Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-dh
November 25, 2001 - December 06, 2001
> >c.g. be then ?? I'm going to weigh Vamoose tomorrow, to get a rough
> >idea of how close I came with my engine placement, and that info would
> >be a great help. Thanks HeavyWeight Lar.
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
Will,
If the tapes on a roll check and see if there a manufacturers name and
brand name on the inside ID of the card tube the tapes spooled on.
jerryb
>
>In a message dated 11/23/01 9:14:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>roger.hankins(at)kodak.com writes:
>
>
> > Could you please fill us in on exactly which vinyl tape you are using
> > (brand name etc.) and who sells it?
>
>Unfortunately I can't give you this information because the vinyl tapes were
>given to me at Grants Pass, OR by some ultralighters when the prop blade
>slung the first metal tape. During the cross country I was carrying the
>vinyl tapes around in my backpack. When I took my prop to IVO at Long Beach,
>CA for a ding repair, they said they had gotten a bad batch of glue on the
>tapes so they gave me extra metal tapes. After the prop slung the
>replacement metal tape I took them all off. When I got back to El Paso, TX I
>installed the vinyl tapes. Dave installed the extra metal tapes IVO gave me
>on his Power Fin prop but had to take them off because they were starting to
>slide off.
>
>Sorry,
>Will Uribe
>El Paso, TX
>FireStar II N4GU
>C-172 N2506U
>http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PTT Switch Gary Voight |
The PTT switch adapter is easier for now technical types or those that wish
not to solder. Radio Trash switches are a waste of money - they embed
their switch contacts in a low temp plastic which loosens causing poor
contact even with the least amount of heat while soldering. There not very
reliable and some take a lot of pressure and others not much at all.
I installed a PTT switch in our control stick. It's not that difficult.
I got a hole plug (plastic or metal) that matched the inside Dia. of the
control stick. Drilled a hole in it the dia. required for the small N.O.
(normally open contact at rest) push button switch. (Note, get a good
switch that doesn't take excessive pressure to active it and doesn't
protrude to high where it may get knocked off while getting in and
out.) Solder two wires to it, one to each contact insulated with heat
shrink tubing. Route down the tube carefully positioning the wires to
clear and flex with control movement. On the other end I soldered on a
small (forget the exact #-mm size) mini-phone plug. I then plug it into
the mini-phone jack on my ICOM's headset adapter used to support remote
PTT function for activating the radios transmitter.
jerryb
>
>Gary,
>
>You can go to Radio Shack and get a 99 cent switch and it will do the
>same thing as a $6.99 one. There is no current when switching a PPT on a
>radio so it will last a lifetime.
>
>Ralph
>
> writes:
> >
> >
> > Don, thanks for the info, CPS has one for $29.99... i thought
> > that was a
> > little high for a doorbell switch.
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> > Gary r. voigt
> >
> > DMe5430944(at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Aircraft Spruce and Specialty has a PTT Switch, economy model for
> > $12.95,
> > > works great . Their phone no. is 877-477-7823.
> > >
> > > Don Mekeel FF002
> > > El Paso, Texas
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>> > [#######----------------------13.9%----------------------------]
> >
> >
> > messages.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Berry" <sc_bassman(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Alternative to Comtronics Patchset for ICOM A5? |
Interesting, Jerry. I have a problem which I suspect others of you have
experienced (or will experience), so I consider it Kolb related.
I currently use an ICOM A20 radio, Comtronics helmet, and comtronics patchset (PTT
switch, plugs, cables, etc.). I've been thinking about buying a new radio
... probably ICOM A5. The thing that irks me is not the price of the radio (around
$300), but the price of the Comtronics patchset to
adapt my helmet to the ICOM A5. The patchset is merely a set of wires and plugs
patched together ... yet it's up there just under $100 (about 1/3 the cost of
the radio itself). I consider that unreasonable ... especially since I've already
bought a Comtronics patchset once. Yet, that's the only solution I get
from Comtronics ... buy another patchset.
My question is: does anyone know of other alternatives to the Comtronics
patchset for the ICOM A5? If I could find a plug for the A5, perhaps I could simply
adapt my present A20 patchset. I believe ICOM even offers a free headset
adapter for the unit (must be ordered separately), but it will not directly connect
to the Comtronics helmet .. nor have PTT switch. Anyone experienced this
problem ... and resolved it ... other than buying
the Comtronics patchset?
----- Original Message -----
From: jerryb
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: PTT Switch Gary Voight
I installed a PTT switch in our control stick. It's not that difficult.Gom
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pilot Report...Sort of |
Back in '96 I took my flight instruction from Dan Kurkjian at the Kolb
factory in Pa. At the time Homer was putting an addition on to his
barn/hanger. He was placing the roof trusses while I was there, and watched
my progress from his vantage point. It was nice to get critiques from "the
man." I have no experience with the "New Kolb" but the "Old Kolb" was a first
class operation, from Homer to Dennis, to Dan and right down to Rich the
welder. The last day of my lessons Kolb was having a little birthday party
for Rich, and they were kind enough to invite me. Again, a first class
operation.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FlyColt45(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pilot Report...Sort of |
OLD KOLB -
HERE! HERE! 2ND 'ID, 3RD AND 5TH. GEE I MISS THOSE GUYS & TIMES!
JIM COTE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Rains <rr(at)htg.net> |
Forgive the delay in replying, but my computer has been down, and only
started working again when threatened with my old .45 service pistol. I
noticed your typing is a little fuzzy, went flying today?
Must be the Warp Drive,
Just kidding........
Dave Rains.
El Paso
(where the weather is warm)
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hauck [SMTP:hawk36(at)mindspring.com]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Props
Dave Rains wrote:
> What about that pesky vibration?
Dave and Gang:
Please explain above.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> I noticed your typing is a little fuzzy, went flying today?
> Must be the Warp Drive,
> Just kidding........
> Dave Rains.
Dave and Gang:
Thanks for the reply, but you didn't answer my question.
My typing a little fuzzy? That's old age. Don't blame it
on the Warp Drive.
Nope, didn't go flying today, but been thinking about it
since I got up this morning. It is 75F and my shovel is
making me sweat.
Still got time to go flying if I hurry and get all my jobs
done.
Nope, I would not have made three attempts to Point Barrow,
Alaska, over the last seven years, with an IVO, wooden prop,
or the prop that is made in Washington or Oregon (can't
think of the name of it), or any other prop but a Warp Drive
with nickel steel leading edges.
Nope, I don't fly around the patch or over to Wetumpka AP
with anything but my Warp Drive. Occasionally, will fly a
factory aircraft that is not Warp Drive equipped. Summer
2000, returning from Muncho Lake, BC, had to fly in an
airplane with no prop. :-)
Better get back to my chores or I'll never get to go
flying. The weather in Central Alabama is perfect for
flying today.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PTT Switch Gary Voight |
I have found that there are at least 2 variations in plug-in PTT switches.
The ones I've opened up have all had 2 microswitches in them. As I recall,
both are momentary "On," and each has a NC & NO side. I know I re-wired
several new switches for the FBO in Port Angeles, so they'd work in the
rental Cessnas. I also know that the PTT I use in rental Cessnas will not
work with the patch cord in my Narco handheld. I have a diagram of the
wiring in it, that I made for another List-er a while back. Once again, if
you're interested, I'll send it to you. If there's enuf interest, I'll
publish it. One day, I might even get around to talking to the good folks
at Narco to find out the proper connections for the hand held. Then again,
in my Narco panel mount radio in Vamoose, all I had to do was use a standard
single pole, momentary On push button in the stick to ground one wire.
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <ul15rhb(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: PTT Switch Gary Voight
>
> Gary,
>
> You can go to Radio Shack and get a 99 cent switch and it will do the
> same thing as a $6.99 one. There is no current when switching a PPT on a
> radio so it will last a lifetime.
>
> Ralph
>
> writes:
> >
> >
> > Don, thanks for the info, CPS has one for $29.99... i thought
> > that was a
> > little high for a doorbell switch.
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> > Gary r. voigt
> >
> > DMe5430944(at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Aircraft Spruce and Specialty has a PTT Switch, economy model for
> > $12.95,
> > > works great . Their phone no. is 877-477-7823.
> > >
> > > Don Mekeel FF002
> > > El Paso, Texas
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > [#######----------------------13.9%----------------------------]
> >
> >
> > messages.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Rains <rr(at)htg.net> |
Posted like sponsored pilot. (Just kidding again) In truth, I am leaning
toward a 2 blade Warp Drive on a winter project of mine. Need all the
thrust I can get, and this aircraft will be used extensively off gravel
roads. Having said that, my PowerFin completed a 4,000 mile journey last
summer, and now has 600 hours on it. The PowerFin having much lower
inertial mass, can be put on a B-box using 3 blades. This in turn makes
for a smoother setup. I don't believe a 3 blade Warp Drive falls within
the inertial parameters of the B-box. Did some T&G's this morning, but we
had a wind advisory and I had to cut it short. It's now blowing 30 to 40
knots, with visibility down to 3 miles.
Oh, one more thing,
it's not the age, it's the mileage!
Dave Rains
FS II
El Paso
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hauck [SMTP:hawk36(at)mindspring.com]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Props
> I noticed your typing is a little fuzzy, went flying today?
> Must be the Warp Drive,
> Just kidding........
> Dave Rains.
Dave and Gang:
Thanks for the reply, but you didn't answer my question.
My typing a little fuzzy? That's old age. Don't blame it
on the Warp Drive.
Nope, didn't go flying today, but been thinking about it
since I got up this morning. It is 75F and my shovel is
making me sweat.
Still got time to go flying if I hurry and get all my jobs
done.
Nope, I would not have made three attempts to Point Barrow,
Alaska, over the last seven years, with an IVO, wooden prop,
or the prop that is made in Washington or Oregon (can't
think of the name of it), or any other prop but a Warp Drive
with nickel steel leading edges.
Nope, I don't fly around the patch or over to Wetumpka AP
with anything but my Warp Drive. Occasionally, will fly a
factory aircraft that is not Warp Drive equipped. Summer
2000, returning from Muncho Lake, BC, had to fly in an
airplane with no prop. :-)
Better get back to my chores or I'll never get to go
flying. The weather in Central Alabama is perfect for
flying today.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Stuart" <cstuart(at)searnet.com> |
"Kolb Aircraft"
| Subject: | Mark IIIXtra rudder controls |
Mark IIIXtra builders:
Do I need revised or new plans for the rudder pedal assembly on my Mark
IIIXtra. Have they replaced the short cables from the pedal assembly to the
rudder bellcrank with turnbuckles?
I am assuming that above the rudder pedals are the toe brakes with brackets
for the attachment of the the brake cylinders.
Kolb can fax me plans at 859.236.0318 or mail them to 275 Waterworks Road,
Danville KY 40422.
Thanks
Clay Stuart
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Firestar, Lexan center section failure |
Fellow Kolbers,
When I built my Original style Firestar (1989 through 1994), a plan for a
Lexan center section became available from Kolb. It utilized Velcro to
secure the Lexan to the wing, on both the top and bottom. It has served me
well for 7 years. However, on Friday 11/23, as I was flying over a very
wooded area, the Velcro self stick 'glue' failed. This allowed the top
portion of Lexan to flap up and down. The loud and unusual noise, kinda like
a "woof, woof, woof," and the accompaning vibration, scared the living
daylights out of me. The engine was still running, but it sounded like there
was a problem with either the wooden prop or gear reduction unit.
Thinking of the drastic result if the engine were to separate from the
airframe, I throttled back and turned off the ignition. This happened in a
matter of seconds. I usually have a forced landing site in mind as I fly
along, but this time there just wasn't much available, except for a four lane
divided highway. There were a few small industrial parking lots in the area,
but much too short, with wires all around. So, I opted for the median strip.
Although I was at 1500 feet above the ground, I misjudged the glide ratio
and had to land between a row of pine trees in the median center and the left
lane of the highway itself. The wings cleared the trees and roadway only by
a few feet on either side. However, the landing was successful and I'm
grateful for that. NJ state troopers arrived shortly and surprise, they were
very understanding and helpful. One of the neighboring businesses supplied
me with some duct tape to secure the Lexan. After the police talked to the
FAA and found they were not interested in an ultralight incident of this type
(no damage, no one hurt, etc), I was permitted to fly-out, rather than
dismantle. In fact, they even stopped the traffic so I could take off from
the paved road, rather than try to get out of the median strip, which had
tall grass and a somewhat soft and bumpy surface. A picture of the landing
site is attached.
The Velcro self stick 'glue' apparently dried out over the years and pulled
off of the Lexan, but not off of the wing fabric. The pieces are gone, so I
don't have anything to look at. If anyone else is using this system, "Check
the Velcro"!
My plan is to change it to some sort of a mechanical attachment.
Bill Varnes
Original FireStar-Rotax 377
Audubon, NJ USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 14 Msgs - 11/23/01 |
> Hello fellow flyers!!! can any of you recommend a
good
> "ptt" switch that i can use with my icom "ic-A5" radio, or
> does it not make any difference. using a telex airman with
> ANR. waiting for the ice to form here in mn. so we can go
> ski flying.
>
> thanks,
> Gary r. voigt
i figured the pinouts required on the radio and promptly
custom made my own, it fits between the intercom and the
radio. if you wanted to get real fancy you could put in a
couple banks of dip switches and have it set up to fit
different radios.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar, Lexan center section failure |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
Hi Bill,
Glad to hear that your forced landing was a successful one. As for the
gap seal, I thought it would be a great idea to add a couple of small eye
bolts (with nylock stop nuts) to the underside of the lexan and use a
mini bungee that is double-wrapped around the main tube to the eye bolts.
If that velcro ever decides to let loose, the bungee will hold it down. I
slide that bungee to towards the rear to hold it better and it stays
where I slide it.
I kind of figured that might happen to me someday .....
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
almost 15 years flying it
>
> Fellow Kolbers,
>
> When I built my Original style Firestar (1989 through 1994), a plan
> for a
> Lexan center section became available from Kolb. It utilized Velcro
> to
> secure the Lexan to the wing, on both the top and bottom. It has
> served me
> well for 7 years. However, on Friday 11/23, as I was flying over a
> very
> wooded area, the Velcro self stick 'glue' failed. This allowed the
> top
> portion of Lexan to flap up and down. The loud and unusual noise,
> kinda like
> a "woof, woof, woof," and the accompaning vibration, scared the
> living
> daylights out of me. The engine was still running, but it sounded
> like there
> was a problem with either the wooden prop or gear reduction unit.
>
> Thinking of the drastic result if the engine were to separate from
> the
> airframe, I throttled back and turned off the ignition. This
> happened in a
> matter of seconds. I usually have a forced landing site in mind as
> I fly
> along, but this time there just wasn't much available, except for a
> four lane
> divided highway. There were a few small industrial parking lots in
> the area,
> but much too short, with wires all around. So, I opted for the
> median strip.
> Although I was at 1500 feet above the ground, I misjudged the glide
> ratio
> and had to land between a row of pine trees in the median center and
> the left
> lane of the highway itself. The wings cleared the trees and roadway
> only by
> a few feet on either side. However, the landing was successful and
> I'm
> grateful for that. NJ state troopers arrived shortly and surprise,
> they were
> very understanding and helpful. One of the neighboring businesses
> supplied
> me with some duct tape to secure the Lexan. After the police talked
> to the
> FAA and found they were not interested in an ultralight incident of
> this type
> (no damage, no one hurt, etc), I was permitted to fly-out, rather
> than
> dismantle. In fact, they even stopped the traffic so I could take
> off from
> the paved road, rather than try to get out of the median strip,
> which had
> tall grass and a somewhat soft and bumpy surface. A picture of the
> landing
> site is attached.
>
> The Velcro self stick 'glue' apparently dried out over the years and
> pulled
> off of the Lexan, but not off of the wing fabric. The pieces are
> gone, so I
> don't have anything to look at. If anyone else is using this
> system, "Check
> the Velcro"!
>
> My plan is to change it to some sort of a mechanical attachment.
>
> Bill Varnes
> Original FireStar-Rotax 377
> Audubon, NJ USA
>
>
>
=
> [########---------------------14.5%----------------------------]
>
>
> messages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Berry" <sc_bassman(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar, Lexan center section failure |
That exact same thing (gap seal rising up) happened to me too in flight just a
few weeks ago ... and that's how I fixed it ... with those small bungees around
the center fuselage tube above my head. The lift caused the velcro to pull
upwards and separate. I pop riveted a thin piece of aluminum angle across front
and back with several holes spaced along them ... for proper tensioning. Fortunately,
I was over the runway when it let go. Stayed on ... but flapped up
(from lift) and down violently (as it entered airflow)... and cracked a piece
near the rear ... and gave me a good scare. Didn't go through the prop .. but
almost. Could have been worse.
----- Original Message -----
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Firestar, Lexan center section failure
Hi Bill,
Glad to hear that your forced landing was a successful one. As for the
gap seal, I thought it would be a great idea to add a couple of small eye
bolts (with nylock stop nuts) to the underside of the lexan and use a
mini bungee that is double-wrapped around the main tube to the eye bolts.
If that velcro ever decides to let loose, the bungee will hold it down. I
slide that bungee to towards the rear to hold it better and it stays
where I slide it.
I kind of figured that might happen to me someday .....
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
almost 15 years flying it
>
> Fellow Kolbers,
>
> When I built my Original style Firestar (1989 through 1994), a plan
> for a
> Lexan center section became available from Kolb. It utilized Velcro
> to
> secure the Lexan to the wing, on both the top and bottom. It has
> served me
> well for 7 years. However, on Friday 11/23, as I was flying over a
> very
> wooded area, the Velcro self stick 'glue' failed. This allowed the
> top
> portion of Lexan to flap up and down. The loud and unusual noise,
> kinda like
> a "woof, woof, woof," and the accompaning vibration, scared the
> living
> daylights out of me. The engine was still running, but it sounded
> like there
> was a problem with either the wooden prop or gear reduction unit.
>
> Thinking of the drastic result if the engine were to separate from
> the
> airframe, I throttled back and turned off the ignition. This
> happened in a
> matter of seconds. I usually have a forced landing site in mind as
> I fly
> along, but this time there just wasn't much available, except for a
> four lane
> divided highway. There were a few small industrial parking lots in
> the area,
> but much too short, with wires all around. So, I opted for the
> median strip.
> Although I was at 1500 feet above the ground, I misjudged the glide
> ratio
> and had to land between a row of pine trees in the median center and
> the left
> lane of the highway itself. The wings cleared the trees and roadway
> only by
> a few feet on either side. However, the landing was successful and
> I'm
> grateful for that. NJ state troopers arrived shortly and surprise,
> they were
> very understanding and helpful. One of the neighboring businesses
> supplied
> me with some duct tape to secure the Lexan. After the police talked
> to the
> FAA and found they were not interested in an ultralight incident of
> this type
> (no damage, no one hurt, etc), I was permitted to fly-out, rather
> than
> dismantle. In fact, they even stopped the traffic so I could take
> off from
> the paved road, rather than try to get out of the median strip,
> which had
> tall grass and a somewhat soft and bumpy surface. A picture of the
> landing
> site is attached.
>
> The Velcro self stick 'glue' apparently dried out over the years and
> pulled
> off of the Lexan, but not off of the wing fabric. The pieces are
> gone, so I
> don't have anything to look at. If anyone else is using this
> system, "Check
> the Velcro"!
>
> My plan is to change it to some sort of a mechanical attachment.
>
> Bill Varnes
> Original FireStar-Rotax 377
> Audubon, NJ USA
>
>
> [########---------------------14.5%----------------------------]
>
>
> messages.
>
>
=
=
=
=
=
Get mor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | What Can You Say...? |
Dear Listers,
I've been getting a ton great comments on what the Lists mean to its
members and I've included a few of them below. I'm sure _most_ of you can
echo one or more of these sentiments to the tune of a nice List
Contribution... :-)
Just one more week until I post the 2001 List of Contributors! Won't you
support the continued operation of these Lists by making a Contribution
today and assure your place on the upcoming Contributor List? I'm sure
your friends will be checking for your name on the LOC... ;-)
SSL Secure Web Visa and MasterCard Contributions:
http://www.matronics.com/contributions
Personal Check via the US Mail:
Matronics Email Lists
c/o Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94551-0347
I want to thank everyone that has already made a Contribution this
year! YOU make these Lists possible!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
===========================================================================
Can't live without my List everyday!
- John B.
Information you can't get anywhere else.
- George D.
...one of the finest List sites on the Internet.
- Dennis S.
This List has saved my bacon more than once!
- Larry H.
Really invaluable service for a novice builder.
- John B.
...got some useful help from the List.
- Rocky S.
A valuable resource.
- Dennis N.
This List is a Super resource...
- Dwight F.
...couldn't have gotten this far without the
resources on the List.
- Jerry C.
Great service to us builders...
- Ronald M.
...someday we'll all meet in RV Heaven. Hey,
how come there isn't an "RV-Heaven" List?
- Louis W.
The info I've gleaned from the List has saved
me several thousand dollars...
- Kevin H.
...the only International, Interesting, Up-to-date,
List with the best search engine ever!
- Hans L.
...check it ever day so I don't miss anything.
- Jim B.
Great List!
- Douglas G.
This List has saved me a few times already...
- Thomas R.
...part of my morning wake up reading.
- Dwight F.
...helped my make my plane better, safer, better
looking, and built it quicker.
- Kevin H.
Have bought many items from the info the List gives.
- Jim B.
You meet the nicest people here.
- George D.
Informative, Amusing, Entertaining...
- John B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative to Comtronics Patchset for ICOM A5? |
Hi Randy,
You got me confused. You have an ICOM A20 and are wanting to change to a
A5. The A20 is an excellent radio, it there something wrong with it. If
not how much you want for it? Does it have the standard headset adapter?
I can't say I ever seen the connectors on the Comtronics headset, are they
the same as other headsets or are they unique in some way.
Does the A5 come with a headset adapter, I know the A22 does for connection
of standard aviation style headsets. My A22 adapter has a separate
mini-jack for connection of a remote PTT or you can use one of the
commercial made PTT which inserts in between the adapter and the headset to
provide a PTT switch you Velcro strap to your stick.
There is a guy I know who's business is repairing headsets. He builds
adapters upon request. You may want to send him an email of what you
need. He is UL and GA aircraft orientated. His name is Jim Vzoom (like
the motor cycle noise) 8) email address is:
Shoot him an email, clearly define what you need and I'm sure he will
provide you a quote. If he has lengths he could make it where the jacks
mount to a panel with small connectors for connection to the radio and
eliminate the large bulky headset adapter.
jerryb
>
>Interesting, Jerry. I have a problem which I suspect others of you have
>experienced (or will experience), so I consider it Kolb related.
>
>I currently use an ICOM A20 radio, Comtronics helmet, and comtronics patc>hset
(PTT switch, plugs, cables, etc.). I've been thinking about buying a> new radio
... probably ICOM A5. The thing that irks me is not the price> of the radio
(around $300), but the price of the Comtronics patchset to
>adapt my helmet to the ICOM A5. The patchset is merely a set of wires an>d plugs
patched together ... yet it's up there just under $100 (about 1/3> the cost
of the radio itself). I consider that unreasonable ... especia>lly since I've
already bought a Comtronics patchset once. Yet, that's th>e only solution
I get from Comtronics ... buy another patchset.
>
>My question is: does anyone know of other alternatives to the Comtronics
>patchset for the ICOM A5? If I could find a plug for the A5, perhaps I c>ould
simply adapt my present A20 patchset. I believe ICOM even offers a f>ree headset
adapter for the unit (must be ordered separately), but it wil>l not directly
connect to the Comtronics helmet .. nor have PTT switch. A>nyone experienced
this problem ... and resolved it ... other than buying
>the Comtronics patchset?
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: jerryb
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: PTT Switch Gary Voight
>
>I installed a PTT switch in our control stick. It's not that difficult.G>om
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar, Lexan center section failure |
Nice going, Bill. Bet you need new upholstery too ! ! ! In the plans for
mine, from '96, it shows 2 springs hooked to the back of that lexan center
section, 1 on each side. Good Luck. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WVarnes(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Firestar, Lexan center section failure
>
> Fellow Kolbers,
>
> When I built my Original style Firestar (1989 through 1994), a plan for a
> Lexan center section became available from Kolb. It utilized Velcro to
> secure the Lexan to the wing, on both the top and bottom. It has served
me
> well for 7 years. However, on Friday 11/23, as I was flying over a very
> wooded area, the Velcro self stick 'glue' failed. This allowed the top
> portion of Lexan to flap up and down. The loud and unusual noise, kinda
like
> a "woof, woof, woof," and the accompaning vibration, scared the living
> daylights out of me. The engine was still running, but it sounded like
there
> was a problem with either the wooden prop or gear reduction unit.
>
> Thinking of the drastic result if the engine were to separate from the
> airframe, I throttled back and turned off the ignition. This happened in
a
> matter of seconds. I usually have a forced landing site in mind as I fly
> along, but this time there just wasn't much available, except for a four
lane
> divided highway. There were a few small industrial parking lots in the
area,
> but much too short, with wires all around. So, I opted for the median
strip.
> Although I was at 1500 feet above the ground, I misjudged the glide ratio
> and had to land between a row of pine trees in the median center and the
left
> lane of the highway itself. The wings cleared the trees and roadway only
by
> a few feet on either side. However, the landing was successful and I'm
> grateful for that. NJ state troopers arrived shortly and surprise, they
were
> very understanding and helpful. One of the neighboring businesses
supplied
> me with some duct tape to secure the Lexan. After the police talked to
the
> FAA and found they were not interested in an ultralight incident of this
type
> (no damage, no one hurt, etc), I was permitted to fly-out, rather than
> dismantle. In fact, they even stopped the traffic so I could take off
from
> the paved road, rather than try to get out of the median strip, which had
> tall grass and a somewhat soft and bumpy surface. A picture of the
landing
> site is attached.
>
> The Velcro self stick 'glue' apparently dried out over the years and
pulled
> off of the Lexan, but not off of the wing fabric. The pieces are gone, so
I
> don't have anything to look at. If anyone else is using this system,
"Check
> the Velcro"!
>
> My plan is to change it to some sort of a mechanical attachment.
>
> Bill Varnes
> Original FireStar-Rotax 377
> Audubon, NJ USA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative to Comtronics Patchset for ICOM A5? |
=0D
=0D
-------Original Message-------=0D
=0D
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com=0D
Date: Monday, November 26, 2001 01:09:52=0D
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Alternative to Comtronics Patchset for ICOM A5?=0D
=0D
I just bought a Icom A5 and a Denali headset from Aircraft Spruce. They
have an Icom headset adapter for this radio. I also purchased it for about
$55.00. Not cheep. Aircraft Spruce does not list a push to talk switch
for
this radio but I contacted Icom and they have this PTT switch available for
this radio. I don't know the price as yet but intend to find out today.=0D
=0D
Ron Payne=0D
=0D
=0D
>=0D
>Interesting, Jerry. I have a problem which I suspect others of you have=0D
>experienced (or will experience), so I consider it Kolb related.=0D
>=0D
>I currently use an ICOM A20 radio, Comtronics helmet, and comtronics patc=0D
>hset (PTT switch, plugs, cables, etc.). I've been thinking about buying
a=0D
> new radio ... probably ICOM A5. The thing that irks me is not the price=0D
> of the radio (around $300), but the price of the Comtronics patchset to=0D
>adapt my helmet to the ICOM A5. The patchset is merely a set of wires an=0D
>d plugs patched together ... yet it's up there just under $100 (about 1/3=0D
> the cost of the radio itself). I consider that unreasonable ... especia=0D
>lly since I've already bought a Comtronics patchset once. Yet, that's th=0D
>e only solution I get from Comtronics ... buy another patchset.=0D
>=0D
>My question is: does anyone know of other alternatives to the Comtronics=0D
>patchset for the ICOM A5? If I could find a plug for the A5, perhaps I c=0D
>ould simply adapt my present A20 patchset. I believe ICOM even offers a
f=0D
>ree headset adapter for the unit (must be ordered separately), but it wil=0D
>l not directly connect to the Comtronics helmet .. nor have PTT switch.
A=0D
>nyone experienced this problem ... and resolved it ... other than buying=0D
>the Comtronics patchset?=0D
>=0D
>----- Original Message -----=0D
>From: jerryb=0D
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com=0D
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: PTT Switch Gary Voight=0D
>=0D
>I installed a PTT switch in our control stick. It's not that difficult.G=0D
>om=0D
>=0D
>=0D
=0D
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KolbTwinstar(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: What Can You Say...? |
I was trying to donate online but it would not take my credit!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rbaker(at)shop4zero.com" <rbaker(at)ccgnv.net> |
| Subject: | Repairman's Certificate |
Listers
As the result of a letter I received, Saturday, I just got off the phone
with the FSDO in Orlando, FL.
They informed me that in addition to the DAR having signed off on form
8610-2 and submitting it to them, I must present my face (attached to my
body) at their office, so that they are sure I am the one they are
really authorizing to work on my plane.
Just what I need. A 270 mile drive. They say this is nothing new. They
have always done it this way.
Has anyone else run into this. It caught me totally by suprise as I had
never heard of it before.
L Ray Baker
Lake Butler, FL
Mark III, 912, BRS, N629RB
rbaker(at)ccgnv.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Repairman's Certificate |
In a message dated 11/26/01 10:02:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rbaker(at)ccgnv.net writes:
> They informed me that in addition to the DAR having signed off on form
> 8610-2 and submitting it to them, I must present my face (attached to my
> body) at their office, so that they are sure I am the one they are
> really authorizing to work on my plane.
>
> Just what I need. A 270 mile drive. They say this is nothing new. They
> have always done it this way.
>
> Has anyone else run into this. It caught me totally by suprise as I had
> never heard of it before.
The DAR who inspected my FireStar said he could not sign for the repairman's
certificate because the ones he had signed were rejected (some new rule
change). Only an FAA guy or some designated maintenance inspector can sign
for the certificate. Luckily the FAA guy showed up to give the DAR a
proficiency check, so the FAA guy took care of my repairman's certificate.
Regards,
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
But working in Arlington
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Reduction Drive VW Engine Update |
1st I sold my old engine the response I got on E-Bay was fantastic.
I got the new reduction drive VW installed and have been running the engine 1st
without the prop. I found I could only run the engine app 2 minutes before it
got hot and had to be turned off even with a fan blowing 50 degree air on it.
Last weekend I got the prop/reduction drive installed and running. With the
prop pulling air over the engine I could run 10-15 minutes at low power settings.
The setup seems to run super and it appears I'm getting more thrust than I
was with the old direct drive engine but flying will be the real test. The engine
idles down to 800 RPMs fairly smooth. There is a rough range from 1000-1200
that I try to go through quickly. The engine pulls app. 3300 RPMs engine and
2060 at the prop at full throttle tied to a tree. I'm turning a three bladed
72 inch J model Power Fin prop and it appears to be set at 12 degrees pitch measured
at the tips. I'm looking for more like 3600 engine on take off. I'm assuming
I will gain some RPMs at takeoff speeds with the low pitch and as the engine
breaks in more it may gain even more RPMs.
As soon as the weather clears a bit I will be test flying and let everyone know
the results.
Rick Neilsen
VW powered Kolb MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Repairman's Certificate |
> They informed me that in addition to the DAR having signed off on form
> 8610-2 and submitting it to them, I must present my face (attached to my
> body) at their office, so that they are sure I am the one they are
> really authorizing to work on my plane.
> L Ray Baker
Ray and Gang:
Not so. I got mine in the mail.
Get them to quote you a FAR, etc., that dictates you show
your face in their office.
Orlando FSDO, based on an experience with them in 1994, have
not the least bit of concern for the people they work for,
US.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
I tried to find out the availability and the price of the Icom PTT. I
called their West Coast office and told the girl what I wanted. She put
me
on hold and left me there for several minutes until I got disgusted and hung
up. They don't have an 800 number. I was paying for being serenaded.
I
called her back and told her I was paying for the call and if no one was
available for me to talk then please don't put me on hold and leave me there
She said she understood and put me on hold and left me there again. I
hung up again so I don't have any information to pass along on the Icom PTT.=0D
=0D
Ron Payne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Push-to-Talk |
> I tried to find out the availability and the price of the Icom PTT.
> Ron Payne
Ron and Gang:
I recently bought a new ICOM A3 which came with headset
adapter from Tropic Aero, I believe in Ft Lauderdale, FL.
They have a web site and information on ICOM accessories and
prices. Go to:
http://www.tropicaero.com/index.cfm
Once there, click on handheld transceivers, etc., until you
get to the accessory page.
Take care,
john h
I operate the A3 from my aircraft power source without the
nicad battery attached. It is a tiny little package, but
performs well, both xmit and receive.
New price less than what King wanted to fix my old (12 yrs)
KX99, which had just been overhauled a year ago.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Sasseville" <sassevilleapiaries(at)hotmail.com> |
Hay Gang
I have an old military Gentex helmet with earphones and a mike and I am
going to buy an Icom A-5 radio. The Question I have is will the military
Gentex work with the Icom radio?
Paul Sasseville
Zolfo Springs, Fl
Firestar II 99% done
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Aircraft Rat Repellent |
Hi Gang:
On the way home from town this morning I went by my airstrip
to check on Miss P'fer. Wanted to make sure she was ok and
the rats had not chewed her up into little pieces and spread
her all over the airstrip. She was ok. No sigh of brother
rodent.
Since the last attack back in September, I believe, or late
August, I have been using Enoz Moth and Deodorant Cakes
which I purchase at Wal*Mart. Primary ingredient is
Paradichlorobenzene 99.35%. The first set I bought with the
little plastic cages and hook for hanging in closets. Come
three to a pack and cost about $1.75. I put two in the aft
end of the tailboom and one in the aileron bell crank hole
on the aft of the fuselage. Those are the only way inside
except for jumping down on the wings and in through the gap
seal around the engine.
I still have some moth balls (napthalyene) around each main
and tailwheel, along with some powered sulphur. However,
before I got the Cakes, Mr. Rat crossed that barrier and
dined on some of my wiring and pitot/static tubing.
I have to remove the Cakes before flight and replace them
when I land, which is an additional step to take care of.
But, much better than the consequences of finding your
airplane trashed by a damn rat.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gentex helmet |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
No....The mic and speakers are different than GA. I think the plugs are
different too. I converted a Gentex last year. I bought the new mic and
speakers from www.aviationhelmets.com
I think the whole deal cost about $100. After the conversion, you end up
with 2 plugs just like an average GA headset. You then use a headset
adapter for your radio. When I bought the speakers and mic, they also sent
me the mic and speaker plugs. Just tell them what you are doing and they
will set you up with the parts you need.
The helmet was given to me by someone who tried to do a conversion himself.
He fried 2 handhelds then gave the helmet to me. One phone call and 2 days
later I was using it with my Icom A22 in my plane. He was sort of
pissed...But thats life. Apparently he was convinced that there was no way
to convert the mil electronics to GA.
Ross
> From: "Paul Sasseville" <sassevilleapiaries(at)hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:03:10 -0500
> To:
> Subject: Kolb-List: Gentex helmet
>
>
>
> Hay Gang
>
> I have an old military Gentex helmet with earphones and a mike and I am
> going to buy an Icom A-5 radio. The Question I have is will the military
> Gentex work with the Icom radio?
>
> Paul Sasseville
> Zolfo Springs, Fl
> Firestar II 99% done
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduction Drive VW Engine Update |
This weekend ?? Sure hope so.................Good Luck ! ! !
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us>
Subject: Kolb-List: Reduction Drive VW Engine Update
>
> 1st I sold my old engine the response I got on E-Bay was fantastic.
>
> I got the new reduction drive VW installed and have been running the
engine 1st without the prop. I found I could only run the engine app 2
minutes before it got hot and had to be turned off even with a fan blowing
50 degree air on it. Last weekend I got the prop/reduction drive installed
and running. With the prop pulling air over the engine I could run 10-15
minutes at low power settings. The setup seems to run super and it appears
I'm getting more thrust than I was with the old direct drive engine but
flying will be the real test. The engine idles down to 800 RPMs fairly
smooth. There is a rough range from 1000-1200 that I try to go through
quickly. The engine pulls app. 3300 RPMs engine and 2060 at the prop at full
throttle tied to a tree. I'm turning a three bladed 72 inch J model Power
Fin prop and it appears to be set at 12 degrees pitch measured at the tips.
I'm looking for more like 3600 engine on take off. I'm assuming I will gain
some RPMs at takeoff speeds with !
> the low pitch and as the engine breaks in more it may gain even more RPMs.
>
> As soon as the weather clears a bit I will be test flying and let everyone
know the results.
>
> Rick Neilsen
> VW powered Kolb MKIII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar, Lexan center section failure |
In a message dated 11/25/01 11:09:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
WVarnes(at)aol.com writes:
> The Velcro self stick 'glue' apparently dried out over the years and pulled
> off of the Lexan, but not off of the wing fabric. The pieces are gone, so
> I
> don't have anything to look at. If anyone else is using this system,
> "Check
> the Velcro"!
>
> Same thing happened to me, but I knew what it was. I could feel a
stop-and-go type motion of the whole plane as the lexan flapped in the
breeze.
Kolb sends 3/4 or 1" velcro with their gap seal kit; I replaced that with 2"
wide industrial strength velcro and extended it on the wing a few inches past
where the gap seal stops. Seems plenty secure.
I will replace the velcro every 2 or 3 years.
Shack
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrodebush" <jrodebush(at)cinci.rr.com> |
Clay wrote:
"Mark IIIXtra builders:
Do I need revised or new plans for the rudder pedal assembly on my Mark
IIIXtra. Have they replaced the short cables from the pedal assembly to the
rudder bellcrank with turnbuckles?"
Page 12 of the plans shows the rudder control system. It shows a rudder
pedal strip 7 1/8" long then the short cable assembly, no turnbuckles until
after the bellcrank.
I can send you a copy if you want. Contact me off list.
Rex Rodebush
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
John, in the words of Mme. Antoinette, "let 'em eat cake!"
Wal-mart eh, thanks, I'll give it a try too. -BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "toddatlucile" <_toddatlucile(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 11/21/01 |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Reduction Drive VW Flies |
I got a break in the weather tonight.
I wasn't prepaired for the thrust. I grabed a bit too much throttle early in the
takeoff roll. I had full up elevator and it took what seemed like forever to
build enough speed for pitch control. The thrust line is 6 inches higher than
before and there is alot more thrust than with the direct drive VW. After I got
air speed the old MKIII climbed like a home sick angel. I even pulled the throttle
back a bit in the climb to lower the power/heat on the new engine. The
CHTs stayed at 300 degrees but I just didn't want to stress the engine this soon
(1.2 hours total time). At altiude I pulled the throttle back to 3100RPM and
saw 70MPH actual. The old engine would push me along at 75MPH maxium. When
I added power I could feel it surge forward. I only put .3 hours on the plane
tonight before it got dark. When I get more time on the engine I will try more
power to eplore maxium speed, less pitch on the prop to get to my target 3600-3800
RPM on takeoff, and more pitch to find out if it might give a better cruse
speed. What I have found is that the larger prop produces much more thrust
but it also has a more limited speed range. With the prop set with the current
pitch the plane goes 70MPH at 3100RPM, when I lowered the nose the speed incresed
but so did the RPMs. The old engine/prop would not increase RPM in a dive
at least enough to notice.
Was it worth changing to the reduction drive...YES!!!
Rick Neilsen
Reduction drive VW powered MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Structural failures? |
Yes, when they abruptly hit the ground.
I discussed this with Dennis a few years back. His opinion was a parachute
probably wouldn't save you at low altitude such as on take off if you for
some reason forgot to clip a pin in the wing folding process. You wouldn't
have enough time to analyze and react.
I know during a test phase he intentionally over stressed one to failure,
then they beefed the failure point up for production. Kolbs are pretty
tough but then again, the builder and the operator influence that.
Kolb have been around a long time so they have developed a good
history. To my knowledge I know of no in flight structural failures.
jerryb
>
>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: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Structural failures? |
> Kolb have been around a long time so they have developed a good
> history. To my knowledge I know of no in flight structural failures.
> jerryb
Jerry and Gang:
What is your definition of a structural failure?
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 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
Jim and Gang:
Parachute is like life insurance. Don't need it until you
need it.
Are you basing your decision on possible structural failures
only?
Check the Kolb List Archives. Probably find quite a bit
written on parachutes and Kolb aircraft. I think I have
written on that subject before.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Rat Repellent |
In a message dated 11/26/2001 2:18:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
> No sigh of brother
> rodent.
>
>
John and others,
During childhood, I lived on a crop farm, no cattle. Dad harvested corn, let
it dry out in corn cribs, shelled it in the spring and left big piles of corn
cobs behind the barn. Wheat sheaves in the barn drying and then after
threshing, put grain in bins until sold. Rats came to eat, mighty fine
dining. Got so big, cats were afraid of them. Me too. Used to shoot them
with my 22 late evenings.
Dad got older, quit farming, I didn't want any parts of it. No more corn or
wheat grains left. No food, no rats. Maybe they went to your place! hehehe
John, you've got to find their food source and then get rid of it.
Bill Varnes
Original FireStar-Rotax 377
Audubon, NJ USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar, Lexan center section failure |
In a message dated 11/25/2001 11:45:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ul15rhb(at)juno.com writes:
> mini bungee that is double-wrapped around the main tube to the eye bolts.
>
Ralph Burlingame and others,
The bungee cord idea sounds like a good one. As I sit here thinking about
it, was wondering if the bungee should be secured to the main tube to keep it
from tangling with the prop, just in case it became unhooked from the Lexan.
Nah, now I'm becoming paranoid
Thanks for the idea,
Bill Varnes--385 hrs.
Original FireStar-Rotax 377
Audubon, NJ USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Structural failures? |
Jim,
Are you in the future - your time says 2002. Check your systems clock.
jerryb
>
>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: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Don't Miss The Video... |
Hey Listers!
Just a reminder that in support of the 2001 Email List Fund Raiser, Andy
Gold of The Builder's Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com/ ) is
donating a FREE COPY of the new edition of Van's "The RV Story" video (VHS)
to any List Member making a Contribution of $50 or more!
To take advantage of this wonderful Offer, please include the following
information along with your Contribution, either in the Message Box if you
Contribute on-line, or on a slip of paper if your Contribution is by check
via the USMail:
Van's RV Story Video Offer
$50 or Greater Contributor
[your name]
[your shipping address]
[your City, State and Zip Code]
If you've already made a Contribution of $50 or more during the 2001 Fund
Raiser and would still like to receive the video, please drop me an email (
dralle(at)matronics.com ) and include the information shown above with the
following Subject Line:
Subject: Video Offer
Please note that this new edition of "The RV Story" will first be available
in about 8 weeks.
I want to thank Andy Gold and the Builder's Book Store for this *very
generous* Contribution! If you haven't taken a moment to check out The
Builder's Book Store web site yet, you owe it to yourself to have a look (
http://www.buildersbooks.com/ ). Andy has a fabulous selection of
interesting, informative, and exceptionally useful books and videos on his
site. Please have a look!
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution
so far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Just a few more days until I send
out the List of Contributors for 2001. Make your Contribution today to
make sure your name is on the LOC!!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Structural failures? |
>
> > Kolb have been around a long time so they have developed a good
> > history. To my knowledge I know of no in flight structural failures.
> > jerryb
>
>
>Jerry and Gang:
>
>What is your definition of a structural failure?
>
>Take care,
>
>john h
Normally a structural failure is considered the failure of any flight
component necessary to maintain controllable flight. Example wings,
vertical and horizontal stab, flight control surfaces (rudder, elevator,
ailerons, flaps, flaperons. I guess flight controls, linkage, or cables
failures could be included.
Engine failures would not normally produce an uncontrollable flight
situation nor would prop failures unless producing an out of balance
situation that could result in the engine departing the airframe if not
promptly shutdown.
jerryb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduction Drive VW Flies |
Sure sounds good from here, Rick. Keep us posted, and I'm real interested
in the cooling of that beast. Yahooooooo ! ! ! First re-drive VW Mk III
in the air. Well worth waiting for. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)state.mi.us>
Subject: Kolb-List: Reduction Drive VW Flies
>
> I got a break in the weather tonight.
>
> I wasn't prepaired for the thrust. I grabed a bit too much throttle early
in the takeoff roll. I had full up elevator and it took what seemed like
forever to build enough speed for pitch control. The thrust line is 6 inches
higher than before and there is alot more thrust than with the direct drive
VW. After I got air speed the old MKIII climbed like a home sick angel. I
even pulled the throttle back a bit in the climb to lower the power/heat on
the new engine. The CHTs stayed at 300 degrees but I just didn't want to
stress the engine this soon (1.2 hours total time). At altiude I pulled the
throttle back to 3100RPM and saw 70MPH actual. The old engine would push me
along at 75MPH maxium. When I added power I could feel it surge forward. I
only put .3 hours on the plane tonight before it got dark. When I get more
time on the engine I will try more power to eplore maxium speed, less pitch
on the prop to get to my target 3600-3800 RPM on takeoff, and more pitch to
find out if !
> it might give a better cruse speed. What I have found is that the larger
prop produces much more thrust but it also has a more limited speed range.
With the prop set with the current pitch the plane goes 70MPH at 3100RPM,
when I lowered the nose the speed incresed but so did the RPMs. The old
engine/prop would not increase RPM in a dive at least enough to notice.
>
> Was it worth changing to the reduction drive...YES!!!
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Reduction drive VW powered MKIII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Edwards" <mtfuji(at)GTE.NET> |
| Subject: | FIRESTAR KXT KIT |
Hi All,
If anyone is interested in a nice little winter project, I have a
complete Firestar KXP kit (less instruments, prop and perishable
covering supplies, but does include fabric) that I need to sell. I have
completed only the tail feathers. It comes with a never started 52 hp
Rotax 503 UL DCDI with the "B" gearbox. Options include, brakes, large
wheels/tires, heavy duty gear, aerodynamic struts, enclosed cockpit, and
BRS ballistic chute. The frame and most steel parts have been
powder-coated black.I bought it new from Kolb in 1992 and have receipts
for $9300. Asking $7200.00. Let's talk. Near Everett, Washington.
All the best,
Doug mtfuji(at)gte.net (425) 334-4652
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 30 Msgs - 11/26/01 |
In a message dated 11/27/2001 1:51:29 AM Central Standard Time,
kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
> No....The mic and speakers are different than GA. I think the plugs are
> different too. I converted a Gentex last year. I bought the new mic and
> speakers from www.aviationhelmets.com
>
>
best way I found was to find an old headset of the variety you need and put
the parts in. worked for me. p.s. I fried a radio with the military stuff
too. military radios must have some power! speakers are like dead grounds.
not good on your radio. hope this helps. ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TCowan1917(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 30 Msgs - 11/26/01 |
In a message dated 11/27/2001 1:51:29 AM Central Standard Time,
kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
>
> Dad got older, quit farming, I didn't want any parts of it. No more corn
> or
> wheat grains left. No food, no rats. Maybe they went to your place!
> hehehe
>
> John, you've got to find their food source and then get rid of it.
>
>
are you kidding? John's PLANE is the food source!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Richmond <twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com> |
Anybody know the whole paintable area of a MkIII classic?
Or, how mubh pain you used for how many coats?
thanks
=====
John & Lynn Richmond :-)
Palm Coast, Fl.
Mk3 269LJ, 582, 41 hrs
1,400 miles, longest=270
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Elder" <billelder(at)denver.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Paint volumes |
Hi John. It's Bill in Colorado building Mark III Classic. I used 3.5 gals
of Polyspray for three cross coats, and 3 gals of Polytone for 3 coats of
color. Have yet to cover the cage but that shouldn't take too much paint.
Hope this helps!
-----Original Message-----
From: John Richmond <twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 6:15 AM
Subject: Kolb-List: Paint volumes
>
>
>Anybody know the whole paintable area of a MkIII classic?
>
>Or, how mubh pain you used for how many coats?
>
>thanks
>
>=====
>John & Lynn Richmond :-)
>Palm Coast, Fl.
>Mk3 269LJ, 582, 41 hrs
>1,400 miles, longest=270
>
>http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Structural failures? |
> Normally a structural failure is considered the failure of any flight
> component necessary to maintain controllable flight.
> jerryb
Jerry and Gang:
Your reply to my question covers about anything that
breaks. Engine failures, unfortunately also cause
casualties, i.e., many result in stalls close to the
ground. It is very difficult and unnatural to push the nose
over to recover from a stall close to the ground. Most of
the time there just isn't enough altitude to recover.
IMHO any airplane will break given the right conditions.
Might take a while to stress things until they finally give
up, but eventually they will, no matter how strong we think
our airplanes are. Dennis Souder did not think the wing was
going to fold on the factory Ultrastar he was testing. But
pushed far enough and the drag strut pushed out of column,
failed, allowing the wing to swing back along side the
fuselage. Dennis deployed a Jim Handbury hand deployed
parachute and lived to fly the same Ultrastar after
repairs. The result of the failure was the drag strut
brace/s on Kolb aircraft.
I personally, am a two time member of the Catapillar Club.
If you want to learn more about the Catapillar Club, go to:
http://home.twcny.rr.com/caterpillarclub/
In 1985, the upper aileron bell crank broke at 200 feet, 75
mph. Ultrastar does not fly without ailerons. Hand
deployed my Jim Handbury chest type parachute. Landed in a
wooded area, nose down (90 degrees) without injury to me.
Aircraft totaled.
In March 1990, leading edges of both wings failed, almost
simultaneously, on my original Firestar at 500 feet, 75
mph. Same procedure as the recovery with the Ultrastar.
Landed in the mountains of North Alabama, nose down in the
hardwoods without injury to me. Aircraft totaled.
May 1990, Aubrey Radford, near Atlanta, GA, failed wing on
original Firestar, low altitude, deployed Second Chantz
balistic chute, got full canopy, kevlar bridal contacted
sharp edge of some part of the engine mount severing it.
Results were fatal.
There are more that I can not think of at the moment.
My Ultrastar accident was caused by failure of a butt welded
arm pulling out of the 4130 tube it was welded to. Plans
called for a brace. Was a factory weld job that came
without the brace.
The two Firestar accidents were caused by severely
overstressing the aircraft, by both pilots, over a long
period of time. In my case, 755 flight hours. I do not
know how many hours Aubrey had on his Firestar.
In both Firestar cases, we proved that they were not
designed nor built to be flown aerobatically. That an
aircraft starts with a whole number. Each time we stress
(overstress) the aircraft we subtract from the whole number
until we get to the point of asking the aircraft to do
something and it fails.
I was a paratrooper in the Army. I knew parachutes worked.
Without my parachute I would have died in either accident.
Paid $500.00 for my Handbury. Costs me $250 a whack to save
my hide. Cheap insurance.
I learned a lot about the Firestar failure:
Do not perform aerobatics in an aircraft not designed to
perform them.
Parachutes save lives.
Because I get away with performing a maneuver once or many
times, does not mean I can get away with it forever. So,
now I fly my Mark III as a good old utility type aircraft.
I still have a lot of fun with that old airplane, even
though she has done nothing more than some stalls,
wingovers, spins, and fun off field flying.
I flew with a G Meter in the Firestar (also had it in the
Ultrastar for a short period of time) and have one in my
Mark III. I do not use it now to measure g's from aerobatic
maneuvers, but it tells me how hard I am flying, how
turbulent the air is, and how much stress I am placing on
the airplane.
The Ultrastar and Firestar were rated at 4+ and 2- g's. I
was never able to pull more than 4 g's on the Ultrastar and
pulled 5 g's in the Firestar a couple times. Both times it
was done intentionally to see how much stess I could place
on the aircraft. Most of my maneuvers were 2.5 to 3.5 g's,
less than what the aircraft was rated. So why did the wings
fail? I am not an engineer but I believe that stress is
cumulative. After a period of time, heavily stressing an
airframe, it will give up and fail.
Had I flown the Ultrastar and Firestar in the envelope that
Homer Kolb designed it for, I would probably have three
airplanes at Gantt International AP, instead of one.
Fly safe, use a balistic chute for backup. There are many
more ways to get in a situation that requires a parachute
for safe recovery and survival than structural failure. As
long as Murphy is out there, and he always will be, those
situations are going to confront us all.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Airgriff2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 30 Msgs - 11/26/01structural failures |
In a message dated 11/27/01 2:51:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes>
> Does the front halves of the wings folding back to the main spar, fall
> into the catagory of strutural failures ? Sorry (John H.) There have been
> cases where Kolbs have been over stressed beyond their design, such as
> doing aerobatics, and cases such as a builder forgetting to install the
> main spar to lift strut attachment bolt, which resulted in wings folding.
> Under normal conditions which would include tha plane, pilot, and weather,
> kolbs are a very safe plane to fly. Oh and I do fly my MK3 with a recovery
> system.
Bob G Albany NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon LaVasseur <firestar503(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative to Comtronics Patchset for ICOM A5? |
Randy,
I suggest you discuss the possiblility of a free
adapter with ICOM before buying the radio as they have
been supplying them free at shows. I found them
ageeable to supplying a free cord even after I bought
my A-5.
ICOM has a proptietary mini plug on the cord and they
will only sell the plug to an oem organization. It
may be available somewhere but I couldn't find it.
If you can't get a free cord, contact Tim or Cheri
Bruno at RAD Electronics in Wisconsin. They're good
people and run a great company.
Firestar503
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Rains <rr(at)htg.net> |
| Subject: | Structural failures? |
Kind of makes me wonder how may hours on an airframe could be considered
excessive. I fly my FireStar II conservatively, but it lands in some
terrible places. With about 621 hours on my Kolb should I be considering a
replacement? How about it, how many hour do you guys have on your
aircraft?
Dave Rains
FireStar II
and winter project.......
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hauck [SMTP:hawk36(at)mindspring.com]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Structural failures?
--> I am not an engineer but I believe that stress is
cumulative. After a period of time, heavily stressing an
airframe, it will give up and fail.
SNIP>===================================================================
====
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Structural failures? |
With about 621 hours on my Kolb should I be considering a
> replacement? How about it, how many hour do you guys have on your
> aircraft?
> Dave Rains
Dave and Gang:
Flown as the Kolb is designed to be flown, I do not think
you could wear it out, provided the aircraft is thoroughly
inspected from end to end. Remember, the original Firestar
had a 5 rib wing panel. Five main ribs fabricated from .028
6061 tubing. I flew mine like it was a fully certified
aerobatic aircraft. She was also heavy, 18 gal alum fuel
tank, all my camping and personal gear, plus 3 gals of two
stroke oil at the beginning of each extended cross country.
I also flew her in all kinds of weather at higher than
normal airspeeds. Plus thousands of aerobatic maneuvers
that were not necessarily performed well. A couple wing tip
strikes to loosen up and break some of the small 5/16
lateral bracing to keep the noses of the wing ribs in
column, plus 755 hard flown hours, was a recipe for
disaster. I think I said in my previous post that if I had
flown my airplanes normally, I probably would have three in
the hanger at Gantt International instead of one.
Miss P'fer, my 1991 Mark III, has 1,636.2 hours on her
airframe and 290.3 hours on her new 912S.
My own personal feelings: Lateral bracing in each wing
section is extremely important. Frequently, in the old 5
rib wing, lateral bracing would break from vibration and use
alone. If you don't have inpection plates to check the
braces, cut a hole or two through the inboard wing rib
fabric to check them. I would cut two small holes. One to
peep through and one to insert the head of a small
flashlight. I would not fly with a broken brace. These
little braces plus the bow tip are all that are holding the
noses of the ribs in column.
I go overboard now on wing bracing. Once is enough.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Structural failures? |
John,
Yes, engines do fail but normally you retain the ability to control the
aircraft which isn't the case in most major structural failures.
The engine killer is when the engine cuts out during a steep climb, the
pilot has to abruptly push over the nose to recover air speed and just as
he does, the wind milling engines catches and due to the right thrust line
drives the aircraft nose first into the ground. Don't make showoff high
climb rate takeoffs.
Anyone doing aerobatics in a plane not so rated for the potential stress
levels is living on borrowed time. As my aerobatics instructor told me,
you could do general aerobatics in a Cessna but do it wrong just that one
time and you over stress the aircraft and it may come apart. Your lucky to
be here with us today twice over.
Besides the FireFly I also have a CGS Hawk. The FireFly wing is quite
rigid compared to the Hawks which uses smaller dia. tubing. I can see it
flex while flying. But they have proved to be strong airplanes. During
the construction of the wing for my ThunderGull kit and seeing how flimsy
the parts are, I have seriously reconsidered getting a chute for it. After
you start Clecoing it together, it actually becomes quite strong but still
leaves me nervous. Other than the Gull, I've stuck to aircraft produced by
companies having a long term track record. Even the Gull has been around
for a while but they only have a small amount of aircraft in the field
compared to others.
jerryb
>
>
> > Normally a structural failure is considered the failure of any flight
> > component necessary to maintain controllable flight.
> > jerryb
>
>
>Jerry and Gang:
>
>Your reply to my question covers about anything that
>breaks. Engine failures, unfortunately also cause
>casualties, i.e., many result in stalls close to the
>ground. It is very difficult and unnatural to push the nose
>over to recover from a stall close to the ground. Most of
>the time there just isn't enough altitude to recover.
>
>IMHO any airplane will break given the right conditions.
>Might take a while to stress things until they finally give
>up, but eventually they will, no matter how strong we think
>our airplanes are. Dennis Souder did not think the wing was
>going to fold on the factory Ultrastar he was testing. But
>pushed far enough and the drag strut pushed out of column,
>failed, allowing the wing to swing back along side the
>fuselage. Dennis deployed a Jim Handbury hand deployed
>parachute and lived to fly the same Ultrastar after
>repairs. The result of the failure was the drag strut
>brace/s on Kolb aircraft.
>
>I personally, am a two time member of the Catapillar Club.
>If you want to learn more about the Catapillar Club, go to:
>
>http://home.twcny.rr.com/caterpillarclub/
>
>In 1985, the upper aileron bell crank broke at 200 feet, 75
>mph. Ultrastar does not fly without ailerons. Hand
>deployed my Jim Handbury chest type parachute. Landed in a
>wooded area, nose down (90 degrees) without injury to me.
>Aircraft totaled.
>
>In March 1990, leading edges of both wings failed, almost
>simultaneously, on my original Firestar at 500 feet, 75
>mph. Same procedure as the recovery with the Ultrastar.
>Landed in the mountains of North Alabama, nose down in the
>hardwoods without injury to me. Aircraft totaled.
>
>May 1990, Aubrey Radford, near Atlanta, GA, failed wing on
>original Firestar, low altitude, deployed Second Chantz
>balistic chute, got full canopy, kevlar bridal contacted
>sharp edge of some part of the engine mount severing it.
>Results were fatal.
>
>There are more that I can not think of at the moment.
>
>My Ultrastar accident was caused by failure of a butt welded
>arm pulling out of the 4130 tube it was welded to. Plans
>called for a brace. Was a factory weld job that came
>without the brace.
>
>The two Firestar accidents were caused by severely
>overstressing the aircraft, by both pilots, over a long
>period of time. In my case, 755 flight hours. I do not
>know how many hours Aubrey had on his Firestar.
>
>In both Firestar cases, we proved that they were not
>designed nor built to be flown aerobatically. That an
>aircraft starts with a whole number. Each time we stress
>(overstress) the aircraft we subtract from the whole number
>until we get to the point of asking the aircraft to do
>something and it fails.
>
>I was a paratrooper in the Army. I knew parachutes worked.
>Without my parachute I would have died in either accident.
>Paid $500.00 for my Handbury. Costs me $250 a whack to save
>my hide. Cheap insurance.
>
>I learned a lot about the Firestar failure:
>
>Do not perform aerobatics in an aircraft not designed to
>perform them.
>
>Parachutes save lives.
>
>Because I get away with performing a maneuver once or many
>times, does not mean I can get away with it forever. So,
>now I fly my Mark III as a good old utility type aircraft.
>I still have a lot of fun with that old airplane, even
>though she has done nothing more than some stalls,
>wingovers, spins, and fun off field flying.
>
>I flew with a G Meter in the Firestar (also had it in the
>Ultrastar for a short period of time) and have one in my
>Mark III. I do not use it now to measure g's from aerobatic
>maneuvers, but it tells me how hard I am flying, how
>turbulent the air is, and how much stress I am placing on
>the airplane.
>
>The Ultrastar and Firestar were rated at 4+ and 2- g's. I
>was never able to pull more than 4 g's on the Ultrastar and
>pulled 5 g's in the Firestar a couple times. Both times it
>was done intentionally to see how much stess I could place
>on the aircraft. Most of my maneuvers were 2.5 to 3.5 g's,
>less than what the aircraft was rated. So why did the wings
>fail? I am not an engineer but I believe that stress is
>cumulative. After a period of time, heavily stressing an
>airframe, it will give up and fail.
>
>Had I flown the Ultrastar and Firestar in the envelope that
>Homer Kolb designed it for, I would probably have three
>airplanes at Gantt International AP, instead of one.
>
>Fly safe, use a balistic chute for backup. There are many
>more ways to get in a situation that requires a parachute
>for safe recovery and survival than structural failure. As
>long as Murphy is out there, and he always will be, those
>situations are going to confront us all.
>
>john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Structural failures? |
> Yes, engines do fail but normally you retain the ability to control the
> aircraft which isn't the case in most major structural failures.
> jerryb
Jerry and Gang:
My opinion, most Kolb fatalities occur because of engine
failure which leads the unwary pilot to a stall close to the
ground. The other factor of many fatal accidents is plain
old stalling close to the ground.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Williamson" <jawmson(at)dellepro.com> |
| Subject: | Wiring in the wing |
I am ready to run wire for my Nav/Strobe lights on the wing tips.
How have some of you routed these cables/wires thru the wing?
Thanks,
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
King Kolbra, SN 008, Jabiru 2200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring in the wing |
In a message dated 11/27/01 9:52:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jawmson(at)dellepro.com writes:
> How have some of you routed these cables/wires thru the wing?
Down the trailing edge. Makes the most sense because it doesn't
interfere with folding.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III
N496BM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Paint volumes |
Three coats, and it was a real pain...
If I remember right; (HAH!) I used three gallons of Polybrush,
most of a five gallon pail of clear Polysomething,
most of a five gallon pail of silver Poly whatever,
three gallons of cream, half a gllon of light blue trim,
half a gallon of dark blue trim.
Plus three quarts of Polytak, about 8 gallons of thinner,
and five gallons of MEK. (Wheee!)
If you use an HVLP sprayer that uses heated air, make sure that
you get thinner that is appropriate for your air temp, or you will
cobweb the fool out of the thing. (Guess how I know this?)
Also: do not let Stits painted parts rest touching each other for at
least a couple days after you have painted them, or the paints will
melt together and pull the paint off of one side.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>Anybody know the whole paintable area of a MkIII classic?
>
>Or, how mubh pain you used for how many coats?
>
>thanks
>
>=====
>John & Lynn Richmond :-)
>Palm Coast, Fl.
>Mk3 269LJ, 582, 41 hrs
>1,400 miles, longest=270
>
>http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring in the wing |
> How have some of you routed these cables/wires thru the wing?
>
> Thanks,
> John Williamson
> Arlington, TX
John and Gang:
Through that big 6" conduit in the middle of the wing, the
main spar tube.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JIMMY HANKINSON <jhankin(at)planters.net> |
eliminated it. Hope this did not affect anyone. Thanks
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: | "Cim & Tindy" <townsend(at)webound.com> |
Glad you came out ok.
That was a nasty one but I caught it.
Cool,,, That happened to me once.
Our Best
Tim & Cindy Townsend
----- Original Message -----
From: JIMMY HANKINSON
To: KOLB LIST
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 9:45 PM
eliminated it. Hope this did not affect anyone. Thanks
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
=
[########---------------------15.8%----------------------------]
=
=
messages.
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/kolb-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Structural failures? |
John,
Not sure where this thread is going. We've gone from a persons question
about history of any structural failures on Kolbs to engine failures.
I don't consider structural failures caused from over stressing the
airframe by performing aerobatics in aircraft not so rated as being a
defect of the airframe. It's simply poor judgement on the pilots part.
A chute isn't going to cure the low level engine failures. Most are
related to stall spin from trying to stretch the glide (experienced pilots
fall prey to this), making a 180 degree turn back to the departing runway
or the engine quitting during a steep (show off) climb where the pilot has
pushed over to recover decaying airspeed and the wind milling engines
restarts causing the aircraft to dive into the ground.
Flying has risk. Does flying ultralights that more risky or is much of it
contributed by flying (behind/in front) of a two stroke engine. When I
started flying our FireFly I was real apprehensive about the Rotax. So far
we've got 140 hours on it and so far so good. Oh, it does have a parachute
only because my partner was encouraged to have one by his wife otherwise I
wouldn't have one on it. Don't have one on my Hawk. Might put one on my
Gull, jury is still out on this one. My true feeling is if you don't trust
the aircraft you shouldn't be flying it.
jerryb
>
>
> > Yes, engines do fail but normally you retain the ability to control the
> > aircraft which isn't the case in most major structural failures.
>
> > jerryb
>
>Jerry and Gang:
>
>My opinion, most Kolb fatalities occur because of engine
>failure which leads the unwary pilot to a stall close to the
>ground. The other factor of many fatal accidents is plain
>old stalling close to the ground.
>
>Take care,
>
>john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring in the wing |
Take a look on my website, under "Building Vamoose." I used 4 conductor
computer cable..............shielded, grounded, and has 2 extra wires for if
I ever decide on wing tip lights.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Williamson" <jawmson(at)dellepro.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Wiring in the wing
>
> I am ready to run wire for my Nav/Strobe lights on the wing tips.
>
> How have some of you routed these cables/wires thru the wing?
>
> Thanks,
> John Williamson
> Arlington, TX
>
> King Kolbra, SN 008, Jabiru 2200
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Brown Tool Gift Certificate Reminder... |
Hi Listers,
Just a reminder that in support of the 2001 Email List Fund Raiser, Michael
Brown of Brown Aviation Tool Supply Co. ( http://www.browntool.com ) has
generously offered to provide Gift Certificates to all Listers making
Contributions of $30 or more this year!
Making your Contribution to support these Email Lists and to qualify for
the Brown Tool Gift Certificate is fast and easy by using the SSL Secure
Credit Card Contribution Web Site at:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or by sending a personal check Contribution to:
Matronics Email Lists
c/o Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore CA 94551-0347
According to Michael, "The Gift Certificates have absolutely no strings
attached and are as good as cash for anything from the Brown Tool Web Site
or Catalog."
The amount of your Gift Certificate is based on the size of your List
Contribution and is according to the following:
$100 or greater Contribution receives a $25 Gift Certificate!
or
$30-$99 Contribution receives a $10 Gift Certificate!
==================== How To Receive Your Certificate ====================
To receive your Brown Tool Gift Certificate, send an email message to:
browntooloffer(at)matronics.com
and include the following information:
1) Subject Line: Tool Offer
2) Which Gift Certificate you qualify for ($10 or $25)
3) [Your Name]
4) [Your Mailing Address]
5) [Your City, State Zip]
** Please only use the email address shown above (
browntooloffer(at)matronics.com ) to request your Gift Certificate!
*** Anyone making a List Contribution of $30 or more in 2001 qualifies for
the Gift Certificate! But, you have to follow the instructions above to
receive it!
==================== How To Receive Your Certificate ====================
You should receive your Gift Certificate from Brown Tool in about 2-4 weeks.
I want to thank Michael Brown of Brown Aviation Tool Supply Co. for this
wonderful offer in support of the Email Lists! If you haven't yet had a
look at the Brown Tool Web Site ( http://www.browntool.com ), then you own
it to yourself to take a peek! He has some great deals and good quality tools.
I would like to thank everyone that has already made a Contribution in this
year's Fund Raiser!
Thank you!!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Structural failures? |
Morning Jerry and Gang:
Let me see if I can comment on your post before I get back
to my chores.
> I don't consider structural failures caused from over stressing the
> airframe by performing aerobatics in aircraft not so rated as being a
> defect of the airframe.
I agree with the above. However, it doesn't matter whether
the airframe has a defect or not, if it fails, for whatever
reason, I'd like to be able to pull the red handle, hear the
pop, and feel the tug when the canopy opens.
Most are
> related to..........the engine quitting during a steep (show off) climb where
the pilot has
> pushed over to recover decaying airspeed and the wind milling engines
> restarts causing the aircraft to dive into the ground.
I, personally, am not aware of any accidents caused by what
is described above. I have yet to see a two or four stroke
ultralight engine wind mill, unless they have one of those
redrive clutches (I have no experience with them).
Oh, it does have a parachute
> only because my partner was encouraged to have one by his wife otherwise I
> wouldn't have one on it.
Parachutes are personal things. To each his own, whether to
fly with or without.
My true feeling is if you don't trust
> the aircraft you shouldn't be flying it.
> jerry b
If I don't trust an aircraft I won't fly it. I don't fly
with a parachute because the airplane is going to break. I
fly with it so if it does break, or I have a midair, or a
buzzard comes through the windshield, or I find myself in a
hazzardous area where I should not have been in the first
place, with an engine failure, I have one more possible out,
or get caught in severe weather that the airplane and I can
not handle, etc.
My entire Army flying career, I never flew with a
parachute. I know of many instances where it would have
been nice to have had that capability to survive.
A parachute to me is excess baggage/weight/expense when I
don't need it. But when I do, it is worth its weight in
gold.
Take care,
john h
PS: Parachutes are not for perfect pilots flying perfect
airplanes in a perfect aviation environment. Parachutes are
for folks like me who fly in the real world, where Murphy is
always awake and waiting for the most inopportune time to
pounce on the unsuspecting aviator, for the times when I
make a critical mistake, or someone else does that involves
me and my life.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Structural failures? |
John and Gang,
John I think the comments below justifying having a chute were well
put. Best I've seen. I hope the gentlemen that started this thread reads
them. As for the climb, quit, restart thing, we one guy in the area in a
Mk-III for that very reason. There was another case of it but I can't
recall exactly where it was now. So if the engines dead pull the throttle
back (close it).
jerryb
>
>Morning Jerry and Gang:
>
>Let me see if I can comment on your post before I get back
>to my chores.
>
> > I don't consider structural failures caused from over stressing the
> > airframe by performing aerobatics in aircraft not so rated as being a
> > defect of the airframe.
>
>I agree with the above. However, it doesn't matter whether
>the airframe has a defect or not, if it fails, for whatever
>reason, I'd like to be able to pull the red handle, hear the
>pop, and feel the tug when the canopy opens.
>
> Most are
> > related to..........the engine quitting during a steep (show off) climb
> where the pilot has
> > pushed over to recover decaying airspeed and the wind milling engines
> > restarts causing the aircraft to dive into the ground.
>
>I, personally, am not aware of any accidents caused by what
>is described above. I have yet to see a two or four stroke
>ultralight engine wind mill, unless they have one of those
>redrive clutches (I have no experience with them).
>
> Oh, it does have a parachute
> > only because my partner was encouraged to have one by his wife otherwise I
> > wouldn't have one on it.
>
>Parachutes are personal things. To each his own, whether to
>fly with or without.
>
> My true feeling is if you don't trust
> > the aircraft you shouldn't be flying it.
> > jerry b
>
>If I don't trust an aircraft I won't fly it. I don't fly
>with a parachute because the airplane is going to break. I
>fly with it so if it does break, or I have a midair, or a
>buzzard comes through the windshield, or I find myself in a
>hazzardous area where I should not have been in the first
>place, with an engine failure, I have one more possible out,
>or get caught in severe weather that the airplane and I can
>not handle, etc.
>
>My entire Army flying career, I never flew with a
>parachute. I know of many instances where it would have
>been nice to have had that capability to survive.
>
>A parachute to me is excess baggage/weight/expense when I
>don't need it. But when I do, it is worth its weight in
>gold.
>
>Take care,
>
>john h
>
>PS: Parachutes are not for perfect pilots flying perfect
>airplanes in a perfect aviation environment. Parachutes are
>for folks like me who fly in the real world, where Murphy is
>always awake and waiting for the most inopportune time to
>pounce on the unsuspecting aviator, for the times when I
>make a critical mistake, or someone else does that involves
>me and my life.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | lateral bracing in forward wing bay |
Lateral bracing in each wing
> section is extremely important. Frequently, in the old 5
> rib wing, lateral bracing would break from vibration and use
> alone. If you don't have inpection plates to check the
> braces, cut a hole or two through the inboard wing rib
> fabric to check them
This is another of the few areas on the Kolb that I always thought was
wimpy. I wish they extended the inboard steel rib all the way to the
nose... sure it adds a couple of pounds but it would really help this area.
I am going to be putting in significant additional support on my wings
either as diagonal tubes from the nose of each rib to near the spar of the
next rib, or one real big strong one at each end. John did the ribs fail,
inboard or outboard?
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lateral bracing in forward wing bay |
Topher and Gang:
There are a lot of things on my MK III, and were on my
Ultrastar and Firestar, that were not seen by the public.
Some that I have forgotten about until reminded by folks on
this List.
I wish they extended the inboard steel rib all the way to
the
> nose... sure it adds a couple of pounds but it would really help this area.
The inboard ribs of my MK III are 4130, tip to tail. In
fact, after I broke the Firestar, I convinced Brother Jim to
weld me up a full 4130 outboard rib. My last near death
experience had really gotten my attention. I even went so
far as to replace all false ribs with the forward end of a
full rib. Split a main spar gusset in half and built the
nose ribs. These wings were built like a tank, big over
build, and weighed about as much. Those wings got
destroyed, which is another story for another time.
I didn't weigh the difference between alum and steel noses,
but I do not think there is that much difference in weight.
> I am going to be putting in significant additional support on my wings
> either as diagonal tubes from the nose of each rib to near the spar of the
> next rib, or one real big strong one at each end.
I used 1/2 and 3/8 alum tubing for lateral bracing of the
leading edge. Also braced the bowtip with 1/2 in line with
the main spar and at 45 deg between the leading edge and the
main spar. To stiffen these already stiff braces even more,
I riveted .032 alum gusset between the top and bottom tube
of the bowtip braces. As heavy as my MK III is, I can lift
the airplane main gear (one at a time, of course) by pushing
up on the bow tip of the wing. Bowtip does not flex.
John did the ribs fail,
> inboard or outboard?
Topher, the leading edges failed between the number 1 and 2
main ribs (counting from the outboard end), at the top and
bottom rivet that holds on the false ribs. Same exact
position on both wings. The leading edge pulled up, pulling
the noses laterally toward that location and then back to
the main spar. In effect, I had two 18" spoilers deployed
vertically in a split second. It was two almost
simultaneous explosions, right wing then left wing. Turned
the aircraft right 90 deg to my path of flight, then 90 deg
nose down. Blanked out all controls. No feeling in
ailerons, rudder, or elevators. At 500 feet the ground
rushed up awfully fast. I learned my lesson the hard way.
Looked death square in the eyeball and was prepared for it
when I got the opening shock of the parachute at tree top
level. Went through the hard woods in a flash. Nose of the
Firestar stopped 6 inches from the ground. I unstrapped and
stepped out without a scratch. Every day I still thank God
for giving me another chance at life. That has been almost
12 years ago. It is still indelible written in my mind.
But for the grace of God and the Jim Handbury hand deployed
parachute, I have the opportunity to enjoy flying the little
airplane I built in the basement. What an adventure it has
been since then, without the aid of aerobatics.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lateral bracing in forward wing bay |
Hey Gang:
Some corrections to my last post:
To stiffen these already stiff braces even more,
> I riveted .032 alum gusset between the top and bottom tube
> of the bowtip braces.
"gusset" should have red "web".
>
> Topher, the leading edges failed between the number 1 and 2
> main ribs (counting from the outboard end), at the top and
> bottom rivet that holds on the false ribs.
"number 1 and 2" should have read "number 2 and 3".
Now I feel better and can get back to my chores. There
seems to be no end. Would rather be flying.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lateral bracing in forward wing bay |
--- Christopher John Armstrong wrote:
>
> This is another of the few areas on the Kolb that I always thought
> was
> wimpy. I wish they extended the inboard steel rib all the way to the
> nose... sure it adds a couple of pounds but it would really help this
> area.
5/16" 4130 tubing times about 2.5 feet each side is pretty minor -- i'd
guess under a pound total. This indicates how hard Kolb was trying to
save weight -- every opportunity!!! In their opinion, AL noses were
okay, and I'm inclined to believe them, as it seems the only structural
failure from leading edge breakage was John torturing his plane for a
few years. :) Also, changing to steel here does precious little in
terms of lateral bracing. Perhaps lateral bracing is the main (or
only) advantage for those who have decided to sheet AL cover their
leading edge to main spar area -- uh, I don't spose any of those owners
want to go out and do the real deal Dennis Souder test tho. :)
One other point of weakness, but not necessarily a point of failure
under normal aerodynamic loads, is the holes drilled for fabric
covering. When my FS got flipped from broken tie-downs, the most
common place of failed ribs was at those fabric pop rivet holes. If
starting from new, I'd do rib stitching instead.
-Ben Ransom
=====
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lateral bracing in forward wing bay |
>I am going to be putting in significant additional support on my wings
>either as diagonal tubes from the nose of each rib to near the spar of the
>next rib, or one real big strong one at each end.
>
>Topher
I put the small alum. angles from the nose of each rib gusset to the top of
the gusset that slides
over the wing spar. Minimal amount of weight - maybe 1.5 lbs including the
rvets.
Don't you "Slingshot" guys do the same thing??
I knew Aubrey Radford, and that seems to be where his wings failed too.
BTW - I think his old Second chance chute had a nylon bridle instead of
kevlor, not that it would have made any difference at 120+ mph and his weight.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lateral bracing in forward wing bay |
When my FS got flipped from broken tie-downs, the most
> common place of failed ribs was at those fabric pop rivet holes. If
> starting from new, I'd do rib stitching instead.
> -Ben Ransom
Ben and Gang:
I have seen rib stitch failures on Kolb aircraft and never a
broken rib at the fabric rivet home caused by flying (in the
air). A broken rib tube at the fabric rivet hole is usually
caused by wing hitting ground, poles, trucks, cars,
tractors, trees, wind socks, and 6 inch steel water pipe
gate posts. Usually, the broken rib stitching is repaired
with fabric rivets. Most common area for failure is on top
of wing near prop.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
Do we have any rated Glider Pilots among the list.
A thought hit me one day we were up flying and had strong head wind. I
read some things about gliding that when they hit a drown draft they
increase their speed to reduce the amount of time their within the down
draft. Say you turned on final to land and your going against a strong
head wind. (Note this may only apply in strong head wind conditions.) If
the engine were to quite, would you be better to increase your speed to
reach the runway quicker or maintain the normal approach speed thereby
taking longer to cover the distance while loosing precious altitude?
jerryb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce n' Kathy" <n3nrr(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lateral bracing in forward wing bay |
got the photo of the old farm but the edges loook kinda rough, are you
dpi blac& w Grey 256 in JPg
It sure is a neet picture!
--
Bruce n' Kathy
Come and visit us at http://www.frugalbee.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring in the wing |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
>
>
> I am ready to run wire for my Nav/Strobe lights on the wing tips.
>
> How have some of you routed these cables/wires thru the wing?
>
> Thanks,
> John Williamson
> Arlington, TX
>
> King Kolbra, SN 008, Jabiru 2200
John,
I ran mine through the main spar tying a knot in the cable at each end so
it doesn't pull out of the wing. The cable exits at the bowtip in line
with the spar on the bottom of the wing. Add a connector and some slack
for wing fold. I use velcro on the inboard rib to hold the extra cable
while flying.
My strobes have lasted for 15 years without any problems (ILLUSION
STROBES).
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
> the engine were to quit, would you be better to increase your speed
> to reach the runway quicker or maintain the normal approach speed
> thereby taking longer to cover the distance while loosing precious
> altitude?
> jerryb
Jerry,
The way I do it is to maintain plenty of airspeed all the way to the
ground in a heavy wind. When the plane drops below a tree line, it can
stall easily because of the "wind shadow" that it's in. Extra airspeed
always results in better control during landing in winds.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Structural failures? |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
writes:
> I think I said in my previous post that if I had
> flown my airplanes normally, I probably would have three in
> the hanger at Gantt International instead of one.
> Take care,
>
> john h
John and others,
My Original Firestar has 650 flight hours on it with a 5-rib wing. It
also has been trailered back and forth to my flying site over 15 years.
The only problem I've had with the airframe has been that pesky 1/4"
brace from the TE outboard corner to the spar. I have replaced both with
5/16". The left wing brace broke a 2nd time and have since repaired it
with an aluminum bracket instead of bending the tube. This should fix it
for awhile.
I'm a "straight-and-level" pilot and even though I've been tempted to do
a loop or so, I haven't tried it and won't. Maybe this explains why the
'ol Firestar has hung in there with me.
One more thing ...... my LE wing tube is .035" while all early Firestars
had .028" thickness. I installed 3 additional diagonal 3/8" braces with
flattened ends from the LE to the spar along the wing which were not in
the plans.
Was yours .028" when it failed, John?
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ALLENB007(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
Jerry,
I am a commercial glider pilot and have been flying glider for 13 years.
Have owned a Firefly and now own a Grob 109A Motorglider. You are right,
glider pilots when encountering strong "sink", same as downdrafts, will
increase speed to get through and out of the "sink". They are trying to get
to the next "lift" area.
However, my thoughts on a strong headwind is to fly the "best glide" speed so
you are optimizing the performance of the plane. Too slow and you don't get
as far, too fast and you don't get as far, just quicker. I myself have
thought of times in a glider where I might be too low how much would I gain
by dropping the nose, picking up speed and pulling up to maximize the energy.
Keep in mind, I'm talking about gliders with a glide ratio of anywhere from
23 to 1 on up to 30-1 glide ratio.
As we all know, ultralights are extremely "dirty" and won't have the glider
characteristics have.
Just my thoughts on the issue,
Allen Bellamy
USUA BFI Instructor, ultralight lover as well as gliders.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Coggins, Josh, NPONS" <joshcoggins(at)att.com> |
| Subject: | Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
I used to fly sailplanes (FYI, sailplane pilots NEVER refer to their
sailplanes as gliders). I would have to say the best choice would be to fly
at "best glide speed". Best glide speed is the angle of attack and related
airspeed which allows your plane to go the furthest forward for a given
vertical descent. All other speeds, faster or slower will result in landing
in a shorter distance. If you fly faster than best glide speed, then drag
increases dramatically and you land short. If you fly slower then you spend
more altitude fighting the headwind and land short. I doubt if ultralight
manufacturers normally test for this best glide speed since most ultralights
glide like a sack of bricks!
Sailplane pilots do increase airspeed while flying through sink to
minimize the amount of time spent in sink to get to the next thermal, but
this is usually because the tasks they are flying are timed and if lift is
abundant, then they can afford to trade altitude for distance. If lift
isn't abundant, then they are more likely to fly at best glide speed to go
the furthest and hopefully get to the next thermal. If they are getting low
then they usually reduce speed to "minimum sink speed" which gives them more
time in the air to find a thermal. But, remember that modern sailplanes can
have glide ratios of 60:1 or better! That is a whole different situation
than our 10:1 glide ratio ultralights, but the basic flight principles still
apply to both types of aircraft.
-----Original Message-----
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com [mailto:ul15rhb(at)juno.com]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Safety - Glide after Engine Out
> the engine were to quit, would you be better to increase your speed
> to reach the runway quicker or maintain the normal approach speed
> thereby taking longer to cover the distance while loosing precious
> altitude?
> jerryb
Jerry,
The way I do it is to maintain plenty of airspeed all the way to the
ground in a heavy wind. When the plane drops below a tree line, it can
stall easily because of the "wind shadow" that it's in. Extra airspeed
always results in better control during landing in winds.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce n' Kathy" <n3nrr(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lateral bracing in forward wing bay |
Sorry bout the bogus post.
I do read This Kolb list but somehow!
beyond my guru thoughts. I replyed to this list instead of the user.
I am not yet flying my Kolb U.S yet. I am trying to finish up My sabre
trike training first.
Anyhow Hello and I will be on the sidelines reading
Thanks all.
Bruce n' Kathy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: lateral bracing in forward wing bay |
> 5/16" 4130 tubing times about 2.5 feet each side is pretty minor -- i'd
> guess under a pound total. This indicates how hard Kolb was trying to
> save weight -- every opportunity!!! In their opinion, AL noses were
> okay, and I'm inclined to believe them, as it seems the only structural
> failure from leading edge breakage was John torturing his plane for a
> few years. :) Also, changing to steel here does precious little in
> terms of lateral bracing.
I'm no structural genius, but I think it would be hugely effective. you try
bending the inboard rib ever. compare that to the nose section, big
difference. the nose tube would carry that stiffness all the way to the
tip. I will probably go with ribstiching too.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Weber" <bweber2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
This is not quite correct, as can easily be demonstrated. If the wind is at
or greater than your 'best glide speed', you will need to go faster than
that to make any forward progress at all!!
Best glide will give you the greatest time aloft (smallest sink rate). It
will not give best distance when going upwind.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Coggins, Josh, NPONS <joshcoggins(at)att.com>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Safety - Glide after Engine Out
>
> I used to fly sailplanes (FYI, sailplane pilots NEVER refer to their
> sailplanes as gliders). I would have to say the best choice would be to
fly
> at "best glide speed". Best glide speed is the angle of attack and
related
> airspeed which allows your plane to go the furthest forward for a given
> vertical descent. All other speeds, faster or slower will result in
landing
> in a shorter distance. If you fly faster than best glide speed, then drag
> increases dramatically and you land short. If you fly slower then you
spend
> more altitude fighting the headwind and land short. I doubt if ultralight
> manufacturers normally test for this best glide speed since most
ultralights
> glide like a sack of bricks!
> Sailplane pilots do increase airspeed while flying through sink to
> minimize the amount of time spent in sink to get to the next thermal, but
> this is usually because the tasks they are flying are timed and if lift is
> abundant, then they can afford to trade altitude for distance. If lift
> isn't abundant, then they are more likely to fly at best glide speed to go
> the furthest and hopefully get to the next thermal. If they are getting
low
> then they usually reduce speed to "minimum sink speed" which gives them
more
> time in the air to find a thermal. But, remember that modern sailplanes
can
> have glide ratios of 60:1 or better! That is a whole different situation
> than our 10:1 glide ratio ultralights, but the basic flight principles
still
> apply to both types of aircraft.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com [mailto:ul15rhb(at)juno.com]
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Safety - Glide after Engine Out
>
>
> > the engine were to quit, would you be better to increase your speed
> > to reach the runway quicker or maintain the normal approach speed
> > thereby taking longer to cover the distance while loosing precious
> > altitude?
> > jerryb
>
> Jerry,
>
> The way I do it is to maintain plenty of airspeed all the way to the
> ground in a heavy wind. When the plane drops below a tree line, it can
> stall easily because of the "wind shadow" that it's in. Extra airspeed
> always results in better control during landing in winds.
>
> Ralph Burlingame
> Original Firestar
> 15 years flying it
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Structural failures? |
> One more thing ...... my LE wing tube is .035" while all early Firestars
> had .028" thickness. I
> Was yours .028" when it failed, John?
>
> Ralph Burlingame
Ralph and Gang:
Mine was .028", same as my MK III, sn: M3-011. New MK
III's use .035".
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
The objective of my question was in high wind situation, would you loose
less altitude over all by increasing your airspeed or less by gliding at
normal best glide speed which extends you time in the air but perhaps not
your distance thus coming in short. Give this some thought.
This concept is only for discussion, don't try this with your UL.
jerryb
>
>
> > the engine were to quit, would you be better to increase your speed
> > to reach the runway quicker or maintain the normal approach speed
> > thereby taking longer to cover the distance while loosing precious
> > altitude?
> > jerryb
>
>Jerry,
>
>The way I do it is to maintain plenty of airspeed all the way to the
>ground in a heavy wind. When the plane drops below a tree line, it can
>stall easily because of the "wind shadow" that it's in. Extra airspeed
>always results in better control during landing in winds.
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original Firestar
>15 years flying it
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
Bill,
I think your catching on to what I am questioning. I was on final against
a strong head wind. If I had loss my engine and continued at the best
glide speed I could have landed 3 times in the short approach distance. My
forward progress was to slow. However, it appeared that if i had dropped
the nose and increased my airspeed I might have made the runway. I see
this may only apply where you have a strong head wing. OK, flame
away. It's time to learn.
jerryb
>
>This is not quite correct, as can easily be demonstrated. If the wind is at
>or greater than your 'best glide speed', you will need to go faster than
>that to make any forward progress at all!!
>
>Best glide will give you the greatest time aloft (smallest sink rate). It
>will not give best distance when going upwind.
>
>Bill
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Coggins, Josh, NPONS <joshcoggins(at)att.com>
>To:
>Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Safety - Glide after Engine Out
>
>
>
> >
> > I used to fly sailplanes (FYI, sailplane pilots NEVER refer to their
> > sailplanes as gliders). I would have to say the best choice would be to
>fly
> > at "best glide speed". Best glide speed is the angle of attack and
>related
> > airspeed which allows your plane to go the furthest forward for a given
> > vertical descent. All other speeds, faster or slower will result in
>landing
> > in a shorter distance. If you fly faster than best glide speed, then drag
> > increases dramatically and you land short. If you fly slower then you
>spend
> > more altitude fighting the headwind and land short. I doubt if ultralight
> > manufacturers normally test for this best glide speed since most
>ultralights
> > glide like a sack of bricks!
> > Sailplane pilots do increase airspeed while flying through sink to
> > minimize the amount of time spent in sink to get to the next thermal, but
> > this is usually because the tasks they are flying are timed and if lift is
> > abundant, then they can afford to trade altitude for distance. If lift
> > isn't abundant, then they are more likely to fly at best glide speed to go
> > the furthest and hopefully get to the next thermal. If they are getting
>low
> > then they usually reduce speed to "minimum sink speed" which gives them
>more
> > time in the air to find a thermal. But, remember that modern sailplanes
>can
> > have glide ratios of 60:1 or better! That is a whole different situation
> > than our 10:1 glide ratio ultralights, but the basic flight principles
>still
> > apply to both types of aircraft.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com [mailto:ul15rhb(at)juno.com]
> > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Safety - Glide after Engine Out
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > the engine were to quit, would you be better to increase your speed
> > > to reach the runway quicker or maintain the normal approach speed
> > > thereby taking longer to cover the distance while loosing precious
> > > altitude?
> > > jerryb
> >
> > Jerry,
> >
> > The way I do it is to maintain plenty of airspeed all the way to the
> > ground in a heavy wind. When the plane drops below a tree line, it can
> > stall easily because of the "wind shadow" that it's in. Extra airspeed
> > always results in better control during landing in winds.
> >
> > Ralph Burlingame
> > Original Firestar
> > 15 years flying it
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cessna21(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Change of E-Mail Address |
I am trying to keep this Kolb stuff off of my wife's address. Please send
any new mail to:
KolbTwinstar(at)aol.com
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Change of E-Mail Address |
Go to "subscribe" at the bottom of the page.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <Cessna21(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Change of E-Mail Address
>
> I am trying to keep this Kolb stuff off of my wife's address. Please send
> any new mail to:
>
> KolbTwinstar(at)aol.com
>
> Thanks
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Stuart" <cstuart(at)searnet.com> |
----- Original Message -----
| From: | Clay Stuart <cstuart(at)searnet.com> |
I have recently gotten emails from James Sipes, Dean Halstead, and Linda
at Kolb Aircraft, and I couldn't read them because Norton quarantined a
virus
called W32.Badtrans.B@mm. I don't know if there is a connection between
the emails through
this list or Kolb itself.
I tried to respond to James Sipes off-list, but I don't think the email
went
through. I will send this to Linda at Kolb and inform her of the problem.
I have not found any directions in the Mark IIIXtra manual or plans for
setting the rudder pedals on the "sliders". I would assume they are
affixed
with cotter pins through holes drilled in the "sliders". I guess that I
should not do this until I have my seat installed and the proper pedal
distance determined.
Thanks for your advice in advance,
Clay Stuart
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "info" <info(at)aircrafttechsupport.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning my Firefly |
Hi Gene,
Use a mild soap solution (Dawn dishwashing soap works great). If you have
oil, grease, etc, you can use Poly-Fiber paint cleaning solvent sparingly,
(C-2210).
Then, get in it and fly it east a few miles to Millertime airport ( on the
Cinn. sectional) & come see us. This should dry it out!!
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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ledbetter" <gledbetter(at)cinci.rr.com>
Subject: Cleaning my Firefly
> Folks,
> My firefly will be one year old on Thursday and I have been flying it from
a
> grass field in Waynesville, OH. Since I would rather fly than build, my
> firefly was built by LiteSpeed Aviation and has been a joy.
> Since I have been flying from the grass field, the bird is now looking a
> little dirty what with a little mud and grass thrown up when flying a
short
> time after the rain has stopped.
> What do you recommend to wash/clean the Poly-Fiber system fabric?
> Gene Ledbetter
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hans van Alphen" <HVA(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Best Glide Speed in Mark III |
Mark III owners,
What do you feel is your best glide speed in the Mark III. Like to hear your
input ?
Thanks.
Hans van Alphen
almost done Mark III Extra.
BMW powered.
-----Original Message-----
>
>However, my thoughts on a strong headwind is to fly the "best glide" speed
>Just my thoughts on the issue.........................
>Allen Bellamy
>USUA BFI Instructor, ultralight lover as well as gliders.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Contributors Down By 25%... |
Dear Listers,
First I want to thank everyone that has already so generously made a
Contribution toward this year 2001 List Fund Raiser. It is your support
that makes these Lists possible.
Since there are only a couple more days until the official end of this
year's drive, I want to share some statistics regarding this and previous
Fund Raiser percentages. In years past, the percentage of members making a
Contribution to support the Lists has typically been right around 23% of
the total List population. This year, however, you'll note from the
Contribution Meter that we're only at a little over 16% for some
reason. This is down by roughly 7%, and translates into about a *30%
decrease* in participation this year!
I'm hoping that everyone is just waiting until the very last minute to make
their Contribution this year, and that the needle on the Contribution Meter
will still creep up to the normal 23% in the next few days! Saturday or
Sunday I will be posting the 2001 List of Contributors, so you'll want to
heat up that Contribution Web Site right away to make sure your name is on
the 2001 LOC!!
The SSL Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
The US Mail Address:
Matronics Email Lists
c/o Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94550-7227
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thumb" <Bill-Jo(at)prodigy.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: Son of a bitch |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cox" <valpakec(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Son of a bitch
> Quite often we ask ourselves hard to answer questions,
> like, "What is a sonofabitch? "
> And we wax philosophic with metaphysical postulations,
> incomplete aphorisms and inconsistent sophism that
> make
> one more and more sure that the only true thing is
> that a picture is worth a thousand words.
>
> In the attached photo, the guy on the right is
> a member of a bomb squad in midst of a deactivation.
>
> The guy behind him, well, he's a sonofabitch.
>
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thumb" <Bill-Jo(at)prodigy.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: Sons first game |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cox" <valpakec(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Sons first game
> Your son's first game
>
> Tickets to the game $80.00
> First beer with your dad $5.00
> Seeing your first "set" close up..................priceless!
>
> (see attached file)
>
>
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Coggins, Josh, NPONS" <joshcoggins(at)att.com> |
| Subject: | Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
I am no expert, but best glide speed is going to give you the most forward
distance traveled no matter how much wind there is. If the wind is at your
aircraft's best glide speed and you increase your airspeed, drag will
increase causing you to have to further point the nose down, and you will
find that due to the extra drag you will not fly any farther. The thing you
all are forgetting is that drag increases exponentially the faster we fly.
I would venture to say that when in a power off situation, if the wind is
faster than best glide speed then your ground track is always going to be
backwards. This is just my best guess, so take it with a grain of salt ;)
Josh
-----Original Message-----
From: jerryb [mailto:ulflyer(at)airmail.net]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Safety - Glide after Engine Out
Bill,
I think your catching on to what I am questioning. I was on final against
a strong head wind. If I had loss my engine and continued at the best
glide speed I could have landed 3 times in the short approach distance. My
forward progress was to slow. However, it appeared that if i had dropped
the nose and increased my airspeed I might have made the runway. I see
this may only apply where you have a strong head wing. OK, flame
away. It's time to learn.
jerryb
>
>This is not quite correct, as can easily be demonstrated. If the wind is at
>or greater than your 'best glide speed', you will need to go faster than
>that to make any forward progress at all!!
>
>Best glide will give you the greatest time aloft (smallest sink rate). It
>will not give best distance when going upwind.
>
>Bill
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Coggins, Josh, NPONS <joshcoggins(at)att.com>
>To:
>Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Safety - Glide after Engine Out
>
>
>
> >
> > I used to fly sailplanes (FYI, sailplane pilots NEVER refer to their
> > sailplanes as gliders). I would have to say the best choice would be to
>fly
> > at "best glide speed". Best glide speed is the angle of attack and
>related
> > airspeed which allows your plane to go the furthest forward for a given
> > vertical descent. All other speeds, faster or slower will result in
>landing
> > in a shorter distance. If you fly faster than best glide speed, then
drag
> > increases dramatically and you land short. If you fly slower then you
>spend
> > more altitude fighting the headwind and land short. I doubt if
ultralight
> > manufacturers normally test for this best glide speed since most
>ultralights
> > glide like a sack of bricks!
> > Sailplane pilots do increase airspeed while flying through sink
to
> > minimize the amount of time spent in sink to get to the next thermal,
but
> > this is usually because the tasks they are flying are timed and if lift
is
> > abundant, then they can afford to trade altitude for distance. If lift
> > isn't abundant, then they are more likely to fly at best glide speed to
go
> > the furthest and hopefully get to the next thermal. If they are getting
>low
> > then they usually reduce speed to "minimum sink speed" which gives them
>more
> > time in the air to find a thermal. But, remember that modern sailplanes
>can
> > have glide ratios of 60:1 or better! That is a whole different
situation
> > than our 10:1 glide ratio ultralights, but the basic flight principles
>still
> > apply to both types of aircraft.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com [mailto:ul15rhb(at)juno.com]
> > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Safety - Glide after Engine Out
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > the engine were to quit, would you be better to increase your speed
> > > to reach the runway quicker or maintain the normal approach speed
> > > thereby taking longer to cover the distance while loosing precious
> > > altitude?
> > > jerryb
> >
> > Jerry,
> >
> > The way I do it is to maintain plenty of airspeed all the way to the
> > ground in a heavy wind. When the plane drops below a tree line, it can
> > stall easily because of the "wind shadow" that it's in. Extra airspeed
> > always results in better control during landing in winds.
> >
> > Ralph Burlingame
> > Original Firestar
> > 15 years flying it
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
>
> Bill,
> I think your catching on to what I am questioning. I was on final
> against
> a strong head wind. If I had loss my engine and continued at the
> best
> glide speed I could have landed 3 times in the short approach
> distance. My
> forward progress was to slow. However, it appeared that if i had
> dropped
> the nose and increased my airspeed I might have made the runway. I
> see
> this may only apply where you have a strong head wing. OK, flame
> away. It's time to learn.
> jerryb
Jerry,
I agree with Bill Weber by saying the best glide will offer the most time
aloft in calm conditions, but in a heavy wind the best glide will NOT
offer the most time aloft. More speed is required and for those pilots
that have flown in windy conditions, you know the extra speed means more
control on landing.
There is another exception that draggy ultralights have when compared to
GA planes. Ultralights do not have the same climb rate in a downwind
climb verses an upwind climb. There is more of a difference as the wind
increases. When turning downwind on a windy day, this should be taken
into consideration.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
> This is not quite correct, as can easily be demonstrated. If the
> wind is at
> or greater than your 'best glide speed', you will need to go faster
> than
> that to make any forward progress at all!!
>
> Best glide will give you the greatest time aloft (smallest sink
> rate). It
> will not give best distance when going upwind.
>
> Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Coggins, Josh, NPONS" <joshcoggins(at)att.com> |
| Subject: | Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
I don't agree that best glide will give you the most time aloft. As I
previously posted, best glide will give you the most distance flown per your
altitude. Minimum sink speed will give you the most time aloft. Just like
every design has a best glide speed, they also have a speed where they sink
slower than at other speeds which is called "minimum sink speed". Usually
this speed is slower than best glide speed.
Josh
-----Original Message-----
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com [mailto:ul15rhb(at)juno.com]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Safety - Glide after Engine Out
>
> Bill,
> I think your catching on to what I am questioning. I was on final
> against
> a strong head wind. If I had loss my engine and continued at the
> best
> glide speed I could have landed 3 times in the short approach
> distance. My
> forward progress was to slow. However, it appeared that if i had
> dropped
> the nose and increased my airspeed I might have made the runway. I
> see
> this may only apply where you have a strong head wing. OK, flame
> away. It's time to learn.
> jerryb
Jerry,
I agree with Bill Weber by saying the best glide will offer the most time
aloft in calm conditions, but in a heavy wind the best glide will NOT
offer the most time aloft. More speed is required and for those pilots
that have flown in windy conditions, you know the extra speed means more
control on landing.
There is another exception that draggy ultralights have when compared to
GA planes. Ultralights do not have the same climb rate in a downwind
climb verses an upwind climb. There is more of a difference as the wind
increases. When turning downwind on a windy day, this should be taken
into consideration.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
> This is not quite correct, as can easily be demonstrated. If the
> wind is at
> or greater than your 'best glide speed', you will need to go faster
> than
> that to make any forward progress at all!!
>
> Best glide will give you the greatest time aloft (smallest sink
> rate). It
> will not give best distance when going upwind.
>
> Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Thompson" <bobnstar(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
Ralph wrote,
>I agree with Bill Weber by saying the best glide will offer the most time
>aloft in calm conditions, but in a heavy wind the best glide will NOT
>offer the most time aloft. More speed is required and for those pilots
>that have flown in windy conditions, you know the extra speed means more
>control on landing.
>There is another exception that draggy ultralights have when compared to
>GA planes. Ultralights do not have the same climb rate in a downwind
>climb verses an upwind climb. There is more of a difference as the wind
>increases. When turning downwind on a windy day, this should be taken
>into consideration.
I must take exception with some of the points he makes:
1) The best glide speed results in the minimum sink rate AND the most time
aloft. That time may be spent off the end of the runway in a strong
headwind if that headwind approaches your airspeed. That is, you are not
able to penetrate the strong wind at your best glide speed. You must give
up time aloft by increasing airspeed to penetrate the headwind. Minimum
sink rate is the minimum regardless of wind.
2) Your climb rate is a function of airspeed and power setting. Once you
leave the ground, the plane doesn't know if a wind is blowing, or not.
Where pilots get into trouble on windy days is as they descend, they
increasingly use ground references to judge speed and may mistake a high
groundspeed thanks to a tailwind, for a high airspeed. As they turn from
downwind to base leg, the drift due to the crosswind on base may cause the
pilot to increase the bank angle and/or raise the nose, further reducing his
airspeed. A stall may result. The wings and control surfaces are only
affected by the airflow over them. Once aloft, the airplane is in a sea of
air and part of it, whether that sea is moving or not.
I agree, that pilots must use extra caution when flying in strong winds.
Additionally, where wind gusts are also present, say gusting from 15 to 25
mph, the strength of the gust (10 mph in this case) should be added to your
approach speed to avoid a stall if the wind should suddenly drop from the 25
mph gust to the sustained 15 mph.
Regards,
Bob Thompson
Commercial Instrument ASEL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Thompson" <bobnstar(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
OK, I think we are talking about the same thing. I did a Google search and
found a discussion of Lift/Drag and minimum sink, etc. It gets a little
deep but is a good explanation. The author's recommendation is to add half
of the headwind speed to your minimum sink speed (what I was calling best
glide) OR 4-5 knots for every 100 fpm of sink rate. Take a look at:
www.best.com/~williams/smxgigpdf/SMX99tot.pdf
Regards,
Bob Thompson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Coggins, Josh,
NPONS
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Safety - Glide after Engine Out
I don't agree that best glide will give you the most time aloft. As I
previously posted, best glide will give you the most distance flown per your
altitude. Minimum sink speed will give you the most time aloft. Just like
every design has a best glide speed, they also have a speed where they sink
slower than at other speeds which is called "minimum sink speed". Usually
this speed is slower than best glide speed.
Josh
-----Original Message-----
From: ul15rhb(at)juno.com [mailto:ul15rhb(at)juno.com]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Safety - Glide after Engine Out
>
> Bill,
> I think your catching on to what I am questioning. I was on final
> against
> a strong head wind. If I had loss my engine and continued at the
> best
> glide speed I could have landed 3 times in the short approach
> distance. My
> forward progress was to slow. However, it appeared that if i had
> dropped
> the nose and increased my airspeed I might have made the runway. I
> see
> this may only apply where you have a strong head wing. OK, flame
> away. It's time to learn.
> jerryb
Jerry,
I agree with Bill Weber by saying the best glide will offer the most time
aloft in calm conditions, but in a heavy wind the best glide will NOT
offer the most time aloft. More speed is required and for those pilots
that have flown in windy conditions, you know the extra speed means more
control on landing.
There is another exception that draggy ultralights have when compared to
GA planes. Ultralights do not have the same climb rate in a downwind
climb verses an upwind climb. There is more of a difference as the wind
increases. When turning downwind on a windy day, this should be taken
into consideration.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
> This is not quite correct, as can easily be demonstrated. If the
> wind is at
> or greater than your 'best glide speed', you will need to go faster
> than
> that to make any forward progress at all!!
>
> Best glide will give you the greatest time aloft (smallest sink
> rate). It
> will not give best distance when going upwind.
>
> Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
if the wind is faster then your best glide speed you have no business being
up in the air in a kolb. but if you are and have an engine out the good
news is you have no need for a runway, just decend verticaly to the nearest
patch of open ground, and hope you can keep the plane on the ground after
you land.
more seriously, if there is a head wind then you will want to increase you
aproach speed cause it doesnt cost you anything in landing run or in
potential crash energy since your speed relative to the ground is not
higher.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [PLEASE READ] - Why Have A Fund Raiser Each Year? |
Listers,
A couple List Members have asked if the Lists are "in trouble financially"
and wanted to know if this is why I was having a Fund Raiser. It got to
thinking that perhaps I should explain why I have a Fund Raiser and also
take the opportunity to express why I think the List Services here provide
a far better experience than the commercial equivalents.
I use the List Fund Raiser each year to offset the costs involved with
running a high performance email list site such as this one. With the
annual support from the List members through the PBS-like Fund Raiser, I
have found I can run the entire site without having to inflect any of the
members with those annoying banner ads flashing up all the time trying to
sell Toner Cartridge Refills or other garbage nobody wants or needs. From
the comments I've received over the years regarding the Lists, the great
majority of the members really appreciate the non-commercialism of my List
systems and don't mind my 'go-team-go' banter once a year to encourage
members to support the Lists.
I believe that the Lists services that I provide here offer a great many
benefits over the commercial equivalents in a number of ways. The first
feature I believe to be particularly significant is that you *cannot*
receive a computer v*rus from any of my Lists directly. I've been on a few
other List servers and have been unfortunate enough to download infected
files people have innocently or not-so-innocently included with their
posts. This just can't happen with my Lists; each incoming message is
filtered and attachments stripped off prior to posting. I provide a Photo
and File Share feature that allows members to share files and bitmaps with
other members and everyone can be assured that these files will be
prescanned for any sort of v*rus before they are posted. Safe and
simple. Also, with this photo and file sharing technique, the Archives
don't get loaded up with a great amount of bitmap "data" that slows the
Archive Search times.
Another feature of this system is the extensive List Archives that are
available for download, browsing, and searching. The Archives go all the
way back to the very beginning of each List and with the super fast Search
Engine, the huge size of the Archives is a non-issue in quickly finding the
data you're looking for. Another feature of the Archives, in my opinion,
is that they have been primarily stripped of all the useless email header
data and all the other header garbage that seems to build up in a typical
email thread.
I have received an extremely positive response from Listers regarding the
new List Browse feature and the consensus is that the format and ease of
use is outstanding. Members report that having the previous 7 days worth
of messages online for easy browsing and sorting is hugely beneficial. And
again, as with the real time distribution of List email, the messages are
stripped of all the unnecessary email headers and potentially dangerous
v*ruses.
I've been running email Lists and services under the matronics.com domain
since about 1989 starting with RV-List and 30 guys I knew who where
building RVs. It has grown into nearly 40 different aviation-related Email
Lists and an associated web site that receives over 500,000 hits each
month!! With all the dot.bombs these days, I think there's a lot of value
in supporting a service that has gone the long haul and is still providing
and improving a high quality service at a price that's nearly free.
I have to admit running these Lists is a labor of love and I hope it shows
in the quality of the experience that you receive when you get a List Email
Message, Search the Archives, or use the List Browser. The Lists will be
here for a long time to come. If you just want to lurk a while for free,
that's great and I encourage you to do so. If you use, appreciate, and
receive value from these Lists, then please support them during the Annual
List Fund Raiser!
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
------------------------------------------
The SSL Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
The US Mail Address:
Matronics Email Lists
c/o Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94550-7227
------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
Come on guys. This list is worth many times what we contribute. It has
been an invaluable source of information for me. I contributed already.
How about everyone that benefits from this list helping out a little?=0D
=0D
Ron Payne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Sasseville" <sassevilleapiaries(at)hotmail.com> |
Hay Gang
I started my 503 for the first time yesterday and after 2-3 minutes of
vibration I could not open the throttle more than 1/4. Last nite I
dissambled the aluminum connector tube on the linkage and found a couple of
burs on the inside which prevented the brass connector to slide. I cleaned
these burrs off . Should this aluminum connector tube be lubracated?
Paul Sasseville
Zolfo Springs Fl
Firestar II .01 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stuck trottle |
I don't know what the rules are, but I used some teflon grease on mine.
Haven't started it yet so don't know what will happen.=0D
=0D
Ron Payne=0D
=0D
-------Original Message-------=0D
=0D
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com=0D
Date: Friday, November 30, 2001 05:17:59=0D
Subject: Kolb-List: Stuck trottle=0D
=0D
sassevilleapiaries(at)hotmail.com>=0D
=0D
Hay Gang=0D
=0D
I started my 503 for the first time yesterday and after 2-3 minutes of=0D
vibration I could not open the throttle more than 1/4. Last nite I=0D
dissambled the aluminum connector tube on the linkage and found a couple
of=0D
burs on the inside which prevented the brass connector to slide. I cleaned=0D
these burrs off . Should this aluminum connector tube be lubracated?=0D
=0D
Paul Sasseville=0D
Zolfo Springs Fl=0D
Firestar II .01 hrs=0D
=0D
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=2E
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stuck trottle |
What are all those OD's on my last message. I didn't put them there.=0D
=0D
Ron Payne=0D
=0D
-------Original Message-------=0D
=0D
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com=0D
Date: Friday, November 30, 2001 05:30:51=0D
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Stuck trottle=0D
=0D
=0D
I don't know what the rules are, but I used some teflon grease on mine.=0D
Haven't started it yet so don't know what will happen.0D=0D
0D=0D
Ron Payne0D=0D
0D=0D
-------Original Message-------0D=0D
0D=0D
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com0D=0D
Date: Friday, November 30, 2001 05:17:590D=0D
Subject: Kolb-List: Stuck trottle0D=0D
0D=0D
sassevilleapiaries(at)hotmail.com>0D=0D
0D=0D
Hay Gang0D=0D
0D=0D
I started my 503 for the first time yesterday and after 2-3 minutes of0D=0D
vibration I could not open the throttle more than 1/4. Last nite I0D=0D
dissambled the aluminum connector tube on the linkage and found a couple=0D
of0D=0D
burs on the inside which prevented the brass connector to slide. I cleane=0D
d0D=0D
these burrs off . Should this aluminum connector tube be lubracated?0D=0D
0D=0D
Paul Sasseville0D=0D
Zolfo Springs Fl0D=0D
Firestar II .01 hrs0D=0D
0D=0D
0D=0D
=0D
0D=0D
=0D
0D=0D
=0D
0D=0D
=0D
0D=0D
=0D
0D=0D
0D=0D
0D=0D
0D=0D
0D=0D
2E=0D
=0D
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=2E
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Richmond <twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Paint volumes |
Yep it does help Bill, thanks
!
--- Bill Elder wrote:
>
> Hi John. It's Bill in Colorado building Mark III Classic. I used
> 3.5 gals
> of Polyspray for three cross coats, and 3 gals of Polytone for 3
> coats of
> color. Have yet to cover the cage but that shouldn't take too much
> paint.
> Hope this helps!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Richmond <twoschmoops(at)yahoo.com>
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 6:15 AM
> Subject: Kolb-List: Paint volumes
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Anybody know the whole paintable area of a MkIII classic?
> >
> >Or, how mubh pain you used for how many coats?
> >
> >thanks
> >
> >=====
> >John & Lynn Richmond :-)
> >Palm Coast, Fl.
> >Mk3 269LJ, 582, 41 hrs
> >1,400 miles, longest=270
> >
> >http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=====
John & Lynn Richmond :-)
Palm Coast, Fl.
Mk3 269LJ, 582, 41 hrs
1,400 miles, longest=270
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Son of a bitch |
Hey Bill Send it to me off list. Bettcha forgot where you were.
dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RONATNIK(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
What about the potential for running into wind gradient? Wouldn't it be best
to carry a little extra speed into the wind in order to avoid a stall in the
event that the wind suddenly dies or shifts?
Bob Blu
Littleton, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: High Performance Legal Ultralight Kit |
When I asked if anyone had seen the document describing the FireFly as a
legal ultralight, I received no response. Since I have been flying to air
shows and flyins, I thought it may be best to get the forms filled out and
have a copy of them on board.
It has been an interesting exercise. I was able to meet the speed
requirement by derating the engine to 38 hp by limiting engine speed to
6000 rpm. I was able to meet the stall speed requirement by stripping out
the seat cushion, short windshield and compass and all non-permanently
attached equipment. My computed stall speed was 24.1 knots, but I was able
to take advantage of an inconsistency in the document to say this speed is
legal. They used the words "less than 24 knots (28 mph)", and 28 mph is
24.3 knots, and so 24.1 knots is less than 28 mph.
There are several ways to get the stall speed down. One is install a
smaller fuel tank. Or if you are building to add another foot onto the
wing would be a big help. For those of us who have already built, a
lighter engine may be the way to go.
For you FireFly build/owners, I put the thought process up on my son's
server at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/fireflylegal.html
It takes a while to load. If you would like a copy of the document I put
together for a A&P to sign off, go to the end of the html and click on
download. It is a Microsoft Word document of about 1,700 kb.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gherkins Tim-rp3420" <rp3420(at)motorola.com> |
hjgjhjg
-----Original Message-----
From: jrodebush [mailto:jrodebush(at)cinci.rr.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Rudder Controls
Clay wrote:
"Mark IIIXtra builders:
Do I need revised or new plans for the rudder pedal assembly on my Mark
IIIXtra. Have they replaced the short cables from the pedal assembly to
the
rudder bellcrank with turnbuckles?"
Page 12 of the plans shows the rudder control system. It shows a rudder
pedal strip 7 1/8" long then the short cable assembly, no turnbuckles
until
after the bellcrank.
I can send you a copy if you want. Contact me off list.
Rex Rodebush
==
=
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Free Stuff Reminder... |
Dear Listers,
Don't forget that you can receive a free copy of Van's new Video, "The RV
Story" with a $50 or greater contribution this year, or a $10 Gift
Certificate from Brown Tool for a $30 or greater contribution or a $25 Gift
Certificate for a $100 contribution. Below are two URLs for complete
information on the two Offers. Please follow the respective instructions
*carefully*.
Van's Video Offer Information:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=5781141?KEYS=asdf?LISTNAME=Yak?HITNUMBER=2?SERIAL=09092616692?SHOWBUTTONS=NO
Brown Aviation Tool Gift Certificate Information:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=5838463?KEYS=asdf?LISTNAME=Yak?HITNUMBER=2?SERIAL=09080216166?SHOWBUTTONS=NO
I want to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore and Michael Brown of
Brown Aviation Tool Supply Co. for their generous offers in support the
Lists this year!! Thank you, guys!
I'd like to thank everyone that has already made a generous Contribution in
support of the Lists!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Decarbon 503???? |
Hello
Has anyone decarboned without removing piston from rod ?????
Duane Z
FS2 503 201 hrs thanx in advance
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clive Hatcher" <clive_hatcher(at)lineone.net> |
| Subject: | Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
Jerry and All,
From my gliding experience there is an optimum
speed to fly to cover the most distance. When
flying into wind, this speed is typically faster
than the minimum sink speed. However to calculate
this accurately you need to know the sink rate of
your aircraft at various speeds and the wind speed
gradient from your start height to the ground. In
gliders this can make a significant difference but
with the drag factor of our Kolbs I doubt it makes
a lot of difference. I would choose to fly up to 5
Kts above best glide speed.
One gliding technique used on a critical final
approach into a strong wind gradient (when an
undershoot looked a possibility) was to dive close
to the ground building up speed, then convert the
speed to distance close to the ground where the
head wind was much lighter. It works on sailplanes
but, again, because of our high drag factor on
Ultralights I would not like to try it on the
Kolb.
My motto is that it is better to go for a poorer
field that is definitely in reach, than an
excellent field which might not be.
Clive Mk III/582 UK
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On
Behalf Of jerryb
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Safety - Glide after
Engine Out
The objective of my question was in high wind
situation, would you loose
less altitude over all by increasing your airspeed
or less by gliding at
normal best glide speed which extends you time in
the air but perhaps not
your distance thus coming in short. Give this
some thought.
This concept is only for discussion, don't try
this with your UL.
jerryb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DCREECH3(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
" . . . the strength of the gust (10 mph in this case) should be added to your
approach speed to avoid a stall if the wind should suddenly drop from the 25mph
gust to the sustained 15 mph."
In GA flying, I've always heard you should add one-half the gust value to your
normal approach speed, as a rule of thumb. This should be more than enough for
ultralights, since the lower mass of an ultralight would allow it to accelerate
back to its trimmed airspeed more rapidly than a heavier aircraft. I think
. . .
Lee
Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DCREECH3(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
It strikes me that this discussion about the effect of a headwind on glide speed/distance
is closely related to something else I've wondered about: the best
cruise power setting for flying into a headwind. Should you increase your airspeed
if you want to maximize your range? (RANGE - NOT time aloft). It's really
the same problem in a different speed range.
Doing the "thought experiment" of flying into a headwind equal to the normal cruise
speed persuades me that a higher power setting is probably beneficial (obviously,
in that example, it's necessary to get a range greater than zero). But
how much? Is there a rule of thumb for relating these things? Given the limited
distance capability of our aircraft, this knowledge might really come in
useful sometime.
Lee
Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: upwind/downwind |
>
>Roger,
>
>Give it a try on a windy day and see if the rate of climb changes from
>upwind to downwind. You might be surprised.
>
>Ralph Burlingame
>Original Firestar
>15 years flying it
>
Ralph,
If you climb with the same engine rpm and the same indicated air speed,
your vertical climb rate indicator will indicate the same value no matter
which direction you are flying, into, down or cross wind. Given the same
climb conditons, the angle of climb will be greater flying up wind than
down wind.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
>
> What about the potential for running into wind gradient? Wouldn't it
> be best
> to carry a little extra speed into the wind in order to avoid a
> stall in the
> event that the wind suddenly dies or shifts?
>
> Bob Blu
> Littleton, CO
Yep, this is especially true when the landing zone is surrounded by trees
causing the "wind shadow" I referred to in an earlier post. If the wind
is strong enough, there will be turbulence and extra airspeed will help
in controlling the plane.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
>
> It strikes me that this discussion about the effect of a headwind on
> glide speed/distance is closely related to something else I've
> wondered about: the best cruise power setting for flying into a
> headwind. Should you increase your airspeed if you want to maximize
> your range? (RANGE - NOT time aloft). It's really the same problem
> in a different speed range.
>
> Doing the "thought experiment" of flying into a headwind equal to
> the normal cruise speed persuades me that a higher power setting is
> probably beneficial (obviously, in that example, it's necessary to
> get a range greater than zero). But how much? Is there a rule of
> thumb for relating these things? Given the limited distance
> capability of our aircraft, this knowledge might really come in
> useful sometime.
>
> Lee
> Firestar II
Lee,
I generally will fly at the same engine cruise RPM and carry a GPS to
monitor groundspeed. By flying at higher altitudes, I can search for the
best groundspeed and maximize my fuel economy. As the wind changes
direction (and speed) with altitude, it can make a significant difference
in fuel savings and flight time on a trip.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Coggins, Josh, NPONS" <joshcoggins(at)att.com> |
| Subject: | Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
I always carry extra airspeed during my landing pattern. I probably carry
too much, but as draggy as our ultralights are it is pretty easy to slow
down when you bring the throttle back to idle. I figure it is a lot safer
to have the extra airspeed than not. Besides, the Cessna drivers appreciate
me not slowing down the pattern too much ;-)
Josh
-----Original Message-----
From: RONATNIK(at)aol.com [mailto:RONATNIK(at)aol.com]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Safety - Glide after Engine Out
What about the potential for running into wind gradient? Wouldn't it be best
to carry a little extra speed into the wind in order to avoid a stall in the
event that the wind suddenly dies or shifts?
Bob Blu
Littleton, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Listers,
Below are some of the comments I've received just this week alone from
members along with their Contributions to support the Lists! What can I
say? Wow. I really appreciate the kind words and extremely positive
feedback and I would encourage you to read over a few of comments below. I
think they really say a mouthful...
The last couple of days have seen a huge increase in support!! Thank you
to all that have Contributed and to those that have rallied support for the
Lists! Since the response has been so wonderful recently, I plan to delay
the posting of the 2001 List of Contributors a few days to assure that
everyone will be included!
Won't you make your Contribution today to support the Lists?
------------------------------------------
The SSL Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
The US Mail Address:
Matronics Email Lists
c/o Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94550-7227
------------------------------------------
Thank you to everyone for the kind words and support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
======== Some Great Comments on What The Lists Mean to its Members ==========
...great source of information, education,
relaxation, frustration, and socialization.
- John H.
Can't imagine what it would be like building
with out the Lists...
- Steven E.
Look forward to the list every day.
- Parker T.
I really enjoy reading the banter...
- Wesley H.
...enjoy the patter on construction tips and
possible problem areas.
- Richard N.
Couldn't have built my RV-4 without the List
and archives!!
- Warren M.
I have found the list to be a great help,
especially for a first time builder.
- Peter D.
I thoroughly enjoy the List.
- Larry B.
The List is a great resource.
- Dennis K.
The list is great entertainment.
- Gary Z.
Can't say enough about the good information
that I have received from reading the List.
- Robert C.
...it's the best!
- Steve F.
I'm addicted to the List!
- Rodney B.
The list has been a wonderful resource of
knowledge.
- Doug B.
As a first time builder, the lists have
been my most important source of information.
- James V.
It [read the List] is the first thing I do
every day is see what's new.
- Billie F.
The information available through the List
has made my flying safer...
- Dave R.
I get much more information about my plane
from this List than from all of my aviation
magazines combined.
- Roger H.
I love the list!!!!
- Ken L.
Much better value than a magazine subscription.
- Ted M.
...found it very useful.
- Allan J.
...this list has been a great service to me.
- Peter F.
I cannot express just how USEFUL the Lists are.
- Geoff T.
...a tremendous help to my RV-8 project and
a way to meet some of the best people going.
- Steve G.
The List is invaluable, and the best I've
ever seen.
- Ed C.
Like another family for many of us.
- John H.
The lists have saved a bunch of calls to
Van's for guidance.
- James V.
I think I'm addicted...
- Terry C.
Love it!
- David W.
The information really helps...
- Jim P.
...I find [it] very informative.
- Real D.
...List keeps me motivated... - Cliff M.
The exchange of information is really helpful...
- M.N.
Lots of great info on the List.
- Larry D.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | roger.hankins(at)kodak.com |
06:52:27 AM
From: Roger Hankins
>>Mine is already in there................c'mon you guys - ante up ! ! !
I'm with you Lar.. Sent mine in yesterday. The list is certainly worth
more than my local newspaper.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: best cruise power setting |
Lee and Group,
This was significant when I was flying a Quicksilver MX or Sprint. More
mpg could be obtained with a faster airspeed when flying into a strong
wind. It may apply occasionally to a Kolb, but my Firestar II can burn
as low as 2.25 gph at 45 mph. So usually I fly faster to get there
sooner, rather than to try to save fuel.
John Jung
DCREECH3(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>It strikes me that this discussion about the effect of a headwind on glide speed/distance
is closely related to something else I've wondered about: the best
cruise power setting for flying into a headwind. Should you increase your airspeed
if you want to maximize your range? (RANGE - NOT time aloft). It's really
the same problem in a different speed range.
>snip..
>Lee
>Firestar II
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Contributors Down By 25%... |
Group,
There is no such thing as a free lunch. My money is in. Anyone who
doesn't think this list is worth anything at all, should just stop
reading it. Everyone should be able to donate a little.
John jung
>>
>>
>>The SSL Secure Web Site:
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>The US Mail Address:
>>
>> Matronics Email Lists
>> c/o Matt Dralle
>> PO Box 347
>> Livermore, CA 94550-7227
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 12/1/01 3:40:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dralle(at)matronics.com writes:
I too look forward to the list every day.
Merle Hargis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN M. COOLEY" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Contributors Down By 25%... |
Hi Gang,
Even though I read and enjoy the list everyday I mostly keep my mouth
shut. I've learned a lot from the list and it is very valuable. I've
monitored it daily for about three years now so my donation for this year is
in. The information that can be obtained from the list can't be found in any
other place that I'm aware of. A few people on the list that have been
involved with the Kolb's for a long time can provide a lot of information on
the planes that we fly, but the collective minds of everyone contributing is
a very powerful thing. Thanks to everyone and especially Matt for making
this list possible.
Thanks,
John Cooley
FS II #1162
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jung" <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Contributors Down By 25%...
>
> Group,
>
> There is no such thing as a free lunch. My money is in. Anyone who
> doesn't think this list is worth anything at all, should just stop
> reading it. Everyone should be able to donate a little.
>
> John jung
>
> >>
> >>
> >>The SSL Secure Web Site:
> >>
> >> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>
> >>The US Mail Address:
> >>
> >> Matronics Email Lists
> >> c/o Matt Dralle
> >> PO Box 347
> >> Livermore, CA 94550-7227
> >>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Contributors Down By 25%... |
I can't understand why people who take the time to read, enjoy and takes
advantage or this list can't take the time to send in a check.
The list lets you share your hard work with people who can appreciate it.
Please take some time to send in your check.
Thanks Matt
Regards,
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: re:upwind/downwind |
> You know, my VSI does indicate greater rate of climb at the same power and
angle of attack, when flying into the wind. Could it be lying?
> Dave Rains
explain to me how the plane knows it is in a headwind????? it doesn't.
and there is no way for it to effect your climb rate. climb angle yes,
cause that is relative to the ground.
as for range there is an equation that is used to estimate range called the
Breguet range equation, and in various forms it can be used to solve all
sorts of range problems.
simplest is
Range = 375 * (n / sfc) * (L/D) * ln(gross weight/empty weight)
range is in miles, n is the propeller efficiency and sfc the specific fuel
consumption. The term (L/D) is the aircraft lift-to-drag ratio, and ln
stands for logarithm to the base e.
In an aircraft like Rutan's Voyager (range ~25000 miles non-stop around the
world), the last term in the equation above required the aircraft to lift 4
times its own weight in fuel, fairly impressive! in a fsii we have around
600 gw and 60 pounds fuel or 1/10!
topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: relative wind message of Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:50:01 |
-0800
> Rate of climb, on the other hand, is distance (vertical in this case)
> traveled per unit of time and is greatly affected by relative wind. Try
> climbing to 1000 ft. both up wind and downwind and see for yourself.
> Figures published for aircraft are at sea level, standard day temps
> (59) and no wind.
Rate of climb = (thrust power available - power required)/weight
none of these are effected by wind speed. thrust power available is engine
shaft power times prop efficiency and power required is dynamic pressure
times Cd. they are functions of true airspeed. weight is weight. there is
no wind speed in the equation. the airplane does not even know the wind is
there ( how could it?) it just knows its true airspeed. A steady wind can
not effect aerodynamic properties. it only effects things that are relative
to the ground. a gusty wind changes the planes true airspeed with the
gusts, temporarily changing the things that are functions of airspeed. if
you are flying in a gusty wind then up wind you are getting puffs of added
and subtracted velocity. if you are flying downwind you are getting
subtracted and added puffs of velocity. for a random gusty wind the two are
averaged out to be identical.
Rate of climb and all other aerodynamics are not a function of wind.....
Rate of climb and all other aerodynamics are not a function of wind.....
Rate of climb and all other aerodynamics are not a function of wind.....
you all got it!
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Builder/Pilot Database |
Please visit www.springeraviation.net for some pictures and a list of
builders and pilots who are willing to share their experiences. Email me at
dama(at)mindspring.com for any changes or additions.
Sincereley,
Kip Laurie
Firestar II
Atlanta
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi(at)supernet.com> |
| Subject: | Come and get it! |
Hi Tim,
Do you still have this plane? If so where could I see it, and when is a
good time? I live near E-town, Pa.
i still have my 1984 Firestar 377 for sale. i have it for sale
for
$6,000 but i want to get rid of this thing before winter sets in so i'll
take
$5,500 for it. i know its old but its in good shape. you can buy and fly
it.
nothing's wrong with it. i'm paying rent on a plane i'm not flying so
i'll
cut the price just to move it out of there. its just sitting in a pole
building collecting dust and bird doo-doo. come and get this thing so i
don't
have to pay anymore rent! ..... plane is kept in Shrewbury.pa., about
20
miles south of York....... tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | upwind/downwind experiment |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
writes:
>> Rate of climb and all other aerodynamics are not a function of
> wind.....
> Rate of climb and all other aerodynamics are not a function of
> wind.....
> Rate of climb and all other aerodynamics are not a function of
> wind.....
>
> you all got it!
>
> Topher
I'll try explaining this to my Firestar, and see if I can get him to
climb at the same rate during a downwind climb. I'm not totally convinced
until I get out my stopwatch and check the times. I suggest others do the
same.
Simple experiment:
With a stopwatch, I would suggest timing an upwwind climb from 500' to
1500' at a given airspeed into a wind of 10 mph or more. Fly downwind
back to the starting point. At 500', time the downwind climb back up to
1500' at the same airspeed. I think this should give a good indication if
there is a difference in time to climb upwind to downwind. Do this three
times and take an average.
Sound good?
How about you Topher? Do you have a Firestar that you can do this little
experiment in? It can't be in a big plane, it must be in a Firestar or
similar ultralight, 70 mph or less. Even a Singshot or fast and heavy
Mark II or III may not be good candidates for this experiment.
Physics and aerodynamics should tell the truth under actual conditions,
don't you think?
Give it a try ......
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: relative wind & fund raiser |
As for the poor turnout on fundraising for the list, I think everyone on
this list (and serious lurkers) can pony up a $20 bill; if you can't, you
can't afford a Kolb or anything else.
As far as relative wind, Topher, you da man as always. I flew a
round-trip this morning in a 200-knot airplane with a 50-knot direct
crosswind. This Cessna 421C takes 1 hour each way in no-wind conditions.
This morning the Davtron timer had 2:03 when done, which included a
back-course approach. I'll bet our Kolbs are no more immune to the laws of
physics. Now, about those pesky downwind turns... ;
)
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: relative wind message of Fri, 30 Nov 2001
>
> > Rate of climb, on the other hand, is distance (vertical in this case)
> > traveled per unit of time and is greatly affected by relative wind. Try
> > climbing to 1000 ft. both up wind and downwind and see for yourself.
> > Figures published for aircraft are at sea level, standard day temps
> > (59) and no wind.
>
> Rate of climb = (thrust power available - power required)/weight
>
> none of these are effected by wind speed. thrust power available is
engine
> shaft power times prop efficiency and power required is dynamic pressure
> times Cd. they are functions of true airspeed. weight is weight. there
is
> no wind speed in the equation. the airplane does not even know the wind
is
> there ( how could it?) it just knows its true airspeed. A steady wind can
> not effect aerodynamic properties. it only effects things that are
relative
> to the ground. a gusty wind changes the planes true airspeed with the
> gusts, temporarily changing the things that are functions of airspeed. if
> you are flying in a gusty wind then up wind you are getting puffs of added
> and subtracted velocity. if you are flying downwind you are getting
> subtracted and added puffs of velocity. for a random gusty wind the two
are
> averaged out to be identical.
>
> Rate of climb and all other aerodynamics are not a function of wind.....
> Rate of climb and all other aerodynamics are not a function of wind.....
> Rate of climb and all other aerodynamics are not a function of wind.....
>
> you all got it!
>
> Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 27 Msgs - 11/30/01 |
<<<<<>>>>>
YES and i dont use caps very often.... if i had done
what you suggest i may not be the mist of a rebuild......
in retro spect i would use the best glide speed till i got
to 75 to 100 ft then i would push the nose down and pick up
an extra 10 to 15. now after i have said that i guess
it depends on what obstacles you have to clear.... and what
your landing choices are..... you will never know exactly
what to do till it happens....... then hopefully you can
make the correct choices....
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 11/29/01 |
<<<<<<<
There is another exception that draggy ultralights have when
compared to
GA planes. Ultralights do not have the same climb rate in a
downwind
climb verses an upwind climb. There is more of a difference
as the wind
increases. When turning downwind on a windy day, this should
be taken
into consideration.
>>>>>>>>
i think you may be mistaking " rate of climb" with "
angle of climb" the rate of climb should be equal in both
up and down wind situations.... while the angle of climb
would vary with the intenisity of the wind. this is true
of all aircraft.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: upwind/downwind experiment |
> With a stopwatch, I would suggest timing an upwwind climb from 500' to
> 1500' at a given airspeed into a wind of 10 mph or more. Fly downwind
> back to the starting point. At 500', time the downwind climb back up to
> 1500' at the same airspeed. I think this should give a good indication if
> there is a difference in time to climb upwind to downwind. Do this three
> times and take an average.
>
> Sound good?
>
> How about you Topher? Do you have a Firestar that you can do this little
> experiment in? It can't be in a big plane, it must be in a Firestar or
> similar ultralight, 70 mph or less. Even a Singshot or fast and heavy
> Mark II or III may not be good candidates for this experiment.
>
> Physics and aerodynamics should tell the truth under actual conditions,
> don't you think?
yes it will, you will get exactly what you measure.
> Give it a try ......
as a flight test engineer, I have given it a few trys in lots of different
planes.
Why would the size (speed or drag) of the plane matter? all the planes I
have collected data for, the F-111, F-16, Citation Jet, Citation X, RV-6A,
Rotec Rally 2B all follow the same rules.
I currently only have a RV-6A powered by our Powersport rotary engine to fly
around in. my kolb is close to ready to cover, probably another year till
it can start bringing me joy instead of frustration! we have done
significant amounts of flight testing to document rate of climb performance
with our engine. while you will get off the ground in less time, cause your
starting with some airspeed as opposed to no airspeed, once you are flying
the plane has no idea that there is a wind. you could be flying in a
200,000 mph wind in your firestar and your true airspeed would be still
only 4o mph. your rate of climb would be the same as any other wind cause
your still flying at 40 mph. your going backwards at 199,960 mph with the
wind but your still only flying at 40 mph. your rate of climb is
unaffected. your angle of climb is now very shallow and backwards! At a 40
mph headwind you would still climb at the same rate and your angle of climb
would be 90 degrees straight up. to climb requires excess power. you have
power to overcome the drag of moving through the air and then you need more
power to lift you higher, increasing the planes potential energy. your
climb rate is equal to your extra power divided by your weight. nothing
more then that.
If moving around with the wind mass changed your rate of climb then at some
tailwind speed you would simply fall out of the sky and drop to the ground.
instead you fly along happily enjoying your extra ground speed in a plane
that is flying in the air at your normal cruise speed. YOUR AIRSPEED
INDICATOR ISNT LYING TO YOU... IT IS TELLING YOU WHAT THE PLANE KNOWS ABOUT
THE AIR. it knows it is flying at 40 MPH no matter the wind.
also wind tunnels would not work, cause there the wind is flowing past the
model not the model through the air. if these two things are not the same
then somebody has wasted allot of money on windtunnels.
It is very difficult for a pilot to sense time while flying, angle of climb
is very obvious to the pilot, and it does go up with wind, but time is not
easy to feel. Let me know how your data looks.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | 503 DC & Electric Fuel Pump |
I am plumbing my fuel system of my 503 FireStar. The Rotax manual states
pipe an electric fuel pump in parallel with the pulse pump. Do not pipe
it
in series". The pulse pump has two different outlets, one for each carb.
To pipe the electric pump in parallel, I would have to go to only one of
the
carb lines or connect the two carb lines together with a cross feed. How
has anyone using the electric pump connected it to the carbs?=0D
=0D
Ron Payne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
This is just a test. I posted a message about the fuel system on my 503
Rotax and those OD's came up again. I want to see if they come up
again. I know this is not necessarily Kolb related but it affects my
posts on the kolb list.
Rpn Payne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
Be patient with me. This is the last test.
Ron Payne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TAILDRAGGER503(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: upwind/downwind experiment |
SAME
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Rains <rr(at)htg.net> |
| Subject: | upwind/downwind experiment |
I do believe in my original post, I said VSI. Calm down Topher, it's just a discussion.
Dave Rains
FS II
El Paso
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher John Armstrong [SMTP:Tophera(at)centurytel.net]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: upwind/downwind experiment
that is flying in the air at your normal cruise speed. YOUR AIRSPEED
INDICATOR ISNT LYING TO YOU... IT IS TELLING YOU WHAT THE PLANE KNOWS ABOUT
THE AIR. it knows it is flying at 40 MPH no matter the wind.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sandy & Julie" <sandyh(at)dccnet.com> |
Hi there! I', new here and I've just acquired an older twinstar (1987)
that has been neglected for a while. It needs recovering, replacement
of hardware and paint and all should be well. The only thing I am
concerned about is that is came with a rotax 532 with only 10 hours on
it and I/vet heard that this is too much power. Is this true? Thanks
for your help
Sandy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> |
I dont think its too much power. No such thing as too much. You can always
throttle back. I have an older Twinstar also in about the same shape as
yours. I just installed a 503DCDI with tuned pipe. Thats 64HP and it flys
nice. Very short takeoff roll and great climb rate.
Whan you recover, check the welds. I found brocken welds in the cage and in
the area where the vertical attaches to the boom tube. The lower part of
the vertical acually rusted through from the inside out.
Ross
> From: "Sandy & Julie" <sandyh(at)dccnet.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 06:40:07 -0800
> To:
> Subject: Kolb-List: twinstar
>
>
> Hi there! I', new here and I've just acquired an older twinstar (1987)
> that has been neglected for a while. It needs recovering, replacement
> of hardware and paint and all should be well. The only thing I am
> concerned about is that is came with a rotax 532 with only 10 hours on
> it and I/vet heard that this is too much power. Is this true? Thanks
> for your help
>
> Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The last time |
Is it possible you sent that particular message in html ??
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron or Mary" < >
Subject: Kolb-List: The last time
>
> Be patient with me. This is the last test.
>
> Ron Payne
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Comments/ Contributions |
| From: | "Gherkins Tim-rp3420" <rp3420(at)motorola.com> |
Kolbers,
After reading Matt's post below, it is great to see the efforts of this
list with your contributions.
And, after reading some of your replies to this years contribution
rally, might I say that I feel a lot like many of you. I don't say
much, and I have been tempted to say more, but dropped my personal pride
as well as erased a few posts before posting to save ill will and hurt
feelings.
This list is very entertaining to me through out my work day. I don't
take any breaks at my work. I don't smoke, so I don't need that break,
and much too busy to stop for a break. But, what I do is stop for a
quick second after doing business on my terminal and read a few Kolb
posts. I look forward to it. And, after doing this a few times a day,
I am sure it adds up to my allotment of break time for the day.
I guess what I am trying to say is, like many of you this list and its
members have become an exciting part of my Kolb building life.
I can't wait till I start flying!
After visiting with many of you at this years Oshkosh trip, I feel more
and more a part of this list. Sure, sometimes we all get a bit cranky
sharing our opinions on this list, but, I have read just as many
apologize and "I'm sorrys". And I love the differing of opinions.
Because of these reasons it makes this list seem even more credible and
worthy to keep my subscription.
Don't mean to get too warm and fuzzy, but these are just a few reasons I
like this family we call Kolb List.
If you can contribute a lot, GREAT! If you can contribute a little,
GREAT! But please contribute. I know we can beat 23%! If you are new
to this list, and feel like you may have not gotten enough out of it to
contribute, then contribute, because you will! I did!
And, thanks to Matt! This is one guy I would love to see and meet at a
future Kolb fly-in. Maybe when we get our Mark III extra done and
flying, we will go pick him up in CA and bring him out to Kentucky
ourselves.
Take care everyone, and Merry Christmas!
Tim Gherkins
Phx,AZ
building Firestar II
w/ Rotax 503 dual carb.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Dralle [mailto:dralle(at)matronics.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Comments...
Listers,
Below are some of the comments I've received just this week alone from
members along with their Contributions to support the Lists! What can I
say? Wow. I really appreciate the kind words and extremely positive
feedback and I would encourage you to read over a few of comments below.
I
think they really say a mouthful...
The last couple of days have seen a huge increase in support!! Thank
you
to all that have Contributed and to those that have rallied support for
the
Lists! Since the response has been so wonderful recently, I plan to
delay
the posting of the 2001 List of Contributors a few days to assure that
everyone will be included!
Won't you make your Contribution today to support the Lists?
-
==
=
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Rpn--or is it Ron? Anyhow, yer ODs are gone.
bn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
Man -I hope so. I hate having the OD' s and It's Ron. I was so shook
up,
I couldn't spell my own name =0D
=0D
-------Original Message-------=0D
=0D
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com=0D
Date: Sunday, December 02, 2001 15:18:54=0D
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: OD's=0D
=0D
=0D
Rpn--or is it Ron? Anyhow, yer ODs are gone.=0D
=0D
bn=0D
=0D
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
=2E
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 23 Msgs - 12/01/01 |
| From: | "Lawrence M. Rice" <tailwind5(at)juno.com> |
Hey guys, let's not get too complex:
Relative wind is constant if the ASI says the same thing.
However, angle of climb, not rate, goes up in a constant headwind and
down in a constant tailwind. Since you're most concerned about it when
you need to climb over something, that's important.
If there's wind, there is ALWAYS wind shear, even if you're over a flat
smooth plain, so that always has some effect close to the ground. I fly a
172 and find that I often have to pull back to keep airspeed constant
when I get up about even with the treeline, so the rate of climb goes up
for a bit. This would result in a sag in the ROC at just the wrong time
climbing out in a tailwind.
Downwing/upwind turning is the same at constant ASI. However, per above,
if you are climbing or descending.... Also, don't forget the effect of
downwind/upwind on the radius of turn over the ground, sometimes leading
people to overbank, along with eyeball estimate of speed when not
watching the ASI being lower upwind and higher downwind.....
Larry the Micro Mong guy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Minewiser" <flykolb(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Ron
They're b-a-c-k! (OD's that is)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: OD's
>
> Man -I hope so. I hate having the OD' s and It's Ron. I was so shook
> up,
> I couldn't spell my own name =0D
> =0D
> -------Original Message-------=0D
> =0D
> From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com=0D
> Date: Sunday, December 02, 2001 15:18:54=0D
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com=0D
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: OD's=0D
> =0D
> =0D
> Rpn--or is it Ron? Anyhow, yer ODs are gone.=0D
> =0D
> bn=0D
> =0D
> =0D
>
> =0D
>
> =0D
>
> =0D
>
> =0D
>
> =0D
> =0D
> =0D
> =0D
> =0D
> =2E
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: relative wind message of Fri, 30 Nov 2001 |
> Rate of climb and all other aerodynamics are not a function of wind.....
>
> you all got it!
>
> Topher
Topher and Gang:
Yup!!! I got it.
If there was an advantage of climbing into the wind (other
than take offs), it would be easy to tell which way the wind
was blowing. All airplanes gaining altitude would be
climbing into the wind. :-) Especially those big heavy
muthers.
As has been stated in the msgs I have been reading, wind is
relative. Airplane has no idea which way the wind is
blowing. Performance is not affected by wind direction.
Our minds are being tricked again, telling us the airplane
is climbing better upwind. I think this illusion is a good
example of why we get in trouble flying low to the ground,
making downwind turns, or for that matter, flying straight
downwind. We forget we have an airspeed indicator, rely
solely on our senses to tell us we are flying above stall
speed, when in fact we may not be and the result is a stall,
usually too low to recover from.
Be sure and factor in updrafts and downdrafts when playing
with the climbing upwind and downwind game.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 503 DC & Electric Fuel Pump |
How
> has anyone using the electric pump connected it to the carbs?=0D
> =0D
> Ron Payne
Ron and Gang:
The archives should be full of info on fuel/electric fuel
pump systems. I know I have explained many times the way I
have rigged the fuel system in my Firestar and MK III. I do
it in series, electric pump pushes fuel through the engine
driven pump. Works for me.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SGreenpg(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 503 DC & Electric Fuel Pump |
How
has anyone using the electric pump connected it to the carbs?
Ron,
I connected my electric pump parallel like you are talking about because I
thought the diaphragm was the most likely part of the pulse pump to fail and
if it does with an electric pump in series it will flood the crankcase of one
cylinder. With the electric pump parallel the outlet checkvalve in the pulse
pump is what holds when the electric pump is operating. The two outlets from
my pulse pump come from a common chamber inside the pump so it is virtually a
tee. With that Said it is only necessary to tee your electric pump discharge
into one line between your pulse pump and a carburetor. I pick up my fuel
pressure reading at the discharge of the electric pump and it reads pressure
for both pumps. The pulse pump is about 3.8 PSI. and the electric is about
4.5 PSI.
Hope this helps
Steven Green
Mark III 582 150 hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Flying into headwinds |
It is almost a given that a higher airspeed is better, even though fuel
consumption goes up, but it can get to the place where there is a trade off.
For instance: if fuel burn is 2 gph at 40 mph, and head wind is 20 mph, you
will travel 20 miles in one hour and use two gallons of gas. With 5 gallons
of gas available, you have three gallons left, max range is 50 miles.
If you can fly at 50 mph (with a 20 mph headwind) and burn 2.5 gph in the
process, you come out better. Your five gallons will let you cover 60 miles
in two hours at that rate.
But if you fly at 60 mph and burn 3 gallons per hour, (once again a 20 mph
headwind) you will travel 40 miles across the ground in one hour, have 2
gallons left, fly another 40 minutes, and go about another 13.3 miles, for
a net gain of only 3.3 miles compared to your original 40 mph airspeed. 50
mph was better than 60 mph.
It is vital to know your fuel burn at a given speed/rpm to know what to do.
When fuel burn begins to increase faster than your airspeed (with
increasing throttle), you need to know the crossover point of diminishing
returns. And that will depend on the engine/airframe combination specific
to your Kolb.
If you don't know what YOUR fuel burn is at a given throttle setting, and
how fast YOUR Kolb will go at a given rpm, you need to find out.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>It strikes me that this discussion about the effect of a headwind on glide
>speed/distance is closely related to something else I've wondered about: the
>best cruise power setting for flying into a headwind. Should you increase
>your airspeed if you want to maximize your range? (RANGE - NOT time aloft).
>It's really the same problem in a different speed range.
>
>Doing the "thought experiment" of flying into a headwind equal to the normal
>cruise speed persuades me that a higher power setting is probably beneficial
>(obviously, in that example, it's necessary to get a range greater than
>zero). But how much? Is there a rule of thumb for relating these things?
>Given the limited distance capability of our aircraft, this knowledge might
>really come in useful sometime.
>
>Lee
>Firestar II
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 20 Msgs - 12/02/01 |
I wonder if anyone would advise on an ULTRALIGHT tractor instead of a pusher.
I feel I am too old to change. Any preferences and why? I am inquiring about
kits.
Thanks.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Kroll" <skroll(at)dellepro.com> |
Sandy,
I have a (1988 model Mk2 version of what you have (essentially the same
but with a enclosed fuselage). The one thing I remember Homer
emphasizing is this...do NOT put any engine on this airplane other than
the one specified in the plans (503 Rotax) Homer Kolb was a very
conservative man when it came to designing his aircraft but I have found
everything he said about the Mk2 to be absolutely true and have decided
to follow his advise to the letter. The airplane flies beautifully on
503 power so I don't see any reason to "experiment" on your own with
anything else. If I were you, I would sell the 532 and buy a new
503DCDI. I know that's going to cost you some more money but that is
the absolute best advice I can give you. I think you will be a lot more
sure of yourself when it comes time to fly it and that in itself will be
very important at the time.
Good Luck
Steve Kroll
Mk2, 503 SCSI 186 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Swiderski" <swiderskir(at)earthlink.net> |
Sandy,
Check the archives on this, you should find some informative reading. I
agree with Homer's advice, but only as spoken as president of the company.
It is true that a 532 could get a Twinstar in trouble, if it were
indiscriminately used. It is a fact that the Twinstar's motor mount &
fuslage can handle the extra power & weight as demonstrated by the many
Twinstars that have been running trouble free with 532's. But if you used
the extra power to exceed the VNE or the recommended manuvering speed in
rough weather, then that 532 could hurt the plane. Using that extra power
in climbout is not a problem in the least, in fact it will make your plane
safer, because you will gain altitude quicker, clear obstacles easier & have
more options if you have to abort . The bottom line issue is not can the
plane handle the extra power, but rather can the pilot handle the extra
power. If you control the engine & stay in the recommended paramaters, then
you will be just fine. If I were president of Kolb, I would give the same
advice as Homer did because a 532 would make the Twinstar no longer Fool
proof (well, almost Fool proof) & there are many Fools out there to
mismanage their aircraft. ...Richard Swiderski, ex-UltraStar, ex-TwinStar
MkII & present SlingShot Kolber
---- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Kroll" <skroll(at)dellepro.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Twinstar
>
> Sandy,
>
> I have a (1988 model Mk2 version of what you have (essentially the same
> but with a enclosed fuselage). The one thing I remember Homer
> emphasizing is this...do NOT put any engine on this airplane other than
> the one specified in the plans (503 Rotax) Homer Kolb was a very
> conservative man when it came to designing his aircraft but I have found
> everything he said about the Mk2 to be absolutely true and have decided
> to follow his advise to the letter. The airplane flies beautifully on
> 503 power so I don't see any reason to "experiment" on your own with
> anything else. If I were you, I would sell the 532 and buy a new
> 503DCDI. I know that's going to cost you some more money but that is
> the absolute best advice I can give you. I think you will be a lot more
> sure of yourself when it comes time to fly it and that in itself will be
> very important at the time.
>
> Good Luck
> Steve Kroll
> Mk2, 503 SCSI 186 hours
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Vincent <emailbill(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | PICTURE: KOLB ON SKIIS |
Hi Everyone!
Finally I have time to get back on the Kolb-list, I hope I did not miss
too much fun!
I am sending a picture of me in my Firestar II, when I did some flying
last winter. Unfortunately, this summer I was not able to fly as much
as I normally do because I had an inner ear infection, What A Bummer !!
I am starting to feel better and we already have a couple of inches of
snow on the ground; I am looking forward to some winter flying!
Bill Vincent
Quinnesec, Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Vincent <emailbill(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PICTURE: KOLB ON SKIIS |
Help
I sent an attachment of my winter flying but it looks like it did not go
through. What did I do wrong, can you send attachments on this list or is
there another way?
Bill Vincent wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone!
>
> Finally I have time to get back on the Kolb-list, I hope I did not miss
> too much fun!
>
> I am sending a picture of me in my Firestar II, when I did some flying
> last winter. Unfortunately, this summer I was not able to fly as much
> as I normally do because I had an inner ear infection, What A Bummer !!
>
> I am starting to feel better and we already have a couple of inches of
> snow on the ground; I am looking forward to some winter flying!
>
> Bill Vincent
> Quinnesec, Upper Peninsula of Michigan
> Firestar II
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com> |
Steve Kroll wrote:
>
>
> Sandy,
>
> I have a (1988 model Mk2 version of what you have (essentially the same
> but with a enclosed fuselage). The one thing I remember Homer
> emphasizing is this...do NOT put any engine on this airplane other than
> the one specified in the plans (503 Rotax) Homer Kolb was a very
> conservative man when it came to designing his aircraft but I have found
> everything he said about the Mk2 to be absolutely true and have decided
> to follow his advise to the letter. The airplane flies beautifully on
> 503 power so I don't see any reason to "experiment" on your own with
> anything else. If I were you, I would sell the 532 and buy a new
> 503DCDI. I know that's going to cost you some more money but that is
> the absolute best advice I can give you. I think you will be a lot more
> sure of yourself when it comes time to fly it and that in itself will be
> very important at the time.
>
> Good Luck
> Steve Kroll
> Mk2, 503 SCSI 186 hours
A Mark 2 with a 532 will have trouble folding the wings without raising
the engine up higher to clear the carbs which are mounted lower than the
standard 503. I have a Mark 2 with a 582 but never fold the wings. I
have no concern about using the bigger engine. Just stay within the
speed and gross weight limits and you should be fine. A 503 can be a
very marginal engine for gross weight under hot humid conditions.
|
_____|_____
*============================R============================*
\ /
\ /
(/---\)
\___/
/ \
() ()
Eugene Zimmerman
http://home.dejazzd.com/eugenezimmerman/My%20Fun.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary r. voigt" <johndeereantique(at)uswest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 20 Msgs - 12/02/01 |
Pete, first of all you are never too old to start changing your
thoughts...you may just think you are... it's all in your mind...enough said
about that. Go with what your comfort level is...i have no experience in tractor
ultralights but own a kolb " KXP" model, all i can say is with a tractor type you
have less items to go through the prop... and i think several people can attest
to that... including myself... good luck on your decision.
Gary r. voigt
>
> I wonder if anyone would advise on an ULTRALIGHT tractor instead of a pusher.
> I feel I am too old to change. Any preferences and why? I am inquiring about
> kits.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Pete
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PICTURE: KOLB ON SKIIS |
At 07:48 PM 12/3/2001, you wrote:
>
>Bill, the list does not allow attachments , for obvious reasons. You will
>have to post it on a url somewhere and tell us where..
I recently "discovered" Shutterfly... you can post unlimited number of
pictures up there, and then "share" them so anyone can view them, and it
doesn't cost a penny. The size of the image isn't that great, but it's
better than nothing. http://www.shutterfly.com
-- Robert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary r. voigt" <johndeereantique(at)uswest.net> |
| Subject: | winter flying pic |
Bill, you gave me an idea to post my pic of last
winters flying...i normally don't say too much on this list
because there are way too many people more knowlegable than
me on flying. i'am still a low time pilot...so i thought i
would at least show my face and let you know who i'am when i
do say something.
thanks,
Gary r. voigt
firestar KXP & johndeere tractors/gas engines
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/s.o.s/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KolbTwinstar(at)aol.com |
Where do you get this done?
Tracy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Stuart" <cstuart(at)searnet.com> |
----- Original Message -----
From: Clay Stuart <tcstuart(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: photo list
Just now getting a broadband connection via cable modem and I was looking
at
the photo share link at the bottom of my daily digest. It is
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/. I didn't see any Kolb pictures
listed, but I don't see why we couldn't use it to share pictures. It is
available, so let's use it.
I just made my contribution. This list is "priceless" as the ad says.
Clay Stuart
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
If you are talking about the tuned pipe, you call R&D and order the pipe.
Installing it is a 10 minute job.
http://www.rdaerosports.com
Ross
> From: KolbTwinstar(at)aol.com
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 22:36:35 EST
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: twinstar
>
>
> Where do you get this done?
>
> Tracy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Perkins <2scott(at)bellsouth.net> |
Pete-
There are very few reasons to want a pusher, but visibility is one
of them. Most guys flying Pushers are spoiled and would not consider
tractor. I admit, for many, Visibility is 99 percent of flying
so it is personal perference and placing priorities on the things you
want/need.
However there are several reasons why Tractor is better.
-Safer in Crash is # 1 ! Engine wont hit you in back of head and the
motormount frame and structure can serve as "bumper" protection.
-Safer if a prop blade comes off and wont sever part of the plane or
controls.
-Since pilot sits on CG in tractor, less chance of crash because of
pilots of varying weight. ( wont be tail heavy because of small pilot )
-items not subject to blowing through prop
-can usually use a longer prop resulting in more prop efficiency.
-submerged Tractors are easier to tow to the surface
( dont ask me how I know )
-Tricycles sit on the nose instead of tail.
Some will argue, and I am not sure if I would argue against that
"a pusher can be built lighter than a tractor". There have
been some extremely light tractors built however.
recently RANS first built a tractor Stinger and then abandoned
in favor of pusher. It could have been pushers are cheaper to
build than tractors ? ? ?
Incidentally you should also be thinking of a tricycle instead of
taildragger for safety in ease of ground handling and to remove
ground loop possibility.
I wish Kolb would offer tricycle versions. There have been a few
converted.
thanks
Scott Perkins see several thousand ultralight pics at http://vula.org
( Vintage Ultralight Lightplane Assoc )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrodebush" <jrodebush(at)cinci.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Mark III twin prop |
The December "Experimenter" magazine shows a highly modified Mark III with
twin props driven by a single 65 HP Hirth.
It also has drooped tips and a customized landing gear. Worth a look. Hope
to see this thing at fly in!
Rex Rodebush
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Tractor vs. pusher |
Is there any better reason to fly our flutterbugs other than to enjoy the
view? So why give the prop the best view? It will only reward you with many
more bugs on the windscreen that a pusher ever will.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>I wonder if anyone would advise on an ULTRALIGHT tractor instead of a pusher.
>I feel I am too old to change. Any preferences and why? I am inquiring about
>kits.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Pete
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> |
Bill and Group,
Another way to share photo's is to use the feature that Matt is
offering. See "Photo Share" at the bottom of any list message.
John Jung
Bill Vincent wrote:
>
>I am sending a picture of me in my Firestar II
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)michigan.gov> |
I'm still using a 14 AMP battery but I prime the carbs with my back up fuel pump,
give the engine two full strokes of the throttle to inject fuel into the engine,
rotate the engine by hand through three compression strokes, two more strokes
of the throttle, then I start. This is the procedure for starting at 45
degrees and it fires on the first cylinder. After 1st start I pump the throttle
like crazy to keep it running as I don't have a choke. My battery is plenty
big enough for me but it doesn't live very long. I replace the battery every spring.
I think the high load of starting the big engine with the small battery
takes its tole. Hope this helps.
I got 4 hours on the plane last weekend in breaks in between the rain. Yesterday
was 55 degrees with no wind and sunny. I'm finding I have kind of a climb pitch
setting on my prop. Static I see 3300RPMs, on takeoff I see 3400 RPMs @ 50MPH
or 3500 @ 60 mph. I haven't measured climb rate but it is impressive. Most
of the time I find I'm using less than full throttle. With my old engine I got
the habit of raising the tail to gain speed on the ground for take off. With
the new it works much better to keep the tail low and advance the throttle slowly
by the time I get to 75% power I'm CLIMBING. My cruse speeds are around
70MPH at 3300RPMs and 74MPH at 3400 RPM, at full throttle the RPMs go to 3800RPMs
and 85 MPH. I haven't maintained full throttle for long so I may get more
speed but I'm really turning more RPMs that I want my engine to turn. I used
to do my approach a 2100 RPMs but with the new engine the plane falls out of the
sky at that RPM I had to increase to 2500RPMs to get a reasonable approach.
My new engine also doesn't want to run in the 2000-2500 range. It will idle at
600RPMs and runs real smooth at 1500 RPMs I run this RPM for warm up. I increase
to 1600 to taxi, when I get to 2000 RPMs the engine leaps to 2500 RPMs. The
new engine has a RPM range that isn't as smooth as others (1800-2600) and the
engine just doesn't feel the same as the direct drive engine. I think the new
engine is actually smoother than the direct drive engine but frequency is app.
twice so it feels worse. Its not a problem it just feels different.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIII classic
>>> "Larry Bourne" 12/02/01 02:18AM >>>
Hi Rick: What size battery are you using ?? The one I'm using is a temporary
thing, and is pretty big, tho' not completely unusable. I'm looking at an
18 amp/hr sealed gel cell from LEAF, but not sure if it's big enuf, or maybe
even too big. Whaddaya think ?? How is testing coming on yours ??...............or
can you still fly ?? Guess it must be winter back there now, eh ?? Hard
to picture...........my season of freedom has just started. 40 nights & 70
days. It's really great - finally - but sure makes me dread next summer. Actually,
I kind of doubt if I'll stay here another year.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Hi Scott Perkins and Gang:
What aircraft do you fly?
What is your experience level?
Do you have flight time in a Kolb?
Are you biased toward tractor aircraft? :-)
Let me see if I can address some of your reasons why you
think a tractor is better than a pusher:
> -Safer in Crash is # 1 ! Engine wont hit you in back of head and the
> motormount frame and structure can serve as "bumper" protection.
If you hit hard enough, nose down, to rip a Kolb engine out
of its mounts, it won't matter if it is tractor or pusher.
> -Safer if a prop blade comes off and wont sever part of the plane or
> controls.
Been flying Kolbs for 17+ years. Do not know of any
incident/accident where a slung blade severed the tailboom
or controls. There is a 4130 chromoly "H" brace installed
inside the tailboom in the area of the prop path. I
personally experienced a blade strike in this area with all
three blades of a GSC 3-blade wooden prop. Big dent which
resulted in knocking the tailboom out of column several
degrees, but did not affect the forced landing, which was
successful.
> -Since pilot sits on CG in tractor, less chance of crash because of
> pilots of varying weight. ( wont be tail heavy because of small pilot )
Not a problem in Kolb pushers.
> -items not subject to blowing through prop
You got me there. If we don't insure that "items" ahead of
the prop are secure, they will be pulled through the prop.
> -can usually use a longer prop resulting in more prop efficiency.
Not a problem with Kolb aircraft. We have a reputation to
be great climbers, fast cruise, and very efficient. Some
are running 72" 3-blade props.
> -submerged Tractors are easier to tow to the surface
> ( dont ask me how I know )
Don't think the above will influence many folks on their
decision of which way to go, tractor or pusher.
> -Tricycles sit on the nose instead of tail.
So???????????? I prefer tail draggers, whether tractor or
pusher. You got that right. Trikes sit on nose rather than
tail. And taildraggers are more versatile performers, plus
can be built lighter with less drag.
> Some will argue, and I am not sure if I would argue against that
> "a pusher can be built lighter than a tractor". There have
> been some extremely light tractors built however.
There have also been some "extremely light" pushers built.
Don't think this is a factor.
> recently RANS first built a tractor Stinger and then abandoned
> in favor of pusher. It could have been pushers are cheaper to
> build than tractors ? ? ?
Don't know about this one.
> Incidentally you should also be thinking of a tricycle instead of
> taildragger for safety in ease of ground handling and to remove
> ground loop possibility
Don't think this is a factor in deciding on a pusher or
tractor. BTW: We could probably teach you to fly a
taildragger. :-) Kolbs do not have a ground loop problem.
> I wish Kolb would offer tricycle versions.
Hang on. New Kolb Aircraft is a pretty liberal company.
Maybe they will design one for you. BTW: Have you flown a
Kolb taildragger?
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Richard Neilsen wrote:
I replace the battery every spring. I think the high load
of starting the big engine with the small battery takes its
tole. Hope this helps.
Richard and Gang:
I used a 14 amp wet battery with the 912 for many years.
Changed it out annually, plus it had a habit of spitting
acid on the tail section of the aircraft.
Tom Pehigny of Flight Star gave me two batteries to use for
the 2000 and 2001 flights to Barrow. They are the UltraBat
13 and and UltraStart Red. You can find info on them at
this site:
http://www.startstick.com/Products.html#UltraBat13
Do a little search and you can get the prices which are
expensive. However, they are dry sealed foil batteries.
Can use in any position. Very lightweight. I use the
larger UltraBat13 in the airplane to turn the 912S with 10.5
to 1 compression. They seem like low power bats but look at
the peak current. I think that is the secret of the mighty
mites in small packages. The smaller UltraBat Red will
start my Cummins B6 truck engine with ease. The UltraBat13
had no problem in freezing temps in Alaska, where the 14 amp
wet battery would not start the 912 in Dead Horse at 30F
after it sat overnight.
Take care and good luck with the new VW eng.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 11/21/01 10:17:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
bwr000(at)yahoo.com writes:
> I solved the problem with improved hinge
> placement, although I would normally roll my eyes if anyone ever said
> that there was a solution to flutter other than balancing the control
> surfaces. My reasoning for believing the hinge change would fix the
> problem was because I was (and still am) under the impression that
> flutter had not been encountered on the KX or earlier Firestars, and
> that I was simply changing my KXP hinge placement
Nice to see you back Ben, I have a KX and have never experienced flutter.....
and have probably never exceeded 85 mph...
geoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
the Wright Flyer was a pusher. :)
>
> Lee
Lee and Gang:
Thanks for that reminder. That used to be one of my answers
at Oshkosh, Lakeland, and other flyins and airports, when
folks would come up to me and my Firestar or MK III and ask
me what kind of strange airplane I had, and why was the prop
on the "wrong" end of the airplane. I used to tell them it
was the "Wright" end of the airplane. Same as Orville and
Wilbur, except they had two props and I only have one. :-)
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Sudlow" <sudlow77(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Richard,
A friend of mine who flies a markIII has had similar problems with batteries
not lasting. He runs an alarm company and is very good with electronics.
He's recently installed a voltage regulator/rectifier because his 582 was
overcharging his battery and burning it out. he says the 582 was sending
14.2 volts to the battery & with the regulator installed is now sending 12.8
volts to the battery, and the battery is doing well. do you think that might
be why batteries among the list members are only making it for one year or
so?
chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)michigan.gov>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Battery
>
> I'm still using a 14 AMP battery but I prime the carbs with my back up
fuel pump, give the engine two full strokes of the throttle to inject fuel
into the engine, rotate the engine by hand through three compression
strokes, two more strokes of the throttle, then I start. This is the
procedure for starting at 45 degrees and it fires on the first cylinder.
After 1st start I pump the throttle like crazy to keep it running as I don't
have a choke. My battery is plenty big enough for me but it doesn't live
very long. I replace the battery every spring. I think the high load of
starting the big engine with the small battery takes its tole. Hope this
helps.
>
> I got 4 hours on the plane last weekend in breaks in between the rain.
Yesterday was 55 degrees with no wind and sunny. I'm finding I have kind of
a climb pitch setting on my prop. Static I see 3300RPMs, on takeoff I see
3400 RPMs @ 50MPH or 3500 @ 60 mph. I haven't measured climb rate but it is
impressive. Most of the time I find I'm using less than full throttle. With
my old engine I got the habit of raising the tail to gain speed on the
ground for take off. With the new it works much better to keep the tail low
and advance the throttle slowly by the time I get to 75% power I'm CLIMBING.
My cruse speeds are around 70MPH at 3300RPMs and 74MPH at 3400 RPM, at full
throttle the RPMs go to 3800RPMs and 85 MPH. I haven't maintained full
throttle for long so I may get more speed but I'm really turning more RPMs
that I want my engine to turn. I used to do my approach a 2100 RPMs but
with the new engine the plane falls out of the sky at that RPM I had to
increase to 2500RPMs to !
> get a reasonable approach. My new engine also doesn't want to run in the
2000-2500 range. It will idle at 600RPMs and runs real smooth at 1500 RPMs I
run this RPM for warm up. I increase to 1600 to taxi, when I get to 2000
RPMs the engine leaps to 2500 RPMs. The new engine has a RPM range that
isn't as smooth as others (1800-2600) and the engine just doesn't feel the
same as the direct drive engine. I think the new engine is actually smoother
than the direct drive engine but frequency is app. twice so it feels worse.
Its not a problem it just feels different.
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIII classic
>
> >>> "Larry Bourne" 12/02/01 02:18AM >>>
> Hi Rick: What size battery are you using ?? The one I'm using is a
temporary thing, and is pretty big, tho' not completely unusable. I'm
looking at an 18 amp/hr sealed gel cell from LEAF, but not sure if it's big
enuf, or maybe even too big. Whaddaya think ?? How is testing coming on
yours ??...............or can you still fly ?? Guess it must be winter back
there now, eh ?? Hard to picture...........my season of freedom has just
started. 40 nights & 70 days. It's really great - finally - but sure makes
me dread next summer. Actually, I kind of doubt if I'll stay here another
year.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
The 14.2 volts isn't the problem. Normal charge voltage for a lead acid
battery is 13.2 to 14.3 volts. What is shortening the life of smaller
batteries is the rate a shunt type regulator is doing that charging.
Dick Kuntzleman, Pres.
Kuntzleman Electronics, Inc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Souder" <flykolb(at)epix.net> |
Scott,
Anyone could generate a raft of reasons arguing why a car is better than a
motorcycle. Safety, could be at the top of this long list of reasons. So
why do people still buy and ride motorcycles??? This list of pro-cycling
reasons would probably be relatively short compared to the anti-cycling
reasons. But at the top of this short list would probably be the word: FUN!
"Fun" outweighs a ton of opposing reasons.
"Visibility" outweights a ton of other more rational reasons in aircraft
design.
Scott, I agree with most of your reasons; but for me ... I vote for
visibility!
Go figure.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Perkins" <2scott(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Tractors
>
> Pete-
>
> There are very few reasons to want a pusher, but visibility is one
> of them. Most guys flying Pushers are spoiled and would not consider
> tractor. I admit, for many, Visibility is 99 percent of flying
> so it is personal perference and placing priorities on the things you
> want/need.
>
> However there are several reasons why Tractor is better.
>
> -Safer in Crash is # 1 ! Engine wont hit you in back of head and the
> motormount frame and structure can serve as "bumper" protection.
>
> -Safer if a prop blade comes off and wont sever part of the plane or
> controls.
>
> -Since pilot sits on CG in tractor, less chance of crash because of
> pilots of varying weight. ( wont be tail heavy because of small pilot )
>
> -items not subject to blowing through prop
>
> -can usually use a longer prop resulting in more prop efficiency.
>
> -submerged Tractors are easier to tow to the surface
> ( dont ask me how I know )
>
> -Tricycles sit on the nose instead of tail.
>
> Some will argue, and I am not sure if I would argue against that
> "a pusher can be built lighter than a tractor". There have
> been some extremely light tractors built however.
>
> recently RANS first built a tractor Stinger and then abandoned
> in favor of pusher. It could have been pushers are cheaper to
> build than tractors ? ? ?
>
> Incidentally you should also be thinking of a tricycle instead of
> taildragger for safety in ease of ground handling and to remove
> ground loop possibility.
>
> I wish Kolb would offer tricycle versions. There have been a few
> converted.
>
>
> thanks
> Scott Perkins see several thousand ultralight pics at http://vula.org
> ( Vintage Ultralight Lightplane Assoc )
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Rains <rr(at)htg.net> |
I'm beginning to think I may be doing something wrong. I've been using a
26 AMP battery without any problems. It has plenty of power for starting,
and keeps all the light nice and bright. Could I cause something else to
go wrong with the larger capacity battery?
Dave Rains
El Paso Alpha Pilot.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Sudlow [SMTP:sudlow77(at)earthlink.net]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: Battery
Hi Richard,
A friend of mine who flies a markIII has had similar problems with
batteries
not lasting. He runs an alarm company and is very good with electronics.
He's recently installed a voltage regulator/rectifier because his 582 was
overcharging his battery and burning it out. he says the 582 was sending
14.2 volts to the battery & with the regulator installed is now sending
12.8
volts to the battery, and the battery is doing well. do you think that
might
be why batteries among the list members are only making it for one year or
so?
chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)michigan.gov>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Battery
>
> I'm still using a 14 AMP battery but I prime the carbs with my back up
fuel pump, give the engine two full strokes of the throttle to inject fuel
into the engine, rotate the engine by hand through three compression
strokes, two more strokes of the throttle, then I start. This is the
procedure for starting at 45 degrees and it fires on the first cylinder.
After 1st start I pump the throttle like crazy to keep it running as I
don't
have a choke. My battery is plenty big enough for me but it doesn't live
very long. I replace the battery every spring. I think the high load of
starting the big engine with the small battery takes its tole. Hope this
helps.
>
> I got 4 hours on the plane last weekend in breaks in between the rain.
Yesterday was 55 degrees with no wind and sunny. I'm finding I have kind of
a climb pitch setting on my prop. Static I see 3300RPMs, on takeoff I see
3400 RPMs @ 50MPH or 3500 @ 60 mph. I haven't measured climb rate but it is
impressive. Most of the time I find I'm using less than full throttle.
With
my old engine I got the habit of raising the tail to gain speed on the
ground for take off. With the new it works much better to keep the tail low
and advance the throttle slowly by the time I get to 75% power I'm
CLIMBING.
My cruse speeds are around 70MPH at 3300RPMs and 74MPH at 3400 RPM, at full
throttle the RPMs go to 3800RPMs and 85 MPH. I haven't maintained full
throttle for long so I may get more speed but I'm really turning more RPMs
that I want my engine to turn. I used to do my approach a 2100 RPMs but
with the new engine the plane falls out of the sky at that RPM I had to
increase to 2500RPMs to !
> get a reasonable approach. My new engine also doesn't want to run in the
2000-2500 range. It will idle at 600RPMs and runs real smooth at 1500 RPMs
I
run this RPM for warm up. I increase to 1600 to taxi, when I get to 2000
RPMs the engine leaps to 2500 RPMs. The new engine has a RPM range that
isn't as smooth as others (1800-2600) and the engine just doesn't feel the
same as the direct drive engine. I think the new engine is actually
smoother
than the direct drive engine but frequency is app. twice so it feels worse.
Its not a problem it just feels different.
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Redrive VW powered MKIII classic
>
> >>> "Larry Bourne" 12/02/01 02:18AM >>>
> Hi Rick: What size battery are you using ?? The one I'm using is a
temporary thing, and is pretty big, tho' not completely unusable. I'm
looking at an 18 amp/hr sealed gel cell from LEAF, but not sure if it's big
enuf, or maybe even too big. Whaddaya think ?? How is testing coming on
yours ??...............or can you still fly ?? Guess it must be winter
back
there now, eh ?? Hard to picture...........my season of freedom has just
started. 40 nights & 70 days. It's really great - finally - but sure
makes
me dread next summer. Actually, I kind of doubt if I'll stay here another
year.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Rains <rr(at)htg.net> |
Wright!! We fly these craft because they are fun! Sometimes we loose
sight of the reasons we choose to fly Kolbs, and get worked up over things
best left to span can drivers. I fly my FireStar because it's safe, very
strong, and I can SEEEEEE..............
Dave Rains
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Souder [SMTP:flykolb(at)epix.net]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Tractors
Scott,
Anyone could generate a raft of reasons arguing why a car is better than a
motorcycle. Safety, could be at the top of this long list of reasons. So
why do people still buy and ride motorcycles??? This list of pro-cycling
reasons would probably be relatively short compared to the anti-cycling
reasons. But at the top of this short list would probably be the word:
FUN!
"Fun" outweighs a ton of opposing reasons.
"Visibility" outweights a ton of other more rational reasons in aircraft
design.
Scott, I agree with most of your reasons; but for me ... I vote for
visibility!
Go figure.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Perkins" <2scott(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Tractors
>
> Pete-
>
> There are very few reasons to want a pusher, but visibility is one
> of them. Most guys flying Pushers are spoiled and would not consider
> tractor. I admit, for many, Visibility is 99 percent of flying
> so it is personal perference and placing priorities on the things you
> want/need.
>
> However there are several reasons why Tractor is better.
>
> -Safer in Crash is # 1 ! Engine wont hit you in back of head and the
> motormount frame and structure can serve as "bumper" protection.
>
> -Safer if a prop blade comes off and wont sever part of the plane or
> controls.
>
> -Since pilot sits on CG in tractor, less chance of crash because of
> pilots of varying weight. ( wont be tail heavy because of small pilot )
>
> -items not subject to blowing through prop
>
> -can usually use a longer prop resulting in more prop efficiency.
>
> -submerged Tractors are easier to tow to the surface
> ( dont ask me how I know )
>
> -Tricycles sit on the nose instead of tail.
>
> Some will argue, and I am not sure if I would argue against that
> "a pusher can be built lighter than a tractor". There have
> been some extremely light tractors built however.
>
> recently RANS first built a tractor Stinger and then abandoned
> in favor of pusher. It could have been pushers are cheaper to
> build than tractors ? ? ?
>
> Incidentally you should also be thinking of a tricycle instead of
> taildragger for safety in ease of ground handling and to remove
> ground loop possibility.
>
> I wish Kolb would offer tricycle versions. There have been a few
> converted.
>
>
> thanks
> Scott Perkins see several thousand ultralight pics at http://vula.org
> ( Vintage Ultralight Lightplane Assoc )
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thumb" <Bill-Jo(at)prodigy.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: Three elderly retirees |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry" <bjadams(at)dmci.net>
Williams" ; "Billie Futrell" ;
"Adams, Jill"
Subject: Three elderly retirees
>
>
> Three elderly retirees, with the usual hearing loss, were taking a
> walk one fine November day. One remarked to the others, "Windy, ain't
> it?"
>
> "No," the second man replied, "it's Thursday."
>
> And the third man chimed in, "So am I. Let's go get a beer."
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
At 06:29 PM 12/4/2001, you wrote:
>
>I'm beginning to think I may be doing something wrong. I've been using a
>26 AMP battery without any problems. It has plenty of power for starting,
>and keeps all the light nice and bright. Could I cause something else to
>go wrong with the larger capacity battery?
>Dave Rains
Any high quality sealed lead-acid battery should last from 3-4 years with
normal service, and some go longer. If a battery of that type ever reaches
temperatures above about 115-F, then they should be discarded. If you see
any bulging, they should be discarded. As previously noted, they should be
charged using a regulated voltage.
Personally, I >ONLY< use Yuasa brand sealed-lead-acid batteries. And their
new AGM style lead-acid are even better.
-- Robert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi(at)supernet.com> |
| Subject: | Firestar For Sale? |
Hi Tim,
Do you still have this plane? If so where could I see it, and when is a
good time? I live near E-town, Pa.
i still have my 1984 Firestar 377 for sale. i have it for sale
for
$6,000 but i want to get rid of this thing before winter sets in so i'll
take
$5,500 for it. i know its old but its in good shape. you can buy and fly
it.
nothing's wrong with it. i'm paying rent on a plane i'm not flying so
i'll
cut the price just to move it out of there. its just sitting in a pole
building collecting dust and bird doo-doo. come and get this thing so i
don't
have to pay anymore rent! ..... plane is kept in Shrewbury.pa., about
20
miles south of York....... tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
> -submerged Tractors are easier to tow to the surface
> ( dont ask me how I know )
Sorry...But I must. Tell us the story...
> Incidentally you should also be thinking of a tricycle instead of
> taildragger for safety in ease of ground handling and to remove
> ground loop possibility.
Dude....Eberyone knows that real men fly taildraggers :)
Tricycle gear is for girls....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
Richard Carlisle wrote:
> Ive been running them for years with no problems.
Hi Richard and Gang:
How does the above equate to actual hours flown?
How does the tuned pipe affect the power band?
How many hours are you getting on your 503's producing 12
more HP than stock?
The reason I ask is I have heard many horror stories from
unsuspecting pilots that have been sold these pipes, only to
ruin engines. My understanding is that the pipes are
accompanied with instructions for setting up the carbs
correctly, yet they still burn engines.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 12/4/01 8:20:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, bwr000(at)yahoo.com
writes:
> When I think of tractors and ultralight in the same sentence, I can
> automatically think of strafing, or maybe racing them. See:
> http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom/BensAlbum/misc/tractor.html
> http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom/BensAlbum/misc/harvest.html
>
> Sorry, I'm hopelessly day-dreaming about flying today.
Ben,
I must say, you get to fly in some beautiful country with plenty of places to
land. Dave Rains and I had to opportunity of spending the forth of July at
the Davis airport and saw the fireworks from my tent. If a recall there are
some very tall antennas south of the airport.
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Vincent <emailbill(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | tricycle vs taildragger |
It's hard for me to imagine anyone wanting a tricycle instead of a
taildragger.
Taildraggers are more stable and are much more fun to fly especially on
skis !
However, I have to admit when I owned a T-Bird it did have a little
tendency to ground loop.
In the 300 hours I have been flying my Firestar II it never came close
to wanting to ground loop; even when practicing my one wheel take-offs.
One time when taking off in very sticky wet snow I put the Firestar II
up on it's "nose" at which point I was very happy the engine was behind
me because there wasn't any damage to the prop or plane.
Bill Vincent
Quinnesec, Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce McElhoe" <brucem(at)theworks.com> |
| Subject: | Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor |
Hello,
I thought you might be interested and amazed at the exchange of letters I
had recently with Vertex Standard, the manufacturers of Yaesu handheld
transceivers. I wrote the following to their U.S. office in Cerritos,
California. [condensed version].
I bought a "VXA-100 Aviator Pilot" transceiver [with a VOR receiver]....I
recently had the opportunity to try the navigation receiver during a flight
in my own fiberglass airplane with direct line-of-sight to several VOR
transmitters in Nevada. I am distressed to find that, even in these ideal
conditions, the heading information (including the CDI indicator) is erratic
and unuseable.
I called your service department in Cerritos, California, and learned that
erratic readings are characteristic of that model and can not be corrected.
I was told the following:
1. The navigation function is designed to have a steady reading only
while the receiver is not moving. I was informed that readings would always
be unuseable in a moving airplane!
2. They are well aware of this shortcoming in the design, and their
attempts in the past to improve the performance have been unsuccessful.
3. Your service department does not have a signal generator to test
position information from the navigation receiver. They are currently
unable to attempt repairs to my receiver, even if they thought they could
succeed.
I am disappointed in your product and advertising because I clearly expected
your VXA-100 to operate in my moving airplane. I was informed also that
your newer navigation receiver, Model VXA-200/16, actually displays a
readable VOR signal while the receiver is moving.
Accordingly, I propose an exchange that will reduce my disappointment
greatly and restore my confidence in the trustworthiness of Yaesu. [I then
proposed to send them my transceiver and the difference in price between
mine and the newer VXA-200/16.]
I received the following answer from David Akins, Manager, Commercial
Service, Vertex Standard:
[quote] We do understand the circumstances that you describe with respect to
the VOR operation in the VXA-100. The problems that you describe are more
related to the attempted use of any handheld radio for VOR operation inside
a moving airplane. This is why we state in the VXA-100 Operating Manual:
"Note The VXA-100's VOR and CDI Navigation features are supplemental aids to
navigation only, and are not intended to be a substitute for accurate
(primary) VOR/CDI or landing service equipment.".... We do wish that VOR
function could be made more accurate and stable, but our factory advises
that this just is not possible in a handheld radio.
"Nonetheless, we are unable to honor your request for a direct factory
trade-in.....We are sorry for your disappointment. [unquote].
Well, they got the "disappointment" part right. I wonder where I got the
idea that a handheld VOR receiver would work in a moving airplane? Maybe it
was from their advertisements. Unfortunately, the receiver is useless as
even a "supplemental aid to navigation". The digits change so fast on the
display that they are unreadable.
Caveat emptor.
Bruce McElhoe FireFly #88
Reedley, Calif.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor |
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 23:55:06
Subject: Kolb-List: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor
At least you got a reply from them. I have been trying to contact Icom for
two months. When I call, I get placed on hold. Not an 800 number. I have
to pay. I finally hung up each time. I have e-mailed their US office three
times and they will not respond. All I want is an ICOM push to talk switch.
I want to buy one and they still will not talk to me. I have had it with
Icom.
Ron Payne
Hello,
I thought you might be interested and amazed at the exchange of letters I
had recently with Vertex Standard, the manufacturers of Yaesu handheld
transceivers. I wrote the following to their U.S. office in Cerritos,
California. [condensed version].
I bought a "VXA-100 Aviator Pilot" transceiver [with a VOR receiver]....I
recently had the opportunity to try the navigation receiver during a flight
in my own fiberglass airplane with direct line-of-sight to several VOR
transmitters in Nevada. I am distressed to find that, even in these ideal
conditions, the heading information (including the CDI indicator) is erratic
and unuseable.
I called your service department in Cerritos, California, and learned that
erratic readings are characteristic of that model and can not be corrected.
I was told the following:
1. The navigation function is designed to have a steady reading only
while the receiver is not moving. I was informed that readings would always
be unuseable in a moving airplane!
2. They are well aware of this shortcoming in the design, and their
attempts in the past to improve the performance have been unsuccessful.
3. Your service department does not have a signal generator to test
position information from the navigation receiver. They are currently
unable to attempt repairs to my receiver, even if they thought they could
succeed.
I am disappointed in your product and advertising because I clearly expected
your VXA-100 to operate in my moving airplane. I was informed also that
your newer navigation receiver, Model VXA-200/16, actually displays a
readable VOR signal while the receiver is moving.
Accordingly, I propose an exchange that will reduce my disappointment
greatly and restore my confidence in the trustworthiness of Yaesu. [I then
proposed to send them my transceiver and the difference in price between
mine and the newer VXA-200/16.]
I received the following answer from David Akins, Manager, Commercial
Service, Vertex Standard:
[quote] We do understand the circumstances that you describe with respect to
the VOR operation in the VXA-100. The problems that you describe are more
related to the attempted use of any handheld radio for VOR operation inside
a moving airplane. This is why we state in the VXA-100 Operating Manual:
"Note The VXA-100's VOR and CDI Navigation features are supplemental aids to
navigation only, and are not intended to be a substitute for accurate
(primary) VOR/CDI or landing service equipment.".... We do wish that VOR
function could be made more accurate and stable, but our factory advises
that this just is not possible in a handheld radio.
"Nonetheless, we are unable to honor your request for a direct factory
trade-in.....We are sorry for your disappointment. [unquote].
Well, they got the "disappointment" part right. I wonder where I got the
idea that a handheld VOR receiver would work in a moving airplane? Maybe it
was from their advertisements. Unfortunately, the receiver is useless as
even a "supplemental aid to navigation". The digits change so fast on the
display that they are unreadable.
Caveat emptor.
Bruce McElhoe FireFly #88
Reedley, Calif.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Rains <rr(at)htg.net> |
| Subject: | Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor |
Don't understand the problem. My ICOM A-22 VOR receiver works great. No problems
at all, easy to use and read.
Dave Rains
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce McElhoe [SMTP:brucem(at)theworks.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor
The problems that you describe are more
related to the attempted use of any handheld radio for VOR operation inside
a moving airplane. This is why we state in the VXA-100 Operating Manual:
"Note The VXA-100's VOR and CDI Navigation features are supplemental aids to
navigation only, and are not intended to be a substitute for accurate
(primary) VOR/CDI or landing service equipment."....
SNIP>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
Richard,
I am interested in your experience, and the answers to John H's
questions, too. I wouldn't have considered a tuned pipe before, but now
that I have an EIS, I'll consider it. I do have one friend that has had
good luck with a tuned pipe on a 582.
John Jung
>
>
>How does the above equate to actual hours flown?
>
>How does the tuned pipe affect the power band?
>
>How many hours are you getting on your 503's producing 12
>more HP than stock?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)michigan.gov> |
| Subject: | King/Honeywell Handheld -- Caveat Emptor |
About five years ago I purchased a King KLX100 GPS/COMM at Oshkosh on show special
they were running. The unit sat in its box for the first two years while I
finished my Kolb and really hasn't been used much. I'm in the process of sending
it back in for factory repair for the third time. The unit has some nice features
but I can't depend on it. The unit cost me $1000.00 and at $95.00 a pop
for their factory repairs it isn't a very good deal. The unit has been discontinued
and the factory will only say "well you got almost two years of service
since the last repair". I thought the radio was worth the premium price because
it is a King but.....
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIII classic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thumb" <Bill-Jo(at)prodigy.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor |
Ron I got my PTT switch from SkySports that works with my A-22.Their
number is 1-800-AIR-STUF. Bill Futrell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 23:55:06
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor
>
>
> At least you got a reply from them. I have been trying to contact Icom
for
> two months. When I call, I get placed on hold. Not an 800 number. I
have
> to pay. I finally hung up each time. I have e-mailed their US office
three
> times and they will not respond. All I want is an ICOM push to talk
switch.
> I want to buy one and they still will not talk to me. I have had it with
> Icom.
>
> Ron Payne
>
> Hello,
>
> I thought you might be interested and amazed at the exchange of letters I
> had recently with Vertex Standard, the manufacturers of Yaesu handheld
> transceivers. I wrote the following to their U.S. office in Cerritos,
> California. [condensed version].
>
> I bought a "VXA-100 Aviator Pilot" transceiver [with a VOR receiver]....I
> recently had the opportunity to try the navigation receiver during a
flight
> in my own fiberglass airplane with direct line-of-sight to several VOR
> transmitters in Nevada. I am distressed to find that, even in these ideal
> conditions, the heading information (including the CDI indicator) is
erratic
> and unuseable.
>
> I called your service department in Cerritos, California, and learned that
> erratic readings are characteristic of that model and can not be
corrected.
> I was told the following:
>
> 1. The navigation function is designed to have a steady reading only
> while the receiver is not moving. I was informed that readings would
always
> be unuseable in a moving airplane!
>
> 2. They are well aware of this shortcoming in the design, and their
> attempts in the past to improve the performance have been unsuccessful.
>
> 3. Your service department does not have a signal generator to test
> position information from the navigation receiver. They are currently
> unable to attempt repairs to my receiver, even if they thought they could
> succeed.
>
> I am disappointed in your product and advertising because I clearly
expected
> your VXA-100 to operate in my moving airplane. I was informed also that
> your newer navigation receiver, Model VXA-200/16, actually displays a
> readable VOR signal while the receiver is moving.
>
> Accordingly, I propose an exchange that will reduce my disappointment
> greatly and restore my confidence in the trustworthiness of Yaesu. [I then
> proposed to send them my transceiver and the difference in price between
> mine and the newer VXA-200/16.]
>
> I received the following answer from David Akins, Manager, Commercial
> Service, Vertex Standard:
>
> [quote] We do understand the circumstances that you describe with respect
to
> the VOR operation in the VXA-100. The problems that you describe are more
> related to the attempted use of any handheld radio for VOR operation
inside
> a moving airplane. This is why we state in the VXA-100 Operating Manual:
> "Note The VXA-100's VOR and CDI Navigation features are supplemental aids
to
> navigation only, and are not intended to be a substitute for accurate
> (primary) VOR/CDI or landing service equipment.".... We do wish that VOR
> function could be made more accurate and stable, but our factory advises
> that this just is not possible in a handheld radio.
>
> "Nonetheless, we are unable to honor your request for a direct factory
> trade-in.....We are sorry for your disappointment. [unquote].
>
> Well, they got the "disappointment" part right. I wonder where I got the
> idea that a handheld VOR receiver would work in a moving airplane? Maybe
it
> was from their advertisements. Unfortunately, the receiver is useless as
> even a "supplemental aid to navigation". The digits change so fast on the
> display that they are unreadable.
>
> Caveat emptor.
>
> Bruce McElhoe FireFly #88
> Reedley, Calif.
>
>
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor |
Unfortunately, the receiver is useless as
> even a "supplemental aid to navigation". The digits change so fast on the
> display that they are unreadable.
>
> Caveat emptor.
>
> Bruce McElhoe FireFly #88
Bruce and Gang:
I think you are being "taken for a ride by Yaesu."
As early as 1987, my old STS handheld with VOR worked ok as
long as I was above 3000 feet.
In 1989, I bought a King KX99 handheld with VOR that also
worked best above 3000 feet. It was a little more
sophisticated. Had additional capability over the STS.
My current radio is an ICOM A3 without VOR. About as big as
a pack of cigarettes, can be operated without its nicad
battery from the aircraft 12VDC system and antenna. I have
made several cross countries with this tiny radio with good
results. This is my first ICOM radio.
Handheld VOR's do not work as well as permanently installed
VOR's with VOR antennas, but I think they should work better
than what you describe.
Take care,
john h
PS: Might help to make this known to EAA and AOPA. Both
organizations have a lot of clout in the aviation community.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> I want to buy one and they still will not talk to me. I have had it with
> Icom.
>
> Ron Payne
Ron and Gang:
I think I sent one url for Tropical Avionics in Ft
Lauderdale. If not, here it is:
http://www.tropicaero.com/index.cfm
Sporty's also has the PTT adapters.
When it comes to radios I am dumb as a rock, but I have been
able to hook up a PTT switch on my KX99 and the ICOM A3. It
is simply one wire that is switched (momentary) to ground.
This tells the xmitter to go to xmit mode.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Laird <rlaird(at)cavediver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor |
>
>Hello,
>
>I thought you might be interested and amazed at the exchange of letters I
>had recently with Vertex Standard, the manufacturers of Yaesu handheld...
My experience with Vertex and my Yaesu radio has been "normal." I have an
Aviator Pro (no VOR) and -- after getting it and trying to use it for a few
weekends -- I questioned whether my transmit was working properly so I sent
it to Vertex. After 10 days they notified me that the radio was in
warranty repair. About a week after that, it was shipped back to me,
fixed, at no charge. They handled it just as I would have expected any
manufacturer to handle a warranty repair, albeit a bit slow.
Yeah, I know, it's not a very interesting story, but except for that
glitch, the radio seems to be working at advertised. I can even use it in
a moving air vehicle! :-)
-- Robert
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
I put the tuned pipe on my Phantom last fall and put 10 hours on it before
storing for the winter. This summer I did about 75 hours. I do alot of
aerial photography so alot of my flying is throttling back to go down to get
a picture then back to full throttle to climb back up. My 503 doesnt lead
an easy life.
The engine to date shows no signs of getting weak. The temps run 325/1050
all day long.
The powerband is effected. Rob designs his pipes to be flyable so the
powerband effects are minimal. My Phantom likes to cruise at 5800 or so.
The engine is strong from 5000RPM and up. The flat spot is 4000 to 5000.
Thats not an issue for me because the only time I throttle back that far is
to land (or do a strafing run).
The Twinstar's flat spot is form 4400 to 5200. I think the difference is
the gear ratio/prop combo. The Phantom has a 70" 3 blade Warp on a 3.47:1 C
box. The TS has a 64" 2 blade Powerfin on a 2.58:1 B box.
If I fly the TS light, I can cruise slow at 4000 RPM. If I want to haul ass
I throttle up to 5800.
I know of one 503 with 300+ hours on a tuned pipe. I also know of one with
120 hours that burned down. The owner blamed it on the tuned pipe. The
real reason was that he patched a hole in a fuel line to go for a quick
flight with elec tape. The tape came off and the fuel line split. The rear
cylinder went lean and burned down.
I also know of a couple of piped 582's. They are turning out around 80HP
with no problems.
Engines burn down because they are running too lean. If you jet right they
dont run lean and they dont burn down.
Ross
> From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 20:41:59 -0600
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: tuned pipes? ...
>
>
> Richard Carlisle wrote:
>
>> Ive been running them for years with no problems.
>
> Hi Richard and Gang:
>
> How does the above equate to actual hours flown?
>
> How does the tuned pipe affect the power band?
>
> How many hours are you getting on your 503's producing 12
> more HP than stock?
>
> The reason I ask is I have heard many horror stories from
> unsuspecting pilots that have been sold these pipes, only to
> ruin engines. My understanding is that the pipes are
> accompanied with instructions for setting up the carbs
> correctly, yet they still burn engines.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
Ross and Gang:
Thanks for answering my post.
> The engine to date shows no signs of getting weak.
That's good. With only 85 hours on it, it should run strong
for many more hours, especially, if operated with the stock
exhaust. Remains to be seen what it will do with the tuned
pipe.
The temps run 325/1050
> all day long.
I assume by the above that they remain pretty constant at
most throttle settings? Been a while since I seriously flew
two stroke engines. So, I am a little rusty reference their
operational characteristics.
I do alot of
> aerial photography so alot of my flying is throttling back to go down to get
> a picture then back to full throttle to climb back up. My 503 doesnt lead
> an easy life.
I guess no one's do. Sounds about how we fly these things.
Up and down. Isn't it better for the engine to climb full
throttle, or would it be better to climb at reduced power
settings?
My Phantom likes to cruise at 5800 or so.
Stock Rotax two strokes from 377s to 582s like to cruise at
that same rpm, 5,800.
(or do a strafing run).
Wow! What are you strafing? I flew AH-1G Cobras in RVN. I
like strafing.
> I know of one 503 with 300+ hours on a tuned pipe.
Was this time acquired with out major maintenance?
> I also know of a couple of piped 582's. They are turning out around 80HP
> with no problems.
How did you arrive at these HP ratings?
> Engines burn down because they are running too lean. If you jet right they
> dont run lean and they dont burn down. > Ross
I certainly agree with the last statement.
Take care and fly safe,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
Ross and Gang:
Maybe you can clarify some of your previous post, reference
tuned pipes, for some of us that do not have experience with
them (tuned pipes).
> I run 160/162 mains. Bigger jet in the PTO end since that end runs a tad
> hotter anyway.
What is running hotter? EGT or cyl head? Is there really
that much difference in temps (EGT and cyl head) between the
two cyls?
> I run the stock needle jets with 15K2 needles in the 3rd
> notch from the top.
Do I understand that is one notch richer in midrange than
the normal carb setting?
> My CHT's run 325 and EGT's run 1050 all day long.
Could you expound on the above please? Seems 1050 would be
a little cool (rich) for cruise power (midrange). Do you
get temp changes with power changes?
> On real hot days the temps run slightly cooler and on real cold days they run
> slightly hotter. It has to do with air density. On hot days the engine
> runs richer which brings the temps down. On cold days it runs leaner and
> the temps go up slightly.
How does OAT figure into your equations above?
> Before instaling a pipe, I had to rejet for summer and winter. After
> installing the pipe, I did not have to do that anymore. The temp changes
> between summer and winter are not enough to warrant rejetting.
What do you attribute the above phenomenon to? Why would a
tuned pipe require no change and a stock pipe require
rejetting from season to season?
> If you find you need a little more after going to 15K2 needles, you can
> increase the needle jet size alittle.
Why not raise the needles another notch and try that? Or
does that have something to do with the difference betwee
tuned pipe performance/temps and stock pipe
performance/temps?
Another question: It is my understanding to produce more
power in a specific engine, it will also produce more heat.
To produce more power and heat, the engine must burn more
fuel. To produce more fuel in a two stroke requires
considerably more fuel and oil to help cool the engine. I
understand this is one of the reasons the egt's on two
strokes are so much lower than those of a four stroke.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 12/03/01 |
Pete,
What are you going to do with your plane? If you are like 99.2% of us, you
will fly it around town on the weekends and go to some fly-ins every year.
Whenever you look at your cowling the next time you're up in your 150 or
whatever, just think, "I could be looking at the beauty of creation, not this
cowling." Ask yourself if you will enjoy the world more at 70mph in front of
a picture window, or at 130 mph behind an engine.
There are good reasons for a tractor; they are more efficient, faster, and
easier to build in some ways. But lots of guys sell their KR's (not knocking
the it, it's a great plane) and buy Kolbs for the view.
-Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Stuart" <cstuart(at)searnet.com> |
The trim lever on my Mark IIIXtra was welded-up wrong. I talked to Scott
Campbell (the welder) today and he is making up a new one. The engaging
strip was 1/4" too short and wouldn't engage the first 3 or 4 notches. It
was also binding against the aileron torque tube and the new one will
correct that.
I have a question on the aileron counterweight. Is the weighted rod seated
all the way into the counterweight horn (14") or is it inserted about 10" as
it appears on the plans? Or does it make any difference?
Clay Stuart
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
Gentlemen:
I have completely revised my Mark 3 web page. New and better
pictures, more text. You can find it at
http://hometown.aol.com/cavuontop/n496bm.html
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III
N496BM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
> To produce more fuel in a two stroke requires
Hey Gang:
Honest, I proof read the previous post before I hit the send
button, but I didn't proof it good enough. :-)
The above should have read: to produce more power in a two
stroke...........
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
> I have a question on the aileron counterweight. Is the weighted rod seated
> all the way into the counterweight horn (14") or is it inserted about 10" as
> it appears on the plans? Or does it make any difference?
>
> Clay Stuart
Clay and Gang:
Location of the solid steel rod in the socket is dependent
on where it balances your covered and painted ailerons.
Once it balances, then you can nail it.
That is the way I do mine. In fact, I do not install the
counterbalance weights until after I have finished covering
and painting the wings and ailerons.
Procedure for doing this is located in the archives.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
>
>Ross and Gang:
>
>Maybe you can clarify some of your previous post, reference
>tuned pipes, for some of us that do not have experience with
>them (tuned pipes).
Heck, back in 1983, we used to "De-Tune" the Cuyna engines, just to
get them to last longer ... by using "two" head gaskets instead of "one"!
If we got 250 hours out of them it was a miracle (they weren't heavy enough
to use for boat anchors so ...)
Usually, nobody actually got "250 hours" out of an ultralight anyway -
without
totaling it, so the engine was the last of our problems,
You hotdogs might do better, but us old guys (you know what I mean...)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cim & Tindy" <townsend(at)webound.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
Possum,
You are one of the good ones.
I go back always too. I am 38
and learned from you all.
an old motocross racer,,,,,, and am now back in it.
I am old at 38
but I Kicked ass last weekend. Won $750.00
Old men die hard.
I Know my tuned pipes for motocross.
But I rebuild the top end every 10th race.
I am getting 79 hp from a 250cc single.
Power band ,,, 9000 to 11500 rpm.
TBO 5.5 hrs.
Bet if Dallas had known that he would have never
gone up with me in my PPC.
LOL
Kolb Mark III Classic 99.99999%
done
just have to fit the center section.
Our Best
Tim & Cindy Townsend
----- Original Message -----
From: Possum
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: tuned pipes? ...
>
>Ross and Gang:
>
>Maybe you can clarify some of your previous post, reference
>tuned pipes, for some of us that do not have experience with
>them (tuned pipes).
Heck, back in 1983, we used to "De-Tune" the Cuyna engines, just to
get them to last longer ... by using "two" head gaskets instead of
"one"!
If we got 250 hours out of them it was a miracle (they weren't heavy
enough
to use for boat anchors so ...)
Usually, nobody actually got "250 hours" out of an ultralight anyway -
without
totaling it, so the engine was the last of our problems,
You hotdogs might do better, but us old guys (you know what I mean...)
=
[############-----------------20.7%----------------------------]
=
=
messages.
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/kolb-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
>
>Possum,
>You are one of the good ones.
>I go back always too. I am 38
>and learned from you all.
>
>an old motocross racer,,,,,, and am now back in it.
>
>I am old at 38
>but I Kicked ass last weekend. Won $750.00
>Old men die hard.
Not "old". . . just not dead.
Geez, I never even flew much of anything until I was 29, and now
I have my "AARP" card. Great.....me and Hauck, the "old guys"!
But, I bet I've got more glider time in a Hawk/Kolb/Fergy than anybody else.
BTW, it can take over 20 minutes to get down from 12,000 ft. deadstick.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Guy Swenson" <guys(at)rrt.net> |
Clay,
My Trim lever, once installed, could not be moved. That's how close it was
to the aileron torque tube. TNK had to send me a new lever and comb (That's
what they called it). I had to cut out the original comb and rivet in the
new one. Doesn't look as nice as the original but, does work well. I used a
4 inch side grinder with a cut off wheel to cut better angles in the comb so
the lever would fit in each slot. If you would like I could e-mail you some
pics Let me know off list.
Guy S.
Mark III Xtra
Final Assembly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clay Stuart" <cstuart(at)searnet.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: trim lever
>
> The trim lever on my Mark IIIXtra was welded-up wrong. I talked to Scott
> Campbell (the welder) today and he is making up a new one. The engaging
> strip was 1/4" too short and wouldn't engage the first 3 or 4 notches.
It
> was also binding against the aileron torque tube and the new one will
> correct that.
>
> I have a question on the aileron counterweight. Is the weighted rod
seated
> all the way into the counterweight horn (14") or is it inserted about 10"
as
> it appears on the plans? Or does it make any difference?
>
> Clay Stuart
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cim & Tindy" <townsend(at)webound.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
You win man,,
LoL
Love you all,
Our Best
Tim & Cindy Townsend
----- Original Message -----
From: Possum
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 3:04 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: tuned pipes? ...
>
>Possum,
>You are one of the good ones.
>I go back always too. I am 38
>and learned from you all.
>
>an old motocross racer,,,,,, and am now back in it.
>
>I am old at 38
>but I Kicked ass last weekend. Won $750.00
>Old men die hard.
Not "old". . . just not dead.
Geez, I never even flew much of anything until I was 29, and now
I have my "AARP" card. Great.....me and Hauck, the "old guys"!
But, I bet I've got more glider time in a Hawk/Kolb/Fergy than anybody
else.
BTW, it can take over 20 minutes to get down from 12,000 ft.
deadstick.
=
[############-----------------20.7%----------------------------]
=
=
messages.
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/kolb-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cim & Tindy" <townsend(at)webound.com> |
List,
Is this contrib. counter for this list or
for the complete site?
I sent in my $20.00
I hope our list is higher.
Our Best
Tim & Cindy Townsend
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor |
Ron,
I've seen your comment on the list before. ICOM sells through distributors
so I am not surprised. The number you dialed likely got you into their
administration offices switch board not customer service. They make
products for many different markets so probably had to lookup the proper
number to forward you to. You got impatient and hung up before they
returned with the number.
I done a search on the Internet for Icom Corp USA using google.com. First
item on the item on the list was ICOM America
http://www.icomamerica.com/ - click on Contact Us - scroll down
Took me all of 20 seconds to get to the proper contact info.
Why you expect a manufacturer to pay for your call I don't know. They have
to pass that cost back to the customers, I support the let the "consumer of
the service" pay for it. Makes it fair for everyone, you pay for what you
use. What's wrong with that?
Here's what they had posted on their web page:
To order ICOM parts, service manuals, or replacement owners manuals, please
contact your local authorized ICOM America dealer or call ICOM America's
Parts Department at (425) 454-7619 Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Pacific
Time. We accept Visa, MasterCard, American Express, money order, or UPS C.O.D.
Why don't you contact a distributor, you can get that off their web page
also. Most large volume consumer electronic manufacturers do not handle
personal direct sales, but based upon their web page I see they do. What
about the dealer you got the radio from. Here's a couple of dealers that
have provided good service to me in the past. Gulf Coast Avionics in
Lakeland FL. http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com/
Another is Hart Aviation http://www.hartaviation.com/
I'm not sure what your problem is other than paying for your own call.
jerryb
>
>
>-------Original Message-------
>
>From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Date: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 23:55:06
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Kolb-List: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor
>
>
>At least you got a reply from them. I have been trying to contact Icom for
>two months. When I call, I get placed on hold. Not an 800 number. I have
>to pay. I finally hung up each time. I have e-mailed their US office three
>times and they will not respond. All I want is an ICOM push to talk switch.
> I want to buy one and they still will not talk to me. I have had it with
>Icom.
>
>Ron Payne
>
>Hello,
>
>I thought you might be interested and amazed at the exchange of letters I
>had recently with Vertex Standard, the manufacturers of Yaesu handheld
>transceivers. I wrote the following to their U.S. office in Cerritos,
>California. [condensed version].
>
>I bought a "VXA-100 Aviator Pilot" transceiver [with a VOR receiver]....I
>recently had the opportunity to try the navigation receiver during a flight
>in my own fiberglass airplane with direct line-of-sight to several VOR
>transmitters in Nevada. I am distressed to find that, even in these ideal
>conditions, the heading information (including the CDI indicator) is erratic
>and unuseable.
>
>I called your service department in Cerritos, California, and learned that
>erratic readings are characteristic of that model and can not be corrected.
>I was told the following:
>
>1. The navigation function is designed to have a steady reading only
>while the receiver is not moving. I was informed that readings would always
>be unuseable in a moving airplane!
>
>2. They are well aware of this shortcoming in the design, and their
>attempts in the past to improve the performance have been unsuccessful.
>
>3. Your service department does not have a signal generator to test
>position information from the navigation receiver. They are currently
>unable to attempt repairs to my receiver, even if they thought they could
>succeed.
>
>I am disappointed in your product and advertising because I clearly expected
>your VXA-100 to operate in my moving airplane. I was informed also that
>your newer navigation receiver, Model VXA-200/16, actually displays a
>readable VOR signal while the receiver is moving.
>
>Accordingly, I propose an exchange that will reduce my disappointment
>greatly and restore my confidence in the trustworthiness of Yaesu. [I then
>proposed to send them my transceiver and the difference in price between
>mine and the newer VXA-200/16.]
>
>I received the following answer from David Akins, Manager, Commercial
>Service, Vertex Standard:
>
>[quote] We do understand the circumstances that you describe with respect to
>the VOR operation in the VXA-100. The problems that you describe are more
>related to the attempted use of any handheld radio for VOR operation inside
>a moving airplane. This is why we state in the VXA-100 Operating Manual:
>"Note The VXA-100's VOR and CDI Navigation features are supplemental aids to
>navigation only, and are not intended to be a substitute for accurate
>(primary) VOR/CDI or landing service equipment.".... We do wish that VOR
>function could be made more accurate and stable, but our factory advises
>that this just is not possible in a handheld radio.
>
>"Nonetheless, we are unable to honor your request for a direct factory
>trade-in.....We are sorry for your disappointment. [unquote].
>
>Well, they got the "disappointment" part right. I wonder where I got the
>idea that a handheld VOR receiver would work in a moving airplane? Maybe it
>was from their advertisements. Unfortunately, the receiver is useless as
>even a "supplemental aid to navigation". The digits change so fast on the
>display that they are unreadable.
>
>Caveat emptor.
>
>Bruce McElhoe FireFly #88
>Reedley, Calif.
>
>
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "williams brett" <dbwilliams52(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Builder/Pilot Database |
Kip,
I found your site while I was surfing the net in Japan and I have just returned
to the states. I am on the kolb list and it is very nice to be able to put faces
with names with the pilot/builder websites. I would like to put my page on
the site also, but I don't really know how to get started, my girlfriend just
took a college course on building websites and she has agreed to help me, so
if you could let me know the basics of getting started, she will do the rest.
I own a Firefly and love it!!! I also own an Acro-sport II. I pilot a C-130 for
a living, but I get the most joy out of flying my Kolb and would like to put
it on your website.
dbwilliams52(at)hotmail.com
Sincerely, Brett Williams, Firefly
Charlotte, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "williams brett" <dbwilliams52(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Builder/Pilot Database |
Listers,
sorry for that last e-mail, it's early and I didn't check the address when I hit
send!
please forgive,
Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor |
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Thursday, December 06, 2001 01:54:13
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor
I bought my A5 from Aircraft Spruce and they do not have this part listed
and have not located one. The number I dialed for Icom was for parts and
service, not administration. If Icom wanted me to go through a distributer,
they should have told me right off the top which one stocked the item that I
was looking for. Every other supplier that I deal with has an 800 number
for purchases. I was on hold for way over 20 seconds. It amazes me how you
think you know what I was thinking and what occured when you have no idea as
to what went on. Do you pay for all the calls to suppliers that you deal
with or do you use their 800 number? You sure are defensive of Icom. Could
you possibly work for them?
Ron
Ron,
I've seen your comment on the list before. ICOM sells through distributors
so I am not surprised. The number you dialed likely got you into their
administration offices switch board not customer service. They make
products for many different markets so probably had to lookup the proper
number to forward you to. You got impatient and hung up before they
returned with the number.
I done a search on the Internet for Icom Corp USA using google.com. First
item on the item on the list was ICOM America
http://www.icomamerica.com/ - click on Contact Us - scroll down
Took me all of 20 seconds to get to the proper contact info.
Why you expect a manufacturer to pay for your call I don't know. They have
to pass that cost back to the customers, I support the let the "consumer of
the service" pay for it. Makes it fair for everyone, you pay for what you
use. What's wrong with that?
Here's what they had posted on their web page:
To order ICOM parts, service manuals, or replacement owners manuals, please
contact your local authorized ICOM America dealer or call ICOM America's
Parts Department at (425) 454-7619 Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Pacific
Time. We accept Visa, MasterCard, American Express, money order, or UPS C.O
D.
Why don't you contact a distributor, you can get that off their web page
also. Most large volume consumer electronic manufacturers do not handle
personal direct sales, but based upon their web page I see they do. What
about the dealer you got the radio from. Here's a couple of dealers that
have provided good service to me in the past. Gulf Coast Avionics in
Lakeland FL. http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com/
Another is Hart Aviation http://www.hartaviation.com/
I'm not sure what your problem is other than paying for your own call.
jerryb
>
>
>----
>
>
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
>
>
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN M. COOLEY" <johnc(at)datasync.com> |
Hi Clay and gang,
I did mine the way John is talking about. It was described very well in
the Firestar manual. After completing everything unfold your plane as if
your getting ready to go flying. Leave the aileron push rods disconnected so
that they will move freely. Slide the weighted steel rod into the socket
until the aileron balances and is in the neutral position or inline with the
bottom of the wing. Then drill and insert bolt.
Later,
John Cooley
Firestar II #1162
> > I have a question on the aileron counterweight. Is the weighted rod
seated
> > all the way into the counterweight horn (14") or is it inserted about
10" as
> > it appears on the plans? Or does it make any difference?
> >
> > Clay Stuart
>
> Clay and Gang:
>
> Location of the solid steel rod in the socket is dependent
> on where it balances your covered and painted ailerons.
> Once it balances, then you can nail it.
>
> That is the way I do mine. In fact, I do not install the
> counterbalance weights until after I have finished covering
> and painting the wings and ailerons.
>
> Procedure for doing this is located in the archives.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jung <jrjung(at)sgmmail.com> |
Possum,
Or it can take 30 minutes to get down from 17,000 ft, deadstick!
http://jrjung.0catch.com/Original.html
John Jung
Possum wrote:
>
>But, I bet I've got more glider time in a Hawk/Kolb/Fergy than anybody else.
>BTW, it can take over 20 minutes to get down from 12,000 ft. deadstick.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)michigan.gov> |
I have a MKIII classic and counterweights aren't required. I added them to keep
out of trouble. I set my counterweight short of full balance of the ailerons
without the flaps (the flaps effect the balance but it would seem that they should
be out of the equation ). Slide the weights out as far as you can and still
bolt them in. If they are too heavy (they will be) cut some of it off. Use
the leverage and leave the extra weight on the ground.
My $.02 cents worth
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIII classic
>>> cstuart(at)searnet.com 12/05/01 11:06PM >>>
I have a question on the aileron counterweight. Is the weighted rod seated
all the way into the counterweight horn (14") or is it inserted about 10" as
it appears on the plans? Or does it make any difference?
Clay Stuart
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Gherkins <rp3420(at)email.sps.mot.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
John and gang,
My understanding from tuned pipes, is that they create a vacuum for the exhaust
gas. That is why the shape and size and length of the pipe is so critical. If
the exhaust is being pulled or 'sucked' out of the chamber, then reason stands
that
a larger volume of cool fresh air/fue/oil mixture is being pulled in. Thus helping
cool the engine, and providing more bang for power.
The provided expansion chambers from various engine makers (mine is Rotax)
actually create a back pressure on exhaust, for a trade off of power for noise
reduction.
Thats my understanding,
Tim
John Hauck wrote:
> Another question: It is my understanding to produce more
> power in a specific engine, it will also produce more heat.
> To produce more power and heat, the engine must burn more
> fuel. To produce more fuel in a two stroke requires
> considerably more fuel and oil to help cool the engine. I
> understand this is one of the reasons the egt's on two
> strokes are so much lower than those of a four stroke.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Web Page |
I like your new pages, Mark, but I have a couple of
questions................. 1. For some reason, I couldn't download the
picture (if there is one) for your home page. Just a long scroll down to
the text/links. 2. On the "Folding & Moving System" page, I really
like the idea of the steel strap holding the wingtips. I'll definitely use
the idea myself. Is there a reason why you used just one strap ?? Seems
like 2 would prevent any movement at all. Very, very nice looking plane.
Congratulations. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: New Web Page
>
> Gentlemen:
>
> I have completely revised my Mark 3 web page. New and better
> pictures, more text. You can find it at
> http://hometown.aol.com/cavuontop/n496bm.html
>
> Mark R. Sellers
> Kolb Twinstar Mark III
> N496BM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Web Page |
Ooooops ! ! ! Looks like my shiny new DSL system choked a little bit when I
opened your site. After sending the previous mail, I re-opened your site,
and got 2 pics on the home page, with a long space underneath, so I assume
there's more pics, but for some reason my computer isn't seeing them. I've
only had the DSL a couple of weeks, and really love it, but it's starting to
show a few little glitches...............such as this one. Still 1000%
better than that $%&$#@* msn
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: New Web Page
>
> Gentlemen:
>
> I have completely revised my Mark 3 web page. New and better
> pictures, more text. You can find it at
> http://hometown.aol.com/cavuontop/n496bm.html
>
> Mark R. Sellers
> Kolb Twinstar Mark III
> N496BM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Benson" <jimben(at)clear.lakes.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gherkins" <rp3420(at)email.sps.mot.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: tuned pipes? ...
> John and gang,
> My understanding from tuned pipes, is that they create a vacuum for the
exhaust
> gas. That is why the shape and size and length of the pipe is so
critical. If
> the exhaust is being pulled or 'sucked' out of the chamber, then reason
stands that
> a larger volume of cool fresh air/fue/oil mixture is being pulled in.
Thus helping
> > cool the engine, and providing more bang for power.
> The provided expansion chambers from various engine makers (mine is
Rotax)
> actually create a back pressure on exhaust, for a trade off of power for
noise
> reduction.
> Thats my understanding,
> Tim
>
> Tim:
Your understanding of a tune-pipe is close, but not quite all of it. This
my experience of using tuned-pipes on model airplane engines. The sequence
goes as such. After ignition the piston moves away from the head in the
power stroke until it gets to the exhaust port. At the exhaust port the
burnt expanded exhaust gas goes out to the muffler in a wave. As the piston
goes away from the head it is compressing the air-fuel mixture beneath it.
When the piston reaches the intake port the fuel-air mixture is then
injected into the cylinder chamber with some of it passing through into the
muffler being pulled by the inertia of the wave of exhaust ahead of it. As
the piston starts its return to the head it cuts off the intake port so no
air-fuel mixture can excape back through it. At this same time that wave
has now gotten to the end of the muffler. Part of it will go out the
exhaust pipe, but a portion of that wave will then hit the end of the
muffler and start its return to the exhaust port and will push that air-fuel
mixture that was pulled into the muffler back into the cyclinder and thus
supercharges the mixture in the cyclinder. Then the exhaust port is closed.
The tuning of the pipe is making sure that the header and muffler are the
exact length so that the wave gets the supercharged mixture in at the proper
time. Jim Benson
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: New Web Page |
Lar:
Its not your fault. I was making a small revision and somehow blew
out my whole front page. You checked in just as I was scrambling to
reassemble everything. Take a look now.
Your point that 2 straps would prevent movement altogether is well
taken, but keep in mind that the counterweights are there too, and you don't
want to conflict with them. I think one set will keep things good and secure
while trailering.
Thanks for looking.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
http://hometown.aol.com/cavuontop/n496bm.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Firestar For Sale? |
Wrong tim on the Kolb list, sorry.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Gherkins <rp3420(at)email.sps.mot.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
Jim,
That is amazing! I had no idea about the wave! Thanks for the details. I
learn something everyday, especially on this list!
Merry Christmas,
Tim
Jim Benson wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Gherkins" <rp3420(at)email.sps.mot.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: tuned pipes? ...
>
>
> > John and gang,
> > My understanding from tuned pipes, is that they create a vacuum for the
> exhaust
> > gas. That is why the shape and size and length of the pipe is so
> critical. If
> > the exhaust is being pulled or 'sucked' out of the chamber, then reason
> stands that
> > a larger volume of cool fresh air/fue/oil mixture is being pulled in.
> Thus helping
> > > cool the engine, and providing more bang for power.
> > The provided expansion chambers from various engine makers (mine is
> Rotax)
> > actually create a back pressure on exhaust, for a trade off of power for
> noise
> > reduction.
> > Thats my understanding,
> > Tim
> >
> > Tim:
> Your understanding of a tune-pipe is close, but not quite all of it. This
> my experience of using tuned-pipes on model airplane engines. The sequence
> goes as such. After ignition the piston moves away from the head in the
> power stroke until it gets to the exhaust port. At the exhaust port the
> burnt expanded exhaust gas goes out to the muffler in a wave. As the piston
> goes away from the head it is compressing the air-fuel mixture beneath it.
> When the piston reaches the intake port the fuel-air mixture is then
> injected into the cylinder chamber with some of it passing through into the
> muffler being pulled by the inertia of the wave of exhaust ahead of it. As
> the piston starts its return to the head it cuts off the intake port so no
> air-fuel mixture can excape back through it. At this same time that wave
> has now gotten to the end of the muffler. Part of it will go out the
> exhaust pipe, but a portion of that wave will then hit the end of the
> muffler and start its return to the exhaust port and will push that air-fuel
> mixture that was pulled into the muffler back into the cyclinder and thus
> supercharges the mixture in the cyclinder. Then the exhaust port is closed.
> The tuning of the pipe is making sure that the header and muffler are the
> exact length so that the wave gets the supercharged mixture in at the proper
> time. Jim Benson
>
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Sudlow" <sudlow77(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Web Page |
Mark,
Very nice page!
I'm doing the cable splitters now & will copy what you've done. One
question - where did you get the adel clamps?
chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <Cavuontop(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: New Web Page
>
> Gentlemen:
>
> I have completely revised my Mark 3 web page. New and better
> pictures, more text. You can find it at
> http://hometown.aol.com/cavuontop/n496bm.html
>
> Mark R. Sellers
> Kolb Twinstar Mark III
> N496BM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: lateral bracing in forward wing bay |
In a message dated 11/28/01 3:06:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hawk36(at)mindspring.com writes:
> Topher, the leading edges failed between the number 1 and 2
> main ribs (counting from the outboard end), at the top and
> bottom rivet that holds on the false ribs. Same exact
> position on both wings. The leading edge pulled up, pulling
> the noses laterally toward that location and then back to
> the main spar. In effect, I had two 18" spoilers deployed
> vertically in a split second. It was two almost
> simultaneous explosions, right wing then left wing. Turned
> the aircraft right 90 deg to my path of flight, then 90 deg
> nose down. Blanked out all controls. No feeling in
> ailerons, rudder, or elevators. At 500 feet the ground
> rushed up awfully fast. I learned my lesson the hard way.
> Looked death square in the eyeball and was prepared for it
> when I got the opening shock of the parachute at tree top
> level. Went through the hard woods in a flash. Nose of the
> Firestar stopped 6 inches from the ground. I unstrapped and
> stepped out without a scratch. Every day I still thank God
> for giving me another chance at life. That has been almost
> 12 years ago. It is still indelible written in my mind.
> But for the grace of God and the Jim Handbury hand deployed
> parachute, I have the opportunity to enjoy flying the little
> airplane I built in the basement. What an adventure it has
> been since then, without the aid of aerobatics.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
> Great story John!!
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Safety - Glide after Engine Out |
In a message dated 11/28/01 7:05:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ulflyer(at)airmail.net writes:
> Do we have any rated Glider Pilots among the list.
>
> A thought hit me one day we were up flying and had strong head wind. I
> read some things about gliding that when they hit a drown draft they
> increase their speed to reduce the amount of time their within the down
> draft. Say you turned on final to land and your going against a strong
> head wind. (Note this may only apply in strong head wind conditions.) If
> the engine were to quite, would you be better to increase your speed to
> reach the runway quicker or maintain the normal approach speed thereby
> taking longer to cover the distance while loosing precious altitude?
> jerryb
>
we call it "punching through the downdraft".....er sumpin like that. Anyway
penetration is another word used to identify getting through bad turbulence
or downdrafts and is usually a function of weight against streamlining. If
you don't have the weight as in a glider, then you have to make up for it in
speed. mv is momentum which gets you through the malady, instead of just the
weight or just the velocity...mv.
GoeR38...the ol glider pilot
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce McElhoe" <brucem(at)theworks.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor |
Hi,
From the responses, it looks like the King handheld actually works.
Thanks for your response. At least, I can get some pleasure from telling my
story to the ultralight world.
Regards,
Bruce McElhoe Long-EZ N64MC
Reedley, California
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor
>
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 23:55:06
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor
>
>
> At least you got a reply from them. I have been trying to contact Icom
for
> two months. When I call, I get placed on hold. Not an 800 number. I
have
> to pay. I finally hung up each time. I have e-mailed their US office
three
> times and they will not respond. All I want is an ICOM push to talk
switch.
> I want to buy one and they still will not talk to me. I have had it with
> Icom.
>
> Ron Payne
>
> Hello,
>
> I thought you might be interested and amazed at the exchange of letters I
> had recently with Vertex Standard, the manufacturers of Yaesu handheld
> transceivers. I wrote the following to their U.S. office in Cerritos,
> California. [condensed version].
>
> I bought a "VXA-100 Aviator Pilot" transceiver [with a VOR receiver]....I
> recently had the opportunity to try the navigation receiver during a
flight
> in my own fiberglass airplane with direct line-of-sight to several VOR
> transmitters in Nevada. I am distressed to find that, even in these ideal
> conditions, the heading information (including the CDI indicator) is
erratic
> and unuseable.
>
> I called your service department in Cerritos, California, and learned that
> erratic readings are characteristic of that model and can not be
corrected.
> I was told the following:
>
> 1. The navigation function is designed to have a steady reading only
> while the receiver is not moving. I was informed that readings would
always
> be unuseable in a moving airplane!
>
> 2. They are well aware of this shortcoming in the design, and their
> attempts in the past to improve the performance have been unsuccessful.
>
> 3. Your service department does not have a signal generator to test
> position information from the navigation receiver. They are currently
> unable to attempt repairs to my receiver, even if they thought they could
> succeed.
>
> I am disappointed in your product and advertising because I clearly
expected
> your VXA-100 to operate in my moving airplane. I was informed also that
> your newer navigation receiver, Model VXA-200/16, actually displays a
> readable VOR signal while the receiver is moving.
>
> Accordingly, I propose an exchange that will reduce my disappointment
> greatly and restore my confidence in the trustworthiness of Yaesu. [I then
> proposed to send them my transceiver and the difference in price between
> mine and the newer VXA-200/16.]
>
> I received the following answer from David Akins, Manager, Commercial
> Service, Vertex Standard:
>
> [quote] We do understand the circumstances that you describe with respect
to
> the VOR operation in the VXA-100. The problems that you describe are more
> related to the attempted use of any handheld radio for VOR operation
inside
> a moving airplane. This is why we state in the VXA-100 Operating Manual:
> "Note The VXA-100's VOR and CDI Navigation features are supplemental aids
to
> navigation only, and are not intended to be a substitute for accurate
> (primary) VOR/CDI or landing service equipment.".... We do wish that VOR
> function could be made more accurate and stable, but our factory advises
> that this just is not possible in a handheld radio.
>
> "Nonetheless, we are unable to honor your request for a direct factory
> trade-in.....We are sorry for your disappointment. [unquote].
>
> Well, they got the "disappointment" part right. I wonder where I got the
> idea that a handheld VOR receiver would work in a moving airplane? Maybe
it
> was from their advertisements. Unfortunately, the receiver is useless as
> even a "supplemental aid to navigation". The digits change so fast on the
> display that they are unreadable.
>
> Caveat emptor.
>
> Bruce McElhoe FireFly #88
> Reedley, Calif.
>
>
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce McElhoe" <brucem(at)theworks.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor |
Hi,
From the responses, it looks like the King handheld actually works. I got
mixed reviews on ICOM.
Thanks for your response. At least, I can get some pleasure from telling my
story to the ultralight world.
Regards,
Bruce McElhoe Long-EZ N64MC
Reedley, California
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Rains" <rr(at)htg.net>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor
>
> Don't understand the problem. My ICOM A-22 VOR receiver works great. No
problems at all, easy to use and read.
> Dave Rains
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce McElhoe [SMTP:brucem(at)theworks.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 10:55 PM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Yaesu Handheld -- Caveat Emptor
> The problems that you describe are more
> related to the attempted use of any handheld radio for VOR operation
inside
> a moving airplane. This is why we state in the VXA-100 Operating Manual:
> "Note The VXA-100's VOR and CDI Navigation features are supplemental aids
to
> navigation only, and are not intended to be a substitute for accurate
> (primary) VOR/CDI or landing service equipment."....
> SNIP>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
> From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 20:40:12 -0600
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: tuned pipes? ...
>
>
> Ross and Gang:
>
> Thanks for answering my post.
>
>> The engine to date shows no signs of getting weak.
>
> That's good. With only 85 hours on it, it should run strong
> for many more hours, especially, if operated with the stock
> exhaust. Remains to be seen what it will do with the tuned
> pipe.
I have no reason to believe the pipe will effect TBO.
>
> The temps run 325/1050
>> all day long.
>
> I assume by the above that they remain pretty constant at
> most throttle settings? Been a while since I seriously flew
> two stroke engines. So, I am a little rusty reference their
> operational characteristics.
They run very constant...a bit hotter in climb (1150) which is what you want
anyway.
>
> I do alot of
>> aerial photography so alot of my flying is throttling back to go down to get
>> a picture then back to full throttle to climb back up. My 503 doesnt lead
>> an easy life.
>
> I guess no one's do. Sounds about how we fly these things.
> Up and down. Isn't it better for the engine to climb full
> throttle, or would it be better to climb at reduced power
> settings?
With the extra power I can climb easy at about 6200...Or I can go vertical
at 6500...Well, not vertical...You know what I mean.
>
> My Phantom likes to cruise at 5800 or so.
>
> Stock Rotax two strokes from 377s to 582s like to cruise at
> that same rpm, 5,800.
>
> (or do a strafing run).
>
> Wow! What are you strafing? I flew AH-1G Cobras in RVN. I
> like strafing.
Trees, lakes, neighbors, cats...whatever....
>
>> I know of one 503 with 300+ hours on a tuned pipe.
>
> Was this time acquired with out major maintenance?
Im not sure, but but knowing the owner Id say this was 300 hours of
basically 0 maintanance.
>
>> I also know of a couple of piped 582's. They are turning out around 80HP
>> with no problems.
>
> How did you arrive at these HP ratings?
Im going by the pipe manufacturers rated HP...Which I have no reason to
doubt. I would like to see a 503 on the dyno.
>
>> Engines burn down because they are running too lean. If you jet right they
>> dont run lean and they dont burn down. > Ross
>
> I certainly agree with the last statement.
At least we agree on something :)
Ross
>
> Take care and fly safe,
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tuned pipes? ... |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
> From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 21:50:40 -0600
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: tuned pipes? ...
>
>
> Ross and Gang:
>
> Maybe you can clarify some of your previous post, reference
> tuned pipes, for some of us that do not have experience with
> them (tuned pipes).
>
>> I run 160/162 mains. Bigger jet in the PTO end since that end runs a tad
>> hotter anyway.
>
> What is running hotter? EGT or cyl head? Is there really
> that much difference in temps (EGT and cyl head) between the
> two cyls?
In fan cooled engines the PTO side always runs hotter, Tuned pipe or not.
The temp difference is more noticable with a tuned pipe than with stock. Id
say the difference is around 25 degrees.
Even with a stock pipe, you should be jetting richer on the PTO side. You
guys with single carbs are SOL. I dont think Id rune a pipe on a single
carb engine. It would be impossible to tune each cylinder.
>
>> I run the stock needle jets with 15K2 needles in the 3rd
>> notch from the top.
>
> Do I understand that is one notch richer in midrange than
> the normal carb setting?
Honestly, I cant remember what the stock clip position is. It is either one
notch richer or the stock position.
>
>> My CHT's run 325 and EGT's run 1050 all day long.
>
> Could you expound on the above please? Seems 1050 would be
> a little cool (rich) for cruise power (midrange). Do you
> get temp changes with power changes?
Yes...1150 in climb at full throttle. 1050 in cruise is a good temp. Plugs
dont foul and you are pretty far away from being hot enough to cause any
problems. I could probably get 1 or 2 more horse out of it by leaning
out...But why risk it. It runs sweet like it is setup now.
>
>> On real hot days the temps run slightly cooler and on real cold days they run
>> slightly hotter. It has to do with air density. On hot days the engine
>> runs richer which brings the temps down. On cold days it runs leaner and
>> the temps go up slightly.
>
> How does OAT figure into your equations above?
Just like I explained. Hot air is less dense, therefore less of it enters
the engine meaning the engine runs richer (and cooler). Assuming your
jetting does not change, you now have less air and the same amount of fuel.
A rich condition.
Cold air is dense. More of it enters the cylinder which means you are now
running alittle leaner (and hotter).
Cold, dense air is why everyone likes flying in the winter. Engines make
more power, wings lift more and props pull harder.
>
>> Before instaling a pipe, I had to rejet for summer and winter. After
>> installing the pipe, I did not have to do that anymore. The temp changes
>> between summer and winter are not enough to warrant rejetting.
>
> What do you attribute the above phenomenon to? Why would a
> tuned pipe require no change and a stock pipe require
> rejetting from season to season?
I have no idea..other than the fact that the tuned pipe is just that. Tuned
for optimum performance at a given RPM. I dont think Rotax has spent a
whole lot of time on pipe design. The exhaust pipe is the most important
part of a 2 stroke. A well designed pipe can make lots of extra reliable HP
and a poorly designed pipe can rob you of horsepower you never knew you had.
>
>> If you find you need a little more after going to 15K2 needles, you can
>> increase the needle jet size alittle.
>
> Why not raise the needles another notch and try that? Or
> does that have something to do with the difference betwee
> tuned pipe performance/temps and stock pipe
> performance/temps?
Raising the needles will give you alot more...not just alittle. If you need
to fine tune, you need to change the needle jets. I like to keep the needle
position somewhere in the second or 3rd position. If I need to go further,
I start looking at the needle jets.
>
> Another question: It is my understanding to produce more
> power in a specific engine, it will also produce more heat.
> To produce more power and heat, the engine must burn more
> fuel. To produce more fuel in a two stroke requires
> considerably more fuel and oil to help cool the engine. I
> understand this is one of the reasons the egt's on two
> strokes are so much lower than those of a four stroke.
Yes...2 strokes are fuel cooled to a degree. Thats why a lean engine runs
hot and a rich engine runs cool. Thats why you jet larger in the PTO side
in a fan cooled engine. A piped engine makes more power and does require a
little more fuel for 2 reasons (1) the pipe causes the intake charge to
increase giving the engine more air. You need more fuel to balance things
out and (2) because 2 strokes are fuel cooled, the extra fule helps to keep
things cool.
The other thing to remember is that these Rotax engines are designed to be
idiot proof. They are so pathetically detuned that adding a pipe and 12 HP
doesnt make an unreliable engine.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
> You guys blow my personal record out of the water. I made it to
November 25, 2001 - December 06, 2001
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-dh