane with, I will inspect and maintain it carefully, fly it carefully and be discriminating in my choice of students. I will carefully document instruction and clearance to solo. I will continue to promote safety in our flying group and with the people that I talk to. Beyond that I will continue to operate on faith and trust that the lawyers are doing their job making sure that manufacturers are held responsible for the products they produce - including kits and instructions. And most important of all, I will enjoy every single moment that I am able to be playing in the sky. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: CAW <caw(at)nctc.com>
Subject: Re: Registering experimental...
you can register the expermental plane even if you are not the builder i did it but it is a lot of trouble and time and the biggie lot of money Richard Carlisle wrote: > > > From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com > > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:41:16 EST > > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Registering experimental... > > > >> > >> What happens if you buy a UL thats never been registered and decide you > >> want > >> to register it? I know that has been done before. > > > > You still have to truthfully say you made 51% of it on the > > application. > > Even if you buy a UL trainer already built? Lets say I found a nice > Flightstar that has been a UL trainer its whole life. Never FAA registered. > There is no way I can register this plane unless I am the original builder? > This doesnt make sense. > > Do you know how the Sport Pilot deal will work? Will "Sport Pilot" planes > still need to be FAA registered? Or will they be treated as UL's (no > registration) but you must have the sport pilot cert? > > It might be easier to get my BFI than to register this plane...But then Im > still not legal flying for recreational purposes. > > Ross > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: CAW <caw(at)nctc.com>
Subject: Re: Registering experimental...
you can rip the cloth off the wings etc and disassemble and reasemble and be truthful about the 51% Cavuontop(at)aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/29/01 6:19:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, > rrcarl(at)concentric.net writes: > > So how should I do this? Should I just tell the FAA that I bought the plane > but the owner would not give me the paperwork? I know the aircraft serial# > and N number and the experimental manufacturers placard is there showing the > previous owner as the builder. I have a bill of sale stating that the > aircraft was not sold in airworthy condition. > > Ross: > > You are in a bad spot. You cannot re-register the aircraft as a > homebuilt experimental, because you didn't build it. You would be unable to > truthfully fill out the application where you have to swear you built 51%. > Nor can you apply to receive a repairman certificate so you could do your own > annual condition inspection. > > If you have been following the discussions on this list about how to > avoid personal liability in the sale of a homebuilt you would have seen that > the buyer who gets a plane with no airworthyness certificate is buying a pig > in a poke. The right move for the seller is not necessarily such a great > deal for the buyer. > > You could re-register your aircraft in experimental exhibition > category number 4. But that is such a regulatory nightmare I wouldn't bother > with it. Go ultralight or wait around to see that the sport pilot proposal > will do for you. > > Mark R. Sellers > Kolb Twinstar Mark III > N496BM > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net>
Subject: Re: Registering experimental...
Ross, For once I must disagree with Mark/CAVU slightly. <> First, let us assume the previous builder sold it using the FAA Bill of Sale form and gave you the aircraft and engine logbook(s). Simply send in the FAA Registration Form along with a copy of the FAA Bill of Sale and get the aircraft registered in your name. Then or at the same time request a copy of the Airworthiness Certificate on the proper form stating the original is lost (this is true, it is not in the airplane and you don't really know exactly where it is). All these forms can be obtained from your nearby FSDO and the associated fees are quite reasonable. At the same time have the FAA Xerox a copy of the Operating Limitations issued with the Airworthiness Certificate, it is in the same file folder. Now all you need to do is perform a weight and balance and placard your plane the same as some other Kolb of the same model to have a legal airplane. If the owner has not done a condition inspection in the last 12 months it can be done by anyone as long as it is signed off by any A&P, no IA required. Without the FAA style Bill of Sale life gets more difficult. I would call FAA Oklahoma City and ask them what Bill of Sale is acceptable and/or what you should do (sworn affidavit, etc.) to get the airplane registered in your name. They generally try to be helpful to polite cries for help. Without the logbooks life can get interesting. I would never buy an aircraft without the logbooks but that may be water under the bridge. It is possible to start new logs but I would consult with an old, experienced IA style mechanic. The local EAA Chapter (which you should join anyway) can be very helpful getting you connected with the right person. Any and all of the above can take a while so get started right away if you wish to fly in the next six months. If you are really going to disassemble every bolt and drill out every rivet then you are also planning to recover and repaint after assembly of your pile of used airplane parts. In this case it should not be hard to find a DAR who agrees you did 51% of the work because you have. Building experimental homebuilts with used aircraft parts, even whole wings from certificated airplanes, was very common in the '50s so you have tradition on your side. Be sure to get the DAR's opinion before you start and document with lots of photos the entire process. This would be the best of all worlds except for the liability issue. You would be the manufacturer of a new homebuilt and able to get a Repairman's Certificate for it. Hope this makes your available options more clear. I wouldn't wait for the Sport Aircraft rule to take effect. If/when it does there will be a conversion period allowed but the whole process may be in limbo. The 9/11 attack has made the people above the FAA very spooky about less control of anything that flys, as if that would somehow make future attacks less likely or effective. Tom Kuffel Whitefish, MT Building origial FireStar ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Minewiser" <flykolb(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Structural failures?
Date: Oct 29, 2002
I was just wondering if anyone on the list knows of any actual structural failures with KOLB aircraft, especially the Mark III. One reason I am asking is to evaluate the need for a BRS. Jim Mark III Charlotte, NC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: E gearbox on a Firestar II
In a message dated 10/30/01 4:08:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, johann-g(at)tal.is writes: > My plan is to try out a new gearbox with a different ratio, from "B" > 1:2,58 to > an "E" box with 1:3.00 ratio. The "E" box would be better for me because > of the > starter included, compared to the "C" box. No space in front of engine > Your prop is so short, I assume you have a 3 blade; if so, I don't think you want a 3.00:1 ratio- just as you wouldn't want a 2.00:1 ratio with a 2 blade. Howard Shackleford FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: Structural failures?
In a message dated 10/30/01 5:10:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, flykolb(at)carolina.rr.com writes: > I was just wondering if anyone on the list knows of any actual > structural failures with KOLB aircraft, especially the Mark III. One > reason I am asking is to evaluate the need for a BRS. > > Jim > Jim Jim........ spend that money on a really nice GPS, or radio, or trip to the Bahamas, or.......... Shack FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net>
Subject: 447, carb ice, & procedure question
This afternoon I was flying over the Mississippi River bottoms about eight miles south of K02 at about 2000 feet agl. There is a standing cold front to the north and wind from the south is bringing in warm moist air. It was warm enough that my hands did not feel cool. I was trying to get some slow flight data and to determine the effect of adding vortex generators to the front lower surface of the horizontal stabilizer. I am trying to get more back stick effect to ensure the FireFly will stall. Since putting the VG's on the wings, it will only mush and not break into a clean stall. After flying for five or more minutes at 4500 rpm the engine would start to slow and I would have to jiggle the throttle to get it back up to speed. And then I realized that I was flying in about the worst conditions one could have to promote carb icing. I kept jigging the throttle back and forth just a little to kept the engine running. Then I moved the jigging higher and higher (more throttle open) until engine rpm reached 5000 and then the engine decided to keep running with out rpms falling off. I flew the rest of the way back to the airport at 5000 rpm with a vertical speed of 200 fpm down. I was afraid to throttle back to less than that for fear it would quit. I had to make three spirals to get down to pattern altitude and warmer air, and I made my normal approach with no problems. I checked the archives for "carb ice" to see if there was any advice as to what procedure to follow when one fines himself in this situation. I believe it took me about two minutes get the engine running at power. My inclination was to open the throttle as the rpms started to fall off, but in this condition would it be better to close the throttle quickly to break loose the ice and then reopen the throttle? The reason I am asking this is that it seemed every time I tried to open the throttle a small amount engine rpm would drop and then when I closed the throttle a little bit the engine would pick up a little bit. This is one of the longest 20 minute flights I have ever made. Jack B. Hart FF004 Jackson, MO Jack & Louise Hart jbhart(at)ldd.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: Registering experimental...
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
Thanks Tom...I am definitely going to do a ground up restoration on this plane. I figure Ill take pics along the way, start up a builders log book and register it as a new experimental. Maybe by spring sport pilot will be finalized and my choices will be simpler. We did not use the FAA bill of sale, but I could get him to fil one out, Im sure. There were no log books. He either lost them a long time ago or never kept any. Ross > From: Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:52:24 -0800 > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Registering experimental... > > > Ross, > > For once I must disagree with Mark/CAVU slightly. > > < with the airworthiness cert of registration.>> > > First, let us assume the previous builder sold it using the FAA Bill of > Sale form and gave you the aircraft and engine logbook(s). Simply send > in the FAA Registration Form along with a copy of the FAA Bill of Sale > and get the aircraft registered in your name. Then or at the same time > request a copy of the Airworthiness Certificate on the proper form > stating the original is lost (this is true, it is not in the airplane > and you don't really know exactly where it is). All these forms can be > obtained from your nearby FSDO and the associated fees are quite > reasonable. > > At the same time have the FAA Xerox a copy of the Operating Limitations > issued with the Airworthiness Certificate, it is in the same file > folder. Now all you need to do is perform a weight and balance and > placard your plane the same as some other Kolb of the same model to have > a legal airplane. If the owner has not done a condition inspection in > the last 12 months it can be done by anyone as long as it is signed off > by any A&P, no IA required. > > Without the FAA style Bill of Sale life gets more difficult. I would > call FAA Oklahoma City and ask them what Bill of Sale is acceptable > and/or what you should do (sworn affidavit, etc.) to get the airplane > registered in your name. They generally try to be helpful to polite > cries for help. > > Without the logbooks life can get interesting. I would never buy an > aircraft without the logbooks but that may be water under the bridge. > It is possible to start new logs but I would consult with an old, > experienced IA style mechanic. The local EAA Chapter (which you should > join anyway) can be very helpful getting you connected with the right > person. > > Any and all of the above can take a while so get started right away if > you wish to fly in the next six months. > > If you are really going to disassemble every bolt and drill out every > rivet then you are also planning to recover and repaint after assembly > of your pile of used airplane parts. In this case it should not be hard > to find a DAR who agrees you did 51% of the work because you have. > Building experimental homebuilts with used aircraft parts, even whole > wings from certificated airplanes, was very common in the '50s so you > have tradition on your side. Be sure to get the DAR's opinion before > you start and document with lots of photos the entire process. This > would be the best of all worlds except for the liability issue. You > would be the manufacturer of a new homebuilt and able to get a > Repairman's Certificate for it. > > Hope this makes your available options more clear. I wouldn't wait for > the Sport Aircraft rule to take effect. If/when it does there will be a > conversion period allowed but the whole process may be in limbo. The > 9/11 attack has made the people above the FAA very spooky about less > control of anything that flys, as if that would somehow make future > attacks less likely or effective. > > Tom Kuffel > Whitefish, MT > Building origial FireStar > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Johann G. Johannsson" <johann-g(at)tal.is>
Subject: Re: E gearbox on a Firestar II
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Hi Howard. Thank you for that input. I am always learning. Yes, My prop is a three blade IVO. Thanks, Johann G. ----- Original Message ----- From: <HShack(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: E gearbox on a Firestar II > > In a message dated 10/30/01 4:08:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, johann-g(at)tal.is > writes: > > > > My plan is to try out a new gearbox with a different ratio, from "B" > > 1:2,58 to > > an "E" box with 1:3.00 ratio. The "E" box would be better for me because > > of the > > starter included, compared to the "C" box. No space in front of engine > > > > Your prop is so short, I assume you have a 3 blade; if so, I don't think you > want a 3.00:1 ratio- just as you wouldn't want a 2.00:1 ratio with a 2 blade. > > Howard Shackleford > FS I > SC > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry" <tswartz(at)hydrosoft.net>
Subject: Registering experimental...
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Ross You shouldn't have to drill out every rivet to qualify for the 51% build. I bought the MK III quick build kit which comes with the wings and tail built and rigged and still qualifies for 51% build. Terry -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard Carlisle Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Registering experimental... Thanks Tom...I am definitely going to do a ground up restoration on this plane. I figure Ill take pics along the way, start up a builders log book and register it as a new experimental. Maybe by spring sport pilot will be finalized and my choices will be simpler. We did not use the FAA bill of sale, but I could get him to fil one out, Im sure. There were no log books. He either lost them a long time ago or never kept any. Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net>
Subject: Re: Structural failures?
The way Dennis put it to me is when the pin pops out of the wing and it folds back, your to low to do anything about it anyway. Make sure all your bits and pieces and where there suppose to be. I've never heard of a structural failure other than the one Dennis did intentionally and he had to way over stress the airplane and then they beefed that up. However, if it makes you feel good do it. It's like a fire extinguisher (expensive one at that), you don't appreciate it until you need it but it doesn't mean it going to work either. > >I was just wondering if anyone on the list knows of any actual >structural failures with KOLB aircraft, especially the Mark III. One >reason I am asking is to evaluate the need for a BRS. > >Jim >Mark III >Charlotte, NC > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WillUribe(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: Structural failures?
In a message dated 10/30/01 5:10:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, flykolb(at)carolina.rr.com writes: > I was just wondering if anyone on the list knows of any actual > structural failures with KOLB aircraft, especially the Mark III. One > reason I am asking is to evaluate the need for a BRS. > > Jim > Mark III > Charlotte, NC John Hauck was saved by a hand deployed chute when he made one too many hammer head stalls on his old FireStar. It is a lot of money for something you hope your never going to use but to me it's worth the peace of mind Here is a link to a webpage of someone who wished he had installed a BRS. http://www.ulsafaris.com/Crash.htm Will Uribe El Paso, TX but working in Kansas City FireStar II N4GU C-172 N2506U http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: Registering experimental...
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
I think I have to drill out most of them to do the recover. IE: ailerons, elevator and rudder need to come off so hinge rivets must be drilled out. The vertical stab is also showing some rust around where it attaches to the boom tube. Id like to remove that, inspect the rusted areas and possibly replace some tubing. I figure about the only part I wont be removing is the forward boom tube attachment point. Also...the rivets are not stainless. I think if I keep a good log and take pics I shouldnt have any trouble getting registered. Ross > From: "Terry" <tswartz(at)hydrosoft.net> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:26:55 -0500 > To: > Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Registering experimental... > > > Ross > > You shouldn't have to drill out every rivet to qualify for the 51% build. I > bought the MK III quick build kit which comes with the wings and tail built > and rigged and still qualifies for 51% build. > > Terry > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard > Carlisle > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Registering experimental... > > > > Thanks Tom...I am definitely going to do a ground up restoration on this > plane. I figure Ill take pics along the way, start up a builders log book > and register it as a new experimental. Maybe by spring sport pilot will be > finalized and my choices will be simpler. > > We did not use the FAA bill of sale, but I could get him to fil one out, Im > sure. There were no log books. He either lost them a long time ago or > never kept any. > > Ross > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: Structural failures?
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
Im kind of on the fence with this issue also. Id like to have the safety net, but does it really need it? I want to keep the plane as light as possible, but I want to be safe also. Decisions...decisions... If I had a Mark 3 I'd be inclined to fly BRSless. Im working with an older Twinstar. As I think about this...Maybe Ill wait to buy the BRS until after the restoration is done. Ill probably feel more comfortable with the plane after I see it under the fabric and everything has been brought up to new specs. Ross > From: "Jim Minewiser" <flykolb(at)carolina.rr.com> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:08:54 -0500 > To: > Subject: Kolb-List: Structural failures? > > > I was just wondering if anyone on the list knows of any actual > structural failures with KOLB aircraft, especially the Mark III. One > reason I am asking is to evaluate the need for a BRS. > > Jim > Mark III > Charlotte, NC > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: RONATNIK(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Structural failures?
Jim: I am not worthy of being called a novice at this point, as I have only completed four lessons. Having said that, I'll throw in my two cents worth on a subject I am paying great attention to. BRS claims somewhere in the neighborhood of 135+ saves. That is pretty impressive. Now, of course, one could argue that some of those folks may have been able to successfully ride their crafts down and walked away, but chose to hit the silk instead. Some of those folks, had they done proper pre-flights and/or maintenance never would have gotten themselves into a pickle in the first place, and on and on and on. Fine, all legitmate arguements. Oh, and I must be fair to throw in that some folks have even bought the farm inspite of carrying and launching a chute. But ask all those 135+ what they think. Even considering that, yes, once you deploy a chute you are now a passenger and not a pilot notwithstanding. When the fertilizer hits the blower, I'm going to be packin' silk. And when someone as highly regarded in UL aviation as Tom Peghiny of Flightstar says always carry a chute, that's all I need to hear. Best wishes and be safe, all. Bob Littleton, CO ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: The Tort System
Topher: We clearly are on different planets. Your view of the legal system is nothing like mine. I am on the inside, I sit in the boardrooms, I advise the company presidents, I read the confidential memos, I get to look at the checkbook. So how is it we have such a different view o' the world? Dunno. Where you live certainty seems in much greater supply. And when shit happens . . . people just have to deal with it. Because this is arguably aviation related I'll keep the thread going. And I'll try my best not to misquote you. So here is what you said; "But trying to prove a negative is impossible, nothing broke the plane was working fine, here is the evidence (lawyer holds up picture of pile of bent aluminum with blood and a crispy corpse and points to the bent prop in the rotation direction) see the engine was making full power at the time of impact, at this point the crispy corpses widow crys quietly while holding her baby tighter." You have been watching too much TV my friend. It only happens like that in the movies. Your notion that to avoid liability an aircraft manufacturer has to prove a negative has no basis in reality. If a plaintiff's lawyer ever seriously tried to articulate that as a theory of negligence they would be thrown out of any court room I have ever been in. And fast. You way misunderstand the law. "The jury is asked to choose between the minimal bit of evidence that shows the plane was fine and taking a little money from this big company and helping the widow and her kids. Do you honestly believe that this is going to go fairly for the company on a consistant basis? sure you'll win a bunch, but that 1 in 10 is a killer, and just winning the first 9 costs you so much it is crippling." Your notion that the jury is a bunch of people who can't control their sympathy is silly. Jury members work for companies. They perfectly well understand the financial consequences of their actions. Admit it Topher, you can't stand the thought that a perfectly rational, thoughtful, members of the community you live in might (heavens!!) disagree with you, and decide that sometimes, sometimes, when shit happens somebody ought to pay. Just to add a little aviation flavor to this thread-- Arthur Wolk, the big scary bogeyman of the aviation plaintiff's bar, he of the recent seat track cases and so forth, has his office a couple of blocks from mine. The press treats this guy like he is some sort of magic svengalli who makes jury members loose their minds and throw money by the buckets full at the undeserving (while of course getting rich himself). It just makes me hoot. This guy is a schmoe from the middle of his class at a second string law school, he has an office with, like, 3 other lawyers Now take a look at, say, Condon & Forsyth, the big aviation defense firm in NYC. They have 50 lawyers (and they are small) and they all went to ivy league law schools. The joke I like to tell is that if the guys from Harvard who get 800s on their LSATs ever start representing the injured folks of the world you are really gonna see some fur fly. Summary of my point: the media (and insurance companies) would love to have you believe that the plaintiff's bar is some monolithic formidable bunch of guys. Wrong. Its the guys with the pocket squares and the Yale ties you should be afraid of. Trust me. I'm glad you thought about the two injury cases I mentioned. That was the point. They require thought. There is no immediately apparent answer. And this is the key point: every case I have ever been involved with in my career has started out that way. Maybe a year from now we'll be able to say, "Oh, they were full of crap." But for the moment what we have are some indisputably hurt people who think they were done dirty by someone. Can you honestly say you are in a position to give them a yes/no answer with the information you have? I'm certainly not. After questioning witnesses and depositions and a whole lot of very slow very careful inquiry things may get clearer, but alot of times it doesn't. You see, when I was younger and not so stupid I thought that with my laser like intelligence I could cut through all the bullshit in the aviation litigation world. That I was so smart that all the answers would be clear to me, just like they are to you. I thought I could just look at folks and say, "hey, shit happens," or "whoa, you really got screwed," and that it would all be plain as day, just like it looks to you. But then I got on the inside-- and that clarity just seemed to disappear. "And it occasionally makes defendants poor and plantiffs rich in either case, when it should not ever make anyone rich, that is not the goal. people should be paid for the damages and go on there way. If you choose to not believe that there are large awards, that they are urban legends, shame on you." Topher buddy, of course there are sometimes huge awards. There are sometimes huge wrongs. We just settled a case where a sleepy drunken semi driver slammed into the back of a van. The gas tank exploded. Three year old boy ejected through the front windshield in a ball of flame. Mother in the back seat nursing the one month old baby that gets ejected in a ball of flame. Husband dead on the scene. She lives, has huge burn scars. The insurance carriers for the trucking company and the trailer owner (but not the companies themselves, they are protected, because they are insured) settled for around 4 million. Do you think we made her rich? Sheeee--it . . . we are high fiving in the office because we are heroes for saving the insurance company so much money. If you would care to tell this woman that shit just happens you are a WAY bigger man than I. In fact, if you think that you can tell me with any precision the value of the life of those kids you are either a genius or a moral monster. "But if it is just an accident that happened then the legal system should not be punishing people or corporations because something bad happened to a good person and that must not go unnoticed. Here is where they system occasionally fails. it gives out awards that are completely without reason and destroy companies." Right, Topher. I agree there should never be awards without reason, and companies should never be destroyed without cause. The reason why we are on different planets is that after 12 years in this business and three more while I was in law school spending all my spare time sitting in courtrooms in New York City I've never seen an irrational award. Never. Seen a few I disagreed with, seen a few I would have done a little different. And everytime some guy at a cocktail party assures me he has a bona fide example of a jury gone nuts, when I actually check it out it never turns out that way. What you can't shake is the suspicion that the courthouse is like a casino. That you might get a fair shake or you might not. Like I said, I disagree-- and I suspect I have alot more data than you. But lets haul this back to aviation. The TEAM thing is beginning to assume in my mind the shape of an albino alligator. I confess I didn't follow it carefully because I thought I knew it by heart without having to look-- having worked so closely with the Kolb guys. I suppose I'll make a few inquiries and report back. Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: landing gear
In a message dated 10/30/01 10:37:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, jrcasey(at)ldl.net writes: > maybe someone who has flown the Mark2 and Mark3 could enlighten us as to > whether the Mark 2 is the member of the Kolb family that none of the other > family members like to talkabout or whatever... > The ailerons on the mark 2 are heavier than on the mark 3. They are full span. On the other hand the control authority is amazing for a plane that weighs 375 lbs. Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: 447, carb ice, & procedure question
In a message dated 10/30/01 5:45:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbhart(at)ldd.net writes: > The reason I am asking this is > that it seemed every time I tried to open the throttle a small amount > engine rpm would drop and then when I closed the throttle a little bit the > engine would pick up a little bit. This is one of the longest 20 minute > flights I have ever made. > Jack: This is one of the most interesting posts I've seen in a while. I've had a number of conversations with guys who insist that carb ice is a non issue in rotax engines. The carbs are thought to be too close to the case for any meaninful ice to bulud up, and because the injection oil/premix oil is sprayed around that there is not way for ice to build up on the slide. If you come to a conclusion I'd love to know about it. Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: Structural failures?
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
> I was just wondering if anyone on the list knows of any actual > structural failures with KOLB aircraft, especially the Mark III. > One > reason I am asking is to evaluate the need for a BRS. > > Jim > Mark III > Charlotte, NC Jim, I've been flying nearly 15 years without a BRS in my Original Firestar. In the early days I didn't get one because they had an electronic detonation that I feared would be hazardous with kids in the garage. Since then, I've decided not to get one because of the strength of the Firestar structure. There have been cases where a BRS was the cause of the crash. If the bridle tie wraps are degraded by sunlight, they can break away causing the bridle to get tangled in the prop and possibly ripping the engine off its mounts. This actually happened to one Kolb pilot. A BRS didn't save the test pilot on the Cumulus ultralight motorglider project and if there is any one person that a BRS should have saved, it should have been him. He was the chief engineer for testing the Cumulus working with Dan Johnson (ULTRALIGHT FLYING! reporter) who had close connections with the BRS company. Obviously, BRS is not standard equipment on factory built aircraft except a new one called the Cirrus. Ironically, a Cirrus crashed in a field a few miles from here seriously injuring both occupants. It was odd they chose not to deploy the BRS. I'm not talking down BRS, but I believe they have another purpose on other ultralights that are not as strong as a Kolb. I do not recall any ultralight in Minnesota ever using a BRS to save the plane/pilot in a crash. If a pilot stalls the plane close to the ground, a BRS isn't going to save his bacon anyway. This brings to mind the death of Chuck Veith this past summer who stalled his Slingshot close to the ground trying to make an alternate landing field when he changed his mind about the first choice. He did not have a BRS, but it would not have made any difference at his low altitude. Ralph Burlingame Original Firestar 14 years flying it ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Oily Mess
Date: Oct 30, 2001
A long winded Lar story. I think it's time for a quick update, and a thank you to the respond-ers. I've had many folks contact me off List with some good ideas, and I surely appreciate it. Yesterday was interesting, and today I had time to reflect on it, since I work swing shift on Sun. & Mon., so had the days to work on the plane. Today & tomorrow, is day shift, so could cogitate a little ( or a LOT ) on the whole sitch-ee-ayshun. Vamoose seems determined to suck the left rocker cover gasket inwards, and dripping oil on the exhaust. Twice so far.............I found out yesterday, when I got out while it was running at about 2200 rpm, and started checking things out - while keeping a very close eye on the prop. Plane is tied to a substantial tree ! ! ! Saw something flicker past, and ducked..................turned out that every time oil dripped on the pipe, it burned instantly and the prop blew a white puff back..............kinda like an old black powder rifle. Hard to miss that. Two friends came over from work a few weeks ago, to help put the engine up on the plane. Ol' Lars' back don't permit such things these days. Turns out that when they took hold of it, they used the best handholds they could find...............the pushrod tubes under the cylinders. They bent slightly, and created monumental oil leaks, along with the rocker gasket. This means that I pull the heads this weekend. Getting to those mighty oil pressure springs is gonna be a bear, but has to be done as well.............well over 100 psi is just too much oil pressure. A.C. Spruce is sending me new master & start relays on warranty, and I have to send these back. More than fair. UMA has authorized me to send them the oil pressure gauge, which they are going to repair on warranty, even tho' I bought it several years ago, when I built the panel. Also more than fair............they understand homebuilts, obviously. Talked at length to Tony at Westach today, as to why none of the CHT & EGT gauges work, even tho' I talked to him before installation, regarding my planned methods. He outlined several tests for me to make Very nice fella to work with. I'll also have to figure out why the Hobbs isn't working.............double checked it, and wiring is correct. Yesterday, I fired it up again............this time strictly on its' own battery..........and am still mightily impressed. This thing really roars ! ! ! Warmed it up till the oil thermostat opened, then opened it up to my planned cruise RPM of 3800 for a few seconds. It's gonna be interesting living in front of THAT ! ! ! Best description is "an earsplitting scream." Takeoff power is gonna be something else. So far, the neighbors haven't complained. Also fooled with timing and mixture a bit, and got the idle down to 1200 engine rpm ( 600 prop rpm ) before the redrive started to chatter. That little mixture readout works off an oxygen sensor, and is one of the dandiest little toys I've ever seen. I Very Strongly Recommend one for anyone who is interested in the fuel mixture going into their engine. Not real expensive, and what a wonderful toy ! ! ! Now, all you experts...................most of the engine, the prop, and just about everything back of it is covered with oil, including the poly-toned tail feathers. What's the best way to clean this up, without damaging anything ?? Tried dish detergent yesterday, and results were indifferent. Help ! ! ! Hot Rod Lar. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, Ca. Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" http://www.gogittum.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Fw: AOPA ePilot Special Edition
Date: Oct 30, 2001
AOPA ePilot--Special BulletinThought this might be of interest to some of you. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, Ca. Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" http://www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: AOPA ePilot Newsletter Subject: AOPA ePilot Special Edition Special Bulletin October 30, 2001 FAA CREATES GA NO-FLY ZONE AROUND NUCLEAR SITES Taking action on Attorney General John Ashcroft's statement that there are "credible reports" of the possibility of another major terrorist attack within the week, the FAA Tuesday issued a notam prohibiting general aviation operations around 86 nuclear sites-mostly power plants-in 36 states. Although severe, the temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) are scheduled to be in place for only one week, until 0500Z November 7 (midnight Eastern time on November 6). The TFRs extend horizontally to a 10-nautical-mile radius below 18,000 feet msl around designated nuclear sites and effectively prohibit GA operations at 465 landing facilities, public and private, nationwide. AOPA is posting a complete list of affected airports on AOPA Online. The 84 affected public-use airports are listed below. "Are we happy with this at AOPA? Absolutely not! However it could have been much worse," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "This morning I spoke at length on this situation with FAA Administrator Jane Garvey and Deputy Administrator Monte Belger, and both indicated that FAA spent all day yesterday being briefed on the aviation component of the national security alert issued yesterday by the FBI. Some of the proposed solutions involved grounding all general aviation traffic everywhere. Pilots must make every effort to get the latest notams and to avoid these sensitive areas." For weeks, the FAA has been under pressure to issue TFRs for nuclear sites. "We believe this threat to be credible, and for that reason it should be taken seriously." AOPA has sent this special message to you because of the broad coverage of the notam restrictions. For the latest developments, see AOPA Online. NOTAM TEXT FDC 1/1763 FDC TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS OVER NUCLEAR SITES. FOR REASONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL NOVEMBER 07, 2001 0500 UTC. PURSUANT TO TITLE 14 CFR SECTIONS 91.139, EMERGENCY AIR TRAFFIC RULES AND 99.7 SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS. ALL GENERAL AVIATION FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN A 10 NAUTICAL MILES RADIUS OF AND BELOW 18000 FEET MSL OVER THE BELOW LISTED NUCLEAR SITES EXCEPT FOR MEDEVAC, LAW ENFORCEMENT, RESCUE/RECOVERY, EMERGENCY EVACUATION AND FIRE FIGHTING OPERATIONS WHEN AUTHORIZED BY ATC: For the complete notam, see AOPA Online. PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS AFFECTED BY NUCLEAR-SITE TFR Alabama - DCU, Pryor Field Regional, Decatur Arizona - BXK, Buckeye Municipal, Buckeye California - C83, Byron, Byron; LVK, Livermore Municipal, Livermore; TCY, Tracy Municipal, Tracy Colorado - 1V5, Boulder Municipal, Boulder; BJC, Jeffco, Denver; 48V, Tri-County, Erie Connecticut - GON, Groton-New London, Groton New London Delaware - EVY, Summit, Middletown Florida - CGC, Crystal River, Crystal River; HST, Homestead ARB, Homestead Idaho - IDA, Idaho Falls Regional, Idaho Falls Illinois - I01, Empress River Casino, Joliet; JOT, Joliet Regional, Joliet; M30, Metropolis Municipal, Metropolis; C09, Morris Municipal-James R. Washburn Field, Morris; C55, Barnett Memorial, Mount Morris Iowa - CWI, Clinton Municipal, Clinton Kansas - UKL, Coffey County, Burlington Kentucky - PAH, Barkley Regional, Paducah Louisiana - HZR, False River Air Park, New Roads; 1L0, St John The Baptist Parish, Reserve Maryland - 2W6, Capt Walter Francis Duke Regional At St Mary's, Leonardtown Massachusetts - 2B2, Plum Island, Newburyport; PYM, Plymouth Municipal, Plymouth Michigan - C20, Andrews University Airpark, Berrien Springs; W87, Wickenheiser, Carleton; ONZ, Grosse Ile Municipal, Detroit/Grosse Ile; TTF, Custer, Monroe; 0D1, South Haven Area Regional, South Haven; 40C, Watervliet Municipal, Watervliet Minnesota - 8Y6, Leaders Clear Lake, Clear Lake; MGG, Maple Lake Municipal, Maple Lake Missouri - 0L8, Heart, Kansas City; MKC, Kansas City Downtown, Kansas City Nebraska - K01, Farington Field, Auburn; K46, Blair Municipal, Blair; 3NO, North Omaha, Omaha Nevada - TPH, Tonopah, Tonopah New Hampshire - 7B3, Hampton Airfield, Hampton New Jersey - MJX, Robert J. Miller Air Park, Toms River New Mexico - LAM, Los Alamos, Los Alamos; E98, Mid Valley Airpark, Los Lunas New York - 0B8, Elizabeth Field, Fishers Island; H43, Haverstraw, Haverstraw; 7N2, Peekskill, Peekskill; 3G7, Williamson-Sodus, Williamson/Sodus North Carolina - AKH, Gastonia Municipal, Gastonia; TTA, Sanford-Lee County Regional, Sanford; SUT, Brunswick County, Southport Ohio - 02G, Columbiana County, East Liverpool; 2G1, Concord Airpark, Painesville; EOP, Pike County, Waverly Pennsylvania - BVI, Beaver County, Beaver Falls; P64, Miller, Burgettstown; N10, Perkiomen Valley, Collegeville; CXY, Capital Hazleton Municipal, Hazleton; N71, Donegal Springs Airpark, Mount Joy/Marietta; N47, Pottstown Municipal, Pottstown; PTW, Pottstown Limerick, Pottstown South Carolina - CEU, Oconee County Regional, Clemson; HVS, Hartsville Regional, Hartsville; LQK, Pickens County, Pickens; UZA, Rock Hill/York Co/Bryant Field, Rock Hill Tennessee - 1A0, Dallas Bay Sky Park, Chattanooga; 2A0, Mark Anton, Dayton Texas - AMA, Amarillo Intl, Amarillo; CFD, Coulter Field, Bryan; CLL, Easterwood Field, College Station; F55, Granbury Municipal, Granbury Virginia - 7W4, Lake Anna, Bumpass; LKU, Louisa County/Freeman Field, Louisa; LYH, Lynchburg Regional/Preston Glenn Field, Lynchburg; W24, Falwell, Lynchburg; PHF, Newport News/Williamsburg International, Newport News; JGG, Williamsburg-Jamestown, Williamsburg Washington - S98, Vista Field, Kennewick; PSC, Tri-Cities, Pasco; RLD, Richland, Richland Wisconsin - RGK, Red Wing Regional, Red Wing West Virginia - 7G1, Herron, New Cumberland - Contact ePilot at epilot(at)aopa.org. Having difficulty using this service? Visit the ePilot Frequently Asked Questions now at AOPA Online. Changing your mailing or e-mail addresses? Do not reply to this automated message. Instead, click here to update. To UNSUBSCRIBE: Do not reply to this automated message - click here Unsubscribe, then hit the "Send" button - do not include a message. To SUBSCRIBE: visit http://www.aopa.org/members/epilot.html. AOPA . 421 Aviation Way . Frederick, MD 21701 . Tel: 800/USA-AOPA or 301/695-2000 Copyright =A9 2001. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net>
Subject: Re: 447, carb ice, & procedure question
> >In a message dated 10/30/01 5:45:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbhart(at)ldd.net >writes: > > >> The reason I am asking this is >> that it seemed every time I tried to open the throttle a small amount >> engine rpm would drop and then when I closed the throttle a little bit the >> engine would pick up a little bit. This is one of the longest 20 minute >> flights I have ever made. >> > >Jack: > > This is one of the most interesting posts I've seen in a while. I've >had a number of conversations with guys who insist that carb ice is a non >issue in rotax engines. The carbs are thought to be too close to the case >for any meaninful ice to bulud up, and because the injection oil/premix oil >is sprayed around that there is not way for ice to build up on the slide. If >you come to a conclusion I'd love to know about it. > >Mark R. Sellers >Kolb Twinstar Mark III >N496BM > Mark, I agree that carb ice will not be a problem at normal cruise speeds. I have flown in these conditions many times and through light rain, and I have never had a problem like today. I believe as long as you keep the engine working hard say 5000 rpm and over, you are unlikely to have a problem. On the 447 with the prop set for cruise and to top out at 6000 rpm, the engine will reach this rpm at a little less than 40% throttle. When I was flying at 4500 the throttle was open just over 20%. If one runs the numbers to see what is going on at the throttle cylinder orifice, the air velocity passing through under the throttle cylinder is about twice as fast at 20% and 4500 rpm as it is at 40% and 6000 rpm. Therefore the pressure drop a cross the throttle cylinder at 4500 is twice that of 6000 rpm and along with the corresponding temperature drop causes the water to flash out of the air as fog and to freeze on to the super cooled surfaces. What I am trying to figure out is where does the ice interfere. Does it build up and clog the mid range needle and jet, or does it extend on back and plug the idle orifices as well? Is it better to slam the throttle closed to dislodge ice and reopen the throttle to get full power, or to do as I did and jigger it until the engine rpm increases? Or was I just lucky? The important thing is to try to maintain some reasonable altitude so that when unexpected things like this happen one does not have to react immediately to land. One has some time to figure out what to do as you head back toward the airport, to shorten the walk, or what ever. Jack B. Hart FF004 Jackson, MO Jack & Louise Hart jbhart(at)ldd.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: 447, carb ice, & procedure question
In a message dated 10/30/01 10:52:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbhart(at)ldd.net writes: > What I am trying to figure out is where does the ice interfere. Does it > build up and clog the mid range needle and jet, or does it extend on back > Jack: I'd love to know. Where would the ice stick in a Bing carb? The bottom of the slide? It's all covered with oil. The jet? They are all oily too. My personal suspicion is that if ice is made it just jets pulled into the case along with the fuel air mixture. But I have no data at all and have never talked to anyone who has any great authority on the subject. Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 30, 2001
Subject: Re: E gearbox on a Firestar II
In a message dated 10/30/01 6:17:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, johann-g(at)tal.is writes: > Hi Howard. Thank you for that input. I am always learning. > Yes, My prop is a three blade IVO. > > Thanks, > Johann G. > You could still use an "E" Box, but go to the 3.47:1 ratio and use a Warp Drive prop, 3 blade, taper tip, 68". It's much stronger & more efficient than the IVO. The only drawback is that it's not as easy to adjust as the IVO, but after you get it set right, you are finished. This is the setup I use. Howard Shackleford FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2001
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org>
Subject: Re: 447, carb ice, & procedure question
I have wondered about carb ice in two strokes for years, and maybe you have provided a clue. Years ago, my brother in law had a new Quicksilver MX with a Cuyuna on it, brought it to Tennessee, and then it turned cold and damp. We did some tests to see if it would ice up. Looking into the carb while the engine was running, we could see frost forming behind the slide needle in the area where the fuel came up out of the main/needle jet assembly. It made a small frost lump but never got bigger at any throttle setting, it stayed constant. But we determined that in cool damp conditions, a frost lump forms behind the slide needle. That was a Mikuni, I would suppose a Bing would do the same thing. The fact that your engine seemed to get weaker when you opened the throttle is fascinating. Let us assume a frost lump has formed behind the needle, that gas is swirling around it, and for whatever reason, the frost lump is bigger than usual, and the engine begins to lose power. What is the possibility that the airflow around the needle and lump has become turbulent in such a way that the normal suction is reduced, and fuel is not being drawn out in it's usual fashion? Would an oddly misshapen lump in this area reduce vacuum, and fuel flow? At the moment, it seems at least possible. Many of us have heard two strokes that are jetted lean, prop loaded at about half throttle, and when you open the throttle further, the engine now sort of sounds like it is really sucking wind, and then starts to bog down. The frost lump could cause a similar situation. I am old enough to remember cars with the windshield wipers driven by vacuum moters that ran off engine manifold vacuum. When you stuck your foot in the carb, the windshield wipers slowed down because of less vacuum. (They worked great at the red lights) When you open the throttle, you reduce your manifold vacuum. You already have reduced fuel flow, because of the frosted up area just at the jet outlet, and a further reduction in manifold vacuum would result in less fuel flow, (less vacuum to suck it out) the engine now starts to lean out too much and slow down. (What were the EGT's doing? Rising? Falling? Normal? Knowing that would help) Closing the throttle however, would increase manifold vacuum, and suck more fuel out, getting things more back to normal. This is all theory and speculation. Possibly fatally flawed. Somebody figure out why it's not right, and then we can go from there. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) > >This afternoon I was flying over the Mississippi River bottoms about eight >miles south of K02 at about 2000 feet agl. There is a standing cold front >to the north and wind from the south is bringing in warm moist air. It was >warm enough that my hands did not feel cool. I was trying to get some slow >flight data and to determine the effect of adding vortex generators to the >front lower surface of the horizontal stabilizer. I am trying to get more >back stick effect to ensure the FireFly will stall. Since putting the VG's >on the wings, it will only mush and not break into a clean stall. > >After flying for five or more minutes at 4500 rpm the engine would start to >slow and I would have to jiggle the throttle to get it back up to speed. >And then I realized that I was flying in about the worst conditions one >could have to promote carb icing. I kept jigging the throttle back and >forth just a little to kept the engine running. Then I moved the jigging >higher and higher (more throttle open) until engine rpm reached 5000 and >then the engine decided to keep running with out rpms falling off. I flew >the rest of the way back to the airport at 5000 rpm with a vertical speed >of 200 fpm down. I was afraid to throttle back to less than that for fear >it would quit. I had to make three spirals to get down to pattern altitude >and warmer air, and I made my normal approach with no problems. > >I checked the archives for "carb ice" to see if there was any advice as to >what procedure to follow when one fines himself in this situation. I >believe it took me about two minutes get the engine running at power. My >inclination was to open the throttle as the rpms started to fall off, but >in this condition would it be better to close the throttle quickly to break >loose the ice and then reopen the throttle? The reason I am asking this is >that it seemed every time I tried to open the throttle a small amount >engine rpm would drop and then when I closed the throttle a little bit the >engine would pick up a little bit. This is one of the longest 20 minute >flights I have ever made. > >Jack B. Hart FF004 >Jackson, MO > > >Jack & Louise Hart >jbhart(at)ldd.net > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2001
From: Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: 447, carb ice, & procedure question
> >I have wondered about carb ice in two strokes for years, and maybe you have >provided a clue. I've read that this can happen: As air is drawn into the small throat of a carburetor, the venturi effect accelerates the air and cools it. It cools even further when mixed with vaporized fuel. When this moist air reaches the freezing level of 32F, the ice particles that begin to form deposit themselves on the venturies. The carburetor can then become choked up by this ice to the point that the engine receives less air than is required for full power. The once-explosive air/fuel mixture becomes so rich from excess fuel that the engine ceases to fire. And read this can happen: What caused the engine out? Pellets of ice in the float bowls I believe. Even though I had completely drained the tank, dried it out, and filled it with a siphon being careful to suck from the bottom of the clean gas cans, somehow water got into the carbs. A theory: During warm up a small amount of ice forms in the venturies. When the engine is shut down to push the plane onto the runway the ice melts. Some of that water runs down the jet needle ending up in the float bowl where it later freezes into a pellet big enough to block the main jet. Joan suggested using gas line antifreeze. I will give it a try. Just went out and pulled the float bowls for a picture. Both bowls had about the same size water drop. You should be able to see the drop in the picture, the round thing with the arrow pointing to it. Also checked the fuel filter, which I have mounted sideways thinking that it might catch any water in the low part, but it is clear of water. I'm starting to convince myself that the water is indeed coming from venturi ice melting and running down into the float bowl, rather than from contaminated fuel. Also this: Until recently, I had never heard a first hand account of carb icing in a Rotax engine. However, during the training phase I witnessed it three times in one day. The temperature was a degree above freezing with a dewpoint spread of a degree or less. As the visibility was poor, it was not typical ultralight flying weather. While leading a flock of swans, Wayne, in his R503 equipped trike had to make a precautionary landing, even tho' several of the birds had broken away. On landing, the carbs were covered in frost, and the engine barely ran. After a wait of about 10 minutes, we dropped the bowls and found water droplets. Normally, that would finish flying for the day, but Wayne was desperate to recover the errant birds, so he took off again, making extra sure to remain over landable terrain. Twice more, he had to make precautionary landings. Later in the migration, after three very wet days, followed by a cold snap, my R503 equipped Challenger failed to answer the throttle on the takeoff roll, after a successful warm-up and high power test. We found an ice crystal blocking one main jet. Now, I am wiser than I was a few months ago. I am convinced that carb icing can occur in Rotax engines in cool damp weather. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ian Heritch" <heritch(at)infohiwy.net>
Subject: Re: Oily Mess
Date: Oct 31, 2001
Hot Rod Lar, on the Poly Tone parts use Poly Fiber's C-2210 cleaner, it will not harm your finish. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> Subject: Kolb-List: Oily Mess > > A long winded Lar story. > > I think it's time for a quick update, and a thank you to the > respond-ers. I've had many folks contact me off List with some good > ideas, and I surely appreciate it. Yesterday was interesting, and today > I had time to reflect on it, since I work swing shift on Sun. & Mon., so > had the days to work on the plane. Today & tomorrow, is day shift, so > could cogitate a little ( or a LOT ) on the whole sitch-ee-ayshun. > Vamoose seems determined to suck the left rocker cover gasket inwards, > and dripping oil on the exhaust. Twice so far.............I found out > yesterday, when I got out while it was running at about 2200 rpm, and > started checking things out - while keeping a very close eye on the > prop. Plane is tied to a substantial tree ! ! ! Saw something flicker > past, and ducked..................turned out that every time oil dripped > on the pipe, it burned instantly and the prop blew a white puff > back..............kinda like an old black powder rifle. Hard to miss > that. Two friends came over from work a few weeks ago, to help put the > engine up on the plane. Ol' Lars' back don't permit such things these > days. Turns out that when they took hold of it, they used the best > handholds they could find...............the pushrod tubes under the > cylinders. They bent slightly, and created monumental oil leaks, along > with the rocker gasket. This means that I pull the heads this weekend. > Getting to those mighty oil pressure springs is gonna be a bear, but has > to be done as well.............well over 100 psi is just too much oil > pressure. A.C. Spruce is sending me new master & start relays on > warranty, and I have to send these back. More than fair. UMA has > authorized me to send them the oil pressure gauge, which they are going > to repair on warranty, even tho' I bought it several years ago, when I > built the panel. Also more than fair............they understand > homebuilts, obviously. Talked at length to Tony at Westach today, as to > why none of the CHT & EGT gauges work, even tho' I talked to him before > installation, regarding my planned methods. He outlined several tests > for me to make Very nice fella to work with. I'll also have to figure > out why the Hobbs isn't working.............double checked it, and > wiring is correct. Yesterday, I fired it up > again............this time strictly on its' own battery..........and am > still mightily impressed. This thing really roars ! ! ! Warmed it up > till the oil thermostat opened, then opened it up to my planned cruise > RPM of 3800 for a few seconds. It's gonna be interesting living in > front of THAT ! ! ! Best description is "an earsplitting scream." > Takeoff power is gonna be something else. So far, the neighbors haven't > complained. Also fooled with timing and mixture a bit, and got the > idle down to 1200 engine rpm ( 600 prop rpm ) before the redrive started > to chatter. That little mixture readout works off an oxygen sensor, and > is one of the dandiest little toys I've ever seen. I Very Strongly > Recommend one for anyone who is interested in the fuel mixture going > into their engine. Not real expensive, and what a wonderful toy ! ! ! > Now, all you experts...................most of the engine, the > prop, and just about everything back of it is covered with oil, > including the poly-toned tail feathers. What's the best way to clean > this up, without damaging anything ?? Tried dish detergent > yesterday, and results were indifferent. Help ! ! ! > Hot Rod Lar. > > Larry Bourne > Palm Springs, Ca. > Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" > http://www.gogittum.com > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: tuned pipe, AGAIN?! didn't we learn anything last time around?
From: "Jim Gerken" <gerken(at)us.ibm.com>
Date: Oct 31, 2001
10/31/2001 07:05:08 AM >Once I get my new prop and tuned pipe installed, Im going to >re-weigh...Hopfully this weekend. Then I need to get busy on the enclosure >so I can fly in the winter. My hat's off to you guys that fly open cockpit >UL's in the winter. I tried it...I dont have the stones for it... >Ross Ross, cool, but be sure to do the weight and balance after the tuned pipe is installed and before the flight. After the flight you'll have the engine off for service of the rear cylinder and so you won't get the correct weight. I think the problem starts because the tuned pipe makes a peaky power band which does not fit the load we are driving. We are driving a load which requires four times the torque for each doubling of the RPM, period. There's no room for a dip or need for a peak in the powerband. Ask the 532 operators, or check the archives from a couple years ago for the experience of one of our 503 operators (Russell, you still out there?). Jim G ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeremy Casey" <jrcasey(at)ldl.net>
Subject: tuned pipe, AGAIN?! didn't we learn anything last time
around?
Date: Oct 31, 2001
I didn't want to rain on anyone's parade either...but of the 3 guys locally who tried tuned pipes on planes 2 of them had to rebuild the engines. And one of them was a seriously good mechanic...knew what a tuned pipe was suppose to do. You could get the engine set up, prop pitched right and be cruising along with your extra HP then pull the nose up a little and load up the engine and watch it loose 1000 RPM...cause it came out of its tiny little power band... Anyway who can make it work...hats off to 'em. Jeremy Casey jrcasey(at)ldl.net -----Original Message----- From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Gerken Subject: Kolb-List: tuned pipe, AGAIN?! didn't we learn anything last time around? >Once I get my new prop and tuned pipe installed, Im going to >re-weigh...Hopfully this weekend. Then I need to get busy on the enclosure >so I can fly in the winter. My hat's off to you guys that fly open cockpit >UL's in the winter. I tried it...I dont have the stones for it... >Ross Ross, cool, but be sure to do the weight and balance after the tuned pipe is installed and before the flight. After the flight you'll have the engine off for service of the rear cylinder and so you won't get the correct weight. I think the problem starts because the tuned pipe makes a peaky power band which does not fit the load we are driving. We are driving a load which requires four times the torque for each doubling of the RPM, period. There's no room for a dip or need for a peak in the powerband. Ask the 532 operators, or check the archives from a couple years ago for the experience of one of our 503 operators (Russell, you still out there?). Jim G ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2001
Subject: Re: tuned pipe, AGAIN?! didn't we learn anything last
time around?
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
Ive got 40 hours so far on my piped 503 on the Phantom and its running strong. Jetting has to be spot on...But once you get that nailed they run great. I have good power from 5000 RPM - 6500 RPM. Thats a pretty wide powerband. Below 5000 it falls off the pipe which is fine because the only time I throttle back below 5000 is to land. The pipes I run on snowmobiles are tuned right to the edge. They typically have a 300 or so RPM effective powerband. The pipes R&D sells for aircraft have a wider powerband, hense the 10-12 HP gain. If they tightened up the stinger they could get more power out of the pipe, but then you would see the problems you describe. IE: Very narrow powerband and more frequent burndown. True...The rear or PTO side cylinder always runs hotter on a fan cooled engine...With or without a pipe, its just that with the pipe it becomes more critical. To fix this problem you jet richer on the PTO side. Its all in the temps. My Phantom runs 325/1050 all day long on both cylinders. I jet one size richer on the PTO side (160/162), run 15K2 needles in the 3rd notch. In the winter, I run the PTO side carb needle in the 4th notch. I know lots of guys who tried tuned pipes and returned them before taking the time to tune for the pipe. One guy burned down the engine because he bolted on the pipe and ignored cylinder temps of 425. He blamed it on the pipe. Im a big fan of tuned pipes on 2 strokes. Its the biggest performance gain you can make in a detuned 2 stroke...and its reliable as long as its done properly. Ross > From: "Jim Gerken" <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:05:07 -0600 10/31/2001 07:05:08 AM > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Kolb-List: tuned pipe, AGAIN?! didn't we learn anything last time > around? > > >> Once I get my new prop and tuned pipe installed, Im going to >> re-weigh...Hopfully this weekend. Then I need to get busy on the > enclosure >> so I can fly in the winter. My hat's off to you guys that fly open > cockpit >> UL's in the winter. I tried it...I dont have the stones for it... > >> Ross > > Ross, cool, but be sure to do the weight and balance after the tuned pipe > is installed and before the flight. After the flight you'll have the > engine off for service of the rear cylinder and so you won't get the > correct weight. > > I think the problem starts because the tuned pipe makes a peaky power band > which does not fit the load we are driving. We are driving a load which > requires four times the torque for each doubling of the RPM, period. > There's no room for a dip or need for a peak in the powerband. Ask the 532 > operators, or check the archives from a couple years ago for the experience > of one of our 503 operators (Russell, you still out there?). > > Jim G > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2001
Subject: Re: E gearbox on a Firestar II
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
I use this setup on my Phantom with a 70" standard tip Warp. If I had to do again, I'd go with a 70" Powerfin. Far less rotating mass and less vibration. I get a fair degree of vibration from the Warp...But it does pull like a frieght train. The first prop I tried was a 68" Ivo. It would not get the plane on step on a monofloat. Sorriest excuse for a prop Ive ever seen. I sent it back and got the Warp. With the Warp, the plane was on step in less than 200 ft and in the air in another 200. Not bad for a way overloaded Phantom. Ross > From: HShack(at)aol.com > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:07:00 EST > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: E gearbox on a Firestar II > > > In a message dated 10/30/01 6:17:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, johann-g(at)tal.is > writes: > > >> Hi Howard. Thank you for that input. I am always learning. >> Yes, My prop is a three blade IVO. >> >> Thanks, >> Johann G. >> > > You could still use an "E" Box, but go to the 3.47:1 ratio and use a Warp > Drive prop, 3 blade, taper tip, 68". It's much stronger & more efficient > than the IVO. The only drawback is that it's not as easy to adjust as the > IVO, but after you get it set right, you are finished. This is the setup I > use. > > Howard Shackleford > FS I > SC > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Flying early Ultrastar " pigs "
Date: Oct 31, 2001
I am in need of advice concerning the length of the ailerons on an Ultrastar. I bought the machine from a gentleman who had bought it from the orignal builder. It appears to be an early model due to the drag brace having been added and an early model Cayuna engine. The ailerons were cut down to the same as the Firefly. What are the pro's and con's concerning this change....I have another airframe I am getting ready to rebuild and it has full length ailerons. I like the way the Ultrastar flies and the only thing I have any problem with is the authority of the ailerons. Can I improve this by making the ailerons original length or another trick....should I balance the ailerons as per Firestar ? ........................I have been trying to find out who the original builder is so I could question him directly but have had no luck..........( I am actually trying to find him to begin litigation . I want to sue him for disfiguring my face for the stupid grin that is constantly present whenever I get close to this ultralight.) Thanks in advance....Ed from Western NY ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Boyter" <boyter@pioneer-net.com>
Subject: E gear box
Date: Oct 31, 2001
Hi Kolbers I have a kolb mark 3, That has rotax 582 with a bad crank 288 hrs. I have found a good used 582 blue head motor e gear box 3.0 gear ratio. But I have a three blade warp drive prop. 66" will that work out ok, I have heard three blade prop. and the 3.0 gear box does not work out to good? PLEASE HELP Wayne RSBG,OR P.S. old gear box is 2.58 gear ratio. Very noise. THAHKS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Russell" <jr(at)rometool.com>
Subject: Re: E gearbox on a Firestar II
Date: Oct 31, 2001
Hi all, on the E gearbox, if my memory serves me right, isn't the electric starter mounted in the gearbox, if one is used? If this is correct, I think the starter will hit part of the cage frame around the back of the engine mounts. JR ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Carlisle" <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: E gearbox on a Firestar II > > I use this setup on my Phantom with a 70" standard tip Warp. If I had to do > again, I'd go with a 70" Powerfin. Far less rotating mass and less > vibration. I get a fair degree of vibration from the Warp...But it does > pull like a frieght train. > > The first prop I tried was a 68" Ivo. It would not get the plane on step on > a monofloat. Sorriest excuse for a prop Ive ever seen. I sent it back and > got the Warp. With the Warp, the plane was on step in less than 200 ft and > in the air in another 200. Not bad for a way overloaded Phantom. > > Ross > > > From: HShack(at)aol.com > > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:07:00 EST > > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: E gearbox on a Firestar II > > > > > > In a message dated 10/30/01 6:17:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, johann-g(at)tal.is > > writes: > > > > > >> Hi Howard. Thank you for that input. I am always learning. > >> Yes, My prop is a three blade IVO. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Johann G. > >> > > > > You could still use an "E" Box, but go to the 3.47:1 ratio and use a Warp > > Drive prop, 3 blade, taper tip, 68". It's much stronger & more efficient > > than the IVO. The only drawback is that it's not as easy to adjust as the > > IVO, but after you get it set right, you are finished. This is the setup I > > use. > > > > Howard Shackleford > > FS I > > SC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2001
From: "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us>
Subject: Re: Registering experimental...
Thats the way they showed us how to cover the alirons at the covering tent at Oshkosh. They do this for the FAA certified airplanes. It doesn't look as nice and yes its not as easy to inspect but..... It's your choice. my $.02 worth Rick Neilsen >>> rrcarl(at)concentric.net 10/31/01 09:19AM >>> But then you cover the hinges and rivets with fabric when you recover. Is that OK? Would that make hinge inspection a problem? Id like to go that route if it is safe. Ross > From: "rbaker(at)shop4zero.com" <rbaker(at)ccgnv.net> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:01:45 -0500 > To: > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Registering experimental... > > > Ross, > > How about pulling the pins out of the hinges instead of drilling out all the > rivets? > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2001
From: Tim Gherkins <rp3420(at)email.sps.mot.com>
Subject: IVO In-Flight adjustable prop
Hey Folks, While we are on the subject of props and gear boxes, has anyone tried an IVO in-flight adjustable prop? Especially on a Firestar/503? Would it be worth the investment for the performance, if there is better performance? Any experience or comments are welcomed. Thanks, Tim building Firestar II ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2001
Subject: Re: Flying early Ultrastar " pigs "
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
Theoretically, shorter ailerons are supposed to give you better roll authority than full span ailerons. I dont know why that is...Just that it is. I have the same control issues with an early Twinstar. Ill be experimenting with VG's and maybe flaperons in the next few months. I had not planned on shortening the ailerons. Ross > From: "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:53:33 -0500 > To: > Subject: Kolb-List: Flying early Ultrastar " pigs " > > > I am in need of advice concerning the length of the ailerons on an > Ultrastar. I bought the machine from a gentleman who had bought it from > the orignal builder. It appears to be an early model due to the drag > brace having been added and an early model Cayuna engine. The ailerons > were cut down to the same as the Firefly. What are the pro's and con's > concerning this change....I have another airframe I am getting ready to > rebuild and it has full length ailerons. I like the way the Ultrastar > flies and the only thing I have any problem with is the authority of the > ailerons. Can I improve this by making the ailerons original length or > another trick....should I balance the ailerons as per Firestar ? > ........................I have been trying to find out who the original > builder is so I could question him directly but have had no > luck..........( I am actually trying to find him to begin litigation . I > want to sue him for disfiguring my face for the stupid grin that is > constantly present whenever I get close to this ultralight.) Thanks in > advance....Ed from Western NY > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2001
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com>
Subject: Re: 447, carb ice, & procedure question
Jack and Group, The question of carb ice on a Rotax is an interesting one. It is also hard to prove, because by time one lands and gets out of the plane to look in the carb, it could have melted. After 13 years of flying 5 different Rotaxes, in the North, I have never experienced carb ice while flying. An I have flown in the worst conditions. I do have experience with carb ice on a hot rod VW (car) without carb heat, so I am familiar with the conditions and results. At least for a butterfly throttle carb. I also have been a member of a 100 member ultralight club for all those years, and no one has ever made a good argument for carb ice, although a few people thought that they had an engine quit because of it. I don't claim that it can't happen, but I do think that it is really unlikely, and shouldn't stop people for looking for other problems. I don't even drain water from my gas tanks and still haven't had a problem with water or frozen gas lines or jets. And I don't use gas line antifreeze, either. I have seen an engine cool off so much, by running at reduced throttle, (usually in a decent) that they don't want to respond to increasing the throttle. I have also had jelly like contamination in a carb jet that has caused throttle response problems. Let us know what you are able to sort out, when you run it again. John Jung Firestar II N6163J > >In a message dated 10/30/01 5:45:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbhart(at)ldd.net >writes: > >The reason I am asking this is >that it seemed every time I tried to open the throttle a small amount >engine rpm would drop and then when I closed the throttle a little bit the >engine would pick up a little bit. This is one of the longest 20 minute >flights I have ever made. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2001
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org>
Subject: Re: IVO In-Flight adjustable prop
An in flight adjustable prop and a two stroke engine are a poor combination. Check the archives. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) > >Hey Folks, >While we are on the subject of props and gear boxes, has anyone tried an >IVO in-flight adjustable prop? Especially on a Firestar/503? >Would it be worth the investment for the performance, if there is better >performance? >Any experience or comments are welcomed. >Thanks, >Tim >building Firestar II > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2001
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com>
Subject: Re: IVO In-Flight adjustable prop
Tim and Group, If someone has that experience, I would like to hear about it, too. But I doubt that the performance increase would be worth it. Why? Because I havee changed the pitch on my quick adjust IVO, to simulate both ends of the spectrum, best climb and best cruise. Almost nothing was gained, and temperature problems caused me to go back to the middle. The one thing that the in-flight adjustable could do, is let the pilot adjust the pitch for optimal temps. John Jung Firestar II 503 Tim Gherkins wrote: > >Hey Folks, >While we are on the subject of props and gear boxes, has anyone tried an >IVO in-flight adjustable prop? Especially on a Firestar/503? >Would it be worth the investment for the performance, if there is better >performance? >Any experience or comments are welcomed. >Thanks, >Tim >building Firestar II > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2001
From: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net>
Subject: Re: IVO In-Flight adjustable prop
Tim, Changing from a climb to cruise prop setting cost me 300 fpm in climb on the FireFly. I gainned more stable EGT temperatures at cruise, but I do miss the climb rate. I would like to try a in flight adjustable, but I have to wait for the fun money account to build up. Jack B. Hart FF004 Jackson, MO > >Hey Folks, >While we are on the subject of props and gear boxes, has anyone tried an >IVO in-flight adjustable prop? Especially on a Firestar/503? >Would it be worth the investment for the performance, if there is better >performance? >Any experience or comments are welcomed. >Thanks, >Tim >building Firestar II > > Jack & Louise Hart jbhart(at)ldd.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2001
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: E gearbox on a Firestar II
If this is correct, I think the starter will hit part of the cage frame around the back of the engine mounts. To use an E box you have to raise your 582 up on the factory designed "rails" and invert your Lord mounts. I have run this way for nearly 100 hours with no problems. Raising the engine is thought to result in some small performance improvement and a little more quiet. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Re: Flying early Ultrastar " pigs "
Date: Oct 31, 2001
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Carlisle" <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Flying early Ultrastar " pigs " > > Theoretically, shorter ailerons are supposed to give you better roll > authority than full span ailerons. I dont know why that is...Just that it > is. you will have more control authority with longer ailerons, but not much once you get fairly far inboard. what does happen is the force on the stick to get a given amount of roll goes way up. so the controls get heavy, your moving the big old aileron and the inboard part of it isn't helping you that much. so the feel is that there is less control, ( more stick force per degree per second roll rate) if your willing to haul on the stick you will find that you have more actual control, but it is harder to use. topher ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TAILDRAGGER503(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 31, 2001
Subject: FIRESTAR II HEAVY LOAD
What is the most weight some of you FSII Pilots have safely flown with ? David Snyder Building FSII Long Branch N.J. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2001
Subject: Re: IVO In-Flight adjustable prop
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
I mentioned this earlier....The first prop I tried on my Phantom (503, C box, 3.47:1) was a 68" 3 blade IVO. The IVO would not pull the plane on step on a Full lotus monofloat. I sent it back and got a 70" 3 blade Warp. The plane got on step in 200 feet and airborne in another 200 feet. Also tried a 62" 3 blade IVO on another phantom with a 503, B box, 2.58:1 and tuned pipe dynoed at 62HP. The plane had no acceleration. We later replaced it with a 64" 2 blade Presision. The Precision would set you back in the seat when you went to full throttle and climb rate went from 700FPM with the IVO to 1100FPM with the Precision. The 62" prop mentioned above came off a friends Mini Max with 447. After I tried his IVO...We bolted an old 66" Tenessee wood 2 blade on his Mini Max that I had hanging on the wall. He got an increase in climb of 100FPM with the old wood prop Vs the IVO. In the prop business, there is a saying....IVO pushes his 6 blade props because he cant build a 3 blade that works. The PPC guys seem to have good luck with them which means that the blade planform probably does not perform well at speeds above 40MPH. Ive never flown a fixed wing plane that did not perform better with another prop. My opinion on IVO? Its a pathetic excuse for a prop. IMO...Powerfin offers the best prop. Stuart has designed different blade planforms to fit the specific needs of specific planes. His props are also the lightest which means you wont risk exceeding the inertial mass limits of the gear box. See what you get when you ask for opinions? :) Ross > From: jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:09:01 -0600 > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: IVO In-Flight adjustable prop > > how about someone doing a back to back test > between an IVO and the Warp. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "michael mcalister" <michaelmcalister(at)mediaone.net>
Subject: landing gear
Date: Oct 31, 2001
the continuing tale of the bent right landing gear. went out tuesday and removed the right gear leg. it came off easy. into the old fashioned mechanical press and it was straight enough in just a few minutes. back onto the plane and rotated 180 degrees in the socket. all in about an hour! what other airplane in the world is that easy?? i think i have this landing thing figured out. just like in my paratrooper days, come down to flare and "look at the far horizon". the firestar wheel lands perfectly... almost lands itself! the tailwheel comes down and all is right with the world. What a sweet airplane. Now, if it was just a few inches LONGER!!!!! so the question of the day is: is a firestar REALLY an ultralight?? best regards from the state of Virginia michael ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2001
Subject: Re: FIRESTAR II HEAVY LOAD
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
Safe flying is highly subjective. My idea of safe may not be the same as yours. Just as my idea of an airworthy plane may be different than yours. There are planes at our airport that fly everyday that Im scared to stand next to, nevermind fly. Thats what makes UL flying so much fun though. Its not like GA flying where you have the good ole federal government telling you what is safe and what is not. Ross > From: DCREECH3(at)aol.com > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:36:36 EST > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: FIRESTAR II HEAVY LOAD > > As another new FSII pilot I'm interested in this question too, but I think > the word "safely" needs to be defined a little more rigorously! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 31, 2001
Subject: Re: IVO In-Flight adjustable prop
In a message dated 10/31/01 8:04:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, rrcarl(at)concentric.net writes: > My opinion on IVO? Its a pathetic excuse for a prop. > > Here's another comparison: My friend, Chuck, & I both fly almost identical Firestar I's equipped with 503 dual carbs. except he does have a BRS in the wing gap seal. My FS will out-climb his by about 300 fpm. On a trip where he burns 4 gal. gas, I burn 3 gal. Why? I believe it's because he's turning a IVO 68" 3 blade behind a 3.00:1 gear box, whereas I turn a Warp Drive, taper tip, 68" 3 blade behind a 3.47:1 gear box. Sure, it's expensive; so is the "C" or "E" box required to turn it. Worth every penny.... Howard Shackleford FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Oct 31, 2001
Subject: Re: FIRESTAR II HEAVY LOAD
I would under no circumstance exceed the recommended gross weight as specified by the manufacturer which, I believe, is 725 lbs. Dennis Souder knew what he was talking about. Shack FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2001
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com>
Subject: Re: FIRESTAR II HEAVY LOAD
David, Maybe you should ask what the gross weight is. I believe that the New Kolb is using a larger number than 725. I can tell you that they fly real well at 725. I have heard of them being flown with 450 pounds of pilot/passenger, but I wouldn't do it. John Jung Firestar II N6163J TAILDRAGGER503(at)aol.com wrote: > >What is the most weight some of you FSII Pilots have safely flown with ? > >David Snyder Building FSII Long Branch N.J. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2001
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org>
Subject: Re: IVO In-Flight adjustable prop
Certainly the airplane they are used on impacts their usefulness. I agree with you there. But that was not my concern. With as many posts as we have had to the list demonstrating how few pilots realize the need for consistent prop load on a two stroke, imagine what happens when the prop load become variable. Trying to jet a two stroke with a constant load prop is not too bad, and certainly can be sorted out. Imagine a newby trying to muddle his/her way through jetting a two stroke, and simultaneously corrupting his database by playing with the prop pitch? I have done it enough that I think I could make it work, but I also am convinced that sooner or later I would have brain fade at the wrong moment and seize the thing up. Probably a more zealous pilot than I could monitor their EGT's, throttle setting, and prop pitch well enough to do OK, but then you are into micromanaging systems, and might as well be flying heavy metal. Where's the fun in that? Two strokes are acceptably reliable under rigidly fixed parameters. A variable pitch prop stretches those parameters too much IMHO. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) > >Richard, >I have to disagree with your statement. The plane their used on impacts >there usefulness. On a Kolb, save your money, the dynamic speed range of a >Kolb is to limited due to the drag component. However they work very well >on a sleek ThunderGull or a Titan. Flatten them out (still some pitch) for >takeoff climb performance, increase pitch for cruise. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Timandjan(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 01, 2001
Subject: Re: FIRESTAR II HEAVY LOAD
Big and heavy, I weigh 185 and took my 230 pound dad for a ride. My plane is heavy anyways, so we were way over, just flew the plane cautiously. I don't make a habit of this, the plane flies like crap with that heavy gross load. At least compared to my solo flights. I talked to Dennis at the old Kolb about this, and he said the gross weight is very consertive, and should be ok as an occassonal hop. I am not endorsing flying over gross, but it flies. Like any plane over gross, all the asociated problems apply. My empty weight is about 450# by the way (like I said, it's a fat plane) Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2001
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: 2001 List Fund Raiser - Please Support Your Lists...
Dear Listers, During November of each year, I have a voluntary Email List Fund Raiser to support the continued operation, development, maintenance and upgrade of the Forums sponsored here. Your contributions go directly into improvements in the systems that support the Lists and to pay for the Internet connectivity primarily dedicated to supporting the Lists. This year, I've made some substantial improvements to the Lists and the supporting systems. These upgrades are focused on making your experience here faster, more enjoyable, and most importantly, informative. Here is a partial list of improvements that I've made on the systems this year: o Upgraded Web Server - Minimum 6X increase in performance * - Tons more high performance disk space and memory! - Increased availability and reliability - UPS Backup - Improved support for > 130,000 Archive Searches each year! * See http://www.matronics.com/rv-list/RV-SearchTime.jpg o Email System Disk Subsystem Upgrade - More storage and faster access times - Faster redistribution of List Messages - Processed over 45,000 List messages in 2001; 50,000 in 2000! o All new List Browse Feature * - Browse the last seven day's worth of List Messages - Quick access to current threads - Sort messages by Thread, Date, Subject, or Author * See http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse o All new Photo Share Feature * & - Simply email your photos and files to share - Scanned for viruses - Automatic Web Page Generation - Includes descriptions and poster information * See http://www.matronics.com/photoshare & Officially to be announced soon o Transition To High Performance Internet Service Provider - Improved reliability - Better access from most sites on the Internet - Improved throughput These are just some of the more visible improvements I've implemented this year. I'm always working to improve the behind the scenes operation of the Lists. I've built an elaborate system of message text and source address filtering mechanisms to assure that you only receive text data in the message, spam is nearly non-existent, computer viruses are never propagated through the Lists, and that message post redistribution is smooth and trouble free. This year has seen a lot of improvements in the Email List experience. If you enjoy the Forums here and make use of the many features, won't you take a moment and make a Contribution to support the continued operation and maintenance? Please note there is no advertising funding on the Lists. You don't see annoying banner ads in the Email messages or on any of the web pages. This just seems more friendly to me and makes the List experience just that much more personal. The operation of these Lists is supported *completely* through the donations of List Members just like you! Please take a moment to support your Lists by making a Secure Credit Card Contribution at the following web site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or you may send a personal check to: Matronics Email Lists c/o Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 I would like to thank everyone in advance for their Contribution and for their continued support over the past year! Best regards, Matt Dralle Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2001
From: Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com>
Subject: Re: IVO In-Flight adjustable prop
Richard Pike wrote: > > > Certainly the airplane they are used on impacts their usefulness. I agree > with you there. But that was not my concern. > > With as many posts as we have had to the list demonstrating how few pilots > realize the need for consistent prop load on a two stroke, imagine what > happens when the prop load become variable. Trying to jet a two stroke with > a constant load prop is not too bad, and certainly can be sorted out. > Imagine a newby trying to muddle his/her way through jetting a two stroke, > and simultaneously corrupting his database by playing with the prop pitch? > > I have done it enough that I think I could make it work, but I also am > convinced that sooner or later I would have brain fade at the wrong moment > and seize the thing up. Probably a more zealous pilot than I could monitor > their EGT's, throttle setting, and prop pitch well enough to do OK, but > then you are into micromanaging systems, and might as well be flying heavy > metal. Where's the fun in that? > > Two strokes are acceptably reliable under rigidly fixed parameters. A > variable pitch prop stretches those parameters too much IMHO. > > Richard Pike > MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) > Dear Bro. Pike, I respect the wisdom and experience you share with us on this list but I disagree on the issue of the importance of a consistent prop load. I think this issue is a common legend and misconception in our sport. A 2 stroke with a properly jetted and adjusted carb can be run reliably with a load range that varies from a no load idle on up to full max. output power. 2 strokes do it all the time on motorcycles, outboards, chain saws, leaf blowers, etc. Just because there is a common problem does not mean it can not be solved. The key....properly jetted and adjusted carb. I have run many hours with a variable pitch prop at all settings and have never had an engine problem. I've been flying 2 stroke since 1980 and never seized an engine. Respectfully disagreeing, | _____|_____ *============================R============================* \ / \ / (/---\) \___/ / \ () () Eugene Zimmerman ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2001
From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net>
Subject: Props
I wish the thread concerning props had appeared before I bought mine. When I went out to Kolb to pick up my engine (503 with B box) last summer, I had decided to go with a Powerfin prop. When I mentioned this to the powers at Kolb they all said not to do that and to go with an IVO. They talked me out of the Powerfin so I ordered a IVO. Now I hear all of the negitives about it. Does anyone have anything good to say about an IVO? Due to the B gear box that I already have, a Warp Drive is not an option. I want to stay with a three blade set up. Ron Payne Building FireStar Gilbertsville, Ky ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2001
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org>
Subject: Re: IVO In-Flight adjustable prop
Cool. Well done. Stuff like that. But knowing first hand how obnoxious the EGT gauge becomes the moment the ol' Rotax has too little prop load, or having my 532 start to load up and sag off when it has too much prop load, how the heck do you manage to pull it off and make things work? I believe you, but man, we need details! If you have solved the problem, this is the place to share it. (Not that I plan to try it myself. I am heavily into the "since it ain't broke, I ain't fixin' it" mode...) Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) I >disagree on the issue of the importance of a consistent prop load. I >think this issue is a common legend and misconception in our sport. A 2 >stroke with a properly jetted and adjusted carb can be run reliably with >a load range that varies from a no load idle on up to full max. output >power. 2 strokes do it all the time on motorcycles, outboards, chain >saws, leaf blowers, etc. Just because there is a common problem does not >mean it can not be solved. > >The key....properly jetted and adjusted carb. > >I have run many hours with a variable pitch prop at all settings and >have never had an engine problem. I've been flying 2 stroke since 1980 >and never seized an engine. > >Respectfully disagreeing, > > | > _____|_____ > *============================R============================* > \ / \ / > (/---\) > \___/ > / \ > () () > Eugene Zimmerman > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ole Noetnes" <onoetnes(at)online.no>
Subject: Props
Date: Oct 31, 2000
pumps fine on my twinstar. might not be the best fan around, but takes abuse from dust and stuff quite well. i do run metal leading edge tape. nice climb, ok. cruise and i had worse shake with a warp on a hirth-powered minimax i had. if having the best available is an issue; sell the ivo and get what is considered the best. ole twinstar in norway -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]P vegne av Ron or Mary Sendt: 1. november 2001 22:25 Til: Kolb Emne: Kolb-List: Props I wish the thread concerning props had appeared before I bought mine. When I went out to Kolb to pick up my engine (503 with B box) last summer, I had decided to go with a Powerfin prop. When I mentioned this to the powers at Kolb they all said not to do that and to go with an IVO. They talked me out of the Powerfin so I ordered a IVO. Now I hear all of the negitives about it. Does anyone have anything good to say about an IVO? Due to the B gear box that I already have, a Warp Drive is not an option. I want to stay with a three blade set up. Ron Payne Building FireStar Gilbertsville, Ky ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "George E. Thompson" <eagle1(at)commspeed.net>
Subject: Re: landing gear
Date: Nov 01, 2001
----- Original Message ----- From: "michael mcalister" <michaelmcalister(at)mediaone.net> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: landing gear > > the continuing tale of the bent right landing gear. > > went out tuesday and removed the right gear leg. > it came off easy. > into the old fashioned mechanical press and it was straight enough in just a > few minutes. > back onto the plane and rotated 180 degrees in the socket. > all in about an hour! > what other airplane in the world is that easy?? > > i think i have this landing thing figured out. > just like in my paratrooper days, come down to flare and "look at the far > horizon". > the firestar wheel lands perfectly... almost lands itself! > the tailwheel comes down and all is right with the world. > What a sweet airplane. Now, if it was just a few inches LONGER!!!!! > > so the question of the day is: is a firestar REALLY an ultralight?? > > best regards from the state of Virginia > michael > > No. George > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Gdledbetter(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 01, 2001
Subject: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 61 Msgs - 10/30/01
Vic, I trailered my Firefly from Cincinnati to Florida in January and rigged my trailer so that I could remove the wings and hang them from the walls. This takes the big load off the boom tube which is supported about 4 feet in front of the tail feathers. You might add another boom tube support adjacent to the cage attachment point. I have pictures on my web site if you would like to see the setup. Go to: www.homepage.mac.com/gene1930 Gene ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Re: FIRESTAR II HEAVY LOAD
Date: Nov 01, 2001
> My empty weight is about 450# by the way (like I said, it's a fat plane) how did you get a FSII to weigh that much!!!! wow. if that's not on floats it has got to be a new record. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2001
Subject: Re: Props
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
I hear they make dandy wall clocks. :) Alot of the manufacturers suggest IVO because its the quietest of the bunch. The reason its quiet is because it is inefficient. Once you start questioning them about prop efficiency and static thrust specs, the truth comes out. I also think that IVO sells wholesale for less than the others, but I dont know that for sure. In other words...The manufacturer will make more money from the $350 IVO than the $350 Powerfin. Like I posted before...The PPCers seem to like them which suggests that the blade planforn lends itself more to very slow speed, high drag applications. If you want to change props, go to a Powerfin. You wont have any trouble with the B box because the inertial mass on the Powerfin is very low. Well below the published limits of the B box...And less that an IVO of the same diameter. Ross > From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:24:53 -0600 (Central Standard Time) > To: "Kolb" > Subject: Kolb-List: Props > > Does anyone have anything good to say about an IVO? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2001
Subject: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 61 Msgs - 10/30/01
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
My Twinstar lives in a 24' enclosed trailer in its off time. One of this weekends projects is to build a boom tube support that hinges to the floor. Im also installing an LP furnace, hot water heater, couch, a small galley area and maybe a head if I have room. The plane is to be able to trailer somewhere, off load the plane, then use the trailer as a mobile airplane repair shop/camping trailer. If anyone else has done something like this, Id love to see pics. Ross > From: Gdledbetter(at)aol.com > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 17:10:15 EST > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 61 Msgs - 10/30/01 > > > Vic, > I trailered my Firefly from Cincinnati to Florida in January and rigged my > trailer so that I could remove the wings and hang them from the walls. This > takes the big load off the boom tube which is supported about 4 feet in front > of the tail feathers. You might add another boom tube support adjacent to > the cage attachment point. > I have pictures on my web site if you would like to see the setup. > Go to: > www.homepage.mac.com/gene1930 > > Gene > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TAILDRAGGER503(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 01, 2001
Subject: Re: FIRESTAR II HEAVY LOAD
In the literature that TNK sent me, the max gw is 830 lbs for the FSII. David Snyder Building FSII Long Branch N.J. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2001
From: JIMMY HANKINSON <jhankin(at)planters.net>
Subject: Landing Gear's
Much has been written about straightening landing gear. I have straightened the landing gear on my FireFly five or six times. Because of a flyin next week at a local airport I decided to straighten my landing gear. Guess what, when I applied pressure with a hydralic press I heard a definite sound I diden't want to hear, it was split. I had a new set of gear on hand and within three hours they were installed. We used a 5/8" ground to go through the axle's to line them up. The gear and wheels look like new now, very slight toe-in, just like I wanted. Thanks to my friend Audrey.. Glad this happened in the hanger!!! Jimmy Hankinson FireFly #35, 447 Rotax, 200 Hrs. BRS 750 Chute, Brakes, Full enclosure. Rocky Ford, Georgia 30455 Southeast, Georgia Plantation Air Park, JYL Pegasis Field, Local 2000' Strip ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Timandjan(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 01, 2001
Subject: Re: FIRESTAR II HEAVY LOAD
In a message dated 11/1/01 6:15:51 PM, Tophera(at)centurytel.net writes: << > My empty weight is about 450# by the way (like I said, it's a fat plane) how did you get a FSII to weigh that much!!!! wow. if that's not on floats it has got to be a new record. _- >> I bet that most Firestar 2's out there are heaver than most people let on to be. I just built heavy, lots of paint, upholstery, instruments etc. I have flown some that are lighter than mine, but I like the heaver flying model. That's until I have 2 people in the plane, but 98% of the time I am solo. So it's ok. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2001
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org>
Subject: Re: Props
I am running a 66" 2 blade IVO on my MKIII with a 64HP 532. This last spring, Vince Nicely (list member, FSII) and I went up and ran a number of dynamic tests to see what kind of numbers the IVO would produce. We climbed from 2,500 to whatever altitude for 2 minutes, at speeds from 40 to 65 MPH. We also glided back down for 2 minutes, at those same speeds, at idle, to discover what the efficiency of the airplane was at those various speeds, and how much horsepower/thrust was required/being produced. Vince is an engineer, and knew how to convert the data to something meaningful. I just flew the airplane. Cannot find the original report to the list on my 'pooter, but seems that the performance was in the 82% efficiency range. Vince decided that normal losses, that was an excellent figure, and he now has a two blade IVO on his 582, which is powering his new Sonerai. And he says that he is very happy with it. Me? I tried a three blade Warp on my MKIII a couple years ago. Climb and cruise performance was identical, it vibrated more, and the neighbors asked if everything was OK, since my airplane was making an "odd noise"... I suspect that of the various popular props, IVO, Warp, Powerfin, there are no real lemons, just convinced devotees. I do believe that the more expensive Warp props are probably worth the extra money. Something to note: an IVO with bugs on it stinks. It has to be clean, or it will cavitate like crazy on initial takeoff acceleration, and then perform poorly at other speeds. Don't know if other props do that. But I do know that "a clean IVO is a happy IVO". I clean mine with 409, takes off gnats pretty well. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) Does anyone have anything good to say about an IVO? Due to the B gear >box that I already have, a Warp Drive is not an option. I want to stay with >a three blade set up. > >Ron Payne >Building FireStar >Gilbertsville, Ky > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Rains" <rr(at)htg.net>
Subject: Re: Props
Date: Nov 01, 2001
Yes! I have something good to say about Ivo! When Will and I were flying in Oregon, his Ivo threw the leading edge tape from a blade, and although it shook the plane like a wet dog, he made it back to Grant's Pass Oregon without having to deploy the BRS! If that's not enough, it happened again on the way home, and again he was able to land intact. Although his Ivo prop performed so well on our 4,000 mile journey, he has stated he wants to replace it with a Powerfin! Some people are just never happy. Dave Rains El Paso -----Original Message----- From: Ron or Mary <ronormar(at)apex.net> Date: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:23 PM Subject: Kolb-List: Props > >I wish the thread concerning props had appeared before I bought mine. When >I went out to Kolb to pick up my engine (503 with B box) last summer, I had >decided to go with a Powerfin prop. When I mentioned this to the powers at >Kolb they all said not to do that and to go with an IVO. They talked me out >of the Powerfin so I ordered a IVO. Now I hear all of the negitives about >it. Does anyone have anything good to say about an IVO? Due to the B gear >box that I already have, a Warp Drive is not an option. I want to stay with >a three blade set up. > >Ron Payne >Building FireStar >Gilbertsville, Ky > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vince Nicely" <vincenicely(at)chartertn.net>
Subject: Re: FIRESTAR II HEAVY LOAD
Date: Nov 01, 2001
>What is the most weight some of you FSII Pilots have safely flown with ? > > Hi Gang, Please let me add my $0.02 worth. How much weight you can safely carry depends upon what you will do while in flight. Let me explain. To think about the load that the airplane can carry we need to think about what the plane will do while carrying the load. My Firestar II is rated for 725 pounds if memory serves. But, under what conditions? That is the limit load for a 4 G maneuver, which means the wings will be carrying 4 * 725 pounds = 2900 pounds when a 4 g-maneuver is performed. Now, if you are sure that you will not pull more than 3 G's, then you can carry 2900/3 = 967 pounds of ground load (i.e, 1 G load) with the same ultimate load on the wings. Obviously, you have to worry about your landing weight for the loads imposed in landing as another consideration. Be sure the load is located to give an accepatable CG, Etc., Etc. The bottom line is, that you need to think about the interaction of the weight measured on the ground and the loads you might impose by maneuvers, by wind gusts, by landing processes and the like to think about the "safe" load the plane can carry. Anytime you go above the recommended maximum 725 pound static load, you need to modify the flight and landing procedures you do considering the "static" weight you are carrying and the added weight owing to the g-loading making that static weight give a bigger load under the conditions of the flight. Vince Nicely ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H MITCHELL" <mitchmnd(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: FIRESTAR II HEAVY LOAD
Date: Nov 01, 2001
Shack et al, Dennis once told me that during a family gathering one of his relatives who was very fat insisted on being taken up in his Mark 3. Dennis knew the plane could do it but he was not looking forward to the trip. When the guy finally got in the seat he found that the safety belt was not long enough to go around his belly. Of course Dennis could not violate the law so the ride was scrubbed much to his relief. LESSON LEARNED: Check the length of your passenger side seat belt and be certain they are short enough! Duane the plane in Tallahassee, FL, Firefly,105.5 Hrs, 912 Mk 3 in works ----- Original Message ----- From: HShack(at)aol.com Subject: Re: Kolb-List: FIRESTAR II HEAVY LOAD I would under no circumstance exceed the recommended gross weight as specified by the manufacturer which, I believe, is 725 lbs. Dennis Souder knew what he was talking about. Shack FS I SC = = = = = ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vince Nicely" <vincenicely(at)chartertn.net>
Subject: Re: Props
Date: Nov 01, 2001
Ron and Gang, You asked: > Does anyone have anything good to say about an IVO? Due to the B gear > >box that I already have, a Warp Drive is not an option. I want to stay with > >a three blade set up. I would like to make two comments beyond the obvious. Prop selection is a complex problem. That is why there are so may out there successfully selling props. First, let me comment about the IVO. For several years, I had a 3-blade GSC ground adjustable prop that I bought from the old-old Kolb company. It worked. I adjusted the angle and tried to get a good combination of climb and cruise but could never get where I wanted to be. Eventually, I decided to shorten the blades. Did several trim jobs and tried lots of angles. Finally, decided to get the 2-blade IVO that Kolb company was then recommending for my size machine. The climb was remarkably better than I had ever measured with the GSC in any combination. Flight weight of 700 lbs with Firestar II with 503 DCDI at 2000 ft MSL on 70 degree day is about 700 ft/min. Full throttle, it appears that it will exceed 90 which is the never-exceed-speed, as I back off the power as it gets to 85 mph. When I set the GSC for high top speed, it really lost climb and visa versa. So, at this time, I am a happy IVO user. There are certainly worse choices out there. Even better, when I was selecting the prop for my new Sonerai airplane, I call IVO thinking I would like to use their cockpit adjustable high-pitched blade. As I discussed the application with the person at IVO, they told me their prop would not work in my application. They said their experience was that the blade did not work well at high speeds (the Sonerai has a cruise of 110-120 and top speed of 145 more or less). So, I appreciated their advice. I talked to WARP Drive about that application and they thought their prop would perform well. I bought their prop for the Sonerai application with the dimensions and plan form they recommended and it is indeed working very well. Wish you luck in your selection. Vince Nicely Firestar II (306 hours) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2001
From: Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com>
Subject: EGT gauge, was IVO In-Flight adjustable prop
Richard Pike wrote: > > > Cool. Well done. Stuff like that. But knowing first hand how obnoxious the > EGT gauge becomes the moment the ol' Rotax has too little prop load, or > having my 532 start to load up and sag off when it has too much prop load, > how the heck do you manage to pull it off and make things work? > I believe you, but man, we need details! If you have solved the problem, > this is the place to share it. (Not that I plan to try it myself. I am > heavily into the "since it ain't broke, I ain't fixin' it" mode...) > Richard Pike > MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) > > > I > >disagree on the issue of the importance of a consistent prop load. I > >think this issue is a common legend and misconception in our sport. A 2 > >stroke with a properly jetted and adjusted carb can be run reliably with > >a load range that varies from a no load idle on up to full max. output > >power. 2 strokes do it all the time on motorcycles, outboards, chain > >saws, leaf blowers, etc. Just because there is a common problem does not > >mean it can not be solved. > > > >The key....properly jetted and adjusted carb. > > > >I have run many hours with a variable pitch prop at all settings and > >have never had an engine problem. I've been flying 2 stroke since 1980 > >and never seized an engine. > > > >Respectfully disagreeing, R. Pike, You are a very keen person. You are correct on every count. I agree with you 100%. If it ain't broke don't fix it. And if the little EGT gauge becomes obnoxious at reduced power settings then do what you usually do with other obnoxious things that ain't broke. An EGT gauge can't tell you every thing that is important to know. The temperature of the various internal metal components is the real critical issue, here not merely EGT. While EGT plays an important part effecting the internal component temps, the exhaust gas flow volume has a hugh effect too. Example, if the the EGT is only slightly higher say a mere one degree, than the melting temp of the metal component, if the volume of gas flow is high enough, the heat dissipating (cooling) capacity will eventually become exceeded and the component will lose it's solid properties and melt. On the other hand if the EGT is much hotter than the melting temp but the gas flow volume is low enough so that the total heat units is less than the heat dissipating (cooling) units it will never melt that component. There is more to it than this but this my simple explanation. Richard, like the LAW, an EGT gauge is good thing. but being legalistic is not. :) Hope this helps. > > > > | > > _____|_____ > > *============================R============================* > > \ / \ / > > (/---\) > > \___/ > > / \ > > () () > > Eugene Zimmerman ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy Berry" <sc_bassman(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Trailer for Your Kolb?
Date: Nov 01, 2001
I believe this is suitably Kolb list related. I, too, have an enclosed trailer (25'x8' with side access door) for my Firestar KXP. You don't need a lot of fancy stuff to have a great time. For a long time, I simply kept an air mattress, sleeping bag, 5 gallon container for water, ice chest, Coleman campstove, portable john, cooking & eating utensils, cold weather suit, and couple of folding chairs right in the front of the trailer ... most of it in one of those plastic truck toolboxes .... and had a big long apartment once the plane was removed! I rigged a 12v battery and inside lights ... even one for the loading ramp at night. I've also camped in there with the plane inside ... several times at Sun 'n Fun in Florida. Had a grand time! I must admit though ... that was in my somewhat younger days. I now have acquired an older (1984 model), but quite comfortable, 28' foot motorhome ... which has all the conveniences. And now, (you guessed it) I pull that same 25' trailer containing the Firestar. Look like a train coming down the highway ... but it works great! :-) IFR conditions??? Under Class B airspace??? Trouble at the local airport??? Raining cats and dogs when you plan to leave for a weekend fly-in??? No problem ... I simply hook up the trailer containing plane and pull it anywhere I like :-) Tax problems in your county? Pull it too and base it in another county. When they catch up with you, move it to another one :-) No hangar rent either .... although I have recently opted for one of those too ... only for convenience sake. OK ... so I'm not a purist ... I don't fly it everywhere I go ... but I have a wonderful time just the same! Combines two of my favorite hobbies ... flying and camping. The "fold" feature is one of the main attractions which originally drew me to the Kolb design. If you haven't tried it, you're overlooking one of the primary advantages of the Kolb design IMHO. Enclosed trailers aren't all that expensive .. and you can even find them used for quite reasonable prices. One down side .... you WILL need a full sized vehicle (e.g. truck) in good condition to pull it ... and when gas prices skyrocket, that can be a deterent :-s Therefore, when/if you look for a trailer, look for one with good aerodynamic (ie. wind flow) properties ... it can make a difference. Randy Firestar KXP South Carolina ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Carlisle Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 61 Msgs - 10/30/01 My Twinstar lives in a 24' enclosed trailer in its off time. Get more fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2001
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org>
Subject: Re: EGT gauge, IVO In-Flight adjustable prop
I understand that part. How do you deal with it in practice? What RPM do you use to take off and climb out with? Do you crank in extra prop pitch before throttling back to cruise power? I am a firm believer in John Hauck's advice to prop the engine so that it just touches red line at full throttle in level flight, do you set the thing up so that you can crank in any extra pitch or what? How do you adjust the pitch for normal cruise? What does it do for fuel consumption? How does it affect the temps? And what engine are you running and what size/# blades of prop? (Even tho I don't plan to get one, this is fascinating) Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) >An EGT gauge can't tell you every thing that is important to know. The >temperature of the various internal metal components is the real >critical issue, here not merely EGT. While EGT plays an important part >effecting the internal component temps, the exhaust gas flow volume has >a hugh effect too. >Example, if the the EGT is only slightly higher say a mere one degree, >than the melting temp of the metal component, if the volume of gas flow >is high enough, the heat dissipating (cooling) capacity will eventually >become exceeded and the component will lose it's solid properties and >melt. On the other hand if the EGT is much hotter than the melting temp >but the gas flow volume is low enough so that the total heat units is >less than the heat dissipating (cooling) units it will never melt that >component. There is more to it than this but this my simple explanation. > >> > | >> > _____|_____ >> > *============================R============================* >> > \ / \ / >> > (/---\) >> > \___/ >> > / \ >> > () () >> > Eugene Zimmerman > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2001
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org>
Subject: Re: Props
when I was selecting the prop for my new Sonerai airplane, I >call IVO thinking I would like to use their cockpit adjustable high-pitched >blade. As I discussed the application with the person at IVO, they told me >their prop would not work in my application. They said their experience was >that the blade did not work well at high speeds (the Sonerai has a cruise of >110-120 and top speed of 145 more or less). So, I appreciated their >advice. I talked to WARP Drive about that application and they thought >their prop would perform well. I bought their prop for the Sonerai >application with the dimensions and plan form they recommended and it is >indeed working very well. > >Wish you luck in your selection. > >Vince Nicely >Firestar II (306 hours) And here all this time I thought you had an IVO and I've even been bragging about it. Oh well... At least you got a prop that works. (I really thought you had the IVO, honest...) Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Sasseville" <sassevilleapiaries(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Trailer pictures
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Gene I am also going to trailer my Firestar to Florida from Maine. Interested in the pictures of yours but they would not come up. How did you hang the wings without getting hanger rash? Paul Sasseville ----- Original Message ----- From: <Gdledbetter(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 61 Msgs - 10/30/01 > > Vic, > I trailered my Firefly from Cincinnati to Florida in January and rigged my > trailer so that I could remove the wings and hang them from the walls. This > takes the big load off the boom tube which is supported about 4 feet in front > of the tail feathers. You might add another boom tube support adjacent to > the cage attachment point. > I have pictures on my web site if you would like to see the setup. > Go to: > www.homepage.mac.com/gene1930 > > Gene > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)epix.net>
Subject: Re: Props
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Ron, The Ivo was my favorite prop particuarily on the FS and FF. In the speed range of these AC, the Ivo does an excellent job and is very smooth running. Some time ago Phil Lockwood was experimenting with his Aircam (with 582's at the time) and tried different props on it at the same time. He could tell by the yawing of the AC which prop was developing more thrust. His findings: the Ivo was the winnner. (This was before Powerfin came along.) The other big advatage of the Ivo was the 2-1/2" Ivo prop spacer which place the Ivo further from the trailing edge of the wing. This reduced the noise considerably. The spacer works with the Ivo because the flexible blades reduces the vibration transmitter to the hub. This is most helpful on the FS2 where the prop is closer to the trailing edge than the other Kolb models. Had many hours on an Ivo on 447's, 503's, 582,s and 912's, never had a "proplem" Dennis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> Subject: Kolb-List: Props > > I wish the thread concerning props had appeared before I bought mine. When > I went out to Kolb to pick up my engine (503 with B box) last summer, I had > decided to go with a Powerfin prop. When I mentioned this to the powers at > Kolb they all said not to do that and to go with an IVO. They talked me out > of the Powerfin so I ordered a IVO. Now I hear all of the negitives about > it. Does anyone have anything good to say about an IVO? Due to the B gear > box that I already have, a Warp Drive is not an option. I want to stay with > a three blade set up. > > Ron Payne > Building FireStar > Gilbertsville, Ky > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TCowan1917(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Subject: Re: law
Well, maybe I missed the thread, but what about just not giving any kind of a receipt, warranty or disclaimer at all. Take cash only. Would that somehow, down the line, stop the liability? Ted ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Subject: Re: IVO In-Flight adjustable prop
In a message dated 11/1/01 8:51:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, richard(at)BCChapel.org writes: > Two strokes are acceptably reliable under rigidly fixed parameters Well said Mr. Pike. It's hard enough to stay within those parameters without the additional complication of another moving target. Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2001
From: John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com>
Subject: Re: Trailer for Your Kolb?
Group, One of the considerations in choosing a trailer for yor Kolb, is to get one heavy enough so that the plane gets a smooth ride. Also, heavy trailers are less likely to be tipped over by a wind storm. My trailer weighs 2,000 pounds. On the down side, because of the heavy vehicle needed to tow it, high gas prices tend to keep me from using it. Take a look: http://jrjung.0catch.com/MHTrailer.html John Jung ________________________________________________________________________________
From: dixieshack(at)webtv.net (Mike and Dixie Shackelford)
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Subject: Re: trailers
Ross, Richard Swiderski in Florida has by far the strongest and for its strength, the lightest and most "accomodating" trailer I've seen. I believe you could roll it over without damage to the trailer. Check the archives for his posts. I noticed in your post about the additional tube support at the juncture with the fuselage. Believe I'd reconsider that one. If the fuselage mass is free to move even slightly on the gear as it would as the tires compress with road bumps, and the fuse tube is held in two places rigidly, then the fuse tube is being severely stressed at your "fulcrum" between tail support and main gear by the heavy fuselage. Dennis warned specifically about just this application and suggested the fuse support be just ahead of the tailfeathers only and that the main gear be tied securely in such a manner as to prevent movement in any direction. None of my business....just hate to see anything happen to a Kolb heading to Florida. Fly safe Mike in WV with a FSII finally done ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2001
From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net>
Subject: Denali
Does anyone have any experience or know anything about a Denali ANR headset? I am about due for a headset to use with my Icom A5 for my FireStar. Ron Payne ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Gdledbetter(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Subject: Re: Trailer pictures
Paul, I made a mistake when I gave my web page address. Don't use www so my homepage address is actually homepage.mac.com/gene1930 I have pictures on this web page that shows the bracketry. Oh, one minor detail is the handhold in the wingtips that allow me to attach the ends of the wing thru the handhold while the root of the wing to bolted to brackets for that end. Hope you can see the pictures with this url. Gene ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2001
From: Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: Props
3 blades are not more efficient than 2. >ground adjustable prop that I bought from the old-old Kolb company. It >worked. I adjusted the angle and tried to get a good combination of climb >and cruise but could never get where I wanted to be. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "check6" <check6(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Jack Hart
Date: Nov 02, 2001
In the Oct. 26 issue of General Aviation News, there is a very interesting article concerning an interview with Jack Hart. Very informative and maybe interesting to general aviation people. Way to go Jack. John Todd Firestar # 30 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Subject: Re: law
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
I talked to the FAA today and they said that the only way to protect yourself 100% is to destroy the airplane so that even the parts can not be used again. They said thay even if you buy parts, the builder of the parts can be held liable. I talked to the guy I bought my plane from and he wont give up the paperwork. The feds say that without the original paperwork the plane can never be registered again...But...Where there's a will there's way...I think it is a problem that will work itself out... Ross > From: TCowan1917(at)aol.com > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 07:11:12 EST > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Kolb-List: Re: law > > > Well, maybe I missed the thread, but what about just not giving any kind of a > receipt, warranty or disclaimer at all. Take cash only. Would that somehow, > down the line, stop the liability? Ted > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Subject: Re: law
In a message dated 11/2/01 5:56:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, rrcarl(at)nhvt.net writes: > talked to the FAA today and they said that the only way to protect > yourself 100% is to destroy the airplane so that even the parts can not be > used again. They said thay even if you buy parts, the builder of the parts > can be held liable. > I generally caution you against taking your legal advice from the FAA. Though in this instance they are right about the 100% part. I know a guy who sawed up his Kitfox and broke up its Rotax 912 with a sledge. Wanted to sleep well at night. Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Subject: Re: Trailer for Your Kolb?
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
> From: "Randy Berry" <sc_bassman(at)hotmail.com> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 23:43:17 -0500 > To: > Subject: Kolb-List: Trailer for Your Kolb? > > IFR conditions??? Under Class B airspace??? Trouble at the local airport> ??? Raining cats and dogs when you plan to leave for a weekend fly-in??? > No problem ... I simply hook up the trailer containing plane and pull it > anywhere I like :-) This is exactly why I decided to look at Kolbs. I like going to fly-ins, but long x-counties in a UL are just not practical, especially in New England where the weather changes every ten minutes. The plane and the motorcycle fit nicely in the trailer. When I get where Im going I have transportation on the ground and the air. I carry fuel, tools, water, and even an RC helicopter and glider just incase. It really is a great way to go. I haul it with a 1/2 tone Chevy X-Cab Shortbed. Incidentally...This Twinstar takes up all but 6" of this trailer. I couldnt believe how long this plane was folded up. 23' 4".... Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Subject: Re: Landing Gear's
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
Did you replace them with another aluminum set or did you buy the steel legs from new Kolb? If aluminum, where did you get them? Or did you just happen to have a spare set? Ross > From: JIMMY HANKINSON <jhankin(at)planters.net> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 18:37:24 -0500 > To: KOLB LIST > Subject: Kolb-List: Landing Gear's > > > Much has been written about straightening landing gear. I have > straightened the landing gear on my FireFly five or six times. Because > of a flyin next week at a local airport I decided to straighten my > landing gear. Guess what, when I applied pressure with a hydralic press > I heard a definite sound I diden't want to hear, it was split. > > I had a new set of gear on hand and within three hours they were > installed. We used a 5/8" ground to go through the axle's to line them > up. The gear and wheels look like new now, very slight toe-in, just > like I wanted. Thanks to my friend Audrey.. > > Glad this happened in the hanger!!! > > Jimmy Hankinson > FireFly #35, 447 Rotax, 200 Hrs. > BRS 750 Chute, Brakes, Full enclosure. > Rocky Ford, Georgia 30455 > Southeast, Georgia > Plantation Air Park, JYL > Pegasis Field, Local 2000' Strip > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2001
From: JIMMY HANKINSON <jhankin(at)planters.net>
Subject: LANDING GEAR
The landing gear was replaced with the same aluminum type. The previous owner bought a spare set when he purchased thew FireFly from the original builder. Jimmy Hankinson FireFly #35, 447 Rotax, 200 Hrs. BRS 750 Chute, Brakes, Full enclosure. Rocky Ford, Georgia 30455 Southeast, Georgia Plantation Air Park, JYL Pegasis Field, Local 2000' Strip ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Subject: Re: Props
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
Thats true. Ive heard people claim better performance with a 2 blade than 3. My 2 blade Powerfin came today for the Twinstar. Stuart said that I would get better performance with the 2 blade but the 3 blade would run smoother. The reason is that you can turn a larger diameter 2 blade than 3. I could have gone with as 60" 3 blade or a 64" 2 blade. Ross > From: Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 16:38:47 -0500 > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Props > > > > 3 blades are not more efficient than 2. > > >> ground adjustable prop that I bought from the old-old Kolb company. It >> worked. I adjusted the angle and tried to get a good combination of climb >> and cruise but could never get where I wanted to be. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Sasseville" <sassevilleapiaries(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Trailer for Your Kolb?
Date: Nov 02, 2001
John What is the rating of your axels, 3,500 lbs.? Paul Sasseville ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Jung" <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Trailer for Your Kolb? > > Group, > > One of the considerations in choosing a trailer for yor Kolb, is to get > one heavy enough so that the plane gets a smooth ride. Also, heavy > trailers are less likely to be tipped over by a wind storm. My trailer > weighs 2,000 pounds. On the down side, because of the heavy vehicle > needed to tow it, high gas prices tend to keep me from using it. > Take a look: http://jrjung.0catch.com/MHTrailer.html > > John Jung > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Subject: Re: Trailer for Your Kolb?
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
My btrailer is the same size but does not have a V nose. GVW is 7000lbs...Which would equate to 3500lbs per axle. Ross > From: "Paul Sasseville" <sassevilleapiaries(at)hotmail.com> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:22:35 -0500 > To: > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Trailer for Your Kolb? > > > > John > > What is the rating of your axels, 3,500 lbs.? > > Paul Sasseville > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Jung" <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> > To: > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Trailer for Your Kolb? > > >> >> Group, >> >> One of the considerations in choosing a trailer for yor Kolb, is to get >> one heavy enough so that the plane gets a smooth ride. Also, heavy >> trailers are less likely to be tipped over by a wind storm. My trailer >> weighs 2,000 pounds. On the down side, because of the heavy vehicle >> needed to tow it, high gas prices tend to keep me from using it. >> Take a look: http://jrjung.0catch.com/MHTrailer.html >> >> John Jung >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Re: Props
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Stuart said that I > would get better performance with the 2 blade but the 3 blade would run > smoother. The reason is that you can turn a larger diameter 2 blade than 3. > I could have gone with as 60" 3 blade or a 64" 2 blade. Thats part of it, the rest is that you have more interference and skin friction drag with more blades. Single blade props are the best, but they can only absorb a certain amount of power for diameter and blade width. As you add blades the amount of power you can absorb more or less goes up proportionally. The larger the diameter the more air you accelerate and therefore you have to accelerate it less for the same amount of thrust. and the less you velocity change you give the air the less energy is lost to turbulent mixing of the fast and slow airstreams. Constant speed and adjustable props are useful when a plane has a large speed range. Typically Kolbs fly from 35 to 90 mph. 2.6 times speed range. An RV-8 will fly from 50 to over 200, a factor of 4. The RV makes much better use of the adjustable prop. The Ivo's are interesting in that they do not change pitch only, they change twist. this is actually a more accurate way to correct for changes in speed to optimize a prop, although the IVO isn't changing twist in the exactly the right way to be optimum. my main dislike for all these props is that they use a blade held into a clamping block hub. I would love to see a prop that is one solid piece all the way from tip to tip, that twists the blades like the Ivo, but has a decent airfoil like the Powerfin. then you would not have the difficulties that Ivo has with there blades rocking in the hub, or a fairly big heavy draggie blade root and hub like Warp or Powerfin. Just one more thing I would love to develop if I had development money!!! Topher ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Kolb Database
Date: Nov 03, 2001
Please visit http://www.springeraviation.net/ for a list of builders and pilots of Kolb aircraft that are willing to share their wisdom and experiences. Kip Laurie Atlanta Firestar II ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Subject: Re: Props
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
An excellent explanation. Im not sure I agree with the your thoughts on blade adjustment on the Ivo though. Of course I have no concrete data to support that opinion...Which I suppose is what makes it an opinion. I think if you took a prop like Powerfin and built a light weight hub were the blades were set in bearings so they could rotate...Then you build an adjustment system similar to that of a helicopter tail rotor...And you run your adjustment shaft right through the center of the hollow prop shaft on a C box...You'de have a winner. I think the way Ivo mounts the adjustment motor on the rotating hub is a bad idea. Ross > From: "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 19:18:41 -0600 > To: > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Props > > > > Stuart said that I >> would get better performance with the 2 blade but the 3 blade would run >> smoother. The reason is that you can turn a larger diameter 2 blade than > 3. >> I could have gone with as 60" 3 blade or a 64" 2 blade. > > Thats part of it, the rest is that you have more interference and skin > friction drag with more blades. Single blade props are the best, but they > can only absorb a certain amount of power for diameter and blade width. As > you add blades the amount of power you can absorb more or less goes up > proportionally. The larger the diameter the more air you accelerate and > therefore you have to accelerate it less for the same amount of thrust. and > the less you velocity change you give the air the less energy is lost to > turbulent mixing of the fast and slow airstreams. > > Constant speed and adjustable props are useful when a plane has a large > speed range. Typically Kolbs fly from 35 to 90 mph. 2.6 times speed > range. An RV-8 will fly from 50 to over 200, a factor of 4. The RV makes > much better use of the adjustable prop. > > The Ivo's are interesting in that they do not change pitch only, they change > twist. this is actually a more accurate way to correct for changes in speed > to optimize a prop, although the IVO isn't changing twist in the exactly the > right way to be optimum. my main dislike for all these props is that they > use a blade held into a clamping block hub. I would love to see a prop that > is one solid piece all the way from tip to tip, that twists the blades like > the Ivo, but has a decent airfoil like the Powerfin. then you would not have > the difficulties that Ivo has with there blades rocking in the hub, or a > fairly big heavy draggie blade root and hub like Warp or Powerfin. Just one > more thing I would love to develop if I had development money!!! > > Topher > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2001
Subject: Covering Supplies...
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
Im about ready to order my covering supplies. Can anyone who has covered a Twinstar...Older one preferably...Tell me how much of the following you used...Ill be covering the wings and tail...No cockpit enclosure. (1) Amount and weight of fabric (2) Amount of PolyBrush (pink stuff) (3) Amount of PolySpray (Silver) (4) Amount of paint. Ill probably go with polytone...or maybe Aerothane. As you can see, Im planning on using the stits process. Also...How many cats of silver did you use. Im thinking of going light on the bottom surfaces to save weight. One coat on the bottom and 2 on the top. Thanks...Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vic Worthington" <vicw(at)vcn.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 34 Msgs - 11/01/01
Date: Nov 03, 2001
My Kolb trailer is homemade with tandom axel and it cost about $1500 to build. It is covered and the rear door serves as a loading ramp. A hand operated winch loads the Kolb and the boom support has wheels that follow a track in the floor to load the Kolb tail first. The tail boom support then locks down tight to hold the boom in place. Contact me directly and I will send photos and details. Vic ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: IVO props
From: roger.hankins(at)kodak.com
Date: Nov 02, 2001
12:36:37 AM From: Roger Hankins I have never run anything but a two blade 66" IVO on my KXP firestar, so I have nothing to compare directly to, but I am happy with its performance. I climb at over 1000fpm (sometimes quite a bit over), get off the ground in a hurry, and cruise at a speed that is acceptable to me. Maybe it is the way I fly. When I first got my plane flying I zoomed around at 5800-6000rpm and 75-80mph all of the time. The controls felt stiff, thermal bumps were very unpleasant and the darn thing was LOUD. One day I got a chance to take a short cross country with a friend; He flew his quicksilver, and I my Kolb. I had to throttle back to 4500 rpm or so to keep from running away from him. At first I was frustrated, thinking what a DOG his plane was and why couldn't he go faster. After a half hour or so I began to enjoy myself and relax. By the time we got where we were going I was having way more fun than I had ever had. The Kolb was light and responsive at 45mph and a true joy to fly. I also found that my fuel burn for the trip was just over 2 gph, and that with a dual carb 503. I learned a lot from that trip. I usually fly around at about 55 or so now and burn right about 2.5 gallons an hour depending on conditions. I think that is pretty efficient. On the other end of the spectrum, I can get just over 90mph (gps) if the conditions are perfect (never less than 88) with the throttle wide open. I think I'm getting some thrust! Changing to a powerfin might change those numbers some, but I doubt they would change by a large percentage. When the time comes to replace my prop I will probably try a powerfin, but till then I'm content. Roger Hankins Firestar KXP 503DCDI 66" 2blade IVO Ashland, Oregon ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2001
From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net>
Subject: Re: Covering Supplies...
I would call Jim or Dondi Miller. They can tell you exactly what you need. Call=0D 1-877-877-3334=0D =0D Ron Payne=0D =0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com=0D Date: Friday, November 02, 2001 21:34:51=0D Subject: Kolb-List: Covering Supplies...=0D =0D =0D Im about ready to order my covering supplies. Can anyone who has covered a=0D Twinstar...Older one preferably...Tell me how much of the following you=0D used...Ill be covering the wings and tail...No cockpit enclosure.=0D =0D (1) Amount and weight of fabric=0D (2) Amount of PolyBrush (pink stuff)=0D (3) Amount of PolySpray (Silver)=0D (4) Amount of paint. Ill probably go with polytone...or maybe Aerothane.=0D =0D As you can see, Im planning on using the stits process. Also...How many=0D cats of silver did you use. Im thinking of going light on the bottom=0D surfaces to save weight. One coat on the bottom and 2 on the top.=0D =0D Thanks...Ross=0D =0D =0D = =0D = =0D =0D = =0D = =0D DESIGNTIMESP9508>http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/dralle@matronics.com=0D = =0D = =0D = R0lGODlhxAAhAKIAAISWqevu8ltzizhVc8/W3ay4xSVFZf7+/yH5BAAAAAAALAAAAADEACEAAAP/ eLrc/jDKSau9OOttSQFCKABAEVTBFxJc6wQA6850rcHDUBK8ahgC2QP3KxZsm4DAAEA6n06AYXCE wH6CU6MwEBQ8yyn0IhgAx+i0lceQArSSAhauDDbMBrUEJBXo/2hhTQp9F3JnBwQjD0t+gA0BBilM j5U1kT8ymHAVYR4DQncGVZYHIYmjpaobh44HcgMZrXYPcq6WBKm5oau9E1KphIgXmAOcDAE5x49L JwW3vi0ByzVmxgu2slgRZbyPkY5e0TRlpDaYgwqbhoIQcuaWUkfJ4zO5P0+Hx33U6lWK6B7kgmfJ DIsS9WYA6PKk0QMpVCA9i6iERyYHBCL2gpUI/1rCj2YIKniGJUQXhArE5YrVIKPISoVofZy5kgIP Ni0dyUmXogyWN6tCopw5040LWvIUZPxhgiSlCBOBvPQXRmbLkthCTBU4VJE4BgRI9OtoxuqEnt5S DIWxaEKzFlwWlBn5AxSDQyKVADmRMV1LM0DleDsALMsBvUX8SghIOMcPOAu3vXAz7bEFjg4OyfD6 QzGkYRu+Rmpyz6ypKceW+pWzDG8blg2WXFNyZKlHdxfF3pOBENiLJaSWeIbg0IFspXYk4956VtLI a42ouV6QDPThp9g6bwm24F6TinKxK4UAsSNd5yiPxxYfEuxgTAS9p+SrfcuChS7wp2zCZar88P/O MVCcOtZAAhgynpgSijJ3vQRYMlo49MECB96FWncXyiWdZQhehBRTDcRA4XAXMHTYNQSMhQp2wChW moAgtlGfMGIM1VgoiuA2ylcHPGjYKzESiJ1e5pBAnHWE1UWYEGFwkqNSAW6QyyBGDvFMFdP1eBGM wxRjYJBRBcHTCgj2A8yTKz4jRHkWBqOERshZEeRIgoRFnXIn3kXiZZRAWEsXkG15D2zqGAGgYocY oEkQnf24EEE2inLKfZ35VSGU+HT0I4GDARnliXjdkqWCAnZqgXCmiGQUAwXS6GIRWgDDHY0sVVQY C1wQis2epZnTyKZZVicVmbFNNeBhYk5hVZP/98GjqwaAgfCQdf8lKd6KOoGwZXZPIVTVealtmpmS d84JDBxeJEZNlUPMSNgR1vjl5UguMkdBEdd8puh6hB6iGCZ+SJtgmyaIg0mUl56o4sDnQTOgkWUN wW4t2xp5iK7/AfTEPfuOq6tmyOCpFx6BzZkRHsH4a2G+iph6nXVnNlBflcwiAyd5mRJG5ZzW1ibu Kym6cM9LhXTXXohbEglDKLJpcTIPQNF4TCMFcOGyp84iWZYi6ZSmBVtXe5piW1o+66+aV4nRgktQ ZXgy0VOQ0EWnI5PABDURQ1JV2MeiYtd2U8DDhbJlRH1WGHAO/dscGBXhQgBX96Gt4VbuYFMJKyZE EDQEONk0hKmQW/GBiBl03p0EmwtkOhphxaAiUbDHLvvstNdu++2qJAAAOw== R0lGODlhoQBiALMAAKutr/Ly89PT1BYVE+Tk5caklZdyYOfOw/ne05+QisO/v/z8/SVFZf39/v/k 2v7+/yH5BAAAAAAALAAAAAChAGIAAAT/8MlJq73Yrt2yf10jjl9pnmiqrmazLZ0aXyPJ3niuy9xO v8CZb0gsZlywlPAEDBqfUB0yeVqumovAyxrteiVI7hdTG5ufU/GZtm7v0h91Nyx32ylTKqpezAa0 fHdneWJWNkdQf38wIoJ2hCVCgRJbfViMUZNekBVLMY1kF1kLD1maKaOMNWWOb6l1rKGiinoVVKSt uWROUhMueT0ZARLDf7rHeMGnthRAWlofG8R/BLS/y8hFhivYzBV/DdWDIkDZVYeiOlkWDQHiqN3s fuZ75Kog8RPDFIrGqARCtNSiN8Yeliu4HhCo1k/Jwhj72i0kQLDNpykCgwkjskAAQAke/wkIqPgG DKhoGJzRqtVuSLh3lKChkEYST6OTGRLGcdGvn84cC0TiWvjThIB9YGr6gpWQAzp2SHoKVBPgKIaq HxU+sJqF4gd3HYKGU4qvhM4XiwLwyUhtoTUwAgbIRTohqFV+Cz3yWQjyLlmmGuB8ladoIoEEcuUy +Im1qLuiogSQ6uhxJFkPYSk1SSGTTakAiBPPBWWXLgu+D7QI8HgZs55LJ0x3rgtAroHEDEIy9Ah5 pt/WZl3sCrRuQjWYpWoPYHBbboJ+IldXG8hEMvAWwnd0hha0MwO5cRMfBVR6osepJ1D/xUmGPYvZ SN0RIBVagfLlBRIkONBVbUx3q51HXf9dv122iicumWYLWN8xQMB3thkgoQEJKDBgKUFF5xZNxFhH q+0TY0x5NakRMquYBcKTJsyDlwAF5DehXCnihoADDoxZZgIUKkCNXU9mh1WAvOWDxjl1XVjCIsQo 4OWEE0JIgGgHkCkomQi4+GaBGYgEI4DnXVdKnbxUYcwCB/A5oX76fQdAcwMkMOinhUoYoEgK0rCa BvJdd1YQ5dy5SAEUGtClkUiWWYBcCohm5qeChmrAeB5+QKqjuzQzWWd+9MiOOJUWsCv/r98FmZgB z/LqQKVLcojZalgOAtQSzvyULHzPoGmtoLcOoKIC536Krazp+RUCCIKAGA0uoPCkbTNShaNFoQW0 i0CE07bL6wGwyuqVMNx+1s5NOj5SRVOReuAHQ9PBGui5oam4scGDIsyiAkdEl5oCCQCQQJPK1mtv XYb40e2V8i2kcbvLKcApuyBbm7CsCFwQ3QYAMGD00UZTWFAkT2HoGgpp/Ujhp3oWumIA01bbc69o SqgmPwoIAAABmyJtNgMWqUHODPvi0M4zIASQ36do3lr0crhuLfDPCktQ9NmAG+1G08nAYKcK/syX WqWDhooYALlGaKTe5yLAt9gMQB5k/+BID/6yL5VIkbgWIhnQ+JcDVMXcAdgGarnWPSOpJ5oMJLDB 5pwLLvG9V06Jij8+TkStoJUSmXSg7wa6H+W8IqAAc1oYkHvnux/Bku8mAF+KYcOTCatoyyGs35ES wmom7D0HCUBH01M/OO/ytC0MNGodW/qumwNq+fIIvIv+1gSQ3gYE0L6jESRiNFjEk0ZBDLcIJAAG 2JjVRBPB/BxJSSz6X8+eZ7sTFVB3RpCT/FD1lm/4B0M1C4ADIkimAzQoMayTlaW8pEGQSW99C/gg CLWBg7alAhB16UlCtIcXqZkpNIlRQP8iWCn9AAAA5mNe44wmgAYQUIdoiAcCiYEWWv/4ol/gyAnj ytScBh1JYwjA1BPR9LGt7apQDmqHDtHGQ3wso21I+EyyHNOWEUogP2MKTYPKB7QmVkhl3ZNimYxG kb99MISdmMQIxwUGIuqjLSUCw/AmyMSfBUxnKYMiG2t4rgDmZgGOLGAdI8mUGKUiEmmRzwnrsh/n KaaNnqRQiyREynZJz0KpbB8RXhaGlMwseyfkiQP1sSS8MaCNSOLbhCbnRl4dpnYNwJ0qs2hMbf3C B1pqimFgAEEJTauNhLpWlxSgREXy6m8PCOb0oIAOT/TAj4iLyHGk0xW3FA9CsnKnO13oIG0KsyR4 GNEWe3e4mfijI0+M6DC64pH7MMf/UwJVpPQE8DwsIpQdV8pJq3LgjwDY54kKEElWSoEAIq0oAb2s HPOCVKE5fhQqF8ojFxfqqmKcVE0dIMoXXyjDgGaUckUzwIM86jbXqMGHQHToRMU2tiGutAEOACjQ YBWwo8aupQzQGVNZIMKBHKtlX1FcAJ5YxYQmo0H66SpX0dkrgb5LQkczaO5ykA+d1oVeMmroYyRw UrdMhx25iqB9ZLUnCs1qVgnoEuv0JjJL4TVzY5UBUHSir7MocH4xsI9kMKkB6YmEnQkrACIty9oC tLNMIesaiySrMtzpNXA3IFyWtMXA4gQxqnhJCFujkaujEOCnEU0ZppyoWlHKdpes/5XVSZdLO5ty 4yKn8Ot/xnXCDZRQS4QFQFuvQsDUVYWd6K1tRGsbyoieND9xVW1z1bve5GYqs1XoBCbMQh3uKoJf 7njgbKg6y7qQjWySOW3Y2KkylNbXie6tb4TXuN72rvG+21TCLg6nXVvw5L+omohsUPoRP1DVKm8b FUctDLkHs9g+yL2wfUNpn1DeFnAykMMUUlJgHmeyiAwJAdlQytH1SiYsADIMSqc74Qu/+MESVhk7 U8ZgFs1Tw5R46r4Y2IJozKct0wlKct0rE2Vu6LhhWw2D3btgBrcXxi12InoX7OA2r1d6uK2HsVwZ DHzmE181w9hJecMvEQ9QTQ5cCP96dROl9c45onAyz6IVfNI14phOGlggWo4JS4p4MXgOhKoD28Gb PT5DKmBeM4NTKuKo8WZGcL6z+6zUTczgiUQfecl0OjAjt5BQgU2SCLeAcYnCcJSd48mIKuzxBzW3 uNI1NgATdLzAB2IvBeJ4oKHtp9LOAGNYCqlGw36MDyBEh59VKlxVjh3r5GZJhMi69QoemuiQIEUE 6z4Kvhqx7n1kO8GIigywAkRuGZ07vdONBKd5DC5LmgUmvU6yFRg1G3A3ozIBt4BKYQSnMP6aUelN WRwaGo0fe7dUKRHH26bhn2uXYlSkwAoGRpWlhi3ltAKK38XUfNJowLsoTVHEWhT/p+uCX0VDFv8G oUugUhkhJQsdLwqz5QM5kllPHT0G8X9Qbhy6JFne2Tu3n80iJY42CQwxP/ePp3Dc42IG63wkYj+4 MFg8JFlx2I4015nOGsqoeWH6OLfKNXAeq9earB6vZDFK9Daw++sH8uF0OHgTpZxLqmHryDfe+RVp bQnlVCMf+4J+0g5SNH7iG2oglk5BGUAzajw1R1RHwoZyippdHB1pNuA1ACmS61EUnyghkAOsjaqU 6vXIERprfCTOjFPCR6P6vPMxlJAd27rHVwE7P2QJ2B1Qhm3KypB0UL7umJudLppofBWxUoeRCgZV kl+gYdDKgtLoo/MxGZVprHgX/+MP2+iJIhlnt1tOsWkNt3cy8BjUYHnvsXypURli90UEN0RLlxqT lxcIqHxQt1IEiAXksnBpFR+653DRYHMPSBGkhiiatwHHVSpmN32RARBJJ1WG8xZvA4I5cWv4soGD ZwIzeHb9Rl7SkVK9ESAL1xFfphc9tAgf5hPadwPvwH2BN35tUn4xAXVwMn35pm8mAoLGRxkZWHJh 1IT182lXIFTd8RAikhp31xv8NwwpOFr6x3d6532vpoRvoIM9QQ5miALv0B1WtG4wIX6+pnReYUXi VkXe1S1BYSF2MX4kJRlg2AdwaAyNBw0fxmlCVQGJtnu2hxxCYRzmh4IOKAxEmJB/HJV81ZGEHDhM 8fYWhYF9zQATj5caHQJ0j8gVpXhC3QZ6DFMgnxiG/CCJAzgImBQCEkGCYDGMg8h1KSYdGed3MChz TgM6agaDBsaKcrKEh1VJhUggPNJtx4SFFWgLM0h4ulgMG2J7R1EHX1iMd5AhrxFgCfEQR6eKHnBu DKgE62YcAnh79nN++ehpeEgBEQAAOw== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TCowan1917(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 03, 2001
Subject: Re: trailering
A lot of you guys have seen my plane, good ole white lightning and you also know that my lady and I travel a lot of different places with it behind my old winny rv. Anyway, we fold it up and put the normal boom support in front of the tail feathers and tie down the tires and then a couple of safety straps go to the front wing holders and down to the outer edge of the trailer. This serves as a safety in case the tires come loose. (A friend in Northern Georgia did not use a second tie and lost it when it came loose). We have a series of steel tubes that hook into the trailer sockets and go over the plane from just aft of the blade to the front. We cover it with the canvas that truckers use we purchased in Dothan, Alabama and it looks kind of like a conastoga wagon sort of. The only damage we ever sustained was when we went to Texas and someone removed the wooden cross ties from a rr crossing and we went fifteen feet into the air. Lindy Linderman can testify to that. The tail section whipped and put a kink in the bottom of the tube which I was able to remove and put a reinforcement plate there. I now also put a brace under the tail wheel to let it help support the tail and hopefully keep it from whipping. I would think that your risk more damage to the wings handling them off the plane (which would require more than one person) than using the boom to support them. If the wing is built correctly, the hanger point on the wing should be plenty strong. I find it interesting to note that some people dont seem to be able to master the art of landing but are overly concerned about trailering!! I also pull mine forward, not backward and I tie the leading edges together and pack the tail with foam and have wing covers to keep the tar off. Just offering one of the options, tried and tested. Ted Cowan, Alabama ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bklebon4(at)cs.com
Date: Nov 03, 2001
Subject: Re: Tail-Wheel Bolt
While landing last evening, after a very soft touch-down, my Firestar II suddenly pulled to the right. Upon examination I found that the bolt holding the aluminum tail-wheel rod into the tail assembly was missing and the rod/tail-wheel had rotated 180deg.in the tail-wheel assembly.Everything appeared fine on the preflight. The right side sash chain and S hook were also missing from the tail-wheel assembly. I attempted to locate them to try to determine what had failed, the bolt, the chain, or the S hook. I'm inclined to think the bolt failed. I have never seen a post on the list addressing this problem. Any ideas? 170 hours on plane. $3 to repair and am back flying. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2001
Subject: Re: Tail-Wheel Bolt
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
> > While landing last evening, after a very soft touch-down, my > Firestar II > suddenly pulled to the right. Upon examination I found that the bolt > holding the aluminum tail-wheel rod into the tail assembly was missing and > the rod/tail-wheel had rotated 180deg.in the tail-wheel > assembly.Everything appeared fine on the preflight. The right side sash chain and S >hook were also missing from the tail-wheel assembly. I attempted to locate > them to try to determine what had failed, the bolt, the chain, or the S hook. > I'm inclined to think the bolt failed. I have never seen a post on the > list addressing this problem. Any ideas? 170 hours on plane. $3 to repair > and am back flying. Would you believe that I am still flying off a fiberglass tailwheel rod that is epoxied in after nearly 15 years and still holding? The tailwheel assembly has broken from flying off rugged ice in the winter. I took off once leaving it behind and someone handed it to me upon my return. The guy that handed it over was video taping me and I commented that it was not a good idea to have parts drop off the plane on takeoff. The tail was dragging on the upper assembly minus the lower assembly and wheel. I thought the nose seems to higher than normal while taxiing back to my trailer. I flew the rest of that day without the tailwheel landing on ice, of course. Not a problem out there. Ralph Burlingame Original Firestar 14 years flying it ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2001
From: Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: law
> If you know of anyone else that is thinking along that line I would be more than happy to do it for him. Just tell me where and I will pick it up and he will never see it again. Selling across the border to Canada may help a bit as we are a bit more realistic in our ability to sue other people. > I generally caution you against taking your legal advice from the > FAA. > Though in this instance they are right about the 100% part. I know a guy >who sawed up his Kitfox and broke up its Rotax 912 with a sledge. Wanted to >sleep well at night. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2001
From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net>
Subject: Control Cables
I am still a little concerned about the rubbing of the control cables at the leading edge of the fuselage tube. This is the 5 inch tube and it is on the new style FireStar with a set of two pulleys on each side of the aileron torque tube. I talked to Kolb about this and they said that if I was not going to use the seat for a passenger, to remove the cross tube that has a slip fit on the right side above the landing gear sockets and then install some fiber inside the 5 inch tube to hold the cables up. Some one e-mailed me with the suggestion that two pieces of aluminum angle be bolted to the two lower bolts that hold the fuselage tube in and then place a piece of fiber across. This will solve the problem with the fuselage tube. After studying this some more, I find that the cables are also rubbing on the rear edge of the little brackets that holds the pulleys under the rear of the pilots seat. To raise the cables enough to clear these brackets, the cables will hit the H-beam cross member inside the 5 inch tube. Seems like some more engineering is in order. I can fix all this by modifying the brackets and either installing fiber blocks or another set of pulleys in front of the fuselage tube but I would like to know if anyone else has had this problem and a solution for this. Ron Payne ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Stroberg" <dgstro(at)albemarlenet.com>
Subject: For sale
Date: Nov 03, 2001
To Listers, There is still a fine FirestarII amphibian with a 503 DCDI and a 3 blade Ivo for sale in Northeastern North Carolina. Floats very nicely on a Full Lotus monofloat and quick detach sponsons. If interested, e-mail me off list or call 252-264-2240. New subject: Anyone out there flying a Jabriu on a MarkIII?? If so, I'd like to know how it's working out. Thanks, Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "info" <info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com>
Subject: quantities for Kolb
Date: Nov 03, 2001
Hi, ross, We've been supplying the Kolb fabric kits for years, please give us a call & we can talk about it.... thanks, Jim & Dondi Miller Aircraft Technical Support, Inc. Poly-Fiber & Ceconite Distributors (Toll Free) (877) 877-3334 Web Site: www.aircrafttechsupport.com E-mail: info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com Subject: Kolb-List: Covering Supplies... From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> Im about ready to order my covering supplies. Can anyone who has covered a Twinstar...Older one preferably...Tell me how much of the following you used...Ill be covering the wings and tail...No cockpit enclosure. (1) Amount and weight of fabric (2) Amount of PolyBrush (pink stuff) (3) Amount of PolySpray (Silver) (4) Amount of paint. Ill probably go with polytone...or maybe Aerothane. As you can see, Im planning on using the stits process. Also...How many cats of silver did you use. Im thinking of going light on the bottom surfaces to save weight. One coat on the bottom and 2 on the top. Thanks...Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Intercoms
Date: Nov 03, 2001
I have a question about the intercoms you all recommended some time ago. I can't remember which were the recommended units, and the archives really give me a problem. Help ! ! ! Larry Bourne Palm Springs, Ca. Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" http://www.gogittum.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2001
From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net>
Subject: Repair Stations
Could someone give me the name of the Rotax repair station that has been mentioned on this site many times. I think it is in Mississippi or somewhere down there. I don't know where to start in the archives. Ron Payne ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roland Lambert" <marotod(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Repair Stations
Date: Nov 04, 2001
Their web site is www.flysmla.com. R.Lambert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> Subject: Kolb-List: Repair Stations > > Could someone give me the name of the Rotax repair station that has been > mentioned on this site many times. I think it is in Mississippi or somewhere > down there. I don't know where to start in the archives. > > Ron Payne > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Keith Singer" <kas(at)wckz.com>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List Digest: 28 Msgs - 11/02/01
Date: Nov 04, 2001
Fellow Kolb Pilots and Legal Scholars: I wrote in a week or two ago about the ongoing discussion pertaining to legal liability associated with selling homebuilt aircraft. I was the one who said that the right to sue can't be signed away and that it is better to be sued than to have the family of a dead or seriously injured person come after you "the old fashoned way." Since then, I've been scanning through page after page of lawyer bashing, creative liability avoidance ideas, and other rhetoric about lawsuits. I haven't responded because nothing I've read has changed my opinion on the matter. However, I must say that for a bunch of brave, adventurous, and wise Kolb pilots, there sure does seem to be a lot of fear of lawsuits. Trust me, flying is more scary and adventurous than litigation. Though not as expensive. Let's be real. Is there anyone on this list (aside from the gentleman who served as counsel for Kolb) who has ever been sued over a homebuilt which you sold to someone? Is there anyone on this list who knows anyone who has been sued over a homebuilt aircraft? We're discussing legal liability as if ultralight-related lawsuits are happening all over the place. I suspect that the incidence of a subsequent owner/family suing a previous owner of a homebuilt aircraft is quite rare. Much more rare than, say, a two stroke engine going out in flight. With all due respect, I don't want to hear what the wise Kolb pilots think about how to avoid getting sued because I would submit that not one of you has ever been sued over an ultralight, and many who are writing about avoiding laibility know less about law than I do about overhauling my 503 (a friend had to help me change my sparkplugs). However, I many of you have successfully landed after an engine out. That's something I haven't experienced, but which I would like to hear more about because it IS part of every ultralight pilots life experience. There is nothing you can do to stop someone from suing you, but rest assured getting sued after selling a homebuild is, in reality, rather unlikely. Lets not dwell on the fear of lawsuits when there are far more pressing matters pertaining to flying and maintaining our planes. And if you disagree, please don't use this as a springboard for another round of pontification on lawyers and the legal system. By the way, a guy from Colorado named Chris spent the night at our field in Tucson yesterday with his $1,500 motorhome, a big trailer (said it cost much more than the motorhome), a trike (with a 503 350 plus hours) and a motorcycle. He is on his way to Mexico to travel around for a few months. Now that's the life! Later that day I thought, hey, my plane travels better, and has 1/2 the time. I want to fly around Mexico for a few months. But alas, I'm hoping to have my Firestar paid off by the end of the year, and that means work instead of travel. At least I have the weekends to fly! Keith A. Singer 1998 Firestar II 503, 131 hours TT Tucson, Arizona (still sunny) Was for sale, but I changed my mind. (not because of fear of lawsuit) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Re: Props
Date: Nov 04, 2001
Im not sure I agree with the your thoughts on > blade adjustment on the Ivo though. Of course I have no concrete data to > support that opinion...Which I suppose is what makes it an opinion. > > I think if you took a prop like Powerfin and built a light weight hub where > the blades were set in bearings so they could rotate...Then you build an > adjustment system similar to that of a helicopter tail rotor...And you run > your adjustment shaft right through the center of the hollow prop shaft on a > C box...You'de have a winner. I think the way Ivo mounts the adjustment > motor on the rotating hub is a bad idea. We fly a MT prop with the motor mounted in the spinner like an IVO, it has a little electronics box and sensors that make it run as a constant speed. it works great. I don't see why it's a bad idea? It uses a hub sith bearings like all the typical CS props, more or less what you dexcribe above. unfotunately even though it is one of the lightest of its type it weighs 45 pounds and costs $9500.00! The prop I am describing would weigh and cost less then a powerfin and be more efficient. wish someone would build it. The optimum twist is a function of airspeed as is pitch. pitch is the main player but twist is what fine tunes a prop to a given airspeed. Just the facts man. Like I said the Ivo isnt doing it right, but it is slightly closer to right than just twisting the whole blade. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Cables in teflon tubing
Date: Nov 04, 2001
I happened to see an accident (incident) report about a Challenger that had the normal cables inside the teflon tubing arrangement......Only problem is if you live in a cold climate where freezing is a problem and moisture gets in the teflon tube , you could find the controls may work fine on the ground but get locked up solid with altitude........talk about your worst nightmare.......and once the accident investigation was started you can bet the controls would be free again. The Canadian this happened to survived with no injuries and minor damage to the machine. .........Flying can get interesting with the slightest oversight....Ed in Western NY ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2001
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org>
Subject: Lawsuits
Let's be real. Is >there anyone on this list (aside from the gentleman who served as counsel >for Kolb) who has ever been sued over a homebuilt which you sold to someone? >Is there anyone on this list who knows anyone who has been sued over a >homebuilt aircraft? Our former EAA442 chapter president, LeRoy Hardee, was one of the first certified gyroplane instructors in the country, and he was a perfectionist of a builder. Several years ago, during the annual gyrocopter fly-in in Florida, he was taking a student up for an orientation ride and an AN4 bolt connecting the controls turned loose. It was a closed casket funeral for both instructor and student. Several weeks later, LeRoy's widow Cindy was served notice of impending lawsuit by the widow of the student. Fortunately, Cindy had her copy of a very tough hold harmless agreement that the student had signed before the flight. The lawsuit was dropped. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2001
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: List Fund Raiser Off to a Slow Start...
Hi Listers, First I want to take everyone that has taken a minute already to make a Contribution to support the Email Lists in 2001! I also really appreciate all the kind words I've been receiving regarding the Lists and how much they mean to everyone. The testimonial means a lot to me and makes the many hours working on the system worth it!! Later in the month, I'll share a few of the kind words with the Lists. I've added a nifty new Bar Graph Thermometer to the message trailer that gives an up-to-the-minute percentage status of how many members have made a Contribution during 2001! It was a fun piece of code to write and hopefully will be a fun way to watch the Fund Raiser's Progress this year! As I've said in the past, the Lists are supported *completely* through your generous Contributions during the Fund Raiser and throughout the year. This includes all of the system and connectivity upgrades we seen, as well as makes the many hours I spend each month keeping the systems running even more enjoyable ;-). Won't you take a moment and make a Contribution right now to support your Lists? Its fast and easy with the On-line, SSL secure Credit Card system, or by direct US-Mailing a check. For complete information, please see the following URL: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you in advance for your Generous Contribution!! Best regards, Matt Dralle Email List Administrator PS - Don't forget to monitor the Fund Raiser Bar Graph below! Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2001
Subject: Re: Intercoms
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
I dont know who recommended what, but most of the performance reviews Ive read seem to like the DRE 2 place portable unit. A few of them even said that performance was good in open cockpit planes. pretty soon. Ross > From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 18:26:53 -0800 > To: "Kolb" > Subject: Kolb-List: Intercoms > > > I have a question about the intercoms you all recommended some time ago. > I can't remember which were the recommended units, and the archives > really give me a problem. Help ! ! ! > > Larry Bourne > Palm Springs, Ca. > Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" > http://www.gogittum.com > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2001
Subject: Re: Props
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
Hmmm...I see your point now as I sit here looking at 2 Powerfin blades. One for PPC's (low speed) and one for airplanes (high speed). The PPC blade has a lot more twist than the airplane blade. Ross > From: "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 08:47:47 -0600 > To: > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Props > > The optimum twist is a function of airspeed as is pitch. pitch is the main > player but twist is what fine tunes a prop to a given airspeed. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2001
Subject: Trailer pics...
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net>
I took some pics of the trailer today at the airport. Also some of the tuned pipe I installed today. http://www.concentric.net/~Rrcarl/html/aviation/album1.html Im also in charge of the airports web site. I just finished the new site. Check it out. Me and my Phantom are in the gallery section. If you go to About->Current Pojects you can see this weekends project. We built our new flight ops building this weekend. http://www.newportnh.net/airport/ Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
From: SGreenpg(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 04, 2001
Subject: Re: Weight and Balance
In a message dated 11/4/01 10:08:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, HVA(at)bellsouth.net writes: > average wing cord for the Mark III = 66 " and for the Mark III > Extra = 58". > That is a 5% difference in calculation,I thought they were the same wings, > what's up ? > I think the Extra has a narrower aileron or flaperon but not positive. Steven G. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2001
From: Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: cables
> I crossed them between the pedals and the first bushing. I drilled one attach hole a bit lower than the other to keep the cables apart. > >Just wondering, on the mkIII the rudder cables cross within the tail >tube. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 04, 2001
From: Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com>
Subject: Re IVO In-Flight adjustable prop
Richard Pike wrote: > > > I understand that part. How do you deal with it in practice? What RPM do > you use to take off and climb out with? Do you crank in extra prop pitch > before throttling back to cruise power? I am a firm believer in John > Hauck's advice to prop the engine so that it just touches red line at full > throttle in level flight, do you set the thing up so that you can crank in > any extra pitch or what? How do you adjust the pitch for normal cruise? > What does it do for fuel consumption? How does it affect the temps? And > what engine are you running and what size/# blades of prop? > (Even tho I don't plan to get one, this is fascinating) > Richard Pike > MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) Sorry for the delay in getting back with my response to these questions. First, I have used the IVO in-flight adjustable on two planes. I installed it first on my Firestar. It has a 377 Rotax with 60" two blade prop. My goal and my expectation was to be able to adjust pitch for max. fuel efficiency. I expected to adjust in more pitch at comfortable cruise speed (55-65mph) for an overdrive like performance and get better fuel efficiency at a reduced rpm.(4000) What I experienced though is something quite different. I found that a high pitch -low RPM cruise setting did not improve fuel efficiency. Rather it increased fuel burn. It does make for a more comfortable low noise relaxed cruise though. The ultimate performance benefit of my in-flight adjustable prop I found is to use it as a constant speed prop. Keeping the engine rpm as close as possible to the optimum RPM and on the pipe tune the engine is designed for. This produced the optimum efficiency at all throttle settings. The little 377 like the bigger brother 532 has a rather sharp peak power tune. It's sweet spot is from about 6000 to 6300 rpm. I found my best fuel efficiency by keeping rpm from falling below 5800, reducing prop pitch and throttle setting for a cruise speed of around 55-65. This produces a fuel burn of less than 2 gph. At this rpm the prop and engine noise is still rather high although it is less than at full power. The climb rate and the top speed can be optimized with an in-flight adjustable pitch prop also by keeping the engine rpm and power optimized. Later I installed the in-flight adjustable prop on the Mark II 582 with a 66" two blade. The results were similar but less pronounced as the 582 has a less peaky tune with a broader rpm power band. Increasing pitch and reducing rpm for cruise had less adverse affect on fuel efficiency than with the 377. On both planes it is possible to induce prop tip stall on initial full power take off by having too much pitch dialed in, resulting in noticeable degraded thrust until forward speed is sufficiently increased. The in-flight adjustable prop has been fun and informative to play with but it has not been trouble free, as the little electric motor and mechanism is subjected to a pretty severe beating. This has been my experience, other plane/engine/prop combinations may well be different. Would I buy another in-flight adjustable prop for a Kolb? Probably not, but it did help me to learn a great deal how optimize performance of my little Kolb birds. Eugene ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: Intercoms
Date: Nov 05, 2001
Thanks.............with a little help off List, I went one more step, and found what I needed - John Hauck's recommendation of the Sigtronics unit. Lar. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, Ca. Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" http://www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Carlisle" <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Intercoms > > I dont know who recommended what, but most of the performance reviews Ive > read seem to like the DRE 2 place portable unit. A few of them even said > that performance was good in open cockpit planes. > > pretty soon. > > Ross > > > From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> > > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > > Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 18:26:53 -0800 > > To: "Kolb" > > Subject: Kolb-List: Intercoms > > > > > > I have a question about the intercoms you all recommended some time ago. > > I can't remember which were the recommended units, and the archives > > really give me a problem. Help ! ! ! > > > > Larry Bourne > > Palm Springs, Ca. > > Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" > > http://www.gogittum.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: cables
Date: Nov 05, 2001
I believe I asked the same question, way back in the dark ages when I started all this. I was told ( can't remember by who ) not to worry about it..............where they cross and move back and forth, they'll get shiny, and stay that way for years. So................I took them at their word, and did it by the book. Gogittum Lar. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, Ca. Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" http://www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Woody" <duesouth(at)iname.com> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: cables > > > > > I crossed them between the pedals and the first bushing. I drilled one > attach hole a bit lower than the other to keep the cables apart. > > > > > >Just wondering, on the mkIII the rudder cables cross within the tail > >tube. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2001
From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net>
Subject: Injection Pump
I have just installed the optional electric starter on my 503 for my FireStar. The kit included a new nylon or fiber gear to drive the oil injection. Now where in the manual does it tell my what type of grease to use on this gear or how often to service. Does anyone out there have any information of this? Ron Payne Gilbertsville, Ky ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2001
From: Bob Currie <bnb(at)erols.com>
Subject: B Box
I have a 503 with a B Box - 2.58:1 and it is going on an FSII. I have been reading with interest the recent propeller debate. I have a 3 blade 62" Ivo with an extension. My concern that when I put it into my covered trailer, the three blade will be too high to go through the door. I beleve I have read where the B Box can be turned around, i.e. lowering the thrust line and prop. Have not checked on tube clearence but wondered if anyone has tried this??? Bob Currie building FSII ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2001
Subject: Re: B Box
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
THe box can be run in either direction. On my Phantom I tried it in both directions. Trim was better in the down position. The 503 on my Twinstar also has a b box in the up position. With the 64" prop, it clears the boom tube by less than 2". It would not work in the down position. You can measure before you remove the box by measuring from the crank CL to the propshaft CL then double that measurement. Thats how far your prop will move when you flip the box. If you dont have that + an inch or so from the prop to the boom tube now...It wont work. I went with a 64" 2 blade for the same reason. The 3 blade I had originally tried wouldnt go in the trailer. Ross > From: Bob Currie <bnb(at)erols.com> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 09:13:21 -0500 > To: ", Kolb List" > Subject: Kolb-List: B Box > > > I have a 503 with a B Box - 2.58:1 and it is going on an FSII. I have > been reading with interest the recent propeller debate. I have a 3 > blade 62" Ivo with an extension. My concern that when I put it into my > covered trailer, the three blade will be too high to go through the > door. I beleve I have read where the B Box can be turned around, i.e. > lowering the thrust line and prop. Have not checked on tube clearence > but wondered if anyone has tried this??? Bob Currie building FSII > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2001
Subject: Adjusting props
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
I thought I'd share this... I was adjusting the PF prop yesterday by using feeler guages. The prop had a vibration. Now I know that a 2 blade will produce a bit more vibration than a 3 blade, but I thought that this vibration was excessive. I adjusted and readjusted 3 times to different RPM's thinking that maybe I had a harmonic or rotational vibration at a certain RPM. The vibration didnt go away with RMP changes. I finally decided to use a prop protractor to check the blade angle at the tips. One blade was one full degree flatter than the other. I readjusted using the protractor then rechecked the pin gap with a feeler guage. The pin gap was now way off. I figure the pin holes must have been drilled slightly off. After adjusting with the protractor, the prop smoothed right out. Not as smooth as a 3 blade, but Im happy with it. Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2001
Subject: Axle size on Twinstar
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
What size axles do the Twinstars use? 5/8"? I want to order wheels but Im out of town and can't measure the axles. It is the old style gear with aluminum legs. Thanks...Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2001
From: Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com>
Subject: Re: Axle size on Twinstar
> Mine are 3/4. I think this is pretty well standard on all Kolbs >What size axles do the Twinstars use? 5/8"? I want to order wheels but Im >out of town and can't measure the axles. It is the old style gear with >aluminum legs. > >Thanks...Ross > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2001
Subject: Re: Axle size on Twinstar
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
Since I posted that I went to Kolbs website and checked out the new steel gear legs they offer for the Mark 3. According to that page, the new gear legs have 5/8" axles. I was thinking they were 3/4" but 5/8" seems to be the standard on UL's. Anyone else with an older Twinstar....Feel free to jump in. Ross > From: Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 16:48:34 -0500 > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Axle size on Twinstar > > > >> > > > Mine are 3/4. I think this is pretty well standard on all Kolbs > > >> What size axles do the Twinstars use? 5/8"? I want to order wheels but Im >> out of town and can't measure the axles. It is the old style gear with >> aluminum legs. >> >> Thanks...Ross >> >> > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Sasseville" <sassevilleapiaries(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: B Box
Date: Nov 05, 2001
If the height is of the prop off the floor is bigger than the door opening it still may go in, mine does. If you run the Firestar in nose first up the ramp the tail will be lower so the prop will be lower. I have a Hallmark Thrifty hauler with a beavertail. It just makes it in. Paul Sasseville Firestar II 98% done ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Currie" <bnb(at)erols.com> Subject: Kolb-List: B Box > > I have a 503 with a B Box - 2.58:1 and it is going on an FSII. I have > been reading with interest the recent propeller debate. I have a 3 > blade 62" Ivo with an extension. My concern that when I put it into my > covered trailer, the three blade will be too high to go through the > door. I beleve I have read where the B Box can be turned around, i.e. > lowering the thrust line and prop. Have not checked on tube clearence > but wondered if anyone has tried this??? Bob Currie building FSII > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Boyter" <boyter@pioneer-net.com>
Subject: prop.
Date: Nov 05, 2001
HI Has any body put a 72" prop. On a mark 3, With a E gear box? I know you will have to rise the motor 3" I have a bad motor, and I found like new motor with e box and 72" prop. HELP! WAYNE RSBG, OR ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2001
Subject: Aileron hinge pins
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
I think I found part of the problem with my control issues. The ailerons have about 1/2 - 1" of play up and down at the trailing edge. There seems to be a little play in the rod ends, but most of it seems to be coming from the inboard hinges. The other hinges are fairly tight, but the inboards have quite a bit of play. Is it more likely that the hinge is worn or is the pin more likely the culprit? What size pin should I look for? Will piano wire work? I remember someone talking about this but can't seem to find it... Thanks...Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
From: SGreenpg(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 05, 2001
Subject: Re: prop.
In a message dated 11/5/01 6:54:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, boyter@pioneer-net.com writes: > Has any body put a 72" prop. On a Wayne, I am using a 72" prop with a "C" box and didn't have to raise the engine to clear the prop. I am not sure if the off set is the same for the C and E gearbox or how much the starter will interfere. Steven Green N58SG 145 hrs. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Cavuontop(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 05, 2001
Subject: Re: prop.
In a message dated 11/5/01 6:54:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, boyter@pioneer-net.com writes: > Has any body put a 72" prop. On a mark 3, With a E gear box? I know > you will have to rise the motor 3" > I have a bad motor, and I found like new motor with e box and 72" prop. > HELP! > Been doing it for almost 100 hours. The set up is very smooth and produces neck snapping acceleration. At gross weight we climb at 6-700 feet per minute on a hot day. I have had no problems with the "rails." The system is very simple and stable. Mark R. Sellers Kolb Twinstar Mark III N496BM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wood, John T." <woodjt(at)spawar.navy.mil>
Subject: Aileron hinge pins
Date: Nov 06, 2001
I experienced what I believe to be too much slop in the hinge pins also. You can purchase drill rod material that will serve as hinge pin material. It is sold in 3 ft lenghts and comes in all the number drill sizes. I believe you find that about a #41 will get most of the slop out. The original hinge pin equates to about #43. John -----Original Message----- From: Richard Carlisle [mailto:rrcarl(at)concentric.net] Subject: Kolb-List: Aileron hinge pins I think I found part of the problem with my control issues. The ailerons have about 1/2 - 1" of play up and down at the trailing edge. There seems to be a little play in the rod ends, but most of it seems to be coming from the inboard hinges. The other hinges are fairly tight, but the inboards have quite a bit of play. Is it more likely that the hinge is worn or is the pin more likely the culprit? What size pin should I look for? Will piano wire work? I remember someone talking about this but can't seem to find it... Thanks...Ross ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2001
From: Bob Currie <bnb(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: Aileron hinge pins
I found new hinge wire at the local hobby shop. Comes in a variety of diameters and usually 3 foot lengths. This will allow you to bend the ends instead of crimping the hinge for safety purposes. Bob Currie Richard Carlisle wrote: > > I think I found part of the problem with my control issues. The ailerons > have about 1/2 - 1" of play up and down at the trailing edge. There seems > to be a little play in the rod ends, but most of it seems to be coming from > the inboard hinges. The other hinges are fairly tight, but the inboards > have quite a bit of play. > > Is it more likely that the hinge is worn or is the pin more likely the > culprit? What size pin should I look for? Will piano wire work? > > I remember someone talking about this but can't seem to find it... > > Thanks...Ross > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: WGeorge737(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 06, 2001
Subject: Adjusting props
<> The Powerfin cannot be accurately pitch adjusted using the hub holes and a feeler gauge as described in the manual. I found this out the hard way and now use a digital angle finder to adjust pitch. Also, be aware that when the prop hub bolts are torqued to final value the pitch will change slightly. Be sure to re-measure after torqueing. Bill George Mk-3 - Verner 1400 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2001
Subject: Re: Adjusting props
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
What are you using for digital angle finder? Where did you get it? Im using the bubble level protractor that came with my Warp. The digital sounds a bit more accurate. Ross > From: WGeorge737(at)aol.com > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 11:32:27 EST > To: Kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Kolb-List: Adjusting props > > I found this out the hard way and > now use a digital angle finder to adjust pitch. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2001
From: Tim Gherkins <rp3420(at)email.sps.mot.com>
Subject: New Kolb!!
Kolbers, No body has mentioned it yet, but there is now a powered parachute trike that carries the name Kolb. Just prevailed over the weekend on Kolbs web site. I know there are some that don't consider powered parachutes as aircraft and may look down on them, but in my book they do fly and I love anything that fly's. However, I would not own one, and much rather put my investment in a Firestar II. Just thought I would bring it to the lists attention, Tim Gherkins building Firestar II ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Swiderski" <swiderskir(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: New Kolb!!
Date: Nov 06, 2001
Tim & All, They also took off the SlingShot from their Website. I asked them about it & they said it is now considered a "special order" item. Times are a changin. ...Richard Swideski > Kolbers, > No body has mentioned it yet, but there is now a powered parachute trike > that carries the name Kolb. Just prevailed over the weekend on Kolbs > web site. > > I know there are some that don't consider powered parachutes as > aircraft and may look down on them, but in my book they do fly and I > love anything that fly's. However, I would not own one, and much > rather put my investment in a Firestar II. > > Just thought I would bring it to the lists attention, > Tim Gherkins > building Firestar II > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "michael mcalister" <michaelmcalister(at)mediaone.net>
Subject: fuel economy... was: IVO In-Flight adjustable prop
Date: Nov 06, 2001
I am NEW to Kolb and have a Firestar 1 with a rotax 377... I have been flying cessnas for 30 years, but am new to ultralights. I tried a 35 minute (one-way w/ headwind) jaunt on Sunday with just over 4 gallons of fuel on board, but had to refuel to make it home! On the outbound leg I was worried about fuel and slowed down to conserve what I had, but i think i might have been too nose high and suffered from DRAG. I tried to maintain 4500 RPM at 45+ to 50 MPHI, but it won't maintain level flight... and I was in a very gradual descent, down from my original cruise altitude of 1400 ft AGL. eventually, I was forced to either add more throttle or gather leaves w/ the landing gear. I tried 5200 RPM which gave me 55MPHI+ with level flight (barely) but this RPM won't allow a positive rate of climb. When I landed to refuel for the trip home, I had burned most of the 4 gallons. On the return trip, with a tailwind and full tank, I tried 6000+ RPM, which gave me 65 MPHI+ and felt good. I could actually CLIMB, if I wanted... I liked that! It didn't seem to burn that much fuel; but with a tailwind and higher airspeed, I was home in < 15 minutes, so I don't really know about fuel burn. So i guess my question is: do I actually get better economy to cruise in LEVEL flight @ 6000-6200 RPM, with the throttle @ about 1/2 open, getting 65+ MPHI...... than to fly @ 5200 RPM and 55+ MPHI..... it is sort of a mind bender for me, not being used to 2-cycle engines. > The little 377 like the bigger brother 532 has a rather sharp peak power > tune. It's sweet spot is from about 6000 to 6300 rpm. I found my best > fuel efficiency by keeping rpm from falling below 5800, reducing prop > pitch and throttle setting for a cruise speed of around 55-65. This > produces a fuel burn of less than 2 gph. At this rpm the prop and engine noise is > still rather high although it is less than at full power. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2001
From: Lanny Fetterman <donaho(at)csrlink.net>
Subject: New Kolb P-chute
Tim and All, I started flying 18 years ago in a Paraplane, sold it to buy an MX, sold the MX to buy the 503 for my FSII. The first ParaPlanes were underpowered but almost flew themselves once in the air. When I feel that I have slowed down too much to fly the FSII (quite a few years from now I hope! ). I will probably go back to flying a powered parachute rather then stop flying, like some of my older buddies have done. The Kolb Flyer may be just the ticket ! Lanny Fetterman ASC # A10LRF ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Anderson" <janderson3(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: For sale
Date: Nov 06, 2001
Dave, How about a little detail? Asking price, hours, whats included, gear box, geberak condition, location and if its been in salt water. I'm in Chapel Hill and looking for an amphib. John Anderson ******************* ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Stroberg" <dgstro(at)albemarlenet.com> Subject: Kolb-List: For sale > > To Listers, > There is still a fine FirestarII amphibian with a 503 DCDI and a 3 blade > Ivo for sale in Northeastern North Carolina. Floats very nicely on a > Full Lotus monofloat and quick detach sponsons. If interested, e-mail > me off list or call 252-264-2240. > > New subject: Anyone out there flying a Jabriu on a MarkIII?? If so, > I'd like to know how it's working out. > > Thanks, > Dave > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Coggins, Josh, NPONS" <joshcoggins(at)att.com>
Subject: Adjusting props
Date: Nov 06, 2001
List, The instruction manual says to adjust the pitch on my taper tip WARP drive prop by putting the protractor at the tip of the prop. My problem is that the tip of the prop is narrow (about 1.25") and the flat side of the prop blade is actually curved a little. This makes it impossible to accurately adjust the pitch at the tip. So, I have been putting the protractor at about the point where the taper starts on the prop, or where the flat side of the blade is flat enough (and wide enough) to get more accurate results. Any suggestions? Josh -----Original Message----- From: Richard Carlisle [mailto:rrcarl(at)concentric.net] Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Adjusting props What are you using for digital angle finder? Where did you get it? Im using the bubble level protractor that came with my Warp. The digital sounds a bit more accurate. Ross > From: WGeorge737(at)aol.com > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 11:32:27 EST > To: Kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Kolb-List: Adjusting props > > I found this out the hard way and > now use a digital angle finder to adjust pitch. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Airgriff2(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 06, 2001
Subject: Re: Kolb-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 11/05/01R0tax 618 jetting
After 107 hrs. on my 618 with my Mk3 I checked for wear on the needle and clip. One showed some wear in the grove of the needle, so as I was looking up the kit with the new plastic part and o-ring, I noticed that all the recommened jetting in the new CPS catalog, was different for the 618 than it was a couple years ago. Clip position, main jets (different for each end of the engine) jet needles, neddle jets, all had been changed. Oh well, I figured there had to be a reason. So off goes the order for $100 +. My end result after making the changes, was 1200* EGT in climb (OK but at max), cruise was 1150* but when I throttled back to decend they went to 1300*. I added power to decend and enrichen the mixture and lower the egt's. In addition to this I needed to prime carbs alot to start the engine,even when warm. Also was getting a backfire when shutting the engine down. I talked to the teck. at Lockwood this am. and he said the reason for the changes were complicated but mainly they wanted to fatten the idle and lean the mid range. After hearing my outcome, he said to put it right back like it was when it was running fine. I'll do that this weekend. drawings for some easy to make skis? Where are you Scott Trask ?? Safe Flying Bob G Upstate NY ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "michael mcalister" <michaelmcalister(at)mediaone.net>
Subject: dimensional confusion
Date: Nov 06, 2001
does anyone have dimensional PLANS for a much older (1985) firestar one?? Something with actual inches, gauges and decimals... are these even available?? I understand from Kolb (I hope I understand this correctly) that a builders assembly guide is available; but what do I do if I want to replace a broken aileron?? what have others done?? thanx ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 06, 2001
Subject: Re: Adjusting props
In a message dated 11/6/01 6:46:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, joshcoggins(at)att.com writes: > The instruction manual says to adjust the pitch on my taper tip WARP > drive prop by putting the protractor at the tip of the prop. My problem is > that the tip of the prop is narrow (about 1.25") and the flat side of the > prop blade is actually curved a little. This makes it impossible to > accurately adjust the pitch at the tip. So, I have been putting the > protractor at about the point where the taper starts on the prop, or where > the flat side of the blade is flat enough (and wide enough) to get more > accurate results. Any suggestions? > I, too felt I'd get a more accurate setting putting the protractor on the widest part of the blade [which I did]. To get a finer adjustment of the blades, I made a padded wooden clamp with a 24" long arm to turn the blades with. Each blade should be in the same position while being adjusted. Be sure & center the bubble between the lines. Check to see that all blade angles are the same after torqueing the bolts. Shack FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Adjusting props
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Josh, just clamp it at the tip and any curvature will be averaged out. I remember the flat side of my prop "accepted" the protractor flat on that angle. I don't think that you need rocket science perfection as long as both blades are done the same way. I would avoid trying to measure anywhere other than the tip though. Kip Laurie Firestar II R503 DC with tapered Warp set at 11 degrees but suggests 10 for breakin to achieve redline. Atlanta ----- Original Message ----- From: Coggins, Josh, NPONS <joshcoggins(at)att.com> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Adjusting props > > List, > The instruction manual says to adjust the pitch on my taper tip WARP > drive prop by putting the protractor at the tip of the prop. My problem is > that the tip of the prop is narrow (about 1.25") and the flat side of the > prop blade is actually curved a little. This makes it impossible to > accurately adjust the pitch at the tip. So, I have been putting the > protractor at about the point where the taper starts on the prop, or where > the flat side of the blade is flat enough (and wide enough) to get more > accurate results. Any suggestions? > Josh > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Carlisle [mailto:rrcarl(at)concentric.net] > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Adjusting props > > > What are you using for digital angle finder? Where did you get it? Im > using the bubble level protractor that came with my Warp. The digital > sounds a bit more accurate. > > Ross > > > From: WGeorge737(at)aol.com > > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 11:32:27 EST > > To: Kolb-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Kolb-List: Adjusting props > > > > I found this out the hard way and > > now use a digital angle finder to adjust pitch. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2001
Subject: Re: dimensional confusion
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
Use the old part as a template. Because the Kolbs were never offered as plans built planes, I doubt acual plans exist...Unless an ex Kolb employee liberated a set on the way out the door. Ross > From: "michael mcalister" <michaelmcalister(at)mediaone.net> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 20:02:55 -0500 > To: > Subject: Kolb-List: dimensional confusion > > but what do I do if I want to replace a broken > aileron?? > > what have others done?? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2001
Subject: Re: New Kolb P-chute
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
Guys, I never really cared much for the ppc's until I got a ride in one. My opinion has changed and I have to say I like anything that flies and YES that chute is a very draggy airfoil, but flies none the less. I have an older friend in his 70's who flies one and someday I may be in his shoes and want to fly. A ppc will fill the bill just fine. Oh and by the way, they are the safest aircraft in the air bar nothing else. Excellent safety record. Ralph Burlingame Original Firestar writes: > > > > Tim and All, > > I started flying 18 years ago in a Paraplane, sold it to buy > an MX, sold > the MX to buy the 503 for my FSII. The first ParaPlanes were > underpowered > but almost flew themselves once in the air. When I feel that I have > slowed > down too much to fly the FSII (quite a few years from now I hope! > ). I > will probably go back to flying a powered parachute rather then stop > > flying, like some of my older buddies have done. > The Kolb Flyer may be just the ticket ! > > Lanny Fetterman > ASC # A10LRF > > > = > [##---------------------------5.7%-----------------------------] > > > messages. > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2001
From: Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: dimensional confusion
> >does anyone have dimensional PLANS for a much older (1985) firestar one?? >Something with actual inches, gauges and decimals... >are these even available?? > >I understand from Kolb (I hope I understand this correctly) that a builders >assembly guide is available; but what do I do if I want to replace a broken >aileron?? > >what have others done?? I've got a 1986 Firestar in the back of the hanger, collecting dust. It's not like the new ones, light as a feather, turns on a dime! Don't know about plans?? What do you need? Think I've got the "old" book and most of the "old" drawings. Of course, they've been updated "a lot" through the years. http://www.mindspring.com/~possums/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Carbs and protractors
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Bob G in Upstate NY, I don't know if this may apply to your lean problem but here goes....My 2 stroke was running at 1125 egt in cruise(5000) at 60+F and with the temp changes to less than 40F my egt went to almost 1200 with the same settings. I was surprised by how much it changed......I need to jet to the next size....Where are you located in NY ?....................Also, the thread concerning the protractors was addressed by somebody on this list with a very clever alternative. A laser pointer in a fixed position at the rear of the blade ,directed at a small mirror taped to the back of the blade will result in a spot on the wall . Just mark the spot on the wall and set the other blade to the spot...Geometry of this method is far more accurate........I owe this list a thankyou for all the great info I have used in enjoying my Kolb....Ed in Western NY ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Artdog1512(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Subject: michael mcalister's firestar ...
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Artdog1512(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Subject: micheal mcalister's firestar again ...
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Artdog1512(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Subject: for the third time .....
________________________________________________________________________________
From: WGeorge737(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Subject: No Subject
<<From: Richard Carlisle [mailto:rrcarl(at)concentric.net] Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Adjusting props What are you using for digital angle finder? Where did you get it? Im using the bubble level protractor that came with my Warp. The digital sounds a bit more accurate.>> It's called a "Smart Tool." I don't recall where I got it but if you do an Internet search you will find some sources. The way I do it is to put the tool on the hub flat spot for each blade, record that angle and establish a target for the pitch you want. Place the tool on the tip and adjust to the target. Bill George Mk-3 - Verner 1400 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
Subject: Re: No Subject
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Long ago, I mentioned that a friend had excellent results using a digital level for setting the prop blades, but keep in mind the expense if you go to buy one, just for this. I spent less than $20.00 for the laser pointer and mirror I described, and it works great...............almost too great................you have to anchor it pretty good to get consistent readings. If anyone's interested, I'll publish pics of the setup this weekend. Precision Lar. Larry Bourne Palm Springs, Ca. Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose" http://www.gogittum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: <WGeorge737(at)aol.com> Subject: Kolb-List: No Subject > > <<From: Richard Carlisle [mailto:rrcarl(at)concentric.net] > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Adjusting props > > > What are you using for digital angle finder? Where did you get it? Im > using the bubble level protractor that came with my Warp. The digital > sounds a bit more accurate.>> > > It's called a "Smart Tool." I don't recall where I got it but if you do an > Internet search you will find some sources. The way I do it is to put the > tool on the hub flat spot for each blade, record that angle and establish a > target for the pitch you want. Place the tool on the tip and adjust to the > target. > > Bill George > Mk-3 - Verner 1400 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: prop pitch adjustment
From: erich_weaver(at)urscorp.com
Date: Nov 07, 2001
11/07/2001 12:12:45 PM The use of a laser pointer for pitching props was recommended some time ago on the list, and works very well. Make sure the pointer has a nice flat straight edge, or attach it firmly to something that does. Place the straight edge flush against the end of the horizontal prop blade, pointing the laser beam downward to the ground. Mark that spot on the ground, and then match other blades to that point. Hard to beat that for simplicity and accuracy. OK, you may have to buy a laser pointer. But you always wanted to play with one of those anyway. Erich Weaver erich_weaver(at)urscorp.com 130 Robin Hill Road, Suite 100 Santa Barbara, California 93117 Tel: 805-964-6010 fax: 805-964 0259 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2001
From: Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org>
Subject: Re: jesus christ, this is frustrating ...
Reference your message title line: references to deity should be capitalized. Blasphemy is serious business and should not give the impression that it was done thoughtlessly, or without due consideration. It is always appropriate, (when setting forth your spiritual viewpoints or position) to do a good job of it. Thanks. Richard Pike MKIII N420P (420ldPoops) Pastor, Blountville Community Chapel http://www.bcchapel.org ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Subject: Re: Carbs and protractors
From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
Im in New Hampshire and have the same problems with jetting. Ive found that 160/162 jets and 15K2 needles in the 3rd notch did it. I couldnt get it tuned in for cold wether just by swapping main jets, had to do the needles too. Ross > From: "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:04:50 -0500 > To: > Subject: Kolb-List: Carbs and protractors > > > Bob G in Upstate NY, I don't know if this may apply to your lean > problem but here goes....My 2 stroke was running at 1125 egt in > cruise(5000) at 60+F and with the temp changes to less than 40F my egt > went to almost 1200 with the same settings. I was surprised by how much > it changed......I need to jet to the next size....Where are you located > in NY ?....................Also, the thread concerning the protractors > was addressed by somebody on this list with a very clever alternative. A > laser pointer in a fixed position at the rear of the blade ,directed at > a small mirror taped to the back of the blade will result in a spot on > the wall . Just mark the spot on the wall and set the other blade to the > spot...Geometry of this method is far more accurate........I owe this > list a thankyou for all the great info I have used in enjoying my > Kolb....Ed in Western NY > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Timandjan(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Subject: "Solo" engine help
My father in law bought a Twinstar from a farmer in Kansas and needs info on the 2 Solo 18hp engines on the plane. They are German made, does anybody have any info on these, please forward me your number off the list, timandjan(at)aol.com My father in-law has had a cub for 30 years, just built a baby Ace and recently flew my Firestar2 for the first time. My brother in law is also a aviation maniac, captain for American Airlines, Ai, helicopter pilot and CFI etc etc. Well they went to a flyin last week and saw a old Twinstar demonstrated, well my father in law knew a guy who had this one for sale back in Kansas, so there is the story. Any help would be appreciated. Tim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kolbguy(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Subject: Slingshot wanted
Anyone know of a good Slingshot for sale? Mike Taylor ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "michael mcalister" <michaelmcalister(at)mediaone.net>
Subject: what a difference a day makes... Mo' on fuel economy....
Date: Nov 07, 2001
well, it appears that i am onto something here. after marking the fuel tank w/ a magic marker (BTW, I haven't found anything MAGIC about it... just a plain black marker!) I filled the tank with fuel... of course, with the tail sitting on the ground, the dang fuel tank is slanted to the rear.... and my gallon demarcations are useless thanks to gravity... dooh! I flew anyway and interpolated the results today as follows: 0.9 hours and 2.4 gallons of fuel burned. this encompasses two takeoffs and climbs to 1800 feet AGL, with level flight at 1800-2200 AGL, at 6000 to 6200 RPM range and 65-75 MPHI. The GPS GS was in the 45-50 MPH range going out and 55 MPH coming back. I have a funky Vaccumn A/S indicator, which I gotta throw in the trash... any suggestions for a replacement?? OAT was 55 F (a guess here) and EGT of 1000 and CHT about 300. I am running the leanest mixture the Bing needle position can provide. Don't know the needle identifier, though. maybe this weekend i'll pull it out again. What amazes me is how much the throttle position changes. In climb at full throttle, I have about 3 1/2 inches of bare cable exposed (from the cable jacket to the throttle clevis) but in level flight at cruise, there is about 1 inch exposed... Since an inch of cable at the throttle is equal to an inch of cable at the Bing, the carb (WHAT do you call that thing that slides up and down, anyway??) ITs' position changes by 2 1/2 inches, for the same RPM... that amazes me. I guess I have the right prop, because the engine won't turn more than 6200-6300 RPM, climb or level flight attitude. didn't try a dive w/ wide open throttle, due to A/S going way above 75 MPHI. Is there a max airspeed for a firestar 1?? Anyone had experience with the MAX end of the flight envelope?? I can't imagine that flutter would be an issue at speeds less than 100 MPH, but ripping the wings off while in flight, would absolutely RUIN my day! best regards from Virginia Michael ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "michael mcalister" <michaelmcalister(at)mediaone.net>
Subject: dimensional confusion
Date: Nov 07, 2001
hey, thanks for the generous offers. the kindness of strangers is refreshing. I guess what i was thinking was "what am I gonna do if I break something on my 85 Firestar and no plans are available..." I don't need a particular part right now; but as time goes on, this information only grows more distant. I guess being a mechanical engineer for 28 years, I like having a roll of drawings to refer to. I would like to get a copy of the manufacturing drawings, 85-ish vintage and especially if there is dimensional information available. That way, God forbid, should I break something, at least I could make another one just like it. I understand that the plans were revised in '91 and again in '98, so I doubt that the parts from TODAYS Firestar will fit mine. I would be most happy to pay for copying and mailing fees. any help is greatly appreciated. on a sour note, I have found that vinegar is an excellent rust removal substance. it takes a few days, but how ORGANIC and ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY can it get?? I have the parts and pieces from an old gascolator (AL and steel both) soaking in a plastic tub of apple vinegar. the rust is about half gone and the AL gets cleaner by the day. I used white vinegar to clean the vaccumn venturi for the A/S indicator.... all nice and shiney now! michael ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HShack(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Subject: Re: what a difference a day makes... Mo' on fuel economy....
In a message dated 11/7/01 8:36:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, michaelmcalister(at)mediaone.net writes: > Is there a max airspeed for a firestar 1?? Anyone had experience with the > MAX end of the flight envelope?? > Vne for a Firestar is 90 mph. My ASI only goes up to 80 and I've been over that. It's when I do a hammerhead, so I don't stay that fast very long. Shack FS I SC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dean Halstead" <deanbo(at)calweb.com>
Subject: For Sale - Mark III
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Mark III For Sale Northern California - Sacramento 40-45% complete, ready to cover. Full enclosure Hydralic Brakes Powder Coated Steel Polyfiber Covering Kit Epoxy Paint Please contact me off list. deanbo(at)calweb.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RONATNIK(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Subject: Pilot Report...Sort of
Hi, List: I know this is primarily a Kolb list, however, general UL discussion takes place here as well. So I thought I would pass along a pilot report to anyone interested. Actually it's a UL student's report from the back seat. I spent Tuesday with Randy Schlitter and the folks at RANS. My time was spent with a factory tour and then a ride in the S-18 Stinger II. In fact I rode in the very one which adorns the cover of the 2002 EAA UL calendar. First, let me mention that Randy is a great guy, as well as the entire staff. My son and I were treated like gold. The factory is spotless and his equipment is state-of-the-art. We were never made to feel that we were being ushered along and every question was answered in detail. But, obviously, the best part was the ride in the Stinger II. It is equipped with a 582 Blue Head, 18 gallon fuel capacity and four position flaps. Let me tell you folks, that plane rocks. Inspite of it's modest listed gross weight climb rate, the plane can bore holes in the sky. Down low, I got a heck of a hay bale hopping ride demonstrating its manuverability. Wow, Randy can bend that thing around a corner and pop up over a row of trees just to swoop back down low over the next field. Dumping the flaps and pulling back the power made for a ride as steady and stable as an aircraft carrier. Stalls were a non-event foreshadowed by a noticeable buffet followed by the nose returning to straight and level. The plane will spin, as Randy demonstrated, but only when forced to by full back elevator and full rudder deflection. Recovery was instantaneous as soon as he eased off the control pressure. All in all, I was very impressed by the plane, people and operation. I know I have very limited experience and all of you must take that into consideration when evaluating my observations. But I will tell you, I'm hoping like heck f or Sport Pilot to go through, because the S-18 just made my short list. Be safe, all. Bob Littleton, CO ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)epix.net>
Subject: Re: Pilot Report...Sort of
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Was all of this on planet Earth ... we're not in Kansas anymore! Made your "short list" ... can't understand why you didn't buy one on the spot. Surely no other aircraft - even Kolb - could hold a candle ... Seriously, I do admire Rans, bought two of them (bicycles that is). Dennis ----- Original Message ----- From: <RONATNIK(at)aol.com> Subject: Kolb-List: Pilot Report...Sort of > > Hi, List: > > I know this is primarily a Kolb list, however, general UL discussion takes > place here as well. So I thought I would pass along a pilot report to anyone > interested. Actually it's a UL student's report from the back seat. > > I spent Tuesday with Randy Schlitter and the folks at RANS. My time was spent > with a factory tour and then a ride in the S-18 Stinger II. In fact I rode in > the very one which adorns the cover of the 2002 EAA UL calendar. > > First, let me mention that Randy is a great guy, as well as the entire staff. > My son and I were treated like gold. The factory is spotless and his > equipment is state-of-the-art. We were never made to feel that we were being > ushered along and every question was answered in detail. > > But, obviously, the best part was the ride in the Stinger II. It is equipped > with a 582 Blue Head, 18 gallon fuel capacity and four position flaps. Let me > tell you folks, that plane rocks. Inspite of it's modest listed gross weight > climb rate, the plane can bore holes in the sky. Down low, I got a heck of a > hay bale hopping ride demonstrating its manuverability. Wow, Randy can bend > that thing around a corner and pop up over a row of trees just to swoop back > down low over the next field. > > Dumping the flaps and pulling back the power made for a ride as steady and > stable as an aircraft carrier. Stalls were a non-event foreshadowed by a > noticeable buffet followed by the nose returning to straight and level. The > plane will spin, as Randy demonstrated, but only when forced to by full back > elevator and full rudder deflection. Recovery was instantaneous as soon as he > eased off the control pressure. > > All in all, I was very impressed by the plane, people and operation. I know I > have very limited experience and all of you must take that into consideration > when evaluating my observations. But I will tell you, I'm hoping like heck f > or Sport Pilot to go through, because the S-18 just made my short list. > > Be safe, all. > > Bob > Littleton, CO > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2001
From: Tom Kuffel <kuffel(at)cyberport.net>
Subject: Re: dimensional confusion
Mike, If Possum doesn't have everything, email me off list. I have a complete set of '85 FireStar plans and builder's manual. The latter doesn't have very much specific data and the former has no data on the pre-fabricated parts such as the fuselage and aileron control parts so these still might be a problem if an untoward event happens. The good news is the FireStar wings and tail will fit a FireFly fuselage if that kind rebuild is required. Tom Kuffel Whitefish, MT Building Original FireStar ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RONATNIK(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Subject: Re: Pilot Report...Sort of
Me thinks I struck a nerve. If Kentucky were a short drive from Denver I'd been at your factory before now. And if anyone around here can offer me up a ride I'll take it. I have only been able to observe a couple of Firestar IIs in flight and read what is posted here. Obviously your product has a tremendous and well deserved following. Come on out to Denver and give me a ride. I'll put you up for the night and feed you some Rocky Mountain oysters for your trouble. Bob PS If I think your plane is better, I'll personally tell Randy Schlitter. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2001
From: Herb Gearheart <herbgh(at)nctc.com>
Subject: Re: : Kolb-List:Ultra Star
Dennis Souder, Who owns the rights to the Ultra Star?? And--what are your impressions of this bird. I am in the process of rebuilding one. Herb in Ky ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)epix.net>
Subject: Re: Pilot Report...Sort of
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Bob, I would, but I'm out of the aircraft business - so I really don't mind if you do buy a Rans - and they are fine aircraft. I too, visited their facility and was very impressed. I just saw an opportunity to have a bit of fun with your post. (Over the years, I actually would sometimes recommend a Rans, or FlightStar, etc., if I felt the prospective customer was not up to building a Kolb. It really wasn't good for Kolb or the customer if there was someone in over their head trying to build when they really were not up to the task I would be mistaken from time to time. One time someone came and I did not try to sell them an aircraft, becasue he didn't come accross as very competent. Asked a bunch of really dumb questions! One of the guys at Kolb was making jokes afterward about this guy. Turns out, he built a very nice FireStar - it was beautiful. So one never knows for sure. Good luck in your search! Dennis ----- Original Message ----- From: <RONATNIK(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Pilot Report...Sort of > > Me thinks I struck a nerve. > > If Kentucky were a short drive from Denver I'd been at your factory before > now. And if anyone around here can offer me up a ride I'll take it. I have > only been able to observe a couple of Firestar IIs in flight and read what is > posted here. Obviously your product has a tremendous and well deserved > following. > > Come on out to Denver and give me a ride. I'll put you up for the night and > feed you some Rocky Mountain oysters for your trouble. > > Bob > > PS If I think your plane is better, I'll personally tell Randy Schlitter. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)epix.net>
Subject: Re: Adjusting props
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Hi Shack, I never had any good experience with the Warp protractor. If I did use it, it was just for the first round of adjustment after which I would run the engine and then proceed to re-adjust the prop based upon what the rpms were. We made our own jig to adjust props blade angles with. It consisted of 2 flat pieces of steel (or aluminum) on a threaded rod about 2 feet long. Each strip of steel (about 2" long) had a hole through it's center and they were located toward the ends of the threaded rod. Two nuts held each strip, and these nuts were tightened to hold the strips from rotating on the threaded rod. The "flat" of one strip was held on the hub and the other strip on the flat side of the prop. I usually located the strip about 3/4 the way out on the blade. If the prop had a bit of curvature, the steel strip could be ground to match the prop; this would prevent any rocking. I would arbitrarily place this jig on one blade and adjust the steel strips so that they were resting on the hub and blade end respectively. Then one simply moves the jig to the next blade to see how it matches the first ... and so on. When this jig is used to set the blade angles, it is possible to get extremely consistent blade angles - far more accurate than a protractor. Later on, if you think the prop is running rough and want to check blade angles, you can do it easily and quickly on the plane. A more sophisticated version was made from two concentric steel tubes with the strips welded to the ends. The one tube telescoped into the other tube. The outside tube was slit lengthwise at its end and tabs were welded near the slit. Then simply by tightening the bolt the tubes were locked together. This was better and easier to adjust, but it took some time to make. Worked for me. Dennis ----- Original Message ----- From: <HShack(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Adjusting props > > In a message dated 11/6/01 6:46:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, > joshcoggins(at)att.com writes: > > > > The instruction manual says to adjust the pitch on my taper tip WARP > > drive prop by putting the protractor at the tip of the prop. My problem is > > that the tip of the prop is narrow (about 1.25") and the flat side of the > > prop blade is actually curved a little. This makes it impossible to > > accurately adjust the pitch at the tip. So, I have been putting the > > protractor at about the point where the taper starts on the prop, or where > > the flat side of the blade is flat enough (and wide enough) to get more > > accurate results. Any suggestions? > > > > I, too felt I'd get a more accurate setting putting the protractor on the > widest part of the blade [which I did]. > > To get a finer adjustment of the blades, I made a padded wooden clamp with a > 24" long arm to turn the blades with. > > Each blade should be in the same position while being adjusted. > > Be sure & center the bubble between the lines. > > Check to see that all blade angles are the same after torqueing the bolts. > > Shack > FS I > SC > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RONATNIK(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Subject: Re: Pilot Report...Sort of
Thankyou, Dennis. Maybe for now I'll just concentrate on trying to solo before the snow really starts to fly. Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)epix.net>
Subject: Re: : Kolb-List:Ultra Star
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Not I said the duck, not I said the cat, not I said the pig ... not I said Dennis. (responding to you ownership question) Hi Herb, The US is a great flying AC. I actually think it handled better than the FS's which followed it. The negatives were (1) small dia prop (2) prop close to ground and (3) no spring gear. Also re-drive parts are no longer available ... or for that matter any other specialized parts. Later developoments helped with some of these weakness. A spring gear was available for awhile, and the composite props helped with the lawn mowing function - blades lasted longer. No cure for the small prop though, so take-off and climb is not nearly as impressive as the FS's. I did more and wilder aerobatics in the US than any of the later AC. This was partly due to the fact that I did get smarter with passage of time. But I never could make the FS roll like I could the US. I now shiver to recall all the stupid things I did back then! If you willing to live with some of the above weakness, it is one fine flying ultralight. Happy rebuilding Dennis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herb Gearheart" <herbgh(at)nctc.com> Subject: Re: Kolb-List:Ultra Star > > Dennis Souder, > Who owns the rights to the Ultra Star?? And--what are your impressions of > this bird. I am in the process of rebuilding one. Herb in Ky > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "michael mcalister" <michaelmcalister(at)mediaone.net>
Subject: what a difference a day makes... Mo' on fuel economy....
Date: Nov 08, 2001
> Vne for a Firestar is 90 mph. My ASI only goes up to 80 and I've > been over > that. It's when I do a hammerhead, so I don't stay that fast very long. > > Shack > FS I > SC a hammer head in a kolb ultralight! obviously a hairy chested son of South Carolina. a giant among men. i salute you ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tommy & Carolyn" <TommyandCarolyn(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Re: "Solo" engine help
Date: Nov 07, 2001
Tim, Give Dell Cross in Groves, TX a call. 409-962-6186 Tommy ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: Engineering Dimensia
From: "Jim Gerken" <gerken(at)us.ibm.com>
Date: Nov 08, 2001
11/08/2001 06:47:38 AM Michael, sorry but I could not resist responding after I read: > I guess being a mechanical engineer for 28 years, I like having a >roll of drawings to refer to.


October 25, 2001 - November 08, 2001

Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-df