Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-dj
December 29, 2001 - January 25, 2002
> > a picture to show you, but I know I've seen it somewhere on this List.
> (Can
> > anyone help?)
> > Dennis Kirby
> > Mk-3, Verner, Powerfin, almost done
> > Cedar Crest, NM
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Woods" <kolbpilot(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: safety harness |
P.S. I haven't started the RV yet. Just dreaming of it.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Heritch
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: safety harness
Hi Bill,
Believe it or not, I intended to email you today with a host of questions.
Last week I finally finished painting, man what a job. I am so glad that is
over, I cannot imagine putting forth the effort you did to achieve your
fabulous finish.
I have begun working on the gap seal. If you don't mind, I plan to copy
your gap seal fabricating it from sheet aluminum in order to use it to hold
the oil tank.
Do you remember what guage sheet aluminum you used? I see you used angle to
give it strength.
Where did you find the plastic black groments, and what did you use as the
edge material?
Also, did you fill the gap between the bottom of the wing and the cage?
It
is a good size gap, but the construction "pamphlet" (Irefuse to call it a
manual) doesn't address it. Go figure.
I understand you are building an RV-8, hope its going well. I co-built an
RV-6 several years ago. In hindsight I think the RV was easier more
enjoyable to build than the Kolb. I did not like the fabric.
As always, thanks for your help I truly appreciate it.
Ian Heritch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Woods" <kolbpilot(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: safety harness
>
> Ian,
> Haven't heard from you in a while, How's the SS coming? Good to hear from
> you.
> Bill Woods
> 912S Slingshot
>
> PS. I have new e-mail address: kolbpilot(at)msn.com.
=
=
=
=
Get mor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FSII Full Canopy Hoop |
Hoop extends about 2 in. past the leading edge. If you make the fabricated
removable center section you can incorporate clearance for the top of your
head into the bottom section
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Vincent <emailbill(at)chartermi.net> |
To all Kolb Flyers and Builders:
Have a Happy and Safe New Year !!
Bill Vincent
Firestar II
Quinnesec, Upper Peninsula of Michigan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: relative wind message |
In a message dated 1/1/02 1:15:09 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ulflyer(at)airmail.net writes:
> Best Angle of Climb speed that speed which produces the greatest altitude
> over a distance - such as in the case of the short field take off or to
> clear that 50 foot tree. It is not referenced to time. The Best Angle of
> Climb air speed is normally lower than Best Rate of Climb as it reflects a
> climb with a higher angle of attack thus producing a lower airspeed.
>
> Best Rate of Climb is the speed which produces the best rate of climb over
> a time period. It applies more towards normal climb out speeds where
> runway length and end obstructions are not a major factor.
> jerryb
>
Jerry, I love your challenge, but I don't understand your answer.... First
you say that Best angle of climb has no reference to time and then you rename
it Best angle of climb SPEED ...which of course is Feet/min, Miles/hour..etc.
I think I see time in there.
Then you say Best Rate of climb is is the SPEED that gits ya up the
fastest...which sounds like .the rate of going up the fastest....wouldn't
that git ya over the tree better?
just tryna lern ....GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eugene Zimmerman <eugenezimmerman(at)dejazzd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: decarboning the Rotax Engine |
Steve Kroll wrote:
>
>
> Hey Gene, How many hours do you have on that 377 that you've never had
> apart and.....are you talking not even for a de-carbon?? What EGTs have
> you been running ?
>
Yo Steve,
Not even for a de-carbon. Hours? Not sure. I'm not the original owner.
I put on over 400 hr. My best guess is somewhere around 450/500 hrs. I
try to keep temps 1150 by my egt gage.
happy 02
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
Hey guys, this horse has been beat to death! -but what the hay, it's
been
slow here lately. When it comes to best angle of climb you can just
throw
that VSI out the window, no connection, nohow. My old barebones
Aeronca with skinny me, low gas, cheater A-65 with A-80 pistons
swinging a 74-43 at 2300rpm would climb like it was on a cograil track
at just above stall. Great fun in a dogfight because you could stay in a
small
arena while your opponent (citabria or whatever) had to travel
horizontally.
As soon as you saw him below, you could kick rudder and nail him.
HAAAA HAAAAA! -there weren't any Kolbs in the neighborhood
back then -BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
best angle of climb > steepest that you can make your flight path, in
degrees. you might be going upwards fairly slowly, but your going forwards
very slowly so you go up at a steep angle.
best rate of climb > Fastest that you can climb, in vertical distance per
amount of time. horizontal distance not a factor, so you might hit the tree
at the end of the runway, even though you are climbing faster, cause your
going horizontally faster still.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 1/1/02 2:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Tophera(at)centurytel.net writes:
> best angle of climb > steepest that you can make your flight path, in
> degrees. you might be going upwards fairly slowly, but your going forwards
> very slowly so you go up at a steep angle.
>
> best rate of climb > Fastest that you can climb, in vertical distance per
> amount of time. horizontal distance not a factor, so you might hit the
> tree
> at the end of the runway, even though you are climbing faster, cause your
> going horizontally faster still.
>
> Topher
>
> Thank you
GeoR38
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
| Subject: | First Engine Run |
Kolbers -
Yesterday, on the first day of 2002, I started the Verner engine on my
Mark-3 for the first time. She breathes ... she LIVES ! And oh, what a
sweet sound it was!
I only ran it for about 10 minutes, and I'm happy to report that my
experience was much less eventful than Big Lar's first engine run of last
month. Pretty much, everything worked like it was supposed to (tach, oil
pressure light, oil temp gauge, elec fuel pump, voltmeter, no oil or fuel
line leaks etc.) except one thing: One of my CHT needles never came off the
peg. (Have to chase that down.)
The outside temp was 31 degrees, so it took several turns before it finally
started, but once running, the engine ran smoothly. Sounds like a Lycoming,
with each of its two big cylinders putting out 700 cc. Only went up to 3400
engine rpm (half that in prop rpm), but the swirling snow storm behind the
plane kicked up by that 72-inch Powerfin prop wash was impressive! (Max
continuous engine rpm is 4000.)
Now, with that major milestone past, I'm looking forward to beginning taxi
tests soon.
Dennis Kirby
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: First Engine Run |
It really IS exciting ! ! ! Good Luck.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM" <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil>
Subject: Kolb-List: First Engine Run
>
> Kolbers -
>
> Yesterday, on the first day of 2002, I started the Verner engine on my
> Mark-3 for the first time. She breathes ... she LIVES ! And oh, what a
> sweet sound it was!
>
> I only ran it for about 10 minutes, and I'm happy to report that my
> experience was much less eventful than Big Lar's first engine run of last
> month. Pretty much, everything worked like it was supposed to (tach, oil
> pressure light, oil temp gauge, elec fuel pump, voltmeter, no oil or fuel
> line leaks etc.) except one thing: One of my CHT needles never came off
the
> peg. (Have to chase that down.)
>
> The outside temp was 31 degrees, so it took several turns before it
finally
> started, but once running, the engine ran smoothly. Sounds like a
Lycoming,
> with each of its two big cylinders putting out 700 cc. Only went up to
3400
> engine rpm (half that in prop rpm), but the swirling snow storm behind the
> plane kicked up by that 72-inch Powerfin prop wash was impressive! (Max
> continuous engine rpm is 4000.)
>
> Now, with that major milestone past, I'm looking forward to beginning taxi
> tests soon.
>
> Dennis Kirby
> Cedar Crest, NM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Database and Flying Qualities |
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.
Also, I installed a custom windshield yesterday. It is a partial enclosure
with no doors. The coverage is about to the shoulders so one must slide in
from the side. The interesting thing is the way it flies now. I always
operated at a VERY aft CG range and always had to hold some forward stick. I
never wanted to add a trim system for the sake of simplicity so I just lived
with it. The new windshield, however, has me flying hands off and at faster
speeds, holding AFT stick. What comes to mind first is perhaps a downward
planing action from the windshield. If this is the case, it must be a
powerful force on that Lexan. Also, my speeds jumped up 10-15MPH. I need to
run some tests to see if its a net gain or just an new low pressure area
behind the panel playing with the instruments. I will get some pics of the
windshield on the site soon.
Sincereley,
Kip Laurie
Firestar II
Atlanta
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Sasseville" <sassevilleapiaries(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Database and Flying Qualities |
Can you post a picture of your new windshield?
Paul Sasseville
Firestar II
Zolfo Springs, Florida
----- Original Message -----
From: "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Database and Flying Qualities
>
>
> 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.
> Also, I installed a custom windshield yesterday. It is a partial enclosure
> with no doors. The coverage is about to the shoulders so one must slide in
> from the side. The interesting thing is the way it flies now. I always
> operated at a VERY aft CG range and always had to hold some forward stick.
I
> never wanted to add a trim system for the sake of simplicity so I just
lived
> with it. The new windshield, however, has me flying hands off and at
faster
> speeds, holding AFT stick. What comes to mind first is perhaps a downward
> planing action from the windshield. If this is the case, it must be a
> powerful force on that Lexan. Also, my speeds jumped up 10-15MPH. I need
to
> run some tests to see if its a net gain or just an new low pressure area
> behind the panel playing with the instruments. I will get some pics of the
> windshield on the site soon.
> Sincereley,
> Kip Laurie
> Firestar II
> Atlanta
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
Gents:
Rotax recently released a service letter on all 2 stroke carbs,
SL-2ST-005. They have upgraded the design of the floats. Apparently there
were a few reports of the old style floats hanging up in the bowl due to
their shape. I just got my new floats and put a picture of them on the
engine page of my web site.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
http://hometown.aol.com/cavuontop/n496bm.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
Good report Dennis, the mkIII will set new records for motor variety.
-here's hoping I get to fire up one early (warm) spring day.
--BB, still walking the runway
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Kroll" <skroll(at)dellepro.com> |
Hello Kolbers,
My first engine out landing came at 186 hours with the pulse line
breaking where it attaches to the engine..(recommend annual replacement
for a buck and a half) My next engine out came in less than a week from
the first and I have not figured that one out yet. I had flown for an
hour or so with no problems but when I set up for glide to landing on
final, as soon as I pulled the power back the engine quit. I managed to
get it started again on the ground but it would not run at idle. I
figure it's time to decarbon anyway so I am planning to tear it down as
soon as the weather warms up a little. Nothing else was obviously wrong
including float bowl, wiring, plugs etc. I had recently changed out the
plugs with another set of the same type I had been using and also
changed out the spark plug caps with the metal noise reducing types but
they had been run successfully for several hours before this event and
they checked out fine. This is a 503 Rotax with single carb and points
ignition. I have been trying to copy and print (from the CPS site on
the internet) Mike Stratmans article "What To Do When It Quits" which
was published in Ultralight Flying but the reproduction is poor on the
site. Does anybody know where I might find a pristine copy of that
article that's clean for copying? I subscribed to that rag for a long
time but the newspaper quality of the magazine did not lend itself to
archiving well.
Steve Kroll
Mk2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com> |
Steve,
Others have more experience than I, but for a 2-stroke quitting on idle
I would be suspicious of air leaks, especially since you are getting
spark all the rest of the time. First tho, it is pretty easy to check
the carb idle jet is clear to rule that out. Then, remember that
problem air leaks can be on either intake or exhaust manifold (or other
more troublesome, but unlikely spots too). I had created a simple
no-cost leak down test method so let me know if you want info on that.
-Ben Ransom
--- Steve Kroll wrote:
>
> Hello Kolbers,
>
> My first engine out landing came at 186 hours with the pulse line
> breaking where it attaches to the engine..(recommend annual
> replacement
> for a buck and a half) My next engine out came in less than a week
> from
> the first and I have not figured that one out yet. I had flown for
> an
> hour or so with no problems but when I set up for glide to landing on
> final, as soon as I pulled the power back the engine quit. I managed
> to
> get it started again on the ground but it would not run at idle. I
> figure it's time to decarbon anyway so I am planning to tear it down
> as
> soon as the weather warms up a little. Nothing else was obviously
> wrong
> including float bowl, wiring, plugs etc. I had recently changed out
> the
> plugs with another set of the same type I had been using and also
> changed out the spark plug caps with the metal noise reducing types
> but
> they had been run successfully for several hours before this event
> and
> they checked out fine. This is a 503 Rotax with single carb and
> points
> ignition. I have been trying to copy and print (from the CPS site on
> the internet) Mike Stratmans article "What To Do When It Quits"
> which
> was published in Ultralight Flying but the reproduction is poor on
> the
> site. Does anybody know where I might find a pristine copy of that
> article that's clean for copying? I subscribed to that rag for a
> long
> time but the newspaper quality of the magazine did not lend itself to
> archiving well.
>
> Steve Kroll
> Mk2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=====
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
I would like information on this leak down test.
Ron Payne
FireStar 503
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:50:53
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: engine out
Steve,
Others have more experience than I, but for a 2-stroke quitting on idle
I would be suspicious of air leaks, especially since you are getting
spark all the rest of the time. First tho, it is pretty easy to check
the carb idle jet is clear to rule that out. Then, remember that
problem air leaks can be on either intake or exhaust manifold (or other
more troublesome, but unlikely spots too). I had created a simple
no-cost leak down test method so let me know if you want info on that.
-Ben Ransom
---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cim & Tindy" <townsend(at)webound.com> |
(snip)
I had recently changed out the
plugs with another set of the same type I had been using and also
changed out the spark plug caps with the metal noise reducing types but
they had been run successfully for several hours before this event and
they checked out fine. This is a 503 Rotax with single carb and points
ignition.
Steve,
There is an old discussion about running high resistance plug
caps (over 5K Ohm) and resistor type plugs together with points ignition.
We avoid that because the voltage is not that high anyway with
the points set up.
I did not catch wether you had resistor plugs also,, but the voltage
can be right on the edge,, and hard to start after just a few hrs. on
the plugs.
I believe resistor plugs and up to 5K Ohm caps are ok with CDI
ignition.
Just thinking out loud,,
Tim Townsend
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cim & Tindy" <townsend(at)webound.com> |
List and Bill,
I just looked in the CPS book and found both kinds stated
at 5K,, now I am confused. I think there are 2 kinds of porcelain
caps. Maybe the black and the red colored ones are different??
1k and 5k.
It lists the metal ones at 5K.
Good discussion,, I would like to know..
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
Verify if it's fuel starvation related - do you have a primer (not the
squeeze bulb) - can you keep it running with shots of prime?
Since you messed with the pulse line, one did you replace it with the right
stuff - thick walled so the tubing will not collapse and cause soft vacuum
pulses to the fuel pump.
Next is there any possibly a air leak - poor clamps - next did you replace
the line.
Fuel pump installed with the vent hole in the correct orientation.
Have you had the carb apart and reassembled it correctly - the needle,
clip, and that plastic thingy must be assembled in the correct manner or it
will not run right - wonder how I know this (red face). <:')
Do you have a squeeze bulb, do you have it bypassed - if not it check value
could be sticking and at lower RPM the fuel pump may not be able to over
come it.
Have you had the fuel pump loose where it could have been reinstalled
backward to the fuel flow direction - moving it may have shifted debris
plugging it.
Last, any chance you have some water in the system - doesn't take much -
they normally will run with water at higher power settings but often will
not idle well.
jerryb
>
>Hello Kolbers,
>
>My first engine out landing came at 186 hours with the pulse line
>breaking where it attaches to the engine..(recommend annual replacement
>for a buck and a half) My next engine out came in less than a week from
>the first and I have not figured that one out yet. I had flown for an
>hour or so with no problems but when I set up for glide to landing on
>final, as soon as I pulled the power back the engine quit. I managed to
>get it started again on the ground but it would not run at idle. I
>figure it's time to decarbon anyway so I am planning to tear it down as
>soon as the weather warms up a little. Nothing else was obviously wrong
>including float bowl, wiring, plugs etc. I had recently changed out the
>plugs with another set of the same type I had been using and also
>changed out the spark plug caps with the metal noise reducing types but
>they had been run successfully for several hours before this event and
>they checked out fine. This is a 503 Rotax with single carb and points
>ignition. I have been trying to copy and print (from the CPS site on
>the internet) Mike Stratmans article "What To Do When It Quits" which
>was published in Ultralight Flying but the reproduction is poor on the
>site. Does anybody know where I might find a pristine copy of that
>article that's clean for copying? I subscribed to that rag for a long
>time but the newspaper quality of the magazine did not lend itself to
>archiving well.
>
>Steve Kroll
>Mk2
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Interest in Leak Down Test |
Yes Ben,
I'm interested. Email me or post it.
Thanks,
jerryb
>
>Steve,
>Others have more experience than I, but for a 2-stroke quitting on idle
>I would be suspicious of air leaks, especially since you are getting
>spark all the rest of the time. First tho, it is pretty easy to check
>the carb idle jet is clear to rule that out. Then, remember that
>problem air leaks can be on either intake or exhaust manifold (or other
>more troublesome, but unlikely spots too). I had created a simple
>no-cost leak down test method so let me know if you want info on that.
>
>-Ben Ransom
>
>--- Steve Kroll wrote:
> >
> > Hello Kolbers,
> >
> > My first engine out landing came at 186 hours with the pulse line
> > breaking where it attaches to the engine..(recommend annual
> > replacement
> > for a buck and a half) My next engine out came in less than a week
> > from
> > the first and I have not figured that one out yet. I had flown for
> > an
> > hour or so with no problems but when I set up for glide to landing on
> > final, as soon as I pulled the power back the engine quit. I managed
> > to
> > get it started again on the ground but it would not run at idle. I
> > figure it's time to decarbon anyway so I am planning to tear it down
> > as
> > soon as the weather warms up a little. Nothing else was obviously
> > wrong
> > including float bowl, wiring, plugs etc. I had recently changed out
> > the
> > plugs with another set of the same type I had been using and also
> > changed out the spark plug caps with the metal noise reducing types
> > but
> > they had been run successfully for several hours before this event
> > and
> > they checked out fine. This is a 503 Rotax with single carb and
> > points
> > ignition. I have been trying to copy and print (from the CPS site on
> > the internet) Mike Stratmans article "What To Do When It Quits"
> > which
> > was published in Ultralight Flying but the reproduction is poor on
> > the
> > site. Does anybody know where I might find a pristine copy of that
> > article that's clean for copying? I subscribed to that rag for a
> > long
> > time but the newspaper quality of the magazine did not lend itself to
> > archiving well.
> >
> > Steve Kroll
> > Mk2
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>=====
>http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
>
>Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
>http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrodebush" <jrodebush(at)cinci.rr.com> |
| Subject: | First Engine Run |
From: Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil>
Subject: Kolb-List: First Engine Run
..........."Kolbers -
Yesterday, on the first day of 2002, I started the Verner engine on my
Mark-3 for the first time. She breathes ... she LIVES ! And oh, what a
sweet sound it was!.............."
Congratulations! TNK had some problems with their Verner. Hopefully that
was either a fluke or Verner has corrected them. It seems like it has the
potential to be a great engine. Keep us advised. I'm still debating what
engine to use as long as it's a 4-stroke.
Rex Rodebush Mark III Xtra
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
Listers -
I was surprised to see that New Kolb is now marketing a powered parachute.
(See the ad on pg 45 of the Feb Kitplanes magazine.) New Kolb is really
diversifying lately, with their all-composite Pelican that they've begun
marketing last fall, and now a PPC. I guess that's a good sign that the
company is doing well. But I still prefer the aluminum "classics" that we
all talk about on this List!
Dennis Kirby
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ian Heritch" <iheritch(at)revelgroup.com> |
Given the economic climate we are in, and given the fact that homebuilt
sales have been declining for at least 24 months, this is a smart move
on the part of New Kolb - I am just not convinced they are the right
products esp. the Pelican.
Ian Heritch
912 Slingshot 85%
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kirby Dennis
Contr ASC/TM
Subject: Kolb-List: A Kolb PPC?
Listers -
I was surprised to see that New Kolb is now marketing a powered
parachute.
(See the ad on pg 45 of the Feb Kitplanes magazine.) New Kolb is really
diversifying lately, with their all-composite Pelican that they've begun
marketing last fall, and now a PPC. I guess that's a good sign that the
company is doing well. But I still prefer the aluminum "classics" that
we
all talk about on this List!
Dennis Kirby
Cedar Crest, NM
=
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | heat treating gear legs |
John,
I'm ready to send out my steel gear legs for heat treating. The
company that I know of for this advises that the legs will come back
slightly warped because he needs to lay them down flat. He's talking
about as much as 1/8 to 1/4" over 35" length (Rockwell 46).
Was this what you encountered in your experience, or, by chance were
yours done by a heat treating company with a furnace large enf to stand
the legs upright? (That is what I'm told is needed).
-Ben Ransom
=====
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Hauck" <jimh474(at)nettally.com> |
| Subject: | Re: heat treating gear legs |
Ben;
John is out of pocket for a few days. No we never experienced that type of
workmanship in heat treating the gear legs.
This is his Bro jim'
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Ransom" <bwr000(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: heat treating gear legs
>
> John,
> I'm ready to send out my steel gear legs for heat treating. The
> company that I know of for this advises that the legs will come back
> slightly warped because he needs to lay them down flat. He's talking
> about as much as 1/8 to 1/4" over 35" length (Rockwell 46).
>
> Was this what you encountered in your experience, or, by chance were
> yours done by a heat treating company with a furnace large enf to stand
> the legs upright? (That is what I'm told is needed).
>
> -Ben Ransom
>
> =====
> http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
>
> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gdledbetter(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Sport Pilot Makes a Big Step!!! |
OMB Approves Sport Pilot Proposal; NPRM Imminent
FAA officials confirmed today that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approved the sport pilot/light-sport aircraft rulemaking proposal. OMB's
website shows the proposal was approved and returned to FAA on January 3,
2002.
Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register
is the next step in the process, and FAA officials stated that the document
is already at the government printing office undergoing final edits.
EAA will post continuous updates today at www.eaa.org and www.sportpilot.org
as more information becomes available.
When the NPRM is published, EAA will issue the third Sport Pilot Newsletter.
Previous issues of the newsletter are available on the sport pilot website.
Further questions regarding the proposal can be directed to EAA's Aviation
Information Services Department-1-888/EAA-INFO, Ext. 4821; e-mail:
infoservices(at)eaa.org.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interest in Leak Down Test |
I'm sure there must be something my method lacks, but it has been 3
years since I did this so I don't recall -- others feel free to jump
in.
When I did mine, I felt it was impossible that I had a leak on the
intake manifold side. That stays clean, is bolted to clean new
gaskets, and everything is smooth as a baby's behind. So, assuming
that needed no checking, I took off the intake manifold and made a
cover for each port out of 3/4" particle board. I used the kind that
has a white plastic-like coating and is used for shelving because I had
some laying around, and because I didn't want to have to account for
leak-down pressure loss through the particle board. I'm sure coating
or painting plain particle board would be fine too. I also used
contact cement between the wood cap surface and the cylinder ports --
I'm pretty sure I left the gaskets off.
I then cut off the air fill nipple from an old bicycle innertube, and
pressed it into a tight hole drilled into one of the aforementioned
particle board port caps, with some contact or rubber cement to secure
it air tight. OK, with this I can attach an air hose to pressurize the
engine -- but don't stop reading now or you risk *creating* a big
problem instead of solving a little one.
You will also have to block off the exhaust port. However, you don't
want to do this at the manifold to cylinder ports because you must
assume that is the source of air leak. (In fact, I think that is the
most likely leak area, and is where I found mine. Fortunately it is
also a no-brainer to fix.) I took off the exhaust can and rigged a
wood plug with gasket sealer for the exh manifold at the end of the Y.
Here's the most important part: You want to be sure to pressurize the
crankcase at no more than 4.5 or 5 psi or you risk blowing out a seal
-- I don't know what pressure will guarantee damage -- anyone who finds
out probably won't want to 'fess up. :) A compressor regulator gauge
(0-120psi) is not accurate enf for the low end (4.5 might really be 10,
especially when reading pressure from a very small vessel). To work
around this, I tweaked the regulator pressure to the point where air
would no longer flow into my tundra tires when a known good tire
pressure gauge measured them at 4.5psi. Then I shut off the compressor
and felt free to pressurize my engine.
The leak areas you are looking for (i think) include exh manifold, head
gaskets, cylinder to case gaskets, PTO seal, front seal, and internal
crankcase cyl-cyl seal. I had taken off my gearbox to check for PTO
leakage, but I would not mess with that or the other crankcase seals
unless you find no leaks on the easier to check areas. So, pressurize
the the bike tube nozzle and use a spray bottle with soapy water on all
the possible leak areas. On mine, the exhaust manifold areas fizzed
like a rabid dog and all other available areas were fine -- what a
relief! If you are not finding leaks on the outside of the engine, you
need to assess whether the leak-down rate (amount of pressure lost with
time) exceeds spec. I think that too much leak implies that the
internal cyl-cyl seal may be bad, especially if soap bubbles show no
leaks on the PTO or front of the engine. I forget where to find teh
leak-down rate tolerence.
Here's an interesting kicker. All of my problems started after doing
some maintenance, I think it was decarboning at ~120hours. Not wanting
to cut any corners, I had put the manifolds back on with brand new
gaskets. Still, within 10 hours my Firestar was not much more than a
powered glider. Henceforth I have used gasket sealer when bolting on
the exhaust manifold. If that is as likely a culprit as I think it is,
you could possibly avoid the entire test above, and instead simply
rebolt the exh manifold on with gasket sealer and see if the problem
goes away. I'd bet a nickel that every engine out there would run with
more reliable mixture if sealer was used on the exh manifold, but now
this is turning into religion, so I'll quit while I'm ahead.
-Ben Ransom
=====
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Advanced Technology Products Inc. |
Has anyone be using the UltraStart-Red battery offered by the SmartStick
people? If so what has been your experience with it? I want to use one on
my FireFly to start the Simonini Victor 1, but I am having trouble getting
the company's attention. They have a web site, but the telephone number
does not work, and they have not responded to an e-mail.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Advanced Technology Products Inc. |
In a message dated 1/4/02 8:21:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbhart(at)ldd.net
writes:
> ? I want to use one on
> my FireFly to start the Simonini Victor 1, but I am having trouble getting
> the company's attention.
>
Victor 1 on a Firefly!!? I thought that was a 90hp engine......
Shack
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Advanced Technology Products Inc. |
Has anyone be using the UltraStart-Red battery offered by the SmartStick
people Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
Jack and Gang:
If you get no response from APT, check with Tom Pehigny of Flight Star Aircraft.
Tom sponsored me with the red APT and the next size larger for my Barrow flight.
I am sure he can help you. I endorse both batteries whole heartedly.
Not only because I got two of them free, but they are darn good batteries. Never
failed to start the 912S on the Alaska flight or any other time. I believe
they are of the foil type battery. No problem with acid or mounting position.
My batteries are about two years old at this time.
Take care,
john h
PS: I am using a friend's computer in Roanoke, VA. If you have a problem finding
Tom, let me know and I will help you out. When you do make contact, be sure
and mention my name. :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Advanced Technology Products Inc. |
Shack,
It is a 48 hp engine, but should come in about ten pounds lighter than a
447. I will have to derate it quite a bit to keep the FireFly legal. I
need the ten pounds to get the wing loading down so there is no argument
about the FireFly being legal. If the engine sips as the Italians say, I
will be able to get some where on five gallons of gas too.
Tom,
Thanks for the tip about Aircraft Spruce.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>
>In a message dated 1/4/02 8:21:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbhart(at)ldd.net
>writes:
>
>
>> ? I want to use one on
>> my FireFly to start the Simonini Victor 1, but I am having trouble getting
>> the company's attention.
>>
>
>Victor 1 on a Firefly!!? I thought that was a 90hp engine......
>
>Shack
>FS I
>SC
>
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Interest in Leak Down Test |
Several years ago I had an aircraft with a 532 that leaked between the
cylinders in the crankshaft area. The 532 and 582 have an oil chamber
there, as that is the area where the oil pump/rotary valve shaft gears off
the crank. Everything was normal below 5,000 RPM, but at higher throttle
settings, the leak in pressure caused the little oil bottle that contains
the crankcase oil to suddenly overfill and spray oil everywhere. A pressure
test verified the between cylinders leak. A previous owner had worked on
the engine and reassembled the crankcases with RTV. (ARRGGHH!) You have to
use the sealant specified by Rotax, or it will leak.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>Ah shucks, thanks Ed.
>One thing I glossed over: It matters which cylinder you pressurize,
>i.e., I think if you were suspicious of a PTO seal leak you'd want to
>pressurize the PTO side cyl. That would not show a leak on the front
>seal (mag end) unless you also have a bad leak on the internal
>crankcase cyl-cyl seal -- both of which of course are unlikely.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Erich Weaver ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Erich Weaver
Subject: Fuselage Tube Support Saddle
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/erich_weaver@urscorp.com.01.05.2002/index.html
--------------------------------------------
o EMAIL LIST PHOTO SHARE
Share your files and photos with other List members simply by
emailing the files to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
Please view the typical Share above and include the Description Text
Fields as shown along with your submission of files and photos.
o Main Photo Share Index:
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [ Erich Weaver ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
Thanks Erich. I think that photo share feature is a great option for us.
Regarding the post I sent a week or 2 ago about changing the location of the
wing fold bracket; today a friend (the gyrocopter builder) and I started
work on the crossbar to hold the bracket, when he came up with an idea:
why not locate everything as shown in the plans, then make a bracket - like
with a piece of 4130 tubing, as long as necessary, say 12" or so - with a
short 90 bent into each end. Like an "S" or "Z" shape. Slip one end over
the stub on the fuselage tube and pin it, then slip the wing spar stub into
the other end, and pin it. This would hold the wing higher off the ground,
and would be simple to make whatever length you need. That, combined with
the strap between the 2 wingtips should hold everything plenty rigid. We're
gonna build it this weekend, and try it out.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Email List Photo Shares" <pictures(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: [ Erich Weaver ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
>
>
> A new Email List Photo Share is available:
>
> Poster: Erich Weaver
>
>
> Subject: Fuselage Tube Support Saddle
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/erich_weaver@urscorp.com.01.05.2002/inde
x.html
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> o EMAIL LIST PHOTO SHARE
>
> Share your files and photos with other List members simply by
> emailing the files to:
>
> pictures(at)matronics.com
>
> Please view the typical Share above and include the Description Text
> Fields as shown along with your submission of files and photos.
>
> o Main Photo Share Index:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
I just happen to have a copy of that article. It is in a CPS catalog I picked
up at Sun-N-Fun in 1997. If you E-Mail me a fax # I will fax it to you. Rick
Klebon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
Try this URL for the Care & Feeding of Rtax Engines - it looks good on my PC.
http://www.800-airwolf.com/pdffiles/ARTICLES/
jerryb
>
>Hello Kolbers,
>
>My first engine out landing came at 186 hours with the pulse line
>breaking where it attaches to the engine..(recommend annual replacement
>for a buck and a half) My next engine out came in less than a week from
>the first and I have not figured that one out yet. I had flown for an
>hour or so with no problems but when I set up for glide to landing on
>final, as soon as I pulled the power back the engine quit. I managed to
>get it started again on the ground but it would not run at idle. I
>figure it's time to decarbon anyway so I am planning to tear it down as
>soon as the weather warms up a little. Nothing else was obviously wrong
>including float bowl, wiring, plugs etc. I had recently changed out the
>plugs with another set of the same type I had been using and also
>changed out the spark plug caps with the metal noise reducing types but
>they had been run successfully for several hours before this event and
>they checked out fine. This is a 503 Rotax with single carb and points
>ignition. I have been trying to copy and print (from the CPS site on
>the internet) Mike Stratmans article "What To Do When It Quits" which
>was published in Ultralight Flying but the reproduction is poor on the
>site. Does anybody know where I might find a pristine copy of that
>article that's clean for copying? I subscribed to that rag for a long
>time but the newspaper quality of the magazine did not lend itself to
>archiving well.
>
>Steve Kroll
>Mk2
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Clouse <mjclouse(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | My Kolb for sale |
Howdy all!
I have decided to sell my Firestar II so I can
get something that my wife and I can both get in.
We are both not skinny any more! So here are the
details: If you know of anyone looking for a NICE
firestar please direct them my way...THANKS!
This is a 1999 Kolb Firestar II. It is in GREAT Shape!
35 hrs total time on engine
and airframe. Engine is a dual carb 503 Rotax with
electric start. The aircraft is painted
in traditional Kolb colors with Beautiful metal flake
added. The aircraft is equiped with
Tundra tires and includes 4-point seat harness.
Instrumentation includes altimeter/dual
EGT/Cyl. temp/ airspeed/tach/Hobbs/ Optionally a
radio. A trailer is also available as
an option. This is a Beautiful aircraft that you will
be proud of.
Check it out fully at http://www.microlight.cc/
$12,000.00 call 360-352-2901 ask for Mike Clouse or
e-mail at mjclouse(at)yahoo.com
Thanks again....Mike
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | erich_weaver(at)urscorp.com |
| Subject: | Re: wing bracket |
01/06/2002 10:20:44 PM
Larry et al:
Your wing bracket idea seems like it should be simple and effective Larry.
Word of caution: the pinning of the bracket will have to be quite secure,
because any rotation at all will result in a misalignment that will prevent
the sing peg from slipping into the bracket. Readers should also be aware
that a benefit of my saddle system is that it completely unloads the tail
wheel. Long term storage of the plane on the tail wheel with the wings
folded is not recommended.
regards to all,
Erich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Keith Singer" <kas(at)wckz.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Kolb-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 01/06/02 |
Fellow Kolb Pilots:
What's the prevailing wisdom on the windshield vs. no windshield issue. My
FII has a windshield but I think it takes something away from the
ultralight flying and makes it more difficult to see. Everyone said I would
really appreciate it in the Winter, which I do, but not enough to keep it
on, I think. And I live in Tucson, where it is warmer more often. I took a
look at that one for sale on the list recently and it was shown without the
windshield and I thought that might be nice? Should I keep mine on (it goes
all the way up, but not all the way to the sides) or should I cut it back to
a 1/2 shield or should I do away with it alltogether. I usually fly low and
visibility is important for me. Plus, I think the windshield interferes with
my perception. But I don't want to do something rash. Please advise.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wing bracket |
I like your saddle arrangement, Erich. The bigger wheel you mentioned would
make it even better. I think that, combined with a way to get the leading
edges higher off the ground would be a win-win combination. Rotation of my
bracket shouldn't be a problem, since the rear universal joint will keep the
wing from moving fore and aft. Who was it that published the pic of the
strap holding the wingtips together ?? Could you publish that again, please
?? How 'bout it you guys out there.................anyone made a pair of
Big Lar's brackets yet ?? Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <erich_weaver(at)urscorp.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re: wing bracket
>
>
> Larry et al:
>
> Your wing bracket idea seems like it should be simple and effective Larry.
> Word of caution: the pinning of the bracket will have to be quite secure,
> because any rotation at all will result in a misalignment that will
prevent
> the sing peg from slipping into the bracket. Readers should also be aware
> that a benefit of my saddle system is that it completely unloads the tail
> wheel. Long term storage of the plane on the tail wheel with the wings
> folded is not recommended.
>
> regards to all,
>
> Erich
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Kolb-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 01/06/02 |
Should I keep mine on (it goes
all the way up, but not all the way to the sides) or should I cut it back to
a 1/2 shield or should I do away with it alltogether. Keith Singer
Keith and Gang:
I flew my Ultrastar with no windshield, but required goggles or full face helmet
with face shield, so I could see while wearing glasses. On long cross country
flights, sitting out in the windstream was fatiguing, hold head against the
blast.
My Firestar, initially, had the same problem, since my head was still in the blast
with the half windshield. Still had to wear goggles over my glasses so I
could see. A small lexan fairing on top of the half windshield kicked the blast
over my head, allowing me to fly with baseball cap and glasses.
The Mark III is fully inclosed. No longer required to fly sitting in a hurricane.
I prefer the inclosed cockpit now. Have flown many hours in this configuration.
The way each individual flies is a personal thing. If you are like me, you will
have to experiment to determine what configuration you want to fly. All it
cost is time and a little lexan.
BTW: I am in Roanoke, VA. Been here since last Thu. Arrived in a snow storm,
pulling the 5th wheel. Had planned on heading north up I-81 to visit with the
Gray Baron (Bob Noyer) in Winchester, VA, but as of last night the weather was
no good in his area. Will have to play it by ear and keep up with current
weather between here and Winchester. If it doesn't clear up, will have to return
to hauck's holler, alabama, Thu.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Kolb-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 01/06/02 |
Take it off and try it.
Find an old piece of Lexan that is not good enough for keepers and make a
half windshield and see how you like it. If it suits you, use it for a
pattern for your final product. I have a MKIII with a half windshield, and
it flys better. I love the visibility and openness. But my inability to
stay warm enough at higher altitudes is forcing me to go back to a enclosed
arrangement.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>Fellow Kolb Pilots:
>
>What's the prevailing wisdom on the windshield vs. no windshield issue. My
>FII has a windshield but I think it takes something away from the
>ultralight flying and makes it more difficult to see. Everyone said I would
>really appreciate it in the Winter, which I do, but not enough to keep it
>on, I think. And I live in Tucson, where it is warmer more often. I took a
>look at that one for sale on the list recently and it was shown without the
>windshield and I thought that might be nice? Should I keep mine on (it goes
>all the way up, but not all the way to the sides) or should I cut it back to
>a 1/2 shield or should I do away with it alltogether. I usually fly low and
>visibility is important for me. Plus, I think the windshield interferes with
>my perception. But I don't want to do something rash. Please advise.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Kolb-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 01/06/02 |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
> What's the prevailing wisdom on the windshield vs. no windshield issue.
Ive found that the windshield on any UL does limit visibility somewhat, but
he alternative is a full face helmet which limits visibility even more.
When I bought my Phantom 3 years ago it had a very low windshield on it. I
was always getting hit with jumbo sized bugs. I even had a bird strike
once. A bird went through the prop and sprayed liquid bird all over me and
the plane. I was wearing goggles but a small piece of bird still got past
the goggles and in my eye. After that I built a full coverage, wrap around
windshield.
The other nice feature of a windshield is that you can fly alot longer with
a windshield than without. Guys that fly open air UL's are usually good for
a little over an hour. Guys with enclosed UL's can easily do three times
that. Im working on the full enclosure for my Twinstar now.
Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Short Windshield |
>
>Fellow Kolb Pilots:
>
>What's the prevailing wisdom on the windshield vs. no windshield issue.
Keith,
I fly with a short windshield and my head sticking out in the air stream.
I flew with a full face covered motor cycle helmet, but it was very
confining, the drag profile was too large, and vision was limited.
Currently, I wear a soft flying helmet with goggles over glasses to keep my
head drag profile to a minimum. It is comfortable up to about 60 mph. If
I want to push on up in speed, I slouch down and forward to reduce my drag
profile. I have experienced some neck muscle soreness in the past, but not
lately. Most of my cross country flight legs are about an hour in duration
due to fuel limitations.
The importance of goggles should not be ignored. Since I wear glasses, I
thought I could get by without goggles, but on take off one summer evening
I found out otherwise. My take off roll was through a cloud of nats. One
hit the bottom edge of my glasses and it stuck there except for one wing.
It came up under my glasses and into my eye. Just as I flew off I had this
pain in my left eye and tears came up in both eyes. It was interesting for
several seconds, trying not to blink because it hurt to and having to blink
so that I could see. At about 200 feet above ground, my vision cleared and
I was ok. Since then I always fly with goggles.
I have not tried it yet on the FireFly but I believe if one could
significantly reduce head drag by covering the cross space from the wing
attachment beam that is over head and down on the almost vertical cage
members to the level of your shoulders. This would put your head in
stagnant air bubble and reduce the force one would experience on their neck.
I fly all year around. If it gets below 50, I start to wear a neck sock
with the soft helmet. If it gets below 40, I wear head and neck sock
beneath the soft helmet plus what ever else it takes to keep me warm.
Some photos can be seen at:
http://www.thirdshift.com/jack/firefly/firefly14.html
and the following two htmls.
I encourage you to try flying with no or a short windshield. The view is
just fantastic.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
I finally got a pic of the new windshield on my site. Last picture from the
"pictures" area. It is nice to not have the complexity(?) of doors and the
option to remove in minutes. There is a bit of a breeze with no floor
though. Maybe I'll make a Lexan floor!
Kip Laurie
Firetar II
Atlanta
www.springeraviation.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New e-mail address |
Bill, I got you updated.
Thanks,
Kip
www.springeraviation.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Woods <kolbpilot(at)msn.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: New e-mail address
>
> Hi Gang,
> New e-mail address for Bill Woods is kolbpilot(at)msn.com. Pretty COOL huh!
> Bill Woods
> 912S Slingshot
> /explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Kolb-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 01/06/02 |
Why not buy a piece of Lexan and make a short one. Not sure about the FSII
but the FireFly is no more than a 10 minute job to swap back and forth.
jerryb
>
>Fellow Kolb Pilots:
>
>What's the prevailing wisdom on the windshield vs. no windshield issue. My
>FII has a windshield but I think it takes something away from the
>ultralight flying and makes it more difficult to see. Everyone said I would
>really appreciate it in the Winter, which I do, but not enough to keep it
>on, I think. And I live in Tucson, where it is warmer more often. I took a
>look at that one for sale on the list recently and it was shown without the
>windshield and I thought that might be nice? Should I keep mine on (it goes
>all the way up, but not all the way to the sides) or should I cut it back to
>a 1/2 shield or should I do away with it alltogether. I usually fly low and
>visibility is important for me. Plus, I think the windshield interferes with
>my perception. But I don't want to do something rash. Please advise.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Vincent <emailbill(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: windshield size |
Keith Singer wrote:
>
> Fellow Kolb Pilots:
>
> What's the prevailing wisdom on the windshield vs. no windshield issue.
Keith:
I fly with a full windshield, sometimes early in the morning ( in the summer )
when I pull my plane out of the hangar and there is heavy dew on the grass, the
windshield fogs up instantly inside and outside. No matter how often I wipe, it
just keeps fogging up again. While my friends with the short windshields fly off
without me. : - (
I also do not know what would happen if it would fog up in the air, although,
usually, if it is partially fogged on the ground it will clear instantly as soon
as I get the plane into the air.
I have tried different anti fog products, but all they do is distort the clarity
of the plastic.
In the winter I do not have trouble with fogging because the winter air is cold
and dry.
Bill Vincent
Firestar II
Quinnesec, Upper Peninsula of Michigan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig & Gretchen" <Snaproll.er(at)GTE.NET> |
| Subject: | Xtra Horizontal Stab |
Just received revised plans for the horizontal stabilizer for the M-III
Xtra. Curious if this stab design is from the original M-III or a new
design. The revised plans use 7/8" x .049" tubing for the inboard and rear
of the stab and 1" x .035 tubing for the leading edge. Also, the leading
edge meets the trailing edge at the outboard end to form a triangle. The
original stab design used 1" x .058" tube all around the perimeter and the
leading edge is separated from the trailing edge by 12" at the outboard
edge.
Doe's this revised H-stab sound like the original M-III stabilizer?
Also curious if any Xtra builders out there also received similar revised
H-Stab plans. I plan on using the original large stab as I have already
built them. Can't think of any reason for the change except to save
weight.
Craig Saunders
M-III Extra
Building Wings
Snaproll.er(at)gte.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Kolb-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 01/06/02 |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
Keith,
You might take a look at my long windshield which is the best of both
worlds. I'm out of the airstream but I can peak around it if I have to.
Full enclosures are too hot in the summer and can fog up without adequate
ventilation. I was flying a Mark II once with a friend when we ran into
freezing rain. It became difficult to see out and we were lucky to be
within a few miles of the field. If I were flying my Firestar, I could
have leaned over to one side to see ahead.
I know of one Titan pilot who took off at Sun-N-Fun with a fogged
windshield. He knew it would clear up on climbout, but until it did he
was flying blind.
Take a look at my pics to see the long windshield.
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/ul15rhb@juno.com.12.10.2001/
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
>
> Fellow Kolb Pilots:
>
> What's the prevailing wisdom on the windshield vs. no windshield
> issue. My
> FII has a windshield but I think it takes something away from the
> ultralight flying and makes it more difficult to see. Everyone said
> I would
> really appreciate it in the Winter, which I do, but not enough to
> keep it
> on, I think. And I live in Tucson, where it is warmer more often.
> I took a
> look at that one for sale on the list recently and it was shown
> without the
> windshield and I thought that might be nice? Should I keep mine on
> (it goes
> all the way up, but not all the way to the sides) or should I cut it
> back to
> a 1/2 shield or should I do away with it alltogether. I usually fly
> low and
> visibility is important for me. Plus, I think the windshield
> interferes with
> my perception. But I don't want to do something rash. Please
> advise.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Gherkins <rp3420(at)email.sps.mot.com> |
\" \\"(at)il06exr03.mot.com\""
| Subject: | Re: Xtra Horizontal Stab |
Craig,
My uncle and myself are building serial number 10 Extra. We went to Oshkosh
for the first time last July and couldn't wait to see all the folks and planes
at the Kolb tent. We were both a little disappointed to find out that they had
sold the original Extra and had the new version which they are currently sale
now. Their Firestar did not have the updated control system, and the Kolbra
was not the one I had always seen in all the magazines up to that point (you
know the all red one with the shark nose design like the Extra).
Anyhow, when we were looking at the Extra for a few minutes we finally turned
to each other and said this is a Mark III with a different nose on it. Gone
was the original dual stick configuration, the center between the seats is
simpler, the shape from the cockpit to the tail tube is back to Mark III shape
with no ring around the tail tube exit, as well as the shape of the horizontal
stabs went back to Mark III, etc.......
After talking to Danny M. he said that they were trying to get the weight down
on the Extra, and this is what took out a lot of extra shapes and welds out of
the plane. They really wanted to have a good two seater that can carry a load
for training under the new sport aircraft proposition.
I do have to admit that I am concerned for the final weight of our Extra, but
glad that we are fortunate to have one of the original Extra kits before their
change. I think only about two dozen kits of the original design are out
there.
Feel free to visit our web site at: www.milows.com
Take care,
Tim and uncle Craig
building Firestar II and Extra III in Gilbert, AZ
PS: We just rigged the wings to the fuselage last saturday, talk about a
process! But, we nailed it perfectly. Watch for updates soon on our site. TG
Craig & Gretchen wrote:
>
> Just received revised plans for the horizontal stabilizer for the M-III
> Xtra. Curious if this stab design is from the original M-III or a new
> design. The revised plans use 7/8" x .049" tubing for the inboard and rear
> of the stab and 1" x .035 tubing for the leading edge. Also, the leading
> edge meets the trailing edge at the outboard end to form a triangle. The
> original stab design used 1" x .058" tube all around the perimeter and the
> leading edge is separated from the trailing edge by 12" at the outboard
> edge.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re:support saddle / wing bracket stuff |
| From: | erich_weaver(at)urscorp.com |
01/08/2002 12:20:15 PM
Big Lar et al:
Read your List post - not sure we are on the same wavelength here - I know
thats how it goes with the list sometimes.
With respect to my saddle - it DOES get you clearance between the leading
edges of the folded wings and the ground - that was the main purpose of
it. The longer you make the extension (the 2-inch diameter PVC nipple) on
it and/or the bigger your wheel, the more clearance you have. Know what I
mean? The clearance is also affected by the position of the saddle on the
fuselage. Closer to the front end lifts the tail higher.
On your wing bracket : Im not worried about the wing not being held
securely - I was commenting on the possibility of the bracket itself
rotating slightly on the wing holder - its got to be in just the right
place for the wing peg to fit into it, right?
Hope Im not pissing you off here - certainly not my intent! Just trying to
clarify my thoughts. I think your bracket is a worthy pursuit.
Whats the status of Vamoose - is she getting covered?
regards,
Erich Weaver
erich_weaver(at)urscorp.com
130 Robin Hill Road, Suite 100
Santa Barbara, California 93117
Tel: 805-964-6010
fax: 805-964 0259
I like your saddle arrangement, Erich. The bigger wheel you mentioned
would
make it even better. I think that, combined with a way to get the leading
edges higher off the ground would be a win-win combination. Rotation of my
bracket shouldn't be a problem, since the rear universal joint will keep
the
wing from moving fore and aft. Who was it that published the pic of the
strap holding the wingtips together ?? Could you publish that again,
please
?? How 'bout it you guys out there.................anyone made a pair of
Big Lar's brackets yet ?? Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re:support saddle / wing bracket stuff |
>Hope Im not pissing you off here - certainly not my intent! Just trying to
>clarify my thoughts. I think your bracket is a worthy pursuit.
>regards,
>
>Erich Weaver
>Santa Barbara, California 93117
You can't piss Larry off.
Wish I were in Santa barbara jumping off the "Hill".
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jrodebush" <jrodebush(at)cinci.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Xtra Horizontal Stab |
"Just received revised plans for the horizontal stabilizer for the M-III
Xtra. Curious if this stab design is from the original
M-III..............."
The version with the 7/8" and 1" tubes and the triangle on the O.B. end is
the design for the original Mark III. When I changed to the Mark III Xtra
the stab. was changed to the 1" tube all around and the 12" "extension".
This was because Barnaby thought extra area was needed because of the wider
front cage. I noticed at Oshkosh this summer that the new "lightweight"
Mark III Xtra went back to the old design smaller stabilizer. (I guess the
extra area wasn't needed and they wanted to save weight.) Any comments on
this from anyone??
I am also going to keep the larger stabilizer since I have not heard
otherwise from the factory. Note that the position of the L.E. has been
changed to near the center line of the tube rather than at the top.
Rex Rodebush
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen E. Spence" <sspence(at)tm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Xtra Horizontal Stab |
Tim:
You are correct, 23 original style X-tras. I know because I just picked
up #23 and there are no more. I prefer the original style so much that I do
not think I would have been interested in their current model. I am in
process of covering tail surfaces, in between snowmobiling in northern
Michigan. I hope to have ready to spray by May.
Steve Spence
FF 013 & MkIIIX 23
Auburn Hills, MI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gherkins" <rp3420(at)email.sps.mot.com>
\"(at)il06exr03.mot.com\""kolb-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Xtra Horizontal Stab
>
> Craig,
> My uncle and myself are building serial number 10 Extra. We went to
Oshkosh
> for the first time last July and couldn't wait to see all the folks and
planes
> at the Kolb tent. We were both a little disappointed to find out that
they had
> sold the original Extra and had the new version which they are currently
sale
> now. Their Firestar did not have the updated control system, and the
Kolbra
> was not the one I had always seen in all the magazines up to that point
(you
> know the all red one with the shark nose design like the Extra).
> Anyhow, when we were looking at the Extra for a few minutes we finally
turned
> to each other and said this is a Mark III with a different nose on it.
Gone
> was the original dual stick configuration, the center between the seats is
> simpler, the shape from the cockpit to the tail tube is back to Mark III
shape
> with no ring around the tail tube exit, as well as the shape of the
horizontal
> stabs went back to Mark III, etc.......
>
> After talking to Danny M. he said that they were trying to get the weight
down
> on the Extra, and this is what took out a lot of extra shapes and welds
out of
> the plane. They really wanted to have a good two seater that can carry a
load
> for training under the new sport aircraft proposition.
> I do have to admit that I am concerned for the final weight of our Extra,
but
> glad that we are fortunate to have one of the original Extra kits before
their
> change. I think only about two dozen kits of the original design are out
> there.
>
> Feel free to visit our web site at: www.milows.com
>
> Take care,
> Tim and uncle Craig
> building Firestar II and Extra III in Gilbert, AZ
>
> PS: We just rigged the wings to the fuselage last saturday, talk about a
> process! But, we nailed it perfectly. Watch for updates soon on our
site. TG
>
>
> Craig & Gretchen wrote:
>
> >
> > Just received revised plans for the horizontal stabilizer for the M-III
> > Xtra. Curious if this stab design is from the original M-III or a new
> > design. The revised plans use 7/8" x .049" tubing for the inboard and
rear
> > of the stab and 1" x .035 tubing for the leading edge. Also, the
leading
> > edge meets the trailing edge at the outboard end to form a triangle.
The
> > original stab design used 1" x .058" tube all around the perimeter and
the
> > leading edge is separated from the trailing edge by 12" at the outboard
> > edge.
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Gherkins <rp3420(at)email.sps.mot.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Xtra Horizontal Stab |
Hey Rex,
We are planning to rig our horizontal stabilizers this saturday on our Extra,
and I cannot find the update sheet about the leading edge mounting change you
referred to in your last post. The position is more centered on the tail tube
instead of near the top, that I understand. However, can you give me exact
dimensions or fax me the info sheet?
Exact dimensions emailed is just fine or reply with a request for fax number
and I'll give it to you off line.
Sure appreciate it,
Tim
jrodebush wrote:
> I am also going to keep the larger stabilizer since I have not heard
> otherwise from the factory. Note that the position of the L.E. has been
> changed to near the center line of the tube rather than at the top.
>
> Rex Rodebush
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Fordahl Hotmail" <cafordahl(at)hotmail.com> |
To All:
I have a 1987 TwinStar that has Bosch rims. I inflated the tires to
what was embossed on the side wall of the tire not considering the
aluminum rims and broke the bead ring during a landing on one of them. I
cannot find any reference to Bosch rims anywhere on the internet. I've
checked go-cart supply houses and everything. Anyone know where I might
be able to get one? It is for a 600x6 tire.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | For FireStar Drivers |
Just wondering if there are any of the FireStars with the new control system
flying as yet. I am just about to wrap mine up and would like to hear any
comments on how this new system performs in the air. By new, I mean the
one
that has two sets of pulleys mounted in two seperate brackets behind the
pilots seat. One on the left side on the aileron torque and one on the
right side of the torque tube. The old system had all four pulleys mounted
in one bracket and was located on the center line of the aircraft with the
torque tube off set.=0D
=0D
Ron Payne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
Viewed you photo. I would keep the upper brace to add strength. You may
not need it now but should you have an forced off field landing, it may
provide better protection if you should happen to strike a fence. Shoot it
over your head instead of folding the windscreen and catching you under the
chin. From there it isn't pretty.
jerryb
>
>I finally got a pic of the new windshield on my site. Last picture from the
>"pictures" area. It is nice to not have the complexity(?) of doors and the
>option to remove in minutes. There is a bit of a breeze with no floor
>though. Maybe I'll make a Lexan floor!
>Kip Laurie
>Firetar II
>Atlanta
>www.springeraviation.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "VIC" <vicw(at)vcn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 01/07/02 |
I vote for keeping the windshield. I stuck a barbed wire fence on a forced
landing and the windshield saved my neck.
My have a full windshield on my Firestar. I ordered, from Kolb, the top bow
that comes with the full enclosure kit. If you want a picture let me know.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 01/07/02 |
Vic.
On his site with the photo he makes a suggestion of deleting the bow at the
top of the windshield, I feel it should be kept to keep the windshield from
flexing down if you were to struck a fence or even a big bird. It would
very likely save one neck. The vertical bar on a friend FlightStar saved
his neck, no doubt about it. Keep the bow and the windscreen.
jerryb
>
>I vote for keeping the windshield. I stuck a barbed wire fence on a forced
>landing and the windshield saved my neck.
>
>My have a full windshield on my Firestar. I ordered, from Kolb, the top bow
>that comes with the full enclosure kit. If you want a picture let me know.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Anderson" <janderson3(at)nc.rr.com> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "jerryb" <ulflyer(at)airmail.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Windshield
>
> Viewed you photo. I would keep the upper brace to add strength. You may
> not need it now but should you have an forced off field landing, it may
> provide better protection if you should happen to strike a fence. Shoot
it
> over your head instead of folding the windscreen and catching you under
the
> chin. From there it isn't pretty.
> jerryb
>
>
A friend of mine used to fly an old Rally u/l, the Rally has two pieces of
vertical aluminum in front of the pilot. He flew over to another friends
"new airstrip" , circled the field twice, setup for a landing and ran head
into a phone line that was hid by the tree line on one end of the field.
The phone line slid up the aluminum and wrapped around the wings and set him
down hard, but he walked away from it. This has bothered me about my Kolb
ever since, if it would have been me, it would have caught me by the
neck.....
John Anderson
*******************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Ransom <bwr000(at)yahoo.com> |
--- VIC wrote:
>
> I vote for keeping the windshield. I stuck a barbed wire fence on a
> forced
> landing and the windshield saved my neck.
I know of a FSII owner in my area that had the same exact experience.
Conclusion: a windshield *improves* visibility (keeping the eyes
connected to the rest of your body).
-Ben Ransom
=====
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~ransom
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
Latest AvWeb's Picture of the Week shows a Kolb Firestar flying
formation with a Dream Classic:
http://www.avweb.com/potw
This brings up the Pix of the week plus all previous pix.
bn the old one
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bonnie Juneau <bjuneau(at)megagate.com> |
| Subject: | Firestar II For Sale |
Hi Gang, it's time to move on to new adventures, I have my Firestar II
for sale. I t is a 1999 Firestar II with 503 Rotax, dc,dcdi, with 93
hours, total time on engine and airframe, with custom trailer and many
many extras. $12,000.00, located in South Mississippi, 601-798-1822
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello All,
EAA Chapter 1209, Saint Elmo Al (2R5) would like to extend to everyone an
invatation to our fifth annual fly-in. The date is set for March 23, 2002.
We welcome everybody and anything that flies.
The field is open for camping at no charge Friday and Saturday night to any
one interested. Fly Away contential breakfast on Sunday morning.
We have a lot of fun at this fly in and it is a really friendly enviroment.
E-mail me direct at AV8REXP(at)AOL.COM or reply to this list referencing Alabama
Fly In if you would like more information or have any questions.
Attached is a copy of our Fly-In Flyer.
Jay Stevens
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
text/html
--- StripMime Errors ---
A message with no text/plain section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using plaintext formatting
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Ransom <mlransom(at)ucdavis.edu> |
[Sorry about that last message (with the "StripMime Report" error
message). That's a new one to me! Here's the message I was sending...]
Just thought I'd mention another "windshield" option: a full-face
helmet. With a clean visor, it's as though there is *nothing* in front of
you. (Especially in an UltraStar!) Winshields collect bugs, grime and
scratches, and are expensive and somewhat difficult to replace. Replacing
a helmet visor is trivial.
The only problem I have with the full-face option is that without any
enclosure at all, there really is a little too much wind coming in under
the chin. In my motorcycle riding days, this was not a problem at all
because I was leaning forward; in my UltraStar, I'm rather reclined (due to
long legs and seat position required for CG), so the wind is coming up more
from below. I've considered adding an extension to the chin guard.
I must say, however, that a bracing tube on top (or a pair of them) sounds
like a very good idea, both for safety and for structural efficiency.
For me, the only reasons to add a windscreen (in addition to bracing tubes)
would be to be warmer in the winter, or to improve aerodynamics.
-Mike Ransom
>--- VIC wrote:
> >
> > I vote for keeping the windshield. I stuck a barbed wire fence on a
> > forced
> > landing and the windshield saved my neck.
>
>I know of a FSII owner in my area that had the same exact experience.
>Conclusion: a windshield *improves* visibility (keeping the eyes
>connected to the rest of your body).
>-Ben Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
>
>The only problem I have with the full-face option is that without any
>enclosure at all, there really is a little too much wind coming in under
>the chin. In my motorcycle riding days, this was not a problem at all
>because I was leaning forward; in my UltraStar, I'm rather reclined (due to
>long legs and seat position required for CG), so the wind is coming up more
>from below. I've considered adding an extension to the chin guard.
Mike,
Buy a neck sock. They are wonderful in cool to cold weather.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
Mike,
You brought up a good point. I think your on right target about leaning
forward versus reclining position. I know while flying our FireFly with
the short windscreen it seemed like the wind effect was much more dramatic
compared to riding my old enduro motor cycle at 70-80 MPH years ago. My
first flight was in late Dec. and I found that the wind chilled an area of
my throat where the coat stopped and helmet began.
jerryb
>
>[Sorry about that last message (with the "StripMime Report" error
>message). That's a new one to me! Here's the message I was sending...]
>
>Just thought I'd mention another "windshield" option: a full-face
>helmet. With a clean visor, it's as though there is *nothing* in front of
>you. (Especially in an UltraStar!) Winshields collect bugs, grime and
>scratches, and are expensive and somewhat difficult to replace. Replacing
>a helmet visor is trivial.
>
>The only problem I have with the full-face option is that without any
>enclosure at all, there really is a little too much wind coming in under
>the chin. In my motorcycle riding days, this was not a problem at all
>because I was leaning forward; in my UltraStar, I'm rather reclined (due to
>long legs and seat position required for CG), so the wind is coming up more
>from below. I've considered adding an extension to the chin guard.
>
>I must say, however, that a bracing tube on top (or a pair of them) sounds
>like a very good idea, both for safety and for structural efficiency.
>
>For me, the only reasons to add a windscreen (in addition to bracing tubes)
>would be to be warmer in the winter, or to improve aerodynamics.
>
>-Mike Ransom
>
> >--- VIC wrote:
> > >
> > > I vote for keeping the windshield. I stuck a barbed wire fence on a
> > > forced
> > > landing and the windshield saved my neck.
> >
> >I know of a FSII owner in my area that had the same exact experience.
> >Conclusion: a windshield *improves* visibility (keeping the eyes
> >connected to the rest of your body).
> >-Ben Ransom
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "VIC" <vicw(at)vcn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 01/09/02 |
I agree with keeping the top bow. It really stiffens the windshield when
attached to the bow and it helps keep the shape.
Vic
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 1/11/02 3:28:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ulflyer(at)airmail.net writes:
> My
> first flight was in late Dec. and I found that the wind chilled an area of
> my throat where the coat stopped and helmet began.
>
Same here. I found a real long wool scarf that I can wrap twice around my
neck & tuck the ends in my jacket. I also use a "flip-up" face shield on the
helmet that covers almost to my chin. Of course, 35 degrees here is real
cold [SC].
Shack
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Fordahl Hotmail" <cafordahl(at)hotmail.com> |
I have a Dave Clark helmet which incorporates my DC headset. I purchased an
after-market snap on face shield (snaps 3 places along the top) and my first
time up I was afraid to turn my head thinking the wind would rip the face
shield right off. I fly a Twinstar with a short windshield on the pod
giving lots of wind to the upper body. Been looking for an idea to SECURE
my face shield along the sides. Any input?
Craig Fordahl
snip
>
> Just thought I'd mention another "windshield" option: a full-face
> helmet. With a clean visor, it's as though there is *nothing* in front of
> you. (Especially in an UltraStar!) Winshields collect bugs, grime and
> scratches, and are expensive and somewhat difficult to replace. Replacing
> a helmet visor is trivial.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
John Jung, where are you ?? AZ yet ?? Reply off List, please.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Database and Flying Qualities |
Gotta have Ben & Mike Ransom from California in there.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Database and Flying Qualities
>
>
> 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.
> Also, I installed a custom windshield yesterday. It is a partial enclosure
> with no doors. The coverage is about to the shoulders so one must slide in
> from the side. The interesting thing is the way it flies now. I always
> operated at a VERY aft CG range and always had to hold some forward stick.
I
> never wanted to add a trim system for the sake of simplicity so I just
lived
> with it. The new windshield, however, has me flying hands off and at
faster
> speeds, holding AFT stick. What comes to mind first is perhaps a downward
> planing action from the windshield. If this is the case, it must be a
> powerful force on that Lexan. Also, my speeds jumped up 10-15MPH. I need
to
> run some tests to see if its a net gain or just an new low pressure area
> behind the panel playing with the instruments. I will get some pics of the
> windshield on the site soon.
> Sincereley,
> Kip Laurie
> Firestar II
> Atlanta
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | FireStar Controls |
I have posted about this problem a few times in the past and have gotten
very few responses. An FAA inspector checked my plane out today at my
request. I had tried to discuss this with Kolb but had very little
satisfaction going in this direction. It is my understanding that Kolb can
design there control system any way they want to but we as builders have to
follow their design or be in violation of regs. I felt the Kolb's system
was flawed and tried to work through Kolb but had no success. I live only
about 4 hours by car from London Ky and was willing to drive out there but
could not get anyone interested. I had two choices. Build the FireStar to
Kolb's design or modify it to what I thought was a safe design and run the
risk of not being able to get the plane approved. Neither of these was an
acceptable option to me, so I decided to see if I could get the inspector to
grant me permission to go with my modified design. As I said, he was here
today and he agreed with me 100%. The Kolb design is flawed. He took
numerous pictures and will file a report with the FAA in Oklahoma City as
well as the EAA. He then told me to build my plane using my design and not
to use Kolb's. He also asked that I take all measurement of my system that
I could so my system could be applied to other FireStars. I am posting this
to make everyone with a FireStar aware that there could be a potential
problem. I hope Kolb does not get mad at me as I feel I am doing them a
service. Should someone get hurt or killed and it is determined that the
problem was with a flawed system that they knew about, that release we
signed would not be worth the paper it is written on in a court of law.
As I said, I had posted about what I thought was a problem and now has been
confirmed as problem, a few times in the past. I will not post anything
more about this. If there is anyone out there that would like more
information, contact me direct off list.
Ron Payne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Guy Swenson" <guys(at)rrt.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FireStar Controls |
Ron,
Please state which "Regs" we would all be in violation of if we choose to
modify the control system on an experimental aircraft? Granted, I'm not
building a Firestar, but, I have made a few changes to my MK III Xtra and
the Technical Counselor I am working with has Indicated that this is not a
problem. Primarily because of the fact this is an experimental aircraft.
Please clarify for those of us who apparently have a different understanding
of the "Regs".
Thanks
Guy S.
MKIII Xtra
----- Original Message ----- It is my understanding that Kolb can
> design there control system any way they want to but we as builders have
to
> follow their design or be in violation of regs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FireStar Controls |
I can't quote the regs. Some time back a DAR told me that minor deviations
from the design would be acceptable but major modifications to things like
the control system could be a problem. I guess it is a matter of opinion as
to what is minor and what is major. All I know is what he said. I have
never researched the regs.
Ron
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Saturday, January 12, 2002 11:24:38
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: FireStar Controls
Ron,
Please state which "Regs" we would all be in violation of if we choose to
modify the control system
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 1/12/02 12:37:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
cafordahl(at)hotmail.com writes:
> I have a Dave Clark helmet which incorporates my DC headset. I purchased an
> after-market snap on face shield (snaps 3 places along the top) and my
> first
> time up I was afraid to turn my head thinking the wind would rip the face
> shield right off. I fly a Twinstar with a short windshield on the pod
> giving lots of wind to the upper body. Been looking for an idea to SECURE
> my face shield along the sides. Any input?
>
I drilled a clearence hole thru the center snap on the faceshield, then a
smaller hole thru the corresponding snap on the helmet & put in a #4 sheet
metal screw. That way, you can replace the face shield when it gets
scratched.
Shack
FS I
SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Johann G." <johann-g(at)tal.is> |
| Subject: | Firestar download |
Hi list members.
I am getting very tired of being grounded all winter, and must get
airborne soon.
Does anyone know where I could download a Firestar form the MS Flight
Simulator for FS 2000.
This would get me in the air, at least simulated.
Best regards,
Johann G.
Iceland.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FireStar Controls |
Ron,
I'm not a DAR but I been around some good builder orientated technical
counselors of which one is a DAR. Unless something has changed recently I
know of no regulation you violate making any change you want during the
construction prior to the final inspection and issuance of the airworthy
certificate. Your the manufacturer, its your responsibility to see
aircraft is safe. And as the manufacturer (you) hold that liability.
The FAA or DAR inspector is responsible to see that the proper paper work
is in order and completed, it has proper labels, and that proper aircraft
construction methods have been used. They will not guarantee that the
thing will fly nor that it will not fall out of the sky. The DAR's will
often look it over closer than an FAA inspector more for liability
protection reasons.
Think about it, you can build your own design, or a plans scratch built, or
a prefab kit meeting the 51% rule for amateur built experimental. Nothing
stops you from making design changes prior to the final inspection. Once
the final inspection has been completed, the test hours flown off, and
the airworthiness certificate issued, you can not make any changes or
modifications that may impact flight performance such prop, engine, flight
control systems or flight surfaces. Modifications may require some
additional flight test time and/or some just require a log book
entry. Some may require another inspection for the modification.
We have a very active EAA chapter with lots of building and good technical
counselors. That's the way I have had it laid down to me. Never heard
anything what your saying although when the average Joe starts making
chances to the control systems, I believe it would turn on a red light to
inspectors but technically you can do it and don't need authorization. Now
you may have a problem if the inspector doesn't like what you have done and
have concerned it may not function properly or safely. The DAR is doing a
CYA.
jerryb
>
>I have posted about this problem a few times in the past and have gotten
>very few responses. An FAA inspector checked my plane out today at my
>request. I had tried to discuss this with Kolb but had very little
>satisfaction going in this direction. It is my understanding that Kolb can
>design there control system any way they want to but we as builders have to
>follow their design or be in violation of regs. I felt the Kolb's system
>was flawed and tried to work through Kolb but had no success. I live only
>about 4 hours by car from London Ky and was willing to drive out there but
>could not get anyone interested. I had two choices. Build the FireStar to
>Kolb's design or modify it to what I thought was a safe design and run the
>risk of not being able to get the plane approved. Neither of these was an
>acceptable option to me, so I decided to see if I could get the inspector to
>grant me permission to go with my modified design. As I said, he was here
>today and he agreed with me 100%. The Kolb design is flawed. He took
>numerous pictures and will file a report with the FAA in Oklahoma City as
>well as the EAA. He then told me to build my plane using my design and not
>to use Kolb's. He also asked that I take all measurement of my system that
>I could so my system could be applied to other FireStars. I am posting this
>to make everyone with a FireStar aware that there could be a potential
>problem. I hope Kolb does not get mad at me as I feel I am doing them a
>service. Should someone get hurt or killed and it is determined that the
>problem was with a flawed system that they knew about, that release we
>signed would not be worth the paper it is written on in a court of law.
>
>As I said, I had posted about what I thought was a problem and now has been
>confirmed as problem, a few times in the past. I will not post anything
>more about this. If there is anyone out there that would like more
>information, contact me direct off list.
>
>Ron Payne
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TAILDRAGGER503(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FireStar Controls |
Hey Guys, I too found a major design fault with the FSII controls which I
posted, I also wrote to Kolb and got no response at all. ?????????
David Snyder Building FSII Long Branch N.J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TAILDRAGGER503(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | FSII Control Fault |
The nicos at the rear end of the rudder control cables rub slightly, on the
elevator control mech, in the up position. Adjusting the rudder horn upwards
solves that problem, but forces the nicos into the boom . Drilling a 3/16"
hole on both sides of the rudder horn a 1/2" from the original holes and
connecting the cable there solved that dangerous fault.
David Snyder Building FSIILong Branch N.J.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
=A0
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Prosser <skywrench007(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FireStar Controls |
Any major deviation from original design as approved by the FAA in
granting an airworthiness certificate, must be approved by the local
Flight Standards District Office. If you have no "N" numbers then
the fed just wants you to be safe regardless of who designed the
craft. I suggest you consult a local EAA Designee for a opinion on
what you have and what you want to do. Flight control system changes
are major changes in the eyes of the fed.
FS 1 builder Good luck Don
--- Guy Swenson wrote:
>
> Ron,
> Please state which "Regs" we would all be in violation of if we
> choose to
> modify the control system on an experimental aircraft? Granted,
> I'm not
> building a Firestar, but, I have made a few changes to my MK III
> Xtra and
> the Technical Counselor I am working with has Indicated that this
> is not a
> problem. Primarily because of the fact this is an experimental
> aircraft.
> Please clarify for those of us who apparently have a different
> understanding
> of the "Regs".
> Thanks
> Guy S.
> MKIII Xtra
>
> ----- Original Message ----- It is my understanding that Kolb can
> > design there control system any way they want to but we as
> builders have
> to
> > follow their design or be in violation of regs
>
>
>
>
> messages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FireStar Controls |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> |
> It is my understanding that Kolb can
> design there control system any way they want to but we as builders have to
> follow their design or be in violation of regs.
What regs would you be in violation of? Its an experimental aircraft. As
the builder you can build or modify anything you want. If Kolb ever comes
out with a cerified Firestar, then you would have a problem modifying the
design. On a certified airplane, The feds certify it as the factory builds
it and you can not modify it.
There are no laws that say you have to adhere to the plans. In all my years
of building planes, Ive never had an FAA guy even look at the plans. All
they are concerned with is whether the plane is airworthy, which has nothing
to do with whether you deviated from the plans or not.
Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cavuontop(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Firestar Controls |
In a message dated 1/12/02 11:45:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ronormar(at)apex.net writes:
Ron:
Your post raises some interesting questions about the control the FAA
has over kit aircraft manufacturers and the degree to which they can approve
or disapprove design work done by a kit manufacturer. Frankly, I think your
post contains a number of misconceptions about the regulatory environment
folks like Kolb operate in, so let me try to straighten you out.
"It is my understanding that Kolb can design there control system any
way they want but we as builders have to follow their design or be in
violation of regs."
Of course Kolb can design the control system any way they want. So
can Cessna and Piper. Over the years aircraft manufacturers have attempted
to put some real crap on the market. The original Cessna Cardinal tail, and
the T tail in the Piper lance come immediately to mind. The difference
between Kolb and a GA manufacturer is that the GA manufacturer's design is
required to meet certain performance requirements and if they don't comply
they don't get to sell that plane to the public, and if we discover a problem
later we can fix it through the Airworthiness Directive process. There is no
such restraint on experimental kit manufacturers.
Keep in mind that many of the early kits had no control systems at all
and simply used weight shift. The FAA's position, at that time, was that you
were welcome to try to kill yourself in anything you liked as long as it
weighed less than 254 pounds empty. Back when those regs were promulgated no
one in the FAA ever dreamed that the experiemtnal/ultralight movement would
be so successful, so they just turned their back on it. Now, nearly 30 years
later, the magnitude of their error is evident-- a whole generation of fat
ultralight and experimental pilots have come up thumbing their noses at the
FAA and completely ignoring them-- and now threaten to overwhelm GA, leaving
a huge segment of the aviation business basically unregulated.
Your notion that you are required to build what Kolb designs is just
plain wrong. On the whole I think its a good idea to follow the plans, and
wild deviation from the plans might draw some extra scrutiny from your DAR or
MIDO inspector, but there is no regulation you can contravene by deviating,
because the FAA never approved the design or its performance in the first
place.
The late Jim Lee used to buy Kolb kits and so radically make them over
in the course of making his amphibians that no reasonable person could call
them a Kolb product. Whenever one of Jim's customers would kill themselves,
and indeed when Jim bought the farm himself, it was necessary for Kolb
Aircraft to make that point on the record, but it didn't stop the FAA from
issuing Airworthiness Certificates to Jim's customers.
"I felt the Kolb's system was flawed and tried to work through Kolb
but had no success."
Sounds like you have a difference of opinion with the folks in London.
But because there is no certification standard that's all it is. A
difference of opinion. Your idea might be overwhelmingly superior-- but when
you are talking about experimental aircraft we all still get to pick how we
want to jeopardize our lives and property. You may think your way is better
but there is no way you can impose it on everyone else.
"I decided to see if I could get the inspector to grant me permission
to go with my modified design."
You didn't need to ask. The simple fact of the matter is that the
Kolb plans are quite vague in a number of particulars and all of us finish
these aircraft more or less to suit our own taste.
"As I said, he was here today and he agreed with me 100%. The Kolb
design is flawed."
Once again-- his opinion. Even if he thinks the control system is
horribly dangerous there is nothing he can do.
"He took numerous pictures and will file a report with the FAA in
Oklahoma City as well as the EAA. He then told me to build my plane using my
design and not to use Kolb's. He also asked that I take all measurement of
my system that I could so my system could be applied to other FireStars."
Naturally, I'd love to see a copy of that report, as I'm sure most
Kolb owners would, and hope you will pass it along or post it when it becomes
available. But keep in mind there is no way that I know of to impose your
design on other Firestar owners who are happy with the system as supplied by
Kolb. There is nothing like an Airworthiness Directive system for
experimental aircraft which would render a Firestar unairworthy if the owner
didn't comply.
"I am posting this to make everyone with a FireStar aware that there
could be a potential problem. I hope Kolb does not get mad at me as I feel I
am doing them a service. Should someone get hurt or killed and it is
determined that the problem was with a flawed system that they knew about,
that release we signed would not be worth the paper it is written on in a
court of law."
I'm sure the Kolb company is grateful for your opinion. Its a funny
world we operators of experimental aircraft live in-- none of us wants the
expense or hassle of being regulated by the FAA, and would rather be ignored
by them. But you can't have it both ways-- if the FAA doesn't regulate us
the lawyers and the court system will. Take your pick.
Mark R. Sellers
Kolb Twinstar Mark III, N496BM
http://hometown.aol.com/cavuontop/n496bm.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FireStar Controls |
As far as I know, and one could ask Kolb, none of the Kolb designs have
been certificated. The process is too expensive. I bought a kit, that
included a sketchy Builders Manual and a set of drawings that did not
include any statement by the FAA that this was a certified design. I do
not believe the Feds care whether I change my flight controls or not. And
just because an "experimental" design comes from Kolb or anyone else does
not mean that that most designs cannot be improved upon. Each of us has to
evaluate what it was that we purchased from Kolb, decide if we can make it
lighter, better, safer, and if one is comfortable, to go ahead with the
change and log it in your manual. Originally, my FireFly was a very
unpleasant plane to fly, and now it is a pure joy. This has come about by
slow incremental change.
Remember "Experimental" is what it is all about.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
>
>Any major deviation from original design as approved by the FAA in
>granting an airworthiness certificate, must be approved by the local
>Flight Standards District Office. If you have no "N" numbers then
>the fed just wants you to be safe regardless of who designed the
>craft. I suggest you consult a local EAA Designee for a opinion on
>what you have and what you want to do. Flight control system changes
>are major changes in the eyes of the fed.
>
>FS 1 builder Good luck Don
>
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firestar Controls |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> |
>
> if the FAA doesn't regulate us
> the lawyers and the court system will. Take your pick.
Ive been building planes for a long time now...I think Id rather deal with
lawers than the FAA :)
Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart(at)ldd.net> |
| Subject: | Rotax 447 & Bing Enrichment Valve Spring |
Just a note. I have had trouble with my 447 loading up at low engine
speeds, such as, taxiing out to the runway or holding for another plane to
land or take off. Since I have only taxiing brakes, I can not effectively
run the engine up except on the take off roll. Several times it has taken
almost 600 feet to get it to unload and for the engine to spool up. By
accident, I have found the cause.
I put a fuel flow meter on the FireFly to try and figure out how to get
better fuel economy on cross countries. This week as I was taxiing out to
the runway, I noticed that the fuel flow was higher with the throttle
almost closed as compared to the 3000 to 4000 rpm range. I thought about
it some, and I realized that if the fuel enrichment valve spring was too
weak, the high vacuum in the intake manifold at closed throttle could lift
the valve off the seat. Since I am getting a Victor 1 ready to mount on
the FireFly and this engine uses the same carburetor, I removed the
enrichment valve spring and took it with me to the airport. I compared
this spring with the one on the 447. Sure enough, the spring on the 447
was a much lighter spring. I checked the Rotax site for updates, and I
found nothing that mentioned this spring had been changed.
So if you have an older 447, mine is four years old, and if your engine is
loading up on you when it is running at idle or low speeds, you may want to
purchase a new Bing enrichment valve spring. It could make an important
difference on a short or soft field take off.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart(at)ldd.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Cannon" <randycannon(at)excite.com> |
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
text/html
--- StripMime Errors ---
A message with no text/plain section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using plaintext formatting
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: FireStar Controls |
Unless you tell the FAA guy that you changed anything, how's he gonna know?
They don't care about that kind of stuff. Most will give the weight and
balance form a very careful scrutiny, and the good ones will look for
acceptable methods and practices and look for obvious screw ups, but it is
not their job to see if you built it to plans. Unless they have a skewed
concept of their legal responsibilities, they don't get involved in that
end of it. As far as plans goes: you don't even need plans, if you built it
all off a sketch on a paper napkin, who cares?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
It is my understanding that Kolb can
>design there control system any way they want to but we as builders have to
>follow their design or be in violation of regs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: FireStar Controls |
Major deviations or major changes require an amended airworthiness
certificate. But that comes after the granting of the initial airworthiness
certificate, not on the initial inspection that gets you the certificate in
the first place. And you do not have to ask before you make the change,
because you are still the manufacturer, and you can change it any way you
want. But any major changes require notification. When I cut down my
windshield three years ago to modify the airflow around the center section
of the wing, that was considered a major change.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>Any major deviation from original design as approved by the FAA in
>granting an airworthiness certificate, must be approved by the local
>Flight Standards District Office. If you have no "N" numbers then
>the fed just wants you to be safe regardless of who designed the
>craft. I suggest you consult a local EAA Designee for a opinion on
>what you have and what you want to do. Flight control system changes
>are major changes in the eyes of the fed.
>
>FS 1 builder Good luck Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Gherkins <rp3420(at)email.sps.mot.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FireStar Controls |
Kolbers,
I applaud Ron and his ability to really get involved in communicating a
potential problem. It would have been lot easier for him to keep his mouth shut
and make his changes for himself. I am also building a updated Firestar II kit,
and after seeing what Ron has modified and why he modified it makes me really
think of applying what he has learned.
Kolbs current demo Firestar still has the old control system. Why are they not
flying the new system in their Firestar? It should be a great selling point,
cleaner and simple control design?
I know if you contact Ron he is always glad to share details as well as a few
pictures to help illustrate.
Tim
Ron or Mary wrote:
>
> I have posted about this problem a few times in the past and have gotten
> very few responses. An FAA inspector checked my plane out today at my
> request. I had tried to discuss this with Kolb but had very little
> satisfaction going in this direction. It is my understanding that Kolb can
> design there control system any way they want to but we as builders have to
> follow their design or be in violation of regs. I felt the Kolb's system
> was flawed and tried to work through Kolb but had no success. I live only
> about 4 hours by car from London Ky and was willing to drive out there but
> could not get anyone interested. I had two choices. Build the FireStar to
> Kolb's design or modify it to what I thought was a safe design and run the
> risk of not being able to get the plane approved. Neither of these was an
> acceptable option to me, so I decided to see if I could get the inspector to
> grant me permission to go with my modified design. As I said, he was here
> today and he agreed with me 100%. The Kolb design is flawed. He took
> numerous pictures and will file a report with the FAA in Oklahoma City as
> well as the EAA. He then told me to build my plane using my design and not
> to use Kolb's. He also asked that I take all measurement of my system that
> I could so my system could be applied to other FireStars. I am posting this
> to make everyone with a FireStar aware that there could be a potential
> problem. I hope Kolb does not get mad at me as I feel I am doing them a
> service. Should someone get hurt or killed and it is determined that the
> problem was with a flawed system that they knew about, that release we
> signed would not be worth the paper it is written on in a court of law.
>
> As I said, I had posted about what I thought was a problem and now has been
> confirmed as problem, a few times in the past. I will not post anything
> more about this. If there is anyone out there that would like more
> information, contact me direct off list.
>
> Ron Payne
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron or Mary" <ronormar(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ron Payne's problem message of Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:50:00 |
-0800
You are correct Mike. That is half the problem. The other half concerns
the stick itself. The reason that I don't want to discuss this onlist is
that some people have a tendence to get off subject and bring up items that
have no bearing on the problem. As I stated in an earlier post, I have not
read the regs. I only know what a DAR told me. Wether I was informed right
or wrongly has no bearing on the control cable problem. I felt there was a
potentially dangerous problem and the inspector agreed. If I had made a
major modifacation to the system without the inspector's blessing, then it
would be up to the DAR at the final inspection to approve or disapprove of
what I had done. I was not willing to waight until the plane is complete to
find out if I had done something wrong or not. This inspector is going to
file a MDR (Malfunction and Defect Report) with the Oklahoma office and also
notify the EAA of his findings.
Ron
-------Original Message-------
From: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Sunday, January 13, 2002 09:11:19
Subject: Kolb-List: Ron Payne's problem message of Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:50:00
-0800
Shackelford)
The 'Firestar problem" that Ron is writing about pertains to only those
that utilize TNK's new "mixer" (or lack of one).
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DCREECH3(at)aol.com |
I'm experiencing a drop in full-throttle rpm on my Rotax 503, with no other
problems. I appear to have lost about 500-600 indicated rpm. Trying to
correlate this with seat-of-the-pants feel and the other information provided
by the minimal instrumentation on my Firestar II, I am almost ready to
conclude that the tach itself is at fault. It's the small, rectangular
digital tach. Does anyone know how long these are expected to last, and what
the failure mode is? Any thoughts appreciated.
Lee
FSII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Sasseville" <sassevilleapiaries(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ron Payne's problem message of Sat, 12 Jan 2002 |
I have one of the TNK Firestar with the mixer. The tangs on the stick are on
the sides of the stick not the center. I have inspected my control movement
and there is a very little slack when moved to the right or left.
If Ron's stick has the tangs in the center that may add to the problem.
Paul Sasseville
Firestar II
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike and Dixie Shackelford" <dixieshack(at)webtv.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Ron Payne's problem message of Sat, 12 Jan 2002
Shackelford)
>
> The 'Firestar problem" that Ron is writing about pertains to only those
> that utilize TNK's new "mixer" (or lack of one). Older FS and FSII's
> purchased from Phoenixville, Pa. and the "Old Kolb" are not meant to
> be included....they utilize the tried-and-true version.
> The new system utilized by TNK separates the elevator cables, routes the
> torque for the ailerons up the middle of the fuse, and has the elevator
> cables attach directly to a tang welded to the control stick. In using
> this method and moving the control stick to either left or right,
> misalignment of the elevator cables with their respective pulleys occurs
> (no.1), and either increased tension or increased slack (no. 2) occurs
> in the elevator cables. Cause as I understand was the elevator pulleys
> being located to the left and right of center in the fuselage and the
> cable ends attached to the stick directly which is centered, resuting in
> slack in the left cable when left stick is held and severely tensioning
> and misaligning the right cable (while holding left stick). Just the
> opposite occurs when holding right stick.
> Again, his concerns are with later model Kolbs utilizing this new
> cable-sheave-stick arrangement.
> Jump in here Ron, am I interpreting you correcty? My FS is one of
> Homer's latest
> purchased from Dennis in Pa. .... I LOVE it!!
> Sad to see a great design and a foolproof control system discarded.
>
> Hillbilly Mike
> FSII
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Chmielewski" <edchmiel(at)mindspring.com> |
Anyone needing a back-up tach to check the installed unit need only go to a
good R/C hobby shop and get a small digital handheld unit for about $35, or
go to www.towerhobbies.com and get one there. I've used mine on many
full-sized aircraft and they are suprisingly accurate and can be set for 2,
3 or 4 blade props (no math that way).
Ed in JXN
MkII/503
----- Original Message -----
From: <DCREECH3(at)aol.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: tachometer
>
> I'm experiencing a drop in full-throttle rpm on my Rotax 503, with no
other
> problems. I appear to have lost about 500-600 indicated rpm. Trying to
> correlate this with seat-of-the-pants feel and the other information
provided
> by the minimal instrumentation on my Firestar II, I am almost ready to
> conclude that the tach itself is at fault. It's the small, rectangular
> digital tach. Does anyone know how long these are expected to last, and
what
> the failure mode is? Any thoughts appreciated.
>
> Lee
> FSII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
>
>I'm experiencing a drop in full-throttle rpm on my Rotax 503, with no other
>problems. I appear to have lost about 500-600 indicated rpm. Trying to
>correlate this with seat-of-the-pants feel and the other information
provided
>by the minimal instrumentation on my Firestar II, I am almost ready to
>conclude that the tach itself is at fault. It's the small, rectangular
>digital tach. Does anyone know how long these are expected to last, and what
>the failure mode is? Any thoughts appreciated.
>
>Lee
If it's a "tiny tack" we've had 3 to go bad. But at least they're cheap.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Noel Bouchard <noelbou(at)cam.org> |
| Subject: | New Firestar for Fligthsim 2000 !!! |
Hello List !
For those who enjoy MS Flight Simulator ... i just wanted to mention that a new
Firestar airplane is now available !
My first tests indicate that the flight model is GREAT ...
but my Twinstar has much more drag than this model ...
There is also customised sounds and even ... Yes ! a Firestar on floats !
I used the plane in FS2002 with no problems although it was built for FS2000 ...
The plane is available at Flightsim. com www.flightsim.com
or for those who haven't an account with flightsim you can download the
file at my site: www3.sympatico.ca/noelbou/FS2000/fstarv2.zip
Have fun !
Noel Bouchard
Twinstar MK II
Montreal, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Stuart" <tcstuart(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | flight simulator |
I did a search on ultralight flight simulators and found this link:
http://surclaro.com/nuke/html/index.php
Click on "add-on directory" under main menu and then on ultralight and
gliders. On the second page is the Firestar ultralight add-on, the final
link is:
http://surclaro.com/nuke/html/download.php?op=viewdownload&cid=4&min=10&orde
rby=titleA&show=10
I have never used the Microsoft FS, but this apparently is an add-on (free,
I believe). Anyone have experience with this? I have seen the controllers
with the stick, but can you also get the rudder pedal controls?.
Johann posting from Iceland got my curiosity up about this. I have heard
about the value of these flight simulators, and that the Navy had either
replaced or augmented their very expensive flight simulators with the
Microsoft version. The MS version is much cheaper and possibly better for
training.
Looking forward to any comments about the simulators.
Clay Stuart
Mark IIIXtra under construction
Danville KY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Bass" <gtb(at)georgesmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: flight simulator |
OK. I had to jump in here. I have about 100 hrs "real-time" between
my experiences in GA planes and my U/L time as well, and I fly those
MS Flt Sims very often. Not because of the bad weather we have, but,
more because I can't always get to a place to RENT an ultralight.
I've owned every version of flight sim that I've ever seen on the shelf.!
If you want realism, try the newest one from MS .... Flt Sim 2002 Pro.
This one has the scenery (for the most part) and most definately the flt
characteristics that we often find in the planes we fly.
Also, if you look around at some of the Flt Sim web sites, you will find
many different types of aircraft designed for use in most versions of this
and other flt sims. I use a version of the Kolb Firestar and a version of
the Afford-A-Plane aircraft too. Both are pretty close to real acting and
give one the sense of the slowness and openess of our favorite planes.
Hope you enjoy them as much as I do,
George Bass
USUA since 1984
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clay Stuart" <tcstuart(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: flight simulator
>
> I did a search on ultralight flight simulators and found this link:
>
> http://surclaro.com/nuke/html/index.php
>
> Click on "add-on directory" under main menu and then on ultralight and
> gliders. On the second page is the Firestar ultralight add-on, the final
> link is:
>
>
http://surclaro.com/nuke/html/download.php?op=viewdownload&cid=4&min=10&orde
> rby=titleA&show=10
>
> I have never used the Microsoft FS, but this apparently is an add-on
(free,
> I believe). Anyone have experience with this? I have seen the
controllers
> with the stick, but can you also get the rudder pedal controls?.
>
> Johann posting from Iceland got my curiosity up about this. I have heard
> about the value of these flight simulators, and that the Navy had either
> replaced or augmented their very expensive flight simulators with the
> Microsoft version. The MS version is much cheaper and possibly better for
> training.
>
> Looking forward to any comments about the simulators.
>
> Clay Stuart
> Mark IIIXtra under construction
> Danville KY
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James, Ken" <KDJames(at)berkscareer.com> |
| Subject: | New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner |
Just a note to say Hi!
Well one tube and two box's are on the garage floor and my car is now a new
fixture in the driveway for the next X number of years!
O.K as a newbe I 'm looking for any help or mistakes you made. So I won't.
I read the manuals ( rather thin on details ) the large one dated June 2000
has the aileron and Flaps section X'd out has this been replaced? Has anyone
been issued any updated changed to the manuals yet ( I will be e-mailing
Kolb on this )
What tools did you think helped the project. ( I have a pneumatic riveter)
In the Manuel is say to prep and paint all steel parts. Did anyone have any
problems fitting painted parts?
I'm near Reading Pa. so if anyone is close I would like to see a Pre covered
MkIII or xtra.
Thanks
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Cannon" <randycannon(at)excite.com> |
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
text/html
--- StripMime Errors ---
A message with no text/plain section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using plaintext formatting
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Timandjan(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner |
I have a 14 inch bandsaw, put on a bi-metal blade and cut all my pieces with
it. Cut the tubes, the gussets, etc., but when I was done my pieces looked
like they were factory made. I even built a jig to hold the spar tubes and
cut them on the bandsaw. The large bandsaw enabled me to open the throat wide
enough to get the spar into the saw. I also have a machine belt sander (not a
handheld) that I used to dress up all the cut edges, another piece I would
not have done without.
A good cordless drill and If I did it again I would get a pneumatic riveter.
I also built all my ailerons, elevators, etc., with 90 degree bends in the
tubes and my trailing edges have a 90degree bends at the ends. (the most
difficult option for building on the plans) anyway, in building I made a lot
of jigs to do things correct, the jigs took a lot of time to design and
build, but I would be glad to share the ideas with you.
I am in NVirginia, I would be glad to show you what I have if you want to
take the trek.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
Ben Ransom and Gang:
Understand your heat treater is claiming up to 1/4 inch
distortion during the process.
Here is a url for Thomas Register, a listing of more than
2,000,000 industrial product and service listings.
http://www.thomasregister.com/
Registration is free. You can use their search engine to
find almost anything you are going to need in the way of
industrial products and services.
You can narrow your search by State.
Do your search on "heat treating". Scroll down the list to
"heat treating services". Then narrow it by searching by
State. Bet you can find something close by to get your job
done. Most all I have done business with accept and send by
UPS.
If you need more info, contact me bc.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | sharing ideas, new designs, limits on such... |
| From: | "Jim Gerken" <gerken(at)us.ibm.com> |
01/14/2002 11:11:01 AM
Hey Mark, when we share ideas for deviations and improvements to the Kolb
designs, are we opening ourselves to liability? Specifically, I was
thinking about Ron's new improved control linkage, a deviation from plans,
and his sharing it with others on the list. It is his design, not Kolbs,
so in the event of a crash of a plane with his designed control on it,
could someone find him partially responsible? I'm not try to stir up
trouble, but this seems to be bordering on a Jim Lee situation, and we are
treading away from Kolb factory support.
Jim G
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TAILDRAGGER503(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: sharing ideas, new designs, limits on such... |
I will definitely take my chances with Rons design over Kolbs.It is just a
matter of common sense after looking at both control systems.
David Snyder Building FSII Long Branch N.J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Sasseville" <sassevilleapiaries(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: sharing ideas, new designs, limits on such... |
I must have missed Ron's design! Could Ron or someone fill me in?
Paul Sasseville
Firestar II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H MITCHELL" <mitchmnd(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Back to my workshop ! |
I have resumed work on my Mk3 Classic/912. My main hang up was with where to mount
a panel for the Ign, Master, EMS switches. I wanted to be able to reach the
switches from either seat without unhitching my seat belt.
The instrument panel is a full 12' out of my reach and it's already full. The Kunzelman
answer is to build a small panel just in front of the left seat but the
dual controls in my machine made that impossible. After thinking about it for
a while I designed and built a short pedestal which is located just ahead of
the cross tube of the dual controls. The rudder cables pass just above it and
it is far enough forward to be clear of the elevator control arm on the control
cross-tube. I can reach it from either seat and is sloped so that the switches
are always visible. The pedestal wiring is now complete and I am working
on the Hotbox. The engine interface wiring will be next then on to the fuel lines.
Duane the plane in Tallahassee, FL, Flying my Fire Fly (109 Hrs) and working on
my second Classic.
----- Original Message -----
From: DCREECH3(at)aol.com
Subject: Kolb-List: tachometer
I'm experiencing a drop in full-throttle rpm on my Rotax 503, with no other
problems. I appear to have lost about 500-600 indicated rpm. Trying to
correlate this with seat-of-the-pants feel and the other information provided
by the minimal instrumentation on my Firestar II, I am almost ready to
conclude that the tach itself is at fault. It's the small, rectangular
digital tach. Does anyone know how long these are expected to last, and what
the failure mode is? Any thoughts appreciated.
Lee
FSII
=
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Martin" <kolbdriver(at)hotmail.com> |
Hello Kolb builders:
Names Don Martin (Seattle, WA). Been building a Firestar II for about a
year now. Found your help on the list invaluable. Tried to live by the
rule to measure twice and cut once and so far all has gone well. Ive
completed all the major structures, but left the ailerons for last. Two
days ago, I started on the right aileron and thought I had it down right.
Then in preparing for the hinges I found out that I blew it. I made the
inboard end of the aileron too long, went one rib too close to the steel
inboard rib.
weaken the inboard edge. Can I leave it as it is? What would it affect? I
originally thought just keep it, and it should give me more aileron control.
Theres still about 39 inches to the inboard rib, so the prop clearance
should be OK. What could go wrong? Would that extra change the stall
tendencies of the inner portion of the wing? Keep it as it is? But when
Homer designed the aileron, there must have been some reason why he measured
it to the 4th rib rather than the 3rs. Suggestions?
Don
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner |
I did mine the same way, however, be very careful not to add any more
weight to the trailing edge of the rudder than absolutely necessary. Extra
weight will make it flutter. (Guess how I know this?)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>I also built all my ailerons, elevators, etc., with 90 degree bends in the
>tubes and my trailing edges have a 90degree bends at the ends.
>
>Tim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron build |
> Hello Kolb builders:
>
> Names Don Martin (Seattle, WA). Been building a Firestar II for about a
> year now. Found your help on the list invaluable. Tried to live by the
> rule to measure twice and cut once and so far all has gone well. Ive
> completed all the major structures, but left the ailerons for last. Two
> days ago, I started on the right aileron and thought I had it down right.
> Then in preparing for the hinges I found out that I blew it. I made the
> inboard end of the aileron too long, went one rib too close to the steel
> inboard rib.
>
> weaken the inboard edge. Can I leave it as it is? What would it affect?
I
> originally thought just keep it, and it should give me more aileron
control.
> Theres still about 39 inches to the inboard rib, so the prop clearance
> should be OK. What could go wrong? Would that extra change the stall
> tendencies of the inner portion of the wing? Keep it as it is? But when
> Homer designed the aileron, there must have been some reason why he
measured
> it to the 4th rib rather than the 3rs. Suggestions?
>
> Don
your ailerons will be a touch more effective but feel heavier. I brought
mine inboard and have them rigged as flaperons, I may choose to reduce the
aileron deflection a bit to reduce the heavy feel. ( move the pushrod
inboard on the aileron torque tube by about 5/8 inch.) Let you know how it
works out after I'm flying.
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James, Ken" <KDJames(at)berkscareer.com> |
| Subject: | New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner |
In the Mk III Xtra plans
Looking at the set up of the horizontal stab the tubes butt into the leading
edge and are riveted by aluminum plates, did anyone or are you supposed to
saddle cut the tubes to fit flush rather than "BUTT" as shown?
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner |
----- Original Message -----
From: "James, Ken" <KDJames(at)berkscareer.com>
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner
>
>
> In the Mk III Xtra plans
>
> Looking at the set up of the horizontal stab the tubes butt into the
leading
> edge and are riveted by aluminum plates, did anyone or are you supposed to
> saddle cut the tubes to fit flush rather than "BUTT" as shown?
>
>
> Ken
I saddle cut my tubes, but you dont have to. I just thought it looked
better, but once its covered only you will know
Topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Gherkins <rp3420(at)email.sps.mot.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner |
Ken,
It is the Kolb way to butt the tubes to each other and to attach and reinforce
the area with the gusset. If you can do a saddle cut, you will have a slightly
stronger joint as well as aesthetically better looking joint. But, once
covered you won't see your handy work any longer. It's your call, if you want
to take the time to make saddle joints, do it. Or, if you wind up doing the
butt joint, that is permissible as well as plenty strong.
Tim and Craig
building a Mark III Extra and Firestar II.
"James, Ken" wrote:
>
> In the Mk III Xtra plans
>
> Looking at the set up of the horizontal stab the tubes butt into the leading
> edge and are riveted by aluminum plates, did anyone or are you supposed to
> saddle cut the tubes to fit flush rather than "BUTT" as shown?
>
> Ken
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
I need opinions. Ive taken my Twinstar apart down to every last rivet and
thrown the parts in a big pile. The wings and tail tube are OK. The rest
needs to be scrapped. Ive already started building the new plane from these
parts. Question is...Should I make it a 2 place or a single place. Im
adding some creature comforts like a full enclosure, electric flaperons and
electric trim. The plane will also be equiped with about 10 lbs of camera
and video gear.
Im pretty good at coming up with light weight parts. For instance, the 12V
flaperon acuator only weighs 1.3 lbs and the trim servo weighs 4 oz.
I am building the pilot/pax compartment from 100% advanced composites...No
steel. The layup will consist of 4 or 5 layers of S-Glass with a nomex
honeycomb core. The whole thing will be vacuum bagged in the mold. The
reason for going composite was that most of the 4130 forward of the gear was
junk...Rusted from the inside out.
I am about to start building the mold, which is why I need to decide which
way to go. What do y'all think?
If I go single place, it would pass as a fat UL and I could get by flying it
in the UL catagory. It shouldnt weigh much more than my Phantom. This
whould make a real nice single plave rig that could carry loads of baggage,
extra fuel, cameras, etc.
If I go 2 place I would definitely have to register as experimental. A big
pain in the butt. I could carry a pax, but not a heavy one. I average
about 250. The older Twinstars have about 400lbs payload...Pilot, pax and
fuel. me (250) and fuel(60lbs) leaves 90lbs for a pax. Not much good in my
opinion. I figure pushing it, I could carry a 150lb pax.
Considering the max payload, pilot weight and FAA complications, how would
you go. Please place your vote and make an argument to support it. I need
to justify which ever way I go.
Thanks...Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 1 or 2 place...Continued... |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
I almost forgot. Ill be installing amphib floats this summer. Thats
another 80lbs or so....
Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1 or 2 place... |
Here's my 3 cents - With its limited (marginal) payload I would say keep it
a single place. Reduces your liability not carrying passengers plus it
eliminates the issues with conventional inspections each year. Make it so
you can carry some extras for making a moderate x-country.
jerryb
>
>I need opinions. Ive taken my Twinstar apart down to every last rivet and
>thrown the parts in a big pile. The wings and tail tube are OK. The rest
>needs to be scrapped. Ive already started building the new plane from these
>parts. Question is...Should I make it a 2 place or a single place. Im
>adding some creature comforts like a full enclosure, electric flaperons and
>electric trim. The plane will also be equiped with about 10 lbs of camera
>and video gear.
>
>Im pretty good at coming up with light weight parts. For instance, the 12V
>flaperon acuator only weighs 1.3 lbs and the trim servo weighs 4 oz.
>
>I am building the pilot/pax compartment from 100% advanced composites...No
>steel. The layup will consist of 4 or 5 layers of S-Glass with a nomex
>honeycomb core. The whole thing will be vacuum bagged in the mold. The
>reason for going composite was that most of the 4130 forward of the gear was
>junk...Rusted from the inside out.
>
>I am about to start building the mold, which is why I need to decide which
>way to go. What do y'all think?
>
>If I go single place, it would pass as a fat UL and I could get by flying it
>in the UL catagory. It shouldnt weigh much more than my Phantom. This
>whould make a real nice single plave rig that could carry loads of baggage,
>extra fuel, cameras, etc.
>
>If I go 2 place I would definitely have to register as experimental. A big
>pain in the butt. I could carry a pax, but not a heavy one. I average
>about 250. The older Twinstars have about 400lbs payload...Pilot, pax and
>fuel. me (250) and fuel(60lbs) leaves 90lbs for a pax. Not much good in my
>opinion. I figure pushing it, I could carry a 150lb pax.
>
>Considering the max payload, pilot weight and FAA complications, how would
>you go. Please place your vote and make an argument to support it. I need
>to justify which ever way I go.
>
>Thanks...Ross
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1 or 2 place...Continued... |
I would bet it ends up heavier than you think it will further cutting into
your estimated payload. I think the decision is pretty clear. You'll be
luck if you can carry the extra weight of the floats if you add much extras.
>
>I almost forgot. Ill be installing amphib floats this summer. Thats
>another 80lbs or so....
>
>Ross
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner |
On 1/14/02, KDJames(at)berkscareer.com wrote:
< What tools did you think helped the project. ( I have a pneumatic
riveter) >
Ken -
Welcome to the fun!
You'll discover that you don't REALLY need many specialized tools to make
one of Homer's airplanes. Many List builders have used pnematic riveters,
band saws, drill presses, grinders, and other convenient power tools, but
they aren't a requirement to build the airplane. I have proven to myself
that a Kolb can be built without all those. You will need a drill, of
course. And a vice, too. But I did all my metal cutting (tubes, sheet
alum) with a hacksaw and tin snips, and used files to smooth the edges. Did
all my riveting with a hand-riveter. ( I have a very firm handshake, now!)
And I believe my airplane turned out just fine. (We'll see what the FAA
inspector thinks, when he comes out to perform the final airworthiness
inspection next month!)
As for specialized tools, you'll want a set-punch (spring-loaded punch, for
making dimples for drilling) and a cleco set (the cleco pliers and a couple
dozen cleco fasteners). You'll also need a tool for swaging cable ends. I
borrowed one from a fellow homebuilder in my EAA chapter.
But the best tool you'll find during your build process is this List. (Was
for me, anyway!) Good luck!
Dennis Kirby
1998 Mk-3, Verner-1400, Powerfin, engine running
Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1 or 2 place... |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
Thanks for the opinion, Jerry. Those were my thoughts exactly. I can build
a 2 place machine with no extras and marginal performance or a single place
machine with great performance and all the high tech gadgets I want to
install.
I was wondering if resale might be better on a 2 place...But that opens a
whole new liability can of worms.
Ross
> From: jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:12:22 -0600
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 1 or 2 place...
>
>
> Here's my 3 cents - With its limited (marginal) payload I would say keep it
> a single place. Reduces your liability not carrying passengers plus it
> eliminates the issues with conventional inspections each year. Make it so
> you can carry some extras for making a moderate x-country.
> jerryb
>
>>
>> I need opinions. Ive taken my Twinstar apart down to every last rivet and
>> thrown the parts in a big pile. The wings and tail tube are OK. The rest
>> needs to be scrapped. Ive already started building the new plane from these
>> parts. Question is...Should I make it a 2 place or a single place. Im
>> adding some creature comforts like a full enclosure, electric flaperons and
>> electric trim. The plane will also be equiped with about 10 lbs of camera
>> and video gear.
>>
>> Im pretty good at coming up with light weight parts. For instance, the 12V
>> flaperon acuator only weighs 1.3 lbs and the trim servo weighs 4 oz.
>>
>> I am building the pilot/pax compartment from 100% advanced composites...No
>> steel. The layup will consist of 4 or 5 layers of S-Glass with a nomex
>> honeycomb core. The whole thing will be vacuum bagged in the mold. The
>> reason for going composite was that most of the 4130 forward of the gear was
>> junk...Rusted from the inside out.
>>
>> I am about to start building the mold, which is why I need to decide which
>> way to go. What do y'all think?
>>
>> If I go single place, it would pass as a fat UL and I could get by flying it
>> in the UL catagory. It shouldnt weigh much more than my Phantom. This
>> whould make a real nice single plave rig that could carry loads of baggage,
>> extra fuel, cameras, etc.
>>
>> If I go 2 place I would definitely have to register as experimental. A big
>> pain in the butt. I could carry a pax, but not a heavy one. I average
>> about 250. The older Twinstars have about 400lbs payload...Pilot, pax and
>> fuel. me (250) and fuel(60lbs) leaves 90lbs for a pax. Not much good in my
>> opinion. I figure pushing it, I could carry a 150lb pax.
>>
>> Considering the max payload, pilot weight and FAA complications, how would
>> you go. Please place your vote and make an argument to support it. I need
>> to justify which ever way I go.
>>
>> Thanks...Ross
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner - Tools |
Ken,
Regarding the spring loaded snap center punch, don't waste your hard earned
money on one of the cheap knock offs, buy the General Tool one. It will
get used a lot. It will cost around $15-20 bucks depending where you get
it. If you should happen to drop it and break off the replaceable tip, it
can be repaired - there is a way to extract the remainder of the tip.
Repeat after me, "I will never use a pencil to mark my aluminum parts
unless I want to die."
It is an established fact in the aircraft industry that pencil lines on
aluminum may develop cracks Get some fine felt tip permanent markers -
Pilot or my preferred but harder to find the wonderful Stabilo - OHPen96P
fine tip but harder to get - carried by larger art & graphics supply
stores). Note the extra fine tip will not hold up well but are good for
fine detail. Forget Sharpies, they don't last, a couple lines on new
aluminum and they quit writing, been there done that.
A flat and round rat tail file - medium ~8" & small 4-6", a small half moon
comes in handy - you can often buy a imported 4-6 small file kit for $5-$7.
Deburring tool - this is a tool that has a small joggle blade extending out
of the handle and is used to debur holes.
A handy tool is the Delta 1" wide belt sander. They also make a model with
both the 1" and a 5 or 6" disc. This is a very handy piece of equipment.
As for rivet pullers, get a good US made one, will cost around $20-25 last
time I knew. The difference of the cheap one show up after they wear -
don't grab, don't release the stud, or worst breaks them off - Harbor
Freight sells a neat puller that allows you to rotate the head you can get
access at different angles.
Some people like the bullet tip drill bits but I myself don't. To me they
always act like there dull and you can't resharpen them. Sharp drill make
the job much easier - if you by them from machine tool supply like ENCO
Tools - there less expensive and you can change them often. Try to get the
US made, there better - the China drills can be brittle some times. I
gotten good ones and I gotten one bad lot. Buy them by the 10-12 to the pack.
Avery below also sells long drills should you need one 1/8" 6" & 12" - I've
also recently seen them in Lowes Building Centers marked down for clearance.
Some 1/8" Cleco's are nice to have for temporary assembly. - See Avery below
Some good tin snips - 15" or so - example Andy=99 aluminum combination snips 14"
sold by the outfit below. - See if they have them locally but if not Avery
has them - I just recently seen them for $25 in hardware store. The longer
handles give you leverage and makes cutting easier.
You can find many aircraft tools at Avery Tools. These are good people -
support Van RV builders - but for some things you need to shop.
http://coldfusion.averytools.com/
A Step Drill is a handy device for drilling larger holes >1/4 up to 7/8 or
1" - little pricey but sweet. They make 3 different sizes -
A good 6" and maybe a 12" metal scale - they come with different models
with different dimension markings - I like the 64th & 100th which is common
or 32nd/50th. I have one that nice if your staying to fractions, it has
1/8, 1/16/. Some manufacturers are easier to read than others. Its more
personal preference.
When you get to the covering phase, get a jar of the hand protection cream
that Rutan uses, Series 8 sold by Aircraft Spruce P/N 13-38306. The 4oz.
doesn't got to far so I would get the 32 oz. jar. ~ 4oz/$5 - 32oz/$15. It
helps to seal and protect your hands from the chemicals and makes it easy
to clean up..
A good flat table to build you surfaces on - make it out of 2x4 and a solid
core hard board covered door (Home Depot or Lowes) - The table needs to be
level it or you will build twist into your flying surfaces, not too desirable.
Saw Horses - I like the folding metal ones that top is 2x4 and legs are
metal - they come knocked down and you have to assemble them but there
nice. About $20 per pair. Sold on and off my Home Depot and Harbor Freight.
When you get to setting up the control surfaces to valid deflection, you
may want a gravity type protractor angle gauge.
Start salting some money away for levels - when you get to setting up the
wings for mounting, you need a couple levels - read a head on your planes
and see what you will need.
One of our locals put a metal blade on his table saw and cut his tubing on
it. It worked good, produced nice clean cuts. If you don't like cutting
with a hack saw you can get a horizontal/vertical power band saw for $150-200.
He made templates for all his gussets - would draw the outline on the
material cut as well as possible and them sand it on the belt sander. Wear
a dust filter mask so you don't breath in the aluminum dust.
Got any money left, I'll think of more.
jerryb
>
>
>On 1/14/02, KDJames(at)berkscareer.com wrote:
>
>< What tools did you think helped the project. ( I have a pneumatic
>riveter) >
>
>Ken -
>
>Welcome to the fun!
>You'll discover that you don't REALLY need many specialized tools to make
>one of Homer's airplanes. Many List builders have used pnematic riveters,
>band saws, drill presses, grinders, and other convenient power tools, but
>they aren't a requirement to build the airplane. I have proven to myself
>that a Kolb can be built without all those. You will need a drill, of
>course. And a vice, too. But I did all my metal cutting (tubes, sheet
>alum) with a hacksaw and tin snips, and used files to smooth the edges.
Did
>all my riveting with a hand-riveter. ( I have a very firm handshake, now!)
>And I believe my airplane turned out just fine. (We'll see what the FAA
>inspector thinks, when he comes out to perform the final airworthiness
>inspection next month!)
>As for specialized tools, you'll want a set-punch (spring-loaded punch, for
>making dimples for drilling) and a cleco set (the cleco pliers and a couple
>dozen cleco fasteners). You'll also need a tool for swaging cable ends. I
>borrowed one from a fellow homebuilder in my EAA chapter.
>But the best tool you'll find during your build process is this List. (Was
>for me, anyway!) Good luck!
>Dennis Kirby
>1998 Mk-3, Verner-1400, Powerfin, engine running
>Cedar Crest, NM
>
>
=
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)michigan.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: 1 or 2 place... |
Hey don't forget that we will likely have a sport pilot program in place before
you will be able to finish that airplane. At that point the registration process
for that airplane should be the same thing for both the 1 or 2 place airplane.
If you already have a 2 place airplane then by all means build a single place airplane.
You do pay a performance penalty for carrying that extra seat along.
If you are like most of us and only have one airplane then it is real nice to
have a 2 place airplane. It is very important to me to be able to share the fun
of flying with other people. If you don't want to share with someone else then,
again build the single place.
My $.02 worth
Rick Neilsen
Reduction drive VW powered MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1 or 2 place... |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
I dont already have a 2 place. I have another single place (Phantom). I
guess Id rather have a single place rig with all the toys and hot
performance than a stripped down 2 place with marginal performance.
I too would love to have a 2 place plane, but in the real world, this is not
really a 2 place plane. If it were a MKII with a 582 or larger, Id feel
differently. I have some of the parts to build a Sonerai II stretch. I
should get going on that next winter.
With me, my cameras, some overnight gear and a set of amphib floats, this is
definitely a single place plane. I would like to do long x-counties in
this plane. something I cant do in the Phantom because of the open cockpit
and gross weight limitations.
Ross
> From: "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)michigan.gov>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:44:17 -0500
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 1 or 2 place...
>
>
> Hey don't forget that we will likely have a sport pilot program in place
> before you will be able to finish that airplane. At that point the
> registration process for that airplane should be the same thing for both the
1
> or 2 place airplane.
>
> If you already have a 2 place airplane then by all means build a single place
> airplane. You do pay a performance penalty for carrying that extra seat along.
> If you are like most of us and only have one airplane then it is real nice to
> have a 2 place airplane. It is very important to me to be able to share the
> fun of flying with other people. If you don't want to share with someone else
> then, again build the single place.
>
> My $.02 worth
>
> Rick Neilsen
> Reduction drive VW powered MKIII
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner - Tools |
Ken,
I use Sears Craftsman tools because they will give you a new one when
the old one breaks or is worn out. I've used more than half dozen stem
rivet pullers on Cherry-Max rivets, and the puller lasts abt 2-300
rivets--then it gets turned in. Same for sockets, etc. But they only
install a rebuild kit in the ratchet wrenches now. A cheap tool is OK
for a few times' use, but breaks when you need it. I get a load of
static when I take back 50+ yr old tools--the orig dull cad plating has
gone, so Sears says it ain't theirs because it isn't bright chrome---but
still has Craftsman on it. Like to see them squirm!
bn the old one
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Williamson" <jawmson(at)dellepro.com> |
| Subject: | Re: builders log |
For a commercial construction log, look to: http://www.kitlog.com
I am doing mine with Microsoft Word.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
N49KK
Kolbra, Jabiru 2200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1 or 2 place... |
> I would like to do long x-counties in
> this plane. something I cant do in the Phantom because of the open cockpit
> and gross weight limitations.
>
> Ross
Ross:
Don't let that stop you. I flew my Firestar back in the
80's on long xc flts, 32 different States. One flight of 25
days duration.
Depends on how badly you want to xc.
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1 or 2 place... |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
Not that bad :)
> From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:40:30 -0600
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: 1 or 2 place...
>
>
>> I would like to do long x-counties in
>> this plane. something I cant do in the Phantom because of the open cockpit
>> and gross weight limitations.
>>
>> Ross
>
> Ross:
>
> Don't let that stop you. I flew my Firestar back in the
> 80's on long xc flts, 32 different States. One flight of 25
> days duration.
>
> Depends on how badly you want to xc.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1 or 2 place... |
From what he indicated, it sounded like his remaining payload would be
very limited (marginal). Could get him into trouble. He estimated his
finished weight and they always weigh more than you thought they would
meaning that payload would be less. He can build it and document the
building process - journal and photos and register it later if he wants.
jerryb
>
>Hey don't forget that we will likely have a sport pilot program in place
>before you will be able to finish that airplane. At that point the
>registration process for that airplane should be the same thing for both
>the 1 or 2 place airplane.
>
>If you already have a 2 place airplane then by all means build a single
>place airplane. You do pay a performance penalty for carrying that extra
>seat along. If you are like most of us and only have one airplane then it
>is real nice to have a 2 place airplane. It is very important to me to be
>able to share the fun of flying with other people. If you don't want to
>share with someone else then, again build the single place.
>
>My $.02 worth
>
>Rick Neilsen
>Reduction drive VW powered MKIII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
I would rather keep the old tool, better than what their selling today.
I have some Sear tools also but they keep reducing their selection. Pretty
soon I will not have nay reason to go into their store at all (is there a
message here). My problem with Sears is they keep eliminating their
selection of 6 point sockets and selling mostly 12 point. Reason people
torque the 6 points or use them on impact guns and crack them. 12 points
are not good unless your working only on new or nearly perfect bolts and
nuts, if there rusted they round off the bolt or nut then you got a problem
unless you got some good 6 points. The 6 point has more gripping surface
thus less chance of rounding off rusted bolts or nuts.
I got into using a SK Wayne 3/8" drive socket set while working in an auto
center putting myself through school. That was back in 71 - I still use
that set today 30 years later. Great tools but getting harder to find at a
fair price.
The last place i found to buy the SK 3/8" drive sets at a good price was
Harbor Freight. Unfortunately SK has cheapened up the nice box they used
to come with and reduced the contents some. You can buy individual pieces
to add to the set but its too bad, they had an excellent starter kit. Good
gift for your son or son in-law.
>
>Ken,
>
>I use Sears Craftsman tools because they will give you a new one when
>the old one breaks or is worn out. I've used more than half dozen stem
>rivet pullers on Cherry-Max rivets, and the puller lasts abt 2-300
>rivets--then it gets turned in. Same for sockets, etc. But they only
>install a rebuild kit in the ratchet wrenches now. A cheap tool is OK
>for a few times' use, but breaks when you need it. I get a load of
>static when I take back 50+ yr old tools--the orig dull cad plating has
>gone, so Sears says it ain't theirs because it isn't bright chrome---but
>still has Craftsman on it. Like to see them squirm!
>
>bn the old one
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TAILDRAGGER503(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Fwd: ATTEN. FIRESTAR II BUILDERS |
From: "Linda" <customersupport(at)tnkolbaircraft.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd:ATTEN. FIRESTAR II BUILDERS
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:30:28 -0800
Dear David,
Our General Manager has read you message and has the following response:
The slight rub of the Rudder Cables should only happen with Full Aft Stick=20and
you would Never use that much Elevator.
It sounds like your fix should be fine.
Thank you David for sharing this information with us.
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: TAILDRAGGER503(at)aol.com
To: customersupport(at)tnkolbaircraft.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 6:07 AM
Subject: Fwd:ATTEN. FIRESTAR II BUILDERS
In a message dated 12/29/01 12:50:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, TAILDRAGGER503
writes:
Subj: FIRESTAR II BUILDERS
Date: 12/29/01 12:50:11 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: TAILDRAGGER503
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
The nicos at the rear end of the rudder control cables rub slightly, on=20the
elevator control mech, in the up position. Adjusting the rudder horn upwards
solves that problem, but forces the nicos into the boom . Drilling a 3/16" hole
on both sides of the rudder horn a 1/2" from the original holes and connecting
the cable there solved that dangerous fault.
David Snyder Building FSII Long Branch N.J. =20
Dear David,
Our General Manager has read you message and has
the following response:
The slight rub of the Rudder Cables should
only happen with Full Aft Stick and you would Never use that much
Elevator.
It sounds like your fix should be
fine.
Thank you David for sharing this information with
us.
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From:
TAILDRAGGER503(at)aol.com
To: customersupport(at)tnkolbaircraft.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 6:07
AM
Subject: Fwd:ATTEN. FIRESTAR II
BUILDERS
In a message dated
12/29/01 12:50:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, TAILDRAGGER503 writes:
Subj: FIRESTAR II BUILDERS
Date: 12/29/01 12:50:11 PM
Eastern Standard Time
From: TAILDRAGGER503
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
The nicos at the rear end of the rudder control cables rub
slightly, on the elevator control mech, in the up position. Adjusting the
rudder horn upwards solves that problem, but forces the nicos into the boom
. Drilling a 3/16" hole on both sides of the rudder horn a 1/2" from the
original holes and connecting the cable there solved that dangerous fault.
David Snyder Building FSII Long Branch N.J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner - Tools |
>Repeat after me, "I will never use a pencil to mark my aluminum parts
>unless I want to die."
>It is an established fact in the aircraft industry that pencil lines on
>aluminum may develop cracks t.
It may be an established fact but last year I had the opportunity to
disassemble a Mk111 that was about 10 years old. I found pencil marks on
the spars and leading edges. Wanting to test this common knowledge I got
out my trusty 30 power microscope and examined the pencil marks. After 10
years I found no corrosion or damage done by the pencil. this is my
experience anyway. I also looked at rivit holes that had a steel against
aluminum contact. There was some corrosion but not enough that I would be
afraid of it. Some of the damage could have been from me drilling it out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner - Tools |
I just posted what is accepted as a no-no in the aircraft building
industry, do not use pencil to mark on aluminum in an aircraft. Use felt
tipped pens. You little inspection only proves you can not detect any
cracks today but why encourage people to do things their being wared not to
for good reason. Myself if I were doing a pre-buy inspection on you plane
and found pencil has been used to mark aluminum components, I would walk
away from it. This is not a hoax.
Some years back the wings were coming off B-52's. They finely were able to
trace it back to the manufacturing process where some one was using pencil
to mark lines on the spars. It was found that cracks developed along
pencil mark lines.
Your plane may not ever have a problem but its been established its bad to
use a pencil on aluminum in an aircraft. Now that your aware of it, don't
do it.
jerryb
>
>
>
> >Repeat after me, "I will never use a pencil to mark my aluminum parts
> >unless I want to die."
> >It is an established fact in the aircraft industry that pencil lines on
> >aluminum may develop cracks t.
>
> It may be an established fact but last year I had the opportunity to
>disassemble a Mk111 that was about 10 years old. I found pencil marks on
>the spars and leading edges. Wanting to test this common knowledge I got
>out my trusty 30 power microscope and examined the pencil marks. After 10
>years I found no corrosion or damage done by the pencil. this is my
>experience anyway. I also looked at rivit holes that had a steel against
>aluminum contact. There was some corrosion but not enough that I would be
>afraid of it. Some of the damage could have been from me drilling it out.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Anderson" <janderson3(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Selling UL's and Liability |
Sorry I really don't want to start this discussion up again.
A while back it was generally agreed that the from a liability prospective
that the safest way to sell an Ultralight was to sell it as "an un-airworthy
collection of parts"
Anyone have a sample contract that they can send me?
John Anderson
*******************
janderson3(at)nc.rr.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Selling UL's and Liability |
Hi John,
Try this link
http://www.ultralighthomepage.com/agreemt.jpg
Regards,
Will Uribe
El Paso, TX
FireStar II N4GU
C-172 N2506U
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Anderson" <<A HREF="mailto:janderson3(at)nc.rr.com">janderson3(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Selling UL's and Liability
>
> Sorry I really don't want to start this discussion up again.
>
> A while back it was generally agreed that the from a liability prospective
> that the safest way to sell an Ultralight was to sell it as "an
un-airworthy
> collection of parts"
>
> Anyone have a sample contract that they can send me?
>
> John Anderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner - Tools |
> It may be an established fact but last year I had the opportunity to
> disassemble a Mk111 that was about 10 years old. I found pencil marks on
> the spars and leading edges. Wanting to test this common knowledge I got
> out my trusty 30 power microscope and examined the pencil marks. After 10
> years I found no corrosion or damage done by the pencil. this is my
> experience anyway. I also looked at rivit holes that had a steel against
> aluminum contact. There was some corrosion but not enough that I would be
> afraid of it. Some of the damage could have been from me drilling it out.
there is a big difference between 2024-t3 and 6061-t6 when it comes to
corrosion resistance. Most of the lore of the aviation community applies to
2024, but we use and need to understand the properties of the material we
are using, 6061. it still is a bad idea to have dissimilar metals in
contact, and if it is a lead pencil that's about as dissimilar to aluminum
as it gets, (allot of pencils are not lead anymore) and 6061 is much less
effected.
topher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner - Tools |
a graphite pencil is even worse then a lead pencil.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | The Galvanic Table |
oops I was reading the chart upside down, 6061 is actually a bit more
anodic then 2024... so its worse not better
here is the chart, from worse to better, graphite is the worst, so
deffinately don't use a graphite pencil.
The Galvanic Table
Active (Anodic)
Magnesium
Mg alloy AZ-31B
Mg alloy HK-31A
Zinc (hot-dip, die cast, or plated)
Beryllium (hot pressed)
Al 7072 clad on 7075
Al 2014-T3
Al 1160-H14
Al 7079-T6
Cadmium (plated)
Uranium
Al 218 (die cast)
Al 5052-0
Al 5052-H12
Al 5456-0, H353
Al 5052-H32
Al 1100-0
Al 3003-H25
Al 6061-T6
Al A360 (die cast)
Al 7075-T6
Al 6061-0
Indium
Al 2014-0
Al 2024-T4
Al 5052-H16
Tin (plated)
Stainless steel 430 (active)
Lead
Steel 1010
Iron (cast)
Stainless steel 410 (active)
Copper (plated, cast, or wrought)
Nickel (plated)
Chromium (Plated)
Tantalum
AM350 (active)
Stainless steel 310 (active)
Stainless steel 301 (active)
Stainless steel 304 (active)
Stainless steel 430 (active)
Stainless steel 410 (active)
Stainless steel 17-7PH (active)
Tungsten
Niobium (columbium) 1% Zr
Brass, Yellow, 268
Uranium 8% Mo.
Brass, Naval, 464
Yellow Brass
Muntz Metal 280
Brass (plated)
Nickel-silver (18% Ni)
Stainless steel 316L (active)
Bronze 220
Copper 110
Red Brass
Stainless steel 347 (active)
Molybdenum, Commercial pure
Copper-nickel 715
Admiralty brass
Stainless steel 202 (active)
Bronze, Phosphor 534 (B-1)
Monel 400
Stainless steel 201 (active)
Carpenter 20 (active)
Stainless steel 321 (active)
Stainless steel 316 (active)
Stainless steel 309 (active)
Stainless steel 17-7PH (passive)
Silicone Bronze 655
Stainless steel 304 (passive)
Stainless steel 301 (passive)
Stainless steel 321 (passive)
Stainless steel 201 (passive)
Stainless steel 286 (passive)
Stainless steel 316L (passive)
AM355 (active)
Stainless steel 202 (passive)
Carpenter 20 (passive)
AM355 (passive)
A286 (passive)
Titanium 5A1, 2.5 Sn
Titanium 13V, 11Cr, 3Al (annealed)
Titanium 6Al, 4V (solution treated and aged)
Titanium 6Al, 4V (anneal)
Titanium 8Mn
Titanium 13V, 11Cr 3Al (solution heat treated and aged)
Titanium 75A
AM350 (passive)
Silver
Gold
Graphite
End - Noble (Less Active, Cathodic)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Use of Pencil on Aluminum is still a No-No |
We got some very good Technical Counselors in our local EAA chapter
including A&P's and a couple DARs. The chapters experience and knowledge
base is probably much higher than most as we have a large number of
builders especially of the Van's RV metal aircraft, including myself. If
your were caught using a pencil while laying out aluminum parts they would
have you flogged. This is not made up or make believe.
No matter how you try to justify it, in the aircraft industry it still
remains a no-no, plain and simple. Just because so far you've gotten away
with it doesn't alter that fact. All I can do is try to lead inexperienced
builders in the correct direction by alerting them to the proper methods
and practices. If you want to use pencil on your aircraft that's fine, I
can't stop you but later if you came to sell it and I were to do a pre-sale
inspection and discovered you had, I would walk away from it. Sorry, no sale.
jerryb
>
>
> > It may be an established fact but last year I had the opportunity to
> > disassemble a Mk111 that was about 10 years old. I found pencil marks on
> > the spars and leading edges. Wanting to test this common knowledge I got
> > out my trusty 30 power microscope and examined the pencil marks. After 10
> > years I found no corrosion or damage done by the pencil. this is my
> > experience anyway. I also looked at rivit holes that had a steel against
> > aluminum contact. There was some corrosion but not enough that I would be
> > afraid of it. Some of the damage could have been from me drilling it out.
>
>there is a big difference between 2024-t3 and 6061-t6 when it comes to
>corrosion resistance. Most of the lore of the aviation community applies to
>2024, but we use and need to understand the properties of the material we
>are using, 6061. it still is a bad idea to have dissimilar metals in
>contact, and if it is a lead pencil that's about as dissimilar to aluminum
>as it gets, (allot of pencils are not lead anymore) and 6061 is much less
>effected.
>
>topher
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No |
Stop trying to justify it and just accept that laying out aluminum parts
with pencil is not an accepted practice in the aircraft industry, and will
not change no matter how you try to justify it.
Just follow the practice, no pencils period. If you want to do it, do it,
but don't lead others a stray because your being stubborn and foolish. Buy
a couple fine tip felt marking pens and be done with it, just don't waste
you money on Sharpies. Pilots are good, the German made ones are the best,
better tips, keep writing and last a long time.
I've made the attempt to alert builders to the practice, they can do what
ever they want but I hope they follow the practice - no pencil on aluminum.
jerryb
>
>
>oops I was reading the chart upside down, 6061 is actually a bit more
>anodic then 2024... so its worse not better
>
>here is the chart, from worse to better, graphite is the worst, so
>deffinately don't use a graphite pencil.
>
>The Galvanic Table
>
>Active (Anodic)
>
>Magnesium
>Mg alloy AZ-31B
>Mg alloy HK-31A
>Zinc (hot-dip, die cast, or plated)
>Beryllium (hot pressed)
>Al 7072 clad on 7075
>Al 2014-T3
>Al 1160-H14
>Al 7079-T6
>Cadmium (plated)
>Uranium
>Al 218 (die cast)
>Al 5052-0
>Al 5052-H12
>Al 5456-0, H353
>Al 5052-H32
>Al 1100-0
>Al 3003-H25
>Al 6061-T6
>Al A360 (die cast)
>Al 7075-T6
>Al 6061-0
>Indium
>Al 2014-0
>Al 2024-T4
>Al 5052-H16
>Tin (plated)
>Stainless steel 430 (active)
>Lead
>Steel 1010
>Iron (cast)
>Stainless steel 410 (active)
>Copper (plated, cast, or wrought)
>Nickel (plated)
>Chromium (Plated)
>Tantalum
>AM350 (active)
>Stainless steel 310 (active)
>Stainless steel 301 (active)
>Stainless steel 304 (active)
>Stainless steel 430 (active)
>Stainless steel 410 (active)
>Stainless steel 17-7PH (active)
>Tungsten
>Niobium (columbium) 1% Zr
>Brass, Yellow, 268
>Uranium 8% Mo.
>Brass, Naval, 464
>Yellow Brass
>Muntz Metal 280
>Brass (plated)
>Nickel-silver (18% Ni)
>Stainless steel 316L (active)
>Bronze 220
>Copper 110
>Red Brass
>Stainless steel 347 (active)
>Molybdenum, Commercial pure
>Copper-nickel 715
>Admiralty brass
>Stainless steel 202 (active)
>Bronze, Phosphor 534 (B-1)
>Monel 400
>Stainless steel 201 (active)
>Carpenter 20 (active)
>Stainless steel 321 (active)
>Stainless steel 316 (active)
>Stainless steel 309 (active)
>Stainless steel 17-7PH (passive)
>Silicone Bronze 655
>Stainless steel 304 (passive)
>Stainless steel 301 (passive)
>Stainless steel 321 (passive)
>Stainless steel 201 (passive)
>Stainless steel 286 (passive)
>Stainless steel 316L (passive)
>AM355 (active)
>Stainless steel 202 (passive)
>Carpenter 20 (passive)
>AM355 (passive)
>A286 (passive)
>Titanium 5A1, 2.5 Sn
>Titanium 13V, 11Cr, 3Al (annealed)
>Titanium 6Al, 4V (solution treated and aged)
>Titanium 6Al, 4V (anneal)
>Titanium 8Mn
>Titanium 13V, 11Cr 3Al (solution heat treated and aged)
>Titanium 75A
>AM350 (passive)
>Silver
>Gold
>Graphite
>End - Noble (Less Active, Cathodic)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No |
> Stop trying to justify it and just accept that laying out aluminum parts
> with pencil is not an accepted practice in the aircraft industry, and will
> not change no matter how you try to justify it.
> jerryb
jerryb and gang:
I don't believe Topher is trying to justify the use of
pencils on aluminum. You may not be comprehending what he
is saying/writing.
I got your point. No pencils on aluminum.
Thanks,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Anderson" <janderson3(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of Pencil on Aluminum is still a No-No |
----- Original Message -----
From: "jerryb" <ulflyer(at)airmail.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Use of Pencil on Aluminum is still a No-No
> > > experience anyway. I also looked at rivit holes that had a steel
against
> > > aluminum contact. There was some corrosion but not enough that I would
be
> > > afraid of it. Some of the damage could have been from me drilling it
out.
When I built my US I dipped each steel rivit in zinc cromate and then
installed the rivit in the aluminum.
After I was done with the piece I was working on I would go back and clean
up and paint that got slopped around. Don't know if it actually did any
good.......
Comments ???
=======================================================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of Pencil on Aluminum is still a No-No |
> When I built my US I dipped each steel rivit in zinc cromate > and then
> installed the rivit in the aluminum.
> Don't know if it actually did any
> good.......
John A and Gang:
I think it does some good.
My wing ribs were built in 1992 with carbon steel rivets.
The rest of the wing was built with SS rivets. This was
before Old Kolb started using SS rivets. I was concerned
about the carbon steel rivets and each one got a big dab of
epoxy chromate primer.
2001 I started the rebuild of the left wing after both wings
got thoroughly saturated with rain water for two weeks
leaning up against the side of a hanger. I found no rust or
corrosion caused by the rain, but I did find some corrosion
inside the aileron from bug crap. Not bad and was easily
cleaned up and primed.
I do not know if there was galvanic or dissimilar corrosion
or not.
When I removed the PT-17 pitot/static system from my lift
strut, nickle plated brass on extruded aluminum lift strut,
attached with SS rivets, there was quite a bit of
corrosion. I new this before I removed it. I could see
corrosion under the paint around the fitting.
The above was over an 8 year period.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No |
> Stop trying to justify it and just accept that laying out aluminum parts
> with pencil is not an accepted practice in the aircraft industry, and will
> not change no matter how you try to justify it.
sorry I wasn't clear at all, I am agreeing with you 100%, and was trying to
add more detail but your right more detail is probably irrelevant... it is
just a no no.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner - Tools, pencils vs Al |
When I took my Practical (early 70s) for Mech rating, there was another
much younger man also taking the test. He was building a Molt Taylor all
alum plane from scratch. When the tester looked at the test pcs we had
made (using shear, brake, and annealing) he got all in an uproar, and
flunked the builder---for laying out the part with a #2 pencil. Said he
wouldn't trust the Taylor if it was done with pencil. I knew better
because I learned from an old guy I worked with, and we made almost all
repair sheets---much cheaper than Cessna.
Still believe it's true.
bn the old one
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Carr" <dcarr(at)uniontel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner - Tools, pencils vs Al |
I went to Spartan School of Aeronautics in Tulsa, OK and got my A&P license
in 1958. I was taught never to use pencil on aluminum. If its an old wife's
tale it has been around a long time.
Old Timer
----- Original Message -----
From: "bob n" <ronoy(at)shentel.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner - Tools, pencils vs Al
>
> When I took my Practical (early 70s) for Mech rating, there was another
> much younger man also taking the test. He was building a Molt Taylor all
> alum plane from scratch. When the tester looked at the test pcs we had
> made (using shear, brake, and annealing) he got all in an uproar, and
> flunked the builder---for laying out the part with a #2 pencil. Said he
> wouldn't trust the Taylor if it was done with pencil. I knew better
> because I learned from an old guy I worked with, and we made almost all
> repair sheets---much cheaper than Cessna.
>
> Still believe it's true.
>
> bn the old one
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duncan McBride" <duncan.mcbride(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No |
I liked using ink that wipes off with MEK. Sharpies wear out fairly
quickly, but they're cheap and you can get them anywhere. Just put the cap
back on - I'm finishing up my Mark III on my third Sharpie. Get the fine
point.
I couldn't swear to it, but I think MEK removes pencil markings (lead -
carbon?) too. My philosophy was to have a clean and polished framework to
cover, no matter what I happened to mark it up with during the construction
phase. I guess we'll see.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No
>
>
> > Stop trying to justify it and just accept that laying out aluminum parts
> > with pencil is not an accepted practice in the aircraft industry, and
will
> > not change no matter how you try to justify it.
>
> > jerryb
>
> jerryb and gang:
>
> I don't believe Topher is trying to justify the use of
> pencils on aluminum. You may not be comprehending what he
> is saying/writing.
>
> I got your point. No pencils on aluminum.
>
> Thanks,
>
> john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woody <duesouth(at)iname.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No |
>
>Stop trying to justify it and just accept that laying out aluminum parts
>with pencil is not an accepted practice in the aircraft industry, and will
>not change no matter how you try to justify it.
When I stated my observations I did it more in protest of "use pencil
and die " statement. I found it a bit dramatic. I retained the practice of
using pen on the layout and will recommend it to others as well.
I have also observed that a worn out pop riveter can be brought back to
life with a squirt of WD 40. I had my first craftsman pop riveter for a
Kolb flyer, A kolb flyer rebuild, Several modifications to a Vector, An
ultra star and a Twinstar. I find it hard to believe some can get only 500
pulls. This is only my experience and observation so please no flames :)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Woods" <kolbpilot(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No |
Hey Gang,
I'm mostly just a lurker that throws in a comment every once in a while BUT: Enter
jerryb in the archive search engine and you will find out he disagrees with
everything. I see your point Topher.
Bill Woods
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hauck
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No
> Stop trying to justify it and just accept that laying out aluminum parts
> with pencil is not an accepted practice in the aircraft industry, and will
> not change no matter how you try to justify it.
> jerryb
jerryb and gang:
I don't believe Topher is trying to justify the use of
pencils on aluminum. You may not be comprehending what he
is saying/writing.
I got your point. No pencils on aluminum.
Thanks,
john h
=
=
=
=
Get mor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No |
Woody, If you read my msg abt Craftsman rivet pullers, you would have
seen that I said I was using Cherry-Max rivets---which are a lot harder
to set than pops. Lucky to get 500 on C-Ms
bn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner - Tools |
Sorry Christ,
I got you and Woody confused. I shot you when you agreed. I now crawl
back under my rock and hide my shameful face while I try to get my foot out
of my mouth.
jerryb
>
>
>a graphite pencil is even worse then a lead pencil.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No |
Without getting harsh about it...............it's common practise to avoid
pencil, which has been made very clear here lately. 'Nuff sed ! ! ! A
couple of other things - the comment about lubricating the rivet puller from
time to time is a good one. There's also an adjustment on the top side to
give a tighter grip. I have a medium priced blue ripple finish rivet puller
that I bought years ago, and have used it to pull each & every rivet -
supplied by TOK - in "almost" completed Vamoose, including, with difficulty,
the 3/16" rivets. No name on it, so I can't tell you the manufacturer.
Still pulls like new. Using an extra fine felt tip pen on aluminum works
extremely well. Use a very light touch and it'll last a lot longer. DO NOT
use it on powder coating ! ! ! ! ! ! It soaks in, and doesn't remove with
any method I've tried. How do I know ???? Now, for the
war................I DO use pencil on powder coating. It erases easily,
and no danger of corrosion, or whatever. Like it or not..............this
has worked very well for me. Big Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "bob n" <ronoy(at)shentel.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No
>
> Woody, If you read my msg abt Craftsman rivet pullers, you would have
> seen that I said I was using Cherry-Max rivets---which are a lot harder
> to set than pops. Lucky to get 500 on C-Ms
>
> bn
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No |
What I found when building the RV's the Sharpies would mark a lines a few
times and then they don't want to write well and would skip badly after
that. Apparently they pick up something off the metal, oil I assume. The
Pilots are better but you can't beat the German Stabilo brand. They have a
reddish color case. I just can't say enough about them other than I having
a harder time finding since a graphic arts store in our area closed. They
work great and last a long time. I found the fine points to be the best,
the extra fine tips are good if you need very narrow precise lines but the
tips are not nearly as durable. The Fine tip still produces a very sharp
line and use them the most. Available in many colors. Acetone (safer) and
MEK will remove the ink.
jerryb
>
>
>I liked using ink that wipes off with MEK. Sharpies wear out fairly
>quickly, but they're cheap and you can get them anywhere. Just put the cap
>back on - I'm finishing up my Mark III on my third Sharpie. Get the fine
>point.
>
>I couldn't swear to it, but I think MEK removes pencil markings (lead -
>carbon?) too. My philosophy was to have a clean and polished framework to
>cover, no matter what I happened to mark it up with during the construction
>phase. I guess we'll see.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No |
Woody,
It was a strong statement to get peoples attention. Most likely on our
planes nothing would happen but why risk it. I'm sure those B-52's had
more hours than our planes will ever fly but it contribute to the wings
failing.
jerryb
>
> >
> >Stop trying to justify it and just accept that laying out aluminum parts
> >with pencil is not an accepted practice in the aircraft industry, and will
> >not change no matter how you try to justify it.
>
>
> When I stated my observations I did it more in protest of "use pencil
>and die " statement. I found it a bit dramatic. I retained the practice of
>using pen on the layout and will recommend it to others as well.
>
> I have also observed that a worn out pop riveter can be brought back to
>life with a squirt of WD 40. I had my first craftsman pop riveter for a
>Kolb flyer, A kolb flyer rebuild, Several modifications to a Vector, An
>ultra star and a Twinstar. I find it hard to believe some can get only 500
>pulls. This is only my experience and observation so please no flames :)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
Thinking about rivets....................I need some more 3/16"
stainless rivets, and can't find any - locally or at A/C Spruce. Don't
need a whole bunch.............maybe a 1 1/2 dozen or so.
Where.......................??? I installed the wing fold attachment
thingamajobber on the right wing spar today, following my usual measure
twice and cut once.............then trim to fit............. philosophy.
Used 3/16 bolts to attach it. Seemed like a lot of pressure to trust
rivets in aluminum. Tarnation thing doesn't line up the same twice in a
row. Won't matter much, with the extension bracket I'm going to build
for it, BUT..................have you guys had the same problem ??
Kinda has to be the position of the rear universal
attachment............. doesn't it ?? Confused Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No |
Bill,
I think if you look it was others that disagreed about using pencil on
aluminum. I just made a very strong statement to get builders attention
followed by an explanation. Hopefully people will remember it. If so I
have accomplished my objective. But I guess this post will count as
another disagreeing post on your tally sheet. Oh well, that's to bad.
jbidle
>
>Hey Gang,
>I'm mostly just a lurker that throws in a comment every once in a while B>UT:
Enter jerryb in the archive search engine and you will find out he di>sagrees
with everything. I see your point Topher.
>Bill Woods
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: John Hauck
>To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Use of Pencil on aluminum still a No-No
>
>
> > Stop trying to justify it and just accept that laying out aluminum part>s
> > with pencil is not an accepted practice in the aircraft industry, and w>ill
> > not change no matter how you try to justify it.
>
> > jerryb
>
>jerryb and gang:
>
>I don't believe Topher is trying to justify the use of
>pencils on aluminum. You may not be comprehending what he
>is saying/writing.
>
>I got your point. No pencils on aluminum.
>
>Thanks,
>
>john h
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Get mor>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Williamson" <jawmson(at)dellepro.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Mk III Xtra Kit I owner - Tools |
I sit back and enjoy the different posts on this list.
I also grew-up knowing not to use pencil on aluminum. My A&P school also
stressed that idea. But over the years I started questioning a lot more
stuff and started requiring the reason behind it.
I just took the time and looked up the pencil answer:
AC 43.13-1B Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices - Aircraft
Inspection, Repair & Alterations
Page 6-18 Para 6-91.
CORROSION CONTROL WORK PROCEDURES. The effectiveness of corrosion control
depends on how well basic work procedures are followed. The following common
work practices are recommended:
a. If rework procedures or materials are unknown, contact the aircraft
manufacturer or FAA authorized Designated Engineering Representative (DER)
before proceeding.
b. The work areas , equipment, and components should be clean and free of
chips, grit, dirt, and foreign materials.
c. Do not mark on any metal surface with a graphite pencil or any type of
sharp, pointed instrument. Temporary markings (defined as markings soluble
in water or methyl chloroform) should be used for metal layout work or
marking on the aircraft to indicate corroded areas.
d. Graphite should not be used as a lubricant for any component. Graphite is
cathodic to all structural metals and will generate galvanic corrosion in
the presence of moisture, especially if the graphite is applied in dry form.
e. Footwear and clothing should be inspected for metal chips, slivers, rivet
cuttings, dirt, sand, etc., and all such material removed before walking or
working on metal surfaces such as wings, stabilizers, fuel tanks, etc.
f. Do not abrade or scratch any surface unless it is an authorized
procedure. If surfaces are accidentally scratched, the damage should be
assessed and action taken to remove the scratch and treat the area.
g. Coated metal surfaces should not be polished for aesthetic purposes.
Buffing would remove the protective coating and a brightly polished surface
is normally not as corrosion resistant as a non-polished surface unless it
is protected by wax or paint.
h. Protect surrounding areas when welding, grinding, or drilling, to prevent
contamination with residue from these operations. In those areas where
protective covering cannot be used, remove the residue by cleaning.
i. Severely corroded screws, bolts, and washers should be replaced. When a
protective coating, such as a cadmium plating on bolts, or screws, is
damaged, immediately apply an appropriate protective finish to prevent
additional corrosion damage.
Please keep the banter going but try and add some touchable reasons behind
it.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolbra, Jabiru 2200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
I'm sure that most of us who've gone to airplane or boat shows, etc.,
have seen the demonstrations where the guy stabs a hole in the bottom of
a beer can, and then solders it up with his "miracle" aluminum soldering
rod. I'm a confirmed skeptic on this type of thing, but I bit on that
one, and bought a packet of it. After trying to solder up a couple of
aluminum refrigerator evaporators that dummys had stabbed holes in, I
went back and bitched at the sales person, and got an advanced training
course.............with no joy. No matter how I prepped the surface,
and used the torch - put pressure to the completed weld, soap bubble it,
and it would foam the bubbles. Figured it must be oil soaked into the
metal or something, so being real bright and intelligent, I used it to
weld some adapters into Vamoose' oil cooler. The stuff must be
micro-porous or some such, cause it slowly oozes oil...............about
a cupful over the last month. Today, I installed a new oil cooler. I
forgot to start this with the picture attachment, so I'll send another
post in a minute with a pic of the problem. Lesson learned - the hard
way as usual - don't use that stuff where it has to hold a fluid.
Otherwise, it works amazingly well. Wiser Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Williamson" <jawmson(at)dellepro.com> |
Larry,
Try Aircraft Spruce catalog page 97. Listed as Cherry N Rivets for our
applications.
John Williamson
Arlington, TX
Kolbra, Jabiru 2200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
Well, you a perty handy feller, John. There it is in black & white. I
searched all over for the durned things, finally gave up and called A/C
Spruce, and was told they didn't carry such a critter. Many Thanks ! ! !
!
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Williamson" <jawmson(at)dellepro.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Rivets
>
> Larry,
>
> Try Aircraft Spruce catalog page 97. Listed as Cherry N Rivets for our
> applications.
>
> John Williamson
> Arlington, TX
> Kolbra, Jabiru 2200
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
Before I get leaped all over for being a dummy on that oil leak thing,
let me say a couple of things in my own
defense......................1st, the refer efforts were years ago, and
I had problems accepting it. 2nd, the oil cooler is (was) brand new,
and has(d) no trace of oil on it. 3rd, it wasn't just the lower
fitting...........they both leaked about the same. 4th, the welds look
good - smooth tapers to the metal, no beading, etc, and several of us
looked at them. How on earth can you come up with porous metal ??
.........................and guess who welded the vent tube into the gas
tank with the same stuff ?? Awwwww.................! ! ! Don't
know what happened to the pic................ sent it 1/2 hour or so
ago. Maybe later. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum Solder |
Good question - they always demonstrate it using "thin" aluminum beverage
cans.
Does it have something to do with the heat, cooling, the thin metal, or
metal alloy properties?
jerryb
>
>I'm sure that most of us who've gone to airplane or boat shows, etc.,
>have seen the demonstrations where the guy stabs a hole in the bottom of
>a beer can, and then solders it up with his "miracle" aluminum soldering
>rod. I'm a confirmed skeptic on this type of thing, but I bit on that
>one, and bought a packet of it. After trying to solder up a couple of
>aluminum refrigerator evaporators that dummys had stabbed holes in, I
>went back and bitched at the sales person, and got an advanced training
>course.............with no joy. No matter how I prepped the surface,
>and used the torch - put pressure to the completed weld, soap bubble it,
>and it would foam the bubbles. Figured it must be oil soaked into the
>metal or something, so being real bright and intelligent, I used it to
>weld some adapters into Vamoose' oil cooler. The stuff must be
>micro-porous or some such, cause it slowly oozes oil...............about
>a cupful over the last month. Today, I installed a new oil cooler. I
>forgot to start this with the picture attachment, so I'll send another
>post in a minute with a pic of the problem. Lesson learned - the hard
>way as usual - don't use that stuff where it has to hold a fluid.
>Otherwise, it works amazingly well. Wiser Lar.
>
>Larry Bourne
>Palm Springs, Ca.
>Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
>http://www.gogittum.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum Solder |
Can't say. I do know the demo is impressive................weld up the
hole, and stab at it with an icepick, and you can collapse the can without
puncturing the weld. Pretty neat, and I paid a pretty good price for the
stuff. Just for the record, I've been saying "weld", but the stuff is
really a fluxless solder. They advertise it for all non-ferrous metals, but
I've had poor results on brass and copper. It's extremely strong, very hard
and melts at about 1100 F., just under the melting point of the aluminum
you're repairing. You MUST clean the metal with a stainless steel brush -
gotta be stainless. Then you MUST use a propane torch. Mapp gas, or
oxy-acetylene adds oxygen, and ruins the job. I'm also very familiar with
cold solder joints, and the like. Bitter lesson................maybe all
this'll save someone else a similar headache. Then again, as in the
demonstration, I've taken stripped out aluminum threads, drilled them WAY
out, (the stuff will bridge a 3/8" hole) put in a steel bolt, and with care,
time, and difficulty, filled the hole with this stuff, cooled it, broke the
bolt loose, and had better threads by far than the original. Stuff is
amazing................but it leaks.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "jerryb" <ulflyer(at)airmail.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Aluminum Solder
>
> Good question - they always demonstrate it using "thin" aluminum beverage
> cans.
> Does it have something to do with the heat, cooling, the thin metal, or
> metal alloy properties?
> jerryb
>
>
> >
> >I'm sure that most of us who've gone to airplane or boat shows, etc.,
> >have seen the demonstrations where the guy stabs a hole in the bottom of
> >a beer can, and then solders it up with his "miracle" aluminum soldering
> >rod. I'm a confirmed skeptic on this type of thing, but I bit on that
> >one, and bought a packet of it. After trying to solder up a couple of
> >aluminum refrigerator evaporators that dummys had stabbed holes in, I
> >went back and bitched at the sales person, and got an advanced training
> >course.............with no joy. No matter how I prepped the surface,
> >and used the torch - put pressure to the completed weld, soap bubble it,
> >and it would foam the bubbles. Figured it must be oil soaked into the
> >metal or something, so being real bright and intelligent, I used it to
> >weld some adapters into Vamoose' oil cooler. The stuff must be
> >micro-porous or some such, cause it slowly oozes oil...............about
> >a cupful over the last month. Today, I installed a new oil cooler. I
> >forgot to start this with the picture attachment, so I'll send another
> >post in a minute with a pic of the problem. Lesson learned - the hard
> >way as usual - don't use that stuff where it has to hold a fluid.
> >Otherwise, it works amazingly well. Wiser Lar.
> >
> >Larry Bourne
> >Palm Springs, Ca.
> >Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> >http://www.gogittum.com
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
Durn it Lar, I was going to cover my wings with those alum beer
cans using that miracle solder.--now you tell me it isn't all that good.
Hmm, those Foster's cans will cover a big area too, Bud on the
leading edge.
The Great Atlantic Aeroplane company has those stainless rivets.
I got some stuff from them last year (including rivets) good service.
--BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Oil Leaking Aluminum Weld |
Well, this didn't seem to go thru the usual way, so let's try
this............
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Bourne
Subject: Oil Leaking Aluminum Weld
Not used to using this yet................that drop of oil is NOT from
the threads ! ! ! Friends & I have been fussing with that thing for
weeks. It really IS leaking thru the weld. Doesn't seem possible, but
there it is. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | wing fold attachment |
>
>I installed the wing fold attachment
>thingamajobber on the right wing spar today, following my usual measure
>twice and cut once.............then trim to fit............. philosophy.
> Tarnation thing doesn't line up the same twice in a
>row. Won't matter much, with the extension bracket I'm going to build
>for it, BUT..................have you guys had the same problem ??
I think that the wingfolding mechanism on these things don't line
up exactly the same every time because the wings contract and
expand with temperature changes. Just like a large piece of aluminum would.
It helps if you have a little slop in the attachment tubes holes, or use a
little
larger tube than you need through the tail boom. It might fit perfect
at 50 degrees and you couldn't beat it in with a hammer at 90.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bean <slyck(at)frontiernet.net> |
Group, getting around to mounting my prop and a question pops up.
Since we are all pusher config here, all answers will be appropriate.
I have a 70" warp drive and it came with this big ugly plate with
all the holes drilled in it. Do I put it between the flange and prop,
or on the back end, or just toss it in the trash can?--BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: rivets/ marking Al |
Here's another old story, from bn...the old one.
In the mid sixties a DC area man built a beautiful Thorp T-18. He was
such a perfectionist that he could pick nits off of gnats. In painting
the prop tips with stripes, he could not seem to get a really sharp edge
between the colors and the polished alum prop, using masking tape. So he
merely used a sharp blade to neatly cut the tape, right on the prop face.
While on an early test flight (it is surmised) he encountered severe
vibration, with the engine being torn out of its mount, causing the
plane to do a couple of whip stalls before crashing---killing the pilot.
Investigation showed prop blade failure ALONG the scribed line. The tip
was never found.
As a stained glass maker, I know what a scratch will do to glass--in
fact that's the way to "cut" glass. So leave that hook scribe in your
rollaway when you're laying out on most metal.
bn the old one
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
The bolts go thru that funny flange, then thru the prop hub, then into the
engine mounting plate. The instructions on mine were very
specific................the bolts MUST go thru that flange 1st. Mine also
has an extension on it for the prop spinner to attach to.
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Bean" <slyck(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: prop
>
> Group, getting around to mounting my prop and a question pops up.
> Since we are all pusher config here, all answers will be appropriate.
> I have a 70" warp drive and it came with this big ugly plate with
> all the holes drilled in it. Do I put it between the flange and prop,
> or on the back end, or just toss it in the trash can?--BB
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> |
Larry...
I have a big box of 3/16 stainless rivets. I think they are around 3/8"
long. I can check in the morning. I'll send you a couple dozen if you
like. Email me with your address and Ill get them in the mail on MOnday or
Tuesday.
Ross
> From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:37:15 -0800
> To: "Kolb"
> Subject: Kolb-List: Rivets
>
>
> Thinking about rivets....................I need some more 3/16"
> stainless rivets, and can't find any - locally or at A/C Spruce. Don't
> need a whole bunch.............maybe a 1 1/2 dozen or so.
> Where.......................??? I installed the wing fold attachment
> thingamajobber on the right wing spar today, following my usual measure
> twice and cut once.............then trim to fit............. philosophy.
> Used 3/16 bolts to attach it. Seemed like a lot of pressure to trust
> rivets in aluminum. Tarnation thing doesn't line up the same twice in a
> row. Won't matter much, with the extension bracket I'm going to build
> for it, BUT..................have you guys had the same problem ??
> Kinda has to be the position of the rear universal
> attachment............. doesn't it ?? Confused Lar.
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, Ca.
> Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> http://www.gogittum.com
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)nhvt.net> |
If you want to buy a whole box of rivets...I buy mine at Grainer (mail
order).
Ross
> From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:37:15 -0800
> To: "Kolb"
> Subject: Kolb-List: Rivets
>
>
> Thinking about rivets....................I need some more 3/16"
> stainless rivets, and can't find any - locally or at A/C Spruce. Don't
> need a whole bunch.............maybe a 1 1/2 dozen or so.
> Where.......................??? I installed the wing fold attachment
> thingamajobber on the right wing spar today, following my usual measure
> twice and cut once.............then trim to fit............. philosophy.
> Used 3/16 bolts to attach it. Seemed like a lot of pressure to trust
> rivets in aluminum. Tarnation thing doesn't line up the same twice in a
> row. Won't matter much, with the extension bracket I'm going to build
> for it, BUT..................have you guys had the same problem ??
> Kinda has to be the position of the rear universal
> attachment............. doesn't it ?? Confused Lar.
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, Ca.
> Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> http://www.gogittum.com
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
Unless they have changed within the last year, this is a great company to
do business with. You don't hear much about them but I feel when we do run
into a good one we should help support them. Great Atlantic Aeroplane
company http://www.great-atlantic1.com/
sells aircraft AN hardware, good selection of rivets, etc. 8
)
jerryb
>
>Durn it Lar, I was going to cover my wings with those alum beer
>cans using that miracle solder.--now you tell me it isn't all that good.
>
>Hmm, those Foster's cans will cover a big area too, Bud on the
>leading edge.
>The Great Atlantic Aeroplane company has those stainless rivets.
>I got some stuff from them last year (including rivets) good service.
>--BB
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | New Pics & Update |
Greetings, there are a couple of new pics as well as the most current
revision of the builder/pilot database at www.springeraviation.net.
Kip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Gherkins <rp3420(at)email.sps.mot.com> |
Matt,
What happened? Can you share some details about your accident? I was just
working with a belt sander a few days ago, and the thought came across my
brain to be careful, because this machine could do some serious damage.
Sorry it happened to you.
Tim
Matt Dralle wrote:
>
> Sorry bout that! I broke both of my ring fingers in a sanding accident,
> had surgery on the left one last week, and haven't been able to type too
> much. I'll get those photo shares up in the next day or so!
>
> Thanks for your patience...
>
> Matt
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
It was actually a rotating drum sander. Very handy, by the way. Here's a
little web page on what happened complete with cam pictures!
http://www.matronics.com/personal/TheSanderIncident/
Also check out the hand xray link at the bottom of the page above. I ended
up getting 4 pins put into my left finger along with a thing called an
external fixator to hold the bones apart so that it could heal
correctly. That was no picnic, believe me!!!
Be careful out there!
Matt
At 11:35 AM 1/20/2002 Sunday, you wrote:
>
>Matt,
>What happened? Can you share some details about your accident? I was just
>working with a belt sander a few days ago, and the thought came across my
>brain to be careful, because this machine could do some serious damage.
>Sorry it happened to you.
>Tim
>
>
>Matt Dralle wrote:
>
> >
> > Sorry bout that! I broke both of my ring fingers in a sanding accident,
> > had surgery on the left one last week, and haven't been able to type too
> > much. I'll get those photo shares up in the next day or so!
> >
> > Thanks for your patience...
> >
> > Matt
> >
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ruth Zumbrun" <rzumbrun(at)bright.net> |
| Subject: | ULTRASTAR INFO. NEEDED!!!! |
Hello,
I am considering buying a nice, used Kolb Ultrastar in the next
couple of days. What should I look for when inspecting this ultralight?
Any special areas of concern? It has a Cayuna 430 motor on it. Also,
is there any airframe updates that need to be "fixed" before flying??
Any advice or help will be greatly appreciated!!!!
Thanks,
Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi(at)supernet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wing fold attachment |
Possum wrote:
> I think that the wingfolding mechanism on these things don't line
> up exactly the same every time because the wings contract and
> expand with temperature changes. Just like a large piece of aluminum would.
The tail boom tube probably does too?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Possum <possums(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wing fold attachment |
>
>Possum wrote:
>
>> I think that the wingfolding mechanism on these things don't line
>> up exactly the same every time because the wings contract and
>> expand with temperature changes. Just like a large piece of aluminum would.
> The tail boom tube probably does too?
Your proably right, but I guess it depends on the colors of the paint.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: wing fold attachment |
Possum,So does the boom tube which has the fittings on it,all expands at the
same rate.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wing fold attachment |
Yah, that too, for shore, but I also found that when the attachments don't
line up, that I can go the the hinge at the rear of the wing, rotate it
slightly, and everything lines right up. Garsh, I'm s..so
sss..ssuuhhh....smart ! ! !
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Possum" <possums(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: wing fold attachment
>
> >
> >Possum wrote:
> >
> >> I think that the wingfolding mechanism on these things don't line
> >> up exactly the same every time because the wings contract and
> >> expand with temperature changes. Just like a large piece of aluminum
would.
> > The tail boom tube probably does too?
>
> Your proably right, but I guess it depends on the colors of the paint.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
I tried ordering those 3/16" stainless rivets from ACS again, and was
told that altho' they ARE listed on page 97 of the new catalog, part
numbers are on page 98, and the 3/16" are not available. Apparently
they are listed on the previous page for reference only.
So.............I've taken another List-er up on his kind offer. So ends
the tale of the elusive rivets. Gogittum Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)michigan.gov> |
This sounds like it is a crush plate. You make it sound like it came with the prop,
did it? They are installed on the back end. In other words the prop is between
the crush plate and the prop flange. Crush plates are mandatory with wood
props. Some props don't need crush plates. Power Fin props for example don't
need crush plates so I didn't put it on my airplane. If it came with the prop
I would use it. If in doubt talk to you prop manufacturer.
My $.02 worth
Rick Neilsen
Reduction Drive VW powered MKIII
>>> slyck(at)frontiernet.net 01/19/02 02:13PM >>>
Group, getting around to mounting my prop and a question pops up.
Since we are all pusher config here, all answers will be appropriate.
I have a 70" warp drive and it came with this big ugly plate with
all the holes drilled in it. Do I put it between the flange and prop,
or on the back end, or just toss it in the trash can?--BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine performance |
in a discussion with the new owners at avid in montana, thgt i heard that the
rotax engines with necessary gear boxes give better performance in certain
areas than a direct drive engine such as the jabiru. did i mis hear? or
what did the comment mean? tnx j. taylor in cajun country.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James, Ken" <KDJames(at)berkscareer.com> |
| Subject: | Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine perf |
ormance
I can tell you from my experience flying a Drifter (tail dragger) with a 503
and belt drive both the engine and the prop turned in the same direction.
At full throttle you had to hold all most full left rudder until the tail
came up then you needed to get out of the rudder fast kick right then hold
left to keep it on line. This was always lot of fun on a bumpy runways. The
torque of both the engine and the prop heading in the same direction really
affected this craft given that it had a long nose and you sat farther out
then a Kolb
Ken James
Drafting Design Instructor
Berks Career and Technology Center
3307 Freidensburg Rd.
Oley Pa. 19547
610-987-6201 Ext 3532
Kdjames(at)berkscareer.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jbowaf(at)aol.com [mailto:Jbowaf(at)aol.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine
performance
in a discussion with the new owners at avid in montana, thgt i heard that
the
rotax engines with necessary gear boxes give better performance in certain
areas than a direct drive engine such as the jabiru. did i mis hear? or
what did the comment mean? tnx j. taylor in cajun country.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine |
performance
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
Thats true....For an engine to make its rated HP it needs to run at a
certain RPM. For instance, my 503 makes 64.8HP at 6750 RPM. At 5000 RPM it
makes around 52HP. A Subaru conversion might make 110HP at 5200 RPM. The
problem is that when you go direct drive, you cant run the engine at the RPM
that makes the best power. The same Subaru engine that makes 110HP with a
gear redux at 5200 RPM might only make 60HP at 3200 RPM. Of course your max
RPM is deternimed by the prop diameter. Larger props have to turn slower.
Some of the engine conversion companies are making cam and compression mods
to increase low end HP and torque for people who want to run direct drive.
As far as Jabiru goes, you would need to look at the HP and torque curves
for en engine with a redux and one without. That will tell you how much you
are losing by going direct drive.
Ross
> From: Jbowaf(at)aol.com
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:12:13 EST
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine performance
>
>
> in a discussion with the new owners at avid in montana, thgt i heard that the
> rotax engines with necessary gear boxes give better performance in certain
> areas than a direct drive engine such as the jabiru. did i mis hear? or
> what did the comment mean? tnx j. taylor in cajun country.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)michigan.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine |
performance
I can't speak with any great knowledge on Jabiru or Rotax but..... I have 1st hand
experience with a VW engine that has been used with and without a reduction
drive. The VW engine I'm using has a cruse RPM of 3100 RPM. With a engine turning
that may RPMs in direct drive mode you have to use a small diameter prop
to keep the tips form going super sonic. I used a 60" prop and it was a bit too
long. The same basic engine with a 1.6 to 1 reduction drive turning a three
bladed 72" prop will produce twice the static thrust. There is a trade off though,
In our slow speed Kolbs it is only a minor problem. The speed range that
the prop will operate in is much more limited. My direct drive engine maxed
out at 3500RPM static and 3550 in flight. The reduction drive is maxed out at
3300 static and turns 3800 at 85MPH plus and may still have more speed and RPM
potential but this is my limit on engine RPM.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIII
>>> Jbowaf(at)aol.com 01/22/02 11:12AM >>>
in a discussion with the new owners at avid in montana, thgt i heard that the
rotax engines with necessary gear boxes give better performance in certain
areas than a direct drive engine such as the jabiru. did i mis hear? or
what did the comment mean? tnx j. taylor in cajun country.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Greater Satisfaction |
> Good thing its more fun to build than to fly.
> Hillbilly Mike
Mike/Gang:
Welllllllllll, depends on what you are building and what you
are flying.
I am comfortable flying something I have built, and rebuilt,
and repaired, and...............
Even after the building is done, there is always plenty of
maintence to do. Then if you fly like I do, repair work.
:-)
Take care,
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Kroll" <skroll(at)dellepro.com> |
I had a little ground accident while trying to adjust a cantankerous
carb on a 503 equipped Mk-2. To make a long embarrassing story short, I
managed to ding the leading edges on both wings pretty good (bad)
I've stripped the better of the two wings and the damage is
minimal....no ribs bent and only the ding itself in the leading edge
tube. Is there a material that I can use (some kind of plastic filler)
to fair in the leading edge tube. I believe that will fix that wing.
The other wing will be a different story altogether as I can see at
least one main rib that is damaged. I'm curious if there is anybody on
this list that has had to replace a main rib in the wing and how he
might have gone about it. Since the ribs slide on from the end of the
spar, I wonder if it might be ok to cut the spar flange(of the rib) in
half so that the rib(s) could be installed without having to take all
the other ribs off the spar.
Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to give me.
Steve Kroll
Mk-2 1988 model w/187 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ground accident |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
I wouldnt fill the dent. Once a tube is dented, it creates a weak point.
The tube is more likely to fail at the point where it was dented. For the
cost of aluminum tubing, I would just replace it.
As far as the rib goes, I dont see a problem with cutting the flange as long
as the rib in question is a full rib and the rib tubing runs full width. If
I had to do this, thats the way Id do it. I would split the flange
horizontally, not vertically. You might also try splitting just one side.
You may be able to twist the flange with one side split just enough to get
it over the spar.
Ross
PS...Just curious, How did you manage to take out both leading edges? Most
ground accidents involve the wingtips.
> From: "Steve Kroll" <skroll(at)dellepro.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:03:32 -0600
> To:
> Subject: Kolb-List: ground accident
>
>
> I had a little ground accident while trying to adjust a cantankerous
> carb on a 503 equipped Mk-2. To make a long embarrassing story short, I
> managed to ding the leading edges on both wings pretty good (bad)
>
> I've stripped the better of the two wings and the damage is
> minimal....no ribs bent and only the ding itself in the leading edge
> tube. Is there a material that I can use (some kind of plastic filler)
> to fair in the leading edge tube. I believe that will fix that wing.
>
> The other wing will be a different story altogether as I can see at
> least one main rib that is damaged. I'm curious if there is anybody on
> this list that has had to replace a main rib in the wing and how he
> might have gone about it. Since the ribs slide on from the end of the
> spar, I wonder if it might be ok to cut the spar flange(of the rib) in
> half so that the rib(s) could be installed without having to take all
> the other ribs off the spar.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to give me.
>
> Steve Kroll
> Mk-2 1988 model w/187 hours
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob n <ronoy(at)shentel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ground accident |
Steve K,
As per msg from Ross abt splitting the rib and twisting to get it over
the spar--after getting it back, you should make a butt repair with same
or thicker alum for the patch. At least a row of rivets on each side of
the cut.
Bob N he old one
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kenneth Broste" <kenandmona(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Fabric Rivet Locations-Firestar |
Should I put fabric rivets on the false half rib just outside of the
last full rib on the wing tip?
How about the root rib, no rivets there?
Kenny B. (finally back at it again)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine |
performance
Can you not crank in more prop pitch?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>I The
>reduction drive is maxed out at 3300 static and turns 3800 at 85MPH plus and
>may still have more speed and RPM potential but this is my limit on engine
>RPM.
>
>Rick Neilsen
>Redrive VW powered MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher John Armstrong" <Tophera(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ground accident |
I wonder if it might be ok to cut the spar flange(of the rib) in
> half so that the rib(s) could be installed without having to take all
> the other ribs off the spar.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to give me.
>
> Steve Kroll
> Mk-2 1988 model w/187 hours
if the flange isn't damaged, just the tubes you could probably repair the
rib(s) in place reusing the flange(s)... might be a bit trickier but then
you would have a normal flange on the wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ground accident |
Would it be possible to drill the stainless piece( that guides on the spar)
loose from the rest of the rib and replace only the damaged parts of tubing
of the rib,reinstalling them with that stainless piece in place?I think it
could be done if you still had the fixture used to make your ribs
initally.G.Aman FS2
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine performance |
| From: | "Coggins, Josh, NPONS" <joshcoggins(at)att.com> |
Richard,
If your 503 is making 64.8hp at 6750rpm, you must be using a R&D aftermarket
pipe. If this is the case I doubt if your engine is making 52hp at 5000rpm.
This is because the pipe you have will give you an increased power band
at higher rpms. Normally the midrange hp suffers if the pipe is tuned for high
hp rpms. So, I would venture to guess that your engine loses considerable hp
around 6000rpm. I bet it actually has less hp at 5000rpm than a 503 with a
stock exhaust (because it is "off" the pipe). I used to ride dirtbikes and you
could get tuned exhausts which would give you the hp at high rpm, mid rpm, or
low rpm. Depending on the type of race track or riding you preferred, you could
purchase the appropriate equipment. It was a trade off, you couldn't buy
the high rpm tuned pipe and expect to have the same hp at lower rpms as the pipes
that were tuned for lower rpms. Otherwise they wouldn't even make the other
pipes because everyone would be buying the high rpm/hp ones. Just my thoughts,
I could be totally wrong.
Josh
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Carlisle [mailto:rrcarl(at)concentric.net]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine
performance
Thats true....For an engine to make its rated HP it needs to run at a
certain RPM. For instance, my 503 makes 64.8HP at 6750 RPM. At 5000 RPM it
makes around 52HP. A Subaru conversion might make 110HP at 5200 RPM. The
problem is that when you go direct drive, you cant run the engine at the RPM
that makes the best power. The same Subaru engine that makes 110HP with a
gear redux at 5200 RPM might only make 60HP at 3200 RPM. Of course your max
RPM is deternimed by the prop diameter. Larger props have to turn slower.
Some of the engine conversion companies are making cam and compression mods
to increase low end HP and torque for people who want to run direct drive.
As far as Jabiru goes, you would need to look at the HP and torque curves
for en engine with a redux and one without. That will tell you how much you
are losing by going direct drive.
Ross
> From: Jbowaf(at)aol.com
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:12:13 EST
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine performance
>
>
> in a discussion with the new owners at avid in montana, thgt i heard that the
> rotax engines with necessary gear boxes give better performance in certain
> areas than a direct drive engine such as the jabiru. did i mis hear? or
> what did the comment mean? tnx j. taylor in cajun country.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi(at)supernet.com> |
Hey Kolbsters,
My friend just bought a used '84 model firestar and he wants to redo
the windshield. What thickness material is the best to use? And the
product is called lexan. Right?
Also the tail wheel apparently was glued on the fiberglass at an
angle. What is used to glue it on there? Can it be loosened, or must we
cut it off and drill the piece out of the wheel assembly and
reglue? Thanks for the help,
Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fabric Rivet Locations-Firestar |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
My Twinstar has no rivets on the last false rib or the root rib.
Ross
> From: "Kenneth Broste" <kenandmona(at)earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:06:55 -0700
> To: "Kolb List"
> Subject: Kolb-List: Fabric Rivet Locations-Firestar
>
>
> Should I put fabric rivets on the false half rib just outside of the
> last full rib on the wing tip?
> How about the root rib, no rivets there?
> Kenny B. (finally back at it again)
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Cox" <lightflyer(at)email.msn.com> |
Hey Steve, is the flange bent? If not it would seem much easer to just rebuild
the rib around the flange.
Sam Cox
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kolb-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve Kroll
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 12:04 PM
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Kolb-List: ground accident
>
>
>
> I had a little ground accident while trying to adjust a cantankerous
> carb on a 503 equipped Mk-2. To make a long embarrassing story short, I
> managed to ding the leading edges on both wings pretty good (bad)
>
> I've stripped the better of the two wings and the damage is
> minimal....no ribs bent and only the ding itself in the leading edge
> tube. Is there a material that I can use (some kind of plastic filler)
> to fair in the leading edge tube. I believe that will fix that wing.
>
> The other wing will be a different story altogether as I can see at
> least one main rib that is damaged. I'm curious if there is anybody on
> this list that has had to replace a main rib in the wing and how he
> might have gone about it. Since the ribs slide on from the end of the
> spar, I wonder if it might be ok to cut the spar flange(of the rib) in
> half so that the rib(s) could be installed without having to take all
> the other ribs off the spar.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to give me.
>
> Steve Kroll
> Mk-2 1988 model w/187 hours
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Com Antenna Location... |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
Where have you guys mounted your com antenna? I'll probably go with a Val
Com 760 radio and a cheapie bent whip antenna.
Does the antenna need a ground plane to work right?
Thanks...Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary r. voigt" <johndeereantique(at)uswest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lexan Question? |
Earl, i would suggest getting the 0.625" (1/16") you will be able to
work with it better, although it will not as pliable as the 0.125 (1/8") you
will probably not notice the difference if you keep your windshield short.
lexan is what you want, G.E.
thanks,
Gary r. voigt
kxp best kolb model
Earl & Mim Zimmerman wrote:
>
> Hey Kolbsters,
> My friend just bought a used '84 model firestar and he wants to redo
> the windshield. What thickness material is the best to use? And the
> product is called lexan. Right?
> Also the tail wheel apparently was glued on the fiberglass at an
> angle. What is used to glue it on there? Can it be loosened, or must we
> cut it off and drill the piece out of the wheel assembly and
> reglue? Thanks for the help,
> Earl
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lexan Question? |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
It wasnt glued on at an angle. Over time the fiberglass looses its
structural integrity and twists. For about a month, everytime I flew I
would twist it back. It would stay straight for about a day, then slowly go
back to its twisted position. One day I twisted it back a bit too far and
it came off in my hand. I cut off the remaining and drilled it out. I
replaced it with a spring steel spring.
On the windshield, the thickness depends on the curvature of the windshield.
flatter windshields need to be thicker. A windshield with some curve can be
1/8 or so. The curve will add rigidity to the windshield so a lighter
material can be used.
Ross
> From: Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi(at)supernet.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:01:48 -0500
> To: kolb-list
> Subject: Kolb-List: Lexan Question?
>
>
> Hey Kolbsters,
> My friend just bought a used '84 model firestar and he wants to redo
> the windshield. What thickness material is the best to use? And the
> product is called lexan. Right?
> Also the tail wheel apparently was glued on the fiberglass at an
> angle. What is used to glue it on there? Can it be loosened, or must we
> cut it off and drill the piece out of the wheel assembly and
> reglue? Thanks for the help,
> Earl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary r. voigt" <johndeereantique(at)uswest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lexan Question? |
opps!!!! meant to say 0.0625" will not be as stiff.
"Gary r. voigt" wrote:
>
> Earl, i would suggest getting the 0.625" (1/16") you will be able to
> work with it better, although it will not as pliable as the 0.125 (1/8") you
> will probably not notice the difference if you keep your windshield short.
> lexan is what you want, G.E.
>
> thanks,
> Gary r. voigt
> kxp best kolb model
>
> Earl & Mim Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey Kolbsters,
> > My friend just bought a used '84 model firestar and he wants to redo
> > the windshield. What thickness material is the best to use? And the
> > product is called lexan. Right?
> > Also the tail wheel apparently was glued on the fiberglass at an
> > angle. What is used to glue it on there? Can it be loosened, or must we
> > cut it off and drill the piece out of the wheel assembly and
> > reglue? Thanks for the help,
> > Earl
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine |
performance
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
It is on a tuned pipe. I might be a little off on the cruise HP, but not
far off. I remember it being in the low fifties according to the dyno
chart. The engine is very strong above 5000 RPM, below 5000 it starts to
fall off.
That pipe is on my Phantom...
The one on my Kolb is a bit different. The effective RPM range is a little
higher. It falls off at about 5300 and does not seem to make the power the
Phantom does.
I had an issue with the Phantom pipe, so after Rob fixed it, he put it on
the dyno. Thats why I know the exact performance figures on that particular
pipe.
I can say one thing. The Phantom definitely makes more power at 5000RPM
with the tuned pipe than it does at 5000RPM with the stock pipe. Im not so
sure about the Kolb. I havent flown it enough to really get the feel for
it.
One thing to consider. The R&D pipes are "tuned", but not to the extent
that a snowmobile or dirtbike pipe would be tuned. I think Rob has done a
good job in designing a pipe that increases power without too much midrange
sacrifice and no effects at all on reliability. My engines just run better
all around with his pipes.
Ross
> From: "Coggins, Josh, NPONS" <joshcoggins(at)att.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:59:45 -0500
> To:
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine
> performance
>
>
> Richard,
> If your 503 is making 64.8hp at 6750rpm, you must be using a R&D aftermarket
> pipe. If this is the case I doubt if your engine is making 52hp at 5000rpm.
> This is because the pipe you have will give you an increased power band at
> higher rpms. Normally the midrange hp suffers if the pipe is tuned for high
> hp rpms. So, I would venture to guess that your engine loses considerable hp
> around 6000rpm. I bet it actually has less hp at 5000rpm than a 503 with a
> stock exhaust (because it is "off" the pipe). I used to ride dirtbikes and
> you could get tuned exhausts which would give you the hp at high rpm, mid rpm,
> or low rpm. Depending on the type of race track or riding you preferred, you
> could purchase the appropriate equipment. It was a trade off, you couldn't
> buy the high rpm tuned pipe and expect to have the same hp at lower rpms as
> the pipes that were tuned for lower rpms. Otherwise they wouldn't even make
> the other pipes because everyone would be buying the high !
> rpm/hp ones. Just my thoughts, I could be totally wrong.
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Carlisle [mailto:rrcarl(at)concentric.net]
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine
> performance
>
>
>
> Thats true....For an engine to make its rated HP it needs to run at a
> certain RPM. For instance, my 503 makes 64.8HP at 6750 RPM. At 5000 RPM it
> makes around 52HP. A Subaru conversion might make 110HP at 5200 RPM. The
> problem is that when you go direct drive, you cant run the engine at the RPM
> that makes the best power. The same Subaru engine that makes 110HP with a
> gear redux at 5200 RPM might only make 60HP at 3200 RPM. Of course your max
> RPM is deternimed by the prop diameter. Larger props have to turn slower.
>
> Some of the engine conversion companies are making cam and compression mods
> to increase low end HP and torque for people who want to run direct drive.
>
> As far as Jabiru goes, you would need to look at the HP and torque curves
> for en engine with a redux and one without. That will tell you how much you
> are losing by going direct drive.
>
> Ross
>
>> From: Jbowaf(at)aol.com
>> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:12:13 EST
>> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Kolb-List: Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine performance
>>
>>
>> in a discussion with the new owners at avid in montana, thgt i heard that the
>> rotax engines with necessary gear boxes give better performance in certain
>> areas than a direct drive engine such as the jabiru. did i mis hear? or
>> what did the comment mean? tnx j. taylor in cajun country.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl & Mim Zimmerman <emzi(at)supernet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lexan Question? |
bob n wrote:
>
>
> 0.625=5/8--kinda thick, but almost goose-proof
That decimal makes a difference doesn't it!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lexan Question? |
| From: | ul15rhb(at)juno.com |
I used .090" lexan on my Firestar windshield.
The old epoxied fiberglass can be removed by heating the metal slowly
with a heat gun (I actually used a propane torch because I didn't have a
heat gun back then). Use a pair of vise grips to get the rod out once
heated. It should twist right out if there are no rivets or bolts. It can
be heated on the fabric covering the tailpost lower tube being careful
not to burn it. I don't think TNK will supply another fiberglass rod, so
the new one will have to be bolted in. I had to replace mine once with
another fiberglass rod. This one was epoxied in without any bolts. It has
lasted all these years. The last 3 years I've taken the load off the
tailwheel when not flying and sitting in the garage.
Ralph Burlingame
Original Firestar
15 years flying it
>
>
> Hey Kolbsters,
> My friend just bought a used '84 model firestar and he wants to
> redo
> the windshield. What thickness material is the best to use? And the
> product is called lexan. Right?
> Also the tail wheel apparently was glued on the fiberglass at
> an
> angle. What is used to glue it on there? Can it be loosened, or must
> we
> cut it off and drill the piece out of the wheel assembly and
> reglue? Thanks for the help,
> Earl
>
>
>
>
> messages.
>
> ========================
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ground accident |
As an alternative, couldn't you drill the rivets out of the bad piece, and
rivet in the new piece ?? The part that's undamaged wouldn't have to be
touched. Seems like it'd be simpler than fooling with twisting or cutting
the web, and possibly scratching that spar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Kroll" <skroll(at)dellepro.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: ground accident
>
> I had a little ground accident while trying to adjust a cantankerous
> carb on a 503 equipped Mk-2. To make a long embarrassing story short, I
> managed to ding the leading edges on both wings pretty good (bad)
>
> I've stripped the better of the two wings and the damage is
> minimal....no ribs bent and only the ding itself in the leading edge
> tube. Is there a material that I can use (some kind of plastic filler)
> to fair in the leading edge tube. I believe that will fix that wing.
>
> The other wing will be a different story altogether as I can see at
> least one main rib that is damaged. I'm curious if there is anybody on
> this list that has had to replace a main rib in the wing and how he
> might have gone about it. Since the ribs slide on from the end of the
> spar, I wonder if it might be ok to cut the spar flange(of the rib) in
> half so that the rib(s) could be installed without having to take all
> the other ribs off the spar.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to give me.
>
> Steve Kroll
> Mk-2 1988 model w/187 hours
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine performance |
This is an area where personal preference plays the major role. Rick has a
1.6 to 1 re-drive and has decided on a personal limit of 3800 rpm for his
engine. I've got a fairly similar engine, but with a 2 to 1 re-drive. I
plan on a personal limit of 5000 rpm for my engine, and a 3800 rpm cruise.
Before the re-drive broke - on the 1st full power run to 4800 rpm - I found
that the engine is smooth and very strong at 3800. ( Local dune buggy
racers run similar engines up to 7500+ rpm, with surprisingly good
reliability ) At times, I'll probably stress my engine more, but have more
available horsepower - if I can keep the re-drive in the thing. ( Looks
like I may have to throw this one away, and go to another brand. ) Rick is
going for a more conservative approach that will give him much more
available power ( torque & thrust ) than he had with direct drive, and still
be fairly gentle with his engine. My feeling is that mine will be a real
rip-snorter, and his will be more reliable, while still giving excellent
performance. Gonna be interesting to see how it all comes out. For the
newbies, Rick has a 2180 cc VW, while mine is a 2110 cc VW.
Gogittum Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Pike" <richard(at)BCChapel.org>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Effects of direct drive vs gear box on engine
performance
>
> Can you not crank in more prop pitch?
> Richard Pike
> MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
> >
> >I The
> >reduction drive is maxed out at 3300 static and turns 3800 at 85MPH plus
and
> >may still have more speed and RPM potential but this is my limit on
engine
> >RPM.
> >
> >Rick Neilsen
> >Redrive VW powered MKIII
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location... |
I tried looking up Boyd Young's website for pics of a dipole, but I guess
he's not active now. It was at http://www.brigham.net/~byoung but I can't
get it to open. Anyone else have a pic of a co-ax dipole ?? Lots simpler
and cheaper than a regular antenna, but you do need an SWR meter to tune it.
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Carlisle" <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Com Antenna Location...
>
> Where have you guys mounted your com antenna? I'll probably go with a Val
> Com 760 radio and a cheapie bent whip antenna.
>
> Does the antenna need a ground plane to work right?
>
> Thanks...Ross
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location... |
Ross,
From what I have read, I must have just got lucky. I use an Icom A-22 with
the remote antenna option. I temporarily mounted it in the nose so I make
the first flight. It is tie-wrapped to the frame, in front of the rudder
pedals. I was planning on installing a permanent antenna and going through
the SWR tuning and all. I haven't touched it. I talk to people 80 - 100 NM
easy. Hear a lot further than that. Have to turn squelch way down to get
some peace and local traffic only. I do run mostly off the portable's
battery to segregate electrical noise. I can flip a switch if the battery
gets low.
This ain't broke, so I ain't touching it.
Good luck,
John Bickham
St. Francisville, LA
Mark III - 912 (100 hrs)
N308JB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)michigan.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Effects of direct drive vs gear box on |
engineperformance
Absolutely.
As with any change there are trade offs. Increased pitch will reduce climb performance
because I'm already below peak power at low air speeds. This will likely
give me a better cruse but at a higher power level. I will be experimenting
with more and less pitch but I have been putting it off because it works so will
were it is now.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIII
>>> richard(at)BCChapel.org 01/22/02 06:05PM >>>
Can you not crank in more prop pitch?
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>I The
>reduction drive is maxed out at 3300 static and turns 3800 at 85MPH plus and
>may still have more speed and RPM potential but this is my limit on engine
>RPM.
>
>Rick Neilsen
>Redrive VW powered MKIII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location... |
> I tried looking up Boyd Young's website for pics of a dipole, but I guess
> he's not active now. It was at http://www.brigham.net/~byoung but I can't
> get it to open.
> Lar.
Larry/Gang:
It opens for me using Netscape IE.
Send me the pics and I will post them on my index page.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location... |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
It opened for me too. I was really more interestsed in a suitable mounting
location for an off the shelf com antenna. Ive fried radios in the past by
trying to make my own antennas. Id rather not try that with a new $700 com.
I already have a bent whip....Just not sure where to mount it for best
results.
All I can think of is on top of the wing or top of the tail. Top of the
wing might be a problem when I fold it up and put it in the trailer.
Who here is flying with panel mounted avionics? Where is your antenna?
Ross
> From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:11:19 -0600
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Com Antenna Location...
>
>
>
>> I tried looking up Boyd Young's website for pics of a dipole, but I guess
>> he's not active now. It was at http://www.brigham.net/~byoung but I can't
>> get it to open.
>> Lar.
>
> Larry/Gang:
>
> It opens for me using Netscape IE.
>
> Send me the pics and I will post them on my index page.
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location... |
>
> Who here is flying with panel mounted avionics? Where is your antenna?
>
> Ross
Ross/Gang:
I use SS ELT antennas for my VHF and ELT. The VHF antenna
is mounted under the nose pod and the ELT antenna is mounted
on top of the center section.
I have always mounted the VHF under the nose pod since my
first radio on my original Firestar in 1987. The reason I
mounted it there was to get it as far from the engine and
ignition as I could, plus put some fuselage in-between.
Works for me.
The ELT antennas are simple to install and perform well.
Also very light weight and negligible drag.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Pike <richard(at)BCChapel.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location... |
I am. The pictures of the antenna and it's location on the airplane
(along with a bunch of other stuff) are at
http://www.bcchapel.org/pages/0003/kolb.htm
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
>
>
>Who here is flying with panel mounted avionics? Where is your antenna?
>
>Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim" <flykolb(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location... |
I have mine mounted on the top of the nose pod in the center. Keeps it away
from the engine. Ground plane inside the nose pod.
Jim
Mark III
Charlotte, NC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Carlisle" <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Com Antenna Location...
>
> It opened for me too. I was really more interestsed in a suitable
mounting
> location for an off the shelf com antenna. Ive fried radios in the past
by
> trying to make my own antennas. Id rather not try that with a new $700
com.
> I already have a bent whip....Just not sure where to mount it for best
> results.
>
> All I can think of is on top of the wing or top of the tail. Top of the
> wing might be a problem when I fold it up and put it in the trailer.
>
> Who here is flying with panel mounted avionics? Where is your antenna?
>
> Ross
>
> > From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
> > Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:11:19 -0600
> > To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Com Antenna Location...
> >
> >
> >
> >> I tried looking up Boyd Young's website for pics of a dipole, but I
guess
> >> he's not active now. It was at http://www.brigham.net/~byoung but I
can't
> >> get it to open.
> >> Lar.
> >
> > Larry/Gang:
> >
> > It opens for me using Netscape IE.
> >
> > Send me the pics and I will post them on my index page.
> >
> > john h
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)michigan.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location... |
I purchased a antenna kit ( basically a steel rod with a 45 degree bend). Using
the installation instructions I selected the center of the floor pan for the
mounting location with the antenna pointing down through the bottom cockpit fabric.
The floor pan acts as the ground plane. This works well for me.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIII
>>> rrcarl(at)concentric.net 01/23/02 09:44AM >>>
It opened for me too. I was really more interestsed in a suitable mounting
location for an off the shelf com antenna. Ive fried radios in the past by
trying to make my own antennas. Id rather not try that with a new $700 com.
I already have a bent whip....Just not sure where to mount it for best
results.
All I can think of is on top of the wing or top of the tail. Top of the
wing might be a problem when I fold it up and put it in the trailer.
Who here is flying with panel mounted avionics? Where is your antenna?
Ross
> From: John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:11:19 -0600
> To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Com Antenna Location...
>
>
>
>> I tried looking up Boyd Young's website for pics of a dipole, but I guess
>> he's not active now. It was at http://www.brigham.net/~byoung but I can't
>> get it to open.
>> Lar.
>
> Larry/Gang:
>
> It opens for me using Netscape IE.
>
> Send me the pics and I will post them on my index page.
>
> john h
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Cox" <lightflyer(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Com Antenna Location... |
On my Firestar I intend to go to Radio Shack and buy one of the kits they sell
to mount a CB ant. through a Car window glass.
I will mount this on the floorboard (ground plain) just ahead of the stick. That
will leave the coax above the floorboard to
run to the radio, and underneath will be the screw-on ant. connector. With a small
opening in the fabric you can screw on an
whip ant. with a 45-50 degree bend. Good transmittion because of the ground plain,
ant. protected by the gear legs, but if
it is damaged you just unscrew it and replace it.
Sam Cox
I was really more interested in a suitable mounting
> location for an off the shelf com antenna. Ive fried radios in the past by
> trying to make my own antennas. Id rather not try that with a new $700 com.
> I already have a bent whip....Just not sure where to mount it for best
> results.
>
> All I can think of is on top of the wing or top of the tail. Top of the
> wing might be a problem when I fold it up and put it in the trailer.
>
> Who here is flying with panel mounted avionics? Where is your antenna?
>
> Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Fuel Gague |
I have a Firestar II with 2 5gal tanks. I am interested in installing a
fuel gague and am looking for input from the group. I have seen the fuel
gague (line) on the "old" Kolb Firestar, but am hesitant to put a hole in the
bottom of an otherwise perfectly sound fuel tank. When built, I ran the fuel
lines through holes drilled in to the top of the tanks.I tried installing a
convex mirror on the fabric in the cockpit, but it vibrates so much, it is
impossible to see. I have seen the "bobber" type gagues in the Aircraft
Spruce catalog. Does anyone have experience with this type of unit?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location |
On 1-22-01, Richard Carlisle wrote:
< Where have you guys mounted your com antenna? I'll probably go with a Val
Com 760 radio and a cheapie bent whip antenna.
Does the antenna need a ground plane to work right?
Thanks...Ross >
Ross -
Yes, an antenna works best with a ground plane. It needs to be an area at
least as wide as your antenna is long. (Basic antenna theory) Here's one
way to do it - I copied this idea from Richard Pike:
Glue a piece of alum sheet (flashing works well, thin is OK) to the bottom
fabric, aft of the seats, on the cabin inside, between the longerons. Use
Poly-Tak. Reinforce the center with a riveted-on aluminum patch, and drill
the hole in the center for the antenna to exit downward. I used a hexagonal
piece of sheet alum, about 22 inches across. (That corresponds to the
"ideal" antenna length for the frequencies we commonly use in general
aviation.) Be sure to ground the ground plane to the airframe.
Dennis Kirby
Mk-3, in Cedar Crest, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location... |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
Need some clarification on the ground plane. Everything forward of my
landing gear is composite. No metal at all...Just fiberglass and honeycomb.
Im thinking I may have to glass in an aluminum plate to act as a groung
plane...Or buy one of those high dollar antennas designed to be glassed into
composite planes.
Ross
> From: "Sam Cox" <lightflyer(at)email.msn.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:28:25 -0600
> To:
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Com Antenna Location...
>
>
> On my Firestar I intend to go to Radio Shack and buy one of the kits they sell
> to mount a CB ant. through a Car window glass.
> I will mount this on the floorboard (ground plain) just ahead of the stick.
> That will leave the coax above the floorboard to
> run to the radio, and underneath will be the screw-on ant. connector. With a
> small opening in the fabric you can screw on an
> whip ant. with a 45-50 degree bend. Good transmittion because of the ground
> plain, ant. protected by the gear legs, but if
> it is damaged you just unscrew it and replace it.
>
> Sam Cox
>
> I was really more interested in a suitable mounting
>> location for an off the shelf com antenna. Ive fried radios in the past by
>> trying to make my own antennas. Id rather not try that with a new $700 com.
>> I already have a bent whip....Just not sure where to mount it for best
>> results.
>>
>> All I can think of is on top of the wing or top of the tail. Top of the
>> wing might be a problem when I fold it up and put it in the trailer.
>>
>> Who here is flying with panel mounted avionics? Where is your antenna?
>>
>> Ross
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dixieshack(at)webtv.net (Mike and Dixie Shackelford) |
| Subject: | Re: Crush plates |
What I found with my Powerfin 3 blade, ground adjustable was that in
adjusting the prop twice I began chewing the outer half of the prop hub
on the Powerfin by repeated torquing and loosening the bolts. Stu said
I didn't have to use the hi-collar locks that were doing the damage but
if not, to safety wire.
My cure was this. I made 6 thin stainless flat washers to go under the
6 outer allens that lock the blades and used the crush plate from Rotax
to protect the hub from the long through bolts that mount the prop
itself to the PSRU drive flange. Before using the furnished crush
plate, I chucked it up in the lathe and lightened it somewhat. Left it
the original O.D. to catch as much of the outer hub as possible
preserving the "sandwich" effect. I drilled all the bolts (12)
for safety wire and use no nuts on the flange thru-bolts. By the way, I
also have a 2 3/16" prop spacer and am running a "C" box w/3.47 gears on
a FSII.
I did notice in an Experimenter issue some time ago that Harry Whiting
said that the use of a crush plate was a must regardless of the type or
material of the prop. Looks to me like its use would spread the
effective bolt torque evenly over the whole prop hub.
That's my contribution to the "for what its worth" department.
Fly safe
Hillbilly Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
Thanks Dennis...Thats exactly what I was looking for. You too
Possum...Good photos.
Ross
> From: Kirby Dennis Contr ASC/TM <Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.af.mil>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 23:05:28 -0000
> To: "'kolb-list(at)matronics.com'"
> Subject: Kolb-List: Re: Com Antenna Location
>
>
>
> On 1-22-01, Richard Carlisle wrote:
>
> < Where have you guys mounted your com antenna? I'll probably go with a Val
> Com 760 radio and a cheapie bent whip antenna.
> Does the antenna need a ground plane to work right?
> Thanks...Ross >
>
> Ross -
> Yes, an antenna works best with a ground plane. It needs to be an area at
> least as wide as your antenna is long. (Basic antenna theory) Here's one
> way to do it - I copied this idea from Richard Pike:
> Glue a piece of alum sheet (flashing works well, thin is OK) to the bottom
> fabric, aft of the seats, on the cabin inside, between the longerons. Use
> Poly-Tak. Reinforce the center with a riveted-on aluminum patch, and drill
> the hole in the center for the antenna to exit downward. I used a hexagonal
> piece of sheet alum, about 22 inches across. (That corresponds to the
> "ideal" antenna length for the frequencies we commonly use in general
> aviation.) Be sure to ground the ground plane to the airframe.
> Dennis Kirby
> Mk-3, in Cedar Crest, NM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Fuel Gague |
Can't comment on the bobber gauge other than how are you going to see it if
you can't see the tank now?
Do you have an EIS? If so you could add a capacitance probe (not cheap ~
$100 probe) to each tank and switch to switch between to the input of the
EIS - or a panel analog steam gauge. Note, there are differences in the
probes for the EIS and the steam guages. If you go with the steam gauge,
see if you can get a gauge that is compatible with the EIS probes just
incase you want to go to an EIS in the future. Check with Sky Sports and
Grand Rapids Technologies. IF your tanks self equalize, you could possibly
get by with one but since there top picks I would have some doubt about this.
jerryb
>
> I have a Firestar II with 2 5gal tanks. I am interested in installing a
>fuel gague and am looking for input from the group. I have seen the fuel
>gague (line) on the "old" Kolb Firestar, but am hesitant to put a hole in the
>bottom of an otherwise perfectly sound fuel tank. When built, I ran the fuel
>lines through holes drilled in to the top of the tanks.I tried installing a
>convex mirror on the fabric in the cockpit, but it vibrates so much, it is
>impossible to see. I have seen the "bobber" type gagues in the Aircraft
>Spruce catalog. Does anyone have experience with this type of unit?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thumb" <Bill-Jo(at)prodigy.net> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Fuel Gague |
Kolbers
I used a fuel gauge that goes in the top of the tank,I don't like
cutting holes in the bottom of the tank either. I got the Westach gauge ,
sending unit and hardware for $135.00. If you want instructions and pictures
get with me off list and I will send them to you. I bought it from
SkySports.
Bill Futrell
----- Original Message -----
From: <Bklebon4(at)cs.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List:Fuel Gague
>
> I have a Firestar II with 2 5gal tanks. I am interested in installing a
> fuel gague and am looking for input from the group. I have seen the fuel
> gague (line) on the "old" Kolb Firestar, but am hesitant to put a hole in
the
> bottom of an otherwise perfectly sound fuel tank. When built, I ran the
fuel
> lines through holes drilled in to the top of the tanks.I tried installing
a
> convex mirror on the fabric in the cockpit, but it vibrates so much, it is
> impossible to see. I have seen the "bobber" type gagues in the Aircraft
> Spruce catalog. Does anyone have experience with this type of unit?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Fuel Gague |
> I got the Westach gauge ,
> sending unit and hardware for $135.00.
> Bill Futrell
Bill F/Gang:
I got the "sight gauge" from scrap and fittings I had laying
around the shop. Used sight gauge on Firestar and Mark
III. The price was right. The system works.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Cox" <lightflyer(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Com Antenna Location... |
> Need some clarification on the ground plane. Everything forward of my
> landing gear is composite. No metal at all...Just fiberglass and honeycomb.
> Im thinking I may have to glass in an aluminum plate to act as a groung
> plane...Or buy one of those high dollar antennas designed to be glassed into
> composite planes.
>
> Ross
On the Firestar from the front of the seat to near the rudder pedals and from side
rail to side rail you have an alum. plate
floorboard. The nose cone doesn't come that far back. If the Mark III has fiberglass
that far back and no metal for a ground
plain, the glassed in ant. might be the ticket.
Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Fuel Gague |
John,
By chance you have a photo of your solution.
jerryb
>
> > I got the Westach gauge ,
> > sending unit and hardware for $135.00.
> > Bill Futrell
>
>Bill F/Gang:
>
>I got the "sight gauge" from scrap and fittings I had laying
>around the shop. Used sight gauge on Firestar and Mark
>III. The price was right. The system works.
>
>john h
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Fuel Gague |
> By chance you have a photo of your solution.
> jerryb
Jerry/Gang:
I don't think so.
I have my fuel tank mounted in the open area behind the
bulkhead. Used the old 90 deg fittings that were used for
tapping Kolb's plastic 5 gal tanks. One end is 1/4" and the
other is 3/8". Made the site gauge out of 3/8" ID Tygon
tubing. Stuck the 1/4" ends into the fabric, above and below
the tank. Actually we welded tabs inside the fabric for the
1/4" ends to fit through. Plumbed it off a tap in the
bottom and top of the aluminum tank.
I have no problem seeing fuel level day or night (with
Minimag Light).
Seems to be failsafe after many hours of use.
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ZepRep251(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: : Kolb-List:Fuel Gague |
The tanks in my firestar equalize so I bought 1 sender/gauge pkg from
Lockwood Aviation for 99.00.It installs in the top of one tank complete with
wiring and it has adjustable limits in the sender (small screws one for full
and one for empty) to adjust for full needle swing.Only been installed for 2
mo's but so far so good.G.aman FS2 139hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location... |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
My plane will be all composite from the gear forward. A Mark 3 has a steel
cage. A glassed in antenna wont work on a Mark 3 because there is too much
steel too close to the antenna. Seeing as how my design is 100% composite a
glassed in antenna will work. I think Ill order it from AS&S. It is $77.
Ross
> From: "Sam Cox" <lightflyer(at)email.msn.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 20:21:57 -0600
> To:
> Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Com Antenna Location...
>
>
>> Need some clarification on the ground plane. Everything forward of my
>> landing gear is composite. No metal at all...Just fiberglass and honeycomb.
>> Im thinking I may have to glass in an aluminum plate to act as a groung
>> plane...Or buy one of those high dollar antennas designed to be glassed into
>> composite planes.
>>
>> Ross
>
>
> On the Firestar from the front of the seat to near the rudder pedals and from
> side rail to side rail you have an alum. plate
> floorboard. The nose cone doesn't come that far back. If the Mark III has
> fiberglass that far back and no metal for a ground
> plain, the glassed in ant. might be the ticket.
>
> Sam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location... |
Ross/Gang:
You must have missed the posts the last couple days
reference "roll your own" glassed in antennas. I think Big
Lar tried to give you the url for Boyd Young's web page
which describes how to make a good one out of coax cable and
a bnc connector for practically nothing.
BTW: Don't tell Boyd it won't work on a MK III. That is
what his is mounted in.
> A glassed in antenna wont work on a Mark 3 because there is > too much
> steel too close to the antenna.
If the above were true my ELT antenna I use for VHF voice
com would not work either. It is mounted close to those
4130 tubes.
Seeing as how my design is > 100% composite a
> glassed in antenna will work. I think Ill order it from AS&S. It is $77.
Take care,
john h
PS: Are you the gentleman that posted to the Kolb List a
few months ago, that you had experienced flying your
ultralight in 40 kt winds? If you are, I sure would like to
hear more about those flights.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hauck <hawk36(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location... |
> Seeing as how my design is > 100% composite a
> > glassed in antenna will work. I think Ill order it from AS&S. It is $77.
Ross/Gang:
In my haste to get the last msg out I forgot to post Boyd
Young's url:
http://www.brigham.net/~byoung/index.html
Scroll down until you see "$5.00 Antenna".
john h
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location... |
Yah, George published the actual page for us..........shows a pic of Boyd's
antenna. Doesn't need a ground plane, it's nearly free, and he talks over a
100 miles with a handheld. It works ! ! !
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Com Antenna Location...
>
> Ross/Gang:
>
> You must have missed the posts the last couple days
> reference "roll your own" glassed in antennas. I think Big
> Lar tried to give you the url for Boyd Young's web page
> which describes how to make a good one out of coax cable and
> a bnc connector for practically nothing.
>
> BTW: Don't tell Boyd it won't work on a MK III. That is
> what his is mounted in.
>
>
> > A glassed in antenna wont work on a Mark 3 because there is > too much
> > steel too close to the antenna.
>
> If the above were true my ELT antenna I use for VHF voice
> com would not work either. It is mounted close to those
> 4130 tubes.
>
>
> Seeing as how my design is > 100% composite a
> > glassed in antenna will work. I think Ill order it from AS&S. It is
$77.
>
> Take care,
>
> john h
>
> PS: Are you the gentleman that posted to the Kolb List a
> few months ago, that you had experienced flying your
> ultralight in 40 kt winds? If you are, I sure would like to
> hear more about those flights.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Neilsen" <neilsenr(at)michigan.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Crush platesmessage of Tue, 22 Jan 2002 |
I use standard prop bolts that are drilled, I use castle nuts with
cotter pins so I don't get any chewing of the prop hub. As for the need
of a crush plate I took Stu's recommendation to not use the crush plate
on their Power Fin prop. The original discussion was driven because the
crush plate covered the Power Fin adjustment windows. I feel the prop
manufacture would be the best judge of the need for a crush plate. My
general rule on my plane is, if it isn't needed I leave it on the
ground.
My $.03 cents worth
Rick Neilsen
Redrive powered MKIII
>>> dixieshack(at)webtv.net 01/23/02 06:37PM >>>
Shackelford)
What I found with my Powerfin 3 blade, ground adjustable was that in
adjusting the prop twice I began chewing the outer half of the prop
hub
on the Powerfin by repeated torquing and loosening the bolts. Stu
said
I didn't have to use the hi-collar locks that were doing the damage
but
if not, to safety wire.
My cure was this. I made 6 thin stainless flat washers to go under
the
6 outer allens that lock the blades and used the crush plate from
Rotax
to protect the hub from the long through bolts that mount the prop
itself to the PSRU drive flange. Before using the furnished crush
plate, I chucked it up in the lathe and lightened it somewhat. Left
it
the original O.D. to catch as much of the outer hub as possible
preserving the "sandwich" effect. I drilled all the bolts (12)
for safety wire and use no nuts on the flange thru-bolts. By the way,
I
also have a 2 3/16" prop spacer and am running a "C" box w/3.47 gears
on
a FSII.
I did notice in an Experimenter issue some time ago that Harry Whiting
said that the use of a crush plate was a must regardless of the type
or
material of the prop. Looks to me like its use would spread the
effective bolt torque evenly over the whole prop hub.
That's my contribution to the "for what its worth" department.
Fly safe
Hillbilly Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location... |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
Nope...I saw Boyd's web site. The problem is that (1) I have no idea how to
tune an antenna and (2) My radio wont be here when I layup the fuselage. Im
afraid Ill end up glassing in an antenna that doesnt work. When you build
your own, you have to tune it with the radio that will be in the plane.
Been talking to LongEZ and VariEZ builders. A few of them got the antennas
glassed in correctly but most of them ended up mounting external antennas
because their homemade antennas didnt work.
One thing I noticed about Boyd's installation is that he is not glassing the
antenna into the cowl. He just tapes it up underneath. Also...The reason
he is getting noise could be because the antenna is too close to the steel
cage.
I figure if I buy a manufactured antenna, its one less thing to worry about.
If I were not glassing this thing into the skin, Id be a bit more willing to
experiment.
Ross
> From: "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:24:44 -0800
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Com Antenna Location...
>
>
> Yah, George published the actual page for us..........shows a pic of Boyd's
> antenna. Doesn't need a ground plane, it's nearly free, and he talks over a
> 100 miles with a handheld. It works ! ! !
>
> Larry Bourne
> Palm Springs, Ca.
> Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
> http://www.gogittum.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Hauck" <hawk36(at)mindspring.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Com Antenna Location...
>
>
>>
>> Ross/Gang:
>>
>> You must have missed the posts the last couple days
>> reference "roll your own" glassed in antennas. I think Big
>> Lar tried to give you the url for Boyd Young's web page
>> which describes how to make a good one out of coax cable and
>> a bnc connector for practically nothing.
>>
>> BTW: Don't tell Boyd it won't work on a MK III. That is
>> what his is mounted in.
>>
>>
>>> A glassed in antenna wont work on a Mark 3 because there is > too much
>>> steel too close to the antenna.
>>
>> If the above were true my ELT antenna I use for VHF voice
>> com would not work either. It is mounted close to those
>> 4130 tubes.
>>
>>
>> Seeing as how my design is > 100% composite a
>>> glassed in antenna will work. I think Ill order it from AS&S. It is
> $77.
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>> john h
>>
>> PS: Are you the gentleman that posted to the Kolb List a
>> few months ago, that you had experienced flying your
>> ultralight in 40 kt winds? If you are, I sure would like to
>> hear more about those flights.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
<<<<<<
Larry Bourne wrote
I tried looking up Boyd Young's website for pics of a
dipole, but I guess
he's not active now. It was at
http://www.brigham.net/~byoung but I can't
get it to open. Anyone else have a pic of a co-ax dipole ??
Lots simpler
and cheaper than a regular antenna, but you do need an SWR
meter to tune it.
Lar.>>>>>>
i am still around but only open mail every few days, by
then everything is mostly too old to respond to. the last i
checked, my sight was still working. the url above is the
main page and the direct link to the dipole antenna is
http://www.brigham.net/~byoung/antenna.html
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 29 Msgs - 01/23/02 |
<<<<<<
Ross,
>From what I have read, I must have just got lucky. I use
an Icom A-22 with
the remote antenna option. I temporarily mounted it in the
nose so I make
the first flight. It is tie-wrapped to the frame, in front
of the rudder
pedals. I was planning on installing a permanent antenna
and going through
the SWR tuning and all. >>>>>>>
DOOOOOOOO THE SWR TUNING!!!!!!!
i have seen more than 1 radio that has had the final
transistors die because of poor swr match. you may find
that the match is ok and you wont have to do anything
more. but if it is not then sending the radio in for
repair may be harder to do than the swr tuning...
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kolb-List Digest: 29 Msgs - 01/23/02 |
<<<<<<<<
It opened for me too. I was really more interestsed in a
suitable mounting
location for an off the shelf com antenna. Ive fried radios
in the past by
trying to make my own antennas. Id rather not try that with
a new $700 com.
I already have a bent whip....Just not sure where to mount
it for best
results.>>>>>>>>
i feel that this may start to grind on people. if so skip
it
even on an off the shelf com antenna you should to the swr
testing...... i have seen some built for the ga
aircraft that when tested proved to have a swr level so
high that continued use would cause radio meltdown..... i
have seen commercially built antennas costing over $300.00
properly installed have swr readings so high that we had to
take them down and send them back to the factory. after
they tested them they would send us back a new one. we
have done this with aircraft as well as ham radio
antennas. it may seem to transmit and receive ok but the
final transistors are more picky about what they are
connected to than what we can tell with our ears.
repeat after me " I WILL CHECK MY ANTENNA SWR" if you are
not sure repeat it a few more times.
boyd
ps it took me a couple of trys to get the antenna located in
such a manner that the swr were good, the instalation is
clean and there is absolutely no drag. one more time " I
WILL _____ MY _______ SWR"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WillUribe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Com Antenna Location |
In a message dated 1/23/02 2:52:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
kolb-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
> Subject: Kolb-List: Com Antenna Location...
> From: Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net>
>
>
> Where have you guys mounted your com antenna? I'll probably go with a Val
> Com 760 radio and a cheapie bent whip antenna.
>
> Does the antenna need a ground plane to work right?
>
Dave and I have mounted the antenna on top of the nose cone with the ground
plane under the cone.
Take a look
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/Chinle1.jpg
http://home.elp.rr.com/airplane/TorC.jpg
Regards,
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: dipole antenna |
Try this URL:
http://www.brigham.net/~byoung/antenna.html
>
><<<<<<
>Larry Bourne wrote
>
>I tried looking up Boyd Young's website for pics of a
>dipole, but I guess
>he's not active now. It was at
>http://www.brigham.net/~byoung but I can't
>get it to open. Anyone else have a pic of a co-ax dipole ??
>Lots simpler
>and cheaper than a regular antenna, but you do need an SWR
>meter to tune it.
>Lar.>>>>>>
>
>
>i am still around but only open mail every few days, by
>then everything is mostly too old to respond to. the last i
>checked, my sight was still working. the url above is the
>main page and the direct link to the dipole antenna is
>http://www.brigham.net/~byoung/antenna.html
>
>boyd
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Very interesting article about antenna design.... |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
http://www.davemorris.com/dave/MorrisDFLoop.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
Will a CB SWR meter work on VHF antennas? My only source to borrow one
would be the local local radio shack. Im sure they dont have anything even
remotely related to aviation radios. They would probably have a CB SWR
kicking around.
Thanks....Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kenny Broste" <kenandmona(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Respirator Recommendations |
It's about time I purchased a respirator. Any recommendations? What
sort of specs should I look for? Nothing like the smell of MEK in an
enclosed garage to make a man feel alive!
Kenny
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Respirator Recommendations |
| From: | Richard Carlisle <rrcarl(at)concentric.net> |
The only way to go is supplied air. You can either wear a mask or a hood.
I like the hood. It is less restrictive and keeps the paint out of your
hair. Here is a link to a neat supplied air filter...
http://www.thetoolwarehouse.net/shop/product3253.html
This thing takes regular compressor air and filters it to class D breathable
air, and it is 1/3 the price of a decent air supplied system with pump.
Ross
> From: "Kenny Broste" <kenandmona(at)earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:15:15 -0700
> To: "Kolb List"
> Subject: Kolb-List: Respirator Recommendations
>
>
> It's about time I purchased a respirator. Any recommendations? What
> sort of specs should I look for? Nothing like the smell of MEK in an
> enclosed garage to make a man feel alive!
>
> Kenny
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dama" <dama(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Respirator Recommendations |
Home Depot had a decent 3M model for under $30.00. Worth every penny. I hear
that MEK will do a number on your liver, perhaps long term. So if you can
smell it...it's bad.
Kip Laurie
Firestar II
Atlanta
www.springeraviation.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Kenny Broste <kenandmona(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Respirator Recommendations
>
> It's about time I purchased a respirator. Any recommendations? What
> sort of specs should I look for? Nothing like the smell of MEK in an
> enclosed garage to make a man feel alive!
>
> Kenny
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dallas Shepherd" <cen23954(at)centurytel.net> |
Can someone explain in layman terms what the swr is and just what it does?
Where do you get it and is it expensive? Can anyone use it or do you have
to have a degree? I saw the question about a cb swr being used on aviation
antennas, didn't see an answer yet.
Dallas Shepherd
cen23954(at)centurytel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew Gassmann <agassmann(at)earthlink.net> |
>
>Can someone explain in layman terms what the swr is and just what it does?
>Where do you get it and is it expensive? Can anyone use it or do you have
>to have a degree? I saw the question about a cb swr being used on aviation
>antennas, didn't see an answer yet.
>Dallas Shepherd
>cen23954(at)centurytel.net
>
>An excellent description of a SWR meter and why to use one can be found here:
http://www.can4x4.com/articles/comcorner/index2.htm
Andy
building FF 052
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Bass" <gtb(at)georgesmail.com> |
SWR = Standing Wave Ratio
Actually it "does" nothing. It is a measurement of the
"CONFLICT" between the out-going and the in-coming
energy created by activating the TRANSMIT button on
a radio. If the "conflict" is too great, the radio will
stop transmitting (due to the burned-out parts in the radio).
It really is very important to "set" the SWR correctly,
and YES, it can be done by a novice, if done carefully.
Good Luck,
George Bass
USUA 80399
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dallas Shepherd" <cen23954(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: swr
>
> Can someone explain in layman terms what the swr is and just what it does?
> Where do you get it and is it expensive? Can anyone use it or do you have
> to have a degree? I saw the question about a cb swr being used on
aviation
> antennas, didn't see an answer yet.
> Dallas Shepherd
> cen23954(at)centurytel.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Thacker" <gbthacker(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | peak and tune CB.......thumbs |
All this talk about SWR brings me to another question. Peaking and tuneing
your radio. Is this really worth the effort? Does it make a big
difference?
Thanks
thumbs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Anderson" <janderson3(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Respirator Recommendations |
I took a two filter (all I could find at home depot) paint filter mask,
sealed one filter and removed the other. Took about 20' of 1" flex line,
also available at home depot, and attached it to the hole where the filter
was removed. Then I took 110v fan I had laying around and fashioned a
"funnel" to capture the air from the fan. When the fan was set outside and
plugged in I could smell no fumes from inside the garage. By the way MEK
is bad but isocycanates will kill you, it just depends when.
John Anderson
*******************
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenny Broste" <kenandmona(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Respirator Recommendations
>
> It's about time I purchased a respirator. Any recommendations? What
> sort of specs should I look for? Nothing like the smell of MEK in an
> enclosed garage to make a man feel alive!
>
> Kenny
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerryb <ulflyer(at)airmail.net> |
| Subject: | There's a Rotax 532 on Ebay |
See URL below:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1695132960
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dean Halstead" <deanbo(at)calweb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: peak and tune CB.......thumbs |
Gary:
Yes, tuning the radio to the antenna is quite essential. As an amateur
radio operator, (Boyd Young and Skip Staub, you can jump in here any time),
I have learned that tuning the radio to the antenna is similar to using the
transmission in your car. You can have the most powerful, turbo-charged
engine in the world, but if try to drive around without tuning the engine to
the drive train by shifting gears to match the torque of the engine to the
wheels, you lose out on the reason for having the powerful engine in the
first place.
By tuning the antenna to the radio, you allow the greatest amount of power
the radio is capable of transmitting, be radiated to the antenna and
therefore, you receive the greatest benefit. Tuning also helps peak your
reception. Unlike automobile transmissions, a radio only has one gear.
However, what you are doing by tuning the antenna is making sure the antenna
is in the proper gear ratio for the radio to operate efficiently.
Even if you cut the antenna to the exact prescribed length according to the
intended frequencies, there are outside influences like all those pieces of
aluminum tubing and steel flying in formation nearby that can throw your
antenna out of tune.
I know many of you likely are not interested in purchasing an SWR meter just
for one goofy measurement. For those individuals, you may be able to hook
up with a local amateur radio operator for a simple SWR check. He or she
would probably be interested in your project anyway, or at least have a few
good laughs.
Dean Halstead
Fair Oaks, California
MK-III
http://www.calweb.com/~deanbo/kolb/index.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: peak and tune CB.......thumbs |
You bet................sometimes it can fool you. With the co-ax dipole,
the formula said to use about 23 inch legs, for the frequencies we use. I
had fits with mine, finally tied a knot in the lower leg, and somehow got a
good match. Loaned my SWR meter to a friend and fellow Kolb builder in
Santa Barbara.............he experimented farther, and got a real good match
at around 17 - 18 inches. Go figure.................but it sure works.
Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Halstead" <deanbo(at)calweb.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: peak and tune CB.......thumbs
>
> Gary:
>
> Yes, tuning the radio to the antenna is quite essential. As an amateur
> radio operator, (Boyd Young and Skip Staub, you can jump in here any
time),
> I have learned that tuning the radio to the antenna is similar to using
the
> transmission in your car. You can have the most powerful, turbo-charged
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bourne" <biglar(at)gogittum.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Respirator Recommendations |
When boat building, I did almost exactly the same thing, but went to an
appliance repair shop, and picked up a dishwasher drying blower, with a
burned out element. Uses a squirrel cage blower, and has a nozzle like a
hair dryer to attach the hose to. These things will out-blow any hair dryer
alive. Medical supply store supplied me with a lightweight oxygen mask,
and a matching flex hose. Lar.
Larry Bourne
Palm Springs, Ca.
Kolb Mk III - " Vamoose"
http://www.gogittum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Anderson" <janderson3(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Respirator Recommendations
>
> I took a two filter (all I could find at home depot) paint filter mask,
> sealed one filter and removed the other. Took about 20' of 1" flex line,
> also available at home depot, and attached it to the hole where the filter
> was removed. Then I took 110v fan I had laying around and fashioned a
> "funnel" to capture the air from the fan. When the fan was set outside
and
> plugged in I could smell no fumes from inside the garage. By the way MEK
> is bad but isocycanates will kill you, it just depends when.
>
> John Anderson
> *******************
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenny Broste" <kenandmona(at)earthlink.net>
> To: "Kolb List"
> Subject: Kolb-List: Respirator Recommendations
>
>
> >
> > It's about time I purchased a respirator. Any recommendations? What
> > sort of specs should I look for? Nothing like the smell of MEK in an
> > enclosed garage to make a man feel alive!
> >
> > Kenny
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Steuber" <esteuber(at)rochester.rr.com> |
Hi gang,
I made a jury rigged fresh air unit out of my wifes old
vacuum cleaner by using it backwards to blow air into a garden hose that
screws into a modified firemans fullface mask I bought at an auction.
Just place the vacuum outside and run the hose inside...there is enough
pressure to allow air to push out around the face seal. I feed the
garden hose under my belt and can move around with some restriction
bacause of the stiffness of the hose. I haven't tried a compressor hose
but it may work even though the volume would not be a available through
the smaller hose.With a vacuum cleaner there is no risk of oil
contamination from compressor oil. Works for me...Improvise and
overcome...Semper FI...Ed from Western NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Thacker" <gbthacker(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: peak and tune CB(Larry Dean and others).......thumbs |
Larry Dean and others
I realize the antenna it a big part of the question but I am talkin about
peaking and tuneing the radio itself. After buyin the radio I am told to
take it to a shop and have the unit peaked and tuned. Any exp with this? I
may not have understood your last message and that may be what you were
tellin me. Just tryin to get it straight.
What would a radio peak and tune go for?
Gary
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re:home built antennas |
<<<<<>>>>>>>
answers by boyd
if you don't know how to tune an antenna go to arrl.org and
see if you can find a ham radio club in your area and ask
for help. they would probably help you for the fun of
it..... that is why they are in the hoby.
you don't need the radio you will be using.... the antenna
is tuned to the frequency not the radio.... a properly tuned
antenna will work on any radio.
my antenna is taped on the insede of the nose faring.....
there is nothing on the exterior of the plane.... one real
good way to make a home built antenna is to use copper foil
strips that are sticky on one side and they are applied like
tape.
the noise that i experience is from the engine and the prop
noise..... my first antenna that i had an eyelet attached
to a one inch portion of the braid and attached to the frame
as a ground plane had more electrical noise from the engine
the second antenna with no contact with the frame had far
less engine noise.... and when i say far less please take
that with a grain of salt,,, it was not bad the first time,
i was striving for perfection. and think i came close.
the braid crosses over the steel cage but is insulated so
that there is no contact... the center conductor is as far
away from the steel as practical.
as i mentioned before please check the swr on all
antennas. even the commercially built ones... i have seen
them have pore swr curves, even brand new and out of the box
installed in accordance with the manufactures directions.
a new term..... swr curve. the curve can be visualized by
drawing a smiley face. the left side represents the swr
reading at the lowest frequency that you will be using...
the center is the swr reading at the center frequency and
the right is the swr at the upper most frequency. since an
antenna works best at 1 given frequency the swr will get
higher the further away from that center frequency you go
up or down. if you don't have that type of curve there are
other factors that need to be addressed. if your radio has
nav functions you should cut the antenna to fit the center
of the transmit portion of the radio.
i have seen one home builder glass in a plastic tube in
which he slid in an antenna. then was able to pull it out
for modification. but with the open nose fairing there
is plenty of room to tape it in on the inside. the only
time it can be seen is when you crawl in to do some work on
something.
boyd
i think i need to update the web page and include more
information...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
<<<<<<
It's about time I purchased a respirator. Any
recommendations? What
sort of specs should I look for? Nothing like the smell of
MEK in an
enclosed garage to make a man feel alive!
Kenny >>>>>>
kenny i went to the auto paint store and picked up a
disposable reaprator for less than a set of replacement
cartrages for the non disposable type... worked real good.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re:plane english for swr pun intended |
<<<<<
Can someone explain in layman terms what the swr is and just
what it does?
Where do you get it and is it expensive? Can anyone use it
or do you have
to have a degree? I saw the question about a cb swr being
used on aviation
antennas, didn't see an answer yet.
Dallas Shepherd
cen23954(at)centurytel.net>>>>>>
swr stands for standing wave ratio and in easy
terms you dont want any.
to help you visualize it take a 20 to 30 ft piece of rope
and tie it on to a door knob. hold the other end and pull
it fairly tight. quickly raise and lower your hand....
you will see the energy travel down the rope as an energy
wave, to the end tied to the door knob and the energy wave
will travel back to your hand. your hand will then have
to absorb the returned energy. the energy coming back is swr
and you dont want any. your radio sends out electrical
pulses down the coax to the antenna. if the antenna is not
the correct length to absorb the energy and cause it all to
be sent into the air as static and magnet pulses (radio
waves) or if there are other factors which cause the
energy (or some of the energy) to be sent back down the
coax, you will have high swr readings. all the energy that
is sent back down the coax is used up in the radio as excess
heat. and remember transistors don't like excess heat.
too much and the smoke leaves the transistor and it wont
work any more.... remember all transistors work on smoke.
when the smoke is let out they quit working. and heat
causes smoke.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
| Subject: | Re Peaking and tuneing |
All this talk about SWR brings me to another question.
Peaking and tuneing
your radio. Is this really worth the effort? Does it make
a big
difference?
Thanks
thumbs
peak and tune the antenna keep your cotten picken hands
out of the radio
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b young <byoung(at)brigham.net> |
<<<<<>>>>>
some cb swr meters will work and some wont.... ask me how
i know. radio shack has a small swr meter about 2
inches square that cost (i am guessing now i bought mine
several years ago) about 50 dollars. it is designed for
tuning the vhf ham radio frequencies. 144 - 148 mhz.
it is not 100% accruate but is verry close. i use a mfj
antenna analizer in conjunction with the meter. if it
saves sending a radio in for repairs it is worth the cost.
boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kottke, Dwight" <dkottke(at)scherping.carlisle.com> |
I have used plans that I obtained from this list to make skis for my
Firestar and I am about ready to try them as soon as the conditions permit.
Here is my question for all of you hardy winter flyers. What are the do's
and don'ts of flying with skis?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary r. voigt" <johndeereantique(at)uswest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Flying |
Dwight, i think you got the same plans as i have from my flying partner Ralph,
there are a few things that i can tell you and i'am sure others will contribute
more.
make sure your ski tips are about 5-7 degrees higher than the rear when the plane
is
suspended on jack stands or whatever. this would be like putting a 5" or 6" object
under the front of the ski for the proper pitch for me---and of course the length
of
the ski makes a big difference. i myself did not find any problems from wheels
to
skiis, in just taking-off it tracked easier and in landing in was very smooth assuming
you have a good base 5"-6". be careful because too much snow and you seem to want
to
nose over easier. watch for those 4-wheeler tracks cross ways because they can
make
some pretty big ruts---do a low pass first to make sure you have a good landing
site.
also we use a teflon spray on the bottom of our skies as it will give us a low
coefficient of friction. apply it before you put your skiis on it is alot easier
and
it will last 25-35 landings depending on the condition of the snow (wet, sloppy,
sticky) etc. have fun, there are alot of little lakes and fields to be explored.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/s.o.s/
thanks,
Gary r. voigt
kxp model
"Kottke, Dwight" wrote:
>
> I have used plans that I obtained from this list to make skis for my
> Firestar and I am about ready to try them as soon as the conditions permit.
> Here is my question for all of you hardy winter flyers. What are the do's
> and don'ts of flying with skis?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kottke, Dwight" <dkottke(at)scherping.carlisle.com> |
Gary, what did you use for a ski for the rear wheel?
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary r. voigt [mailto:johndeereantique(at)uswest.net]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Winter Flying
Dwight, i think you got the same plans as i have from my flying partner
Ralph,
there are a few things that i can tell you and i'am sure others will
contribute more.
make sure your ski tips are about 5-7 degrees higher than the rear when the
plane is
suspended on jack stands or whatever. this would be like putting a 5" or 6"
object
under the front of the ski for the proper pitch for me---and of course the
length of
the ski makes a big difference. i myself did not find any problems from
wheels to
skiis, in just taking-off it tracked easier and in landing in was very
smooth assuming
you have a good base 5"-6". be careful because too much snow and you seem to
want to
nose over easier. watch for those 4-wheeler tracks cross ways because they
can make
some pretty big ruts---do a low pass first to make sure you have a good
landing site.
also we use a teflon spray on the bottom of our skies as it will give us a
low
coefficient of friction. apply it before you put your skiis on it is alot
easier and
it will last 25-35 landings depending on the condition of the snow (wet,
sloppy,
sticky) etc. have fun, there are alot of little lakes and fields to be
explored.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/s.o.s/
thanks,
Gary r. voigt
kxp model
"Kottke, Dwight" wrote:
>
> I have used plans that I obtained from this list to make skis for my
> Firestar and I am about ready to try them as soon as the conditions
permit.
> Here is my question for all of you hardy winter flyers. What are the do's
> and don'ts of flying with skis?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James, Ken" <KDJames(at)berkscareer.com> |
Winter flying what fun cold it is!.. Understand this info comes from flying
in the north East winter in a non powered Hangglider. But what I have to
tell is will still be valid for low and slow!
1 Get a good pair of winter sun glasses NOT DARK shade type, I prefer green
tint, the need for lighter color is due to the lack of shape definition due
to snow covering, your perspective will be thrown off!!! You will not be
able to see holes dips or other nasty surprises until you are right on top
of them. This is due to the low contrast that snow cover gives.
2. As vitally important dress warm but do not over dress. If you sweat on
the ground it can kill you in the air.
3. If you cannot move normally with your heavy covers on you may not be able
to reach the right switches in time another killer!
4. Drink more water than you might think this will help in the cold dray
air!
5. Double check your landing site. It's very hard to pick out dangerous
things on snow covering ( I know I'm repeating)
6. Finally double check every thing you need to touch with your gloves on.
If you're in a pusher don't even think about taking them off unless you have
it clipped or tied to your sleeve. ( I used a string run through my jackets
arms )
Good Flying as stay safe.
Ken James
Drafting Design Instructor
Berks Career and Technology Center
3307 Freidensburg Rd.
Oley Pa. 19547
610-987-6201 Ext 3532
Kdjames(at)berkscareer.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Kottke, Dwight [mailto:dkottke(at)scherping.carlisle.com]
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Winter Flying
Gary, what did you use for a ski for the rear wheel?
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary r. voigt [mailto:johndeereantique(at)uswest.net]
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Winter Flying
Dwight, i think you got the same plans as i have from my flying partner
Ralph,
there are a few things that i can tell you and i'am sure others will
contribute more.
make sure your ski tips are about 5-7 degrees higher than the rear when the
plane is
suspended on jack stands or whatever. this would be like putting a 5" or 6"
object
under the front of the ski for the proper pitch for me---and of course the
length of
the ski makes a big difference. i myself did not find any problems from
wheels to
skiis, in just taking-off it tracked easier and in landing in was very
smooth assuming
you have a good base 5"-6". be careful because too much snow and you seem to
want to
nose over easier. watch for those 4-wheeler tracks cross ways because they
can make
some pretty big ruts---do a low pass first to make sure you have a good
landing site.
also we use a teflon spray on the bottom of our skies as it will give us a
low
coefficient of friction. apply it before you put your skiis on it is alot
easier and
it will last 25-35 landings depending on the condition of the snow (wet,
sloppy,
sticky) etc. have fun, there are alot of little lakes and fields to be
explored.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/s.o.s/
thanks,
Gary r. voigt
kxp model
"Kottke, Dwight" wrote:
>
> I have used plans that I obtained from this list to make skis for my
> Firestar and I am about ready to try them as soon as the conditions
permit.
> Here is my question for all of you hardy winter flyers. What are the do's
> and don'ts of flying with skis?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dallas Shepherd" <cen23954(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re:plane english for swr pun intended |
Thanks Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "b young" <byoung(at)brigham.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re:plane english for swr pun intended
>
> <<<<<
> Can someone explain in layman terms what the swr is and just
> what it does?
> Where do you get it and is it expensive? Can anyone use it
> or do you have
> to have a degree? I saw the question about a cb swr being
> used on aviation
> antennas, didn't see an answer yet.
> Dallas Shepherd
> cen23954(at)centurytel.net>>>>>>
>
> swr stands for standing wave ratio and in easy
> terms you dont want any.
>
> to help you visualize it take a 20 to 30 ft piece of rope
> and tie it on to a door knob. hold the other end and pull
> it fairly tight. quickly raise and lower your hand....
> you will see the energy travel down the rope as an energy
> wave, to the end tied to the door knob and the energy wave
> will travel back to your hand. your hand will then have
> to absorb the returned energy. the energy coming back is swr
> and you dont want any. your radio sends out electrical
> pulses down the coax to the antenna. if the antenna is not
> the correct length to absorb the energy and cause it all to
> be sent into the air as static and magnet pulses (radio
> waves) or if there are other factors which cause the
> energy (or some of the energy) to be sent back down the
> coax, you will have high swr readings. all the energy that
> is sent back down the coax is used up in the radio as excess
> heat. and remember transistors don't like excess heat.
> too much and the smoke leaves the transistor and it wont
> work any more.... remember all transistors work on smoke.
> when the smoke is let out they quit working. and heat
> causes smoke.
>
> boyd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dallas Shepherd" <cen23954(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re:plane english for swr pun intended |
Thanks Boyd
----- Original Message -----
From: "b young" <byoung(at)brigham.net>
Subject: Kolb-List: Re:plane english for swr pun intended
>
> <<<<<
> Can someone explain in layman terms what the swr is and just
> what it does?
> Where do you get it and is it expensive? Can anyone use it
> or do you have
> to have a degree? I saw the question about a cb swr being
> used on aviation
> antennas, didn't see an answer yet.
> Dallas Shepherd
> cen23954(at)centurytel.net>>>>>>
>
> swr stands for standing wave ratio and in easy
> terms you dont want any.
>
> to help you visualize it take a 20 to 30 ft piece of rope
> and tie it on to a door knob. hold the other end and pull
> it fairly tight. quickly raise and lower your hand....
> you will see the energy travel down the rope as an energy
> wave, to the end tied to the door knob and the energy wave
> will travel back to your hand. your hand will then have
> to absorb the returned energy. the energy coming back is swr
> and you dont want any. your radio sends out electrical
> pulses down the coax to the antenna. if the antenna is not
> the correct length to absorb the energy and cause it all to
> be sent into the air as static and magnet pulses (radio
> waves) or if there are other factors which cause the
> energy (or some of the energy) to be sent back down the
> coax, you will have high swr readings. all the energy that
> is sent back down the coax is used up in the radio as excess
> heat. and remember transistors don't like excess heat.
> too much and the smoke leaves the transistor and it wont
> work any more.... remember all transistors work on smoke.
> when the smoke is let out they quit working. and heat
> causes smoke.
>
> boyd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary r. voigt" <johndeereantique(at)uswest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Flying |
your right Dwight, i should have a ski for the tail dragger but i have never
put
one on and never needed to because i usually get the tail up right away on take-off
and perform a ski landing only. also here on lake minnetonka in mn. the area gets
packed down real fast by the sleds. i have landed and taken-off in 10"-12" of snow
and
what happens is the tail wheel just drags along and the snow flys a little more.
I
have been meaning to put one on but i will wait till next year when we get more
snow.
some people put a board on the bottom of the tail wheel rod so the tail wheel is
off
the ground. let me know if i can help.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/s.o.s/
thanks,
Gary r. voigt
kxp model
December 29, 2001 - January 25, 2002
Kolb-Archive.digest.vol-dj